CAR_Public/171107.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Tuesday, November 7, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 220



                            Headlines

ABIGAIL KIRSCH: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in S.D. New York
ACCESS DENTAL: Faces "Hernandez" Suit in Cal. Superior Court
ADVANCE STORES: Faces "Grubbs" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
ADVANCED MICRO: Settlement in "Hatamian" Suit Has Prelim Approval
ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Settlement in "McClendon" Has Final Approval

ALLIED COLLECTION: "Simmons" Disputes Deceptive Collection Letter
ANTARES PHARMA: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey
ANTHELIO HEALTHCARE: Faces "Hoskins" Suit in Cal. Super Court
ARKANSAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE: "Hendrix" Suit Removed to E.D. Ark.
BEACH LANE: Rent-Regulated Tenants File Class Action

BJ INSPECTIONS: "Russo" Suit Transferred From Louisiana to Ohio
BOWLERLAND BILDINIC: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in S.D. New York
BRAZTECH INT'L: Bedwell's Bid to Dismiss Counterclaim Denied
BRETON INTERNATIONAL: "Delacruz" Suit Alleges ADA Violations
BURGER KING: Faces "Tarr" Class Suit Over FACTA Breach

CENTURYLINK GROUP: "Chavez" Suit Removed to D. Minn.
CENTURYLINK INC: "Gonsior" Suit Removed to D. Minn.
CEVA LOGISTICS: "Garcia" Class Settlement Has Final Approval
CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in "Lutz"
CHILDRENS' PLACE: Judge Stays PMWA Overtime Class Action

COMMUNICATIONS TEST: Accused by "Marshall" Suit of Violating FCRA
DIANA CONTAINERSHIPS: Robins Geller Files Class Action in N.Y.
DRYCARE RESTORATION: "Abante Rooter" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
E.I. DUPONT: James Scott Farrin Files GenX Chemical Class Action
EQUIFAX INC: Small Businesses Seek Damages Over Data Breach

EQUIFAX INC: Pellitteri Files Suit Over Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: "Turner" Seeks Damages Over Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Henderson" Suit Arising From Data Breach
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Mass. Rules on Security Deposit Act Issue
XCEL ENERGY: "Calvert" Suit Alleges Labor Violations

FINANCIAL FREEDOM: "Saris" Suit Alleges Discrimination
GLACIER COUNTY, MT: High Ct. Affirms Dismissal of Taxpayers Suit
GOOD CHOWS: Court Approves $22,000 Settlement in Labor Suit
GREAT PLAINS: "Bushansky" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations
H&M HENNES: Loses Bid for Partial Summary Judgment in "Lao"

HAWAIIAN TELCOM: "Franchi" Suit Alleges SEC Violation
HIRO SUSHI: Court Approves $12,000 Labor Suit Settlement
HUDDLE HOUSE: Hughes Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
HUDSON SEAFOOD: "Carlin" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA and SCPWA
J.JILL INC: "Branen" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violations

JEHOVA'S WITNESSES: Faces $66-Mil. Sexual Abuse Class Action
KARAKOSUITS.COM: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in S.D. New York
KELLOGG CO: Court Allows Limited Discovery in "Smith"
LAN GARDEN: "Zhen" Suit Seeks Withheld Tips, Overtime Pay
LENDINGCLUB: Judge Allows Investors' Class Action Can Proceed

LEFRAK ORGANIZATION: Class Certification Hearing Set for Dec. 7
LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Comments on Securities Class Action Dismissal
LINCOLN HILLS: Faces Closure Amid Inmates' Class Action
LITCO PETROLEUM: Cranford Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
MC ELECTRONICS: Faces "Vazquez" Suit in California Superior Ct.

MDL 2445: Court Dismisses Suboxone Antitrust Suit Against I-PLC
MDL 2741: "Sweat" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MDL 2792: "Alexander" Suit Transferred to W.D. Oklahoma
MDL 2792: "McCabe" Class Suit Transferred to W.D. Oklahoma
MICHIGAN: Court Dismisses Cooper Street Prisoners Suit

MID CITY GYM: Court Approves $50,000 Settlement in Labor Suit
MO'S FISHERMAN: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Galvez Claims
MONSANTO COMPANY: "Batch" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MONTEREY FINANCIAL: 9th Cir. Remands Class Action to State Court
NASDAQ OMX: 3d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Rabin" Securities Suit

NATIONAL PROMOTION: Magee Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
NPC INT'L: "Collins" Stayed Pending SCOTUS Ruling in "Lewis"
OAKMONT SENIOR: Must Show Why "Lollock" Must Not Be Remanded
PETLAND KENNESAW: Sued for Allegedly Selling Sick Puppies
PHILIP MORRIS: Wins $5.3MM Verdict in Non-Engle Tobacco Case

POINT BLANK: Faces Class Action Over Ballistic System Vests
POLLO OPERATIONS: Approval of Revised "Preman" Class Deal Denied
PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violations
PROGRESSUS THERAPY: "Shelton" Settlement Bid Filing Due Dec. 22
RAYMOURS FURNITURE: Accused by "Manopla" Suit of Invading Privacy

READY SECURITY: "Lewis" Action to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
RENT-A-CENTER INC: Can Partly Compel Arbitration in "Blair" Suit
RENT-A-CENTER INC: Court to Hear Class Claims at Cert. Hearing
RIO TINTO: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Sanda" Product Suit Transferred to D. Okla.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Mullford" Suit Transferred to D. Okla.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Raabe" Product Suit Transferred to D. Okla.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Kellas" Product Suit Transferred to Oklahoma
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Anderson" Suit Transferred to D. Okla.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Lane" Suit Moved to W. Dist. Oklahoma

SANOFI-PASTEUR: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $61.5MM
SANTANDER BANK: "Karlberg" Remanded to Philadelphia State Court
SCHARFMAN ORGANIZATION: Tenants Sue Over Illegally High Rents
SHOWPLACE ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in S.D. New York
SKECHERS USA: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action

SPENCER BUILDING: Faces "Gomez" Suit in California Superior Court
ST. LOUIS, MO: ACLU Class Action Over Unlawful Assembly Ongoing
STARBUCKS CORP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Rosario" FCRA Suit
STATE SECURITY: "Lipscomb" Action to Recover Minimum, OT Pay
TAISHAN GYPSUM: "Peoples" Product Suit Transferred to E.D. La.

TEZOS: Investors' Class Action Unlikely to Succeed
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Dec. 1 Reply Deadline in "Kalanick"
UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Morgen" Suit in S.D. New York
UNITED STATES: Bid to Dismiss "Haddock" Agent Orange Suit Denied
US FOODS INC: Lit'l Pepper Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.

VILLAGIO OF SAWGRASS: "Bonilla" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
WELLS FARGO: Nov. 15 Initial CMC in Securities Suit Vacated
WHITESTONE LANES: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in S.D. New York
WOODLAKE RESORT: Residents Sue Over Plummeting Property Values
XOMA CORP: Court Dismisses Individual Claims in "Markette"

* CUNA Comments on Treasury Report on CFPB's Arbitration Rule
* Employers Face Illinois Biometric Class Action Threat
* Judges Sanction Two Law Firms Over Frivolous Tobacco Suits
* Kilpatrick Townsend Attorneys Discusses Parens Patriea Suits
* Treasury Joins Fight Over Class Actions, Balks at CFPB Study




                            *********


ABIGAIL KIRSCH: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Abigail Kirsch At
Tappan Hill, Inc. The case is styled as Richard Baldelli and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Abigail Kirsch At Tappan Hill, Inc, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
08056 (S.D.N.Y., October 19, 2017).

Abigail Kirsch At Tappan Hill, Inc. was founded in 1989. The
company's line of business includes the retail sale of prepared
foods and drinks for on-premise consumption.[BN]

The Plaintiff 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


ACCESS DENTAL: Faces "Hernandez" Suit in Cal. Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Access Dental Plan.
The case is styled as Michelle Hernandez, on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Access Dental Plan, Access Dental Plan Inc., Access Insurance Co.,
Bay Access Dental Inc., Reza Abbaszadeh DDS Inc., Sacramento
Access Dental Inc. and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 34-2017-
00220944-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., October 19, 2017).

Access Dental Plan, Inc. offers dental services in California. It
provides coverage for various state government programs, such as
Medi-Cal managed care programs and healthy families program, which
offer preventive, restorations/fillings, extractions, root canals,
and crowns and denture procedures.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
   Lawyers for Justice, PC
   410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
   Glendale, CA 91203
   Tel: (818) 265-1020
   Fax: (818) 265-1021


ADVANCE STORES: Faces "Grubbs" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trevin Grubbs, individually and on behalf of similarly-situated
individuals v. Advance Stores Company, Inc., d/b/a Advance Auto
Parts, Case No. 4:17-cv-02647-RBH (D.S.C., October 2, 2017), is
brought individually and as a collective action for alleged unpaid
overtime compensation, for liquidated damages, and for other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Advance Stores Company, Inc., doing business as Advance Auto
Parts, is a corporation having multiple retail outlets in South
Carolina, including the outlet at which the Plaintiff worked
located at 1370 3rd Avenue, in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amy L. Gaffney, Esq.
          GAFFNEY LEWIS & EDWARDS, LLC
          3700 Forest Drive, Suite 400
          Columbia, SC 29204
          Telephone: (803) 790-8838
          Facsimile: (803) 790-8841
          E-mail: agaffney@glelawfirm.com


ADVANCED MICRO: Settlement in "Hatamian" Suit Has Prelim Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BABAK HATAMIAN and LUSSA DENNJ SALVATORE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., RORY P. READ, THOMAS
J. SEIFERT, RICHARD A. BERGMAN, AND LISA T. SU, Defendants, Case
No. 4:14-cv-00226-YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge U.S. Yvonne Gonzalez
Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, Oakland Division, granted preliminary approval of the
class action settlement.

As of Oct. 9, 2017, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement.  On March 16, 2016, the Court certified a
Class of all persons and entities that, during the period from
April 4, 2011 through Oct. 18, 2012, inclusive, purchased or
otherwise acquired shares of the publicly traded common stock of
AMD.

Judge Rogers preliminarily approved the Settlement, subject to
further consideration at the Settlement Hearing to be held on Feb.
27, 2018, at 2:00 p.m.  The Judge approved the form, substance and
requirements of the Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and
Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses and the Proof of Claim and
Release form.

She approved the retention of Epiq Class Action & Claims
Solutions, Inc. as the Claims Administrator.  The Claims
Administrator will cause the Settlement Notice and the Proof of
Claim on or before 10 business days after entry of the Preliminary
Approval Order to all Class Members who can be identified with
reasonable effort, including by using the mailing records obtained
in connection with the Class Notice.  AMD, to the extent it has
not already done so, will use its best efforts to obtain and
provide to the Class Counsel, or the Claims Administrator, its
transfer records in electronic searchable form containing the
names and addresses of purchasers of the publicly traded common
stock of AMD during the Class Period, to the extent that
information is available, no later than five business days after
entry of the Preliminary Approval Order.

In the previously disseminated Class Notice, brokers and other
nominees ("Nominees") were advised that if, for the beneficial
interest of any person or entity other than themselves, they
purchased AMD publicly traded common stock during the Class Period
they must either: (i) request from the administrator sufficient
copies of the Class Notice to forward to all such beneficial
owners, and forward them to all such beneficial owners; or (ii)
provide a list of the names and addresses of all such beneficial
owners to the administrator.

      a. For Nominees who previously chose the first option (i.e.,
elected to mail the Class Notice directly to beneficial owners),
the Claims Administrator will forward the same number of Claim
Packets to such Nominees, and the Nominees shall, within seven
calendar days of receipt of the Claim Packets, mail them to the
beneficial owners.  Unless the Nominee has identified additional
beneficial owners whose names and addresses were not previously
provided to the Claims Administrator, such Nominees need not take
any further action;

      b. For Nominees who previously chose the second option
(i.e., provided a list of names and addresses of beneficial
holders to the Claims Administrator), the Claims Administrator
will promptly mail a copy of the Claim Packet to each of the
beneficial owners whose names and addresses the Nominee previously
supplied.  Unless the Nominee has identified additional beneficial
owners whose names and addresses were not previously provided to
the Claims Administrator, such Nominees need not take any further
action;

      c. For Nominees that have identified additional beneficial
owners who were previously identified in connection with the Class
Notice, such Nominees will either: (i) within seven calendar days
of receipt of the Claim Packet, provide a list of the names and
addresses of all such additional beneficial owners to the Claims
Administrator, or (ii) within seven calendar days of receipt of
the Claim Packet, request from the Claims Administrator sufficient
copies of the Claim Packet to forward to all such additional
beneficial owners which the Nominee shall, within seven calendar
days of receipt of the Claim Packets from the Claims
Administrator, mail to the beneficial owners;

      d. The Nominees who elect to send the Claim Packet to their
beneficial owners will also send a statement to the Claims
Administrator confirming that the mailing was made and will retain
their mailing records for use in connection with any further
notices that may be provided in the Action;

      e. Upon full and timely compliance with this Order, the
Nominees who mail the Claim Packets to beneficial owners, or who
provide additional names and addresses of beneficial owners to the
Claims Administrator, may seek reimbursement of their reasonable
expenses actually incurred in complying with this Order by
providing the Claims Administrator with proper documentation
supporting the expenses for which reimbursement is sought.  Such
properly documented expenses incurred by Nominees in compliance
with the terms of the Order will be paid from the Settlement Fund,
with any disputes as to the reasonableness or documentation of
expenses subject to review by the Court.

The Class Counsel shall, at least 14 calendar days before the
Settlement Hearing, file with the Court proof of mailing of the
Settlement Notice and Proof of Claim.

The Court approved the form of the Summary Notice of Proposed
Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses ("Summary Notice"), and directed that the Class Counsel
will cause the Summary Notice to be published in Investor's
Business Daily and be transmitted over PR Newswire within 14
calendar days of the Notice Date.  The Class Counsel shall, at
least 14 calendar days before the Settlement Hearing, file with
the Court proof of publication of the Summary Notice.

In order to be eligible to receive a distribution from the Net
Settlement Fund, in the event the Settlement is effected in
accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the
Stipulation, each claimant will submit a properly executed Proof
of Claimto the Claims Administrator, at the address indicated in
the Settlement Notice, postmarked or electronically submitted no
later than 14 calendar days before the Settlement Hearing and
submit to the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the claim
submitted.

Any Class Member may enter an appearance in the Action, at his,
her or its own expense, individually or through counsel of his,
her or its own choice.  A Class Member wishing to make such an
exclusion request will mail the request no later than 21 calendar
days before the Settlement Hearing.

Any such Person who wishes to opt-back into the Class must either,
individually or through counsel, request to opt-back into the
Class in writing to the Claims Administrator within the time and
in the manner set forth in the Settlement Notice, no later than 21
calendar days before the Settlement Hearing, at the address set
forth in the Settlement Notice.

The Court will consider any Class Member's objection to the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or the application for an
award of attorneys' fees or expenses only if such Class Member has
(i) served by hand or by mail his, her or its written objection
and supporting papers, such that they are postmarked on or before
21 calendar days before the Settlement Hearing, and mailed to the
Class Counsel, Jonathan Gardner, Labaton Sucharow LLP, 140
Broadway, New York, NY 10005 and James M. Hughes, Motley Rice LLC,
28 Bridgeside Blvd., Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464, and the Defendants'
Counsel, Matthew Rawlinson, Latham & Watkins LLP, 140 Scott Drive,
Menlo Park, California 94025 and Patrick E. Gibbs, Cooley LLP,
3175 Hanover Street, Palo Alto, California 94304; and (ii) filed
said objections and supporting papers with the Clerk of the Court,
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Oakland Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612.

As provided in the Stipulation, before the Effective Date, the
Class Counsel may pay the Claims Administrator fees and costs
associated with giving notice to the Class and the review of
claims and administration of the Settlement in an amount up to
$500,000 out of the Settlement Fund without further approval from
the Defendants and without further order of the Court.

All papers in support of the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation,
and the Class Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses will be filed with the Court and served on or before
35 calendar days before the Settlement Hearing.  Any reply papers
are to be filed with the Court and served no later than 14
calendar days before the Settlement Hearing.  No later than seven
calendar days before the Settlement Hearing, the Class Counsel
will file a submission with the Court concerning the claims
received to date.

Judge Rogers approved the passage of title and ownership of the
Settlement Fund to the Escrow Agent in accordance with the terms
and obligations of the Stipulation.  All funds held in escrow will
be deemed and considered to be in custodia legis of the Court, and
will remain subject to the jurisdiction of the Court until such
time as such funds will be disbursed pursuant to the Stipulation
and/or further order of the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/IqwpLL from Leagle.com.

BabakHatamian and LussuDennj Salvatore are represented by Joy Ann
Kruse, Esq. -- jkruse@lchb.com -- LIEFFCABRASERHEIMANN& BERNSTEIN,
LLP.

Lussu Dennj Salvatore, Plaintiff, represented by Joy Ann Kruse,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al. are represented by Patrick
Edward Gibbs, Esq. -- pgibbs@cooley.com -- COOLEY LLP -- Jason C.
Hegt, Esq. -- jason.hegt@lw.com -- Matthew Rawlinson, Esq. --
matt.rawlinson@lw.com -- and -- Melanie Marilyn Blunschi, Esq. --
melante.blunschi@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP.


Rory P. Read, Defendant, represented by Patrick Edward Gibbs,
Cooley LLP, Jason C. Hegt, Latham & Watkins LLP, Matthew
Rawlinson, Latham & Watkins LLP, Melanie Marilyn Blunschi, Latham
& Watkins LLP & Whitney Weber, Latham and Watkins LLP.

Thomas J. Seifert, Defendant, represented by Patrick Edward Gibbs,
Cooley LLP, Jason C. Hegt, Latham & Watkins LLP, Matthew
Rawlinson, Latham & Watkins LLP, Melanie Marilyn Blunschi, Latham
& Watkins LLP & Whitney Weber, Latham and Watkins LLP.

Lisa T. Su, Defendant, represented by Patrick Edward Gibbs, Cooley
LLP, Jason C. Hegt, Latham & Watkins LLP, Matthew Rawlinson,
Latham & Watkins LLP, Melanie Marilyn Blunschi, Latham & Watkins
LLP & Whitney Weber, Latham and Watkins LLP.

Richard A. Bergman, Defendant, represented by Patrick Edward
Gibbs, Cooley LLP, Jason C. Hegt, Latham & Watkins LLP, Matthew
Rawlinson, Latham & Watkins LLP, Melanie Marilyn Blunschi, Latham
& Watkins LLP & Whitney Weber, Latham and Watkins LLP.

KBC Asset Management NV, Movant, represented by Carol C. Villegas
-- cvillegas@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Michael J
Pendell -- mpendell@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Sharon
Maine Lee -- slee@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein,
William S. Norton -- bnorton@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC,
James Michael Hughes -- jhughes@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC,
Joy Ann Kruse -- jkruse@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Katherine Collinge Lubin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Max Nikolaus Gruetzmacher --
mgruetzmacher@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Meredith B.
Miller -- mbmiller@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, William H.
Narwold -- bnarwold@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC & Jonathan
Gardner -- jgardner@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP.

Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Movant,
represented by Michael M. Goldberg, Goldberg Law PC.

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Movant, represented by Alec T
Coquin -- acoquin@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Carol C.
Villegas, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Jonathan Gardner, Labaton Sucharow
LLP, Paul J Scarlato, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Sharon Maine Lee,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, Yah E. Demann --
ydemann@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Katherine Collinge
Lubin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicole Catherine
Lavallee -- nlavallee@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio &
William S. Norton, Motley Rice LLC.

Christopher Hamilton, David Hamilton, Movants, represented by
Willem F. Jonckheer -- wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com -- Schubert
Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP.

Jake Ha, Movant, represented by Avraham Noam Wagner --
avi@thewagnerfirm.com -- The Wagner Firm & Kara M Wolke --
kwolke@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.


ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Settlement in "McClendon" Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JIMMY (BILLY) McCLENDON, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, et al., Defendants. v. E.M., R.L., W.A.,
D.J., P.S., and N.W., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Intervenors, Case No. 95 CV 024
JAP/KBM (D. N.M.), Judge James A. Parker of the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Mexico granted final approval of the
Settlement Agreement between the City Defendants, the Plaintiff
Class, and the Plaintiff Intervenor Sub Class.

The class action lawsuit was brought in 1995 against the City
Defendants and the County Defendants to address issues related to
the overcrowding of the Bernalillo County jail system, consisting
originally of the Bernalillo County Detention Center ("BCDC") in
downtown Albuquerque, New Mexico and later on, the newer
Metropolitan Detention Center ("MDC"), now operated by the County.
In addition to addressing the needs of the Plaintiff class, the
Court certified a "sub-class of all persons with mental and/or
developmental disabilities who are now, or in the future may be,
detained at BCDC.

The parties seek final approval of their Settlement Agreement that
fully resolves a dispute over the treatment of class and subclass
members by the Albuquerque Police Department ("APD").

On Aug. 2, 2016, the Plaintiff Intervenors, on behalf of the
subclass of individuals with mental disabilities, asked the Court
to issue an order requiring the City Defendants to show cause why
they are not in violation of a 2001 consent decree entered in this
case.  They also alleged that the City Defendants have allowed the
APD to violate subclass members' rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA").  On Aug. 3, 2016, the Plaintiffs, on
behalf of the class of inmates housed at the Metropolitan
Detention Center ("MDC"), filed a notice of joinder in the Motion
for Order to Show Cause.

On Nov. 9, 2016, after full briefing of the Motion for Order to
Show Cause, the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order
requiring the City Defendants to appear and show cause as to
whether they are in compliance with: (i) the Supplemental Order to
enforce previously ordered population limits at the BCDC Main
facility ("2001 Supplemental Order") requiring the City Defendants
to provide direction to law enforcement officials to issue
citations where appropriate and to use the 'walk through
procedures,' rather than incarcerating individuals, where
appropriate; (ii) the 2001 Supplemental Order requiring the City
to schedule a meeting or meetings concerning the provision of
mental health services in Bernalillo County to plan how to
implement an effective jail diversion program for persons with
psychiatric and developmental disabilities; and (iii) the ADA with
regard to detaining and arresting individuals with mental
illnesses or developmental disabilities to sweep them from the
streets.

The Court ordered the parties to participate in limited discovery.
After discovery was completed, the parties entered into settlement
discussions with Special Master Alan C. Torgerson.  The Settlement
Agreement is the product of those discussions and the determined
efforts of Special Master Torgerson.

On July 10, 2017, the Court granted preliminary approval of
Settlement Agreement.  On Sept. 11, 2017, the Court held a hearing
on final approval of the Settlement Agreement.  At the end of the
hearing, the Court signed the Settlement Agreement and asked Ms.
Moulton to notify the Court when the City Council had approved the
Settlement Agreement so that the Court could find that the Motion
for Order to Show Cause had been finally resolved.  In a letter
dated Oct. 4, 2017, Ms. Moulton advised the Court that the parties
agreed that the Court's execution and filing of the Settlement
Agreement was sufficient to fully resolve the Motion for Order to
Show Cause.  Ms. Moulton then informed the Court that the City
ordinances do not require approval of the Settlement Agreement by
the City Council and that Ms. Moulton received all necessary
approval prior to executing the Settlement Agreement on behalf of
the City.

After considering the long history of the case, the Settlement
Agreement, the objections, and the arguments of counsel for the
class, subclass, the City Defendants, and the County Defendants,
Judge Parker granted final approval of the Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, within 45 days of the
signing of the Settlement Agreement, the City must (i) issue a
Special Order and a member of the command staff must issue a
corresponding video and (ii) initiate revision to APD's Standard
Operating Procedure ("SOP") 2-80, entitled Arrests, Arrest
Warrants and Booking Procedure.  After final approval of the
revised SOPs, the City will ensure that all officers are
adequately trained on the revised SOPs.  APD must develop a
training plan on the revisions within 60 days of the final
approval of those SOPs by the Chief of APD.  The Counsel for the
class and subclass will be given an opportunity to review the
training materials and give comments and recommendations within
two weeks of receipt.  The Chief of APD, however, will make the
final determination on training materials and methods.

The City must also revise SOP 2-19 entitled "Response to
Behavioral Health Issues."  It must also create a system of
business records documenting the following: (i) the notation of
phone numbers and email addresses on the new Uniform Traffic
Citation form; (ii) bookings into MDC on citable non-violent
misdemeanor offenses other than driving while intoxicated
offenses; (iii) disposition data for individuals involved in
incidents to which the CIT responded; and (iv) arrests involving
domestic violence calls.  Beginning 30 days after the Settlement
Agreement is signed, the City Defendants must compile these
records for one year.  Within three months thereafter, the City
Defendants must publically issue a written report summarizing the
findings from these statistical records and any follow-up measures
taken.  Issuance of the report constitutes compliance with this
section.

The City Defendants must continue to collaborate in good faith
with the County Defendants to develop and allocate resources to
jail diversion programs.  They may continue to use third-party
behavioral health programs for individuals in behavioral health
crisis, and the City Defendants must utilize other appropriate
third-party providers as they become available in the community.
The City must continue to provide approximately 700 supportive
housing slots for people, including the mentally disabled, who
have been booked into the MDC.

If a dispute arises over compliance with the Settlement Agreement,
before filing a motion with the Court, the parties must first
attempt to mediate the dispute before Special Master Torgerson or
another agreed-upon mediator.  The City Defendants may file a
motion with the Court for a finding of substantial compliance with
the Settlement Agreement and upon a showing of substantial
compliance, the City Defendants may ask the Court to dismiss them
from the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/p5MAQN from Leagle.com.

Peter Sumatkaku, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Jacob Guss,
Garcia Ives Nowara.

Peter Sumatkaku, Plaintiff, represented by Mark T. Baker --
mbaker@peiferlaw.com -- Peifer Hanson and Mullins, Mark H.
Donatelli, Rothstein Law Firm, Mary (Molly) E. Schmidt-Nowara --
molly@ginlawfirm.com -- GARCIA IVES NOWARA, Peter Schoenburg,
Rothstein, Donatelli, Hughes, Dahlstrom, Schoenburg & Bienve,
Philip B. Davis, Philip B. Davis, Attorney at Law & Zachary A.
Ives -- zach@ginlawfirm.com -- GARCIA IVES NOWARA.

Marc A. Gillette, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Jacob Guss,
Garcia Ives Nowara, Mark T. Baker, Peifer Hanson and Mullins, Mark
H. Donatelli, Rothstein Law Firm, Mary (Molly) E. Schmidt-Nowara,
GARCIA IVES NOWARA, Peter Schoenburg, Rothstein Donatelli LLP,
Philip B. Davis, Philip B. Davis, Attorney at Law & Zachary A.
Ives, GARCIA IVES NOWARA.

George Chavez, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Jacob Guss,
Garcia Ives Nowara, Mark T. Baker, Peifer Hanson and Mullins, Mark
H. Donatelli, Rothstein Law Firm, Mary (Molly) E. Schmidt-Nowara,
GARCIA IVES NOWARA, Peter Schoenburg, Rothstein Donatelli LLP,
Philip B. Davis, Philip B. Davis, Attorney at Law & Zachary A.
Ives, GARCIA IVES NOWARA.

Eliseo Baca, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Jacob Guss, Garcia
Ives Nowara, Mark T. Baker, Peifer Hanson and Mullins, Mark H.
Donatelli, Rothstein Law Firm, Mary (Molly) E. Schmidt-Nowara,
GARCIA IVES NOWARA, Peter Schoenburg, Rothstein Donatelli LLP,
Philip B. Davis, Philip B. Davis, Attorney at Law & Zachary A.
Ives, GARCIA IVES NOWARA.

Clint Barras, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Jacob Guss,
Garcia Ives Nowara, Mark T. Baker, Peifer Hanson and Mullins, Mark
H. Donatelli, Rothstein Law Firm, Mary (Molly) E. Schmidt-Nowara,
GARCIA IVES NOWARA, Peter Schoenburg, Rothstein Donatelli LLP,
Philip B. Davis, Philip B. Davis, Attorney at Law & Zachary A.
Ives, GARCIA IVES NOWARA.

Francisco Melendez, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Jacob Guss,
Garcia Ives Nowara, Mark T. Baker, Peifer Hanson and Mullins, Mark
H. Donatelli, Rothstein Law Firm, Mary (Molly) E. Schmidt-Nowara,
GARCIA IVES NOWARA, Peter Schoenburg, Rothstein Donatelli LLP,
Philip B. Davis, Philip B. Davis, Attorney at Law & Zachary A.
Ives, GARCIA IVES NOWARA.

Samual Herrod, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Jacob Guss,
Garcia Ives Nowara, Mark T. Baker, Peifer Hanson and Mullins, Mark
H. Donatelli, Rothstein Law Firm, Mary (Molly) E. Schmidt-Nowara,
GARCIA IVES NOWARA, Peter Schoenburg, Rothstein Donatelli LLP,
Philip B. Davis, Philip B. Davis, Attorney at Law & Zachary A.
Ives, GARCIA IVES NOWARA.

Vincent Padilla, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Jacob Guss,
Garcia Ives Nowara, Mark T. Baker, Peifer Hanson and Mullins, Mark
H. Donatelli, Rothstein Law Firm, Mary (Molly) E. Schmidt-Nowara,
GARCIA IVES NOWARA, Peter Schoenburg, Rothstein Donatelli LLP,
Philip B. Davis, Philip B. Davis, Attorney at Law & Zachary A.
Ives, GARCIA IVES NOWARA.

Carl Duckworth, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Jacob Guss,
Garcia Ives Nowara, Mark T. Baker, Peifer Hanson and Mullins, Mark
H. Donatelli, Rothstein Law Firm, Mary (Molly) E. Schmidt-Nowara,
GARCIA IVES NOWARA, Peter Schoenburg, Rothstein Donatelli LLP,
Philip B. Davis, Philip B. Davis, Attorney at Law & Zachary A.
Ives, GARCIA IVES NOWARA.

Albuquerque, City of, Defendant, represented by Debra J. Moulton,
Kennedy, Moulton & Wells PC & Kathryn Levy, City of Albuquerque
Legal Department.

Martin Chavez, Defendant, represented by Kathryn Levy.

Bernalillo, County of, Defendant, represented by Marcus J. Rael,
Jr. -- marcus@roblesrael.com -- Robles, Rael & Anaya, PC.

Alan C. Torgerson, Miscellaneous, represented by Alan C.
Torgerson.

AFSCME Local 2499, Intervenor, represented by Shane C. Youtz,
Youtz & Valdez PC & Stephen Curtice, Youtz & Valdez, PC.

Michael Sisneros, Defendant, Pro se.

Bernalillo County Board of Commissioners, Defendant, represented
by Jeffrey L. Baker, The Baker Law Firm, Luis E. Robles --
luis@roblesrael.com -- Robles, Rael & Anaya, P.C. & Marcus J.
Rael, Jr.  Robles, Rael & Anaya, PC.


ALLIED COLLECTION: "Simmons" Disputes Deceptive Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Katanya Simmons, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Allied Collection Services,
Inc., Case No. 17-cv-07865 (D. N.J., October 4, 2017), seeks
statutory and actual damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees
and expenses, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such
other and further relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Plaintiff owed an obligation that was allegedly incurred to
Sprint. The latter allegedly contracted Allied to collect the
alleged debt via a collection letter that contained an offer to
settle the debt that was set to expire within seven days, a form
of a firm expiring offer rendering the letter deceptive and
overshadowing as it does not truly afford the consumer their
proper rights and ability to dispute since the least sophisticated
consumer could believe a settlement offer on par with the current
one may never arise again, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yaakov Saks, Esq.
      RC LAW GROUP, PLLC
      285 Passaic Street
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Phone: (201) 282-6500
      Fax: (201) 282-6501


ANTARES PHARMA: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Antares Pharma, Inc. ("Antares" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:ATRS) and certain of its officers.   The class action,
filed in United States District Court, District of New Jersey, and
docketed under 17-cv-08945, is on behalf of a class consisting of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Antares securities,
seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants'
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Antares securities between
December 21, 2016, and October 12, 2017, both dates inclusive, you
have until December 22, 2017, to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action,
contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 9980.  Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

Antares develops pharmaceutical delivery systems, including
needle-free and mini-needle injector systems and transdermal gel
technologies. The Company distributes its needle-free injector
systems in various countries. Antares also conducts research and
development with transdermal gel products and has several products
in clinical evaluation with partners.

