---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


           Wednesday, October 25, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 211



                            Headlines

15TH AVENUE: "Gomez" Suit Seeks Full Overtime Wages
22ND CENTURY: Tutton Sues over Mass Layoff without Proper Notice
AARON'S INC: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Bissoon" Suit
ABBA BAIL: Jane Un Directed to Respond to Discovery in FLSA Suit
ABBOTT LABS: Bids to Dismiss in Depakote Suit Partly Denied

ACC CONSUMER: Minkler Sues over Repossession of Vehicle
ADVANTAGE COLLECTION: Gruentzel Moves for Class Certification
AGR GROUP: Silbaugh Sues Pursuant to TCPA Over Unsolicited Calls
ALFOCCINO INC: Settlement in "Avio" Suit Has Preliminary Approval
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Ferreras Seeks to Certify Three Subclasses

ANHEUSER-BUSCH: "Saelee" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
BALD EAGLE: "Wojtaszek" Suit Seeks Overtime Premium under FLSA
BARIATRIX US: Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Sawyer Suit Says
BON SUISSE: "Munoz" Suit Seeks OT Wages under Labor Code
BOTTLING GROUP: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Wage Statements

BOWL 360: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in Southern District of NY
CALIFORNIA: Court Partly Extends Jurisdiction in "Johnson" Suit
CALIFORNIA CINEMA: "Kieslich" Suit Remanded to State Court
CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN: Sued in California Over Voter Fraud Scheme
CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC: Huckaby Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code

CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Court Grants Move to Dismiss WCPA Suit
CENTURYLINK INC: Faces "Clayton" Suit in M. Dist. North Carolina
CENTURYLINK INC: "Carrillo" Suit Moved to District of Minnesota
CHELSEA SMITH: Faces "Webb" Suit in E. Dist. Arkansas
CHICAGO, IL: "Simic" Class Suit Tossed for Lack of Jurisdiction

CHRISTIAN ALCOHOLICS: Faces "Starns" Suit in N.D. Oklahoma
CIS SERVICES: Court Certifies Class Under FLSA in "Lockwood" Suit
CODY STANLEY: "Taylor" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
CREDIT COLLECTION: Court Denies Move to Strike in FDCPA Suit
CRESCENT CITY: Court Grants Class Settlement in "Koviach"

CSX TRANSPORTATION: Court Denies Tipton's Bid to Certify Class
DIALAMERICA MARKETING: Faces "Shuckett" Suit Over TCPA Violation
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: "Collins" Suit Moved to District of Maryland
DORIA/MEMON DISCOUNT: Court Certifies Class in Labor Suit
EASTWESTPROTO INC: "Mason" Suit Seeks OT Pay under Labor Code

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Court Stays "Knepper" Pending MDL Ruling
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Anderson" Suit in South Carolina
EQUIFAX INC: Accused by "Stiles" Class Suit of Violating FCRA
EQUIFAX INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, "Sievers" Suit Says
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces "Pacelli" Class Suit Over Data Breach

EVERGREEN PROFESSIONAL: Class Certification Sought in "Defalico"
FAMILY HOME: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Teshabaeva" Suit Claims
FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT: "Rajagopalan" Settlement Has Final Approval
FIRST DATA: Three Rivers Resort Sues over Termination Fees
FIRST STUDENT: Magistrate Refuses to Remand "Vikram" Wage Suit

FLOWERS FOODS: Watts Seeks Certification of Distributors Class
GOOGLE INC: Oct. 26 Deadline to File First Amended "Sweet" Suit
GRAZIANO'S HOLDING: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S.D. of Florida
GREAT CIRCLE FAMILY: Doughnut Products Unhealthy, Salem Claims
GURSTEL LAW: Aker Moves for Class Certification Under "Damasco"

HOME DEPOT: Court Stays Remand Order in "Jackson" Pending Appeal
HOMEALITY LLC: Class of Caregivers Certified in "Kilpatrick" Suit
HORTONWORKS INC: "Monchelli" Plaintiffs Must File Status Updates
HUDDLE HOUSE: Faces "Brown" Suit in N. Dist. Miss.
INBOUNDPROSPECT INC: "Bush" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation

INSIGHT GLOBAL: Faces "Saldivar" Suit in Northern District of Cal
JBS SA: GWI Named Lead Plaintiff in "Murphy" Securities Suit
JPMORGAN CHASE: Grillo Appeals Order in Mortgage Modification MDL
JR SIMPLOT: "Contreras" Suit Remanded to Calif. State Court
LEE N' EDDIES: Urban Elevator Moves for TCPA Class Certification

LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued Over Failure to Pay Police Officers' OT
M3 USA: Court Grants Bid to Stay Comprehensive Health TCPA Suit
MATTRESS FIRM: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Herrera" Suit
MAZGANI SOCIAL: Ct. Orders Khosroabadi to File Class Cert. Bid
MDL 2124: Calif. Court Recommends Termination of MDL Suit

MEDICAL CASE: "Turner" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
MERCURY PAYMENT: Webster Appeals Decision in Champs Sports Suit
MESSERLI & KRAMER: Class Certification Sought in "Czarnecki" Suit
MIAMI SUBS: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Southern District of Florida
MERRILL LYNCH: "Porter" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

MODERNIZE INC: "Morris" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
MONKEY BAR: "Zaman" Suit Seeks OT Compensation under FLSA
MORNING CALL: "Hernandez" Wins Conditional Class Certification
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Livers Moves for Cert. of FLSA Collective
NEW RESIDENTIAL: Stockholder's Derivative Suit Dismissed

NICARAGUA: Amended "Robertson" Suit Dismissed w/o Leave to Amend
NIPPON EXPRESS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
PACWEST ENERGY: Accused by "Nelson" Suit of Violating EFTA
PENN CREDIT: Court Dismisses "Nitti" FDCPA Suit
PENNSYLVANIA INTERSCHOLASTIC: Ruling in Negligence Suit Affirmed

PERFORMANT FINANCIAL: "Glick" Suit Tossed w/o Prejudice
PETRA CONSULTANTS: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Ness Alleges
PHENIX CITY, AL: Court Dismisses Suit Over Ordinance Fines
PJ HOLDINGS KY: "Hollingsworth" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Parties Directed to File Briefing Sched

PROGRESSIVE SECURITY: Cert Prerequisites Satisfied in "Slade"
PROVIDENCE SAINT: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
PYRAMID HEALTHCARE: $32K Deal in "Graham" Suit Has Prelim Nod
RADY CHILDREN'S: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Crooks" TCPA Suit
REGISTER TAPES: $41K in Atty's Fees Awarded in "Hamburger"

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Soria" Suit Transferred to W.D. Oklahoma
STRIBLING & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. New York
SUN BANCORP: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Acquisition by OceanFirst
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Settlement in "Slack" Has Prelim Approval
TAISHAN GYPSUM: "Macon" Suit Consolidated in Chinese Drywall MDL

TD BANK: Faces "Lay" Class Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TINTRI INC: Faces "Golosiy" Securities Suit Over IPO
TRAVELERS HOME: 8th Cir. Grants Mandamus Bid in Insurance Suit
UNITED STATES: Garza Files Suit v. ORR D&O
UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses "Lyons" Suit w/ Leave to Amend

VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
VIP HEALTH: Kondratyeva Seeks Wages and Benefits under Labor Law
VIZION ONE: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Richardson" Suit Says
WELLS FARGO: "Laing" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
ZUMIEZ INC: Court Grants Bid to Stay "Bernal" Suit Pending Appeal







                            *********


15TH AVENUE: "Gomez" Suit Seeks Full Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
BOTUEL GOMEZ, NELSON GOMEZ, WILLIAM RUMALDO BARRIOS MAZAVIAGOS,
TERESA CHAVEZ NINO, BALDOMERO OSORIO PACHECO and ANIB AL PEREZ
VICTOR PUTUM, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. 15TH AVENUE FOOD CORP., S.F. KORN'S
STERN'S OSTROWIZKY DISTRIBUTION AND BAKERY INC., S.F. KORN'S
STERN'S OSTROWIZKY DISTRIBUTION INC., DAVID BERKOVITH, MORTON
BERKOVITS, SHLOMO FELSENSTEIN and MAX STERN, the Defendants, Case
No. 519862/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 13, 2017), seeks to recover
full overtime wages and spread of hours wages under New York Labor
Law ("NYLL").

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs worked at Stern's.
Plaintiffs were required to work strenuous schedules ranging from
60 to 102 hours per week. While Plaintiffs were paid their regular
and overtime wages for approximately their first 40 to 60 hours
worked per week. Plaintiffs only received straight time wages at
their regular hourly rate for all hours worked in excess thereof.
Moreover, while regularly working in excess of 10 hours each
workday and being paid at or near the minimum wage rate,
Plaintiffs did not receive any spread of hour wages at any time
during their employment.

Stern's is a kosher wholesale bakery and factory in Brooklyn, New
York, that serves customers at its store front as well as supplies
various stores, restaurants and markets with baked goods.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew P. Madzelan, Esq.
          SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
          445 Broad Hollow Road-Suite 334
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 420 9300
          E-mail: Mmadzelan@sssfirm.com


22ND CENTURY: Tutton Sues over Mass Layoff without Proper Notice
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN TUTTON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. 22ND CENTURY
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-08240 (D.N.J.,
Oct. 13, 2017), seeks to recover back pay and benefits pursuant to
the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN)
Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant terminated more than one
hundred employees in the same group without proper legal notice as
part of a mass layoff.

22nd Century Technologies, Inc. provides IT services. The Company
offers application development, enterprise content management,
cyber security, and consulting services. 22nd Century Technologies
serves federal, state, and local government agencies.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
          Andrew L. Smith, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street - Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
                  asmith@litedepalma.com


AARON'S INC: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Bissoon" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Cathy Bissoon entered a memorandum order in the lawsuit
entitled CRYSTAL BYRD and BRIAN BYRD, Individually, and on Behalf
of all Similarly Situated Persons v. AARON'S, INC., et al., Case
No. 1:11-cv-00101-CB-SPB (W.D. Pa.), denying the Plaintiffs'
renewed motion to certify class.

The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan
Paradise Baxter for pretrial proceedings.  On August 4, 2017, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending
that the Plaintiffs' Motion be denied.

Judge Bissoon adopted as the opinion of the District Court the
Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Baxter dated August
4, 2017, as augmented.  Judge Bissoon opined that the Plaintiffs'
revised class definition does not create predominance for the
reasons adequately set forth in the Defendants' responses to
Plaintiffs' objections.

A copy of the Memorandum Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CYJ6uMZ1


ABBA BAIL: Jane Un Directed to Respond to Discovery in FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting Plaintiff's Second Motion to
Compel in the case captioned ADAM VAN HULTEN, Plaintiff, v. ABBA
BAIL BONDS, et al., Defendants. No. 2:16-cv-02459 TLN CKD. (E.D.
Cal.)

This action is styled as a class action on behalf of former and
current ABBA employees under the Federal Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and California labor law.  There have been ongoing problems
obtaining discovery from the defendants.  After an informal
discovery conference, defendants were ordered to serve
supplemental responses on pain of sanctions. Defendants did not so
do.

Plaintiff's motion to compel is granted.  Defendant Jane Un is
directed to serve Supplemental Responses to Plaintiff's First Sets
of Requests for Production of Documents and Interrogatories,
including production of all responsive documents, without
objection.

A full-text copy of the Court of Federal Claims' October 2, 2017
Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y6w5mgp5from Leagle.com.

Adam Van Hulten, Plaintiff, represented by David Douglas Deason --
david@yourlaborlawyers.com  -- Deason & Archbold.

ABBA Bail Bonds, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Valentine,
Jr. -- jvalentine@valentinelaw.com -- Law Offices of John
Valentine.

Jane Un, Defendant, Pro Se.


ABBOTT LABS: Bids to Dismiss in Depakote Suit Partly Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE DEPAKOTE: RHEALYN ALEXANDER, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC., and ABBVIE, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 12-CV-52-NJR-SCW (S.D. Ill.), Judge Nancy J.
Rosenstengel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Illinois denied in part and reversed ruling in part the
Plaintiffs' Motions to Dismiss Without Prejudice: (i) Case No. 17-
CV-785; (ii) Case No. 17-CV-789; (iii) Case No. 17-CV-790; (iv)
Case No. 15-CV-702; and (v) Case No. 13-CV-1115.

The claims asserted in this case are part of a mass action
involving more than 584 claims on behalf of individuals who allege
they suffered serious birth defects as a direct result of exposure
to Depakote, an anticonvulsant drug marketed and sold by the
Defendants.  The original claims were filed in various Illinois
state courts starting in late 2010.  Soon thereafter, the
Defendants removed the cases to federal court pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act in both the Southern and Northern
Districts of Illinois, a move that the Plaintiffs unsuccessfully
challenged before the Seventh Circuit.

On May 19, 2014, the mass tort was reassigned to the undersigned
District Judge from the docket of Judge David R. Herndon.  After
almost two years of the bellwether trial process, including
multiple attempts to facilitate settlement, the Court issued an
Order noting the failure of the bellwether approach and setting
the litigation on a path towards the next phase.  To gain a better
understanding of the docket, the Court began ordering depositions
of the key prescribing physicians in a number of cases.  In an
effort to get certain cases trial-ready, the Court identified a
list of cases for full discovery on Feb. 16, 2017.  In the July
21, 2017 Omnibus Order, the Court provided the 2018 trial dates
and recognized the cases it intended to use to fill those slots.

Pending before the Court are five separate Motions to Dismiss
Without Prejudice: (i) Case No. 17-CV-785; (ii) Case No. 17-CV-
789; (iii) Case No. 17-CV-790; (iv) Case No. 15-CV-702; and (v)
Case No. 13-CV-1115.  The Plaintiffs seek a dismissal without
prejudice subject to the conditions specified in the Court's Order
dated May 17, 2017.  The Defendants oppose the Motions to Dismiss
and ask that the Court orders the Plaintiffs to decide whether
they will dismiss their case with prejudice or proceed with work-
up and possible trial according to the existing trial case
selection process.  In their replies, the Plaintiffs argue that
Defendants have failed to establish that dismissal without
prejudice is unwarranted.

Judge Rosenstengel finds that given the procedural posture of the
Plaintiffs' cases and the mass action generally, to dismiss these
cases without prejudice would be to cede control of the mass
action to one party, i.e., the Plaintiffs.  The Court has expended
a vast amount of resources in determining which cases would be
selected for the upcoming trials.  Lastly, to now grant these
dismissals without prejudice would frustrate the Court's ability
to manage its docket as well as its strategy for advancing the
mass action.  The Plaintiffs' attempts to dismiss their cases at
such at late stage undermine the Court's ability to do so.  For
these reasons, the Judge cannot grant the Plaintiffs' requests for
a dismissal without prejudice subject to the conditions set forth
in the May 17, 2017 Order.

Judge Rosenstengel concludes that at this point in this
litigation, the relevant the Plaintiffs must either try their
cases or be dismissed with prejudice.  Accordingly, she denied in
part and reversed ruling in part the Plaintiffs' Motions to
Dismiss.  The Plaintiffs will have 30 days from the date of the
Order to withdraw their respective Motions to Dismiss.  If a
Plaintiff does not withdraw the motion within the allotted 30
days, she will enter a dismissal with prejudice.

Finally, Judge Rosenstengel anticipates that in the coming weeks,
the next batch of cases will be selected for full discovery as
part of the Court's trial inventory.  Because the Court will be
selecting cases based on a joint trial pairing criteria, many
cases will be cleared for full discovery without undergoing the
initial key prescriber depositions.  For cases that have not
undergone the key prescriber deposition discovery, the Plaintiffs
will have 45 days following the completion of the prescriber
depositions to file for dismissal without prejudice.  Once the 45
day window elapses, the Court will not entertain a motion to
dismiss without prejudice absent extraordinary and unforeseeable
circumstances.

This procedure serves three purposes.  First, it affords the
parties the ability to assess the most critical piece of evidence
while allowing Plaintiffs the option of a dismissal without
prejudice.  Second, it gives the Court the ability to navigate and
control the progression of the mass action docket and case
pairings by adding stability and certainty to the "trial ready"
inventory.  Third, it ensures that Defendants are not further
prejudiced through continued pretrial preparation in cases that
Plaintiffs do not intend to try.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 10, 2017 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/ys6rQZ from Leagle.com.

Stacy Bartolini, Plaintiff, represented by W. Lewis Garrison, Jr.
-- wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com -- Heninger, Garrison et al..

Stacy Bartolini, Plaintiff, represented by William L. Bross --
wlbross@hgdlawfirm.com -- Heninger, Garrison et al..

Laura Diane Barnes, Plaintiff, represented by W. Lewis Garrison,
Jr., Heninger, Garrison et al. & William L. Bross, Heninger,
Garrison et al..

Samantha Bryant, Plaintiff, represented by W. Lewis Garrison, Jr.,
Heninger, Garrison et al. & William L. Bross, Heninger, Garrison
et al..

Jennifer Janecek, Plaintiff, represented by W. Lewis Garrison,
Jr., Heninger, Garrison et al. & William L. Bross, Heninger,
Garrison et al..

Sandra L Book, Plaintiff, represented by W. Lewis Garrison, Jr.,
Heninger, Garrison et al. & William L. Bross, Heninger, Garrison
et al..

Shannah Busby, Plaintiff, represented by W. Lewis Garrison, Jr.,
Heninger, Garrison et al. & William L. Bross, Heninger, Garrison
et al..

Amanda Cates, Plaintiff, represented by W. Lewis Garrison, Jr.,
Heninger, Garrison et al. & William L. Bross, Heninger, Garrison
et al..

Teresa H Coronado, Plaintiff, represented by W. Lewis Garrison,
Jr., Heninger, Garrison et al. & William L. Bross, Heninger,
Garrison et al..

Tiffany Dunn, Plaintiff, represented by W. Lewis Garrison, Jr.,
Heninger, Garrison et al. & William L. Bross, Heninger, Garrison
et al..

Abbott Laboratories Inc, Defendant, represented by Paul F. Strain
-- pfstrain@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, Andrew Gendron --
agendron@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, Bettina J. Strauss --
bjstrauss@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP -St. Louis, Cedric E.
Evans -- cedric.evans@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Bowman and Brooke,
LLP - Austin, Celeste M. Brecht -- cmbrecht@Venable.com -- Venable
LLP, pro hac vice, Christina Lee Gaarder -- clgaarder@Venable.com
-- Venable LLP - Baltimore, Christopher J. Conoscenti --
cjconoscenti@Venable.com -- Venable LLP - Baltimore, Courtney A.
Sullivan -- casullivan@Venable.com -- Venable, LLP - Washington,
DC, Damon J. Brinson -- damon.brinson@bowmanandbrooke.com --
Bowman and Brooke, LLP - Austin, pro hac vice, Dan H. Ball --
dhball@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave, David J. Duke --
david.duke@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Bowman and Brooke, LLP - Austin,
David S. Gray -- dsgray@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, Dimple Desai
Shah -- dimple.shah@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Bowman and Brooke, LLP
- Austin, Dino S. Sangiamo -- dssangiamo@Venable.com -- Venable
LLP - Baltimore, JaMar S. Mancano -- jsmancano@Venable.com --
Venable LLP, James E. Gray, Venable LLP, Jason C. Rose --
jcrose@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, Jason Sayers, Venable LLP -
Baltimore, Joel H. Smith -- joel.smith@bowmanandbrooke.com --
Bowman and Brooke LLP-South Carolina, John A. McCauley --
jamccauley@Venable.com -- Ven --
kelly.kimbrough@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Bowman and Brooke, LLP -
Austin, Kenneth Lyle Thompson -- klthompson@Venable.com -- Venable
LLP - Baltimore, Mary T. Novacheck, Bowman & Brooke LLP, Michael
Lawrence Hecht -- mlhecht@Venable.com -- Venable LLP - Baltimore,
Michael R. Klatt -- mklatt@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully
Mansukhani, LLP (Austin), Michael B. MacWilliams --
mbmacwilliams@Venable.com -- Venable LLP, Michaela F. Roberts --
mfroberts@Venable.com -- Venable LLP - Baltimore, Pamela J.
Roberts -- pamela.roberts@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Bowman and Brooke
LLP-South Carolina, Paula Miles Burlison --
paula.burlison@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Bowman and Brooke LLP-South
Carolina, Randall L. Christian --
randy.christian@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Bowman and Brooke, LLP -
Austin, Richard H. Willis -- richard.willis@bowmanandbrooke.com --
Bowman and Brooke LLP-South Carolina, Stefan Mallen --
samallen@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP -St. Louis, Stefani L.
Rothermel -- stefani.rothermel@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP -
St. Louis, Stephen E. Marshall -- semarshall@Venable.com --
Venable LLP, Thomasina E. Poirot -- tepoirot@Venable.com  --
Venable LLP & William Gordon Childs --
bill.childs@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Bowman and Brooke, LLP -
Austin.

Randi Ellis, Mediator, represented by Randi Ellis, Law Office of
Randi Ellis.

John Perry, Mediator, represented by John Perry --
update@johnperryandassociates.com -- Law Office of John Perry.


ACC CONSUMER: Minkler Sues over Repossession of Vehicle
-------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW MINKLER individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. ACC CONSUMER FINANCE, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 171001829 (Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia
County, Oct. 13, 2017), seeks to recover damages as result of
Defendant's violation of Pennsylvania's Uniform Commercial Code by
failing to provide proper notice of disposition of collateral.

The case is a consumer class action brought against a lender to
redress systemic violations of Pennsylvania's UCC. The UCC
requires secured parties who utilize self-help repossession to
provide consumers with proper notices when repossessing and
reselling a financed vehicle. The Defendant regularly finances the
sale of motor vehicles for consumer use in Philadelphia County and
elsewhere in Pennsylvania. When ACC believes that a consumer has
defaulted on a secured vehicle loan, it repossesses and then re-
sells the vehicle. In the course of so doing, ACC failed both
substantively and procedurally to provide Plaintiff and the Class
with the proper notice of disposition of collateral required by
Pennsylvania's UCC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Caryl Flitter, Esq.
          Andrew M. Milz, Esq.
          Jody T. Lopez-Jacobs, Esq.
          FLITTER MILZ, P.C.
          450 N. Narberth Avenue, Suite 101
          Narberth, PA 19072
          Telephone: (610) 822 0782


ADVANTAGE COLLECTION: Gruentzel Moves for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Louise Gruentzel moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit entitled LOUISE GRUENTZEL,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
ADVANTAGE COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-01301-LA
(E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion
for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the
Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing
schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed
with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9fBeaQcC

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com


AGR GROUP: Silbaugh Sues Pursuant to TCPA Over Unsolicited Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
GLENN SILBAUGH, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AGR GROUP, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-01993-PAG (N.D. Ohio,
September 22, 2017), alleges that AGR has violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by using automatic telephone dialing
systems to place unsolicited calls to the telephones of consumers
nationwide without the consent of the telephone's owner.

AGR Group, LLC, is a Florida Limited Liability Company with its
principal place of business located in St. Petersburg, Florida.
AGR is a "sales and service company dedicated exclusively to the
retail energy industry" that has "built a reputation among retail
energy suppliers as the most trusted partner for outbound
telemarketing . . . and lead generation services."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
          Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
          Frank A. Bartela, Esq.
          DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.
          60 South Park Place
          Painesville, OH 44077
          Telephone: (440) 352-3391
          Facsimile: (440) 352-3469
          E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
                  nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com
                  fbartela@dworkenlaw.com


ALFOCCINO INC: Settlement in "Avio" Suit Has Preliminary Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Victoria Roberts of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan granted the Plaintiff's Agreed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Notice to the
Class in the case captioned AVIO, INC., individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. ALFOCCINO, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 10 CV
10221 (E.D. Mich.).

Pursuant to Rule 23 (e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the settlement of the action, as embodied in the terms of the
Settlement Agreement attached to the Joint Motion, is
preliminarily approved.

Judge Roberts certified the class of all persons sent one or more
faxes on Nov. 13, 2006, Dec. 4, 2006, or Dec. 5, 2006 from
Alfoccino Restaurant with a coupon offering 15% OFF Your Total
Catering or Banquet Food Bill Up to $100 and listing the website
www.alfoccino.com.

She appointed (i) Avio, Inc. as the representative of the
Settlement Class pursuant to Rule 23 (a); (ii) Avio's attorneys
(Phillip A. Bock of Bock & Hatch, LLC, Jason J. Thompson of
Sommers Schwartz, P.C., and Brian J. Wanca of Anderson + Wanca) as
the Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23 (g); and (iii) the Class-
Settlement.Com as the "Settlement Administrator."

The Judge ordered that the Class Notice will be sent by facsimile
to the last known telephone fax number of each class member as
reflected in the Database (Exhibit 5 to the Expert Report of
Robert Biggerstaff dated Jan. 20, 2010), and by U.S. Mail to those
class members to whom fax notice is unsuccessful after three
attempts.  The Class Notice and Claim Form will also be made
available on the Settlement Administrator's website.  She found
and ordered that no other notice is necessary.

Judge Roberts set deadlines and dates for the acts and events set
forth in the Settlement Agreement and directed the Parties to
incorporate the deadlines and dates in the Class Notice:

     a. Class Notice will be sent on or before Oct. 13, 2017;

     b. Objections and motions to intervene will be filed in this
Court and postmarked and served on the Class Counsel and the
Defendants' counsel on or before Dec. 12, 2017, or be forever
barred;

     c. Memoranda regarding objections or motions to intervene
must be filed in the Court, and postmarked and served on the Class
Counsel and the Defendants' counsel on or before Dec. 21, 2017, or
be forever barred;

     d. Requests by any Class member to opt out of the settlement
must be submitted on or before Dec. 12, 2017, or be forever
barred.  The Court will rule on all requests for exclusion or opt
outs on Jan. 17, 2018, at 2:00 p.m.;

     e. the Defendants will file proof of compliance with the
notice requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 no
later than Dec. 12, 2017; and

     f. The Fairness Hearing, set forth in the Class Notice, is
scheduled for Jan. 17, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. in Room 226.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 6, 2017 Amended Order is
available at https://is.gd/5qbhhf from Leagle.com.

Avio, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David M. Oppenheim --
david@classlawyers.com -- Bock, Hatch, Lewis, & Oppenheim, LLC.

Avio, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Piper --
jon@bockhatchllc.com -- Bock & Hatch LLC, Phillip A. Bock --
phil@bockhatchllc.com -- Bock Law Firm, LLC dba Bock, Hatch, Lewis
& Oppenheim, LLC, Ryan M. Kelly -- RKelly@andersonwanca.com --
Anderson & Wanca, Tod A. Lewis -- od@bockhatchllc.com -- Bock Law
Firm, LLC dba Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC & Brian J. Wanca
-- BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca.

Alfoccino, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jason R. Mathers --
jmathers@harveykruse.com -- Harvey Kruse & John R. Prew --
jprew@harveykruse.com -- Harvey Kruse.

D. Taliercio Investments, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jason R.
Mathers, Harvey Kruse & John R. Prew, Harvey Kruse.

Farshid Shushtari, Defendant, represented by Jason R. Mathers,
Harvey Kruse & John R. Prew, Harvey Kruse.

Alfoccino, Inc., ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Jason R.
Mathers, Harvey Kruse & John R. Prew, Harvey Kruse.

Farshid Shushtari, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Jason R.
Mathers, Harvey Kruse & John R. Prew, Harvey Kruse.

D. Taliercio Investments, Inc., ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented
by Jason R. Mathers, Harvey Kruse & John R. Prew, Harvey Kruse.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Ferreras Seeks to Certify Three Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled DANIEL FERRERAS, EDWIN
GONZALEZ, DOUG BILLITZ, SCOTT ELLENTUCK, DENIS LIPPENS, RUEBEN
RAMIREZ, MASOUD ZABIHIALAM, CHRISTOPHER FAUST and RAMON COCA, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN
AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-02427-JLL-JAD (D.N.J.), will move
the Court on November 6, 2017, for an Order:

     (i) certifying three proposed Subclasses;
    (ii) designating the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives; and
   (iii) designating the Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LBXt8hyA

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Chester R. Ostrowski, Esq.
          Lee S. Shalov, Esq.
          Wade C. Wilkinson, Esq.
          Brett R. Gallaway, Esq.
          Bradley J. Bartolomeo, Esq.
          McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP
          260 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 448-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 448-0066
          E-mail: costrowski@mclaughlinstern.com
                  lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com
                  wwilkinson@mclaughlinstern.com
                  bgallaway@mclaughlinstern.com
                  bbartolomeo@mclaughlinstern.com


ANHEUSER-BUSCH: "Saelee" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE PADILLA and JAMES SAELEE, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC,
a Missouri limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG17878764 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Oct. 13, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the California
Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have had a consistent
policy of requiring Non-Exempt Employees within the State of
California, including Plaintiffs, to work through meal periods and
work at least five hours without a meal period and failing to pay
such employees one hour of pay at the employees' regular rate of
compensation for each workday that the meal period is not
provided, or other compensation, as required by California's state
wage and hour laws.

Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC is a brewing company based in St.
Louis, Missouri USA and headquartered in Leuven, Belgium.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian D. Chase, Esq.
          Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq.
          BISNAR CHASE LLP
          1301 Dove Street, Suite 120
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 752-2999
          Facsimile: (949) 752 2777
          E-mail: bchase@bisnarchase.com
                  jbeligan@bisnarchase.com


BALD EAGLE: "Wojtaszek" Suit Seeks Overtime Premium under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
BAMBI WOJTASZEK, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees, the Plaintiff, v. BALD EAGLE FUEL & TIRE, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01888-RDM (M.D. Pa., Oct. 13, 2017),
seeks to recover all available relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant violated the FLSA by failing
to pay Plaintiff and the collective any compensation, including
overtime premium compensation, for hours worked over 40 per
week.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884 2491
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com


BARIATRIX US: Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Sawyer Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
William P. Sawyer d/b/a Sharonville Family Medicine, an Ohio
Corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. Bariatrix US, Inc., Bariatrix
Nutrition, Corp., Bariatrix Vermont, Inc., Setpoint Health Corp.,
and John Does 1-5, Case No. 1:17-cv-00678-TSB (S.D. Ohio, October
10, 2017), seeks to put an end to the Defendants' practice of
sending unsolicited advertisements via facsimile.

The Defendants are in the business of selling food, programs, and
other products marketed for weight management or weight loss. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      George D. Jonson, Esq.
      Matthew W. Stubbs, Esq.
      MONTGOMERY, RENNIE & JONSON
      36 E. Seventh Street, Suite 2100
      Cincinnati, OH 45202
      Telephone: (513) 241-4722
      Facsimile: (513) 241-8775
      E-mail: gjonson@mrjlaw.com
              mstubbs@mrjlaw.com


BON SUISSE: "Munoz" Suit Seeks OT Wages under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------
RODOLFO MUNOZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BON SUISSE INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC679619 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 13, 2017), seeks to
recover overtime wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Defendant has had a consistent policy
of failing to provide Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees or former employees within the State of California a 30
minute uninterrupted meal period for days on which the employees
worked more than five hours in a workday and a second 30 minute
uninterrupted meal periods for days on which the employees worked
in excess of 10 hours in a work day, and failing to provide
compensation for such unprovided meal periods as required by
California wage and hour laws.

The Defendant is a wholesale distributor of diary and ice cream
products. Defendant employed Plaintiff and similarly situated
persons within the State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BOTTLING GROUP: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Celiz, an individual on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Bottling Group, LLC and Does 1 through 10
inclusive, Case No. BC678071 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 6, 2017),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide accurate
wage statements as required under California Labor Code.

Bottling Group, LLC manufactures, markets, and distributes Pepsi-
Cola beverages in the United States and internationally. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      George S. Azadian, Esq.
      Ani Azadian, Esq.
      Edrik Mehrabi, Esq.
      AZADIAN LAW GROUP, PC
      790 E. Colorado Blvd., 9th Floor
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Telephone: (626)449-4944
      Facsimile: (626)628-1722
      E-mail: George@azadianlawgroup.com


BOWL 360: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in Southern District of NY
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bowl 360 Inc. The
case is styled as Richard Baldelli and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bowl 360 Inc, Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-07884 (S.D. N.Y., October 13, 2017).

