CAR_Public/171110.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Friday, November 10, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 223



                            Headlines

AGNICO EAGLE: Class-Action Lawsuit Trial Begins
AIRBNB INC: NY Court Dismisses Unfair Competition Suit
ALLIANCE RESOURCES: Court Denies Move to Dismiss WARN Act Suit
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces "Schnur" Suit in E.D. New York
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Meisels" Suit in E.D. New York

ALL-STAR ELECTRICAL: Frederick Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
ALPHA I MARKETING: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S. Dist. New York
AMRO FABRICATING: Fails to Pay Wages, "Martinez" Suit Says
ARAMARK CAMPUS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Gratuities
ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Faces "Khaytin" Suit in E. Dist. New York

AUSTRALIA: IMF Bentham to Fund Water Contamination Class Action
AVIS RENT: "Mendoza" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under Labor Code
B&B ITALIA: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S. Dist. New York
BET INTERACTIVE: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
BLEU SUR: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S. Dist. New York

BRANCH BANKING: Denial of Arbitration Bid in "Goodwin" Affirmed
BRISK AIR: "Loya" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
BRUCE MONK: Class Action Over Ballet Dancers' Nude Photos Pending
BY ANY MEANS: Attorney Commences Class Action Defense Fund
CALIBER HOME: "Woods" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage, OT under FLSA

CALIFORNIA: Home Care Workers' Unpaid OT Class Action Can Proceed
CALPINE CORP: Stoner Seeks to Enjoin Energy Capital Merger
CANADA: Pension News for Veterans Expected, Class Action Pending
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Schwartz" Suit in E.D. New York
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Misonzhnik" Suit in E.D.N.Y.

CBG JANOVIC: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S. Dist. New York
CENTURYLINK INC: Faces Securities-Fraud Class Action
CHEADLE LAW: Faces "Booker" Suit in M. Dist. Tenn.
CHEF'S WAREHOUSE: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims
CHEVRON CORP: Litigation Funding at Issue in Gas Rig Class Action

CHSPSC LLC: Court Certifies Class in "Mounce" ADTPA Suit
CITY OF BURLINGTON: Faces "Croteau" Suit in District of Vermont
CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Leifer" Suit in E. Dist. New York
COHN GOLDBERG: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Smith" FDCPA Suit
CONAGRA FOODS: "Backus" Suit Stayed Pending Appeals

CROWN ENERGY: "Ramos" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
DIMENSION THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Proposed Ultragenyx Merger
DUKE UNIVERSITY: Fights Class-Action Effort
DUNKIN' DONUTS: Lynn Franchise Sued Over Use of Margarine
EMD SALES: "Carrera" Class Suit Transferred to Maryland Dist.

EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Butler" Class Suit in Cal. Over Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: Seattle Woman Files Data Breach Class Action
EUSTIS CABLE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Link" Action Claims
EXCELSIOR COLLEGE: Defrauding Nursing Students, Class Suit Says
FACEBOOK INC: Sued for Purposely Misclassifying Employees

FARMERS GROUP: "Baker" Class Suit Transferred to Ariz. Dist. Ct.
FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: Faces "Morris" Suit in N.D. California
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Pension Fund Sues over Share Price Drop
G2 SECURE: Faces "Heaggans" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
GC SERVICES: Faces "Landau" Suit in Eastern District of New York

GLOBAL CREDIT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Lopez"
GNC HOLDINGS: Transferred "Register" Class Suit to W.D. Penn.
GRAND SICHUAN: Faces "Yang" Suit in S. Dist. New York
HALIFAX HEALTH: MSPA Claims Class Suit Removed to M.D. California
HAMILTON COUNTY, TN: Court Junks Woodmore School Bus Crash Suit

HANOVER INSURANCE: MSP Recovery Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
HERITAGE FINANCIAL: Faces "Ehrnfeld" Suit in E.D. New York
HOME DEPOT: Faces "Hamilton" Suit in Middle District of Florida
HOME DEPOT: California Court Dismisses FCRA Class Action
I.C. SYSTEM: Faces "Braunskill" Suit in E. Dist. New York

IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Faces "Sosonov" Suit in E. Dist. New York
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Court Denies Dismissal of Securities Suit
IOWA: Speeding Ticket Class-Action Effort Moves Forward
JC USA: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S. Dist. New York
JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Dismissal Bids in "Carlisle" Partly OK'd

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hunter Woman Joins Pelvic Mesh Class Action
KELLY SERVICES: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S.D. New York
KODY IMPORTS: "Zaldana" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
KRISPY KREME: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
LABORATORY CORPORATION: 2nd Second Class-Action Suit Filed

LOUISIANA: Court Excludes Expert Opinion in Angola Inmates' Suit
LOUISIANA: Baton Rouge Protesters to Get Settlement Payouts
LULAROE CO: Faces Class Action Over Buyback Policy
LYFT INC: Misclassifies Drivers as Contractors, Suit Claims
MACK'S SPORT: Wins Summary Judgment in Cooler Suit

MANLEY LAUNDROMAT: Faces "Sze" Suit in S. Dist. New York
MARS PETCARE: 6th Cir. Remands "Roberts" TTPA Suit to State Court
MARTINIQUE RESTAURANT: Ahmed Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
MARVIN ENGINEERING: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Alvarez" Suit Says
MASSACHUSETTS: DOE Faces Equal Class Suit Over DeVos Rules

MDL 2492: "Foreman" Class Suit Transferred to Illinois Dist. Ct.
MDL 2633: "Imbler" Class Suit Transferred to Oregon Dist. Ct.
MDL 2795: "Williams" Suit v. CenturyLink Consolidated in Alabama
MDL 2795: "Denniston" Suit v. CenturyLink Consolidated in Alabama
MDL 2795: "Lucero" Suit v. CenturyLink Consolidated in Alabama

MDL 2795: "Miller" Suit v. CenturyLink Consolidated in Alabama
MDL 2796: "Baker" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
MDL 2796: "Cordover" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
MDL 2796: "Kebart" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
MDL 2797: "Smith" Class Suit Transferred to C. Dist. Calif.

MEDFIRST CONSULTING: "Kiley" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Ala.
MEDICAL DATA: Court OKs Stipulation Dismissing Lizama Claims
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: "Bazrganian" Suit Transferred to New Jersey
MGM RESORTS: Faces "Spencer" Suit Over Safety & Security Policies
MINNESOTA: Court Grants Class Certification in ADA Suit

MONTGOMERY, AL: Court Denies Leave to Amend FHA Suit
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Buxbaum" Suit in E. Dist. New York
NFL: To Fund Helmet Safety Innovation Amid Suits
NISSAN: Class Action Over Defective Sunroofs Underway
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces "Leifer" Suit in E.D. of New York

OANDA CORPORATION: Kalemba Sues over Excessive Forex Spreads
OASIS LEGAL: Court Dismisses "Smith" for Forum Non Conveniens
OCEAN SPRAY: Summary Judgment Bid in Antitrust Suit Partly OK'd
OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Court Dismisses New "Menaldi" Complaint
OCWEN LOAN: Court Narrows Claims in "Keyes" TCPA Suit

PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Location Data Use
PAUL MORELLI DESIGN: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S.D. New York
PEPSI-COLA: Illegally Marketed Diet Pepsi Products, Suit Claims
PEPSICO INC: Sued Over Authenticity of KeVita Beverage
PNC MERCHANT: Webb, Klase Files Lawsuit Alleging Overbilling

POWERCOMM CONSTRUCTION: 4th Cir. Vacates Fee Award in "Randolph"
PRINCE-PARKER: Illegally Collects Debt, "Martinez" Suit Claims
PROFESSIONAL PROBATION: Faces "Harper" Suit in N.D. Alabama
RAJUMAANAR ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
RETAIL GROCERS: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S. Dist. New York

RETAIL PROPERTIES: Faces "Badger" Suit in W. Dist. Penn.
RISE CONDOMINIUM: Insalago Sues Barcus et al. over Asset Transfer
RM HQ: Faces "Bonilla" Suit Over Failure to Properly Pay Workers
ROLLING IN THE DOUGH: "Young" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA
RUNU INC: Faces "Pierre" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages

SHAKE SHACK: Faces Class Action Over "Service Included" Switch
SHAMMAS INVESTMENT: Marquez Seeks Minimum Wages under Labor Code
SIX FLAGS: Judge Refuses to Certify Eight Subclasses in OT Suit
SKO BRENNER: Faces "Williams" Suit in M. Dist. Florida
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REPRODUCTIVE: Thompson Files Class Suit

SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Policyholders' Class Action Can Proceed
STEMILT AG: Major Washington Grower Settles Lawsuit
SUNRISE COMMUNICATIONS: Wieseler-Myers Sues over Spam Text
TARGET CORP: Faces "Harris" Suit in N. Dist. Calif.
TOUCH ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Garcia" Suit Says

TRAVELERS: Krpekyan Sues for Breach of Insurance Contract
UBER TECH: Sued Over Underpaid Women Engineers
UNIFUND CCR: Faces "Labin" Suit in Eastern District New York
UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Geiskinsky" Suit in E.D. New York
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Sued Over UBH Commercial Plan Policies

UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: Has Partial Deal of Class Suit
US HEALTHWORKS: "Bhusan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
USAA CASUALTY: Loses Confidentiality Designations Challenge
USC THOMPSON: Faces "Harris" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
UZBEK LOGISTICS: "Kopaleishvili" Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio

VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Faces "Hofstatter" Suit in E.D. New York
VIKING CLIENT: Faces "Kupczyk" Suit in Eastern District New York
VOLKSWAGEN AG: No Legal Action in Canada Despite Emissions Tests
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Autohaus Suit Transferred to N.D. California
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Blevins" Suit Transferred to N.D. California

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Caldwell" Suit Transferred to N.D. California
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Hoar" Suit Transferred to N.D. California
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Hughes" Suit Transferred to N.D. California
WELCOME CARE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Kerimbekova" Suit Says
WELLS FARGO: Faces "Membreno" Suit Over Auto Insurance Policies

WESTPAC BANKING: Reluctant to Settle Rate-Rigging Dispute
WISCONSIN: Court Denies Certification Bid in "Campos" Suit
WISCONSIN: Gov. Walker Wants Judge to Reverse Prison Case Ruling
WOOF GANG: Faces "Giraud" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
WP COMPANY: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S. Dist. New York

XHIBIT CORP: Court Grants Move to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
ZOOSK INC: Faces "Murphy" Suit in S. Dist. New York


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Still Faces Asbestos Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Unit Has 101 Cases Pending at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 San Diego Biz Fail to Properly Remove Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Walls at Watertown High School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pinelands Regional Faces $7K in Asbestos Fines

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Dies 39 Yrs After Being Exposed to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Limiting Reviews of Chemicals
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gym Forced to Close After Asbestos Find
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Docs Not Privileged in BASF Case, Says Class
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Connecticut High Court Tosses Verdict

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Town, County to Implement Abatement Program
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Awards Summary Judgment to Defendant
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Teacher in Hospice After Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Identified at Another 7 Illawarra Sites
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bestwall Blames Tort System Abuses for Ch. 11

ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Funds New England Asbestos Awareness Drive
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Limits Threaten EPA's Asbestos Review
ASBESTOS UPDATE: West Coast School to Close After Asbestos Find
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eight Senators Introduce Bill to Ban Asbestos





                            *********


AGNICO EAGLE: Class-Action Lawsuit Trial Begins
-----------------------------------------------
MINING.com reports that a class-action lawsuit brought forward by
residents allegedly affected by the Malartic gold mine, owned and
operated in a 50:50 joint venture by Agnico Eagle Mines and Yamana
Gold, is going before the Quebec Superior Court October 28.

The residents living close to the large open pit mine, located 25
km west of Val d'Or in Quebec's Abitibi region, want to be
compensated for damages related to dust, noise and explosions they
claim to have been exposed to for many years.

The suit, filed last year, was approved by the same court in May.
The decision came on the heels of the Quebec government allowing
the Malartic gold mine expansion, a project that will increase its
life span by six years, until 2028.

At the time, the provincial government said the two companies
involved in the Malartic mine worked with the local community to
ensure the project was "well understood" and "in line with the
strategic vision for mineral development." It did, however,
included nine new conditions, five of which related to climate
management.

Ugo Lapointe, Program Coordinator for MiningWatch Canada, said an
independent expert panel that reviewed the project last year
recommended a "mediation process" to resolve the conflict.

It also suggested, he said, that the companies review their
compensation and relocation protocol to specifically address the
community members' concerns, including the need to be able to
relocate in a neighbouring community without incurring debts,
costs, or losses in the process.

"Currently, the companies' lawyers are doing everything they can
to prolong and delay the process instead of moving ahead swiftly,"
Lapointe told MINING.com.

Reports show a $40,000 to $70,000 price difference between houses
located close to the mine site and similar properties in
neighbouring communities.

But the Quebec Superior Court excluded the possibility of
landowners claiming real-estate losses in the class-action suit.
Those claims must be done on an individual basis, the judge ruled.

A report published last year by Quebec's environmental regulation
agency (BAPE) concluded that the province's environmental laws are
inadequate to regulate the operation of an open pit mine such as
that of Canadian Malartic. Likewise, the BAPE believes that
government did not use "the coercive means" at its disposal to
enforce current regulations.

According to that document, since 2011, the companies operating
Malartic have been unable to demonstrate the mine can be run in an
urban environment in accordance with the legal requirements
imposed on it.

The report found the mine frequently exceeded the standards and
criteria for noise, dust and vibrations, which resulted in
recurring notices of noncompliance issued.

The class action covers an area that includes about 350 homes and
apartment buildings (about 1,200 people), all located within 800
metres of the pit. The closest homes are 100 metres away from the
operation, which runs round the clock, 365 days a year.

The Malartic mine has been operating since 2011. Agnico Eagle
Mines and Yamana Gold Inc. acquired it in 2014, in a $3.9-billion
takeover of Osisko Mining Corp. [GN]


AIRBNB INC: NY Court Dismisses Unfair Competition Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued a Memorandum Opinion granting Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint in the case captioned PARKER MADISON
PARTNERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AIRBNB, INC., Defendant, No. 16-CV-8939
(VSB) (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Parker Madison Partners brings this putative class
action on behalf of itself and a class of licensed real estate
brokers seeking injunctive and declaratory relief preventing
Defendant Airbnb from engaging in alleged unfair competition and
conduct violating section 349 of the New York General Business Law
(GBL) by virtue of providing real estate brokerage services in New
York without the licenses mandated by the New York Real Property
Law (RPL).

Defendant proffers a number of arguments in support of its motion
to dismiss, including that Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to
proceed with this action.  Defendant also contends that Plaintiff
lacks statutory standing to bring its two causes of action claims
brought under GBL Section 349 and the New York common law for
unfair competition and that Plaintiff fails to state a claim for
which relief can be granted.

Article III Standing

Article III of the Constitution circumscribes a court's authority
to hear cases, limiting the jurisdiction of federal courts to
cases or controversies. To meet the minimum constitutional
threshold, a plaintiff must establish first, that it has sustained
an 'injury in fact second, that the injury was in some sense
caused by the opponent's action or omission; and finally, that a
favorable resolution of the case is 'likely to redress the
injury.'

The most specific allegation contained in Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint related to any purported injury is found in Count II,
where Plaintiff claims that as a result of Airbnb's conduct,
Plaintiff and the putative class have suffered, and will continue
to suffer, damage to their business, including but not limited to
substantial lost revenues, threats to their industry and the
professional standards thereof, and abrogation of the importance
of licensing and regulatory compliance.

Plaintiff's general allegations of damage to their business,
threats to their industry and the professional standards of that
industry, and substantial lost revenues not directly tied to
injury suffered by Plaintiff do not establish any cognizable
injury as they do not include a single example or give any details
whatsoever as to any actual injury to Plaintiff connected to
Airbnb's activities.

In its opposition, Plaintiff does not respond or address these
points, or in any way offer how it has been actually injured by
Airbnb's actions. The fact that Plaintiff despite having the
opportunity to do so fails to point to any specific fact
supporting its injury or to connect that purported injury to the
members of the putative class it seeks to represent is fatal to
Plaintiff's claims. Indeed, Plaintiff's failure to point to any
such facts is particularly telling given that Airbnb has been in
business since 2008, and one would expect that if, in fact,
Plaintiff suffered harm, it would be able to articulate that harm
with a modicum of detail.

Plaintiff has not established an injury-in-fact that was caused by
Airbnb's actions sufficient to support Article III standing.
Therefore, Defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint is
granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 29, 2017
Memorandum and Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/y7jxal68
from Leagle.com.

Parker Madison Partners, Plaintiff, represented by Roger Alan
Sachar, Jr. -- rsachar@nfllp.com -- Newman Ferrara LLP.

Parker Madison Partners, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Michael
Norton -- jnorton@nfllp.com -- Newman Ferrara LLP.

Airbnb, Inc., Defendant, represented by Roberta Ann Kaplan --
rkaplan@kaplanandcompany.com -- Kaplan & Company, LLP & John
Charles Quinn, Kaplan & Company, LLP.


ALLIANCE RESOURCES: Court Denies Move to Dismiss WARN Act Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CARL LEEPER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLIANCE RESOURCES
PARTNERS, L.P., HAMILTON COUNTY COAL, LLC, and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-
20, Defendants, Case No. 16-CV-250-NJR-DGW (S.D. Ill.), Leeper was
a full-time employee of Defendants Hamilton and Alliance. During
his employment, he had been promoted from general laborer to
pumper to maintenance.  Leeper specifically worked at the Hamilton
County Mine #1, which is an underground mining complex located
near the city of Dahlgren in Hamilton County, Illinois.  Alliance
is the owner of the Hamilton County Mine #1, and Defendant
Hamilton operates the facility.

Leeper earned regular compensation of approximately $91,000 per
year and other substantial employee benefits including, among
other things, health insurance, a 401(k) plan, short-term
disability insurance, long-term disability insurance, life
insurance, accidental death and dismemberment insurance, accrued
and unused vacation days, and monthly bonuses.

The Plaintiff alleged in the First Amended Class Action Complaint
that Defendants failed to provide a 60-day advanced notice of a
mass layoff' of nearly 200 employees that occurred at its Hamilton
County Coal Mine #1.

The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended
Class Action Complaint.

Defendants Alliance and Hamilton argue that Leeper's claims fail
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the WARN
Act.  Congress passed the WARN Act with the purpose of providing
workers and their families some transition time to adjust to the
prospective loss of employment, to seek and obtain alternative
jobs and, if necessary, to enter skill training or retraining.

The affidavit of the facility's general manager, Ezra French,
states that 74 of those employees have either returned to work or
confirmed their intent to return to work.  The United States
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois said the
affidavit does not provide any detail as to the circumstances of
the terms of employment for these rehired workers.  Significantly,
it does not tell the Court whether those workers were rehired for
the same position. Nor does it shed any light on whether these
employees did in fact have to reapply for and interview for
positions of employment at the Hamilton County Mine, as Leeper
alleges in the First Amended Class Action Complaint.

Thus, contrary to Defendants' assertions, the Court does not find
that the First Amended Class Action Complaint presents legally
dispositive facts that directly undermine Leeper's
characterization of the Temporary Layoff Notice as a termination.
Instead, Defendants' fact-intensive arguments are more appropriate
for summary judgment.

Defendants argue that Leeper fails to state an alternative claim
that there was a mass layoff because the employees experienced a
reduction in hours.  Defendants cite to United Steel v. Ainsworth
Engineered (USA), LLC to argue that you cannot apply a reduction
of hours employment loss to a time period during which the
employer has specifically announced a layoff.  Here, the Court has
already found that Defendants' fact-intensive arguments that the
action alleged involves a layoff are more appropriate for summary
judgment. Thus, the Court does not find Ainsworth to be persuasive
at this stage of the proceedings.

Simply construing all allegations and drawing all reasonable
inferences in Leeper's favor, the Court finds that Leeper's First
Amended Class Action Complaint states a claim for relief.

Accordingly, the Court denied Defendants Alliance Resource
Partners, L.P.'s and Hamilton County Coal, LLC's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 29, 2017,
Memorandum and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ycszaftn
from Leagle.com.

Carl Leeper, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P. Green --
kevin@ghalaw.com -- Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli PC.

Carl Leeper, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas J. Lech --
tlech@ghalaw.com -- Goldenberg, Heller, Antognoli, & Rowland P.C.,
Kreig Blakley Taylor, Culley, Feist, Kuppart & Taylor, LLC, 3
South Main Street, Suite 2, Harrisburg, IL 62946 & Thomas P.
Rosenfeld -- tom@ghalaw.com -- Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli PC.
Alliance Resource Partners, L.P., Defendant, represented by
Richard Garrett Griffith -- richard.griffith@skofirm.com -- Stoll,
Keenon et al., Elizabeth Smith Muyskens --
elizabeth.muyskens@skofirm.com -- Stoll, Keenon et al. & Kif
Harward Skidmore -- kif.skidmore@skofirm.com -- Stoll, Keenon et
al.

Hamilton County Coal, LLC, Defendant, represented by Richard
Garrett Griffith, Stoll, Keenon et al., Elizabeth Smith Muyskens,
Stoll, Keenon et al. & Kif Harward Skidmore, Stoll, Keenon et al.


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces "Schnur" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allied Interstate
LLC. The case is styled as Daniella Schnur, on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Allied
Interstate LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06123 (E.D. N.Y.,
October 20, 2017).

Allied Interstate is a debt collection agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Meisels" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial,
LP. The case is styled as Simon Meisels, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Alltran
Financial, LP formerly known as: United Recovery Systems, L.P.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06141 (E.D.N.Y., October 22, 2017).

Alltran Financial is a debt collector.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Maxim Maximov, Esq.
   Maxim Maximov, LLP
   1701 Avenue P
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 395-3459
   Fax: (718) 408-9570
   Email: m@maximovlaw.com


ALL-STAR ELECTRICAL: Frederick Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nobert Frederick, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. All-Star Electrical Service
Inc., Garrity Electric Inc., and Kevin Garrity, the Defendants,
Case No. 521054/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 31, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid wages, wage deductions, and compensation for not
receiving notices and statements, maximum liquidated damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff complains on behalf of himself and a class of other
similarly situated current and former hourly employees who worked
for the Defendants, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, under the Civil Practice Law and Rules that
the Class members were employed by Defendants within the State of
New York as manual workers; entitled to maximum liquidated damages
(for the period after April 9, 2011) and interest for being paid
overtime wages and non-overtime wages later than weekly; and
entitled to costs and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the New York
Labor Law.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          Abdul Hassan Law Group, PLLC
          215-28 Hillside Avenue,
          Queens Village, NY 11427
          Telephone: (718) 740 1000
          Facsimile: (718) 740 2000
          E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


ALPHA I MARKETING: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S. Dist. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alpha I Marketing,
Corp. The case is styled as Carmen Gomez and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Alpha I Marketing,
Corp., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08171 (S.D.N.Y., October 23,
2017).

Alpha I Marketing Corp. develops and executes marketing,
merchandising, and retail technology programs and services. It
offers super market merchandising programs; and event marketing,
media, and community solutions. The company provides its
merchandising programs for retailers, wholesalers, and
manufacturers.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


AMRO FABRICATING: Fails to Pay Wages, "Martinez" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
JOVANNY MARTINEZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMRO
FABRICATING CORPORATION, a California corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC681938 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Oct. 31, 2017), seeks to recover overtime and unpaid
wages under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants hired Plaintiff and the
other class members, classified them as hourly-paid or non-exempt
employees, and failed to compensate them for all hours worked and
missed meal periods and/or rest breaks. The Defendants had the
authority to hire and terminate Plaintiff and the other class
members, to set work rules and conditions governing Plaintiffs and
the other class members' employment, and to supervise their daily
employment activities.

AMRO Fabricating Corporation manufactures precision machined
tooling and equipment for aerospace, defense and commercial
industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265 1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265 1021


ARAMARK CAMPUS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Gratuities
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shirley Slaughter, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Aramark Campus, LLC and Aramark Sports, LLC, Case No.
171002194 (Pa. Cmm. Pleas, October 17, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay the gratuities that patrons paid
on their credit cards to Food Staff employees.

Aramark Campus, LLC provides on-campus dining and foodservice for
colleges and universities in the United States.

Aramark Sports, LLC provides a range of services to premier sports
facilities, convention centers, and entertainment venues. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Faces "Khaytin" Suit in E. Dist. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Associated Credit
Services, Inc.  The case is styled as Mikhail Khaytin, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff
v. Associated Credit Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
06145 (E.D.N.Y., October 22, 2017).

Associated Credit Services, Inc. is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Maxim Maximov, Esq.
   Maxim Maximov, LLP
   1701 Avenue P
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 395-3459
   Fax: (718) 408-9570
   Email: m@maximovlaw.com


AUSTRALIA: IMF Bentham to Fund Water Contamination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rushil Dutta, writing for Reuters, reports that Australian
litigation financier IMF Bentham Ltd said on Oct. 30 it would fund
a class-action lawsuit against the Australian Department of
Defence in relation to allegations of water contamination.

The company said in a statement the class action against the
government related to alleged drinking-water supply contamination
in the Northern Territory town of Katherine, at the outskirts of
which the Department of Defence runs the Tindal air force base.

The contamination is alleged to have been caused by the
department's use of firefighting foam at the base, IMF added.

The Department of Defence had no immediate comment.

IMF said it was taking registrations from individuals interested
in participating in the class action, and that property owners and
businesses affected by the contamination were eligible to
participate.

The lawsuit would be funded through its Australian investment
arms, the company said. [GN]


AVIS RENT: "Mendoza" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL MENDOZA, as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, LLC,
a Limited Liability Company, AVIS BUDGET CAR RENTAL, LLC., a
Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 100, 23 inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. BC681943 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 30,
2017), seeks to recover overtime wages under the California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed in their
affirmative obligation to provide accurate itemized wage
statements. Defendants, as a matter of policy and practice, did
not provide accurate records as required under California Labor
Code by failing as a matter of policy and practice to provide
accurate records of Plaintiff and the Class members' correct
hourly rates, proper overtime rates and total hours worked.
Further, on the wage statements where Plaintiff and the Class
members were paid shift differential wages, the hourly rate of the
shift differentials and corresponding hours were not identified on
their wage statements. Further, on the wage statements where
Plaintiff and the Class members were paid OT, the hourly rate and
hours worked were inaccurate.

Avis is an American car rental company headquartered in
Parsippany-Troy Hills, New Jersey, United States. Avis, Budget
Rent a Car and Budget Truck Rental are all units of Avis Budget
Group.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward W. Choi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES
          A Professional Corporation
          515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 381 1515
          Facsimile: (213) 465 4885
          E-mail: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com

               - and -

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Nick Rosenthal, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
          515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488 6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488 6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitvlaw.com

               - and -

          David Lee, Esq. SBN 296294
          DAVID LEE LAW
          515 S. Flower Street, Suite 3600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 236 3536
          Facsimile: (866) 658 4722
          E-mail: David@DavidJLeeLaw.com


B&B ITALIA: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S. Dist. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against B&B Italia, U.S.A.,
Inc.  The case is styled as Carmen Gomez and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v B&B Italia, U.S.A.,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08156 (S.D. N.Y., October 23,
2017).

B & B Italia, USA, Inc. was founded in 1990. The company's line of
business includes distributing furniture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
   The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
   277 Broadway, Suite 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Fax: (212) 229-2246
   Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


BET INTERACTIVE: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bet Interactive,
LLC. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan Jr., on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bet
Interactive, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08139 (S.D.N.Y.,
October 23, 2017).

Bet Interactive, LLC is a media company.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


BLEU SUR: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S. Dist. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bleu Sur LLC. The
case is styled as Carmen Gomez and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bleu Sur LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-08173 (S.D. N.Y., October 23, 2017).

Bleu Sur LLC is a salon based in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


BRANCH BANKING: Denial of Arbitration Bid in "Goodwin" Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the
district court's order denying Defendant's motion to compel
arbitration in the case, LATRICIA E. GOODWIN, individually and on
behalf of a class of persons, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRANCH
BANKING & TRUST COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 17-1412
(4th Cir.).

Goodwin filed a purported class action complaint against BB&T
alleging violations of West Virginia's Consumer Credit and
Protection Act.

BB&T appeals the district court's order denying its motion to
compel arbitration in the case.  On appeal, it argues that the
district court erred in finding that the arbitration provision
contained in the contract between the parties was unconscionable
under state law, and erred in refusing to sever any unconscionable
terms of the provision and enforce the remainder of the
arbitration provision.

The Fourth Circuit explains that under West Virginia law, a
contract provision that is unconscionable is unenforceable.  West
Virginia's traditional unconscionability doctrine requires a
showing of both substantive unconscionability, or unfairness in
the contract itself, and procedural unconscionability, or
unfairness in the bargaining process.  The Fourth Circuit has
thoroughly reviewed the record and the relevant legal authorities
and concludes that the district court did not err in determining
that the arbitration provision is unconscionable under West
Virginia law and in refusing to sever the unconscionable terms
from the arbitration provision.  Accordingly, it affirmed the
district court's order.  The Fourth Court dispensed with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before it and argument would not aid in
the decisional process.

A full-text copy of the Fourth Circuit's Oct. 31, 2017 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/tVJePH from Leagle.com.

Jonathan L. Anderson -- jlanderson@jacksonkelly.com -- JACKSON
KELLY PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; Christopher K. Robertson --
crobertson@jacksonkelly.com -- JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Martinsburg,
West Virginia; John C. Lynch -- john.lynch@troutman.com --
Elizabeth S. Flowers -- liz.flowers@troutman.com -- TROUTMAN
SANDERS LLP, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant.

Jed Nolan, HAMILTON, BURGESS, YOUNG & POLLARD, P.C., Fayetteville,
West Virginia; Karla Gilbride -- kgilbride@publicjustice.net --
PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C., Washington, D. C., for Appellee.


BRISK AIR: "Loya" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark A. Loya, and others similarly situated individuals v. Brisk
Air Inc. and Andy Andres, Case No. CACE-17-018981 (Fla. Cir. Ct.,
October 17, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum
wage compensation, damages, obtain declaratory relief, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants operate a residential and commercial heating and
air conditioning repair service company in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason S. Remer, Esq.
      Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com
              bshulman@rgpattorneys.com


BRUCE MONK: Class Action Over Ballet Dancers' Nude Photos Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Austin Grabish, writing for CBC News, reports that a Winnipeg
ballet instructor who was fired after former students came forward
accusing him of taking nude photos of them has been doing
volunteer and contract work at a ballet company in B.C.

Bruce Monk is living in Victoria, where CBC News has learned he
actively volunteers and does contracts for Ballet Victoria.

"I was shocked," said Sarah Doucet, a former student of Monk's who
contacted the ballet earlier this year after seeing a photo of
Monk on the company's Facebook page.

Ms. Doucet told CBC in an email she was feeling "shock and
disbelief, and fear for the women who were now working with him,"
when she found out Mr. Monk was with the ballet.

Mr. Monk, a renowned photographer, was the subject of a Winnipeg
police investigation after multiple women came forward to the
media and police alleging he took nude photos of them while they
were dancers at the Royal Winnipeg Ballet.

Police investigated but never charged Mr. Monk.  At the time,
Manitoba Justice said the Crown reviewed the case and recommended
against charges because a conviction was unlikely.  The Royal
Winnipeg Ballet fired him in 2015. He declined an interview
request through his lawyer for this story.

Ms. Doucet has launched a proposed class action lawsuit against
Mr. Monk.

She alleges he took topless photos of her without her consent when
she was 16 or 17 during a photo shoot where he allegedly asked her
to pull down her straps to prevent them from interfering with her
neckline leaving her unitard down around her waist.

She said she contacted Ballet Victoria's board after seeing a
photo of Monk rehearsing with a female company member.

"My first thought was, did anyone ask her if she was OK working in
such close proximity to Monk . . . given the allegations?"

Ballet Victoria's executive director -- a close friend of
Mr. Monk's -- said he's aware of allegations, a lawsuit and
proposed class action suit against the former Winnipegger, but
dismissed concerns about his presence at the ballet.

Paul Destrooper said all the dancers Monk has contact with are
adults and he isn't an employee at the ballet.

'I trust him'

Mr. Destrooper, who had Mr. Monk as a teacher many years ago at
the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, said he knows he'll face backlash for
allowing Mr. Monk to be involved in Ballet Victoria.

"I'm standing up for someone no one will stand up for and I'm not
standing up I'm actually stating facts.  I'm stating the simple
truth and the simple reality."

He maintains Mr. Monk is innocent and said because he doesn't have
a criminal record, there is no reason he cannot be part of the
ballet.  "I trust him," Mr. Destrooper said.

The Royal Winnipeg Ballet said it terminated Mr. Monk in 2015
after Maclean's magazine published a story detailing allegations
from past female students who alleged he took nude photos of them
during photo shoots at the ballet and his Winnipeg apartment when
his wife was not home.

Mr. Destrooper said Mr. Monk does consulting work for lighting and
choreography that's needed with productions at the ballet,
volunteers driving a vehicle around and occasionally does work
with dancers at the company.

"I have such a strong stance against abuse," Mr. Destrooper said
explaining if he had even the slightest concern about Monk, he
wouldn't be involved with his ballet.

Board members quit after learning about Monk

A couple of board members with Ballet Victoria stepped down and
wanted to distance themselves after learning about complaints to
police against Mr. Monk, but still volunteer with the company, Mr.
Destrooper said.

"Some of the board was uncomfortable with the media coverage and
especially because it was so one-sided and it was so heavily
negative."

Mr. Destrooper said he had photos done by Mr. Monk during his time
at the Royal Winnipeg Ballet and didn't feel uncomfortable with
him at all.

Mr. Destrooper was clothed for the shoot but said he's done
several nude shoots before with other photographers and wanted to
stress it's not uncommon in the ballet community.

He said in one promo shoot for the Royal Winnipeg Ballet he just
wore a dance belt.  "If you go back in the archives of the Royal
Winnipeg Ballet they published pictures of me wearing just a
thong."

A November case conference is set for the class action.
Ms. Doucet's Toronto-based lawyer Margaret Waddell said she hopes
a motion for certification will be heard by the court early next
year.

Ms. Doucet said she has faith the class action will be approved.

"I am confident in the case." [GN]


BY ANY MEANS: Attorney Commences Class Action Defense Fund
----------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Rivero, writing for The Liberty Conservative, reports that
a California court dismissed an attempt by Antifa leader Yvette
Felarca to place a restraining order on Liberty Conservative
contributor Troy Worden on Oct. 26.

Ms. Felarca had attempted to use the restraining order to
constrain the free speech of Worden, the chair of the Berkeley
College Republicans, on his own college campus.  Under the rules
of the restraining order, Ms. Felarca, who is not a student at UC
Berkeley, visited campus, Worden would be required to maintain a
considerable distance from her.

"While we have beaten Yvette Felarca in round one, this is not
over," said Mark Meuser, Worden's attorney. "We have gathered
enough evidence to make a compelling case that Antifa, By Any
Means Necessary, and the attorneys representing these groups have
been conspiring to use the law to harass, intimidate, and use
force to shut down free speech that they disagree with."

Ms. Felarca is a national leader of By Any Means Necessary (BAMN),
one of the largest Antifa organizations in the United States, and
has often personally incited riots and physically attacked
conservatives, resulting in multiple arrests.  She also advocated
for the Trump administration to be violently overthrown and
replaced with a socialist government.  This restraining order was
the fifth such frivolous order filed by BAMN to be dismissed by
courts in recent years.

Worden, Meuser, and San Francisco-based attorney Harmeet Dhillon
have started a legal defense fund to bring a class-action lawsuit
against BAMN for their continual subversive and aggressive
activities towards individuals attempting to express their First
Amendment rights in the California Bay Area. [GN]


CALIBER HOME: "Woods" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage, OT under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA WOODS and SHANNA COOK, On Behalf of Themselves and All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CALIBER HOME LOANS,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-02997-D (N.D. Tex., Oct. 31,
2017), seeks to recover minimum wage and/or overtime compensation
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs Angela Woods and Shanna Cook are former Processors for
Caliber. They processed mortgage loan other Caliber employees sold
to individual consumers. Caliber treated her and other Processors
as non-exempt employees, and did not pay them minimum wage and/or
overtime for all hours worked over 40 per week.

Caliber is nation's fourth largest nonbank residential mortgage
originator with over $40 billion in 2016 originations and a
servicing portfolio in excess of $110 billion.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
          LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
          1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 749 1400
          Facsimile: (214) 749 1010
          E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com

               - and -

          Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
          ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
          www.rmlegalgroup.com
          8201 Mission Road, Suite 250
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 766 5585
          Facsimile: (816) 875 5069
          E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com


CALIFORNIA: Home Care Workers' Unpaid OT Class Action Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Open Minds reports that on September 28, 2017, a California court
ruled that a class-action complaint about unpaid overtime filed by
home care workers employed by Los Angeles County could move
forward; the workers provided services for the state's Medicaid
In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program.  The complaint was
filed on June 7, 2017, by an employee of the California Department
of Social Services (CDSS) and the Los Angeles County Department of
Public Social Services (DPSS).  The plaintiff alleged that the
state and the county violated federal overtime law by failing to
pay overtime to home care workers delivering IHSS. [GN]


CALPINE CORP: Stoner Seeks to Enjoin Energy Capital Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM STONER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CALPINE CORPORATION, JOHN B. (THAD)
HILL III, MARY L. BRLAS, FRANK CASSIDY, MICHAEL W. HOFMANN, JACK
A. FUSCO, DAVID C. MERRITT, W. BENJAMIN MORELAND, ROBERT A.
MOSBACHER, JR., DENISE M. O'LEARY, and ENERGY CAPITAL PARTNERS
III, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-03317 (S.D. Tex., Oct.
31, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps to
consummate a proposed merger transaction, including filing a
definitive proxy statement with the SEC or otherwise causing a
Definitive Proxy to be disseminated to Calpine's shareholders,
unless and until material information is included in Definitive
Proxy or otherwise disseminated to Calpine's shareholders, and in
the event that the Proposed Transaction is consummated without the
material omissions being remedied, seeks to recover damages
resulting from Defendants' violations.

The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of the public
stockholders of Calpine against Calpine's Board of Directors for
their violations, arising out of the Board's attempt to sell the
Company to Energy Capital Partners III, LLC and a consortium of
investors that includes Access Industries, Inc. and the Canada
Pension Plan Investment Board.

The Defendants have violated the Exchange Act by causing a
materially incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy statement
to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October
19, 2017.  The Proxy recommends that Calpine shareholders vote in
favor of a proposed transaction whereby Calpine is acquired by
private equity investment firm Energy Capital Partners.  The
Proposed Transaction was first disclosed on August 18, 2017, when
Calpine and ECP announced that they had entered into a definitive
merger agreement pursuant to which ECP will acquire all of the
outstanding shares of common stock of Calpine for $15.25 per
share.

The complaint notes that the proposed deal is valued at
approximately $5.6 billion and is expected to close in the first
quarter of 2018.  For decades, academic research has discussed the
tendency of managers to focus on short-term gains over more value-
creating, but longer-term, prospects.  An increase in stock price,
for example, may be one such short-term gain. Yet attempts to
increase stock price may backfire; one study found that when CEOs
focus on short-term stock price, they tend to act in ways that
actually reduce value.  Stock price is not always indicative of
value.

The lawsuit says Calpine's stock price has creeped lower over the
past two years, of no fault of its own. The Company is doing well,
with impressive cash flows and stable growth prospects. Being an
energy producer, Calpine is situated at the crossroads of the
renewable energy boom and fossil fuel dependency, able to provide
energy through natural gas when solar and wind cannot meet demand.
There are even opportunities for Calpine to increase its portfolio
of renewable energy power plants. Yet, the Board's myopic focus on
the stock price has led it to sell the Company and insulate it
from the demands of the market.

According to the lawsuit, even if the Proposed Transaction was the
best way to maximize shareholder value, the Merger Consideration
is inadequate given the Company's prospects. Furthermore, the
Proxy is materially incomplete and contains misleading
representations and information in violation of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the Proxy contains
materially incomplete and misleading information concerning the
sales process, financial projections prepared by Calpine
management, as well as the financial analyses conducted by Lazard
Freres & Co. LLC, Calpine's financial advisor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
          THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
          700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 227 7720

               - and -

          Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
          Danielle Rowland Lindahl, Esq.
          ROWLEY LAW PLLC
          50 Main Street, Suite 1000
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 400 1920
          Facsimile: (914) 301 3514


CANADA: Pension News for Veterans Expected, Class Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Holmes, writing for Surrey Now-Leader, reports that a Surrey
MP says disabled veterans should hear details about a "pension-
for-life" option by the end of December.

"I'm told we'll see something on this this year," Ken Hardie,
federal Liberal representative for Fleetwood-Port Kells, said Oct.
18.

Mr. Hardie, currently in Ottawa, said he approached new Veterans
Affairs Minister Seamus O'Regan that afternoon in response to a
request from Peace Arch News for an update on the federal
government's position.

The issue of lifelong pensions for veterans was back in the news
after the South Surrey-based Equitas Society -- which has been
advocating for re-enstatement of the pensions since forming in
2012 and launching a class-action lawsuit -- hosted its Walk for
Veterans in Burnaby on Oct. 15.

Hundreds of people turned out for the event.

The lifelong pensions were eliminated in 2006, when the Pension
Act was replaced by the New Veterans Charter; the move was
introduced by the Paul Martin Liberals, inherited by the Harper
government, and is now back in the hands of the Liberals.

In the 2015 election campaign, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau
promised to re-establish the pensions.

Mr. Hardie -- who acknowledged he has not followed the issue
closely, but "has a soft spot" for veterans and others who serve -
- said in looking at the issue's history, the 2006 change was
based more on veterans who served in battles of decades ago,
including the Second World War.

"Back in 2006, the whole regime for looking after our veterans
still seemed to be based on looking after the oldtimers," he said.

"So it was an entirely different set of needs."

While the change addressed a need for that specific relief, "that
didn't account for the more modern veterans that we have," many of
whom are young men and women returning home with lifelong injuries
or post-traumatic stress disorder.

"It's becoming more and more obvious that the regime we had . .
.isn't going to work today," Mr. Hardie said.

Mr. Hardie said he had asked former Veterans Affairs minister Kent
Hehr what was happening with the lifelong pension "a few times"
since Trudea's 2015 promise, and said he was told other
improvements for veterans -- including rebuilding services that
the previous government closed, stepping up available therapies
and boosting the maximum disability award -- were being given
priority.

Mr. Hardie said Mr. O'Regan "is more than totally committed" to
addressing the pension issue, but pledged to follow up on the
matter before year's end if there isn't news by early December.

"If we haven't heard anything by then, I'll go bug them,"
Mr. Hardie said. [GN]


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Schwartz" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Management
Services, L.P.  The case is styled as Joel Schwartz, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Capital Management Services, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
06147 (E.D. N.Y., October 22, 2017).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Maxim Maximov, Esq.
   Maxim Maximov, LLP
   1701 Avenue P
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 395-3459
   Fax: (718) 408-9570
   Email: m@maximovlaw.com


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Misonzhnik" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Management
Services, L.P.  The case is styled as Dovid Misonzhnik, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff
v. Capital Management Services, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
06148 (E.D. N.Y., October 22, 2017).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Maxim Maximov, Esq.
   Maxim Maximov, LLP
   1701 Avenue P
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 395-3459
   Fax: (718) 408-9570
   Email: m@maximovlaw.com


CBG JANOVIC: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S. Dist. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CBG Janovic
Management Corp.  The case is styled as Carmen Gomez and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CBG Janovic
Management Corp., CBG Janovic LLC and CBG Janovic Partners LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-08141 (S.D.N.Y., October 23, 2017).

Defendant operates JANOVIC retail window and wall treatment and
covering stores as well as the JANOVIC website and advertises,
markets, distributes, and/or sells window and wall treatment  and
coverings in the State of New York and throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


CENTURYLINK INC: Faces Securities-Fraud Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Polly Mosendz and Scott Moritz, writing for Bloomberg News, report
that CenturyLink Inc. -- trying to seal a $34 billion deal to buy
Level 3 Communications Inc., facing a $12 billion consumer fraud
case, and fighting a lawsuit by the Minnesota attorney general --
got some more bad news in the form of a securities-fraud class
action.

The telecom firm's troubles began this summer when an ex-employee
sued for wrongful termination.  Heidi Heiser, who worked as a
customer service and sales agent, claimed she was fired after
notifying Chief Executive Officer Glen Post of an alleged sales
scheme that left customers on the hook for services they didn't
want.  Shares of CenturyLink fell almost 5 percent as news reports
of the allegations spread (the company has denied any wrongdoing).
First Ms. Heiser's accusations sparked the consumer fraud action.

Now comes the investor litigation.

Bondholder Inter-Marketing Group sued over a drop in the value of
CenturyLink notes following revelations of the alleged sales scam.
The proposed class action, filed in Manhattan federal court,
claims the company's bond prices were "artificially inflated" and
that once the former employee's claims came to light, investors
"suffered significant losses."

The investor alleged that the telecom company failed to "disclose
material adverse facts about the company's business, operations,
and compliance policies."  William Federman, a lawyer for Inter-
Marketing Group, said "when news of the facts became public, the
notes fell approximately 6 percent in one trading day. We intend
to pursue the action on behalf of the noteholders to recover their
losses."

The complaint comes as the Monroe, La., company is in the final
stages of gaining approval for its tie-up with Level 3.  The union
would put CenturyLink up against such powerhouses as AT&T Inc. in
bidding to provide communications services to businesses. The deal
received approval from the Justice Department on Oct. 2 under
conditions that included the sale of certain fiber-optic network
assets in at least three states where it would have dominated.
Post, the CEO, has urged the Federal Communications Commission to
sign off, saying further delays would be costly.

Whether the new layer of litigation over the fraud allegations and
their fallout will affect the government's decision is unclear.

In her lawsuit, filed before Heiser's claims were made public,
Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson accused CenturyLink of
consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices.  "CenturyLink has
regularly misquoted the price of its internet and television
services to Minnesota consumers," according to her complaint.
"Shopping for internet and cable TV service isn't easy if
companies don't give straight answers about the prices they will
charge," Swanson said in a statement.

Mark Molzen, a spokesman for CenturyLink, said the company hired a
law firm to conduct an independent review of the allegations. "If
we find we have made mistakes that we haven't addressed, we will
fairly address them," he said.

"However speculative or unfounded we think these claims may be,"
Mr. Molzen said, "we are treating them very seriously." [GN]


CHEADLE LAW: Faces "Booker" Suit in M. Dist. Tenn.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cheadle Law. The
case is styled as Sherry Booker, Individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Cheadle Law, Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-01394 (M.D. Tenn., October 20, 2017).

Cheadle Law is a law firm.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Susan S. Lafferty, Esq.
   Lafferty Law Firm PC
   555 Marriott Drive, Suite 315
   Nashville, TN 37214
   Tel: (615) 878-1926
   Fax: (615) 472-7852
   Email: susanl@laffertylawonline.com


CHEF'S WAREHOUSE: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Dawson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated and on behalf of the general public v. The Chef's
Warehouse Inc., Del Monte Capitol Meat Co., Inc., and Does 1-100,
Case No. 17-cv-04750 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 17, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to provide a duty-free
meal period of not less than 30 minutes for every shift, failure
to provide itemized wage statements, and failure to pay straight
and overtime wages.

The Defendants are engaged in the ownership and operation of
warehouses and industrial work sites within San Mateo, California.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Turley, Esq.
      David Mara, Esq.
      Jamie Serb, Esq.
      Tony Roberts, Esq.
      THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
      7428 Trade Street
      San Diego, CA 92121
      Telephone: (619) 234-2833
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
      E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com
              dmara@turleylawfirm.com
              jserb@turleylawfirm.com
              troberts@turleylawfirm.com


CHEVRON CORP: Litigation Funding at Issue in Gas Rig Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for Law.com, reports that
Robert Mittelstaedt was after something.

It was September 2015, and the Jones Day attorney, a longtime
counsel to Chevron Corp., was deposing one of his opponent's
expert witnesses by telephone.

On the line was Kevin Cleary, a geologist whose company had been
retained to measure the impact of a 2012 explosion of a natural
gas rig off the coast of Nigeria.  Mr. Mittelstaedt wanted to know
why his opposing counsel wanted more time to produce
Mr. Cleary's report.  He pressed Cleary on whether "funding or
lack of funding is a reason for the delay."

Mr. Cleary responded that the plaintiffs attorneys, Jacqueline
Perry and Neil Fraser, were "putting the money in place for the
work to proceed."

Mr. Mittelstaedt pursued: "And is it your understanding that the
additional work has now been funded?"

"I don't know that," Mr. Cleary answered.

The exchange was one of the first indications in the three-year-
long case that Chevron suspected Ms. Perry and Mr. Fraser were
receiving outside funding.  Even before the plaintiffs lawyers
inked their first litigation finance contract with UK-based
Therium Capital Management, Chevron sought discovery relating to
the funding of the litigation.

The trove of documents ultimately disclosed in the case sheds a
rare light on how litigation funding operates and how the
burgeoning funding industry structures deals to reduce exposure
even while providing nonrecourse cash in risky cases.