Antares's product Xyosted (originally known as QuickShot
Testosterone or QST) has been among the Company's lead product
candidates at all relevant times.  Antares announced its
submission of a New Drug Application ("NDA") for Xyosted to the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") on December 21, 2016.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Antares had provided
insufficient data to the FDA in connection with its NDA for
Xyosted; (ii) accordingly, Antares had overstated the approval
prospects for Xyosted; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing,
Antares' public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On October 12, 2017, post-market, Antares disclosed that on
October 11, 2017, the Company received a letter from the FDA
stating that the agency had "identified deficiencies that preclude
the continuation of the discussion of labeling and post marketing
requirements/commitments" for Xyosted.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.41, or 37.80%, to
close at $2.32 on October 13, 2017.

On October 20, 2017, post-market, Antares announced receipt of a
Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA regarding the NDA
for Xyosted, "indicat[ing] that the FDA cannot approve the NDA in
its present form."  The Company stated, in part that "the FDA is
concerned that XYOSTED could cause a clinically meaningful
increase in blood pressure" and also "raised a concern regarding
the occurrence of depression and suicidality."

With offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members. [GN]


ANTHELIO HEALTHCARE: Faces "Hoskins" Suit in Cal. Super Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Anthelio Healthcare
Solutions, Inc. The case is styled as Katie Hoskins, on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Anthelio Healthcare Solutions, Inc., Pyramid Healthcare
Solutions, Inc. and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 34-2017-
00220914-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., October 19, 2017).

Anthelio Healthcare Solutions Inc. provides healthcare technology
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
   Lawyers for Justice, PC
   410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
   Glendale, CA 91203
   Tel: (818) 265-1020
   Fax: (818) 265-1021


ARKANSAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE: "Hendrix" Suit Removed to E.D. Ark.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Ricky Hendrix, individually and on behalf of a
class of all Arkansans similarly situated, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. Arkansas Municipal
League (d/b/a Municipal Health Benefit Fund), and Municipal Health
Benefit Fund, Defendants, Case No. 58CV-17-499 (Ark. Cir.,
September 7, 2017), was removed to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on October 11, 2017
under Case No. 17-cv-00652.

Hendrix asserts breach of contract and seeks a declaratory
judgment. Municipal Health Benefit Fund provides medical, dental
and vision benefits to employees and officials.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James A. Streett, Esq.
      Alex G. Streett, Esq.
      STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A.
      107 West Main
      Russellville, AR 72801
      Tel: (479) 968-2030

             - and -

      Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
      BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
      227 2nd Avenue North, 4th Floor
      Nashville, TN 37201
      jleniski@bransetterlaw.com

Defendants are represented by:

      Christian C. Michaels, Esq.
      H. Bradley Walker, Esq.
      CATLETT LAW FIRM, PLC
      323 Center Street, Suite 1800
      Little Rock, AR 72201
      Tel: (501) 372-2121
      Email: cmichaels@catlaw.com
             bwalker@catlaw.com


BEACH LANE: Rent-Regulated Tenants File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Ivan Pereira, writing for AM New York, reports that a class-action
lawsuit filed on Oct. 23 on behalf of tenants of a Washington
Heights building contends their landlord breached rent regulations
it was required to abide by while receiving a state tax benefit.

Housing Rights Initiative, a nonprofit assisting the tenants,
claims Beach Lane Management convinced residents of 651 W. 171st
St. to sign away their right to regulated rent increases, which
Beach Lane Management needed to follow while participating in the
state's J-51 tax program.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo launched the J-51 program in 2016 as part of an
attempt to convince landlords to place some 50,000 homes back in
the rent stabilization program they were illegally taken out of.
Landlords that began abiding by the required rent regulations were
given a tax benefit, which currently costs the city $250 million
annually, according to the Housing Rights Initiative.

The complaint claims West 171 Associates, a subsidiary of Beach
Lane Management, used rent discounts to convince at least two
residents to sign paperwork waiving their right to the rent
stabilization protections.

West 171 Associates then allegedly hiked rents beyond what was
permitted under the J-51 program, and justified the increases by
saying the firm would make apartment improvements.  But the work
done amounted to routine maintenance tasks and painting, according
to the lawsuit.

"If the discounted rent is based on a fraudulent rent spike, it's
no longer a discount, it's an overcharge hiding behind a larger
overcharge," Aaron Carr, the executive director of Housing Rights
Initiative, said in a statement.

Beach Lane Management, which owns 100 city properties, did not
return requests for comment.

Beyond seeking to recoup what they allegedly overpaid in rent, the
plaintiffs are requesting an independent audit of Beach Lane
Management's accounting. [GN]


BJ INSPECTIONS: "Russo" Suit Transferred From Louisiana to Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit titled FRANK RUSSO, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. BJ INSPECTIONS,
INC., Case No. 6:17-cv-00959, was transferred on October 2, 2017,
from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
(Akron).  The Ohio District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-
02055-JRA to the proceeding.

Frank Russo brings the lawsuit to recover alleged unpaid overtime
wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

BJ Inspections is an oilfield service company offering inspection
and managerial services to the oil and natural gas industry
throughout the United States, including in Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN
          417 W. University Ave.
          P.O. Box 4325
          Lafayette, LA 70502
          Telephone: (337) 235-5294
          Telecopier: (337) 235-1095
          E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com

Defendant BJ Inspections Inc. is represented by:

          Charles C. Garrison, Esq.
          CAFFERY, OUBRE, CAMPBELL & GARRISON, L.L.P.
          P O Drawer 12410
          New Iberia, LA 70562-2410
          Telephone: (337) 364-1816
          Facsimile: (337) 364-9822
          E-mail: cgarrison@cocglaw.com

               - and -

          Kenneth J. Hardin, II, Esq.
          HARDIN THOMPSON PC
          437 Grant Street, Suite 620
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 315-7195
          Facsimile: (412) 315-7386
          E-mail: kenhardin@hardinlawpc.net


BOWLERLAND BILDINIC: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bowlerland Bildinic
Lanes Corp. The case is styled as Richard Baldelli and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bowlerland
Bildinic Lanes Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08049 (S.D.
N.Y., October 19, 2017).

Bowlerland Bildinic Lanes Corp. is engaged in the entertainment
business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


BRAZTECH INT'L: Bedwell's Bid to Dismiss Counterclaim Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edwin G. Torres of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida denied the Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the
Defendant's counterclaim in the case captioned SUZANNE M. BEDWELL,
individually and as mother and next friend of R.Z.B., a minor and
ERNEST D. BEDWELL, individually and as father and next friend of
R.Z.B., a minor, Plaintiffs, v. BRAZTECH INTERNATIONAL, L.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-22335-Civ-TORRES (S.D. Fla.).

The Plaintiff filed the action on Sept. 16, 2016.  On Jan. 20,
2015, Ms. Bedwell purchased a new Rossi brand .357 Magnum revolver
at an outdoor equipment retailer in Wasilla, Alaska.  On Feb. 21,
2015, Ms. Bedwell, along with her husband and son, drove to an
ammunition store to purchase supplies before driving to Palmer,
Alaska to engage in target practice.

In the process of exiting the motor vehicle in the parking lot,
the revolver inadvertently fell out of its holster, landed on its
hammer, and unintentionally discharged a round of ammunition that
struck Ms. Bedwell's son in his left leg.  Ms. Bedwell suggests
that the accidental discharge of the firearm was directly and
proximately caused by the firearm's defective condition, including
manufacturing and/or design defects.  As a result of the injury to
Ms. Bedwell's son, Alaska state troopers were called to the scene.
After hearing Ms. Bedwell's explanation for the cause of the
accident, the officers took the firearm into their possession.

On April 14, 2015, the state troopers tested Ms. Bedwell's firearm
for a potential misfiring defect by tapping the revolver on the
hammer with a small mallet.  The test allegedly resulted in an
unintentional misfiring of the weapon.  The Plaintiff then
purchased three additional Rossi .357 revolvers and a local
gunsmith tested them for defects.  Out of the three, one
discharged in the same way as Ms. Bedwell's revolver when struck
on the hammer with a mallet.

As such, Ms. Bedwell filed the class action seeking to force the
Defendants to recall, repair, and/or repurchase the defective .357
revolvers sold to Ms. Bedwell and the class.  In sum, the
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant violated the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, committed two counts of
negligence (failure to warn and failure to test), and breached
several warranties.

Pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the
Defendant counterclaim.  the Defendant responded to the
Plaintiff's motion on Oct. 9, 2017 to which the Plaintiffs did not
reply.

The Defendant's counterclaim alleges that contributory fault
applies in the case -- because both Plaintiffs were allegedly
negligent in the supervision of their minor son.  In its answer,
Defendant included apportionment of fault as a counterclaim which
therefore led the Plaintiffs to filing a motion to dismiss.
However, apportionment of fault is not a counterclaim but an
affirmative defense.

Judge Torres finds that the Defendant has proffered enough facts
to give the Plaintiffs fair notice of the affirmative defense
being asserted and how it applies to the facts of this case.
Specifically, the Defendant suggests that the Plaintiffs (i)
allowed the firearm to slide out of its holster, (ii) strike the
ground, and (iii) discharge in an unintended manner.  The
Defendant also contends that the Plaintiffs failed to supervise
their minor son when the firearm was dropped to the ground.  When
coupled together, it becomes clear that the Defendant's theory for
contributory fault hinges upon the Plaintiffs committing several
negligent acts -- all of which caused injuries to the Plaintiffs'
son.  The Judge concludes the Defendant is required to do no more.
Accordingly, he denied the Plaintiffs' motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/51oIxL from Leagle.com.

Suzanne M. Bedwell, Plaintiff, represented by Brian William
Warwick -- bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com -- Varnell & Warwick,
P.A..

Suzanne M. Bedwell, Plaintiff, represented by Christian Bataille,
Flanigan & Bataille, pro hac vice & Richard Blackburn Adams, Jr.,
Cole Scott & Kissane.

Ernest D. Bedwell, Plaintiff, represented by Brian William
Warwick, Varnell & Warwick, P.A., Christian Bataille, Flanigan &
Bataille, pro hac vice & Richard Blackburn Adams, Jr., Cole Scott
& Kissane.

Braztech International LC, Defendant, represented by John B.
Thorsness, Clapp, Peterson, Tiemessen, Thorsness & Johnson, LLC,
John P. Marino -- jmarino@sgrlaw.com -- Smith, Gambrell & Russell,
LLP, John F. Weeks -- jweeks@sgrlaw.com -- IV, Smith, Gambrell &
Russell, LLP & Kristen W. Bracken -- kbracken@sgrlaw.com -- Smith,
Gambrell & Russell, LLP.

Braztech International, L.C., Counter Claimant, represented by
John B. Thorsness, Clapp Peterson Tiemessen Thorsness & Johnson,
John Patrick Marino, Smith Gambrell Russell, John F. Weeks, IV,
Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP & Kristen Wenger Bracken, Smith
Gambrell & Russell, L.L.P..

Ernest D. Bedwell, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian William
Warwick, Varnell & Warwick, P.A., Christian Bataille, Flanigan &
Bataille & Richard Blackburn Adams, Jr., Cole Scott & Kissane.

Suzanne M. Bedwell, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian
William Warwick, Varnell & Warwick, P.A., Christian Bataille,
Flanigan & Bataille & Richard Blackburn Adams, Jr., Cole Scott &
Kissane.


BRETON INTERNATIONAL: "Delacruz" Suit Alleges ADA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Emanuel Delacruz, and all others similarly-situated v. Breton
International, Inc. dba Apex Technical School, Case No. 1:17-cv-
07918 (S.D. N.Y., October 15, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

The Plaintiff brings the civil rights action against Defendant for
its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

Plaintiff Emanuel Delacruz is a resident of New York, New York.
Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person.

Defendant operates Apex Technical School as well as the Apex
website (www.apexschool.com) and advertises, markets, distributes,
and provides courses of learning in the State of New York and
throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
      Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
      GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
      150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
      New York, NY 10003
      Tel: (212) 879-0240
      Fax: (212) 982-6284
      E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com
              nyjg@aol.com


BURGER KING: Faces "Tarr" Class Suit Over FACTA Breach
------------------------------------------------------
Andrew D. Tarr, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
individuals v. Burger King Corporation, d/b/a Burger King, Case
No. 1:17-cv-23776-FAM (S.D. Fla., October 13, 2017), arises from
the Defendant's violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act, specifically by providing electronically printed
receipt bearing the first 6, along with the last 4 digits of
consumers' debit card account number.

Burger King Corporation is one of the largest fast food restaurant
chains in the world, operating more than 7,000 stores in the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott D. Owens, Esq.
      SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
      3800 S. Ocean Dr., Ste. 235
      Hollywood, FL 33019
      Telephone: (954) 589-0588
      Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
      E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com

         - and -

      Bret L. Lusskin, Jr., Esq.
      BRET LUSSKIN, P.A.
      20803 Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 302
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (954) 454-5841
      Facsimile: (954) 454-5844
      E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com

         - and -

      Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
      KEOGH LAW, LTD.
      55 W. Monroe St., Ste. 3390
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 726-1092
      Facsimile: (312)726-1093
      E-mail: Keith@Keoghlaw.com
CENTURYLINK GROUP: "Chavez" Suit Removed to D. Minn.
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Anthony Chavez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Centurylink, Inc.,
(d/b/a Centurylink Broadband), Centurylink Communications, LLC and
Centurylink, Public Communications, Inc. and Does 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01561, (D. Colo., June 26, 2017), was
removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
on October 11, 2017 under Case No. 17-cv-04615.

Plaintiff is a CenturyLink customer for their internet service.
Plaintiff claims to be unjustly charged for services it they did
not avail of and/or did not agree to.

CenturyLink is a global communications and IT services company
focused on network and data systems management, big data
analytics, managed security services, hosting, cloud and IT
consulting services. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and -

     James S. Notis, Esq.
     Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
     Orin Kurtz, Esq.
     GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
     Tower 56, 126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Tel: (212) 905-0509
     Fax: (212) 905-0508
     Email: mgardy@gardylaw.com
            jnotis@gardylaw.com
            okurtz@gardylaw.com

            - and -

     Kip B. Shuman, Esq.
     THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
     Post-Montgomery Ctr.
     One Montgomery Street, Ste. 1800
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Tel: (303) 861-3003
     Fax: (303) 536-7849
     Email: kip@shumanlawfirm.com

            - and -

     Rusty Evan Glenn, Esq.
     SHUMAN LAW FIRM-DENVER
     600 17th Street, Suite 2800 South
     Denver, CO 80202
     Tel: (303) 861-3003
     Fax: (303) 536-7849
     Email: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

The CenturyLink Group is represented by:

     David Anthony Vogel, Esq.
     Douglas P. Lobel, Esq.
     COOLEY LLP
     11951 Freedom Drive, Ste. 1500
     One Freedom Square, Reston Town Center
     Reston, VA 20190-5656
     Tel: (703) 456-8000
     Fax: (703) 456-8100
     Email: dvogel@cooley.com
            dlobel@cooley.com

            - and -

     James Patrick Brogan, Esq.
     Cooley LLP
     380 Interlocken Crescent, Suite 900
     Broomfield, CO 80021-8023
     Tel: (720) 566-4190
     Fax: (720) 566-4099
     Email: jbrogan@cooley.com


CENTURYLINK INC: "Gonsior" Suit Removed to D. Minn.
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Heather Gonsior, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Centurylink, Inc.,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00963, (D. Or., June 19,
2017), was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota on October 11, 2017 under Case No. 17-cv-04619.

Plaintiff is a CenturyLink customer for their internet service.
Plaintiff claims to be unjustly charged for services that it did
not avail of and/or did not agree to.

CenturyLink is a global communications and IT services company
focused on network and data systems management, big data
analytics, managed security services, hosting, cloud and IT
consulting services. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael R. Fuller, Esq.
     OLSEN DAINES PC
     US Bancorp Tower
     111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150
     Portland, OR 97204
     Tel: (503) 201-4570
     Fax: (503) 362-1375
     Michael@UnderdogLawyer.com

CenturyLink, Inc. is represented by:

     Douglas P. Lobel, Esq.
     COOLEY LLP
     11951 Freedom Drive, Ste. 1500
     One Freedom Square, Reston Town Center
     Reston, VA 20190-5656
     Tel: (703) 456-8000
     Fax: (703) 456-8100
     Email: dlobel@cooley.com

            - and -

     Edward Choi, Esq.
     Sarah J. Crooks, Esq.
     PERKINS COIE, LLP
     1120 NW Couch Street, 10th Floor
     Portland, OR 97209-4128
     Tel: (503) 727-2053, 727-2000
     Fax: (503) 727-2222
     Email: scrooks@perkinscoie.com


CEVA LOGISTICS: "Garcia" Class Settlement Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Diego Garcia, et al. Plaintiffs, v. CEVA
Logistics USA, et al. Defendants, Case No. EDCV 16-388 JGB (DTBx)
(C.D. Cal.), Judge Jesus G. Bernal of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California granted the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement pursuant to the
Order filed on Oct. 23, 2017, and dismissed without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Judgment is
available at https://is.gd/4ILg2U from Leagle.com.

Diego Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn C. Westrick --
swestrick@westricklawfirm.com -- The Westrick Law Firm.

Vincent Arevalo, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn C. Westrick, The
Westrick Law Firm.

Efren Renteria, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn C. Westrick, The
Westrick Law Firm.

CEVA Logistics USA, Defendant, represented by David R. Ongaro --
dongaro@ongaropc.com -- Ongaro PC, Douglas G.A. Johnston, Jackson
Lewis PC, Nicole Elizabeth Forde -- Nicole.Forde@jacksonlewis.com
-- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Fraser Angus McAlpine --
Fraser.McAlpine@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC.

Centerline Drivers, LLC, Defendant, represented by Amelia D.
Winchester -- awinchester@ongaropc.com -- Ongaro PC & David R.
Ongaro, Ongaro PC.


CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in "Lutz"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sara Lioi of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted Defendant Chesapeake
Appalachia's renewed motion for partial summary judgment in the
case captioned REGIS F. LUTZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHESAPEAKE
APPALACHIA, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:09-cv-2256 (N.D.
Ohio).

On Sept. 30, 2009, the Plaintiffs filed their putative class
action complaint against the Defendants.  The Plaintiffs are
lessors of interests in natural gas estates in tracts of land in
Trumbull and Mahoning Counties in Ohio.  They claim that their
leases provide that the Defendant will pay them a royalty equal to
1/8th the value of the gas produced each month, computed by
multiplying the volumes produced by the market price of gas at the
time of production and dividing the product by eight.

The Plaintiffs alleged that beginning in at least 1993, the
Defendant began to deliberately and fraudulently underpay the full
gas royalty due its natural gas lessors, by (i) deducting post
production costs from the royalty payments the 'improper
deductions' claim]; (ii) calculating the monthly royalty payments
using a price that was less than the market price of the gas at
the time of production the 'Mahonia contracts' claim; and (iii)
calculating the monthly royalty payments using volumes that were
less than the volumes actually produced the 'line loss' claim.
They further allege that, although the gas wells at issue produced
oil in addition to gas, no oil royalties were ever paid.

The Court dismissed the entire complaint, on the Defendants'
motion to dismiss, finding the contract claim time-barred under
the four-year statute of limitations in Ohio Rev. Code Section
2305.041, and finding no independent basis for the remaining tort
claims.  The Plaintiffs appealed and the Sixth Circuit determined
that the breach of contract claim in Count I of the complaint
should survive a motion to dismiss because each monthly royalty
underpayment would constitute a separate breach triggering a new
accrual period, a question never decided by any Ohio court and the
answer to which was gleaned by the Sixth Circuit from existing
Ohio precedent.

Thus, the court of appeals held that the Plaintiffs are permitted
to pursue their breach of contract claim pertaining to any
underpayments of royalties that occurred within the four years
prior to the filing of their complaint in September 2009.  The
court further held that they may be entitled to equitable tolling
on the basis of fraudulent concealment, but that these are
questions for summary judgment or for trial.  The court affirmed
this Court's ruling in all other respects and remanded for further
proceedings.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which the
Court took under advisement, ultimately concluding, after
consultation with counsel, that the following question should be
certified to the Supreme Court of Ohio: (i) whether Ohio follows
the at the well rule (which permits the deduction of
postproduction costs) or it follows some version of the marketable
product rule (which limits the deduction of post-production costs
under certain circumstances).  The Court stayed all proceedings
until the Ohio Supreme Court determined whether to accept the
certified question.  On July 13, 2015, in view of the Ohio Supreme
Court's acceptance of the certified question, the case was
administratively closed, subject to reopening.

The Ohio Supreme Court heard oral argument on Jan. 5, 2016 and the
case was submitted that day.  On Nov. 14, 2016, the Defendant
advised the Court that a majority of the Ohio Supreme Court had
ruled on Nov. 2, 2016 that under Ohio law, an oil and gas lease is
a contract that is subject to the traditional rules of contract
construction.  Because the rights and remedies of the parties are
controlled by the specific language of their lease agreement, Ohio
Supreme Court declines to answer the certified question and
dismiss this cause.

On Aug. 18, 2017, Chesapeake filed the instant renewed motion for
partial summary judgment, again seeking summary judgment solely
with respect to the "at the well" leases.  The Plaintiffs have not
filed a renewed dispositive motion, although they have opposed
Chesapeake's renewed motion.

Chesapeake seeks partial summary judgment on the following issues:
(i) on its counterclaim seeking a declaration that, to the extent
the Plaintiffs have leases with royalty clauses valuing the
royalty payment "at the well," royalties under such leases must be
paid based on the value of gas "at the well," and not at any other
location; (ii) on its counterclaim seeking a declaration that it
has complied with the Plaintiffs' "at the well" leases by paying a
royalty based on the market value of gas at the wellhead; (iii) on
the Plaintiffs' "line loss" claim with respect to all of their
leases; and (iv) on the Plaintiffs' claim that the statute of
limitations was equitably tolled due to fraudulent concealment.

A close reading of the royalty provision, in light of Ohio's
contract law, leads to the conclusion that the parties' intent was
that the location for valuing the gas for purposes of computing
the royalty was "at the well."  Judge Lioi concludes that Ohio
would apply the "at the well" rule.  Therefore, she granted the
Defendant's motion is granted with respect to the legal question
raised in its first two grounds for summary judgment.

She also granted the motion with respect to the Plaintiffs' claim
relating to payment of royalties on full volume.  The Plaintiffs
have provided no evidence to support the allegations of line loss
in their complaint.  They have made no effort to refute the
Defendant's legal arguments, which she finds persuasive.  Even
more importantly, now that she has determined that royalties are
computed based on volume "at the well," not elsewhere, loss
somewhere along the line is not relevant.

The Judge finds the Defendant is also entitled to summary judgment
on the claim of fraudulent concealment.  The Plaintiffs have
failed to establish that the doctrine of fraudulent concealment
entitles them to tolling of the four-year statute of limitations.

For the reasons stated, Judge Lioi granted the Defendant's motion
for summary judgment.  In view of this ruling, the Judge directed
the counsel to confer and to propose in writing by Nov. 8, 2017,
their joint suggestions as to how to proceed with the case,
including re-briefing on the question of class certification;
whether any additional discovery is required; whether another
round of summary judgment motions would be helpful and/or
warranted; whether there is any interest in attempting to resolve
the case and, if so, by what means; and any other matter counsel
would like to bring to the Court's attention.  The Court will then
conduct a telephone conference, with counsel only, on Nov. 14,
2017 at 12:30 p.m.  The Plaintiffs' counsel will be responsible
for placing the call to the Court's chambers after all the counsel
are on the line.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/wFWz6u from Leagle.com.

Regis F. Lutz, Plaintiff, represented by Robert C. Sanders --
rcsanders@rcsanderslaw.com.

Regis F. Lutz, Plaintiff, represented by James Allison Lowe --
jlowe@lewlaw.com -- Lowe, Eklund & Wakefield.

Marion L. Lutz, Plaintiff, represented by Robert C. Sanders &
James Allison Lowe, Lowe, Eklund & Wakefield.

Leonard W. Yochman, Plaintiff, represented by Robert C. Sanders &
James Allison Lowe, Lowe, Eklund & Wakefield.

Joseph L. Yochman, Plaintiff, represented by Robert C. Sanders &
James Allison Lowe, Lowe, Eklund & Wakefield.

C.Y.V. LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Robert C. Sanders & James
Allison Lowe, Lowe, Eklund & Wakefield.

Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Defendant, represented by Alexandra I.
Russell -- alexandra.russell@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis,
Nicolle R. Snyder Bagnell -- nbagnell@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith,
Daniel T. Donovan -- daniel.donovan@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis, Jonathan T. Blank -- jblank@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire
Woods, Kevin C. Abbott -- kabbott@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith,
Leonard J. Marsico -- lmarsico@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods,
Ragan Naresh -- ragan.naresh@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis &
Yvette G. Harmon -- yharmon@mcguirewoodsemeritus.com -- INVALID
ADDRESS - McGuire Woods.

Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Counter-Claimant, represented by
Alexandra I. Russell, Kirkland & Ellis, Nicolle R. Snyder Bagnell,
Reed Smith, Daniel T. Donovan, Kirkland & Ellis, Jonathan T.
Blank, McGuire Woods, Kevin C. Abbott, Reed Smith, Leonard J.
Marsico, McGuire Woods, Ragan Naresh, Kirkland & Ellis & Yvette G.
Harmon, INVALID ADDRESS - McGuire Woods.

C.Y.V. LLC, Counter-Defendant, represented by Robert C. Sanders &
James Allison Lowe, Lowe, Eklund & Wakefield.

Marion L. Lutz, Counter-Defendant, represented by Robert C.
Sanders & James Allison Lowe, Lowe, Eklund & Wakefield.

Regis F. Lutz, Counter-Defendant, represented by Robert C. Sanders
& James Allison Lowe, Lowe, Eklund & Wakefield.

Joseph L. Yochman, Counter-Defendant, represented by Robert C.
Sanders & James Allison Lowe, Lowe, Eklund & Wakefield.

Leonard W. Yochman, Counter-Defendant, represented by Robert C.
Sanders & James Allison Lowe, Lowe, Eklund & Wakefield.


CHILDRENS' PLACE: Judge Stays PMWA Overtime Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
P.J. Dannunzio, writing for Law.com, reports that declining to
dismiss a prospective wage class action against clothing retailer
The Childrens' Place, a federal judge has instead stayed the
litigation.

The plaintiffs are store managers at The Childrens' Place stores
and allege that they were not paid overtime and misclassified as
exempt from the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.  The plaintiffs
made identical claims in an underlying FLSA suit.  The defendant
argued the case should be dismissed on the basis of claim
splitting.

"The doctrine of claim splitting is intended to prevent a
defendant from having to deal with piecemeal litigation of the
same issues," U.S. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania said in her opinion.  "Staying the case
will prevent The Children's Place from having to spend resources
on duplicative litigation, but will also preserve the Plaintiffs'
claims in the event" the plaintiffs' claims there rare dismissed.
[GN]


COMMUNICATIONS TEST: Accused by "Marshall" Suit of Violating FCRA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEREK MARSHALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. COMMUNICATIONS TEST DESIGN, INC., a Pennsylvania
corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-04383-MMB (E.D. Pa., October 2,
2017), accuses the Defendant of willfully violating the Fair
Credit Reporting Act by:

   (1) failing to provide a standalone up-front notice that
       the Defendant may procure consumer reports about its
       applicants and employees; and

   (2) failing to provide its applicants and employees copies of
       such reports and the required summaries of their FCRA
       rights before taking adverse action against them.

Communications Test Design, Inc., is a corporation incorporated
and existing under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania with its
principal place of business located in West Chester, Pennsylvania.
CTDI is a global engineering, repair, and logistics.  CTDI was
founded in 1975 and now has over 14,000 employees in over 90
facilities worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barry L. Cohen, Esq.
          Sean S. Litz, Esq.
          ROYER COOPER COHEN BRAUNFELD LLC
          101 West Elm Street, Suite 220
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (484) 362-2628
          Facsimile: (484) 362-2630
          E-mail: bcohen@rccblaw.com
                  slitz@rccblaw.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213-0676
          E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
                  ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com


DIANA CONTAINERSHIPS: Robins Geller Files Class Action in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") disclosed that
a class action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of Diana
Containerships Inc. ("Diana") (NASDAQ:DCIX) common stock during
the period between January 26, 2017 and October 3, 2017 (the
"Class Period").  This action was filed in the Eastern District of
New York and is captioned Robinson v. Diana Containerships Inc.,
et al., No. 17-cv-6160.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from October 23, 2017.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com.  If you are a member of this class, you
can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/diana/. Any member of the putative
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member.

The complaint charges Diana, certain of the Company's officers
and/or directors and Kalani Investments Limited and certain of its
affiliates ("Kalani") with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  Diana is a global provider of shipping
transportation services through its ownership of containerships.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendant
Symeon P. Palios ("Palios"), the Company's Chief Executive Officer
and Chairman of the Board, caused Diana to engage in a series of
manipulative share issuance/sales transactions with Kalani and
related entities.  The manipulative scheme worked as follows:
Through his control of Diana, Palios caused Diana to sell its
common shares and securities convertible into common shares to
Kalani at a significant discount to market price and to file
registration statements so that Kalani could resell these shares
into the market.  When Kalani's sales of Diana stock caused the
price of Diana stock to decline, the Company would reverse split
the stock, causing a certain number of outstanding shares to be
merged into a single share, thereby raising the price of Diana
stock.  Then Diana would again sell securities to Kalani and the
same pattern of transactions would ensue. According to the
complaint, defendants failed to disclose the true purpose of these
transactions and the related stock issuances and reverses -- to
provide Diana with financing that benefited Palios and his related
companies and family members and otherwise funnel money to Company
insiders.  As a result of defendants' stock manipulation scheme,
the complaint alleges that by October 3, 2017, Diana common stock,
which traded at a price of more than $2,500 per share on an
adjusted basis during the early part of the Class Period, was
worth only $0.47 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Diana common stock during the Class Period (the "Class").  The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- is a law firm advising
and representing U.S. and international investors in securities
litigation and portfolio monitoring.  With 200 lawyers in 10
offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history. [GN]


DRYCARE RESTORATION: "Abante Rooter" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Abante Rooter and Plumbing Inc., and all others similarly-situated
v. Drycare Restoration, Inc. dba Flood Local and Does 1 through
10, Case No. 3:17-cv-05884 (N.D. Calif., October 13, 2017), seeks
damages and other available legal or equitable remedies for
Defendants' violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff Abante Rooter and Plumbing Inc. is a rooting and
plumbing business in Emeryville, California.

Defendant Drycare Restoration, Inc. dba Flood Local is a
restoration and damage servicer. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


E.I. DUPONT: James Scott Farrin Files GenX Chemical Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
DuPont and others have been accused of allegedly releasing
chemicals known to be harmful to the public into the Cape Fear
River, which provides drinking water to thousands of people served
by the Brunswick County Northwest Water Treatment Plant, according
to a class action lawsuit filed on Oct. 20.

The particulars of the lawsuit are as follows:
What: Class Action and Individual Complaint and Request for Jury
Trial
http://file://mediaserver/users/Debbie1028/WINDOWS/Approval/Press%
20Releases/October/GenX%202%20oct%2020/Complaint-FILED.PDF
Where: Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
North Carolina, Southern Division / Case # 7:17-CV-00197-FL
When: Oct. 20
Who:

-- Plaintiff
-- Roger Morton, individually and as representative of the
members of the classes
-- Represented by the Law Offices of James Scott Farrin (Durham)
and The Hannon Law Firm (Denver)
-- Defendants
-- The Chemours Company FC, LLC, The Chemours Company, E.I.
duPont de Nemours and Company, Inc., E.I. duPont Chemical
Corporation, Ellis H. McGaughy, and Michael E. Johnson

Summary
Plaintiff, individually and as a representative of the members of
a class (amounting potentially to more than 30,000 people), seeks
compensatory and punitive damages arising out of alleged releases,
discharges, spills and leaks of toxic PFAS and PFECAs, both past
and present, from the Fayetteville Works Facility and property
currently owned by the Chemours Defendants in Fayetteville, NC.