Bowl 360 Inc is a Bowling alley in New York City, New York.[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


CALIFORNIA: Court Partly Extends Jurisdiction in "Johnson" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SAM JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JENNIFER SHAFFER,
Defendant, Case No. 2:12-cv-1059 KJM AC P (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion to
extend jurisdiction.

The class action lawsuit was filed on April 20, 2012.  The action
challenged the constitutionality of the protocol adopted by
California's Board of Parole Hearings' (Board) Forensic Assessment
Division for use in the preparation of psychological evaluations,
referred to as Comprehensive Risk Assessments ("CRAs"), to be
considered in determining the suitability of class members for
parole.

On March 31, 2014, the Court certified a class consisting of
California state prisoners who are serving life sentences and are
eligible for parole consideration after having served their
minimum terms.

Following motion practice, the Court dismissed several claims and
two remained.  It characterized the two surviving claims as (i) a
Due Process violation predicated upon the denial of a fair and
unbiased parole procedure, as principally embodied in the First
and Eleventh Claims; and (ii) a Due Process violation predicated
upon the denial of fair and unbiased parole panels, as principally
embodied in the Tenth Claims.  As to five additional claims, the
Court construed them not as independent causes of action but as
additional factual predicates for the overarching bias claims.

On Sept. 10, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion for
preliminary approval of their settlement agreement.  On Oct. 1,
2015, the Court held a telephonic status conference on the motion
for preliminary approval.  The Agreement was filed Oct. 2, 2015.

On Dec. 18, 2015, it Court held a final fairness hearing.  The
parties filed a joint brief and exhibits on Jan. 8, 2016.

The Court gave final approval to the Agreement in an order filed
May 27, 2016.  The Agreement provided for the Court's continued
jurisdiction over the case until Jan. 1, 2017.

On Jan. 30, 2017, the Plaintiffs timely filed a motion to extend
the Court's jurisdiction based on the Defendant's alleged material
noncompliance with separate provisions of the Agreement: (i) delay
in submission of draft regulations; (ii) paragraph C7: objections
to factual errors in CRAs; and (iii) paragraphs C10 and C11: risk
rating and recidivism.

The Defendant filed an opposition to the motion, and the
Plaintiffs filed a reply.  The Court heard oral argument on March
10, 2017 and directed the parties to file supplemental briefs.
The supplemental briefs were filed on March 24, 2017.  The
Plaintiff filed a notice of supplemental authority on Sept. 22,
2017, to which the Defendant has responded.

Judge Mueller finds that the Defendant's delay in submitting the
regulations to OAL does not constitute material non-compliance
with the Agreement and does not, without more, provide grounds for
extending the Court's jurisdiction over the Agreement.

As to objections to factual errors in CRAs, Judge Mueller says
that while the draft regulations do not provide for recording CRA
interviews, the Board has not foreclosed the possibility of
recordings in the future.  The Agreement requires nothing more.
The Court's jurisdiction will not be extended for purposes of
further supervision of this issue.

The Plaintiff's second objection on the definition of 'factual
errors' is without merit, the Judge finds.  The draft regulations
do provide for determinations to be made whether factual errors
"materially impacted" the conclusions of a CRA and, where such
errors did materially impact the conclusions, ordering of a "new
or revised risk assessment."  The extension of the Court's
jurisdiction will not run to this issue.

She finds it was the mutual intent of the parties to create a
meaningful pre-parole hearing process for raising, considering and
resolving factual errors in CRAs.  Deadlines and adequate review
timelines are necessary components of that process.  Hence, the
Court will extend jurisdiction so the parties may modify these
provisions of the draft regulations.

The Plaintiffs' final objection to paragraph C7 of the draft
regulations is that they permit CRA reports that contain factual
errors to remain in an inmate's central file unless the Chief
Psychologist determines that the errors materially impacted the
report's conclusions about violence risk.  Judge Mueller finds
this objection well-taken.  She extended the Court's jurisdiction
so the draft regulations may be amended to conform to the parties'
intention to create a process for correcting factual errors in
CRAs.

Finally, the Judge finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated by a
preponderance of evidence that the Defendants have not materially
complied with paragraphs C10 or C11 of the Agreement.  The Court's
jurisdiction will therefore be extended to permit the Defendant to
come into compliance with these provisions.

For these reasons, Judge Mueller directed the Clerk of the Court
to change the short title of the action to reflect the dismissal
of all the Defendants except Jennifer Shaffer.  She granted in
part the Plaintiffs' motion to extend jurisdiction in accordance
with her Order.  The Court's jurisdiction will terminate upon
compliance with the Order or one year from the date of the Order,
whichever is sooner.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 6, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ZffVuj from Leagle.com.

Sam Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Keith Allen Wattley --
kwattley@uncommonlaw.org -- UnCommon Law.

Jennifer Shaffer, Defendant, represented by Heather M. Heckler,
Office Of The Attorney General & Jessica Nicole Blonien, Attorney
General's Office of the State of California.


CALIFORNIA CINEMA: "Kieslich" Suit Remanded to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RYAN KIESLICH, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of a Class of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA CINEMA INVESTMENTS, LLC, a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-06985-JFW (JPRx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge John F. Walter of
the U.S. District Court for the Central Distrcit of California
granted the parties' Joint Stipulation and Request for Entry of
Order Granting Leave to Amend the Complaint to Withdraw
Plaintiff's FLSA Claim and Remand the Action.

The parties stipulated to the amendment of the Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint ("FAC") so as to withdraw Plaintiff's first
claim for relief under the FLSA pursuant to Federal Rule 15(a)
(Claim 1) without prejudice, and request an Order remanding the
case to state court.  Judge Walter approved the relief requested.
He declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Claims 2
through 11, which seek recovery predicated on state law Labor Code
violations.

Accordingly, Claim 1 of the Plaintiff's FAC is deemed withdrawn
without prejudice to the right of the Plaintiff to assert such a
claim at a later date.  Judge Walter granted the Plaintiff leave
to Amend the FAC by filing the [Proposed] Second Amended
Complaint, attached at Exhibit A to the parties' Joint
Stipulation, pursuant to Local Rule 15-1 et seq.

In light of the amendment of the Plaintiff's complaint so as to
withdraw his sole federal claim, the Judge is divested of federal
question subject matter jurisdiction, and he exercised his
discretion to remand the instant action to the state court where
it originated.  The Clerk is therefore directed to remand the case
to the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, Central District,
Central Civil West Courthouse, 600 South Commonwealth Avenue, Los
Angeles, California, 90005, LASC Case No. BC664439.

Each of the Parties will bear his/her/its own attorneys' fees and
costs with respect to the removal and subsequent remand of the
instant action; and after the remand has been effected, the Clerk
is directed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 10, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/u8uppm from Leagle.com.

Ryan Kieslich, Plaintiff, represented by Richard E. Quintilone, II
-- req@quintlaw.com -- Quintilone and Associates.

Ryan Kieslich, Plaintiff, represented by Alvin B. Lindsay --
abl@quintlaw.com -- Quintilone and Associates & George Andrew
Aloupas -- gaa@quintlaw.com -- Quintilone and Associates.

California Cinema Investments LLC, Defendant, represented by
Robert L. Shipley, Robert L Shipley APLC & Brandon S. Gray, Law
Office of Robert L Shipley APLC.


CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN: Sued in California Over Voter Fraud Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Louise, Lynette Merritt, Shawn Robison, and Cristina Romero,
individually and on behalf of all other members of the general
public similarly situated v. California Republican Party, Howard
Jarvis Taxpayers Association, National Petition Management, Inc.,
Linette Choi, Young Kim, and, Does 1-100, Case No. BC678951 (Cal.
Super. Ct., October 10, 2017), arises out of the Defendants' voter
fraud scheme that intentionally deceives the voters of the twenty-
ninth California state senate district, specifically by
misrepresenting that the petition being presented to Class members
for signature was for the purpose of repealing Senate Bill No. 1,
otherwise known as the "Road Repair and Accountability Act of
2017" and coined by its opponents as "the Gas Tax", when in fact
the sole purpose of the Petition was to recall duly elected State
Senator Josh Newman.

California Republican Party is a political party organized
pursuant to Elections Code sections 7250 et seq.

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is a California-based low-tax,
small-government political organization.

National Petition Management, Inc. operates a full-service
petition management company located at 5281 River Ridge
Drive, Brighton, Michigan 48116. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin I. Shenkman, Esq.
      Mary R. Hughes, Esq.
      SHENKMAN & HUGHES
      28905 Wight Road
      Malibu, CA 90265
      Telephone: (310) 457-0970
      E-mail: kshenkman@shenkmanhughes.com
              mrhughes@shenkmanhughes.com


CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC: Huckaby Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEITH HUCKABY, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated and the general public, the Plaintiff, v.
CALIFORNIA TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICES, a California corporation, and
DOES 1 through 30, inclusive, Case No. BC679533 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Oct. 13, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages for meal and rest
period violations, reimbursement of business expenses,
restitution, as well as other statutory penalties and damages owed
pursuant to the California Labor Code, California Business and
Profession Code, and California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Order.

According to the complaint, the Defendants systematically
maintained and enforced against its traffic controllers, unlawful
practices and policies, in violation of California wage and hour
laws, including: failing to provide 30-minute uninterrupted meal
periods as required by law and failing to pay one hour of pay at
the employee's regular rate of compensation for each
meal period that was not provided; failing to provide paid rest
periods of at 10 minutes per four hours worked or major fraction
thereof and failing to pay such employees one hour of pay at the
employee's regular rate of compensation for each paid rest period
that was not provided; failing to reimburse for cell phone
expenses necessarily incurred in the course of performing their
job duties; failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements
because they did not include the accurate gross and net wages
earned because they were not compensated for all compensation due;
failing to provide timely payment of wages; and failing to provide
timely opportunity to copy and inspect their time and payroll
records upon request.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shadie L. Berenji, Esq.
          Oscar A. Bustos, Esq.
          Brittanee A. Marksbury, Esq.
          BERENJI LAW FIRM, APC
          8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 708
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 855 3270
          Facsimile: (310) 855 3751
          E-mail: berenii@employeeiustice.law
                  bustos@employeejustice.law
                  marksbury@employeejustice.law


CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Court Grants Move to Dismiss WCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss and dismissing Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification in the case captioned NIKOLAY KAUTSMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. C16-1940-JCC (W.D. Wash.).

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Carrington
Mortgage Services, LLC's motion to dismiss and Plaintiffs motion
for class certification.

Plaintiffs are the fee title owners of a single-family residence
in Redmond, Washington.  Wilmington Trust is the lender of record,
beneficiary of the Deed of Trust, and holder of a related Secured
Promissory Note.

Plaintiffs assert CMS directed a related entity, Defendant
Carrington Home Solutions L.P. (CHS), to enter onto their property
and inspect the exterior of the residence without Plaintiffs'
permission.  Plaintiffs further assert that after erroneously
determining that the property was vacant, CHS broke in, rekeyed
the lock, winterized the property, and generally took possession
of it.  All of this occurred despite clear signs that the property
was not vacant.

Plaintiffs since filed a second amended class action complaint.
The complaint includes additional claims for unjust enrichment
and, for the first time, names CHS as Defendant in some of the
claims. It also alleges additional facts to support previously-
asserted claims.  Lastly, Plaintiffs dropped their negligent
supervision claim. The current claims are as follows: breach of
contract by CMS (Claim #1); violations of the implied duty of good
faith and fair dealing by CMS (Claim #2); a WCPA violation by CMS
and CHS (Claim #3); another WCPA violation solely by CMS (Claim
#4); and two instances of unjust enrichment by CMS and CHS (Claims
#5 and #6).  Plaintiffs assert the following damages: fees CMS
charged against their loan, costs Plaintiffs incurred to replace
the lock and reverse CHS's winterization efforts, and legal
consultation fees.

Only CMS moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims. But a district court
may properly on its own motion dismiss an action as to defendants
who have not moved to dismiss where such defendants are in a
position similar to that of moving defendants. Therefore, to the
extent CMS raises arguments that would also apply to CHS, the
Court will consider dismissing claims against CHS.

Claims #1 and #2: Breach of Contract and Violations of the Implied
Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Plaintiffs' theory of privity is that CMS, as a result of the
compensation arrangement between Wilmington and CMS, holds a
portion of Wilmington's Note as an assignee. Because CMS retains
various rights to modification fees, mortgagor-contracted fees,
and float on payments it collects on Wilmington's behalf, it is an
assignee of a portion of the Loan. The Court disagrees. Even if
CMS were an assignee, that assignment would relate only to the
relevant portion of the Note, the holder's right to payments. The
preservation rights described in the Deed of Trust are separate
from any right to payment that may have been assigned to CMS. And
Plaintiffs fail to plead sufficient facts to support assignment of
the Deed of Trust. Nor do they provide other legal authority
supporting privity with Defendants. Therefore, they fail to
satisfy the pleading standard under Iqbal. 556 U.S. at 681.
The Court GRANTS CMS's motion to dismiss Claims #1 and #2. The
dismissal is without prejudice. Plaintiff may again attempt to
plead sufficient facts to demonstrate privity.

Claims #3 and #4: Violations of the WCPA

Plaintiffs allege that by rekeying and winterizing the residence,
CMS and CHS could have deceived Plaintiffs into believing they no
longer had rightful possession of the property, even though
foreclosure proceedings had not been completed (Claim #3). The
contention is implausible, in light of the language in the Deed of
Trust indicating that the holder retains the right, not
conditioned on commencing foreclosure proceedings, to protect its
investment in the case of default. Specifically-authorized actions
include entering the Property to change the locks drain water from
pipes. Similarly, if the Deed of Trust put Plaintiffs on notice
that the holder could enter the property, it provided Plaintiffs
notice that the holder may first inspect the property to determine
its condition (Claim #4). Nor do Plaintiffs make any other
allegations containing specific facts to support an inference of
deceptive or unfair conduct. Instead, they make conclusory
allegations insufficient to meet their pleading standard under
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681, suggesting that Defendants' acts or
practices are unfair and deceptive, and have the capacity to be
deceptive, though both misrepresentations and withholding of
material information" yet failing to include any
misrepresentations or withholding of information by Defendants.
The Court GRANTS CMS's motion to dismiss Claims #3 and #4. The
claims are dismissed as to both CMS and CHS without prejudice.

Claims #5 and #6: Unjust Enrichment

CMS asserts Plaintiffs neither establish conferment of a benefit
nor a resulting inequity. As to the claims against CMS, the Court
agrees and resolves the issue based solely upon whether a benefit
was conferred. Plaintiffs have plead that the fees at issue were
added to the outstanding loan balance, but have not asserted they
ever paid these amounts to CMS. Therefore, Plaintiffs fail to
adequately plead that they conferred a benefit to CMS. As to the
claims against CHS, Plaintiffs did plead that payment was made by
CMS to CHS for rekeying, winterization, and other services (Claim
#5). But Plaintiffs fail to allege that it would be inequitable
for CHS to retain the payments from CMS. The Court cannot
plausibly infer, even construing the facts presented in the
complaint in the most favorable light to Plaintiffs, that the
compensation arrangement between CMS and CHS is inequitable.
Therefore, Plaintiffs fail to satisfy the relevant pleading
standard.  The Court grants CMS's motion to dismiss Claims #5 and
#6. The claims are dismissed as to both CMS and CHS without
prejudice

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 2, 2017 Order is
available at from http://tinyurl.com/y8n3u276from Leagle.com.

Nikolay Kautsman, Plaintiff, represented by Harish Bharti, 1718 NW
56th St, Seattle, WA 98107, USA.

Nikolay Kautsman, Plaintiff, represented by Jason E. Anderson,
8015 15th Ave NW #5, Seattle, WA 98117, USA.

Olga Kofanova, Plaintiff, represented by Harish Bharti & Jason E.
Anderson.

Carrington Mortgage Services LLC, Defendant, represented by Amanda
J. Beane --Abeane@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE & Steven Douglas
Merriman -- AMerriman@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE.

Carrington Home Solutions L.P., Defendant, represented by Amanda
J. Beane, PERKINS COIE & Steven Douglas Merriman, PERKINS COIE.


CENTURYLINK INC: Faces "Clayton" Suit in M. Dist. North Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Centurylink, Inc.
The case is styled as Bunnie Clayton and Jean Clayton, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Centurylink, Inc, a louisiana corporation, Centurylink
Communications, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Centurylink Public Communications, Inc, a florida corporation and
Centurylink Sales Solutions, Inc, a Delaware corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00921 (M.D. N.C., October 13, 2017).

CenturyLink provides various communications services to
residential, business, wholesale, and governmental customers in
the United States. It operates through two segments, Business and
Consumer. The company offers broadband, Ethernet, colocation,
video entertainment and satellite digital television services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   TIMOTHY R. LANGLEY, Esq.
   HODGE & LANGLEY LAW FIRM, P.C.
   229 MAGNOLIA S.
   SPARTANBURG, SC 29306
   Tel: (864) 585-3873
   Fax: (864) 585-6485
   Email: rlangley@hodgelawfirm.com


CENTURYLINK INC: "Carrillo" Suit Moved to District of Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Francisco J. Carrillo, Jocelyn
Carrillo, Spencer Berggren, and James T. Fowler, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CenturyLink, Inc., a Louisiana corporation; Centurylink
Communications LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
CenturyLink Public Communications, Inc., a Florida corporation;
CenturyLink Sales Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Embarq
Florida Inc., a Florida corporation; and Does 1-50, inclusive,
Case No. 6:17-cv-01309, was removed on Oct. 13, 2017 from the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 0:17-cv-04617-MJD-KMM to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael J. Davis.

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 Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alyssa Joy Flood, Esq.
          Mark M O'Mara, Esq.
          O'MARA LAW GROUP
          221 NE Ivanhoe Blvd., Ste 200
          Orlando, FL 32804-6400
          Telephone: (407) 898 5151
          Facsimile: (407) 898 2468
          E-mail: alyssa@omaralawgroup.com
                  mark@markomaralaw.com

               - and -

          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.
          Carolyn G Anderson, 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
                  carolyn.anderson@zimmreed.com
                  hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Frederick S. Wermuth, Esq.
          Thomas A. Zehnder, Esq.
          KING, BLACKWELL, ZEHNDER & WERMUTH, PA
          PO Box 1631
          Orlando, FL 32802-1631
          Telephone: (407) 422 2472
          Facsimile: (407) 648 0161
          E-mail: fwermuth@kbzwlaw.com
                  tzehnder@kbzwlaw.com


CHELSEA SMITH: Faces "Webb" Suit in E. Dist. Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chelsea Smith. The
case is styled as Katelyn Webb, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Chelsea Smith,
Individually and in her Official Capacity, Defendant, Case No.
4:17-cv-00660-JLH (E.D. Ark., October 13, 2017).

Chelsea Smith's Civil Rights class action suit asserts Jury
Demand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHICAGO, IL: "Simic" Class Suit Tossed for Lack of Jurisdiction
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Sharon Johnson Coleman granted the City of Chicago's
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the
lawsuit styled TAMARA SIMIC, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. THE CITY OF CHICAGO, Case No. 1:15-cv-00019
(N.D. Ill.).

The Court denies Ms. Simic's motion to certify a class based on
the Seventh Circuit's holding that her lack of standing to seek
injunctive relief and damages on her own behalf also prevents her
from seeking such relief on behalf of the putative class.

Ms. Simic filed a complaint alleging violations of her
constitutional rights stemming from fines she received for
violations of City of Chicago Municipal Code Section 9-76-230.
Following the Court's denial of her motion for preliminary
injunction, Ms. Simic appealed.  The Seventh Circuit affirmed the
Court's order on March 20, 2017.  Simic v. City of Chicago, 851
F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2017).  The Defendant thereafter filed a motion
to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

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


CHRISTIAN ALCOHOLICS: Faces "Starns" Suit in N.D. Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Christian Alcoholics
& Addicts in Recovery, Inc.  The case is styled as Bodhi Chance
Starns and Lucas Don Miller-Allen, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Christian Alcoholics
& Addicts in Recovery, Inc., Simmons Foods, Inc., Simmons Pet
Food, Inc., Janet Wilkerson and John Doe
sued as Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00574-
GKF-FHM (N.D. Okla., October 13, 2017).

Christian Alcoholics & Addicts In Recovery Inc. offers Alcoholism
Counseling.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Brent A Robinson, Esq.
   Aiman-Smith & Marcy
   7677 OAKPORT ST STE 1150
   OAKLAND, CA 94621
   Tel: (510) 817-2711
   Fax: (510) 562-6830

      - and -

   Carey A James, Esq.
   Aiman-Smith & Marcy
   7677 OAKPORT ST STE 1150
   OAKLAND, CA 94621
   Tel: (510) 817-2711
   Fax: (510) 562-6830

      - and -

   Hallie Von Rock, Esq.
   Aiman-Smith & Marcy
   7677 OAKPORT ST STE 1150
   OAKLAND, CA 94621
   Tel: (510) 817-2711
   Fax: (510) 562-6830

      - and -

   Randall B Aiman-Smith, Esq.
   Aiman-Smith & Marcy
   7677 OAKPORT ST STE 1150
   OAKLAND, CA 94621
   Tel: (510) 817-2711
   Fax: (510) 562-6830

      - and -

   Reed WL Marcy, Esq.
   Aiman-Smith & Marcy
   7677 OAKPORT ST STE 1150
   OAKLAND, CA 94621
   Tel: (510) 817-2711
   Fax: (510) 562-6830

      - and -

   Tracy Annette Cinocca, Esq.
   Tracy A. Cinocca, P.C.
   10026-A S MINGO RD STE 238
   TULSA, OK 74133
   Tel: (918) 488-9117
   Email: tcinocca@cinoccalaw.com


CIS SERVICES: Court Certifies Class Under FLSA in "Lockwood" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Brian J. Davis granted the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification in the lawsuit captioned GAIL LOCKWOOD,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CIS
SERVICES, LLC, CIS CLAIM SERVICES, LLC, CIS GROUP OF COMPANIES,
LLC, CIS GROUP, LLC, CIS ALAMO HOLDINGS, LLC, CIS SPECIALTY CLAIM
SERVICES, LLC, CORNERSTONE APPRAISAL SERVICES, LLC, and MICHAEL E.
STANLEY, Case No. 3:16-cv-00965-BJD-PDB (M.D. Fla.).

On July 29, 2016, Plaintiff Gail Lockwood filed an individual and
collective action complaint under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
demand for jury trial against her employers -- the Defendants.
She alleges that she and others similarly situated were
misclassified as independent contractors and were entitled to
overtime compensation.

Judge Davis allows the Plaintiff to mail the proposed Notice and
Consent Form, which will specify a 45-day opt-in period, to this
class:

     all current and former independent contractors and employees
     of Defendants who have held the positions of 'adjusters,'
     'appraisers,' 'claims analysts,' 'claims adjusters,'
     'independent adjusters,' or 'litigation specialists' or who
     have performed duties similar to the duties performed by
     Plaintiffs in providing services related to adjusting
     insurance claims in Florida for CIS clients, were paid a
     daily rate of pay for their services, and worked more than
     forty (40) hours in workweeks without being paid overtime
     compensation, at any time within the past three years prior
     to July 29, 2016.

In the interest of full disclosure to the potential class members
who will receive the Notice, the Court directs the Plaintiff to
add certain information to the Notice, including the defense
counsels' name and contact information.  The Court also set this
schedule:

   a. The parties shall file a Jointly Proposed Notice of Lawsuit
      to the Class no later than October 9, 2017;

   b. Defendants shall produce to Plaintiff (electronically and
      in hard copy) no later than October 17, 2017 a complete
      list with the names, last known home addresses, telephone
      numbers, and e-mail addresses of all persons as described
      herein;

   c. Plaintiff shall transmit the Notice and Consent Form to
      potential class members no later than November 6, 2017; and

   d. Potential class members shall opt-in no later than
      December 21, 2017.

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


CODY STANLEY: "Taylor" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Taylor, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Cody Stanley Construction
LLC and Cody Stanley, the Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-00284 (W.D.
Tex., Oct. 13, 2017), seeks to recover overtime pay under Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked construction for Defendants and was paid
straight time for all the hours he worked including over 40 hours
in a week. The Class Members are other hourly-paid construction
workers that were employed by Defendants in the three-year period
preceding the filing of this action and were not paid overtime as
required by the FLSA.

Cody Stanley is in the residential building construction
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
          1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100
          Southlake, TX 76092-4322
          Telephone: (817) 416 5060
          Facsimile: (817) 416 5062
          E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com


CREDIT COLLECTION: Court Denies Move to Strike in FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
issued an Opinion denying Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's
Unified Rule 68 Offer of Judgment in the case captioned DEN DAVIS,
on behalf of her minor child, G.G., individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT COLLECTION
SERVS., Defendant, Civ. No. 2:17-00704 (WJM)(D.N.J.).

Plaintiff G.G., through her guardian ad litem, brings this
putative class action against Defendant Credit Collection Services
(CCS), alleging violations under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, (FDCPA), in connection with attempts to collect
medical debts from minors.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits a court to strike
from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant,
immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. Because of the
drastic nature of the remedy, however, motions to strike are
usually viewed with disfavor' and will generally be denied unless
the allegations have no possible relation to the controversy and
may cause prejudice to one of the parties, or if the allegations
confuse the issues.

In support of the conflict of interest argument with Rule 68's
cost-shifting scheme, Plaintiff identifies a series of cases where
trial courts invalidated such offers. Indeed, district courts have
struck Rule 68 offers of judgment made to pick off named
plaintiffs in a putative class prior to class certification,
noting such offers serve the purpose to dampen the efforts of the
putative representative in pursuing the class action and attempt
to inject a conflict of interest between [the class
representative] and those she seeks to represent.

Despite the decisions in Zeigenfuse v. Apex Asset Mgmt., LLC, 239
F.R.D. 400, 403; Boles v. Moss Codilis, LLP, No. SA-10-CV-1003-XR,
2011 WL 434528; Smith v. NCO Fin. Sys., Inc., 257 F.R.D. 429, 433-
34; Strausser v. ACB Receivables Mgmt., Inc., No. Civ.A.06 5109,
2007 WL 512789; however, Plaintiff, in citing Zeigenfuse, Boles,
Smith, and Strausser for support, overlooks the fact that those
decisions rested on Rule 68 being inapplicable in pre-
certification stage class actions when, in fact, no rule bars its
application. McDowall, 216 F.R.D. at 49 (citing Grief v. Wilson,
Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP, 258 F.Supp.2d 157, 161;
Ambalu v. Rosenblatt, 194 F.R.D. 451, 453, in pre-certification
stage, nothing prohibits a defendant from making a Rule 68 offer
of judgment).  Thus, under the Rules, the Court cannot strike the
unfiled Offer because it is not a pleading.  Also, the unaccepted
Offer was neither filed with nor presented to the Court as
evidence in a proceeding to determine costs.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 2, 2017 Opinion
is available at from http://tinyurl.com/yc4w8nhffrom Leagle.com.

LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Movant, represented by DAVID J.
COONER, MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP.

G.G., Plaintiff, represented by AARON RUBIN, NEUHAUSER RUBIN &
MENDLOWITZ LLC 705B Cross Street, Suite 266, Lakewood, NJ, 08701 &
DANIEL ZEMEL, Zemel Law LLC, 70 Clinton AvenueNewark, NJ 07114-
2012

CREDIT COLLECTION SERVICES, Defendant, represented by LAWRENCE J.
BARTEL, III -- ljbartel@mdwcg.com -- MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER
COLEMAN & GOGGIN.


CRESCENT CITY: Court Grants Class Settlement in "Koviach"
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana issued an Order and Reasons granting Joint Motion to
Approve Settlement and Dismiss the Case in the case captioned
CHARLES KOVIACH, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. CRESCENT CITY CONSULTING,
LLC, ET AL., SECTION "E", Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-2874
(E.D. La.).

Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Approve Settlement and
Dismiss the Case filed by named Plaintiffs Charles Koviach and
Henry McCathen, and Defendants Crescent City Consulting, LLC and
Marlon Defillo.

This is a collective action filed by Plaintiffs Charles Koviach,
Henry McCathen, Jr., and Phillip Thomas under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA).

Plaintiffs allege Defendants failed to comply with the law by
implementing a management policy, plan, or decision that
intentionally provided for the compensation of Plaintiffs and FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs as if they were exempt from coverage under
29 U.S.C. Sections 201 through 219, disregarding the fact that
they were not exempt. Plaintiffs further allege Defendants did not
maintain proper time records as mandated by the FLSA. Plaintiffs
seek to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
statutory penalties, and attorney's fees and costs.

The Court finds that a bona fide dispute exists between the
parties regarding whether Crescent City has violated the FLSA.
The Court finds the matter involved "both aggressive prosecution
and strenuous defense and thus a bona fide dispute exists.

Courts adopt these factors in their application in light of the
special role of the Court in settlement of FLSA claims. There are
six factors: (1) the existence of fraud or collusion behind the
settlement; (2) the complexity, expense, and likely duration of
the litigation; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of
discovery completed; (4) the probability of the plaintiffs'
success on the merits; (5) the range of possible recovery; and (6)
the opinions of class counsel, class representatives, and absent
class members.

The Court has found no indication of fraud or collusion. Since
this action was filed in 2014, the parties have engaged in
extensive discovery and motions practice. The Court finds the
parties engaged in good-faith negotiations to resolve this matter
amicably. Factor One indicates the settlement is fair and
reasonable.

The instant case has been pending for more than two years, and
before the Court continued. As the trial has already been pending
for more than fifteen months and the contested motions indicate
that there were numerous unresolved issues, the Court finds the
second factor indicates the settlement is fair and reasonable.

At this stage of the proceedings, the parties completed discovery,
each submitted witness and exhibit lists.  Thus, the Court finds
the parties are sufficiently familiar with the facts to reach a
fair settlement.

It is uncertain at this point whether Plaintiffs would be
successful at trial.  Defendants have provided a series of
affirmative defenses, including that Plaintiffs did not receive
employee benefits and there was no withholding of pay for tax
purposes.  Moreover, the nature of Plaintiffs' employment remains
a key dispute.  Crescent City maintains that Plaintiffs cannot
claim unpaid wages as "independent contractors" because they were
not employees of Crescent City.  In opposition, Plaintiffs point
to several documents supporting their assertion that they were in
fact employees, entitling them to overtime wages.  The Court finds
that given the numerous unresolved disputes between the parties
and the stage at which this litigation remains, it is unclear
whether Plaintiffs would be meritorious. This factor indicates the
settlement is fair and reasonable.

The confidential settlement agreement details the agreed-upon
settlement amount. The settlement amount was based on a negotiated
number of overtime hours that Plaintiffs allegedly worked but for
which they were not paid overtime. The Court finds that the
agreed-upon amount is within a range of possible recovery and thus
indicates the settlement is fair and reasonable.

In this case, both parties jointly seek judicial approval and
state that the settlement agreement addresses a bona fide dispute
and is negotiated in good faith. Both parties are represented by
counsel. The parties negotiated a settlement agreement before the
magistrate judge and submitted their proposed agreement for in
camera review by the Court. The Court finds the final factor
indicates the settlement is fair and reasonable.

All six of the factors indicate the proposed settlement is fair
and reasonable. Accordingly, the Court finds the proposed
settlement agreement is fair and reasonable.

For these reasons, the Court finds the settlement agreement is
both premised on a bona fide dispute and fair and reasonable.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 2, 2017 Order and
Reasons is available at from http://tinyurl.com/y8rl5nbgfrom
Leagle.com.

Charles Koviach, Plaintiff, represented by Jody Forester Jackson,
Jackson & Jackson, 201 Saint Charles Ave, Ste 2500, New Orleans,
LA 70170-2500

Charles Koviach, Plaintiff, represented by Mary Bubbett Jackson,
Jackson & Jackson. 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500, New
Orleans, LA 70170

Henry McCathen, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Jody Forester
Jackson, Jackson & Jackson & Mary Bubbett Jackson, Jackson &
Jackson.

Phillip Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Jody Forester Jackson,
Jackson & Jackson & Mary Bubbett Jackson, Jackson & Jackson.

Noel Debose, Plaintiff, represented by Jody Forester Jackson,
Jackson & Jackson & Mary Bubbett Jackson, Jackson & Jackson.

Dennis E. Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Jody Forester Jackson,
Jackson & Jackson & Mary Bubbett Jackson, Jackson & Jackson.

James Perry, Plaintiff, represented by Jody Forester Jackson,
Jackson & Jackson & Mary Bubbett Jackson, Jackson & Jackson.