Lawyers who have third-party funding typically fight to keep their
arrangements under wraps on the grounds that the funding agreement
is irrelevant to the case, and they have largely been successful
in U.S. courts.  Ms. Perry and Mr. Fraser, two solo attorneys with
no prior record of litigating large class actions in U.S. federal
court, resisted disclosure as well.  But an internal case
assessment turned over to Chevron showed that, from the outset,
Ms. Perry hoped to secure funding "as soon as possible." Chevron's
lawyers were more than happy to exploit that information, wielding
it to challenge Ms. Perry's and Mr. Fraser's adequacy as class
counsel.

The case has become a part of a broader debate about transparency
and litigation finance.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, an opponent
of third-party litigation funding, highlighted the terms of
Therium's agreement with Perry and Fraser last summer in a renewed
proposal to a federal judicial committee to require disclosure of
funding deals in all federal civil litigation. Funding agreements
that require putative class members to hand over part of their
recovery to funders "blur the line separating lawyers from non-
lawyers and undermine the sacrosanct attorney-client relationship
that is at the core of our civil justice system," the chamber
wrote in June.

Therium Chief Investment Officer Neil Purslow declined requests to
comment on the funder's decision to back the case.  Chevron,
through Mr. Mittelstaedt, also declined to comment on the
litigation.

Ms. Perry, an English barrister who is also admitted to the
California bar, argues that litigation finance plays an important
role in the legal system.  "Funding is an integral part of helping
to achieve possible justice for people otherwise unable to achieve
it for themselves," Ms. Perry wrote in an email, "and it is to the
absolute credit of outfits like Therium that they are prepared to
help towards costs."

Yet the fine print of their agreement also reveals mechanisms
designed to align the economic interests of two parties that don't
always have the same incentives.  While litigation funders bristle
at the notion that they have control over the lawsuits in which
they invest, an analysis of the contract from Perry and Fraser's
case, Gbarabe v. Chevron, shows the nuanced ways that funders try
to ensure the lawyers will pursue a maximal settlement without
spending too much time seeking a pie-in-the-sky recovery.

"I think if you are a financier, the question is, when is too soon
[to settle] and when is too late?" says Radoslaw Goral, a Dentons
attorney who earned a doctorate studying litigation finance at
Stanford University (though funding is not a major part of his
commercial litigation practice).  "And there I think you're
getting at the real crux of the matter and something lawyers and
financiers might not agree on, for all sorts of reasons."

It's difficult to say whether that tension manifested itself in
the handling of the Gbarabe case.  There were no external signs
that the two sides even engaged in any settlement talks.  But what
is clear is that Therium's funding was crucial to Ms. Perry and
Mr. Fraser's ability to continue litigating the case for years
against the energy giant, without the involvement of a larger law
firm.

The Explosion and its Aftermath

Ms. Perry and Mr. Fraser filed suit against Chevron in San
Francisco federal court in January 2014 alleging the explosion of
an offshore natural gas rig two years prior had damaged the health
and livelihoods of tens of thousands of Nigerians.  At first, they
struggled to get past the pleading stage, then scaled back their
case dramatically. Most of the original lead plaintiffs were
ejected along the way.

It's not clear how many funders Ms. Perry and Mr. Fraser talked to
before landing Therium's investment near the end of 2015.  In her
first and only meeting with her original lead plaintiff, a man
named Foster Ogola, Ms. Perry said she had turned down an unnamed
funder.  "I hope you're sitting comfortably, because this is what
I was told would be their expectation if they funded it," Ms.
Perry said, according to minutes of the meeting that were later
disclosed.  "Between 30 percent and 40 percent . . . It would have
been a lousy deal."

The lawyers titled their pitch for funding "The KS Endeavor Rig
Explosion: A Plan for Justice." The bulk of the document focuses
on the litigation timeline, relevant law in California regarding
litigation funding, how attorney fees are awarded and the budget
for pursuing the case. It was just one of a host of sensitive
documents about the case that were handed over to Chevron.

The costs included everything from Ms. Perry and Mr. Fraser's
travel to San Francisco for the initial case conference ($5,000),
to Mr. Fraser's trips to Nigeria ($55,133), to the inspection and
reports by Mr. Cleary's company ($300,000-$500,000).  It said
that, while Ms. Perry would essentially litigate on contingency,
Fraser would have to "give up a great deal of work to concentrate"
on the Chevron case.  The document proposed that he be paid
$15,000 per month "against final fees on judgement or settlement."

Ms. Perry and Mr. Fraser made no secret about the problems they
encountered early on but described the litigation as having been
righted.  "It is the strong belief of counsel that, should this
case be granted class action status, Chevron may well come to the
table to negotiate a settlement and avoid the embarrassing
evidence of what occurred on the rig in the week before the
explosion," the pitch read.

That projection was probably optimistic, given Chevron's past
litigation tactics.  In some ways, the company's decision to drill
into the financing of the case was a move out of a familiar
playbook.  In the now-infamous litigation surrounding a $19
billion Ecuadorian court judgment against Chevron over pollution
of the rainforest, the energy giant went hard after its
adversaries' source of capital. (In that case, Chevron was
represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.)

This time, represented by Jones Day, Chevron attacked the
plaintiffs attorneys' capacity to bring the case.  "Plaintiff's
lawyers do not claim to have the resources themselves to fund this
lawsuit. Nor are they part of a larger firm that can financially
back a lawsuit like this," Mr. Mittelstaedt wrote in a brief. "To
the contrary, plaintiff does not dispute that his counsel are
dependent on outside funding."

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of
California, a former plaintiffs attorney, seemed alarmed in an
August 2016 hearing at all the documents Chevron had been able to
obtain, which included attorney emails with one of the plaintiffs.
Fraser explained that they had turned them over to be transparent
with Chevron.

"There's transparency.  And then there's attorney-client
privilege," Judge Illston shot back.  "And it seems to me that
those two things have come together in this case in a way that
isn't positive."

"And I do understand that, your honor," Mr. Fraser said, "but we
didn't expect Chevron to use that particular assistance against
us. We were trying to--"

The judge interrupted: "Well, then, you haven't been paying
attention."

'Counterparties'

The first copy of the funding agreement that Ms. Perry and
Mr. Fraser produced to Chevron's attorneys at Jones Day in
February 2016 was awash in black ink.  You couldn't tell who the
funders were, and almost all of the substantive obligations were
blacked out--except for language, contained in Article 3.3, about
not having to pay the funder back, if the case fell apart.

In Aug. 2016, Judge Illston ordered the full Therium contract to
be disclosed, granting a motion by Mr. Mittelstaedt.  "The Court
concludes that, under the circumstances of this case, the
litigation funding agreement is relevant to the adequacy
determination and should be produced to defendant," she wrote.

The language of the contract contains many elements that are
common across litigation funding deals, according to industry
insiders. For example, it pegs the disbursement of funds to an
agreed-upon budget, and (if the case succeeds) promises a return
to the funder based upon both a multiple of the money invested and
a percentage of the recovery.

The multiple, in this case, was six times the $1.7 million
committed by Therium -- a multiple that is on the higher end by
industry standards and possibly an indication that Therium thought
the investment was high-risk, according to Dentons' Goral.  The
contract also restricts the ability of the lawyers to involve
another law firm in the case and gives Therium fairly wide
discretion to determine whether the agreement has been breached by
the lawyers.

In the lingo of litigation funding, the funder and the lawyer or
client receiving the investment are not "partners" or "allies."
Instead, they are "counterparties."  It's a word borrowed from the
lexicon of the financial industry, simply meaning the other side
in a deal or transaction. But it also goes a ways toward capturing
the inherent tension between the two sides' interests.

In the Gbarabe case, if Perry and Fraser landed a recovery, they
would have been required to pay back Therium six times the $1.7
million it committed, or $10.2 million. In addition, they would
have to have paid back whatever Therium actually poured into the
case.  In other words, if the lawyers used all of the committed
funds, they would essentially have to pay back seven times the
original investment -- or $11.9 million, just to deliver on the
multiple.

For a case that Ms. Perry and Mr. Fraser billed as worth $1.5
billion in damages, that may seem like peanuts.  But it's a factor
they would have had to consider when settling the case. That math
naturally incentivizes lawyers to keep pushing for a higher
recovery -- especially if there's no downside risk of having to
pay the funder back if the case collapses.

Alternatively, lawyers may seek to wash their hands of the case if
the litigation goes sideways.  The equation is unlikely to be the
same for every attorney.  Those with a load of other possibly
lucrative cases might be more choosy about where to invest energy.
Others might keep spinning away on a case for years hoping it will
be the big break.

Funders use their contracts to try to limit their exposure to this
type of risk.  Eric Blinderman, the head of Therium's U.S.
operations, says that's why the company typically includes two
elements in the "success fee" it charges: a multiple of the
original investment, plus a percentage of the overall recovery.
So, if a lawyer or claimant churns on a case for years but
successfully pushes to a high-dollar value recovery, Therium
shares in some of that upside.

In the unredacted version of the Therium contract in the Gbarabe
case, that percentage is 2 percent of "all Proceeds."
Mr. Blinderman would not comment directly on the Gbarabe case (he
joined Therium after the deal was inked, leaving Proskauer Rose to
help set up the funder's U.S. operations in 2016).  But he said
the funder generally wants to ensure the lawyer or client "is
incentivized to settle early and rationally."

Not all funders use the same structure.  Harbour Litigation
Funding, another major financier based in the UK, will typically
obligate the counterparty to pay either a multiple of the
investment or a percentage of the recovery, whichever is higher,
according to Susan Dunn, head of litigation funding at Harbour.

Another point of tension is what might be called information
asymmetry. Attorney-client privilege means there are some things a
funder simply won't know.  Funders try to offset that knowledge
gap through the contract.  In the Gbarabe case, the contract
required the lawyers to confirm they provided only accurate
information and have not "failed to disclose any information,
document and/or material which would be relevant to Therium's
decision to enter into and remain bound" by the agreement.

Money out the Door

In May 2015, Therium announced it had raised 200 million pounds
($304 million) from a single investor to "invest in the costs of
large-scale commercial litigation, group litigation and
arbitration globally," according to a press release.

Depending on how a funder sets things up, there can be pressure to
get money out the door.  Sometimes with private equity
arrangements, the investments are put together first and the money
comes later. Other times, it works the other way around.

Because Therium is private, it's difficult to know how its
investment vehicle was structured.  But, according to industry
insiders and other experts, the Gbarabe class action is not like
most of the cases that large commercial litigation funders-such as
Burford Capital, Bentham IMF or even Therium itself-typically
back. It's possible the case was a one-off opportunity to place
some extra cash, a way for Therium to diversify its portfolio.
With over $300 million at its disposal, $1.7 million probably
seemed miniscule.

There has, of course, been a lot of money pouring into the U.S.
litigation funding industry lately.  Therium earlier this year
expanded its operations in the U.S. with new hires, and other UK-
based litigation funders have widened their footprint or entered
the market. Chicago-based litigation funder Longford Capital
Management completed a $500 million fund raise in September and
says it had already found a home for $100 million of it.

"I think the defining characteristic in the next couple of years
is going to be deployment pressure," says Charles Agee, who
previously ran a litigation finance outfit and now advises
commercial claimants seeking funding at Westfleet Advisers.

The rise of the litigation finance industry in the U.S. has led
some defense lawyers to expect by default that a funder is behind
the scenes--especially in class actions and mass tort cases with
huge sums at stake.   "I think if you're in one of those types of
cases, it's become sort of state-of-the-art and incumbent upon you
to explore the possibility of funding," says Tripp Haston --
thaston@bradley.com -- a partner at Bradley Arant Boult Cummings,
who defends large life sciences companies.

The fact that a funder is involved may ultimately have no bearing
on his strategy in the case, Mr. Haston says, but it might become
an important issue if the contract shows the funder has some level
of control or raises questions about the ability of the other
lawyers to carry on with the litigation.  "A big part of this, I
think, for parties who are facing a funded set of litigation is
just raising awareness-the court's awareness-that there is another
material party in the case that is not disclosed," Mr. Haston
says.

Mr. Blinderman says that Therium is moving more toward financing
entire portfolios of a law firm's litigation, like many large
funders. "Interestingly, one-off cases are becoming increasingly
less a part of the work we do here," he says.

In one-off cases, funders typically contract directly with the
claimant . But in class actions that's usually not feasible, and
the lawyers become the counterparties to the deal.  In the Therium
contract, the "Lawyers" are defined as Ms. Perry and
Mr. Fraser "in their personal capacity and trading as Rufus-Isaacs
Acland & Grantham."

In fact, that firm-a small, "quasi-virtual" firm with an office in
Los Angeles-was not included in the deal at all.  "We were
absolutely unaware that this agreement had been entered into until
approximately six months later," founding partner Alexander Rufus-
Isaacs said in an interview.  The Therium deal was inked in
November 2015, according to communications logs filed in the case;
Mr. Rufus-Isaacs said Ms. Perry and Mr. Fraser told him about the
deal the following May.  Mr. Rufus-Isaacs said the firm terminated
Mr. Perry and Mr. Fraser in June 2016 as a result of their not
informing him earlier.  "Why was the agreement not made with the
firm?" he asked.

Ms. Perry says that the reasons for the termination were "far more
complex" but declined to elaborate.  Mr. Fraser did not respond to
requests for comment for this story.

Even as Jones Day was fighting to get the funding agreement, the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California made a
broader move to inject transparency into litigation finance deals.
In June 2016, it proposed amending a local court rule to require
disclosure of litigation funding agreements in all civil matters.
Major funders, including Burford Capital and Bentham IMF, pushed
back strongly against the proposal.  In January 2017, the Northern
District court adopted a narrower rule that was still the first of
its kind in the nation: Litigation funding contracts would have to
be disclosed in any class action.

Ms. Perry said then she welcomed the development. "Essentially, I
think third-party funding is a [growing] factor in litigation in
this country," she said . "And I think, if it's going to be
noncontroversial, if it's going to establish itself as a way by
which plaintiffs can fight on a level playing field against large
corporations, it's important that it is transparent."

Up In Smoke

With funding in place, Ms. Perry and Mr. Fraser obtained more than
a half-dozen expert reports.  But the reports didn't do much good.
According to a ruling by Judge Illston in March denying class
certification, the author of one study -- which Ms. Perry Mr. and
Fraser later withdrew -- backed away from assertions that the gas
blowout polluted the marine environment, and appeared to have
altered some data to support his original conclusions.

Judge Illston seemed flabbergasted the problems were not caught
sooner.  She noted the report contained a number of typos,
including the wrong date of the rig explosion.  The testimony of
the lead plaintiff, Natto Iyela Gbarabe, did not serve his lawyers
much better.  According to Illston's ruling, Gbarabe in a
deposition denied claims made in court papers that he vomited
after the rig explosion and that other members of his community
also suffered health issues.

In their motion to certify the class, Ms. Perry and Mr. Fraser
argued they had shown they were able to represent the Nigerian
plaintiffs because of their "zealous advocacy" and experience. "It
is hoped the pleadings to date in the case at bar will also be
found supportive of counsel's competency, commitment, knowledge of
relevant law, experience and respect for legal ethics of the
highest order," they wrote.

But in denying their motion, Judge Illston found Gbarabe to be
unfit to represent the class, and criticized Perry and Fraser's
handling of the case.  Chevron's strategy of attacking their
ability to run the litigation seemed to have succeeded. "The Court
also concludes that plaintiff's counsel have not demonstrated that
they can adequately represent the proposed class in this complex
case," Judge Illston wrote.  "Throughout the history of this
matter, and specifically the litigation of the class certification
motion, plaintiff's counsel have demonstrated a complete disregard
for scheduling orders, evidenced a lack of familiarity with or
understanding of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
Civil Local Rules, and failed to diligently prosecute this case."

Ms. Perry and Mr. Fraser did not appeal.  As Chevron prepared to
seek summary judgment, the plaintiffs attorneys sought to dismiss
Gbarabe's case without prejudice-holding open the possibility of a
second try.  After Chevron said it would oppose that, Gbarabe, Ms.
Perry and Mr. Fraser agreed to put a definitive end to Gbarabe's
claims.  In exchange, Chevron agreed that the dismissal "will not
constitute an adjudication on the merits as to any other
individuals in the putative class," according to their
stipulation.  Judge Illston granted the motion on Aug. 2.

Months beforehand, in an interview at the end of May, Ms. Perry
had seemed hopeful the suit-or some formulation of it-might still
yield something.  "We are as anxious as the funders have been to
ensure that they haven't just chucked money into a big black
hole," Ms. Perry said. [GN]


CHSPSC LLC: Court Certifies Class in "Mounce" ADTPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas, Fayetteville Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and
Order denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in the case
captioned JESSICA MOUNCE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CHSPSC, LLC; NORTHWEST ARKANSAS
HOSPITALS, LLC d/b/a NORTHWEST MEDICAL CENTER; and PROFESSIONAL
ACCOUNT SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:15-CV-05197 (W.D.
Ark.), and granting Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

Jessica Mounce, individually and on behalf of an Arkansas class of
persons similarly situated, filed a lawsuit in Washington County
Circuit Court, alleging violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act ("ADTPA"), Ark. Code Ann. Section 4-88-101 et seq.,
and claims for tortious interference, unjust enrichment, and
injunctive relief against the Hospital where she sought treatment
for injuries, and against two other companies affiliated with the
Hospital.  The case was removed to the District Court by
Defendants and an Amended Complaint was filed. The Amended
Complaint omits a separate cause of action for injunctive relief,
but is otherwise substantially similar to the original Complaint.

Voluntary Payment Rule

Under Arkansas law, when one pays money on demand that is not
legally enforceable, the payment is deemed voluntary. Defendants
argue that Ms. Mounce's individual claims must be dismissed due to
the operation of this voluntary payment rule, since she and her
attorney believed PASI's lien to be illegal, but nonetheless
negotiated a 50% reduction of the bill, and then paid it.

Application to the ADTPA Claim

The defense could be validly asserted with respect to the ADTPA
claim, the Court observes that there are certain recognized
exceptions to the voluntary payment rule, including duress,
mistake of fact, fraud, coercion, or extortion.  It goes without
saying that the ADTPA was intended to create a statutory remedy
for consumer fraud. Inasmuch as fraud is an exception to the
voluntary payment rule, and construing the record in the light
most favorable to Ms. Mounce, there is a material dispute of fact
as to whether Defendants made a number of fraudulent
representations to her concerning the lien, and she then relied on
those representations when negotiating a settlement to release the
lien.

The representations include, but are not limited to, the
following: (1) that her health insurance company would be billed
for her treatment; (2) that she owed the Hospital a debt for the
full, unreduced amount of her bill; (3) that PASI's lien for the
full amount of her bill was valid; and (4) that she owed the
Hospital any amount after the 180-day deadline had passed to file
a claim with Blue Cross.

For these reasons, summary judgment on the voluntary payment
defense is denied as to the ADTPA claim.

Application to the Common Law Claims

Ms. Mounce asserts two common law tort claims in her Amended
Complaint: tortious interference and unjust enrichment. The Court
must now consider whether summary judgment is appropriate on these
claims due to the voluntary payment rule. Ms. Mounce argues that
two exceptions to the rule exist in her case and preclude summary
judgment, namely, economic duress and mistake of fact and/or
fraud.

Duress

The first exception Ms. Mounce argues is duress. She contends that
the $16,000 tort settlement that her attorney negotiated with the
tortfeasor's insurance company and her auto insurer would have
been tied up until the Hospital's lien was resolved. According to
Ms. Mounce, she felt forced to negotiate with PASI to pay off a
portion of the bill to release the lien, because she could not
withstand the prospect of her settlement check being withheld for
some unspecified length of time while she contested the validity
of the lien in court.

Ms. Mounce's argument that the lien held up the payment of her
settlement check and threatened her economic security, the Curtis
Lumber, Curtis Lumber Co., Inc. v. Louisiana Pac. Corp., 618 F.3d
762, 785,  Court noted that summary judgment is inappropriate on
the question of economic duress if material questions of fact
remain as to whether the claimant: (1) would have suffered serious
financial hardship had she not made the required payment, (2) was
the victim of a wrongful act perpetrated by the payee, and (3) was
left with no other option but to pay because other remedies would
have been inadequate.

The Court is not privy to what Ms. Mounce's financial situation
was at the time she accepted PASI's offer of compromise on the
bill in order to obtain a release of the lien. Viewing the facts
in the light most favorable to Ms. Mounce, there remain material
disputes of fact as to whether she was the victim of a wrongful
act by the Hospital, and whether filing suit and forgoing payment
of the $16,000 settlement check would have been an inadequate
remedy.

The Court therefore finds that economic duress remains a valid
argument to counter Defendants' voluntary payment defense.

Mistake/Fraud

Next, Ms. Mounce argues that her payment was not voluntary due to
another exception to the rule the existence of a material mistake
of fact and/or fraud. She explains in her briefing that at the
time PASI suggested a compromise payment of 50% of the bill in
order to release the lien, both she and her attorney believed that
she owed some amount of money to the Hospital, albeit not the full
amount claimed in the lien.

Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Ms. Mounce, the
Court finds that genuine fact issues remain as to whether Ms.
Mounce owed any medical debt to Defendants after the 180-day
deadline to file insurance claims had passed. And if there was no
underlying debt, then the lien wielded by Defendants during
settlement negotiations was impotent and unenforceable.
Consequently, summary judgment cannot issue on the voluntary
payment defense because there remain material, disputed questions
of fact as to whether the debt was collected and paid pursuant to
a mistake of fact and/or fraud. The Motion for Summary Judgment
concerning the voluntary payment defense is therefore DENIED as to
the common-law claims.

Merits of the Substantive Claims

In the alternative to the voluntary payment defense, Defendants
contend all three of Ms. Mounce's causes of action should be
dismissed on the merits.

ADTPA Claim

The ADTPA provides that a citizen may maintain a private right of
action under Ark. Code Ann. Section 4-88-113(f) for actual damage
or injury as a result of an offense or violation as defined in
this chapter Defendants maintain that Ms. Mounce cannot prove
either of the elements required for an ADTPA claim because she
cannot establish the existence of a deceptive consumer-oriented
act or practice that was misleading in a material respect, or an
injury that resulted from such an act or practice.
First, there are material disputes of fact as to whether the
Hospital's Admission Form was deceptive or misleading. Ms. Mounce
argues that the Admission Form that she and every patient of the
Hospital signed contained certain statements that implied the
Hospital would bill health insurance first, and only after that,
seek payment from other sources for any balances owed.
Accordingly, the fact-finder will be called upon to determine the
implications of the Admission Form.

Second, there are material disputes of fact regarding whether the
Hospital's billing policy for tort victims was deceptive to Ms.
Mounce and other patients and violated the ADTPA, particularly
where there was proof of health coverage that was presented to the
Hospital prior to treatment in each case.

Third, there remains a material question of fact as to whether
Defendants acted deceptively in failing to inform Ms. Mounce that
they refused to honor the contract they negotiated with her health
insurance company to accept certain reduced rates for services and
to submit her bill for payment. For all of these reasons, the
ADTPA claim will survive summary judgment.

Tortious Interference and Unjust Enrichment

As to Ms. Mounce's common-law claims, she contends that Defendants
tortiously interfered with her right to receive the benefits of
PPO membership with Blue Cross, and then unjustly enriched
themselves at her expense by asserting a medical lien against her
asset when she owed no underlying debt. Defendants respond that
both these claims require evidence of an improper or illegal act,
and they believe they did nothing wrong here, i.e., they only
asserted their valid lien rights under the Arkansas Hospital Lien
Act.

In light of the Court's earlier discussion, the Court cannot find
as a matter of law that Defendants did nothing improper or illegal
here, which means that Ms. Mounce's tortious interference and
unjust enrichment claims will remain for trial, and summary
judgment on the merits of these claims is denied.

Motion for Class Certification

Numerosity (Rule 23(a)(1)) and Ascertainability

Defendants do not dispute that the precise number of class members
is either known or may be discovered fairly easily. Defendants
have identified from their own records upwards of 850 of these
putative class members. Moreover, they have produced a
spreadsheet, containing the names, addresses, health carriers,
lien filing dates, amounts of money recovered, and sources of
funds for every putative class member who was treated at their
facilities.

The Hospital has admitted that its uniform practice was not to
file claims with the health insurance companies of the putative
class members, the question of whether any bills were timely
submitted will almost certainly be answered in the negative as to
each class member. Next, the question of whether each member's
medical treatment would have been covered by insurance-had the
Hospital sought to bill the member's insurance carrier-may require
some individualized inquiry, but not so much as to render the
class action model inefficient or ineffective.

The Court is persuaded by the fact that Defendants have already
identified both the source and amount of each payment received
from each putative class member related to hospital services, and
believes that the proposed class definition identifies class
members by objective criteria.

Commonality (Rule 23(a)(2))

Since all putative class members were patients of the Hospital
who: (1) suffered injuries as a result of car accidents to which
they were not at fault, (2) signed the same Admission Form during
intake, (3) presented proof to the Hospital of coverage by one of
approximately five major health insurers, and (4) were subject to
liens filed against their tort claims for the full amounts of
their hospital bills, it is clear to the Court that these class
members would share many common questions of law and fact that
would be pertinent to the case.

Here, the putative class members allegedly suffered the same
injuries as a result of a uniform billing practice that Defendants
admit was employed in car-accident cases. The issue of commonality
therefore weighs in favor of certification.

Typicality (Rule 23(a)(3))

Defendants believe Ms. Mounce's claims are not typical because she
chose to go to the hospital for certain reasons, and perhaps her
reasons were not the same as other class members' reasons.
Defendants focus on the fact that Mounce, for instance, went to
the hospital because it was convenient for her boyfriend's
football viewing schedule on the day she sought treatment, a
specific reason unlikely to be repeated across a class of hundreds
of patients. Defendants argue that the reason why each class
member sought treatment matters somehow to the substantive
resolution of the claims. The Court disagrees and finds instead
that the typicality factor weighs in favor of designating Ms.
Mounce as Class Representative.

Adequacy of Class Representative (Rule 23(a)(4))

The rest of Defendants' arguments as to adequacy are identical to
their arguments as to typicality, and those arguments are either
unavailing, or else insufficient to show Ms. Mounce is an
inadequate class representative. Rule 23(a)(4)'s requirements are
therefore satisfied.

Requirements of Rule 23(b)

Predominance

Defendants also contend that litigating the tortious interference
claim on a class-wide basis will require an individualized inquiry
as to whether each class member was validly covered by health
insurance during the relevant time period and suffered an injury
due to Defendants' policies and practices.

The Court, again, finds this argument to be a non-starter, as
Defendants have already produced a list of potential class members
and their insurance providers. It should be a simple, mechanical
process to establish whether each member was, in fact, covered by
insurance at the time of treatment if indeed this inquiry has not
been made yet by Defendants. Each insurer could be provided with a
list of insureds and asked to verify that a valid health policy
was in effect as to each individual during the treatment date(s)
specified.

As for the class's claim for unjust enrichment, the Court is
similarly unpersuaded that individualized inquiry will make
management of the class too difficult. It is possible to calculate
the amount of unjust enrichment on a class-wide basis by noting
the invalid lien amounts that were actually paid by class members.

Accordingly, the predominance requirement is satisfied.

Superiority

Because all of these claims hinge upon a common billing and lien
practice that Defendants implemented, and because each claim for
damages is likely similar in terms of dollar-value, it would be
more efficient to group the claims into one class action than
manage hundreds of separate lawsuits, each for a relatively small
amount of damages. The Court also finds it likely that putative
class members may be dissuaded from filing individual actions, as
the amount of damages in each case could make the cost-benefit
analysis inherent in litigation weigh against filing suit. For
these reasons, the superiority requirement is met.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 29, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/ycl74s5qfrom Leagle.com.

Jessica Mounce, Plaintiff, represented by Jason W. Earley, Hare,
Wynn, Newell & Newton, LLP, 2226 Cottondale LaneSuite 210Little
Rock, AR 72202.

Jessica Mounce, Plaintiff, represented by Mitchell Burgess --
mitch@burgesslawkc.com -- Burgess Green P.C., Ralph Phalen --
phalenlaw@yahoo.com -- Attorney at Law, Shawn B. Daniels, Hare,
Wynn, Newell & Newton, L.L.P. & Sarah Coppola Jewell, Hare Wynn
Newell Newton LLP, 2226 Cottondale LaneSuite 210Little Rock, AR
72202.

CHSPSC, LLC, A Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Eric Berger -- eberger@wlj.com -- Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, LLP,
Gary D. Marts, Jr. -- gmarts@wlj.com -- Wright, Lindsey & Jennings
& Gordon S. Rather, Jr.- grather@wlj.com -- Wright, Lindsey &
Jennings LLP.

Northwest Arkansas Hospitals, LLC., Defendant, represented by Eric
Berger, Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, LLP, Gary D. Marts, Jr.,
Wright, Lindsey & Jennings & Gordon S. Rather, Jr., Wright,
Lindsey & Jennings LLP.

Professional Account Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Eric Berger, Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, LLP, Gary D. Marts, Jr.,
Wright, Lindsey & Jennings & Gordon S. Rather, Jr., Wright,
Lindsey & Jennings LLP.


CITY OF BURLINGTON: Faces "Croteau" Suit in District of Vermont
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Burlington.
The case is styled as Brian Croteau, Sr., Larry Priest and Richard
Pursell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
consumers, Plaintiffs v. City of Burlington, Defendant, Case No.
5:17-cv-00207-gwc (D. Vt., October 20, 2017).


Burlington is a city in the Regional Municipality of Halton at the
northwestern end of Lake Ontario.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   James M. Diaz , Esq.
   137 Elm Stree
   Montpelier, VT 05602
   Tel: (802) 223-6304
   Email: jdiaz@acluvt.org
   American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont

      - and -

   Jared K. Carter, Esq.
   137 Elm Street
   Montpelier, VT 05602
   Tel: (802) 223-6304
   Email: jaredkcarter@gmail.com
   ACLU Foundation of Vermont


CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Leifer" Suit in E. Dist. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Client Services,
Inc.  The case is styled as Isac Leifer, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Client
Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06144 (E.D. N.Y.,
October 22, 2017).

Client Services offers mortgage modifications and credit card rate
reductions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Maxim Maximov, Esq.
   Maxim Maximov, LLP
   1701 Avenue P
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 395-3459
   Fax: (718) 408-9570
   Email: m@maximovlaw.com


COHN GOLDBERG: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Smith" FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard D. Bennett of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland denied the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
case, JAMES A. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. COHN, GOLDBERG & DEUTSCH, LLC,
Defendant, Civil Action No. RDB-17-2291 (D. Md.).

On Nov. 15, 2016, the Defendant Cohn sent Plaintiff Smith an
Initial Communication Letter in connection to the collection of a
debt.  The Letter asserts that on Nov. 18, 2005, Smith purchased
property at 9411 Lyonswood Drive, in Owings Mills, Maryland 21117,
financed through a mortgage with Mortgage Lenders Network USA,
Inc.  The Letter was the first communication that Smith received
from Cohn, and other than an additional letter of the same date
concerning the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, Smith did not
receive any other communication from Cohn within five days of the
Letter.

Smith claims that the Letter violated 15 U.S.C. Section
1692g(a)(2) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"),
because it failed to clearly specify, in a manner in which the
least sophisticated consumer could understand, the name of the
creditor to whom the Debt was owed.  Smith's Complaint states that
he was confused about which one of the entities listed in the
Letter was the creditor owed the debt.

The Complaint further states that there were five entities listed
in the Letter.  The Letter includes the following entities that
are related to the debt in question: Mortgage Lenders Network USA,
Inc.; U.S. Bank National Association; Residential Asset Securities
Corp., Home Equity Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2006-EMX1; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; and "this
office" (Cohn).

Per the direction of the Letter, Smith wrote a letter to Cohn
dated Dec. 7, 2016, in order to verify the debt.  Subsequently,
Smith filed the action alleging that the Letter violates the
FDCPA, because the Letter did not contain the proper disclosures
required by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(2).  Specifically, Smith
argues that the Letter failed to specify the name of the creditor
to whom the debt is owed, and Cohn did not provide such
disclosures within five days after.

Defendant Cohn has filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint
("Cohn's Motion"), asserting that Smith's claims fail as a matter
of law, because Cohn's Initial Communication Letter provides the
name of the owner of the note and does not contain any false or
misleading statements, meeting the requirements of Section
1962g(a)(2).  Currently pending before the Court is the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

Judge Bennett finds that the very fact that the parties dispute
how many entities are included in the list of entities that
purportedly communicates the identity of the creditor to whom the
debit is owed portends that there are multiple interpretations, at
least one of them inaccurate, of the content of the Letter.  The
FDCPA requires that the identity of the creditor to whom the debt
is owed be communicated effectively to the least sophisticated
consumer, and here, there is at least a facially plausible claim
that Cohn's Letter did not meet such a standard.  . As a result,
the content of the Letter supports a plausible claim that the
identity of the creditor to whom the debt is owed was not
effectively communicated, thus, Smith has set out a plausible
claim for relief under the FDCPA.  Therefore, Judge Bennett denied
Cohn's Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
is available at https://is.gd/Jjehyc from Leagle.com.

James A. Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Jesse S. Johnson --
jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com -- Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC, pro hac
vice.

James A. Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Eric N. Stravitz --
eric@stravitzlawfirm.com -- Stravitz Law Firm, PC.

Cohn, Goldberg & Deutsch, LLC, Defendant, represented by James
Edward Dickerman -- dickerman@ewmd.com -- Eccleston and Wolf PC.


CONAGRA FOODS: "Backus" Suit Stayed Pending Appeals
---------------------------------------------------
Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco Division, stayed the case,
TROY BACKUS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. CONAGRA FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-00454-WHA (N.D. Cal.), to coincide with the stay in
McFaddin v. ConAgra Brands, Inc. pending the appeals in Hawkins v.
The Kroger Co., and Hawkins v. AdvancePierre Foods, Inc.

The Plaintiff filed the class action on Jan. 26, 2016.  On Dec.
22, 2016, the Court denied class certification on the grounds that
the Plaintiff is an inadequate class representative.

On Jan. 25, 2017, Marjel McFaddin and Mark Beasley filed in the
Court a class action complaint against ConAgra, raising the same
claims as the Plaintiff based on essentially the same facts.  On
Feb. 7, 2017, the Court ordered that McFaddin was related to the
instant action.

On March 14, 2017, the Court ordered that the pretrial deadlines
in the action be modified so as to coincide with the deadlines in
McFaddin and that a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition could be used equally
in McFaddin or the action.

On May 24, 2017, the Court ordered that McFaddin be stayed pending
decisions by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the
Kroger Co. and AdvancePierre Foods, Inc., and ordered that the
parties file a joint status report by Sept. 20, 2017, regarding
the status of those appeals.

On Sept. 20, 2017, the Parties filed their First Joint Status
Report and requested a continuance of the stay in McFaddin.  On
Sept. 21, 2017, the Court continued the stay in McFaddin and
ordered the parties in McFaddin to submit a second joint status
report on the progress of those pending appeals by Jan. 30, 2018.

The Parties request a stay of the proceedings and deadlines in the
case to coincide with the stay in McFaddin pending the appeals in
The Kroger Co. and AdvancePierre Foods, Inc.  The Parties will
submit a joint status report on the progress of those pending
appeals by Jan. 30, 2018, should the Court grant the stay.

The Parties stipulated through their respective counsel and
subject to the Court's approval, that the case, its proceedings,
and its deadlines are stayed pending the decision of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the referenced cases.
They agree to file a joint status report on the progress of the
pending appeals by Jan. 30, 2018, at noon, and that future case
management will be discussed once the stay is lifted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/pneMmA from Leagle.com.

Troy Backus, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Christopher Hamilton
-- andrew@westonfirm.com -- The Weston Firm.

Troy Backus, Plaintiff, represented by David Elliot --
david@westonfirm.com -- The Weston Firm.

ConAgra Foods, Inc., Defendant, represented by Allen Brooks
Gresham, II -- bgresham@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP,
Angela M. Spivey -- aspivey@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP &
Laura E. Coombe -- lcoombe@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP.


CROWN ENERGY: "Ramos" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR M. RAMOS, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CROWN ENERGY SERVICES, INC.; ABLE
ENGINEERING SERVICES; ABLE SERVICES; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. BC681813 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 31,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and interest for unpaid wages
for all hours worked at minimum wage and overtime hours worked at
the overtime rate of pay under California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants had have policy, practice,
and/or procedure of rounding down or shaving down employees' daily
hours worked to the nearest hour; automatically deducted 30
minutes from employees' daily hours worked for meal periods;
failed to pay overtime wages: for overtime hours worked to the
extent Defendants rounded down or shaved down employees' daily
hours worked to the nearest hour or automatically deduced 30
minutes from employees' daily hours worked for a meal period when
they took, a meal period of less than 30 minutes or no meal period
at all and worked in excess of 8 hours in a day or 40 hours in a
week; and failed to include all remuneration when calculating
employees' overtime rate of pay.

Crown Energy provides engineering services. The Company offers
design, development and utilization of machines and materials.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432 0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432 0001
          E-mail: vgranberry@lelawfirm.com


DIMENSION THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Proposed Ultragenyx Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Eliyahou, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Dimension Therapeutics, Inc., Annalisa Jenkins, Alan
B. Colowick, Michael Dybbs, Georges Gemayel, John A. Hohneker,
George V. Migausky, and Arlene M. Morris, Case No. 1:17-cv-12052
(D. Mass., October 19, 2017), arises out of the Defendants'
violation of the Securities and Exchange Act, for breaches of
fiduciary duty as a result of the Defendants' efforts to sell the
Company as a result of an unfair process for an unfair price, and
to enjoin a Tender Offer that was scheduled to expire last
November 6, 2017, in which Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc. and its
wholly owned subsidiary, Mystic River Merger Sub, Inc. will
acquire each outstanding share of Dimension common stock for $6.00
per share in cash, with a total valuation of approximately $151
million.

According to the complaint, Dimension filed a
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which recommends that
stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction. However,
the 14D-9 failed to provide the Company's stockholders with
material information and provides them with materially misleading
information critical to the total mix of information available to
the Company's stockholders concerning the financial and procedural
fairness of the Proposed Acquisition.

Dimension Therapeutics, Inc. is a gene therapy company that is
focused on discovering and developing therapeutic products for
people living with rare diseases associated with the liver and
caused by genetic mutations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq.
      MATORIN LAW OFFICE, LLC
      18 Grove Street, Suite 5
      Wellesley, MA 02482
      Telephone: (781) 453-0100
      E-mail: info@matorinlaw.com

         - and -

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
      Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
      Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
      Telephone: (610) 667-6200
      E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com
              mackerman@brodskysmith.com


DUKE UNIVERSITY: Fights Class-Action Effort
-------------------------------------------
Ray Gronberg, writing for The News & Observer, reports that the
former dean of Duke University's medical school has told a federal
judge she never tried to prevent her subordinates from raiding the
faculty at nearby UNC-Chapel Hill.

Moreover, "I am not aware of any instance in which Duke School of
Medicine declined to recruit or hire anyone because he or she was
a member of the [UNC-CH] faculty or staff," Nancy Andrews, dean
from 2007 to 2017, said in a signed statement filed Oct. 23. "I am
not aware of anyone at Duke who believed that he or she was
prevented from hiring a medical faculty member because the
candidate was from UNC-CH."

Andrews' comments came as Duke seeks to persuade a federal judge
to put a lid on the anti-trust lawsuit former Duke radiology
professor Danielle Seaman has filed against it. It alleges that
Duke officials colluded with their counterparts at UNC to prevent
so-called "lateral" job swaps between the institutions.

Seaman claims she lost out on a faculty post at UNC-CH in 2015
because of the collusion, and was told by an administrator there
that Andrews and UNC Health Care System CEO Bill Roper had agreed
the schools shouldn't recruit each others' professors unless the
person changing jobs was getting a promotion by moving.

She and her lawyers want U.S. District Court Judge Catherine
Eagles to elevate the case into a class-action lawsuit on behalf
of all medical personnel at the two schools, on the grounds that
any collusion between the universities would suppress wages.

For now, Duke is asking Eagles to reject the class-action label.
But "at the appropriate time," it also will "strongly dispute the
existence of any agreement of the kind" Seaman alleges, the
university said in a brief signed by its long-time litigation
lawyer Paul Sun.

The other pending wrinkle in the case is that Seaman and her
lawyers have negotiated an out-of-court settlement with UNC-CH,
which wasn't originally a defendant in the case because of
governmental immunity. Lawyers have since begun working through
the procedural steps to implement the deal. Eagles gave her
preliminary OK on Sept. 29, with final approval scheduled for Jan.
4.

The process includes publicizing the agreement, a process that on
October 27 included the issuance of a news release, all-employees
email notices at both Duke and UNC, and the launch of a Web site,
https://dukeuncemployeesettlement.com.

The deal bars UNC from engaging in any future collusion, requires
its cooperation in the still-pending litigation against Duke and
establishes a training and monitoring regime to prevent collusion.

What Roper has said

Roper has conceded that in the mid-2000s, he'd asked his then-
counterpart at Duke, former Chancellor for Health Affairs Victor
Dzau, to consider formalizing "some kind of understanding between
us about the movement of faculty" between the medical schools.

But during a June 29 deposition, he also said Dzau had ultimately
told him Duke and its lawyers "just don't think that's something
we ought to enter into."

Roper also said he'd told department chairs of the UNC School of
Medicine to avoid "hostile, un-neighborly behavior" against Duke
after the Durham school unsuccessfully tried to convince UNC-CH
bone-marrow transplant specialist Jonathan Serody and his team to
change schools. That meant, he said, giving Duke heads-up
"courtesy calls" if one of its professors was in the mix for a job
at UNC.

Seaman's original lawsuit included a smoking-gun rejection email
that cited guidance from Roper's office that "lateral moves
between Duke and UNC are not permitted."

But in their latest filings, Duke's lawyers said "contemporaneous
evidence from multiple sources" suggests that Seaman, who's now at
the Durham VA Medical Center, "was not UNC's preferred candidate"
for the opening and officials there cited "an 'agreement' as a
pretext to avoid rejecting her on the merits."

They said the job ultimately went to "a similarly qualified
candidate whom UNC paid substantially less than [what Seaman] was
then earning at Duke."

'Guideline to be followed'

The evidence the lawyers cited appears to include deposition
testimony from Laura Heyneman, a radiologist and supporter of
Seaman's candidacy who got her medical training at UNC, did her
residency at Duke and who's been a professor at both schools.

Now at Duke, she said she'd "beg[u]n to wonder" whether the chief
of the cardiothoracic radiology unit, Paul Molina, "simply wanted
to hire a particular person who had interviewed" and had looked
for "essentially an easier excuse, because it wouldn't be personal
for him to essentially blame the higher-ups rather than accepting
responsibility and saying he didn't want to hire Danielle."

Molina for his part told lawyers "there was a guideline to be
followed," namely that a Duke-to-UNC job switch had to include a
promotion or "elevation in title." But in a deposition excerpt
Duke's lawyers highlighted for Judge Eagles, he also conceded that
he'd already interviewed candidates and was ready to make one an
offer when Seaman applied for the job.

The Duke filings highlighted some UNC-to-Duke switches, including
one Heyneman was in the process of negotiating with Duke radiology
chairman Erik Paulson in mid-2015 as Seaman was preparing to file
her lawsuit. She swapped a UNC associate professorship for a like
position at Duke, despite being "near promotion" at UNC, but was
also named an assistant residency-program director.

Another involved pain researcher William Maixner, who in 2016
swapped a full professorship at UNC for one in Duke med's
anesthesiology department and took four other professors or
researchers with him.

The chairman of that department, Joseph Mathew, joined Executive
Vice Dean for Administration Scott Gibson in signing statements
that echoed Andrews in saying there's no restriction on hiring
people from UNC.

"During my tenure faculty members have moved between positions at
Duke and positions at UNC, with and without promotions, said
Gibson, who's held his administrative post since 2008. [GN]


DUNKIN' DONUTS: Lynn Franchise Sued Over Use of Margarine
---------------------------------------------------------
Julie Manganis, writing for Eagle-Tribune, reports that a North
Shore man has gone to court, contending that the owner of a Lynn
Dunkin' Donuts franchise has been deceiving customers for years by
giving them margarine when they order butter on baked goods.

And Paul Moran and his attorneys want the suit to be treated as a
class action, according to court papers.

Mr. Moran says in his complaint that he once ordered a bagel with
butter at the Dunkin' Donuts at 333 Lynnway.  He was charged 25
cents for the butter.

"Moran was not given butter as he ordered with his bagel," the
suit says.  "Lynn Donuts provided Moran with margarine or a butter
substitute in lieu of the butter he ordered with his bagel."

The suit does not say exactly when this happened, but the statute
of limitations on civil suits is three years.

The suit alleges that this was done "purposefully, willfully and
knowingly" and that the donut shop made it a policy not to
volunteer that information to customers.

The lawyers are taking a hard line: "As a result of Lynn Donuts'
acts and practices set forth herein, Moran and member of the class
have suffered financial harm, including but not limited to charges
for a product which they were not provided."

In other words, as the famous margarine ad of the 1970s noted,
it's not nice to fool Mother Nature.  Or Dunkin' Donuts customers.

Mr. Moran and his lawyers, John Yasi and Matthew LaMothe, are
alleging negligent misrepresentation, fraud and deceit, and unjust
enrichment, and seek financial damages as well as a permanent
injunction requiring the shops to stop giving customers margarine
when they order butter.

And while it may sound like the plot of a Seinfeld episode, Moran
isn't the first person to make such a complaint.

Earlier this year, Jan Polanik, who lives in the Worcester area,
sued the owners of a number of central Massachusetts Dunkin'
Donuts shops over the same issue.

The lawsuits led to a settlement with the franchise owners under
which Mr. Polanik's lawyer got $90,000, and Mr. Polanik got $500,
according to The New York Times.  The settlement also called for
up to 1,400 customers to receive three free baked goods as
compensation, with no proof of purchase required.

The court also issued an injunction requiring the 23 shops to use
only real butter for the next year.

In 2013, in response to a consumer columnist at The Boston Globe,
a Dunkin' Donuts spokeswoman said the policy at some franchises
had to do with food safety and the difficulty of keeping butter at
a safe temperature.

"The majority of Dunkin' Donuts restaurants in Massachusetts carry
both individual whipped butter packets and a butter-substitute
vegetable spread," said Michelle King, a spokeswoman for Dunkin'
Brands. She said she was unable to discuss the specific
allegations in the lawsuit.

Efforts to reach the owner of the franchise were unsuccessful. Mr.
Moran's attorneys did not return a call for comment. [GN]


EMD SALES: "Carrera" Class Suit Transferred to Maryland Dist.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on July 28, 2017, captioned
Faustino Sanchez Carrera, Jesus David Muro, and Gervacio Magdalen,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
E.M.D. Sales, Inc. and Elda M. Devarie, and E & R Sales and
Marketing Services, Case No. 1:17-cv-01530, was transferred on
October 20, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-03066-JKB to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtime wages, interest and
attorneys' fees and litigation costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a business center and warehouse and
distribution facility in Baltimore, Maryland, and a wine and
spirit warehouse, distribution facility and business center in
Woodbridge, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Omar Vincent Melehy, Esq.
      MELEHY & ASSOCIATES LLC
      8403 Colesville Road, Suite 610
      Silver Spring, MD 20910
      Telephone: (301) 587-6364
      Facsimile: (301) 587-6308
      E-mail: ovmelehy@melehylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Thomas Collier Mugavero, Esq.
      WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, LLP
      3190 Fairview Park Drive, Suite 300
      Falls Church, VA 22042
      Telephone: (703) 280-9260
      Facsimile: (703) 280-8948
      E-mail: tmugavero@wtplaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Butler" Class Suit in Cal. Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn France Butler, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Equifax, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-02158-JLS-
KSC (S.D. Cal., October 20, 2017), arises out of the data breach
involving some of the most sensitive and private personal
information of approximately 143 million Americans.

Equifax, Inc. is a credit reporting agency involved in the
business of maintaining sensitive and private personal information
of consumers worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen F. Yunker, Esq.
      YUNKER & SCHNEIDER
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1400
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 233-5560
      Facsimile: (619) 233-5535
      E-mail: sfy@yslaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: Seattle Woman Files Data Breach Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Boston25News reports that one woman in Seattle says her identity
has been stolen more than a dozen times since the Equifax data
breach.

"I don't know if my information's been sold to the dark or web or
wherever this goes" said Katie Van Fleet, a Seattle resident.

Under pressure from Congress, IRS suspends Equifax contract
Ms. Van Fleet told Q13 News she's spent months trying to regain
her stolen identity.

"I kept receiving letters from Kohl's, from Macy's, from Home
Depot, from Old Navy saying thank you for your application," she
said.

But she says she's never applied for credit from any of those
places.

Instead Ms. Van Fleet and her attorney believe her personal data
was stolen during the massive Equifax security breach.

"It's a product that they want to sell and that they need to
profit off of, that's what they care about," said Catherine
Fleming, Ms. Van Fleet's attorney.

Ms. Fleming has filed a class-action lawsuit against Equifax,
saying it was negligent when it lost private information on more
than 140-million Americans.

"Countless people.  I mean I've really, truly lost count and the
stories that like you heard Katie's story, the stories I hear are
heart wrenching," said Ms. Fleming.

"Everyone's social has pretty much been stolen in the last 10
years," said Bryan Seely, a cybersecurity expert.

He says everyone within earshot should do the following to protect
themselves from identity theft.

First, shop with a credit card. It's easier to get stolen money
back than from a debit card.

Also, be sure to review your credit report regularly from all
credit reporting agencies.
Seeley also advises people to freeze their credit.