Requests for alleged damages include:

   -- loss in value and marketability of properties
   -- cost of remediating properties
   -- cost of mitigating the contaminated water, and/or cost of
alternative water sources
   -- loss of use of their properties they own, loss of use and
enjoyment of those properties, annoyance, discomfort and
inconvenience
   -- cost of diagnostic testing for the early detection of
illness, disease, and disease process caused by exposure to
Defendants' toxic PFAS and/or PFECAs

Claims for relief (i.e. alleged ways in which defendants may have
broken the law):

   -- Trespass
   -- Nuisance
   -- Negligence
   -- Negligent failure to warn
   -- Unjust enrichment

Contact Information:

David Chamberlin
280 S. Mangum Street, Suite 400
Durham, NC 27701
866-900-7078
http://www.farrin.com
[GN]


EQUIFAX INC: Small Businesses Seek Damages Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kademi, LLC, Superior Services, Investment Group, LLC, Forest
Express Properties, LLC, Just Rev, LLC, Pierce N Tell of Sarasota,
LLC, Martin's Auto Repair, Mojo Mama's LLC, Young's Distributing
Co., Inc., Coastal Communications, LLC, The Mello Group, Inc.,
Dawn Lea Chalmers, Richard Alexander, Kbar Ali, Poonam Ali,
Reevney St. Luc, Oshik Perez, Teresa Sue Martin, William Marvin
Martin, Jr., Ngela M. Krout, Bridgette Young, Jeff Newkirk, Chris
Williams, individually and on behalf of others, similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-
03886, (N.D. Ga., October 4, 2017), seeks appropriate injunctive
relief designed to ensure against the recurrence of a data breach
by adopting and implementing the best security data practices to
safeguard customers' financial and personal information and that
would include, without limitation, an order and judgment directing
Equifax to encrypt and protect all data and directing Equifax to
provide to Plaintiffs and Class members extended credit monitoring
services, pre judgment and post-judgment interest, costs of suit,
including reasonable attorneys' fees and such other and further
relief resulting from negligence and under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act and various consumer protections statutes and data
protection laws.

Equifax is a credit-reporting company that track and rates the
financial history of U.S. consumers. The companies are supplied
with data about loans, loan payments and credit cards, as well as
information on everything from child support payments, credit
limits, missed rent and utilities payments, addresses and employer
history. Equifax experienced a cybersecurity incident impacting
approximately 143 million U.S. consumers exposing their names,
Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver's license
numbers and credit card numbers.

Plaintiffs represent a class of small business owners and
consumers who blame Equifax for failure to safeguard personally
identifiable information during the data breach. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EQUIFAX INC: Pellitteri Files Suit Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------
Carmen Pellitteri and Kent Toft, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Equifax, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-03881 (N.D. Ga., October 5, 2017), seeks
appropriate injunctive relief designed to ensure against the
recurrence of a data breach by adopting and implementing the best
security data practices to safeguard customers' financial and
personal information and that would include, without limitation,
an order and judgment directing Equifax to encrypt and protect all
data and directing Equifax to provide to Plaintiffs and Class
members extended credit monitoring services.  The lawsuit further
seeks pre judgment and post-judgment interest, costs of suit,
including reasonable attorneys' fees and such other and further
relief resulting from negligence and under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act and various consumer protection statutes and data
protection laws.

Equifax is a credit-reporting company that track and rates the
financial history of U.S. consumers. The companies are supplied
with data about loans, loan payments and credit cards, as well as
information on everything from child support payments, credit
limits, missed rent and utilities payments, addresses and employer
history. Equifax experienced a cybersecurity incident impacting
approximately 143 million U.S. consumers exposing their names,
Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver's license
numbers and credit card numbers.

Plaintiffs' personal and confidential information, was included in
the massive data breach of Defendant's systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Bain, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. BAIN, LLC
      1230 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 1050
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 724-9990
      Facsimile: (404) 724-9986
      Email: dbain@bain-law.com

             - and -

      Mark Reinhardt, Esq.
      Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
      Brant D. Penney, Esq.
      Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
      REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
      E-1250 First National Bank Building
      332 Minnesota Street
      St. Paul, MN 55101
      Telephone: (651) 287-2100
      Email: m.reinhardt@rwblawfirm.com
             g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
             b.penney@rwblawfirm.com
             r.yard@rwblawfirm.com


EQUIFAX INC: "Turner" Seeks Damages Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------
Nathan Turner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Equifax Inc., a Georgia Corporation, Case
No. 17-CV-2041 (S.D. Cal., October 4, 2017), seeks redress for
negligence, unjust enrichment and violation of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code and Unfair
Competition Law.

Equifax, one of the three major consumer credit reporting
agencies, was hacked and the consumers' data it held was stolen.
Equifax waited more than a month to advise affected users,
including the Plaintiff, that their private, personal information
had been compromised. Data included names, Social Security
numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver's license numbers and
credit card numbers, says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander M. Schack, Esq.
      Natasha N. Serino, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER M. SCHACK
      16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400
      San Diego, CA 92127
      Tel: (858) 485-6535
      Fax: (858) 485-0608
      Email: alexschack@amslawoffice.com
             natashaserino@amslawoffice.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Henderson" Suit Arising From Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
SHON HENDERSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. EQUIFAX, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-03829-LMM (N.D. Ga.,
September 29, 2017), arises from a data breach that allowed third
parties to access the names, addresses, Social Security numbers,
and other personally identifiable information of over 140 million
United States consumers.

The data breach purportedly began in mid-May and ended on July 29,
2017, when Equifax finally realized its security had been
compromised.  While Equifax allegedly learned of the Breach on
July 29, 2017, Equifax did not acknowledge the Breach nor inform
the public until September 7, 2017, well over one month later, Ms.
Henderson contends.

Equifax, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of
Georgia and headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.  Equifax is one of
the three largest credit bureaus in the United States.  Equifax's
business model revolves around buying, selling, collecting, and
storing consumers' PII for financial gain.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Deval R. Zaveri, Esq.
          ZAVERI TABB, APC
          402 West Broadway, Suite 1950
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 831-6988
          E-mail: dev@zaveritabb.com


EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Mass. Rules on Security Deposit Act Issue
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SCOTT PHILLIPS, vs. EQUITY RESIDENTIAL
MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., Case No. SJC-12247 (Mass.), Judge Kimberly S.
Budd of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk,
concluded that the Legislature did not intend for the treble
damages provision in Security Deposit Act, G. L. c. 186, Section
15B (7) to apply to a landlord's violation of the requirements for
an itemized list set out in Section 15B (4) (iii), second
sentence, or to the amount forfeited for violation of Section 15B
(6)(b).

Scott Phillips ("Tenant") and a friend entered into a written
lease with Equity for an apartment in Waltham, for a term of from
July 20, 2012, to May 19, 2013.  Phillips paid a security deposit
of $750 before moving into the apartment.  He moved out of the
apartment on May 20, 2013, and requested the return of his
deposit.

Equity responded with a statement of deposit account (statement),
which was signed but not sworn to under pains and penalties of
perjury, within thirty days of termination of occupancy.  The
statement listed charges totaling $968.08 and stated that Phillips
owed a balance of $218.02 after subtracting the security deposit
and accumulated interest.  On June 23, 2013, Phillips' father, a
guarantor of the lease, notified Equity that the statement did not
comply with several requirements of the act.

On Aug. 6, 2013, Phillips filed a class action complaint in the
Superior Court, alleging that Equity had violated the act insofar
as (i) the statement and attached document were not properly
signed and sworn to under the pains and penalties of perjury; (ii)
Equity did not provide sufficient documentation to support the
charges that were deducted from the deposit; (iii) Equity
impermissibly deducted cleaning charges from the deposit; and (iv)
Equity failed to return the deposit within 30 days after the
termination of the tenancy.

He sought recovery under Section 15B (7), which provides, inter
alia, for treble damages for certain violations of the act.
Equity removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, citing diversity of citizenship under
the Federal Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.   Equity also filed
a counterclaim against Phillips for the remaining balance listed
on the statement: $218.02.

In 2015, the District Court ruled on both parties' motions for
summary judgment.  The District Court found that Equity's
statement did not comply with the itemized deduction provision in
the act, see Section 15B (4) (iii), second sentence, and therefore
Equity had forfeited its right to retain any part of the deposit
under Section 15B (6) (b).  As a result, Phillips was entitled to
recover his security deposit.

However, the District Court judge also ruled that Phillips was not
entitled to treble damages, as she concluded that the Legislature
had excluded violations of the itemized deduction provision from
the types of violations that qualified for treble damages under
Section 15B (7).  Finally, the judge ruled that Equity was
entitled to no more than $102.42 for holdover rent, because it had
forfeited its right to counterclaim for damage to the premises by
violating the act, and could not make deductions for a late
payment or earlier costs in an unrelated proceeding under Section
15B (4).

Phillips appealed from the ruling, arguing that the District Court
misinterpreted the act, and that he was entitled to recover treble
the amount of the entire security deposit under Section 15B (7).

Concluding that there was no controlling precedent to decide the
question, the Court of Appeals certified the following question to
this Court, pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 1:03, as appearing in 382
Mass. 700 (1981):  whether the lessor's corresponding violation of
Section 15B (6) (b)], which forfeits his right to retain any
portion of the security deposit for any reason, also constitutes a
violation of Section 15B (6) (e) thereby triggering the statute's
treble damages provision with respect to the Massachusetts
Security Deposit Law, when a lessor violates the itemized list
requirements of Section 15B (4) (iii).

Judge Budd concludes that a landlord violates Section 15B (6)(e)
only where the landlord fails to return or account for any portion
of the security deposit within 30 days, or where the landlord
makes a deduction that does not fall within the categories
authorized by Section 15B (4) (i), (ii), (iii), first sentence.  A
violation of Section 15B (6) (e) does not apply to any portion of
the security deposit that was forfeited under another provision of
Section 15B (6).  As a result, the Judge's answer to the certified
question is no.

The Judge directed the Reporter of Decisions to furnish attested
copies of her Opinion to the clerk of the Court.  The clerk in
turn will transmit one copy, under the seal of the Court, to the
clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, as the
answer to the question certified, and will also transmit a copy to
each party.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/CnEXrK from Leagle.com.

Joshua N. Garick -- Joshua@GarickLaw.com -- (David Pastor &
Preston W. Leonard -- pleonard@theleonardlawoffice.com -- also
present) for the plaintiff.

Craig M. White, of Illinois (Thomas H. Wintner also present) for
the defendant.

Jeffrey J. Pokorak -- jpokorak@suffolk.edu -- Catherine Dowie, &
John Pierce Wilton for Accelerator-to-Practice Program of Suffolk
University Law School & others.

Lawrence J. Farber for Greater Boston Real Estate Board.

Alex Mitchell-Munevar & Joseph Michalakes for City Life/Vida
Urbana.


XCEL ENERGY: "Calvert" Suit Alleges Labor Violations
----------------------------------------------------
Nicholas E. Calvert, Michael Montoya and Paul C. Uroda, and all
others similarly-situated v. Xcel Energy, Inc. and Public Service
Company of Colorado, Inc. dba Xcel Energy, Case No. 1:17-cv-02458
(D. Colo., October 13, 2017), is brought against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado
Minimum Wages of Workers Act, and the Colorado Wage Claim Act.

Plaintiff Nicholas E. Calvert has been employed by Defendants as
operations personnel in their Colorado power plants since 2013. He
has been assigned to work in two of Defendants' power plants.

Plaintiff Michael Montoya has been employed by Defendants as
operations personnel in their Colorado power plants since 2011. He
has been assigned to work in two of Defendants' power plants.

Plaintiff Paul C. Uroda was employed by Defendants as operations
personnel in their Colorado power plants from approximately 1982
through 2017. He was assigned to work in two of Defendants' power
plants.

Defendants Xcel Energy, Inc. and Public Service Company of
Colorado, Inc., dba Xcel Energy, operated twenty-two power plants
located throughout the State of Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Andrew H. Turner, Esq.
      Naomi Y. Perera, Esq.
      Ellen M. Kelman, Esq.
      THE KELMAN BUESCHER FIRM
      600 Grant Street, Suite 450
      Denver, CO 80203
      Tel: (303)-333-7751
      Fax: (303)-333-7758
      E-mail: aturner@laborlawdenver.com
              nperera@laborlawdenver.com
              ekelman@laborlawdenver.com


FINANCIAL FREEDOM: "Saris" Suit Alleges Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Saris, and all others similarly-situated v. Financial Freedom
Mortgage LLC and John Does 1-10, Case No. 003995-17 (N.J. Super.,
October 13, 2017), is brought against the Defendants' alleged
sexual harassment and unlawful discharge in violation of the New
Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Plaintiff Dawn Saris is a resident of the State of New Jersey.
Plaintiff was employed by the defendant from October 10, 2016
until April 13, 2017.

Defendant Financial Freedom Mortgage LLC is a corporation
maintaining a principal place of business in Marlton, New Jersey.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel T. Silverman, Esq.
      COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
      18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
      Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
      Tel: (856) 727-9700


GLACIER COUNTY, MT: High Ct. Affirms Dismissal of Taxpayers Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Beth Baker of the U.S. Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the
District Court's dismissal of the case captioned ELAINE MITCHELL,
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
GLACIER COUNTY, and STATE OF MONTANA, Defendants and Appellees,
Case No. DA 16-0716 (Mont.) on the ground that Mitchell and the
putative class ("Taxpayers") did not have standing to sue either
the County or the State.

The Taxpayers own real property and pay property taxes in Glacier
County.  They have been paying their taxes under protest in
response to a March 2015 independent audit of the County's
finances for fiscal years 2013 and 2014.  The audit identified
budget deficits in numerous County funds and stated that the
County had exceeded its budgetary authority in many of those
funds.  A subsequent County Treasurer's report showed ongoing
deficit balances in a number of the County's funds.

The Taxpayers sued Glacier County and the State of Montana,
alleging that both entities had failed to comply with budgeting
and accounting laws.  They asked the District Court for numerous
forms of relief, including: (i) permission to prosecute the case
as private attorneys general; (ii) a declaration that the County
had failed to comply with generally accepted governmental
accounting standards; (iii) a declaration that the County was in
violation of laws designed to ensure "strict accountability" of
government finances; (iv) a declaration that County officials who
incurred financial obligations in excess of appropriations were
personally liable for the resulting budget deficits; (v) an order
requiring the State to withhold public funds from the County under
the Single Audit Act until the County complied with its budgeting
obligations; (vi) an order requiring the State to hold County
officials personally liable for their failure to ensure strict
accountability; (vii) an order appointing a receiver for the
County; (viii) permission to prosecute the case as a class action;
(ix) an order allowing Taxpayers to continue paying their taxes
under protest until the County complied with its budgetary duties;
and (x) a determination that the County violated Taxpayers' right
to know under the Montana Constitution.

In their Second Amended Complaint, the Taxpayers made the
assertion regarding their alleged injury that based on the 2013
and 2014 Audits of the county, and the deficiencies described
therein, it is foreseeable that the county's residents and
taxpayers would be injured as a result of the State's failure to
enforce the terms of the Single Audit Act to insure strict
accountability of all revenues received and money spent by the
county.  They moved for partial summary judgment, and the State
and County challenged Taxpayers' standing to sue.

The District Court denied their motion for partial summary
judgment, denied class certification, and dismissed the case for
lack of standing.  The Taxpayers appeal the district court's
dismissal of their case.

Judge Baker concludes that the Taxpayers have not demonstrated
that their claimed potential for increased property taxes in
response to the County's financial situation constitutes a
concrete injury sufficient to confer standing in the case.  She
finds that the Taxpayers have not made concrete allegations that
the County squandered a specific amount of money that it would
need to recoup through increased property taxes.  Without
demonstrating a concrete injury, they cannot establish standing to
sue for violations of the Single Audit Act or the Local Government
Budget Accounting Act.

Finally, the Judge also finds that the Taxpayers cite no authority
that the private attorney general doctrine establishes a right to
judicial relief independent of recognized standing requirements.
Without an independent ground for standing, they cannot assert a
claim under the Declaratory Judgments Act.  Neither the private
attorney general doctrine nor the Declaratory Judgments Act grants
Taxpayers standing to seek relief in the case.

For these reasons, Judge Baker concludes that the District Court
correctly determined that the Taxpayers lack standing to sue
either the County or the State.  Accordingly, she affirmed the
judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/3ZTYjH from Leagle.com.

Lawrence A. Anderson -- laalaw@me.com -- (argued), Attorney at
Law, P.C., Great Falls, Montana, for Appellants.

Kirk D. Evenson -- kevenson@marralawfirm.com -- (argued), Marra,
Evenson & Bell, P.C., Great Falls, Montana (Attorney for Glacier
County) Gary M. Zadick, James R. Zadick (argued), Ugrin,
Alexander, Zadick & Higgins, P.C., Great Falls, Montana (Attorneys
for State of Montana), for Appellees.


GOOD CHOWS: Court Approves $22,000 Settlement in Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned YA CHEN et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOOD CHOWS
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14 Civ. 5960 (HBP) (S.D. N.Y.),
Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York approved the parties' joint
application to approve their settlement.

The parties held two settlement conferences one before the Hon.
Frank Maas, United State Magistrate Judge (ret.) and the other
before the Hon. Kevin N. Fox, United States Magistrate Judge.

The Plaintiffs formerly worked at the Defendants' restaurant; two
Plaintiffs were deliverymen and one Plaintiff was a waiter.  The
Plaintiffs bring the action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and seek recovery
for allegedly unpaid wages and overtime premium pay.  They also
assert a claim based on the Defendants' failure to provide certain
notice and wage statements as required by NYLL.  In total, the
Plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to approximately
$46,981.61 in unpaid wages and overtime premium pay.  The
Defendants deny the Plaintiffs' allegations.  The Plaintiffs
brought the action as a collective action, but reached a proposed
settlement prior to conditional certification.

The Settling Parties have agreed to a total settlement of $22,250.
The Settling Parties have also agreed that the Plaintiffs' counsel
will receive $1,000 to reimburse their out-of-pocket expenses and
$7,083.33 for attorney's fees.  After deduction of legal fees and
costs (i) Ya Chen will get $8,567.20 from claimed amount of
$28,411.82; (ii) Yong Jie Li will get $4,604.33 from claimed
amount of $15,269.56; and (iii) Ting Yun Zhang will get $995.14
from claimed amount of $3,300.23.

Magistrate Judge Pitman finds that the allocation of funds from
the net settlement amount among the three Plaintiffs is fair and
reasonable.  The settlement allocates approximately 60.4% of the
net settlement to Chen, 32.4% to Li and 7.2% to Zhang.  According
to information provided by the parties, Chen was employed by the
Defendants for approximately 141 weeks, Li for 25 weeks, and Zhang
for seven weeks.  Chen's hourly rate was approximately $5, while
Li and Zhang's hourly rates were $5.25.  In light of the number of
weeks worked by, and hourly rate paid to, the Plaintiffs, the
allocation of the settlement fund is fair and reasonable.

The proposed settlement also contains a release which is solely
limited to wage and hour claims that have arisen prior to the date
the Agreement is executed.  Finally, the settlement agreement
provides that approximately 33.3% of the settlement fund,
excluding the Plaintiffs' counsel's out-of-pocket expenses, will
be paid to the Plaintiffs' counsel as contingency fees.

Accordingly, for all these reasons, Magistrate Judge Pitman
approves the settlement in the matter.  Although the settlement
agreement resolves the claims between the Plaintiffs and the
Defendants Good Chows and Li, the case remains open as to the
Defaulting Defendants.  Within 30 days of the date of the Order,
the Plaintiffs are to either file a notice of dismissal as to the
Defaulting Defendants pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.(a) (1) (A) or move
for a default judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/M6tC8r from Leagle.com.

Ya Chen, Plaintiff, represented by Jian Hang -- jhang@hanglaw.com
-- Hang & Associates, PLLC.

Ya Chen, Plaintiff, represented by Keli Liu -- kliu@hanglaw.com --
Hang & Associates, PLLC, Kevin Edison Vorhis --
kevin.vswlaw@gmail.com -- Hang & Associates, PLLC & William
Michael Brown -- wbrown@hanglaw.com -- Hang & Associates, PLLC.

Yong Jie Li, Plaintiff, represented by Jian Hang, Hang &
Associates, PLLC & Keli Liu, Hang & Associates, PLLC.

Ting Yun Zhang, Plaintiff, represented by Jian Hang, Hang &
Associates, PLLC & Keli Liu, Hang & Associates, PLLC.

Good Chows Inc., Defendant, represented by Song Chen --
schen@kktlawfirm.com -- Kevin Kerveng Tung, P.C..

Cheng Tao Li, Defendant, represented by Song Chen, Kevin Kerveng
Tung, P.C..

Good Chows Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Song Chen, Kevin
Kerveng Tung, P.C..

Cheng Tao Li, Counter Claimant, represented by Song Chen, Kevin
Kerveng Tung, P.C..

Ya Chen, Defendant, represented by Jian Hang, Hang & Associates,
PLLC.

Ya Chen, Counter Defendant, represented by Keli Liu, Hang &
Associates, PLLC & Kevin Edison Vorhis, Hang & Associates, PLLC.


GREAT PLAINS: "Bushansky" Suit Alleges Exchange Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Bushansky, and all others similarly-situated v. Great
Plains Energy Inc., Terry Bassham, David L. Bodde, Randall C.
Ferguson, Jr., Gary D. Forsee, Scott D. Grimes, Thomas D. Hyde,
Ann D. Murtlow, Sandra J. Price, and Johsn J. Sherman, Case No.
4:17-cv-00869 (W.D. Mo., October 13, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On July 9, 2017, Great Plains entered into an amended and restated
agreement and plan of merger with Westar, Monarch Energy Holding,
Inc., and King Energy, Inc.

Plaintiff Stephen Bushansky is a continuous stockholder of Great
Plains.

Kansas City, Missouri-based Great Plains is the holding company
for two vertically integrated electric utilities -- Kansas City
Power & Light and KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company, which
operate under the brand name KCP&L. Through its subsidiaries,
Great Plains generates, transmits, distributes, and sells
electricity in 47 counties in Missouri and Kansas.
The Defendant's common stock is traded on the New York Stock
Exchange under the ticker symbol "GXP."

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Great
Plains. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bryce B. Bell, Esq.
      BELL LAW, LLC
      2600 Grand Blvd., Ste. 580
      Kansas City, MO 64108
      Tel: (816) 886-8206
      Fax: (816) 817-8500
      E-mail: Bryce@BellLawKC.com

          - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
      Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
      Alexandra E. Eisig, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212) 682-3025
      Fax: (212) 682-3010
      E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com
              mrogovin@weisslawllp.com
              kkeenan@weisslawllp.com
              aeisig@weisslawllp.com


H&M HENNES: Loses Bid for Partial Summary Judgment in "Lao"
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SER LAO, Plaintiff, v. H&M HENNES & MAURITZ,
L.P., Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00333-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, denied the Defendant's
motion for partial summary judgment as to the waiting time claim.

The Defendant operates approximately 80 retail and outlet stores
throughout California.  On approximately March 3, 2014, the
Plaintiff was hired as a department manager at the Defendant's
store located in Fresno, California.  Approximately one year
later, the Plaintiff was promoted to Store Manager, the highest-
ranking position at the store level.  On Sept. 24, 2015, Plaintiff
was terminated.

In this putative class action suit, the Plaintiff alleges his
former employer, the Defendant, failed to provide accurate
itemized wage statements and failed to pay minimum wage, overtime
wages, and premium pay for missed meal and rest periods.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class that consists of all non-
exempt retail store employees who were employed by the Defendant
in the State of California at any time from Dec. 11, 2011, through
the present.

He also proposes a subclass of all non-exempt retail store
employees who were employed by the Defendant in the State of
California at any time from Dec. 11, 2011, through the present who
received overtime pay and non-discretionary incentive pay,
including without limitation, bonuses ("Regular Rate Sub-Class"),
and another subclass of all former employees who were employed by
the Defendant in the State of California at any time from Dec. 11,
2012, through the present, whose employment was separated for any
reason (voluntary or involuntary), including without limitation,
resignation, termination, and/or lay-off, and upon their
separation of employment received their final wages in the form of
an ATM card ("ATM Card Class").

In the sixth cause of action, the Plaintiff alleges a violation of
Labor Code Section 201-203, alleging that that the Defendant
regularly and willfully failed and refused to pay all wages,
including commissions, in a timely manner to employees upon
discharge or resignation.

In an earlier-filed wage and hour class action suit in state
court, another employee, Suzanne Tran, sued the Defendant to
challenge the Defendant's alleged policy and practice of requiring
non-exempt employees to work substantial amounts of time "off-the-
clock and without pay, and failing to provide non-exempt employees
with meal and rest periods.

In May of 2015, the Court certified the class of all individuals
who are currently employed, or formerly have been employed by
Defendant as non-exempt store management employee in the positions
of supervisor, department manager, assistant manager and/or store
manager and worked in the Defendant's stores in the State of
California, at any time within four years prior to the filing of
the original complaint until resolution of this action.  Lao was a
member of the Tran Class.

On or about Feb. 29, 2016, the state court granted preliminary
approval of the Tran Class Action Settlement.  Following
preliminary approval, the claims administrator mailed a Notice of
Settlement and Claim Form to class members, including Plaintiff
Lao.  Plaintiff Lao admits that he received the Claim Form.  He
did not submit a completed Claim Form nor did he request to be
excluded from the Tran settlement. After receiving no objections
to the Tran Class Action Settlement, the state court granted final
approval and dismissed the Tran action.

In February of 2016, the parties to the instant action filed a
stipulation with the Court regarding the impact of the Tran Class
Action Settlement, which provided as that the Tran class action
settlement does not apply to the Plaintiff and putative class
members' claims for (i) unpaid wages/overtime under California
Labor Code Sections 510, 558, 1194, 1197, and 11971.1 that
resulted from alleged security checks; (ii) premium pay for missed
meal and rest periods under California Labor Code Sections 226.7
and 512, that resulted from alleged security checks; and (iii)
unpaid overtime under California Labor Code Sections 510, 558,
1994, and 1197.1 that resulted from the Defendant's alleged
failure to include all non-discretionary items of compensation in
the regular rate for the purposes of calculating overtime.

Presently before the Court is the Defendant's motion for partial
summary judgment on the Plaintiff's fourth cause of action for
meal time violations and sixth cause of action for violation of
California Labor Code Sections 201-203.  The Plaintiff agrees to
dismiss the fourth cause of action without prejudice and opposes
the motion as to the sixth cause of action ("waiting time claim").

Judge Davila explains that at issue is whether the waiting time
claim is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.  Because Tran's
First Amended Complaint did not include factual allegations
regarding security checks or ATM cards, the resulting Tran Class
Action Settlement and judgment do not preclude the Plaintiff's
waiting time claim in this case based upon those allegations.  The
parties' Stipulation in the instant action is consistent with this
result.  Although the Stipulation does not expressly reference the
waiting time claim, it states that the Tran Class Action
Settlement does not apply to various claims that resulted from
alleged security checks.

For these reasons, Judge Davila denied the Defendant's motion for
partial summary judgment on the waiting time claim.  With respect
to the fourth cause of action, the Plaintiff offers to dismiss the
claim without prejudice.  The Defendant, however, asks that the
Court dismiss the fourth cause of action with prejudice.

In light of the Defendant's evidence that the Plaintiff never had
to take a meal period shorter than thirty minutes due to a
security check and the Plaintiff's tacit admission that he lacks
sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue on the fourth cause
of action, the Judge dismissed with prejudice the fourth cause of
action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/jh3p5j from Leagle.com.

Ser Lao, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis Sangwon Hyun --
dhyun@hyunlegal.com -- Hyun Legal APC.

Ser Lao, Plaintiff, represented by Larry W. Lee --
lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- Diversity Law Group, P.C..

H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., Defendant, represented by Eve L.
Torres -- eltorres@manatt.com -- Manatt, Phelps & Andrew Lee
Satenberg -- asatenberg@manatt.com -- Manatt, Phelps & Phillips,
LLP.


HAWAIIAN TELCOM: "Franchi" Suit Alleges SEC Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Anthony Franchi, and all others similarly-situated v. Hawaiian
Telcom Holdco, Inc., Richard A. Jalkut, Scott K. Barber, Kurt
Cellar, Meredith J. Ching, Walter A. Dods, Jr., John Fontana,
Steven C. Oldham, Robert B. Webster, Eric K. Yeaman, Cincinnati
Bell Inc., and Twin Acquisition Corp., Case No. 1:17-cv-00519 (D.
Hawaii, October 13, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on July
10, 2017, pursuant to which Hawaiian Telcom Holdco, Inc. will be
acquired by Cincinnati Bell Inc. and Twin Acquisition Corp.

On August 17, 2017, defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration
Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement omits
material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction,
which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading.

Plaintiff is the owner of Hawaiian Telcom common stock.

Defendant Hawaiian Telcom is a holding company that, together with
its subsidiaries, is the incumbent local exchange carrier for the
State of Hawaii with an integrated telecommunications network.
Hawaiian Telcom was incorporated in Delaware in 2004, but the
Company's subsidiary, Hawaiian Telcom, Inc., was originally
incorporated in Hawaii in 1883 as Mutual Telephone Company.

The Individual Defendants are directors of Hawaiian Telcom. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Wayne Parsons, Esq.
      WAYNE PARSONS LAW OFFICES
      1406 Colburn Street, Suite 201C
      Honolulu, HI 96817
      Tel: (808) 845-2211
      Fax: (808) 843-0100


HIRO SUSHI: Court Approves $12,000 Labor Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the parties' joint
application to approve their settlement in the case captioned
YONGJIE LI, Plaintiff, v. HIRO SUSHI AT OLLIE'S INC., et al.,
Defendants, No. 16 Civ. 6800 (HBP) (S.D. N.Y.).

The Plaintiff and the Defendants other than Christopher J. Phelan
("Settlement Defendants") reached a proposed settlement agreement
shortly after a mediation session was held and before the
Magistrate Judge could schedule a settlement conference.

The Plaintiff formerly worked as a deliveryman at the Defendants'
two restaurants from approximately January 2015 until his
termination on April 10, 2016.  The Plaintiff brings the action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), snd the New York
Labor Law ("NYLL"), and seeks to recover allegedly unpaid minimum
wage, overtime pay, spread-of-hours pay, equipment costs,
misappropriated meal credits and penalties for failure to provide
wage statements and notices under the NYLL.  The Defendants deny
the Plaintiff's allegations.  The Plaintiff brought the action as
a collective action, but reached a proposed settlement with the
Settlement Defendants prior to conditional certification.

The parties have agreed to a total settlement of $12,000.  They
have also agreed that $1,075 of the settlement figure will be
allocated to reimburse the Plaintiff's counsel for their out-of-
pocket costs, $3,641.67 (or approximately 33%) of the remaining
$10,925 will be paid to the Plaintiff's counsel as fees and the
remaining $7,283.33 will be paid to the Plaintiff.  The settlement
agreement also contains a mutual release.

First, Magistrate Judge Pitman finds that although the net
settlement amount, after deduction of costs and legal fees,
represents roughly half (or 50.1%) of the Plaintiff's allegedly
unpaid minimum wage, overtime pay and spread-of-hour pay, that
fact does not render it deficient.  Second, the settlement will
entirely avoid the burden, expense and aggravation of litigation.
Third, the settlement will enable the Plaintiff to avoid the risks
of litigation.  Fourth, the counsel represents that the settlement
is the product of arm's-length bargaining between experienced
counsel and that counsel advocated zealously on behalf of their
respective clients during negotiations.  Fifth, there are no
factors that suggest the existence of fraud.

Accordingly, for all these reasons, Magistrate Judge Pitman
approved the settlement in the matter.  In light of the
settlement, he dismissed with prejudice (except as to Defendant
Phelan) the action and without costs.  The Clerk of the Court is
respectfully requested to mark the matter closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/QBRMrP from Leagle.com.