John Otis, Plaintiff, represented by Jody Forester Jackson,
Jackson & Jackson & Mary Bubbett Jackson, Jackson & Jackson.

Cornelius J. Ross, Plaintiff, represented by Jody Forester
Jackson, Jackson & Jackson & Mary Bubbett Jackson, Jackson &
Jackson.

Isaac Shirley, Plaintiff, represented by Jody Forester Jackson,
Jackson & Jackson & Mary Bubbett Jackson, Jackson & Jackson.

Quincy D. Gibson, Plaintiff, represented by Jody Forester Jackson,
Jackson & Jackson & Mary Bubbett Jackson, Jackson & Jackson.

Crescent City Consulting, LLC, Defendant, represented by Raymond
Charles Burkart, Jr., Law Office of Raymond C. Burkart, Jr., LLC,
321 N. Florida Street, Suite 104Covington, LA 70433-2952.

Marlon Defillo, Defendant, represented by Raymond Charles Burkart,
Jr., Law Office of Raymond C. Burkart, Jr., LLC.


CSX TRANSPORTATION: Court Denies Tipton's Bid to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Thomas A. Varlan entered a memorandum opinion and order
in the lawsuit styled CHARLES TIPTON; KELLI JOHNSON and AARON
JOHNSON; DOREENE CHRISTIE and JAMES CHRISTIE; and BILLY TIPTON,
all individually and on behalf of a Class of persons similarly
situated v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC. and UNION TANK CAR COMPANY,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00311-TAV-CCS (E.D. Tenn.):

   -- sustaining the Defendant's objection to the Report and
      Recommendation issued by the United States Magistrate Judge
      C. Clifford Shirley, Jr.; and

   -- denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

In the R&R, Judge Shirley recommends that the Plaintiffs' Motion
be granted in part and denied in part.  The Defendants filed an
objection to the R&R, and the Plaintiffs responded to the
objection.

"In sum, the Court finds that plaintiffs have not demonstrated
impracticability of joinder, and thus, have failed to meet a
necessary prerequisite for class certification," Judge Varlan
opines.  "Therefore, the Court will sustain defendants' objection
to the R&R, and deny plaintiffs' motion for class certification."

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bRV8tLRe


DIALAMERICA MARKETING: Faces "Shuckett" Suit Over TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ariel Shuckett, and all others similarly-situated v. DialAmerica
Marketing, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-0273 (S.D. Calif., October 9,
2017), seeks damages, injunctive relief and any other available
legal or equitable remedies for Defendant's violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff Jeniffer Porter is a resident of Somerset County, New
Jersey.  Plaintiff was employed as an email reviewer for Defendant
from August 1999 to April 2017.

Defendant DialAmerica Marketing, Inc. is a telemarketing company,
which provides domestic call center services for a variety of
industries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

      Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
      409 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101B
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Tel: (619) 222-7429
      Fax: (866) 431-3292
      E-mail: danielshay@tcpafdcpa.com

          - and -

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


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: "Collins" Suit Moved to District of Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Asanti T. Collins and Bradley
Clayton, Individually on Behalf of Themselves and all Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Discover Financial
Services; Discover Bank; Discovery Products, Inc.; Individually
and as Successor by Merger Together with DB Servicing Corporation
U.S. Bank National Association; and As Trustee for the Discover
Card Master Trust I, the Defendants, Case No. 436979V, was removed
on Oct. 13, 2017 from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County,
Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
(Greenbelt). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:17-cv-
03011 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge
Paula Xinis.

Discover Financial Services, Inc. is an American financial
services company, which issues the Discover Card and operates the
Discover and Pulse networks, and owns Diners Club
International.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas Neil Gottron, Esq.
          Terry Morris, Esq.
          MORRIS PALERM LLC
          751 Rockville Pike, No. 2A
          Rockville, MD 20852
          Telephone: (301) 424 6290
          Facsimile: (301) 424 6294
          E-mail: dgottron@morrispalerm.com
                  tmorris@morrispalerm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jessica Hepburn Sadler, Esq.
          John Darren Sadler, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP
          1909 K Street, N.W., 12th Floor
          Washington, DC 20006-1157
          Telephone: (202) 661 7658
          Facsimile: (202) 661 2299
          E-mail: sadlerjh@ballardspahr.com
                  sadlerj@ballardspahr.com


DORIA/MEMON DISCOUNT: Court Certifies Class in Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert W. Sweet of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify
class in the case captioned IN RE DORIA/MEMON DISC. STORES WAGE &
HOUR LITIG., Case No. 14 Civ. 7990 (S.D. N.Y.).

The Plaintiffs are current and former employees at a chain of
discount stores operated by the Defendants, the Estate of Mohamed
Doria ("Estate"), Michael Meraon ("Memon"), Gulan Doria ("Doria"),
and their discount respective stores.  The action was initiated by
the Plaintiffs on Oct. 4, 2014, alleging that the Defendants
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor
Law by not paying their workers minimum wage, overtime
compensation, and spread of hours premium pay, in addition to
failing to comply with wage statement and pay rate notification
requirements.

On May 12, 2015, the Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining
order, which on June 2, 2015, was converted into a preliminary
injunction, to enjoin the Defendants from terminating, suspending,
or otherwise discriminating against their employees for
participating in this action, from threatening to do any of the
above, from attempting to have any employee deported, and from
attempting to have any employee sign documents compromising their
rights in this lawsuit.

On May 14 and July 26, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed motions of
contempt as to the injunction, a hearing for which was held by the
Court on Sept. 30, 2015; on Jan. 21, 2016, the Court found the
Defendants in contempt of the injunction.  On July 22, 2016, the
Plaintiffs were awarded reasonable attorneys' fees for the
contempt motions.

With the contempt motions as a backdrop, the Plaintiffs moved for
conditional certification of their FLSA class on June 25, 2015,
and on Aug. 5, 2017, moved to amend their Complaint to add new
parties and allegations of retaliation.  The Court granted both
motions on Sept. 23, 2015.  The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint was
filed on Dec. 17, 2015.  As of the Opinion and Order, the parties'
anticipated deposition schedule extends until the end of December
2017.

On July 6, 2017, Plaintiffs moved the instant motion, which was
taken on submission and marked fully submitted on Sept. 13, 2017.
The Plaintiffs have proposed that the certified class be defined
as all non-exempt workers who worked at the Defendants' Discount
Stores at any time from Oct. 4, 2008 to the present, as defined by
a list submitted to the Court in conjunction with the instant
motion and which excludes the Defendants and the members of their
immediate families.  The Plaintiffs have also sought a subclass of
class members who worked for the Defendants since April 9, 2011,
which would include additional claims brought under the Wage Theft
Prevention Act.

Judge Sweet finds that the proposed class satisfies the four
requirements of Rule 23(a) and the additional requirement of
ascertainability.  The Plaintiffs have established by a
preponderance of the evidence that class certification is
appropriate.  As to the Plaintiffs' moved to have Marlborough Law
Firm, P.C. and Slater Slater Schulman LLP appointed as the co-lead
class counsel, the Defendants do not dispute the qualifications of
the proposed class counsel.  The Judge finds that the proposed co-
lead class counsel appears qualified and experienced to represent
this class, both from their past experiences and handling of this
matter up through the present.  Accordingly, Judge Sweet will
appoint them as the co-lead class counsel.

Having reviewed the Plaintiffs' proposed Notice of Class
Certification, the Judge finds the language of the notice
sufficient to satisfy the Rule 23(c)(2)(B) requirements.  The
Plaintiffs' requested language translations are also appropriate.
Although the Plaintiffs did not propose a manner in which to
deliver the notice, delivery by first class mail is proper.

Accordingly, to effectuate such notice, within 14 days of the date
of the Opinion, the Defendants are directed to provide the
Plaintiffs with the dates of employment, last known addresses, and
last known telephone numbers of the proposed class members the
Plaintiffs have identified as numbers 114 through 125 on Exhibit X
of the Portesy Declaration.

Within 10 days of receipt of the contact information of potential
class members from the Defendants, the Plaintiffs are directed to
mail their proposed Notice, with translations in English, Spanish,
and French, and all appropriate dates and quantities updated, to
each individual class member as described, providing class members
30 days to opt-out of the class following the Notice's mailing.

The Defendants are also directed to post the Notice, immediately
upon receipt of it from the Plaintiffs, in a conspicuous location
visible to all potential class members in each of their Discount
Stores until the conclusion of the opt-out period.

For these reasons, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
is granted, with a class and subclass certified as defined.
Keletso Tebogo, Olugbenga Opesanwo, David Richardson, Ronald
Agyemang, Angel Cartagena, and Maria Sumano are appointed the
class representatives for the class and subclass.  Marlborough Law
Firm, P.C. and Slater Slater Schulman LLP are appointed co-class
counsel for both the class and subclass.

The Plaintiffs are directed to issue the Notice, and the
Defendants are directed to provide to the Plaintiffs the proposed
class member information and post the finalized Notice, as
detailed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 10, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/TPtFoh from Leagle.com.

Emmanuel Agropong, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Paul Slater --
info@sssfirm.com -- Slater Slater Schulman LLP.

Emmanuel Agropong, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth J. Katz, Katz
Melinger PLLC, Anthony R. Portesy, Slater Slater Schulman LLP,
Christopher L. Van De Water, Phillips & Associates, PLLC, Jonathan
Eric Schulman, Slater Slater Schulman LLP, Nicole Deanna Grunfeld,
Katz Melinger PLLC & Rhoda Yohai Andors, Slater Slater Schulman
LLP.

Marcos Basabe, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Paul Slater, Slater
Slater Schulman LLP, Kenneth J. Katz, Katz Melinger PLLC, Jonathan
Eric Schulman, Slater Slater Schulman LLP, Nicole Deanna Grunfeld,
Katz Melinger PLLC & Anthony R. Portesy, Slater Slater Schulman
LLP.

Adrian Batana, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Paul Slater, Slater
Slater Schulman LLP, Kenneth J. Katz, Katz Melinger PLLC, Jonathan
Eric Schulman, Slater Slater Schulman LLP, Nicole Deanna Grunfeld,
Katz Melinger PLLC & Anthony R. Portesy, Slater Slater Schulman
LLP.

Carlos Laguna, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Paul Slater, Slater
Slater Schulman LLP, Kenneth J. Katz, Katz Melinger PLLC, Jonathan
Eric Schulman, Slater Slater Schulman LLP, Nicole Deanna Grunfeld,
Katz Melinger PLLC & Anthony R. Portesy, Slater Slater Schulman
LLP.

Yolanda Nieve, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Paul Slater, Slater
Slater Schulman LLP, Kenneth J. Katz, Katz Melinger PLLC,
Christopher Marlborough, The Marlborugh Law Firm, P.C., Jonathan
Eric Schulman, Slater Slater Schulman LLP, Nicole Deanna Grunfeld,
Katz Melinger PLLC & Anthony R. Portesy, Slater Slater Schulman
LLP.

Christine Nunez, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Paul Slater,
Slater Slater Schulman LLP, Kenneth J. Katz, Katz Melinger PLLC,
Christopher Marlborough, The Marlborugh Law Firm, P.C., Jonathan
Eric Schulman, Slater Slater Schulman LLP, Nicole Deanna Grunfeld,
Katz Melinger PLLC & Anthony R. Portesy, Slater Slater Schulman
LLP.

Andy Osei, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Paul Slater, Slater
Slater Schulman LLP, Kenneth J. Katz, Katz Melinger PLLC,
Christopher Marlborough, The Marlborugh Law Firm, P.C., Jonathan
Eric Schulman, Slater Slater Schulman LLP, Nicole Deanna Grunfeld,
Katz Melinger PLLC & Anthony R. Portesy, Slater Slater Schulman
LLP.

Abel Pantoja, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Paul Slater, Slater
Slater Schulman LLP, Kenneth J. Katz, Katz Melinger PLLC,
Christopher Marlborough, The Marlborugh Law Firm, P.C., Jonathan
Eric Schulman, Slater Slater Schulman LLP, Nicole Deanna Grunfeld,
Katz Melinger PLLC & Anthony R. Portesy, Slater Slater Schulman
LLP.

Elietzer Pierre-Louis, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Paul Slater,
Slater Slater Schulman LLP, Kenneth J. Katz, Katz Melinger PLLC,
Christopher Marlborough, The Marlborugh Law Firm, P.C., Jonathan
Eric Schulman, Slater Slater Schulman LLP, Nicole Deanna Grunfeld,
Katz Melinger PLLC & Anthony R. Portesy, Slater Slater Schulman
LLP.

Michael Memon, Defendant, represented by Michael K. Chong, Law
Offices of Michael K. Chong, LLC.

Gulan Doria, Defendant, represented by Michael K. Chong, Law
Offices of Michael K. Chong, LLC.

Bergen Discount Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael K. Chong,
Law Offices of Michael K. Chong, LLC.

Bergen Discount Plus, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael K.
Chong, Law Offices of Michael K. Chong, LLC.

518 Willis Realty, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael K.
Chong, Law Offices of Michael K. Chong, LLC.

Willis Discount Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael K. Chong,
Law Offices of Michael K. Chong, LLC.

Ali M. Abadi, Defendant, represented by Michael K. Chong, Law
Offices of Michael K. Chong, LLC.

Ziad Nassradin, Defendant, represented by Michael K. Chong, Law
Offices of Michael K. Chong, LLC.

ZNF 99 Cent Discount Corp., Defendant, represented by Michael K.
Chong, Law Offices of Michael K. Chong, LLC.

Dollar-Rite Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael K. Chong, Law
Offices of Michael K. Chong, LLC.


EASTWESTPROTO INC: "Mason" Suit Seeks OT Pay under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE MASON, an individual, individually and on behalf of all
employees similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. EASTWESTPROTO,
INC. dba LIFELINE AMBULANCE a California Corporation; and DOES 1
to 100, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC679520 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Oct. 13, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid meal and rest period
compensation, overtime, expense reimbursement, penalties,
injunctive, and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to California Labor Code

According to the complaint, Defendants consistently maintained and
enforced against Defendants' non-exempt employees, among others,
the following unlawful practices and policies, in violation of
California state wage and hour laws including consistent policy of
requiring Class Members within the State of California, including
Plaintiff, to work at least five hours without a lawful meal
period and failing to pay such employees one hour of pay at the
employees' regular rate of compensation for each workday that the
meal period is not provided, as required by California state wage
and hour laws.

Eastwestproto, Inc. was founded in 2002. The company's line of
business includes providing local passenger transportation
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard E. Quintilone, Esq.
          Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq.
          George A. Aloupas, Esq.
          QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
          22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100
          Lake Forest, CA 92630
          Telephone: (949) 458 9675
          Facsimile: (949) 458 9679
          E-mail: REO@OUINTLAW.COM.
                  ABL@OULNTLAW.COM.
                  GAA@OULNTLAW.COM


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Court Stays "Knepper" Pending MDL Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued
an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Stay the case captioned
TERRANCE KNEPPER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION
SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-CV-02368-KJD-CWH (D.
Nev.).

Defendant Equifax Information Services, LLC, announced a data
security breach that had occurred on or before July 29, 2017. The
present putative class action was filed and Equifax was served
with the summons and complaint.

Plaintiffs in related cases filed a motion for consolidation and
transfer under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 with the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (JPML). That motion seeks to have 22
related actions consolidated with McGonnigal v. Equifax Inc., No.
1:17-cv-03422-WSD and transferred to the Northern District of
Georgia.  Equifax filed the present motion seeking a stay of this
action pending resolution of the motion for consolidation and
transfer that is before the JPML.

When considering a stay pending the JPML's consideration of a
motion to consolidate and transfer a case, courts should consider
three factors: (1) the judicial resources that would be saved by
avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases are in fact
consolidated; (2) the hardship or inequity to the moving party if
the action is not stayed; and (3) the potential prejudice to the
non-moving party.

Clearly, staying the action promotes the interest of efficiency
and judicial economy. Without a stay, two courts would have to
expend time and resources to conduct initial case management
activities. Two courts would have to resolve the questions
presented by these claims arising under 15 U.S.C. Section
1681g(a)(1), (3). The primary benefit of consolidation would be to
prevent conflicting decisions on important legal issues.

Staying the action limits hardship or inequity to Equifax from
unnecessary proceedings, inconsistent rulings, duplicative
discovery and having to relitigate claims in multiple
jurisdictions.  Therefore, this factor also favors staying the
action pending a ruling on the motion to consolidate and transfer.

Prejudice to Plaintiff will not arise from a stay. With the facts
mostly undisputed, Plaintiffs' arguments are chiefly legal. A
brief stay to allow resolution of the motion to consolidate and
transfer will not result in continuing damage to Plaintiffs. Thus,
prejudice to Plaintiff would not be heightened by the small delay
of time caused by a stay.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 2, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y9f8gg3cfrom Leagle.com.

Terrance Knepper, Plaintiff, represented by Brian D. Flick --
Brian@mezherlaw.com -- pro hac vice.

Terrance Knepper, Plaintiff, represented by David H. Krieger,
Haines & Krieger, LLC, George Haines, Haines and Krieger, LLC,
8985 S. Eastern Ave. Suite #350, Beltway Corporate Center, Las
Vegas, NV 89123, Matthew I. Knepper, Knepper & Clark, LLC, Miles
N. Clark, Knepper & Clark LLC, 333 Las Vegas Blvd S Ste 6006, Las
Vegas, NV, 89101-7073, Sean N. Payne, PAYNE LAW FIRM LLC,9550
South Eastern Avenue, Las Vegas, NV 891263,  Marc E. Dann, The
Dann Firm Co., LPA, 2728 Euclid, Ste. 300, Cleveland, OH, 44115
U.S.A., pro hac vice, Nickolas Hagman, Zimmerman Law Offices,
P.C., 77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220, Chicago, IL 60602 pro
hac vice, Robert A. Clifford, pro hac vice, Shannon McNulty,
Clifford Law Offices, P.C., 120 North LaSalle Street, 31st floor
Chicago, IL 60602, pro hac vice & Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., 77
West Washington Street, Suite 1220, Chicago, IL 60602, pro hac
vice
Garry Randall, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew I. Knepper,
Knepper & Clark, LLC, Sean N. Payne, PAYNE LAW FIRM LLC & Miles N.
Clark, Knepper & Clark LLC.

Eric L Steinmetz, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew I. Knepper,
Knepper & Clark, LLC, Sean N. Payne, PAYNE LAW FIRM LLC & Miles N.
Clark, Knepper & Clark LLC.

Equifax Information Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Bradley T. Austin -- baustin@swlaw.com -- Snell & Wilmer LLP,
David L. Balser -- dbalser@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, John
C. Toro -- jtoro@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, LLP, Patrick Gerard
Byrne, pbyrne@swlaw.com -- Snell & Wilmer & Zachary A. McEntyre --
zmcentyre@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding LLP, pro hac vice.

David Caplan, Interested Party, represented by Andrew B. Sacks,
Sacks Weston Diamond LLC, Jeremy E. Abay, Sacks Weston Diamond LLC
& John K. Weston, Sacks Weston Diamond LLC. 4208 Six Forks Rd, Ste
1400, Raleigh, NC 27609

Cynthia Rice, Interested Party, represented by R. Dean Hartley,
Hartley Law Group PLLC. The Wagner Building2001 Main StreetSuite
600Wheeling, WV 26003-2855

David H Yoder, Interested Party, represented by R. Dean Hartley,
Hartley Law Group PLLC.

Vera Standish, Interested Party, represented by R. Dean Hartley,
Hartley Law Group PLLC.

Parry Petroplus, Interested Party, represented by R. Dean Hartley,
Hartley Law Group PLLC.

Christopher Chaffin, Interested Party, represented by R. Dean
Hartley, Hartley Law Group PLLC.

Adi Amuial, Interested Party, represented by Avi R. Kaufman --
Kaufman@kolawyers.com  -- Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg
Gilbert, Jeffrey M. Ostrow --  ostrow@kolawyers.com  -- Kopelowitz
Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert, Jonathan M. Streisfeld --
streisfeld@kolawyers.com  -- Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg
Gilbert, Robert C. Gilbert -- gilbert@kolawyers.com  -- Kopelowitz
Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert & Scott A. Edelsberg --
edelsberg@kolawyers.com  -- Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg
Gilbert.
Barbara Hensley, Interested Party, represented by Dianne M. Nast,
Nast Law LLC. 1101 Market Street, Suite 2801, Philadelphia, PA
19107

John Washburn, Interested Party, represented by Amy E. Keller --
akeller@dllcfirm.com -- Wexler Wallace LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew
N. Friedman -- afriedman@cohenmilstein.com -- Adam J. Levitt,
DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Daniel Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, Douglas McNamara, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, James
Pizzirusso, Hausfeld, Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre Shields
Canfield & Knowles, LLC, Pat A. Cipollone, Stein Mitchell
Cipollone Beato & Missner LLP & Robert B. Gilmore, Stein Mitchell
Cipollone Beato & Missner LLP.

Aver Ash, Interested Party, represented by Amy E. Keller, Wexler
Wallace LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew N. Friedman, Adam J. Levitt,
DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Daniel Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey
LLC, Douglas McNamara, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, James
Pizzirusso, Hausfeld, Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre Shields
Canfield & Knowles, LLC, Pat A. Cipollone, Stein Mitchell
Cipollone Beato & Missner LLP & Robert B. Gilmore, Stein Mitchell
Cipollone Beato & Missner LLP.

Cassandra Powers, Interested Party, represented by Amy E. Keller,
Wexler Wallace LLP, pro hac vice, Adam J. Levitt, DiCello Levitt &
Casey LLC & Daniel Ferri, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC.

James Findlay, Interested Party, represented by Amy E. Keller,
Wexler Wallace LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew N. Friedman, Adam J.
Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Daniel Ferri, DiCello Levitt &
Casey LLC, Douglas McNamara, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
James Pizzirusso, Hausfeld, Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre
Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC, Pat A. Cipollone, Stein Mitchell
Cipollone Beato & Missner LLP & Robert B. Gilmore, Stein Mitchell
Cipollone Beato & Missner LLP.

Amy Sue Taylor, Interested Party, represented by Amy E. Keller,
Wexler Wallace LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew N. Friedman, Adam J.
Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Daniel Ferri, DiCello Levitt &
Casey LLC, Douglas McNamara, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
James Pizzirusso, Hausfeld, Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre
Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC, Pat A. Cipollone, Stein Mitchell
Cipollone Beato & Missner LLP & Robert B. Gilmore, Stein Mitchell
Cipollone Beato & Missner LLP.

Evelyn Gualandi, Interested Party, represented by Amy E. Keller,
Wexler Wallace LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew N. Friedman, Adam J.
Levitt, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Daniel Ferri, DiCello Levitt &
Casey LLC, Douglas McNamara, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
James Pizzirusso, Hausfeld, Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre
Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC, Pat A. Cipollone, Stein Mitchell
Cipollone Beato & Missner LLP & Robert B. Gilmore, Stein Mitchell
Cipollone Beato & Missner LLP.


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Anderson" Suit in South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Inc. The
case is styled as Keneil Anderson, Tracey Anderson and Matthew
Miles, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Equifax Inc and Equifax Information Services LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02825-BHH (D.S.C., October 18, 2017).

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   David Reece Williams, III, Esq.
   CallisonTighe and Robinson
   PO Box 1390
   Columbia, SC 29202-1390
   Tel: (803) 256-2371
   Fax: (803) 256-6431
   Email: reecewilliams@callisontighe.com


EQUIFAX INC: Accused by "Stiles" Class Suit of Violating FCRA
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRIJIT STILES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. EQUIFAX INC., and EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC,
Case No. 5:17-cv-00144-GNS (W.D. Ky., September 22, 2017), alleges
violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act in connection
with a data breach.

Equifax acknowledged 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
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
Plaintiff and the Class to the fact of the breach until Sept. 7,
2017.

Equifax Inc. and Equifax Information Services, LLC, operate
"Equifax," one of the three largest consumer credit reporting
agencies in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wes Sullenger, Esq.
          BOEHL, STOPHER & GRAVES, LLP
          410 Broadway
          Paducah, KY 42001
          Telephone: (270)-442-4369
          Facsimile: (270)-442-4689
          E-mail: wsullenger@bsgpad.com

               - and -

          Kevin Sharp, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          611 Commerce St., Suite 3100
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 434-7001
          Facsimile: (615) 434-7020
          E-mail: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com

               - and -

          Jeremy Heisler, Esq.
          Andrew Melzer, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 402-5650
          Facsimile: (646) 402-5651
          E-mail: jheisler@sanfordheisler.com
                  amelzer@sanfordheisler.com


EQUIFAX INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, "Sievers" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
DUSTIN SIEVERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. EQUIFAX INC., and EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC,
Case No. 4:17-cv-00103-BMM-JTJ (D. Mont., September 22, 2017),
accuses the Defendants of failing to prevent the data breach that
has exposed the personal information of over 100 million
Americans.

The Defendants acknowledged that, between May 2017 and July 2017,
they were 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 stored therein.  According to Equifax, the Data Breach
affected as many as 143 million people.  Equifax admits that they
discovered the unauthorized access on July 29, 2017, but failed to
alert Plaintiff and the Class to the fact of the breach until
September 7, 2017.

The Defendants are a multi-billion dollar corporation incorporated
in Georgia.  They provide credit information services to millions
of businesses, governmental units, and consumers across the globe.
Equifax operates through various subsidiaries and agents, each of
which entities acted as agents of Equifax, or in the alternative,
in concert with Equifax.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          A. Clifford Edwards, Esq.
          Triel D. Culver, Esq.
          EDWARDS, FRICKLE & CULVER
          1648 Poly Drive, Suite 206
          Billings, MT 59102
          Telephone: (406) 256-8155
          E-mail: jenny@edwardslawfirm.org
                  triel@edwardslawfirm.org

               - and -

          Ed Chapin, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 577-4253
          Facsimile: (619) 577-4250
          E-mail: echapin@sanfordheisler.com

               - and -

          Kevin Sharp, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          611 Commerce St., Suite 3100
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 434-7001
          Facsimile: (615) 434-7020
          E-mail: ksharp@sanfordheisler.com

               - and -

          Danielle Fuschetti, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER SHARP, LLP
          111 Sutter Street, Suite 975
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 795-2020
          Facsimile: (415) 795-2021
          E-mail: dfuschetti@sanfordheisler.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces "Pacelli" Class Suit Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT PACELLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-
04246-MSG (E.D. Pa., September 22, 2017), is a consumer class
action lawsuit brought on behalf those who have had their personal
information held by Equifax unlawfully revealed to unnamed third
parties due to its acts and omissions.

Equifax has acknowledged cybersecurity breaches impacting at least
143 million United States consumers.

Equifax is a Georgia limited liability company with its principal
place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia.  Equifax is a
consumer reporting agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brent F. Vullings, Esq.
          VULLINGS LAW GROUP, LLC
          3953 Ridge Pike, Suite 102
          Collegeville, PA 19426
          Telephone: (610) 489-6060
          Facsimile: (610) 489-1997
          E-mail: credithelp@vullingslaw.com


EVERGREEN PROFESSIONAL: Class Certification Sought in "Defalico"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Defalico moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit styled LEE DEFALICO, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. EVERGREEN PROFESSIONAL
RECOVERIES, INC. and GUARDIAN CREDIT UNION, Case No. 2:17-cv-
01303-PP (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay
the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and
the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic
briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to
be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iV5yp9L3

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com


FAMILY HOME: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Teshabaeva" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maktumma Teshabaeva, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Family Home Care Services of
Brooklyn and Queens, Inc., Case No. 158949/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
October 6, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours.

Family Home Care Services of Brooklyn and Queens, Inc. is
primarily engaged in providing nursing and home health aide
services at the residences of its clients. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
      LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
      Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: llusher@vandallp.com


FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT: "Rajagopalan" Settlement Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned AMRISH RAJAGOPALAN, MARIE JOHNSON-PEREDO,
ROBERT HEWSON, DONTE CHEEKS, DEBORAH HORTON, RICHARD PIERCE, ERMA
SUE CLYATT, ROBERT JOYCE, AMY JOYCE, ARTHUR FULLER, DAWN MEADE,
WAHAB EKUNSUMI, KAREN HEA, ALEX CASIANO, DECEMBER GUZZO, BEN
PARKER, CHERYL ANDERSON, CARMEN ALFONSO, BETH JUNGEN, TANYA
GWATHNEY, KEVIN DELOACH, SCOTT SNOEK, KELLY ENDERS, THOMAS
LUDWICK, DONALD BOGAN, BILL KRUSE, JOYCE DRUMMOND, TAMARA COOPER,
DEBRA MILLER, GEORGE LAWRENCE, CYNTHIA OXENDINE, MARTIN ANDERSON,
ANGELA ROSS, ANDREA TOPPS, DEBRA FINAZZO, SHARRON BLACK, SYLVIA
HADCOCK, AUDRIE LAWRENCE (POOLE), ADAM WARD, ISHULA McCONNELL,
ERICA CHASE, STEPHEN YOUNKINS, DAN WEDDLE, STILLMAN PARKER, TINA
ROBERTS-ASHBY, BRANDON ASHBY, VALERIE NEWSOME, AND RUSSEL TANNER,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. Plaintiffs,
v. FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND, as Surety for
Meracord LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-05147-BHS (W.D. Wash.),
Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Tacoma, granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, filed Sept.
14, 2017, and their Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and
Incentive Awards.

The parties entered into a Class Action Settlement Agreement and
Release, dated April 20, 2017, to settle the lawsuit, as well as
the actions captioned Rajagopalan, et al. v. Fidelity and Deposit
Co. of Maryland, and Cheeks v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of
Maryland and Platte River Ins. Co., as sureties for Meracord LLC
("Lawsuits").  The Settlement Agreement sets forth the terms and
conditions for a proposed Settlement and dismissal with prejudice
of F&D from the Lawsuits.

Judge Settle granted its final approval to the Settlement.  He
confirmed its previous certification of the following Settlement
Class, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3): All persons who had an account at
Meracord from which Meracord deducted any fees related to debt
settlement services (including mortgage assistance relief
services) and who, while residing in a Settlement State, made
payments to such account within the State Settlement Period of
their state of residence.

The Judge approved the Plan of Allocation.  He finds that the Plan
of Allocation provides monetary recovery to Settlement Class
Members on a pro rata basis in proportion to the Total Unreturned
Fees paid from each Settlement Class Member's Meracord account.
He also notes that there is no reversion to F&D of the Settlement
Fund, maximizing the amount of payments to Settlement Class
Members.

Having reviewed the two objections to the Settlement filed by
Helen Donovan and Audrey Garduno, Judge Settle overruled the
objections, finding them without merit for the reasons set forth
in the Motion for Final Approval and in open court.

The Judge confirmed his previous appointment of the Plaintiffs as
representatives of the Settlement Class, and approved, pursuant to
the Settlement Agreement, Incentive Awards of $500 each for the
following Plaintiffs, who are either Surety II Representatives, or
Meracord Class Representatives who previously received an
incentive award from the Platte River Settlement: Amrish
Rajagopalan, Amy Joyce, Andrea Topps, Audrie Lawrence (Poole),
Beth Jungen, Carmen Alfonso, Cheryl Anderson, Cynthia Oxendine,
Dan Weddle, Deborah Horton, Donald Bogan, Donte Cheeks, Erica
Chase (Moniz), Erma Sue Clyatt, Kevin Deloach, Robert Joyce,
Russel Tanner, Sylvia Hadcock, Tamara Cooper, and Traci McCormick.

Judge Settle further approved, pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement, Incentive Awards of $1,000 each for the following
Plaintiffs, who are Meracord Class Representatives who did not
previously receive an incentive award from the Platte River
Settlement: Alex Casiano, Arthur Fuller, Dawn Meade, Karen Hea,
Marie Johnson-Peredo, Richard Pierce, Robert Hewson, and Wahab
Ekunsumi.

He confirmed his previous appointment of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP and The Paynter Law Firm PLLC as the Class Counsel.
He awarded to the Class Counsel (i) attorneys' fees in the amount
of $2,917,899.41 (representing 29.5% of the Settlement Fund); and
(ii) reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $150,000.

The Judge confirmed his previous appointment of Garden City Group,
LLC ("GCG") as the Administrator.  He ordered that, by agreement
between the Class Counsel and the Administrator, a total of
$236,811.25 be paid from the Settlement Fund to the Administrator
for past and future unreimbursed expenses relating to notice and
administration of the Settlement.  This amount is in addition to
the $107,188.75 already received by the Administrator for the
fulfillment of its duties.