Doing so, he says, makes it impossible for strangers to open lines
of credit in your name.

Ms. Van Fleet says she's spent countless hours trying to restore
her good name.  She's hoping to get a handle on the mess before
she takes a crack at buying a house in Seattle.

"I didn't sign up to use Equifax so I feel all of that stuff has
been taken and now I am left here trying to sweep up the pieces
and just trying to protect myself and protect my credit," she
said. [GN]


EUSTIS CABLE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Link" Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Link, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Eustis Cable Enterprises, Ltd., Case No.
1:17-cv-02204 (N.D. Ohio, October 18, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for all
hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

Eustis Cable Enterprises, Ltd. offers various services relating to
constructing communications systems including design and
engineering, aerial and underground construction of communication
networks, pole setting and removal, site work, and tower
construction. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
      Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
      Michaela M. Calhoun, Esq.
      NILGES DRAHER LLC
      7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D
      Massillon, OH 44646
      Telephone: (330) 470-4428
      Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
      E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
              hans@ohlaborlaw.com
              mcalhoun@ohlaborlaw.com


EXCELSIOR COLLEGE: Defrauding Nursing Students, Class Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Bump, writing for Times Union, reports that Excelsior
College, a private, distance-learning institution based in Albany,
has been hit with a class action lawsuit alleging it defrauded
hundreds, if not thousands of students into enrolling in a dead-
end nursing program.

More than a dozen former students are listed as plaintiffs in the
suit, which was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York and raises significant doubts about the
legitimacy of the college's associate degree in nursing program.

According to the complaint, getting into the program was easy --
it was getting out that was hard.

Former students say the college failed to inform them what it
would take to pass the program's final exam, known as the Clinical
Performance in Nursing Examination, and then forced them to wait
anywhere from a year to 18 months to take it, despite statements
from the college that it would take no more than three to six
months from the time of registration.

In many cases, students had to pay fees to attend far-flung
workshops in order to prepare for the test. And when they finally
did take it, students allege they were failed for minor or
subjective reasons, or for errors on the part of examiners.

The complaint alleges the high failure rates were intentional.

It cost students nearly $2,300 each time they took the exam, and
many students were unaware they had the right to appeal a failing
mark, the complaint says. Because they had already invested so
much into the program, many chose simply to pay the extra money
and retake the test -- a process that, once again, stretched over
a year.

Each year they were in the program students had to pay a $500
registration fee -- something they didn't learn about until after
they were enrolled, the complaint says.

"While Excelsior has an easy admissions policy, graduating from
(the program) is difficult by design," the complaint says.

Of 10,432 individuals attending Excelsior's associate nursing
program, only 718 individuals were said to have graduated in 2017,
according to College Navigator.

Founded in 1971, Excelsior College bills itself as a not-for-
profit institution with a "deep commitment to helping those left
behind by traditional education." It's popular among older adults,
working parents, single parents, veterans and military service
members for its flexibility -- classes can be taken online, and
previously earned credits are often accepted as transfer credits.
In a statement to the Times Union, Excelsior College defended its
nursing program, which it says has been continually accredited
since 1975 and has graduated "44,754 people ... from the associate
degree in nursing program since its inception."

"These allegations are without merit," the college said.

It points out that the National League for Nursing designated the
college a "Center of Excellence in Nursing Education" on four
consecutive occasions, and in its latest designation, was
commended for "creating environments that enhance student learning
and professional development."

But the former students said they received little help during
their time in the program.

Shewanda Williams, a mother of two from Texas, enrolled in 2009
and was told she would receive the same instruction as she would
at any traditional college. Yet unlike typical nursing programs,
Williams says she did not receive any clinical instruction in the
field.

When she signed up to take the final exam, she learned the waiting
period would be nearly one year.

She failed, she was told, due to a "choice of wording" and
eventually had to change careers.

The exam requires students travel to one of about 12 designated
testing sites around the nation and, over the course of a weekend,
complete a series of tasks that include developing a care plan for
a live patient in a hospital setting. Students must pay for travel
and lodging costs.

One plaintiff -- a retired soldier from Pennsylvania with 24 years
of experience as a paramedic -- said he was alarmed to learn that
an academic advisor he was assigned was not familiar with the
subject matter the students were being asked to learn.

Another plaintiff, John Lowman of Texas, was a licensed vocational
nurse when he enrolled in 2013 and failed the exam twice -- once
in 2015 when examiners prematurely ended the exam and once in 2016
after he encountered "non-functioning equipment" at the testing
facility, the complaint says.

Another plaintiff from Texas was failed because he refused to
administer a patient an expired drug, over the examiner's wishes,
the complaint says.

The plaintiffs allege they lost thousands of dollars as a result
of fees, tuition, travel expenses and loans taken out to pay for
the program. Some lost out on advanced job opportunities that were
being held for them at their place of employment, and others had
to change careers entirely, the complaint says.

The suit requests plaintiffs be reimbursed for actual losses as
well as emotional distress, and calls on Excelsior to take several
actions in the name of transparency, including posting its
pass/fail rates and graduation rates conspicuously, disclosing to
students the various fees they will be expected to pay, and
informing students their credits may not transfer.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs are John Hermina, Esq. of the
Maryland-based Hermina Law Group, and Gregory Allen, Esq. of the
California-based Law Office of Gregory Allen. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Sued for Purposely Misclassifying Employees
---------------------------------------------------------
David Kravets, writing for Ars Technica, reports that Facebook is
being hit with a proposed class-action federal lawsuit alleging
that the social-networking company purposely misclassifies
employees to exempt them from overtime pay.

The suit was brought on Oct. 27 by a former salaried client
solutions manager from Facebook's office in Chicago.  The woman,
Susie Bigger, alleges that she and countless other Facebook
workers are illegally classified as managers as part of
"defendant's scheme to deprive them of overtime compensation."

The suit notes a "systematic, companywide wrongful classification"
system for client solutions managers, customer solutions managers,
customer account managers, "or other similarly titled positions."

According to the lawsuit, the primary duties of these various
classifications is nearly identical.  Their duties "involve
communicating with existing Facebook advertising customers,
implementing their marketing plans, and selling Facebook marketing
products and services to existing customers."  The suit says a
"large percentage" of their compensation comes from "commissions
from the sale of Facebook's marketing products."

The suit claims these positions, called "CSMs," don't constitute
management jobs.  Management positions lawfully enable companies
to withhold overtime pay, which is one and one-half times regular
pay -- after an employee works 40 hours in a week.

"CSMs do not perform duties related to the management or general
business operations of Facebook.  Rather, CSMs' duties constitute
the principal production activity of Facebook as a social media
and marketing platform," according to the suit. " CSMs' primary
duties do not involve the exercise of discretion or independent
judgment with respect to matters of significance."

The suit seeks back pay, damages, interest, and attorneys fees for
an untold number of Facebook employees.

Facebook said in an e-mail to Ars that "this lawsuit is without
merit and we will defend ourselves vigorously." [GN]


FARMERS GROUP: "Baker" Class Suit Transferred to Ariz. Dist. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on August 18, 2017, captioned
Dennis and Victoria Baker, husband and wife, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Farmers Group,
Inc., Farmers Insurance Exchange, and Mid-Century Insurance
Company, Case No. 2:17-cv-06125, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona. The District Court
Clerk assigned 2:17-cv-03901-JJT to the proceeding.

The Defendants operate an insurance company incorporated in
Nevada, with its principal place of business and headquarters at
6301 Owensmouth Ave, Woodland Hills, Los Angeles County,
California 91367. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cory S. Fein, Esq.
      CORY FEIN LAW FIRM
      712 Main St., Ste. 800
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (281) 254-7717
      Facsimile: (530) 748-0601
      E-mail: cory@coryfeinlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Eric Herzog, Esq.
      NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT
      555 S Flower St., 41st Fl.
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 892-9200
      E-mail: eric.herzog@nortonrosefulbright.com


FIDELITY INVESTMENTS: Faces "Morris" Suit in N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fidelity
Investments.  The case is styled as Adrian Morris, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fidelity
Investments, FMR LLC and Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-06027 (N.D. Cal., October 20, 2017).

Fidelity Investments is a multinational financial services
corporation based in Boston, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Pension Fund Sues over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
ST. LUCIE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION TRUST FUND,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORP., DANIEL MCCARTHY, JOHN
M. JURELLER, RALPH PERLEY MCBRIDE, JOHN GIANUKAKIS, DONALD
DANIELS, MARY AGNES WILDEROTTER, LEROY T. BARNES, JR., PETER C.B.
BYNOE, DIANA S. FERGUSON, EDWARD FRAIOLI, PAMELA D.A. REEVE,
VIRGINIA P. RUESTERHOLZ. HOWARD L. SCHROTT, LARRAINE D. SEGIL,
MARK SHAPIRO, MYRON A. WICK, III, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC,
MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL
MARKETS INC., CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL
INC., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, MIZUHO SECURITIES USA INC.,
DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., AND UBS
SECURITIES LLC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01825 (D. Conn.,
Oct. 31, 2017), alleges that the price of Frontier's securities is
artificially inflated.

This action is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons, other than the defendants named, who: (i) purchased or
otherwise acquired Frontier securities between February 6, 2015,
and May 2, 2017, inclusive; and/or (ii) purchased or otherwise
acquired the common or preferred stock of Frontier either in or
traceable to the Company's offerings of common and preferred stock
conducted on or about June 10, 2015, which included shares sold
pursuant to an overallotment option granted by Frontier to certain
underwriters, and were damaged thereby.

Frontier is a national telecommunications provider, with services
including internet, phone, and TV for retail consumers and
businesses. Over the past decade, Frontier has engaged in an
acquisition-based growth strategy predicated on purchasing
millions of customers and related telecommunications
infrastructure from major national telecommunications providers
such as AT&T and Verizon.

On February 5, 2015, Frontier announced that it would pay $10.5
billion to acquire Verizon's wireline operations in California,
Texas, and Florida -- its largest-ever acquisition (the "CTF
Acquisition"). The Company represented to investors that Frontier
could successfully integrate these acquired customers and
infrastructures, and that estimated costs for the integration
would be approximately $450 million. To finance the $10.5 billion
acquisition, Frontier registered and commenced concurrent
offerings of its common and preferred stock. Thus, on April 20,
2015, Frontier filed a Form S-3 registration statement and
prospectus with the SEC, registering various securities that it
would offer for sale to the public.

Pursuant to that Form S-3, on or about June 10, 2015, the Company
sold 150 million shares of Frontier common stock in the Offerings
at $5 per share, thereby garnering proceeds of $750 million,
before accounting for underwriting discounts and commissions.
Concurrent with the sale of common stock and pursuant to the same
registration statement, Frontier also sold approximately 17.5
million shares of Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock at a price
of $100 per share, thereby garnering proceeds of approximately
$1.75 billion, before accounting for underwriting discounts and
commissions. Pursuant to the Offerings, Frontier granted the
offering underwriters a 30-day overallotment option to purchase
from Frontier up to an additional 15,000,000 shares of common
stock and up to an additional 1,750,000 shares of Preferred Stock,
in each case at the same prior public offering price per share.

On or about June 19, 2015, the offering underwriters exercised the
overallotment option, and closed the overallotment sale on or
about June 24, 2015, generating an additional proceeds of $75
million from sales of common stock, as well as an additional $175
million from sales of Preferred Stock. In all, during June, 2015,
Frontier obtained a total of $2.75 billion from the sale of
Preferred Stock and common stock through the Offerings, all
pursuant to the same April 20, 2015 registration statement.
Contrary to representations made to investors during the Class
Period, including in connection with the Offerings, Frontier did
not have the ability to successfully integrate the CTF Acquisition
with only $450 million in integration outlays. In reality,
Frontier was not operationally ready to integrate the CTF
Acquisition, and would ultimately spend approximately $1 billion
in integration expenses.

The Plaintiff and the Class have suffered damages in that, in
reliance on the integrity of the market, they paid artificially
inflated prices for Frontier securities. Plaintiff and the Class
would not have purchased the Company's securities at the prices
they paid, or at all, had they been aware that the market prices
for Frontier securities had been artificially inflated by the
fraudulent course of conduct employed by the Company and the
Exchange Act Individual Defendants. As a direct and proximate
result of the wrongful conduct of the Company and the
Exchange Act Individual Defendants, Plaintiff and the other
members of the Class suffered damages in connection with their
respective purchases of the Company's securities during the Class
Period.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William H. Narwold, Esq.
          Mathew P. Jasinski, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          20 Church Street, 17th Floor
          Hartford, Connecticut 06103
          Telephone: (860) 882 1681
          Facsimile: (860) 882 1682
          E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com
                  mjasinski@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Avi Josefson, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
          & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, New York 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554 1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554 1444
          E-mail: avi@blbglaw.com


G2 SECURE: Faces "Heaggans" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Keairra Heaggans, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. G2 Secure Staff, L.L.C., G2
Secure Staff CA, L.P., and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
BC679717 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 17, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime
compensation in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants are in the business of providing staffing and
security services to the aviation industry in the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GC SERVICES: Faces "Landau" Suit in Eastern District of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Services Limited
Partnership. The case is styled as Chaya Landau, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
GC Services Limited Partnership, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06143
(E.D.N.Y., October 22, 2017).

GC Services is the largest privately-held outsourcing provider of
call center management and collection agency services in North
America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Maxim Maximov, Esq.
   Maxim Maximov, LLP
   1701 Avenue P
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 395-3459
   Fax: (718) 408-9570
   Email: m@maximovlaw.com


GLOBAL CREDIT: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Lopez"
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued an Order both denying
Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class and Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss the case captioned LEON LOPEZ, Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL CREDIT
& COLLECTION CORP., and GALAXY PORTFOLIOS, LLC, Defendants, No. 17
CV 427 (N.D. Ill.).

Defendants sent Plaintiff Leon Lopez a debt-collection letter that
said he owes $14,516.47, and offered to settle the account for
roughly $10,000.  The letter added that forgiveness of $600.00 or
more may be reported to the IRS on a 1099C Form.  Plaintiff says
he did not owe the debt and that the Defendants sent the letter to
the wrong Leon Lopez.  Nine months earlier, a California court
determined that plaintiff was not the debtor.

In this lawsuit, the Plaintiff alleges that the letter violated
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and California's similar
Rosenthal Act, and defendants move to dismiss the complaint.

Plaintiff alleges that the letter's statement is incomplete
because there are exceptions to the reporting requirement.  In
addition, in this particular case, since plaintiff did not owe the
debt at all, forgiveness would not trigger any income-reporting
requirement as to plaintiff, and the letter suggests that
defendants may take an action related to plaintiff that they were
not legally authorized to take.

This is sufficient to state a claim for deceptive debt-collection
practices.  Even though the letter here did not affirmatively
misstate the law, and it did not say that defendants were required
to take action, it is plausible that, to the unsophisticated
consumer, the letter suggested a course of action that was not
legally available.  That is enough to state a claim, the Court
said.

In a footnote in their reply brief, defendants ask to strike the
class allegations. The request is denied as untimely and
undeveloped.  Plaintiff may not be a typical or adequate class
representative, but arguments raised for the first time in a reply
brief will not be considered.  Moreover, motions to strike are
disfavored, and it is too early to tell whether this case can
proceed as a class action.  Indeed, plaintiff's motion for class
certification is too early.

The motion was likely filed to avoid defense efforts to end the
case before it became a class action, but recent precedent makes
such tactics difficult to pull off.  The motion for class
certification is premature, no factual development has occurred,
no answer is on file, and plaintiff is not in a position to meet
his burden to prove the viability of a class action. The motion to
certify a class is denied without prejudice.

Defendants' motion to dismiss is denied.  Plaintiff's motion to
certify class is denied without prejudice as premature.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 29, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/yculx8kcfrom Leagle.com.

Leon Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel A. Edelman --
dedelman@edcombs.com -- Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC.
Leon Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by Cassandra P. Miller --
cmiller@edcombs.com -- Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC,
Cathleen M. Combs -- ccombs@edcombs.com -- Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Corey J. Varma -- cvarma@edcombs.com --
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC & James O. Latturner --
info@edcombs.com -- Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC.

Global Credit & Collection Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Thomas P. Cimino, Jr., Vedder Price P.C. & Brian W. Ledebuhr,
Vedder Price P.C., 222 North LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois
6060.

Galaxy Portfolios, LLC, Defendant, represented by Thomas P.
Cimino, Jr., Vedder Price P.C. & Brian W. Ledebuhr, Vedder Price
P.C.


GNC HOLDINGS: Transferred "Register" Class Suit to W.D. Penn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on February 24, 2017, styled
Brandon Register, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GNC Holdings, Inc. and Mr. Douglas Cook, Case No.
1:17-cv-01320 was transferred on October 18, 2017, from the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01342-NBF to the proceeding.

The case alleges Breach of Contract.

GNC Holdings, Inc. is a global specialty retailer of health and
wellness products, including vitamins, minerals, and herbal
supplement products, sports nutrition products and diet products.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James C. Shah, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      475 White Horse Pike
      Collingswood, NJ 08107-1909
      Telephone: (856) 858-1770
      Facsimile: (856) 858-7012
      E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com

The Defendant GNC Holdings, Inc.is represented by:

      Robert D. Balin, Esq.
      DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
      1251 Avenue of the Americas, 21st Floor
      New York, NY 10020
      Telephone: (212) 489-8230
      Facsimile: (212) 489-8340
      E-mail: robbalin@dwt.com

The Defendant Mr. Douglas Cook is represented by:

      Stephen Eric Raymond
      RAYMOND COLEMAN HEINOLD, LLP
      325 New Albany Rd
      Moorestown, NJ 08057
      Telephone: (856) 222-0100
      E-mail: seraymond@rclawnj.com


GRAND SICHUAN: Faces "Yang" Suit in S. Dist. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grand Sichuan
Eastern (NY) Inc. d/b/a Grand Sichuan Eastern. The case is styled
as Pei Hua Yang, on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Grand Sichuan Eastern (NY) Inc. d/b/a Grand Sichuan
Eastern and An Tong Wang, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-08162 (S.D.
N.Y., October 23, 2017).

Grand Sichuan Eastern (NY) Inc. d/b/a Grand Sichuan Eastern is a
Chinese restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


HALIFAX HEALTH: MSPA Claims Class Suit Removed to M.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on February 23, 2017, styled MSPA
Claims 1, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, as assignee of
Florida Healthcare Plus, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated Medicare Advantage Organizations in the State
of Florida v. Halifax Health, Inc., d/b/a Halifax Medical Center,
Case No. 1:17-cv-20706, was removed on October 16, 2017, from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:17-cv-01790-GAP-DCI
to the proceeding.

The Defendants operate a system of hospitals and professional
centers in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frank Carlos Quesada, Esq.
      MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
      5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33155
      Telephone: (305) 614-2222
      Facsimile: (866) 582-0907
      E-mail: fquesada@msprecovery.com

         - and -

      Andres Rivero, Esq.
      RIVERO MESTRE, LLP
      Suite 1000, 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd
      Miami, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 445-2500
      Facsimile: (305) 445-2505
      E-mail: arivero@riveromestre.com


HAMILTON COUNTY, TN: Court Junks Woodmore School Bus Crash Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee, Chattanooga, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case captioned M.S. (a
minor, by his parent and next friend, Sharonda Covington), et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. HAMILTON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al.,
Defendants, No. 1:16-CV-501 (E.D. Tenn.).

The plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of M.S., a minor
on Bus 366 who survived the crash, and others similarly situated,
namely, the children who were passengers on Woodmore Elementary
School Bus 366 during the afternoon route and their
parents/guardians and/or estates.  The plaintiffs allege five
causes of action of both state and federal claims.  The plaintiffs
have brought some claims pursuant to 41 United States Code Section
1983 as well as state common law tort claims.

Count One alleges a Section 1983 action against all defendants
based on a breach of duty to protect against state-created danger.
Count Two alleges a Section 1983 action against all defendants
based on a constitutional right to bodily integrity, applicable to
the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.  Count Three alleges
Section 19851 claim based on a conspiracy to deprive the
plaintiffs of the same constitutional right.  Count Four alleges
Tennessee common law tort claims of negligence and gross
negligence.  Count Five alleges Tennessee common law tort claims
of assault and battery.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the Section 1983 action in
its entirety for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
Defendant Durham School Services, L.P., moves to dismiss the
amended complaint.  Defendants Hamilton County Department of
Education ("HCDE") and Benjamin Coulter ("Coulter") similarly move
to dismiss the amended complaint.  The plaintiffs filed a
consolidated response to both motions, to which Durham replied,
and HCDE and Coulter replied.

Durham moves to dismiss Counts One, Two, and Three alleging
Section 1983 violations because Durham is a private actor, not a
state-actor, and therefore cannot be liable under Section 1983.

The principal inquiry in determining whether a private party's
actions constitute state action under the Fourteenth Amendment is
whether the actions may be fairly attributable to the state.
The Sixth Circuit applies three tests to determine whether a
private actor's conduct may be attributable to the state: (1) the
nexus or symbiotic relationship test; (2) the public function
test; and (3) the state compulsion test.

State Compulsion Test

The state compulsion test requires that a state exercise such
coercive power or provide such significant encouragement, either
overt or covert, that in law the choice of the private actor is
deemed to be that of the state.

The plaintiffs do not allege that Durham's unconstitutional
conduct of failing to properly hire, train, supervise, and
discipline Walker, even upon learning of his incidents of
dangerous driving, was significantly encouraged or coerced by the
state. The plaintiffs argue in their response brief that Durham,
at Coulter's direction and encouragement, did not discipline Mr.
Walker, remove him from Bus 366, or terminate him, although it
clearly had the authority to do so in an effort to show they have
alleged facts to meet the compulsion test.

However, this argument in their brief is not consistent with the
allegations of their compliant discussed above. The allegations of
the plaintiffs' amended complaint do not allege that Coulter
directed or encouraged Durham not to take disciplinary action.
Instead, the plaintiffs allege that Coulter could and should have
taken disciplinary action against Walker through some alleged
power of the Hamilton County transportation policy and is replete
with allegations that Coulter and Durham deliberately ignored the
complaints.

The plaintiffs have failed to allege facts that would show that
Durham may be considered a state actor under the compulsion test.
Nothing in the complaint alleges that the unconstitutional
behavior of failing to properly hire, train, monitor, and
discipline Walker was strongly encouraged or coerced by the state.

Nexus/Symbiotic Relationship and Entwinement Tests

For a private actor's conduct to meet the nexus or symbiotic
relationship test, the plaintiff must show there is a sufficiently
close nexus between the state and the challenged action of the
regulated entity so that the action of the latter may be fairly
treated as that of the state itself.

Regarding the plaintiffs' first and third contentions, that HCDE
and Durham have equal rulemaking authority and that they jointly
handled a series of incidents, this argument is not persuasive to
show that HCDE is sufficiently intertwined in the management and
control of Durham. The contract provides that any new rules or
regulations incidental to the operation of bus routes, bus stops
and other attendant matters that may arise shall be mutually
agreed upon.

Furthermore, the agreement provides that Durham will cooperatively
assist HCDE to establish routes and schedules. The requirement to
work together to establish routes and schedules for the busses and
to mutually agree on incidental rules fail to establish that HCDE
was pervasively intertwined in the control or management of
Durham. This requirement of cooperation and mutual agreement on
incidental rules or changes to the scope of the contract are no
different than would be necessary for any other government
contractor performing a contract.

Similarly, working together to address an alleged issue relating
to the performance of the contract does not show any control that
HCDE could exert over Durham such that Durham is essentially the
state. These allegations do not show that HCDE was so involved in
the management and control of Durham such that the private
character of the private entity is overborne. While the contract
requires HCDE to work with Durham to ensure the contract is
fulfilled and performed, such cooperation does not rise to the
level of pervasive entwinement.

Regarding the plaintiffs' second contention, that HCDE exercises
management or supervision over Durham's drivers, including Mr.
Walker, is directly contradicted by the terms of the agreement.
The agreement provides Durham solely with disciplinary authority;
In the event the DISTRICT has any questions or concerns regarding
the performance or any personnel employed by Durham, Durham may
take whatever action it deems necessary and appropriate to address
the DISTRICT concern.

The plaintiff cites often to the HCDE Transportation Policy, to
argue that HCDE had the authority to discipline Walker. However,
it appears from the contents of this policy, which was not signed
as an agreement by Durham, that the policy applies to HCDE
employees. The policy gives a job description and notes that it
applies to HCDE employees and personnel. The agreement between
Durham and HCDE states explicitly that Durham employees are not
employees of HCDE, that HCDE does not have the authority to
discipline Durham employees, and that Durham is solely responsible
for providing safety training for the employees.
The plaintiff has failed to state a claim pursuant to Section 1983
against Durham.

Count Three

Count Three alleges a conspiracy to deprive the plaintiffs of a
constitutional right pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1985. In their
response, the plaintiffs note that this section of the complaint
contains a typographical error and that they intended to bring
Count Three pursuant to Section 1983.

In their response, the plaintiffs also requested leave to amend
the amended complaint to correct this error, but have not filed a
motion for leave of court to amend the amended complaint. Because
the Court finds that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim
under Section 1983 against all defendants above, and the
allegations of Count Three are based on the same conduct of Counts
One and Two, the request is moot.

Counts Four and Five

Counts Four and Five of the Amended Complaint allege state law
claims of negligence, gross negligence, and assault and battery.
The Court has dismissed the Section 1983 claims against all
defendants, the basis for original jurisdiction in this matter.
The only basis for federal court jurisdiction over these state law
claims is supplemental jurisdiction.

A court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if the
state law claims substantially predominate over the claim or
claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction or
where the district court has dismissed all claims over which it
has original jurisdiction. Because the Court has dismissed the
only claims based in federal law, the Court declines to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims,
Counts Four and Five of the Amended Complaint.

Defendant Durham's motion to dismiss is granted.  Defendants HCDE
and Coulter's motion to dismiss is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 29, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/yc9hnesxfrom Leagle.com.

M.S., Plaintiff, represented by Ayelet Emma Flynn, Berke, Berke &
Berke, 420 Frazier Avenue, Chattanooga, TN, 37405

M.S., Plaintiff, represented by Jason Gregory Downs, Murphy Falcon
& Murphy, Jessica Hamman Meeder, Murphy Falcon & Murphy, Nicholas
Adam Szokoly, Murphy Falcon & Murphy, William H. Murphy, Jr.,
Murphy Falcon & Murphy, William Hughes Murphy, III, Murphy Falcon
& Murphy, 1 South Street, Suite 2300. Baltimore, MD 21202. &
Ronald J. Berke, Berke, Berke & Berke, 420 Frazier Avenue,
Chattanooga, TN, 37405

Derek Stepp, Plaintiff, represented by Ayelet Emma Flynn, Berke,
Berke & Berke, Jason Gregory Downs, Murphy Falcon & Murphy,
Jessica Hamman Meeder, Murphy Falcon & Murphy, Nicholas Adam
Szokoly, Murphy Falcon & Murphy, William H. Murphy, Jr., Murphy
Falcon & Murphy, William Hughes Murphy, III, Murphy Falcon &
Murphy & Ronald J. Berke, Berke, Berke & Berke.

Sharonda Covington, Plaintiff, represented by Ayelet Emma Flynn,
Berke, Berke & Berke, Jason Gregory Downs, Murphy Falcon & Murphy,
Jessica Hamman Meeder, Murphy Falcon & Murphy, Nicholas Adam
Szokoly, Murphy Falcon & Murphy, William H. Murphy, Jr., Murphy
Falcon & Murphy, William Hughes Murphy, III, Murphy Falcon &
Murphy & Ronald J. Berke, Berke, Berke & Berke.

Hamilton County Department of Education, Defendant, represented by
C. Eugene Shiles -- ces@smrw.com -- Spears, Moore, Rebman &
Williams, Joseph Alan Jackson, II -- jaj@smrw.com -- Spears,
Moore, Rebman & Williams & Joseph R. White -- jrw@smrw.com --
Spears, Moore, Rebman & Williams.

Durham School Services, L.P., Defendant, represented by James M.
Burd -- james.burd@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser Moskowitz
Edelman & Dicker LLP, pro hac vice, Melissa A. Murphy-Petros --
petros@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker,
LLP, pro hac vice, Michael R. Campbell --
michael.campbell@stoel.com -- Campbell & Campbell & Lauren M.
Turner -- admin@campbellattorneys.com -- Campbell & Campbell.
Benjamin Coulter, Defendant, represented by C. Eugene Shiles --
ces@smrw.com -- Spears, Moore, Rebman & Williams, Joseph Alan
Jackson, II -- jaj@smrw.com -- Spears, Moore, Rebman & Williams &
Joseph R. White -- jrw@smrw.com -- Spears, Moore, Rebman &
Williams.


HANOVER INSURANCE: MSP Recovery Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a
Delaware entity, the Plaintiff, v. HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Foreign Profit Corporation, the Defendant, Case No., 2017-019591-
CA-01, was removed on Oct. 31, 2017 from the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-23985-FAM to the proceeding.

The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., based in Worcester,
Massachusetts, is one of the oldest continuous businesses in the
United States still operating within its original industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gino Moreno, Esq.
          John H. Ruiz, Esq.
          MSP RECOVERY
          5000 SW 75th Ave Ste 400
          Miami, FL 33155
          E-mail: serve@msprecovery.com
                  gmoreno@msprecovery.com
                  jruiz@msprecovery.com


HERITAGE FINANCIAL: Faces "Ehrnfeld" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Heritage Financial
Recovery Services. The case is styled as Aaron Ehrnfeld, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff
v. Heritage Financial Recovery Services, A Division of
N.N.J.C.A.B., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06146 (E.D. N.Y.,
October 22, 2017).

Heritage Financial Recovery Services is a Debt collection
agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Maxim Maximov, Esq.
   Maxim Maximov, LLP
   1701 Avenue P
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 395-3459
   Fax: (718) 408-9570
   Email: m@maximovlaw.com


HOME DEPOT: Faces "Hamilton" Suit in Middle District of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Home Depot U.S.A.,
Inc.  The case is styled as Michael C. Hamilton, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-02468-JSM-
TBM (M.D. Fla., October 20, 2017).

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. owns and operates The Home Depot retail
stores throughout the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
   Morgan & Morgan, PA
   600 N Pine Island Rd, Suite 400
   Plantation, FL 33324
   Tel: (954) 318-0268
   Fax: (954) 333-3515
   Email: afrisch@forthepeople.com

      - and -

   C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
   Morgan & Morgan, PA
   20 N Orange Ave Ste 1600
   Orlando, FL 32801-4624
   Tel: (407) 420-1414
   Fax: (407) 245-3401
   Email: rmorgan@forthepeople.com

      - and -

   Marc Reed Edelman, Esq.
   Morgan & Morgan, Tampa P.A.
   7th Floor
   One Tampa City Center
   201 N Franklin Street
   Tampa, FL 33602-5157
   Tel: (813) 223-5505
   Fax: (813) 257-0572
   Email: MEdelman@forthepeople.com


HOME DEPOT: California Court Dismisses FCRA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Steven J Pearlman, Esq. -- spearlman@proskauer.com -- Edward C.
Young, Esq. -- eyoung@proskauer.com -- Michelle A Gyves, Esq. --
mgyves@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for
National Law Review, wrote that the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California recently dismissed a putative class
action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA"), finding that the named plaintiff lacked standing to
pursue her claims. Saltzbreg v. Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., No. 17-
cv-05798 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2017).

The Complaint
The plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Home Depot
U.S.A. ("Home Depot") alleging that it violated the FCRA by: (i)
failing to provide a compliant disclosure notifying her that a
background check would be conducted; and (ii) failing to obtain
proper authorization before conducting the background check.

The plaintiff sought to represent a nationwide class of all
persons who received Home Depot's FCRA background check disclosure
form during the five years preceding the filing of the complaint.
Plaintiff claimed that, because this form included a liability
waiver, it was not a standalone disclosure as required by FCRA.
Because the disclosure form was defective, plaintiff alleged, her
authorization for the background check was invalid.  However,
plaintiff did not allege that she was harmed as a result of her
receipt of the allegedly non-compliant disclosure form.

Ruling
The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, finding that the plaintiff did not allege that she
suffered an injury-in-fact to confer Article III standing.  Citing
the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136
S. Ct. 1540, 1549 (2016), the district court noted that the
injury-in-fact requirement is not "automatically satisfie[d] . . .
whenever a statute grants a person a statutory right and purports
to authorize that person to sue to vindicate that right."  Rather,
Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the
context of a statutory violation.  The court concluded that merely
asserting a violation of FCRA's standalone disclosure requirement
is insufficient without connecting it to a concrete injury.

Implications
This is another welcomed decision in the wake of Spokeo for
employers defending FCRA class actions.  However, given the stiff
penalties employers face under this statute, it still is prudent
for employers to revisit their background check policies and
documentation to ensure compliance with the FCRA and related state
and local laws. [GN]


I.C. SYSTEM: Faces "Braunskill" Suit in E. Dist. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against I.C. System, Inc.
The case is styled as Jason Braunskill, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v I.C. System, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-06156 (E.D. N.Y., October 23, 2017).

I.C. System, Inc., doing business as Adams, Cooper and Mark,
provides accounts receivable management solutions for large and
small businesses, and professional associations in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Faces "Sosonov" Suit in E. Dist. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Immediate Credit
Recovery, Inc.  The case is styled as Efraim Sosonov, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06164
(E.D.N.Y., October 23, 2017).

Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc. operates a credit reporting agency
in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Court Denies Dismissal of Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued an Order denying Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the case
captioned IN RE INTUITIVE SURGICAL SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No.
5:13-cv-01920-EJD (N.D. Cal.).  The Court also denied Plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration of the Court's order regarding class
certification.

Da Vinci is a robotic surgery system consisting of three or four
robotic arms, depending on the model, which performs laparoscopic
surgeries through tiny incisions.  Surgeons sitting at a console
away from the patient are able to look through a viewfinder and
use two joystick-like gadgets to control the robotic arms to
perform surgery.  Plaintiffs purchased or otherwise acquired
Intuitive stock during the class period.  Plaintiffs allege that
during the Class Period, Defendants made untrue statements of
material fact and/or omitted to state material facts necessary to
make the statements not misleading regarding the safety of Da
Vinci.

Defendants contend that the statements at issue must be dismissed
because they are not misleading as to a material fact.  Defendants
contend that the alleged statements of opinion are not misleading
when placed in a broader frame that includes several other public
statements Intuitive made warning shareholders that patient
injuries, or even deaths, are inherent to the medical device
industry; that Intuitive's business could be affected if Da Vinci
were to cause injury or death; and that defects in the design or
manufacture of our products might necessitate a product recall. At
the pleading stage, however, the allegations in the complaint are
accepted as true and all reasonable inferences are drawn in
Plaintiffs' favor.

Applying these standards, the Court finds Plaintiffs' allegations
of materially misleading statements of opinion are adequately
pled.

Defendants contend that the SAC must be dismissed because
Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts giving rise to a strong
inference of scienter.

Defendants nevertheless contend that Plaintiffs' allegations of
scienter are insufficient because there are plausible, nonculpable
explanations for Defendants' conduct. Defendants contend that the
obvious, nonculpable explanation for Defendants' statements is
that Defendants honestly believed in their opinion that the da
Vinci was safe and effective. The Supreme Court in Omnicare,
however, rejected this argument. In Omnicare, the defendant argued
that as long as an opinion is sincerely held, it cannot mislead as
to any matter, regardless what related facts the speaker has
omitted.

Although finding more than a kernel of truth in Omnicore's
argument, the Court ultimately concluded that literal accuracy is
not enough: An issuer must as well desist from misleading
investors by saying one thing and holding back another. In this
case, Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendants said one thing
regarding the safety and efficacy of da Vinci, and held back
several particular and material facts going to the basis of
Defendants' opinion statements, whose omission makes the opinion
statements misleading to a reasonable investor.

Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint is
denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 29, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/yamvaqt7from Leagle.com.

Spencer Abrams, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur Charles Leahy --
artl@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Spencer Abrams, Plaintiff, represented by Mary K. Blas --
mblasy@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Shawn A.
Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
& Danielle Suzanne Myers -- denim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii, Plaintiff,
represented by Alec T. Coquin -- acoquin@labaton.com -- Labaton
Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Carol C. Villegas --
cvillegas@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Christine M. Fox --
cfox@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Eric J. Belfi --
ebelfi@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, Jonathan
Gardner --  jgardner@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac
vice, Jonathan M. Plass -- jplasse@glrslaw.com -- Goodkind
Labation Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, Mark S. Arisohn --
marisohn@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael Walter Stocker -- mstocker@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow
LLP, Samuel De Villiers --  sdevilliers@labaton.com -- Labaton
Sucharow LLP, Serena Hallowell --  shallowell@labaton.com --
Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Theodore J. Hawkins --
thawkins@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Danielle Suzanne
Myers, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Ekaterini Maria
Polychronopoulos --  kpolychronopoulos@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Ivo Michael Labar --
labar@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James Matthew
Wagstaffe -- wagstaffe@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP,
Shawn A. Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Susannah Ruth
Conn -- sconn@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP &
Yah E. Demann, Labaton Sucharow LLP.

Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund, Plaintiff,
represented by Carol C. Villegas, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Christine
M. Fox, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Jonathan Gardner, Labaton Sucharow
LLP, Michael Walter Stocker, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Serena
Hallowell, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Theodore J. Hawkins, Labaton
Sucharow LLP, Ivo Michael Labar, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, James
Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Shawn A. Williams,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Susannah Ruth Conn, Robbins
Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP & Danielle Suzanne Myers, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Public School Teachers' Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago,
Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Rae Crutchfield, Cotchett Pitre
and McCarthy LLP, 840 Malcolm Rd, Burlingame, CA 94010.

Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alexander
Barnes Dryer- adryer@keker.com -- Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP,
Cody Shawn Harris -- charris@keker.com --  Keker and Van Nest LLP,
Jo W. Golub -- jgolub@keker.com --  Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP,
John Watkins Keker -- jkeker@kvn.com --  Keker & Van Nest LLP,
Kate Ellis Lazarus -- katelaz@gmail.com -- Keker, Van Nest &
Peters LLP, Michael D. Celio -- mcelio@keker.com --  Keker, Van
Nest & Peters LLP, Philip James Tassin -- ptassin@keker.com -
Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Reid Patrick Mullen --
rmullen@keker.com -- Keker and Van Nest LLP & Laurie Carr Mims,
lmims@keker.com -- Keker Van Nes & Peters LLP.

Lonnie Smith, Defendant, represented by Alexander Barnes Dryer,
Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Cody Shawn Harris, Keker and Van
Nest LLP, Jo W. Golub, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, John Watkins
Keker, Keker & Van Nest LLP, Michael D. Celio, Keker, Van Nest &
Peters LLP, Philip James Tassin, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP,
Reid Patrick Mullen, Keker and Van Nest LLP, Kate Ellis Lazarus,
Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP & Laurie Carr Mims, Keker Van Nes &
Peters LLP.

Gary Guthart, Defendant, represented by Alexander Barnes Dryer,
Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Cody Shawn Harris, Keker and Van
Nest LLP, Jo W. Golub, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, John Watkins
Keker, Keker & Van Nest LLP, Michael D. Celio, Keker, Van Nest &
Peters LLP, Philip James Tassin, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP,
Reid Patrick Mullen, Keker and Van Nest LLP, Kate Ellis Lazarus,
Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP & Laurie Carr Mims, Keker Van Nes &
Peters LLP.

Salvatore J. Brogna, Defendant, represented by Cody Shawn Harris,
Keker and Van Nest LLP, Jo W. Golub, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP,
Michael D. Celio, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Philip James
Tassin, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP & Reid Patrick Mullen, Keker
and Van Nest LLP.

Augusto V. Castello, Defendant, represented by Cody Shawn Harris,
Keker and Van Nest LLP, Jo W. Golub, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP,
Michael D. Celio, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Philip James
Tassin, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP & Reid Patrick Mullen, Keker
and Van Nest LLP.

Jerome McNamara, Defendant, represented by Cody Shawn Harris,
Keker and Van Nest LLP, Jo W. Golub, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP,
Michael D. Celio, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Philip James
Tassin, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP & Reid Patrick Mullen, Keker
and Van Nest LLP.

Mark J. Meltzer, Defendant, represented by Cody Shawn Harris,
Keker and Van Nest LLP, Jo W. Golub, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP,
Michael D. Celio, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Philip James
Tassin, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP & Reid Patrick Mullen, Keker
and Van Nest LLP.

Marshall L. Mohr, Defendant, represented by Alexander Barnes
Dryer, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Cody Shawn Harris, Keker and
Van Nest LLP, Jo W. Golub, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, John
Watkins Keker, Keker & Van Nest LLP, Michael D. Celio, Keker, Van
Nest & Peters LLP, Philip James Tassin, Keker, Van Nest & Peters
LLP, Reid Patrick Mullen, Keker and Van Nest LLP, Kate Ellis
Lazarus, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP & Laurie Carr Mims, Keker
Van Nes & Peters LLP.

Colin Morales, Defendant, represented by Cody Shawn Harris, Keker
and Van Nest LLP, Jo W. Golub, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP,
Michael D. Celio, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Philip James
Tassin, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP & Reid Patrick Mullen, Keker
and Van Nest LLP.

David Rosa, Defendant, represented by Cody Shawn Harris, Keker and
Van Nest LLP, Jo W. Golub, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Michael
D. Celio, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, Philip James Tassin,
Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP & Reid Patrick Mullen, Keker and Van
Nest LLP.

Darian Adel, Movant, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice & Michael M.
Goldberg, Goldberg Law PC., 31 East 32nd Street, 4th Floor New
York, NY 10016.


IOWA: Speeding Ticket Class-Action Effort Moves Forward
-------------------------------------------------------
Jason Clayworth, writing for Des Moines Register, reports that the
Iowa Department of Transportation erroneously interpreted laws
used to justify the issuance of at least 12,840 tickets, a Polk
County judge ruled.

Multiple other judges have concluded in separate decisions in the
past year the DOT did not have the legal authority to issue
tickets in the past two years.

But the ruling from Polk County District Court Judge Eliza Ovrom
is particularly significant because it moves forward an effort to
certify a class-action lawsuit that could cost Iowa millions of
dollars in refunds.

"The judge's ruling absolutely validates what we have been arguing
since day one on these cases," said Brandon Brown an attorney at
the Parrish Kruidenier law firm in Des Moines. "At this point, we
will return to our efforts to compensate every driver we can."

Iowa DOT spokeswoman Andrea Henry issued a terse response to the
ruling: "We respectfully disagree with the judge's ruling and are
in the process of filing an appeal."

The case involves Stuart resident Rick Rilea and Harrisonville,
Missouri, resident Timothy Riley's challenge to speeding tickets.

Rilea and Riley filed a lawsuit in November 2016 challenging the
DOT's authority to issue the tickets. But the state argued the
drivers had not exhausted their administrative remedies by first
requesting what is known as a "declaratory order" from the DOT.

The declaratory order motion stalled the case. In the interim, the
DOT convinced lawmakers to change state law that on May 11
temporarily granted its 100 officers the legal right to write
tickets to non-commercial motorists until July 1, 2018.

Ovrom ruled the DOT's reasons cited in its declaratory order
against Rilea and Riley "are erroneous and should be reversed."

Most specifically, Ovrom ruled that a 1948 Iowa Supreme Court
ruling that said transportation officers are limited by law to
enforcing rules related to size, weight and load to be "the exact
scenario" as presented in the case involving Rilea and Riley.

And Ovrom made specific note of a 1990 Iowa attorney general
opinion that concurred with the supreme court, saying DOT
officers' authority on non-commercial vehicles is limited to
drunken driving enforcement and commercial motor vehicle
violations related to registration, size and weight, based on
another section of the law.

Ovrom further dismissed arguments made by the state that a 1994
case involving an out-of-state officer who crossed state lines and
wrote a ticket in Iowa as "misplaced."

"The traffic laws, such as speed limits in a construction zone,
have an important public purpose and are designed to save lives,"
Ovrom wrote. "This court is personally in favor of enforcing such
laws. However, it is for the legislature, not the courts, to
determine which state officers should enforce the various laws of
the state of Iowa."

A Register review in July showed the DOT had issued more than
25,000 tickets during a five-year period.

Roughly half of those -- totaling nearly $2 million in payments --
were to noncommercial vehicles, which are the tickets being
challenged as illegal. Each ticket, with court costs, averaged
about $150.

Critics have said lawmakers have long intended for a separation of
powers and duties so that certain departments could train,
specialize and focus on certain activities.

DOT executives have insisted their efforts to change the law are
not driven by money, noting profits from tickets are deposited
into the state's general fund and not directly to its agency. They
have argued that failure to clarify their role would jeopardize
public safety.

Lawmakers from both parties expressed displeasure during the final
day of their legislative session in April when they granted a
temporary change in the law that allows DOT officers to write
tickets through June 30 of next year.

The DOT has never halted writing the tickets even following the
first case it lost in October 2016. That case involved 16-year-old
Pleasant Hill driver Peyton Atzen, who was clocked traveling 84
mph in a 55-mph zone.

Ovrom said the DOT's successful lobbying efforts this year
demonstrates the DOT didn't have enforcement authority under the
previous law that had gone unchanged for decades.

"There would be no reason to amend the statute if IDOT officers
already had the authority to make arrests for matters other than
operating authority, registration, size, weight and load," Ovrom
wrote. [GN]


JC USA: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S. Dist. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JC USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Carmen Gomez and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JC USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-08161 (S.D. N.Y., October 23, 2017).

JC USA, Inc. ("Jenny Craig") is a foreign corporation that
operates a weight loss center in Solon, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
   The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
   277 Broadway, Suite 408
   New York, NY 10007
   Tel: (212) 229-2249
   Fax: (212) 229-2246
   Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com


JEFFERSON PARISH, LA: Dismissal Bids in "Carlisle" Partly OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TAYLOR CARLISLE, ET AL., v. NEWELL NORMAND,
ET AL., Section "H" (1), Civil Action No. 16-3767 (E.D. La.),
Judge Jane Trichie Milazzo of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana granted in part Defendants Joe
McNair and McNair & McNair, LLC's Motion to Dismiss, granted in
part Defendants Richard Thompson and Joseph Marino's Motion to
Dismiss, and granted Defendants Kristen Becnel, Tracey Mussal, and
Kevin Theriot's Motion to Dismiss.

In the suit, the Plaintiffs challenge the manner in which the
Jefferson Parish Drug Court ("Drug Court") is conducted.  In
addition to their individual claims, they seek to represent a
class of individuals who were similarly sentenced by the Drug
Court.

The Plaintiffs also seek certification of these two classes:

      a. Those individual natural persons who, while participating
as probationers in the 24th Judicial District Court Drug Court
program pursuant to Plea Agreement ("probationers") have been
sanctioned, for alleged probation infractions and sentenced with
jail time in the Jefferson Parish Correctional Center or other
location, in excess of ten days as proscribed by LA Code Crim.
Proc. 891(c) and/or in violation of the Drug Court Act, R.S.
13:5304 et seq.  These probationers include but are not limited to
those sentenced to flat time in connection with said sanctions, as
well as those who are alleged to have committed Contempt and
sentenced to jail time without a hearing or opportunity to defend,
or without a record from which to launch an appeal based on Due
Process waivers executed at the time of the Plea Agreement.

      b. All persons who are or were participants in Jefferson
Parish Drug Court Program held over pending (i) revocation of
their probation based on technical probation agreement violations
imposed by the Drug Court staff or the Court, without evidentiary
hearing and due process or statutory authority for issuance of
jail sanction or (ii) holding a probationer in jail and whose
probations were subsequently revoked based on violations for which
they were already sanctioned with jail terms or (iii) for other
reasons not prescribed in the governing statute including pending
transfer to a rehabilitation facility.

The Plaintiffs aver that all of these individuals were subject to
a pattern and practice of conduct whereby they were deprived of
liberty under color of state law.  They aver that the subject
class may consist of more than 1,000 individuals and that their
claims involve common questions of law and fact.

Three groups of Defendants moved separately to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claims as stated in the Complaint and First
Supplementing Complaint.  Having dismissed several of the
Plaintiffs' claims without prejudice in the Complaint and First
Supplementing Complaint, the Judge granted them leave to amend,
which they did with the submission of their Second Amending and
Supplementing Complaint ("Second Amending Complaint").  Three
groups of the Defendants again move separately to dismiss the
remaining and amended claims against them.

Before the Court are three Motion to Dismiss filed by (i)
Defendants McNair and McNair & McNair; (i) Defendants Thompson and
Marino; and (iii) Defendants Becnel, Mussal, and Theriot.

The Drug Court Administrators move the Court to dismiss all claims
against them pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).  Defendants
McNair and McNair's Business also move to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, as well as to strike
the class allegations.  Defendants Marino and Thompson move to
dismiss the state-law malpractice claims against them on the
grounds that (i) the claims do not fall under the Court's
supplemental jurisdiction; (ii) that even if supplemental
jurisdiction exists, the fact that the sentences of which the
Plaintiffs complain have not been overturned presents a compelling
reason to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; and (iii)
that the Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for legal malpractice
because the underlying sentences have not been overturned, the
Plaintiffs fail to allege causation, and the Plaintiffs'
allegations against Defendant Thompson are merely conclusory.