Yongjie Li, Plaintiff, represented by John Troy, Troy Law, PLLC.

Hiro Sushi at Ollie's Inc., Defendant, represented by Raymond
Nardo -- raymondnardo@gmail.com -- Law Office of Raymond Nardo.

160 Restaurant Concepts LLC, Defendant, represented by Raymond
Nardo, Law Office of Raymond Nardo.

Freedom Place Rest, LLC, Defendant, represented by Raymond Nardo,
Law Office of Raymond Nardo.

39 Wea Food Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Raymond Nardo,
Law Office of Raymond Nardo.

Alan Phillips, Defendant, represented by Raymond Nardo, Law Office
of Raymond Nardo.

Yi Lu, Defendant, represented by Raymond Nardo, Law Office of
Raymond Nardo.

Tao Rong, Defendant, represented by Raymond Nardo, Law Office of
Raymond Nardo.

Shlomo Sela, Defendant, represented by Raymond Nardo, Law Office
of Raymond Nardo.


HUDDLE HOUSE: Hughes Seeks to Recover Minimum and Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROSIE HUGHES and NANCY CRANFORD, Individually, and on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated current and former
employees v. HUDDLE HOUSE, INC., a Georgia Corporation, Case No.
3:17-cv-00193-SA-RP (N.D. Miss., September 29, 2017), is brought
as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to
recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation and other
damages.

Huddle House Inc. is a Georgia corporation with its corporate
headquarters located in Sandy Springs.  The Defendant owns and
operates Huddle House restaurants in states across the United
States.  The primary function of Huddle House restaurants is to
sell food and beverage items to customers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George B. Ready, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE B. READY
          175 East Commerce St.
          P.O. Box 127
          Hernando, MS 38632
          Telephone: (662) 429-7088
          E-mail: GBReady@georgegreadyatty.com

               - and -

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  pjackson@jsyc.com


HUDSON SEAFOOD: "Carlin" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA and SCPWA
----------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY CARLIN and DANETTE TORRES, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. HUDSON SEAFOOD CORP., d/b/a, HUDSON'S
SEAFOOD HOUSE ON THE DOCKS; ANDREW CARMINES, individually; and
JOHN DOE 1-10, individually, Case No. 9:17-cv-02638-RMG (D.S.C.,
September 29, 2017), is brought individually and as a collective
action for actual damages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, and for other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.

Hudson Seafood Corp., doing business as Hudson's Seafood House on
the Docks, is a South Carolina corporation maintaining offices and
agents in the county of Beaufort, South Carolina.  Andrew Carmines
is an owner and officer of Hudson's.  The Defendants own and
operate a restaurant in Beaufort County doing business as Hudson's
Seafood House on the Docks.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
          Elisabeth A. Germain, Esq.
          BRUCE E. MILLER, P.A.
          147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
          Charleston, SC 29412
          Telephone: (843) 579-7373
          Facsimile: (843) 614-6417
          E-mail: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com
                  bgermain@brucemillerlaw.com


J.JILL INC: "Branen" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Branen, and all others similarly-situated v. J.Jill, Inc.,
Paula Bennett, David Biese, Michael Rahamim, Andrew Rolfe, Travis
Nelson, Marka Hansen, Michael Eck, Michael Recht, Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Jefferies
LLC and TowerBrook Capital Partners L.P., Case No. 1:17-cv-11980
(D. Mass., October 13, 2017), seeks to pursue remedies under the
Securities Act of 1933.

This is a securities class action on behalf of all persons who
purchased shares of J.Jill common stock in or traceable to the
Company's March 9, 2017 initial public offering.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement was
negligently prepared and as a result contained untrue statements
of material fact, omitted material facts necessary to make the
statements contained therein not misleading, and failed to make
adequate disclosures required under the rules and regulations
governing its preparation.

Plaintiff Sharon Branen acquired shares of J.Jill common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO.

Defendant J.Jill is a specialty women's apparel retailer
headquartered in Quincy, Massachusetts. It was the registrant and
issuer for the stock sold in the IPO, and its stock trades on the
New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "JILL".

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of J.Jill.

Defendants Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated,
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC and Jefferies LLC served as underwriters
for the IPO. The Underwriter Defendants drafted and disseminated
the Registration Statement.

Defendant TowerBrook Capital Partners L.P. was the private equity
sponsor of the IPO and sold its shares in the IPO. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq.
      HUTCHINGS BARSAMIAN MANDELCORN, LLP
      110 Cedar Street, Suite 250
      Wellesley Hills, MA 02481
      Tel: (781) 431-2231
      Fax: (781) 431-8726
      E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com

          - and -

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

          - and -

      Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
      JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP
      600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 230-0063
      Fax: (619) 255-1856


JEHOVA'S WITNESSES: Faces $66-Mil. Sexual Abuse Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Hemant Mehta, writing for Patheos, reports that a Canadian
attorney had asked the Superior Court of Quebec to give her a
green light to proceed with a class action lawsuit against the
Jehovah's Witnesses.  She wanted to represent anybody abused by
elders in the church as well as minors who were abused by fellow
JW congregation members.

The request was filed in the name of Lisa Blais, a Quebec
Jehovah's Witness who alleges she was abused for years by her
older brother, also a Jehovah's Witness.

Ms. Blais says she complained to church officials about the
alleged abuses when she was 16, and claims Jehovah's Witnesses did
nothing to protect her.  The allegations have not been proven in
court.

Woods wants "$250,000 per complainant for moral and punitive
damages," a staggering amount of money given the scope of the
alleged abuses. We're still waiting to hear about whether that
lawsuit can proceed.

In the meantime, however, a very similar lawsuit has been filed in
Ontario.

According to Trey Bundy at Reveal from The Center for
Investigative Reporting:

Current and former Jehovah's Witnesses in Canada have filed a $66
million class-action lawsuit against the religion's leadership
claiming that its policies protect members who sexually abuse
children.

"It appears the organization has not established policies to
prevent sexual abuse from happening and has faulty policies when
sexual abuse is reported to it, at the hands of elders or
otherwise," said Bryan McPhadden, the lead attorney on the case.

They're still collecting names and information from people who
believe they are victims.
One source says the $66 million amount includes:

. . . $20 million for damages from sexual and mental abuse by
elders, $20 million for failing to protect children, and another
$20 million for breach of duty of care.

It'll take years for any of this to get through the courts, if it
happens at all, but it's about damn time the Witnesses were
punished for allowing these awful things to happen under their
watch when they had the ability to prevent it.

Remember that in Australia last year, a commission found that the
JW organization did a piss-poor job of protecting children from
sexual abuse.

That was, in part, due to the Watchtower Society's own policies,
like the "Two-Witness rule," which says church elders shouldn't
take seriously a victim's account of abuse unless another person
witnessed it . . . even though the only other person around may
have be the abuser himself.  The Commission also said many of the
abusers weren't disciplined in any significant way.  In some
cases, they were even allowed to remain in the organization,
giving them an opportunity to strike again. [GN]


KARAKOSUITS.COM: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Karakosuits.Com Ltd.
The case is styled as Richard Baldelli and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Karakosuits.Com Ltd,
Karako Suits Ltd., Karako Mgmt Inc, Karako Holdings Llc, Karako
Custom Llc, Karako Group Llc, Karako Of 36th Street Corp, Karako
Of Carl Place Ltd, Karako Of Cross Bay Blvd Corp, Karako Of East
Northport, Inc, Karako Of Farmingdale Ltd, Karako Of Lynbrook Ltd,
Karako Of Monsey Ltd, Karako Of Patchogue Ltd, Karako Of Plainview
Corp, Karako Of Rockaway Ltd, Karako Of Selden Ltd, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-08058 (S.D. N.Y., October 19, 2017).

Karakosuits.Com Ltd. is engaged in men's clothing & furnishings-
retail in Inwood, NY.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


KELLOGG CO: Court Allows Limited Discovery in "Smith"
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada allowed limited discovery on the Defendants' motion to
compel Arbitration in the case captioned BRIAN SMITH, Plaintiff,
v. KELLOGG COMPANY and KELLOGG SALES COMPANY, Defendants, Case No.
17-cv-01914-APG-GWF (D. Nev.).

The Defendants move to compel the Plaintiff to arbitrate his Fair
Labor Standards Act claim for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to an
agreement between the parties ("Incentive Agreement").  Smith
opposes the motion, arguing the arbitration provision of the
agreement is unenforceable because it contains an illegal waiver
of collective and class actions.

The parties dispute the enforceability of the arbitration
provision.  Smith contends that had he not signed the agreement
containing the arbitration provision, he would have been
terminated, in violation of Morris v. Ernst & Young.  He also
argues that he could not opt out of the arbitration provision and
still receive the offered incentive and severance benefits, which
he argues violates Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale's, Inc.  Finally,
he argues that Kellogg admitted to offering the benefits to induce
Smith to waive his right to concerted activity.

Kellogg asserts that Smith was not required to sign the agreement
(and could have revoked his agreement within seven days of
signing) and had he signed it, he would not have lost his job.
Furthermore, Kellogg argues that it is not prohibited from
conditioning a severance package on, among other things, a
collective action waiver in an arbitration agreement.  With regard
to inducing a collective action waiver, Kellogg argues that Smith
has offered no evidence to support his contention regarding its
intentions.

Judge Gordon finds that it remains unclear from the parties'
briefing whether the arbitration agreement is enforceable and thus
whether he must compel arbitration.  He therefore ordered limited
discovery aimed at fleshing out the issues the parties have
raised.

He ordered that the parties will conduct limited discovery related
to the enforceability of the arbitration and waiver provisions,
including the following: (i) whether any employee offered the
Incentive Agreement refused to sign and if so, what the result
was; (ii) whether the employees who did not sign the Incentive
Agreement were eligible for any other severance benefits; (iii)
whether Kellogg affirmatively communicated to employees regarding
repercussions to their employment status if they did not sign the
Incentive Agreement; (iv) whether there is evidence that Kellogg
offered the incentive and severance benefits for the express
purpose of limiting employees' freedom of choice regarding
participation in collective or class actions; and (v) whether any
employees revoked their agreement and if so, what the result was.

Judge Gordon further ordered that the parties may serve each other
with written discovery requests regarding these issues.  Responses
will be due within 14 days of service unless otherwise agreed to
by the parties or ordered by the Court.  The parties can stipulate
to or petition the Court for permission to conduct depositions.
The supplemental briefs will be due within 45 days of the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/NJ5J9D from Leagle.com.

Brian Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy --
Christian@gabroy.com -- Gabroy Law Offices.

Brian Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff Martin Scarborough,
Gabroy Law Offices, Alex David Dumas -- adumas@getmansweeney.com -
- Getman, Sweeney & Dunn, PLLC & Michael J.D. Sweeney --
msweeney@getmansweeney.com -- Getman, Sweeney & Dunn, PLCC, pro
hac vice.

Scotty Poarch, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy,
Gabroy Law Offices, Jeff Martin Scarborough, Gabroy Law Offices &
Michael J.D. Sweeney, Getman, Sweeney & Dunn, PLCC, pro hac vice.

David W Phillips, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James
Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeff Martin Scarborough, Gabroy Law
Offices & Michael J.D. Sweeney, Getman, Sweeney & Dunn, PLCC, pro
hac vice.

Daniel P Muesenfechter, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James
Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices, Jeff Martin Scarborough, Gabroy Law
Offices & Michael J.D. Sweeney, Getman, Sweeney & Dunn, PLCC, pro
hac vice.

Richard Bush, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy,
Gabroy Law Offices & Jeff Martin Scarborough, Gabroy Law Offices.

Andrew Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James Gabroy,
Gabroy Law Offices & Jeff Martin Scarborough, Gabroy Law Offices.

Renato Linsangan, Plaintiff, represented by Christian James
Gabroy, Gabroy Law Offices & Jeff Martin Scarborough, Gabroy Law
Offices.

Scott Chwascinski, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff Martin
Scarborough, Gabroy Law Offices.

Charles Aaron Gee, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff Martin
Scarborough, Gabroy Law Offices.

Kellogg Company, Defendant, represented by Christiana L. Signs --
signsc@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP, James Norman Boudreau -
- boudreauj@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Tami D. Cowden --
cowdent@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig & James M. Nelson --
nelsonj@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, pro hac vice.

Kellogg Sales Company, Defendant, represented by Christiana L.
Signs, Greenberg Traurig LLP, James Norman Boudreau, Greenberg
Traurig, LLP, Tami D. Cowden, Greenberg Traurig & James M. Nelson,
Greenberg Traurig, LLP, pro hac vice.


LAN GARDEN: "Zhen" Suit Seeks Withheld Tips, Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Zhen Run Situ and Andy Chen, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lan Garden Restaurant and Bar
Inc. d/b/a Lan Garden 88, John Ng and Michelle Chan1
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-08091 (D. N.J., October 10, 2017),
seeks unpaid wages, including withheld tips, unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest
and attorneys' fees and costs under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law.

Zhen and Chen were employed by the Defendants to work at their
restaurant Lan Garden 88 located at 88 Rte. 46 W, Ridgefield, NJ
07657 as a chef and waiter respectively. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keli Liu, Esq.
      HANG AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave. Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Tel: (718) 353-8588
      Fax: (718) 353-6288


LENDINGCLUB: Judge Allows Investors' Class Action Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crowdfund Insider reports that a lawsuit between investors and
LendingClub (NYSE:LC) received the green light to proceed as a
class action from US District Judge William Alsup in California.
The case stems from investors who purchased shares in the online
lender only to see the value of those shares crater in the ensuing
months.  LendingClub's shares topped $25 at one point but has
recently been hovering around $6 a share.

According to the filing, the resignation of founder and former CEO
Renaud Laplanche, along with "identified material weakness,
including a lack of transparent communication and appropriate
oversight in dealing with investors," were sufficient cause in
pursuing a legal remedy to the decline in company valuation.
Defendants in the suit include LendingClub, Laplanche, Carrie
Dolan (LendingClub's former CFO), LendingClub directors and former
directors, and the financial firms that underwrote LendingClub's
IPO.

The decision by Judge Alsup also acknowledged the "class
representatives in the parallel state action," thus allowing the
competing state action to proceed as well.

Water and Power Employees' Retirement, Disability and Death Plan
of the City of Los Angeles (WPERP) will serve as lead plaintiff,
and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP has been appointed as class
counsel.

LendingClub will be announcing its quarterly report for Q3 on
November 7th after the bell.  Expect part of the discussion to
tackle the impact of the possible class action. [GN]


LEFRAK ORGANIZATION: Class Certification Hearing Set for Dec. 7
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Brazil Bautista, writing for Real Estate Weekly, reports
that residents of Battery Park City rental complex Gateway Plaza
are seeking class action status in a lawsuit against the LeFrak
Organization.

New York Supreme Court Judge Melissa Crane will hear arguments on
a motion for class certification on December 7.  The action covers
residents from the six buildings in the complex, with the
addresses 345, 355, 365, 375, 385 and 395 South End Avenue, who
have lived in the properties since April 1, 2008.  The buildings
contain more than 1,700 apartments and over 4,000 tenants. Prices
for units in the complex start at $2,825 per month for a studio,
according to the property's website.

The lawsuit, which was originally filed in 2014, alleged that
LeFrak leased homes that had defective windows and insulation,
leading to extreme temperatures inside the apartments during the
winter and summer.  Conditions are said to be so bad that icicles
have formed inside the apartments.  Tenants say that LeFrak has
failed to address structural defects at the property for more than
a decade.

"Plaintiff's counsel are looking forward to the opportunity to put
all of the facts before the court.  Gateway Plaza tenants have
been made to suffer for years and it is time for the landlord, the
LeFrak Organization, and its partners from the Fisher and Olnick
Organizations, to be held accountable," said Lucas Ferrara, who is
part of a team that is serving as counsel for the proposed tenant
class.

Marina Towers, the LeFrak Organization subsidiary named in the
lawsuit, denied the claims, disparaging the assertions of lead
plaintiff Maureen Koetz.  "Marina Towers categorically rejects the
allegations of Maureen Koetz, the person who is bringing this
lawsuit.  Marina Towers has sought to be a good landlord, and has
spent millions on upgrades and improvements to Gateway Plaza.
Marina Towers believes that the Court will dismiss the claims of
Koetz, who is not even a tenant of Gateway Plaza, having left
months ago.  Marina Towers also believes the Court will refuse the
attempts of Koetz's lawyers to make this meritless lawsuit a class
action."

The residents are seeking structural repairs for the Gateway Plaza
complex, along with rent deductions and refunds for tenant and
former tenants. During the December hearing, the court will also
hear arguments on LeFrak's motion to file an amended motion to
dismiss the lawsuit.  A Supreme Court Judge earlier denied a
motion to dismiss the case. [GN]


LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Comments on Securities Class Action Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
LifeVantage Corporation (Nasdaq:LFVN) on Oct. 23 commented on the
dismissal with prejudice of the putative class action complaint
filed against the company in the United States District Court for
the District of Utah on September 15, 2016 (in re LifeVantage
Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 16-cv-00965-TS).

"As some of you may be aware, the United States District Court for
the District of Utah previously granted our motion to dismiss this
lawsuit and, on September 18, 2017, the court entered final
judgment dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice.  We are now
pleased to report that, in exchange solely for a release and
without payment by LifeVantage of any consideration whatsoever,
the lead plaintiffs have now agreed to forego taking any appeal
from the judgment.  The case is now fully and finally closed,"
said LifeVantage President and CEO Darren Jensen.

Mr. Jensen commented further, "the dismissal of this lawsuit
removes a level of distraction for us and for our independent
distributors.  We are excited for our independent distributors to
continue their focus on selling our scientifically validated
products and growing their businesses."

                   About LifeVantage Corporation

LifeVantage Corporation -- http://www.lifevantage.com-- is a
science-based health, wellness and anti-aging company dedicated to
helping people transform themselves internally and externally at a
cellular level.  Their scientifically-validated product lines
include Protandim(R) Nrf2 and NRF1 Synergizers, TrueScience(R)
Anti-Aging Skin Care Regimen, Petandim(R), AXIO(R) Smart Energy
and the PhysIQ(TM)Smart Weight Management System.  LifeVantage
(Nasdaq:LFVN) was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Salt
Lake City, Utah. [GN]


LINCOLN HILLS: Faces Closure Amid Inmates' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Molly Beck, writing for Wisconsin State Journal, reports that the
state's youth prison, where inmates and staff have both described
a chaotic and unsafe environment, would be closed within one year
under a proposal floated by a Madison lawmaker.

"These juveniles have been systematically abused and neglected,
and have had their constitutional rights violated time and again.
We know that the current model of incarcerating juveniles does not
work.  It is time to take action," Rep. Chris Taylor, D-Madison,
said in a memo seeking support from other lawmakers.

The bill would require the Department of Corrections to
"permanently" close the Lincoln Hills School for Boys and Copper
Lake School for Girls in Irma within one year from the date the
bill became law.

The facility has been under investigation for nearly three years
over allegations of inmate abuse, official misconduct, child
neglect, tampering with public documents, intimidation of victims,
use of pepper spray to cause bodily harm and intimidation of
witnesses, among other potential crimes.

Since then, prison administrators have also been the target of a
number of lawsuits brought by current and former inmates alleging
their constitutional rights have been violated through excessive
stays in isolation and use of pepper spray and shackles --
including a class-action lawsuit moving through federal court that
so far has prompted U.S. District Judge James Peterson to order
DOC to drastically reduce or eliminate its use of solitary
confinement, pepper spray and restraints to manage inmate
behavior.

Staff in recent weeks have said the prison has become increasingly
unsafe since the federal judge's order, with prison guards
defenseless against emboldened inmates and injuries to staff
rising.

But it's unclear if the proposal will get support from Republican
lawmakers who control both houses of the Legislature.

Rep. Mary Felzkowski, R-Irma, said it's time Taylor and other
Democrats take responsibility for criticizing prison staff and
referring to the inmates as "children."

"These kids that are at Lincoln Hills, they didn't get there
because they are truant," she said. Inmates at the prison are the
state's most serious juvenile offenders.

Rep. Felzkowski and Sen. Tom Tiffany, R-Hazelhurst, have asked
Peterson to reverse the order in light of staff injuries since it
took effect.

She said in an interview on Oct. 23 that if DOC were given some
leniency in how it manages behavior, the prison could be
successful.

"I think we need to let the experts do their job," she said.

The union that represents Lincoln Hills employees said the bill
doesn't indicate where juvenile offenders would go.

"We need a real plan to solve this crisis," said Rick Badger,
executive director of AFSCME Wisconsin.  "This bill doesn't
address the root of the problems present at Lincoln Hills and the
long-standing dysfunction in the juvenile corrections system."

Taylor said the department has known "about the systemic problems
surrounding Lincoln Hills and Copper Lake for many years without
addressing the root of the issue."

While investigators first raided the prison in late 2015,
complaints about an unsafe environment at the facility were raised
at DOC and to Gov. Scott Walker as early as 2012.

DOC Secretary Jon Litscher said that an upcoming study of prison
infrastructure could include looking at closing or converting the
prison to an adult prison but that he foresees it remaining the
state's facility for serious juvenile offenders. [GN]


LITCO PETROLEUM: Cranford Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
NANCY CRANFORD and ROSIE HUGHES, Individually, and on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated current and former
employees v. LITCO PETROLEUM, INC., a Mississippi Corporation,
and, TAFT LITTLE and MARK LITTLE, Individually, Case No. 3:17-cv-
00194-MPM-RP (N.D. Miss., September 29, 2017), is brought as a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover
unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation and other damages.

LITCO Petroleum, Inc., is a Mississippi corporation with its
corporate headquarters located in Corinth, Mississippi.  Taft
Little has been the President of LITCO.  Mark Little has been the
Secretary-Treasurer of LITCO.

LITCO owned and operated franchised Huddle House restaurants in
Mississippi and other states in the United States.  The primary
function of LITCO's franchised Huddle House restaurants is to sell
food and beverage items to customers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George B. Ready, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE B. READY
          175 East Commerce St.
          P.O. Box 127
          Hernando, MS 38632
          Telephone: (662) 429-7088
          E-mail: GBReady@georgegreadyatty.com

               - and -

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 759-1745
          E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                  rbryant@jsyc.com
                  pjackson@jsyc.com


MC ELECTRONICS: Faces "Vazquez" Suit in California Superior Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MC Electronics, LLC.
The case is styled as Yvette Vazquez, on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MC
Electronics, LLC and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 34-2017-
00220907-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., October 19, 2017).

Mc Electronics, Llc is a large-sized organization in the
electronic manufacturers industry located in Hollister, CA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
   Lawyers for Justice, PC
   410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
   Glendale, CA 91203
   Tel: (818) 265-1020
   Fax: (818) 265-1021


MDL 2445: Court Dismisses Suboxone Antitrust Suit Against I-PLC
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE SUBOXONE (BUPRENORPHINE HYDROCHLORIDE
AND NALOXONE) ANTITRUST LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:,
Wisconsin, et al. v. Indivior Inc. et al. Case No. 16-cv-5073.
STATE OF WISCONSIN By Attorney General Brad D. Schimel, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. INDIVIOR INC. f/k/a RECKITT BENCKISER
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Defendants, MDL No. 2445, Civ. A.
No. 16-5073 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted
Defendant Indivior PLC ("I-PLC")'s motion to dismiss all claims
against it due to its non-involvement in any of the alleged
anticompetitive activity in the Amended Complaint.

In June 2013, several putative classes initiated litigation
against Defendants alleging anticompetitive behavior with respect
to the marketing and sale of Suboxone.  These cases were
consolidated into a multi-district litigation ("MDL") assigned to
the Court.  Among those cases was the class action complaint
brought by the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and the End-Payor
Plaintiffs alleging that the Defendants unlawfully delayed and
impeded competition from generic versions of Suboxone tablets,
resulting in ongoing overpayments by consumers.

On Dec. 3, 2014, Judge Goldberg issued an opinion dismissing one
of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' stand-alone antitrust claims,
a variety of state law claims by the End-Payor Plaintiffs, and
claims against several of the other Defendant entities.  He
allowed the remaining federal and state law claims to proceed.

On Dec. 23, 2015, Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, a generic
manufacturer and competitor of Indivior, filed a complaint
regarding Indivior's alleged anticompetitive conduct with respect
to Suboxone.  That case was consolidated with the MDL.  On Jan. 4,
2017, the Judge dismissed part of Amneal's claims that Indivior
improperly delayed entry of generic tablets, all claims against
Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and all claims against
Indivior PLC.

On Sept. 22, 2016, the Plaintiff States initiated the current
litigation against the Defendants.  The States filed a First
Amended Complaint on Nov. 23, 2016, setting forth five causes of
action as follows: (i) monopolization under the Sherman Act
Section 2 against Indivior, I-PLC, and RBH; (ii) attempted
monopolization under the Sherman Act Section 2 against Indivior,
I-PLC, and RBH; (iii) conspiracy to monopolize under the Sherman
Act Section 2 against all the Defendants; (iv) illegal restraint
of trade under the Sherman Act Section 1 against all the
Defendants; and (v) individual state law claims against all the
Defendants.

On Sept. 8, 2017, Judge Goldberg denied Indivior's Motion to
Dismiss these claims and found that the Amended Complaint
adequately alleged an anticompetitive product-hopping scheme and
related conspiracy by Indivior.  Subsequently, on Oct. 17, 2017,
he granted RBH's Motion to Dismiss in its entirety.

On Dec. 12, 2016, I-PLC filed the motion to dismiss, as an entity
formed after the operative events, it bears no liability for the
anticompetitive conduct described in the Amended Complaint.  The
States responded on Jan. 30, 2017, and RBH filed a reply brief on
Feb. 21, 2017.

The gist of I-PLC's Motion to Dismiss is that I-PLC did not come
into existence as an entity until 2014 -- well after the alleged
anticompetitive conduct that occurred between 2007 and 2013.  In
response, the Plaintiffs offer six theories of liability against
I-PLC: (i) the Amended Complaint asserts plausible direct claims
against I-PLC for its anticompetitive conduct that continues to
the present; (ii) the Amended Complaint validly asserts that I-PLC
joined the Suboxone film conspiracy; (iii) I-PLC is the
"successor" to RB Group and is therefore liable for RB Group's
alleged misconduct; (iv) I-PLC is estopped from denying its role
in the Suboxone film conspiracy; (v) Indivior Inc. is I-PLC's
alter ego; and (vi) I-PLC is liable for the acts of its agent,
Indivior Inc.

Addressing each argument individually, Judge Goldberg finds that
none of them have merit.  He says perhaps recognizing that I-PLC
has had no direct connection with the Amended Complaint's product-
hopping antitrust scheme, the Plaintiffs offer a hodgepodge of
theories in order to indirectly implicate I-PLC in the
anticompetitive conduct and related conspiracy.  As reflected by
their briefing, however, the Plaintiffs' theories find no support
either in the allegations of the Amended Complaint or in the
public records of which they now ask that the Judge takes judicial
notice.

Indeed, the Plaintiffs do little to overcome the glaring fact that
I-PLC did not come into existence until well after the relevant
time period in the case and has not taken any obvious actions to
perpetuate the alleged monopoly created by the anticompetitive
scheme.  Accordingly, Judge Goldberg granted I-PLC's motion in its
entirety and dismissed all claims against it.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/lmVOuS from Leagle.com.


MDL 2741: "Sweat" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on September 21, 2017 captioned
Arthur Sweat, individually and all others similarly situated v.
Monsanto Company, Case No. 5:17-cv-00127 was transferred on
October 13, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Georgia to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:17-cv-05877-VC to the proceeding.

The case is being consolidated with MDL 2741. According to an
order entered by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, it appears that the actions in the litigation involve
questions of fact that are common to the actions previously
transferred to the California Northern District and assigned to
Judge Vince Chhabria.

The case is an action for damages as a direct and proximate result
of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and
sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient
glyphosate.

Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology
corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. It is the world's
leading producer of glyphosate. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eugene C. Brooks IV, Esq.
      BROOKS LAW FIRM
      PO Box 9545
      Savannah, GA 31412
      Telephone: (912) 233-9696
      E-mail: gbrooks@brooks-law.com


MDL 2792: "Alexander" Suit Transferred to W.D. Oklahoma
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on June 27, 2017 captioned Margo
Alexander, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co.,
Ltd, The Home Depot, Inc., Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Best Buy Co.,
Inc., Sears Holding Corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-04816 was
transferred on October 13, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-01111-D to the proceeding.

The case is being consolidated with MDL 2792. These cases concern
the sale and marketing of certain defective Samsung home washing
machines that have latent and inherent defects and Samsung's
failed recall of these same washing machines. The lead case is
Case No. 5:17-ml-02792-D.

The Defendants supply consumer electronics and digital products in
the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James T. Crotty, Esq.
      CROTTY & ASSOCIATES
      1561 South Blanchard Street
      Wheaton, IL 60189
      Telephone: (312) 623-1599
      E-mail: jamestcrotty@aol.com

         - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

      Jeffrey Mark Wagner, Esq.
      KAYE SCHOLER
      3 First National Plaza
      70 West Madison
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 583-2300
      E-mail: jeffrey.wagner@apks.com


MDL 2792: "McCabe" Class Suit Transferred to W.D. Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on June 28, 2017 titled Carolyn
McCabe and Jason Ward, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd, The Home Depot, Inc., Lowe's Home Centers,
LLC, Best Buy Co., Inc., Sears Holding Corporation, Case No. 2:17-
cv-00242 was transferred on October 13, 2017 from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maine to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-01110-D to the proceeding.

The case is being consolidated with MDL 2792. These cases concern
the sale and marketing of certain defective Samsung home washing
machines that have latent and inherent defects and Samsung's
failed recall of these same washing machines. The lead case is
Case No. 5:17-ml-02792-D.

The Defendants supply consumer electronics and digital products in
the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen C. Smith, Esq.
      LIPMAN & KATZ, P.A.
      P.O. Box 1051
      Augusta, ME 04332-1051
      Telephone: (800) 660-3713

         - and -

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


MICHIGAN: Court Dismisses Cooper Street Prisoners Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Denise Page Hood of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, dismissed without
prejudice the case captioned ARTHUR J. ROUSE, et. al., Plaintiffs,
v. STATE OF MICHIGAN, et. al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-CV-12276
(E.D. Mich.).

The seven Plaintiffs are inmates who are currently incarcerated at
the Cooper Street Correctional Facility in Jackson, Michigan.  The
Plaintiffs filed a proposed class action complaint and a petition
for a writ of mandamus and a writ of habeas corpus.  The petition
for writ of habeas corpus has already been dismissed.

On July 14, 2017, Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen signed an
Order of Deficiency because the Plaintiffs failed to submit the
portion of their filing fee, which in this case would be $57.14,
or to each file a completed application to proceed in forma
pauperis.  Magistrate Judge Whalen signed a separate order of
deficiency requiring the Plaintiffs to provide sufficient copies
of the complaint for service upon the Defendants.  Both orders
gave the Plaintiffs until Aug. 14, 2017 to comply with the orders.

On July 25, 2017, four of the Plaintiffs filed an objection to the
deficiency orders.  A supplemental objection was filed by
Plaintiff Rouse on July 28, 2017.

On Aug. 8, 2017, this Court summarily dismissed without prejudice
the joint petition for writ of habeas corpus and overruled the
objection to the deficiency orders.  It gave the Plaintiffs a 30-
day extension to correct the deficiencies.

To date, only Plaintiffs Lance Goldman and Cedric Simpson have
filed an application to proceed without prepayment of fees.  Mr.
Simpson, however, has subsequently moved to dismiss without
prejudice his portion of the complaint.  Mr. Rouse, the Lead
Plaintiff, filed a prison trust account statement but did not file
an actual application to proceed without prepayment of fees.  Most
importantly, none of the Plaintiffs have corrected the deficiency
in that they have failed to provide sufficient copies of the
complaint for service upon the Defendants.

Judge Hood dismissed without prejudice to re-filing the complaint
for want of prosecution, because of the Plaintiffs' noncompliance
with Magistrate Judge Whalen's order by failing to provide the
requested copies needed to effect service upon the Defendants.
Because the complaint is deficient in this respect, the issue
concerning the failure of some of the Plaintiffs to file
individual applications to proceed without prepayment of fees is
moot.  The Judge denied as moot the Plaintiffs' remaining motions.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/L0FJxK from Leagle.com.