The captioned action and all individual and class claims contained
therein, including all of the Released Claims, are dismissed with
prejudice and on the merits as to the Plaintiffs and all other
Settlement Class Members, and as against each and all of the
Released Parties, without fees or costs except as provided in the
Settlement Agreement.

The action captioned Rajagopalan, et al. v. Fidelity and Deposit
Co. of Maryland, is dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the
Court's April 26, 2017 Order in that action granting the parties'
Stipulated Motion to Stay Proceeding and Request for Voluntary
Dismissal Pending Class Settlement Approval.

Judge Settle finds, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), that there is no
just reason for delay in entering final judgment, and directed
that the Order and Final Judgment will be final and entered
forthwith.  Without affecting the finality of the Order and Final
Judgment, the Court reserves jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs, the
Settlement Class, and F&D as to all matters concerning the
administration, consummation, and enforcement of the Settlement
Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 10, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/kByArG from Leagle.com.

Amrish Rajagopalan, Plaintiff, represented by Celeste H.G. Boyd --
cboyd@paynterlawfirm.com -- THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC, pro hac
vice.

Amrish Rajagopalan, Plaintiff, represented by Steve W. Berman --
steve@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Stuart M.
Paynter -- stuart@paynterlawfirm.com -- THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC,
pro hac vice & Thomas E. Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS
BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP.

Marie Johnson-Peredo, Plaintiff, represented by Celeste H.G. Boyd,
THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, HAGENS
BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Stuart M. Paynter, THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM
PLLC, pro hac vice & Thomas E. Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP.

Robert Hewson, Plaintiff, represented by Celeste H.G. Boyd, THE
PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, HAGENS
BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Stuart M. Paynter, THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM
PLLC, pro hac vice & Thomas E. Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP.

Donte Cheeks, Plaintiff, represented by Celeste H.G. Boyd, THE
PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, HAGENS
BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Stuart M. Paynter, THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM
PLLC, pro hac vice & Thomas E. Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP.

Deborah Horton, Plaintiff, represented by Celeste H.G. Boyd, THE
PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, HAGENS
BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Stuart M. Paynter, THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM
PLLC, pro hac vice & Thomas E. Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP.

Richard Pierce, Plaintiff, represented by Celeste H.G. Boyd, THE
PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, HAGENS
BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Stuart M. Paynter, THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM
PLLC, pro hac vice & Thomas E. Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP.

Erma Sue Clyatt, Plaintiff, represented by Celeste H.G. Boyd, THE
PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, HAGENS
BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Stuart M. Paynter, THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM
PLLC, pro hac vice & Thomas E. Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP.

Robert Joyce, Plaintiff, represented by Celeste H.G. Boyd, THE
PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, HAGENS
BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Stuart M. Paynter, THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM
PLLC, pro hac vice & Thomas E. Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP.

Amy Joyce, Plaintiff, represented by Celeste H.G. Boyd, THE
PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, HAGENS
BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Stuart M. Paynter, THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM
PLLC, pro hac vice & Thomas E. Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP.

Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, Defendant, represented
by Bert W. Markovich, SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT, Claire L.
Rootjes, SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT, David C. Veis, ROBINS KAPLAN
MILLER & CIRESI, pro hac vice & Jennifer Campbell, SCHWABE
WILLIAMSON & WYATT.

Platte River Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Jonathan
A. Constine -- jonathan.constine@troutmansanders.com -- TROUTMAN
SANDERS LLP, pro hac vice & Scott M. Stickney -- stickney@wscd.com
-- WILSON SMITH COCHRAN & DICKERSON.

Helen A Donovan, Objector, Pro Se.

Audrey Garduno, Objector, Pro Se.


FIRST DATA: Three Rivers Resort Sues over Termination Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
THREE RIVERS RESORT, INC., and WILDERNESS TRAILS, INC.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. FIRST DATA CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation
doing business as FIRST DATA GLOBAL LEASING, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-06005 (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 13, 2017), seeks relief based
upon Defendant's breaches of contract, violations of applicable
New York law, failure to adhere to New York's adopted version of
the Uniform Commercial Code, and in the alternative to breach of
contract, unjust enrichment.

The case is a civil action seeking monetary damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief against First Data Corporation
and its affiliate First Data Global Leasing ("FDGL"). There are
likely other First Data subsidiaries and affiliates involved but
Defendant uses hundreds of corporate entities in an intricate
shell game to avoid transparency and accountability. Discovery
will be needed to confirm all of the culpable affiliates of First
Data. This case seeks reimbursement for all victims of First
Data's assessment of improper and excessive termination fees based
on point of sale ("POS") equipment leases. Such equipment,
including payment terminals, card readers, and mobile payment
devices, is used to accept credit and debit card payments. In
addition to reimbursement, this action seeks to put an end to
Defendant's ongoing scheme to cheat its customers.

First Data Corporation is a global payment technology solutions
company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, United States. The
company's STAR interbank network offers PIN-secured debit
acceptance at ATM and retail locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Adam Webb, Esq.
          WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
          1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444 0773
          E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com


FIRST STUDENT: Magistrate Refuses to Remand "Vikram" Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California denied the Plaintiff's motion
to remand the case captioned BHANU VIKRAM, Plaintiff, v. FIRST
STUDENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-04656-KAW (N.D.
Cal.) to state court.

The Defendant is a school bus operator that provides student
transportation services for schools and districts in the United
States and Canada.  From January 2016 to December 2016, the
Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in California as a bus driver,
and was classified as a non-exempt employee.

On July 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant case on behalf of
himself and a California class, defined as all individuals who are
or were employed by the Defendant in California as bus drivers,
and classified as non-exempt employees.  The Plaintiff asserts
that during the class period, the Defendant failed to accurately
calculate and pay him and the California class for time worked.
The Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendant failed to properly
compensate workers due to its non-discretionary incentive program.
Additionally, he alleges that workers were from time to time
unable to take rest breaks due to severe time pressures.

Based on these alleged practices, the Plaintiff filed the instant
suit, alleging claims of: (i) violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"); (ii) failure to pay minimum wage; (iii)
failure to provide accurate itemized statements; and (iv) waiting
time penalties.  He specifically pleads that the amount in
controversy for the aggregate claim of the California class is
under $5 million.

On Aug. 11, 2017, the Defendant removed the case to federal court,
asserting that jurisdiction as proper under Class Action Fairness
Act of 2005 ("CAFA").  In asserting that the amount in controversy
exceeded $5 million, the Defendant estimated that: (i) the
Plaintiff's waiting time penalties claim was worth $9,693,081.60;
(ii) the Plaintiff's wage statement claim was worth $7,346,550;

(iii) the Plaintiff's unpaid minimum wage claim was worth
$2,215,893.75; and (iv) the Plaintiff's attorney's fees claim was
worth $4,813,881.34, or 25% of the estimated damages.

On Aug. 23, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion to
remand, arguing that the Defendant had failed to substantiate its
claims that there is diversity of citizenship, more than 100 class
members, and that the amount in controversy was over $5 million.
On Sept. 6, 2017, Defendant filed its opposition.  On Sept. 13,
2017, the Plaintiff filed his reply brief, which addressed only
the amount in controversy.  The Court held a hearing on the motion
Oct. 5, 2017.

Magistrate Judge Kandis concludes that the Defendant has
demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the wage
statement penalty claim is worth $7,346,550, which is more than
CAFA's $5 million requirement.  Thus, the Defendant has satisfied
CAFA's jurisdictional requirements based solely on the wage
statement penalty claim.  Because the Defendant has established,
by a preponderance of evidence, all three of CAFA's jurisdictional
requirements, Magistrate Judge denied the Plaintiff's motion to
remand.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 6, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/0cPWSL from Leagle.com.

Bhanu Vikram, Plaintiff, represented by Aparajit Bhowmik --
aj@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Bhanu Vikram, Plaintiff, represented by Kyle R. Nordrehaug --
kyle@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug and Bhowmik, Molly Ann
DeSario -- molly@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik,
Norman B. Blumenthal -- norm@bamlawca.com -- Blumentha, Nordrehaug
& Bhowmik, Ruchira Piya Mukherjee -- piya@bamlawlj.com --
Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik & Victoria Bree Rivapalacio --
victoria@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik.

First Student Management, LLC, Defendant, represented by David J.
Dow -- ddow@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Alexis Anne
Sohrakoff -- asohrakoff@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C..


FLOWERS FOODS: Watts Seeks Certification of Distributors Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled GLENN WATTS, Individually and
on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC.
and FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF TYLER, LLC, Case No. 6:17-cv-00424-RWS-
KNM (E.D. Tex.), moves for conditional certification and issuance
of a Court-approved notice to current and former Distributors, who
worked for Defendants and were classified as independent
contractors and who did not receive proper overtime pay.

The Defendants employed the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals to work as "Distributors."  The Plaintiff alleges that
the Defendants misclassified Plaintiff as independent contractor,
as opposed to employees and, therefore, the Plaintiff and others
are entitled to certain benefits under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, namely, time-and-a-half pay for hours worked in excess of 40
per week.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to:

   1) approve the Notice attached to Motion;


   2) require the Defendants to post the Notice at its facility
      in areas plainly visible to employees;

   3) require the Defendants to provide the last known names and
      addresses for all current and former workers within the
      potential class;

   4) order the Defendants to produce this information within
      seven days of granting the Motion, and in a usable
      electronic form to reduce any delays in sending out the
      notices; and

   5) authorize the Plaintiff to mail the Notice along with a
      self-addressed stamped return envelope to Kennard Richard,
      P.C., to potential opt-in class members.

The Plaintiff asks a period of 90 days after the initial notices
are mailed for opt-in plaintiffs to file their Notices of Consent
with the Court.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq.
          KENNARD RICHARD P.C.
          2603 Augusta Drive, 14th Floor
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 742-0900
          Facsimile: (713) 742-0951
          E-mail: Alfonso.kennard@kennardlaw.com


GOOGLE INC: Oct. 26 Deadline to File First Amended "Sweet" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JAMES SWEET; CHUCK MERE; ZOMBIE GO BOOM,
LLC, DBA ZOMBIEGOBOOM, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE, INC. DBA YOUTUBE,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-03953-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M.
Chen of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, continued the Plaintiff's
deadline to file the first amended complaint to Oct. 26, 2017.

On July 13, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a purported Class Action
Complaint against the Defendant, and served the Complaint on the
Defendant on or about Aug. 4, 2017.  On Aug. 14, 2017, the parties
entered in a stipulation extending the Defendant's deadline to
respond to the complaint to Sept. 25, 2017.

The Defendant filed, on Sept. 25, 2017, a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's complaint.  Pursuant to Northern District of
California Local Rule 7-3(a), the Plaintiff's deadline to file an
opposition to the Defendant's motion to dismiss is Oct. 9, 2017,
only 14 days after the Defendant's filing of their motion to
dismiss.

The Plaintiff plans to file a first amended complaint to address
the deficiencies addressed in the Defendant's motion to dismiss
the complaint, the parties wish to continue the Plaintiff's
deadline to file their opposition to the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the complaint, to allow time to file a first amended
complaint and to research and respond adequately to the
Defendant's issues raised in their motion to dismiss.

The parties have agreed (i) to extend the deadline to Oct. 26,
2017 for the Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint; (ii) to
extend the deadline to Nov. 30, 2017 for the Defendant to respond
to the first amended complaint; and (iii) that the Plaintiff will
submit any oppositions to the Defendant's responsive pleadings
under Northern District of California Local Rule 7-3(a).

The parties request that (i) the Nov. 9, 2017 hearing date for the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint is vacated; and (ii)
that the case management conference currently scheduled for Dec.
21, 2018 is continued to Feb. 22, 2018, March 1, 2018 at 9:30 a.m.

Pursuant to the stipulation, Judge Chen so ordered.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 6, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/WBhbte from Leagle.com.

James Sweet, Plaintiff, represented by Todd Michael Friedman, Law
Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C..

James Sweet, Plaintiff, represented by Adrian Bacon, Law Offices
of Todd M. Friedman, P.C..

Chuck Mere, Plaintiff, represented by Todd Michael Friedman, Law
Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. & Adrian Bacon, Law Offices of
Todd M. Friedman, P.C..

Zombie Go Boom, LLC dba ZombieGoBoom, Plaintiff, represented by
Todd Michael Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. &
Adrian Bacon, Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C..

Google, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony J. Weibell --
aweibell@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Lena Ting
Yi Wong -- lwong@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati,
Maura Lea Rees -- MRees@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati & Eli Bard Richlin -- erichlin@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich and Rosati PC, pro hac vice.


GRAZIANO'S HOLDING: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S.D. of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Graziano's Holding,
LLC, a Florida limited liability company. The case is styled as
Andres Gomez, on his own and on behalf of all other individuals
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Graziano's Holding, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
23767-PCH (S.D. Fla., October 13, 2017).

The proposed class action lawsuit claims that Graziano's website
is inaccessible to blind individuals and therefore violates the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Pamela Elizabeth Chavez, Esq.
   The Advocacy Group, P.A.
   333 Las Olas, Suite CU3-311
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 282-1858
   Fax: (844) 786-3694
   Email: pchavez@advocacypa.com

      - and -

   Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
   Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
   333 Las Olas Way, Suite CU3-311
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 282-1858
   Fax: (844) 786-3694
   Email: service@advocacypa.com


GREAT CIRCLE FAMILY: Doughnut Products Unhealthy, Salem Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
JACQULINE SALEM, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Great Circle Family Foods, LLC dba
Krispy Kreme Doughnuts and DOES 1-10, the Defendant(s), Case No.
BC679034 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 13, 2017), seeks to recover
damages for the amount of damaged caused to the members of the
Class, restitution for the amount of unfair additional funds that
Defendant stole from the members of the Class, and for injunctive,
declaratory, and equitable relief demanding that Defendant cease
engaging in its unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business and
advertising practices.

According to the complaint, Great Circle Family Foods has utilized
its position of power to feed false information to consumers in
order to deceive them into making purchases that they would
otherwise not make to obtain an unfair and unjust benefit.
Specifically, Defendant has been purposefully, intentionally, and
willfully misleading its consumers into believing that two of the
most important nutritional components of its doughnuts are a
fraction of what they are. Defendant advertises and represents
objectively false statements about the amount of calories and
sugar content its doughnuts has in order to take advantage of
consumers who are actively trying to make healthier and more
conscientious decisions about what they consume. Defendant has not
only taken advantage of those that seek to make these healthier
decisions, but Defendant is making a last ditch effort to try and
capture its fleeting market share in the only way that it can--by
directly lying to the consumers who rely on Defendant's labeling
information.

Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. is an American doughnut company and
coffeehouse chain based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd. M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          E-mail: friedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


GURSTEL LAW: Aker Moves for Class Certification Under "Damasco"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Aker and Leticia Woods move the Court to certify the class
described in the complaint of the lawsuit captioned ROBERT AKER
and LETICIA WOODS Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. GURSTEL LAW FIRM, P.C., Case No. 2:17-cv-
01300-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further ask that the Court both stay
the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiffs
(and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic
briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to
be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiffs assert, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

The Plaintiffs are obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, they contend.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiffs argue.

The Plaintiffs also ask to be appointed as class representatives,
and for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com


HOME DEPOT: Court Stays Remand Order in "Jackson" Pending Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CITIBANK, N.A. Plaintiff, v. GEORGE W.
JACKSON, Defendant. GEORGE W. JACKSON, Third-Party Plaintiff, v.
HOME DEPOT, USA, INC. and CAROLINA WATER SYSTEMS, INC., Third-
Party Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-712-GCM (W.D. N.C.),
Judge Graham C. Mullern of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, granted the Home
Depot's Motion for Stay of Remand Order Pending Appeal.

Jackson was sued by Plaintiff Citibank to collect an allegedly
outstanding debt for a water filtration system purchased by
Jackson from Home Depot and CWS.  He answered and filed a third-
party class action complaint, alleging that Home Depot and CWS had
a scheme of misleading customers about the alleged dangerousness
of their water and subsequently selling them unnecessary water
filtration systems.

Citibank voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against Jackson on
Sept. 23, 2016, and Home Depot removed the remaining class action
lawsuit to federal court on Oct. 12, 2016.  On Oct. 28, 2016, Home
Depot filed a Motion to Realign the Parties.

On Nov. 8, 2016, Jackson filed a Motion to Remand to State Court.
The Court granted the Motion to Remand, finding lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, and denied the Motion to Realign the Parties
on March 21, 2017.

Home Depot timely filed a petition for permission to appeal the
Court's Remand Order under 28 U.S.C. Section 1453 and subsequently
filed the Motion for Stay of Remand Order Pending Appeal.

Judge Mullen finds that Home Depot has not met its burden of
showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its appeal.
However, he finds that Home Depot has met its burden of showing
that it will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay.  If the order
is not stayed, Home Depot will likely be compelled to engage in
class-wide merits discovery under state court supervision.  The
cost of proceeding with discovery -- and potentially re-litigating
discovery issues in federal court -- is likely to be high. And
such costs are irreparable, as the class action Plaintiffs are
generally of modest means and thus the costs of improper discovery
requests cannot be later shifted.

The Judge also that Home Depot has further shown that Jackson
would not experience much -- if any -- harm if the Court granted a
stay.  Jackson's claims will only be delayed for a brief period of
time, but Home Depot will still likely face state court decisions
that would render its right to appeal the remand order hollow.

Finally, Home Depot has shown that a stay is in the best interest
of the public.  The public has a strong interest in conserving
judicial resources by reducing duplicative litigation in state and
federal court.  And while a speedy resolution of Jackson's class
action lawsuit is in the public's interest, the resolution of his
claim would only be further delayed if the Fourth Circuit reverses
the Court's remand order and the issues addressed in state court
have to be re-litigated in federal court.  Thus, a stay preserving
the status quo also protects the public interest by preserving
judicial resources.

For these reasons, Judge Mullen finds that the balance of the
factors of consideration weigh in favor of the issuance of a stay
in this matter pending appeal.  Therefore, he granted Home Depot's
Motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 10, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/sEM2Sf from Leagle.com.

George W. Jackson, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Daniel
Kent Bryson -- dan@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP.

George W. Jackson, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Janet R.
Varnell -- info@varnellandwarwick.com -- Varnell & Warwick, P.A.,
pro hac vice & Rashad Blossom, Blossom Law PLLC.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by
Chelsea Corey -- ccorey@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding.

Carolina Water Systems, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by
Jack Gerald Zurlini, Jr. -- jgz@berensonllp.com -- Berenson LLP,
pro hac vice & William R. Terpening -- terpening@terpeninglaw.com
-- Terpening Wilder Law.

George W. Jackson, Counter Claimant, represented by Daniel Kent
Bryson, Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP, Janet R. Varnell, Varnell
& Warwick, P.A., pro hac vice & Rashad Blossom, Blossom Law PLLC.

Citibank, N.A., Counter Defendant, represented by Charles E.
Raynal, IV, Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, LLP & Matthew Hilton
Mall, Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP.

George W. Jackson, Counter Claimant, represented by Daniel Kent
Bryson, Whitfield, Bryson & Mason, LLP, Janet R. Varnell, Varnell
& Warwick, P.A. & Rashad Blossom, Blossom Law PLLC.

Carolina Water Systems, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by
Jack Gerald Zurlini, Jr., Berenson LLP & William R. Terpening,
Terpening Wilder Law.

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Chelsea
Corey, King & Spalding.


HOMEALITY LLC: Class of Caregivers Certified in "Kilpatrick" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Brian S. Miller granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify their collective
action and for approval of notice in the lawsuit styled FELICIA
KILPATRICK & MARY EASON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HOMEALITY, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-00885-BSM
(E.D. Ark.).

Plaintiffs Felicia Kilpatrick and Mary Eason bring the lawsuit
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act, claiming Homeality failed to pay overtime compensation
to its employees for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
They are seeking conditional certification of a collective with a
class defined as "all home healthcare workers employed by
Homeality, LLC, and/or any of its affiliated entities at any time
since January 1, 2015."

Instead of the Plaintiffs' proposed class definition, the Court
approves this definition:

     All current or former caregivers and/or home healthcare
     workers employed by Homeality, who were paid hourly and who
     were not paid overtime for hours worked over 40 hours per
     week since January 1, 2015.

Judge Miller rules that in connection with its objection,
Homeality is not required to provide social security numbers and
birth dates of the class members.  The Plaintiffs' request to send
reminders is denied to avoid redundant notice and any conduct that
could be interpreted as an endorsement of the lawsuit.

Homeality shall have 30 days from the date of the order to
provide, in usable electronic format, the name and any employee
number or unique identifier; last known physical address; last
known e-mail address; phone numbers; and dates of employment for
those who fit the approved class definition.  After the Plaintiffs
receive the information, they shall have 30 days to disseminate
notice, which may include a Spanish translation.  The Plaintiffs
will then have 60 days from the day notice is mailed to file
consent forms with the court.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=j6GJyEhM


HORTONWORKS INC: "Monchelli" Plaintiffs Must File Status Updates
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned WILLIAM MONACHELLI, Plaintiff, v.
HORTONWORKS, INC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-00980-SI
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California ordered the Plaintiffs (i) to
provide status reports every 60 days, starting from the date of
the Order, to update the Court on the number of claims received,
the number of claims excluded, the anticipated average pay-out per
claim, and when their counsel expect to be able to file a motion
for final distribution; and (ii) to file a motion for final
distribution once the claims process has concluded, which will
include the number of claims made, the number of claims excluded,
the average pay-out per claim, and any request to include late
filed claims.

On Sept. 22, 2017, the Judge held a hearing on final approval of
the class action settlement in this case.  He granted final
approval of the settlement on Oct. 10, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 10, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/BaDdmI from Leagle.com.

William Monachelli, Plaintiff, represented by J. Alexander Hood,
II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice.

William Monachelli, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman
-- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew
Laurence Tuccillo -- mltuccillo@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro
hac vice & Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Hortonworks, Inc, Defendant, represented by Jordan Eth --
jeth@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Anna Erickson White --
awhite@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & Ryan M. Keats --
rkeats@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Robert G Bearden, Defendant, represented by Jordan Eth, Morrison &
Foerster LLP, Anna Erickson White, Morrison & Foerster LLP & Ryan
M. Keats, Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Scott J Davidson, Defendant, represented by Jordan Eth, Morrison &
Foerster LLP, Anna Erickson White, Morrison & Foerster LLP & Ryan
M. Keats, Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Babu Pinnamraju, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A..

Randall A. Arvidson, Movant, represented by Jennifer Pafiti,
Pomerantz LLP, J. Alexander Hood, II, Pomerantz LLP & Matthew
Laurence Tuccillo, Pomerantz LLP.


HUDDLE HOUSE: Faces "Brown" Suit in N. Dist. Miss.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Huddle House, Inc.,
a Georgia Corporation.  The case is styled as Larossasa Brown,
individually, and on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated current and former employees, Plaintiff v. Huddle House,
Inc., a Georgia Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 31:17-cv-00173-
SA-DAS (N.D. Miss., October 18, 2017).

Huddle House is an American chain of 24-hour diner-style
restaurants with over 360 locations in 23 states, primarily found
in the Southern United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   George B. Ready, Esq.
   P.O. Box 127
   Hernando, MS 38632
   Tel: (662) 429-7088
   Fax: (662) 429-5474
   Email: gbready@georgebreadyattorneys.com


INBOUNDPROSPECT INC: "Bush" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Shawn Bush, and all others similarly-situated v.
InboundProspect, Inc., dba Senior Mobility Care, Case No. 3:17-cv-
02074 (S.D. Calif., October 9, 2017), seeks damages, injunctive
relief and legal or equitable remedies for Defendant's violations
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff Jonathan Shawn Bush is a resident of the County of San
Diego, in the State of California.

Defendant InboundProspect is a California based direct mail
marketing agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INSIGHT GLOBAL: Faces "Saldivar" Suit in Northern District of Cal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Insight Global, LLC
a Delaware Corporation. The case is styled as Claudine Saldivar,
an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Insight Global, LLC, a Delaware
Corporation and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
5:17-cv-05981 (N.D. Cal., October 18, 2017).

Insight Global offers IT, accounting, finance, engineering, and
government staffing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


JBS SA: GWI Named Lead Plaintiff in "Murphy" Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge I. Leo Glasser of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York granted GWI Enterprise Ltd.'s motion to be
appointed the sole Lead Plaintiff and for approval of Levi &
Korsinsky, LLP as the sole Lead Counsel; and denied Jack Mac Phail
Revocable Living Trust and Philipp Kreuser's motion to be
appointed the Co-Lead Plaintiffs and for approval of The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A. and Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC ("BG&G") as the
Co-Lead Counsel in the case captioned EDMUND MURPHY III,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. JBS S.A., WESLEY MENDONÄA BATISTA, GILBERTO
TOMAZONI, and JOESLEY MENDONCA BATISTA, Defendants, Case No. 17-
CV-3084 (E.D. N.Y.).

Two such securities class actions were filed in this district: GWI
Enterprise Ltd. v. JBS S.A. et al. and Murphy III v. J.B.S. S.A.
et al.  By order of the Court, the two actions were consolidated
on Aug. 14, 2017.

The Plaintiffs bring this consolidated putative class action
against JBS and three of its executives -- Wesley Mendonca
Batista, Gilberto Tomazoni, and Joesley Mendonca Batista --
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.

Before the Court are competing motions for appointment as the Lead
Plaintiff and approval of counsel.  Mac Phail Trust and Kreuser
have moved to be appointed the Co-Lead Plaintiffs and for the
Court to approve their selection of The Rosen Law Firm and BG&G as
the Co-Lead Counsel.  GWI Enterprise also has moved to be
appointed the sole Lead Plaintiff and for the Court to approve its
selection of Levi & Korsinsky as the sole Lead Counsel.  The Court
heard oral argument on these motions on Sept. 19, 2017.

Judge Glasser finds that GWI Enterprise has made a prima facie
showing that it satisfies the typicality requirement, as it brings
the same legal claims, premised on the same alleged facts, as
other class members.  GWI Enterprise has also made a preliminary
showing that it satisfies the adequacy requirement.  GWI
Enterprise has selected qualified and experienced counsel, as
indicated by Levi & Korsinsky's firm profile.

Moreover, GWI Enterprise, as the movant with by far the largest
financial loss, appears to have interests that are aligned with
the other members of the class as well as the motivation to
vigorously pursue its claims.  The parties presented their
respective arguments in support of their claims for appointment at
oral argument, and the Judge concludes that the presumption
favoring GWI Enterprise remains undisturbed.

Judge Glasser further finds that GWI Enterprise has submitted a
detailed firm resume for Levi & Korsinsky, which indicates that
the firm has experience serving as lead counsel in complex
securities class actions like the one here.  Mac Phail Trust and
Kreuser do not dispute Levi & Korsinsky's qualifications, nor did
their counsel do so at oral argument.  In view of the foregoing,
he sees no reason to disturb GWI Enterprise's choice of Levi &
Korsinsky to serve as the Lead Counsel.

For the reasons stated, Judge Glasser granted GWI Enterprise's
motion is granted and accordingly denied Mac Phail Trust and
Kreuser's motion.  He appointed GWI Enterprise as the Lead
Plaintiff and approved the selection of Levi & Korsinsky as the
Lead Counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 6, 2017 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/1dD8nQ from Leagle.com.

Jack Mac Phail Revocable Living Trust, Movant, represented by
Phillip Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- Rosen Law Firm, P.A. P.C..

Philipp Kreuser, Movant, represented by Phillip Kim, Rosen Law
Firm, P.A. P.C..

GWI Enterprise Ltd., Movant, represented by Adam Apton --
aapton@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky LLP & Michelle Thompson, Levi &
Korsinsky LLP, pro hac vice.

Edmund Murphy, III, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip Kim, Rosen
Law Firm, P.A. P.C..


JPMORGAN CHASE: Grillo Appeals Order in Mortgage Modification MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Charles C. Grillo filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the multidistrict litigation titled In re JPMorgan Chase Mortgage
Modification Litigation, MDL No. 1:11-md-02290-RGS, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
litigation is brought on behalf of all mortgage borrowers, whose
loans are serviced by Chase, who participated in a Stated-Income
Trial Period Plan extended by Chase under the Home Affordable
Modification Program and under other non-HAMP modification
program.