Judge Milazzo finds that the Plaintiffs' Second Amending Complaint
is replete with factual detail, but at the expense of clarity as
to the specific claims that they assert.  In the broadest reading
of all complaints together, the Plaintiffs appear to assert claims
under Section 1983 for both damages and injunctive relief against
Defendants McNair and McNair's Business, Marino and Thompson, and
the Drug Court Administrators ("Moving Defendants") in both their
personal and official capacities.

She explains that none of the Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claims
against the Moving Defendants survive.  The Plaintiffs' official-
capacity claims for damages are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
They lack standing to bring claims for injunctive or declaratory
relief because the Moving Defendants do not have the power, in
either their official or personal capacities, to redress the harms
of which the Plaintiffs complain. And the Plaintiffs' personal-
capacity claims for damages are barred by the doctrines of either
qualified immunity or absolute judicial immunity.

Furthermore, the Plaintiffs fail to plead a viable state-law claim
against Defendant Thompson, but the Plaintiffs' legal malpractice
claim against Defendant Marino and negligence claims against
Defendants McNair and McNair's Business survive.

For these reasons, Judge Milazzo granted in part the Defendants'
Motions.  All of the Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claims against the
Moving Defendants in their personal and official capacities,
whether for injunctive or declaratory relief or damages, are
dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiff Carlisle's negligence claims against Defendants McNair
and McNair & McNair remain.  Plaintiff Heron's negligence claims
against Defendants McNair and McNair & McNair are dismissed with
prejudice.  The class allegations against Defendants McNair and
McNair & McNair are stricken with respect to the negligence
claims.  All of the Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Thompson
are dismissed with prejudice. The Plaintiffs' legal malpractice
claims against Defendant Marino remain.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/wTJWCp from Leagle.com.

Taylor Carlisle, Plaintiff, represented by Marie Olympia Riccio,
Marie Riccio Wisner, Attorney at Law, 700 Camp Street, New
Orleans, LA 70130-3702

Emile Heron, Plaintiff, represented by Marie Olympia Riccio, Marie
Riccio Wisner, Attorney at Law.

Tracy Mussal, Defendant, represented by Celeste Brustowicz -
cbrustowicz@burglass.com -- Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C. Kevin
Theriot, Defendant, represented by Celeste Brustowicz -
cbrustowicz@burglass.com -- Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C. Joe
McNair, Defendant, represented by Francis Horatio Brown, III,
McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC. 601 Poydras St., 12th Floor, New
Orleans, LA 70130

Newell Normand, Defendant, represented by Daniel Rault Martiny,
Martiny & Associates, 131 Airline Hwy., Suite 201. Metairie, LA
70001 & Jeffrey David Martiny, Martiny & Associates. 1 Galleria
Blvd Ste 1100Metairie, LA 70001-7534

Kristen Becnel, Defendant, represented by Celeste Brustowicz,
Burglass & Tankersley, L.L.C.

McNair & McNair, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Francis Horatio
Brown, III, McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC.

Richard M Tompson, Defendant, represented by Ralph R. Alexis, III
-- ralexis@phjlaw.com -- Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson, Brendan
Connick -- bconnick@phjlaw.com -- Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson &
Glenn B. Adams -- gadams@phjlaw.com -- Porteous, Hainkel &
Johnson.

Joseph A Marino, Jr, Defendant, represented by Ralph R. Alexis,
III, Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson, Brendan Connick, Porteous,
Hainkel & Johnson & Glenn B. Adams, Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hunter Woman Joins Pelvic Mesh Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joanne McCarthy, writing for Western Advocate, reports that Teigan
was 22 in 2008 when she was implanted with a "gold standard"
pelvic mesh sling device for incontinence, less than two months
after the birth of her second child.

Nine years later there are times when she has to lay flat on her
back in a shallow warm bath to urinate because of the pain of
"strangury" -- an inability to void caused by the interaction of
the mesh and her bladder.

Urinary tract infections are frequent.  The boundaries of her life
are marked by the availability of toilets no more than an hour
from her home in the NSW Hunter region.

"This is what I have to do now.  I'm scared of what I'm going to
have to do in 10 years.  I'm scared, especially because I haven't
reached menopause and people are saying the complications can get
worse with menopause.

"That's a long way away for me," said Teigan, 31, who agreed to
speak about the devastating consequences of mesh surgery on her
life, but asked that her surname be withheld because of their
intimate nature.

On Oct. 26 Australia's peak drug and medical device regulator, the
Therapeutic Goods Administration, quietly announced on its website
that from December, 2018 all new pelvic mesh devices will be
classified high risk requiring evidence of safety and efficacy,
while currently available mesh devices will have until December,
2020 to meet new evidence standards.

The changes were announced as a Senate committee prepares a final
report into how mesh devices were approved for use in Australia
despite serious questions about the evidence used to support them,
and as women in countries including Australia, the United Kingdom,
America and New Zealand have initiated more than 100,000 legal
suits, in a global push where claims are estimated to top more
than $20 billion.

Teigan is one of more than 800 Australian women registered in a
Federal Court legal class action against Johnson & Johnson that
started in July and will continue into 2018.  Another 500 women
are registered in a class action case against a second mesh
manufacturer, American Medical Systems.

The Gold Coast specialist who implanted her Johnson & Johnson TVT
device, Dr Malcolm Frazer, is scheduled to give evidence at the
class action in early November as an expert witness engaged by
legal firm Clayton Utz, which is representing Johnson & Johnson.

In a statement in June the Royal Australian and New Zealand
College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said the use of slings
to treat incontinence was "a safe and effective treatment and
regarded as the 'gold standard"' for incontinence surgery. A
Senate inquiry in September was told complication rates after
sling surgery ranged from 2-5.6 per cent.

Teigan's GP referred her to Dr Frazer in 2008 after she complained
of "annoying" incontinence when she coughed or tried to move
quickly following her second baby's birth.

Her hospital notes show she was in pain and unable to urinate
after surgery to implant the device, was "very uncomfortable" a
day after surgery because she was unable to void, was "in tears"
while trying to catheterise herself, and went home after four days
with a catheter in place and a urine bag strapped to her leg.

"I was pretty miserable as I only had a new baby. I felt like an
old woman.  It wasn't what I was expecting at all," she said.

"In hindsight I probably just needed time to recover from the
pregnancy."

Teigan moved from the Gold Coast to the Hunter and did not see Dr
Frazer again after a six-week post-surgical check up.

She described the following years as a gradual increase in regular
urinary tract infections and pain, incontinence, increasing
difficulty urinating and going to general practitioners who did
not connect the complications with the TVT sling tape.

In September Royal Australian College of General Practitioners
representative Dr Magdalena Simonis told the Senate inquiry there
was "no excuse" for the experiences many Australian women had had
when they sought help from doctors because of mesh surgery
complications.

Those complications were "a new issue" for general practitioners
"in terms of making the association" with mesh, Dr Simonis said.

"It has not been in our heads up until relatively recently,
unfortunately."

In April this year Teigan had a third baby by caesarean because of
the TVT tape.

"The pregnancy was difficult because it was really painful to walk
and I'd get shooting pains up my groin at times," she said.

By June an ultrasound showed why she experienced serious pain if
her bladder filled, but also why she often cannot sit to urinate
if more than an hour passes between toilet breaks.  The ultrasound
showed the TVT sling was "the likely cause" of "kinking" of the
bladder over the mesh sling -- like a kinked garden hose --
resulting in "strangury", which both increases the urge to urinate
and restricts the ability to do so.

"I get the stinging urge to go but nothing comes out.  That's when
I have to lie in the bath," Teigan said.

"I feel quite limited.  I don't go anywhere because I need to find
a toilet before it reaches that point."

Dr Frazer said he could not comment on an individual patient. [GN]


KELLY SERVICES: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kelly Services, Inc.
The case is styled as Carmen Gomez and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kelly Services, Inc.,
Kelly Services Global, LLC and Kelly Services USA, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-08146 (S.D.N.Y., October 23, 2017).

Kelly Services is an American office staffing and workforce
solutions company that operates globally. The company places
employees at all levels in various sectors including the financial
services, information technology, and law industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


KODY IMPORTS: "Zaldana" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS ZALDANA and JESUS ENRIQUE, On behalf of themselves and
others similarly-situated, the Plaintiffs, v. KODY IMPORTS, LLC,
d.b.a., WALDORF HONDA; JOE'S AUTO DETAIL, LLC, d.b.a MINOR DETAILS
DEALER SERVICES; and MAYNOR UMANZOR, the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-03212-CCB (D. Md., Oct. 31, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, and all other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and
the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have willingly,
deliberately and intentionally refused to pay Class Plaintiffs
time and one-half pay for overtime worked, and since on or after
November 2015 through September 2016, has willingly, deliberately,
and intentionally refused to pay the named Plaintiffs time and
one-half pay for overtime worked.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kerry Lynn Edwards, Esq.
          Thomas F. Hennessy, Esq.
          THE HENNESSY LAW FIRM, PLLC
          4015 Chain Bridge Road, Suite G
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 865 8836
          Facsimile: (703) 865 7633
          E-mail: thennessy@virginiawage.net


KRISPY KREME: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose A. Perez, Arayan Garces, and all others similarly situated v.
Krispy Kreme of South Florida LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-23835-FAM
(S.D. Fla., October 18, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, damages and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Krispy Kreme of South Florida LLC operates a retail bakery located
in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neil D. Kodsi, Esq.
      Gustavo A. Bravo, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF NEIL D. KODSI
      Two South University Drive, Suite 304
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (786) 464-0841
      Facsimile:  954-760-4305
      E-mail: nkodsi@ndkodsilaw.com
              gbravo@ndkodsilaw.com


LABORATORY CORPORATION: 2nd Second Class-Action Suit Filed
----------------------------------------------------------
Isaac Grover, writing for Times-News, reports that a law firm
specializing in class-action lawsuits has filed a second federal
lawsuit against Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp),
Alamance County's largest private employer, claiming it
overcharges patients for lab tests not covered by their insurance.

According to the suit, filed Oct. 10 in U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of North Carolina, it is a "placeholder" to
keep the statute of limitations from running out while the court
considers the motion to dismiss that LabCorp filed in May.

According to the suit, LabCorp has a double standard on pricing
that overcharges individuals who -- unlike insurance companies,
hospitals and Medicare -- cannot negotiate better costs. When
insurers don't cover the costs of tests, the company does not warn
patients they will be paying rates frequently more than 10 times
greater than what insurers or hospitals pay, according to the
suit.

This suit represents about eight new clients from different states
some with private insurance, some with Medicaid and some with no
insurance at all. The suit also includes statements by former
LabCorp employees listed as confidential witnesses supporting the
suit's claims.

One of them, referred to as Confidential Witness 1, claims LabCorp
maintained three fee schedules, which in the case of one test
charged as little as $300 to a hospital, $800 to a large insurer
and $5,500 to an individual patient. There were regular
complaints, according to the witness.

The suit also alleges LabCorp uses confusing billing procedures,
like leaving billing codes off of invoices, so patients often
don't know what they will be paying when they order the tests, or
exactly what they are paying for, and the company is aggressive in
collecting these higher charges, referring patients to debt
collectors, sending multiple invoices to their homes, and in the
case of one plaintiff refusing to perform regular medical tests
required for the medication she takes.

According to a corporate report quoted in the suit, an increasing
amount of LabCorp's revenue comes directly from patients,
including from self-pay tests.

The original suit claimed LabCorp self-pay patients paid above the
"fair market" price, but in its motion to dismiss, LabCorp claimed
the suit didn't define what those rates are, leaving it to the
court to determine the price of more than 1,000 tests. The second
suit tries to address that by pointing to the rates the company
has negotiated with Medicare and private insurers as an
approximation of fair market prices.

Wolf Popper LLC is a New York law firm specializing in class-
action suits like this one. It is also suing LabCorp's biggest
competitor, Quest Diagnostics, over its fees, according to
PRNewswire.

The suit doesn't define the size of the potential class in this
suit, but points out LabCorp claims to have 110 million "patient
encounters" per year. LabCorp has asked whether there is enough in
common among these plaintiffs to make a class-action suit.

LabCorp Vice President for Corporate Communications told the
Times-News the company did not comment on ongoing litigation. [GN]


LOUISIANA: Court Excludes Expert Opinion in Angola Inmates' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana issued a ruling granting Plaintiff's Motion to Exclude
Testimony of Dr. David Thomas in the case captioned JOSEPH LEWIS,
JR., ET AL. v. BURL CAIN, ET AL., Civil Action No. 15-318-SDD-RLB
(M.D. La.).

Plaintiffs are inmates at Louisiana State Penitentiary (Angola)
who bring this action on their own behalf and, putatively on
behalf of a class of prisoners who the named Plaintiffs claim are
now, or will in the future be, subjected to the medical care
policies and practices of Angola. Plaintiffs allege that the
inmate medical care at Angola violates the Eighth Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution and the ADA.  Plaintiffs seek declaratory and
injunctive relief.

Defendants seek to offer the expert opinion and testimony of Dr.
David L. Thomas, who was engaged by the Defendants to provide
opinions regarding the care provided by the Louisiana State
Penitentiary at Angola.

An expert may base an opinion on facts or data that the expert has
been made aware of or personally observed. Expert reports must
include how and why the expert reached a particular result, not
merely the expert's conclusory opinions. When an expert fails to
provide sufficiently detailed information regarding the bases of
[the expert's] opinion the opinion testimony should be excluded.

Defendants' argument that questions relating to the bases and
sources of Dr. Thomas' opinion go to the weight to be assigned his
opinion rather than its admissibility is unpersuasive. The
adversarial system requires that the opponents have the
opportunity to challenge the reliability of the opinion. Without,
at least, minimal identifying information as to the sources of the
empirical and investigative information relied upon, the
adversarial process is frustrated and the Court's gate-keeping
function thwarted.

Finally, the Court is unpersuaded by the Defendants' argument that
because this matter is set for a bench trial the risk of
misleading or confusing the finder of fact is of lesser concern.
The integrity of the judicial process, and considerations of
judicial economy, dictate that this virtually untestable opinion
testimony be excluded.

Security Opinions (Opinion Number 3)

Dr. Thomas opines security services at Angola comport with those
of other prisons and are within the standard of care. He is not
qualified by education, skill, training, or experience to opine on
security services. His opinion regarding security services is
excluded.

Legal Opinions (Opinion Numbers 4 & 5)

Dr. Thomas' proposed legal opinions will also be excluded. Dr.
Thomas opines that the Plaintiffs have no central nexus of
commonality that would warrant a class action and that with regard
to each of the Plaintiffs' complaints, care and treatment should
be evaluated individually to determine validity of the complaint
from the perspective of an expert and to determine if there is a
nexus through the complaints and the treatment to warrant
certification as a Class.

Dr. Thomas' opinions that any improvements that LSP should bring
about is best brought about by incremental administrative action,
not a judicial action or mandate are excluded. Opinions regarding
the propriety of the use of judicial process are wholly
inappropriate. This case presents questions arising under the
United States Constitution and Federal law.

The Court, and not Dr. Thomas, nor any administrative agency or
tribunal, is endowed with the constitutional mandate to interpret
and apply the United States Constitution and Federal law. Dr.
Thomas' opinions regarding the propriety and or advisability of
this Court's exercise of jurisdiction over questions of
Constitutional and Federal law are excluded.

For these reasons, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Testimony of
David Thomas is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 29, 2017 Ruling
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y7shcr2afrom Leagle.com.

Kentrell Parker, Plaintiff, represented by Mercedes Hardy
Montagnes, The Promise of Justice Initiative, 636 Baronne St
New Orleans, LA, 70113-1004

Kentrell Parker, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Warfield Hamilton
-- bhamilton@laaclu.org -- ACLU of Louisiana, Daniel A. Small --
dsmall@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
pro hac vice, Jeffrey Dubner, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
1100 New York Avenue North West, Suite 500, West, Washington, DC
20005, pro hac vice & Miranda Tait -- mtait@advocacyla.org --
Advocacy Center.

Farrell Sampier, Plaintiff, represented by Mercedes Hardy
Montagnes, The Promise of Justice Initiative
Farrell Sampier, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Warfield
Hamilton, ACLU of Louisiana, Daniel A. Small, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Dubner, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice & Miranda Tait, Advocacy Center.

Reginald George, Plaintiff, represented by Mercedes Hardy
Montagnes, The Promise of Justice Initiative
Reginald George, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Warfield
Hamilton, ACLU of Louisiana, Daniel A. Small, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Dubner, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice & Miranda Tait, Advocacy Center.

John Tonubbee, Plaintiff, represented by Mercedes Hardy Montagnes,
The Promise of Justice Initiative
John Tonubbee, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Warfield Hamilton,
ACLU of Louisiana, Daniel A. Small, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Dubner, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC, pro hac vice & Miranda Tait, Advocacy Center.

Otto Barrera, Plaintiff, represented by Mercedes Hardy Montagnes,
The Promise of Justice Initiative.

Otto Barrera, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Warfield Hamilton,
ACLU of Louisiana, Daniel A. Small, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Dubner, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC, pro hac vice & Miranda Tait, Advocacy Center.

Clyde Carter, Plaintiff, represented by Mercedes Hardy Montagnes,
The Promise of Justice Initiative.

Stephanie Lamartiniere, Defendant, represented by Mary E. Roper,
Shows, Cali, & Walsh LLP, 628 St. Louis Street, Baton Rouge, LA
70802-6159, Andrea Leigh Barient, Louisiana Department of Justice,
Caroline Tomeny Bond, Shows, Cali, & Walsh, LLP, 628 St. Louis
Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802-6159, Colin Andrew Clark, Office of
the Louisiana Attorney General -- Criminal Division, Elizabeth
Baker Murrill, Office of Attorney General, Jeffrey K. Cody, Shows,
Cali, Berthelot & Walsh, LLP & John Clifton Conine, Jr., Shows,
Cali & Walsh, L.L.P., 628 St. Louis Street, Baton Rouge, LA 70802-
6159

James M LeBlanc, Defendant, represented by Mary E. Roper, Shows,
Cali, & Walsh LLP, Andrea Leigh Barient, Louisiana Department of
Justice, Caroline Tomeny Bond, Shows, Cali, & Walsh, LLP, Colin
Andrew Clark, Office of the Louisiana Attorney General -- Criminal
Division, Elizabeth Baker Murrill, Office of Attorney General,
Jeffrey K. Cody, Shows, Cali, Berthelot & Walsh, LLP & John
Clifton Conine, Jr., Shows, Cali & Walsh, L.L.P..

The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections,
Defendant, represented by Mary E. Roper, Shows, Cali, & Walsh LLP,
Andrea Leigh Barient, Louisiana Department of Justice, Caroline
Tomeny Bond, Shows, Cali, & Walsh, LLP, Colin Andrew Clark, Office
of the Louisiana Attorney General -- Criminal Division, Elizabeth
Baker Murrill, Office of Attorney General, Jeffrey K. Cody, Shows,
Cali, Berthelot & Walsh, LLP & John Clifton Conine, Jr., Shows,
Cali & Walsh, L.L.P.

Darrel Vannoy, Defendant, represented by Mary E. Roper, Shows,
Cali, & Walsh LLP, Andrea Leigh Barient, Louisiana Department of
Justice, Caroline Tomeny Bond, Shows, Cali, & Walsh, LLP, Colin
Andrew Clark, Office of the Louisiana Attorney General -- Criminal
Division, Jeffrey K. Cody, Shows, Cali, Berthelot & Walsh, LLP &
John Clifton Conine, Jr., Shows, Cali & Walsh, L.L.P.

Raman Singh, Defendant, represented by Mary E. Roper, Shows, Cali,
& Walsh LLP, Andrea Leigh Barient, Louisiana Department of
Justice, Caroline Tomeny Bond, Shows, Cali, & Walsh, LLP, Colin
Andrew Clark, Office of the Louisiana Attorney General -- Criminal
Division, Jeffrey K. Cody, Shows, Cali, Berthelot & Walsh, LLP &
John Clifton Conine, Jr., Shows, Cali & Walsh, L.L.P.

Stacye Falgout, Defendant, represented by Mary E. Roper, Shows,
Cali, & Walsh LLP, Andrea Leigh Barient, Louisiana Department of
Justice, Caroline Tomeny Bond, Shows, Cali, & Walsh, LLP, Colin
Andrew Clark, Office of the Louisiana Attorney General -- Criminal
Division, Jeffrey K. Cody, Shows, Cali, Berthelot & Walsh, LLP &
John Clifton Conine, Jr., Shows, Cali & Walsh, L.L.P.

Randy Lavespere, Defendant, represented by Mary E. Roper, Shows,
Cali, & Walsh LLP, Andrea Leigh Barient, Louisiana Department of
Justice, Caroline Tomeny Bond, Shows, Cali, & Walsh, LLP, Colin
Andrew Clark, Office of the Louisiana Attorney General -- Criminal
Division, Jeffrey K. Cody, Shows, Cali, Berthelot & Walsh, LLP &
John Clifton Conine, Jr., Shows, Cali & Walsh, L.L.P.

Sherwood Poret, RN, Defendant, represented by Mary E. Roper,
Shows, Cali, & Walsh LLP, Andrea Leigh Barient, Louisiana
Department of Justice, Caroline Tomeny Bond, Shows, Cali, & Walsh,
LLP, Colin Andrew Clark, Office of the Louisiana Attorney General
-- Criminal Division, Jeffrey K. Cody, Shows, Cali, Berthelot &
Walsh, LLP & John Clifton Conine, Jr., Shows, Cali & Walsh, L.L.P.

Cynthia Park, Defendant, represented by Mary E. Roper, Shows,
Cali, & Walsh LLP, Andrea Leigh Barient, Louisiana Department of
Justice, Caroline Tomeny Bond, Shows, Cali, & Walsh, LLP, Colin
Andrew Clark, Office of the Louisiana Attorney General -- Criminal
Division, Jeffrey K. Cody, Shows, Cali, Berthelot & Walsh, LLP &
John Clifton Conine, Jr., Shows, Cali & Walsh, L.L.P.


LOUISIANA: Baton Rouge Protesters to Get Settlement Payouts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Blavity Team reports that nearly a year after protesters in Baton
Rouge were arrested during marches for 37-year-old resident Alton
Sterling -- who was killed by police while selling CDs outside of
a store -- a federal judge approved a class-action settlement
Friday, Oct. 27 that awards up to $1,000 to dozens.

One of the most high-profile activists to be involved with the
settlement was DeRay Mckesson who was arrested along with 69
others. Besides cash payments, the victims will have their records
expunged free of charge, the Associated Press reports.

U.S. District Judge John W. deGravelles gave the final approval
regarding the settlement after a hearing with McKesson and other
plaintiffs.  The 69 plaintiffs will ultimately be rewarded amounts
ranging from $500 to $1,000 out of the total value of the
settlement estimated at $136,000.

"It obviously is a matter that touches on a lot of sensitive
issues and had the potential for being very contentious and
destructive," Judge deGravelles said.

Kira Marrero, a 24-year-old plaintiff from New Orleans, was
arrested while protesting the police-involved shooting of
Sterling.

"I'm definitely glad that we're getting some justice, though at
the same time it's a really painful memory to dig up," she said.
"I'm still pretty heartbroken, I guess, by everything that
happened.  I think everyone who knew me trusted that I wasn't out
there breaking the law and that clearly something was wrong."

While this is a step in the right direction, the deal only settles
one of many outstanding lawsuits against Louisiana law enforcement
agencies. [GN]



LULAROE CO: Faces Class Action Over Buyback Policy
--------------------------------------------------
Noah Feit, writing for The State, reports that the California
clothing company that recently opened a distribution center in the
Midlands is facing some pricey lawsuits.

LuLaRoe is being sued for at least $1 billion in damages for
allegedly being a pyramid scheme, according to multiple reports.

This comes weeks after the West Coast retailer known for its
leggings, skirts and other women's clothing opened its new East
Coast distribution hub in Blythewood.

The lawsuits, including a federal class-action suit filed
Oct. 13, claim LuLaRoe recruited women to sell its goods from home
and left thousands of them with unreturnable merchandise,
according to The Associated Press.

The class-action lawsuit filed by four plaintiffs from across the
U.S. says LuLaRoe company deceived them when it changed its
buyback policy in September.  The policy change lowered the
promised refund from 100 percent to 90 percent of purchased
inventory, with additional restrictions, according to business
insider.

Another lawsuit, filed Oct. 23, alleges LuLaRoe encouraged women
to take out loans, run up credit cards and even sell their breast
milk, then left some in financial ruin with unsold goods,
according to The Associated Press, adding as many as 80,000 people
paid thousands up front for inventory.

"I was urged to stop paying my bills to invest in more inventory,"
one seller told Quartz in August.  "I was urged to get rid of
television.  I was urged to pawn my vehicle.  I just had to get on
anxiety meds over all of it because I've started having panic
attacks."

That lawsuit alleges Lularoe's main source of income isn't sales
to customers, but the thousands of purchases by their sellers to
build their "inventory."

LuLaRoe calls the suits baseless and inaccurate.

There's no word if it could impact the new distribution center in
Blythewood. About 500 employees are on site now, officials said,
with another shift of about 500 employees to be added in early
2018.

LuLaRoe sells its clothing through independent retailers, as
opposed to in stores or a company website.

The company sells minimum levels of $5,000 in stock to about
80,000 independent retailers, mainly millennial women who then
sell to their friends and acquaintances, building a customer base
through social media and online parties, according to media
reports.

The firm is known as a multi-level marketing company that
encourages its consultants to build teams of recruits and share in
their profits, the reports said.

CEO Mark Stidham -- who joined the company after his wife, DeAnne,
founded it --  had harsh words for consultants who complained
about the quality of their inventory and their inability to sell
it, according to businessinsider.  "No, you're stale.  Your
customers are stale.  Get out and find new customers. If you bring
a new customer in, then your inventory isn't stale.  The problem
is, you try to sell to the same group of people day after day
after day."

LuLaRoe's footprint in the Midlands is based in the former Bose
production plant, which stores 8 to 10 million garments at any
given time. About 9,000 orders comprised of about 469,000 pieces
of clothing are processed through the new center each day.

The company bought the 104-acre, 470,000 square-foot-facility on
Interstate 77 for $16 million.  The company is expected to invest
$35 million and create at least 1,000 jobs during the next few
years.

Most of the employees are recruited from temp agencies and are
required to work for 90 days absence free before being brought on
as full-time employees with benefits.

Before forming her company LuLaRoe, DeAnne Stidham was a single
mom who needed a way to earn a living while taking care of her
seven children.

In the early 1990s, she met a pair of dress wholesalers and
started selling end-of-season dresses to friends and family. By
2012, Ms. Stidham was designing her own maxi skirts.  The designs
took off, with sales fueled through her use of social media and
parties at friends' houses.

The business grew quickly, and she and her new husband,
Mark Stidham, formed a company later that year that they named
LuLaRoe after their three oldest grandchildren -- Lucy, Lola and
Monroe.  The concept was not to sell directly to the public, but
to "consultants" or "independent fashion retailers" who would use
DeAnne's social media and party techniques to sell the clothes
themselves. [GN]


LYFT INC: Misclassifies Drivers as Contractors, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Saif Chaundry, "Jane Doe" on their own behalf, and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. LYFT Inc., John Doe "LYFT Affiliates,
Case No. 1:17-cv-06135 (E.D.N.Y., October 20, 2017), is brought on
behalf of all New York-based LYFT drivers whom LYFT has deprively
misclassified as independent contractors and have therefore been
paying the expenses associated with operating vehicles, not
limited to fuel, maintenance, registration, tolls, insurance, and
other expenses and fees associated with the ownership, lease and
operation of a vehicle for commercial passenger use.

LYFT Inc. provides a mobile application that allows consumers to
obtain car transportation services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip M. Hines, Esq.
      Marc J. HInes, Esq.
      HELD & HINES, LLP
      2004 Ralph Avenue
      Brooklyn, NY 11234
      Telephone: (718) 531-9700
      Facsimile: (718) 444-5768
      E-mail: phines@heldhines.com
              mheld@heldhines.com


MACK'S SPORT: Wins Summary Judgment in Cooler Suit
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas, Western Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting
Defendant Mack's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned
JAMES MOORE, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons and entities, Plaintiff, v. MACK'S SPORT SHOP, LLLP d/b/a
MACK'S PRAIRIE WINGS, LLLP, and YETI COOLERS, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 4:16-cv-00540-KGB (E.D. Ark.).

The Mack Defendants move for summary judgment on Mr. Moore's
claims under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA)
and also move for summary judgment on several of Mr. Moore's
remaining claims, including his common law fraud or deceit claim
(Count II), negligence and gross negligence claim (Count VI), his
unjust enrichment claim (Count IV), his request for a constructive
trust (Count V), and his breach of contract claim (Count VII).

The Mack Defendants operate a retail store headquartered in
Stuttgart, Arkansas, that sells hunting products and apparel in
store, online, and through a catalog.  They are an authorized
dealer of Yeti(R) coolers. Yeti(R) coolers are premium coolers
known for keeping ice and other cold products cold for days. Mr.
Moore purchased a Yeti(R) Tundra(R) cooler online from Mack's. He
alleges that the advertised volume of the Tundra(R) model was not
accurate. Specifically, he contends that the cooler holds 37.6
quarts, rather than 45 quarts.

Mr. Moore complains that his Yeti(R) cooler volume is slightly
smaller than described and, therefore, the Mack Defendants
violated the ADTPA and committed fraud, as well as other unlawful
acts. He also seeks declaratory relief and temporary and permanent
injunctive relief, and he makes claims for negligence, unjust
enrichment, constructive trust, breach of contract, breach of
express warranties, breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, and breach of the implied warranty to conform
with usage of trade.

ADTPA Claims

A plaintiff must show that: (1) the plaintiff has sustained
damages; (2) the defendant used a deception, fraud, or false
pretense in connection with the sale or advertisement of services;
and (3) the defendant's conduct was a proximate cause of the
plaintiff's damages.

Actual Damages or Injury

Here, Mr. Moore's alleged damages are based solely upon an alleged
diminution in value, not that the product was not at all what
defendants represented.  Mr. Moore received what he intended to
purchase a cooler. Mr. Moore acknowledged that he has been able to
use the cooler for cooler duties. The Court determines that this
legal argument extends to Yeti. As a result, the Court determines
that defendants, both the Mack Defendants and Yeti, are entitled
to summary judgment on Mr. Moore's ADTPA claims on this basis.

Evidence of Intent to Deceive Under False Advertising Provision of
ADTPA

The ADTPA false advertising provisions under which Mr. Moore sues
defendants prohibit the following:

   (a)(1) knowingly making a false representation as to the
characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, alterations, source,
sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services or as
to whether goods are original or new or of a particular standard,
quality, grade, style, or model.

   (a)(3) advertising the goods or services with the intent not to
sell them as advertised.

The Court determines that the Mack Defendants are entitled to
summary judgment on Mr. Moore's ADTPA claims because, as they
point out, Mr. Moore does not contend and more importantly offers
no record evidence that the alleged false advertisements caused
him to purchase the Yeti(R) cooler or that he would not have
purchased the cooler had he known it only held 37.6 quarts.
The Court determines that absence of this proof is fatal to his
ADTPA claims. The Court also determines that this argument extends
to Yeti. Because there is no allegation or record evidence to
support this essential element of Mr. Moore's ADTPA claims, the
Court determines that the Mack Defendants and Yeti are entitled to
summary judgment on Mr. Moore's ADTPA claims on this basis, as
well.

Catch-All Provision of The ADTPA

Mr. Moore cites the same conduct and alleges that it also violates
the catch-all provision of the ADTPA. The Court determines that,
based on his allegations, the catch-all provision is not a viable
path for Mr. Moore to bring an ADTPA claim. Arkansas Code
Annotated Sections 4-88-107(a)(1) and (3) expressly prohibit
conduct that constitutes false advertising. Mr. Moore's claims
against defendants are based on allegations of false advertising.
The catch-all provision, by its terms, prohibits conduct different
than that addressed by subsections (a)(1) and (a)(3) of the ADTPA.

The only conduct about which Mr. Moore complains is defendants'
alleged misrepresentation in the advertising of the volume of the
Yeti(R) cooler. There is no other unconscionable, false, or
deceptive act or conduct alleged by Mr. Moore, and he has supplied
no record evidence to support other conduct. For these reasons,
the Court concludes that, as a matter of law, Mr. Moore may not
maintain a claim under the catch-all provision of the ADTPA. The
Court determines that this argument extends to Yeti, as well.

Therefore, the Court grants summary judgment in favor of the Mack
Defendants and Yeti on Mr. Moore's catch-all ADTPA claim.

Injunctive Relief Under The ADTPA

Mr. Moore, as a private litigant, may not maintain an action under
the ADTPA for injunctive relief. The ADTPA provides that the
Attorney General of this state shall have authority, acting
through the Consumer Counsel, to file an action in the court
designated in Section 4-88-112 for civil enforcement of the
provisions of this chapter, including, but not limited to, the
seeking of restitution and the seeking of an injunction
prohibiting any person from engaging in any deceptive or unlawful
practice prohibited by this chapter. The plain language of the
ADTPA does not provide for a private cause of action seeking
injunctive relief.

The Mack Defendants and Yeti are entitled to summary judgment in
their favor on Mr. Moore's ADTPA claim seeking injunctive relief
(Count III).

Common Law Fraud and Deceit

Common law fraud or deceit under Arkansas law requires that a
plaintiff show that: (1) he has sustained damages; (2) a false
representation of material fact was made by the defendant; (3) the
defendant knew that the representation was false; (4) the
defendant intended to induce the plaintiff to act in reliance upon
the representation; and (5) the plaintiff justifiably relied upon
the representation in acting and as a result sustained damages.

This type of claim requires as an element justifiable reliance on
the part of plaintiff. For the reasons explained in this Order,
Mr. Moore fails to allege or present record evidence of reasonable
reliance sufficient to survive summary judgment on this claim. For
this reason, the Mack Defendants and Yeti are entitled to summary
judgment on Mr. Moore's common law fraud or deceit claim.

Negligence and Gross Negligence Claim

Mr. Moore's negligence and gross negligence claim is premised on
the alleged misrepresentation of the Yeti cooler volume. Mr. Moore
asserts a claim for negligent misrepresentation. The Supreme Court
of Arkansas has made clear that this type of claim is not
recognized under Arkansas law. This Court declines to recognize
such a claim under Arkansas law.

For this reason, the Mack Defendants and Yeti are entitled to
summary judgment on Mr. Moore's claim of negligence and gross
negligence.

Unjust Enrichment and Request For Constructive Trust

Under Arkansas law, an unjust enrichment claim requires proof that
the defendant received something of value to which he or she is
not entitled and which he or she must restore.

The Mack Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary
judgment on Mr. Moore's unjust enrichment claim because the Mack
Defendants did not receive anything of value to which they were
not entitled. They maintain the undisputed evidence is that Mr.
Moore paid the market price for the Yeti(R) cooler he received,
regardless of whether the cooler was 45 or 37.6 quarts, as Yeti
set the price.

It is undisputed that Mr. Moore did not return the Yeti(R) cooler
to Mack's or exchange it for a larger capacity cooler. Instead,
Mr. Moore kept the cooler and continues to use it. The Court
concludes that, on the undisputed facts, Mr. Moore cannot succeed
on his unjust enrichment claim.

The Mack Defendants and Yeti are entitled to summary judgment in
their favor on Mr. Moore's unjust enrichment claim.

Breach of Contract

To prevail on a breach of contract claim under Arkansas law, a
plaintiff must show that: (1) the plaintiff and defendant had a
contract; (2) the contract required the defendant to perform a
certain act; (3) the plaintiff did what the contract required; (4)
the defendant did not do what the contract required; and (5) the
plaintiff was damaged by the breach.

Therefore, they contend they are entitled to summary judgment as a
matter of law on Mr. Moore's breach of contract claim. Mr. Moore
cites no authority to counter this.

Given the controlling law, the Court grants summary judgment to
the Mack Defendants and Yeti on Mr. Moore's breach of contract
claim.

The Court grants summary judgment to the Mack Defendants and Yeti
on Mr. Moore's ADTPA claims (Counts I and III), common law fraud
or deceit claim (Count II), negligence and gross negligence claim
(Count VI), unjust enrichment claim (Count IV), request for a
constructive trust (Count V), and breach of contract claim (Count
VII).

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 29, 2017
Opinion and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ydxqjv95from
Leagle.com.

James Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Russell Allen Wood, Wood
Law Firm, P.A., 915 West B Street, Russellville, AR 72081.

Mack's Sport Shop LLLP, Defendant, represented by Richard T.
Donovan, Rose Law Firm, Amanda K. Wofford, Rose Law Firm & Karen
Baker, Rose Law Firm. 120 East Fourth Street, Little Rock, AR
72201-2893

Yeti Coolers LLC, Defendant, represented by David P. Whittlesey,
Andrews Kurth LLP, 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700, Austin, TX
78701, pro hac vice, G. Alan Perkin -- alan@ppgmrlaw.com --
Perkins Peiserich Greathouse Morgan Rankin, Joseph W. Golinkin,
II, Andrews Kurth LLP, 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700, Austin, TX
78701, pro hac vice & Micah Goodwin --  micah@ppgmrlaw.com --
Perkins Peiserich Greathouse Morgan Rankin.


MANLEY LAUNDROMAT: Faces "Sze" Suit in S. Dist. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Manley Laundromat,
Inc.  The case is styled as Choi Ying Sze, On behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Manley Laundromat, Inc., Harry
Dai and Van Vu Dai, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-08160 (S.D. N.Y.,
October 23, 2017).

Manley Laundromat, Inc. is engaged in the laundry business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


MARS PETCARE: 6th Cir. Remands "Roberts" TTPA Suit to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RANDY ROBERTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARS
PETCARE US, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 17-6122 (6th Cir.),
Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the Plaintiff's
motion to remand the case to state court.

On Jan. 11, 2017, Roberts filed the class action against Mars in a
Tennessee state court.  He alleged that Mars conspired with other
pet food manufacturers, veterinarian chains, and a retailer to
employ a prescription-authorization requirement to sell pet food
at above market prices in violation of the Tennessee Trade
Practices Act.

On Feb. 9, 2017, Mars removed the case to the Eastern District of
Tennessee, invoking the court's diversity jurisdiction under the
Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  Roberts filed a motion to
remand, which the district court denied.  Judge Sutton granted
Roberts' petition for permission to appeal.

Judge Sutton explains that under CAFA, federal courts may hear
class actions with minimal diversity, such that only one plaintiff
and one defendant need be citizens of different States, so long as
there are 100 or more class members and an aggregate amount in
controversy of at least $5,000,000.  Incorporated in Delaware and
headquartered in Tennessee, Mars is a citizen of both States.

Because Section 1332(d)(2)(A) refers to all of a defendant's
citizenships, not the alternative that suits it, Mars cannot rely
on its State of incorporation (Delaware) and ignore its principal
place of business (Tennessee) to create diversity under the CAFA.
And because Mars has not demonstrated the minimal diversity
required by Section 1332(d)(2)(A), the Judge needs not address
Roberts' argument that the home-state exception in Section
1332(d)(4)(B) applies to the case. For these reasons, Judge Sutton
reverses and remanded to the district court for further
proceedings consistent with his Opinion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/3pcfvT from Leagle.com.

Charles Barrett -- cbarrett@nealharwell.com -- NEAL & HARWELL,
PLC, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant.

Xiao Wang -- xwang@wc.com -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, Washington,
D.C., for Appellee.

Charles Barrett, NEAL & HARWELL, PLC, Nashville, Tennessee, Gordon
Ball -- gball@gordonball.com -- GORDON BALL, PLLC, Knoxville,
Tennessee, for Appellant.

Xiao Wang, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, Washington, D.C., R. Dale
Grimes -- dgrimes@bassberry.com -- Russell E. Stair --
rstair@bassberry.com -- BASS, BERRY & SIMS PLC, Nashville,
Tennessee, for Appellee.


MARTINIQUE RESTAURANT: Ahmed Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mohammad Ahmed, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Martinique Restaurant Associates LLC,
d/b/a Petit Poulet, the Defendant, Case No. 715134/2017 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Oct. 31, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid non-overtime wages
and wage deductions, maximum liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees, pursuant to the New York Minimum
Wage Act and New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was not paid for each
and all hours worked in a week, for each week during his
employment with Defendant -- Plaintiff was required to report to
work earlier than his official scheduled time and was required to
work beyond his scheduled time for most or all days during his
employment with Defendant but Defendant had a policy and practice
of failing to pay Plaintiff for such extra work time in violation
of the NYLL. The Plaintiff was not paid any wages for 3 to 5 or
more hours weekly. The Plaintiff worked approximately 20 to 25
hours each week for Defendant but was not paid for all hours
worked in each week.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          Abdul Hassan Law Group, PLLC
          215-28 Hillside Avenue
          Queens Village, NY 11427
          Telephone: (718) 740 1000
          Facsimile: (718) 740 2000
          E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


MARVIN ENGINEERING: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Alvarez" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
IVAN ALVAREZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MARVIN
ENGINEERING CO., INC., a California corporation; MARVIN LAND
SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC681939 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Oct. 31, 2017), alleges that Defendants' policies and practices of
requiring employees, including Plaintiff and the other class
members, to work overtime without paying them proper compensation
violate California Labor Code sections 510 and 1198. Additionally,
Defendants' policies and practices of requiring employees,
including Plaintiff and the other class members, to work through
their meal and rest periods without paying them proper
compensation violate California Labor Code sections
226.7 and 512(a).  Moreover, Defendants' policies and practices of
failing to timely pay wages to Plaintiff and the other class
members violate California Labor Code sections 201, 202, and
204.

Marvin Engineering manufactures and supplies aerospace and defense
equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265 1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265 1021


MASSACHUSETTS: DOE Faces Equal Class Suit Over DeVos Rules
----------------------------------------------------------
Equal Means Equal, Jane Doe, Mary Doe, Susan Doe, and similarly
situated others v. United States Department of Education and
Betsy Devos, Case No. 1:17-cv-12043-MLW (D. Mass., October 19,
2017), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including
temporary and permanent restraining orders, to prevent schools
from adopting or applying the DeVos rules.

The DeVos rules state, "the Department intends to engage in
rulemaking on the topic of schools' Title IX responsibilities
concerning complaints of sexual misconduct, including peer-on-peer
sexual harassment and sexual violence. The Department will solicit
input from stakeholders and the public during that rulemaking
process." The document further states that the DeVos rules will
serve as "interim information about how OCR (the Office for Civil
Rights) will assess a school's compliance with Title IX."

Equal Means Equal is an organization whose primary purpose is to
advocate for sex/gender equality.

United States Department of Education is an executive agency of
the United States government.

Betsy DeVos is the United States Secretary of Education. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Wendy Murphy, Esq.
      154 Stuart Street
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 422-7410
      E-mail: wmurphy@nesl.edu


MDL 2492: "Foreman" Class Suit Transferred to Illinois Dist. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on August 7, 2017, titled David
Foreman, individually and behalf of all other similarly situated
v. The National Collegiate Athletic Association and The American
Southwest Conference, Case No. 1:17-cv-02653, was transferred on
October 19, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:17-cv-07547 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: National Collegiate Athletic Association Student-Athlete
Concussion Injury Litigation, MDL No. 2492.

The actions in the litigation seek medical monitoring for putative
classes of former student-athletes at NCAA-member schools, who
allege they suffered concussions.  The Plaintiffs allege that the
NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term
effects of concussion injuries.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is an unincorporated
association that acts as the governing body of college sports.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Vincent P. Circelli, Esq.
      CIRCELLI WALTER & YOUNG PLLC
      500 East 4th St., Suite 250
      Fort Worth, TX 76102
      Telephone: (682) 703-2019
      E-mail: vinny@cwylaw.com


MDL 2633: "Imbler" Class Suit Transferred to Oregon Dist. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on July 21, 2017 captioned Ross
Imbler, Stuart And Ilene Hirsh, Kevin Smith And Catherine Bushman,
Sharif Ailey, April Allred, Robert and Theresa Foulon, Crystal
Hayes, Barbara Lynch, Kevin McLallen, Surya Prakash, Gabriel And
Laura Webster, individually and on behalf of the proposed classes
v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:17-cv-01109 was transferred on
October 18, 2017, from the U. S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Oregon. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-
01648-SI to the proceeding.

The Case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation titled In
re: Premera Blue Cross Customer Data Security Breach Litigation in
the District of Oregon, assigned to Judge Michael H. Simon under
MDL No. 2633.

The case rises out of Premera's failure to protect the
confidential information of millions of consumers-including their
names, dates of birth, mailing addresses, telephone numbers, email
addresses, Social Security numbers, member identification numbers,
medical claims information, financial information, and other
protected health information.

Premera Blue Cross is a healthcare benefits provider existing
under the laws of the State of Washington with its headquarters
and principal place of business located at 7001 220th Street SW,
Building 1, Mountlake Terrace, Washington 98043. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chase C. Alvord, Esq.
      Christopher I. Brain, Esq.
      Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
      Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
      TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
      1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 682-5600
      Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
      E-mail: calvord@tousley.com
              cbrain@tousley.com
              jdennett@tousley.com
              kstephens@tousley.com


MDL 2795: "Williams" Suit v. CenturyLink Consolidated in Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Anna M. Williams, an individual,
Gulf Coast Attorneys LLC, and Brent Lee LLC, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
CenturyLink Inc.; Centurylink Communications LLC; CenturyLink
Public Communications, Inc.; CenturyLink Sales Solutions, Inc.;
CenturyTel of Alabama LLC; CenturyTel Holdings Alabama, Inc.; Gulf
Coast Services LLC; and Gulf Telephone Company LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00384, was transferred on Oct. 31,
2017 from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
The Minnesota District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:17-cv-
04943-MJD-KMM to the proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Francois Michel Blaudeau, MD
          SOUTHERN INSTITUTE FOR
          MEDICAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS
          2224 1st Ave. North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 547 5525
          Facsimile: (205) 547 5526
          E-mail: FRANCOIS@SOUTHERNMEDLAW.COM

               - and -

          Christopher Boyce Hood, Esq.
          W Lewis Garrison, Jr.
          HENINGER GARRISON & DAVIS LLC
          2224 1st Ave. N.
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 326 3366
          PO Box 11310
          Birmingham, AL 35202
          Telephone: (205) 326 3336
          Facsimile: (205) 326 3332
          E-mail: wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com


MDL 2795: "Denniston" Suit v. CenturyLink Consolidated in Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Peter J. Denniston and Jon
Lodestein, individually and as representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. CenturyLink Inc., a
Louisiana corporation; Centurylink Communications LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; CenturyLink Public Communications,
Inc., a Florida corporation; CenturyLink Sales Solutions, Inc., a
Delaware corporation; and Qwest Corporation, a Colorado
corporation, Case No. 3:17-cv-00052, was transferred on Oct. 31,
2017 from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Iowa, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
The Minnesota District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:17-cv-
04944-MJD-KMM to the proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anne T Regan, Esq.
          Jason S Raether, Esq.
          Nicholas S Kuhlmann, Esq.
          HELLMUTH & JONNSON
          8050 West 78th St.
          Edina, MN 55439
          Telephone: (952) 941 4005
          E-mail: aregan@hjlawfirm.com
                  jraether@hjlawfirm.com
                  nkuhlmann@hjlawfirm.com
                  rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Roxanne Barton Conlin, Esq.
          ROXANNE CONLIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          3721 SW 61st Street, Suite C
          Des Moines, IA 50321
          Telephone: (515) 283 1111
          Facsimile: (515) 282 0477
          E-mail: efile@roxanneconlinlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Douglas Paul Lobel, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP (VA)
          11951 Freedom Drive, Suite 1400
          RESTON, VA 20190-5656
          Telephone: (703) 456 8019
          Facsimile: (703) 456 8100
          E-mail: dlobel@cooley.com

               - and -

          Stephen J Holtman, Esq.
          Jacob W. Nelson, Esq.
          SIMMONS PERRINE MOYER BERGMAN, PLC
          115 3rd St SE Ste 1200
          Cedar Rapids, IA 52401
          Telephone: (319) 366 7641
          E-mail: sholtman@simmonsperrine.com
                  jnelson@simmonsperrine.com


MDL 2795: "Lucero" Suit v. CenturyLink Consolidated in Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Richard Lucero, On behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CenturyLink Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00873, was
transferred on Oct. 31, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota. The Minnesota District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 0:17-cv-04945-MJD-KMM to the proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfred M Sanchez, Esq.
          400 Gold Avenue Sw, Suite 240
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 242 1979
          E-mail: lawyeralfredsanchez@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Cassandra R. Malone, Esq.
          Eric R. Burris, Esq.
          BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK
          201 Third St NW, Suite 1800
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 244 0770
          Facsimile: (505) 244 9266
          E-mail: crmalone@bhfs.com
                  eburris@bhfs.com


MDL 2795: "Miller" Suit v. CenturyLink Consolidated in Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Susan Miller, individually and as
a representative of a class of similarly situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. CenturyLink, Inc., a Louisiana corporation;
CenturyLink Communications, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; CenturyLink Public Communications, Inc., a Florida
corporation; CenturyLink Sales Solutions, Inc., a Delaware
corporation; Qwest Corporation, a Colorado corporation; and
CenturyTel of Wisconsin, LLC, a Louisiana corporation, Case No.
3:17-cv-00648, was removed on Oct. 31, 2017 from the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota. The Minnesota District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 0:17-cv-04947-MJD-KMM to the proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anne Troy Regan, Esq.
          Nicholas S. Kuhlmann, Esq.
          Richard Michael Hagstrom, Esq
          HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
          8050 West 78th Street
          Edina, MN 55439
          Telephone: (952) 941 4005
          E-mail: aregan@hjlawfirm.com
                  nkuhlmann@hjlawfirm.com
                  rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Roxanne Barton Conlin, Esq.
          ROXANNE CONLIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          3721 SW 61st Street, Suite C
          Des Moines, IA 50321
          Telephone: (515) 283 1111
          Facsimile: (515) 282 0477
          E-mail: efile@roxanneconlinlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael D Leffel, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          PO Box 1497
          Madison, WI 53701-1497
          Telephone: (608) 258 4216
          Facsimile: (608) 258 4258
          E-mail: mleffel@foley.com


MDL 2796: "Baker" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on September 8, 2017, captioned
Simon Barker, Mary Kathlene Harmon, and Holly Buffinton, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Audi AG, Audi of America, Inc., Audi of America, LLC, Bayerische
Motoren Werke AG, BMW of North America, LLC, Daimler AG, Mercedes-
Benz USA, LLC, Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc.,
Mercedesbenz Vans, LLC, DR. ING. H.C.F. Porsche AG, Porsche Cars
of North America, Inc., Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., and Bentley Motors Limited, Case No. 9:17-cv-81021
was transferred on October 24, 2017, from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-06074-CRB to the proceeding.