Arthur Rouse, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Lance Goldman, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Chris Harner, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

William Merriman, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Cedric Simpson, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Frank Doyle, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Robert Wilburn, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

John Does, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Jane Does, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


MID CITY GYM: Court Approves $50,000 Settlement in Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SANTIAGO SIERRA, Plaintiff, v. MID CITY GYM
AND TANNING LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16 Civ. 2892 (HBP)
(S.D. N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted the parties'
joint application to approve their settlement.

The Plaintiff formerly worked at the Defendants' gym and tanning
center, where his duties included maintaining and repairing
exercise equipment and keeping the facility clean.  He brings the
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA"), and the New
York Labor Law ("NYLL"), and seeks recovery for allegedly unpaid
wages and overtime pay.  The Plaintiff also asserts claims based
on the Defendants' failure to provide certain notice and wage
statements as required by the NYLL and the Defendants' failure to
pay "spread-of-hours" pay.  The Defendants deny the Plaintiff's
allegations. The Plaintiff brought the action as a collective
action, but reached the proposed settlement before conditional
certification.

The parties have agreed to a total settlement in the amount of
$50,000.  They have also agreed that one-third of that amount,
$16,666.67, will be paid to the Plaintiff's counsel to reimburse
counsel's out-of-pocket expenses and for attorney's fees.  The
proposed settlement also contains a release.

First, Magistrate Judge Pitman finds that although the net
recovery to the Plaintiff represents approximately 33.9% of his
total potentially recoverable damages, the Plaintiff's net
recovery exceeds the amount of unpaid wages, overtime pay and
spread-of-hour pay that the Plaintiff has alleged, exclusive of
liquidated damages, penalties and interests, by approximately
$3,000.  Second, the settlement will entirely avoid the burden,
expense and aggravation of litigation.  Third, the settlement will
enable plaintiffs to avoid the risks of litigation.  Fourth, the
counsel represents that the settlement is the product of arm's-
length bargaining between experienced counsel and that counsel
advocated zealously on behalf of their respective clients during
negotiations.  Fifth, there are no factors here that suggest the
existence of fraud.

Accordingly, for all these reasons, Magistrate Judge Pitman
approved the settlement in the matter.  In light of the
settlement, the action is dismissed with prejudice and without
costs.  The Clerk is respectfully requested to mark the matter
closed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/byoBrE from Leagle.com.

Santiago Sierra, Plaintiff, represented by Jesse S. Barton --
jbarton@faillacelaw.com -- Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C..

Santiago Sierra, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Antonio
Faillace -- Faillace@employmentcompliance.com -- Michael Faillace
& Associates, P.C., Jesse S. Barton, Michael Faillace &
Associates, P.C. & Michael Antonio Faillace, Michael Faillace &
Associates, P.C..

Mid City Gym and Tanning LLC, Defendant, represented by Nolan
Keith Klein, Law Offices of Nolan Klein, P.A..

Mid City Gym and Tanning LLC, Defendant, represented by David
Michael Goldstein -- dmgoldstein.esq@gmail.com -- The Law Offices
of David M. Goldstein, Esq.

Mid City Gym and Tanning LLC, Defendant, represented by Valerie K.
Ferrier, Law Offices of Nolan Klein, P.A..

Vincent Consalvo, Defendant, represented by Nolan Keith Klein, Law
Offices of Nolan Klein, P.A., David Michael Goldstein, The Law
Offices of David M. Goldstein, Esq & Valerie K. Ferrier, Law
Offices of Nolan Klein, P.A..

Elida Consalvo, Defendant, represented by Nolan Keith Klein, Law
Offices of Nolan Klein, P.A., David Michael Goldstein, The Law
Offices of David M. Goldstein, Esq & Valerie K. Ferrier, Law
Offices of Nolan Klein, P.A..


MO'S FISHERMAN: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Galvez Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
CLEMENTE GALVEZ, SALVADOR LOPEZ, JUAN LOPEZ and CARLOS MELGAR,
Plaintiffs, on behalf themselves and others similarly situated v.
MO'S FISHERMAN EXCHANGE, INC. d/b/a MO'S TOWSON AND MO'S; MO'S
PULASKI HIGHWAY CORP., d/b/a MO'S WHITE MARSH, MO'S SEAFOOD
RESTAURANT, AND MO'S; MO'S CRAB AND PASTA FACTORY, INC., d/b/a
MO'S CRAB & PASTA AND MO'S LITTLE ITALY; MO'S FISHERMAN'S RITCHIE
HIGHWAY, INC., d/b/a MO'S SEAFOOD FACTORY; MO'S BELAIR SEAFOOD,
INC., d/b/a MO'S FISHERMAN'S WHARF AND MO'S INNER HARBOR; MO'S
EASTERN AVENUE, INC., d/b/a MO'S SEAFOOD FACTORY NEIGHBORHOOD BAR
& GRILL AND MO'S NEIGHBORHOOD BAR & GRILL; FISHERMAN'S WHARF INNER
HARBOR, INC. d/b/a MO'S FISHERMAN'S WHARF AND MO'S INNER HARBOR;
and MOHAMMED S. MANOCHEH, a/k/a MOHAMMAD S. MANOCHEH, d/b/a MO'S
SEAFOOD RESTAURANT, MO'S FISHERMAN'S WHARF, MO'S, MO'S INNER
HARBOR, MO'S TOWSON, MO'S WHITE MARSH, MO'S SEAFOOD FACTORY, MO'S
CRAB AND PASTA FACTORY, AND MO'S NEIGHBORHOOD BAR AND GRILL, Case
No. 1:17-cv-02901-GLR (D. Md., September 29, 2017), arises from
the Defendants' alleged willful failure to pay the Plaintiffs
their wages, including minimum and overtime wages, in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law and
the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Mo's Fisherman's Exchange, Inc., doing business as Mo's and Mo's
Towson; Mo's Pulaski Highway Corp., doing business as Mo's White
Marsh, Mo's Seafood Restaurant, and Mo's; Mo's Crab and Pasta
Factory, Inc., doing business as Mo's Crab & Pasta and Mo's Little
Italy; Mo's Belair Seafood, Inc., doing business as Mo's
Fisherman's Wharf and Mo's Inner Harbor; Mo's Fisherman's Ritchie
Highway, Inc., doing business as Mo's Seafood Factory; Mo's
Eastern Avenue, Inc., doing business as Mo's Seafood Factory
Neighborhood Bar & Grill, and Mo's Neighborhood Bar & Grill; and
Fisherman's Wharf Inner Harbor, Inc., doing business as Mo's
Fisherman's Wharf and Mo's Inner Harbor are Maryland corporations
with their principal place of business in Baltimore County,
Maryland.

Mohammed S. Manocheh operates or, since May 19, 2012, has
operated, restaurants at six locations in Maryland that serve food
and drink on the premises.  Mr. Manocheh owns each of the
restaurants either personally or through corporations that he
wholly owns, including Defendants Mo's Fisherman's Exchange, Mo's
Pulaski Highway, Mo's Crab & Pasta, Mo's Belair, Mo's Ritchie
Highway, Mo's Eastern Avenue, and Fisherman's Wharf.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew D. Freeman, Esq.
          Jessica P. Weber, Esq.
          Brooke E. Lierman, Esq.
          BROWN, GOLDSTEIN & LEVY LLP
          120 East Baltimore Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 962-1030
          Facsimile: (410) 385-0869
          E-mail: adf@browngold.com
                  jweber@browngold.com
                  blierman@browngold.com

               - and -

          Sally Dworak-Fisher, Esq.
          Monisha Cherayil, Esq.
          PUBLIC JUSTICE CENTER
          One North Charles Street, Suite 200
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 625-9409
          Facsimile: (410) 625-9423
          E-mail: dworak-fishers@publicjustice.org
                  cherayilm@publicjustice.org


MONSANTO COMPANY: "Batch" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on September 20, 2017 styled
Carmen Batch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 7:17-cv-00160 was
transferred on October 13, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Georgia to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:17-cv-05875-VC to the proceeding.

The case is an action for damages as a direct and proximate result
of the Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and
sale of the herbicide Roundup(R), containing the active ingredient
glyphosate.

Monsanto Company is a multinational agricultural biotechnology
corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. It is the world's
leading producer of glyphosate. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eugene C. Brooks IV, Esq.
      BROOKS LAW FIRM
      PO Box 9545
      Savannah, GA 31412
      Telephone: (912) 233-9696
      E-mail: gbrooks@brooks-law.com


MONTEREY FINANCIAL: 9th Cir. Remands Class Action to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that the Ninth U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals held on Oct. 20 that a case removed to federal
court based on the Class Action Fairness Act cannot be remanded to
state court based on the "home-state controversy exception" where
it was only established that two-thirds of a portion of the class
was comprised of citizens of California.

The putative action -- on behalf of residents of California and
Washington -- was brought in San Diego Superior Court by
Tiffany Brinkley against Monterey Financial Services Company
which, she alleged, recorded or monitored telephone conversations
with her without telling her in advance.  She alleged invasion of
privacy under the laws of both states, unlawful recording under
California law, a violation of California's unfair competition
law.

Monterey removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act ("CAFA") which creates diversity jurisdiction where
the aggregate amount of the claims exceeds $3 million, any class
member is a citizen of a state different from any defendant, and
there are at least 100 class members.

Two-Thirds Requirement

In seeking a remand, Ms. Brinkley cited the "home-state
controversy exception" which applies where "two-thirds or more of
the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate,
and the primary defendants, are citizens of the State in which the
action was originally filed."

District Judge William Q. Hayes granted the motion. Reversal came
in an opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., who wrote:
"In order to determine whether two-thirds of class members are
California citizens, we must first determine the size of the class
as a whole . . . Here, Brinkley's class consists of all
individuals who made or received a telephone call with Monterey
'while physically located or residing in California and
Washington.' By its terms, the class includes individuals who were
physically located in, but were not residents of.  California or
Washington when they made or received a call with Monterey . . ."

Showing Not Adequate

He went on to say: "A plaintiff cannot remand an otherwise valid
CAFA case to state court when only a portion of the class meets
the two-thirds citizenship requirement . . . This is what Brinkley
seeks to do here -- remand a class action based on evidence of
only some class members' citizenship . . . [T]here is no evidence
regarding the citizenship of class members who made or received a
phone call from Monterey while located in. but not residing in,
California or Washington."

The case is Brinkley v. Monterey Financial Services Company, No.
17-56335. [GN]


NASDAQ OMX: 3d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Rabin" Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Patty Shwartz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the case
captioned I. STEPHEN RABIN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Appellant, v. NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; NASDAQ OMX
GROUP, INC.; BEDROCK TRADING LTD; BLUEFIN TRADING, LLC;
CONSOLIDATED TRADING LLC; ELM TRADING, L.P.; FIRST DERIVATIVE
TRADERS, LP; HAP TRADING, LLC; KEYSTONE TRADING PARTNERS, LLC;
LARGO TRADING, L.P.; SUMMIT SECURITIES GROUP, LLC; SUMO CAPITAL,
LLC; SUSQUEHANNA INTERNATIONAL GROUP LLP; SIG HOLDING LLC; TSR
ASSOCIATES, LLC; V TRADER-CG, LLC; SUSQUEHANNA SECURITIES;
SUSQUEHANNA INVESTMENT GROUP, Case No. 16-2511 (3d Cir.).

The case concerns an options trading strategy undertaken on the
Philadelphia Stock Exchange, NASDAQ OMX PHLX ("PHLX"), known as a
"dividend play."  Rabin filed a putative class action complaint
against the Defendants alleging manipulation in violation of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the
Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5(a) and (c).  He
claims that the Defendants conspired to manipulate the PHLX
options market by undertaking the dividend play trading strategy
on PHLX -- to dramatically increase the size of the short call
option pool the day before underlying securities went ex-dividend
-- and thereby capture a disproportionate amount of dividends and
deprive market participants like Rabin of dividends.

After Rabin amended his complaint twice, the Defendants filed
motions to dismiss.  The District Court granted the motions and
ruled, among other things, that SRO immunity precluded Rabin's
claim against Exchange Defendants, and that Rabin failed to state
a claim against the Member Defendants for manipulation because he
(i) did not allege that they injected false information into the
market or created a false impression of supply and demand, (ii)
did not allege actual reliance and was not entitled to a
presumption of reliance on the basis that he relied on an
efficient market free of manipulation, and (ii) did not
sufficiently allege scienter.  Rabin appeals.

Judge Shwartz finds that there is no allegation that the items
bought and sold were not entitled to be on the market, but Malack
v. BDO Seidman, LLP's reasoning and concerns still apply and
foreclose Rabin's theory of reliance.  He asserts that he and the
other class members relied on an honest, manipulation-free options
market, and further that the OCC depends on a manipulation-free
open interest pool.

In essence, Rabin is asserting reliance based on the assumed
integrity of the market, which Malack holds does not provide a
basis to presume reliance.  Because Rabin did not allege actual
reliance and is not entitled to a presumption of reliance, he did
not allege the element of reasonable reliance, and his
manipulation claim thus fails.  She concludes that the District
Court therefore correctly dismissed Rabin's complaint.
Accordingly, the Judge affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/tr13LI from Leagle.com.

Lawrence Deutsch -- ldeutsch@bm.net -- [ARGUED], Phyllis M. Parker
-- pparker@bm.net -- Robin Switzenbaum -- rswitzenbaum@bm.net --
Berger & Montague, 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
David J. Stone -- stone@bespc.com -- Bragar Eagel & Squire, 885
Third Avenue, Suite 3040, New York, NY 10022, Counsel for
Appellant.

Stephen J. Kastenberg -- kastenberg@ballardspahr.com -- [ARGUED],
Paul Lantieri, III -- lantierip@ballardspahr.com -- John W. Scott,
Ballard Spahr, 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor, Philadelphia, PA
19103, Counsel for Appellees NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC and NASDAQ OMX
Group, Inc.

David C. Bohan -- david.bohan@kattenlaw.com -- [ARGUED], Hannah O.
Koesterer -- hannah.koesterer@kattenlaw.com -- Patrick M. Smith --
patrick.smith@kattenlaw.com -- Peter G. Wislon, Katten Muchin
Rosenman, 525 West Monroe Street, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60661,
Counsel for Appellees Bedrock Trading Ltd., First Derivative
Traders, L.P., and Largo Trading, L.P.

Kenton E. Knickmeyer -- kknickmeyer@thompsoncoburn.com --
[ARUGED], Felicia R. Williams, Thompson Coburn, One U.S. Bank
Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101, Counsel for Appellee Bluefin Trading
LLC.

William A. Harvey -- wharvey@klehr.com -- Paige M. Willan --
pwillan@klehr.com -- Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg, 1835 Market
Street, Suite 1400, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Harry P. Lamberson
[ARGUED], 1024 North Western Avenue, Lake Forest, IL 60045,
Counsel for Appellee Consolidated Trading LLC.

Sidney S. Liebesman -- sliebesman@mmwr.com -- Carrie S. Love,
Richard L. Scheff [ARGUED], Michael C. Witsch, Montgomery
McCracken Walker & Rhoads, 123 South Broad Street, 28th Floor,
Philadelphia, PA 19109, Counsel for Appellees ELM Trading, L.P.
and TSR Associates, LLC.

Steven B. Mirow [ARGUED], 249 South 12th Street, Philadelphia, PA
19107, Counsel for Appellee Keystone Trading Partners, LLC.

Michael D. LiPuma -- mlipuma@lipumalaw.com -- Lisa B. Wershaw --
lwershaw@lipumalaw.com -- Law Office of Michael LiPuma, 325
Chestnut Street, Suite 1109, Philadelphia, PA 19106, Kyle D.
Rettberg -- krettberg@ngelaw.com -- Phillip L. Stern --
pstern@ngelaw.com -- [ARGUED], Neal Gerber & Eisenberg, Two North
LaSalle Street, Suite 1700, Chicago, IL 60602, Counsel for
Appellees SIG Holding, Susquehanna International Group LLP,
Susquehanna Investment Group, Susquehanna Securities, and V
Trader-CG LLC.


NATIONAL PROMOTION: Magee Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT MAGEE, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated v. NATIONAL PROMOTION REPORTS, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-
09944 (E.D. La., October 2, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's
alleged practice of making unwanted and unsolicited text message
calls to the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide.

The Defendant did not obtain prior express consent from such
consumers to make such text message calls and, therefore violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Mr. Magee argues.

National Promotion Reports, LLC, is a New York-based for-profit
corporation.  National Promotion is a market research firm, which
provides texting services to advertisers that contract with third-
party businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
          William H. Beaumont, Esq.
          BEAUMONT COSTALES LAW OFFICE
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 534-5005
          Facsimile: (504) 272-2956
          E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
                  whb@beaumontcostales.com


NPC INT'L: "Collins" Stayed Pending SCOTUS Ruling in "Lewis"
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois granted NPC's motion to stay
proceedings in the case captioned TONY COLLINS, NAIMATULLAH
NAYZEE, and ANN MURRAY, for themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. NPC, INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:17-CV-00312-NJR-RJD (S.D. Ill.), pending the Supreme Court's
decision in Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp.; and denied without
prejudice both the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification and NPC's motion to compel arbitration.

The Plaintiffs bring the suit as a proposed collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well a proposed class
action under Illinois, Missouri, and Florida state law.  The
Plaintiffs are delivery drivers for NPC.  As delivery drivers,
they all have the same primary responsibility: to deliver pizza
and other food and beverages to customers using their personal
vehicles.

The Plaintiffs allege that NPC under-reimbursed its delivery
drivers for vehicular wear and tear, gas, and other driving-
related expenses, effectively paying drivers well below the
minimum wage.  They claim thet NPC continues to under-reimburse
them, preferring to selfishly pocket excess profits rather than
fairly pay its employees.

They have moved to conditionally certify a collective of all NPC
drivers.  NPC denies the Plaintiffs' claims and has moved to
compel individual arbitration pursuant to an arbitration agreement
signed by each Named Plaintiff.  Alternatively, NPC asks the Court
to stay all proceedings until the United States Supreme Court
decides the legality of the class action waivers contained in the
arbitration agreements.

The arbitration agreement signed by the Named Plaintiffs requires
them to use binding individual arbitration for any claims and
expressly prohibits the Plaintiffs from acting on behalf of or as
a part of any purported class, collective, representative, or
consolidated action.

Currently, the Seventh Circuit law holds that mandatory
arbitration provisions precluding employees from seeking any
class, collective, or representative remedies to wage-and-hour
disputes are unenforceable because they interfere with employees'
rights to engage in concerted activity under the National Labor
Relations Act ("NLRA").  The Ninth Circuit held likewise in Morris
v. Ernst & Young, LLP.  The Second, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits
have all held, however, that employee arbitration agreements
containing class waivers are enforceable.  On Jan. 13, 2017, the
Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Lewis and
consolidated the case with Morris and Murphy Oil.  The Supreme
Court heard oral argument on Oct. 2, 2017, and an opinion is
expected sometime in early 2018.

Before the Court are the Motion for Conditional Certification
filed by the Plaintiffs on March 31, 2017; the Motion to Compel
Individual Arbitration or, Alternatively, to Stay Proceedings
filed by NPC on May 1, 2017; and the Motion for Protective Order
filed NPC on Aug. 7, 2017.  The Plaintiffs filed a response in
opposition to NPC's motion to compel or to stay proceedings on May
31, 2017.  Both parties have supplied the Court with supplemental
authority in support of their respective positions.

Judge Rosenstengel finds that conditionally certifying a
collective and permitting class discovery, only to later decertify
the collective a few months later (if the Supreme Court reverses
the Seventh Circuit in Lewis) would defeat the purpose of judicial
economy.  The ruling in Lewis will have a direct impact on the
issues in the case; in just a few months, the Plaintiffs will know
whether the arbitration clause they signed is valid.  Under these
circumstances, he finds that staying the case is reasonable and
prudent.

He also finds that NPC has presented evidence that all three Named
Plaintiffs would be prohibited from bringing a collective action
should the Supreme Court's ruling in Lewis favor NPC, and the
Plaintiffs have not argued that there are any putative class
members who have not signed an arbitration agreement.  The
Plaintiffs have not demonstrated undue prejudice that would
preclude the application of a stay in the case.  Thus, the Judge
does not believe it must conditionally certify the class
regardless of the Defendant's arbitration defense.

For these reasons, Judge Rosenstengel granted in part and denied
in part NPC's Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration or,
Alternatively, to Stay Proceeding.  The case is stayed pending the
Supreme Court's ruling in Lewis.  Because the case is stayed,
NPC's Motion for Protective Order is also granted.  NPC's motion
to compel arbitration, as well as the Motion for Conditional
Certification filed by the Plaintiffs are denied without prejudice
and may be refiled once the Supreme Court issues its opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/iRMo8s from Leagle.com.

Tony Collins, Plaintiff, represented by C. Ryan Morgan, Morgan &
Morgan PA.

Tony Collins, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremiah L. Frei-Pearson,
Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, Chantal
Khalil -- ckhalil@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-
Pearson & Garber, LLP & Todd S. Garber -- tgarber@fbfglaw.com --
Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP.

Naimatullah Nyazee, Plaintiff, represented by C. Ryan Morgan,
Morgan & Morgan PA-Orlando, Chantal Khalil, Finkelstein,
Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, Todd S. Garber,
Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP & Jeremiah L.
Frei-Pearson, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber,
LLP.

Ann Murray, Plaintiff, represented by C. Ryan Morgan, Morgan &
Morgan PA, Chantal Khalil, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson
& Garber, LLP, Todd S. Garber, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-
Pearson & Garber, LLP & Jeremiah L. Frei-Pearson, Finkelstein,
Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP.

NPC International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Katherine R.
Sinatra -- ksinatra@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy et al. & Mark C. Tatum
-- mtatum@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy et al.


OAKMONT SENIOR: Must Show Why "Lollock" Must Not Be Remanded
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DONALD LOLLOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
OAKMONT SENIOR LIVING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-05912-JSW
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Jeffrey S. White of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California ordered Oakmont to show cause
why the case does not fall within Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA")'s the home state and local controversy exceptions.

On Oct. 16, 2017, Oakmont filed a Notice of Removal, in which it
asserts that the Court has jurisdiction under the CAFA.  The
Defendant asserts that numerous members of the proposed class of
the Plaintiffs are citizens of a different state from Oakmont.
Oakmont also asserts that as an unincorporated association, under
CAFA it is a citizen of California.

Judge White explains that CAFA contains a "local controversy"
exception which provides that a district court will decline to
exercise jurisdiction over a class action in which the plaintiff
class and at least one defendant meet certain characteristics that
essentially make the case a local controversy.  It also contains a
"home-state controversy" exception, which provides that a court
will decline to exercise jurisdiction over a class action in which
two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff
classes in the aggregate, and the primary defendants, are citizens
of the State in which the action was originally filed.

Although these exceptions are not jurisdictional, in light of the
allegations in the Complaint and Oakmont's apparent citizenship,
Judge White ordered Oakmont to show cause why the case does not
fall within the exceptions outlined in Section 1332(d)(4)(A) or
Section 1332(d)(4)(B), and, thus, why the case should not be
remanded.

Oakmont's response to the Order to Show Cause will be due by Nov.
1, 2017.  If the Court determines a response from the Plaintiffs
is warranted, it will issue a further order setting a deadline by
which the Plaintiffs should respond.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/qEPp62 from Leagle.com.

Donald Lollock, Plaintiff, represented by Kelly Jean Knapp,
Stebner and Associates.

Donald Lollock, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Healey --
chris.healey@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, George Nobuo Kawamoto,
Stebner and Associates, Guy Burton Wallace --
gwallace@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Jennifer Ann Uhrowczik, Schneider Wallace
Cottrel Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Kathryn Ann Stebner, Stebner &
Associates, Michael Dougald Thamer -- michael@trinityinstitute.com
-- Law Offices Of Michael D. Thamer PC & Sarah S. Colby, Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns.

Kathleen Lollock, Plaintiff, represented by Kelly Jean Knapp,
Stebner and Associates, Christopher J. Healey, Dentons US LLP,
George Nobuo Kawamoto, Stebner and Associates, Guy Burton Wallace,
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Jennifer Ann
Uhrowczik, Schneider Wallace Cottrel Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Kathryn
Ann Stebner, Stebner & Associates, Michael Dougald Thamer, Law
Offices Of Michael D. Thamer PC & Sarah S. Colby, Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns.

Zareen Khan, Plaintiff, represented by Kelly Jean Knapp, Stebner
and Associates, Christopher J. Healey, Dentons US LLP, George
Nobuo Kawamoto, Stebner and Associates, Guy Burton Wallace,
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Jennifer Ann
Uhrowczik, Schneider Wallace Cottrel Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Kathryn
Ann Stebner, Stebner & Associates, Michael Dougald Thamer, Law
Offices Of Michael D. Thamer PC & Sarah S. Colby, Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns.

Frank Pearson, Plaintiff, represented by Kelly Jean Knapp, Stebner
and Associates, Christopher J. Healey, Dentons US LLP, George
Nobuo Kawamoto, Stebner and Associates, Guy Burton Wallace,
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Jennifer Ann
Uhrowczik, Schneider Wallace Cottrel Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Kathryn
Ann Stebner, Stebner & Associates, Michael Dougald Thamer, Law
Offices Of Michael D. Thamer PC & Sarah S. Colby, Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns.

Jo Ella Nashadka, Plaintiff, represented by Kelly Jean Knapp,
Stebner and Associates, Christopher J. Healey, Dentons US LLP,
George Nobuo Kawamoto, Stebner and Associates, Guy Burton Wallace,
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Jennifer Ann
Uhrowczik, Schneider Wallace Cottrel Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Kathryn
Ann Stebner, Stebner & Associates, Michael Dougald Thamer, Law
Offices Of Michael D. Thamer PC & Sarah S. Colby, Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns.

Jane Burton-Whitaker, Plaintiff, represented by Kelly Jean Knapp,
Stebner and Associates, Christopher J. Healey, Dentons US LLP,
George Nobuo Kawamoto, Stebner and Associates, Guy Burton Wallace,
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Jennifer Ann
Uhrowczik, Schneider Wallace Cottrel Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Kathryn
Ann Stebner, Stebner & Associates, Michael Dougald Thamer, Law
Offices Of Michael D. Thamer PC & Sarah S. Colby, Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns.

Oakmont Senior Living, LLC, Defendant, represented by Gabe
Peterson Wright -- gwright@hahnlaw.com -- Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP
& Kyle Thomas Overs -- kovers@hahnlaw.com -- Hahn Loeser and Parks
LLP.


PETLAND KENNESAW: Sued for Allegedly Selling Sick Puppies
---------------------------------------------------------
Jim Strickland, writing for WSBTV, reports that a popular, but
controversial, metro Atlanta pet store faces a class action
lawsuit accusing it of selling sick puppies.

Consumer investigator Jim Strickland was the first reporter to get
Petland Kennesaw on camera to address the allegations. They
invited Channel 2 Action News into the store to see the conditions
first-hand.

A spokesperson said the store will investigate some of the
allegations internally after Strickland revealed he had a
recording of Petland's attorneys admitting the store sold a sick
dog.

"That's something that we will have to look into internally.
Absolutely," Petland public relations director Lauren Petz told
Mr. Strickland.

The lawsuit accuses the franchise of peddling sick dogs bred in
puppy mills to unsuspecting buyers.

"They bargained for a healthy, happy, adoptable pet. They got
heartbreak, pain and expense," said attorney Tamara Feliciano, who
represents customers with those claims.

A bulldog named Attie is one of those dogs.  Owners John
Stavrinakis and Mallory Eidson said the dog was coughing on the
sales floor.

"They were just kind of writing it off, 'oh it's just kennel
cough, it's nothing, she'll be fine,'" Mr. Stavrinakis said.  "She
wasn't fine.  She was far from it."

Attie was diagnosed with severe pneumonia days after the store
sold her.

"This is dog ICU, and you don't expect that with your puppy,"
Eidson said.

Petland said Mr. Stavrinakis insisted he take the dog home even
with the cough, which he denied to Strickland.  Attie is fine
after more than a week in veterinary care and Petland ultimately
paid a vet bill of more than $12,000.

Mr. Stavrinakis gave Channel 2 Action News a recording of a phone
call with a store attorney making this admission: "The dog was
still on meds . . . We probably should not have released the dog
even with the insistence of customers who want to bring our
beautiful dogs home."

The store filed a motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit,
calling it frivolous and a copycat of a suit that failed eight
years ago.  "Being silent makes us look guilty and that's
something that we are not," Petz said.

Former vet's employee blows whistle
Another allegation in the lawsuit claims a former preferred
Petland Kennesaw vet signed off on puppies too sick to sell.
Specifically, dogs were sold with certificates of health
rubberstamped with Walton Waller's signature.  Mr. Strickland
tried to contact Waller, and found his veterinary license had been
suspended AND WAS sent to prison on an unrelated assault
conviction.

"It needs to be told; the truth does need to come out," said
Jessica Padgett, one of Waller's former employees.

She said she worked with Waller for a few months and swore in an
affidavit the former vet falsified records to make unhealthy dogs
easier to sell.

"He told me he said 'I nick paperwork, that's what I do.  I alter
the paperwork,'" Ms. Padgett said.

Adrienne Carter received paperwork from Petland Kennesaw that said
Waller did the health check on a Yorkie named Daydream -- a small
dog she claims an employee told her was the runt of the litter.

Ms. Carter bought the puppy as a Christmas gift for her daughter.
Daydream was dead before Valentine's Day.

RECENT INVESTIGATIONS:

"She died in my arms," Ms. Carter said, adding that the cost was
"$2,900 for a dog that lived five weeks."

Ms. Carter said she believes Petland knowingly sold her a sick
dog.

Petland said their puppies get multiple vet checks during the trip
from the breeder to the store.

Ms. Carter was offered store credit as compensation for the dog,
per her contract with Petland.

"We do everything in our power to prevent situations like that,"
Ms. Petz said of Ms. Carter's purchase.

Dr. Michael Good was Petland's preferred vet for 10 years. He's
also swore in an affidavit the Kennesaw location put dollars in
front of the health of dogs.  Petland said they haven't worked
with Good since 2005 and he has no knowledge of current
operations.

"The whole motivation is profit," Dr. Good said.  "You can't tell
me for a minute these people were concerned about the health and
welfare of these animals."

Questions about dog breeders
Ms. Petz said store owner Brad Parker does his own inspections of
breeder facilities complete with pictures.  "These aren't dogs
from puppy mills at all," she said.

Petland Kennesaw provided several USDA inspection documents from
its current breeder pool.  JK Puppies is a new licensee and an
inspector found no non-compliant items.  Iowa records show the
owner, Jan Budden, is a veteran breeder.  In 2015, the USDA cited
her for two dogs in need of dental work and one with a serious eye
malady.

"These animals are sick as a result of the conditions in which
they were bread," Feliciano told Strickland.

Attie the bulldog came from a broker called Platinum Puppies.  The
Humane Society reported Platinum Puppies is a known puppy mill.
The report referenced a February 2013 USDA inspection that cited
Platinum Puppies for several "enclosures [that] did not allow the
animals to stand and sit" and reselling dogs from unregistered
sources.

Ms. Petz said Petland is committed to steering clear of violators.
"If there are any compliance issues as far as USDA regulation
work, as soon as we're notified we no longer work with them," she
said.

Petland said it sells nearly 1,200 puppies a year and the store is
among the top five of all Petland franchises.  Ms. Petz told
Strickland other stores use the Kennesaw franchise as a training
model.

While each animal comes with a warranty, Ms. Petz said there are
no guarantees.

"Even in the cleanest, happiest, healthiest environment, a puppy,
a baby, an animal can get sick," Ms. Petz said. [GN]


PHILIP MORRIS: Wins $5.3MM Verdict in Non-Engle Tobacco Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Law.com, reports that Fort Lauderdale
attorneys won a rare $5.3 million wrongful death verdict for the
family of a smoker who picked up her first cigarette in the 1970s
-- decades after most tobacco plaintiffs in Florida.