The appellate case is captioned as Grillo, et al. v. JP Morgan
Chase Bank, N.A., Case No. 17-1953, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant CHARLES C. GRILLO is represented by:

          Michael Joseph Traft, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL J. TRAFT
          1 State St.
          Boston, MA 02109-3542
          Telephone: (617) 933-3877

Plaintiff AMY E. KELLER, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Mayra Velez Tarantino, Esq.
          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
          LITE, DEPALMA, GREENBERG & RIVAS
          Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102-5003
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          Facsimile: (312) 212-5919
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
                  mtarantino@litedepalma.com
                  jdepalma@litedepalma.com

Plaintiffs CHRISTOPHER JERRAM and RENEE JERRAM are represented by:

          Christine M. Craig, Esq.
          SHAHEEN & GORDON PA
          PO Box 977
          140 Washington St.
          Dover, NH 03821-0977
          Telephone: (603) 749-5000
          Facsimile: (603) 749-1838
          E-mail: ccraig@shaheengordon.com

Plaintiffs JAMES DOLAN and SHERRILYN DOLAN are represented by:

          James Joseph Heggie, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES J. HEGGIE
          333 Ricciuti Dr.
          Quincy, MA 02169
          Telephone: (617) 842-2176
          E-mail: james.heggie@fac.quincycollege.edu

Plaintiffs LLOYD CLAPHAM, DELANO CURETON, BERNARD KARNES, SCOTT
KELLER, LINDA LARKIN, FRED SHOURDS, VERA SHOURDS, VIRGINIA
LUSCINSKI, THEODORE LUSCINSKI, KIERSTEN HAJNAL, FRANK FISCHER,
SANDRA FISCHER, KATHY KURTZNER, JULIE KARNES, BASILISA PACHECO,
JOYCE CLAPHAM, CHRISTINE ELLIS, THOMAS LEOPOLD and JANET CURETON
are represented by:

          Gretchen Freeman-Cappio, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          1201 3rd Ave., Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com

Plaintiff SCOTT KELLER is represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          LITE, DEPALMA, GREENBERG & RIVAS
          Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102-5003
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          Facsimile: (312) 212-5919
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com

Plaintiff LAURA A. CECERE is represented by:

          John Jacob Pentz, III, Esq.
          19 Widow Rites Ln.
          Sudbury, MA 01776
          Telephone: (978) 261-5725
          Facsimile: (978) 405-5161
          E-mail: jjpentz3@gmail.com

Plaintiffs KIERSTEN HAJNAL, an individual; FRANK FISCHER, an
individual; SANDRA FISCHER, an individual, and KATHY KURTZNER, an
individual and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          BRAUN LAW GROUP PC
          10680 West Pico Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 836-6000
          Facsimile: (310) 836-6010
          E-mail: mdb@braunlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Gretchen S. Obrist, Esq.
          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          1201 3rd Ave., Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: gobrist@kellerrohrback.com
                  lsarko@kellerrohrback.com

Plaintiffs AMY E. KELLER, JEAN C. WILCOX, individually and on
behalf of all other consumers similarly situated, CHRISTOPHER
JERRAM, RENEE JERRAM, JAMES DOLAN, SHERRILYN DOLAN, LLOYD CLAPHAM,
DELANO CURETON, BRYAN ELLIS, J. JAMES DANA, LAURA STRUBLE, BERNARD
KARNES, SCOTT KELLER, LINDA LARKIN, CONSTANZA CARDENAS, FRED
SHOURDS, VERA SHOURDS, LAURA A. CECERE, VIRGINIA LUSCINSKI,
THEODORE LUSCINSKI, KIERSTEN HAJNAL, FRANK FISCHER, SANDRA
FISCHER, KATHY KURTZNER, KELLY TURBEVILLE, MARK VENUTI
SHELBY VENUTI, NATALIE LAYMAN are represented by:

          Alexandra C. Warren, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: awarren@cuneolaw.com

Plaintiffs VIRGINIA LUSCINSKI and THEODORE LUSCINSKI, on behalf of
themselves and the certified class of similarly situated
individuals, RAMIZA DURMIC, on behalf of self and all others
similarly situated, AZIZ ISAAK, on behalf of self and all others
similarly situated, NADIA MOHAMED, on behalf of self and all
others similarly situated, DONALD TREANNIE, HEATHER TREANNIE, JEAN
LICATA and ARSENIA RODRIGUES are represented by:

          Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
          KLEIN KAVANAGH COSTELLO, LLP
          85 Merrimac St., 4th Floor
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 390-2578
          E-mail: costello@kkcllp.com

Plaintiffs VIRGINIA LUSCINSKI and THEODORE LUSCINSKI, on behalf of
themselves and the certified class of similarly situated
individuals, are represented by:

          Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
          Jennifer E. Kelly, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
                  jkelly@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          300 N Tucker Blvd., Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 226-1015
          E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Gretchen S. Obrist, Esq.
          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          1201 3rd Ave., Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: gobrist@kellerrohrback.com
                  lsarko@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Corinne Reed, Esq.
          KLEIN KAVANAGH COSTELLO, LLP
          85 Merrimac St., 4th Floor
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 439-4758

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut St., Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
          Telephone: (212) 592-1500
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

Plaintiff KELLY TURBEVILLE, on behalf of herself and a class of
all other persons similarly situated, is represented by:

          Christopher M. Ellis, Esq.
          BOLEN ROBINSON AND ELLIS LLP
          202 South Franklin Street, 2nd Floor
          Decatur, IL 62523
          Telephone: (217) 429-4296
          Facsimile: (217) 329-0034
          E-mail: cellis@brelaw.com

Plaintiffs KELLY TURBEVILLE, on behalf of herself and a class of
all other persons similarly situated, MICHAEL SCHMIERER, SAMUEL
COLLETTA, FELICIA MINERVA, THOMAS MINERVA, AUDRA SCHMIERER,
ANTHONY TAYLOR, on behalf of himself and a class of all other
persons similarly situated, JACQUELYN COLLETTA and RONALD RYAN are
represented by:

          Randall Seth Crompton, Esq.
          Eric D. Holland, Esq.
          Gerard B. Schneller, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM
          300 N Tucker Blvd., Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-8111
          Facsimile: (314) 241-5554
          E-mail: scrompton@allfela.com
                  eholland@allfela.com
                  gschneller@allfela.com

               - and -

          Sandra Watson Cuneo, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          11620 Wilshire Blvd
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 582-5939
          E-mail: scuneo@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Shane M. Mendenhall, Esq.
          BOLEN ROBINSON AND ELLIS LLP
          202 South Franklin Street, 2nd Floor
          Decatur, IL 62523
          Telephone: (217) 429-4296
          Facsimile: (217) 329-0034
          E-mail: smendenhall@brelaw.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut St., Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
          Telephone: (212) 592-1500
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

Plaintiffs MICHELE HOOD, individually and on behalf of all other
consumers similarly situated; ROBERT HOOD, individually and on
behalf of all other consumers similarly situated; and SHARIE
GREEN, individually and on behalf of all other consumers similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Anthony L. Lanza, Esq.
          Brodie Hugh Smith, Esq.
          LANZA & SMITH PLC
          3 Park Plaza, Suite 1650
          Irvine, CA 92614-8540
          Telephone: (949) 221-0490
          Facsimile: (949) 221-0027
          E-mail: tony@lanzasmith.com
                  brodie@lanzasmith.com

               - and -

          Thomas D. Mauriello, Esq.
          MAURIELLO LAW FIRM
          1181 Puerta Del Sol, Suite 120
          San Clemente, CA 92673
          Telephone: (949) 542-3555
          Facsimile: (949) 606-9690
          E-mail: tomm@maurlaw.com

               - and -

          Alexandra C. Warren, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: awarren@cuneolaw.com

Plaintiff DIANNA MONTEZ, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Amid Bahadori, Esq.
          BAHADORI & THOMAS LLP
          2 Park Plaza
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 954-8164
          E-mail: atb@bahadorilaw.com

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          BRAUN LAW GROUP PC
          10680 West Pico Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 836-6000
          Facsimile: (310) 836-6010
          E-mail: mdb@braunlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Alexandra C. Warren, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: awarren@cuneolaw.com

Plaintiffs DANIEL WARE, MICHAEL SABOUHI, JULIE KARNES,
BASILISA PACHECO, JOYCE CLAPHAM, CHRISTINE ELLIS, THOMAS LEOPOLD
and JANET CURETON are represented by:

          Gretchen S. Obrist, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          1201 3rd Ave., Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: gobrist@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Alexandra C. Warren, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: awarren@cuneolaw.com

Plaintiffs MINDY B. SENTER and GUSTAVO FRANCO are represented by:

          Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP
          1625 N Commerce Pkwy., Suite 320
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33326
          Telephone: (954) 515-0123
          E-mail: jgoldstein@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP
          35 E State St.
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (954) 515-0123
          E-mail: nzipperian@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Lynda J. Grant, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005-0000
          Telephone: (212) 292-4441

               - and -

          Alexandra C. Warren, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: awarren@cuneolaw.com

Plaintiffs RAMIZA DURMIC, on behalf of self and all others
similarly situated, AZIZ ISAAK, on behalf of self and all others
similarly situated, NADIA MOHAMED, on behalf of self and all
others similarly situated, DONALD TREANNIE, HEATHER TREANNIE, JEAN
LICATA and ARSENIA RODRIGUES are represented by:

          Charles M. Delbaum, Esq.
          Stuart T. Rossman, Esq.
          NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER
          7 Winthrop Sq., 4th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110-1245
          Telephone: (617) 542-8010
          Facsimile: (617) 542-8033
          Email: cdelbaum@nclc.org
                 srossman@nclc.org

               - and -

          Michael Raabe, Esq.
          170 Common Street
          Lawrence, MA 01840-0000
          Telephone: (978) 686-6900

               - and -

          Alexandra C. Warren, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: awarren@cuneolaw.com

Plaintiff JULIE KARNES, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          David A. Goodwin, Esq.
          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 S 6th St., Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
                  dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                  mlooby@gustafsongluek.com

Plaintiff MICHELLE BOURDELAIS, on her own behalf and behalf of all
others similarly situated, f/k/a Michelle Durniak, is represented
by:

          Gary L. Abbott, Esq.
          Robin Ann Abbott, Esq.
          Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
          Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          E-mail: gary@clalegal.com
                  lenbennett@clalegal.com
                  srotkis@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Alexandra C. Warren, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: awarren@cuneolaw.com

Plaintiffs JULIE KARNES, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated; BASILISA PACHECO, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated; JOYCE CLAPHAM, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated; CHRISTINE ELLIS, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated; THOMAS LEOPOLD and
JANET CURETON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          1201 3rd Ave., Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com

Plaintiffs SUSAN E. MASON and EVAN BURKHOLDER are represented by:

          Randall Seth Crompton, Esq.
          Eric D. Holland, Esq.
          HOLLAND LAW FIRM
          300 N Tucker Blvd., Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-8111
          Facsimile: (314) 241-5554
          E-mail: scrompton@allfela.com
                  eholland@allfela.com

               - and -

          Alexandra C. Warren, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: awarren@cuneolaw.com

Plaintiff GARY LARKIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Michael D. Braun, Esq.
          BRAUN LAW GROUP PC
          10680 West Pico Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 836-6000
          Facsimile: (310) 836-6010
          E-mail: mdb@braunlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          300 N Tucker Blvd., Suite 801
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 226-1015
          E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
          CAREY DANIS & LOWE, LLC
          8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 725-7700
          E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com

               - and -

          Alexandra C. Warren, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: awarren@cuneolaw.com

Plaintiffs THOMAS P. HAYES and SHARON M. HAYES, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          William T. Dowd, Esq.
          John J. Driscoll, Esq.
          Alex Lumaghi, Esq.
          DOWD & DOWD PC
          211 N Broadway, Suite 4050
          St Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621-2500
          Facsimile: (314) 621-2503
          E-mail: bill@dowdlaw.net
                  alex@dowdlaw.net

               - and -

          Jeffrey B. Hunt, Esq.
          DOSTERULLOM, LLC
          16090 Swingley Ridge, Suite 620
          Chesterfield, MO 63017
          Telephone: (636) 532-0042
          E-mail: jhunt@dosterullom.com

               - and -

          Alexandra C. Warren, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: awarren@cuneolaw.com

Plaintiff LINDA ROSS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Andrea B. Bierstein, Esq.
          HANLY CONROY BIERSTEIN SHERIDAN FISHER & HAYES, LLP
          112 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 784-6403
          E-mail: abierstein@hanlyconroy.com

               - and -

          Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS LLP
          1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 447-7070

               - and -

          Alexandra C. Warren, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: awarren@cuneolaw.com

Plaintiffs DONNA M. FOLLMER, f/k/a Donna M. Marshall, and MICHAEL
FOLLMER are represented by:

          Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Esq.
          Todd B. Naylor, Esq.
          MURDOCK GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER & GROH
          25 E. Seventh Street, Suite 600
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 345-8291
          E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
                  tnaylor@gs-legal.com

               - and -

          Christian A. Jenkins, Esq.
          Paul J. Minnillo, Esq.
          MINNILLO & JENKINS CO., LPA
          2712 Observatory Avenue
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Telephone: (513) 723-1600
          Facsimile: (513) 723-1620
          E-mail: cjenkins@minnillojenkins.com
                  pjminnillo@minnillojenkins.com

               - and -

          Alexandra C. Warren, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: awarren@cuneolaw.com

Plaintiffs JOHN HANF and KATHLEEN HANF, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Noah I. Axler, Esq.
          Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
          DONOVAN SEARLES, LLC
          1845 Walnut St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-0000
          Telephone: (215) 732-6067
          Facsimile: (215) 732-8060
          E-mail: naxler@donovansearles.com
                  mdonovan@donovansearles.com

               - and -

          Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
          ROSEN LAW FIRM
          101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 440
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 600-2817
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

          Sandra G. Smith, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI
          101 Greenwood Ave.
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 277-5770
          E-mail: ssmith@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Alexandra C. Warren, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: awarren@cuneolaw.com

Defendant-Appellee JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., and its successor
and/or assign, MTGLQ Investors, L.P. and its agent, Shellpoint
Mortgage Servicing, Defendant JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., d/b/a Chase
Home Finance, LLC, and CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC, are represented
by:

          Zachary J. Alinder, Esq.
          SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
          1 Embarcadero Ctr.
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 392-1960
          E-mail: zalinder@sideman.com

               - and -

          David Neal Anthony, Esq.
          Michael Edward Lacy, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
          1001 Haxall Point, 15th Floor
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 697-5410
          E-mail: david.anthony@troutmansanders.com
                  michael.lacy@troutman.com

               - and -

          Barbara N. Barath, Esq.
          Philip T. Besirof, Esq.
          Irene E. Pertsovsky, Esq.
          Rebecca Snavely Saelao, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market St.
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: bbarath@mofo.com
                  PBesirof@mofo.com
                  ipertsovsky@mofo.com
                  rsaelao@mofo.com

               - and -

          Jamie Levitt, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          250 W 55th St.
          New York, NY 10019-9601
          Telephone: (212) 468-8000
          E-mail: jlevitt@mofo.com

               - and -

          Fred B. Burnside, Esq.
          Joshua A. Rataezyk, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          1201 3rd Ave., Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3045
          Telephone: (206) 757-8016
          Facsimile: (206) 757-7016
          E-mail: fredburnside@dwt.com
                  joshrataezyk@dwt.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Gibson, Esq.
          Nelson Marlin Reid, Esq.
          Justin W. Ristau, Esq.
          BRICKER & ECKLER
          100 S 3rd St.
          Columbus, OH 43215-4291
          Telephone: (614) 227-2324
          E-mail: dgibson@bricker.com
                  nreid@bricker.com
                  jristau@bricker.com

               - and -

          Ryan C. Gist, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          1633 Broadway, 27th Floor
          New York, NY 10019-6708
          Telephone: (206) 409-4132
          E-mail: ryangist@dwt.com

               - and -

          Leah M. Houghton, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1 Federal St.
          Boston, MA 02110-1726
          Telephone: (617) 341-7748
          Facsimile: (617) 341-7701
          E-mail: lhoughton@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Thomas Holland Loffredo, Esq.
          GRAYROBINSON, PA
          401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1850
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-0000
          Telephone: (954) 761-8111
          E-mail: tom.loffredo@gray-robinson.com

               - and -

          Todd A. Noteboom, Esq.
          Peter J. Schwingler, Esq.
          STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP
          150 S 5th St., Suite 2300
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 335-1894
          Facsimile: (612) 335-1657
          E-mail: todd.noteboom@stinsonleonard.com
                  peter.schwingler@leonard.com

               - and -

          Peter Obstler, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          3 Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
          Telephone: (415) 471-3100
          Facsimile: (415) 471-3400
          E-mail: peter.obstler@aporter.com

               - and -

          Joseph Vincent Quattrocchi, Jr., Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOKIUS LLP
          300 S Grand Ave., 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-2500
          E-mail: Jquattrocchi@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. Sullivan, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
          Telephone: (215) 963-5146
          E-mail: tsullivan@morganlewis.com

Defendant-Appellee JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., and its successor
and/or assign, MTGLQ Investors, L.P. and its agent, Shellpoint
Mortgage Servicing, and Defendant JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., d/b/a
Chase Home Finance, LLC, are represented by:

          Mark C. Zebrowski, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP
          12531 High Bluff Dr., Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92130-2040
          Telephone: (858) 720-5162
          E-mail: mzebrowski@mofo.com

               - and -

          Louis F. Bonacorsi, Esq.
          Douglas W. King, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE
          211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63102-0000
          Telephone: (314) 259-2000
          E-mail: lfbonacorsi@bryancave.com

               - and -

          Wayne E. George, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1 Federal St.
          Boston, MA 02110-1726
          Telephone: (617) 341-7748
          Facsimile: (617) 341-7701
          E-mail: wgeorge@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Jami Wintz McKeon, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20004-2541
          Telephone: (215) 963-5000
          E-mail: jmckeon@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          John Griffin, Esq.
          GRIFFIN FLINK LLC
          200 Corporate Pl
          Branson, MO 65616
          Telephone: (417) 337-9217

               - and -

          Donn Alexander Randall, Esq.
          BULKLEY RICHARDSON & GELINAS LLP
          33 Broad St., 6th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 368-2500
          Facsimile: (617) 368-2525
          E-mail: drandall@bulkley.com

               - and -

          Jason Robert Scherr, Esq.
          BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN, LLP
          2020 K Street NW
          Washington, DC 20006-1806
          Telephone: (202) 373-6709
          E-mail: jr.scherr@bingham.com

               - and -

          Jeanette Viggiano Torti, Esq.
          MCKEE NELSON LLP
          1 Battery Park Plaza, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (917) 777-4200

               - and -

          Boris Yankilovich, Esq.
          FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
          901 Market St., Suite 570
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 848-5120
          E-mail: byankilovich@ftc.gov

Defendant U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as trustee of on behalf
of Asset Backed Securities Corporation Home Equity Loan 2002-HE3
c/o Washington Mutual, is represented by:

          James R. Cummins, Esq.
          WAITE SCHNEIDER BAYLESS & CHESLEY
          1 W 4th St.
          1513 Fourth & Vine Tower
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-0000

               - and -

          Nelson Marlin Reid, Esq.
          BRICKER & ECKLER
          100 S 3rd St.
          Columbus, OH 43215-4291
          Telephone: (614) 227-2324
          E-mail: nreid@bricker.com

               - and -

          Rebecca Snavely Saelao, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market St.
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: rsaelao@mofo.com

Defendant JPMORGAN ACQUISITION CORP. is represented by:

          Jason Robert Scherr, Esq.
          BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN, LLP
          2020 K Street NW
          Washington, DC 20006-1806
          Telephone: (202) 373-6709
          E-mail: jr.scherr@bingham.com

               - and -

          Jeanette Viggiano Torti, Esq.
          MCKEE NELSON LLP
          1 Battery Park Plaza, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (917) 777-4200

Defendant CHASE HOME FINANCE, INC., a wholly owned subsidiary of
JPMorgan Chase and Co., is represented by:

          Zachary J. Alinder, Esq.
          SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP
          1 Embarcadero Ctr.
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 392-1960
          E-mail: zalinder@sideman.com

               - and -

          Peter Obstler, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          3 Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
          Telephone: (415) 471-3100
          Facsimile: (415) 471-3400
          E-mail: peter.obstler@aporter.com

Defendants BEAR STEARNS COMPANIES INC. and EMC MORTGAGE LLC, a
Delaware corporation, f/k/a EMC Mortgage Corporation, are
represented by:

          Fred B. Burnside, Esq.
          Joshua A. Rataezyk, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          1201 3rd Ave., Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3045
          Telephone: (206) 757-8016
          Facsimile: (206) 757-7016
          E-mail: fredburnside@dwt.com
                  joshrataezyk@dwt.com

               - and -

          Leah M. Houghton, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1 Federal St.
          Boston, MA 02110-1726
          Telephone: (617) 341-7748
          Facsimile: (617) 341-7701
          E-mail: lhoughton@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Jamie Levitt, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          250 W 55th St.
          New York, NY 10019-9601
          Telephone: (212) 468-8000
          E-mail: jlevitt@mofo.com

               - and -

          Jami Wintz McKeon, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
          Washington, DC 20004-2541
          Telephone: (215) 963-5000
          E-mail: jmckeon@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Donn Alexander Randall, Esq.
          BULKLEY RICHARDSON & GELINAS LLP
          33 Broad St., 6th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 368-2500
          Facsimile: (617) 368-2525
          E-mail: drandall@bulkley.com

Defendant EMC MORTGAGE LLC, a Delaware corporation, f/k/a EMC
Mortgage Corporation, is represented by:

          Joseph Vincent Quattrocchi, Jr., Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOKIUS LLP
          300 S Grand Ave., 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-2500
          E-mail: Jquattrocchi@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. Sullivan, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
          Telephone: (215) 963-5146
          E-mail: tsullivan@morganlewis.com

Defendant CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC, is represented by:

          Michael John Agoglia, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market St.
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          E-mail: magoglia@mofo.com

Defendant WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as trustee for Carrington
Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2007-FRE1, is represented by:

          Joseph Vincent Quattrocchi, Jr., Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOKIUS LLP
          300 S Grand Ave., 22nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-2500
          E-mail: Jquattrocchi@morganlewis.com

Interested Party DOUGLAS B. KIEL, Chapter 13 Trustee, is
represented by:

          Karen G. Perse, Esq.
          4725 S Monaco St.
          Denver, CO 80237
          Telephone: (720) 398-4444


JR SIMPLOT: "Contreras" Suit Remanded to Calif. State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California granted the Plaintiff's motion to
remand the case captioned JUAN CONTRERAS, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY, an unknown business entity;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00585-KJM-EFB (E.D. Cal.) to Sacramento County Superior Court.

The Plaintiff filed this putative class action in Sacramento
County Superior Court on Jan. 3, 2017, alleging: (i) failure to
pay overtime wages; (ii) meal period violations; (iii) rest break
violations; (iv) failure to pay minimum wages; (v) failure to pay
wages due at termination; (vi) failure to timely pay wages during
employment; (vii) wage statement penalties; (viii) failure to keep
payroll records; (ix) failure to reimburse business expenses; and
(x) unfair business practices.

The Defendant removed the case to federal court, asserting
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  To
support its contention that the amount in controversy exceeds the
requisite $5 million, the Defendant submitted the declaration of
Simplot's Human Resources Manager, Melanie A. Angiolini.

In her declaration, Angiolini states that 936 individuals worked
as non-exempt employees for Simplot in California, the putative
class members worked approximately 15,435 pay periods, and the
Company's records reflect that the average pay rate for all
putative class members is $18.52 per hour.  The Defendant used
these numbers to calculate a total amount in controversy of
$13,773,163.28, which exceeds the requisite $5 million for CAFA-
based jurisdiction.

The Plaintiff now moves to remand, challenging the Defendant's
calculation.  The Defendant opposes the motion, and the Plaintiff
has replied.

With respect to the Plaintiff's overtime claim, Judge Mueller
finds that the Defendant has provided insufficient evidence to
meet its heightened burden for the overtime claim damages.

For the violation of California Labor Code's meal and rest period
standards claim, the Judge says without corroborating documents,
Angiolini's declaration is "speculative and self-serving."
Therefore, she does not consider the Defendant's calculation,
which relies solely on Angiolini's declaration, as part of the
amount in controversy.

In its calculation for waiting time penalties, the Defendant
assumes each employee would be entitled to the maximum statutory
penalty.  However, because the Defendant has not supported this
calculation by a preponderance of the evidence, Judge Mueller
rejects its assumption.  She does not consider the Defendant's
estimate of waiting time penalties as part of the amount in
controversy.

Similar to the calculation for wait time penalties, the
Defendant's calculation of penalties for non-compliant wage
statements is based on an assumption that each class member will
recover the maximum penalty for each pay period, which is not
supported by evidence.  As such, the Judge finds that the
Defendant has provided insufficient evidence to meet its
heightened burden for the itemized wage statement penalties.

Finally, because there is insufficient evidence to establish the
award estimates upon which attorney's fees would be based, there
is also insufficient evidence to establish the Defendant's
$2,754,632.66 attorneys' fees estimate in assessing the amount in
controversy.

Judge Mueller concludes that although the Defendant's notice of
removal adequately stated an amount in controversy beyond $5
million, the Plaintiff has challenged the calculation, and the
Defendant has failed to meet its heightened burden to support its
calculation by a preponderance of the evidence.  She therefore
granted the Plaintiff's motion to remand to Sacramento County
Superior Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 6, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/TE0JOb from Leagle.com.

Juan Contreras, Plaintiff, represented by Edwin Aiwazian --
edwin@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC.

Juan Contreras, Plaintiff, represented by Jill Jessica Parker --
jill@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC.

J.R. Simplot Company, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth A.
Falcone -- elizabeth.falcone@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak & Steward, PC & Michael John Nader --
michael.nader@ogletree.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, P.C..


LEE N' EDDIES: Urban Elevator Moves for TCPA Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled URBAN ELEVATOR SERVICE, LLC,
an Illinois Limited Liability Company, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. LEE N'
EDDIES LLC, VICTORIA GROUP, INC., CLASSIC BANQUETS AND CATERING
CORP., WHITE EAGLE BANQUETS + CATERING, INC., W.E. BANQUETS, LLC,
DANIEL VELES, JOHN KENNEY, MARIO FERRARO, and JOHN DOES 1-12, Case
No. 1:15-cv-07788 (N.D. Ill.), moves for entry of an order
certifying this class:

     All persons who were sent one or more telephone facsimile
     messages on or after four years prior to the filing of this
     action that advertised the commercial availability of
     property, goods, or services offered by "Lee N' Eddies" or
     "Victoria Catering, Inc." that did not contain an opt-out
     notice that complied with federal law.

Urban Elevator tells the Court that it files the Motion before
completing class certification discovery pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in order to avoid an attempt
by the Defendant(s) to moot the Plaintiff's individual claims in
the class action.

The case involves common fact questions about the Defendants' fax
campaign and common legal questions under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lDy59wpu

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          James M. Smith, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com
                  jim@bockhatchllc.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued Over Failure to Pay Police Officers' OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Isaiah Jellinek, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. City of Los Angeles, Charles Beck, and Does
I through XX, inclusive, Case No. BC678070 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
October 6, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay Police Officers' overtime compensation in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Defendants provide, via its municipal corporation, agents,
servants, and assigns, police services for the City of Los
Angeles. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Whitney, Esq.
      Michael Hackman, Esq.
      HACKMAN | WHITNEY
      19528 Ventura Blvd. Suite #217
      Tarzana, CA, 91356
      Telephone: (213) 222-8647
      Telephone: (213) 909-5905
      E-mail: awhitney@hackmanwhitney.com
              mhackman@hackmanwhitney.com


M3 USA: Court Grants Bid to Stay Comprehensive Health TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Beth Bloom of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida granted the Defendant M3's Motion to Stay the
case captioned COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS OF THE PALM
BEACHES, INC., and DR. ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D., P.C., Plaintiffs,
v. M3 USA CORPORATION, and MDLINX, INC., Defendants, Case No. 16-
cv-80967-BLOOM/Valle (S.D. Fla.).

M3 is a market research company which sends targeted invitations
via facsimile to healthcare professionals participate in research
surveys.  The Plaintiffs each received at least one such facsimile
from M3.  They assert that these faxes are "advertisements"
transmitted in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"), because they were sent without their consent and without
the proper opt-out language required by the TCPA.

While the parties have advanced several arguments about the legal
and factual sufficiency of the claims, both note that the
questions of whether the faxes at issue are in fact advertisements
is a core issue that is potentially dispositive of this case.

On March 20, 2017, M3 filed a Petition for Expedited Declaratory
Ruling with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") seeking
confirmation that research survey invitations are not TCPA
advertisements.  Specifically, the Petition requests that the FCC
declares the following: (i) that there is no presumption under the
TCPA that faxes sent by for-profit businesses are pretext for
advertisements; (ii) that informational faxes are not pretexts for
advertisements under the TCPA unless the transmission promotes
specific, commercially-available property, goods or services to
the recipient of the fax; (iii) that market research surveys do
not constitute property, goods or services vis-a-vis the persons
taking the surveys under the TCPA; and (iv) that invitations to
participate in market research surveys are not advertisements
under the TCPA unless commercially-available property, goods or
services are promoted in the fax itself or during the survey
itself.

On March 28, 2017, the FCC issued a Public Notice and opened a
notice-and-comment rulemaking proceeding to address the Petition.
According to the Defendants, the FCC received comments and the
record on the matter is now closed.  The Defendants now move for a
stay of this case pending resolution of the Petition.

Judge Bloom concludes that a stay is warranted.  The Petition's
potential effect on this case and the dearth of definitive
interpretation of the TCPA provisions applicable here counsel
against continued litigation in this case until the threshold
issue set forth in the Petition can be addressed by the FCC.  That
issue is whether research surveys constitute "advertisements"
under TCPA.

While Plaintiffs argue that a stay would prejudice them because it
is unclear if and when the FCC will issue a precedential ruling on
the Petition, the Judge finds that the benefit of the FCC's
guidance, the interests of judicial economy and the prevention of
inconsistent resolutions outweigh the potential prejudice of a
stay.

Accordingly, Judge Bloom granted Defendant M3's Motion.  All
proceedings in the action are stayed pending ruling from the FCC
on the Petition.  The action is administratively closed without
prejudice to the parties to file status reports every 90 days,
with the first report due Jan. 4, 2018.  She directed the Clerk to
close the case for administrative purposes only.  She denied as
moot any pending motions, cancelled any scheduled hearings, and
terminated all pending deadlines.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 6, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/RBYyeB from Leagle.com.

Comprehensive Health Care Systems Of The Palm Beaches, Inc.,
Plaintiff, represented by Daniel J. Cohen --
danieljaycohen209@gmail.com -- Bock, Hatch, Lewis, & Oppenheim,
LLC, pro hac vice.

Comprehensive Health Care Systems Of The Palm Beaches, Inc.,
Plaintiff, represented by James M. Smith -- jim@classlawyers.com -
- Bock, Hatch, Lewis, & Oppenheim, LLC, pro hac vice, Jonathan B.
Piper -- jon@classlawyers.com -- Bock, Hatch, Lewis, & Oppenheim,
LLC & Phillip A. Bock -- phil@classlawyers.com -- Bock & Hatch,
LLC.

Dr. Robert W. Mauthe, M.D., P.C., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel
J. Cohen, Bock, Hatch, Lewis, & Oppenheim, LLC, pro hac vice,
James M. Smith, Bock, Hatch, Lewis, & Oppenheim, LLC, pro hac
vice, Richard E. Shenkan, Shenkan Injury Lawyers, LLC. & Phillip
A. Bock, Bock & Hatch, LLC.

M3 USA Corporation, Defendant, represented by David Mitchell Poell
-- dpoell@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton, LLC, pro hac vice, Paul A. Werner --
pwerner@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton,
LLP, pro hac vice & Mark David Schellhase -- mark.schellhase@gray-
robinson.com -- Gray Robinson, PA.

MDLinx, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Mitchell Poell,
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLC, pro hac vice & Mark
David Schellhase, Gray Robinson, PA.


MATTRESS FIRM: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Herrera" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Cecilia M. Altonaga denied the motion to certify
collective action and facilitate notice to potential class members
in the lawsuit entitled RAFAEL HERRERA, et al. v. MATTRESS FIRM,
INC., et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-22048-CMA (S.D. Fla.).

The Plaintiffs, for themselves and on behalf of a collective
class, have brought a claim for failure to pay overtime
compensation against the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  The Plaintiffs contend they are entitled to
overtime compensation under the FLSA for each hour worked over 40
each workweek and seek compensatory and liquidated damages, as
well as reasonable attorney's fees.  The Plaintiffs seek to
represent and have notice sent to this class of drivers:

     All non-exempt delivery drivers hired by any of [Mattress
     Firm's] subcontractors during the three (3) years preceding
     this action, who [were] classified as independent
     contractors, and who were not compensated at least the
     applicable overtime rate of time and a half their regular
     rate of pay pursuant to the FLSA for hours worked over forty
     (40) in a workweek.

Judge Altonaga opined that the Plaintiffs have failed to show the
class members are similarly situated, and they also fail to
demonstrate each employee in the proposed class had a similar
opportunity for profit or loss or exercised similar investment in
materials.

Because Plaintiffs have not met their burden to show conditional
certification is warranted, Defendants are not required to provide
the Plaintiffs with a list of delivery drivers within the proposed
class or of subcontractors employing delivery drivers, Judge
Altonaga also ruled.  Judge Altonaga added that the Court need not
opine on the sufficiency of the proposed Notice to potential class
members, and the Defendants need not conspicuously post the Notice
in their offices.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PwgyiZ7V


MAZGANI SOCIAL: Ct. Orders Khosroabadi to File Class Cert. Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Cormac J. Carney granted in substantial part the
Defendants' motion to deny class certification and directing the
Plaintiff to file motion for class certification in the lawsuit
titled IRAJ KHOSROABADI v. MAZGANI SOCIAL SERVICES, INC., MAHVASH
MAZGANI, NAZANIN MAZGANI, NEYAZ MAZGANI, MAHNAZ MOGHADDAM, and
SHOHREH SHARIFZADEH, Case No. 8:17-cv-00644-CJC-KES (C.D. Cal.).

Judge Carney granted in substantial part the Defendants' motion to
deny class certification as to the Plaintiff's proposed class
under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) or 23(b)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and as to the Plaintiff's two proposed subclasses.
Judge Carney directed the Plaintiff to file a motion for class
certification by October 24, 2017, under Rule 23(b)(3).

On March 13, 2017, Iraj Khosroabadi filed the case in Orange
County Superior Court, which was removed to the District Court on
April 7, 2017.  The First Amended Complaint, filed on June 14,
2017, alleges seven causes of action against the Defendants
arising out of the Plaintiff's interactions with the Defendants
regarding his application for Social Security benefits.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Fbk8mApP


MDL 2124: Calif. Court Recommends Termination of MDL Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIFE
TREND INSURANCE MARKETING & SALES PRACTICE LITIGATION. This
Document Relates To All Cases, Case No. 10-md-02124-SI (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California recommended to the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation that the Panel terminate this
multidistrict litigation proceeding at this time.

In February 2010, the MDL Panel issued an order that three actions
against Defendant Conseco Life be transferred to the Court.  In
March 2010, the Court consolidated the actions into the Brady
Action, and a nationwide class was certified in October 2010, with
a subclass certified in December 2010.

In December 2011, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, the Court granted in part the Defendant's
motion to decertify the class.  On Nov. 8, 2013, the parties to
the Brady Action agreed to a settlement and the Court issued final
approval of the class action settlement.  It issued a final
judgment in the class action case that same day.

Plaintiffs William Burnett and Joe Camp were members of the class
originally certified in the Brady Action but were excluded from
the class following the partial decertification order.  On Oct. 5,
2012, Burnett and Camp filed suit in the Central District of
California.  The MDL Panel transferred the case as a tag-along to
the Court in November 2012.

On April 9, 2015, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint without leave to amend and entered judgment
against the Plaintiffs.  With all actions under Case No. 10-md-
2124 closed, on Sept. 8, 2015, the Court issued an order
terminating the MDL action and directing the Clerk of the Court to
close the file in each underlying case.

On May 4, 2017, the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum reversing
the dismissal of the Burnett/Camp Action and remanding the case to
the Court.  Following a hearing on Aug. 18, 2017, the Court issued
an order suggesting that the MDL Panel remand the Burnett/Camp
Action to the transferor court.

The MDL Panel issued a conditional remand order, which became
final on Sept. 6, 2017.  Therefore, all of the cases in this MDL
have now settled or have been remanded to the transferor court.

Accordingly, Judge Illston recommended to the MDL Panel that the
Panel terminate this multidistrict litigation proceeding at this
time.  Should the MDL Panel accept the Court's recommendation, the
Clerk of the Court will close the MDL No. 2124 master file (No.
3:10-md-02124-SI) without further order of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 6, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/wjlH9K from Leagle.com.

Cedric Brady, Plaintiff, represented by Barry I. Buckman --
buchmanb@gotofirm.com -- Gilbert LLP.

Cedric Brady, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Heffelfinger -- cheffelfinger@bermantabacco.com -- Berman Tabacco,
Derek Y. Sugimura -- dsugimura@wmclaw.com -- Weisbrod Matteis and
Copley PLLC, pro hac vice, Craig J. Litherland --
litherlandc@gotofirm.com -- Gilbert LLP & Joshua N. Katz, Gilbert
LLP.

Dr. Charles Hovden, Plaintiff, represented by Barry I. Buckman,
Gilbert LLP, Derek Y. Sugimura, Weisbrod Matteis and Copley PLLC,
pro hac vice, Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Berman Tabacco, Craig
J. Litherland, Gilbert LLP & Joshua N. Katz -- jkatz@wmclaw.com --
Gilbert LLP.

Marion Hovden, Plaintiff, represented by Barry I. Buckman, Gilbert
LLP, Derek Y. Sugimura, Weisbrod Matteis and Copley PLLC, pro hac
vice, Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Berman Tabacco, Craig J.
Litherland, Gilbert LLP & Joshua N. Katz, Gilbert LLP.

Dr. Eugene Kreps, Plaintiff, represented by Barry I. Buckman,
Gilbert LLP, Derek Y. Sugimura, Weisbrod Matteis and Copley PLLC,
pro hac vice, Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Berman Tabacco, Craig
J. Litherland, Gilbert LLP & Joshua N. Katz, Gilbert LLP.

Dr. John McNamara, Plaintiff, represented by Barry I. Buckman,
Gilbert LLP, Derek Y. Sugimura, Weisbrod Matteis and Copley PLLC,
pro hac vice, Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Berman Tabacco, Craig
J. Litherland, Gilbert LLP & Joshua N. Katz, Gilbert LLP.

Dr. Hisaji Sakai, Plaintiff, represented by Barry I. Buckman,
Gilbert LLP, Derek Y. Sugimura, Weisbrod Matteis and Copley PLLC,
pro hac vice, Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Berman Tabacco, Craig
J. Litherland, Gilbert LLP & Joshua N. Katz, Gilbert LLP.

Jean Sakai, Plaintiff, represented by Barry I. Buckman, Gilbert
LLP, Derek Y. Sugimura, Weisbrod Matteis and Copley PLLC, pro hac
vice, Craig J. Litherland, Gilbert LLP & Joshua N. Katz, Gilbert
LLP.

Bill W. McFarland, Plaintiff, represented by Barry I. Buckman,
Gilbert LLP, Bing Ryan, Berman DeValerio, Christopher T.
Heffelfinger, Berman Tabacco, Derek Y. Sugimura, Weisbrod Matteis
and Copley PLLC, pro hac vice, Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Berman
Tabacco, Craig J. Litherland, Gilbert LLP, Donald R. Fountain,
Jr., Lytal, Reiter, Clark, Fountain & Williams, LLP, Ernest
Clayton Harland, II -- ech@harlandlawjacksonville.com -- Harland
Law Firm, PA, Joshua N. Katz, Gilbert LLP, Kevin J. Kulik --
info@kuliklawfirm.com -- Kevin J. Kulik, PA, Michael J. Pucillo --
mpucillo@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman Devalerio Pease Tabacco et
al, Nancy Lee La Vista, Lytal, Reiter, Clark, Fountain & Williams,
LLP & Robert F. Kulik, Kulik Law Firm.

WILLIAM R MULDROW, Plaintiff, represented by Barry I. Buckman,
Gilbert LLP, Derek Y. Sugimura, Weisbrod Matteis and Copley PLLC,
pro hac vice, Craig J. Litherland, Gilbert LLP, Joshua N. Katz,
Gilbert LLP & ROBERT WOOLFORK, ROBERT WOOLFORK PA.

Conseco, Inc., Defendant, represented by David S. Clancy, Skadden
Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, James R. Carroll --
james.carroll@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
LLP, Rachel Adi Naor -- rachel.naor@alston.com -- Alston & Bird
LLP & Raoul Dion Kennedy -- raoul.kennedy@skadden.com -- Skadden
Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP.

Conseco Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Abra C.
Bron -- abra.bron@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and
Flom LLP, Adam J. Kaiser, Alston & Bird LLP, Adam J. Kaiser --
adam.kaiser@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, Carl Christopher
Scherz -- cscherz@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP, Carl
Christopher Scherz, Christopher A. Lisy --
christopher.lisy@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom LLP, David S. Clancy, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP,
James Harlan Bilton -- jbilton@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP,
James R. Carroll, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, John
Aerni -- john.aerni@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, Rachel Adi
Naor, Alston & Bird LLP, Raoul Dion Kennedy, Skadden Arps Slate
Meagher & Flom LLP & Regina Jill McClendon --
rmcclendon@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP.

CDOC Inc, Defendant, represented by David S. Clancy, Skadden Arps
Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Raoul Dion Kennedy, Skadden Arps Slate
Meagher & Flom LLP & Rachel Adi Naor, Alston & Bird LLP.

CNO Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by David S. Clancy,
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, John Aerni, Alston & Bird
LLP, Raoul Dion Kennedy, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP,
Adam J. Kaiser, Alston & Bird LLP & Rachel Adi Naor, Alston & Bird
LLP.

CNO Financial Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by David S.
Clancy, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, John Aerni, Alston
& Bird LLP, Adam J. Kaiser, Alston & Bird LLP & Rachel Adi Naor,
Alston & Bird LLP.

Milliman, Inc., Defendant, represented by Megan Oliver-Thompson,
Hanson Bridgett LLP & Rachel Adi Naor, Alston & Bird LLP.

Wilton Reassurance Company, Interested Party, represented by Carl
Christopher Scherz, James Harlan Bilton, Locke Lord LLP, pro hac
vice, Carl Christopher Scherz, Locke Lord LLP, Regina Jill
McClendon, Locke Lord LLP & Stephanie Ann Wraight, Locke Lord LLP.


MEDICAL CASE: "Turner" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Turner, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Medical Case Management & Social
Services, Inc., Bonnie Ramsey, Donald Ramsey, Yatasha Jackson and
Portia Jones, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00836-O (N.D. Tex.,
Oct. 13, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime
compensation under Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly, willfully,
or with reckless disregard carried out their illegal pattern or
practice of failing to pay overtime compensation with respect to
Plaintiff and the Class Members. Defendants were aware that
overtime pay was required for hourly employees but ignored the
FLSA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
          1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100
          Southlake, TX 76092-4322
          Telephone: 817 416 5060
          Facsimile: 817 416 5062
          E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com


MERCURY PAYMENT: Webster Appeals Decision in Champs Sports Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Interested party Aaron Webster filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit styled Champs Sports Bar & Grill Co., et al. v.
Mercury Payment Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-00012-MHC, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
seeks return of all monies allegedly obtained by Mercury, with
interest, as well as punitive damages, declaratory relief,
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs of suit.

Mercury Payment Systems provides payments technology and services
for small and medium sized businesses, merchants, and resellers in
the United States and Canada.

The appellate case is captioned as Champs Sports Bar & Grill Co.,
et al. v. Aaron Webster, et al., Case No. 17-14361, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the
Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before
October 27, 2017, as to Appellees Archer's Barbecue, LLC and
Champs Sports Bar & Grill Co.[BN]

Interested Party-Appellant AARON WEBSTER is represented by:

          Eric Alan Isaacson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ERIC ALAN ISAACSON
          6580 Avenida Mirola
          La Jolla, CA 92037-6231
          Telephone: (858) 263-9581
          E-mail: ericalanisaacson@icloud.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Allen Kershaw, Esq.
          FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP
          100 Galleria Pkwy. SE, Suite 1600
          Atlanta, GA 30339-5948
          Telephone: (770) 818-0000

               - and -

          Charles Alfred Sturm, Esq.
          STURM LAW OFFICE
          712 Main St., Suite 900
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 955-1800

               - and -

          R. Patrick White, Esq.
          CASEY GILSON, PC
          980 Hammond Dr., Suite 800
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (770) 512-0300
          Facsimile: (770) 512-0070
          E-mail: pwhite@gilsonathans.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees CHAMPS SPORTS BAR & GRILL CO.;
FASHIONADVICE.COM, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated doing business as Sam Malouf; ARCHER'S
BARBECUE, LLC; and WOKCHOW DEVELOPMENT, LLC, are represented by:

          Mark Abramowitz, Esq.
          Mark A. DiCello, Esq.
          Robert F. DiCello, Esq.
          THE DICELLO LAW FIRM
          7556 Mentor Ave.
          Mentor, OH 44060
          Telephone: (440) 953-8888
          Facsimile: (440) 953-9138
          E-mail: marka@dicellolaw.com
                  madicello@dicellolaw.com
                  rfdicello@dicellolaw.com

               - and -

          David Marc Buckner, Esq.
          GROSSMAN ROTH, PA
          2525 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 1150
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 442-8666
          Facsimile: (305) 285-1668
          E-mail: dbu@grossmanroth.com

               - and -

          Kenneth S. Canfield, Esq.
          DOFFERMYRE SHIELDS CANFIELD & KNOWLES, LLC
          1355 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 1600
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-8900
          Facsimile: (404) 881-3007
          E-mail: kcanfield@dsckd.com

               - and -

          Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          1101 Market St., Suite 2650
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 864-2800
          Facsimile: (215) 864-2810
          E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Nyran R. Rasche, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          150 S Wacker Dr., Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 782-4880
          E-mail: nrasche@caffertyclobes.com

               - and -

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER, PA
          30 N Lasalle St., Suite 2350
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 214-0001
          E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Kyle J. McGee, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER, PA
          123 Justison St.
          Wilmington, DE 19801-1165
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000
          E-mail: kmcgee@gelaw.com

               - and -

          John Roddy, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          99 High St.
          Boston, MA 02211
          Telephone: (617) 439-6730
          Facsimile: (617) 951-3954
          E-mail: jroddy@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          David L. Selby, II, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          3000 Riverchase Galleria, Suite 905
          Birmingham, AL 35244
          Telephone: (205) 988-9253
          Facsimile: (205) 313-6492
          E-mail: dselby@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Edward Adam Webb, Esq.
          WEBB KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
          1900 The Exchange SE, Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339-2049
          Telephone: (770) 444-9325
          E-mail: eadamwebb@hotmail.com


MESSERLI & KRAMER: Class Certification Sought in "Czarnecki" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sally Czarnecki and James Menear move the Court to certify the
class described in the complaint of the lawsuit titled
SALLY CZARNECKI and JAMES MENEAR, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. MESSERLI & KRAMER, P.A., Case No.
2:17-cv-01304-WED (E.D. Wisc.), and further ask that the Court
both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the
Plaintiffs (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting
automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting
material to be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiffs assert, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

The Plaintiffs are obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiffs
contend.  More than one defendant has already attempted the scheme
contemplated in Campbell-Ewald.  See Severns v. Eastern Account
Systems of Connecticut, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1168, 2016 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 23164 (E.D. Wis. Feb. 24, 2016).  Judge Randa denied the
defendant's request to deposit funds on grounds that a class
certification motion was pending.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives, and to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ThYA2zWa

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com


MIAMI SUBS: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Southern District of Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Miami Subs
Corporation. The case is styled as Andres Gomez, on his own and on
behalf of all other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Miami Subs Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 41:17-cv-23768-PAS
(S.D. Fla., October 13, 2017).

Miami Subs Corporation owns, operates, and franchises restaurants
in the United States and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Pamela Elizabeth Chavez, Esq.
   The Advocacy Group, P.A.
   333 Las Olas, Suite CU3-311
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 282-1858
   Fax: (844) 786-3694
   Email: pchavez@advocacypa.com

      - and -

   Jessica Lynn Kerr, Esq.
   Jessica L.Kerr, P.A. dba The Advocacy Group
   333 Las Olas Way, Suite CU3-311
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
   Tel: (954) 282-1858
   Fax: (844) 786-3694
   Email: service@advocacypa.com


MERRILL LYNCH: "Porter" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Porter, and all others similarly-situated v. Merrill
Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-08043 (D.N.J.,
October 9, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour
Law.

Plaintiff Jenifer Porter is a resident of Somerset County, New
Jersey.  Plaintiff was employed as an email reviewer for Defendant
from August 1999 to April 2017.

Defendant Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc. was a public
traded company until 2009 when it was acquired by Bank of America
and became known as Merrill Lynch Wealth Management, a wealth
management division of Bank of America.  Merrill Lynch Pierce
Fenner & Smith, Inc. is a registered broker-dealer and wholly-
owned subsidiary of Bank of America.  Defendant Merrill is a
Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in New
York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Pechman, Esq.
      Gianfranco J. Cuadra, Esq.
      PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
      488 Madison Avenue 17th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 583-9500
      E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
              cuadra@pechmanlaw.com

          - and -

      Mitchell Schley, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SCHLEY, LLC
      197 Route 18, Suite 3000
      East Brunswick, NJ 08816
      Tel: (732) 325-0318
      E-mail: mschley@schleylaw.com


MODERNIZE INC: "Morris" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Sylvia Morris, and all others similarly-situated v. Modernize
Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00963 (W.D. Tex., October 9, 2017), is
brought against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff Sylvia Morris is a resident of Carrollton, Texas.

Defendant Modernize provides guidance to homeowners on home
improvement and solar installation projects and connects them to
contractors to do the work. Defendant's principal place of
business is in Austin, Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
      Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
      HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
      2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120
      Galleria Tower I
      Houston, TX 77056
      Tel: (713) 554-2377
      Fax: (888) 995-3335
      E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com
              jarrett@hughesellzey.com

          - and -

      Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      888 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel: (646) 837-7150
      Fax: (212) 989-9163
      E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com


MONKEY BAR: "Zaman" Suit Seeks OT Compensation under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
MD KAMRUL ZAMAN, AKIKUR CHOWDHURY, AND ALFONZO GALIENDO, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
MONKEY BAR NEW YORK, LLC, MONKEY BAR L.P., GRAYDON CARTER, ANNA
CARTER, JEFF KLEIN, and KEN FRIEDMAN, the Defendants, Case No.
519847/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 13, 2017), seeks to recover
minimum wages, overtime compensation, misappropriated tips, and
other damages for Plaintiffs and their similarly situated co-
workers -- servers, bartenders, bussers, barbacks, food runners,
and other similarly situated non-managerial employees (Tipped
Workers) -- who work or have worked at Monkey Bar located at 60
East 54th Street, New York, New York.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to provide
Plaintiffs and other Tipped Workers with proper notification of
the tipped minimum wage rate or tip credit provisions of the New
York Labor Law (NYLL) or the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), or
of their intent to apply a tip credit to Plaintiffs' and other
Tipped Workers' wages.

The Defendants are in the restaurant business.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300 0375

The Defendant is represented by:

          Carolyn D. Richmond, Esq.
          Raquel Gutierrez, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
          101 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10178
          Telephone: (212) 878 7983
          E-mail: crichmond@foxrothschild.com
                  rgutierrez@foxrothschild.com


MORNING CALL: "Hernandez" Wins Conditional Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eldon A. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana granted the Plaintiff's Motion to
conditionally certify a class in the case captioned HERNANDEZ, v.
MORNING CALL COFFEE STAND, INC., SECTION "L" (1), Civil Action No.
17-2613 (E.D. La.).

Plaintiff Hernandez has filed this lawsuit as a putative class
action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated parties
to recover unpaid overtime wages.  She claims that, while she was
employed as a kitchen helper at the Defendant, she was not paid
one-and-a-half times her hourly wage for hours worked in excess of
40 hours per week.  She claims that all overtime hours were paid
in cash.

The Plaintiff files this lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA") and claims unpaid wages, interest, liquidated
damages, and attorney's fees and costs.  She also requests
declaratory and injunctive relief.  On June 15, 2017, the Court
entered the default of Defendant Morning Call because it has
failed to appear, plead, or otherwise defend.

The Plaintiff now seeks to maintain their case as a collective
class action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).  She also seeks
approval of their proposed notice, and requests that the Court
orders the Defendant to disclose information regarding potential
class members.  The Defendant has not responded to the Plaintiff's
motion.

The Plaintiff alleges that other similarly situated individuals
exist and has supported this allegation with her written
declaration and First Requests for Admission.  Because Defendant
has not timely responded to the Plaintiff's request for
admissions, the admissions are now deemed admitted pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36.  Therefore, the Defendant has
admitted that it employed at least 20 other workers and/or kitchen
helpers over the last three years and that it has a company-wide
policy of not paying its employees one-and-half times their hourly
rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

Judge Fallon concludes that the Plaintiff has satisfied their
burden of demonstrating they are similarly situated to the
purported class.  He accordingly granted the Plaintiff's Motion to
conditionally certify a class.

Furthermore, in the interests of effectiveness of the class remedy
and judicial economy, the Judge will exercise his discretionary
authority to facilitate notice to the potential opt-in Plaintiffs.
Because he finds that the Plaintiff's proposed notice is timely,
accurate, and informative, he approved the Plaintiff's proposed
notice, both English and Spanish versions.

Judge Fallon also approved an opt-in period of 90 days.  Finally,
in order to facilitate sending the notice and consent forms, and
in an effort to bring Defendant Morning Call into the present
lawsuit, he ordered the Defendant to provide the names and last
known addresses of potential class members.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 6, 2017 Order and Reasons is
available at https://is.gd/QB4053 from Leagle.com.

Antonia Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Emily Westermeier --
eaw@beaumontcostales.com -- Costales Law Office.

Antonia Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Roberto L. Costales -
- costaleslawoffice@gmail.com -- Costales Law Office & William
Henry Beaumont, William H. Beaumont Law.

Morning Call Coffee Stand, Inc., Defendant, Pro Se.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Livers Moves for Cert. of FLSA Collective
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned LAWRENCE "POPPY" LIVERS v.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, a/k/a the NCAA, et al.,
Case No. 2:17-cv-04271-MMB (E.D. Pa.), asks the Court to enter an
order conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act
collective, and ordering NCAA member schools to send, and publish,
notice.

The Scholarship Athlete Collective is defined as:

     All current and former NCAA Division I student athletes who
     received partial or full athletic scholarships at any time
     while on NCAA men's and women's sports rosters for private
     and semi-public NCAA Division I member schools from academic
     year 2014-15 to the present.

The litigation concerns NCAA bylaws, adopted through a legislative
process by NCAA member schools, which: (i) define the shared
responsibilities and benefits of the joint enterprise of the NCAA
and its member schools; (ii) are uniformly interpreted and applied
by member schools to insure a "level playing field" under threat
of competition and financial penalties issued by the NCAA for
failure to comply; and (iii) compel the unlawful conduct
complained of, i.e., defendants' joint refusal and failure to
properly classify the members of the Scholarship Athlete
Collective as employees and compensate them on a minimum wage
scale in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BEsVb82z

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul L. McDonald, Esq.
          P L MCDONALD LAW LLC
          1800 JFK Boulevard, Suite 300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 238-3835
          Facsimile: (267) 238-3801
          E-mail: paul@plmcdonaldlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lisa A. Schreter, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          3344 Peachtree Road NE, Suite 1500
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 233-0330
          Facsimile: (404) 233-2361
          E-mail: lschreter@littler.com

               - and -

          Paul DeCamp, Esq.
          EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
          1227 25th Street, NW, Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 861-1819
          Facsimile: (202) 861-3571
          E-mail: PDeCamp@ebglaw.com


NEW RESIDENTIAL: Stockholder's Derivative Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Vice Chancellor Tamika Montgomery-Reeves of the Court of Chancery
of Delaware granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned CHESTER COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT FUND, Plaintiff, v.
NEW RESIDENTIAL INVESTMENT CORP., WESLEY R. EDENS, MICHAEL
NIERENBERG, ALAN L. TYSON, DAVID SALTZMAN, KEVIN J. FINNERTY,
DOUGLAS L. JACOBS, FIG LLC, FORTRESS INVESTMENT GROUP LLC and
FORTRESS OPERATING ENTITY I LP, Defendants, C.A. No. 11058-VCMR
(Del. Ch.).

In this action, a stockholder of New Residential purports to
assert direct and derivative breach of fiduciary duty claims
against the members of the New Residential board of directors, New
Residential's manager FIG, LLC, FIG's owner Fortress Operating
Entity I LP ("FOE I"), and Fortress Investment Group, LLC, which
allegedly controls New Residential, FIG, and FOE I.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants caused New Residential
to overpay for the assets of Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd.
("HLSS") in order to advantage other real estate assets of
Fortress and to maximize management fees, incentive compensation,
and stock option awards to Fortress and its affiliates.  The
Plaintiff also seeks a declaratory judgment that a termination
agreement between HLSS and New Residential purporting to release
all New Residential stockholder claims against HLSS is not a valid
defense in this action.

This is the Plaintiff's third opportunity to challenge New
Residential's purchase of the HLSS assets and related
transactions.  The Plaintiff filed its original Complaint in the
case on May 22, 2015 and its First Amended Complaint on Oct. 30,
2015.  Vice Chancellor Montgomery-Reeves granted the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend
on Oct. 7, 2016.  After she denied the Plaintiff's Motion for
Reargument on Dec. 1, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the Second Amended
Verified Class Action and Derivative Complaint on Feb. 27, 2017.

On March 30, 2017, Defendants move to dismiss this complaint under
Court of Chancery Rules 23.1 and 12(b)(6).  They argue that all of
the Plaintiff's claims are derivative claims for corporate
overpayment.  They Defendants contend that a majority of the New
Residential board is disinterested and independent, and that even
if a majority of the board is beholden to Fortress, Fortress is
not interested in the underlying transactions.

The Defendants also argue that the complaint should be dismissed
as to Fortress, FOE I, and FIG because they are not controlling
stockholders and do not owe fiduciary duties to New Residential.
As to the declaratory judgment claim, they contend that the
Plaintiff's claim is not ripe because the Defendants have not
raised the termination agreement as a defense.

Vice Chancellor Montgomery-Reeves heard oral argument on the
Motion to Dismiss on July 7, 2017.  She holds that the facts
alleged give rise to a derivative claim.  The Plaintiff, however,
has not pled particularized facts sufficient to raise a reasonable
doubt that a majority of the directors on the New Residential
board could have exercised their independent and disinterested
business judgment in responding to a demand.

The Vice Chancellor does not find the board's decision to purchase
the assets of HLSS to be of the rare cases in which a transaction
may be so egregious on its face that board approval cannot meet
the test of business judgment, and a substantial likelihood of
director liability therefore exists.  As a result, demand is not
excused as futile.  Further, she holds that the Plaintiff's
declaratory judgment claim is not ripe for judicial review.  As
such, Vice Chancellor Montgomery-Reeves granted the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 6, 2017 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/s0DB21 from Leagle.com.

Michael Hanrahan -- mhanrahan@prickett.com -- Paul A. Fioravanti,
Jr. -- pafioravanti@prickett.com -- Corinne Elise Amato --
ceamato@prickett.com -- and Kevin H. Davenport --
khdavenport@prickett.com -- PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A.,
Wilmington, Delaware; Marc A. Topaz -- mtopaz@ktmc.com -- Lee D.
Rudy -- lrudy@ktmc.com -- Michael C. Wagner -- mwagner@ktmc.com --
and Stacey A. Greenspan -- sgreenspan@ktmc.com -- KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK LLP, Radnor, Pennsylvania; Attorneys for
Plaintiff.

Robert S. Saunders -- rob.saunders@skadden.com -- Ronald N. Brown,
III -- ron.brown@skadden.com -- Sarah R. Martin --
sarah.martin@skadden.com -- and Elisa M.C. Klein --
elisa.klein@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM
LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Scott D. Musoff --
scott.musoff@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM
LLP, New York, New York; Attorneys for Defendants.


NICARAGUA: Amended "Robertson" Suit Dismissed w/o Leave to Amend
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOSEPHENIE ROBERTSON, Plaintiff, v. THE
REPUBLIC OF NICARAGUA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00852-
JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California granted the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the amended complaint; and denied the Plaintiff's
motions for sanctions and for judicial clarification.

The case stems from an internal conflict that has taken place for
centuries within the borders of the present-day Republic of
Nicaragua involving the Miskitu, a Native American ethnic group.
The Court dismissed the original complaint, with leave to amend.

The Court granted the Plaintiff's request to extend the deadline
to file an amended complaint, and she timely filed an amended
complaint before the extended deadline.

In the amended complaint, Robertson alleges that she is the
Matriarch of the Miskitu Nation, Miskitu Peoples (Twelve Tribes)
and a traditional royal representative of the Miskitu Government-
in-Exile, which is the sole recognized legal entity representing
the overwhelming majority of the Miskitu peoples in Nicaragua and
worldwide.  She incorporates paragraphs 1-30 of the original
complaint and adds several paragraphs detailing the history of the
Miskitu people.

The amended complaint continues to allege that the Defendants
Republic of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, Rosario Murillo, and the
Sandinista Party engaged in the taking and expropriation of
Miskitu territories, lands, natural resources, waters, livestock,
and other property without compensation in violation of
international law.

The amended complaint also adds as a Defendant Infinity Energy
Resources, Inc.  Infinity has not yet been served and has not made
an appearance in this lawsuit.

The Court previously dismissed all claims with respect to the
putative class except Plaintiff Robertson's individual claim
brought on her own behalf because an unrepresented plaintiff may
not bring class claims.  The amended complaint nonetheless
includes class allegations, and the caption names Robertson and
"all other Miskitu Indigenous peoples" as the Plaintiffs.  The
amended complaint also asserts intent to join Ercell Hendy Twaska
Fleurima as a second plaintiff proceeding on her own behalf.  The
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

Even when construing the complaint liberally, Judge Tigar
concludes that the amended complaint continues to assert political
questions over which the Court lacks jurisdiction.  Robertson has
already had one opportunity to amend the complaint, and it is
clear to the Court that she could not cure this deficiency if
given further leave to amend.  Accordingly, the amended complaint
is dismissed without leave to amend.

Robertson has filed a motion for sanctions based on allegations
that an attorney from the Indian Law Center, Mr. Armstrong A.
Wiggins, has engaged in improper ex parte communications with this
Court.  Judge Tigar says the Court has had no communications with
Mr. Wiggins.  The Defendants' counsel also state that they have
neither had contact with Mr. Wiggins nor directed anyone to have
contact with him about this matter.  Accordingly, he denied the
motion for sanctions.

With respect to Robertson's previously filed a motion "for
judicial clarification" in which she asked for appointment of
counsel and for leave for certain Plaintiffs to proceed under Doe
pseudonyms, the Court previously denied appointment of counsel,
and Judge Tigar does not find good cause to reconsider that
ruling.  Therefore, the motion for leave to proceed pseudonymously
is denied as moot following the dismissal of this action.

For these reasons, Judge Tigar denied Robertson's motions for
sanctions and for judicial clarification.  He granted without
leave to amend the Defendants' motion to dismiss.  The Clerk is
directed to enter judgment and close the file.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 6, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/geuVPt from Leagle.com.

Josephenie Robertson, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

The Republic of Nicaragua, Defendant, represented by Philip C.
Swain -- pswain@foleyhoag.com -- Foley Hoag LLP, Andrew Z.
Schwartz -- aschwartz@foleyhoag.com -- Foley Hoag LLP, pro hac
vice & Christopher A. Nedeau, Nedeau Law Firm.

Daniel Ortega, Defendant, represented by Philip C. Swain, Foley
Hoag LLP, Andrew Z. Schwartz, Foley Hoag LLP, pro hac vice &
Christopher A. Nedeau, Nedeau Law Firm.

Rosario Murillo, Defendant, represented by Philip C. Swain, Foley
Hoag LLP, Andrew Z. Schwartz, Foley Hoag LLP, pro hac vice &
Christopher A. Nedeau, Nedeau Law Firm.

Sandinista Party, Defendant, represented by Philip C. Swain, Foley
Hoag LLP, Andrew Z. Schwartz, Foley Hoag LLP, pro hac vice &
Christopher A. Nedeau, Nedeau Law Firm.


NIPPON EXPRESS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cristina Carrillo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Nippon Express NEC Logistics America Inc. and Does 1-
20, inclusive, Case No. BC678841 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 10,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for all overtime hours worked, provide meal
periods, provide paid rest periods, and timely furnish accurate
itemized wage statements.

Nippon Express NEC Logistics America Inc. is in the business of
providing freight forwarding services, including import and export
clearance services, air and sea freight shipping operation
management, warehouse operation and management, and shipping and
delivery management. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sam Kim, Esq.
      Yoonis Han, Esq.
      VERUM LAW GROUP, APC
      841 Apollo Street, Suite 340
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (424) 320-2000
      Facsimile: (424) 221-5010
      E-mail: skim@verumlg.com

         - and -

      Paul Lee, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF PAUL J. LEE
      2161 W. 182nd Street, Suite 204
      Torrance, CA 90504
      Telephone: (310) 844-7827
      Facsimile: (310) 294-9963


PACWEST ENERGY: Accused by "Nelson" Suit of Violating EFTA
----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Nelson and Louis Fisher, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Pacwest Energy, LLC dba Jacksons Car
Wash, Case No. 2:17-cv-03304-DJH (D. Ariz., September 22, 2017),
alleges violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.

In December 2016, Mr. Fisher took his vehicle to one of the
Defendant's locations and signed up for a month of car washes.
His debit card accesses a Bank of America checking account owned
by both the Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs established their bank
account for personal, family, or household purposes.  In June
2017, the Plaintiffs noticed that -- despite only purchasing a
month of car washes -- the Defendant had continued to debit their
bank account every month since December 2016, without obtaining
their signed written authorization before repeatedly debiting
their account.

Pacwest Energy, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company that
does business as Jacksons Car Wash.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq.
          Joseph Panvini, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
          5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (602) 388-8898
          Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
          E-mail: rthompson@consumerlawinfo.com
                  jpanvini@consumerlawinfo.com


PENN CREDIT: Court Dismisses "Nitti" FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, Richmond Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned ROBERT A. NITTI,
Plaintiff, v. PENN CREDIT CORPORATION, Defendant, Civil Action No.
3:17CV422-HEH (E. D. Va.).

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Penn Credit
Corporation's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint.

Defendant is a debt collector that regularly operates in this
district. Defendant has contracted with the Virginia Department of
Taxation to collect Virginia individual income taxes.
Defendant is aware of the statute of limitations for individual
income tax collection. Nevertheless, Defendant does not
investigate or have any procedure to verify whether the tax debts
it attempts to collect are time-barred. Defendant merely sends
letters to all individuals identified by the Virginia Department
of Taxation as persons owing tax debts.  Plaintiff asserts that
this behavior violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA).

The entirety of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint distills to an
allegation that Defendant violated the FDCPA by representing that
Plaintiff's debt was collectible, when at least part of the debt
had been incurred outside the limitation period for the collection
of individual income taxes in Virginia.

Plaintiff fails to advance any such risk-based arguments with
regard to his own purported injury and instead rests his case for
standing solely on the injuries newly alleged in the proposed
Second Amended Complaint. For the reasons stated previously, the
Court cannot and does not consider those allegations.

Because Plaintiff does not demonstrate that the alleged statutory
violation put him at any risk of real future harm or that the bare
statutory violation constituted a concrete injury based on both
history and the judgment of Congress, the Court finds that
Plaintiff has failed to plead facts showing that he has standing
to sue.  As a result, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction,
and the action must be dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 2, 2017
Memorandum Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9m4gwfd
from Leagle.com.