The Baker case is being consolidated with MDL 2796. 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 Honorable Charles R. Breyer.

The case arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful
combination, agreement and conspiracy to unlawfully fix the prices
of German Passenger Vehicles, stifle innovation, reduce
competition, and mislead American consumers, all for the purpose
of increasing their market shares and their financial bottom
lines.

The Defendants are in the business of designing, developing,
manufacturing, distributing, and selling German Passenger Vehicles
throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Bennett Spark, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW BENNETT SPARK
      13851 W. Hillsborough Ave., Suite 187
      Tampa, FL 33635
      Telephone: (941) 321-5927
      Facsimile: (813) 441-1117
      E-mail: abspark@msn.com


MDL 2796: "Cordover" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on August 1, 2017, styled Alan
Cordover, Jacobo Florens, Gina Franco Florens, and Robert
Pasternak, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BMW AG, BMW OF North America, LLC, Volkswagen AG,
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi AG, Audi of America, Inc.,
Audi of America, LLC, DR. ING. H.C. F. Porsche AG, Porsche Cars
North America, Inc., Bentley Motors Limited, Daimler AG, Mercedes-
Benz USA, LLC and Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Case No. 0:17-
cv-61528, was transferred on October 24, 2017, from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-06073-CRB to the
proceeding.

The Cordover case is being consolidated with MDL 2796. 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 Honorable Charles R. Breyer.

The case arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful
combination, agreement and conspiracy to unlawfully fix the prices
of German Passenger Vehicles, stifle innovation, reduce
competition, and mislead American consumers, all for the purpose
of increasing their market shares and their financial bottom
lines.

The Defendants are in the business of designing, developing,
manufacturing, distributing, and selling German Passenger Vehicles
throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael James Pascucci, Esq.
      Joshua Harris Eggnatz, Esq
      EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP
      5400 University Drive, Suite 417
      Davie, FL 33329
      Telephone: (954) 889-3359
      Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
      E-mail: MPascucci@ELPLawyers.com
              JEggnatz@ELPLawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Stephen Carey Villeneuve, Esq.
      BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY
      401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2250
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 703-3901
      Facsimile: (954) 527-9915
      E-mail: carey.villeneuve@bipc.com


MDL 2796: "Kebart" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on September 20, 2017, titled
Jacqueline Kebart, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen AG; Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.; Audi
AG; Audi of America, Inc.; Audi of America, LLC; DR. ING. H.C.F.
Porsche AG; Porsche Cars of North America, Inc.; Bentley Motors
Limited; Daimler Aktiengesellschaft; Mercedesbenz USA, LLC;
Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC; Mercedes-Benz Us International, Inc.; BMW
AG and BMW North America, LLC, Case No. 9:17-cv-81039,
was transferred on October 24, 2017, from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-06074-CRB to the proceeding.

The Kebart case is being consolidated with MDL 2796. 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 Honorable Charles R. Breyer.

The case arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful
combination, agreement and conspiracy to unlawfully fix the prices
of German Passenger Vehicles, stifle innovation, reduce
competition, and mislead American consumers, all for the purpose
of increasing their market shares and their financial bottom
lines.

The Defendants are in the business of designing, developing,
manufacturing, distributing, and selling German Passenger Vehicles
throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      1625 North Commerce Parkway, Suite 320
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33326
      Telephone: (866) 300-7367
      Facsimile: (954) 515-0124
      E-mail: nzipperian@sfmslaw.com


MDL 2797: "Smith" Class Suit Transferred to C. Dist. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on August 24, 2017, styled Gregory
Smith, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
Wells Fargo & Company, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., d/b/a Wells Fargo
Dealer Services, National General Holdings Corp., and National
General Insurance Company, Case No. 3:17-cv-04938, was transferred
on October 19, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:17-cv-01819-AG-KES to the proceeding.

The Case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation 2797.
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 Central District of
California and assigned to Andrew J. Guilford.

The case arises from Wells' scheme that forced hundreds of
thousands of customers of automobile financing to unwittingly pay
for automotive insurance they did not need, leading to hundreds of
thousands of erroneous loan delinquencies and tens of thousands of
illegal vehicle repossessions.

The Defendants operate a national association bank that is one of
the nation's largest corporations, providing a wide range of
financial services to customers throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kristen Law Sagafi, Esq.
      TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP
      483 Ninth Street Suite 200
      Oakland, CA 94607
      Telephone: (510) 254-6810
      Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
      E-mail: ksagafi@tzlegal.com

         - and -

      Craig L. Briskin, Esq.
      MEHRI AND SKALET PLLC
      1250 Connecticut Ave NW Suite 300
      Wasington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 822-5100
      E-mail: cbriskin@findjustice.com


MEDFIRST CONSULTING: "Kiley" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Ala.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on March 23, 2017 captioned Jill
Kiley and Marcus Payne, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MedFirst Consulting Healthcare Staffing,
LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-00470 was transferred on October 17, 2017
from the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
(Southern). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-
01756-RDP to the proceeding.

The case asserts labor-related claims.

MedFirst Consulting Healthcare Staffing, LLC provides information
technology and educational services for the healthcare industry
across the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Beth Creighton, Esq.
      CREIGHTON & ROSE, PC
      65 S.W. Yamhill Street, Suite 300
      Portland, OR 97204
      Telephone: (503) 221-1792
      Facsimile: (503) 223-1516
      E-mail: beth@civilrightspdx.com

         - and -

      Harold Lichten, Esq.
      Olena Savytska, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 994-5800
      Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
      E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
              osavytska@llrlaw.com

         - and -

      David M. Blanchard, Esq.
      Daniel Tai, Esq.
      BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
      221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
      Ann Arbor, MI 48104
      Telephone: (734) 929-4313
      E-mail: blanchard@bwlawonline.com
              tai@bwlawonline.com
The Defendant is represented by:

      John A. Berg, Esq.
      LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
      121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 900
      Portland, OR 97204
      Telephone: (503) 221-0309
      Facsimile: (503) 242-2457
      E-mail: jberg@littler.com


MEDICAL DATA: Court OKs Stipulation Dismissing Lizama Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California issued an Order granting Parties' Stipulation
Dismissing Claims against Defendant Medical Data Systems in the
case captioned JONATHAN LIZAMA individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MEDICAL DATA SYSTEMS,
INC. DBA MEDICAL REVENUE SYSTEM; DOES 1-100, AND EACH OF THEM,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02773-WBS-CKD (E.D. Cal.).

The action is dismissed as to Jonathan Lizama, with prejudice, and
the class action claims asserted in the lawsuit are dismissed
without prejudice, pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A).

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 29, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9ahxoqhfrom Leagle.com.

Jonathan Lizama, Plaintiff, represented by Todd M. Friedman --
tfriedman@toddflaw.com -- Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C..

Medical Data Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by David Jay
Kaminski -- kaminskid@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer LLP & Shawn
Sheridan Eldridge -- eldridges@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer.


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: "Bazrganian" Suit Transferred to New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HAGOP BAZRGANIAN, on behalf of all plaintiffs,
Plaintiff, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company; DAIMLER AG, a German Multinational Automotive
Corporation; DAIMLER TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA LLC, an Oregon Limited
Liability Company; DETROIT DIESEL CORPORATION, a Michigan
Corporation; DAIMLER VANS USA, LLC, a South Carolina Limited
Liability Company, DAIMLER VEHICLE INNOVATIONS, LLC, a New Jersey
Limited Liability Company; DAIMLER NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, a
New Jersey Corporation; CALSTAR MOTORS, a Mercedes-Benz Dealer;
CARRIE KINNEY, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-06521-ODW(JPR) (C.D. Cal.), Judge
Otis D. Wright, III of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California granted the Defendants' unopposed Motion to
Transfer Venue.

On Feb. 18, 2016, a consumer class-action lawsuit was filed
against MBUSA in the U.S. for the District of New Jersey, alleging
that Mercedes-Benz diesel vehicles are falsely advertised as
"clean" or environmentally friendly ("First-Filed Action").
Subsequent to the filing of the First-Filed Action, five other
putative class actions that presented substantially similar false
advertising claims against MBUSA were filed in various district
courts.  In May 2016, these cases were either dismissed or
consolidated with the First-Filed Action.  On Sept. 25, 2017, the
Plaintiffs in the First-Filed Action filed a fourth amended
complaint.

In the First-Filed Action, those Plaintiffs defined their putative
class as all persons or entities in the United States who owned
and or leased a Polluting Vehicle as of Feb. 18, 2016.  Polluting
Vehicles include, without limitation, the diesel-powered: ML 320,
ML 350, GL 320, E320, S350, R320, E Class, GL Class, ML Class, R
Class, S Class, GLK Class, GLE Class, and Sprinter.  Further, the
Plaintiffs in the First-Filed Action defined their California
Subclass as all persons or entities in the state of California who
owned and/or leased a Polluting Vehicle as of Feb. 18, 2016.

The First-Filed Action's Fourth Amended Complaint alleges, among
other things, violations of various state and federal consumer
protection acts, violations of various business laws, and
fraudulent concealment.

On July 14, 2017, Plaintiff Bazrganian filed the instant action
against MBUSA and other Defendants alleging: (i) breach of
contract, (ii) violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty
Act, (iii) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, (iv)
violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, (v)
violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and
(vi) violations of the California False Advertising Law.

Bazrganian defines his class as all persons, including individual,
non-corporate entities, or corporations, wherever organized or
existing in the United States who are former or current owners of
an Affected Vehicle.  Bazrganian defines "Affected Vehicles" as
including, without limitation (i) Dodge/Freightliner
Trucks/Mercedes-Benz Sprinter Van (2006-Present); (ii) Mercedes-
Benz C320 CDI (2005-Present); and (iii) Mercedes-Benz E280 & E320
CDI/BlueTEC (2007-2009) Models 211.02 & 022.

On Sept. 27, 2017, the Defendants moved to transfer the action to
the District of New Jersey under the first-to-file rule, or under
1404(a), in the alternative.  Bazrganian failed to oppose the
Motion.

Judge Wright finds that nearly all of the putative class members
in the First-Filed Action's nationwide class as well as the First-
Filed Action's California subclass would be covered under
Bazrganian's putative class.  While Bazrganian's putative class
covers members from a broader time period, there is still
substantial overlap in potential class members between the action
and the First-Filed Action.  Both cases allege fraudulent
concealment, violations of the California Unfair Competition Law,
violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and
violations of the California False Advertising Law.  Moreover, the
fact that Bazrganian's action includes additional Defendants is
not dispositive in determining that the cases are not
substantially similar.

For these reasons, Judge Wright granted the Defendants' Motion to
Transfer to U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
He directed the Clerk of the Court to transfer and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/5hFwl5 from Leagle.com.

Hagop Bazrganian, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T. Aumais,
Girardi Keese.

Hagop Bazrganian, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Lira, Girardi
& Keese & Thomas Vincent Girardi, Girardi Keese.

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Eric J. Knapp --
eric.knapp@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs LLP & Troy M.
Yoshino -- troy.yoshino@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs US
LLP.

Daimler Trucks North America LLC, Defendant, represented by Eric
J. Knapp, Squire Patton Boggs LLP.

Detroit Diesel Corporation, Defendant, represented by Eric J.
Knapp, Squire Patton Boggs LLP.

Daimler Vans USA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Eric J. Knapp,
Squire Patton Boggs LLP.

Daimler North America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Eric
J. Knapp, Squire Patton Boggs LLP.

Calstar Motors, Defendant, represented by Eric J. Knapp, Squire
Patton Boggs LLP.


MGM RESORTS: Faces "Spencer" Suit Over Safety & Security Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Spencer, Cindy Vandyke, Jeffrey Sambrano, Amanda
Sambrano, Stephen Sambrano, Janae Sambrano, Michael Sambrano,
Ashlie Guerrero, Miguel Guerrero, and Stanley Rendon, on behalf of
themselves and a class of all members of the general public
similarly situated v. Stephen Paddock, a deceased individual; The
Estate of Stephen Paddock; MGM Resorts International; Mandalay
Corp.; Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.; Live Nation Group d/b/a
OneNation, LLC; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
BC680065 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 17, 2017), is an action for
damages as a result of the Defendants failure to provide
reasonable, adequate, and sufficient security personnel and to
otherwise take appropriate steps to ensure the safety and
protection of persons lawfully on the premises of the Resort and
the Village, including, but not limited to: (a) properly surveil
people coming and going form the Resort; (b) monitor the Resort
with closed-circuit television ("CCTV"); (c) timely respond to or
otherwise act in response to the shooting the Resort's Security
Guard; (d) notice or take precaution against Defendant PADDOCK's
delivery of guns and ammunition to his Resort room; (e) notice or
take action that Defendant PADDOCK had set up surveillance outside
his Resort room; (f) adequately prevent or timely discover
Defendant PADDOCK's breaking the window of his Resort room; and
(g) adequately train and supervise employees on the reporting and
discovery of suspicious individuals and person and activity; (h)
screen Resort guests and their baggage; and (i) have an adequate
exit plan at the Village in case of an emergency.

The Defendants operate Las Vegas Village, an open-air concert and
event venue located at 3901 South Las Vegas Boulevard, Paradise,
Nevada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander D. Napolin, Esq.
      Catherine R. Lombardo, Esq.
      NAPOLIN LAW FIRM, INC.
      269 W. Bonita Avenue
      Claremont, CA 91711
      Telephone: (909) 325-6032
      Facsimile: (909) 614-7373

         - and -

      Farris E. Ain, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF FARRIS AIN
      A Professional Corporation
      269 West Bonita Avenue, Suite A
      Claremont, CA 91711
      Telephone: (909) 626-1166
      Facsimile: (909) 669-5025


MINNESOTA: Court Grants Class Certification in ADA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Plaintiff's Motion
for Class Certification in the case captioned Tenner Murphy, by
his guardians Kay and Richard Murphy; Marrie Bottelson; Dionne
Swanson; and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. Emily Johnson Piper in her capacity as Commissioner of The
Minnesota Department of Human Services, Defendant, Civil No. 16-
2623 (DWF/BRT). (D Minn.)

Plaintiffs are individuals with disabilities and Medicaid
recipients who receive Home and Community Based Disability Waivers
(Disability Waivers) from the State of Minnesota under the
direction of Defendant Emily Johnson Piper (Defendant),
Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS).
Plaintiffs reside in Community Residential Setting (CRS)
facilities otherwise known as corporate adult foster care and wish
to access various individualized housing services available under
the Disability Waivers to pursue more integrated housing options.

Plaintiffs assert that their current living situations isolate and
segregate them from their communities in violation of federal law.
To access the services they seek in a timely manner and with
proper due process, Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive
relief to reform Defendant's administration of the Disability
Waiver programs.

Numerosity

The Court disagrees that the class is not sufficiently
ascertainable.  First, the Court notes that many of the questions
Defendant identifies need not be answered at all to identify class
membership. For example, the Court will not need to determine the
individual living preferences or most integrated setting of
individuals residing in CRS facilities to determine the scope of
the class. As the Court discusses in more detail, below,
Plaintiffs seek system-wide relief so that those determinations
can be made in the context of Defendant's own administration of
the Waiver Services programs state-wide.

As Plaintiffs suggest, the Court can ascertain class membership
based simply on the objective criteria of (1) whether an
individual is currently in a CRS facility and (2) whether he or
she has received an opportunity to reside in the most integrated
setting appropriate to his or her needs.5 To be sure, the latter
inquiry may be somewhat subjective in nature as Plaintiffs appear
to contest what constitutes adequate informed choice. However, the
Court agrees with the courts that have rejected or applied a
relaxed approach to ascertainability in the context of a Rule
23(b)(2) class and finds that the proposed class is sufficiently
ascertainable to support certification.

The Court finds that Rule 23(a)(1)'s numerosity requirement is
satisfied.

Commonality

The Court previously determined that Plaintiffs have adequately
pled integration mandate claims under the ADA and the RA based on
their allegations of being unduly segregated in CRS facilities and
not receiving Disability Waiver services 'in the most integrated
setting appropriate to [their] needs.  Similar to their reasonable
promptness claim, Plaintiffs' integration mandate claims focus on
Defendant's lack of oversight and failure to ensure the provision
of available Disability Waiver services throughout the state.

As the Court previously noted in considering the plausibility of
Plaintiffs' claims, Plaintiffs assert that rather than require
state-wide access to individualized housing services, Defendants
provide impermissible discretion to each lead agency to choose
whether to offer individualized housing services.  According to
Plaintiffs, this abdication of DHS's responsibility to provide and
ensure choice prevents individuals receiving Disability Waiver
services from receiving an informed choice and opportunity to live
in the most integrated setting.

Determining the validity of these contentions lodged against
Defendant would resolve for all class members whether their right
to receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate to
their needs has been protected.  The possibility that not all
class members would ultimately move out of a CRS facility and even
the possibility that a CRS facility is in fact the most integrated
setting for some individuals does not defeat commonality.

Plaintiffs seek to avoid the common injury of unjustified or
unnecessary segregation through a system that offers a choice and
opportunity to transition to the most integrated setting
appropriate to their needs. These alleged injuries are thus
capable of class-wide resolution.

Plaintiffs have identified multiple questions of law or fact
common to the class" that are capable of class-wide resolution.

Therefore, Plaintiffs have satisfied Rule 23(a)(2).

Typicality

As the Court concluded with respect to commonality, individualized
inquiries are not necessary to determine Defendant's liability for
the alleged violations of federal law because Plaintiffs'
challenges focus on Defendant's actions and inactions applied to
the system as a whole. Furthermore, the Named Plaintiffs' claims
are typical even though proposed class members may be eligible for
individualized housing services under different Disability Waivers
administered in different counties.
It is also no bar to certification that some individuals in the
proposed class may not want to move out of a CRS facility because
the requested relief is aimed at providing opportunities to access
more integrated alternatives, and it is immaterial whether all
proposed class members will ultimately take advantage of those
opportunities.

Because Plaintiffs' claims stem from the same legal theory and
seek the same legal remedy as the proposed class, Plaintiffs
satisfy Rule 23(a)(3).

Adequacy

Rule 23(a)(4) requires plaintiffs to establish that the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class.

The Court finds that the Named Plaintiffs have met the
requirements of Rule 23(a)(4). Consistent with the Court's
analysis of both the commonality and typicality requirements,
above, the Court finds that the Named Plaintiffs assert injuries
that are common to and typical of those alleged on behalf of the
proposed class unjustified isolation and segregation in CRS
facilities and denial of available Disability Waiver services.

The Court also finds that counsel for the Named Plaintiffs are
qualified to assist the Named Plaintiffs in serving as class
representatives and vigorously advancing the goals of the class.
Along with detailing their qualifications to represent the class
in declarations to the Court, counsel for the Named Plaintiffs
have also vigorously represented the interests of the Named
Plaintiffs and the proposed class in the months since this
litigation began.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have established adequacy under
Rule 23(a)(4).

Rule 23(b)

Along with meeting the prerequisites of Rule 23(a), a party
seeking class certification must also satisfy one or more of the
conditions set forth under Rule 23(b).  In this case, Plaintiffs
seek certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class. Under this provision,
certification is proper if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and if the
party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds
that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief
or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the
class as a whole.

The Court finds that the proposed class may be properly certified
under Rule 23(b)(2) because this case centers on Defendant's
conduct in administering the Disability Waivers state-wide. In
particular, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant fails to ensure the
reasonably prompt provision of individualized housing services,
fails to ensure that services are provided in the most integrated
setting appropriate to individuals' needs, and fails to ensure
that Disability Waiver recipients receive adequate procedural due
process protections. As the Court has previously explained in a
separate case, the Commissioner has ultimate responsibility for
the State's provision of Waiver Services under both federal
Medicaid law and Minnesota statutes.

Thus, the class comprises a cohesive group of similarly situated
individuals receiving Disability Waivers and residing in CRS
facilities whose circumstances are impacted by Defendant's actions
and inactions with respect to the class as a whole.
As a result of the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that
this class is properly certified under Rule 23(b)(2).

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 29, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/y8zjarc9from Leagle.com.

Tenner Murphy, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph W. Anthony,
Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA, 3600 Wells Fargo Center90
South 7th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402.

Tenner Murphy, Plaintiff, represented by Justin H. Perl, Mid-
Minnesota Legal Aid, Peter McElligott, Anthony Ostlund Baer &
Louwagie PA, Sean B. Burke, Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid & Steven M.
Pincus, Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA, 3600 Wells Fargo
Center90 South 7th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402.

Marrie Bottelson, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph W. Anthony,
Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA, Justin H. Perl, Mid-Minnesota
Legal Aid, Peter McElligott, Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA,
Sean B. Burke, Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid & Steven M. Pincus, Anthony
Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA.

Dionne Swanson, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph W. Anthony,
Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA, Justin H. Perl, Mid-Minnesota
Legal Aid, Peter McElligott, Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA,
Sean B. Burke, Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid & Steven M. Pincus, Anthony
Ostlund Baer & Louwagie PA.

Emily Johnson Piper, Defendant, represented by Janine Wetzel
Kimble, Minnesota Office of Attorney General & Scott H. Ikeda,
Minnesota Attorney General's Office.


MONTGOMERY, AL: Court Denies Leave to Amend FHA Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Alabama, Northern Division, issued an Opinion and Order denying
Plaintiff Minnie McCall's motion for leave to file a third amended
complaint in the case captioned MINNIE MCCALL, Plaintiff, v.
MONTGOMERY HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:14-
cv-1113-MHT-GMB [WO] (M.D. Ala.).

McCall filed an amended complaint, naming MHA, Yvette Hester, and
the MHA Board of Directors as defendants.  The amended complaint
asserts claims against these defendants for violations of the Fair
Housing Act and of McCall's due process and equal protection
rights.  McCall also sought to assert class-action claims on
behalf of individuals who were subjected to similar violations of
the Fair Housing Act by MHA, as well as individuals whose housing
rights have been terminated by MHA without the benefit of a fair
and impartial hearing or meeting prior to the termination of those
rights.

McCall's request for leave to amend should be denied because of
her repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously
allowed, the Court said.

The court twice ordered McCall to file an amended complaint that
(1) clearly sets forth her claims, identified by separate counts
in separately numbered paragraphs; (2) identifies and labels the
specific causes of action she is asserting against each defendant;
and (3) identifies the specific facts that support each specific
claim against each defendant. McCall has yet to do this with
either amended complaint, and the proposed third amended complaint
is equally deficient.

The court has compared McCall's second amended complaint with the
proposed third amended complaint and concludes that there are only
minor differences between the two. In fact, the proposed third
amended complaint eliminates a claim for declaratory relief, and
the only other differences between the two complaints are
insignificant.

Thus, while denying McCall's motion to amend her complaint a third
time would not prejudice McCall, allowing a fourth complaint to be
filed would unduly prejudice the defendants in that time and
resources would be spent on investigating a new complaint and
likely filing yet another motion to dismiss. The defendants have
been litigating this case for almost three years, and at this
point in the litigation fairness dictates that they have some
certainty as to the allegations and claims they are defending
against. This case cannot move forward in a timely and efficient
manner if the complaint is a moving target.  The court finds that
McCall's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint is due
to be denied.

The defendants claim that portions of McCall's response in
opposition to their motion to dismiss should be stricken because
they constitute new allegations that are not contained in the
second amended complaint.  The court has reviewed the defendants'
motion to strike and McCall's response in opposition to the
defendants' motion to dismiss. While the court agrees that certain
of the allegations and claims contained in McCall's response are
not contained in the second amended complaint, the court cannot
conclude that these allegations have no possible relation to the
controversy. Moreover, McCall's response in opposition to the
defendants' motion to dismiss is not a pleading subject to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).

Finally, the allegations in McCall's response brief are not
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous and, thus, do
not warrant being stricken from the record.

The court finds that the defendants' motion to strike is due to be
denied. The court further finds that the defendants' motion to
sanction McCall is also due to be denied, as the defendants have
not made a sufficient showing to warrant the imposition of
sanctions against a pro se plaintiff.

McCall's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint is
denied and the defendants' joint motion to strike and for
sanctions is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 29, 2017
Opinion and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9ja4rnbfrom
Leagle.com.

Minnie McCall, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Montgomery Housing Authority, Defendant, represented by James
Edwin Beck, III, Hill, Hill, Carter, Franco, Cole & Black, P.C.

The Montgomery Board of Commissioners, Defendant, Pro Se.

Evette Hester, Defendant, represented by James Edwin Beck, III --
jbeck@hillhillcarter.com -- Hill, Hill, Carter, Franco, Cole &
Black, P.C.


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Buxbaum" Suit in E. Dist. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit,
Inc.  The case is styled as Sigmund Buxbaum, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Nationwide Credit, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06150 (E.D.
N.Y., October 22, 2017).

Nationwide Credit, a collection agency, provides customer
relationship and accounts receivable management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Maxim Maximov, Esq.
   Maxim Maximov, LLP
   1701 Avenue P
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 395-3459
   Fax: (718) 408-9570
   Email: m@maximovlaw.com


NFL: To Fund Helmet Safety Innovation Amid Suits
------------------------------------------------
Bill Shea, writing for Crain's Detroit Business, reports that
Detroit Lions wide receiver Golden Tate wants to play for many
more years.

He also wants to remember his career, and that concerns him
because of the long-term effects of repeated brain trauma from
playing amid the violence of pro football.

So he's been keen on concussion safety, and that led him to opt
for a new helmet this season, a unique first-time entry into the
market from a Seattle manufacturer Vicis Inc.

The helmet, called the Zero1, is different because it has a
malleable outer shell that can deform to absorb hits, similar to a
car bumper.  Inside the helmet, it's filled with finger-like
columns that twist and buckle with blows, further distributing the
impact of a hit.  The player's head is protected with a hard
interior plastic shell fitted around the skull.

The Zero1 topped the NFL's helmet safety rankings this season,
meaning its technology could potentially be disruptive in the $150
million football helmet market, a mature business sector whose few
players include two companies with Detroit ownership.

Rosemont, Ill.-based Riddell Sports Group for decades has had the
majority of the football helmet market.  Second is Litchfield,
Ill.-based Schutt Sports, owned by Detroit Pistons owner Tom
Gores' Platinum Equity firm.  And with about 10 percent of the
total market is Detroit-based Xenith LLC, among whose major
investors is Dan Gilbert. It moved to Detroit from Massachusetts
in 2015.

The competition among the helmet makers is especially fierce, and
often litigious, in the race to develop safety technology as
attention on the long-term effects of football-related brain
injuries raises questions about the game's future.  With parents
fearful of the risks, youth football participation has been
declining for nearly a decade, theoretically sapping the NFL and
college football of future stars.

The race is on to build the better helmet.

The competition

Glenn Beckmann, director of marketing communications at Schutt,
said all the helmet makers have the same objective: Build the
safest helmet and own the market.

"We're all taking different paths to that same goal.  At some
point in time, someone is going to develop something that will
really disrupt the industry.  We're essentially all trying to
improve the way the helmets handle and absorb impact, how they fit
and the materials that are used in making helmets," he said. Each
uses new data from doctors and scientists to drive development.

Vicis, which is worn by Tate and teammate Travis Swanson, made a
splashy entry with its unique helmet earlier this year. It was the
top-rated helmet for safety in the laboratory testing results,
sponsored by the NFL and the player union, for the current season.
Gores' Schutt had five helmet models in the top-performing
category and Gilbert's Xenith had four. Riddell had the other
four.

The lab results measured the helmets' ability to reduce potential
for concussion from the types of hits football players sustain
during games, and are for professional football helmets and not
intended to be extrapolated to college, high school or youth
football, the NFL said.

Detroit Lions
Detroit Lions wide receiver Golden Tate this season is wearing the
new Zero1 helmet from Seattle-based Vicis.  The helmet uses
materials that allow the outer shell to bend, not unlike a car
bumper, as a way to spread impact forces and curb brain injuries.
Tate switched to a Vicis helmet this season because his friend and
former teammate with the Seattle Seahawks, receiver Doug Baldwin,
wears the Zero1 and advocates for it. Tate has noticed a
difference since the switch.

"It seemed different once I hit the ground with my head or took a
lick where some helmet was involved, that's where I really felt
it. Things that in the past I thought really might do some damage
weren't doing as much damage. That was key," he said.

Tate previously wore Xenith, Schutt, and Riddell helmets during
his eight season career.

"At this point in this career, I'm forgetting about what looks the
best.  I want what protects me the most," he said.  Players can
choose to wear any helmet that meets the National Operating
Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment standards.  NOCSAE
standards will give helmets a pass/fail grade beginning in 2018
for absorbing rotational impact (instead of just linear hits),
prompting the current wave of helmet research.

While Vicis ranked atop the NFL's helmet tests, the rest of the
results for each helmet in the top-performing group weren't
statistically much different, according to the data released by
the league.

That hasn't stopped Vicis from touting the result as it seeks to
take market share.  Growth won't be easy, however, because while
most pro, college, and youth helmets cost anywhere from $100 to
$350, the Vicis ZERO1 retails for $1,500.  The company said more
than 50 NFL players are wearing it this season.  NFL players get
their helmets through their team equipment managers, who work
directly with the helmet makers.

Riddell, Schutt, and Xenith are known to produce thousands of
helmets. They also have established distribution networks that
Vicis must create.

Riddell and Schutt own about 90 percent of the football helmet
market with Xenith taking up the other 10 percent via mostly high
school and youth sales, with some NFL players wearing the Detroit-
made helmets (including several Detroit Lions).

Schutt and Xenith are part of Gores' and Gilbert's business
portfolios, but are not major pieces. Riddell is part of New York
City private equity firm Fenway Partner's BRG Sports unit.

"Schutt's football products are very well recognized and NFL
market share has grown every year since we acquired the business.
The company continues to invest in new product development in
football, baseball, softball and lacrosse.  We are optimistic
about Schutt's future," said Dan Whelan, vice president and
spokesman for Gores' Beverly Hills, Calif.-based Platinum Equity
LLC.

Vicis is a University of Washington spinoff co-owned by CEO Dave
Marver.  It's raised $40 million in several funding rounds from a
variety of investors.

The Pro Football Hall of Fame recently requested one of Tate's
Vicis helmets to include in its display of the advancements in
helmet safety.
Brain risk

The league is pouring money into helmet research.  Dire reports of
former players dying young and committing suicide from what
experts say are the long-term effects of football-induced brain
disease clearly have spooked the $14 billion league into finding
ways to accelerate safety measures.  It has repeatedly changed
rules to protect player health, and established concussion
protocols that govern when players diagnosed with brain injuries
can return to the field.

Ongoing research and public cases of famous NFL players diagnosed
with the condition postmortem has shed light on chronic traumatic
encephalopathy (CTE), a degenerative brain disease linked to
repeated head traumas such as concussions.

The NFL has faced multiple lawsuits related to brain injuries, and
in 2015 a federal judge approved a class-action lawsuit settlement
that requires the NFL to provide up to $5 million to each retired
player suffering from issues linked to repeated head blows.

The NFL reported 244 concussions last season, not including the
playoffs. That was down from 275 in 2015 but up from 209 in 2014.
The average from 2012-16 is 242 concussions.

In 2016, the NFL created a $100 million "Play Safe. Play Smart"
program, and earmarked $60 million specifically for helmet safety
initiatives in a bid to hasten advancements within five years.
General Electric and Under Armour are now part of the effort, too.

As part of its initiatives, the NFL created the nonprofit Football
Research Inc. that works with Duke University's Clinical and
Translational Science Institute to crowd-source helmet safety
innovation.  It will award up to $1 million through challenge
grants for new helmet technology and safety improvements.  Vicis
reportedly received $500,000 from the program.

As part of its effort to curb brain injury risk, the league wants
position-specific helmets by 2020. That potentially slices up the
helmet market further for manufacturers.
Lawsuits, lawsuits, lawsuits

While the NFL will share research and fund advancements, the
helmet makers are fiercely protective of their technologies.  A
Riddell lawsuit put Schutt into bankruptcy, which allowed Gores'
private equity firm to buy the company in a 2010 bankruptcy
auction for $33.1 million.  Earlier this year, Schutt sued Riddell
in on ongoing lawsuit over patent infringement.  Xenith settled a
similar claim in July against Riddell, which also is being sued by
former NFL players.  Lawsuits drove St. Louis-based equipment
maker Rawlings out of the football helmet market.

Lawsuits make it hard to enter the helmet market, limiting new
competition to the exceedingly well-capitalized.

"It is one of the things that's a barrier to entry," Schutt's
Beckmann said.  "You really have to carry millions and millions of
dollars in liability insurance."

Jeff Miller, the NFL's executive vice president for health and
safety initiatives, said the league doesn't have a position on the
level of competition in the helmet market.  Instead, the NFL wants
the data and technology it's incentivizing to speed safer helmets
to market.

"Whether it's a new company or a new design from an incumbent
company, or a new idea from an incumbent in their next production
model, we're agnostic," he said.  "The three large companies, now
four, should be able to take advantage of the work we're doing to
accelerate their innovation.  We become additive to the research
and development departments of those companies."

Andrew Elliott, Xenith LLC: Work needs to be done soon.
Andrew Elliott is a research and test engineer for Xenith in
Detroit, and spends his days tinkering with piles of helmet shells
and materials in a quest to find the holy grail of combinations
that will further reduce brain injuries.  He previously did safety
research work in the automotive sector for Takata Corp. and Inc.,
and the helmet industry has been applying what's known about auto
safety and materials to football.

"We know there is more work to be done and it needs to be done
sooner than later," Elliott said.  "Everyone is scrambling to find
out what that solution is."

Xenith, part of Gilbert's Rock Ventures portfolio, has been
focused on its "shock bonnet" system that's basically a set of
shock absorbers inside the helmet that rotate from the force of a
blow independently from a player's head.  The company has about 70
employees at its facility on Fort Street.  Like its competitors,
it doesn't disclose revenue or production numbers.

Being near Detroit's auto industry gives the company a leg up,
Elliott said.

"We have an advantage here at Xenith because much of the
automotive safety and impact material expertise started and is
located in Southeast Michigan," he said. [GN]


NISSAN: Class Action Over Defective Sunroofs Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Samantha Chatman, writing for NBC5, reports that hundreds of
drivers across the country have reported cracking, shattering and
exploding sunroofs from different makes and models of vehicles.

Alicia Quinn said she was only doing 20 mph on a residential road
in Southlake when the sunroof on her 2015 Nissan Altima exploded.
"I actually thought that I was shot," she said.  "It sounded like
a gun."

Ms. Quinn said nothing hit the glass -- it just shattered on its
own.

She took the car into a Nissan dealership near her job.  She said
the service department kept the car for several days and later
determined something must have hit the sunroof, meaning she would
have to pay for repairs.

"No way, no way anything hit it," Ms. Quinn explained.

Keisha King, in Chicago, shared a similar story.

"I really thought I got shot at," she said.  "Did my sunroof just,
like, explode?"

She was driving her 2013 Nissan Altima on an expressway when she
said, all of a sudden, she heard a boom.  There was shattered
glass and a large hole in her sunroof.

"I feel like it's a safety issue," said Ms. King.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has received
hundreds of complaints about shattered sunroofs across multiple
brands.

Mark Meshulam, a glass expert, pointed to three likely culprits:
Rock or debris hitting the glass, an installation flaw, or
imperfections in the glass itself.

"Tempered glass can be like a ticking time bomb . . . There are
little imperfections," explained Mr. Meshulam.  "They're like
little stones.  If they happen to be inside tempered glass,
there's potential that down the road that little stone will grow
sufficiently to actually spontaneously break the glass."

As of writing, a federal class action lawsuit was underway against
Nissan.  The complaint focuses on Nissan and Infiniti models from
2008 to 2017, claiming the sunroofs are "defective" and prone to
"spontaneously shattering."

Nissan North America tells NBC 5 Responds the following:
"The safety and security of our customers is always our number one
priority. While we cannot speak specifically on behalf Nissan
dealerships, which are independently owned and operated, regarding
questions related to reports of moon roof breakage, Nissan does
not have evidence of any issue related to design or manufacturing.
Consequently, damaged moon roofs should be submitted to the
owner's insurer as a comprehensive claim."
Quinn had to pay $800 to repair her sunroof.

"If my child was in the car and that thing was open, she would
have been covered in glass because the car seat is under the
glass," she said.  "This is a major issue."
NHTSA tells NBC 5 Responds it has an open investigation into
sunroofs and encourages the public to contact them if they have
any information about this matter.

As for Alicia Quinn's sunroof, we reached out to her local
dealership and it has processed a refund for $800 as a goodwill
gesture. [GN]


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces "Leifer" Suit in E.D. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Isac Leifer, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Northstar Location Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
06149 (E.D.N.Y., October 22, 2017).

Northstar Location provides receivables debt collection services
to customers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Maxim Maximov, Esq.
   Maxim Maximov, LLP
   1701 Avenue P
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 395-3459
   Fax: (718) 408-9570
   Email: m@maximovlaw.com


OANDA CORPORATION: Kalemba Sues over Excessive Forex Spreads
------------------------------------------------------------
MUKENGESHAYI KALEMBA individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. OANDA CORPORATION, the
Defendant, Case No. 656647/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Oct. 31, 2017),
seeks to recover excessive Forex spreads, trading losses and
interest charges incurred by OANDA customers, to obtain price
transparency for OANDA customers, and to obtain accounting for
these overcharges.

The case is a class action by the customers of defendant OANDA
Corporation to recover damages caused by excessive and undisclosed
"spread", fee overcharges and related trading losses on online
foreign currency exchange ("Forex") transactions. OANDA is one of
the largest online Forex trading platforms in the United States.
It offers anyone the ability to trade Forex contracts that usually
trade among banks and large institutions in the major interbank
system. OANDA also provides a currency exchange and other related
services. For many years, OANDA has consistently represented on
its website and in its sales and marketing materials that it
offers "low spreads," "competitive spreads" and "no commissions or
account maintenance fees." OANDA has also represented that it
offers "transparent" pricing and that it will make available
historical price data to customers. Unfortunately, since at least
2013, OANDA's representations to the public have been false.
Unbeknownst to its customers, OANDA's spreads are not low or even
competitive, but excessive. OANDA also charged "interest" on its
customers' funds on a per-trade basis, which is functionally
equivalent to a commission and represents a significant "built-in"
per transaction cost that is not disclosed or transparent. OANDA's
surreptitious excess spreads and "interest" charges violate its
advertising, sales and marketing representations, enabling the
firm to reap outsize profits at its customers' expense.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq.
          Edward H. Glenn, Jr., Esq.
          ZAMANSKY LLC
          50 Broadway, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 742 1414
          Facsimile: (212) 742 1177
          E-mail: samuel@zamansky.com


OASIS LEGAL: Court Dismisses "Smith" for Forum Non Conveniens
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned HEATHER SMITH, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OASIS LEGAL FINANCE,
LLC d/b/a OASIS FINANCE, Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-2163-T-33JSS
(M.D. Fla.), Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division,
granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and to
Strike Class Allegation.

Smith entered a litigation funding agreement, which she
characterizes as a loan, with Oasis Legal in May of 2016.  The
agreement specified Oasis Legal would give Smith $1,140 to fund a
lawsuit in which Smith was represented.  In return, Smith agreed
to pay a portion of the proceeds from that pending litigation -- a
provision Smith interprets as imposing an unlawfully high interest
rate between 33.44% and 71.42%.  The agreement also included a
forum selection clause and choice of law provision.

Furthermore, the agreement specified that the parties also waive
any right to have handled as a class action any proceeding on any
lawsuit, dispute, claim, or controversy arising out of the
agreement.  Smith's attorney for that litigation also signed an
"Attorney Acknowledgement," acknowledging that he received a copy
of the agreement and that there was no other source of funding for
the litigation to the attorney's knowledge

On Aug. 21, 2017, Smith initiated the action in the Thirteenth
Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County, Florida.  Oasis
Legal removed the case to this Court on Sept. 19, 2017.  The next
day, Oasis Legal filed a Motion to Dismiss and Strike Class
Allegations, arguing the case should be dismissed for improper
venue and the class allegations should be stricken based on the
agreement's forum selection and class action clauses.

Smith filed her Amended Complaint on Oct. 3, 2017, again asserting
claims for unjust enrichment and violation of Florida's Interest,
Usury, and Lending Practices Act and Florida's Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act, as well as for declaratory relief
under Florida's Consumer Finance Act.  She seeks this relief on
behalf of herself and all others who entered similar agreements
with Oasis Legal in Florida beginning on Aug. 21, 2013. Oasis
Legal then filed its Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint and to
Strike Class Allegations on Oct. 10, 2017, to which Smith has
responded.

Judge Hernandez Covington finds that the forum selection clause is
enforceable and no extraordinary circumstances weigh against
enforcing the clause.  She dismissed the case under the doctrine
of forum non conveniens.  Because she has determined that the case
should be litigated in a different forum, she declined to
determine whether the class action allegations in the Amended
Complaint should be stricken.  Oasis Legal may raise that issue in
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois if Smith refiles her
action.

Accordingly, the Judge granted the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Amended Complaint and to Strike Class Allegations to the extent
the case is dismissed for forum non conveniens.  She directed the
Clerk is directed to close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/ahRosG from Leagle.com.

Heather Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Craig E. Rothburd --
crothburd@e-rlaw.com -- Craig E. Rothburd, PA.

Heather Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Scott R. Jeeves, Jeeves
Law Group, PA.

Oasis Legal Finance, LLC, Defendant, represented by John F. Meyers
-- john.meyers@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg, LLP.


OCEAN SPRAY: Summary Judgment Bid in Antitrust Suit Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BARRY K. WINTERS, et al., v. OCEAN SPRAY
CRANBERRIES, INC., Civil Action No. 12-12016-RWZ (D. Mass.), Judge
Rya W. Zobel of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted in part and denied in part Ocean Spray's
Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts I and II of Plaintiffs'
Fourth Amended Complaint, denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, and granted Ocean Spray's Motion to Defer or
Deny Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

On Oct. 27, 2012, "John Doe Growers 1-7" and "John Doe B Pool
Grower 1" filed a putative class action with seven counts against
Ocean Spray.  Some 50 Plaintiffs allege that Ocean Spray, an
agricultural cooperative, has unlawfully manipulated the price of
cranberry juice concentrate and discriminated against "B Pool"
members of the cooperative.  The Plaintiffs identify themselves as
about four B Pool growers and approximately 47 independent
cranberry growers located in Oregon, Wisconsin, and Massachusetts.

The Plaintiffs amended their complaint a number of times, adding,
inter alia, Named Plaintiffs and additional counts.  Ocean Spray
moved to dismiss all counts, a motion Judge Zobel allowed in part
and denied in part.  Subsequently, the Plaintiffs sought partial
summary judgment on two of the remaining counts, and Ocean Spray
moved for summary judgment on all remaining counts.  The Judge
denied the Plaintiffs' motion, and she allowed Ocean Spray's
motion in part and denied it in part, allowing three of the
Plaintiffs' claims to go forward.

The Plaintiffs moved to certify a proposed class of all domestic
independent cranberry farmers and all B-Pool members of Ocean
Spray who received payment during the period August 2009 to the
present for cranberries delivered to a handler for the purpose of
processing the cranberries into concentrate.  Judge Zobel denied
their motion on May 10, 2016.  Following the denial of class
certification, the Plaintiffs further amended their complaint,
ultimately resulting in the current Fourth Amended Complaint.

In their Fourth Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs bring three
claims: (i) that Ocean Spray engaged in unfair and deceptive acts
in violation of Massachusetts General Laws chapter 93A, thereby
injuring the independent growers (Count I); (ii) that Ocean Spray
engaged in a pattern of anti-competitive conduct in violation of
section 2 of the Sherman Act, thereby injuring both B pool and
independent growers (Count II); and (iii) that Ocean Spray
retaliated against certain Plaintiffs in violation of
Massachusetts General Laws chapter 93A, (Count III).

Ocean Spray moves for summary judgment on Counts I and II.  A
number of the Plaintiffs move for partial summary judgment on
Count I.  Ocean Spray moves to defer or deny the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.  Ocean Spray moves for
summary judgment on the basis that the Plaintiffs lack standing to
bring an antitrust claim.

Judge Zobel granted in part and denied in part Ocean Spray's
Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts I and II of the Plaintiffs'
Fourth Amended Complaint.  Ocean Spray's motion for summary
judgment on Count II is denied with regard to the B pool growers,
granted with respect to the non-CLI independent growers, and
denied with respect to the CLI Plaintiffs.  Summary judgment is
granted on Count I only insofar as the non-CLI independent
growers' 93A claim is based on Ocean Spray's alleged attempted
monopsonization and monopsonization.  As to what remains of the
independent growers' 93A claim, summary judgment is denied.

The CLI Plaintiffs previously brought a motion for partial summary
judgment which the Judge denied because questions of material fact
remained.  This included questions as to the fairness of the
auction and any causal connection to the Plaintiffs' harms.  These
disputes remain.  Accordingly, Judge Zobel denied the CLI
Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.

The Judge directed the Plaintiffs to provide an accurate list of
the Plaintiffs who remain at this juncture and will articulate the
jurisdictional basis for remaining claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2017 Memorandum of
Decision is available at https://is.gd/55nqpM from Leagle.com.

John Doe Growers, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Lenz --
dlenz@lawtoncates.com -- Lawson & Cates, S.C., pro hac vice.

John Doe Growers, Plaintiff, represented by James A. Olson --
jolson@lawtoncates.com -- Lawton & Cates, S.C., pro hac vice,
Javier D. Spyker, Hernandez and Associates, pro hac vice, Manuel
C. Hernandez, Hernandez and Associates, LLC, pro hac vice, Norman
H. Jackman -- njackman@post.harvard.edu -- Jackman & Roth LLP,
Paul S. Hassett, Lawton & Cates, S.C., pro hac vice, Shala
McKenzie Kudlac, Carleton Law Offices, pro hac vice & Frederick J.
Carleton, Carleton Law Offices, pro hac vice.

John Doe B Pool Grower 1, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S.
Lenz, Lawson & Cates, S.C., pro hac vice, James A. Olson, Lawton &
Cates, S.C., pro hac vice, Javier D. Spyker, Hernandez and
Associates, pro hac vice, Manuel C. Hernandez, Hernandez and
Associates, LLC, pro hac vice, Norman H. Jackman, Jackman & Roth
LLP, Paul S. Hassett, Lawton & Cates, S.C., pro hac vice, Shala
McKenzie Kudlac, Carleton Law Offices, pro hac vice & Frederick J.
Carleton, Carleton Law Offices, pro hac vice.

Barry K. Winters, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Lenz, Lawson
& Cates, S.C., pro hac vice, James A. Olson, Lawton & Cates, S.C.,
pro hac vice, Javier D. Spyker, Hernandez and Associates, pro hac
vice, Norman H. Jackman, Jackman & Roth LLP & Paul S. Hassett,
Lawton & Cates, S.C., pro hac vice.

BKW Farms, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Lenz, Lawson &
Cates, S.C., pro hac vice, James A. Olson, Lawton & Cates, S.C.,
pro hac vice, Javier D. Spyker, Hernandez and Associates, pro hac
vice, Norman H. Jackman, Jackman & Roth LLP & Paul S. Hassett,
Lawton & Cates, S.C., pro hac vice.

Rick Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Lenz, Lawson &
Cates, S.C., pro hac vice, James A. Olson, Lawton & Cates, S.C.,
pro hac vice, Javier D. Spyker, Hernandez and Associates, pro hac
vice, Norman H. Jackman, Jackman & Roth LLP & Paul S. Hassett,
Lawton & Cates, S.C., pro hac vice.

Jackson Farms, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Lenz,
Lawson & Cates, S.C., pro hac vice, James A. Olson, Lawton &
Cates, S.C., pro hac vice, Javier D. Spyker, Hernandez and
Associates, pro hac vice, Norman H. Jackman, Jackman & Roth LLP &
Paul S. Hassett, Lawton & Cates, S.C., pro hac vice.

James M. Schaer, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Lenz, Lawson
& Cates, S.C., pro hac vice, James A. Olson, Lawton & Cates, S.C.,
pro hac vice, Javier D. Spyker, Hernandez and Associates, pro hac
vice, Norman H. Jackman, Jackman & Roth LLP & Paul S. Hassett,
Lawton & Cates, S.C., pro hac vice.

Julie A. Schaer, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Lenz, Lawson
& Cates, S.C., pro hac vice, James A. Olson, Lawton & Cates, S.C.,
pro hac vice, Javier D. Spyker, Hernandez and Associates, pro hac
vice, Norman H. Jackman, Jackman & Roth LLP & Paul S. Hassett,
Lawton & Cates, S.C., pro hac vice.

Scott Vierck, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Lenz, Lawson &
Cates, S.C., pro hac vice, James A. Olson, Lawton & Cates, S.C.,
pro hac vice, Javier D. Spyker, Hernandez and Associates, pro hac
vice, Norman H. Jackman, Jackman & Roth LLP & Paul S. Hassett,
Lawton & Cates, S.C., pro hac vice.

Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alfred C.
Pfeiffer -- al.pfeiffer@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Elyse M.
Greenwald -- elyse.greenwald@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP,
Jessica N. Boluda -- jessica.bratten@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins
LLP, pro hac vice, Lawrence E. Buterman --
lawrence.buterman@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins, pro hac vice,
Margaret M. Zwisler -- margaret.zwisler@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins
LLP, Jennifer L. Giordano -- jennifer.giordano@lw.com -- Latham &
Watkins, LLP & Marguerite M. Sullivan --
marguerite.sullivan@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice.

Cliffstar LLC, Interested Party, represented by D. Alicia Hickok -
- alicia.hickok@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, pro hac
vice, John J. Powers -- john.powers@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle &
Reath LLP, David L. Ferrera -- dferrera@nutter.com -- Nutter,
McClennen & Fish, LLP & Katy O. Meszaros, Nutter, McClennen &
Fish, LLP.

Cliffstar LLC, Interested Party, represented by Norman H. Jackman,
Jackman & Roth LLP.

Cott Beverages, LLC, Interested Party, represented by D. Alicia
Hickok, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, pro hac vice, John J. Powers,
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, David L. Ferrera, Nutter, McClennen &
Fish, LLP, Katy O. Meszaros, Nutter, McClennen & Fish, LLP &
Norman H. Jackman, Jackman & Roth LLP.


OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Court Dismisses New "Menaldi" Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued an Opinion and Order denying Plaintiff's Motion to
Revive Previously Dismissed Claims, to Revive Claims Against
Michael Cohen in the case captioned ARTHUR MENALDI, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OCH-
ZIFF CAPITAL MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC, DANIEL S. OCH, JOEL M. FRANK,
and MICHAEL COHEN, Defendants, No. 14-CV-3251 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y.),
and granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss New Complaint.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, seeking (1) to revive
previously dismissed claims, (2) to revive claims against Cohen,
and (3) to assert new claims.

Lead Plaintiffs Ralph Langstadt and Julie Lemond bring the action
on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased
securities in Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC, a large
publicly traded asset management firm.  Defendant Daniel Och is
Och-Ziff's founder and Chief Executive Officer. Defendant Joel
Frank was Och-Ziff's Chief Financial Officer and Senior Chief
Operating Officer. Defendant Michael Cohen was an Och-Ziff
employee who oversaw its investments in Africa.

The Old Complaint alleged various improprieties in connection with
three Och-Ziff ventures in Africa: (1) a loan to secure platinum
mining rights in Zimbabwe, in possible violation of sanctions
imposed against the regime of its president, Robert Mugabe; (2)
loans to acquire control of oil and mines in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, in which Och-Ziff lent money to an Israeli
middleman who may have bribed government officials; and (3)
transactions with Libya's sovereign wealth fund controlled by the
son of Moammar Gaddafi, in which Och-Ziff used a fixer with close
ties to the Libyan government.

The Libya Scheme

In 2007, Cohen engaged Mohammed Ajami or Libya Intermediary in the
parlance of the DPA to secure investments from the Libyan
Investment Authority (LIA), the sovereign wealth fund of the
Libyan Government. This involved paying bribes to various Libyan
officials, including Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the son of then-Libyan
leader Muammar Gaddafi. (Id.) Cohen knew that bribes were
necessary to grease the wheels, and he funneled millions to Ajami
for that purpose. Och-Ziff did not conduct any due diligence on
Ajami, and Och-Ziff never formally approved Ajami's work on its
behalf.

The New Complaint

The New Complaint restates the claims dismissed in Menaldi I and
adds three new theories of liability: (1) that Och-Ziff made
misleading statements when it described its FCPA compliance
program; (2) that Och-Ziff filed false financial statements by
failing to comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles,
and (3) that Och's and Frank's Sarbanes-Oxley certifications were
misleading. It also seeks to renew the dismissed claims against
Cohen.

Och's and Ziff's Knowledge of Bribery

The Court considers the SEC's exculpatory finding as if it were in
the complaint itself, and accepts it as true. Of course, this is
not the end of the story. As Plaintiffs point out, even if Och and
Ziff did not know of actual bribery, Defendants could still be
liable if their conduct was reckless. Defendants could also be
liable for claims that do not hinge on actual knowledge of
bribery. Nevertheless, as discussed below, the lack of actual
knowledge of bribery weighs down the New Complaint's allegations,
particularly when it comes to scienter.

The Previously Upheld Claims

The holding in Menaldi I did not hinge on whether Och and Frank
knew of the underlying bribery. Instead, Menaldi I noted that Och
and Frank] knew about the SEC-DOJ Investigation from 2011 onward,
but waited to disclose its potential impact, which Och-Ziff later
described as material, until after the Wall Street Journal
published an article about the African Transactions.

With these allegations assumed to be true, Plaintiffs have
plausibly alleged that Och and Frank] were reckless in opting to
misrepresent their exposure to civil and criminal liability. The
SEC's finding that Och and Frank lacked actual knowledge of bribes
does not change that conclusion. Indeed, the SEC-DOJ investigation
could have had a materially adverse outcome even if there were no
bribery at all for instance if it uncovered books and records
violations as it did.  Accordingly, the 10b-5(b) and Section 20(a)
claims upheld in Menaldi I remain viable.

The Renewed Claim for Failure to Disclose The Illegal Conduct

Menaldi I also held that Och-Ziff's failure to disclose the FCPA
violations was not actionable because (1) the Old Complaint did
not plausibly allege that federal laws were actually violated,
and, alternatively, (2) there was no duty to disclose the then-
uncharged illegal conduct.

Nothing in the New Complaint changes Menaldi I's conclusion that
the connection between Och-Ziff's public statements and the
criminal conduct is too tenuous to give rise to a duty to disclose
criminal wrongdoing. This holding was based on the same statements
at issue in the New Complaint, statements about Och-Ziff's not
being subject to proceedings expected to have a material impact,
and statements about being subject to government investigations
from time to time.

These statements do not address the sources of Och-Ziff's success,
nor do they deny illegal conduct that has been charged, admitted,
or adequately pleaded. And while Och-Ziff made projections about
the impact of pending regulatory proceedings, those projections
required, at most, that Och-Ziff disclose material information
about the investigation. To hold otherwise would be to subject
corporations to a pre-emptive duty to 'confess' as soon as a
regulatory agency begins an investigation
Accordingly, the holding in Menaldi I still stands: There was no
duty to disclose the then-uncharged illegal conduct.

The New Claim for Statements about Och-Ziff's Compliance Program

Och-Ziff's 2012 statement described a global compliance program,
comprehensive policies and supervisory procedures, mandatory
compliance training, and strong relationships with a global
network of local attorneys. It did not describe specific regions,
specific initiatives, or make any assurances of efficacy. If this
type of milquetoast corporate-speak required disclosure of all
potential FCPA violations then known to the company, then "any
company that has a compliance program and discloses that program
in even the most austere terms would be required, ipso facto, to
disclose any possible deviation that came to its attention.
The 2013 Och-Ziff statement likewise differs significantly from
those in Jinkosolar because it explicitly says that Och-Ziff's
policies and procedures may not be effective in all instances to
prevent violations. By comparison, the statement in Jinkosolar
does not appear to have had such a disclaimer. Notably, one of the
few cases in this district discussing Jinkosolar likewise
distinguished the facts of that case because unlike the company in
Jinkosolar, [defendant] did not represent that its efforts to
comply with the law were particularly effective, let alone
foolproof.  Accordingly, the holding in Menaldi I still stands:
The statements about Och-Ziff's compliance program are not
actionable.

The New Claim for Fraudulent Financial Statements

The New Complaint asserts another new claim: that Och-Ziff
committed fraudulent financial reporting" because it did not
disclose the potential financial impact of the SEC-DOJ
investigation, in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles (GAAP).

The New Complaint adequately allege that Defendants exhibited
reckless disregard for a known or obvious duty. The rule requires
many judgment calls in deciding how to respond to contingencies.
And unlike Och-Ziff's statements about the SEC-DOJ investigation
for which the Court concluded that Plaintiffs adequately alleged
scienter this claim involves an omission that is based on a
qualitative accounting rule rather than an affirmative
misstatement about a pending investigation.

Reckless conduct is, at the least, conduct which is highly
unreasonable and which represents an extreme departure from the
standards of ordinary care to the extent that the danger was
either known to the defendant or so obvious that the defendant
must have been aware of it. Given the heightened pleading
standards of Rule 9(b) and the PSLRA, Plaintiffs' allegations fall
short of adequately pleading scienter.

Accordingly, the New Complaint fails to state a claim relating to
ASC 450.

Having concluded that the New Complaint adequately alleges that
GAAP mandated a disclosure, the Court now turns to the question
whether the New Complaint adequately pleads scienter.

The Renewed Claim for Scheme Liability

To state a claim for scheme liability, a plaintiff must present
facts showing (1) that the defendant committed a deceptive or
manipulative act, (2) in furtherance of the alleged scheme to
defraud, (3) with scienter, and (4) reliance.

Scheme Liability as to Cohen

Plaintiffs argue for scheme liability because he (1) was directly
involved in the payment of bribes, (2) ignored warnings indicating
a high risk of corruption, (3) withheld information from legal and
compliance functions, (4) structured deals with the purpose and
intent of circumventing internal policies and controls, (5)
engaged in self-dealing transactions to personally profit from the
fraud, and (6) concealed his knowledge and participation in
Defendants' fraud thereby extending the SEC-DOJ Investigation and
the Company's exposure to regulatory risk.

The New Complaint does not adequately allege that Plaintiffs
relied on Cohen's alleged cover-up. Section 10(b) does not reach
all commercial transactions that are fraudulent and affect the
price of a security in some attenuated way. Stoneridge Inv.
Partners, LLC v. Sci. Atlanta, 552 U.S. 148, 162.  In Stoneridge,
the Supreme Court denied a scheme liability claim against entities
that colluded with the investors' company to mislead its auditor
and issue a misleading financial statement, holding that the
entities' "deceptive acts [were too remote to satisfy the
requirement of reliance and nothing the entities did made it
necessary or inevitable for the investors' company to record the
transactions as it did."

The New Complaint fails to allege that investors knew of, or
relied upon, Cohen's attempt to cover up his alleged self-dealing.
The mere fact that Cohen tried to avoid detection by the
authorities does not transform bribery into securities fraud.
Accordingly, the New Complaint fails to state a scheme liability
claim against Cohen.

Scheme Liability as to Och, Frank, and Och-Ziff

Plaintiffs argue that the New Complaint remedies the Old
Complaint's failure to identify an independent deceptive act.
Plaintiffs point to allegations that Och-Ziff (1) covered up its
bribe payments by categorizing them as investments or convertible
loans; (2) falsified documents related to bribery payments and
personal benefits derived from the illicit transactions; (3)
withheld documents requested by regulators; (4) allowed Och-Ziff's
financial statements to continue to reflect improper entries
throughout the Class Period intended to disguise Defendants'
illegal conduct; (5) continued to record and personally benefit
from profits derived from the illegal transactions; and (6) failed
to take a loss contingency that would have alerted investors to
the existence of and risks posed by the initiation of a regulatory
investigation.

The New Complaint does not contain plausible allegations of a
deceptive cover-up aside from the underlying bribery and the
alleged misrepresentations. Plaintiffs point to the Eighth
Circuit's decision in West Virginia Pipe Trades Health & Welfare
Fund v. Medtronic, Inc., 845 F.3d 384, but the deceptive act in
that case was pleaded in far more detail than those pleaded in the
New Complaint.

There, the court held that the company's management alleged
conduct beyond mere misrepresentations or omissions actionable
under Rule 10b-5(b) namely, that the company paid doctors to
manipulate medical data. That is not the case here, however, where
the scheme-liability allegations merely repackage the
misrepresentation allegations.

Accordingly, the New Complaint does not adequately plead a scheme
liability claim against Och-Ziff, Och, and Frank.

The Renewed Claim for Control Person Liability

The final claim in this suit arises under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. To state a Section 20(a) claim, a Plaintiff must
allege facts showing (1) an underlying primary violation of the
securities laws by the controlled person; (2) control over the
controlled person; and (3) that the controlling person was, in
some meaningful sense, a culpable participant in the controlled
person's primary violation.

As to Och and Frank, the New Complaint does not adequately allege
any new primary violations on which to base a Section  20(a)
claim. Accordingly, the sole viable Section  20(a) claim against
them is the one that survived Menaldi I.

As to Cohen, the control person claim against him fails for the
same reasons discussed in Menaldi I--namely, the lack of a primary
violation. Since the New Complaint fails to state a primary
violation-scheme liability-against Cohen, the control person
claim fails too. And since both claims against Cohen fail, the
Court concludes that renewing the claims against him would be
futile. Accordingly, Cohen is dismissed from this suit.

Leave to Amend

Plaintiffs ask for leave to amend the New Complaint in the event
any of its claims fail. That request is denied. Plaintiff have
already had the opportunity to amend their complaint after Menaldi
I. After three years, multiple amendments, and a forest's worth of
briefing, it is time to move past the pleading stage.
The claims that survived Menaldi I remain; the others are
dismissed. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion to renew claims against
Cohen is denied. The motions to dismiss by Och-Ziff, Och, and
Frank are granted insofar as they seek to dismiss the new or
renewed claims in the New Complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 29, 2017
Opinion and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ydxqjv95from
Leagle.com.

Ralph Langstadt, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan
Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor, New York,
NY 10016

Ralph Langstadt, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Phillip C. Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A., Emma Gilmore,
Pomerantz LLP, 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10016,
Laurence Matthew Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A., Michele S. Carino, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick Vincent
Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor, New York,
NY 10016, & Sara Esther Fuks -- sfuks@rosenlegal.com -- Milberg
LLP.

Julie Lemond, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan
Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, Phillip C. Kim, The Rosen Law Firm P.A.,
Emma Gilmore, Pomerantz LLP, Laurence Matthew Rosen, The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A., Michele S. Carino, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick Vincent
Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP & Sara Esther Fuks, Milberg LLP.
Arthur Menaldi, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman,
Pomerantz LLP, Michele S. Carino, Pomerantz LLP, Patrick Vincent
Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP & Tamar Aliza Weinrib, Pomerantz LLP.

Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC, Defendant, represented by
Robert F. Serio -- rserio@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, LLP, Aric Hugo Wu -- awu@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn
& Crutcher, LLP & Gabriel Herrmann -- gherrmann@gibsondunn.com --
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

Daniel S. Och, Defendant, represented by Alan Mark Vinegrad --
avinegrad@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP, Douglas Sleater
Curran -- dcurran@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP & Stephen
James Dee -- sdee@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP.

Joel M. Frank, Defendant, represented by Richard John Morvillo --
rmorvillo@morvillolaw.com -- Morvillo LLP, Elizabeth Anne Marshall
-- emarshall@morvillolaw.com -- Morvillo LLP & Ellen Marie Murphy
-- emurphy@morvillolaw.com -- Morvillo LLP.


OCWEN LOAN: Court Narrows Claims in "Keyes" TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DARCEL KEYES, Plaintiff, v. OCWEN LOAN
SERVICING, LLC Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-11492 (E.D. Mich.), Judge
Gershwin A. Drain of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted in part the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, granted the Plaintiff's Request for
Leave to Amend the Complaint, and denied the Defendant's Motion to
Stay.

Keyes owes a mortgage-related debt to the Defendant, a licensed
mortgage loan servicer.  At one point, Keyes granted Ocwen
permission to call her on her cell phone regarding the collection
of this debt.  Ocwen proceeded to call Keyes on her cell phone "at
least 2,583" times between April 2, 2011 and Dec. 16, 2015.
Because of her frustration with the Defendant's phone calls, on
calls with the Defendant both before and after 2011, Keyes stated
that she no longer wished to be contacted by telephone.  The calls
did not stop, however.

Keyes filed an initial Complaint on May 10, 2017, which she
amended on July 15, 2017.  In her Complaint, Keyes asserts claims
against the Defendant under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"); the common law negligence doctrine of Michigan law; and
the Michigan Occupational Code.

The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on July 31,
2017.  In her response to Ocwen's Motion to Dismiss, Keyes
requested leave to amend the Complaint to add claims under the
Michigan Collection Practices Act.  On June 30, 2017, Ocwen filed
a Motion to Stay the Complaint pending a ruling in ACA Int'l v.
Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n.

Judge Drain finds that some of the Plaintiff's claims based on
violations of the TCPA are barred by the statute of limitations,
although others survive the motion to dismiss.  The Judge
dismissed the Plaintiff's TCPA claims arising before May 10, 2013,
as the statute of limitations on these claims has expired.
Because he finds that Keyes has properly pled revocation of
consent, her claims relating to conduct after May 10, 2013 then,
should survive the Defendant's motion to dismiss.  Keyes has also
adequately pled that any call occurring after her revocation of
consent was done knowingly and willfully.

The Judge granted the Plaintiff's request leave to amend her
claims related to the Michigan Occupational Code by adding claims
regarding the Michigan Collection Practices Act.  Keyes alleges
that Ocwen is covered under the Michigan Collection Practices Act
and violated a particular subsection of the Act.  The Plaintiff
may file an amended Complaint no later than Nov. 7, 2017 and the
Defendant must file an answer to the amended Complaint by Nov. 15,
2017.

He denied the Defendant requests that the Court stay this matter
pending a ruling in ACA Int'l v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n.  The Judge
reasons that any decision in ACA International is not dispositive
in this matter, as a decision by the D.C. Circuit is persuasive
authority for the Court.  The Court and the parties are also
unaware of the outcome and timing of a ruling in ACA
International, and therefore, staying this case may prejudice the
Plaintiff.  In addition, the judicial economy is not necessarily
served by staying this case pending a decision in ACA
International.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/yHXmKQ from Leagle.com.

Darcel Keyes, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony P. Chester --
tony@westcoastlitigation.com -- HYDE & SWIGART.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by David M.
Schultz -- dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson,
Jennifer W. Weller -- jweller@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw &
Culbertson & Nancy K. Chinonis, Cline, Cline & Griffin P.C..

Ocwen Mortgage Servicing, Inc., Defendant, represented by David M.
Schultz, Hinshaw & Culbertson & Jennifer W. Weller, Hinshaw &
Culbertson.


PARTNER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Class Action Over Location Data Use
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner" or the "Company"),
an Israeli communications operator, on Oct. 30 disclosed that the
Company received a lawsuit and a motion for the recognition of
this lawsuit as a class action, filed against Partner and against
another cellular operator in the Central District Court on October
24, 2017.

The claim alleges that Partner and the additional cellular
operator unlawfully use the location data of their customers and
thereby breached legal provisions, the engagement agreements with
their customers and their licenses.

If the claim filed against Partner is recognized as a class
action, the total amount claimed against Partner is estimated by
the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 1 billion.

Partner is reviewing and assessing the lawsuit and is unable at
this preliminary stage, to evaluate, with any degree of certainty,
the probability of success of the lawsuit or the range of
potential exposure, if any. [GN]


PAUL MORELLI DESIGN: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paul Morelli Design
of New York, Inc.  The case is styled as Carmen Gomez and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Paul
Morelli Design of New York, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
08112  (S.D.N.Y., October 20, 2017).

Paul Morelli Design of New York, Inc. is a jewelry store.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


PEPSI-COLA: Illegally Marketed Diet Pepsi Products, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Manuel and Vivien Grossman, on behalf of themselves, all
others similarly situated v. Pepsi-Cola Company, Case No. 1:17-cv-
07955-PAE (S.D.N.Y., October 16, 2017), arises out of the
Defendant's unlawful practice of using the term "diet" to market
Diet Pepsi because the product is sweetened with a non-caloric
artificial sweetener, aspartame acesulfame-potassium and
sucralose, which inherently and necessarily implies it will assist
in weight loss, when in fact aspartame acesulfame-potassium and
sucralose in Diet Pepsi is likely to cause weight gain, rather
than to help in weight loss or healthy weight management.

Pepsi-Cola Company is a food, snack, and Beverage Corporation
located at 700 Anderson Hill Road, Purchase, New York, 10577. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Derek T. Smith, Esq.
      Abraham Z. Melamed, Esq.
      DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC
      30 Broad Street, 35th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 587-0760
      E-mail: dtslaws@msn.com
              Abe@dereksmithlaw.com

         - and -

      Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
      Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
      Melanie Persinger, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
      Hillcrest Professional Building
      3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 692-3840
      Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
      E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
              trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
              melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

         - and -

      Andrew Sacks, Esq.
      John Weston, Esq.
      SACKS WESTON DIAMOND, LLC
      1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 764-3008
      E-mail: asacks@sackslaw.com
              jweston@sackslaw.com


PEPSICO INC: Sued Over Authenticity of KeVita Beverage
------------------------------------------------------
Brad Avery, writing for BevNET, reports that the definition of
"kombucha" may once again see its day in court, this time via a
class action lawsuit filed against PepsiCo-owned probiotic
beverage brand KeVita, which alleges its Master Brew Kombucha
products deceive consumers because they are pasteurized.

The suit, known as Emma Brenner v. KeVita, Inc., et al, was filed
in Ventura Superior Court on Oct. 4. Citing historical definitions
of the beverage, the complaint alleges that because KeVita
pasteurizes its Master Brew line, killing naturally occurring
bacteria, it violates consumer expectations that kombucha is a raw
product. Furthermore, the legal complaint suggests Master Brew
would be "more aptly titled 'kombucha-flavored tea.'"

The suit acknowledges that KeVita adds shelf-stable probiotics to
the beverage following pasteurization, but claims that consumers
are being misled with expectations that the live probiotics
advertised on the label come from fermentation during the drink's
brewing process.

". . . To tap into the small batch nature of historical Kombucha
beverages, and to tether itself to the traditional methods of
production consumers desire, KeVita advertises on each label of
the KeVita Master Brew Kombucha that its kombucha beverages are
'handcrafted,'" the complaint states. " . . . The use of these
terms and natural imagery is designed to, and does, induce
consumers, such as Plaintiff and the members of the putative
classes, into believing that KeVita is still the raw unpasteurized
product that they expect."

According to the complaint, KeVita was not pasteurized and was
sold as a raw product as late as 2011. The company itself
identified its Sparkling Probiotic Drinks as unpasteurized as late
as December of that year. However, since then it has changed its
sanitization process to include pasteurization following
fermentation, with live probiotics added afterward, a practice not
uncommon in the kombucha category.

PepsiCo, which acquired KeVita in November, 2016, is also cited as
a defendant. Representatives for PepsiCo declined to comment for
this story.

Speaking to BevNET this week, KeVita co-founder and former CEO
Bill Moses defended the efficacy of the Master Brew line, noting
that the product does include the live probiotics advertised on
the label. During his time at the company, Moses was an outspoken
proponent for advancing standards for testing and reporting
alcohol, sugar and calories in kombucha.

Moses left KeVita in 2016 following its acquisition by PepsiCo.

"There's absolutely live probiotics in the drink and the
brilliance of the [intellectual property] is doing that in a
yeast-free media," Moses said. "Testing methodologies require
unique sophistication in order to detect the Bacillus-based
probiotic, which evidently they do not have."

Legal definitions for kombucha have long been murky. Because
kombucha frequently rises above 0.5 percent alcohol content during
fermentation, most kombucha on the market is regulated by the
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). On its website,
TTB defines kombucha as a fermented beverage made from tea and
sugar combined with yeast and bacteria, but does not include
guidelines for pasteurization or final probiotic content.

Kombucha makers have been targeted in lawsuits regarding labeling
in the past. In February, GT's Kombucha and Whole Foods Market
were ordered to pay $8.25 million over false claims that the
product contained antioxidants and was non-alcoholic. However, it
remains unproven whether kombucha as a product comes with the
expectations that it is raw, a claim never made by the company.

The complaint's allegation that KeVita's claims that its kombucha
is "handcrafted" may also prove dubious. Last year, a judge
dismissed lawsuits against Tito's Vodka that argued because the
spirit is produced using automated machinery its claim of being
"handcrafted" was deceptive to consumers.

Massachusetts-based kombucha maker Aqua ViTea responded to the
lawsuit on Friday, noting that it raised important questions
regarding the definition of "kombucha," in a statement sent to
BevNET.

"This suit, the third in recent years against prominent producers,
highlights the confusion in the Kombucha market as imitations and
watered-down products continue lining the shelves and consumers
receive false information about the contents of these beverages,"
wrote Aqua ViTea founder Jeff Weaber. The statement, presented as
a "Pledge of Authenticity," specifically notes that Aqua ViTea
does not add probiotics after the brewing process nor pasteurize
its kombucha.

The suit sets a class period dating back to Oct. 4, 2013 and calls
for KeVita to conduct "a correct advertising and information
campaign" and to refund all purchases made within the period. A
jury trial is requested.

The plaintiff in the case is being represented by California law
firm Bradley Grombacher, LLP. Representatives from the law firm
did not return multiple requests for comment. [GN]


PNC MERCHANT: Webb, Klase Files Lawsuit Alleging Overbilling
------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta-based law firm Webb, Klase & Lemond, LLC has filed a class
action lawsuit against payment processing giant PNC Merchant
Services Company, L.P., a partnership owned by PNC Bank, N.A. and
First Data Merchant Services Corporation. PNC handles credit and
debit card processing for over 100,000 merchants in the United
States. The suit alleges PNC maintains a systematic policy of
overbilling merchants.

The Class Action Complaint alleges that PNC has perpetrated the
same practices across the country, namely signing up customers by
promising low fees or no fees despite knowledge that the actual
fees charged will be much higher. For example, the suit alleges
that monthly fees and annual fees charged to the Plaintiffs were
not allowed under their merchant agreements. As alleged in the
Class Action Complaint, when merchants attempt to leave PNC, they
are informed for the first time that they are stuck in a three-
year contract and can only get out by paying an early termination
fee of several hundred dollars.

The Plaintiffs seek the return of all amounts they paid PNC that
exceeded the fees set forth in their merchant agreements. The
legal claim referenced in the Class Action Complaint is for breach
of contract and the Plaintiffs request the return of all improper
fees and charges along with other relief.

The case, styled Healing for the Abused Woman Ministries v. PNC
Merchant Services Company, L.P., is pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York and has been
assigned case number 2:17-cv-06255.

If you wish to discuss this class action or have any questions
concerning this press release, please contact Webb, Klase &
Lemond, LLC at (770) 444-9325 or contact @ WebbLLC.com. You may
also visit the firm website at http://www.WebbLLC.com[GN]


POWERCOMM CONSTRUCTION: 4th Cir. Vacates Fee Award in "Randolph"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GREGORY RANDOLPH, on his own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; DANA BROWN; TWANDA BANISTER;
GREGORY EUBANKS; ARTHUR HINNANT; EZRA CHARLES CALLOWAY; RHASAAN
DARK; RODNEY WILLIAMS; KENNETH JACKSON; GEORGE MILES; JAMAL DREW;
KENNETH SEARLES; DEXTER ANDERSON; BERNARD BROWN; NATESHIA DECHE
BEASLEY; EUNICE MELTON; ROBIN MELTON; EARNEST LEE ALLEN, JR.;
SHANINA WASHINGTON; MELVIN L. WEBB-BEY; SYLVIOUS WILLIAMS; FASIL
ALEMAYEHU; AMISHA BENNETT; EDWARD ROBINSON; DANIELLE SMITH; RONALD
WALL; ROY BENNETT; MELQUIN GAINO; LESLIE GROSS; ANTONIO WALL;
LAMONT NEWTON; ANTHONY WILLS; LAMARR YOUNG; MICHELLE BENNETT;
RODNEY BROOKS; LARRY JEFFERSON; LENARD PRINGLE; JUSTIN FOSTER;
EDDIE PERKINS; SEAN E. PITTMAN; JIMMIE MISSOURI; KEVIN SORRELL;
TERENCE BROWN; TERRANCE DOVE; ERIC SHEFFEY; TERRELL TWITTY; JEFF
JORDAN; SAMUEL HEGWOOD; JOHNNY BOYKIN; BERNARD BENNETT; LAVELLE
GANT; DONALD RAY JONES; CORNELIUS REDFEARN; DARNELL MADDOX; RONALD
YOUNG; CALVIN GORHAM, Plaintiffs-Appellees, and VAN EUBANKS; DAVID
PETERSON; JACQUELINE RIDLEY; RALEIGH WALL; MICHAEL ALLEN; ANDRE
ADAMS; REGINA FREEMAN; ALONZO E. MUDD; ROBERT L. WALL, JR.;
WILLIAM HOLLAND, Plaintiffs, v. POWERCOMM CONSTRUCTION, INC.;
DAVID KWASNIK, SR., Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 16-2370 (4th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated
the district court's fee award and remanded for further
proceedings consistent with its Opinion.

The Defendants appeal the district court's order awarding the
Plaintiffs $183,764 in attorney's fees in their action under the
Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"), and the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA").  On appeal, they contend that the district court
erred in failing to discount the fee award based on the dismissal
of 10 Plaintiffs (out of 65) at the summary judgment stage.  In
addition, the Defendants argue that a significant reduction in the
award was required because the settlement amount was much less
than the amount of damages initially sought by the Plaintiffs.

Randolph initiated the lawsuit by filing a proposed class action
under the MWHL and proposed collective action under the FLSA.
Randolph alleged that the Defendants, his former employers, failed
to pay their employees the required wage for overtime work.  For
relief, Randolph sought unpaid wages with interest, economic
damages allowed by the MWHL and FLSA, attorney's fees, and a
declaration that Defendants had violated the MWHL and FLSA.

In March 2014, the district court conditionally certified the case
as a collective action under the FLSA.  By July 2014, 64
additional employees or former employees had joined the lawsuit.
In September 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) disclosure asserting that they were entitled
to about $790,000 in damages, including approximately $263,000 in
unpaid overtime wages and $527,000 in liquidated damages.  In
August 2015, the district court dismissed 10 Plaintiffs after
concluding that the statute of limitations barred their claims and
granted the remaining Plaintiffs' motion for non-conditional
certification of a collective action.

In April 2016, the district court approved the parties' settlement
of the action for $100,000 exclusive of attorney's fees.  The
Plaintiffs' counsel subsequently filed a motion for attorney's
fees in the amount of $227,577.  The district court granted in
part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees
and ultimately awarded $183,764 in attorney's fees after the
Plaintiffs filed a revised motion.

The Circuit Court finds that the district court declined to reduce
the fee award based on the results obtained because the Plaintiffs
purportedly received 38% of their claimed damages that they
incurred during the statute of limitations period, and the court
did not want to discourage the Plaintiffs' attorneys from reaching
reasonable settlements by reducing the fee award.  Although the
latter justification may be persuasive, the Circuit Court says the
district court clearly erred in its characterization of the
percentage of claimed damages received by the Plaintiffs.

The district court seems to have arrived at the 38% figure by
either relying on the settlement discount percentage or by
dividing the settlement amount ($100,000) by the amount of unpaid
wages claimed in the Plaintiffs' second amended Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(1) disclosure ($263,305).  However, the district court
overlooked the fact that the Plaintiffs pursued liquidated damages
under both the MWHL and the FLSA, resulting in a total alleged
damages amount of $789,916.  When the settlement amount is divided
by this figure, one discovers that the Plaintiffs received about
13% of the damages that they sought.

While the district court was not required to proportionally reduce
the award to account for this disparity, the district court
certainly erred in relying on the 38% figure to support its
reasoning.  Therefore, the Circuit Court vacated the district
court's fee award and remanded for further proceedings consistent
with its Opinion.  On remand, the district court should also
reconsider its finding at step three that the relief obtained
represents 38% of the relief claimed by the Plaintiffs for claims
that accrued within the statute of limitations.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/XPQBh5 from Leagle.com.

Geoffrey M. Bohn -- gbohn@bohn-battey.com -- Robert A. Battey --
rbattey@bohn-battey.com -- BOHN & BATTEY, PLC, Arlington,
Virginia, for Appellants.

Nicholas Woodfield -- nwoodfield@employmentlawgroup.com -- R.
Scott Oswald -- soswald@employmentlawgroup.com -- EMPLOYMENT LAW
GROUP, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.


PRINCE-PARKER: Illegally Collects Debt, "Martinez" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Martinez, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Prince-Parker & Associates, Inc., Case No.
5:17-cv-02117 (C.D. Cal., October 16, 2017), is brought on behalf
of all individuals in California who received collection calls
from the Defendant wherein the Defendant failed to meaningfully
disclose its identity and purpose of its call to the Plaintiff, in
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Prince-Parker & Associates, Inc. is a company engaged, by use of
the mails and telephone, in the business of collecting a debt.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PROFESSIONAL PROBATION: Faces "Harper" Suit in N.D. Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional
Probation Services Inc. The case is styled as Catherine Regina
Harper and Jennifer Essig, on behalf of herself and those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Professional Probation Services
Inc, City of Gardendale, Alabama The, a municipal corporation and
Kenneth Gomany in his official capacity as Judge of the Gardendale
Municipal Court, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01791-UJB-AKK (N.D.
Ala., October 23, 2017).

Professional Probation Services, Inc. provides professional court
services and sentencing alternatives to courts, communities, and
offenders in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Emily C.R. Early, Esq.
   THE SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
   400 Washington Avenue
   Montgomery, AL 36104
   Tel: (334) 207-3952
   Fax: (334) 956-8481
   Email: emily.early@splcenter.org


RAJUMAANAR ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Camacho, Latee Baker, and Katina Murray, on behalf of
themselves and all other employees similarly situated v.
Rajumaanar Enterprises Corp. d/b/a Perkins Restaurant & Bakery and
Sunny Khan, Case No. 3:17-cv-01181-FJS-DEP (N.D.N.Y., October 24,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Perkins restaurant franchise
located at 7662 NY-434, Apalachin, New York 13731. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stan Matusz, Esq.
      29 Murfield Drive
      Ithaca, NY 14850
      Telephone: (607) 319-5513
      E-mail: stanmatusz@gmail.com


RETAIL GROCERS: Faces "Gomez" Suit in S. Dist. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retail Grocers
Group, Inc.  The case is styled as Carmen Gomez and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Retail Grocers
Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08164 (S.D.N.Y., October
23, 2017).

Retail Grocers Group, Inc. is engaged in the retail business.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


RETAIL PROPERTIES: Faces "Badger" Suit in W. Dist. Penn.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retail Properties of
America, Inc.  The case is styled as Josie Badger and Emily
Gellatly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated consumers, Plaintiffs v. Retail Properties of America,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01368-DSC (W.D. Penn., October
20, 2017).

Retail Properties of America, Inc. is a REIT and is one of the
largest owners and operators of high quality, strategically
located shopping centers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
   Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP
   1133 Penn Avenue
   5th Floor
   Pittsburgh, PA 15222
   Tel: (412) 322-9243
   Fax: (412) 231-0246
   Email: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com


RISE CONDOMINIUM: Insalago Sues Barcus et al. over Asset Transfer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL G. INSALAGO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated and derivatively on behalf of Rise Condominium
Association, Inc., the Plaintiff, v. BRITNEY BARCUS, CLIFFORD
MOORE, PHILLIP DURAN, LUKE MACKEL, ALBERTO CASTANON, RAYMOND
SAILLANT, ELAINE W. COMBS, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 2017-73212 (Harris County Dist. Ct., Tex, Oct
31, 2017), seeks to recover damages as a result of Defendants'
intentional transfer of Association assets for Defendants' own
financial benefit or for benefit of an intended third-party.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


RM HQ: Faces "Bonilla" Suit Over Failure to Properly Pay Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Bonilla, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. RM HQ, LLC and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. BC680136
(Cal. Super. Ct., October 17, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to provide meal and rest periods to their
hourly workers, failure to pay employees' premium wages, failure
to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to timely pay all
earned and unpaid wages to separated employees, and failure to
provide accurate written wage statements.

RM HQ, LLC owns and operates a restaurant in Los Angeles,
California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Cohen Slatkin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA COHEN SLATKIN
      11726 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 200
      Los Angeles, CA 90049
      Telephone: (310) 627-2699
      Facsimile: (310) 943-2757
      E-mail: jcohenslatkin@jcslaw4you.com


ROLLING IN THE DOUGH: "Young" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Young, On behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Rolling in the Dough, Inc.; Rolling
in the Dough II, Inc.; JWG Enterprises, LLC; Domino's Pizza, Inc.;
Domino's Pizza Franchising, LLC; Domino's Pizza, LLC;
Kenneth Lindeman; and John W. Groll III the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-07825 (N.D. Ill., Oct. 31, 2017), seeks to recover
monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on Defendants'
willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and similarly-situated
individuals with minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois
Wage Payment and Collection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants repeatedly and
willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the IMWL, and the
IWPCA, by improperly taking a tip credit from the wages of
delivery drivers, and by failing to adequately reimburse delivery
drivers f or their delivery-related expenses, and thereby failing
to pay delivery drivers the legally mandated minimum wage for all
hours worked. The Defendants maintain a policy and practice of
underpaying their delivery drivers in violation of the FLSA, the
IMWL, and the IWPCA. All delivery drivers at JWG, including
Plaintiff, have been subject to the same employment policies and
practices, including policies and practices with respect to wages,
reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses, and wage deductions.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the putative class:

          Michael Fradin, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN
          8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Telephone: (847) 644 3425
          Facsimile: (847) 673 1228
          E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew Biller, Esq.
          Andrew Kimble, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          www.msdlegal.com
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Telephone: (513) 651 3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665 0219
          E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com
                  akimble@msdlegal.com


RUNU INC: Faces "Pierre" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Mondy Pierre, and other similarly situated individuals on behalf
of himself and other employees and former employees similarly
situated v. Runu, Inc. and Solomon Moore, Case No. CACE-17-018971
(Fla. Cir. Ct., October 17, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a shopping center in Miramar,
Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason S. Remer, Esq.
      Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com
              bshulman@rgpattorneys.com


SHAKE SHACK: Faces Class Action Over "Service Included" Switch
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Morey, writing for Crain's New York Business, reports that
before opening Union Square Cafe in 1985, Danny Meyer planned to
attend law school.  Instead, he decided to skip the entrance exam
and pursue a career in hospitality.  Thirty years later, his
empire boasts the Shake Shack burger chain as well as some of the
finest restaurants in New York City.

But now Mr. Meyer, like many successful entrepreneurs, has been
dogged by litigation.  He was named in a lawsuit by diner Timothy
Brown that might be among the most absurd in history.

Mr. Meyer's restaurant group was hit with a bizarre class-action
suit claiming that his establishments' switch from tipping to
"service included" was part of collusion and conspiracy within the
hospitality trade.  Among the others named in the suit are David
Chang of Momofuku fame, Brooklyn's Andrew Tarlow and the NYC
Hospitality Alliance -- a trade group whose crime was holding open
informational discussions on the benefits and downsides of a no-
tipping policy.

The purpose of going gratuity-free is to compensate restaurant
workers more fairly and to have menus reflect the actual price
that customers pay.  It is considered a risky move for eateries,
and few have made it.  Some who did have switched back to tipping.
Yet the lengthy complaint accuses Meyer et al. of a secret price-
fixing plot to boost their bottom line.

The lawsuit, which is ridiculous and built on tenuous legal
arguments, illustrates how far lawyers can go to make a buck.  In
fact, food and beverage purveyors and manufacturers are often the
hardest hit by abusive litigation.  A report by the Institute for
Legal Reform found a rise in food-marketing class actions, 22% of
which end up in New York courts.

In search of easy settlements, opportunistic attorneys file
questionable suits whenever they can find a gray area of law,
propose a novel legal theory or stir up conflict.  For example,
following recent court decisions expanding the scope of the
Americans With Disabilities Act, New York retailers and
restaurants have been pounded by cut-and-paste lawsuits over their
websites' supposed lack of accessibility to the blind.

Lawyers are also quick to smack snack companies with allegations
that their packaging contains deceptive amounts of empty space,
known as slack-fill.  These filings are so common that-although
judges often dismiss them-one law firm in New York has sued the
makers of Wise chips, Swedish Fish, Sour Patch Kids, Junior Mints
and dozens of other snacks.

Lawyers claim that the lawsuits are meant to protect consumers
from dishonest businesses, but in many cases, only class counsel
benefits in any material way.  Attorneys often take home millions
of dollars in fees, while most settlements offer little
compensation for regular people-the purported victims. In the end,
litigation drives up the price of goods and the cost of doing
business.

When it comes to the recent allegations against some of the city's
most revered restaurants, one should question whether the named
plaintiff is the driving force behind the lawsuit or if his
lawyers cooked up a claim built on speculation they figured would
generate headlines -- and a quick settlement. [GN]


SHAMMAS INVESTMENT: Marquez Seeks Minimum Wages under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCUS MARQUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SHAMMAS INVESTMENT LLC, a California
limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No.
BC681552 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 31, 2017), seeks to recover
overtime and minimum wages under the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to pay state-
mandated overtime wages for all overtime hours worked; failed to
pay wages for all hours worked; failed to authorize and permit all
paid legally-requisite rest periods; failed to timely furnish
accurate itemized wage statements; and violated Labor Code; failed
to reimburse for all work-related expenses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin T. Bames, Esq.
          Gregg Lander, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
          5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460
          Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664
          Telephone: (323) 549 9100
          Facsimile: (323) 549 0101
          E-mail: Bames@kbames.com


SIX FLAGS: Judge Refuses to Certify Eight Subclasses in OT Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that a
California unpaid overtime lawsuit seeking class certification got
"some good news for everybody, and some bad news for everybody,"
when Superior Court Judge Ann I. Jones denied a petition to
certify eight subclasses or workers at a well-known theme park,
but left the door open to other subclasses with regard to various
pay claims.

The overtime pay lawsuit -- which also has underpinnings
suggesting off-the-clock work -- dates back to April 2013 when
four, former workers of Six Flags Magic Mountain alleged pay and
wage violations.

Plaintiffs Andrew Villegas, Jennifer Gilmore, Dustin Liggett and
Hans Gundelfinger moved for class certification in 2016, only to
amend their motion with respect to a rest break subclass.

That motion was denied by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Jones
in February of this year.

Then, on October 4, Judge Jones issued her tentative decision to
deny the certification of eight subclasses of workers, but would
remain open to considering the certification of three subclasses
comprised of a rounding subclass for employees whose hours were
manually adjusted, and two regular rate subclasses for maintenance
and seasonal employees, according to Law360.

The four litigants, who put themselves forward as lead plaintiffs
in the proposed California overtime pay laws class action, allege
as part of their various claims via subclasses that Six Flags
Magic Mountain paid overtime or premium pay based on the hourly
rate, rather than the so-called 'regular rate' that took into
account other forms of remuneration such as passes to the park, or
reimbursements for tuition.

Plaintiffs claim that had overtime pay been calculated against the
regular rate, they would have received a higher amount of overtime
pay.

Two subclasses that were denied had a champion in the plaintiff's
attorney, who attempted to persuade Judge Jones to reconsider a
'shaved time' subclass for workers who were shorted in their pay
packets, and a 'walking time' subclass for workers who were not
compensated for their time heading to, and from designated break
areas.

Judge Jones opined that while she was not concerned about the
manageability of the subclasses, she did have some issues about
arguments surrounding common proof.

The plaintiffs were employed by Six Flags Magic Mountain as ride
mechanics, ride operators and game attendants between August 2005
and July 2012, according to the lawsuit.

The California unpaid overtime lawsuit is Andrew Villegas et al.
v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp., Case No. BC505344, in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles. [GN]


SKO BRENNER: Faces "Williams" Suit in M. Dist. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SKO Brenner
American, Inc.  The case is styled as Joy Williams, individually
and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. SKO Brenner American, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01178-
MMH-JRK (M.D. Fla., October 20, 2017).

SKO Brenner American, Inc. is a debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Austin James Griffin, Esq.
   328 2nd Avenue North, Suite 100
   Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
   Tel: (904) 372-4109
   Email: austin@storylawgroup.com

       - and -

   Max H. Story, Esq.
   328 2nd Avenue North, Suite 100
   Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
   Tel: (904) 372-4109
   Fax: (904) 758-5333
   Email: max@storylawgroup.com


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REPRODUCTIVE: Thompson Files Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southern California
Reproductive Center.

The case is styled as Latoshia Ann Thompson and Chyontelle Marcia
McGinnis, Individually and as Limited Liability Partner of MDT and
Associates, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, for the benefit of MDT and Associates, LLC, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiffs v.
Southern California Reproductive Center, Shahin Ghadir, M.D., Eric
Garcetti as the Mayor of the City of Los Angeles, The City of Los
Angeles as et al. The Mayor of the City of Los Angeles, DPSS,
Homeless Services Authority LAHSA, LAPD, LAFD, LASD, RAPS, Board
of Fire Commissioners, Metropolitan Transit Authority
MTA, Downtown Women s Center DWC, Angel Jones Day Center Manager
DWC and Shane Murphy Goldsmith as The City of Los Angeles Police
Board Commissioner, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-07687-SVW-KS
(C.D. Cal., October 20, 2017).

Southern California Reproductive Center is a fertility clinic in
the Los Angeles and Santa Barbara areas offering surgical and non-
surgical treatments.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appears PRO SE.


SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Policyholders' Class Action Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
GCA Lawyers on Oct. 30 disclosed that Mr Cameron, Solicitor for
the policyholders in the Southern Response Class Action, confirmed
that "the group were very pleased to receive a positive judgment
from the Court of Appeal" and that, "as this case has been held up
on preliminary matters for far too long, the Court of Appeal's
decision will be of great relief to our clients".

The key findings were:

   -- that in the High Court, Justice Gendall was right to grant
leave for a representative action;

   -- and that the representative action procedure is a just and
efficient means of dealing with these claims; and

   -- the Court of Appeal envisages that Southern Response yet be
required to provide information about the proceedings to other
potential claimants.

"We are pleased that the Court of Appeal has provided further
directions as to how the pleadings might be amended to assist the
efficient and timely management of the case through the High
Court" said Mr Cameron.  "Indeed the Court of Appeal was concerned
at the time this case has taken to reach this stage and has firmly
recommended cooperation between the parties to get things back on
track.  We anticipate that progress will also be made as soon as
the new government comes to grips with the reality of the delays
occasioned by its predecessor".

The Court found that both the breach of contract allegations and
the breach of good faith claims, could be properly dealt with
through this mode of action and Mr Cameron stated that "the court
accepted that the group was now free to prove to the High Court
that Southern Response formulated and applied a strategy to
misrepresent the nature of the claimant's contractual rights and
to delay the processing of those claims".

Finally, the Court of Appeal also reversed the High Court decision
to allow a further cooling off period for policyholders and
specified how the High Court might yet be satisfied on the minor
issues for those clients without a DRA at the end of April 2015.
[GN]


STEMILT AG: Major Washington Grower Settles Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Jefferson Robbins, writing for Yakima Herald, reports that a
pending class-action settlement would force Stemilt Ag Services to
pay more than half a million dollars to fieldworkers for rest
breaks taken during harvest and cultivation.

The company, an orchard-management subsidiary of tree-fruit giant
Stemilt Growers, would pay $562,338 if the settlement is approved
by a judge in February, benefiting 4,447 current and former
orchard workers for labor they did in 2014 and 2015.

Stemilt Ag Services and chief plaintiff Francisco Flores Olivares
won preliminary approval of their proposed settlement Sept. 26 in
Chelan County Superior Court, heading off a trial that would have
tested the state Supreme Court's recent landmark ruling on piece-
rate payment for agricultural workers.

Stemilt Ag Services operates and managers orchards for fruit
growers throughout the Wenatchee Valley and beyond. Olivares was
among workers employed by the firm between Jan. 17, 2014, and July
15, 2015, earning a productivity-based "piece rate" for
agricultural work.

In July 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in Demetrio v. Sakuma
Brothers that farmworkers who are paid a piece rate must also be
separately compensated for rest breaks. Olivares sued last January
on behalf of himself and fellow Stemilt Ag Services workers,
claiming the company had not paid rest-break compensation during
the employment period. Stemilt disputed the claims and denied any
wrongdoing.

The two sides entered mediation last June, court records show, and
Stemilt provided relevant employment and pay records. Negotiators
agreed to rest-break compensation based on the $13.4 million gross
amount Stemilt paid for about 492,000 piece-rate hours over the
eight-month period.

The $562,338 gross settlement amount includes $123,714 in
attorneys' fees, $10,000 in litigation costs, a $25,000 fee to
administrate settlement payouts and $5,000 to Olivares as the
class representative. Once claims are disbursed, court records
show, the average Stemilt worker in the class would receive
$89.63.

Growers are still sorting out the impacts of the Demetrio ruling,
both in litigation and in legislation. A separate class action
suit brought by workers against Wenatchee's Dovex Fruit Co. asks
whether workers should be paid for non-picking tasks such as
moving equipment, meetings and training. It's now under review by
the state Supreme Court.

A state Senate bill, sponsored in part by 12th District Sen. Brad
Hawkins, was introduced this year to allow ag employers to avoid
liability under Demetrio by seeking out and paying remedial rest-
break wages at a 4 percent rate to former workers, or to the
Department of Labor and Industries if those workers could not be
located. The bill passed the Senate but stalled in the House in
July.

"It isn't fair that a class-action lawsuit is my source of clarity
to pay my team members," Stemilt president West Mathison testified
before the Senate agriculture committee last February. "That's not
right,"

Stemilt said in class-action case filings that it disputes the
validity of the Supreme Court decision, arguing that the state
Legislature had repealed the underlying statute cited in Demetrio
in 1993 and that rest-break compensation cannot be applied
retroactively.

Stemilt spokeswoman Brianna Shales said on October 26 the company
would not comment on the settlement. Plaintiffs' attorneys India
Lin Bodien of Tacoma and Craig Ackermann of Los Angeles could not
be reached.

The parties' joint motion asks Judge Alicia Nakata to give final
approval in a hearing scheduled for Feb. 8. Nakata announced that
she would retire from the bench Jan. 1, meaning another judge
would have to oversee the settlement if it is not concluded by
then. [GN]


SUNRISE COMMUNICATIONS: Wieseler-Myers Sues over Spam Text
----------------------------------------------------------
CATHY WIESELER-MYERS, individually and on behalf of classes of
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. SUNRISE
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Missouri corporation, and AT&T, INC., a
Delaware corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-03346-BCW
(W.D. Mo., Oct. 31, 2017), seeks to recover damages and other
legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of
Defendants in contacting Plaintiff and Class Members via text on
their cellular telephones via an "automatic telephone dialing
system,", without their prior express written consent within the
meaning of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

AT&T, Inc. in partnership with its "Solutions Providers" such as
Sunrise Communications, Inc. either sent, or caused to be sent,
automated "text blasts" to thousands of people in the hopes of
generating business leads. In doing so, it sent those messages in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and the
Federal Communication Commission which require that such
telemarketing texts and calls be made only to individuals who
provided "prior express written consent" to receive those messages
from that seller.

On February 11, 2015, a district court in the District of Montana
granted final approval to a $45 million class action settlement
resolving claims that AT&T violated the TCPA by making calls to
persons who were not AT&T customers. Hageman v. AT&T Mobility,
LLC, Case No. 1:13-cv-00050-RWA (D. Mont.). Notwithstanding its
prior violations of the TCPA, AT&T has continued to violate the
TCPA, the Wieseler-Myers lawsuit claims.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew L. Dameron, Esq.
          John F. Doyle, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 945 7110
          Facsimile: (816) 945 7118
          E-mail: matt@williamsdirks.com
                  jdoyle@williamsdirks.com

               - and -

          Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956 1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956 1008
          E-mail: dhutchinson@lchb.com

               - and -

          Matthew R. Wilson, Esq.
          Michael J. Boyle, Jr. , Esq
          MEYER WILSON CO., LPA
          1320 Dublin Road, Ste. 100
          Columbus, Ohio 43215
          Telephone: (614) 224 6000
          Facsimile: (614) 2246066
          E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com
                  mboyle@meyerwilson.com


TARGET CORP: Faces "Harris" Suit in N. Dist. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Target Corporation
a Minnesota corporation. The case is styled as Shana Harris,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Target Corporation, a Minnesota corporation and
Target Stores, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-06025-MEJ (N.D. Cal., October 20, 2017).

Target Corporation is the second-largest discount store retailer
in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
   Robbins Arroyo LLP
   600 B Street, Suite 1900
   San Diego, CA 92101-3350
   Tel: (619) 525-3990
   Fax: (619) 525-3991
   Email: notice@robbinsarroyo.com


TOUCH ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Garcia" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Facondo Garcia, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated v. Touch Enterprises LLC and Deybe Bustamante, Case No.
2:17-cv-10874 (E.D. La., October 19, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours a workweek.

The Defendants operate a construction company that provides
general construction services for commercial and residential
projects in the Greater New Orleans area.    [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
      William H. Beaumont, Esq.
      Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
      BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
      3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Telephone: (504) 534-5005
      E-mail: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
              whb@beaumontcostales.com
              eaw@beaumontcostales.com


TRAVELERS: Krpekyan Sues for Breach of Insurance Contract
---------------------------------------------------------
Kristina Krpekyan, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated insureds v. Travelers; Travelers Commercial Insurance
Company; Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company; The
Standard Fire Insurance Company; Universal 1st Insurance Services;
and Does 1-500; inclusive, Case No. BC680135 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
October 17, 2017), arises out of Travelers' breach of insurance
contract, specifically by failing to properly respond to the
Plaintiffs' insurance policy claim for their home, acting in bad
faith relative to the claims of the Plaintiffs, failing to
properly investigate the Plaintiffs' claims, failing to pay fair
amounts on Plaintiffs' claim, misrepresenting available coverage
and statutes, misrepresenting the obligations of the insurer,
conducting lengthy and harassing Examinations Under Oath,
concealing the rights of the Plaintiffs, and contending that the
application had not been properly filled out.

The Defendants operate an insurance company headquartered in New
York City, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven Zelig, Esq.
      WLA LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
      1543 7th Street, Suite 300
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Telephone: (310) 393-6702
      Facsimile: (310) 393-6703


UBER TECH: Sued Over Underpaid Women Engineers
----------------------------------------------
Shaun Nichols, writing for The Register, reports that Uber is once
again being hauled into court, this time on allegations it
deliberately underpaid women engineers and staff who were not
white or Asian.

The lawsuit, filed in the San Francisco Superior Court, alleges
violations of California's Equal Pay Act and Private Attorney
General Act, and demands back wages and damages on three counts.

According to the class-action suit, backed by named plaintiffs
Ingrid Avenda┬žo, Roxana Del Toro Lopez, and Ana Medina, Uber uses
a "stack ranking" evaluation system for its employee reviews that
is subject to the personal biases of individual managers.

"As a result of Uber's policies, patterns, and practices, female
engineers and engineers of color receive less compensation and are
promoted less frequently than their male and/or. white or Asian
counterparts," the suit alleges.

That system, in which employees are ranked from "best" to "worst"
in performance twice a year, results in women and people of color
routinely being underpaid and passed over for promotions.

A similar ranking system was used for years by Microsoft, and was
eventually phased out on the conclusion it was an unreliable and
ineffective way to evaluate individual performance within teams.

According to the lawsuit, the rankings system bases pay and
promotion not on the actual performance of individual engineers,
but rather on the subjective opinions of managers who have tended
to favor men who are either white or Asian.

As a result, the suit alleges, women and people of color end up
being paid less and promoted less often across the board.

"Because female employees and employees of color have been
systematically disadvantaged by the stack ranking performance
evaluation process, their outcomes in terms of raises and bonuses
have suffered compared to their male peers," the complaint reads.

Uber did not respond to a request for comment on the suit.

The next hearing in the case, a complaint management conference,
is set to take place on March 28 of next year. [GN]


UNIFUND CCR: Faces "Labin" Suit in Eastern District New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unifund CCR, LLC.
The case is styled as Rachel Labin, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. Unifund CCR, LLC
and Distressed Asset Portfolio IV, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-06151 (E.D. N.Y., October 22, 2017).

Unifund CCR purchases, sells, and manages under-performing and
distressed consumer receivables in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Maxim Maximov, Esq.
   Maxim Maximov, LLP
   1701 Avenue P
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 395-3459
   Fax: (718) 408-9570
   Email: m@maximovlaw.com


UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Geiskinsky" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Collection
Bureau, Inc.  The case is styled as Yisroel Geiskinsky, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff
v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
06121 (E.D. N.Y., October 20, 2017).

United Collection provides debt collection services for companies
(government, healthcare, utility, financial service,
communication, and student.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Sued Over UBH Commercial Plan Policies
---------------------------------------------------------
Open Minds reports that on October 16, 2017, a trial started in a
class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of consumers protesting
barriers to mental health and addiction treatment in United
Healthcare's commercial plan policies, as implemented by its
business unit United Behavioral Health (UBH).  The class includes
about 50,000 families covered by health benefit plans administered
by UBH which are governed by the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as well as a smaller group of
families covered by the state laws of Connecticut, Illinois, Rhode
Island, or Texas. [GN]


UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: Has Partial Deal of Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, UNC Health Care,
and the law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
jointly announce that U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Eagles has
granted preliminary approval to the partial settlement of an
antitrust class action lawsuit against Duke University, UNC, and
other related parties over an alleged agreement between and among
the defendants not to compete for certain of each other's
employees (a "No-Hire" Agreement).

The action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina on behalf of Dr. Danielle Seaman
and a proposed class of similarly-situated employees of the
defendants. The defendants are Duke University and Duke University
Health System (the Duke Defendants), and the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University of North Carolina School
of Medicine, UNC Health Care, and Dr. William L. Roper in his
official capacity as Dean of the UNC School of Medicine, Vice-
Chancellor of Medical Affairs for the University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill and Chief Executive Officer of UNC Health Care (the
UNC Defendants).

Nature of the Duke/UNC "No-Hire" Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit

Dr. Seaman alleges that the No-Hire Agreement violated state and
federal antitrust laws, and resulted in suppressed mobility and
compensation for a proposed class of Duke and UNC employees. The
Duke Defendants and the UNC Defendants deny the allegations,
including the existence of any alleged No-Hire Agreement.

Remedies of the Partial Settlement with the UNC Defendants

The partial settlement implements a variety of measures by the UNC
Defendants to ensure that they will not enter into or enforce any
unlawful no-hire agreements or similar restraints on competition.
The settlement also requires the UNC Defendants to cooperate in
providing documents, data and testimony to Dr. Seaman as she
continues to pursue her case against the Duke Defendants. No money
will be provided to Dr. Seaman or her lawyers as part of this
settlement. The settlement includes an explicit denial of any
wrongdoing by the UNC Defendants.

The Duke Defendants have not settled; they remain in the case,
which is ongoing.

Details on the Settlement Class

The Settlement Class consists of all natural persons employed by
the Duke Defendants or the UNC Defendants, in the United States,
from January 1, 2012 through August 21, 2017. Excluded from the
Class are members of the boards of directors and boards of
trustees, boards of governors, and senior administrators of
Defendants and their alleged co-conspirators who entered into the
alleged agreements, any Defendant's or Settling Defendant's legal
representatives in connection with this action (including any
person affiliated with any law firm representing any Defendant or
Settling Defendant in connection with this action), and any and
all judges and justices, and chambers' staff, assigned to hear or
adjudicate any aspect of this litigation. [GN]


US HEALTHWORKS: "Bhusan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vishal Bhusan, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. U.S. Healthworks Inc., U.S. Healthworks
Medical Group, Prof. Corp., and Does 1 through 100, Case No.
BC679728 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 17, 2017), seeks recovery of
unpaid overtime wages and penalties under California Labor Code.

The Defendants provide clinical-based occupational healthcare
services in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
      Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq.
      Stephanie A. Kierig, Esq.
      HAINES LAW GROUP. APC
      2274 East Maple Avenue
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (424) 292-2350
      Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
      E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
              fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
              arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com
              skierig@haineslawgroup.com


USAA CASUALTY: Loses Confidentiality Designations Challenge
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edwin G. Torres of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida denied the Defendant's motion challenging the
Plaintiffs' confidentiality designations in the case, MAO-MSO
RECOVERY II, LLC, a Delaware entity; MSP RECOVERY LLC, a Florida
entity; MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida entity, Plaintiffs, v. USAA
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a Texas company, Defendant, Case No.
17-21289-Civ-WILLIAMS/TORRES (S.D. Fla.).

This is a putative class action in which the Plaintiffs allege
that the Defendant failed to fulfill its statutorily-mandated duty
to reimburse Medicare Advantage Organizations ("MAOs") for medical
expenses related to automobile accidents involving Medicare
enrollees.  More specifically, they allege that (i) MAOs paid
unspecified medical expenses related to treatment of Medicare
enrollees arising out of unspecified automobile accidents, (ii)
the Defendant was responsible for those expenses, and (iii) the
Defendant failed to fulfill its duty to reimburse MAOs for medical
expenses.  As such, the lawsuit seeks reimbursement for those
medical expenses paid by the Plaintiff and the putative class
members, including damages pursuant to the Medicare Secondary
Payer private cause of action under 42 U.S.C. Section
1395y(b)(3)(A).

The Defendant now challenges the confidentiality designations made
by the Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs responded to the Defendant's
motion on Oct. 20, 2017 to which the Defendant replied on Oct. 27,
2017.

The gist of the Defendant's motion is that the Plaintiffs'
confidentiality designations are improper and that the Plaintiff
should be required to produce an un-redacted complaint on the
record for public access.  It suggests that the identities of the
MAOs that assigned their claims to the Plaintiffs do not
constitute business information or trade secrets and that the
information should not be kept solely between the parties.  It
argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to present any compelling
basis to overrule the presumption of public access to court
records and that the Plaintiffs must be compelled to disclose the
information in their pleadings.

Judge Torres sees no reason why the Plaintiffs should be forced to
release the assignors of the MAOs to the public domain especially
when the parties already agreed to a stipulated protective order
whose purpose was to safeguard confidential information.  And
although he recognizes that it is ultimately the Plaintiffs'
burden to demonstrate good cause for the confidentiality of MAO
assignors, the Defendant noticeably omits any litigation purpose
for wanting the identities to be made public.

The Judge finds that the Defendant merely argues that the public
should have access to these items and that the Defendant is
entitled to know the scope of who assigned the Plaintiffs certain
rights.  But, these arguments, he says, are unpersuasive because
the information the Defendant seeks is already available -- by the
Plaintiffs' own admission -- through several discovery devices
pursuant to the stipulated protective order.  And the Defendant
also has access to the un-redacted complaint and the assignors
that the Plaintiff omitted -- meaning this dispute is trivial at
best.

To conclude, the Judge says the Plaintiffs have adequately
demonstrated the potential harm to their privacy interests and
business operations.  Therefore, Judge Torres denied the
Defendant's motion.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/TqsFj5 from Leagle.com.

MAO-MSO RECOVERY II LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Christine Marie
Lugo.

MAO-MSO RECOVERY II LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher L.
Coffin -- ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP,
pro hac vice, Courtney L. Stidham -- cstidham@pbclawfirm.com --
Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP, pro hac vice, Pedram Esfandiary --
pesfandiary@baumhedlundlaw.com -- Baum, Hedlund, Aristei &
Goldman, P.C., pro hac vice, Robert Brent Wisner --
rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com -- Baum Helund ARistei & Goldman PC,
pro hac vice, Tracy L. Turner -- tturner@pbclawfirm.com --
Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP, pro hac vice & Frank Carlos Quesada
-- Fquesada@msprecovery.com -- MSP Recovery Law Firm.

MSP Recovery, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Christine Marie Lugo,
Christopher L. Coffin, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP, pro hac
vice, Courtney L. Stidham, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP, pro hac
vice, Pedram Esfandiary, Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, P.C.,
pro hac vice, Robert Brent Wisner, Baum Helund ARistei & Goldman
PC, pro hac vice, Tracy L. Turner, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP,
pro hac vice & Frank Carlos Quesada, MSP Recovery Law Firm.

MSPA Claims 1, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Christine Marie
Lugo, Christopher L. Coffin, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP, pro
hac vice, Courtney L. Stidham, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, LLP, pro
hac vice, Pedram Esfandiary, Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman,
P.C., pro hac vice, Robert Brent Wisner, Baum Helund ARistei &
Goldman PC, pro hac vice, Tracy L. Turner, Pendley, Baudin &
Coffin, LLP, pro hac vice & Frank Carlos Quesada, MSP Recovery Law
Firm.

USAA Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Valerie
B. Greenberg -- valerie.greenberg@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP,
Jonathan Dov Lamet -- jonathan.lamet@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP &
Stacy Jaye Rodriguez -- stacy.rodriguez@akerman.com -- Akerman
Senterfitt.


USC THOMPSON: Faces "Harris" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Harris and Kenneth Cargal, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. John Spencer, Susan Spencer, Carl
Dove, USC Thompson, Inc., US Casing Service OK Inc., and U.S.
Pressure Test, Inc., Case No. 7:17-cv-00205 (W.D. Tex., October
19, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a trucking company located at 13400
West 57th Street, Odessa, Texas 79764. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
      Little Rock, Arkansas 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


UZBEK LOGISTICS: "Kopaleishvili" Suit Transferred to S.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on April 20, 2017, tilted Raul
Kopaleishvili, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Uzbek Logistics, Inc. and Uzbek Transport
Express, LLC, and any other entities affiliated with, controlling,
or controlled by Uzbek Logistics, Inc. and Uzbek Transport
Express, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-02375, was transferred on October
20, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York to the U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-00702-TSB to the
proceeding.

The case asserts labor-related claims.

The Defendants own and operate a transportation business in New
York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Forsythe Croskery, Esq.
      CROSKERY LAW OFFICES
      3905 Eastern Ave., Suite 200
      Cincinnati, OH 45226
      Telephone: (513) 232-5297
      Facsimile: (513) 426-7372
      E-mail: rcroskery@croskerylaw.com

         - and -

      Jack Lee Newhouse, Esq.
      Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9081
      E-mail: jnewhouse@vandallp.com
              lambinder@vandallp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Carmine Joseph Castellano, Esq.
      HODGSON RUSS LLP
      1540 Broadway, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (646) 218-7571
      Facsimile: (646) 218-7683
      E-mail: ccastellano@hodgsonruss.com


VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Faces "Hofstatter" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valentine &
Kebartas, LLC.  The case is styled as Zalmi Hofstatter, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff
v. Valentine & Kebartas, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06122
(E.D.N.Y., October 20, 2017).

Valentine & Kebartas, LLC is a collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.


VIKING CLIENT: Faces "Kupczyk" Suit in Eastern District New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Viking Client
Services, Inc.  The case is styled as Joel Kupczyk, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v.
Viking Client Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-06142
(E.D.N.Y., October 22, 2017).

Viking Collection is debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Maxim Maximov, Esq.
   Maxim Maximov, LLP
   1701 Avenue P
   Brooklyn, NY 11229
   Tel: (718) 395-3459
   Fax: (718) 408-9570
   Email: m@maximovlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: No Legal Action in Canada Despite Emissions Tests
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mia Rabson, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that two years
after Canadian government testing helped the United States go
after Volkswagen for faking the results of diesel-engine emissions
tests, Canada says it is still unable to determine if Volkswagen
broke the law in this country.

An Environment Canada official speaking on background said it will
likely be many more months before Canada's investigation
concludes.

The delay is baffling to Canadian environment groups, which have
taken Environment Minister Catherine McKenna to court in a bid to
make sure the investigation is completed.

"I don't see why this is complicated," said Tim Gray, executive
director of Environmental Defence.  "The minister of environment
owes Canadians an explanation."

Canada launched an investigation into Volkswagen's diesel car
sales on Sept. 22, 2015, the same day the German automaker
admitted it had sold more than 11 million vehicles around the
world equipped with software designed to dupe emissions testing
equipment.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency uncovered the scandal,
which found the company's claims about emissions from its diesel
vehicles, well above tailpipe emissions standards in the U.S. and
Canada, had in fact been falsified.

Class-action suits in the U.S. and Canada have cost the company
more than $16 billion.  Six executives were charged criminally in
the U.S. over the scandal, and seven months ago the company itself
pleaded guilty in the United States to fraud, agreeing to pay more
than $4 billion in fines.

It now appears testing in Canada contributed to the U.S. case.
Canadian documents obtained by The Canadian Press through the
Access to Information Act say vehicle testing done at Environment
and Climate Change Canada's laboratory in Ottawa "contributed to
the United States Environment Protection Agency's issuance of a
second notice of violation in November 2015."

That month, the EPA accused Volkswagen of equipping 10,000 3.0-
litre diesel engine vehicles in its Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche
models with the defeating software.  That notice came two months
after a violation notice about 482,000 2.0-litre diesel engine
cars sold since 2008 which were also equipped with the software.
About 105,000 of the affected models were sold in Canada.

Amir Attaran, the lawyer representing two groups suing Canada over
the Volkswagen investigation, said the note suggests Canada has
had its own data showing Volkswagen violated Canadian emissions
standards for more than two years but still hasn't done anything
about it.

"It's not that we can say we don't know the cars are violating the
rules, because we've actually tested them at Environment Canada's
Ottawa lab," he said.

What's left to determine is if Volkswagen will face any criminal
penalties in Canada.

Environment Canada officials say the case is complex and is taking
a long time to complete, but if sufficient evidence is found, it
will take "enforcement action."

"It is not uncommon for investigations into cases of this
complexity to take time," an official said in an email.

In its press release when it launched the investigation more than
two years ago, Environment Canada explicitly said defeating
software devices are prohibited under the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act.

Environmental Defence also alleges Volkswagen began selling the
faulty 2015 diesel engine models this year without fully repairing
them.

Mr. Attaran said after a software upgrade mostly fixed the
problems, the company got permission from the EPA to sell the cars
in the U.S., provided it committed to fully repairing them with
new hardware in 2018.

He said there is no evidence the company received any approval to
do that in Canada, and yet the models were put back on the sale
floor this year.

Environment Canada is investigating that allegation but told
Environmental Defence "a year or more will be required" to
complete it. [GN]


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Autohaus Suit Transferred to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on September 27, 2017, captioned
Autohaus Acquisitions, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Audi AG; Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
d/b/a Volkswagen of America, Inc. and d/b/a Audi of America, Inc.;
BMW AG; BMW of North America, LLC; Daimler AG; Mercedes-Benz USA,
LLC; DR. ING. H.C. F. Porsche AG; Porsche Cars North America,
Inc.; and Volkswagen AG, Case No. 2:17-cv-07536, was transferred
on October 23, 2017, from the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-
cv-06053-CRB to the proceeding.

The complaint says the Defendants are engaged in a cartel to
artificially generate supra-competitive profits by agreeing to
reduce product quality, deter innovation, and not fully compete
against each other for sales of millions of passenger cars that
they sold in the United States.

The Defendants are in the business of developing, manufacturing,
and selling cars and motorcycles worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Randall MacBride, Esq.
      ZELLE LLP
      401 Plymouth Road, Suite 120
      Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
      Telephone: (484) 532-5341
      Facsimile: (612) 336-9100
      E-mail: jmacbride@zelle.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Blevins" Suit Transferred to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on August 25, 2017, styled Staci
Blevins, Sergey Bogomolov, Richard Haugan, Dale Talbot, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi AG, Audi of
America, LLC, Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, Porsche Cars North
America, Inc., Daimler AG, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Mercedes-Benz
US International, Inc., Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, BMW North
America, LLC, was transferred on October 23, 2017, from the U.S.
District Court District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-06042-CRB to the proceeding.

The complaint says the Defendants are engaged in a cartel to
artificially generate supra-competitive profits by agreeing to
reduce product quality, deter innovation, and not fully compete
against each other for sales of millions of passenger cars that
they sold in the United States.

The Defendants are in the business of developing, manufacturing,
and selling cars and motorcycles worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Caldwell" Suit Transferred to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on September 26, 2017, titled
Robert E. Caldwell, Tracy Childress, Saad Ehtisham, David Hofman,
Debra Lenke, April Starlight and Frederick Thomas et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BMW
North America, LLC, BMW AG, Audi AG, Audi of America Inc., Audi of
America, LLC, Bentley Motors Limited, Daimler Aktiengesellschaft,
Mercedes-Benz US International, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mercedes-Benz
Vans, LLC, Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, Porsche Cars of North
America, Inc., Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Case No. 2:17-cv-07473, was transferred on October 23, 2017, from
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-06052-CRB to the
proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful
combination, agreement and conspiracy to increase prices, and
eliminate competition with respect to key technologies and other
aspects of the luxury cars sold or leased to U.S. consumers under
the Audi, BMW, Bentley, Mercedes-Benz, and Porsche brands, says
the complaint. [BN]

The Defendants are in the business of developing, manufacturing,
and selling cars and motorcycles worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ellen Relkin, Esq.
      WEITZ & LUXENBERG
      220 Lake Drive East, Suite 210
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
      Telephone: (212) 558-5715
      Facsimile: (212) 363-2721
      E-mail: erelkin@weitzlux.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Hoar" Suit Transferred to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on August 17, 2017, captioned
Michael Hoar and Elsa Ortiz, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. BMW North America, LLC, BMW AG, Audi
AG, Audi of America Inc., Audi of America, LLC, Bentley Motors
Limited, Daimler Aktiengesellschaft, Mercedes-Benz US
International, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC, Dr.
Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG, Porsche Cars of North America, Inc.,
Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:17-
cv-06210, was transferred on October 23, 2017, from the U.S.
District Court District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-06052-CRB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful
combination, agreement and conspiracy to increase prices, and
eliminate competition with respect to key technologies and other
aspects of the luxury cars sold or leased to U.S. consumers under
the Audi, BMW, Bentley, Mercedes-Benz, and Porsche brands, says
the complaint. [BN]

The Defendants are in the business of developing, manufacturing,
and selling cars and motorcycles worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ellen Relkin, Esq.
      WEITZ & LUXENBERG
      220 Lake Drive East, Suite 210
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
      Telephone: (212) 558-5715
      Facsimile: (212) 363-2721
      E-mail: erelkin@weitzlux.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Hughes" Suit Transferred to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on August 31, 2017, styled Anthony
Hughes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Bentley Motors Limited, Audi AG, Audi of America, LLC, DR. ING.
H.C.F. Porsche AG, Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Daimler AG,
Mercedes-Benz USA, Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC, Mercedes-Benz U.S.
International, Inc., Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, BMW of North
America, LLC, Robert Bosch GMBH, and Robert Bosch LLC, Case No.
2:17-cv-06588 was transferred on October 23, 2017, from the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-06050-CRB to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful
combination, agreement and conspiracy to increase prices, and
eliminate competition with respect to key technologies and other
aspects of the luxury cars sold or leased to U.S. consumers under
the Audi, BMW, Bentley, Mercedes-Benz, and Porsche brands. [BN]

The Defendants are in the business of developing, manufacturing,
and selling cars and motorcycles worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WELCOME CARE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Kerimbekova" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rysbubu Kerimbekova, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated who were employed by Welcome Care, Inc.
v. Welcome Care, Inc., Case No. 159213/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
October 17, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in any given week.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WELLS FARGO: Faces "Membreno" Suit Over Auto Insurance Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tianna Membreno, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Wells Fargo & Company, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., d/b/a
Wells Fargo Dealer Services, National General Holdings Corp., and
National General Insurance Company, Case No. 2:17-cv-07561 (C.D.
Cal., October 16, 2017), arises from the Defendants' wrongful
practice of forcing customers to pay for auto insurance that they
did not need.

The Defendants operate a national bank headquartered in San
Francisco, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Azra Mehdi, Esq.
      THE MEHDI FIRM, PC
      One Market Spear Tower, Suite 3600
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 293-8039
      Facsimile: (415) 293-8001
      E-mail: azram@themehdifirm.com

         - and -

      Peter Safirstein, Esq.
      SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP
      1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 201-2845
      Facsimile: (212) 201-2858
      E-mail: psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com


WESTPAC BANKING: Reluctant to Settle Rate-Rigging Dispute
---------------------------------------------------------
Steve Holland, writing for The Motley Fool, reports that Westpac
Banking Corp has been left out in the cold after National
Australia Bank Ltd agreed to settle its rate-rigging dispute with
ASIC for $50 million.

Westpac, NAB and Australia & New Zealand Banking Group (ASX: ANZ)
were accused of unconscionable conduct relating to the
manipulation of the bank bill swap rate (BBSW).

ANZ agreed to settle with ASIC for a figure believed to amount to
$50 million as the matter was gearing up to be heard by a federal
court.

That settlement followed ASIC's acceptance of "enforceable
undertakings", or payments as penalties, from UBS-AG, BNP Paribas
and the Royal Bank of Scotland in relation to ASIC's
investigations into misconduct in the BBSW.

NAB was the latest bank to buckle under the pressure of the ASIC
investigation.

NAB agreed to a $10 million penalty, subject to Court approval,
and to pay ASIC's costs of $20 million.

NAB will also make a donation of $20 million to a financial
consumer protection fund nominated by ASIC.

The impact of the $50-million settlement will be reflected in
NAB's FY17 results, according to the bank.

NAB Group Chief Executive Officer Andrew Thorburn said the legal
action related to trading in the bank bill market from June 2010
to December 2012.

"We accept that we did not meet the high standards of professional
conduct that ASIC, the community and NAB expects of itself, in
that market during that period," Mr Thorburn said.

"How BBSW is calculated has changed since that time."

"The ASX is now responsible for the administration of BBSW and NAB
fully supports the reforms that are being introduced by the ASX to
enhance trust and transparency in the BBSW market."

NAB Chief Legal and Commercial Counsel, Sharon Cook, said NAB was
happy to settle.

"It brings to a conclusion a complex issue and expensive and
protracted litigation, and provides certainty to our shareholders,
customers and our employees," she said.

With ANZ and NAB both proceeding with settlement agreements with
ASIC, Westpac faces a sticky situation.

There is speculation circulating that Westpac is reluctant to
settle as it is concerned that it could face a class action by
shareholders.

But that seems a bit strange as it appears that should Westpac be
found to have acted unconscionably by the Court, its legal costs
and penalties would likely be far higher than if it settled out of
court.

As such, should Westpac proceed with the trial, it could cause
greater detriment to shareholders.

It is clear, however, that Westpac is in a difficult situation.

The difficult situation is perhaps exacerbated by the strong
denial made last year by Westpac Group Chief Financial Officer
Peter King when he expressed his intention to battle with ASIC in
court.

"We reject the allegations made by ASIC and do not believe
Westpac, or any employee, has acted unlawfully in relation to the
instances detailed by ASIC," Mr King said.

"The operation of the interbank short-term money market, as well
as bank balance sheet management, is highly complex and activity
occurs for a range of valid reasons."

"We disagree with ASIC's interpretation of the communication
between employees referred to in the court documents and their
assessment of trading activity given the complexity of strategies
involved.

"As a result, we will be vigorously defending ASIC's allegations
in court."

Despite Mr King's strong words, it seems Westpac may be wise to
opt for a quick end to the dispute. [GN]


WISCONSIN: Court Denies Certification Bid in "Campos" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned EFRAIN CAMPOS, ROBERT WIRTH, JUAN NIETO, and
STANLEY NEWAGO, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL DITTMAN, LINDA ALSUM
O'DONOVAN, DAVID KURKOWSKI, LUCAS M. WEBER, KEVIN W. PITZEN, BRAD
HOMRE, and CINDY O'DONNELL, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-545-jdp
(W.D. Wis.), Judge James D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Wisconsin (i) denied Campos' motion
for reconsideration; (ii) dismissed Wirth from the action; (iii)
dismissed Plaintiffs Campos, Nieto, and Newago's Fourteenth
Amendment equal protection and First Amendment retaliation claims
for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8; (iv)
dismissed the Plaintiffs' remaining claims for failure to state a
claim; (v) denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
and (vi) denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for
assistance in recruiting counsel.

The Plaintiffs are inmates in the custody of the Wisconsin
Department of Corrections currently housed at the Columbia
Correctional Institution.  They bring the proposed class action
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging that the Defendants
terminated them from their prison work assignments in retaliation
for their comments during a prison investigation and in violation
of their procedural due process and equal protection rights.  The
Plaintiffs also move to proceed as a class action and for
appointment of a class counsel.

Campos, Nieto, and Newago have each paid the filing fee, or
initial partial filing fee ordered by the Court, for the lawsuit.
Usually, the next step in the case is to screen the complaint.
But before he does so, Judge Peterson addresses two related
preliminary matters: (i) Wirth's nonpayment of the filing fee and
Campos' motion for reconsideration of the Court's September 15
order on filing fees.  Because Wirth did not pay his filing fee
nor has he otherwise responded to the Court's September 15 order,
Judge Peterson assumes that he wishes to withdraw from the action
voluntarily.  Therefore, he dismissed Wirth from the action and
denied Campos' motion for reconsideration.

For their procedural process claims, Judge Peterson finds that the
Plaintiffs have failed to identify a cognizable liberty or
property interest.  Prisoners do not have a liberty interest in
prison jobs.  Nor do they have a liberty or property interest in
specific prison procedures, such as issuance of conduct reports.
But this is not to say that the Plaintiffs have no avenue to seek
redress for the loss of their jobs.

Turning to the Plaintiffs' retaliation claims, the Judge finds
that the Plaintiffs have not alleged enough to raise a plausible
connection.  Losing a job could deter a person of ordinary
firmness in the Plaintiffs' position from telling the truth in the
future.  He allowed them a short time to submit an amended
complaint alleging facts showing that each Defendant caused them
to lose their jobs because they told the truth rather than remain
silent.

Judge Peterson also finds that the Plaintiffs have not alleged
facts sufficient to support that the Defendants' improper purpose
was the fact that they told the truth during the contraband
investigation.  It's just as likely that the Defendants terminated
the Plaintiffs because they believed that they lied during the
contraband investigation, which would be a valid justification for
their actions.  The Judge allowed the Plaintiffs a short time to
submit an amended complaint alleging facts showing that each
Defendant caused them to lose their jobs for an improper purpose.

Judge Peterson ordered that the Plaintiffs may have until Nov. 21,
2017, to file an amended complaint alleging facts that show that
each Defendant acted with a retaliatory or improper purpose.  He
dismissed Plaintiffs Campos, Nieto, and Newago's Fourteenth
Amendment equal protection and First Amendment retaliation claims
for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8; and
dismissed the Plaintiffs' remaining claims for failure to state a
claim.

Since it appears that all members of the prospective class are
already joined as the Plaintiffs in the action, with the exception
of Wirth, the class status would be inappropriate.  Judge Peterson
denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

With respect to the Plaintiffs' move for appointment of counsel,
he says the Plaintiffs have provided no evidence that they have
attempted to recruit legal representation on their own and they
have not shown that they lack the ability to litigate their
claims.  It is also too early to tell whether their claims will
outstrip their litigation abilities.  Therefore, he denied without
prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for assistance in recruiting
counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 31, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/s9gCNn from Leagle.com.

Efrain Campos, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Juan Nieto, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Stanley Newago, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Michael Dittman, Defendant, represented by Corey Francis
Finkelmeyer -- federalorderscl@doj.state.wi.us -- Wisconsin
Department of Justice.


WISCONSIN: Gov. Walker Wants Judge to Reverse Prison Case Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Pandora Lobacz was trying to
assert control of her classroom at Lincoln Hills youth prison when
she ordered an inmate pacing in front of her desk to return to his
seat.

"You're not running this classroom. I am," Ms. Lobacz recalls the
boy saying, shortly before he punched the 4-foot-7, 110-pound
teacher in the left eye, knocking her unconscious.

The attack was the most vivid example yet of what prison staff and
state lawmakers say are worsening problems at Wisconsin's Lincoln
Hills School and Copper Lake School for boys and girls, after a
federal judge's order in July to curtail use of pepper spray,
solitary confinement and shackles as methods of control.

Though the use of such techniques is out of step with similar
institutions across the U.S., ending them has been difficult. Gov.
Scott Walker's administration told the judge that it has not yet
fully complied with the order because of ongoing "significant
unrest." And staff members blame the order for emboldening inmates
who, they say, are confident they can get away with more than
before.

"I'm terrified," said Ms. Lobacz, who hasn't returned to work
since her Oct. 11 assault.  "I'm terrified I was one punch away
from being killed or paralyzed."

Twenty-nine states and Washington, D.C., either prohibit the use
of solitary confinement by law or practice within juvenile
prisons, according to the Lowenstein Center for the Public
Interest.  Fifteen other states limit the amount of time juveniles
can spend in solitary confinement.

Jeffrey Butts, director of the Research and Evaluation Center at
John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New
York, said the Wisconsin prisons' problems come from poor
management.  Staff who argue they need things like pepper spray,
solitary confinement and shackles are saying "our culture within
the facility has become so corrupted by violence we have no other
options," he said.

The methods "are not necessary, they don't work and they just lead
to more violence," said Butts, who has researched youth justice
for nearly three decades.

Problems at the Lincoln Hills and Copper Lake prisons, about 215
miles (345 kilometers) northwest of Milwaukee in the woods of
northern Wisconsin, have been developing for years. Workers say
conditions started to deteriorate more rapidly in 2011 when two
juvenile prisons near Milwaukee were closed and teens were
consolidated at Lincoln Hills and Copper Lake.

The FBI launched a sweeping probe in 2015 into allegations of
prisoner abuse, sexual assault, intimidation of witnesses and
victims, strangulation and tampering with public records. No one
has been charged.

The American Civil Liberties Union and Juvenile Law Center filed a
class-action lawsuit on behalf of teen inmates focusing on the
prisons' use of pepper spray, hand and leg cuffs and solitary
confinement.

Vincent Schiraldi, a senior research fellow at the Harvard Kennedy
School who previously ran the juvenile corrections system in
Washington, D.C., testified at a summer federal court hearing that
Wisconsin's use of those methods for punishment was excessive and
"a substantial departure from accepted professional standards,
practice and judgment."

Since U.S. District Judge James Peterson agreed, calling the
practices unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment, things
seemed only to have gotten worse at Lincoln Hills.  Earlier this
month, two Republican state lawmakers wrote Judge Peterson asking
him to reverse his ruling.

"Your order has emboldened violent offenders to the detriment of
those asking to serve their time and return to civil society," the
lawmakers wrote.

Judge Peterson responded by saying he was committed to ensuring
the safety of both staff and inmates.  He asked Walker's
administration to provide an update on prison conditions by
Nov. 10.

Mr. Walker, a Republican who's on the brink of a campaign for a
third term next year, and prison officials insist that the
facility is safe for both guards and inmates.  At Walker's urging,
a new interim superintendent was named at Lincoln Hills to fill a
vacancy in place since September.

Mr. Walker said "multiple reforms" have helped to improve
conditions at the prisons, including increasing physical and
mental health staffing, improving training and pay for guards,
requiring the use of body cameras to document interactions between
counselors and offenders, and revising procedures to ensure
transparency and accountability.

The state budget Mr. Walker signed calls for hiring more guards
and other staff and upgrading infrastructure and security needs.

Ms. Lobacz, who has nearly 25 years of experience in Wisconsin's
juvenile prisons, said she went public about her assault in hopes
it would spur change.

"What's it going to take? Look at me," she said.  "Does a staff
member or youth need to get killed? Does there need to be a full-
scale riot?" [GN]


WOOF GANG: Faces "Giraud" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Annette Giraud and Sera Barr, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Woof Gang Bakery, Inc. (f/k/a
Woof Gang Bakery, LLC), WGB Clearwater, LLC, Ryan D. Lund, and
Gina Marie Lund, Case No. 8:17-cv-02442-RAL-AEP (M.D. Fla.,
October 18, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants are a specialty retail company for pet food, pet-
related supplies and pet grooming, with more than 80 locations
across the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shyamie Dixit, Esq.
      Robert L. Vessel, Esq.
      DIXIT LAW FIRM
      3030 N. Rocky Point Drive West, Suite 260
      Tampa, FL 33607
      E-mail: sdixit@dixitlaw.com
              rvessel@dixitlaw.com


WP COMPANY: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S. Dist. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WP Company LLC.  The
case is styled as Phillip Sullivan Jr., on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WP Company LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-08152 (S.D.N.Y., October 23, 2017).

WP Company LLC, doing business as The Washington Post, publishes
and markets a daily and weekly newspaper in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


XHIBIT CORP: Court Grants Move to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona
issued an Order granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned Bill McCauley, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Jahm J. Najafi, et
al., Defendants, No. CV-16-03461-PHX-SPL (D. Ariz.).

Plaintiffs Bill McCauley and Edward J. Kendler, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, bring the securities
class action suit against Defendants Jahm Najafi, Kevin Weiss,
David Franke, James Staudohar, and Scott Wiley, and each of their
spouses, for claims arising from the 2013 merger of Xhibit
Corporation and SkyMall Holdings Corporation.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants were deceptively inflating the
value of Xhibit overstating Xhibit's assets and net worth by tens
of millions of dollars and deceptively understating Xhibit's
operating expenses by hundreds of millions of dollars.  Plaintiffs
maintain that Defendants orchestrated this fraud on Xhibit
investors and the public through a series of filings with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that were deliberately untimely
so as to conceal the fluctuating and ultimately, declining value
of Xhibit.

In its amended complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
violated the following sections of Arizona Securities law: Section
44-1991(A)(2), Section 44-1991(A)(3), and Section 44-1999(B).

Count 1: 44-1991(A)(2)

Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant focus on the following
allegedly fraudulent actions taken by Defendants including: (1)
concealing SkyMall's poor financial condition in the May 17, 2013
press release announcing the merger; (2) overvaluing the merger's
worth in Xhibit's financial statements; (3) failing to include
qualifications about concerns over SkyMall's worth in its
financial statements completed prior to the merger; (4)
overvaluing SkyMall's intangible assets, tradename, and goodwill;
(5) failing to inform shareholders about Xhibit's plans to
eliminate and sell particular business lines; and (6) making
material omissions about Xhibit's financial condition in its April
2014 financial statements.

It is important to note, however, that none of these allegations
relate to fraudulent actions taken by Defendants in connection
with the sale or purchase of securities. To state a claim under
Ariz. Rev. Stat, Section 44-1991(A)(2), Plaintiffs must allege
that Defendants committed a fraud that resulted in the sale or
purchase of securities by Plaintiffs.  Here, Plaintiffs focus on
actions taken by Defendants that merely impacted the value of
Xhibit's securities. Because there are no allegations that
Defendants committed a fraud that resulted in the sale or purchase
of Xhibit securities, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under Ariz.
Rev. Stat. Section 44-1991(A)(2).

Count 2: Section 44-1991(A)(3)

Under Section 44-1991(A)(3), it is fraud to engage in any
transaction, practice or course of business which operates or
would operate as fraud or deceit. Claims of fraud brought under
Section 44-1991(A)(3) must also satisfy the pleading requirements
of Ariz. Rev. Stat. Sections 44-2082(A)-(B).  Moreover, to avoid
conflating the subsections of Section 44-1991(A), allegations of
manipulative conduct must be distinct from omissions or
representations under state law. Because Plaintiffs' claim against
Defendants under Ariz. Rev. Stat. Section 44-1991(A)(3) is a
literal recitation of the statute itself Plaintiffs fail to state
a claim under Ariz. Rev. Stat. Section 44-1991(A)(3).

Count 3: Section 44-1999(B)

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Section 44-1999(B) provides for joint and several
liability for those who directly or indirectly control any person
liable for a violation of Section 44-1991.
The evidence presented by Plaintiffs in their claims under Section
44-1999(B) are identical to those claims under Section 44-
1991(A)(2) and Section 44-1991(A)(3). Because Plaintiffs have
failed to state a claim under Section 44-1991, it follows that
Plaintiffs' claims under Ariz. Rev. Stat. Section 44-1999(B) must
also fail.

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 29, 2017 Order
is available at http://tinyurl.com/ycwvnfe8from Leagle.com.

Bill McCauley, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew S. Friedman --
afriedman@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC.

Bill McCauley, Plaintiff, represented by William Fleming King --
bking@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC.

Edward D Kendler, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew S. Friedman,
Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC & William Fleming King,
Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC.

Jahm J Najafi, husband, Defendant, represented by Edward Alipio
Salanga -- edward.salanga@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady LLP, John
Maston O'Neal -- john.oneal@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady LLP &
Kyle Thomas Orne -- kyle.orne@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady LLP.

Cheryl Najafi, wife, Defendant, represented by Edward Alipio
Salanga, Quarles & Brady LLP, John Maston O'Neal, Quarles & Brady
LLP & Kyle Thomas Orne, Quarles & Brady LLP.

Kevin M Weiss, husband, Defendant, represented by Edward Alipio
Salanga, Quarles & Brady LLP, John Maston O'Neal, Quarles & Brady
LLP & Kyle Thomas Orne, Quarles & Brady LLP.

Elizabeth S Weiss, wife, Defendant, represented by Edward Alipio
Salanga, Quarles & Brady LLP, John Maston O'Neal, Quarles & Brady
LLP & Kyle Thomas Orne, Quarles & Brady LLP.

David P Franke, husband, Defendant, represented by Edward Alipio
Salanga, Quarles & Brady LLP, John Maston O'Neal, Quarles & Brady
LLP & Kyle Thomas Orne, Quarles & Brady LLP.

Stephanie M Rankin Franke, wife, Defendant, represented by Edward
Alipio Salanga, Quarles & Brady LLP, John Maston O'Neal, Quarles &
Brady LLP & Kyle Thomas Orne, Quarles & Brady LLP.

James D Staudohar, husband, Defendant, represented by Edward
Alipio Salanga, Quarles & Brady LLP, John Maston O'Neal, Quarles &
Brady LLP & Kyle Thomas Orne, Quarles & Brady LLP.

Kathleen M Staudohar, wife, Defendant, represented by Edward
Alipio Salanga, Quarles & Brady LLP, John Maston O'Neal, Quarles &
Brady LLP & Kyle Thomas Orne, Quarles & Brady LLP.

Scott Wiley, husband, Defendant, represented by Edward Alipio
Salanga, Quarles & Brady LLP, John Maston O'Neal, Quarles & Brady
LLP & Kyle Thomas Orne, Quarles & Brady LLP.

Gail E Wiley, wife, Defendant, represented by Edward Alipio
Salanga, Quarles & Brady LLP, John Maston O'Neal, Quarles & Brady
LLP & Kyle Thomas Orne, Quarles & Brady LLP.


ZOOSK INC: Faces "Murphy" Suit in S. Dist. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zoosk, Inc.  The
case is styled as James Murphy, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Zoosk, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-08155 (S.D.N.Y., October 23, 2017).

Zoosk, Inc. is an online dating company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Still Faces Asbestos Suits at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitowoc Company, Inc., continues to defend itself against
asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company states, "The Company is involved in numerous lawsuits
involving asbestos-related claims in which the Company is one of
numerous defendants. After taking into consideration legal
counsel's evaluation of such actions, the current political
environment with respect to asbestos-related claims and the
liabilities accrued with respect to such matters, in the opinion
of management, ultimate resolution is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows of the Company.

"The Company is also involved in various legal actions arising out
of the normal course of business, which, taking into account the
liabilities accrued and legal counsel's evaluation of such
actions, in the opinion of management, the ultimate resolution,
individually and in the aggregate, is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.

"It is reasonably possible that the estimates for warranty costs,
product liability, environmental remediation, asbestos-related
claims and other various legal matters may change based upon new
information that may arise or matters that are beyond the scope of
the Company's historical experience. Presently, there are no
reliable methods to estimate the amount of any such potential
changes."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/X0BOtU


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Unit Has 101 Cases Pending at June 30
------------------------------------------------------------
NL Industries, Inc., a subsidiary of Valhi, Inc., has 101 cases
arising from asbestos exposure, according to Valhi's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

The Company states, "NL has been named as a defendant in various
lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a
result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured
by our former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed
dust. In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos
from working in various facilities previously owned and/or
operated by NL. There are 101 of these types of cases pending,
involving a total of approximately 586 plaintiffs. In addition,
the claims of approximately 8,687 plaintiffs have been
administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in
Ohio courts. We do not expect these claims will be re-opened
unless the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria for
asbestos-related claims. We have not accrued any amounts for this
litigation because of the uncertainty of liability and inability
to reasonably estimate the liability, if any. To date, we have not
been adjudicated liable in any of these matters. Based on
information available to us, including:

   * facts concerning historical operations,
   * the rate of new claims,
   * the number of claims from which we have been dismissed, and
   * our prior experience in the defense of these matters,

"We believe that the range of reasonably possible outcomes of
these matters will be consistent with our historical costs (which
are not material). Furthermore, we do not expect any reasonably
possible outcome would involve amounts material to our
consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity. We have sought and will continue to vigorously seek,
dismissal and/or a finding of no liability from each claim. In
addition, from time to time, we have received notices regarding
asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought against former
subsidiaries, including notices provided to insurers with which we
have entered into settlements extinguishing certain insurance
policies. These insurers may seek indemnification from us."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/U5d4VZ


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 San Diego Biz Fail to Properly Remove Asbestos
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zac Self, writing for KGTV.com, reported that three San Diego
businesses have agreed to pay civil penalties for violating state
hazardous waste laws by failing to properly remove asbestos-laden
building materials.

According to City Attorney Mara Elliott, the businesses also put
construction workers at the Felton Street property at risk,
violating a California Labor Code.

"My office has no compassion for businesses that skirt
environmental laws and endanger public safety to line their own
pockets," City Attorney Mara W. Elliott said. "Improper disposal
of asbestos endangers workers and our neighborhoods. We
aggressively enforce our hazardous waste laws to protect public
health and our communities."

Due to the violations, WSC Investment Partners LLC, SRM
Investments LLC, and A-Cal Construction Service will pay
restitution, costs and penalties of more than $31,000.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Walls at Watertown High School
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry Feltner, writing for Wicked Local, reported that asbestos
has been found in the plaster coating the walls of Watertown High
School.

Parents and guardians received a letter from the superintendent M
informing them of the hazard.

"The School Department contracted with an environmental firm this
past summer to fully evaluate the buildings once again, and due to
improvements in detection technology, the skim coat plaster tested
positive for asbestos during this most recent evaluation," Dede
Galdston, superintendent for Watertown Public Schools, said in an
interview with the TAB.

Prior to the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act of 1988,
asbestos was used in school construction. Because of the age of
WHS, plaster in classrooms contains asbestos. Some of the plaster
in certain classrooms has been damaged by water and impacts, and
is flaking.

At the time of the 1988 act, the WHS' plaster was sampled and
cleared as "non-detectable." Asbestos becomes dangerous when
provoked by renovation or disturbance of any kind.

Students and teachers can safely conduct their daily routines at
this time, Galdston said.

Gurinder Singh owns Handy Variety in Watertown which sold a $1
million Powerball winner. Massachusetts State Lottery incorrectly
announced that the store had sold the $758 million winning ticket.

"There is no hazard to students and staff as long as there isn't
an active disturbance of the asbestos-containing material," she
said. "Generally, [asbestos-containing materials] remain intact
unless there is a major disturbance, such as renovation or
maintenance activities. The preferred option for asbestos in
buildings is to leave it intact and to remediate only if it is
disturbed."

The entirety of plaster within Watertown High School is currently
being evaluated. Once the extent of the asbestos is known, the
school department will assess its next actions which could include
encapsulation or containment.

"The School Department has proactively taken the necessary steps
to ensure that our students and staff are safe," Galdston said.
"Not only did the School Department have the consultants conduct
the initial evaluation, but have had two subsequent visual
inspections and air quality testing."

Galdston will remain transparent about the process, she said.

"The School Department has been in communication with the
Department of Labor Standards, the state agency that is
responsible for the regulation of occupational asbestos exposure
in the Commonwealth regarding our plan for remediating any damaged
plaster," she said. "We continue to work with our environmental
engineering consultants to determine appropriate next steps and
look forward to receiving the final report."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pinelands Regional Faces $7K in Asbestos Fines
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Oglesby, writing for APP, reported that Pinelands Regional
School District is facing the possibility of $7,200 in fines in
the latest of a series of woes connected to a roofing project at
the district's high school.

The New Jersey Office of Public Employees' Occupational Safety and
Health is threatening to fine the district and accusing officials
of failing to provide school janitors with training and
information on asbestos, according to a letter dated Oct. 11.

In a Sept. 10 letter, Epic Environmental of Newfield, Gloucester
County, told school officials that asbestos debris was discovered
in the high school roof, and that debris could enter the school
and "cause safety hazards and air quality issues." Epic
recommended that rooftop construction stop until a remedy was
found. The company also advised officials to keep affected
portions of the school unoccupied while rooftop construction was
ongoing.

The school district is now facing pressure from parents, many of
whom are furious that the senior high school remained open for
classes while asbestos remained on the school property.

Most recently, woodchips in the annex playground at the high
school were also found to be contaminated. The woodchips contain a
type of asbestos called Chrysotile, according to an Oct. 30 report
from TTI Environmental of Moorestown, Burlington County.

Chrysotile is a common type of asbestos that is linked to cancer,
according to the American Cancer Society. Asbestos was used in the
past to insulate buildings and make roofing shingles, ceiling and
floor tiles, as well as other products, according to the cancer
society.

Breathing in asbestos causes scarring in the lungs and exposure
can lead to asbestos-related cancers, according to the American
Cancer Society.

As a result of the contamination, the playground has been closed
to students since the first week of October, Interim
Superintendent Maryann Banks said.

Other problems have plagued the school since the roof project
began.

In early October, officials closed Pinelands Regional High School
after a long ceiling screw fell onto a student below.

"When they were redoing the roofing project, they sheered off the
tops of the screws from the old roofing," Banks, the interim
superintendent, said earlier this month in an interview with a
reporter. "What has happened is they (the screws) started to fall
through."

Banks could not immediately be reached for comment.

The school was also closed for air quality issues after students
complained of strong odors related to the ongoing roofing project.

District officials have since moved the high school classes into
the nearby junior high school, and students in both buildings are
operating on a half-day, split-shift schedule.

Parents berated school officials with angry comments and
criticisms over the decision to keep the school open in September.

"Hindsight is 20/20, but at the time with the information we had
we made the best decision we could," Business Administrator
Stephen Brennan told the audience.

Brennan said the school was opened Sept. 7 based on an August
report from Epic Environmental that determined the school was
asbestos-free.

Banks said about 85 percent of the loose screws had been removed
from the school's ceilings.

Mike Kobithen Roofing & Insulation of Churchville, Pennsylvania,
was awarded more than $5 million to replace the high school's
roof.

Brennan, the business administrator, said the school was in
contact with lawyers about who will pay for the extra expenses
that have arisen during the project.

"Ideally, what I would like to do is back charge the contractor
for that, whatever the cost may be, not only for the area of the
playground but the area around the entire building," he said.

To avoid fines from the state Office of Public Employees'
Occupational Safety and Health, Pinelands Regional must show proof
by Nov. 30 that it provided janitors and custodians with an
asbestos awareness course, locations of asbestos-containing
material on school property, and instruction on how to respond to
asbestos fiber releases. The district must also show proof of
having a written hazard communication plan with training, warning
procedures and safety information.

The interim superintendent told the parents that she hopes the
roof project will be finished within a few weeks and that students
will return to their normal schedule in their own buildings by
mid-November or early December.

Because the school has already closed for five days this school
year, district officials are considering cutting spring break
short. The Board of Education will consider opening the school on
April 5 and 6, the last two days of spring break, and on Feb. 15,
16 and 19, Banks said.

"We haven't even had winter yet and snow days," Banks said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Dies 39 Yrs After Being Exposed to Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Labhart, writing for Express and Star, reported that
Michael Davies had helped to remove roof material containing the
substance in 1978.

The 60-year-old, of Green Close, Pattingham, died on September 18
this year. He was a retired social care manager.

An inquest this week heard that the cause of his death was
mesothelioma -- a type of cancer that develops in the lining that
covers the outer surface of organs, and is usually linked to
asbestos exposure.

A statement from Mr. Davies' family was read out at Cannock
Coroners Court by officer Andrew Heathcote.

He said: "After graduating in 1978 in Swansea Mr. Davies had no
permanent employment and it appears he survived by doing odd jobs.

"He remembered his friend Tony returning from the Job Centre to
say there was a job clearing asbestos in a factory in Swansea.

"He thought the opportunity was too good to turn down and signed
up. But after just two days dismantling roofs, he gave it up."

Mr. Davies reported this exposure to asbestos in July this year.

However, he told the court that the period between exposure to
asbestos and diagnosis of the condition, can be anything from 20
to 60 years.

Mr. Heathcote continued: "The initial exposure happens decades
before symptoms start to show."

South Staffordshire Coroner, Mr. Andrew Haigh, said: "I have been
told Michael was only 60 when he died, which is a relatively young
age to die.

"He was an active man, had a responsible job in social services
and was part of the community in Pattingham.

"After he had obtained his degree in Swansea in the late-1970s, he
had a job for a couple of days removing asbestos. He reported this
to the chest physician, who said they would expect there to be
longer exposure than just a couple of days.

"There is no doubt that Mr Davies died as a result of mesothelioma
and no doubt that this was a result from exposure to asbestos.

"What is more difficult is when the exposure occurred, and the
time that he was working in Swansea is the only exposure I have
been told about.

"Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, I conclude Mr Davies
died of industrial disease."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Limiting Reviews of Chemicals
--------------------------------------------------
Jillian Duff, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that the
Trump administration is limiting the mandated reviews of out-of-
use, high-risk chemicals such as asbestos, flame-retardants, and
other toxins in homes, offices, and industrial plants around the
country.

Instead of moving forward with former President Barack Obama's
proposal to look at chemicals in use by the public and their
amounts of exposure, the Environmental Protection Agency will only
review toxins still being manufactured and entering commerce. So
it will not focus on new handling and disposal rules for existing
materials.

The few hundred tons of asbestos that are imported each year will
be reviewed, but the estimated 8.9 million tons of asbestos-
containing products that entered the country between 1970 and 2016
will not.

The decision is mostly based on a 1994 Occupational Safety and
Health Administration study that found materials had to contain
over one percent asbestos to require regulation. However, public
health experts say this number is arbitrary.

"There's still a lot of asbestos out there," said internal
medicine professor at Detroit's Wayne State University Michael
Harbut. "It's still legal, it's still deadly, and it's going to be
a problem for decades to come."

Harbut is also a medical adviser to an insulation workers' union
and helped create criteria that's now used by physicians to
diagnose and treat asbestos-related diseases like mesothelioma
cancer.

According to a CDC study in March, mesothelioma caused or
contributed to over 45,000 deaths in the U.S. from 1999 to 2015.

Firefighters and construction workers are two groups who are most
at risk. Asbestos was widely used in construction materials
ranging from roofing and flooring tiles to insulation found in
tens of millions of homes.

"I believe the chemical industry is killing firefighters," said
former San Francisco fireman Tony Stefani. He worked for 28 years
before retiring in 2003 when he was diagnosed with cancer.

According to a 2015 National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health study, firefighters contract mesothelioma cancer at twice
the rate of other U.S. residents due to asbestos exposure.

"When I entered the department in the early 70s, our biggest fear
was dying in the line of duty or succumbing to a heart attack,"
said Stefani. "Those were the biggest killers, not cancer. But we
work in a hazardous-materials situation every time we have a fire
now."

"Hundreds of thousands of firefighters are going to be affected by
this. It is by far the biggest hazard we have out there," said
Assistant General President for Health and Safety at the
International Association of Fire Fighters Patrick Morrison. "My
God, these are not just firefighters at risk. There are people
that live in these structures and don't know the danger of
asbestos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gym Forced to Close After Asbestos Find
--------------------------------------------------------
The Advertiser reported that a popular Adelaide gym was forced to
close its doors after asbestos was found on the roof of the
establishment.

Environment Protection Authority investigators attended the
Goodlife Health Club, on Port Rush Rd at Payneham, after an
asbestos roof was pressure cleaned about 1.30pm.

The EPA, MFS, SafeWork SA and local council were working to assess
and clean up the area.

The gym will remain closed until further notice.

Anyone concerned about their health should contact their GP.

Nearby residents said they were shocked to see cleaners in white
protective suits vacuuming up hazardous particles in the gym
carpark.

Darren Hersey, 44, who lives just a few streets away from the gym,
said it was scary to think about what had been stirred up.

"For people that went to the gym today to then find out there was
asbestos everywhere, it's crazy," Mr. Hersey told The Advertiser.

"Who knows where it's landed. It's a bit freaky . . . It's just
surprising really that in today's age that someone wouldn't know
that it's an asbestos roof.

"There's a school nearby too but it's a real concern if you're
close."

Police were forced to turn away gym members who had not heard
about the contamination scare.

One member, 27-year-old Jackson Biggins, said he wasn't surprised
because the building was old.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Docs Not Privileged in BASF Case, Says Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Narea, writing for Law360, reported that a proposed class
in an asbestos fraud action against a subsidiary of BASF Catalysts
LLC called on a New Jersey federal court to determine whether BASF
and its lawyers must turn over privileged material under the state
crime-fraud exception.

Recounting the history of Engelhard Corp.'s alleged decadeslong
concealment of the presence of asbestos in its talc powder
products, the proposed class suggested that the court should
implement the New Jersey crime-fraud exception to attorney-client
privilege and compel BASF and its counsel, Cahill Gordon & Reindel
LLP, to disclose their privileged communications. BASF acquired
Engelhard in 2006.

"Because the gravamen of this case is fraudulent concealment,
whether New Jersey's statutory crime-fraud exception to the
attorney-client privilege applies is a critical threshold
determination that must be made now in order to proceed," the
proposed class's memorandum states. "Plaintiffs have established
far more than 'a reasonable basis' for the court to examine BASF
and Cahill's allegedly privileged documents and communications."

The proposed class filed the instant suit against BASF and its
counsel Cahill Gordon in March 2011 to "remedy the wrong to the
many victims of [their] fraudulent concealment" of the fact that
their talc powder allegedly contains asbestos, according to the
memorandum.

Engelhard's fraudulent statements allegedly go back to the 1970s.
Its customers had begun demanding that its talc powder be
asbestos-free and it falsely assured them that tests "showed not
even a trace" of the substance, the memorandum says.

Then, in a 1982 mesothelioma death case known as "Westfall,"
scientists testified that Engelhard testing had in fact indicated
the presence of asbestos in the talc powder. That case was
eventually settled, and soon after Engelhard allegedly instructed
the scientists to destroy all of their asbestos tests.

Thereafter, Engelhard tried to dismiss every asbestos suit brought
against it, "falsely representing that there was no asbestos in
[the] talc and there was no evidence that the talc contained
asbestos," the memorandum says.

It maintained that posture after it was acquired by BASF into
December 2007, when three individuals sued BASF in New Jersey
state court, claiming that they had gotten cancer as a result of
asbestos exposure stemming from BASF's talc powder. BASF warned
that it would move to sanction one of the law firms counseling the
individuals for filing the suits if they did not voluntarily drop
the claims, arguing that it had been "conclusively established"
that its talc powder did not contain asbestos, according to court
filings.

But in another parallel case in New Jersey, former researcher
David Swanson said that his daughter had developed mesothelioma
stemming from her exposure to asbestos-containing materials in an
Engelhard laboratory, confirming that he and his colleagues were
ordered to destroy all the asbestos test results.

The proposed class argued that, taking into account the lengthy
litigation history, the court can reasonably determine that BASF
and its subsidiary took part in a scheme to "deliberately and
systematically misrepresent to claimants and to courts throughout
the country that [the] talc did not contain any asbestos" and
institute a crime-fraud exception.

"A reasonable person would likely conclude here that the
communications and work product with and by counsel were part of
the scheme to hide the truth about the presence of asbestos in
[the] talc and that [the proposed class is] accordingly entitled
to probe what Cahill and BASF knew and when," the memorandum
states.

Counsel for the plaintiffs and BASF declined to comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Christopher M. Placitella, Esq.
-- cplacitella@cprlaw.com -- and Michael Coren, Esq. --
scohen@cprlaw.com -- of Cohen Placitella & Roth PC and Jeffrey
Pollock, Esq. -- jmpollock@foxrothschild.com -- of Fox Rothschild
LLP.

BASF is represented by Eugene F. Assaf, Esq. --
eugene.assaf@kirkland.com -- Michael F. Williams, Esq. --
michael.williams@kirkland.com -- Daniel A. Bress, Esq. --
daniel.bress@kirkland.com -- and Peter A. Farrell, Esq. --
peter.farrell@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Justin
T. Quinn of Robinson Miller LLC.

Cahill Gordon is represented by Craig S. Demareski and Robert E.
Ryan of Connell Foley LLP.

The case is Kimberlee Williams et al. v. BASF Catalysts LLC et
al., case number 2:11-cv-01754, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Connecticut High Court Tosses Verdict
------------------------------------------------------
Tina Bellon, writing for Reuters, reported that the Connecticut
Supreme Court reversed a 2015 jury verdict against Wyeth Holdings
Corp over a man's death from asbestos exposure, saying his wife
presented insufficient evidence to prove her claim.

The jury had awarded Marianne Bagley $804,000 dollars for the 2012
death of her husband, Wayne, a design engineer whose alleged
exposure to asbestos-contaminated dust at a helicopter blade
factory caused his mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Town, County to Implement Abatement Program
------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Hill, writing for Herald Times, reported that
municipalities all over the nation are facing the problem of
asbestos ridden buildings and homes. The high expense of abatement
can leave these properties both unable to sell or to be renovated,
often causing them to slowly become dilapidated and dangerous.
Rangely, in cooperation with Rio Blanco County, is preparing their
own plan for dealing with the issue.

More than a year ago the town of Rangely began discussing several
tumble down, asbestos riddled homes in the community. Because of
the asbestos contamination, tearing these buildings down is a very
expensive and drawn out process. To research the issue further the
town focused in on one particular 800 square foot home which had
been condemned and is known to have asbestos. The estimate for the
asbestos abatement came in at a startling $52,000.

The high price of abatement spring boarded Rangely Town Planner
Jocelyn Mullen into developing a potential solution. The plan
includes an intergovernmental agreement between Rangely, Meeker
and Rio Blanco County for the development of an "asbestos
abatement team." The team would be comprised of town employees who
would become certified to deal with the asbestos. The creation of
the team is estimated to cost $29,500--including labor, training
and licensing costs. Rangely's estimated portion of that price is
$15,800. The town believes that if they can complete four asbestos
abatements county wide per year the cost of each abatement could
be reduced to approximately $7,500 each.

One of the largest costs associated with abatement is the expense
of hauling the asbestos materials to the Hayden landfill, which is
currently the closest landfill approved to accept asbestos
materials. The Hayden landfill charges by the "roll off"' with the
number of "roll offs" depending on the job. Each "roll off"' costs
$800. The total disposal estimate for the 800 square foot home
previously mentioned is estimated to cost $17,000. In response to
the high disposal cost the County Commissioners are discussing the
possibility of developing an in county disposal facility.

In a meeting in August, Mullen estimated that with the combination
of local disposal and the ability to manage the project locally
she believes the costs could be cut in half.

Rangely Town Manager Peter Brixius is hopeful the plan will come
to fruition and help, "get those eyesores out of town." He says
there are at least two properties in Rangely that would be good
candidates for abatement, plus numerous others countywide.

Due to the serious nature of asbestos, abatement is a complicated
process that is regulated by both the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA). The practice requires a certified contractor, protective
clothing and equipment, enclosure or isolation of dust, monitoring
of exposure, proper waste containment and medical surveillance. In
rural areas such as Rio Blanco County the price of abatement is
even higher when the travel of the contractor is added in.

For now, the town and county plan to continue researching options.
They will hold a joint meeting on Nov. 13 to further discuss the
possibility of upgrading the county landfill to accept asbestos, a
project which Brixius describes as a "critical point" to the team.
Asbestos is a naturally occurring material, once heralded for its
fire resistance, flexibility and tensile strength properties.
Historically the use of asbestos dates back centuries, with the
Greeks and Romans using it in candles and ancient Egyptians even
incorporating the fibers into their embalming practices.

Beginning in the 1930s, the U.S. military used asbestos materials
extensively, especially in ship building. It also took off as a
common ingredient in home building. In homes built prior to 1980,
asbestos is commonly found in floor tiles, roofs, furnaces,
plumbing, appliances, fireplaces, insulation and window caulking.

The (EPA) identifies six types of asbestos and while all are
considered carcinogenic (or cancer causing), there are differences
in their chemical compositions. Asbestos is not considered
dangerous if the material is in good condition and undisturbed.
However, it quickly becomes hazardous once the material has been
damaged, causing fibers to be released into the air where they can
be inhaled.

According to the EPA, asbestos exposure is commonly related to
three major health concerns; lung cancer, mesothelioma and
asbestosis, a non-cancerous disease of the lungs. Mesothelioma,
the disease most regularly associated with asbestos, is a rare
form of cancer, typically found in the lining of the lungs, chest,
abdomen and heart. Symptoms of these diseases often take many
years to develop and are considered difficult to identify.

When the negative health impacts of asbestos exposure were
discovered lawsuits were filed quickly and numerously, with
approximately 9,000 companies identified as asbestos defendants in
2015. The EPA claims that more than 100 companies have filed for
bankruptcy citing asbestos litigation claims.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Court Awards Summary Judgment to Defendant
----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that an Ohio federal court has
awarded summary judgment to an asbestos defendant, first finding
that the plaintiff's deposition, in which the decedent named the
defendant's product, was inadmissible hearsay and then ruling that
without that testimony, the plaintiffs had failed to support their
claims.

In the Oct. 18 opinion, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio opined that the defendant was not afforded a
reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the decedent during
depositions taken prior to his death.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Teacher in Hospice After Asbestos Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Coles, writing for Wales Online, reported that a dying teacher
has issued a chilling warning to colleagues from his hospice bed
where he is spending his final days after being exposed to deadly
asbestos.

Geoffrey Lee, 72, from Chepstow said "classrooms are killing
people" after he developed mesothelioma -- an aggressive cancer
that attacks the lungs and is linked to the building material.

He was unknowingly being exposed to blue asbestos, the most lethal
kind, every day for 10 years while working at what was then called
the Newport College of Further Education in Nash Road, Newport.

But the committed teacher was completely unaware he was breathing
in deadly particles at work until years later when he visited a
doctor with a pain in his right side and chest problems.

What medics originally said was a pulled muscle, turned out to be
something much more sinister and Geoffrey was given the
devastating news he has multiple lung tumours in February 2016 at
70.

He said: "When I initially went to the doctors with a pain in my
right side, he told me there was nothing to worry about as it was
likely to be a pulled muscle.

"I was really fit for my age and I was used to walking for around
15 miles a day.

"I never for a second thought the job I loved and dedicated my
life to, could give me a life limiting disease.

"After three years of endless doctors and hospital investigations
the news that I had tumours in my lungs and mesothelioma, left my
wife and I dumbfounded.

"It was such a shock.

"It's such an unfair illness that just shouldn't have happened.
It's incredibly debilitating and utterly sad."

Geoffrey, who taught over 2,000 pupils over a 38-year period
between 1967 and 2006, said the only time he remembers being
alerted to the risks of asbestos was during a school meeting in
the 1980s.

There are three main types of asbestos -- white, blue and brown.

Blue asbestos is harder and more brittle than other types and
breaks easily, releasing dangerous needle-like fibres that are
easily inhaled.

Before this time staff had been reassured the dust, which was rife
in the class room every day, posed no health risk.

He thought no more of it after his classroom was stripped off the
substance.

Now the dad-of-two is in St David's Hospice in Newport.

Speaking about living with the disease he said: "I would be bent
over like banana for the first 30 minutes of the day, while I
waited for the pain meds to kick in and without my wife, Theresa,
69, I would have really struggled day to day.

"Before I came into the Hospice she would encourage me get out and
about and really try and make the most of each day.

"I also seriously wonder if the teachers who have passed away from
lung cancer already, actually died due to the blue asbestos."

Geoffrey received a six figure settlement in July 2017 after
seeking help from Industrial Disease specialist lawyer, John
Browne, from Slater and Gordon.

The case was bought against Newport City Council and Coleg Gwent
(as it is now known) and Gwent Tertiary College.

There are just over 2 100 people diagnosed with mesothelioma in
the UK each year with about five times as many cases in men as in
women, according to the HSE.

He said: "Since I have been diagnosed some of my ex-colleagues
have been for x-rays to check their lungs.

"I am really concerned for all my past pupils as the implications
are huge.

"The number of teachers that have passed away because of this
awful condition is just tremendous.

"Classrooms across the UK have been killing people. I want others
who may have been at risk to understand the signs and push for
help from doctors.

"My son-in-law, Andrew, 38, also works as a teacher and I said to
him for god sake, make sure there are no breaks in the plaster
boards in your classrooms.

"I know as long as it's sealed, it's safe, but when it's not it
could change your life.

"In the building we had at the college, there was continual
movement in the roof due to changes of temperature, which caused
the particles and dust to be moved around all the time."

Mr. Browne said: "Mesothelioma is a truly awful condition that has
blighted Geoffrey's life and threatens to end so many more in the
UK, prematurely.

"The dangers of this substance have been known since before the
turn of the century, yet it appears this knowledge was ignored and
asbestos was used freely in the Nash Road premises, as in so many
other school buildings across the country, essentially exposing so
many during their education and career.

Geoffrey added: "After I retired from teaching I continued to do a
small amount of installation work and inspecting work. Whenever I
visited the wholesalers I would come across ex-pupils of mine who
had gone from my classroom as an apprentice and gone on to set up
their own successful businesses.

"It's very satisfying to come into contact with them and see how
well they are doing now.

"No horrendous illness can tarnish that."

Newport council was contacted for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Identified at Another 7 Illawarra Sites
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Langford, writing for Illawara Mercury, reported that another
seven sites across the region have been identified as having
received asbestos contaminated material from the same source that
stopped work at the Calderwood development.

Wollongong Recycling has now been ordered to clean up the new
places as well, which include businesses, housing development, and
private residences.

This brings to 11 the number of sites where aggregate contaminated
with asbestos was supplied from Wollongong Recycling's Kembla
Grange plant between June and August, the Environment Protection
Authority (EPA) said.

Among the sites identified was a contractor's construction site in
the "prestigious gated community" Cedars Estate at Avondale.

A landscaping supplies business at Albion Park and an organics
supplier at Appin were also listed as subject to the clean-up
orders.

Residential properties at Primbee, Helensburgh, Wongawilli and
Mount Pritchard have also been identified after a public appeal.

The EPA said in its clean-up order that it "reasonably suspects"
Wollongong Recycling had caused a pollution incident at the new
sites, and the original four.

An EPA spokeswoman said Wollongong Recycling had "generally" been
meeting its deadlines for removing the asbestos.

"The EPA has been monitoring compliance with clean-up requirements
which includes ongoing reporting required by Wollongong Recycling
under the terms of the clean-up notice," the spokeswoman said.

"Wollongong Recycling is using an independent consultant and
contractor to undertake works required under the terms of the
clean-up notice. "Some transportation of the asbestos contaminated
aggregate has been undertaken by Bingo where permitted."

The asbestos contaminated aggregate was being disposed of at
Veolia's Horsley Park waste management facility in Western Sydney.

A spokesman for Bingo, the company which owns Wollongong
Recycling, said it had completed its obligations at Calderwood on
time.

"Wollongong Recycling has complied with the EPA notice in regards
to the removal of waste at Calderwood with works completed on 26
October 2017," he said.

When the Mercury visited Calderwood were still several large piles
covered in plastic sheeting in the affected section. It is not
clear whether this is contaminated aggregate or who will take
responsibility for them.

The EPA spokeswoman said there were systems in place to ensure the
asbestos waste was being disposed of properly.

"According to regulations, all waste containing asbestos must be
registered through WasteLocate -- this means the EPA can monitor
the movements of the waste and ensure it is disposed of lawfully,"
she said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bestwall Blames Tort System Abuses for Ch. 11
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reported that a Georgia-
Pacific LLC unit is blaming "abuses in the tort system" for the
skyrocketing number of lawsuits that forced it to file for Chapter
11 bankruptcy.

Bestwall LLC, which was created in July to manage Georgia-
Pacific's asbestos docket, is the latest firm to file for
bankruptcy due to rising numbers of lawsuits brought by plaintiffs
who claim they or their family members got mesothelioma from
exposure to asbestos in their products. But, in a refrain popular
among tort reformers, Bestwall alleges plaintiffs lawyers aren't
being truthful about all the products their clients were exposed
to that might have contained asbestos.

"The breadth and magnitude of the asbestos litigation pending
against Bestwall are wildly disproportionate to any legal
liability Bestwall could possibly have," wrote Garland Cassada, an
attorney for Bestwall, in an information brief filed in bankruptcy
court. Cassada, of Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, is working
alongside Bestwall's lead bankruptcy counsel, Greg Gordon, a
partner in Jones Day's Dallas office. "The massive increase in the
number of claims against, and the size of the plaintiffs'
settlement demands to, Bestwall have been driven by various
interrelated shortcomings of and abuses in the tort system."

Specifically, the company cites an "inexplicably large numbers of
plaintiffs and their counsel" who have identified Bestwall's
product, a joint compound used on construction sites, as having
contributed to their mesothelioma but failed to disclose exposures
to other products made by companies in whose bankruptcy trusts
they have filed claims. In 1977, Georgia-Pacific, now a subsidiary
of Koch Industries Inc., stopped selling the product.

"Each of these practices substantially impacted the cases against
Bestwall, requiring it to defend cases in which it never should
have been identified," Cassada wrote.

Bestwall listed 25 of its top creditors -- all law firms -- as it
intends to set up a bankruptcy trust to resolve the asbestos
claims and has asked for a Nov. 7 hearing before U.S. Chief
Bankruptcy Judge Laura Beyer, according to its bankruptcy filings.

They include Simmons Hanly Conroy, The Lanier Law Firm, Motley
Rice, Napoli Shkolnik, Simon Greenstone Panatier & Bartlett,
Waters & Kraus and Weitz & Luxenberg. Representatives and lawyers
from those firms either did not respond to calls or emails, or
declined to comment.

But Matthew Bergman of Bergman Draper Oslund in Seattle, whose
firm has dozens of cases pending against Bestwall, said
allegations that plaintiffs lawyers aren't disclosing trust claims
simply aren't true.

"This is a tried-and-true method that's utilized by asbestos
defendants: Essentially, shoot the messenger," he said. "From the
experience of our law firm, trust claims are routinely disclosed
in discovery or, if they've not been filed, at the conclusion of
trial, they're assigned to the defendant."

In a 2015 study involving 86 plaintiffs, Rand Corp. found that
references in asbestos lawsuits to other companies, both in
interrogatories and depositions, disappeared significantly once
those firms filed bankruptcies. But Lloyd Dixon, a senior
economist at Rand, said both sides bear some responsibility.

"From the plaintiffs' point of view, if they identify exposures to
bankrupt parties during the allocation process, that would lower
their award," he said. "And from the defense side, the defendants
say that it's expensive to probe these extra exposures, and also
that even if they do, whatever they come up with is really less
persuasive than having the plaintiffs say something. So the
defendants say it doesn't particularly pay off to probe these
during the depositions."

Part of the problem, said University of Buffalo School of Law
professor S. Todd Brown, is that the asbestos trusts and courts
weren't designed to work together, even if they should.

"They weren't set up in a way that would make this interaction
with the tort system very easy," he said. "If you want to get this
documentation, you have to either have the plaintiff produce it to
you or you have to get those records from the trust themselves."

According to bankruptcy filings, Bestwall and its predecessor
companies have spent $2.9 billion in the past 40 years defending
430,000 personal injury lawsuits tied to asbestos, and 64,000
claims remain as of Sept. 30. Bestwall historically paid $6
million a year in settlements and judgments, but from 2012 to
2016, its legal defense costs "skyrocketed" to an average of $160
million per year as the company became a defendant in up to 80
percent of all mesothelioma cases.

Bestwall, based in Atlanta, filed in the Western District of North
Carolina, the same court where U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges
in 2014 found that plaintiffs attorneys had failed to disclose, or
delayed filing, claims against asbestos trusts in order to collect
disproportionately large settlements and jury awards in court
against gasket maker Garlock Sealing Technologies.  Bestwall even
brought in one of the law firms that represented Garlock:
Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The ruling has long been espoused by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
and other tort reformers as evidence of fraud in asbestos
litigation. In May, the U.S. House of Representatives passed
legislation that required asbestos trusts to file quarterly
reports disclosing payments to victims of mesothelioma and other
cancers caused by asbestos.

Earlier this year, another company, John Crane Inc., began
litigation against two plaintiffs firms, the Shein Law Center in
Philadelphia and Dallas-based Simon Greenstone, alleging that they
withheld evidence in asbestos cases and violated the U.S.
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The firms have
asked for those lawsuits to be tossed.

In bankruptcy filings, Bestwall relied on the Garlock court record
to argue that plaintiffs lawyers had done the same thing against
it.

The Garlock record "contains numerous examples of highly
questionable claiming practices in Bestwall cases, demonstrating
that Bestwall was plagued by the same conduct that injured Garlock
after the bankruptcy wave," Cassada wrote.

Borrowing from the Garlock case, Bestwall referenced a 23-page set
of directions that Baron & Budd gave its clients instructing them
"about how to construct convincing testimony of joint compound
exposure," Cassada wrote. Steve Baron, head of Baron & Budd's
asbestos and mesothelioma law practice, did not respond to a
request for comment.

The filing also cites five unnamed cases in which plaintiffs
failed to disclose exposures to asbestos products made by other
companies. But, according to Bestwall's filing, one of those cases
involved a plaintiff in Los Angeles whose case was featured
anonymously in a prominent 2012 article as one of three in which
the only known exposure to asbestos was from joint compound. The
article, authored by James Dahlgren, a medical doctor who has
testified for plaintiffs, has been used in cases against Bestwall.

In addition to Jones Day and Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, the firm
has brought in Atlanta's King & Spalding and Texas-based Schachter
Harris, which have defended Bestwall in asbestos cases.

In filings, Bestwall said it managed 50 outside defense firms,
with an average of 660 attorneys, paralegals and timekeepers
billing from 2012 to 2016. In 2016, Bestwall spent more than $40
million defending the cases.

"Despite longstanding (and successful) efforts to cut costs,
improve efficiencies and resolve cases, the overall costs of the
litigation are not improving," Cassada wrote. "Although the debtor
has resolved asbestos claims in the tort system for over 40 years,
the burden of the litigation only worsens -- and no end is in
sight."

Bestwall LLC, fka Georgia-Pacific LLC, a Texas limited liability
company, fka Georgia-Pacific LLC, a North Carolina limited
liability company, filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition (Case No.
17-31795, Bankr. W.D.N.C.) on November 2, 2017.

The Debtor is represented by Gregory M. Gordon, Esq., and Daniel
B. Prieto, Esq., at Jones Day, in Dallas, Texas; and Jeffrey B.
Ellman, Esq., and Brad B. Erens, Esq., at Jones Day, in Atlanta,
Georgia.  The Debtor's local bankruptcy counsel is Garland S.
Cassada, Esq., David M. Schilli, Esq., and Andrew W.J. Tarr, Esq.,
at Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A., in Charlotte, North
Carolina.  The Debtor's special litigation counsel for medicine
science issues is Katrina Colwell Arp, Esq., Susan D. Ashmore,
Esq., Laurie A. Fay, Esq., and Erin A. Therrian, Esq., at
Schachter Harris, LLP, in Dallas, Texas; and Raymond Paul Harris,
Jr., Esq., and Cary Ira Schachter, Esq., at Schachter Harris LLP,
in Irving, Texas.  The Debtor's special counsel for asbestos
matters is King & Spalding. The Debtor's asbestos consultants is
Bates White, LLC.  The Debtor's claims & noticing agent is Donlin
Recano LLC.

Bestwall listed the following law firms with the most significant
representations of asbestos claimants:

   Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, PC
   100 N. Charles Street
   Baltimore, MD 21201
   Armand Volta
   Tel: (410) 649-2000
   Email: avolta@lawpga.com

   Baron & Budd, PC
   3102 Oak Lawn Avenue
   Dallas, TX 75219
   Steve Baron
   Tel: (214) 521-3605
   Email: sbaron@baronbudd.com

   Belluck & Fox, LLP
   546 Fifth Avenue
   New York, NY 10036
   Joe Belluck
   Tel: (212) 681-1575
   Email: jbelluck@belluckfox.com

   Brayton Purcell LLP
   222 Rush Landing Road
   Novato, CA 94948
   David Donadio
   Tel: (415) 898-1555
   Email: ddonadio@braytonlaw.com

   Cooney & Conway
   120 North Lasalle Street
   Chicago, IL 60602
   Bill Fahey
   Tel: (888) 905-2912
   Email: bfahey@cooneyconway.com

   Early, Lucarelli, Sweeney &
   Meisenkothen LLC
   One Century Center, 11th Floor
   New Haven, CT 06508
   Lindalea Ludwick
   Tel: (203) 777-7799
   Email: lpl@elslaw.com

   The Ferraro Law Firm, PA
   600 Brickell Avenue
   Miami, FL 33131
   David Jagolinzer
   Tel: (305) 547-9800
   Email: daj@ferrarolaw.com

   Gori, Julian & Associates, PC
   156 North Main Street
   Edwardsville, IL 62025
   Randy L. Gori
   Tel: (618) 659-9833
   Email: randy@gorijulianlaw.com

   Kazan, McClain, Satterley &
   Greenwood, PLC
   55 Harrison Street, Suite 400
   Oakland, CA 94607
   David McClain
   Tel: (877) 995-6372
   Email: dmcclain@kazanlaw.com

   Lanier Law Firm
   6810 FM 1960 West
   Houston, TX 77069
   W. Mark Lanier
   Tel: (713) 659-5200
   Fax: (713) 659-2204

   Levin Simes LLP
   44 Montgomery Street
   32nd Floor
   San Francisco, CA 94104
   Laurel Simes
   Tel: (415) 426-3000
   Email: llsimes@levinsimes.com

   Levy Konigsberg LLP
   800 Third Avenue
   New York, NY 10022
   Robert I. Komitor
   Tel: (212) 605-6200
   Fax: (212) 605-6290

   Lipsitz & Ponterio, LLC
   424 Main Street, Suite 1500
   Buffalo, NY 14202
   John N. Lipsitz
   Tel: (716) 849-0701
   Fax: (716) 849-0708

   Maune Raichle Hartley French & Mudd, LLC
   1015 Locust Street, Suite 1200
   St. Louis, MO 63101
   Christian Hartley
   Tel: (866) 234-7997
   Email: chartley@mrhfmlaw.com

   Motley Rice LLC
   28 Bridgeside Blvd.
   Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
   Joseph F. Rice
   Tel: (843) 216-9000
   Email: jrice@motleyrice.com

   Napoli Shkolnik PLLC
   1301 Avenue of the Americas
   10th Floor
   New York, NY 10019
   Paul J. Napoli
   Tel: (212) 397-1000
   Email: pnapoli@napolilaw.com

   Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl
   36 South Charles St., Suite 1700
   Baltimore, MD 21201
   Mike Edmonds
   Tel: 410-244-7005
   Email: medmonds@nicholllaw.com

   O'Brien Law Firm, PC
   815 Geyer Avenue
   St. Louis, MO 63104
   Andrew O'Brien
   Tel: (314) 588-0558
   Email: obrien@obrienlawfirm.com

   Shrader & Associates, L.P.
   3900 Essex Lane, Suite 390
   Houston, TX 77027
   Justin Shrader
   Tel: (713) 338-9094
   Fax: (713) 571-9605

   Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC
   One Court Street
   Alton, IL 62002
   Michael J. Angelides
   Tel: (618) 259-2222
   Email: mangelides@simmonsfirm.com

   Simon Greenstone Panatiere Bartlett, PC
   3232 McKinney Ave., Suite 610
   Dallas, TX 75204
   Jeffrey B. Simon
   Tel: (214) 276-7680
   Email: jsimon@sgpblaw.com

   SWMW Law, LLC
   701 Market Street, No. 1575
   St. Louis, MO 63101
   Ben Schmickle
   Tel: (314) 480-5180
   Email: ben@swmwlaw.com

   Waters & Kraus, LLP
   3141 Hood Street
   Dallas, TX 75219
   Peter A. Kraus
   Tel: (214) 357-6244
   Fax: (214) 357-7252

   Weitz & Luxenberg, PC
   700 Broadway
   New York, NY 10003
   Charles Ferguson
   Tel: (212) 558-5500
   Email: cferguson@weitzlux.com

   Law Offices of Paul A. Weykamp
   16 Stenerson Lane
   Hunt Valley, MD 21030
   Paul Weykamp
   Tel: 410-584-0660
   Fax: 410-584-1005


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Funds New England Asbestos Awareness Drive
---------------------------------------------------------------
New England states received a total of $631,000 from the US
Environmental Protection Agency this year to fund activities
designed to protect students, teachers and other people in school
buildings from the health threats of asbestos.

Five New England state agencies received between $100,000 and
$166,000, depending on the amount of work they committed to do,
including fully carrying out the federal compliance monitoring
program. Funds are used to ensure schools take the steps to manage
asbestos in accordance with the federal Asbestos Hazard Emergency
Response Act.

The annual funding also helps states maintain an asbestos
accreditation and certification training program, and to educate
teachers, parents, and school maintenance personnel on the dangers
of exposure to materials that contain asbestos. In addition, the
funds pay for audits that ensure asbestos professionals licensed
by the state are complying with federal law.

Some of the rules inspectors most often find violated are the
requirement that schools have a "designated person" assigned to
manage asbestos in the building, that they update their asbestos
management plans every three years and that they notify parents
every year that the asbestos management plan is on file. Asbestos
is most often found on pipes in the boiler rooms or in floor
tiles.

The Massachusetts program is run by the Mass. Dept. of Labor
Standards. In New Hampshire and Maine, it is run by the
environmental agencies; and in Connecticut, Rhode Island and
Vermont it is run by the departments of health. Vermont, which
only performs the inspection portion of the program, received
$16,000 and routinely shares any observations of non-compliance
with EPA to resolve federal violations found by the state.

Under the federal Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act, public
and private elementary and secondary school officials must have
their buildings inspected for asbestos-containing building
materials, prepare management plans and take actions to prevent or
reduce asbestos hazards. Schools officials are also required to
maintain and update asbestos management plans and to keep a copy
at each individual school. These plans are required to document
the recommended asbestos response actions, the location of the
asbestos within the school, and any action taken to repair and
remove the material. Removal of asbestos is not usually necessary
unless the material is severely damaged or will be disturbed by a
building demolition or renovation project.

More information:

The EPA Healthy Schools website (www.epa.gov/schools) provides
information that supports efforts to keep schools healthy,
including information on asbestos. Children can spend 90 percent
of their time indoors and much of that time in school. Unhealthy
school environments can affect children's health, attendance,
concentration, and performance.

Personnel working on asbestos activities in schools must be
trained and accredited in accordance with federal law. States
receiving federal funds manage these training programs. Names of
state asbestos contacts are available at
www.epa.gov/asbestos/state-asbestos-contacts .


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Limits Threaten EPA's Asbestos Review
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Mauney, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that after
pushback from the chemical industry, President Donald Trump's
administration is scaling back a congressionally mandated review
of asbestos and other deadly chemicals.

Toxic minerals in widespread use will be excluded from the
revamped Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which last December
included asbestos among the top 10 dangerous chemicals the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must review.

Reducing the scope of the review will potentially leave millions
of tons of asbestos and other toxic substances in homes and
businesses. The Trump administration reportedly wants to limit
risk evaluations of the top 10 toxic threats to new products being
imported, sold or manufactured in the U.S.

For asbestos, this means only a few hundred tons of the toxic
mineral imported each year will be up for review, excluding nearly
all of the estimated 8.1 million metric tons of asbestos-
containing products currently in American infrastructure.

Asbestos has not been manufactured in the U.S. since 2002, but
imports nearly doubled from 2015 to 2016, according to a recent
study by the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) and
the Environmental Working Group.

The U.S. imported an estimated 705 metric tons of raw asbestos
last year. The overwhelming majority of raw asbestos is used by
chlorine manufacturers, but the toxic mineral is still used in
certain vehicle braking systems, asphalt roof coatings and
gaskets.

Under the narrowed scope of the review, the EPA will only evaluate
risks associated with annual imports of asbestos. The agency will
no longer consider if new handling and disposal rules are needed
for previously existing materials.

"There's still a lot of asbestos out there," Michael Harbut, an
internal medicine professor at Detroit's Wayne State University,
told The Associated Press. "It's still legal, it's still deadly,
and it's going to be a problem for decades to come."

Firefighters, Construction Workers Remain at Risk

Firefighters and construction workers are two groups that could be
heavily affected by the weakened EPA review.

Both professions are considered high-risk occupations for asbestos
exposure.

Construction workers regularly come in contact with asbestos-
containing building materials during renovations and other
projects, while firefighters and other first responders are at
risk when fires disturb the materials, releasing toxic asbestos
fibers into the air.

Breathing in or ingesting these fibers can lead to serious health
conditions decades later, including mesothelioma, a rare cancer
caused almost exclusively by exposure to asbestos.

A 2013 study from the National Institute of Occupational Safety
and Health concluded firefighters develop mesothelioma at twice
the rate of the U.S. population as a whole.

"Hundreds of thousands of firefighters are going to be affected by
this. It is by far the biggest hazard we have out there," Patrick
Morrison, assistant general president for health and safety at the
International Association of Fire Fighters, told The Associated
Press. "My God, these are not just firefighters at risk. There are
people that live in these structures and don't know the danger of
asbestos."

Asbestos-containing building materials remain in many homes,
schools and office buildings built before the 1980s.

Deaths related to mesothelioma are on the rise, according to a
recent study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC). The cancer caused or contributed to more than 45,000 U.S.
deaths between 1999 and 2015. Annual deaths increased by 5 percent
in that span.

Environmental and public health activists fear the new limits on
the EPA's review will leave many workers at risk for asbestos
exposure in the future. Under current law, products must contain
at least 1 percent of asbestos to qualify for regulations, but
health experts say that threshold is arbitrary.

Industry Groups Influencing Decision

The reformed TSCA passed in late 2016 under the previous
administration. Instead of following former President Barack
Obama's proposal to review chemicals already in widespread use,
the Trump administration has pushed to limit evaluations to
products still being manufactured and imported.

Critics of the change claim ignoring products already in use
ignores the goal of the TSCA.

Many point to the strong influence the chemical industry has on
the Trump administration. Two top EPA officials -- Nancy Beck and
Liz Bowman -- previously worked for the American Chemistry Council
(ACC), the chemical industry's leading lobbying group.

Beck, the EPA's deputy assistant administrator for chemical
safety, came to the agency after serving as the senior director
for regulatory science policy for the ACC's Division of Regulatory
and Technical Affairs.

Michael Dourson, the Trump administration's pick to lead the EPA's
chemical safety program, also has deep ties to the industry. As a
toxicologist, much of Dourson's research was funded by chemical
interest groups such as the American Petroleum Institute, the
American Cleaning Institute and the ACC.

Anti-asbestos activists and workers' rights groups have criticized
EPA administrator Scott Pruitt since his appointment in February.
As the Oklahoma attorney general, Pruitt led or participated in 14
lawsuits aimed at blocking EPA regulations.

More political influence is believed to be coming from the
National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB), one of the largest
trade associations in the nation. NAHB represents more than 800
state and local housing industry associations, and its more than
140,000 members build approximately 80 percent of new homes
constructed in the U.S.

According to The Associated Press, the organization believes
current asbestos disposal rules are adequate and broadening the
EPA's review would lead to burdensome and unnecessary regulations.

"It doesn't matter whether the dangerous substance is no longer
being manufactured; if people are still being exposed, then there
is still a risk," Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., told The Associated
Press. "Ignoring these circumstances would openly violate the
letter and the underlying purpose of the law."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: West Coast School to Close After Asbestos Find
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Press reported that Paroa School, south of Greymouth, and its
grounds will be closed from Friday to Monday.

A West Coast primary school is closing for four days after
builders discovered asbestos in a block of classrooms.

The dangerous fibres were found during junior block refurbishment
work at Paroa School, south of Greymouth.

In a note to families posted to the 161-pupil school's website,
the school told parents the building had been tested for asbestos
before the project began.

Although the results came back negative, builders had since
discovered a layer of the material between two wall cavities that
were not previously accessible for testing.

"This asbestos had been encapsulated previously and is the lower
risk, non-friable variety. However, once the area had been
identified it was immediately contained and is currently safe,"
the note from school principal Judy Elvidge and Board of Trustees
chair Lisa Shannahan said.

Supported by the Ministry of Education, the school -- including
its hall, grounds and sports courts -- was closing for four days
from Friday while the asbestos was removed by a certified
contractor.

"We will test the air quality once the asbestos has been removed
and site cleaned," the note said.

The school was expected to reopen on Tuesday.

"We appreciate the huge impact this decision will have on all our
families and the community who utilise our grounds, however our
school and grounds must be closed to allow the removal process and
subsequent testing," the note said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Eight Senators Introduce Bill to Ban Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Duff, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that a group
of eight Democratic senators introduced a new bill to ban asbestos
in the United States. This marks the sixth such bill to be
introduced in Congress over the last 20 years.

"It's outrageous that in the year 2017, asbestos is still allowed
in the United States," said Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), one of
the bill's co-sponsors. Merkley went on to call asbestos a "public
health threat" and called for the U.S. to catch up with the rest
of the developed world in completely banning this dangerous
carcinogen.

Another of the bill's co-sponsors is Senator Jon Tester, a
Democrat from Montana, who focused his words on the problems that
have been seen in cities like Libby, where asbestos has taken
hundreds of lives. The EPA is still cleaning up asbestos-
contaminated soil and materials from the vermiculite mines in
Libby and surrounding areas.

Other sponsors of the bill include Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ),
Dick Durbin (D-IL), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Edward J. Markey (D-
MA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).

Perhaps more notable than the bill's sponsors are those who have
not chosen to sponsor it. In particular, the absence of Senator
Steve Daines (R-MT), a colleague of Senator Tester who has also
spoken out about the dangers of asbestos exposure to the people in
his state and across the country.

Earlier this year, Senator Daines had joined Senator Tester in
designating April 1 -- 8 as National Asbestos Awareness Week. At
that time Senator Daines had said, "We can never be too educated
about asbestos and its terrible effects to guard against them and
ensure the folks in Libby know they have our support."

However, despite his words last spring, Senator Daines has
declined to support this most recent bill to ban asbestos, at
least at the present time. Instead, the Montana Senator expressed
support for ongoing regulatory review of imports, without
necessarily implementing a full ban.

The support of Senators like Daines will be necessary if the bill
is to pass in the Senate and eventually make its way to President
Trump. Even if it gets to Trump, it is likely he will veto the
bill, given the president's past statements about asbestos.

If that happens, then the bill's sponsors will need to convince
Senator Daines and other Republicans who are on the fence to
support their efforts for a complete ban. Whether they can
persuade enough Republicans to assemble a supermajority that would
override a presidential veto remains to be seen.

Nonetheless, for now the bill has been introduced. Since the EPA
is backing away from its chemical reviews required by the
Lautenberg Act signed into law last year by President Obama, other
efforts like these to ban the substance will need to keep moving
forward.






                             *********


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  * * *