Brenda Gentile was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2014, placing her
far outside the time frame of the Engle class, a group of
plaintiffs diagnosed with smoking-related illnesses before 1996
who benefit from certain pre-determined jury findings.

Engle plaintiffs usually started smoking as teenagers in the
1950s.  When the Florida Supreme Court disbanded the statewide
Engle class action, the justices determined tobacco companies in
those days conspired to hide the health effects of cigarettes. But
the Gentile family's lawyers argued the tobacco industry's
misconduct did not end there.

"She started smoking after warnings were on the packs," said
Kelley/Uustal partner Eric Rosen, who tried the case with
associates Kimberly Wald and Josiah Graham.  "But the conspiracy
to cast doubt and controversy over whether smoking was harmful and
addictive that the cigarette companies created in the 1950s was
ongoing during the time she was growing up and during her adult
life."

Mrs. Gentile smoked Philip Morris USA brands throughout her life,
starting with filtered Parliament cigarettes in high school and
later moving on to low-tar Merit cigarettes, Mr. Rosen said.  From
the late 1980s until her death three years ago, she smoked
Virginia Slim "ultra-light" cigarettes.

In trial against Philip Morris, Mr. Rosen pointed to internal
documents showing the company knew people believed filtered or
low-tar cigarettes were healthier than the unfiltered versions the
generation before Gentile smoked.

"Their internal documents talked about how the Merit smoker is
this health-conscious individual," Mr. Rosen said.  "They want to
quit but they end up with Merits, because they can't quit."

The "health-conscious" marketing often targeted young women like
Mrs. Gentile, Mr. Rosen argued, with the Virginia Slims brand
positioned as a "long, white, feminine cigarette."  And when
tested, filtered cigarettes registered low levels of nicotine and
tar on machines.

"But people aren't machines," Mr. Rosen said. " They smoke to get
nicotine because they're addicted.  So they smoke more deeply.
They take bigger puffs, deeper puffs."

The plaintiffs lawyers backed their argument with a body of
research showing people who smoke filtered cigarettes are
developing lung cancer, particularly adenocarcinoma, at high
rates.

"Despite decreases in smoking prevalence and concomitant decreases
in squamous cell carcinoma, the incidence of lung adenocarcinoma
among smokers has increased since the 1960s," a 2014 U.S. Surgeon
General's report found.  "Evidence from birth-cohort models and
epidemiologic studies are sufficient to conclude that the
increased risk of lung adenocarcinoma among smokers is due to
changes in the design and/or composition of cigarettes."

Philip Morris argued plaintiffs counsel did not show the
cigarettes were defective or that consumers believed they were
avoiding the risk of cancer or addiction by smoking filtered
cigarettes.

"By the time Mrs. Gentile began smoking in 1972 or 1973 (and even
in the 1950s), the public had available to it pervasive
information about the health risks of smoking," defense counsel
wrote in a court filing.  "At most, Plaintiff has presented
evidence that consumers such as Mrs. Gentile believed that some
types of cigarettes (notably "light"/low-tar cigarettes) were less
risky than others. . . . He has not shown that consumers believed
any conventional cigarettes . . . were actually safe."

The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The jury awarded Mrs. Gentile's family $7.1 million, finding the
cigarettes were defective and that Philip Morris concealed the
health effects and addictive nature of the products, leading to
Gentile's lung cancer and death.  Because the jury assigned
Gentile 25 percent of the liability, the amount awarded by Palm
Beach Circuit Judge Meenu Sasser in the final judgment was $5.3
million.

Mr. Rosen said he hopes the verdict opens the door for others who
started smoking later than the Engle class.

"I hope they would pursue claims, because we can prove that the
cigarettes are defective by design," he said. "What we presented
at trial and what the jury found was that the cigarettes were
unreasonably dangerous to the consumer, and that the cigarette
companies over the past few decades have incorporated design
features that made the cigarettes much more dangerous."

Case: Michael Gentile v. Philip Morris USA Case No.: 50-2015-CA-
005405 Description: Tobacco Filing date: May 12, 2015 Verdict
date: Oct. 10, 2017 Judge: Palm Beach Circuit Judge Meenu Sasser
Plaintiffs attorneys: Eric Rosen, Kimberly Wald and Josiah Graham,
Kelley/Uustal, Fort Lauderdale Defense attorneys: Frank Cruz-
Alvarez and Rachel Forman, Miami, Kristopher Verra, Tampa, Shook,
Hardy & Bacon; Keri Arnold, New York, Jason Ross, Tampa, Arnold &
Porter Kaye Scholer Verdict amount: $5.34 million


POINT BLANK: Faces Class Action Over Ballistic System Vests
-----------------------------------------------------------
Point Blank Enterprises, Inc., a privately held business
headquartered in Pompano Beach, Florida, on Oct. 23 disclosed that
a lawsuit had been filed against it, by attorneys representing two
police associations and three officers who are members of one of
the associations, in a putative class action case alleging that
shoulder straps of self-suspending ballistic system vests wear out
over time with use.

Point Blank noted that with millions of vests sold, no officer has
been injured as a result of the manufacturing and/or design defect
the plaintiffs allege, and in fact many officers' lives have been
saved as a result of wearing Point Blank Body Armor over the past
44-years.  Point Blank Body Armor is the most popular body armor
worn by officers today with the largest agencies in the country
today using Point Blank Body Armor as the personal protection of
choice.

Point Blank disputes the plaintiffs' allegations and claims raised
in the case, which is pending in the Southern District of Florida,
and strongly believes that the allegations do not support the
putative class claims against the Company.  Point Blank will
vigorously defend itself against the lawsuit and has hired outside
counsel to assist in this matter.  The Company has retained
outside Counsel on the matter through the law firms of Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP, and Berger Singerman LLP.

Chief Executive Officer, Daniel Gaston, stated, "Our reputation
has proven with more than 40 years of experience and expertise
saving and protecting lives of law enforcement officers, soldiers,
sailors and marines of the United States of America, that Point
Blank provides a high performance, quality body armor product.  We
stand behind the performance, the durability and the safety of
those products, and we appreciate and value our end-users as they
protect and defend the United States and our communities.  Point
Blank is committed to customer service, and has a process in place
for reviewing customer complaints and warranty claims regarding
Point Blank products and working directly with its customers to
resolve any issues in a timely manner.  We appreciate your
continued support of Point Blank products and remain dedicated to
customer satisfaction."

              About Point Blank Enterprises, Inc.

Point Blank Enterprises, Inc. --
http://www.pointblankenterprises.com-- is a provider of high
performance protective solutions, including bullet, fragmentation
and stab resistant apparel and related accessories.  Through its
key brands, Point Blank Body Armor, Protective Apparel Corporation
of America (PACA), Protective Products, PARACLETE(R), The
Protective Group (TPG), Advanced Technology Group (ATG), and First
Tactical, the Company ranks as the largest global supplier of
ballistic armor systems in the world.  The Company's ballistic
solutions have been credited with saving countless lives for the
most important customers in the world, including the U.S. Armed
Forces, Department of Defense, Federal Government and law
enforcement, corrections and security personnel, both domestically
and abroad. [GN]


POLLO OPERATIONS: Approval of Revised "Preman" Class Deal Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case MARK PREMAN, Plaintiff, v. POLLO OPERATIONS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-443-Orl-41GJK (M.D. Fla.), Judge
Carlos E. Mendoza of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, Orlando Division, denied the parties'
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Revised Class Action
Settlement and Certification of Settlement Class.

Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly issued a Report and
Recommendation in which he recommends that the parties' Unopposed
Motion be denied and the parties be permitted to file a renewed
motion.

After a de novo review of the record, and noting that the parties
filed a Joint Waiver of Objection, Judge Mendoza agrees with the
analysis in the Report and Recommendation.  Therefore, he adopted
and confirmed the Report and Recommendation.  He directed the
parties to file a renewed motion on or before Nov. 15, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/6b0fat from Leagle.com.

Mark Preman, Plaintiff, represented by John Allen Yanchunis, Sr. -
- jyanchunis@forthepeople.com -- Morgan & Morgan, PA.

Mark Preman, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Betten Cohen --
jcohen@forthepeople.com -- Morgan & Morgan, PA & Octavio Gomez,
Morgan & Morgan, PA.

Pollo Operations, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jason L.
Margolin -- jason.margolin@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Jeffrey J.
Mayer -- jeffrey.mayer@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, pro hac vice,
Kelly J.H. Garcia -- kelly.garcia@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP,
Lawrence D. Silverman -- lawrence.silverman@akerman.com -- Akerman
LLP & Sandra Jessica Millor -- sandra.millor@akerman.com --
Akerman LLP.


PROFESSIONAL TRANSPORTATION: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Yuwsuf Abdul-Ghafoor, et al. v. Professional Transportation, Inc.
et al., Case No. 17-cv-01105 (S.D. Ill., Oct. 13, 2017), seeks to
recover minimum wages and overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were or are employees of Defendants engaged as over
the road drivers of non-commercial motor vehicles.

Defendant Professional Transportation, Inc.'s primary business is
ground transportation of railroad crews both interstate and
intrastate. Defendant conducts business in the state of Illinois
and in several locations in this judicial district, to include
Collinsville, Dupo and East St. Louis, Illinois.

Defendant Ronald D. Romain is the president and secretary of
Defendant PTI. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Terry D. Smith, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TERRY D. SMITH
      13509 W. 10th Court N.
      Wichita, KS 67235
      Tel: (316) 361-0062
      E-mail: tsmith@smithlawoffices.net

          - and -

      Joseph H. Cassell, Esq.
      ERON LAW, P.A.
      229 E. William, Suite 100
      Wichita, KS 67202
      Tel: (316) 262-5500
      E-mail: jhcassell@eronlaw.net


PROGRESSUS THERAPY: "Shelton" Settlement Bid Filing Due Dec. 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TERRI SHELTON, LAURA THOMPSON individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
PROGRESSUS THERAPY, LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company,
PROGRESSUS THERAPY, INC., A Florida Corporation, PROGRESSUS, INC.,
A Delaware Corporation, INVO HEALTHCARE Liability Company, INVO
HEALTHCARE, LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company, THERAPY
STATION ASSOCIATES, LLC, A California Limited Liability Company,
and DOES 1 through 200, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00518-TLN-EFB
(E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L. Nunley of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California ordered the Plaintiff to file a
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement on or
before Dec. 22, 2017.

Judge Nunley directed the Plaintiff to set the Motion for hearing
on regular notice pursuant to Local Rule 230.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/v9Kvq2 from Leagle.com.

Terri Shelton, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Mason --
info@gurneelaw.com -- Gurnee Mason & Forestiere LLP.

Terri Shelton, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas P. Forestiere,
Gurnee Mason & Forestiere Llp.

Laura Thompson, Plaintiff, represented by John A. Mason, Gurnee
Mason & Forestiere LLP & Nicholas P. Forestiere, Gurnee Mason &
Forestiere Llp.

Progressus Therapy, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jason S.
Campbell -- jscampbell@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP.

Progressus Therapy, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jason S.
Campbell, Winston & Strawn LLP.

Progressus, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jason S. Campbell,
Winston & Strawn LLP.

Invo Healthcare Associates, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jason
S. Campbell, Winston & Strawn LLP.

Invo Healthcare, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jason S. Campbell,
Winston & Strawn LLP.

Therapy Station Associates, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jason
S. Campbell, Winston & Strawn LLP.


RAYMOURS FURNITURE: Accused by "Manopla" Suit of Invading Privacy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EVELYN MANOPLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RAYMOURS FURNITURE COMPANY, INC. d/b/a RAYMOUR &
FLANIGAN, Case No. 3:17-cv-07649 (D.N.J., September 29, 2017), is
brought to secure redress because the Defendant allegedly violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and invaded the Plaintiff's
privacy by causing unsolicited text messages to be made to her and
other class members' cellular telephones through the use of an
auto-dialer.

Raymour is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with
its corporate office located in Liverpool, New York.  Raymour
operates a retail furniture company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
          E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com


READY SECURITY: "Lewis" Action to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Lewis, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ready Security, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 158861/2017 (N.Y. Sup., October 4, 2017), seeks unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid overtime, and unpaid spread of hours due,
liquidated damages, as well as an award of reasonable attorney's
fees under New York Labor Law and the New York Minimum Wage Act.

Defendant was engaged in the business of providing security
services where Plaintiff was employed as a security guard.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
     215-28 Hillside Avenue
     Queens Village, NY 11427
     Tel: (718) 740-1000
     Fax: (718) 355-9668
     Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com


RENT-A-CENTER INC: Can Partly Compel Arbitration in "Blair" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In case captioned PAULA BLAIR, ANDREA ROBINSON, and FALECHIA
HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. RENT-A-CENTER, INC., a Delaware
corporation, RENT-A-CENTER WEST, INC., a Delaware corporation, and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. C 17-02335 WHA (N.D.
Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part
the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration and denied their
motion to stay.

The action arises from rent-to-own agreements, which the Named
Plaintiffs contend set prices in excess of the maximum installment
payment rates allowable under California law.  The Defendants
("RAC") own and manage rent-to-own stores throughout California,
which rent household merchandise (e.g., appliances, electronics,
furniture) to consumers for a weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly fee.

The terms of these rent-to-own agreements are set forth in written
contracts between the consumer and RAC, which are signed by the
consumer at the point of sale.  The consumer is also given a
separate arbitration agreement when she makes a purchase, which
she is likewise asked to sign.

Plaintiff Blair filed the action in the Superior Court for the
County of Alameda in April 2017 seeking relief for violations of
(i) the Karnette Rental-Purchase Act, (ii) the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), (iii) Usury, (iv) Section
17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, and (v)
Unjust Enrichment.  RAC then removed the action to federal court
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.

In May 2017, Blair filed an amended complaint dropping her unjust
enrichment claim.  RAC then brought the instant motion to compel
Blair's suit to arbitration, to strike the class action claims
arising from her 2015 agreement, and to stay Blair's claims
arising from her 2016 purchase (from which she opted out of
arbitration).  While the motion has been pending, Blair amended
her complaint a second time to add Plaintiffs Robinson and Harris,
though as stated, RAC has not moved to compel their claims to
arbitration.

In summary, Judge Alsup finds Blair's public injunctive claims
under Section 17200, the CLRA, and the Karnette Rental-Purchase
Act fall within the scope of McGill v. Citibank, N.A.  Blair's
usury claim, however, is not amenable to public injunctive relief,
and RAC did not run afoul of McGill by requiring that Blair
arbitrate this claims in her individual capacity only.
Accordingly, the Judge granted RAC's motion to compel arbitration
is as to Blair's usury claim.

The rule in McGill, in contrast, provides that parties can compel
public injunctive claims to arbitration.  It merely prohibits
contracts that waive such claims altogether.  McGill does not
violate the FAA's prohibition on rules specifically disfavoring
arbitration, and is therefore not preempted by the FAA.

Judge Alsup also finds that three of Blair's claims seek relief
not permitted under the arbitration agreement.  That prohibition
runs afoul of California law.  Accordingly, her claims for
violations of Section 17200, the CLRA, and the Karnette Rental-
Purchase Act must be severed from the arbitration and may be
brought in Court.  He denied RAC's motion to compel arbitration as
to Blair's Section 17200, CLRA and Karnette Rental-Purchase Act
claims.

Finally, Judge Alsup finds that a stay is unnecessary.  RAC has
succeeded in compelling only a single claim to arbitration for
violation of California's usury law.  The usury claim concerns
only Blair's 2015 purchase of her air conditioning unit, and
whether the installment payments related to that purchase
constitute a loan, which exceeds the interest rate limit
established by Article XV of the California Constitution.  The
Karnette Rental-Purchase Act claim, on the other hand, concerns
whether RAC exceeded benchmark maximum prices for the various
items purchased by Blair, Robinson, and Harris, as well as RAC's
compliance with labeling and record-keeping requirements set forth
in the Act.  The CLRA claim also carries a distinct legal concern
-- whether RAC's contracts contain misleading or unconscionable
terms.  Lastly, the Section 17200 claim is predicated on
violations of all of the claims.

While there will no doubt be some minor overlap in the facts in
arbitration and in court, California's usury law is sufficiently
distinct from the other consumer protection laws Blair sues under
that parallel proceedings will not be unduly duplicative or
burdensome.  Accordingly, the Judge denied RAC's motion to stay
court proceedings.

For these reasons, Judge Alsup granted RAC's motion to compel
arbitration as to Blair's usury claim, and denied as to Blair's
claims under Section 17200 of the California Business and
Professions Code, the Karnette Rental-Purchase Act, and the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.  He also denied RAC's motion to stay.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Amended Order is
available at https://is.gd/nlD5mD from Leagle.com.

Paula L. Blair, Plaintiff, represented by James T. Hannink --
Hannink@SDLaw.com -- Dostart Hannink and Coveney.

Paula L. Blair, Plaintiff, represented by Zachariah Paul Dostart -
- Paul.Dostart@SDLaw.com -- Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP, Eric
Prince Brown -- ebrown@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP
& Michael Rubin -- mrubin@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon
LLP.

Andrea Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Prince Brown,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, James T. Hannink, Dostart Hannink and
Coveney, Michael Rubin, Altshuler Berzon LLP & Zachariah Paul
Dostart, Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP.

Harris A. Falechia, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Prince Brown,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, James T. Hannink, Dostart Hannink and
Coveney, Michael Rubin, Altshuler Berzon LLP & Zachariah Paul
Dostart, Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP.

Rent-A-Center, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christina Guerola
Sarchio -- Christina.sarchio@dechert.com -- Orrick Herrington
Sutcliffe LLP, H. Joseph Escher, III --
h.joseph.escher@dechert.com -- Dechert LLP, Kirsten F. Gallacher -
- Gallacher@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP,
Robert Kenneth Dixon -- rdixon@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson
Turner Kosmo, Robert Francois Friedman --  rfriedman@littler.com -
- Littler Mendelson, P.C., pro hac vice, Vickie E. Turner --
vturner@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP & Gregory
G. Iskander -- giskander@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C..

Rent-A-Center West, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christina
Guerola Sarchio, Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe LLP, H. Joseph
Escher, III, Dechert LLP, Kirsten F. Gallacher, Wilson Turner
Kosmo LLP, Robert Kenneth Dixon, Wilson Turner Kosmo, Robert
Francois Friedman, Littler Mendelson, P.C., pro hac vice, Vickie
E. Turner, Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP & Gregory G. Iskander, Littler
Mendelson, P.C.


RENT-A-CENTER INC: Court to Hear Class Claims at Cert. Hearing
--------------------------------------------------------------
In case captioned PAULA BLAIR, ANDREA ROBINSON, and FALECHIA
HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. RENT-A-CENTER, INC., a Delaware
corporation, RENT-A-CENTER WEST, INC., a Delaware corporation, and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. C 17-02335 WHA (N.D.
Cal.), Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California ordered that issues regarding
Plaintiff Blair's class action claims will be decided at the class
certification hearing.

On reconsideration, Judge Alsup has vacated its prior order on the
Defendants' motion to compel arbitration, strike class action
claims, and stay proceedings, and issued an Amended Order,
removing the language striking Plaintiff Blair's class action
claims.  Issues regarding class action claims will be decided at
the class certification hearing.  The Defendants will brief this
issue as part of any opposition to class certification.  The
Plaintiffs will have an opportunity to address these claims in
their reply.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/5roELN from Leagle.com.

Paula L. Blair, Plaintiff, represented by James T. Hannink --
Hannink@SDLaw.com -- Dostart Hannink and Coveney.

Paula L. Blair, Plaintiff, represented by Zachariah Paul Dostart -
- Paul.Dostart@SDLaw.com -- Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP, Eric
Prince Brown -- ebrown@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP
& Michael Rubin -- mrubin@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon
LLP.

Andrea Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Prince Brown,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, James T. Hannink, Dostart Hannink and
Coveney, Michael Rubin, Altshuler Berzon LLP & Zachariah Paul
Dostart, Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP.

Harris A. Falechia, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Prince Brown,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, James T. Hannink, Dostart Hannink and
Coveney, Michael Rubin, Altshuler Berzon LLP & Zachariah Paul
Dostart, Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP.

Rent-A-Center, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christina Guerola
Sarchio -- Christina.sarchio@dechert.com -- Orrick Herrington
Sutcliffe LLP, H. Joseph Escher, III --
h.joseph.escher@dechert.com -- Dechert LLP, Kirsten F. Gallacher -
- Gallacher@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP,
Robert Kenneth Dixon -- rdixon@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson
Turner Kosmo, Robert Francois Friedman --  rfriedman@littler.com -
- Littler Mendelson, P.C., pro hac vice, Vickie E. Turner --
vturner@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP & Gregory
G. Iskander -- giskander@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C..

Rent-A-Center West, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christina
Guerola Sarchio, Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe LLP, H. Joseph
Escher, III, Dechert LLP, Kirsten F. Gallacher, Wilson Turner
Kosmo LLP, Robert Kenneth Dixon, Wilson Turner Kosmo, Robert
Francois Friedman, Littler Mendelson, P.C., pro hac vice, Vickie
E. Turner, Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP & Gregory G. Iskander, Littler
Mendelson, P.C.


RIO TINTO: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, a national investor-rights law
firm headquartered in Seattle, Washington with 11 offices across
the country, on Oct. 23 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Rio Tinto PLC (NYSE: RIO)
American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between October 23, 2012 and
February 15, 2013 (the "Class Period").  This action, Colbert v.
Rio Tinto PLC, et al., No. 17-cv-08169, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaint alleges Rio Tinto and certain of its former executives
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from October 23, 2017.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, contact attorney Reed Kathrein at 510-725-
3000, email RioTinto@hbsslaw.com or visit
www.hbsslaw.com/cases/RioTinto, where you may view the complaint
online.  Any member of the putative class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Rio Tinto is incorporated in the United Kingdom ("U.K."), and its
ADRs are listed on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE").  The
Company, a mining and metals company, finds, mines, processes, and
markets mineral resources. It has operations in Australia, North
America, Asia, Europe, Africa, and South America.

During August 2011, Rio Tinto completed its purchase of certain
coal assets in Mozambique for approximately $3.7 billion (net of
cash acquired at acquisition).  This business became known as Rio
Tinto Coal Mozambique, or "RTCM."

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information regarding RTCM's true value.

More specifically, the complaint alleges: (a) within months of the
purchase, now-former senior executives knew of material problems
adversely affecting RTCM's multi-billion dollar publicly reported
valuation; (b) as time passed, the same senior executives knew of
additional problems and events that, under applicable accounting
rules, required an impairment analysis of RTCM and reductions in
its reported valuation; (c) instead of timely performing the
impairment analysis, these executives thwarted it and continued to
tout RTCM's value to investors; (d) when a concerned employee
outside the normal financial control function discovered or
suspected the senior executives concealed RTCM's negative
valuation from Rio Tinto's Board of Directors, he bypassed them
and directly alerted the Chairman, who ordered an investigation
into RTCM's true value; (e) on January 15, 2013, less than a year
and a half after the purchase, the Board determined RTCM was
severely impaired and should be written down by billions of
dollars to $611 million; and (f) the impact of this writedown was
reported to investors in Rio Tinto's financial report on Form 6-K
filed with the SEC on February 15, 2013.

As a result of this news and other disclosures, Rio Tinto's ADR
price declined.

                    About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a national investor-
rights law firm headquartered in Seattle, Washington with 11
offices across the country.  The firm represents investors,
whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. [GN]


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Sanda" Product Suit Transferred to D. Okla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned David Sanda and Micki Wells, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Samsung
Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, The Home
Depot, Inc., Lowe's Home Centers, LLC., Best Buy Co., Inc., Sears
Holding Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00988 (D. S.C.,
October 10, 2017), was transferred to the Western District of
Oklahoma on October 10, 2017 under Case No. 17-cv-01088.

Sanda seeks replacement damages associated with the replacement of
defective products and parts; attorneys' fees and costs resulting
from fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of implied and express
warranty, negligence, in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act and
violation of state consumer protection laws.

On November 4, 2016, Samsung announced a recall involving 34
models of Samsung top-load washing machines with mid-controls or
rear-controls. The washing machine top unexpectedly detaches from
the washing machine chassis during use, posing a risk of injury
from impact.

Sanda purchased one of the subject Samsung washing machines (model
number WA52J8700AP/A2) from a Lowe's Home Center store in
Simpsonville, South Carolina.

Samsung is a major designer, manufacturer, marketer, and seller of
consumer appliances, including washing machines, which it
distributes throughout the United States. The Home Depot, Inc.,
Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Best Buy Co., Inc. and Sears Holding
Corporation are major retail outlets selling appliances, including
Samsung washing machines. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Daniel Kassel, Esq.
      JOHN D KASSEL LAW FIRM
      PO Box 1476
      Columbia, SC 29202
      Tel: (803) 256-4242
      Fax: (803) 256-1952

             - and -

      Theile B. McVey, Esq.
      KASSEL MCVEY
      PO Box 1476
      Columbia, SC 29202
      Tel: (803) 256-4242
      Fax: (803) 256-1952
      Email: tmcvey@kassellaw.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Mullford" Suit Transferred to D. Okla.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Clayton Mullford, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Samsung Electronics
America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Defendants, Case No.
17-cv-03017 (D. Neb., February 7, 2017), was transferred to the
Western District of Oklahoma on October 10, 2017 under Case No.
17-cv-01085.

Mullford seeks injunctive relief by requiring Samsung to issue
corrective actions including notification, recall, service
bulletins and fully-covered replacement parts and labor or
replacement, damages associated with the replacement of defective
products and parts, attorneys' fees and costs resulting from
fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of implied and express warranty,
negligence, and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act and violation
of state consumer protection laws.

On November 4, 2016, Samsung announced a recall involving 34
models of Samsung top-load washing machines with mid-controls or
rear-controls. The washing machine top unexpectedly detaches from
the washing machine chassis during use, posing a risk of injury
from impact.

Mullford purchased the said washing machine from Nebraska
Furniture Mart.

Samsung is a major designer, manufacturer, marketer, and seller of
consumer appliances, including washing machines, which it
distributes throughout the United States. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David W. Rowe, Esq.
      KINSEY, ROWE LAW FIRM
      3800 VerMaas Place
      Suite 100, Pioneers Pointe Plaza
      Lincoln, NE 68502-4454
      Tel: (402) 438-1313
      Fax: (402) 438-1654

             - and -

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


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Raabe" Product Suit Transferred to D. Okla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Linda L. Raabe, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Samsung Electronics
America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, The Home Depot, Inc.,
Lowe's Home Centers, LLC., Best Buy Co., Inc., Sears Holding
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00946 (E.D. Cal., May 4,
2017), was transferred to the Western District of Oklahoma on
October 10, 2017 under Case No. 17-cv-01086.

Raabe seeks replacement, damages associated with the replacement
of defective products and parts, attorneys' fees and costs
resulting from fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of implied and
express warranty, d annegligence, in violation of the Magnuson-
Moss Act and violation of state consumer protection laws.

On November 4, 2016, Samsung announced a recall involving 34
models of Samsung top-load washing machines with mid-controls or
rear-controls. The washing machine top unexpectedly detaches from
the washing machine chassis during use, posing a risk of injury
from impact.

Raabe purchased a washing machine with model number WA400PJHDWR/AA
from a Best Buy store in Citrus Heights, California.

Samsung is a major designer, manufacturer, marketer, and seller of
consumer appliances, including washing machines, which it
distributes throughout the United States. The Home Depot, Inc.,
Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Best Buy Co., Inc. and Sears Holding
Corporation are major retail outlets selling appliances, including
Samsung washing machines. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Robert Noblin, Esq.
      GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
      4500 East Pacific Coast Highway, Fourth Floor
      Long Beach, CA 90804
      Tel: (562) 391-2487
      Fax: (415) 477-6710

            - and -

      Robert S. Green, Esq.
      GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
      2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101
      Larkspur, CA 94939
      Tel: (415) 477-6700
      Fax: (415) 477-6710


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Kellas" Product Suit Transferred to Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Candice Kellas, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Samsung Electronics
America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, The Home Depot, Inc.,
Lowe's Home Centers, LLC., Best Buy Co., Inc., Sears Holding
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01232 (N.D. Ga., April 1,
2017), was transferred to the Western District of Oklahoma on
October 11, 2017 under Case No. 17-cv-01092.

Kellas seeks replacement, damages associated with the replacement
of the defective products and parts, attorneys' fees and costs
resulting from fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of implied and
express warranty, and negligence, in violation of the Magnuson-
Moss Act and violation of state consumer protection laws.

On November 4, 2016, Samsung announced a recall involving 34
models of Samsung top-load washing machines with mid-controls or
rear-controls. The washing machine top unexpectedly detaches from
the washing machine chassis during use, posing a risk of injury
from impact.

Kellas purchased a Samsung washing machine with model number
WA48H7400AP/A2 from The Home Depot, Inc. online store.

Samsung is a major designer, manufacturer, marketer, and seller of
consumer appliances, including washing machines, which it
distributes throughout the United States. The Home Depot, Inc.,
Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Best Buy Co., Inc. and Sears Holding
Corporation are major retail outlets selling appliances, including
Samsung washing machines. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Andrew Bain, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. BAIN, LLC
      1050 Promenade II
      1230 Peachtree Street, NE
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Tel: (404) 724-9990
      Fax: (404) 724-9986

             - and -

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


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Anderson" Suit Transferred to D. Okla.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Chad Anderson, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Samsung Electronics
America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, The Home Depot, Inc.,
Lowe's Home Centers, LLC., Best Buy Co., Inc., Sears Holding
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01569 (D. Minn., May 11,
2017), was transferred to the Western District of Oklahoma on
October 12, 2017 under Case No. 17-cv-01094.

Anderson seeks replacement, damages associated with the
replacement of the defective products and parts, attorneys' fees
and costs resulting from fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of
implied and express warranty, negligence, in violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Act and violation of state consumer protection laws.

On November 4, 2016, Samsung announced a recall involving 34
models of Samsung top-load washing machines with mid-controls or
rear-controls. The washing machine top unexpectedly detaches from
the washing machine chassis during use, posing a risk of injury
from impact.

Anderson purchased one of the subject Samsung washing machines
(model number WA56H9000AW/A2) from an appliance center in Mankato,
Minnesota.

Samsung is a major designer, manufacturer, marketer, and seller of
consumer appliances, including washing machines, which it
distributes throughout the United States. The Home Depot, Inc.,
Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Best Buy Co., Inc. and Sears Holding
Corporation are major retail outlets selling appliances, including
Samsung washing machines. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg M. Corwin, Esq.
      Joshua Hegarty, Esq.
      GREGG M. CORWIN & ASSOCIATE LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      1660 South Highway 100, Suite 500
      St. Louis Park, MN 55146
      Tel: (952) 544-7774, 479-4160

             - and -

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


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Lane" Suit Moved to W. Dist. Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Diane Lane, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Samsung Electronics America,
Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, The Home Depot, Inc., Lowe's
Home Centers, Llc, Best Buy Co., Inc., Sears Holding Corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00371 (D. Del., April 7, 2017), was
transferred to the Western District of Oklahoma on October 4,
2017, under Case No. 17-cv-01056.

Lane seeks injunctive relief by requiring Samsung to issue
corrective actions including notification, recall, service
bulletins and fully-covered replacement parts and labor or
replacement, damages associated with the replacement of the
defective products and parts, attorneys' fees and costs resulting
from fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of implied and express
warranty, negligence, in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act and
violation of state consumer protection laws.

On November 4, 2016, Samsung announced a recall involving 34
models of Samsung top-load washing machines with mid-controls or
rear-controls. The washing machine top unexpectedly detaches from
the washing machine chassis during use, posing a risk of injury
from impact.

Lane purchased a washing machine (model number WA40J3000SW/A2)
from Lowe's Home Center. Lane began experiencing loud excessive
vibration from the said washing machine despite numerous repairs
attempts.

Samsung is a major designer, manufacturer, marketer, and seller of
consumer appliances, including washing machines, which it
distributes throughout the United States. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Blake A. Bennett, Esq.
      COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
      The Brandywine Building
      1000 West Street, 10th Floor
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 984-3800


SANOFI-PASTEUR: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $61.5MM
----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for Law.com, reports that buyers of a
bacterial meningitis vaccine made by Sanofi-Pasteur will share in
a $61.5 million settlement of an antitrust class action following
the Oct. 17 ruling by a U.S. judge granting final approval to the
deal.