Robert A. Nitti, Plaintiff, represented by Gary Michael Bowman,
Gary M. Bowman, 2728 Colonial Ave SW, Roanoke, VA 24015, USA
Penn Credit Corporation, Defendant, represented by David Neal
Anthony -- david.anthony@troutman.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP,
Meagan Anne Mihalko -- meagan.mihalko@troutman.com -- Troutman
Sanders LLP & Reiss Frederick Wilks, Troutman Sanders LLP, 1001
Haxall Point Ste 1500. PO Box 1122. Richmond, VA 23218-1122


PENNSYLVANIA INTERSCHOLASTIC: Ruling in Negligence Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Jonathan Hites, Kaela Zingaro, Samuel Teolis
on Behalf of Minor Domenic Teolis, Individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated, v. Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic
Association, Inc., Appellant, Case No. 8 C.D. 2017 (Pa. Cmmw.),
Judge Robert Simpon of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
affirmed the trial court's order sustaining in part and overruling
in part the PIAA's preliminary objections to certify this case for
immediate appeal pursuant to Section 702(b) of the Judicial Code.

In this interlocutory appeal by permission, PIAA asks whether the
Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County ("trial court") erred in
overruling, in part, its preliminary objections to the negligence
suit filed by the Plaintiffs.  Through their complaint, the
Plaintiffs seek to recover damages arising from concussion-related
injuries inflicted during participation in PIAA-regulated sports.

In response to the Complaint, the PIAA filed preliminary
objections.  Specifically, the PIAA objected to the legal
sufficiency of the Complaint, asserting the Plaintiffs' averments
were insufficient to state a claim for which relief may be
granted.  After briefing and argument, the trial court issued a
thorough and thoughtful 65-page opinion in which it sustained in
part and overruled in part the PIAA's preliminary objections.

Thereafter, the PIAA filed an application, asking the trial court
to amend its order sustaining in part and overruling in part the
PIAA's preliminary objections to certify this case for immediate
appeal pursuant to Section 702(b) of the Judicial Code.  The
Plaintiffs opposed the PIAA's application.

Ultimately, the trial court issued an opinion in which it first
explained that a complicating factor in arriving at an appropriate
resolution of the PIAA's application was the fact that, in
response to the trial court's order sustaining in part and
overruling in part the PIAA's preliminary objections, the
Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint to which the PIAA filed
preliminary objections that were awaiting argument.  However, the
trial court explained, the first amended complaint did not
eliminate any of the issues that were the subject of the trial
court's prior rulings.

Thus, the trial court opined that its rulings on the issues set
forth involved controlling questions of law as to which there was
a substantial ground for difference of opinion, and that an
immediate appeal of those rulings might materially advance the
ultimate termination of the matter.  As such, the trial court
granted the PIAA's application to certify this case for immediate
appeal under 42 Pa. C.S. Section 702(b).

The PIAA subsequently filed a petition for permission to appeal to
this Court, which the Plaintiffs opposed.  Ultimately, this Court
issued an order granting the PIAA's petition limited to the four
issues stated.

The four issues before the Court at this time relate solely to
negligence claims: (i) whether the claims are non-justiciable due
to the effect of the Safety in Youth Sports Act ("SYSA"); (ii)
whether the Plaintiffs are barred from recovery as a matter of
law, because of the "inherent risk/no duty" rule; (iii) whether
the Plaintiffs are unable to establish the requisite "duty" as an
element of their negligence cause of action because the "duty" may
not be imposed on the PIAA as a matter of public policy; and, (iv)
whether the Plaintiffs failed to aver facts to show the requisite
causation.

Judge Simpson finds that no error is apparent in the trial court's
decision to overrule the PIAA's preliminary objection to the
Plaintiffs' negligence claims on the ground that, based on the
enactment of the SYSA, those claims involve non-justiciable issues
reserved for the Legislature.  Noticeably absent from the SYSA is
any mention of the PIAA.  The SYSA does extend immunity to
compliant coaches, who may or may not be school employees.  In
sum, there is no indication that the General Assembly, through
enactment of the SYSA, intended to eliminate civil suits such as
the suit filed by the Plaintiffs against the PIAA.

While the Judge is skeptical of the Plaintiffs' "splintered"
approach to defining risk, he generally agrees with the trial
court that dismissal of the Plaintiffs' negligence claims on the
basis of the "inherent risk/no duty" rule would be premature at
this stage.  To that end, his review of the averments set forth in
the Complaint reveals that the Plaintiffs do not focus solely on
the initial contact itself, concussions incurred, and the usual
resulting harm.  Instead, they also allege they suffered harm as a
result of the PIAA's alleged pre- and post-concussion negligent
conduct.

Accepting the averments as true and affording the Plaintiffs the
benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from those
averments, as he must at this stage, Judge Simpson cannot conclude
that the Complaint shows with the required certainty that the
Plaintiffs are barred from recovery by application of the
"inherent risk/no duty" rule.

Judge Simpson rejects the PIAA's assertions that, as a matter of
public policy, the duties the Plaintiffs allege may not be imposed
on the PIAA.  The PIAA references cases which it asserts stand for
the proposition that Pennsylvania courts do not interfere with the
PIAA's decision-making.  However, none of the cases cited by the
PIAA involved tort suits such as the negligence claims alleged by
the Plaintiffs here.  The PIAA offers no developed explanation as
to how these cases apply here.

Finally, his review of the Complaint supports the trial court's
determination that, at this early stage of the proceedings, the
Plaintiffs aver sufficient facts to show the PIAA's pre- and post-
concussion acts or omissions were a substantial factor in bringing
about the harm allegedly suffered by them.

Therefore, as to the allegations set forth, no error is apparent
in the trial court's rejection of the PIAA's assertion that the
Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege proximate cause.  Moreover,
to the extent the Complaint's averments are lacking with regard to
the element of proximate cause, as stated, the Plaintiffs filed a
first amended complaint that appears to bolster their original
averments regarding causation.

For these reasons, Judge Simpson affirmed the order of the trial
court, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings
consistent with his Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 10, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/qSjNDu from Leagle.com.

Andrew George Kimball -- akimball@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP,
for Appellant, Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association,
Inc.

Richard Todd Victoria -- rvictoria@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully
Mansukhani, LLP, for Appellant, Pennsylvania Interscholastic
Athletic Association, Inc.

Alexander Wilson P. Saksen, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP,
for Appellant, Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association,
Inc.

Lauren Michelle Kelly -- lkelly@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully
Mansukhani, LLP, for Appellant, Pennsylvania Interscholastic
Athletic Association, Inc.

Justin Kyle Edelson -- jedelson@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC,
for Amicus Curiae, National Federation of State High School
Associations.

Robert N. Peirce, Jr., Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C., for
Appellee, Kaela Zingaro.

Joseph Samuel Bellissimo, Bellissimo & Peirce, for Appellee, Kaela
Zingaro.

Daniel Aaron Rihn, Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C., for Appellee,
Kaela Zingaro.

Jason Alan Medure, Medure Bonner Bellissimo Peirce & Daley, LLC,
for Appellee, Kaela Zingaro.

Rebecca Bell Stanton, Carpenter & Schumacher PC., for Appellee,
Kaela Zingaro.

Robert N. Peirce, Jr., Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C., for
Appellee, Samuel Teolis.

Joseph Samuel Bellissimo, Bellissimo & Peirce, for Appellee,
Samuel Teolis.

Daniel Aaron Rihn, Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C., for Appellee,
Samuel Teolis.

Jason Alan Medure, Medure Bonner Bellissimo Peirce & Daley, LLC.,
for Appellee, Samuel Teolis.

Rebecca Bell Stanton, Carpenter & Schumacher PC., for Appellee,
Samuel Teolis.


PERFORMANT FINANCIAL: "Glick" Suit Tossed w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TIMOTHY GLICK, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PERFORMANT FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-05461-JST (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the parties' Stipulation to Dismiss
the Plaintiff's individual claim with prejudice, and to dismiss
without prejudice the putative class action claims asserted by the
Plaintiff pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).

Defendant Performant Recovery, Inc. was erroneously sued and
served as Performant Financial Corp.  Each party is to bear their
respective attorneys' fees and costs.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 10, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/055lH6 from Leagle.com.

Timothy Glick, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Toshiyuki Drury -
- admin@lozeaudrury.com -- Lozeau Drury LLP.

Timothy Glick, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick Harry Peluso --
ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com -- Woodrow & Peluso, LLC, pro hac vice,
Rebecca Leah Davis, Lozeau Drury LLP, Stefan Coleman --
Law@StefanColeman.com -- Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, P.A. &
Steven Lezell Woodrow -- swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com -- Woodrow &
Peluso, LLC, pro hac vice.

Performant Financial Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Stephen Albert Watkins -- WatkinsS@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson and
Messer LLP, Charles Robert Messer -- messerc@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson
& Messer LLP & Jeanne Louise Zimmer -- zimmerj@cmtlaw.com --
Carlson & Messer LLP.


PETRA CONSULTANTS: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, Ness Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY NESS, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v.
PETRA CONSULTANTS, INC., Case No. 6:17-cv-01213 (W.D. La.,
September 22, 2017), alleges that the Defendant failed to pay
overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Founded in 1996, Petra Consultants provides engineering, design,
project management, and inspection services to oil and gas
producers.  Petra Consultants has employees providing services in
various states and locations in the Gulf of Mexico.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


PHENIX CITY, AL: Court Dismisses Suit Over Ordinance Fines
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jack Zhouhary of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Alabama, Eastern Division, granted the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the case captioned Thomas F. Worthy, etc., et
al. Plaintiffs, v. The City of Phenix City, Alabama, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 17 CV 73 (M.D. Ala.) as to all claims
challenging the City's procedure for contesting citations issued
under the Ordinance.

In 2012, Phenix City adopted Ordinance No. 2012-21, as part of its
"Red Light Safety Program."  The Ordinance established an
automated system for issuing red-light citations using cameras
installed at various intersections throughout the City.  Subject
to a handful of affirmative defenses, the owner of a vehicle
photographed running a red light in the City is liable for a $100
"civil penalty."  A notice of violation issued under the Ordinance
must provide, among other things, information about the owner's
right to contest the civil penalty in an administrative
adjudication.

Each of the Named Plaintiffs received a notification of violation
under the Ordinance, and each disputes liability.  Nevertheless,
Plaintiffs Willcox-Lumpkin Co., Inc. and James D. Adams did not
request an administrative hearing or otherwise participate in the
statutory process for contesting liability.  Plaintiff Worthy
received an administrative hearing (at which he was found liable),
but he elected not to pursue an appeal to the Circuit Court.

The Plaintiffs instead filed the proposed class action, alleging
that the Defendants violated their constitutional rights and
unjustly enriched themselves by imposing criminal fines without
providing constitutionally required protections.  More
specifically, they contend -- among other things -- that the
burden of proof should be beyond a reasonable doubt, that they
should be allowed to confront their accusers and cross-examine
witnesses, and that they should receive greater protections
against self-incrimination.  They further argue that the City
deprived them of both due process and the right to petition the
courts.  They seek damages, attorney fees, and a declaratory
judgment stating that the Ordinance is unconstitutional.

Pending is the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the
Complaint should be dismissed under Federal Civil Rule 12(b)(1)
because the Plaintiffs lack standing to assert claims based on a
lack of due process.  They further argue that all of the
Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed under Federal Civil Rule
12(b)(6) because the ordinance in question provides a civil rather
than criminal penalty, and the process provided by Phenix City is
adequate as a matter of law.

The Plaintiffs contend they have standing, that the Court should
not determine whether the penalty is civil or criminal at this
stage of the proceedings, and that their allegations are
sufficient to support their claims.

Judge Zhouhary finds that the Plaintiffs have no standing to
challenge the City's procedure for contesting a citation.  Indeed,
there may be drivers who were cited in error and who
unsuccessfully challenged their citations through that procedure,
but none of those drivers is a named Plaintiff in the case.  He
therefore granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to all
claims challenging the City's procedure for contesting citations
issued under the Ordinance.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 6, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/zAyrvR from Leagle.com.

Thomas F. Worthy, Plaintiff, represented by George Walton Walker,
III -- gwwalker@thefinleyfirm.com -- The Finley Firm, P.C..

Thomas F. Worthy, Plaintiff, represented by James Benjamin Finley
-- bfinley@thefinleyfirm.com -- The Finley Firm PC, Robert Walker
Garrett & Travis Carlisle Hargrove -- thargrove@thefinleyfirm.com
-- The Finley Firm, PC.

James D. Adams, Plaintiff, represented by George Walton Walker,
III, The Finley Firm, P.C., James Benjamin Finley, The Finley Firm
PC, Robert Walker Garrett & Travis Carlisle Hargrove, The Finley
Firm, PC.

Willcox-Lumpkin Co., Inc., Plaintiff, represented by George Walton
Walker, III, The Finley Firm, P.C., James Benjamin Finley, The
Finley Firm PC, Robert Walker Garrett & Travis Carlisle Hargrove,
The Finley Firm, PC.

The City of Phenix City, Alabama, Defendant, represented by James
P. Graham, Jr., The Graham Legal Firm, James Robert McKoon, Jr.,
McKoon & Gamble & Glenn Channing Gamble, McKoon and Gamble.

Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by Huey
Thomas Wells, Jr. -- twells@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper &
Gale, P.C., Stewart Alvis -- salvis@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard
Cooper & Gale & Kacey Leigh Weddle -- kweddle@maynardcooper.com --
Maynard Cooper & Gale PC.


PJ HOLDINGS KY: "Hollingsworth" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Hollingsworth, and all others similarly-situated v. PJ
Holdings KY, LLC, PJ Operations, LLC, PJ Ops Colorado, LLC, PJ Ops
Idaho, LLC, PJ Ops Kansas, LLC, PJ Ops Louisiana, LLC, PJ
Operations Minnesota, LLC, PJ Ops New York, LLC, PJ West Fargo,
LLC, and PJ Acquisitions, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-02590 (D. Kans.,
October 9, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff James Hollingsworth was employed by Defendants from
approximately June to September 2017 as a delivery driver at Papa
John's store in Wichita, Kansas.

Defendants owned and operated approximately 31 or more Papa John's
franchise stores in Kansas, Colorado, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Minnesota, New York, North Dakota, Tennessee and Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
      PAUL LLP
      601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
      Kansas City, MO 64106
      Tel: (816) 984-8100
      Fax: (816) 984-8101
      E-mail: Rick@PaulLLP.com

          - and -

      Mark Potashnick, Esq.
      WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
      11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
      St. Louis, MO 63141
      Tel: (314) 997-9150
      Fax: (314) 997-9170
      E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com


PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Parties Directed to File Briefing Sched
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARK D. KLEINSASSER, Plaintiff, v.
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No.
C17-5499 BHS (W.D. Wash.), Judge Benjamin H. Settle of U.S. of the
District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma, ordered the parties to
meet and confer and then submit a briefing schedule no later than
Oct. 20, 2017, including a deadline for proposed findings of fact,
and a proposed hearing date.

On Sept. 18, 2015, an uninsured driver hit the Plaintiff's vehicle
causing significant damage.  The vehicle was towed to a repair
shop, and the Plaintiff submitted a claim to Progressive.  The
Plaintiff was without the use of his vehicle until Nov. 24, 2015,
and, on two separate occasions, he returned the vehicle to the
repair shop for additional repairs.  The Plaintiff alleges that
Progressive failed to provide him with a rental car or otherwise
reimburse him for the loss of use of his vehicle. He also alleges
that Progressive failed to compensate him for the diminished value
of his vehicle.

On April 1, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint
against the Defendants in Pierce County Superior Court for the
State of Washington.  The Plaintiff seeks to recover diminished
value on a classwide basis and individual loss of use damages
under the Underinsured Motorists Property Damage provision of his
insurance contract with Progressive.  He alleged that the total
amount of compensatory damages would be approximately $3,010,903.

On June 28, 2017, Progressive removed the matter to federal court
asserting that the Court has jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005.  On July 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a
motion to remand challenging both the timing of the removal and
Progressive's calculation of damages.  On Aug. 28, 2017,
Progressive responded.  On Sept. 1, 2017, the Plaintiff replied.

Because resolution of the facts regarding potential class size and
potential claim amount could result in a conclusion that the
amount in controversy is between approximately $4,300,000 and
$5,000,000, resolution of this $700,000 potential award could be
relevant to the ultimate conclusion.  As such, the parties have
inadequately briefed the issue.  Therefore, Judge Settle requests
additional briefing on this issue.

The Plaintiff argues that Progressive's removal was untimely.  The
Judge will not engage in a lengthy analysis of this issue because
this is a preliminary order and because the Plaintiff's counsel
has repeatedly made the same argument to the Court in numerous
cases.

He finds the Plaintiff's argument that Progressive's "counsel had
plenty of occasion to inquire reasonably of Progressive how its
claims data reflects on the accuracy of class size estimate
alleged by the Plaintiff in his Complaint without the benefit of
discovery" irrelevant.  Absent any evidence of objective
knowledge, the Court may be easily dispose of this argument.

Therefore, Judge Settle ordered the parties to meet and confer and
then submit a briefing schedule, including a deadline for proposed
findings of fact, and a proposed hearing date.  The parties will
file the proposed schedule no later than Oct. 20, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 10, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/nAdNQu from Leagle.com.

Mark D Kleinsasser, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen M. Hansen --
steve@stephenmhansenlaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. HANSEN.

Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by J.
Matthew Donohue -- Matt.Donohue@hklaw.com -- HOLLAND & KNIGHT,
Kymberly Kochis -- kymberlykochis@eversheds-sutherland.com --
EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP, pro hac vice, Michael R. Nelson --
mikenelson@eversheds-sutherland.com -- EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US)
LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Leslie Christie --
bob@christielawgroup.com -- CHRISTIE LAW GROUP PLLC & Shannon Lea
Armstrong -- Shannon.Armstrong@hklaw.com -- HOLLAND & KNIGHT.

Progressive Max Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Kymberly Kochis, EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael R. Nelson, EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP, pro hac vice,
Robert Leslie Christie, CHRISTIE LAW GROUP PLLC & Shannon Lea
Armstrong, HOLLAND & KNIGHT.


PROGRESSIVE SECURITY: Cert Prerequisites Satisfied in "Slade"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana, Lafayette Division, issued an order holding that the
prerequisites for class certification are satisfied pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 in the case captioned Slade, v.
Progressive Security Insurance Co., Civil Action No. 6:11-CV-2164
(W.D. La.), and ordered the parties meet, confer, and thereafter
submit to the Court a joint proposal of notice and op-out
procedure.

If the parties are unable to agree on the proposed notice and/or
op-out procedure, the parties must file the appropriate motion(s)
with their objections no later than October 31, 2017.

Plaintiffs allege that Progressive's use of the Mitchell Work
Center Total Loss (WCTL) system to determine the base value of
first party motor vehicle total loss claims violates the
requirement of La. R.S. 22:1892 B(5) that the insurer pay the
retail cost as determined from a generally recognized used motor
vehicle industry source.  Plaintiffs claim that Progressive's
unlawful use of WCTL, instead of lawful sources such as the
National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) Guidebook or the
Kelly Blue Book (KBB), resulted in significant underpayments on
their insurance claims. Plaintiff's suit seeks to recover those
underpayments.

Plaintiffs moved for class certification and an evidentiary
hearing on class certification was held. The Court issued a
written ruling finding that class certification was proper.

Progressive appealed the ruling to the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals. Based on Plaintiff's argument, the Fifth Circuit held
that Plaintiffs' damages methodology does not preclude class
treatment. The court noted, however, that counsel for Progressive
had suggested at oral argument that the class representative was
not adequate because the representative had purportedly waived
potential challenges to the individual condition determination of
Progressive adjusters. The Fifth Circuit issued its opinion
remanding the matter to this Court to address the waiver issue
raised by Progressive's counsel at oral argument.

Plaintiffs contend that any speculative recovery from a challenge
to the adjusters' condition determinations would be worth only a
small faction of the statutory claims that are being asserted on
behalf of the class. Plaintiffs maintain, in the alternative, that
either tailoring notice to advise class members of the possibility
of issue preclusion, or tailoring the class definition to exclude
class members who have a quarrel with the condition adjustment,
would be preferable to throwing the class action baby out with the
claim preclusion bathwater.

Defendant argues that certifying this action would risk the
purported class members from litigating potentially valuable
condition-adjustment claims in the future. They contend that there
is no difference between a claim that Progressive undervalued a
total loss vehicle by using an allegedly artificially low base
value and a claim that Progressive undervalued a total loss
vehicle by improperly discounting the value based on the vehicle
condition.

Upon considering the parties' memoranda and the parties oral
arguments, as well as the Fifth Circuit's directive to take into
account the risk of preclusion, the value of the potentially
waived claims, and the relative strategic value of Plaintiffs'
proffered waiver, the Court finds that option number 2, above, is
appropriate in this case. Therefore, the prerequisites for class
certification pursuant to Rule 23 are satisfied and the Court's
class action certification remains unchanged. The Court will order
that the parties meet and confer in good faith in an attempt to
draft by mutual agreement regarding a proposed notice and op-out
procedure adequate to alert the class to the risk of preclusion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 2, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y9f8gg3cfrom Leagle.com.

Cheryl Slade, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth D. St. Pe, Law
Office of Kenneth D St Pe, 311 W University Ave, Lafayette, LA
70506, USA

Cheryl Slade, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur Mahony Murray,
Murray Law Firm, 650 Poydras St. Suite 2150, New Orleans, LA
70130, Kenneth W. DeJean, Law Offices of Kenneth W DeJean, 417 W
University Ave, Lafayette, LA 70506, USA, Stephen B. Murray, Jr.,
Murray Law Firm. 650 Poydras St. Suite 2150, New Orleans, LA 70130

Progressive Security Insurance Co, Defendant, represented by
William B. Gaudet -- william.gaudet@arlaw.com -- Adams & Reese,
Jeffrey S. Cashdan -- jcashdan@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, pro
hac vice & Zachary A. McEntyre -- zmcentyre@kslaw.com -- King &
Spalding, pro hac vice.


PROVIDENCE SAINT: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Roller, individually and on behalf of other individuals
similarly situated v. Providence Saint John's Health Center,
Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System, Inc., d/b/a SCL
Health System, and Does 1-10, Case No. BC678766 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
October 6, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay employees all wages due to them, failure to pay for missed
breaks, and failure to furnish the Plaintiff and Class members
accurate, itemized wage statements required by California Labor
Code.

The Defendants operate Saint John's Health Center located at 2121
Santa Monica Boulevard in Santa Monica, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

PYRAMID HEALTHCARE: $32K Deal in "Graham" Suit Has Prelim Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James S. Moody, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, granted the parties'
Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Notices to
Settlement Class in the case captioned DENISE GRAHAM, on her own
behalf and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v.
PYRAMID HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-
1324-T-30AAS (M.D. Fla.).

On June 28, 2017, the Court certified the class of all Pyramid
employees and job applicants who applied for or worked in a
position at Pyramid in the United States and who were the subject
of a consumer report that was procured by Pyramid within two years
of the filing of the complaint and as to whom Pyramid used the
employment application and purported disclosure and authorization
form.

On July 24, 2017, the parties jointly requested, and the Court
granted, a 60-day stay of the case to permit them the opportunity
to enter into settlement negotiations with the intent to resolve
the case.  They represent that since that time, Graham and Pyramid
engaged in extensive settlement negotiations.  Their efforts
culminated in settlement of the class and execution of the
settlement agreement filed.

On Oct. 3, 2017, the parties filed their Joint Motion.  Thus, the
issues before the Court are (i) whether to approve the Agreement
on a preliminary basis, and (ii) whether to approve the Notice of
Proposed Class Action Settlement for distribution to members of
the Class.

The settlement is a claim paid settlement of $100 each, for a
Gross Settlement Fund of $32,100.  Each Class member who does not
opt out will automatically receive a $100 check after final
approval.  The amount received by each Class member is not subject
to reduction for any reason.  The attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, and administration expenses are being paid separately by
the Defendant.

Based on the parties' good faith basis for the settlement set
forth in the Joint Motion, Judge Moody concludes that the
Settlement Agreement should be approved preliminarily.  Similarly,
he concludes that the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement
meets the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
23(c)(2)(B) and (e)(1) and comports with due process by clearly
notifying class members of their rights, as well as a reasonable
timeframe within which to exercise those rights.

Accordingly, Judge Moody granted the parties' Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Notices to Settlement
Class.  He approved the proposed notice plan and the language of
the notice proposed by the parties.  He set the case for hearing
for Final approval of the Settlement on Feb. 2, 2018 at 9:00 a.m.,
and instructed the parties to include this hearing date, time, and
location in the Notice to be sent pursuant to the notice plan.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 10, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/gjc4Ic from Leagle.com.

Denise Graham, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Ross Frisch --
afrisch@forthepeople.com -- Morgan & Morgan, PA.

Denise Graham, Plaintiff, represented by C. Ryan Morgan --
rmorgan@forthepeople.com -- Morgan & Morgan, PA & Marc Reed
Edelman -- MEdelman@forthepeople.com -- Morgan & Morgan, PA.

Pyramid Healthcare Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Grant David Petersen -- Grant.petersen@ogletreedeakins.com --
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Vanessa Arun Patel --
vanessa.patel@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart, P.C. & Jennifer Monrose Moore --
jennifer.moore@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart, P.C.

Mark Hanley, Mediator, represented by Mark A. Hanley --
dmills@bradley.com -- Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP.


RADY CHILDREN'S: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Crooks" TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William Q. Hayes of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California denied the Defendant's motion to stay,
motion to strike class allegations, and motion to dismiss the case
captioned TANEESHA CROOKS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; ANTHONY BROWN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RADY
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No. 17cv246-WQH-MDD (S.D.
Cal.).

The Named Plaintiffs incurred debt to the Defendant.  The
Defendant, through its agent, Rady Children's Specialists, began
calling their cellular telephone via an 'automatic telephone
dialing system' ("ATDS"), while using an artificial or prerecorded
voice.  Their respective counsel faxed and mailed cease and desist
letters to the Defendant's multiple locations" revoking any prior
express consent that may have been given to receive such telephone
calls.  The Defendant continued calling Brown's cellular phone via
an ATDS despite confirmed receipt by the Defendant's agent of the
cease and desist correspondence from the Plaintiffs' respective
counsel.

On Feb. 8, 2017, the Named Plaintiffs initiated this action by
filing a Complaint alleging two causes of action under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") against the Defendant
Rady Children's Hospital: (i) negligent violations of the TCPA,
and (ii) knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA.  The
Plaintiffs request injunctive relief and statutory damages.

The Named Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated, defined the class as all persons
within the United States who received any telephone call from the
Defendant or its agent/s and/or employee/s, not sent for emergency
purposes, to said person's cellular telephone made through the use
of any automatic telephone dialing system and/or with an
artificial or prerecorded message within the four years prior to
the filing of the Complaint.

On March 15, 2017, the Defendant moved the Court for an order (i)
staying all proceedings until a decision is rendered by the D.C.
Circuit Court in ACA Int'l v. Fed. Comm'cns Comm'n, et al.; (ii)
striking the Plaintiffs' class allegations pursuant to Rule 12(f);
or (iii) dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) or for lack of standing pursuant to Rule
12(b)(3).

On April 10, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition.
On April 17, 2017, the Defendant filed a reply.

Judge Hayes denied the motion to stay.  Based on the record and at
this early stage of the proceedings, he cannot conclude that the
outcome of ACA International would have a significant impact on
the litigation in this Court.  Regardless of the D.C. Circuit's
ultimate decision on the definition of ATDS, the parties will need
to conduct discovery to determine the technology used by the
Defendant to place the alleged calls, among other issues.

Further, the Complaint alleges that the Defendant placed
prerecorded calls to the Plaintiffs.  The Defendant may be subject
to liability under the TCPA for using an ATDS or for placing
prerecorded calls to the Plaintiffs.  Further, the Defendant's
contention that it will suffer hardship if the action is not
stayed due to unnecessary discovery and trial preparation does not
justify a stay in this case.

The Judge finds that the alleged unsolicited ATDS and prerecorded
calls to the Plaintiffs' cellular telephones by their nature,
invade the privacy and disturb the solitude of the Plaintiffs.  He
concludes that these factual allegations are sufficient to
establish a concrete, particularized injury-in-fact resulting from
Defendant's alleged calls.  He denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss for lack of standing.

He also denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim.  Construed in the light most favorable to the
Plaintiffs, Judge Hayes concludes that the factual allegations of
the Complaint are sufficient to support a reasonable inference
that Defendant used an ATDS in making the alleged calls to the
Plaintiffs.

Finally, as to the Defendant's motion to strike class allegations,
Judge Hayes denied it.  He concludes that the Defendant's motion
to strike class allegations is premature at this stage of the
proceedings.  The class issues raised by the Defendant are more
appropriately considered at the class certification proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 10, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/HTJWNx from Leagle.com.

Taneesha Crooks, Plaintiff, represented by Abbas Kazerounian --
ak@kazlg.com -- Kazerounian Law Group, APC.

Taneesha Crooks, Plaintiff, represented by Jason A. Ibey,
Kazerouni Law Group, APC, Joshua B. Swigart, Hyde & Swigart, Yana
A. Hart -- westcoastlitigation.com -- Hyde & Swigart & Daniel G.
Shay, Law Offices of Daniel G. Shay.

Anthony Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Abbas Kazerounian,
Kazerounian Law Group, APC, Jason A. Ibey, Kazerouni Law Group,
APC, Joshua B. Swigart, Hyde & Swigart, Yana A. Hart, Hyde &
Swigart & Daniel G. Shay, Law Offices of Daniel G. Shay.

Rady Children's Hospital - San Diego, Defendant, represented by
Julie Renee Dann -- Julie.Dann@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith, LLP.


REGISTER TAPES: $41K in Atty's Fees Awarded in "Hamburger"
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ALLEN HAMBURGER, Plaintiff, v. REGISTER
TAPES UNLIMITED, INC., a Texas Corporation, Defendant, Case No. CV
11-5770 FMO (JCx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ordered
that, in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement,
(i) Hamburger be paid a service payment of $1,000; and (ii) the
Class counsel be paid $25,000 in attorney's fees and $15,733.78 in
costs.

Except as to any class members who have validly and timely
requested exclusion, Judge Olguin dismissed with prejudice the
action, with all parties to bear their own fees and costs except
as set forth in his Judgment and in the prior orders of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 10, 2017 Judgment is
available at https://is.gd/jmtfRN from Leagle.com.

Allen Hamburger, Plaintiff, represented by Donald James Aaron
Brock, JML Law APLC.

Allen Hamburger, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas W. Sarris --
nsarris@kbrlaw.com -- N.Sarris Law, APC, Jennifer A. Lipski, Law
Offices of Joseph M Lovretovich & Joseph M. Lovretovich, JML Law
APLC.

Register Tapes Unlimited Inc, Defendant, represented by David John
Hamilton, The Law Office of David J Hamilton & Joseph D.
Tuchmayer, The Law Office of Joseph D Tuchmayer.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Soria" Suit Transferred to W.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on January 25, 2017, captioned
Malori Soria, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Samsung Electronics America Inc. and Samsung
Electronics Co Ltd., Case No. 2:17-cv-00195 was transferred on
October 10, 2017, from the District of Louisiana Western to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-01081-D to the
proceeding.

The case asserts product-liability claims.

The Defendants supply consumer electronics and digital products in
the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen H. Kupperman, Esq.
      BARRASSO USDIN KUPPERMAN FREEMAN & SARVER LLC
      909 Poydras St., Suite 2400
      New Orleans, LA 70112
      Telephone: (504) 589-9700
      Facsimile: (504) 589-9701
      E-mail: skupperman@barrassousdin.com


STRIBLING & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Young" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stribling &
Associates Ltd. The case is styled as Lawrence Young, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Stribling & Associates Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-07905
(S.D. N.Y., October 13, 2017).

Stribling & Associates is one of the most highly regarded
residential real estate firms in Manhattan.[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


SUN BANCORP: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Acquisition by OceanFirst
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. SUN BANCORP, INC., ANTHONY R. COSCIA, JEFFREY S.
BROWN, SIDNEY R. BROWN, F. CLAY CREASEY, CPA, PETER GALETTO, JR.,
ELI KRAMER, JAMES B. LOCKHART, WILLIAM J. MARINO, THOMAS M.
O'BRIEN, KEITH STOCK, GRACE C. TORRES, OCEANFIRST FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, and MERCURY MERGER SUB CORP., Case No. 1:17-cv-07368
(D.N.J., September 22, 2017), stems from a proposed transaction,
pursuant to which Sun Bancorp will be acquired by OceanFirst
Financial Corp. ("Parent") and Mercury Merger Sub Corp.