U.S. District Judge John Michael Vazquez also approved $20.5
million in legal fees, $7.2 million in costs, and service awards
of $100,000 each to three medical practices that served as class
representatives.  All of the roughly 30,000 class members who
submit claim forms will share in the portion of the settlement
fund that remains after legal fees, costs and service awards are
paid.

The suit said that Sanofi-Pasteur suppressed competition for its
pediatric meningococcal vaccine, Menactra, by charging physicians
and hospitals up to 35 percent more for its product unless they
agreed to buy Sanofi's pediatric vaccines exclusively.
Sanofi-Pasteur is the vaccines division of French drug
manufacturer Sanofi.

Sanofi-Pasteur had the entire market for meningococcal vaccine to
itself until 2010, when competition arrived in the form of Menveo,
a comparable vaccine made by Novartis.  But Sanofi-Pasteur has
held on to a 93 percent market share for meningococcal vaccine
because that same year it instituted a program requiring buyers to
agree to purchase its full portfolio of six vaccines exclusively,
and not to buy competing products from a different manufacturer,
lest they face higher prices, the suit claimed.

The suit was filed in 2011. In 2012, according to court documents,
Sanofi filed a stand-alone counterclaim against the class
representatives and members of any class that might be certified
in the case, claiming their aggregation of vaccine purchases
through physician buying groups was an unlawful collective action
that caused prices to fall below competitive levels.  The
counterclaim was dismissed on procedural grounds but Sanofi
brought it again as part of its answer.  It was dismissed with
prejudice, but Sanofi sought interlocutory appellate relief. U.S.
District Judge Jose Linares, now the chief judge in the district,
denied Sanofi's leave for interlocutory appeal of the dismissal of
its counterclaim.

In November 2014, the parties entered into private mediation with
Charles Renfrew, a former U.S. District Court judge from the
Northern District of California, but the mediation ended without
agreement. In March 2016, the parties entered into mediation with
attorney William O'Shaughnessy of McCarter & English in Newark,
but the mediation ended with no resolution.

In September 2016, Sanofi moved for summary judgment and filed a
motion to exclude testimony of the plaintiffs' primary expert
witness on economics, Harvard Law School professor Einer Elhauge.
Elhauge advanced a theory that "bundling" deals such as the one
promoted by Sanofi, which gave favorable terms to those who agree
to buy a group of products from one seller, was a restraint of
trade.

Reply briefs were due Jan. 20, 2017. With motions pending, the
parties reached the settlement in December 2016.

Linda Nussbaum of the Nussbaum Law Firm in New York, co-lead
counsel for the plaintiffs and the class, said the settlement was
"an excellent outcome for the class.  It was a very difficult
theory, and a difficult case, We made it work," she said,
referring to the so-called bundling theory of antitrust violation.

Eric Cramer -- ecramer@bm.net -- of Berger & Montague in
Philadelphia, who was also co-lead counsel for plaintiffs and the
class, said "we are gratified to be able to settle this case and
distribute funds to thousands of doctors across the country."

For their work on the case, Castro v. Sanofi-Pasteur, the American
Antitrust Institute gave its award for Outstanding Antitrust
Litigation Achievement in Economics to Elhauge, the Harvard
economist, in 2016. In 2017, it bestowed its Outstanding Antitrust
Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice to Cramer.

Sanofi-Pasteur, for its part, continues to deny that its actions
were improper, according to a statement from company spokeswoman
Anna Robinson.

"Sanofi Pasteur confirms it has entered a settlement agreement
with the plaintiff on behalf of all Class Members to fully and
finally resolve the parties' respective claims.  In the
litigation, Sanofi has vigorously denied and continues vigorously
to deny the plaintiffs' claims and any allegation of wrongdoing.
The Settlement Agreement likewise does not involve any admission
or finding of wrongdoing.  The Settlement Agreement also does not
require Sanofi to change its business practices -- practices that
Sanofi believes are pro-competitive and benefit customers and
patients by providing substantial discounts, reducing prices,
increasing immunizations, and protecting against disease," the
statement said.

"Despite Sanofi's strong defenses, Sanofi recognizes that
continued litigation is likely to be extraordinarily expensive and
time-consuming and thus has agreed to enter into this Settlement
Agreement to avoid the further expense, inconvenience, risk and
distraction of burdensome and protracted litigation.  Sanofi is
finally putting to rest this case by obtaining complete dismissal
of the action and a release by settlement class members of all
released claims," the statement said.

Sanofi was represented by lawyers from the Newark office of
Proskauer Rose and Newark-based Walsh Pizzi O'Reilly Falanga. [GN]


SANTANDER BANK: "Karlberg" Remanded to Philadelphia State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Harvey Bartle, II, of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania remanded the case captioned DREW
KARLBERG, et al., v. SANTANDER BANK, N.A., Civil Action. No. 17-
3561 (E.D. Pa.) to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County for failure to meet the jurisdictional amount in
controversy.

Karlberg, a Pennsylvania citizen, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, originally filed the action against the
Defendant in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.  He
alleges various state law causes of action related to improper
overcharges for private mortgage insurance collected, held in
trust, and distributed by the Defendant.  The putative class
consists only of Pennsylvania citizens.

After the Plaintiff's amended class action complaint was docketed
in the state court on July 11, 2017, the Defendant filed a Notice
of Removal in the court on Aug. 9, 2017.  The Notice of Removal
avers that the Individual Plaintiff and the Defendant are of
diverse citizenship and that the other jurisdictional requirements
of the Class Action Fairness Act have been met, including an
aggregate amount in controversy in excess of $5,000,000, exclusive
of interest and costs.

The Plaintiff has now filed a Motion to Remand.  While there is no
dispute about the existence of diversity of citizenship, he
maintains that the jurisdictional amount cannot be satisfied.  He
also argues that the Notice of Removal was untimely.

The Plaintiff has challenged the Defendant's contention in its
Notice of Removal that the action meets the requisite amount in
controversy for federal subject matter jurisdiction.  He maintains
that the Defendant misreads the amended complaint and that even if
the amended complaint can be read to plead the requisite amount in
controversy, the sum of the damages he and the class seek in good
faith do not allow for removal.

Consequently, in accordance with Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co.
v. Owens, the Court held a hearing to provide the Defendant, the
party invoking federal jurisdiction, an opportunity to establish
by a preponderance of the evidence that the aggregate amount in
controversy surpasses $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

At the hearing, the Defendant chose to rest on its Notice of
Removal and the allegations in the amended complaint.  The
Plaintiff likewise did not present any evidence.  After careful
review of the amended complaint, the claims alleged, and the
Notice of Removal, Judge Bartle finds that the Defendant has not
established by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in
controversy has been satisfied.

While the Plaintiff's pleading is inartfully drafted, the Judge
finds that the amount sought in good faith by the Plaintiff and
each class member for each monthly overcharge is only tens of
dollars at most.  In light of the facts pleaded and the legal
claims asserted, it is not plausible that the class can recover in
excess of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

Accordingly, Judge Bartle remanded the case to the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County for failure to meet the
jurisdictional amount in controversy.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/CvsmVK from Leagle.com.

DREW KARLBERG, Plaintiff, represented by CLAYTON PATRICK FLAHERTY
-- cfia.herty@anapolwetss.com -- ANAPOL WEISS.

DREW KARLBERG, Plaintiff, represented by DAVID S. SENOFF --
dsenoff@anapolweiss.com -- Anapol Weiss, MICHAEL H. GAIER --
mgaier@shaffergaier.com -- SHAFFER & GAIER, MICHAEL D. SHAFFER --
mshaffer@shaffergaier.com -- SHAFFER & GAIER LLC & HILLARY B.
WEINSTEIN -- hweinstein@anapolweiss.com -- AAPOL WEISS.

SANTANDER BANK, N.A., Defendant, represented by FRED W. HOENSCH --
fred.hoensch@piblaw.com -- Parker Ibrahim & Berg LLC & SCOTT W.
PARKER -- scott.parker@piblaw.com -- PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLC.


SCHARFMAN ORGANIZATION: Tenants Sue Over Illegally High Rents
-------------------------------------------------------------
Will Parker, writing for The Real Deal, reports that in January of
2016, Gov. Andrew Cuomo wrote a letter to the landlords of New
York City.  He told property owners that if they received the J-51
tax break but charged market-rate rents, they needed to put their
apartments back in rent stabilization or they could face big
fines.

But the edict didn't unleash a wave of state investigators poring
through property owners' records and hauling landlords to court;
it's been largely up to tenants to complain that they're being
overcharged -- if they're even aware.  An analysis showed that
less than half of violating landlords voluntarily re-regulated
their apartments during 2016.

And now, a new lawsuit alleges that one of the landlords who did
re-register a J-51 building, still set legal rents at levels far
higher than the law allows.

Two tenants at 651 West 171st Street in Washington Heights filed a
lawsuit against the Scharfman Organization in Manhattan Supreme
Court on Oct. 23, alleging that Scharfman didn't register the
stabilized units for six years with the State Homes and Community
Renewal agency, and also charged illegally high rents.  The suit
says that the landlord brought the apartments back into
stabilization following Cuomo's letter but still continued to
charge an illegally high rent.

Scharfman is alleged to have reregistered an apartment with the
state's Homes and Community Renewal with a legal rent of $3,304,
more than $600 over the legal threshold (but the tenant, for now,
is receiving a deep discount, known as a preferential rent).
The problem with the preferential rent, said Aaron Carr, the
founder of the Housing Rights Initiative, which performed the
research leading to the suit, is that it invites the opportunity
for abuse of the rent laws.  In other words, Scharfman can choose
to slide the charged rent all the way up to $3,304 at any time, he
said. In some cases, the discounted rents tenants pay at the
building are higher than what Rent Guidelines Board increases and
the rules governing J-51 would have allowed, the suit alleges.
Another tenant mentioned in the suit has a current legal rent of
$2,600, but receives a $500 monthly preferential discount.  By
comparison, a tenant in the same unit was paying $1,557 in 2009.
The suit alleges no significant capital improvements were carried
out that would have helped boost legal rents to those levels.
In addition, the tenants were allegedly made to sign lease waivers
that indicated they had forfeited their rights to contest rent
increases and challenge the legal rent.

"In theory, a preferential rent is a discounted rent," Mr. Carr
said in a statement.  "However, if the discounted rent is based on
a fraudulent rent spike, it's no longer a discount, it's an
overcharge hiding behind a larger overcharge."

The filing attorneys in the case are the law offices of
Jack Lester and of John Maher.  They are seeking class-action
status for the suit that could include any or all present and past
tenants of the 48-unit building.

Scharfman Organization's Mark Scharfman, who also operates Beach
Lane Management, did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.

Mr. Carr and other advocates see situations such as 651 West 171st
Street as an acute regulatory failure.

"Unfortunately for taxpayers, the Department of Homes and
Community Renewal does not release the rental history information
of rent stabilized units to the public," Mr. Carr said.  "We call
on DHCR to release its data on the number of units in J-51
buildings that have been re-stabilized at illegal amounts." [GN]


SHOWPLACE ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Showplace
Entertainment Center, LLC. The case is styled as Richard Baldelli
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Showplace Entertainment Center, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-08050 (S.D. N.Y., October 19, 2017).

Showplace Entertainment Center, LLC is a bowling alley.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


SKECHERS USA: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP ("Labaton Sucharow") on Oct. 23 disclosed
that on October 20, 2017, it filed a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf of its client Steamfitters Local 449 Pension
Plan ("Steamfitters 449") against Skechers U.S.A., Inc.
("Skechers" or the "Company") (NYSE:SKX), and certain of its
senior executives (collectively, "Defendants").  The action, which
is captioned Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Plan v. Skechers
U.S.A, Inc., No. 17-cv-08107 (S.D.N.Y.), asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act"), and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf all persons
or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Skechers common
stock between April 23, 2015 and October 22, 2015, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

Skechers designs, develops, and markets footwear for men, women,
and children.  The Company's primary reporting segments are: (1)
Domestic Wholesale; (2) International Wholesale; and (3) Retail
(which includes both domestic and international Company stores).
From 2013 through 2015, Domestic Wholesale was the Company's
primary driver of growth and accounted for higher net sales as
compared to the other two segments.  The Domestic Wholesale
segment accounted for approximately 39 percent of Skechers' 2015
total net sales.  The Company's Domestic Wholesale customers
include department stores, athletic footwear retailers, and
specialty shoe stores.

During the Class Period, Skechers repeatedly touted the strength
of customer demand within the Domestic Wholesale segment, which
the Company claimed would spur continued sales growth.  Skechers
frequently emphasized that its Domestic Wholesale segment growth
would continue into the second half of 2015 based on pending
orders and meetings with key customers.  However, Defendants'
Class Period statements pertaining to back-half 2015 customer
demand and sales growth related thereto were materially false and
misleading because Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) the
Company's Domestic Wholesale customers took early receipt of fall
2015 inventory, causing them to delay receipt of and, in some
cases, cancel pending orders scheduled for delivery in the second
half of 2015; (2) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
Domestic Wholesale growth rate was unsustainable; and (3) the
Company's positive statements about its business, operations, and
prospects lacked a reasonable basis.

The Company's slowing sales growth was revealed on October 22,
2015 after the market closed, when Skechers issued a press release
announcing financial results for the third quarter ended September
30, 2015, which included disappointing net sales that fell short
of analysts' consensus estimates.  According to Defendants, $20
million in net sales were shifted from third quarter 2015 into
second quarter 2015 due to early customer deliveries.  Defendants
blamed the sales miss on the Company's inability to make up this
shortfall in third quarter 2015 due to a weaker-than-expected
retail environment.  On news of the Company's disappointing net
sales and diluted earnings per share, Skechers common stock fell
$14.55 per share, or 31.50 percent, to close on October 23, 2015
at $31.64 per share.

If you purchased or acquired Skechers common stock during the
Class Period, you are a member of the "Class" and may be able to
seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff.  Lead Plaintiff motion papers
must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York no later than December 22, 2017.  The Lead
Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent members
of the Class.  You do not need to seek appointment as Lead
Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action.  If you
are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can
share in that recovery as an absent Class member.  You may retain
counsel of your choice to represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have
any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Francis P.
McConville, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via
email at fmcconville@labaton.com. You can view a copy of the
complaint online at https://is.gd/R032c0

Steamfitters 449 is represented by Labaton Sucharow, which
represents many of the largest pension funds in the United States
and internationally with combined assets under management of more
than $2 trillion.  Labaton Sucharow's litigation reputation is
built on its half-century of securities litigation experience,
more than 60 full-time attorneys, and in-house team of
investigators, financial analysts, and forensic accountants. [GN]


SPENCER BUILDING: Faces "Gomez" Suit in California Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spencer Building
Maintenance Inc. The case is styled as Manuela Gomez, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Spencer
Building Maintenance Inc and Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 34-
2017-00220928-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., October 19, 2017).

Spencer Building Maintenance Inc. offers janitorial services in
Rancho Cordova, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Eric B Kingsley, Esq.
   Kingsley & Kingsley Lawyers
   City National Bank Building
   16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200
   Encino, CA 91436
   Facsimile: 818-990-2903
   Telephone: 818-922-8371
              800-591-1893


ST. LOUIS, MO: ACLU Class Action Over Unlawful Assembly Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fox2Now reports that another protest took place on Oct. 22 outside
of St. Louis Police Headquarters.  It's a common sight since the
Jason Stockley decision.  The former St. Louis police officer was
acquitted in the killing of Anthony Lamar Smith.

The aftermath of that decision is in federal court.  The ACLU
filed a class action lawsuit against St. Louis City alleging
unlawful and unconstitutional actions against people by police
during protests.  That case was set to resume on Oct. 26.

Attorney Chet Pleban is watching the proceedings with great
interest.  [GN]


STARBUCKS CORP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Rosario" FCRA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard A. Jones of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, denied the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the case captioned JONATHAN SANTIAGO ROSARIO, Plaintiff,
v. STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. C16-1951 RAJ (W.D.
Wash.).

The Plaintiff brings the putative class action against the
Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA").  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the
FCRA by taking adverse employment action against him before
providing him with a copy of his background report and a summary
of his rights as an applicant.

In March of 2016, the Plaintiff applied and interviewed for a
barista position at a Starbucks location in Colorado.  Applicants
for barista positions at Starbucks must first fill out an
employment application online.  After an applicant is selected,
Starbucks makes a conditional offer of employment.  Starbucks then
orders a background check on the applicant through a third-party
background screening service, Accurate Background ("Accurate").

At some point between March 29 and April 7, 2016, Starbucks
received the Plaintiff's background report from Accurate.  The
report included inaccurate criminal record information that has
been attributed to the Plaintiff's adoptive brother.  The type of
criminal record shown on the report would typically prevent hiring
by Starbucks.  On or before April 7, 2016, Starbucks removed the
Plaintiff from hiring consideration based on this background
report.

On or about April 20, 2016, Accurate sent the Plaintiff a letter
on behalf of Starbucks, informing him that his background check
did not meet Starbucks requirements and that he could appeal
Starbucks' decision.  The letter also states that if the
Plaintiff's appeal was successful, his offer of employment would
be reinstituted.  On May 17, 2016, the Plaintiff called Accurate
and disputed the results of his background check.  The Plaintiff's
background report was corrected shortly after.  The Plaintiff's
job offer was not reinstituted.

As the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that his injury is
traceable to Starbucks' alleged violation of the FCRA, Judge Jones
denied Starbucks' Motion to the extent that it requests to dismiss
the Plaintiff's claims due to lack of standing.  He finds that the
Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that he suffered an injury,
thus Starbucks' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's class claims
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(d)(1)(D) is also
denied.

Finally, the FCRA defines adverse action as a denial of employment
or any other decision for employment or any other decision for
employment purposes that adversely affects any current or
prospective employee.  An adoption of an adjudication that the
Plaintiff was ineligible for employment is a decision for
employment purposes that adversely affected a prospective
employee.  Even if, as Starbucks alleges, the Plaintiff received
notice prior to the April 20, 2016 letter from Accurate, the
Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that this adverse action
occurred prior to that notice.  To the extent that Starbucks'
Motion seeks to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims for failure to a
state a claim, it is denied.

For these reasons, Judge Jones denied the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/6Gmxei from Leagle.com.

Jonathan Santiago Rosario, Plaintiff, represented by James A.
Francis -- info@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS & MAILMAN PC, pro
hac vice.

Jonathan Santiago Rosario, Plaintiff, represented by John
Soumilas, FRANCIS & MAILMAN PC, pro hac vice, Lauren K.W. Brennan,
FRANCIS & MAILMAN PC, pro hac vice, Erika L. Nusser --
enusser@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC &
Beth E. Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL
MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC.

Starbucks Corporation, Defendant, represented by James E. Howard -
- jimhoward@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE.


STATE SECURITY: "Lipscomb" Action to Recover Minimum, OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Rasheen Lipscomb, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. State Security Agency, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 713746/2017 (N.Y. Sup., October 4, 2017),
seeks unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, and unpaid spread of
hours due, liquidated damages, as well as an award of reasonable
attorney's fees under New York Labor Law and the New York Minimum
Wage Act.

Defendant was engaged in the business of providing security
services where Plaintiff was employed as a security guard.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
     215-28 Hillside Avenue
     Queens Village, NY 11427
     Tel: (718) 740-1000
     Fax: (718) 355-9668
     Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com


TAISHAN GYPSUM: "Peoples" Product Suit Transferred to E.D. La.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Debra Peoples, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Taishan Gypsum Co.
Ltd., formerly known as Shandong Taihe Dongxin Co., Ltd., Tai'an
Taishan Plasterboard Co., Ltd., Beijing New Building Materials
Public Limited Co., Beijing New Building Materials (Group) Co.,
Ltd., China National Building Material Co., Ltd., Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00217 (N.D. Ga., August 1, 2017), was transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (New
Orleans) on October 4, 2017 under Case No. 17-cv-08285.

Plaintiffs allege that the Chinese manufactured drywall designed,
manufactured, imported, exported, distributed, delivered,
supplied, inspected, marketed, sold and/or installed by the
Defendants contains toxic sulfide compounds deeming it unfit for
residential purposes.

Taishan Gypsum Company, Ltd. is a foreign corporation doing
business in several States. It manufactured, sold, distributed and
marketed the gypsum drywall. Plaintiffs allege that it reacts,
breaks down, and releases sulfur compounds and other noxious gases
including hydrogen sulfide, carbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrea S. Hirsch, Esq.
      HERMAN GEREL, LLP
      230 Peachtree Street NW, Suite 2260
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Tel: (404) 880-9500
      Email: ahirsch@hermangerel.com


TEZOS: Investors' Class Action Unlikely to Succeed
--------------------------------------------------
Joseph Young, writing for Cryptocoins, reports that Paul Vigna of
the Wall Street Journal reported that the launch of Tezos has been
delayed due to the conflict between its founders over the
ownership and control of Tezos.

Arthur and Kathleen Breitman, the husband and wife partner who
have found Tezos alongside Johann Gevers, was said to have sent a
letter to the Tezos Foundation's board, requesting the removal of
Gevers from the project through their attorney.  Mr. Vigna wrote:

"A lawyer representing the Breitman sent a nine-page letter to the
foundation's board, demanding that its founder and president,
Johann Gevers be removed, or they would withdraw their support
from the project.  He has alleged the Breitmans' involvement in
his work 'was incompatible with the needed independence of the
foundation,' according to a separate letter from a Breitman
lawyer, which referenced a Sept. 21 meeting at which Mr. Gevers
made the claim."

But, in an interview with Reuters, Mr. Gevers strongly condemned
the actions of both Arthur and Kathleen Breitman, describing their
plan to remove him from the Tezos project as an illegal coup.  Mr.
Gevers stated:

"As Arthur has done to others before me, this is attempted
character assassination.  It's a laundry list of misleading
statements and outright lies." [Arthur and Kathleen] are
attempting an illegal coup. Attempt to control the Foundation as
if it were their own private entity . . . by bypassing the
foundation's legal structure and interfering with management and
operations."

Two US Law Firms Open Investigations Into Tezos

According to Block & Leviton, a Boston-based law firm representing
investors for violations of securities laws, revealed that the
conflict between the founders of the project has led to the
decline of the Tezos token (Tezzies) by around 60 percent, in
futures and derivatives markets.  Because the launch of the Tezos
token has been delayed as a result of the legal conflict between
the founders, traders have been limited to trading Tezzies in the
derivatives market.

Block & Leviton further emphasized that it has launched an
investigation into Tezos on behalf of its investors that have
participated in the initial coin offering (ICO) of the project.
Restis, another US-based law firm in California, revealed that it
has begun to investigate the Tezos project, to prepare a class
action lawsuit against the organization.

"The Restis Law Firm, P.C., located in San Diego California, is
investigating a class action lawsuit on behalf of U.S. investors
in the Tezos ICO.  We are interested in receiving feedback from
investors to learn about their experience and develop facts for
the case," the Restis team wrote.

Legality of Investors and ICOs

Whether US securities regulations can apply to Tezos investors
remains unclear and ambiguous.  Prior to its ICO, Tezos has
disallowed US-based investors in participating in its ICO.  Hence,
it is highly unlikely that US securities regulations can be used
against Tezos in a lawsuit. Furthermore, Tezos has described the
ICO and the investment it had received as a "non-refundable
donation" rather than a distribution of stake or equity in the
company, to circumvent US SEC regulations and policies.

Conclusively, it is unlikely that US investors will be able to
challenge Tezos in a class action lawsuit because US investors
were not allowed to invest in Tezos to begin with, and even if
they had, investment in Tezos was described as a donation, which
remains outside of the SEC's jurisdiction.

But, Mr. Gevers has officially appealed to Swiss federal
inspectors and requested "the supervisor to intervene, if
necessary, to protect the interests of the Tezos ICO participants.
[GN]


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Dec. 1 Reply Deadline in "Kalanick"
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IRVING FIREMEN'S RELIEF & RETIREMENT FUND,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
4:17-cv-05558-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern Distirct of California
approved the parties' stipulation to extend through and including
Dec. 1, 2017 Kalanick's deadline to answer or otherwise respond to
the Plaintiff's Complaint.

On Sept. 26, 2017, the Plaintiff filed its Complaint against
Kalanick and Uber.  Darryl James Alvarado, Robbins Geller Rudman
Dowd LLP, the counsel for Kalanick is authorized to accept service
of the Summons and Complaint on behalf of Kalanick.  The Plaintiff
served Kalanick with the Summons and Complaint on Oct. 24, 2017 by
delivering a copy of each to the counsel for Kalanick via e-mail
and U.S. Mail.

Hon. Donna M. Ryu to whom the case was initially assigned entered
an order governing Uber's time to answer or otherwise respond to
the Complaint on Oct. 16, 2017.  The case was reassigned to the
Judge Gilliam on Oct. 20, 2017, but the briefing schedule for
motions did not change.

To the extent Kalanick moves to dismiss the Complaint, the parties
have agreed that the motion will be briefed on the same schedule
previously entered by Judge Ryu with respect to any motion to
dismiss filed by Uber.  The parties' proposed extension of
Kalanick's responsive pleading deadline will not change or alter
the date of any event or any deadline already fixed by Court
order.

The Plaintiff has selected Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP to
serve as the Lead Counsel for the putative class in the litigation
and Kalanick has no objection to the Plaintiff's selection of the
Lead Counsel.

The parties, through their undersigned counsel and subject to the
Court's approval stipulated that Kalanick's deadline to answer or
otherwise respond to the Plaintiff's Complaint is extended through
and including Dec. 1, 2017.  If Kalanick moves to dismiss, the
Plaintiff may respond by Jan. 17, 2018, and Kalanick may reply by
Feb. 14, 2018.  Judge Gilliam approved the parties' stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Nkf7hX from Leagle.com.

Irving Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund, Plaintiff, represented
by Angel Puimei Lau -- alau@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman
Dowd LLP.

Irving Firemen's Relief & Retirement Fund, Plaintiff, represented
by Brian Edward Cochran -- bcochran@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller,
et al., Jason A. Forge -- jforge@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman and Dowd LLP, Jeffrey James Stein -- jstein@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Luke O. Brooks --
lukeb@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Shawn A.
Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Darryl James Alvarado, Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP &
Darren Jay Robbins -- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP.

Uber Technologies, Defendant, represented by Alvin Matthew Ashley
-- mashley@irell.com -- Irell & Manella LLP.


UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Morgen" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Collection
Bureau, Inc.  The case is styled as Alyxx Morgen, James M. Caruso
and Hope M. Demasco, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. United Collection Bureau, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08087 (S.D.N.Y., October 19, 2017).

United Collection provides debt collection services for companies
(government, healthcare, utility, financial service,
communication, and student).[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


UNITED STATES: Bid to Dismiss "Haddock" Agent Orange Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PATRICIA HADDOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE
UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 16-1423C (Fed. Cl.), Judge
Thomas C. Wheeler of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims denied both
the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of standing and
mootness, and the Plaintiffs' motion to stay proceedings.

The case arises from the U.S. military's use of "Agent Orange," a
toxic chemical mixture deployed as a jungle defoliant during the
Vietnam War.  Many veterans contracted serious ailments from being
exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam more than 45 years ago, and
have yet to resolve with the Government their claims for
disability and retroactive retirement pay.

On Oct. 28, 2016, putative class members Haddock, Ira Sue Roberts,
Patricia Springer, and Lupe Zamora, filed a class action complaint
in the Court on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated
seeking retroactive military retired pay from being exposed to
Agent Orange while serving in Vietnam.  Mrs. Haddock is the
surviving spouse of Nehmer class member and military retiree
Thomas M. Haddock, who suffered from Parkinson's disease and died
on June 14, 2010.

On the merits of the case, the Plaintiffs alleged that the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") and the Administrator failed
to comply with the Dioxin Act.  They also allege that DFAS has
taken an inconsistent and unlawful approach with respect to
retroactive payments of military retired pay.  According to the
Plaintiffs, in many cases, Nehmer class veterans who served for at
least 20 years (or their survivors, if deceased) and had a
combined disability rating of at least 50 percent for any period
of time on or after Jan. 1, 2004, never received any payment of
retroactive military retired pay, or heard from the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service ("DFAS") the amount they would be
entitled to receive.

On March 3, 2017, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' complaint, arguing that DFAS previously had paid the
four Named Plaintiffs for the retroactive military retired pay
they seek.  It asserted that these individuals lack standing, or
that their claims are moot.  According to the Defendant, the
appropriate action is for the Court to dismiss the complaint
rather than to substitute a different named plaintiff to represent
the class.

On March 24, 2017, rather than responding to the Defendant's
motion to dismiss, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
naming a different set of individuals who would represent the
class. Ms. Haddock, Ms. Springer, and Ms. Zamora were still
listed, but three new Plaintiffs were named: Roy Proctor, Janiece
Peugh, and Stephen Meinz.

On May 10, 2017, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' amended complaint.  Then, on June 28, 2017, the
Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay proceedings in the Court to
allow the case pending in the Northern District of California to
proceed first.

At the Sept. 26, 2017 oral argument, the Court inquired about the
number of prospective class members who would be eligible to
participate in the action.  The Plaintiffs' counsel represented
that the answer to the question still is being investigated, but
that he estimated the number was probably within the range of
30,000 to 35,000.

Judge Wheeler notes that in Torrington Co. v. United States, for
the exception to the mootness doctrine to apply, (i) the action
must in its duration be too short to be fully litigated prior to
its cessation or expiration; and (ii) there must be a 'reasonable
likelihood' that the party will again suffer the injury that gave
rise to the suit.

Given the Defendant's apparent litigation strategy of paying the
named parties to render their claims moot, also observed by Judge
Henderson in the Northern District of California, the Judge finds
that the first element of the capable of repetition, yet evading
review exception described in Torrington has been met.  With so
many veterans who have potential claims, he will not permit the
Defendant to avoid judicial review by picking off a few named
parties and paying them.  He also finds the second element of the
exception to be met, because the Plaintiffs have offered evidence
to show that there are many other veterans (or their
beneficiaries) whose retroactive benefits have yet to be paid.
Therefore, the Judge denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

Due to significant concerns of judicial efficiency, Judge Wheeler
concludes that the case must move forward without staying the
proceedings.  To rule otherwise, in the absence of a pressing
need, would be an "abuse of discretion."  Therefore, he denied the
Plaintiffs' motion to stay.

Pursuant to RCFC 12(a)(4)(A)(i), the Defendant will file its
answer to the amended complaint within 14 days, on or before Nov.
8, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/mVOzUr from Leagle.com.

PATRICIA HADDOCK, Plaintiff, represented by Howard Stanislawski --
HSTANISLAWSKI@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin, LLP.

PATRICIA SPRINGER, Plaintiff, represented by Howard Stanislawski,
Sidley Austin, LLP.

LUPE ZAMORA, Plaintiff, represented by Howard Stanislawski, Sidley
Austin, LLP.

ROY PROCTOR, Plaintiff, represented by Howard Stanislawski, Sidley
Austin, LLP.

JANIECE PEUGH, Plaintiff, represented by Howard Stanislawski,
Sidley Austin, LLP.

STEPHEN MEINZ, Plaintiff, represented by Howard Stanislawski,
Sidley Austin, LLP.

USA, Defendant, represented by Renee Alina Burbank, U.S.
Department of Justice - Civil Division (G).


US FOODS INC: Lit'l Pepper Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Lit'l Pepper Gourmet, Inc., individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. US Foods, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-00032367 (Cal. Super., August 31, 2017),
was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on October 10, 2017 under Case No.
17CV2080.