On June 30, 2017, Sun Bancorp's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with
OceanFirst.  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
stockholders of Sun Bancorp will receive 0.7884 shares of
OceanFirst common stock and $3.78 in cash for each share of Sun
Bancorp they own.

Sun Bancorp is a New Jersey corporation and maintains its
principal executive offices in Mount Laurel, New Jersey.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.
Sun Bancorp is a $2.3 billion asset bank holding company and its
primary subsidiary is Sun National Bank, a community bank serving
customers throughout New Jersey, and the metro New York region.

Defendant Parent is a bank holding company incorporated under the
laws of the state of Delaware and is headquartered in Toms River,
New Jersey, and the parent company of Merger Sub.  Merger Sub is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent and a party to the Merger
Agreement.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324-6800
          Facsimile: (484) 631-1305
          E-mail: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Settlement in "Slack" Has Prelim Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TROY SLACK, JACOB GRISMER, RICHARD ERICKSON,
SCOTT PRAYE, GARY H. ROBERTS, ROBERT P. ULLRICH, HENRY LEDESMA,
TIMOTHY HELMICK, DENNIS STUBER, ERIC DUBLINSKI, SEAN P. FORNEY,
individually and as Class Representatives, Plaintiffs, v. SWIFT
TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:11-cv-
05843-BHS (W.D. Wash.), Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the U.S.
District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma, granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, filed
Sep. 20, 2017.

The Plaintiff Class Representatives and the Defendant entered into
a Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release, dated Sept. 20,
2017 to settle the lawsuit.  The Settlement Agreement sets forth
the terms and conditions for a proposed Settlement and dismissal
with prejudice of Swift.

Judge Settle preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement.  He
appointed Kurtzman Carson Consultants ("KCC") as the Settlement
Administrator.  KCC will administer the Settlement in  accordance
with the terms and conditions of the Order, and the Settlement
Agreement.

He approved the proposed notice plan.  The Settlement
Administrator, using data supplied by Swift as provided in the
Settlement Agreement, will attempt in good faith to identify Class
Members' last known mailing addresses.  The Class Counsel, by and
through the Settlement Administrator, will provide notice of the
settlement to Class Members by: (i) First-Class Mail in a form
substantially similar to the form attached as Exhibit 1 to the
Declaration of Alan Vasquez Regarding Class Action Notice
Qualifications and Administration Experience); and (ii) a content-
neutral website that will contain the mailed Settlement Notice, as
well as further information about the Settlement, including access
to the Agreement itself, as well as certain pleadings.

The Class Counsel and the Settlement Administrator will use their
best efforts to complete the Class Notice process by the Mailed
Notice Date.

Judge Settle approved the Plan of Allocation of class settlement
funds, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and the Settlement
Notice.  He approved the procedures set forth in the Settlement
Agreement and the Settlement Notice for exclusions from and
objections to the Settlement.

Any Class Member who wishes to be excluded from or object to the
Settlement must comply with the terms set forth in the Settlement
Agreement and Settlement Notice.  The Class Members who wish to
exclude themselves from the Settlement must serve on the
Administrator, and counsel, a written Exclusion Request by the
Exclusion and Objection Deadline, as provided in the Settlement
Notice.

The Class Counsel will submit the name of all Class Members who
submit Exclusion Requests to the Court at the time Class Counsel
file their motion for final approval of the Settlement.

The Judge preliminarily enjoined all Class Members, unless and
until they submit a timely Exclusion Request pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement, (i) from filing, commencing, prosecuting,
intervening in, or participating as plaintiff, claimant, or class
member in any other lawsuit or administrative, regulatory,
arbitration, or other proceeding in any jurisdiction based on the
Released Claims; and (ii) from filing, commencing, or prosecuting
a lawsuit or administrative, regulatory, arbitration, or other
proceeding as a class action on behalf of any Class Members, based
on the Released Claims.

The Class Members who wish to object to any aspect of the
Settlement must file with the Court a written statement containing
their objection by the Exclusion and Objection Deadline, as
provided in the Class Notice.

Any attorney hired by, representing, or assisting (including, but
not limited to, by drafting or preparing papers for a Class
Member) a Class Member for the purpose of objecting to any term or
aspect of the Settlement Agreement or to the proposed Settlement
or intervening in the Lawsuit will mail to the Administrator and
file with the Clerk of the Court a notice of appearance no later
than the Exclusion and Objection Deadline.

Judge Settle directed the Administrator promptly to furnish the
Class Counsel and Swift counsel copies of any and all objections,
motions to intervene, notices of intention to appear, and other
communications that come into its possession.  He stayed all
proceedings against Swift in the Lawsuit until further order of
the Court, except that the Parties may conduct such limited
proceedings as may be necessary to implement the proposed
Settlement or to effectuate its terms.

The Class Counsel will file a petition for fees, expenses, and
incentive awards by the Fee Petition Deadline, and will file a
motion for final approval and responses to any objections/Fee
Petition replies by the Motion for Final Approval of Settlement
and Responses to Objections Deadline.

The Judge directed that the following deadlines are established by
the Order.  The Court may, for good cause, extend any of the
deadlines set forth in the Order without further notice to the
Class.

     a. Swift to Provide Class Data to Settlement Administrator:
Oct. 20, 2017 (within seven days following entry of the Order)

     b. Mailed Notice Date: Nov. 20, 2017 (within 30 days
following receipt of class data)

     c. Exclusion and Objection Deadline: Dec. 26, 2017 (within 33
days following Mailed Notice Date)

     d. Fee Petition Deadline: Dec. 12, 2017 (by 14 days before
the Exclusion and Objection Deadline)

     e. Motion for Final Approval of Settlement and Responses to
Objections Deadline: Jan. 9, 2018 (two weeks after objection
deadline/at least two weeks prior to the Fairness Hearing)

     f. Fairness Hearing: Jan. 29, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. (at least 100
days after the date of the Order)

The Court reserves the right to adjourn, continue or otherwise
change the date of the Fairness Hearing without further notice to
the members of the Settlement Class, and retains jurisdiction to
consider all further applications arising out of or connected with
the proposed Settlement Agreement.

Judge Settle advised the members of the Settlement Class to
confirm the date of the Fairness Hearing as set forth in the
Settlement Notice.  The Court may approve the Settlement
Agreement, with such modifications as may be agreed to by the
settling parties, if appropriate, without further notice to the
Settlement Class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 10, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/gRfEi4 from Leagle.com.

Troy Slack, Plaintiff, represented by Angela J. Mason, THE COCHRAN
FIRM, PC, pro hac vice.

Troy Slack, Plaintiff, represented by Deborah M. Nelson, NELSON
BOYD PLLC, J. Farrest Taylor, THE COCHRAN FIRM, PC, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey D. Boyd, NELSON BOYD PLLC, Jeniphr A.E. Breckenridge --
jeniphr@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Joseph D.
Lane, THE COCHRAN FIRM, PC, pro hac vice, Robert J. Camp --
rcamp@wigginschilds.com -- WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN & PANTAZIS, LLC,
pro hac vice, Robert F. Lopez -- robl@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN
SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS
BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP & Thomas E. Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com --
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP.

Jacob Grismer, Plaintiff, represented by Angela J. Mason, THE
COCHRAN FIRM, PC, pro hac vice, Deborah M. Nelson, NELSON BOYD
PLLC, J. Farrest Taylor, THE COCHRAN FIRM, PC, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey D. Boyd, NELSON BOYD PLLC, Jeniphr A.E. Breckenridge,
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Joseph D. Lane, THE COCHRAN FIRM,
PC, pro hac vice, Robert J. Camp, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN &
PANTAZIS, LLC, pro hac vice, Robert F. Lopez, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
SHAPIRO LLP, Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP &
Thomas E. Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP.

Richard Erickson, Plaintiff, represented by Angela J. Mason, THE
COCHRAN FIRM, PC, pro hac vice, Deborah M. Nelson, NELSON BOYD
PLLC, J. Farrest Taylor, THE COCHRAN FIRM, PC, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey D. Boyd, NELSON BOYD PLLC, Jeniphr A.E. Breckenridge,
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Joseph D. Lane, THE COCHRAN FIRM,
PC, pro hac vice, Robert J. Camp, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN &
PANTAZIS, LLC, pro hac vice, Robert F. Lopez, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
SHAPIRO LLP, Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP &
Thomas E. Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP.

Scott Praye, Plaintiff, represented by Angela J. Mason, THE
COCHRAN FIRM, PC, pro hac vice, Deborah M. Nelson, NELSON BOYD
PLLC, J. Farrest Taylor, THE COCHRAN FIRM, PC, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey D. Boyd, NELSON BOYD PLLC, Jeniphr A.E. Breckenridge,
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Joseph D. Lane, THE COCHRAN FIRM,
PC, pro hac vice, Robert J. Camp, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN &
PANTAZIS, LLC, pro hac vice, Robert F. Lopez, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
SHAPIRO LLP, Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP &
Thomas E. Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP.

Gary H Roberts, Plaintiff, represented by Angela J. Mason, THE
COCHRAN FIRM, PC, pro hac vice, Deborah M. Nelson, NELSON BOYD
PLLC, J. Farrest Taylor, THE COCHRAN FIRM, PC, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey D. Boyd, NELSON BOYD PLLC, Jeniphr A.E. Breckenridge,
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
SHAPIRO LLP, Joseph D. Lane, THE COCHRAN FIRM, PC, pro hac vice,
Robert J. Camp, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN & PANTAZIS, LLC, pro hac
vice, Robert F. Lopez, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Steve W.
Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP & Thomas E. Loeser, HAGENS
BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP.

Robert P Ulrich, Plaintiff, represented by Angela J. Mason, THE
COCHRAN FIRM, PC, pro hac vice, Deborah M. Nelson, NELSON BOYD
PLLC, J. Farrest Taylor, THE COCHRAN FIRM, PC, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey D. Boyd, NELSON BOYD PLLC, Jeniphr A.E. Breckenridge,
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Joseph D. Lane, THE COCHRAN FIRM,
PC, pro hac vice, Robert J. Camp, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN &
PANTAZIS, LLC, pro hac vice, Robert F. Lopez, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
SHAPIRO LLP, Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP &
Thomas E. Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP.

Henry M Ledesma, Plaintiff, represented by Angela J. Mason, THE
COCHRAN FIRM, PC, pro hac vice, Deborah M. Nelson, NELSON BOYD
PLLC, J. Farrest Taylor, THE COCHRAN FIRM, PC, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey D. Boyd, NELSON BOYD PLLC, Jeniphr A.E. Breckenridge,
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Joseph D. Lane, THE COCHRAN FIRM,
PC, pro hac vice, Robert J. Camp, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN &
PANTAZIS, LLC, pro hac vice, Robert F. Lopez, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
SHAPIRO LLP, Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP &
Thomas E. Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP.

Timothy Helmick, Plaintiff, represented by Angela J. Mason, THE
COCHRAN FIRM, PC, pro hac vice, Deborah M. Nelson, NELSON BOYD
PLLC, J. Farrest Taylor, THE COCHRAN FIRM, PC, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey D. Boyd, NELSON BOYD PLLC, Jeniphr A.E. Breckenridge,
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Joseph D. Lane, THE COCHRAN FIRM,
PC, pro hac vice, Robert J. Camp, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN &
PANTAZIS, LLC, pro hac vice, Robert F. Lopez, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
SHAPIRO LLP, Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP &
Thomas E. Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP.

Dennis Stuber, Plaintiff, represented by Angela J. Mason, THE
COCHRAN FIRM, PC, pro hac vice, Deborah M. Nelson, NELSON BOYD
PLLC, J. Farrest Taylor, THE COCHRAN FIRM, PC, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey D. Boyd, NELSON BOYD PLLC, Jeniphr A.E. Breckenridge,
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Joseph D. Lane, THE COCHRAN FIRM,
PC, pro hac vice, Robert J. Camp, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN &
PANTAZIS, LLC, pro hac vice, Robert F. Lopez, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
SHAPIRO LLP, Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP &
Thomas E. Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP.

Eric Dublinski, Plaintiff, represented by Angela J. Mason, THE
COCHRAN FIRM, PC, pro hac vice, Deborah M. Nelson, NELSON BOYD
PLLC, J. Farrest Taylor, THE COCHRAN FIRM, PC, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey D. Boyd, NELSON BOYD PLLC, Jeniphr A.E. Breckenridge,
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Joseph D. Lane, THE COCHRAN FIRM,
PC, pro hac vice, Robert J. Camp, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN &
PANTAZIS, LLC, pro hac vice, Robert F. Lopez, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
SHAPIRO LLP, Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP &
Thomas E. Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP.

Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, Defendant, represented
by David W. Wiley -- dwiley@williamskastner.com -- WILLIAMS
KASTNER, Jeffery M. Wells -- jwells@williamskastner.com --
WILLIAMS KASTNER, Sean E.M. Moore -- smoore@williamskastner.com --
WILLIAMS KASTNER & Sheryl D.J. Willert --
swillert@williamskastner.com -- WILLIAMS KASTNER.


TAISHAN GYPSUM: "Macon" Suit Consolidated in Chinese Drywall MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit entitled Macon, et al. v.
Taishan Gypsum Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-01287, was
transferred on September 22, 2017, from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans).  The
Louisiana District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-08283-
EEF-JCW to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation styled
In re: Chinese-manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation,
MDL No. 2:09-md-02047-EEF-JCW.

The matter arises from the manufacture, distribution, sale, and
installation of Chinese-manufactured drywall, which is contained
in homes owned or occupied by the Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs have
filed suit against the manufacturers, distributors, sellers, and
installers of the Chinese drywall, as well as others in the chain
of commerce, and their insurers, alleging this drywall emits foul
odors and damages metal and electronic elements and devices in
their homes.[BN]

Plaintiff Jeremy Macon, Individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          James R. Reeves, Jr., Esq.
          REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC
          160 Main Street
          P. O. Drawer 1388 (19533)
          Biloxi, MS 39530
          Telephone: (228) 374-5151
          Facsimile: (228) 374-6630
          E-mail: jrr@rmlawcall.com

The Court-Appointed Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel in MDL 2047 is:

          Russ M. Herman, Esq.
          HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
          820 O'Keefe Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 581-4892
          Facsimile: (504) 561-6024
          E-mail: rherman@hhklawfirm.com

The Court-Appointed Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel in MDL 2047 is:

          Arnold Levin, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: alevin@lfsblaw.com

The Court-appointed counsel of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee
in MDL 2047 are:

          Dawn M. Barrios, Esq.
          BARRIOS, KINGSDORF & CASTEIX, LLP
          701 Poydras Street, Suite 3650
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Telephone: (504) 524-3300
          Facsimile: (504) 524-3313
          E-mail: Barrios@bkc-law.com

               - and -

          Robert Becnel, Esq.
          BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC
          425 W. Airline Highway, Suite B
          Laplace, LA 70068
          Telephone: (985) 536-1186
          Facsimile: (985) 536-6445
          E-mail: rbecnel@becnellaw.com

               - and -

          Peter Prieto, Esq.
          PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
          25 Flagler Street, 8th Floor
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 358-2800
          Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
          E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com

               - and -

          Patrick Montoya, Esq.
          COLSON, HICKS, EIDSON
          255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
          Cora Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476-7400
          Facsimile: (305) 476-7444
          E-mail: patrick@colson.com

               - and -

          Hugh P. Lambert, Esq.
          THE LAMBERT FIRM
          701 Magazine Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 581-1750
          Facsimile: (504) 529-2931
          E-mail: hlambert@thelambertfirm.com

               - and -

          James Robert Reeves, Esq.
          REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC
          160 Main Street
          Biloxi, MS 39530
          Telephone: (228) 374-5151
          Facsimile: (228) 374-6630
          E-mail: jrr@attorneys4people.com

               - and -

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          900 W. Morgan Street
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5002
          E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          Bruce William Steckler, Esq.
          STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN
          12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045
          Dallas, TX 75230
          Telephone: (972) 387-4040
          Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
          E-mail: bruce@stecklerlaw.com

               - and -

          Ben W. Gordon, Jr., Esq.
          LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL ECHSNER
          & PROCTOR, P.A.
          316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 435-7000
          Facsimile: (850) 435-7020
          E-mail: bgordon@levinlaw.com

               - and -

          Gerald E. Meunier, Esq.
          GAINSBURGH, BENJAMIN, DAVID, MEUNIER
          & WARSHAUER, LLC
          2800 Energy Centre
          1100 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70163-2800
          Telephone: (504) 522-2304
          Facsimile: (504) 528-9973
          E-mail: gmeunier@gainsben.com

               - and -

          Christopher Seeger, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS, LLP
          77 Water Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 584-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
          E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Richard J. Serpe, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD J. SERPE
          Crown Center, Suite 310
          580 East Main Street
          Norfolk, VA 23510-2322
          Telephone: (757) 233-0009
          Facsimile: (757) 233-0455
          E-mail: rserpe@serpefirm.com

               - and -

          Victor M. Diaz, Jr., Esq.
          V.M. DIAZ AND PARTNERS, LLC
          119 Washington Ave., Suite 402
          Miami Beach, FL 33139
          Telephone: (305) 704-3200
          Facsimile: (305) 538-4928
          E-mail: victor@diazpartners.com

The Court-appointed of counsel of the Plaintiffs' Steering
Committee in MDL 2047 are:

          Richard S. Lewis, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, N.W., Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: rlewis@hausfeldllp.com

               - and -

          Anthony D. Irpino, Esq.
          IRPINO AVIN HAWKINS LAW FIRM
          2216 Magazine Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 525-1500
          Facsimile: (504) 525-1501
          E-mail: airpino@irpinolaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq.
          LEMON LAW FIRM, LLC
          P.O. Box 904
          15058 River Road
          Hahnville, LA 70057
          Telephone: (985) 783-6789
          Facsimile: (985) 783-1333
          E-mail: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com


TD BANK: Faces "Lay" Class Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lay, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees
v. TD Bank, National Association, Case No. CACE-17-018539 (Fla.
Cir. Ct., October 10, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

TD Bank, National Association operates an American national bank
headquartered in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott M. Behren, Esq.
      BEHREN LAW FIRM
      2893 Executive Park Drive, Suite 110
      Weston, FL 33331
      Telephone: (954) 636-3802
      Facsimile: (772) 252-3365
      E-mail: Scott@behrenlaw.com


TINTRI INC: Faces "Golosiy" Securities Suit Over IPO
-----------------------------------------------------
Vladimir Golosiy, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Tintri, Inc., Ken Klein, Kieran Harty, Ian
Halifax, Peter Sonsini, Adam Gros Ser, Christopher Schaepe, Harvey
Jones, John Bolger, Charles Giancarlo, New Enterprise Associates
12, Limited Partnership, NEA Partners 12, Limited Partnership, NEA
12 GP, LLC, Silver Lake Group, LLC, Silver Lake Kraftwerk Fund,
L.P., Silver Lake Technology Associates Kraftwerk, L.P., Morgan
Stanley & Co. LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, Keybanc Capital Markets Inc., Needham & Company,
LLC, Piper Jaff Ray & Co., Raymond James & Associates, Inc.,
William Blair & Company, L.L.C., and Does 1-25, Inclusive, Case
No. 17-cv-04618 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 6, 2017), alleges that
the Defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
adverse facts that existed at the time of the initial public stock
offering: (a) Defendants knew or should have known that its sales
force was the critical ingredient in the Company's revenue growth,
as its sophisticated sales force had driven Tintri's impressive
revenue growth as a private entity; (b) Defendants knew or should
have known that the loss of key employees, particularly within its
sales force, would cause significant harm to the Company and
impede its revenue generation; (c) Defendants knew or should have
known that the Company's strong sales force was about to be
destroyed since Defendants were unwilling to compensate its Chief
Sales Officer, and that it was nearly certain he would leave the
Company; (d) Defendants knew or should have known that the loss of
the Company's Chief Sales Officer would result in many other top
sales persons leaving as well;(e) Defendants knew or should have
known that, without Mr. McGuire driving the sales force as he had
in past, Tintri could not generate as much revenue as it had in
the past, and certainly not in the short term, while defendant
Klein tried to spearhead and build an entirely new sales
department; (f) As such, Defendants knew or should have known that
Tintri's financial projections and expectations were not
achievable given the sales force disruption Defendants knew or
should have known was coming; and (g) As a result, at the time of
the IPO, the Company's business and financial prospects were not
what Defendants had led the market to believe they were in the
Registration Statement.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
      Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
      Eric M. Carrino, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
              soddo@robbinsarroyo.com
              ecarrino@robbinsarroyo.com


TRAVELERS HOME: 8th Cir. Grants Mandamus Bid in Insurance Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In re: Travelers Home and Marine Insurance
Company Petitioner, Case No. 16-3243 (8th Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit granted the Defendant's petition
for a writ of mandamus, vacated the district court's Order dated
June 8, 2016, and remanded for further proceedings in light of its
decision in In re State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.

Greg Boss' home in the Eastern District of Missouri suffered hail
damage in June 2014.  He filed a property damage claim under the
replacement cost homeowners' insurance policy issued by the
Defendant.  After Travelers paid Boss the actual cash value of the
loss prior to repair or replacement, Boss brought this putative
class action in the Western District of Missouri, alleging that
Travelers breached the insurance contract by deducting labor
depreciation from the estimated replacement cost in determining
actual cash value.

Travelers filed a motion to transfer venue for the convenience of
parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, to the Eastern
District of Missouri, where the insured property, Travelers'
Missouri claim office, and all Missouri-based documents and
witnesses are located.  The district court denied the motion, and
Travelers petitioned the Circuit Court for a writ of mandamus
instructing the district court to transfer venue to the Eastern
District of Missouri.

In its Order denying the motion to transfer venue, the district
court relied, to a substantial extent, on the fact that the issue
most likely to be in dispute in this case is whether labor is
depreciable when actual cash value is calculated.  This very issue
has been previously addressed by the Circuit Court in LaBrier v.
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.  With interlocutory appeals in the
LaBrier case also pending, on Aug. 11, 2016, the Circuit Court
entered an order in this case that the petition will be held in
abeyance pending the entry of a dispositive order in No. 16-3185,
In re State Farm.

The Circuit Court has now filed an opinion reversing the district
court's resolution of the labor depreciation issue in LaBrier and
its certification of a class in that case, and remanding with
directions to dismiss the named plaintiff's complaint.
Accordingly, the Court now granted the petition for a writ of
mandamus, vacated the district court's Order dated June 8, 2016,
and remanded for further proceedings in light of its decision in
In re: State Farm.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 6, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/pmQqD6 from Leagle.com.

Matthew Duff Turner -- mturner@armstrongteasdale.com -- for
Petitioner.

Stephen Edward Goldman -- sgoldman@rc.com -- for Petitioner.

Wystan M. Ackerman -- wackerman@rc.com -- for Petitioner.


UNITED STATES: Garza Files Suit v. ORR D&O
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eric Hargan, Acting
Secretary of Health and Human Services. The case is styled as
Rochelle Garza, as guardian ad litem to unaccompanied minor J.D.,
on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Eric Hargan, Acting Secretary of Health and Human Services,
Stephen Wagner, Acting Assistant Secretary for Administration for
Children and Families and Scott Lloyd, Director of Office of
Refugee Resettlement, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02122 (D.C.,
October 13, 2017).

The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) is a program of the
Administration for Children and Families (ACF), an office within
the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),
offering support for refugees seeking safe haven within the United
States, including victims of human trafficking, those seeking
asylum from persecution, survivors of torture and war, and
unaccompanied alien children. The mission and purpose of the ORR
is to assist in the relocation process and provide needed services
to individuals granted asylum within the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


UNITED STATES: Court Dismisses "Lyons" Suit w/ Leave to Amend
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned VICTOR LYONS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-02262-JAD-
NJK (D. Nev.), Judge Nancy J. Koppe of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada granted Plaintiffs Roger Scott and Lyons to
proceed in forma pauperis.

Judge Koppe concludes that the Plaintiffs have shown an inability
to prepay fees and costs or give security for them.  Accordingly,
she granted their request to proceed in forma pauperis.  She
instructed the Clerk's Office to file the complaint on the docket,
with all medical records of both the Plaintiffs in the exhibits to
the complaint filed under seal.

The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs' complaint suffers from
numerous deficiencies.  The Plaintiffs fail to allege federal
court jurisdiction, apart from bald statements about "federal
questions."  They have failed to demonstrate that the United
States has waived its sovereign immunity.  He cannot determine,
from the original complaint, whether the United States has waived
sovereign immunity and consented to suit.

Judge Koppe concludes that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to
appointment of counsel, and they cannot bring their case as a
class action.  The Plaintiffs attempt to file their complaint as a
class action, with them representing the class pro se, they
cannot, however, proceed with a class action as pro se litigants.
Rule 23 does not mandate appointment of counsel for pro se
litigants seeking to bring class actions.

As the complaint fails to identify how the factual allegations
made state a claim for any particular cause of action, and
therefore it fails to satisfy Rule 8.  The Judge will, however,
allow the Plaintiffs an opportunity to amend the complaint so that
they can comply with Rule 8.

Accordingly, Judge Koppe granted the Plaintiffs to proceed in
forma pauperis. They will not be required to pay the filing fee of
$400.  The Plaintiffs are permitted to maintain this action to
conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of any additional
fees or costs or the giving of a security therefor.  The Order
granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis will not extend to the
issuance and/or service of subpoenas at government expense.

The Judge dismissed with leave to amend the complaint.  The
Plaintiffs will have until Nov. 13, 2017, to file an Amended
Complaint, if the noted deficiencies can be corrected.  If they
choose to amend the complaint, the Plaintiffs are informed that
the Court cannot refer to a prior pleading (i.e., the original
Complaint) in order to make the Amended Complaint complete.  This
is because, as a general rule, an Amended Complaint supersedes the
original Complaint.  Once a plaintiff files an Amended Complaint,
the original Complaint no longer serves any function in the case.
Therefore, in an Amended Complaint, as in an original Complaint,
each claim and the involvement of each Defendant must be
sufficiently alleged.  Failure to comply with this order will
result in the recommended dismissal of the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 10, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/tyJL8z from Leagle.com.

Victor Lyons, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Roger Scott, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorena Sanchez, individually and on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. Valley Presbyterian Hospital and Does 1
through 25, inclusive, Case No. BC678638 (Cal. Super. Ct., October
6, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
appropriate daily overtime wages as required by the Labor Code and
failure to timely pay final wages, to a group of California-based
hourly employees.

Valley Presbyterian Hospital operates a hospital located at 15107
Vanowen St, Van Nuys, CA 91405. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael D. Singer, Esq.
      Janine R. Menhennet, Esq.
      COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
      605 C Street, Suite 200
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 595-3001
      Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
      E-mail: msinger@ckslaw.com

         - and -

      Jonathan Lebe, Esq.
      LEBE LAW, APC
      5723 Melrose Avenue, Suite 100
      Los Angeles, CA 90038
      Telephone: (310) 921-7056
      Facsimile: (310) 820-1258
      E-mail: info@lebelaw.com


VIP HEALTH: Kondratyeva Seeks Wages and Benefits under Labor Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
TATIANA KONDRATYEVA and ALEVTINA SUBBOTA on behalf of themselves
and all other persons similarly situated who were employed by VIP
HEALTH CARE SERVICES, INC., the Plaintiffs, v. VIP HEALTH CARE
SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 159160/2017 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Oct. 13, 2017), seeks to recover wages and benefits which
Plaintiffs were statutorily and contractually entitled to receive
pursuant to the New York Labor Law, the New York Codes, Rules, and
Regulations, and the New York Public Health Law.

VIP Health Care provides home health care services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          LaDonna M. Lusher, 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


VIZION ONE: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Richardson" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Temeca Richardson, Stacey Sutherland, Stephanie Ayers, Angela
Camara and Lois Johnson, Individually and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated v. Vizion One
Inc, Vizion One Inc., Addallah Kitwara and Venesia Kitwara, Case
No. 2:17-cv-00838-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio, September 22, 2017), accuses
the Defendants of failing to pay their employees overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Vizion One Inc is an Ohio for profit corporation with its
principal place of business in the Southern District of Ohio.
Vizion One - Ohio is a home care staffing agency of direct care
workers for the disabled, the elderly, and any other individual in
need of assistance.

Vizion One Inc. is a foreign for-profit corporation with its
principal place of business in the Southern District of Ohio and
is registered to conduct business in the State of Ohio. Defendant
Vizion One  D.C. is a home care staffing agency of direct care
workers for the disabled, the elderly, and any other individual in
need of assistance.  The Individual Defendants are believed to be
the owners of the Corporate Defendants.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Peter Contreras, Esq.
          CONTRERAS LAW, LLC
          PO Box 215
          Amlin, OH 43002
          Telephone: (614) 787-4878
          Facsimile: (614) 923-7369
          E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com


WELLS FARGO: "Laing" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------
Lynn Laing, and all others similarly-situated v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., Case No. 3:17-cv-02072 (S.D. Calif., October 9, 2017), seeks
damages for Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Plaintiff Lynn Laing is a resident of Vista, California.

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a provider of banking,
mortgage, credit card and insurance. Defendant's principal office
is located in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric W. Kem, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ERIC W. KEM, P.A.
      2233 NW 41st St., Suite 700-H
      Gainesville, FL 32606
      Tel: (352) 275-7151
      Fax: (844) 536-2476
      E-mail: ekem@kemlawfirm.com

          - and -

      Scott D. Owens, Esq.
      SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
      3800 S. Ocean Dr., Suite 235
      Hollywood, FL 33091
      Tel: (954) 589-0588
      Fax: (954) 337-0666
      E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com


ZUMIEZ INC: Court Grants Bid to Stay "Bernal" Suit Pending Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ALEXANDRA BERNAL and ALEXIA HERRERA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ZUMIEZ, INC., and Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01802-SB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Stanley
A. Bastian of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California, Sacramento, granted Defendant Zumiez's Motion to
Certify the Court's Order Denying its Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings and to Stay the Action Pending Appeal.

Plaintiff Bernal brings suit on behalf of herself and all others
who were required to use a telephone to check with their employer
to see if they were scheduled to work; those who called in did so
approximately one-hour before they would physically present for
work.

The calls would last between five and 10 minutes and occurred
approximately three or four times per week throughout the class
period.  The Plaintiffs allege that 50% percent of the time, the
Defendant did not furnish any scheduled work or pay any portion of
their scheduled shift.

On Aug. 1, 2016, Bernal filed a class action complaint stating a
cause of action for failure to pay reporting time pay under 8 Cal.
Code Regs. tit. 8, Section 11070(5)(A) and setting forth various
derivative claims.  A First Amended Complaint was filed wherein
Herrera was added as a Named Plaintiff; Bernal left the case.

On May 9, 2017, the Defendant filed a Motion for Judgment on the
Pleading. The Court denied the motion allowing each of the
Plaintiff's claims to survive.  The Defendant now moves for an
Order certifying the Court's Order denying its motion for judgment
on the pleadings pursuant and seeks a stay of the action pending
appeal.

Judge Bastian agrees that this case presents a novel legal
question and that an interlocutory appeal is appropriate in this
instance.  Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has demonstrated interest in
taking up the issue.  Moreover, the Plaintiff's argument that the
plain language of the wage order is unambiguous and that the law
is clear is unpersuasive.  He and U.S. District Judge George H. Wu
came to opposite conclusions regarding the Plaintiff's claims;
therefore, a substantial ground for a difference of opinion
exists.

Given that the Defendant has demonstrated all of the requirements
of 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) exist, Judge Bastion, in his
discretion, certified the Order Denying Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings, for immediate interlocutory appeal.  Because acceptance
and reversal on appeal will impact the next stages of the
litigation, he stayed the case pending of appeal to promote
efficiency and judicial economy.

Judge Bastion directed the Clerk of Court to enter the Order and
forward copies to counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 10, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/57n0fa from Leagle.com.

Alexia Herrera, Plaintiff, represented by Cody R. Kennedy --
info@marlinandsaltzman.com -- Marlin & Saltzman, LLP.

Alexia Herrera, Plaintiff, represented by Stanley D. Saltzman,
Marlin & Saltzman, LLP.

Zumiez, Inc., Defendant, represented by Nathan Wade Austin --
AustinN@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Evan Donald
Beecher -- an.Beecher@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C.



                             *********


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  * * *