Plaintiff alleges that US Foods engaged in deceptive and unfair
representations, omissions and practices in charging a fuel
surcharge to its California customers in violation of the
California Business and Professions Code, Unfair Competition Law
and the False Advertising Law.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Licari, Esq.
     D'EGIDIO LICARI TOWNSEND & SHAH, APC
     7801 Mission Center Court, Suite 240
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Tel: (619) 550-3011
     Fax: (877) 888-6304
     Email: mlicari@dltslaw.com

U.S. Foods is represented by:

     Nancy L. Stagg, Esq.
     KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
     12730 High Bluff Drive, Suite 400
     San Diego, CA 92130
     Telephone: (858) 350-6156
     Facsimile: (858) 350-6111
     Email: nstagg@kilpatricktownsend.com


VILLAGIO OF SAWGRASS: "Bonilla" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Bonilla, and all others similarly-situated v. Villagio of
Sawgrass, Inc., Thomas Billante and Kosmas Kalas, Case No. 1:17-
cv-23765 (S.D. Fla., October 13, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
wages and overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Jorge Bonilla is a resident of Broward County, Florida
and worked as a server and as a non-exempt manager at the
Defendants' restaurant.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located in Sunrise,
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Joseph Mathews, Esq.
      Michael James Corey, Esq.
      OBRONT COREY, PLLC
      One Bayfront Tower
      100 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 800
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (305) 373-1040
      Fax: (305) 373-2040


WELLS FARGO: Nov. 15 Initial CMC in Securities Suit Vacated
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GARY HEFLER, MARCELO MIZUKI, GUY SOLOMONOV,
and UNION ASSET MANAGEMENT HOLDING AG, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO &
COMPANY, JOHN G. STUMPF, JOHN R. SHREWSBERRY, CARRIE L. TOLSTEDT,
TIMOTHY J. SLOAN, DAVID M. CARROLL, DAVID JULIAN, HOPE A.
HARDISON, MICHAEL J. LOUGHLIN, AVID MODJTABAI, JAMES M. STROTHER,
JOHN D. BAKER II, JOHN S. CHEN, LLOYD H. DEAN, ELIZABETH A. DUKE,
SUSAN E. ENGEL, ENRIQUE HERNANDEZ JR., DONALD M. JAMES, CYNTHIA H.
MILLIGAN, FEDERICO F. PE•A, JAMES H. QUIGLEY, JUDITH M. RUNSTAD,
STEPHEN W. SANGER, SUSAN G. SWENSON, and SUZANNE M. VAUTRINOT,
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-05479-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S.
Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California

On Jan. 12, 2017, the Clerk of the Court filed a Clerk's Notice
Continuing Case Management Conference, which reset the Initial
Case Management Conference ("Initial CMC") from Jan. 25, 2017 to
Sept. 27, 2017.

On June 19, 2017, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Violations of
the Federal Securities Laws with a noticed hearing date of Oct.
26, 2017 ("Motions to Dismiss").

On Sept. 20, 2017, in response to the parties' request, the Clerk
of the Court filed a Clerk's Notice Continuing Case Management
Conference, which reset the Initial CMC from Sept. 27, 2017 to
Nov. 15, 2017, so that it would be scheduled after the Oct. 26,
2017 hearing on the Motions to Dismiss.

On Oct. 10, 2017, the Clerk of the Court filed a Clerk's Notice
Continuing Motion Hearings, which reset the hearing date for the
Motions to Dismiss from Oct. 26, 2017 to Nov. 7, 2017;

The parties have met and conferred and believe that the interests
of judicial efficiency and economy would be best served by
continuing the Initial CMC until after the Court has heard and
issued an order on the Motions to Dismiss.  They jointly called
the Clerk of the Court on Oct. 25, 2017 to request a continuance
of the Initial CMC and were asked to submit their request in
writing.

The Parties stipulated that the Initial CMC currently set for Nov.
15, 2017, and all related deadlines, are vacated.  The Initial CMC
will be rescheduled to a date to be determined, subject to the
Court's availability and convenience, which is at least 28 days
after the Court has issued an order on the Motions to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/XlZW2u from Leagle.com.

Gary Hefler, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn A. Williams --
shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Gary Hefler, Plaintiff, represented by Aelish Marie Baig --
aelishb@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Jason C.
Davis -- jdavis@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Union Asset Management Holding AG, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn
A. Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Adam H. Wierzbowski
-- adam@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP,
pro hac vice, Aelish Marie Baig, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Angus Fei Ni -- angus.ni@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger
Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Blair Allen Nicholas --
blairn@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann,
Danielle Suzanne Myers -- danim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jason C. Davis, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Jeroen Van Kwawegen -- jeroen@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein
Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice, Rebecca E. Boon --
Rebecca.Boon@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann
LLP, pro hac vice & Salvatore J. Graziano -- sgraziano@blbglaw.com
-- Bernstein Litowitz Berger Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice.

Public School Teachers' Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago,
Plaintiff, represented by Blair Allen Nicholas, Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann.

Marcelo Mizuki, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn A. Williams,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Guy Solomonov, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn A. Williams,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Steve Klein, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti,
Pomerantz LLP, J. Alexander Hood, II, Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy A.
Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

Wells Fargo & Company, Defendant, represented by Brendan P. Cullen
-- cullenb@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Christopher M.
Viapiano -- viapianoc@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, pro
hac vice, Nicolas Bourtin -- bourtinn@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice, Richard H. Klapper --
klapperr@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, pro hac vice &
Sverker Kristoffer Hogberg -- hogbergs@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP.

John G. Stumpf, Defendant, represented by Grant P. Fondo --
gfondo@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, Lloyd Winawer --
lwinawer@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, Nicholas A. Reider
-- nreider@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP & Richard M.
Strassberg -- rstrassberg@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP,
pro hac vice.

John R. Shrewsberry, Defendant, represented by Ismail Jomo Ramsey,
Ramsey & Ehrlich LLP -- izzy@ramsey-ehrlich.com -- Katharine Ann
Kates -- katharine@ramsey-ehrlich.com -- Ramsey & Ehrlich LLP &
Miles F. Ehrlich -- miles@ramsey-ehrlich.com -- Ramsey & Ehrlich
LLP.

Carrie L. Tolstedt, Defendant, represented by Enu A. Mainigi,
Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey E. Faucette, Skaggs
Faucette LLP & Leslie Cooper Vigen -- lvigen@wc.com -- Williams &
Connolly LLP, pro hac vice.

Oregon Public Employees Retirement System, Defendant, represented
by Cadio R. Zirpoli -- cadio@saveri.com -- Saveri & Saveri, Inc..

Timothy J. Sloan, Defendant, represented by Josh Alan Cohen --
jcohen@clarencedyer.com -- Clarence Dyer & Cohen LLP, Adam F.
Shearer -- ashearer@clarencedyer.com -- Clarence Dyer & Cohen LLP
& Nanci L. Clarence -- nclarence@clarencedyer.com -- Clarence Dyer
& Cohen LLP.

David M. Carroll, Defendant, represented by James Neil Kramer --
jkramer@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Lily
Irene Becker -- lbecker@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and
Sutcliffe & Walter F. Brown -- wbrown@orrick.com -- Orrick
Herrington & Suutcliffe LLP.

David Julian, Defendant, represented by Timothy Paul Crudo --
tcrudo@coblentzlaw.com -- Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP & Rees
Ferriter Morgan -- rmorgan@coblentzlaw.com -- Coblentz Patch Duffy
& Bass LLP.

Hope A. Hardison, Defendant, represented by Edward W. Swanson --
ed@smllp.law -- Swanson & McNamara LLP & Mary Geraldine McNamara -
- mary@smllp.law -- Swanson & McNamara LLP.

Michael J. Loughlin, Defendant, represented by Ted W. Cassman --
cassman@achlaw.com -- Arguedas Cassman & Headley, LLP & Laurel L.
Headley -- headley@achlaw.com -- Arguedas Cassman & Headley, LLP.


WHITESTONE LANES: Faces "Baldelli" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whitestone Lanes,
Inc. The case is styled as Richard Baldelli and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Whitestone Lanes,
Inc, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08080 (S.D. N.Y., October 19,
2017).

Whitestone Lanes Bowling Center is a bowling center and cocktail
lounge in Flushing, 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


WOODLAKE RESORT: Residents Sue Over Plummeting Property Values
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jaymie Baxley, writing for The Pilot, reports that residents of
the troubled Woodlake Resort and Country Club have joined together
to file a class action lawsuit against the company that owns the
development.

The filing was announced on Oct. 23 in a statement from the
Restore Woodlake Committee, a group whose chairman and co-chair
are among the 14 homeowners listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
The homeowners blame Woodlake CC Corp. for causing property values
to plummet in the gated community -- a trend that started after
the state ordered the controlled draining of Lake Surf, the
development's 1,200-acre centerpiece, because of concerns about
the stability of its dam in the wake of Hurricane Matthew.

Woodlake CC Corp. was later sued by the state Attorney General's
Office for repeatedly failing to follow through on promises to
repair the dam's deteriorated spillway.

An agreement to dismantle the spillway was reached in court
between the state and Julie Watson, vice president of Woodlake CC
Corp.  The state was forced to perform the breach itself after the
company failed to meet the court-ordered construction deadlines.

Watson later told Woodlake residents that the company could not
afford to rebuild the dam, a necessary precursor to refilling the
lake.  She offered to transfer the empty lake and dam to a group
of lakefront homeowners, which had devised a plan to secure
funding for the multi-million-dollar project.

Complicating matters was her suggestion that the transfer had been
proposed by the state.  Shortly after Ms. Watson's announcement,
Bridget Munger, public information officer for the state
Department of Environmental Quality, told The Pilot no such
proposal had been made.

Ms. Watson appeared to walk back her statements about the state's
involvement in a follow-up email.

"While my intent remains to do what is best for the Woodlake
community, please be advised that no offer has been proposed to
any group or entity concerning the transfer of Woodlake CC Corp.'s
dam and lake properties," she wrote.  "Woodlake CC Corp. keeps
working diligently toward a resolution with the Woodlake dam and
lake issues."

But according to the statement released by the committee, Woodlake
CC Corp. "has taken no meaningful action and has provided no
update with respect to their stated intent to transfer the lake
properties"

"The purpose of this lawsuit is to receive a court-ordered
judgment against (Woodlake CC Corp.) for many millions of dollars
in lost property value, in addition to the damages suffered by
those who have paid 'membership dues,'" the statement says,
referring to the fees paid by residents to use the lake, golf
courses and other amenities at the resort. "This judgment will
enable us to foreclose on WLCCC properties and force a liquidation
of these properties to satisfy the judgment."

In a civil summons issued on Oct. 23, the plaintiffs claim
Woodlake CC Corp. "offered memberships to property owners living
within the Woodlake subdivision at levels ranging from $1,944.21
to $2,955.48, depending on the level of amenity access desired."
The company allegedly "did not allow members to reduce their level
of membership, even when the amenities for which they were paying
were unavailable," according to the summons.

"Members were unable to simply stop paying due to the threat that
Woodlake CC Corp. would terminate their club membership entirely,
thus requiring an additional $25,000 new member fee in the future
should they ever wish to rejoin."

Indeed, the website for Woodlake Resort and Country Club still
advertises the empty lake as the development's "centerpiece . . .
offering members boating, swimming, fishing and water skiing."

The civil summons calls the company's continued collection of
membership dues "a scheme to coerce members to continue paying
fees even though WLCCC was not providing the promised amenities."

While they continued to pay for use of the nonexistent lake, many
residents who paid a premium for lakefront homes in the community
saw their property values sink.  The tax value of waterfront
properties was slashed by 50 percent earlier this year after a
review by the county tax department.

The plaintiffs are being represented by Hope Carmichael, an
attorney with Jordan Price Law Offices in Raleigh.

The Pilot has reported extensively on the various developments and
controversies at Woodlake. [GN]


XOMA CORP: Court Dismisses Individual Claims in "Markette"
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOSEPH F. MARKETTE, on Behalf of Himself and
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. XOMA CORPORATION,
JOHN W. VARIAN, and PAUL D. RUBIN, et. al., Defendants, Case No.
15-CV-3425 (HSG) (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
dismissed the action with prejudice as to the Plaintiff's
individual claims and without prejudice as to the unnamed class
members.

On July 24, 2015, Markette filed the action on behalf of himself
and the public stockholders of XOMA against the Defendants.  No
class has been certified.

On Sept. 22, 2015, Plaintiff Joseph Tarzia filed a Motion for
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP
as Lead Counsel.  On May 13, 2016, the Court appointed Tarzia as
the Lead Plaintiff and approved the Lead Plaintiff's selection of
Faruqi & Faruqi LLP as the Lead Counsel.

On July 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint, adding Kelvin Neu as a Defendant.

On Sept. 28, 2017, the Court granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint without prejudice and
entered an order requiring the Plaintiff to file and serve an
amended class action complaint by Oct. 26, 2017.

After conducting a thorough investigation, the Plaintiff has
decided not to file an amended class action complaint and to
voluntarily dismiss the action, with prejudice as to the Plaintiff
and his individual claims and without prejudice to the unnamed
class members.

The parties stipulate that (i) the Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses
the action with prejudice as to his individual claims and without
prejudice as to the unnamed class members pursuant to Rule
41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (ii) that
none of the Parties or their respective counsel have at any time
failed to comply with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure; and
(iii) the Parties will each bear their own costs, attorneys' fees,
and expenses and that no costs, sanctions, claims, or attorneys'
fees arising in or from this action will be pursued by any of the
parties.  Judge approved the parties' stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 25, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/DjXTT8 from Leagle.com.

Joseph F. Markette, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Punzalan --
markp@punzalanlaw.com -- Punzalan Law, P.C..

Joseph Tarzia, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Ann Rohr --
brohr@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Faruqi, LLP, Katherine M.
Lenahan -- klenahan@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Farqui, LLP, pro
hac vice, Nadeem Faruqi -- nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice, Richard W. Gonnello --
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice &
Sherief Morsy -- smorsy@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Faruqi, LLP,
pro hac vice.

John Varian, et al., Defendants, represented by Amanda Alison Main
-- amain@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Brett Hom De Jarnette --
bdejarnette@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Jessica Valenzuela
Santamaria -- jsantamaria@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & John C. Dwyer
-- dwyerjc@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.

Paul D. Rubin, Defendant, represented by Amanda Alison Main,
Cooley LLP, Brett Hom De Jarnette, Cooley LLP, Jessica Valenzuela
Santamaria, Cooley LLP & John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP.

XOMA Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amanda Alison Main,
Cooley LLP, Brett Hom De Jarnette, Cooley LLP, Jessica Valenzuela
Santamaria, Cooley LLP & John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP.

Kelvin M. Neu, Defendant, represented by Jessica Valenzuela
Santamaria, Cooley LLP.

Joseph Tarzia, Movant, represented by Barbara Ann Rohr, Faruqi and
Faruqi, LLP, Katherine M. Lenahan, Faruqi and Farqui, LLP, pro hac
vice, Megan M. Sullivan, Faruqi and Faruqi LLP, Nadeem Faruqi,
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice, Richard W. Gonnello, Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice & Sherief Morsy, Faruqi and Faruqi, LLP,
pro hac vice.

Xoma Group, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen, The Rosen
Law Firm, P.A. & Phillip C. Kim, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., pro hac
vice.

Nicholas Exarhos, Movant, represented by Mark Punzalan, Punzalan
Law, P.C..

Kellie Exarhos, Movant, represented by Mark Punzalan, Punzalan
Law, P.C..

Cliff M Claycomb, Movant, represented by Michael M. Goldberg --
mgoldberg@softtissuelawyer.com -- Goldberg Law PC.

Dwayne Leroy Davis, Movant, represented by Michael M. Goldberg,
Goldberg Law PC.

Lanae Davis, Movant, represented by Michael M. Goldberg, Goldberg
Law PC.

Douglas S Reynolds, Movant, represented by Michael M. Goldberg,
Goldberg Law PC.

Jason Wileman, Movant, represented by Michael M. Goldberg,
Goldberg Law PC.


* CUNA Comments on Treasury Report on CFPB's Arbitration Rule
-------------------------------------------------------------
CUInsight reports that following the release of the Treasury
Department's new report on the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau's arbitration rule, CUNA chief advocacy officer Ryan
Donovan issued a statement expressing appreciation that the report
highlights flaws in the CFPB's analysis about how its rule will
impact credit unions, their members, and other financial service
providers and consumers:

"The Treasury report sheds light on the fact that the rule will
'generate massive costs borne by businesses and consumers alike.'
This is particularly true for credit union members, who are
directly impacted by class action litigation since the credit
union member-ownership structure means resources spent on costly
litigation come out of the pockets of members through the pooled
resources of the membership.  The CFPB's dated research conducted
from 2008-2012 fails to address these concerns, and many other
developments in the marketplace over the years.

"Credit unions continue to educate policymakers about the harm
class action litigation causes for credit unions because of their
size and membership-owner structure.  Credit Union National
Association (CUNA), state leagues and credit unions have had a
several meetings over the last several weeks -- both as part of
our Hike the Hill program and through state-based visits --
highlighting the importance of the Senate taking action on the
resolution of disapproval.  We're hopeful that the Senate will
take up the resolution very soon."

                           About CUNA

With its network of affiliated state credit union leagues, Credit
Union National Association (CUNA) -- http://www.aSmarterChoice.org
-- serves America's credit unions, which are owned by more than
100 million consumer members.  Credit unions are not-for-profit
cooperatives providing affordable financial services to people
from all walks of life. [GN]


* Employers Face Illinois Biometric Class Action Threat
-------------------------------------------------------
Gary R. Clark, Esq. and Matthew A. Sloan, Esq., of Quarles & Brady
LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that savvy observers have
noticed the dozens of class action lawsuits filed under the
Illinois Biometric Privacy Act in the past few months. Even though
the law has been on the books since 2008, the plaintiffs' bar has
recently taken notice that employers adopting new technologies for
employee identification and time keeping may unwittingly be in
violation of the Act's protection of biometric data, such as
fingerprints, face scans, voice scans, and retina scans.  With a
statutory damage scheme that awards liquidated damages for every
individual violation, the consequences for employers in violation
of the Act can be crippling.

What is the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act?

Passed in 2008 as the first law of its kind in the United States,
Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act, or "BIPA," makes it
unlawful for private entities to collect, store, or use biometric
information, such as eye scans, face scans, voice scans or finger
prints, without obtaining individual consent and taking specific
precautions to protect the information. 740 ILCS Sec. 14/.  The
law is generally applicable and protects consumers the same as it
does employees, but has found a recent foothold in the employment
context with the advent of new technologies that allow employers
to use fingerprints, voice scans, facial recognition and retinal
scans for employee identification, access to restricted areas, and
time keeping.

What does the law require?

Under BIPA, any employer collecting, storing, or using the
biometric information of its employees -- no matter how it is
collected, stored or used -- must:

1. Provide each employee with written notice that his/her
biometric information will be collected and stored, including an
explanation of the purpose for collecting the information as well
as the length of time it will be stored and/or used.

2. Obtain the subject's express written authorization to collect
and store his/her biometric information.

3. Develop and make available to the public a written policy
establishing a retention schedule and guidelines for destroying
the biometric information, which shall include destruction of the
information when the reason for collection has been satisfied or
three years after the employer's last interaction with the
employee, whichever occurs first.
740 ILCS Section 14/15(a)-(b).

Additionally, an employer may not disclose biometric information
it has collected to a third party unless (1) the employee or
his/her legally authorized representative gives consent; (2) the
disclosure completes a financial transaction requested or
authorized by the employee or his/her legally authorized
representative; (3) the disclosure is required by local, state, or
federal law; or (4) the disclosure is required pursuant to a valid
warrant or subpoena. 740 ILCS Sec. 14/15(d).

The law also compels an employer to use "the reasonable standard
of care" within its industry for storing, transmitting, and
protecting biometric information, and to act "in a manner that is
the same as or more protective than the manner in which the
[employer] stores, transmits and protects other confidential and
sensitive information." 740 ILCS Sec. 14/15 (e).

What happens if I fail to comply?

Under the law, plaintiffs may recover statutory damages of $1,000
for each negligent violation and $5,000 per intentional or
reckless violation, plus attorneys' fees and other relief deemed
appropriate by the court.  Further, if actual damages exceed
liquidated damages, then a plaintiff is entitled under the Act to
pursue actual damages in lieu of liquidated damages.

Most problematic for employers in violation of the Act is the fact
that the $1,000 or $5,000 liquidated damage penalty is awarded on
an individual basis.  This can lead to a verdict in excess of
$500,000 for an employer with as few as 100 employees and $50
million for an employer with 10,000 employees.  Add in the ability
to recover attorneys' fees and it is easy to see why this new
cause of action is so popular with the plaintiff's bar.

In order to avoid becoming the next target, employers should take
the following steps:

1. As an initial matter, determine whether your company is
collecting, storing or using individual biometric data for any
purpose.

2. If the answer is yes, make sure your company has issued the
required notice and received signed releases/consents from all
affected individuals. Also make sure that you have in place a
publically available written policy to cover the collection,
storage, use and destruction of the data.

3. Ensure any collected data is not being sold or disclosed to
third parties, outside of the limited exceptions permitted by the
Act.

4. Evaluate your data privacy protocols and processes for
protecting individual biometric data. If a vendor has access to
the individual biometric data, make sure the vendor has sufficient
data privacy protocols and processes in place.
5. Make sure your data breach policies recognize that individual
biometric data is considered personal information under Illinois
laws addressing data breach notification requirements. [GN]


* Judges Sanction Two Law Firms Over Frivolous Tobacco Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Cassens Weiss, writing for ABA Journal, reports that a panel
of four federal judges has sanctioned two Florida law firms $9.1
million for filing more than 1,000 baseless claims against tobacco
companies accused of hiding the dangers of cigarettes.

The Wilner Firm and Farah & Farah, both based in Jacksonville,
filed 1,250 frivolous suits on behalf of "personal-injury
plaintiffs" who had died before the suits were filed, people who
never authorized the suits, people who never lived in Florida,
nonsmokers, and people whose cases had already been tried, the
judges said.  First Coast News and Law360 (sub. req.) covered the
order.

The defects were first discovered in 2012 after the court sent
questionnaires to the named plaintiffs.  A special master was then
appointed to investigate.

The 588 personal injury actions filed for dead plaintiffs should
have been filed as wrongful-death or survival actions, the court
said.  Yet the complaints never suggested the plaintiffs had died.
To the contrary, the court said, the lawyers "insisted that they
were in contact with their clients."

The court surmised that 572 suits weren't authorized because the
plaintiffs didn't return a court questionnaire.  In 15 of the 572
cases, questionnaires couldn't be mailed because the law firms
didn't have a mailing address for the plaintiffs.

The law firms "are held to account for the immense waste of
judicial resources and contempt shown for the judicial process
occasioned by maintaining over a thousand non-viable claims," the
order says.  "Counsel evinced a conscious disregard of their
professional obligation to properly investigate such claims,
obtain authorizations to file from clients, and-most importantly-
communicate honestly with this court."

The $9.1 million sanction is to compensate the court itself,
according to the order.  The judges arrived at the figure partly
based on the estimated cost of about $7,000 for each frivolous
lawsuit, and the more than $435,000 estimated cost of the special
master.

The 1,200 lawsuits were among 3,800 the two firms filed after the
Florida Supreme Court decertified a tobacco class action and
overturned a $145 billion award to the class.  The state supreme
court said, however, that the original jury's findings on
causation and fault could be used by individual plaintiffs.

The tobacco suits were known as Engle cases because the name
plaintiff in the tossed class action was Howard Engle. Tobacco
companies resolved the individual suits by setting up a
multimillion dollar fund.

The special master and the judges recommended an ethics
investigation by the Florida Bar.

The judges found the law firms would be able to pay the sanction
out of their portion of $45 million in attorney fees in the
tobacco cases that were being held in escrow.

The sanction may be unprecedented, the order said.  "Equally
unprecedented is a lawyer filing 1,250 frivolous lawsuits,
followed by years of maintaining those cases through obfuscation
and recalcitrance," the judges wrote.

The federal judges on the panel are William Young, Timothy
Corrigan, Roy Dalton Jr., and Marcia Morales Howard.

Daniel Kearney Bean -- Daniel.Bean@hklaw.com -- of Holland &
Knight is one of the lawyers representing the firms. He told
Law360 his clients respectfully disagree with the order.

"They have dedicated their professional careers to the
representation of those in need and will continue to do so,"
Mr. Bean said.  "Without lawyers willing to take on difficult
cases against formidable opponents, more preventable injuries and
deaths will occur.  They will remain zealous advocates for their
clients while respecting the role of the judiciary." [GN]


* Kilpatrick Townsend Attorneys Discusses Parens Patriea Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gwendolyn Payton, Esq. -- GPayton@kilpatricktownsend.com -- of
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, in an article for Lexology,
reports that Parens patriae is a Latin term which literally means
"parent of the fatherland."  In parens patriae actions, a state
sues on behalf of its citizens.  The rights of the states to do
this was first established in 1900 in Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S.
1 (1900), when Louisiana sued Texas on behalf of its citizens to
stop Texas from quarantining Louisiana goods shipped into Texas.
Like a class action, parens patriae is a powerful mechanism for
aggregating claims of individuals that are too modest themselves
to justify confronting a corporate defendant with vast resources.
But the benefits of the parens patriae mechanism come with strings
attached.

The United States antitrust laws contain explicit provisions that
allow states to seek antitrust relief in federal courts on behalf
of the people of the state.  These actions function similarly to
class actions, with the state acting in a role similar to a
putative class representative.  One of the primary differences
between parens patriae and private class actions is that parens
patriae law imposes no certification requirement, such as is
required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for a parens
patriae action to proceed.

A state can bring a parens patriae action, for example, under
Section 4C of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 15c, which allows
state attorneys general to sue private companies in federal court
for monetary damages under federal antitrust law, as parens
patriae, on behalf of their citizens who are "natural persons." (A
state could bring antitrust claims on its own behalf just as any
private person could, but 15 U.S.C. Section  15c limits
beneficiaries of claims made as parens patriae to natural
persons.)

Could the existence of a parens patriae action effect your
company's rights? Possibly. Most state laws include statutes that
are analogous to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 15c, but many extend the state's
authority to sue on behalf of all "persons," including
corporations. Moreover, while federal law contains specific
provision for opt-outs, further providing that any final judgment
shall be res judicata as to any claim by a person that does not
opt out (see 15 U.S.C. Section  15c(b)), many state statutes do
not provide an opt out or notice mechanism. See, e.g., Illinois
Antitrust Act Sec. 7(2), 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 10/7(2) (2010); Neb.
Rev. Stat. Sec. 84-212 (2008) (Nebraska antitrust statute); N.H.
Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec. 356:4-a (2009) (New Hampshire antitrust
statute); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Section 1345.07 (West Supp. 2012)
(Ohio antitrust statute).

Thus, intervention may be the only means by which a corporation
that has suffered substantial competitive injury can obtain its
day in court and not be left to rely on the state to prosecute its
claims.  Notably, a state's action could potentially preclude any
follow-on action by other entities, under the res judicata
doctrine. See, e.g., Alaska Sport Fishing Ass'n v. Exxon Corp., 34
F.3d 769, 773 (9th Cir. 1994) ("Exxon") ("State governments may
act in their parens patriae capacity as representatives for all
their citizens in a suit to recover damages for injury to a
sovereign interest . . . There is a presumption that the state
will adequately represent the position of its citizens . . . Thus,
the sportfishers here, as members of the public, were 'parties' to
the . . . suit within the meaning of res judicata.").

Can a party intervene in a state's parens patriae action? Maybe.
The courts have evinced a bias against intervention in parens
patriae suits. See Margaret H. Lemosa 126 Harv. L. Rev. 486, 508-
09, Aggregate Litigation Goes Public: Representative Suits by
State Attorneys General (December, 2012) (explaining courts'
disinclination to allow intervention: "Once again, the difference
in treatment of public and private [i.e., class action] aggregate
litigation seems to stem from a presumption that state attorneys
general will protect the interests of the individuals they
represent, making it unnecessary for those individuals to take a
hand in (or exclude themselves from) the litigation."); see also
Prete v. Bradbury, 438 F.3d 949, 956-59 (9th Cir. 2006) (requiring
a "very compelling showing" of inadequacy of representation for
intervention).

This may be important because state laws may not permit the
attorney general to pursue certain remedies that would otherwise
be available to class action plaintiffs or plaintiffs otherwise
suing on their own behalf.  Some statutes allow the state to seek
only parens patriae restitution and injunctive relief (and not
compensatory damages). See, e.g., Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann.
Secs. 44-1521 to -1534 (2003); Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17535
(West 2008); Conn. Gen. Stat Secs. 42.110a-.110q (2011); 815 Ill.
Comp. Stat. 505/7 (2010); Iowa Code Section 714.16 (2007); N.Y.
Exec. Law Sec. 63(12) (McKinney 2012); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Sec.
1345.07 (West 2012). Defendants could then seek dismissal of
follow-on federal antitrust claims by corporate plaintiffs,
claiming that federal as well as state antitrust law claims are
barred, based on the doctrine of claim splitting, which is a
subset of res judicata or claim preclusion: "The doctrine of claim
splitting bars a party from subsequent litigation where the 'same
controversy' exists." Single Chip Systems Corp. v. Intermec IP
Corp., 495 F. Supp. 2d 1052, 1058 (S.D. Cal. 2007).

In Exxon, for example, the United States and the State of Alaska
brought suit in their capacities as "trustees for the public"
(effectively parens patriae) under federal statutes, including
Section 311(f) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C.
Sec. 1321(f)(5), and Section 107(f)(1) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607(f)(1).  The governments
sought damages for restoration of the environment and compensation
for lost public uses of natural resources. 34 F.3d at 771.

The Ninth Circuit held claims asserted by private plaintiffs in a
separate suit barred by res judicata, ruling they sought relief
that the governments had claimed in their prior action.  Thus,
where a corporate plaintiff faces any risk of preclusion under res
judicata based on a prior state action (because, for example, the
governmental entity has a plausible basis for seeking the damages
that otherwise would be available to the plaintiff), intervention
may be the only course that avoids the risk of losing potentially
significant damages claims. [GN]


* Treasury Joins Fight Over Class Actions, Balks at CFPB Study
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Lawler, writing for Washington Examiner, reports that the
Trump Treasury joined the fight over a new rule favoring class-
action lawsuits on Oct. 23, saying that the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau erred in its justification for the major
financial regulation.

The Treasury's publication of an 18-page analysis faulting the
CFPB's rulemaking represents an escalation in an unusually public
and hostile fight between regulators.

At issue is a rule the CFPB finalized in July that would bar
financial firms from writing contracts that prevent customers from
joining in class-action lawsuits against the firms, and instead
steer them toward private arbitration.  Republicans have
criticized the rule as a giveaway to trial lawyers.

Richard Cordray, the Obama-appointed head of the bureau
responsible for the rule, has faced sustained criticism from Keith
Noreika, Trump's acting Comptroller of the Currency charged with
regulating banks.

Mr. Noreika has second-guessed the CFPB's justification for its
own rule and criticized the agency in letters and op-eds.  His
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency released a finding that
the rule would burden banks enough to raise borrowing costs by up
to 25 percent, potentially threatening the viability of some
banks.

On Oct. 23, the Treasury agreed with the comptroller's assessment,
concluding that the CFPB's review was "limited in ways that raise
serious questions about its conclusions and undermine the
foundation of the Rule itself."  In particular, the Treasury
alleged that the CFPB didn't take into account how many new class-
action suits there would be, or how much of the benefit of those
suits would flow to trial lawyers rather than to consumers. It
also said that the bureau shortchanged the benefits of private
arbitration.

In response, CFPB spokesperson Sam Gilford said that the Treasury
report "rehashes industry arguments that were analyzed in depth
and solidly refuted in the final rule."  Contracts that mandate
arbitration for disputes allow companies to avoid accountability,
Gilford added, citing recent high-profile scandals involving the
megabank Wells Fargo and the credit bureau Equifax.

Financial firms have sued to stop the bureau's rule on the grounds
that its own analysis of the costs and benefits of the rule was
flawed.

Also, Congress could overturn the rule legislatively if the Senate
can muster the votes.  The House has already voted to cancel it.

Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer bashed the Treasury
report on Oct. 23, saying in a statement that "the Trump
administration has twisted itself into a pretzel to try to
undermine a rule that protects consumers from unscrupulous actors
like Equifax and Wells Fargo."

Some congressional Republicans have also sought Cordray's ouster.
His term runs through next summer, but key figures in the party,
such as House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling, have
called on Trump to fire him before then. [GN]




                             *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Joseph Cardillo at 856-381-
8268.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *