CAR_Public/171115.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


          Wednesday, November 15, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 226



                            Headlines

50 FRONT STREET: "Bonikos" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
ABM INDUSTRIES: Ct. Denies Remand of Janitors' Reimbursement Suit
ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS: Rollhaus Sues Over Share Price Drop
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Gil" FDCPA Suit
ALLSTATE FIRE: Ct. Refuses to Reinstate Aug. 9 Arbitration Order

AMERICAN BANKERS: Faces Jones Suit Over Force-Placed Insurance
AMERICAN HONDA: Ct. Strikes Proposed Nationwide Class in "Miles"
AMIDA CARE: Faces MF Class Suit in New York Supreme Court
APEX SUPPLY: Court Approves Settlement in "Collado" Suit
AT&T INC: Scott Appeals Ruling in "Bond" Suit to Fourth Circuit

AVALANCHE CARE: "Jackson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
AXA EQUITABLE: Partial Bid to Junk Brach Foundation Suit Denied
BEAR STATE FINANCIAL: "Parshall" Hits Merger, Seeks Projections
BEDROCK PC: "Qualls" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Compensation
BIMBO BAKERIES: "Oddo" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania

BLUE APRON: Hill Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid OT, Final Pay
BMW AG: Stanley Files Suit Over Anti-trust Activities
BMW AG: Sued by Sasson for Anti-trust Activities
BRAMAN HYUNDAI: "Schaevitz" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
BRICKLANE CURRY: Miranda Sues for Denied Mininum, Overtime Pay

BUCKSKIN'S SALOON: "Greer" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
BURRITO DEL MAR: "Ordaz" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
CALIFORNIA: Cal. App. Affirms Atty Fees Order in "Woosley" Suit
CALIFORNIA: Dec. 20 Status Conference in "Coleman" Suit
CASCADE COLLECTIONS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lloyd" Suit Says

CB&I LLC: "Rando" Suit Hits Unpaid OT Wages, Breach of Contract
CELADON GROUP: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Blakley" Suit
CENTURYLINK INC: Court Consolidates 3 Securities Fraud Cases
CHEMOURS COMPANY: "Morton" Suit Seeks Damages on Toxic Leaks
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Court Compels Arbitration in "Sparks"

COMPANDSAVE.COM INC: Faces Suit Over TCPA Violations
COMPASS BANK: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Hossfield" TCPA Suit
CR BARD: Bid to File of 2nd Class Cert in "Barraza" Denied
DIMENSION THERAPEUTICS: Faces Suit Over Sale to Ultragenyx
DONALD TRUMP: Court Partially OK's Production of Docs in "Wagafe"

CHEMOURS CO: Nix Files Suit Over Toxic Chemical Dumping
CREDIT CONTROL: "Klein" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
DSWC INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Consumer Fraud Suit
DYNAMIC PET: "Reed" Stayed Pending Settlement Appeal Notice
EOS CCA: "Singh" Disputes Vague Collection Letter

EQUIFAX INC: Meade Files Suit Over Data Breach
EQUIFAX INC: "First Education" Suit Alleges FTCA Violation
EQUIFAX INC: "Sander" Sues Over Data Breach, Seeks Damages
EQUIFAX INC: "Smith" Sues Over Data Breach, Seeks Damages
EQUIFAX INC: Sued by Mashburn in N.D. Georgia Over Data Breach

FIRST CHOICE: "Woods" Seeks OT Pay for Work Over 40 Hours/Week
FIRSTSOURCE: "Otten" Suit Disputes Vague Collection Letter
FOREST LABS: Macleods Must Produce Docs in Namenda Antitrust Suit
FOWLER FOODS: "Petty" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
FREEDOMROADS LLC: "Piner" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay

GAP INC: "Pallagrosi" Sues Over Discount Fraud
GBS TOWSON: Court Denies Equitable Tolling in Wage & Hour Suit
GENERAC POWER: "Tom" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
GIANT GLASS: "Cireus" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
GRAND ISLE: "Sandlin" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

HUFFINES DENTON: Sued for Denying "Navarro" Overtime Pay
IGNITE PAYMENTS: Zam & Zam Appeals E.D.N.Y. Decision to 2nd Cir.
INT'L COSMETICS: Settlement in "Moore" Suit Has Final Approval
INTEC COMMUNICATIONS: "Lopez" Suit Seeks OT Wages, Damages
INTELIQUENT INC: "Torres" Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads

JACKSON HEWITT: Court Grants Move to Dismiss "Lomeli" Suit
KEEFE COMMISSARY: Reichert Sues for Unlawful Taking of Property
KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Ct. Grants Final OK of "Helde" Settlement
LAGASSE LLC: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Alpha Tech Suit Denied
LTD MERCHANT: "Kilpatrick" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation

LULAROE LLC: "Lemberg" Sues Over Deceptive Refund Policy
MANUFACTURERS & TRADERS: "Fynn" Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
MARY KAY: 3d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Beauty Consultants' Suit
MCS MORTGAGE: "Karlin" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
MDL 2796: Audobon Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.

MDL 2796: "Reder" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
MDL 2796: "Grodzen" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
MDL 2796: "Kremer" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
MEC DEVELOPMENT: "Jefferson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
MINNESOTA: Suit vs. DOL Stayed Pending BIC Exemption Reassessment

METALCRAFT OF MAYVILLE: "Mazurek" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
NATIONWIDE EVICTION: Conditional Class Cert in "Russell" Denied
NAVIENT CORP: Pope Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
NRRM LLC: Court Denies Partial Bid to Strike "Kundinger" Suit
ORBITAL ATK: Sedon Sues to Halt Merger Deal, Seeks Projections

PATON ENGINEERS: "Patai" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
PINNACLE ENGINEERING: "Thomas" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
PNC MERCHANT: Faces Healing Suit in N.Y. Over Unauthorized Fees
PRIMERITUS FINANCIAL: Odahl Sues Over Repossession Procedure
PUBLIC HEALTH: "Morris" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

RAMSGATE INSURANCE: "Ganier" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
RJ REYNOLDS: "Tarrow" Suit Remanded to California State Court
SOLARCITY CORP: "Daugherty" Stayed Pending Outcome of "Morris"
SPARK NETWORKS: "Vana" to Halt Merger Deal, Claims Shortchanged
SPEEDY CASH: "Payton" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations

SPEEDYPC SOFTWARE: Court Certifies Class in Consumer Fraud Suit
STATE FARM: Show Cause Order in "Ayers" Discharged
TARGET CORPORATION: Sued Over Up & Up Makeup Remover Products
TATE & KIRLIN: "Marconi" Suit Disputes Collection Letter
TEMPUR SEALY: "Rabin" Suit Alleges Breach of Express Warranty

TENDER LOVING: "Jones-Dowd" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Merger Docs Lacking Projections, Claims "Berg"
TESLA MOTORS: "Paige" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT, Final Pay
TRANZVIA LLC: "Hirsch" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
TUNNEL TAXI: "Lemache" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

UTILIKON LLC: "Medina" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
VIRGINIA: Court Refuses to Review Sovereign Immunity Ruling
WENDO FURNITURE: "Liu" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
WILSON COUNTY, KS: Settlement in "Ogden" Suit Has Final Approval
WOLFGANG'S STEAKHOUSE: Court Dismisses "Fullwood" FACTA Suit

XEROX HR: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss FAC in "Chendes" ERISA Suit





                            *********


50 FRONT STREET: "Bonikos" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yannis Bonikos and Rigel Shaholli, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 50 Front Street
Enterprises, Inc. (d/b/a "Mykonos"), Peter Kazamias, John Doe
Corp. #1 (d/b/a "50 Front"), John Doe Corps. #2-10, and John Does
1-10, Case No. 17-cv-06076, (E.D. N.Y., October 17, 2017), seeks
to recover overtime wages and liquidated damages, interest, costs,
and attorney's fees for violations of the Federal Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

Defendants operate Greek restaurants where Bonikos and Shaholli
worked as chefs. Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of their hours worked, thus did not account for
their overtime hours. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Salim Katach, Esq.
      VARACALLI & HAMRA, LLP
      110 E 59th Street, Suite 3200
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (646) 590-0571
      Fax: (646) 619-4012
      E-mail: skatach@svhllp.com


ABM INDUSTRIES: Ct. Denies Remand of Janitors' Reimbursement Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order denying Plaintiff's Third Motion to
Remand the case captioned MARLEY CASTRO, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v.
ABM INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-3026-YGR
(N.D. Cal.).

This putative class action generally stems from allegations that
defendants required their janitorial employees with the employee
master job description Cleaner to use personal cell phones for
work-related purposes without reimbursement, in violation of
California Labor Code section 2802 and California Business and
Professions Code section 17200.

A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court if the
action could have originally been filed in federal court.  A
plaintiff may seek to have a case remanded to the state court from
which it was removed if the district court lacks jurisdiction or
if there is a defect in the removal procedure.

The Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)

CAFA provides that district courts have original jurisdiction over
any class action in which: (1) the amount in controversy exceeds
five million dollars, (2) any plaintiff class member is a citizen
of a state different from any defendant, (3) the primary
defendants are not states, state officials, or other government
entities against whom the district court may be foreclosed from
ordering relief, and (4) the number of plaintiffs in the class is
at least 100.

Plaintiffs' motion for remand is based on two grounds, namely, (a)
defendants' removal was not timely, and, in any event (b)
defendants cannot satisfy their burden as the $5 million amount-
in-controversy requirement.

Timeliness of Removal

The Court understands that this is the first time plaintiffs have
represented an intent to seek the full reimbursement cost of the
minimum available cost of a cell phone in California. In fact,
plaintiffs previously took that position that a 20% reimbursement
rate for cell phone expenses was speculative and unsupported by
the evidence in this case.  Plaintiffs' class certification motion
attaches the declaration of plaintiffs' accounting expert which
states that the lowest available monthly cost of a cell phone
during the class period was $27.14.

Based therein, defendants calculate the amount-in-controversy as
exceeding $5 million, and possibly even exceeding $20 million
depending on certain assumptions which the Court discusses below.
Plaintiffs' class certification motion, trial plan, and expert
declaration thus constitute a motion or other paper from which it
may be first ascertained that the case has become removable.
Accordingly, the Court finds defendants' motion timely.

Amount-In-Controversy Calculation

Evidence Offered and Calculations by ABM

In support of removal jurisdiction, ABM offers the declaration of
plaintiffs' accounting expert, David Breshears CPA/CFF, who states
that the lowest available monthly cost of a cell phone during the
class period was $27.14. Next, defendants point to the declaration
of Nedy Warren, ABM's Vice President of Human Resources, which
indicates that ABM's records reflect that there are at least
29,413 Punitive Class Members.

Warren further states that these Punitive Class Members worked
approximately 627,908 months during the class period. Based on
these figures, defendants calculate the amount in controversy as
approximately $17,041,423 independent of attorney's fees.
Defendants further calculate that plaintiffs' request for
attorney's fees places an additional 25% in controversy,
increasing the figure to $21,301,779.

Assumptions Underlying ABM's Calculations

Defendants' calculations rely on an important and contested
assumption, namely that each Punitive Class Member incurred at
least one reimbursable cell phone expense for each month worked
during the class period.

Defendants assumed that each punitive class member accrued twelve
overtime hours per week for every week worked, despite the fact
that defendants' evidence supported a contrary inference, namely
that employees' schedules varied greatly and many class members
did not have this much overtime. By contrast, defendants here make
a reasonable assumption of one reimbursable cell phone expense per
month, which is supported by plaintiffs' allegations in the SAC
and evidence in this case including the named plaintiffs'
deposition testimonies.

Accordingly, the motion to remand is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 19, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/ycf7udqwfrom Leagle.com.

Marley Castro, Plaintiff, represented by Chad A. Saunders --
csaunders@hunterpylelaw.com  --  Sundeen Salinas & Pyle.

Marley Castro, Plaintiff, represented by Genevieve Lise Casey --
genevieve@feinbergjackson.com  -- Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman and
Wasow, Hunter Pyle -- hunter@hunterpylelaw.com -- Hunter Pyle Law
& Todd F. Jackson, Feinberg -- todd@feinbergjackson.com --
Jackson, Worthman and Wasow LLP.

Lucia Marmolejo, Plaintiff, represented by Chad A. Saunders,
Sundeen Salinas & Pyle, Genevieve Lise Casey, Feinberg, Jackson,
Worthman and Wasow, Hunter Pyle, Hunter Pyle Law & Todd F.
Jackson, Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman and Wasow LLP.

ABM Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley Joseph
Hamburger -- bhamburger@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn and
Crutcher LLP, Theane Evangelis Kapur -- tevangelis@gibsondunn.com
-- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. --
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Attorney at Law & Katherine V.A. Smith
-- ksmith@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP.
ABM Onsite Services -- West, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Bradley Joseph Hamburger, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Theane
Evangelis Kapur, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Theodore J.
Boutrous, Jr., Attorney at Law & Katherine V.A. Smith, Gibson,
Dunn and Crutcher LLP.

ABM Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley Joseph
Hamburger, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Theane Evangelis Kapur,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Attorney
at Law & Katherine V.A. Smith, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP.
ABM Janitorial Services -- Northern California, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Bradley Joseph Hamburger, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher
LLP, Theane Evangelis Kapur, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Theodore
J. Boutrous, Jr., Attorney at Law & Katherine V.A. Smith, Gibson,
Dunn and Crutcher LLP.

ABM Janitorial Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley
Joseph Hamburger, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Theane Evangelis
Kapur, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr.,
Attorney at Law & Katherine V.A. Smith, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher
LLP.

ABM Janitorial Services-Southwest, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Bradley Joseph Hamburger, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Theane
Evangelis Kapur, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Theodore J.
Boutrous, Jr., Attorney at Law & Katherine V.A. Smith, Gibson,
Dunn and Crutcher LLP.


ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS: Rollhaus Sues Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------
Rina Rollhaus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Acacia Communications, Inc., Murugesan
Shanmugaraj, John F. Gavin, Francis J. Murphy, Eric A. Swanson,
Peter Y. Chung, Benny P. Mikkelsen, Stan J. Reiss, John Ritchie,
Vincent T. Roche, Matrix Partners VIII, L.P., Summit Partners
Venture Capital Fund III-A, L.P., Summit Partners Venture Capital
Fund III-B, L.P., Summit Investors I, LLC, Summit Investors I
(UK), L.P., Commonwealth Capital Ventures IV L.P., The Malini
Shanmugaraj 2016 QTIP Trust, Mehrdad Givehchi, Givehchi LLC, John
Lomedico, Bhupendra C. Shah, Bhupendra Shah 1999 Trust U/A DTD
10/06/1999, Christian Rasmussen, Ofs Fitel, LLC, Egan Managed
Capital III, L.P., Weston & Co. VIII, LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co.,
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Needham & Company, LLC,
Cowen and Company, LLC, William Blair & Company, L.L.C. and
Northland Securities, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-11988, (D.
Mass., October 13, 2017), seeks compensatory damages, reasonable
costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees
and expert fees and such equitable/injunctive or other relief
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Acacia designs, develops, manufactures and markets high-speed
coherent optical interconnect products for cloud infrastructure
operators and content and communication service providers.

The complaints says Acacia's 2017 second quarter financial results
were adversely affected by the quality issue regarding a circuit
board cleaning process. As it experienced supply constraints as
capacity was used to both build replacement units and to meet new
demand from customers, Acacia reported second quarter earnings per
share of $0.17-$0.20 on revenues of $77-$79 million, far lower
than the $0.31 on $91 million in revenues the market had been led
to expect.

On this news, the price of Acacia common stock declined from its
close of $41.62 per share on July 13, 2017 to close at $39 per
share on July 14, 2017, on unusually high volume of more than 3.5
million shares traded. Rina Rollhaus purchased Acacia common stock
in the Secondary Offering on October 7, 2016 at the price of
$100.00 per share. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward F. Haber, Esq.
      Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
      SHAPIRO HABER &URMY LLP
      Seaport East
      Two Seaport Lane
      Boston, MA 02210
      Tel: (617) 439-3939
      Email: ehaber@shulaw.com
             astewart@shulaw.com

             - and -

      Jack G. Fruchter, Esq.
      Lawrence D. Levit
      ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP
      One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
      New York, NY 10119
      Tel: (212) 279-5050
      Fax: (212) 279-3655
      Email: jfruchter@aftlaw.com
             llevit@aftlaw.com


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Gil" FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Arthur D. Spatt of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
case captioned SALLY GIL and SUZETTE RENE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALLIED
INTERSTATE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-3362 (ADS)(AYS)(E.D.
N.Y.) pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The Plaintiffs are individuals, residing in Suffolk County, New
York, who incurred consumer credit card debt originally held by
Synchrony Bank.  Gil and Rene subsequently were unable to make the
required debt payments and their debts were assigned or
transferred to Allied for collection.  Allied is a Franklin
County, Ohio based debt collector who was assigned the Plaintiffs'
debts.

The Defendant sent a letter to the Plaintiffs, dated June 1, 2016,
informing them that Synchrony Bank retained Allied to collect
their outstanding debt.  The letter detailed the amount owed and
according to the Plaintiffs, informed them that they must dispute
the validity of the underlying debt in writing.

On June 5, 2017, the Plaintiffs commenced the action against the
Defendant by filing the putative class action complaint on behalf
of all others similarly situated, against the Defendant for
damages stemming from alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").  They contend that the
Defendant falsely informed them, in the form of a debt collection
letter, that any disputes they had in connection with their debt
must be made in writing.

Presently before the Court is a motion filed on Aug. 16, 2017 by
the Defendant, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' entire complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted because Plaintiffs' FDCPA claims are
time-barred.

Judge Spatt finds no merit in the Defendant's argument.  According
to the FDCPA, a claim must be commenced within one year from the
date on which the violation occurs.  In this case, the Plaintiffs
filed this suit on June 5, 2017.  Therefore, only acts that
accrued on or after June 5, 2016 are considered timely.  Further,
the letters that the Defendant sent to the Plaintiffs were dated
June 1, 2016, five days before the deadline for the statute of
limitations.

In addition, though the Plaintiffs failed to include in their
pleading the date they allegedly received the debt collection
letters, the Judge says the Defendant did not address the issue in
its memoranda.  Without such information, he cannot dismiss the
complaint.  Accordingly, the Judge declines to rule that the
Plaintiffs' FDCPA claim is barred by the statute of limitations.

For these reasons, Judge Spatt denied the Defendant's motion
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Memorandum of
Decision and Order is available at https://is.gd/1lK2bL from
Leagle.com.

Sally Gil, Plaintiff, represented by Craig B. Sanders --
info@sanderslawpllc.com -- Barshay Sanders, PLLC.

Sally Gil, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Barshay, Sanders
Law, PLLC & Eric A. Curtis -- info@bakersanders.com -- Baker
Sanders, LLC.

Suzette Rene, Plaintiff, represented by Craig B. Sanders, Barshay
Sanders, PLLC, David M. Barshay, Sanders Law, PLLC & Eric A.
Curtis, Baker Sanders, LLC.

Allied Interstate LLC, Defendant, represented by Nana Japaridze --
njaparidze@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP.


ALLSTATE FIRE: Ct. Refuses to Reinstate Aug. 9 Arbitration Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned AMBULATORY SURGICAL CENTER OF SOMERSET,
individually and as a Class Representative on behalf of others
similar situated, and JUAN GONZALEZ, individually and as a Class
Representative on behalf of others similar situated, Plaintiffs,
v. ALLSTATE FIRE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Civ. No.
16-5378 (D. N.J.), Judge Anne E. Thompson of the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey denied the Plaintiffs' motion
to reinstate the Court's Aug. 9, 2017 Order denying arbitration.

The Plaintiffs bring the action for damages and declaratory
judgment, following the Defendant's failure to pay for a procedure
Plaintiff Gonzalez had at Plaintiff Ambulatory Surgical Center of
Somerset.  The Plaintiffs sue on behalf of the classes (i) of
individuals insured by the Defendant who have sustained injuries
in car accidents and are entitled to medical benefits pursuant to
New Jersey law, and (ii) of ambulatory surgical facilities who
performed procedures for which the Defendant refused payment.

On April 7, 2017, the Defendant moved to compel arbitration and to
stay proceedings, which the Court denied on Aug. 9, 2017.  On Aug.
23, 2017, the Defendant moved for reconsideration of the Court's
decision to deny its motion.

On Oct. 5, 2017, the Court granted the Defendant's motion and
ordered arbitration and an administrative termination pending
arbitration.  It reconsidered based on the breadth of the deemer
statute within New Jersey's Personal Injury Protection ("PIP")
coverage, which extends coverage to out-of-state insureds who were
injured in-state or utilized in-state care.  The Court found that
the deemer statute incorporated PIP's arbitration and dispute
resolution provision, thus exposing the Plaintiffs to arbitration.

On Oct. 12, 2017, the Plaintiffs moved the Court to reinstate its
original order and opinion of Aug. 9, 2017 denying arbitration.

Judge Thompson finds that the Plaintiffs' Motion largely repeats
arguments already iterated in its opposition to the Defendant's
Motion to Compel Arbitration and in its opposition to the
Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration.  The Plaintiffs argue that
the case cannot be compelled to arbitration due to the
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and the law set forth in Shady Grove v. Orthopedic Associations,
P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co.  As the Defendant appropriately
notes, the Court did not overlook this argument that has already
been strenuously advanced by the Plaintiffs, and even so, this
argument does not alter the Court's conclusion.

The Judge also agrees with the Defendant's assessment: there is no
"direct collision" between the PIP arbitration provision and Rule
23 to invoke Shady Grove.  She also observes that although the
Plaintiffs pled two classes in the Complaint, no class pursuant to
Rule 23 has yet been certified, nor have the subsequent moving
papers addressed class qualifications under Rule 23.

Finally, Judge Thompson cannot consider the Plaintiffs' argument
regarding Gonzalez's Allstate policy and the requirement of mutual
consent to arbitrate therein.  Reconsideration is a remedy limited
to unique circumstances.  The Plaintiffs present arguments on
reconsideration that fall outside of the scope of Rule 7.1.

For these reasons, Judge Thompson denied the Plaintiffs' Motion.
A corresponding order will follow.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/G8OwEm from Leagle.com.

AMBULATORY SURGICAL CENTER OF SOMERSET, Plaintiff, represented by
CHARLES THOMAS KANNEBECKER -- info@kannebeckerlaw.com.

JUAN GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, represented by CHARLES THOMAS
KANNEBECKER.

ALLSTATE FIRE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented
by MARC E. WOLIN -- mwolin@saiber.com -- SAIBER LLC, DAVID D'ALOIA
-- ddaloia@saiber.com -- SAIBER, LLC & MICHAEL GROHS, SAIBER LLC.


AMERICAN BANKERS: Faces Jones Suit Over Force-Placed Insurance
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jones Real Estate, Inc., d/b/a Jones Realty, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Bankers
Insurance Company of Florida, Avatel Technologies, Inc., The CIT
Group Inc., and Assurant, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-23933-UU (S.D.
Fla., October 26, 2017), seeks redress for the Defendant's
lucrative profit-making scheme of placing force-placed insurance
when a customer fails to obtain or maintain insurance coverage on
voice, data, and/or video equipment that is leased through
financing.

American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida operates an
insurance company with a principal place of business in Miami,
Florida.

Avatel Technologies, Inc. operates a telecommunications company
providing phone systems and voice mail services.

The CIT Group Inc. is a financial holding company headquartered in
New York City.

Assurant, Inc. is a global provider of risk management products
and services with headquarters in New York City. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason K. Whittemore, Esq.
      WAGNER MCLAUGHLIN, P.A.
      601 Bayshore Blvd., Suite 910
      Tampa, Florida 33606
      Telephone: (813) 225-4000
      E-mail: jason@WagnerLaw.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Ct. Strikes Proposed Nationwide Class in "Miles"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
the case captioned CAROL MILES, RYAN MOTT, JOHN WOLFE, and LIZZY
WOLFE, BARBARA HENWOOD, ANDY SWIERCZYNSKI, BRANDON FRANKLIN, ANNE
SHAPIRO, MARY MANSFIELD, TAMI OSTENDORF, and JULIE MACKERT,
individually and on behalf of the class members, Plaintiffs v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant, Case No. 17 C 4423
(N.D. Ill.).

Defendant has moved to dismiss ten of the sixteen counts and seeks
to strike the proposed class definitions.

Plaintiffs claim that they purchased model years 2015, 2016, 2017
Honda CR-V vehicles from Honda dealerships. Within months of their
purchase, plaintiffs all experienced what smelled like an open
pool of gasoline inside the passenger cabin. The smell persisted
no matter the driving speed or duration and was overpowering if
the windows were kept shut. The smell was intermittent, coming and
going regardless of the outdoor temperature, speed, or duration.
Plaintiffs allege that they cannot drive their vehicles when the
smell exists.

Plaintiffs allege that at the time they purchased their vehicles
defendant was aware of the problem, was unable to uncover the
cause, and unable to fix the problem, yet actively concealed the
defect from its customers even if specifically asked.

Counts I and II -- Nationwide Class

In Count I plaintiffs, none of whom are California residents or
purchased their vehicles there, on behalf of a purported
nationwide class, seek to apply the California Commercial Code to
their claims brought pursuant to the MMWA.

In Count II, plaintiffs allege, on behalf of a nationwide class,
violation of California's Business and Professional Code Section
17200, which prohibits acts of "unfair competition.

Defendant argues that both claims should be dismissed because
California law cannot be applied to claims of non-California
plaintiffs.

The court agrees.

The court considers four factors: (1) where the injury occurred;
(2) where the injury causing conduct occurred; (3) the domiciles
of the parties; and (4) where the relationship of the parties is
entered.

None of these factors favors application of California law to the
non-California plaintiffs. First, with respect to Count I, under
Illinois choice-of-law rules, the place of purchase and injury
governs breach of warranty claims.  None of the plaintiffs are
domiciled in California, none purchased their vehicles in
California, none entered a relationship with defendant in
California, and none were injured in California. The injury occurs
where the plaintiffs purchased their vehicles and were given their
warranties without any warning of the alleged defect. Thus, under
Illinois choice-of-law rules, the law of the state where each
plaintiff purchased their vehicles the law that applies to their
state law claims.

The court concludes that plaintiffs cannot assert claims under
California law for non-California plaintiffs. Counts I and II are
dismissed.

Consumer Fraud Claims -- Counts IV (Illinois), VIII (Indiana), XI
(Wisconsin), XV (Maryland)

Defendant argues that plaintiffs have failed to meet Rule 9(b)'s
pleading requirements with respect to their consumer fraud claims
brought under Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin and Maryland law.
Defendant argues that plaintiffs have failed to provide the names
of who participated in the alleged fraud, in what capacity they
were involved, and what misrepresentations they made.

In the instant case, the facts alleged give defendant an ironclad
defense to Shapiro's claims because the ICSA has an occurrence
statute of limitations rather than a discovery statute of
limitations. Thus, the statute of limitations began to run no
later than when Shapiro purchased the vehicle, over two years
before the instant suit was commenced. Consequently, plaintiff
Shapiro's ICSA claim is dismissed.

Defendant also argues that defendant Mansfield's claim under the
ICSA fails because the second amended complaint fails to allege
that she provided proper notice to defendant as required under the
act. The act requires the consumers to give the seller written
notice and an opportunity to cure the alleged deceptive practices
either through modification or rescission of the transaction.

The second amended complaint contains no allegation that either
Shapiro or Mansfield provided written notice to defendant.
Plaintiffs respond by arguing that defendant had knowledge of
plaintiffs' claims within the time allowed by statute, but does
not allege that either plaintiff provided that notice, or gave
defendant an opportunity to cure. Absent such an allegation,
Counts VII and VIII are dismissed without prejudice.

Unjust Enrichment Claims -- Counts V (Illinois), IX (Indiana), XII
(Wisconsin), XVI (Maryland)

Plaintiffs allege that all of their purchases or leases were
governed by a specific contract that contained an express
warranty. Defendant has not challenged the existence of the
contract or the warranties. Thus, defendant is correct that
plaintiffs cannot base their unjust enrichment claims on the same
conduct that form the basis of their breach of warranty claims.
As plaintiffs point out, however, to the extent that their unjust
enrichment claims are based on the same conduct underlying their
consumer fraud claims, such as the alleged failure to disclose and
warn, unjust enrichment claims remain viable.

Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts V, IX, XII and XVI, is
denied.

Class Allegations

Defendant has moved to strike plaintiffs' class definitions.
This court has already determined that the law of the state where
each plaintiff purchased his or her vehicle shall be applied to
plaintiff's claims. Applying the warranty, unjust enrichment, and
misrepresentation laws of 50 different states, or even the 4
states that the name plaintiffs represent, is unmanageable on a
class-wide basis because those state laws may conflict in material
ways. Because these claims must be adjudicated under the laws of
so many jurisdictions, a single nationwide class is not
manageable.  The court strikes the proposed nationwide class.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 19, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/y8qacxwffrom Leagle.com.

Carol Miles, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Nicholas Loftus,
Stotlmann Law Offices, 10 S. LaSalle St., 35th Floor , Chicago,
Illinois 60606, United States

Carol Miles, Plaintiff, represented by Deanna Christina Besbekos,
Stoltmann Law Offices, P.c. & Joseph Robert Wojciechowski,
Stoltmann Law Offices, P.C., 10 S. LaSalle St., 35th Floor ,
Chicago, Illinois 60606, United States

American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Livia
McCammon Kiser -- LKISER@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP & Tara
Azad Amin -- TAMIN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin Llp.


AMIDA CARE: Faces MF Class Suit in New York Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------
M.F., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS, SIMILARLY SITUATED
v. AMIDA CARE, INC., Case No. 520314/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Kings
Cty., October 19, 2017), seeks damages for alleged issues relating
to personal injury.

Amida Care, Inc., operates as a non-profit organization in the
United States.  The Organization offers nursing, HIV care,
pharmacy, and dental services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          SILVER & KELMACHTER LP
          11 Park Pl., Suite 1214
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 661-8400


APEX SUPPLY: Court Approves Settlement in "Collado" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of  New
York, approved the settlement in the case captioned LUIS COLLADO,
Plaintiff, v. APEX SUPPLY CO., INC., et. al., Defendants, No. 17
Civ. 727 (HBP) (S.D.N.Y.), and dismissed the action with prejudice
and without costs in light of the settlement.

Plaintiff alleges that he was formerly employed by defendants Apex
Supply Corporation, a hardware equipment and supply retail
business, and its shareholders, Ian Lynch and Matthew Taragano.
Plaintiff seeks to recover allegedly unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York
Labor Law (NYLL).  Plaintiff also asserts a claim based on
defendants' failure to provide certain notice and wage statements
as required by the NYLL.  Plaintiff commenced this action as a
collective action with respect to the FLSA claims, but the parties
reached a settlement before conditional certification.

The Court held a lengthy settlement conference on June 23, 2017,
that was attended by the parties and their counsel. After a
protracted discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the
parties' respective positions, the parties agreed to resolve the
dispute for a total settlement of $30,000.  The agreement also
provides that plaintiff's counsel will receive $550.00 for his
out-of-pocket expenses, $9,815.00 (or approximately 33%) of the
remaining $29,450.00 will be paid to plaintiff's counsel as fees
and the remaining $19,635.00 will be paid to plaintiff.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 19, 2017 Opinion
and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9xrg53bfrom
Leagle.com.

Luis Collado, Plaintiff, represented by Abdul Karim Hassan, Abdul
K. Hassan Law Group PLLC. , 215-28 Hillside Avenue, Queens
Village, NY 11427

Apex Supply Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph R. Curto -
- jcurto@vcsclaw.com -- Veneruso, Curto, Schwartz & Curto, LLP.
Matthew Taragano, Defendant, represented by Joseph R. Curto,
Veneruso, Curto, Schwartz & Curto, LLP.

Ian Lynch, Defendant, represented by Joseph R. Curto, Veneruso,
Curto, Schwartz & Curto, LLP.


AT&T INC: Scott Appeals Ruling in "Bond" Suit to Fourth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intervenor Michael A. Scott filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Tim Bond, on his own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. AT & T Inc., et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-00923-MJG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland at Baltimore.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought for alleged failure to disclose material information
that Cricket would not continue to support the CDMA handsets as a
result of the AT&T acquisition and that the CDMA handsets were not
compatible with AT&T's GSM cellular network.

AT & T Inc. is a Delaware corporation that provides wireless
products and services.  The Company maintains its corporate
headquarters in Dallas, Texas.

The appellate case is captioned as Michael A. Scott v. Tim Bond,
Case No. 17-2288, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Case Initial forms due within 14 days;

   -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on December 12, 2017;
      and

   -- Response Brief is due on January 11, 2018.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee TIM BOND, on his own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Cory Lev Zajdel, Esq.
          Z LAW, LLC
          2345 York Road
          Timonium, MD 21093
          Telephone: (443) 213-1977
          E-mail: clz@zlawmaryland.com

Intervenor-Appellant MICHAEL A. SCOTT is represented by:

          Benjamin Howard Carney, Esq.
          Martin Eugene Wolf, Esq.
          GORDON & WOLF, CHTD
          100 West Pennsylvania Avenue
          Towson, MD 21204-0000
          Telephone: (410) 825-2300
          Facsimile: (410) 825-0066
          E-mail: bcarney@GWCfirm.com
                  mwolf@GWCfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, is represented by:

          Ann Marie Duffy, Esq.
          Archis Ashok Parasharami, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN, LLP
          1999 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006-1101
          Telephone: (202) 263-3418
          Facsimile: (202) 263-3300
          E-mail: aduffy@mayerbrown.com
                  aparasharami@mayerbrown.com

               - and -

          Daniel R. Lanier, Esq.
          John Edward McCann, Jr., Esq.
          Lynn Christina Schlie, Esq.
          MILES & STOCKBRIDGE, PC
          100 Light Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 385-3651
          E-mail: dlanier@milesstockbridge.com
                  jmccann@milesstockbridge.com
                  lschlie@milesstockbridge.com


AVALANCHE CARE: "Jackson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Banetta Jackson, and all others similarly-situated v. Avalanche
Care, Inc., Karl Pierre, Guy Dorvilus, and Jorge Espinal, Case No.
1:17-cv-06217 (E.D. N.Y., October 24, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid wages, unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Banetta Jackson resides in Queens, New York. Plaintiff
works for the Defendants as a home health aide.

Corporate Defendant is a New York State Licensed Home Health Care
Services Agency providing personal care and skilled services
throughout the five boroughs of NYC including the following
Counties: Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Putnam, & Rockland.

Defendant Karl Pierre is the Chief Operating Officer of Corporate
Defendant.

Defendant Guy Dorvilus is the Chief Financial Officer of Corporate
Defendant.

Defendant Jorge Espinal is the Human Resource Coordinator of
Corporate Defendant. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jordan El-Hag, Esq.
      EL-HAG & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      777 Westchester Ave, Suite 101
      White Plains, NY 10604
      Tel: (914) 755-1579
      Fax: (914) 206-4176
      E-mail: Jordan@elhaglaw.com


AXA EQUITABLE: Partial Bid to Junk Brach Foundation Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York denied AXA's partial motion to dismiss the
case, BRACH FAMILY FOUNDATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. AXA EQUITABLE
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-740 (JMF) (S.D.
N.Y.), but granted its request to keep under seal Exhibits B and E
to the Ard Declaration.

In this putative class action, Brach Foundation alleges that, by
increasing the cost of insurance for a group of life insurance
policyholders, AXA breached the terms of the policies at issue and
made material misrepresentations in violation of Section 4226 of
the New York Insurance Law.

In an Opinion and Order entered on Dec. 19, 2016, the Court denied
AXA's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's contract claim, but
granted AXA's motion to dismiss the Section 4226 claim on the
ground that the claim sounded in fraud and failed to meet the
heightened pleading standards set forth in Rule 9(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The Section 4226 claim fell
short, the Court explained that although the Complaint alleged
that AXA issued and circulated false or misleading illustrations
and annual statements and filed false or misleading
interrogatories with its regulators, it failed to identify any
specific illustration, annual statement, or interrogatory.

On Jan. 27, 2017, with the Court's leave, the Brach Foundation
filed its Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") to remedy that defect.
AXA now moves to dismiss the amended Section 4226 claim.

Upon due consideration of the parties' submissions, Judge Furman
denied AXA's motion.  He explains that in stark contrast to the
earlier Complaint, the SAC alleges that AXA disseminated 20 false
and misleading illustrations, and nine false and misleading
interrogatories, and describes them at length.  Indeed, the SAC
provides ample detail as to the timing and nature of the allegedly
fraudulent materials in question and also explains in depth their
alleged import.  These allegations are more than enough to
distinguish the SAC from complaints that the Court and other
courts have found wanting under Rule 9(b).

Turning to AXA's request to keep under seal two exhibits filed by
the Brach Foundation in support of its opposition to the motion to
dismiss (specifically, Exhibits B and E to the Declaration of Seth
Ard), and to redact references to those exhibits in the parties'
other submissions, Judge Furman concludes that AXA's request is
well founded.  In any event, any presumption in favor of public
access would be overcome here, as the Court did not consider
materials at issue in deciding AXA's motion and the exhibits are
highly sensitive documents that discuss proprietary actuarial
assumptions, processes, methodologies, and judgments that continue
to inform or reflect AXA's current mortality assumptions.  Those
considerations are sufficient to keep the exhibits and any
references to the exhibits under seal.

For the reasons he stated, Judge Furman denied AXA's partial
motion to dismiss is denied, but granted its request to keep under
seal Exhibits B and E to the Ard Declaration.  To the extent they
have not done so already, the parties will promptly file (i) with
the Sealed Records Department Exhibits B and E to the Ard
Declaration and unredacted versions of any documents referencing
them, and (ii) on ECF any other materials that are not already on
the docket in unredacted form.  He directed the Clerk of Court to
terminate Docket No. 74.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/AzJXWb from Leagle.com.

Brach Family Foundation, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Frances
Sarah Lewis -- fgradijan@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP.

Brach Family Foundation, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Glenn
Charles Bridgman -- gbridgman@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey
LLP, Mark P. Musico -- mmusico@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey
LLP, Rohit Nath -- rnath@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP,
Steven Gerald Sklaver -- ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman
Godfrey L.L.P. & Seth D. Ard -- sard@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman
Godfrey LLP.

Secondary Life Three LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Deborah
Kravitz -- dkravitz@kamberlaw.com -- Kamber Law LLP, Leonard W.
Aragon -- leonard@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Michael Aschenbrener -- masch@kamberlaw.com -- Kamber Law LLC,
Robert B. Carey -- rob@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Scott Adam Kamber, Kamber Law LLC & Scott Adam Kamber,
KamberLaw, LLC.

Jeremy Wenokur, Plaintiff, represented by Deborah Kravitz, Kamber
Law LLP, Leonard W. Aragon, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Michael Aschenbrener, Kamber Law LLC, Robert B. Carey, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Scott Adam Kamber, Kamber Law LLC &
Scott Adam Kamber, KamberLaw, LLC.

AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Daniel Robert Walfish -- dwalfish@milbank.com -- Milbank, Tweed,
Hadley & McCloy LLP, David Robert Gelfand -- dgelfand@milbank.com
-- Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP & Stacey Jill Rappaport --
srappaport@milbank.com -- Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP.


BEAR STATE FINANCIAL: "Parshall" Hits Merger, Seeks Projections
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Parshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bear State Financial, Inc., Bear State
Bank, Richard N. Massey, Dabbs Ca Vin, Daniel C. Horton, Aaron
Clark, Frankl. Conner, Scott T. Ford, Brock Gearhart, Omon
Fitzgerald Hill, Ian Robert Vaughan, John J. Ghirardelli, Matt
Machen, William J. Changose, Arvest Bank, and Arvest Acquisition
Sub, Inc., Case No. 17-cv-00669, (E.D. Ark., October 13, 2017),
seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants and all
persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing the acquisition of Bear State Financial,
Inc., Bear State Bank and Bear State Financial by Arvest Bank and
Arvest Acquisition Sub, Inc., recissory damages in case the merger
pushes through, reasonable allowance for Plaintiff's attorneys'
and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

Pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement, Bear State
Financial stockholders will receive $10.28 in cash for each share
of Bear State Financial common stock they own.

The complaint says the merger consideration fails to disclose
projections, estimated earnings per share and tangible book value
per share for December 31, 2017 through December 31, 2022 on a
stand-alone basis as well as any other projection line items for
the company. The disclosure of projected financial information is
material because it provides stockholders with a basis to project
the future financial performance of a company and allows
stockholders to better understand the financial analyses in
support of its fairness opinion over the deal price, it adds.

Bear State Financial is an Arkansas corporation and bank holding
company. Bear State Bank is a state chartered bank that conducts
business through 48 banking locations and three loan production
offices that are located in various communities in Arkansas,
Missouri and Oklahoma, offering financial products to individuals
and business customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      (302) 295-5310

            - and -

      RM LAW, P.C.
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (484) 324-6800

             - and -

      David G. Scott, Esq.
      EMERSON SCOTT LLP
      1301 Scott Street
      Little Rock, AR 72202
      Telephone: (501) 907-2555
      Facsimile: (501) 907-2556
      Email: dscott@emersonfirm.com

             - and -

      John G. Emerson, Esq.
      EMERSON SCOTT, LLP
      830 Apollo Lane
      Houston, TX 77058
      Telephone: (281) 488-8854
      Facsimile: (281) 488-8867
      Email: jemerson@emersonfirm.com


BEDROCK PC: "Qualls" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Qualls, and all others similarly-situated v. Bedrock PC
1099, LLC, Case No. 4:17-cv-03232 (S.D. Tex., October 24, 2017),
seeks to recover overtime compensation and all other available
remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New
Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

Defendant Bedrock PC 1099, LLC was formerly a joint and/or co-
employer of Plaintiff Marcus Qualls.  Mr. Qualls worked as a
"Consultant" for Bedrock's client, EOG, from April of 2017 until
August of 2017. The Plaintiff was interviewed and was hired
through Bedrock, and he worked exclusively as a Consultant on
EOG's drilling rigs. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Borsellino, Esq.
      BORSELLINO, P.C.
      1020 Macon St., Suite 15
      Fort Worth, TX 76102
      Tel: (817) 908-9861
      Fax: (817) 394-2412
      E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com


BIMBO BAKERIES: "Oddo" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on July 13, 2017 titled Christopher
Oddo, Philip Brucato, and Michael Lennon, on behalf of himself and
those similarly situated v. Bimbo Bakeries U.S.A. Inc. and John
Does 1-10, Case No. 16-04267 was removed from the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-04775-PD to the proceeding.

The case alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Bimbo Bakeries U.S.A. Inc. operates a Mexican multinational bakery
product manufacturing company in New Jersey. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
      Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
      SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC
      1101 Kings Highway, North, Suite 402
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08032
      Telephone: (856) 685-7420
      E-mail: jboyette@swartz-legal.com
              MMILLER@SWARTZ-LEGAL.COM

The Defendant is represented by:

      Bradley Crowell, Esq.
      MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
      1701 Market Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 963-5845
      E-mail: bradley.crowell@morganlewis.com

         - and -

      James P. Walsh Jr., Esq.
      MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
      2000 One Logan Square
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 963-5511
      E-mail: james.walsh@morganlewis.com

         - and -

      Sean P. Lynch, Esq.
      MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
      502 Carnegie Center
      Princeton, NJ 08540
      Telephone: (609) 919-6611
      E-mail: slynch@morganlewis.com


BLUE APRON: Hill Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid OT, Final Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Hill on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v. Blue April LLC,
Blue Apron Market LLC and Does 1-100, Case No. RG17878905 (Cal.
Super., October 16, 2017), seeks seeking unpaid wages, overtime,
meal and rest period compensation, final pay, penalties,
injunctive and other equitable relief and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Blue Apron operates an e-commerce marketplace that delivers
original recipes and fresh ingredients packaged as fresh meal-kits
and operates industrial stores and warehouses within Alameda CA
where Hill worked as a warehouse staff. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BMW AG: Stanley Files Suit Over Anti-trust Activities
-----------------------------------------------------
Edwin Herbert Stanley and William Bankhead Nelson, Plaintiff, on
behalf of himself and 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.,
Daimler AG, Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC,
Mercedesbenz U.S. International, Inc., Robert Bosch GMBH and
Robert Bosch LLC, Case No. 17-cv-05906, (N.D. Cal., October 13,
2017), seeks damages and injunctive relief, pursuant to federal
antitrust law and state antitrust, unfair competition in
particular the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.

Defendants have reportedly been secretly colluding with each other
since the 1990s on matters ranging from car development, gasoline
engines, diesel engines, brakes, transmissions, gearboxes, choices
of suppliers, emissions controls and even prices for spare parts
supplied by Robert Bosch.

Stanley purchased a 2013 Audi S7 from Huntsville Audi in
Huntsville, Madison County, Alabama. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
     ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
     155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Telephone: (415) 986-1400
     Facsimile: (415) 986-1474
     Email: jennie@andrusanderson.com


BMW AG: Sued by Sasson for Anti-trust Activities
------------------------------------------------
Elie Sasson, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and 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., Daimler AG, Mercedes-Benz USA,
LLC, Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC, Mercedesbenz U.S. International,
Inc., Robert Bosch GMBH and Robert Bosch LLC, Case No. 17-cv-
05904, (N.D. Cal., October 13, 2017), seeks damages and injunctive
relief, pursuant to federal antitrust law and state antitrust,
unfair competition in particular the Sherman Act and the Clayton
Act.

Defendants have reportedly been secretly colluding with each other
since the 1990s on matters ranging from car development, gasoline
engines, diesel engines, brakes, transmissions, gearboxes, choices
of suppliers, emissions controls and even prices for spare parts
supplied by Robert Bosch.

Sasson leased a new BMW 435i hardtop convertible in 2016 from an
authorized BMW dealer in California and claims to have paid
excessively inflated prices for German automobiles. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq.
     ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
     155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Telephone: (415) 986-1400
     Facsimile: (415) 986-1474
     Email: jennie@andrusanderson.com


BRAMAN HYUNDAI: "Schaevitz" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Marc Schaevitz, and all others similarly-situated v. Braman
Hyundai, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-23890 (S.D. Fla., October 24,
2017), seeks statutory damages under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Defendant owns and operates a new and used vehicle dealership
in Miami, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
      HIRALDO P.A.
      401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Tel: (954) 400-4713
      E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

          - and -

      Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
      SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
      14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33132
      Tel: (305) 479-2299
      Fax: (786) 623-0915
      E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


BRICKLANE CURRY: Miranda Sues for Denied Mininum, Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Filogonio Miranda, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bricklane Curry House Too Inc. (d/b/a
Brick Lane Curry House), BLCH I LLC (d/b/a Brick Lane Curry House)
and Satinder Sharma, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-07997, (S.D. N.Y.,
October 17, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York
Labor Law, spread-of-hours, applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Brick Lane Curry House is a chain of Indian restaurants owned by
Satinder Sharma, where Plaintiff worked as a delivery person
assigned to their locations at 235 E 53rd St, New York, NY 10022
and at 99 2nd Ave New York, NY 10003. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200


BUCKSKIN'S SALOON: "Greer" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Courtney Greer, and all others similarly-situated v. Buckskin's
Saloon LLC, Lon Allen Bale, and Laura Bale, Case No. 1:17-cv-02551
(D. Colo., October 24, 2017), is brought against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado
Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiff Courtney Greer is a resident in Douglas County, Colorado
and worked as server for the Defendants from August 2017 to
September 2017.

Defendants own and operate a bar in Douglas County, Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
      THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC
      P.O. Box 97066
      Phoenix, AZ 85060
      Tel: (480) 382-5176
      Fax: (480) 304-3805
      E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com


BURRITO DEL MAR: "Ordaz" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Maria Ordaz on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Burrito Del Mar, LLC and Lani
Alviar, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-02389 (D. Colo., October 3,
2017), seeks compensatory and liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, costs and attorney fees and such other and
further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado
Minimum Wage Order.

Ordaz worked for Defendants' frozen burrito production enterprise
as an hourly food preparation worker.  She claims to have worked
beyond forty hours each workweek and beyond twelve each workday.
Defendants also refused to provide her rest periods as required by
Colorado law. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandt Milstein, Esq.
      MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE
      595 Canyon Boulevard
      Boulder, CO 80302
      Tel: (303) 440-8780
      Email: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com


CALIFORNIA: Cal. App. Affirms Atty Fees Order in "Woosley" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lamar W. Baker of the Court of Appeals of California for the
Second District, Division Five, affirmed the trial court's
attorney fees order the case, CHARLES PATRICK WOOSLEY, Plaintiff
and Appellant, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants and
Appellants, Case No. B275402 (Cal. App.).

Woosley filed a class action in 1978 alleging the Defendants and
appellants the State of California, through the Department of
Motor Vehicles and the State Board of Equalization ("State")
unconstitutionally collected vehicle license fees and use taxes.
The trial court certified two classes and entered judgment for the
Plaintiffs in the 1980s.

In the 1990s, the trial court certified newly defined classes.  In
the early-to-mid 2000s, it held a new trial on liability and
conducted various proceedings pertaining to class membership and
the claims process.  After litigating a class action for
approximately 30 years, the Plaintiffs, made their case for
attorney fees.

In 2014, the trial court awarded fees to the Plaintiffs' Counsel,
but reduced their lodestar hours and applied only a small
multiplier (no multiplier for Woosely) after taking into
consideration the results ultimately obtained in the underlying
litigation.  The resulting fee awards for the Plaintiffs'
Counsel's work on the merits of the class action totaled
$62,006.37 for Jones Bell, $1,690,417.19 for the Gansinger Firm,
$165,750 for the Busetti Firm, and $418,821.68 for Woosley.  The
trial court separately awarded Plaintiffs' Counsel the following
attorney fees for work on their fee applications: $14,332.50 to
Jones Bell, $80,010 to the Gansinger Firm, $15,600 to the Busetti
Firm, and $70,000 to Woosley.  The court rejected some of the
hours claimed by counsel as excessive but did not explicitly
reduce the fees on fees award for lack of success.

In 2016, the trial court awarded the Plaintiffs' Counsel
additional fees for their work in pursuing the 2014 fee awards.
The trial court awarded them the following amounts: to the
Gansinger Firm, $404,275.75 in attorney fees and $5,281.87 in
costs; to the Busetti Firm, $32,260 in attorney fees and $60 in
costs; to Jones Bell, $122,083.50 in attorney fees and $393.57 in
costs; and to Woosley, $277,592 in attorney fees and $60 in costs.
The trial court awarded substantially fewer costs than those
requested by the Plaintiffs' Counsel.  It found the costs claimed
were in many cases unrecoverable or vaguely described.

The State appeals, and Woosley cross-appeals, the trial court's
attorney fees order.  The Gansinger Firm, the Busetti Firm, and
Jones Bell do not challenge the fee award, and they are
respondents only in the proceeding.

Judge Baker explains that to the extent the Plaintiffs' Counsel
failed to defend their prior fee awards, that failure pertained
only to the amounts awarded and not to a wholesale rejection of a
principal basis for their claims, as was the case in the
underlying litigation.  Because the trial court applied the proper
standards in determining the attorney fee awards in the case and
because those awards are supported by a reasonable basis in the
record, the Judge finds no abuse of discretion.

The Judge also finds that the trial court committed no error when
it determined a reasonable billing rate for calculating Woosley's
award.  It concludes that the trial court's decision not to
enhance Woosley's fee award for risk and delay was not error.  By
the time the Plaintiffs' Counsel applied for the attorney fees at
issue, their entitlement to an award of some amount was all but
inevitable based on their success in the underlying litigation and
their earlier fee award.  Thus, the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in failing to enhance Woosley's award for risk.  Nor
does he think the court abused its discretion by declining to
enhance Woosley's award for the delay in payment.  While a "small"
enhancement "tantamount to an interest rate" for "a significant
delay in the payment of the fees" is permitted, it is not
mandatory.

Accordingly, Judge Baker affirmed the trial court's attorney fees
order.  The Gansinger Firm, the Law Offices of John F. Busetti,
and Jones, Bell, Abbott, Fleming & Fitzgerald are to recover their
costs on appeal from the Defendants.  Woosley will bear his own
costs on appeal.  The Defendants are awarded no costs on appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/24dw5o from Leagle.com.

Patrick G. Woosley, in pro. per., for Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Diane S. Shaw, Senior Assistant
Attorney General, Stephen Lew, Supervising Deputy Attorney
General, Hutchison B. Meltzer, Deputy Attorney General, for
Appellants State of California, Department of Motor Vehicles and
California Department of Fee and Tax Administration.

John B. Murdock for Respondent Law Offices of John F. Busetti.

James M. Gansinger and Eric L. Troff -- eric@btllp.com --for
Respondent The Gansinger Firm.

Jones, Bell, Abbott, Fleming & Fitzgerald, Craig R. Bockman --
crbockman@jonesbell.com -- and Kevin K. Fitzgerald --
kkfitzgerald@jonesbell.com -- for Respondent Jones, Bell, Abbott,
Fleming & Fitzgerald.


CALIFORNIA: Dec. 20 Status Conference in "Coleman" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RALPH COLEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EDMUND G.
BROWN, JR., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:90-cv-0520 KJM DB P
(E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California entered an order explaining
the continuance of the Nov. 3, 2017 contempt hearing setting a
status conference for Dec. 20, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.; and providing
the status conference agenda.

On April 19, 2017, the Court ordered the Defendants to come into
full and permanent compliance with Program Guide timelines for
transfer of inmate-patients to acute and intermediate care
facility programs.  In accordance with the Court's previously
signaled intention to exclude certain periods from this
requirement, the parties were also ordered to develop an addendum
to the Program Guide identifying exceptions to the timelines.  The
Defendants have appealed the April 19, 2017 order.  The appeal is
still pending.

The Court directed the parties to file a joint statement of their
positions on how the Defendants' appeal impacts the Court's
jurisdiction over further proceedings.  In the joint statement,
the Defendants argued that the pending appeal divests the Court of
jurisdiction to decide whether defendants must fully comply with
the Program Guide transfer timelines and to adjudicate contempt
proceedings for any such noncompliance.  In the alternative, the
Defendants requested the Court defer the contempt hearing to avoid
the potential waste of resources in the event the Order is
overturned on appeal.

The Plaintiffs argued that the Court retains jurisdiction over all
issues because the order the Defendants have appealed is neither a
final nor an appealable order.  They have moved to dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

In the meantime, the Court has approved the parties' stipulations
to complete and submit to the Court the proposed addenda creating
exceptions to the Program Guide transfer timelines by Nov. 30,
2017.

At a Sept. 28, 2017 hearing concerning obstacles to compliance
with the 24-hour timeline for transfer to mental health crisis bed
("MHCB") care, the Court noted that it anticipated considering a
full report in November on the status of efforts to comply with
that timeline and, as necessary, enforcement thereof.  In a
follow-up order, the Court resolved three issues considered at the
Sept. 28, 2017 hearing.

Specifically, the Court denied the Defendants' request to start
the 24-hour referral timeline only after in-person clinical
assessments and to allow inmate-patients identified as needing
MHCB level care to be placed in alternative housing pending that
in-person clinical assessment.  It also rejected defendants'
practice of ending the 24-hour transfer timeline when an inmate-
patient is placed in a transport vehicle, rather than when the
inmate-patient is placed in an MHCB.  Finally, it required
development of updated data templates for reporting on access to
MHCB care.

In that order, the Court directed the parties to be prepared at
the Nov. 3, 2017 hearing to provide a filing date for a current,
consolidated Program Guide incorporating all modifications
required by the Court orders issued since March 2006.  The Court
further indicated that the parties should be prepared to address
at that hearing what effect the Court's resolution of the
transportation question noted will have on reporting going
forward.

On Oct. 19, 2017, when the Nov. 3 hearing still remained on
calendar, the Defendants filed a request for clarification of the
scope of that hearing and for a pretrial conference.  The
Plaintiffs responded on Oct. 21, 2017.  The Court has denied the
Defendants' request for pretrial conference and clarification
without prejudice, and provides additional guidance to the parties
in the Order.

In their Oct. 16, 2017 monthly report, Judge Mueller finds that
the Defendants do report that since Sept. 13, 2017, all inmate
patients not subject to a previously agreed-upon exception have
been transferred to acute or ICF inpatient care within Program
Guide timelines.  With this information, the Judge agrees that it
may be useful to assess the sustainability of the Defendants' most
recent compliance efforts as part of any contempt proceeding.  For
the additional reason, she has taken the Nov. 3, 2017 hearing off
calendar, to be reset.

Judge Mueller directed that the agenda for the Dec. 20, 2017
status conference will be as follows:

     a. Confirmation and finalization of the Program Guide addenda
setting forth exceptions to the Program Guide timelines for
transfer to acute inpatient care, ICF inpatient care and MHCBs,
and timelines for completion of the referral process when such
exceptions apply;

     b. Discussion of how the Court's Oct. 10, 2017 order
addressing transportation time for transfer to mental health
crisis beds (MHCBs) affects future reporting;

     c. Update on the effectiveness of steps defendants are taking
to improve the timeliness of MHCB transfers;

     d. Discussion of a timeframe for submission of new templates
for reporting on MHCB transfers and for issuance of an enforcement
order, if necessary, to achieve compliance with the Program
Guide's 24-hour timeline for transfer to MHCB care; and

     e. Determination of a filing date for a current, consolidated
Program Guide incorporating all modifications required by court
orders issued since March 2006.

With respect to item "a," the Judge expects the parties will
submit on or before Nov. 30, 2017 a joint statement proposing
language for addenda to the Program Guide as required by the
Court's April 19, 2017 order and in accordance with their Court-
approved stipulations.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/jCn8Ji from Leagle.com.

Matthew A. Lopes, Jr, Special Master, Pro Se.

Ralph Coleman, Plaintiff, represented by Cara E. Trapani --
ctrapani@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Claudia B.
Center, American Civil Liberties Union, Donald Specter, Prison Law
Office, Ernest Galvan -- egalvan@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan &
Grunfeld LLP, Jane E. Kahn -- kahn@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien &
Galvan, LLP, Jeffrey L. Bornstein -- jbornstein@rbgg.com -- Rosen
Bien Galvan Grunfeld LLP, Jenny Snay Yelin -- jyelin@rbgg.com --
Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Krista Michelle Stone-Manista --
KStone-Manista@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld, Lisa
Adrienne Ells -- lells@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld
LLP, Margot Knight Mendelson, Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld,
Michael Bien -- mbien@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld
LLP, Thomas Bengt Nolan -- nolan@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien Galvan &
Grunfeld LLP, Jessica L. Winter -- jwinter@rbgg.com -- Rosen Bien
Galvan & Grunfeld LLP & Michael S. Nunez -- mnunez@rbgg.com --
Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Defendant, represented by Chad A. Stegeman,
California Department of Justice, Christine Marie Ciccotti, Office
of the Attorney General, Danielle Felice O'Bannon, Department of
Justice, Elise Owens Thorn, CA Department of Justice, Office of
the Attorney General, Jay Craig Russell, Office of the Attorney
General, Tyler Vance Heath, Attorney General's Office for the
State of California, Xavier Becerra, CA Office of the Attorney
General, Kevin Allen Voth, California Department Of Justice &
Damon Grant McClain, Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney
General.

Michael Cohen, Defendant, represented by Chad A. Stegeman,
California Department of Justice, Christine Marie Ciccotti, Office
of the Attorney General, Damon Grant McClain, Department of
Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Danielle Felice O'Bannon,
Department of Justice, Elise Owens Thorn, CA Department of
Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Jay Craig Russell, Office
of the Attorney General, Tyler Vance Heath, Attorney General's
Office for the State of California, Xavier Becerra, CA Office of
the Attorney General & Kevin Allen Voth, California Department Of
Justice.

Scott Kernan, Defendant, represented by Chad A. Stegeman,
California Department of Justice, Christine Marie Ciccotti, Office
of the Attorney General, Damon Grant McClain, Department of
Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Danielle Felice O'Bannon,
Department of Justice, Elise Owens Thorn, CA Department of
Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Jay Craig Russell, Office
of the Attorney General, Tyler Vance Heath, Attorney General's
Office for the State of California, Xavier Becerra, CA Office of
the Attorney General & Kevin Allen Voth, California Department Of
Justice.

Pamela Ahlin, Defendant, represented by Chad A. Stegeman,
California Department of Justice, Christine Marie Ciccotti, Office
of the Attorney General, Damon Grant McClain, Department of
Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Danielle Felice O'Bannon,
Department of Justice, Elise Owens Thorn, CA Department of
Justice, Office of the Attorney General, Jay Craig Russell, Office
of the Attorney General, Tyler Vance Heath, Attorney General's
Office for the State of California, Xavier Becerra, CA Office of
the Attorney General & Kevin Allen Voth, California Department Of
Justice.

State of California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
Unknown, represented by Steven Paul Saxton --
ssaxton@downeybrand.com -- Downey Brand LLP.

J. Clark Kelso, Receiver, represented by Martin H. Dodd, Futterman
Dupree Dodd Croley Maier LLP.

Psychology Shield, Amicus, represented by Arthur M. Chenen,
Theodora Oringher Miller and Richman PC.

California Psychiatric Association, Amicus, represented by Paul
Andrew Hemesath, United States Attorney's Office.

SEIU Local 1000, Amicus, represented by Rocco Robert Paternoster,
Service Employees International Union.

Californians United for a Responsible Budget, Amicus, represented
by Cassie M. Pierson, Legal Services For Prisoners With Children.

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., Amicus,
represented by Michael Stone Romano -- mromano@stanford.edu --
Three Strikes Project, Stanford Law School.

California Correctional Peace Officers Association, Intervenor,
represented by David Allen Sanders, California Correctional Peace
Officers Association, Donald Paul Bird, II -- paul@majlabor.com --
Messing Adam & Jasmine LLP & Gregg McLean Adam --
gregg@majlabor.com -- Messing Adam & Jasmine Llp.

Office of the Inspector General, Intervenor, represented by James
Casey Spurling, Office Of The Inspector General & Shaun R.
Spillane, Office Of The Inspector General.

Los Angeles Times Communications LLC, Intervenor, represented by
Rochelle L. Wilcox -- rochellewilcox@dwt.com -- Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP.

Elwood Lui, Neutral, represented by Peter E. Davids --
pdavids@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.

Peter Siggins, Neutral, represented by Peter E. Davids, Jones Day.

USA, Neutral, represented by Laura Lee Coon, U.S. Department Of
Justice & Regan Rush, United States Department Of Justice, Civil
Rights Division.


CASCADE COLLECTIONS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lloyd" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Assana Lloyd, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cascade Collections Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-08279
(S.D.N.Y., October 26, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of sending an initial collection letter attempting to
collect a consumer debt without including an appropriate
disclosure that interest, fees and costs are continuously
accruing, or in the alternative, the creditor and the Defendant
has made the decision to waive accruing interest and fees, and
would accept the amount stated on the collection letter as payment
in full.

Cascade Collections Inc. operates a debt collection agency located
at P.O. Box 3166, Salem, OR 97302. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Kohn, Esq.
      RC LAW GROUP, PLLC
      285 Passaic Street
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Telephone: (201) 282-6500
      Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
      E-mail: dkohn@rclawgroup.com


CB&I LLC: "Rando" Suit Hits Unpaid OT Wages, Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Rando and Jason Tatarewitz, for themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CB&I, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
17-cv-02790 (D.S.C., October 13, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages and other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the South Carolina Payment of
Wages Act.

CB&I is a provider of technology and infrastructure for the energy
industry. Plaintiffs entered into a contract with CB&I where they
would provide services and labor to Defendant in exchange for
agreed-upon wages. Defendant breached the contracts by not paying
them all amounts due, including unaccounted overtime, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amy L. Gaffney, Esq.
      Regina Hollins Lewis, Esq.
      GAFFNEY LEWIS & EDWARDS, LLC
      3700 Forest Drive, Suite 400
      Columbia, SC 29204
      Tel: (803) 790-8838
      Fax: (803) 790-8841
      Email: agaffnengglelawfirmĂșom
             rlewis@glelawfirm.com

             - and -

      David B. Yarborough, Jr., Esq.
      William E. Applegate, IV, Esq.
      Christopher J. Bryant, Esq.
      YARBOROUGH APPLEGATE LLC
      291 East Bay Street
      Charleston, SC 29401
      Tel: (843) 972-0150
      Fax: (843) 277-6691
      Email: david@yarboroughapplegate.com
             william@yarboroughapplegate.com
             chris@yarboroughapplegate.com


CELADON GROUP: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Blakley" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs William Blakley, Helen Blakley and Kimberly Smith filed
an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled William
Blakley, et al. v. Celadon Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-
00351-SEB-TAB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs asserted in their First Amended Complaint that the
advances made by Celadon constituted loans in violation of the
Indiana Small Loans Act and Indiana Consumer Loan Act.  The
Plaintiffs further asserted that Celadon's deductions for items,
such as "lease payments, fuel purchases, insurance purchases, and
payroll advances," constituted wage assignments in violation the
Indiana Wage Assignment Act, by including transaction fees in
excess of the permissible 8% rate and by securing agreements for
assignments exceeding 30 days.

The appellate case is captioned as William Blakley, et al. v.
Celadon Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-8022, in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners WILLIAM BLAKLEY, on behalf of himself and
those similarly situated; HELEN BLAKLEY, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated; and KIMBERLY SMITH, on behalf of herself
and those similarly situated, are represented by:

          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC
          1101 N. Kings Highway
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com

Defendants-Respondents CELADON GROUP, INC., CELADON TRUCKING
SERVICES, INCORPORATED, QUALITY COMPANIES, LLC, and QUALITY
EQUIPMENT LEASING, LLC, are represented by:

          Christopher James Eckhart, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
          Ten W. Market Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46204-2971
          Telephone: (317) 637-1777
          E-mail: ceckhart@scopelitis.com


CENTURYLINK INC: Court Consolidates 3 Securities Fraud Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana, Monroe Division, issued a Memorandum and Order granting
Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Similar Cases in the case
captioned BENJAMIN CRAIG, v. CENTURYLINK INC., et al., Civil
Action No. 3:17-CV-01005 (W.D. La.).

Potential class plaintiffs filed Motions to Consolidate similar
cases against Defendant CenturyLink, Inc. and related Defendants
for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Craig alleges a federal securities class action on behalf of all
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired CenturyLink common
stock. Craig alleges that CenturyLink publicly issued materially
false and misleading statements and omitted material facts
regarding its compliance with applicable laws and regulations,
causing its stock prices to artificially inflate. Craig alleges
that he and other investors suffered significant losses and
damages when the truth as to CenturyLink's unlawful business
practices emerged and its stock prices fell.

A related stockholder suit, Scott v. CenturyLink, No. 17-1033
(W.D. La.) (Scott), was filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana, Monroe Division. That case
is also a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons
and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired CenturyLink
securities. In Scott, Plaintiff Don J. Scott (Scott) named as
Defendants CenturyLink, Post, Ewing, and David D. Cole (Cole).
Scott also seeks certification of his suit as a class action,
appointment of Scott as class representative, appointment of
Scott's counsel as Class Counsel, damages, costs, attorney fees,
and injunctive relief.

Two other stockholder suits have been filed against CenturyLink in
the Western District of Louisiana (Monroe Division): Thummeti v.
CenturyLink, et al., 3:17-cv-01065 (W.D. La.). Thus, there are
three stockholder actions against CenturyLink in the Western
District of Louisiana.

There are five factors to consider in determining whether
consolidation is appropriate: (1) same court; (2) common parties;
(3) common questions of law or fact; (4) risk of prejudice or
confusion versus risk of inconsistent adjudications; and (5)
judicial economy.

First, all three cases are in the same court, the United States
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Monroe
Division.

Second, all of the plaintiffs are CenturyLink stockholders. The
cases involve the same core Defendants: CenturyLink, Post, and
Ewing. Scott v. CenturyLink, No. 3:17-1033 names one additional
defendant, Cole, an Executive Vice President of CenturyLink.
Third, all three cases involve common questions of law or fact
(they allege similar complaints)  whether Defendants fraudulently
inflated their stock prices to the detriment of Plaintiff
stockholders, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Fourth, there is little risk of confusion between the different
Plaintiff stockholders, but there is a risk of inconsistent
adjudications in different courts.

Finally, it would clearly be more economical to decide all three
cases together than to do so separately, since they all involve
the same issues of law and fact. All relevant factors favor
consolidation

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 19, 2017
Memorandum Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y984kjetfrom
Leagle.com.

Amarendra Thummeti, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz.

Amarendra Thummeti, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Alexander
Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz & Patrick V. Dahlstrom -
- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz.

CenturyLink Inc, Defendant, represented by Thomas M. Hayes, III --
tom@hhsclaw.com -- Hayes Harkey et al, Brandon Wade Creekbaum --
brandon@hhsclaw.com -- Hayes Harkey et al, George Edward Anhang --
ganhang@cooley.com -- Cooley, pro hac vice & Lyle Roberts --
lroberts@cooley.com -- Cooley, pro hac vice.

Glen F Post, III, Defendant, represented by Thomas M. Hayes, III,
Hayes Harkey et al, Brandon Wade Creekbaum, Hayes Harkey et al,
George Edward Anhang, Cooley, pro hac vice & Lyle Roberts, Cooley,
pro hac vice.

R Stewart Ewing, Jr, Defendant, represented by Thomas M. Hayes,
III, Hayes Harkey et al, Brandon Wade Creekbaum, Hayes Harkey et
al, George Edward Anhang, Cooley, pro hac vice & Lyle Roberts,
Cooley, pro hac vice.


CHEMOURS COMPANY: "Morton" Suit Seeks Damages on Toxic Leaks
------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Morton, and all others similarly-situated v. The Chemours
Company FC, LLC, The Chemours Company, E.I. duPont de Nemours and
Company, Inc., E.I. duPont Chemical Corporation, Ellis H.
McGaughy, and Michael E. Johnson, Case No. 7:17-cv-00197 (E.D.
N.C., October 20, 2017), seeks compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of releases, discharges, spills and leaks of toxic
PFAS and PFECAs and other perfluorinated and polyfluorinated
chemicals, both past and present, from the Fayetteville Works
Facility and property  currently owned by the Chemours Defendants
in Fayetteville, North Carolina.

Plaintiff Roger Morton owns a residential real property at 1343
Stone Chimney Drive, Supply, North Carolina.  Mr. Morton occupies
and resides at that property since 1988.

The Fayetteville Works Site consists of about 2150 acres located
at 22828 NC Highway 87 W, Fayetteville, North Carolina 28306-7332
on the Cumberland-Bladen County Line about 100 miles north of
Wilmington. The Fayetteville Works Site consists of offices,
manufacturing facilities, piping, storage, waste and treatment
facilities, release points, and other related buildings and
operations. The Chemours Defendants currently own and operate at
the Fayetteville Works Site.

The complaint says the DuPont Defendants manufactured, used,
processed and disposed of chemicals containing perflourinated and
polyfluorinated chemicals, including perfluoroalkyl substances,
which are man-made chemicals, at the Fayetteville Works Site.

Defendant Ellis H. McGaughy was at times relevant hereto Plant and
Site Manager of the Fayetteville Works Site for both the DuPont
Defendants and the Chemours Defendants.

Defendant Michael E. Johnson was at times relevant hereto
environmental manager at the Fayetteville Works Site for both the
DuPont Defendants and the Chemours Defendants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary W. Jackson, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF
      JAMES SCOTT FARRIN, P.C.
      280 South Mangum Street, Suite 400
      Durham, NC 27701
      Tel: (919)-688-4991
      E-mail: gjackson@farrin.com

          - and -

      Kevin S. Hannon, Esq.
      THE HANNON LAW FIRM, LLC
      1641 Downing Street
      Denver, CO 80218
      Tel: (303) 861-8800
      E-mail: khannon@hannonlaw.com


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Court Compels Arbitration in "Sparks"
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum granting in part and denying in
part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or to Compel Arbitration in the
case captioned NICOLE SPARKS et al., Individually and on behalf of
all others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE CHILDREN'S
PLACE, Defendants, Civil Action No. 17-1057 (E.D. Pa.).

Nicole Sparks and Amirah Pasha allege that when they worked as
store managers for Defendant The Children's Place, they were not
paid overtime and were misclassified as exempt from the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA") to avoid the payment of
overtime, despite the fact that their job duties did not
significantly differ from non-exempt employees. In their one-count
Complaint, they seek to represent a class of all store managers
who worked in The Children's Place stores located in Pennsylvania
in the past three years.

The Children's Place argues that these claims should be dismissed
under the doctrine of claim splitting. The longstanding rule
against improper claim splitting prohibits a plaintiff from
prosecuting his case piecemeal and requires that all claims
arising out of a single alleged wrong be presented in one action.

In Essex v. Children's Place, Civil Action No. 15-cv-5621
(D.N.J.), a court certified an FLSA collective action involving
the same issues complained of in this case that store managers at
The Children's Place were misclassified as exempt in order to
avoid paying earned overtime compensation. Both of the Named
Plaintiffs in this action opted in to that litigation, and the
same lawyers represent the Plaintiffs in both suits.

Plaintiffs also claim there is a risk that Essex will not be
finally certified for trial, which will lead to their claims being
dismissed from that action without prejudice. They argue that if
they have to wait for their role in Essex to end to bring their
Pennsylvania claims, their claims will be worth less because the
statute of limitations will bar recovery for wages earned more
than three years prior to the filing of the new case.

While this argument does not provide a defense to Plaintiffs'
claim splitting, it does provide a reasonable basis for staying
this matter, just as in Bradley, Case No. 2017 CH 01124, court did
under nearly identical circumstances, rather than dismissing it.
The doctrine of claim splitting is intended to prevent a defendant
from having to deal with piecemeal litigation of the same issues.
Staying the case will prevent The Children's Place from having to
spend resources on duplicative litigation, but will also preserve
the Plaintiffs' claims in the event that Essex is decertified and
the Plaintiffs' claims in that action are dismissed without
prejudice.

The Court will grant in part and deny in part Defendant's motion.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 19, 2017
Memorandum is available at http://tinyurl.com/yd4cm8qzfrom
Leagle.com.

NICOLE SPARKS, Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL A. GALPERN --
mgalpern@lockslaw.com -- LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC.

NICOLE SPARKS, Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL H. REED, KLAFTER
OLSEN & LESSER LLP & SETH R. LESSER, KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP,
Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, New York 10573

AMIRAH PASHA, Plaintiff, represented by MICHAEL A. GALPERN, LOCKS
LAW FIRM LLC, MICHAEL H. REED, KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP & SETH
R. LESSER, KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP.

THE CHILDREN'S PLACE, INC., Defendant, represented by ANDREW J.
VOSS -- avoss@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON PC, MARTHA J. KEON
-- mkeon@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. & RYAN D. FREEMAN
--  rfreeman@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C..


COMPANDSAVE.COM INC: Faces Suit Over TCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------
Twonesha Johnson-Hendricks, and all others similarly-situated v.
Compandsave.com Inc., Does 1 through 10, Case No. 2:17-at-01107
(E.D. Calif., October 24, 2017), seeks damages and any other
available or equitable remedies under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant negligently, knowingly, and
willfully contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular phone in
violation of the TCPA.

Plaintiff Twonesha Johnson-Hendricks is a resident of Vallejo,
California.

Defendant Compandsave.com Inc. is a marketer and seller of
computer products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COMPASS BANK: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Hossfield" TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, denied Compass'
Motion to Dismiss the case, ROBERT HOSSFELD, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COMPASS
BANK and MSR GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-CV-2017-VEH
(N.D. Ala.).

Mr. Hossfeld initiated the purported class action arising under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA") against
Compass on Dec. 15, 2016.  On Feb. 24, 2071, Mr. Hossfeld filed a
first amended complaint that added a second Defendant -- MSR
Group, LLC -- to the litigation.

Pending before the Court is Compass' Motion To Dismiss for Lack of
Standing Pursuant to the Supreme Court's Ruling in Spokeo, Inc. v.
Robins filed on March 17, 2017.  Compass raises two primary issues
in its initial brief.  First, Mr. Hossfeld has not suffered a
concrete and particularized injury in fact, denying the Court
subject matter jurisdiction over the case.  Second, even assuming
Mr. Hossfeld has suffered an injury fact, such an injury is not
traceable to any alleged violation of the TCPA and would occur
anytime Mr. Hossfeld receives a phone call -- even those that are
TCPA compliant.

Judge Hopkins explains that although Compass may not have intended
for Mr. Hossfeld to personally receive these survey calls,
liability for using an autodialing system under Section
227(b)(1)(A)(iii) does not provide a statutory exception if
someone other than the Defendant's intended recipient answers or
receives the call.  Also, none of the standing cases cited by
Compass evaluates particularity under the TCPA through the lens of
what a defendant did or did not intend regarding the actual
recipient of any unsolicited calls.

While Compass is correct that Mr. Hossfeld has not alleged a
persistent pattern or "proliferation of intrusive" automated calls
to his cell phone, the Judge says that argument ignores the plain
wording of the statute and Spokeo's express reaffirmation of
Lujan's earlier recognition that Congress may elevate an otherwise
inadequate harm, such as a single unsolicited call, to concrete
status.

Judge Hopkins finds that the link between Mr. Hossfeld's intrusion
injury and Compass' conduct is neither speculative, nor
attenuated, nor indirect.  Instead, Compass' use of the autodialer
to call Mr. Hossfeld's cell phone number is the direct source that
led to his claimed injury.

Finally, the Judge is not persuaded to follow the traceability
holding first adopted in Romero v. Dep't Stores Nat'l Bank and
subsequently followed in Ewing v. SQM US, Inc.  Instead, he finds
that Mr. Hossfeld's intrusion injury is fairly traceable to
Compass' alleged unlawful conduct under the TCPA.  Further,
because Palm Beach Golf Ctr.-Boca, Inc. v. John G. Sarris, is not
pivotal to the Court's analysis of concreteness or traceability of
an unauthorized telephone call under the TCPA, Compass' objections
to Mr. Hossfeld's reliance upon that pre-Spokeo junk-fax decision
for those issues are moot.

Akin to the injury-in-fact analysis, in the absence of a more
compelling record, the Judge is not persuaded to extend the
prudential standing holding applied in the extreme situation of
Stoops v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. to Mr. Hossfeld's case,
especially when Compass' jurisdictional attack is facial, rather
than factual.

For these reasons, Judge Hopkins denied Compass' Motion.  Further,
the stay of the action is lifted and the parties are ordered to
file their report of their planning meeting within 14 days of the
entry date of this decision.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/aDbfpl from Leagle.com.

Robert Hossfeld, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander H. Burke --
aburke@burkelawllc.com -- BURKE LAW OFFICES LLC.

Robert Hossfeld, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel J. Marovitch --
dmarovitch@burkelawllc.com -- BURKE LAW OFFICES LLC, Gregory S.
Graham, GREGORY S GRAHAM PC & Scott D. Owens --
scott@ScottDOwens.com -- SCOTT D OWENS PA.

MSR Group, LLC, Defendant, represented by Chad R. Fuller --
chad.fuller@troutman.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, pro hac vice,
Jonathan Michael Hooks -- jmhooks@csattorneys.com -- CHRISTIAN &
SMALL LLP, Sharon D. Stuart -- sdstuart@csattorneys.com --
CHRISTIAN & SMALL LLP & Virginia Bell Flynn --
virginia.flynn@troutman.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, pro hac vice.

Compass Bank, Defendant, represented by Gregory C. Cook --
gcook@balch.com -- BALCH & BINGHAM LLP & Jonathan Paul Hoffmann --
jhoffmann@balch.com -- BALCH & BINGHAM LLP.


CR BARD: Bid to File of 2nd Class Cert in "Barraza" Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Maria E. Barraza, et al., Plaintiffs, v. C.
R. Bard Inc., and Bard Peripheral Vascular Inc., Defendants, Case
No. CV16-01374-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz.), Judge David G. Campbell of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona denied the
Plaintiffs' request to file a second motion for class
certification.

The Plaintiffs have had ample opportunity to formulate and
reformulate their proposed class action.  They filed their initial
class complaint on May 5, 2016.  With leave of the Court, the
Plaintiffs filed an amended class complaint on Oct. 4, 2016,
adding a new class representative.  They filed another amended
class complaint on Jan. 12, 2017, adding another class
representative.

The Plaintiffs moved again to amend their complaint on Jan. 13,
2017, but withdrew this motion one month later.  They were
permitted to designate yet another class representative on May 20,
2017.

The Plaintiffs filed a further motion to amend their complaint
with their class certification motion, which the Court permitted
the amendment.  The Court held at least five telephone conferences
with the parties as the Plaintiffs worked through these various
iterations.  Additionally, Plaintiffs' modification of their class
proposal was not limited to these amendments -- they made more
modifications during the class certification process.

The Plaintiffs sought to certify a single class that included all
Bard filter recipients in all of those states.  However, they
changed course at the class certification hearing.  Their counsel
stated that the Plaintiffs no longer were seeking certification of
a single class for all 16 states, but instead were seeking
certification of 16 separate classes, one for each state.  The
Court denied their proposal to add new class representatives for
the five states that lacked representatives.

On Sept. 11, 2017, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  At a subsequent status conference, they
requested an opportunity to file a second motion for class
certification.  The Plaintiffs now propose an entirely new
approach.  They seek to certify a single class limited to
recipients of the Bard G2 filter in Florida, and suggest that the
Court adopt a bellwether-class procedure that allows the parties
and the court to focus pre-trial and trial efforts (other than
discovery) on the claims arising under a single state law, before
turning to litigation of the many other states at issue in this
case.

The Court directed the parties to file memoranda on that issue,
which they did, and held a follow-up telephone conference with the
parties on Nov. 2, 2017.

Judge Campbell denied the Plaintiffs' request to file a second
motion for class certification.  He says this proposal clearly is
not workable.  The Plaintiffs presently have only one class
representative for each of the 11 states, and each representative
has only one kind of Bard filter.  These representatives could not
represent separate classes of persons in their states who have
different kinds of filters, and the Court has already ruled that
it will not permit the addition of new Named Plaintiffs at this
late stage of the litigation.  And if Plaintiffs propose to use
the existing Plaintiffs to assert separate classes for each of the
filters in each of the 11 states, then the Court would be
confronted with scores of potential class actions.

In addition to the ample opportunity the Plaintiffs have had to
fashion their class strategy, the Judge finds no new circumstances
that warrant another class certification motion.

Finally, as to the Plaintiffs' argument during the Nov. 2, 2017
conference that the case remains alive and must be resolved in
some way, Judge Campbell says it's true, but the case without
class certification consists of 11 Plaintiffs.  He asked the
parties to propose a course for resolving their claims.

For these reasons, Judge Campbell denied the Plaintiffs' request
to file a second motion for class certification.  He directed that
on or before Nov. 21, 2017, the parties will file a joint proposal
regarding the future litigation of the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/dPCsvw from Leagle.com.

Maria E Barraza, Plaintiff, represented by Ben C. Martin, Law
Offices of Ben C. Martin.

Maria E Barraza, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Thomas
Kirchmer, Provost & Umphrey Law Firm LLP, Daniel Seltz, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Donald A. Migliori --
dmigliori@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Elizabeth Joan
Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Eric M. Terry --
ETerry@THLawyer.com -- TorHoerman Law LLC, Evan Michael Zucker --
ezucker@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd PC, Hadley L. Matarazzo --
hmatarazzo@faraci.com -- Faraci Lange LLP, Howard L. Nations,
Nations Law Firm, John A. Dalimonte -- info@dalimonterueb.com --
Dalimonte Rueb LLP, Joseph R. Johnson, Babbitt & Johnson PA,
Joseph A. Osborne, Jr., Osborne & Associates, Julia Reed-Zaic --
info@hrzlaw.com -- Heaviside Reed Zaic, Matthew Ryan McCarley,
Fears Nachawati PLLC, Matthew David Schultz, Levin Papantonio
Thomas MItchell Rafferty & Proctor PA, Michael T. Gallagher,
Gallagher Law Firm LLP, Michael A. Kelly, Walkup Melodia Kelly &
Schoenberger, Nathan Craig Van Der Veer, Farris Riley & Pitt LLP,
Ramon Rossi Lopez -- rlopez@lopezmchugh.com
-- Lopez McHugh LLP, Richard S. Lewis -- rlewis@hausfeld.com --
Hausfeld LLP, Russell W. Budd, Baron & Budd PC, Sheila M. Bossier,
Bossier & Associates PLLC, Steven Rotman -- srotman@hausfeld.com -
- Hausfeld LLP, Stuart Goldenberg --
slgoldenberg@goldenberglaw.com -- Goldenberg Law PLLC, Thomas P.
Cartmell, Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, Troy Alexander Brenes --
tbrenes@breneslawgroup.com -- Brenes Law Group, Turner Williamson
Branch, Branch Law Firm & Wendy R. Fleishman, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein LLP.

Thomas Flournay, Plaintiff, represented by Ben C. Martin, Law
Offices of Ben C. Martin, Christopher Thomas Kirchmer, Provost &
Umphrey Law Firm LLP, Daniel Seltz, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Donald A. Migliori, Motley Rice LLC, Elizabeth
Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Eric M.
Terry, TorHoerman Law LLC, Evan Michael Zucker, Baron & Budd PC,
Hadley L. Matarazzo, Faraci Lange LLP, Howard L. Nations, Nations
Law Firm, John A. Dalimonte, Dalimonte Rueb LLP, Joseph R.
Johnson, Babbitt & Johnson PA, Joseph A. Osborne, Jr., Osborne &
Associates, Julia Reed-Zaic, Heaviside Reed Zaic, Matthew Ryan
McCarley, Fears Nachawati PLLC, Matthew David Schultz, Levin
Papantonio Thomas MItchell Rafferty & Proctor PA, Michael T.
Gallagher, Gallagher Law Firm LLP, Michael A. Kelly, Walkup
Melodia Kelly & Schoenberger, Nathan Craig Van Der Veer, Farris
Riley & Pitt LLP, Ramon Rossi Lopez, Lopez McHugh LLP, Richard S.
Lewis, Hausfeld LLP, Russell W. Budd, Baron & Budd PC, Sheila M.
Bossier, Bossier & Associates PLLC, Steven Rotman, Hausfeld LLP,
Stuart Goldenberg, Goldenberg Law PLLC, Thomas P. Cartmell,
Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, Troy Alexander Brenes, Brenes Law Group,
Turner Williamson Branch, Branch Law Firm & Wendy R. Fleishman,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP.

James Holt, Plaintiff, represented by Ben C. Martin, Law Offices
of Ben C. Martin, Christopher Thomas Kirchmer, Provost & Umphrey
Law Firm LLP, Daniel Seltz, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP, Donald A. Migliori, Motley Rice LLC, Elizabeth Joan Cabraser,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Eric M. Terry, TorHoerman
Law LLC, Evan Michael Zucker, Baron & Budd PC, Hadley L.
Matarazzo, Faraci Lange LLP, Howard L. Nations, Nations Law Firm,
John A. Dalimonte, Dalimonte Rueb LLP, Joseph R. Johnson, Babbitt
& Johnson PA, Joseph A. Osborne, Jr., Osborne & Associates, Julia
Reed-Zaic, Heaviside Reed Zaic, Matthew Ryan McCarley, Fears
Nachawati PLLC, Matthew David Schultz, Levin Papantonio Thomas
MItchell Rafferty & Proctor PA, Michael T. Gallagher, Gallagher
Law Firm LLP, Michael A. Kelly, Walkup Melodia Kelly &
Schoenberger, Nathan Craig Van Der Veer, Farris Riley & Pitt LLP,
Ramon Rossi Lopez, Lopez McHugh LLP, Richard S. Lewis, Hausfeld
LLP, Russell W. Budd, Baron & Budd PC, Sheila M. Bossier, Bossier
& Associates PLLC, Steven Rotman, Hausfeld LLP, Stuart Goldenberg,
Goldenberg Law PLLC, Thomas P. Cartmell, Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP,
Troy Alexander Brenes, Brenes Law Group, Turner Williamson Branch,
Branch Law Firm & Wendy R. Fleishman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP.

Gregory Lester, Plaintiff, represented by Ben C. Martin, Law
Offices of Ben C. Martin, Christopher Thomas Kirchmer, Provost &
Umphrey Law Firm LLP, Daniel Seltz, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Donald A. Migliori, Motley Rice LLC, Elizabeth
Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Eric M.
Terry, TorHoerman Law LLC, Evan Michael Zucker, Baron & Budd PC,
Hadley L. Matarazzo, Faraci Lange LLP, Howard L. Nations, Nations
Law Firm, John A. Dalimonte, Dalimonte Rueb LLP, Joseph R.
Johnson, Babbitt & Johnson PA, Joseph A. Osborne, Jr., Osborne &
Associates, Julia Reed-Zaic, Heaviside Reed Zaic, Matthew Ryan
McCarley, Fears Nachawati PLLC, Matthew David Schultz, Levin
Papantonio Thomas MItchell Rafferty & Proctor PA, Michael T.
Gallagher, Gallagher Law Firm LLP, Michael A. Kelly, Walkup
Melodia Kelly & Schoenberger, Nathan Craig Van Der Veer, Farris
Riley & Pitt LLP, Ramon Rossi Lopez, Lopez McHugh LLP, Richard S.
Lewis, Hausfeld LLP, Russell W. Budd, Baron & Budd PC, Sheila M.
Bossier, Bossier & Associates PLLC, Steven Rotman, Hausfeld LLP,
Stuart Goldenberg, Goldenberg Law PLLC, Thomas P. Cartmell,
Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, Troy Alexander Brenes, Brenes Law Group,
Turner Williamson Branch, Branch Law Firm & Wendy R. Fleishman,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP.

Eddie Mims, Plaintiff, represented by Ben C. Martin, Law Offices
of Ben C. Martin, Christopher Thomas Kirchmer, Provost & Umphrey
Law Firm LLP, Daniel Seltz, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP, Donald A. Migliori, Motley Rice LLC, Elizabeth Joan Cabraser,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Eric M. Terry, TorHoerman
Law LLC, Evan Michael Zucker, Baron & Budd PC, Hadley L.
Matarazzo, Faraci Lange LLP, Howard L. Nations, Nations Law Firm,
John A. Dalimonte, Dalimonte Rueb LLP, Joseph R. Johnson, Babbitt
& Johnson PA, Joseph A. Osborne, Jr., Osborne & Associates, Julia
Reed-Zaic, Heaviside Reed Zaic, Matthew Ryan McCarley, Fears
Nachawati PLLC, Matthew David Schultz, Levin Papantonio Thomas
MItchell Rafferty & Proctor PA, Michael T. Gallagher, Gallagher
Law Firm LLP, Michael A. Kelly, Walkup Melodia Kelly &
Schoenberger, Nathan Craig Van Der Veer, Farris Riley & Pitt LLP,
Ramon Rossi Lopez, Lopez McHugh LLP, Richard S. Lewis, Hausfeld
LLP, Russell W. Budd, Baron & Budd PC, Sheila M. Bossier, Bossier
& Associates PLLC, Steven Rotman, Hausfeld LLP, Stuart Goldenberg,
Goldenberg Law PLLC, Thomas P. Cartmell, Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP,
Troy Alexander Brenes, Brenes Law Group, Turner Williamson Branch,
Branch Law Firm & Wendy R. Fleishman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP.

Delmar Lee Peck, Plaintiff, represented by Ben C. Martin, Law
Offices of Ben C. Martin, Christopher Thomas Kirchmer, Provost &
Umphrey Law Firm LLP, Daniel Seltz, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Donald A. Migliori, Motley Rice LLC, Elizabeth
Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Eric M.
Terry, TorHoerman Law LLC, Evan Michael Zucker, Baron & Budd PC,
Hadley L. Matarazzo, Faraci Lange LLP, Howard L. Nations, Nations
Law Firm, John A. Dalimonte, Dalimonte Rueb LLP, Joseph R.
Johnson, Babbitt & Johnson PA, Joseph A. Osborne, Jr., Osborne &
Associates, Julia Reed-Zaic, Heaviside Reed Zaic, Matthew Ryan
McCarley, Fears Nachawati PLLC, Matthew David Schultz, Levin
Papantonio Thomas MItchell Rafferty & Proctor PA, Michael T.
Gallagher, Gallagher Law Firm LLP, Michael A. Kelly, Walkup
Melodia Kelly & Schoenberger, Nathan Craig Van Der Veer, Farris
Riley & Pitt LLP, Ramon Rossi Lopez, Lopez McHugh LLP, Richard S.
Lewis, Hausfeld LLP, Russell W. Budd, Baron & Budd PC, Sheila M.
Bossier, Bossier & Associates PLLC, Steven Rotman, Hausfeld LLP,
Stuart Goldenberg, Goldenberg Law PLLC, Thomas P. Cartmell,
Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, Troy Alexander Brenes, Brenes Law Group,
Turner Williamson Branch, Branch Law Firm & Wendy R. Fleishman,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP.

Denise Tomlin, Plaintiff, represented by Ben C. Martin, Law
Offices of Ben C. Martin, Christopher Thomas Kirchmer, Provost &
Umphrey Law Firm LLP, Daniel Seltz, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Donald A. Migliori, Motley Rice LLC, Elizabeth
Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Eric M.
Terry, TorHoerman Law LLC, Evan Michael Zucker, Baron & Budd PC,
Hadley L. Matarazzo, Faraci Lange LLP, Howard L. Nations, Nations
Law Firm, John A. Dalimonte, Dalimonte Rueb LLP, Joseph R.
Johnson, Babbitt & Johnson PA, Joseph A. Osborne, Jr., Osborne &
Associates, Julia Reed-Zaic, Heaviside Reed Zaic, Matthew Ryan
McCarley, Fears Nachawati PLLC, Matthew David Schultz, Levin
Papantonio Thomas MItchell Rafferty & Proctor PA, Michael T.
Gallagher, Gallagher Law Firm LLP, Michael A. Kelly, Walkup
Melodia Kelly & Schoenberger, Nathan Craig Van Der Veer, Farris
Riley & Pitt LLP, Ramon Rossi Lopez, Lopez McHugh LLP, Richard S.
Lewis, Hausfeld LLP, Russell W. Budd, Baron & Budd PC, Sheila M.
Bossier, Bossier & Associates PLLC, Steven Rotman, Hausfeld LLP,
Stuart Goldenberg, Goldenberg Law PLLC, Thomas P. Cartmell,
Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, Troy Alexander Brenes, Brenes Law Group,
Turner Williamson Branch, Branch Law Firm & Wendy R. Fleishman,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP.

Diane Washington, Plaintiff, represented by Ben C. Martin, Law
Offices of Ben C. Martin, Christopher Thomas Kirchmer, Provost &
Umphrey Law Firm LLP, Daniel Seltz, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Donald A. Migliori, Motley Rice LLC, Elizabeth
Joan Cabraser, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Eric M.
Terry, TorHoerman Law LLC, Evan Michael Zucker, Baron & Budd PC,
Hadley L. Matarazzo, Faraci Lange LLP, Howard L. Nations, Nations
Law Firm, John A. Dalimonte, Dalimonte Rueb LLP, Joseph R.
Johnson, Babbitt & Johnson PA, Joseph A. Osborne, Jr., Osborne &
Associates, Julia Reed-Zaic, Heaviside Reed Zaic, Matthew Ryan
McCarley, Fears Nachawati PLLC, Matthew David Schultz, Levin
Papantonio Thomas MItchell Rafferty & Proctor PA, Michael T.
Gallagher, Gallagher Law Firm LLP, Michael A. Kelly, Walkup
Melodia Kelly & Schoenberger, Nathan Craig Van Der Veer, Farris
Riley & Pitt LLP, Ramon Rossi Lopez, Lopez McHugh LLP, Richard S.
Lewis, Hausfeld LLP, Russell W. Budd, Baron & Budd PC, Sheila M.
Bossier, Bossier & Associates PLLC, Steven Rotman, Hausfeld LLP,
Stuart Goldenberg, Goldenberg Law PLLC, Thomas P. Cartmell,
Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP, Troy Alexander Brenes, Brenes Law Group,
Turner Williamson Branch, Branch Law Firm & Wendy R. Fleishman,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP.

Nancy Mosher, Plaintiff, represented by Ben C. Martin, Law Offices
of Ben C. Martin, Christopher Thomas Kirchmer, Provost & Umphrey
Law Firm LLP, Daniel Seltz, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP, Donald A. Migliori, Motley Rice LLC, Elizabeth Joan Cabraser,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Eric M. Terry, TorHoerman
Law LLC, Evan Michael Zucker, Baron & Budd PC, Hadley L.
Matarazzo, Faraci Lange LLP, Howard L. Nations, Nations Law Firm,
John A. Dalimonte, Dalimonte Rueb LLP, Joseph R. Johnson, Babbitt
& Johnson PA, Joseph A. Osborne, Jr., Osborne & Associates, Julia
Reed-Zaic, Heaviside Reed Zaic, Matthew Ryan McCarley, Fears
Nachawati PLLC, Matthew David Schultz, Levin Papantonio Thomas
MItchell Rafferty & Proctor PA, Michael T. Gallagher, Gallagher
Law Firm LLP, Michael A. Kelly, Walkup Melodia Kelly &
Schoenberger, Nathan Craig Van Der Veer, Farris Riley & Pitt LLP,
Ramon Rossi Lopez, Lopez McHugh LLP, Richard S. Lewis, Hausfeld
LLP, Russell W. Budd, Baron & Budd PC, Sheila M. Bossier, Bossier
& Associates PLLC, Steven Rotman, Hausfeld LLP, Stuart Goldenberg,
Goldenberg Law PLLC, Thomas P. Cartmell, Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP,
Troy Alexander Brenes, Brenes Law Group, Turner Williamson Branch,
Branch Law Firm & Wendy R. Fleishman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP.

C R Bard Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Amanda Christine
Sheridan -- asheridan@swlaw.com -- Snell & Wilmer LLP, James R.
Condo- jcondo@swlaw.com --  Snell & Wilmer LLP, Richard B. North,
Jr. -- richard.north@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLC, Brandee J. Kowalzyk, Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLC, & Elizabeth C. Helm, Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLC, Atlantic Station, 201 17th Street NW, Suite 1700,
Atlanta, GA 30363

Bard Peripheral Vascular Incorporated, Defendant, represented by
Amanda Christine Sheridan, Snell & Wilmer LLP, James R. Condo,
Snell & Wilmer LLP, Richard B. North, Jr., Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLC, Brandee J. Kowalzyk, Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLC & Elizabeth C. Helm, Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLC.


DIMENSION THERAPEUTICS: Faces Suit Over Sale to Ultragenyx
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Rubin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Dimension Therapeutics, Inc., Annalisa
Jenkins, Alan B. Colowick, Michael Dybbs, Georges Gemayel, John A.
Hohneker, George V. Migausky, and Arlene M. Morris, Defendants,
Case No. 17-cv-11992 (D. Mass., October 15, 2017), seeks
compensatory damages resulting from the acquisition of Dimension
by Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc., awarding rescissory damages in
the event defendants consummate the merger, reasonable allowance
for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and
further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Ultragenyx will acquire all outstanding shares of Dimension for
$6.00 in cash per share of Dimension's common stock.

The complaint says the Registration Statement omits financial
projections and the analyses performed by MTS Securities LLC, the
Company's financial advisor, thus rendering Plaintiff unable to
make a fully-informed decision whether to tender their shares in
connection with the merger.

Dimension is a gene therapy platform company that focuses on
discovering and developing therapeutic products for people living
with rare and metabolic diseases associated with the liver.

Ultragenyx is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company bringing
to market products for the treatment of rare and ultra-rare
diseases, with a focus on debilitating genetic diseases. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
      Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212) 682-3025
      Fax: (212) 682-3010

             - and -

      Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq.
      MATORIN LAWOFFICE, LLC
      18 Grove Street, Suite 5
      Wellesley, MA 02482
      Tel: (781) 453-0100
      Email: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com


DONALD TRUMP: Court Partially OK's Production of Docs in "Wagafe"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, at Seattle, issued an Order granting in part and
denying in part Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of
Documents in the case captioned ABDIQAFAR WAGAFE, et al., on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
DONALD TRUMP, President of the United States, et al., Defendants,
Case No. C17-94 RAJ (W.D. Wash.).

The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion to certify two classes: a
Naturalization Class and an Adjustment Class.  The parties have
since been engaged in discovery.  The parties have attempted to
resolve their discovery disputes without court intervention but
have reached an impasse.  Plaintiffs now move the Court to compel
the Government to produce certain documents.

Plaintiffs seek, and the Government refuses to provide, discovery
in four discrete areas: (1) information to allow Plaintiffs to
identify potential class members and why Named Plaintiffs were
subjected to Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program
("CARRP"); (2) responsive documents despite their classified
status, or a privilege log in lieu of the documents; (3) documents
related to two Executive Orders; and (4) documents outside the
scope of national applicability.

Identifying Class Members

The Government argues that the class members' specific identities
are neither relevant nor required for Plaintiffs to pursue this
class action.

The Government contends, broadly, that releasing the identities of
potential class members could lead individuals to potentially
alter their behavior, conceal evidence of wrongdoing, or attempt
to influence others in a way that could affect national security
interests. Such a vague, brief explanation that consists of mere
speculation and a hypothetical result is not sufficient to claim
privilege over basic spreadsheets identifying who is subject to
CARRP.

Even if it were sufficient, the privilege is not automatic; the
Court must balance the need for Plaintiffs to obtain this
information against the Government's reasons for withholding. In
doing so, the Court finds that the balance weigh in favor of
disclosure. The Court notes that there is a protective order in
place and Plaintiffs' attorneys could supplement the protective
order or obtain security clearances to assuage any remaining
concerns on the part of the Government.

Plaintiffs request to know why the Named Plaintiffs were subjected
to CARRP.

The Court finds that this information is relevant to the claims
and Plaintiffs' needs outweigh the Government's reasons for
withholding.

Classified Documents

The Government claims that no relevant classified documents exist.
It appears that the Government only searched for classified
documents that relate to CARRP on a programmatic level.  The
Government asserts that any other documentation is irrelevant.

The Court rejected the Government's conclusory arguments as to
relevance. As such, the Government must either produce the
relevant documents or provide Plaintiffs with a proper privilege
log.

Documents Related to the Executive Orders

The Court is mindful that intruding on the Executive in this
context is a matter of last resort and the Court does not find
that the record before it justifies such an intrusion. However,
the Court orders the parties to meet and confer within thirty (30)
days from the date of this Order to discuss alternative custodians
and non-custodial sources of information for any discovery over
which the Government asserts this specific privilege. The Court
requests a joint status report within five (5) days of the court
ordered conference detailing any resolution of this issue.

Nationwide Applicability

Plaintiffs object to the Government's refusal to produce documents
outside the scope of national applicability. The Government argues
that searching for documents outside of this scope is unduly
burdensome and irrelevant.

To the extent that Plaintiffs seek documents for which the
Government has already searched, the Court grants the request with
the caveat that the Government may produce a privilege log in lieu
of the documents if appropriate.

For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents. The Court
orders the parties to meet and confer and submit a joint status
report thereafter in accordance with this Order.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 19, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/ybaquqjdfrom Leagle.com.

Abdiqafar Wagafe, Plaintiff, represented by David A. Perez --
DPerez@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE.

Abdiqafar Wagafe, Plaintiff, represented by Emily Chiang --
echiang@aclu-wa.org --  ACLU OF WASHINGTON, Glenda Melinda Aldana
Madrid -- glenda@nwirp.org -- NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT,
Harry H. Schneider, Jr. -- hschneider@perkinscoie.com -PERKINS
COIE, Hina Shamsi -- hshamsi@aclu.org -- AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION, pro hac vice, Hugh E. Handeyside --
hhandeyside@aclu.org -- CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG &
MOORE LLP, Jennifer Pasquarella -- jpasquarella@aclusocal.org --
ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, pro hac vice, Kristin
Macleod-Ball -- kmacleodball@immcouncil.org -- AMERICAN
IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice, Lee Gelernt --
lgelernt@aclu.org -- AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION,
pro hac vice, Matt Adams -- matt@nwirp.org -- NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT
RIGHTS PROJECT, Sameer Ahmed -- sahmed@aclusocal.org -- ACLU OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, pro hac vice, Stacy Tolchin --
stacy@tolchinimmigration.com -- LAW OFFICES OF STACY TOLCHIN, pro
hac vice, Trina Realmuto -trealmuto@immcouncil.org -- AMERICAN
IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice, Laura Kaplan Hennessey --
LHennessey@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE & Nicholas Peter
Gellert -- NGellert@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE.

Mehdi Ostadhassan, Plaintiff, represented by David A. Perez,
PERKINS COIE, Emily Chiang, ACLU OF WASHINGTON, Glenda Melinda
Aldana Madrid, NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT, Harry H.
Schneider, Jr., PERKINS COIE, Hina Shamsi, AMERICAN CIVIL
LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, pro hac vice, Hugh E. Handeyside, CORR
CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP, Jennifer
Pasquarella, ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, pro hac vice,
Kristin Macleod-Ball, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice,
Lee Gelernt, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, pro hac
vice, Matt Adams, NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT, Sameer
Ahmed, ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, pro hac vice, Stacy Tolchin,
LAW OFFICES OF STACY TOLCHIN, pro hac vice, Trina Realmuto,
AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice, Laura Kaplan
Hennessey, PERKINS COIE & Nicholas Peter Gellert, PERKINS COIE.
Hanin Omar Bengezi, Plaintiff, represented by Emily Chiang, ACLU
OF WASHINGTON, Glenda Melinda Aldana Madrid, NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT
RIGHTS PROJECT, Harry H. Schneider, Jr., PERKINS COIE, Hina
Shamsi, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, pro hac vice,
Hugh E. Handeyside, CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE
LLP, Jennifer Pasquarella, ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
pro hac vice, Kristin Macleod-Ball, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL,
pro hac vice, Lee Gelernt, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION, pro hac vice, Matt Adams, NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS
PROJECT, Sameer Ahmed, ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, pro hac vice,
Stacy Tolchin, LAW OFFICES OF STACY TOLCHIN, pro hac vice, Trina
Realmuto, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice, Laura Kaplan
Hennessey, PERKINS COIE, Nicholas Peter Gellert, PERKINS COIE &
David A. Perez, PERKINS COIE.

Mushtaq Abed Jihad, Plaintiff, represented by Emily Chiang, ACLU
OF WASHINGTON, Glenda Melinda Aldana Madrid, NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT
RIGHTS PROJECT, Harry H. Schneider, Jr., PERKINS COIE, Hina
Shamsi, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, pro hac vice,
Hugh E. Handeyside, CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE
LLP, Jennifer Pasquarella, ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
pro hac vice, Kristin Macleod-Ball, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL,
pro hac vice, Lee Gelernt, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION, pro hac vice, Matt Adams, NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS
PROJECT, Sameer Ahmed, ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, pro hac vice,
Stacy Tolchin, LAW OFFICES OF STACY TOLCHIN, pro hac vice, Trina
Realmuto, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice, Laura Kaplan
Hennessey, PERKINS COIE, Nicholas Peter Gellert, PERKINS COIE &
David A. Perez, PERKINS COIE.

Sajeel Manzoor, Plaintiff, represented by Emily Chiang, ACLU OF
WASHINGTON, Glenda Melinda Aldana Madrid, NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT
RIGHTS PROJECT, Harry H. Schneider, Jr., PERKINS COIE, Hina
Shamsi, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, pro hac vice,
Hugh E. Handeyside, CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE
LLP, Jennifer Pasquarella, ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
pro hac vice, Kristin Macleod-Ball, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL,
pro hac vice, Lee Gelernt, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION, pro hac vice, Matt Adams, NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS
PROJECT, Sameer Ahmed, ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, pro hac vice,
Stacy Tolchin, LAW OFFICES OF STACY TOLCHIN, pro hac vice, Trina
Realmuto, AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL, pro hac vice, Laura Kaplan
Hennessey, PERKINS COIE, Nicholas Peter Gellert, PERKINS COIE &
David A. Perez, PERKINS COIE.

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Defendant,
represented by Aaron R. Petty -- aaron.r.petty@usdoj.gov -- US
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Edward S. White -- edward.s.white@usdoj.gov
-- US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & Joseph F. Carilli, Jr.-
joseph.f.carilli2@usdoj.gov -- US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

John Kelly, Defendant, represented by Aaron R. Petty, US
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Edward S. White, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE &
Joseph F. Carilli, Jr., US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

Lori Scialabba, Defendant, represented by Aaron R. Petty, US
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Edward S. White, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE &
Joseph F. Carilli, Jr., US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

Matthew D Emrich, Defendant, represented by Aaron R. Petty, US
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Edward S. White, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE &
Joseph F. Carilli, Jr., US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

Daniel M Renaud, Defendant, represented by Aaron R. Petty, US
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Edward S. White, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE &
Joseph F. Carilli, Jr., US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

Donald Trump, Defendant, represented by Aaron R. Petty, US
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Edward S. White, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE &
Joseph F. Carilli, Jr., US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.


CHEMOURS CO: Nix Files Suit Over Toxic Chemical Dumping
-------------------------------------------------------
Brent Nix, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The Chemours Company FC, LLC, The Chemours
Company, E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, Inc., E.I. Dupont
Chemical Corporation, Ellis H. Mcgaughy and Michael E. Johnson,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00046 (E.D. N.C., October 16, 2017),
seeks compensatory and punitive damages arising out of releases,
discharges, spills and leaks of toxic chemicals from the
Fayetteville Works Facility owned by Chemours; loss in value and
marketability of properties owned by Plaintiff; cost of
remediating the properties; cost of mitigating the contaminated
water and/or the cost of alternative water sources; loss of use of
the properties they own; discomfort and inconvenience; cost of
diagnostic testing for the early detection of illness, disease,
and disease process caused by exposure to said toxins all
resulting from trespassing, negligence, nuisance and unjust
enrichment.

Nix owns residential real property at 5008 Laurenbridge Lane,
Wilmington, North Carolina and consumes water supplied by the Cape
Fear Public Utility Authority through water from the Cape Fear
River.

Fayetteville Works Site consists of manufacturing facilities,
piping, storage, waste and treatment facilities owned by Chemours,
a wholly-owned subsidiary of DuPont. Defendants allegedly disposed
of ammonium perfluorooctanoate, a toxic substance, to their
surrounding air, soil and surface water at the Fayetteville Works
Site. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary W. Jackson, Esq.
      280 South Mangum Street, Suite 400
      Durham, NC 27701
      Phone: (919)-688-4991
      Email: gjackson@farrin.com

             - and -

      Kevin S. Hannon, Esq.
      THE HANNON LAW FIRM, LLC
      1641 Downing Street
      Denver, CO 80218
      Phone: (303) 861-8800
      Email: khannon@hannonlaw.com


CREDIT CONTROL: "Klein" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Patricia A. Klein, and all others similarly-situated v. Credit
Control, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-14371 (S.D. Fla., October 24,
2017), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

Plaintiff Patricia A. Klein is a resident of Indian River County,
Florida.

Defendant Credit Control, LLC is a Missouri Limited Liability
Company engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts,
which operates from offices located at 5757 Phantom Drive, Suite
330, Hazelwood, Missouri, 63042. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leo W. Desmond, Esq.
      DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      5070 Highway A1A, Suite D
      Vero Beach, FL 32963
      Tel: (772) 231-9600
      Fax: (772) 231-0300
      E-mail: lwd@desmondlawfirm.com


DSWC INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Consumer Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a
Memorandum affirming the District Court's granting of Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss and Leave to Amend the putative class action
filed by Marilyn Sperling alleging that DSW Shoe Warehouse, Inc.'s
price tags were false or deceptive under California law.

According to the lawsuit, the price tags displayed the
manufacturer's suggested retail price as a compare at price.
Sperling claimed that the price tags were false or deceptive
because she did not understand, nor would a reasonable consumer
have understood, the compare at price to be the manufacturer's
suggested retail price.

Though Sperling alleged that she found shoes elsewhere for a few
dollars less than the compare at price, she did not allege when
she found them, so it could well have been long after her
purchase, when the passage of time could have reduced market
demand for the shoes. Nor do Sperling's other allegations
establish, if proved, that the manufacturer's suggested retail
price was not a fair comparator at the time of her purchase.

The Ninth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Sperling leave to file a third amended
complaint. Sperling was given an opportunity to cure the
deficiencies in her pleading after the district court's guidance
in an earlier dismissal, but she failed to do so.

The appeals case is MARILYN SPERLING, an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DSWC,
INC., an Ohio corporation; and DSW SHOE WAREHOUSE, INC., a
Missouri corporation, Defendants-Appellees, No. 16-55231 (9th
Cir.).

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's October 19, 2017
Memorandum is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9yaeka7from
Leagle.com.


DYNAMIC PET: "Reed" Stayed Pending Settlement Appeal Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge William Q. Hayes of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California granted the parties' Joint Motion to Stay
the case, KHRISTIE REED, on Behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. DYNAMIC PET PRODUCTS; and
FRICK'S MEAT PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-0987-WQH-
DHB (S.D. Cal.).

Reed commenced the class action in May 2015.  A separate class
action was filed in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri,
that names the same two Defendants, alleges similar facts,
concerns similar events, and alleges many similar causes of
action.  The parties to the Missouri action reached a global class
action settlement that, upon court approval, would potentially
resolve the claims pending before this Court.  Reed and other
Plaintiffs in the Missouri action filed objections to the
Settlement.

In light of these developments in the Missouri case, the parties
to this case filed a Joint Motion to Stay this Action, asking the
Court to stay the case until the Missouri Circuit Court ruled on
the objections to the Settlement and the Missouri parties decided
whether or not to appeal that ruling.  The Court granted the Joint
Motion and stayed the case through Sept. 12, 2017.

The Missouri Circuit Court issued an order approving the
Settlement on Aug. 11, 2017, and the objectors, including Reed,
appealed that order on Sept. 11, 2017.  The parties now jointly
request that the Court issue a further stay of this action until
after notice to this Court of a ruling on the appeal of the
Missouri Court settlement, or by ex parte application of either
party at any time.

The Court ordered the parties to show cause, by Oct. 10, 2017, why
this case should not be dismissed without prejudice, with leave
for any party to file a motion to reopen the case at any time.
The parties each filed a response to the Order to Show Cause on
Oct. 10, 2017.

Having reviewed the Joint Status Report, the parties' responses to
the Order to Show Cause (ECF Nos. 91 and 92), and the record of
this action, Judge Hayes concludes that the action should be
stayed while the Missouri Court of Appeals reviews the order
approving the Settlement.  Accordingly, he stayed the action until
this Court receives notice of the Missouri Court of Appeals'
ruling on the appeal of the order approving the Settlement.

The Judge directed the parties to file status reports (i) 90 days
from the date of his Order, (ii) every 90 days thereafter until
the Missouri Court of Appeals issues a ruling on the appeal, and
(iii) within 10 days of the Missouri Court of Appeals' ruling on
the appeal.  The Clerk of the Court will administratively close
the action without prejudice to any party and with leave to be
reopened by the Court upon notification that the Missouri Court of
Appeals ruled on the appeal.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ouVzBa from Leagle.com.

Khristie Reed, Plaintiff, represented by Leslie E. Hurst --
lhurst@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP.

Khristie Reed, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Gordon Blood --
tblood@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP.

Paul Benesch, Plaintiff, represented by Leslie E. Hurst, Blood
Hurst & O'Reardon LLP & Timothy Gordon Blood, Blood Hurst &
O'Reardon LLP.

Rebecca Brandel, Plaintiff, represented by Leslie E. Hurst, Blood
Hurst & O'Reardon LLP & Timothy Gordon Blood, Blood Hurst &
O'Reardon LLP.

Diane Canutt, Plaintiff, represented by Leslie E. Hurst, Blood
Hurst & O'Reardon LLP & Timothy Gordon Blood, Blood Hurst &
O'Reardon LLP.

Rod Canutt, Plaintiff, represented by Leslie E. Hurst, Blood Hurst
& O'Reardon LLP & Timothy Gordon Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon
LLP.

Rene Lucht, Plaintiff, represented by Leslie E. Hurst, Blood Hurst
& O'Reardon LLP & Timothy Gordon Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon
LLP.

Diane Ortman, Plaintiff, represented by Leslie E. Hurst, Blood
Hurst & O'Reardon LLP & Timothy Gordon Blood, Blood Hurst &
O'Reardon LLP.

Kris Vosburgh, Plaintiff, represented by Leslie E. Hurst, Blood
Hurst & O'Reardon LLP & Timothy Gordon Blood, Blood Hurst &
O'Reardon LLP.

Crystal Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Leslie E. Hurst, Blood
Hurst & O'Reardon LLP & Timothy Gordon Blood, Blood Hurst &
O'Reardon LLP.

Dynamic Pet Products, Defendant, represented by Daniel E. Tranen -
- daniel.tranen@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser, pro hac vice,
David Joseph Aveni -- david.aveni@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser
Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP, Gregory Dean Hagen --
gregory.hagen@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman &
Dicker LLP & Michael S. Weisenbach --
michael.weisenbach@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser, pro hac vice.

Frick's Meat Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel E.
Tranen, Wilson Elser, pro hac vice, David Joseph Aveni, Wilson
Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP, Gregory Dean Hagen, Wilson
Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP & Michael S. Weisenbach,
Wilson Elser, pro hac vice.


EOS CCA: "Singh" Disputes Vague Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------
Nirvana Singh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. EOS CCA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-
06071, (E.D. N.Y., October 17, 2017), seeks damages, attorneys'
fees, costs and such other relief under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

EOS CCA, Inc., is a Massachusetts Corporation with a principal
place of business in Plymouth County, Massachusetts. It is
regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of debts
allegedly owed by consumers. Defendant alleges Plaintiff owes a
debt that fell behind on payments owed. In its efforts to collect,
Defendant contacted Plaintiff by letter, however, said letter
fails to provide information that would allow Plaintiff to
determine what Plaintiff will need to pay to resolve the debt at
any given moment in the future, the amount needed to pay to
resolve the debt at any given moment in the future, explanation of
the fees that may cause the amount stated to increase and the
details of the "Fees Coll. Costs" item on the letter, thus
rendering the Plaintiff unable to determine the exact amount of
the debt. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
      BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel: (516) 203-7600
      Fax: (516) 706-5055
      Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


EQUIFAX INC: Meade Files Suit Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------
Suzanne Meade, Brenda Kay Wygal and Edward Wygal, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Equifax, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-03886, (N.D. Ga., October
4, 2017), seeks appropriate injunctive relief designed to ensure
against the recurrence of a data breach by adopting and
implementing the best security data practices to safeguard
customers' financial and personal information and that would
include, without limitation, an order and judgment directing
Equifax to encrypt and protect all data and directing Equifax to
provide to Plaintiffs and Class members extended credit monitoring
services, pre judgment and post-judgment interest, costs of suit,
including reasonable attorneys' fees and such other and further
relief resulting from negligence and under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act and Ohio Consumer Sales Practice Act.

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

Plaintiffs blame Equifax for failure to safeguard personally
identifiable information during the data breach. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark D. Lewis, Esq.
      KITRICK, LEWIS, & HARRIS, CO. LPA
      445 Hutchinson Avenue, Suite 100
      Community Corporate Center
      Columbus, OH 43235-8630
      Phone: (614) 224-7711
      Fax: (614) 225-8985
      Email: mlewis@klhlaw.com

             - and -

      Robert J. Wagoner, Esq.
      ROBERT J. WAGONER, CO., L.L.C.
      445 Hutchinson Avenue, Suite 100
      Columbus, OH 43235
      Phone (614) 796-4110
      Fax (614) 796-4111
      Email: Bob@wagonerlawoffice.com
      (Counsel to Kitrick, Lewis & Harris Co., L.P.A.)

             - and -

      Jeremiah E. Heck, Esq.
      LUFTMAN, HECK & ASSOCIATES, LLP
      580 East Rich Street
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Phone: (614) 224-1500
      Fax: (614) 224-2894
      Email: jheck@lawLH.com

             - and -

      Brian M. Garvine, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN M. GARVINE, LLC
      5 East Long Street, Suite 1100
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Phone: (614) 223-0290
      Fax: (614) 221-3201
      Email: brian@garvinelaw.com

             - and -

      Michelle E. Lanham, Esq.
      MICHELLE E. LANHAM, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
      445 Hutchinson Avenue, Suite 100
      Columbus, OH 43235
      Phone: (614) 300-5896
      Fax: (614) 737-5239
      Email: Michelle@mlanhamlaw.com


EQUIFAX INC: "First Education" Suit Alleges FTCA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
First Education Federal Credit Union, ASI Federal Credit Union,
and Michigan Credit Union League, and all others similarly-
situated v. Equifax Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-04184 (N.D. Ga.,
October 20, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violation
of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914.

According to the FTC, the failure to employ reasonable and
appropriate measures to protect against unauthorized access to
confidential consumer data constitutes an unfair act or practice
prohibited by Section 5 of the FTC Act of 1914.

Plaintiff First Education Federal Credit Union is a federally-
chartered credit union with a principal place of business in
Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Plaintiff ASI Federal Credit Union is a federal credit union with
a principal place of business in Harahan, Louisiana.

Plaintiff Michigan Credit Union League is a Michigan membership
corporation whose members are financial institutions.

Defendant Equifax Inc. is a global consumer credit reporting
agency incorporated in Georgia, with its principal place of
business at 1500 Peachtree Street NW, Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


EQUIFAX INC: "Sander" Sues Over Data Breach, Seeks Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
Laura Sander, in behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00208, (D. Colo., October 13, 2017),
seeks to recover actual and statutory damages, equitable relief,
restitution, reimbursement of out-of-pocket losses, other
compensatory damages, credit monitoring services with accompanying
identity theft insurance and injunctive relief including an order
requiring Equifax to improve its data security pursuant to the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and District of Columbia's
Consumer Protection Procedures Act.

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

Plaintiff claims to be a victim of the data breach.

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


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

             - and -

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

             - and -

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


EQUIFAX INC: "Smith" Sues Over Data Breach, Seeks Damages
---------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Smith, John Fralick, Michael Herrmann and Elexis Williams,
in behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Equifax, Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-02183, (N.D. Ohio, October 16, 2017), seeks to
recover actual and statutory damages, equitable relief,
restitution, reimbursement of out-of-pocket losses, other
compensatory damages, credit monitoring services with accompanying
identity theft insurance and injunctive relief including an order
requiring Equifax to improve its data security pursuant to the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Ohio Consumer Sales
Practices Act.

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

Plaintiffs claim to be victims of the data breach.

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

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


EQUIFAX INC: Sued by Mashburn in N.D. Georgia Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
DORI M. MASHBURN, SARAH L. HARDY, RICHARD GAINEY, VALERIE GAINEY,
JONATHAN C. ENTSMINGER, CARRIE L. ENTSMINGER, JACKIE L. KIER,
ALOHA KIER, LARRY NEWCOMER, and ANDREA SHAFRAN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EQUIFAX, INC., Case
No. 1:17-cv-04159-TWT (N.D. Ga., October 19, 2017), arises from a
data breach experienced by Equifax resulting to the exposure of
its client's sensitive identifying information, including names,
dates of birth, Social Security numbers, phone numbers, credit
card numbers, and nearly 11 million driver's license numbers.

On September 7, 2017, Equifax disclosed that it had experienced a
data breach that has exposed the most sensitive identifying
information of 143 million Americans.  Equifax later increased
that number to 145.5 million.

As a result of Equifax's negligence, tens of millions of Americans
are now at increased risk of financial account fraud, tax fraud,
and other forms identity theft, the Plaintiffs allege.

Equifax Inc. is a global company headquartered in Atlanta,
Georgia, that does business throughout the country and is one of
the three primary credit reporting agencies in the United States.
Equifax maintains data on more than 820 million consumers
worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin R. Dean, Esq.
          Joseph F. Rice, Esq.
          Jodi Flowers, Esq.
          Breanne Cope, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          28 Bridgeside Boulevard
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 216-9000
          Facsimile: (843) 216-9450
          E-mail: kdean@motleyrice.com
                  jrice@motleyrice.com
                  jflowers@motleyrice.com
                  bcope@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Laura Ray, Esq.
          Mathew Jasinski, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          One Corporate Center
          20 Church Street, 17th Floor
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 882-1681
          Facsimile: (860) 882-1682
          E-mail: lray@motleyrice.com
                  mjasinski@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                  dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
                  gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                  claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          801 Garden Street, Suite 301
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 456-1496
          Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
          E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com


FIRST CHOICE: "Woods" Seeks OT Pay for Work Over 40 Hours/Week
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Woods, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. First Choice Energy Services
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-00222 (D.N.D., October 17, 2017),
seeks unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

First Choice Energy Services LLC operates flowback equipment for
the oil and gas industry and is based in Minot, North Dakota.
Plaintiff worked for Defendant as flowback hand from approximately
May of 2014 to March of 2015, performing manual labor at a well
site, connecting equipment, hammering pipes together and testing
the fluids returning from the well. Woods typically works well in
excess of 40 hours per week, seven days a week, twelve hours a day
without overtime premium. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Neuman, Esq.
      SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW
      5612 Chaucer Drive
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (281) 885-8630
      Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
      Email: jneuman@smnlawfirm.com


FIRSTSOURCE: "Otten" Suit Disputes Vague Collection Letter
----------------------------------------------------------
Ian Otten, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-06070 (E.D. N.Y., October 17, 2017), seeks to
recover damages, attorneys' fees and costs and such other relief
for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Defendant is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of
debts allegedly owed by consumers. Firstsource attempted to
collect a debt that Otten allegedly owes American Express credit
card via a collection letter.

Said letter indicated that the "amount due above reflects the
total balance due as of the date of this letter. The itemization
reflects post charge-off activity we received from American
Express and as such is subject to timing and system limitations."
No explanation was provided about the "timing and system
limitations" as well as the amount of the "current balance." Thus
said latter failed to clearly, explicitly and unambiguously convey
the amount of the debt. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
      BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel: (516) 203-7600
      Fax: (516) 706-5055
      Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com


FOREST LABS: Macleods Must Produce Docs in Namenda Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York issued a Memorandum and Order granting Plaintiff's Motion to
Compel Non-Parties to Produce Documents in the case captioned IN
RE NAMENDA DIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION, No. 15 Civ. 7488
(CM) (JCF) (S.D.N.Y.).

Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs have filed a motion to compel
non-parties Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Macleods Pharma USA,
Inc., to produce documents responsive to a subpoena.

In brief, the plaintiffs allege that in late 2007, at least twelve
generic manufacturers, not including Macleods, filed Abbreviated
New Drug Applications (ANDAs) with the FDA for generic versions of
Namenda IR in which they contended that the patent, known as the
703 patent, was invalid, not infringed by their proposed products,
or both.

In these lawsuits, the generic manufacturers again argued, among
other things, that the patents were invalid. Forest ultimately
settled the lawsuits. The settlements included cash payments from
Forest to the alleged infringers and licensing agreements that
allowed the generic defendants to launch generic versions of
Namenda IR months before Namenda IR's patent expired, but well
after the generics could have begun selling generic Namenda IR if
Forest's patent was found to be invalid.

The plaintiffs in this action, direct purchasers of Namenda
products from Forest, allege that these settlements were collusive
and anticompetitive, and they allege that because of the conduct,
they had to pay supra-competitive prices for the products.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit parties to obtain
discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to
any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the
case.

To determine whether a subpoena imposes an undue burden, a court
should examine "such factors as relevance, the need of the party
for the documents, the breadth of the document request, the time
period covered by it, the particularity with which the documents
are described and the burden imposed.

As to undue burden and proportionality, Macleods asserts that
providing sales data at the transactional level would require 150
hours of employee time, cost between $10,0000 and $15,000, and
take approximately twenty-seven days to compile.

Macleods' arguments are unpersuasive. While the money and time
that will be spent on the production is not trifling, it is small
in comparison with the potential damages in this case. Macleods,
while not the largest producer of generic Namenda, appears to make
over 10% of generic Namenda IR sales in the United States, making
it the fourth largest seller of the product. While Macleods has
produced a summary, a one-page outline of customer sales data is
insufficient in a case such as this, where more specific material
would be expected to support the plaintiffs' case.

Additionally, the summary does not detail sales specific to
customers, and those sales could inform an analysis of class
member damages and injuries. Finally, Macleods appears to be the
only source for the requested information. The request is
therefore proportional to the needs of the case.

Macleods also suggests that the request should be rejected
because, as a third party, it retains a greater expectation of
privacy. However, Macleods' unsubstantiated and cursory assertions
of confidentiality are insufficient.  Additionally, discovery in
this case is subject to a protective order. Macleods'
confidentially argument is therefore unpersuasive.  The
plaintiffs' motion to compel is granted.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 19, 2017
Memorandum and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9mdy9hw
from Leagle.com

JM Smith Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Dan Litvin --
dlitvin@garwingerstein.com -- Garwin Gerstein & Fisher, L.L.P..

JM Smith Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Opper --
jopper@garwingerstein.com -- Garwin Gerstein & Fisher, L.L.P.,
Noah H. Silverman -- nsilverman@garwingerstein.com -- Garwin
Gerstein & Fisher, L.L.P., Blaine Larson --  blarson@hpcllp.com --
Heim Payne & Chorush, LLP, Chris Letter -- cletter@odrlaw.com --
Odom & Des Roches, LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher Stow-Serge --
cstow@odrlaw.com -- Odom & Des Roches, LLP, Dan Chiorean --
dchiorean@odrlaw.com -- Odom & Des Roches, LLP, Daniel C. Simons -
- dsimons@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., David C. Raphael,
Jr., Smith Segura & Raphael, LLP, 3600 Jackson St., Ste 111,
Alexandria, LA 71303-3000,  pro hac vice, Ellen Noteware --
enoteware@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., Emma Perry, Heim
Payne & Chorush, LLP, Eric J. Enger, Heim Payne & Chorush, LLP,
1111 BAGBY, SUITE 2100, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002, Erin R. Leger, Smith
Segura & Raphael, LLP, 3600 Jackson St., Ste 111, Alexandria, LA
71303-3000,  Kimberly Marion Hennings --
khennings@garwingerstein.com -- Garwin Gerstein & Fisher, L.L.P.,
Miranda Yan Jones, Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP, 1111 BAGBY, SUITE
2100, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 pro hac vice, Nicholas Urban --
nurban@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., Phyllis Maza Parker --
pparker@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., Russell A. Chorush,
Heim Payne & Chorush, LLP,1111 BAGBY, SUITE 2100, HOUSTON, TEXAS
77002  & Bruce E. Gerstein -- bgerstein@garwingerstein.com --
Garwin Gerstein & Fisher, L.L.P..

Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., Consolidated Plaintiff,
represented by Bruce E. Gerstein, Garwin Gerstein & Fisher,
L.L.P., Elizabeth Anne Silva, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, Joseph Thomas
Lukens, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice, Neill W. Clark, Faruqi
& Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice, Peter Russell Kohn, Berger &
Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Dan Litvin, Garwin Gerstein &
Fisher, L.L.P., Daniel C. Simons, Berger & Montague, P.C., David
Francis Sorensen, Berger & Montague, P.C, Ellen Noteware, Berger &
Montague, P.C., Nicholas Urban, Berger & Montague, P.C. & Phyllis
Maza Parker, Berger & Montague, P.C..

Forest Laboratories LLC, Defendant, represented by Heather
McDevitt --  hmcdevitt@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, Jack
Pace --  jpace@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, John Mark Gidley
--  mgidley@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, Martin Michael Toto
--  mtoto@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, Peter J. Carney --
pcarney@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, Charles Moore --
charlesmoore@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, Heather Marie
Burke --  hburke@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, Kevin Charles
Adam -- kevin.adam@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP, Kristen
O'Shaughnessy -- kristen.oshaughnessy@whitecase.com -- White &
Case LLP, Michael Eugene Hamburger --
michael.hamburger@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP & Ryan Philip
Johnson --  rjohnson@whitecase.com -- White & Case LLP.

Actavis, plc, Defendant, represented by Heather McDevitt, White &
Case LLP, Jack Pace, White & Case LLP, John Mark Gidley, White &
Case LLP, Martin Michael Toto, White & Case LLP, Peter J. Carney,
White & Case LLP, Charles Moore, White & Case LLP, Heather Marie
Burke, White & Case LLP, Kevin Charles Adam, White & Case LLP,
Kristen O'Shaughnessy, White & Case LLP, Michael Eugene Hamburger,
White & Case LLP & Ryan Philip Johnson, White & Case LLP.

Forest Laboratories, Inc., Defendant, represented by Heather
McDevitt, White & Case LLP, Martin Michael Toto, White & Case LLP,
Charles Moore, White & Case LLP, Heather Marie Burke, White & Case
LLP, Kevin Charles Adam, White & Case LLP, Kristen O'Shaughnessy,
White & Case LLP, Michael Eugene Hamburger, White & Case LLP &
Ryan Philip Johnson, White & Case LLP.

Forest Laboratories Holdings Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Heather McDevitt, White & Case LLP, Martin Michael Toto, White &
Case LLP, Charles Moore, White & Case LLP, Heather Marie Burke,
White & Case LLP, Kevin Charles Adam, White & Case LLP, Kristen
O'Shaughnessy, White & Case LLP, Michael Eugene Hamburger, White &
Case LLP & Ryan Philip Johnson, White & Case LLP.

Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Miscellaneous, represented by Erin
R. Conway -- erin@amintalati.com --  Amin Talati Upadhye LLP.
Macleods Pharma USA, Inc., Miscellaneous, represented by Erin R.
Conway, Amin Talati Upadhye LLP.

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Interested Party, represented by
Christopher T. Holding -- cholding@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin
Procter, LLP, Jordan David Weiss --  jweiss@goodwinlaw.com --
Goodwin Procter, LLP & Sarah K. Frederick --
sfrederick@goodwinlaw.com -Goodwin Procter, LLP.


FOWLER FOODS: "Petty" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Latoya Petty, Shacoya Johnson and Carolyn Love, and all others
similarly-situated v. Fowler Foods, Inc., Wallace W. Fowler, Chris
Fowler, and Timothy M. Supples, Case No. 2:17-cv-02779 (W.D.
Tenn., October 20, 2017), seek to recover unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime compensation and other damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs Latoya Petty and Shacoya Johnson were employed by
Defendants as hourly-paid employees at one or more of Defendants'
franchised restaurants.

Plaintiff Carolyn Love is a resident of Tennessee and, was
employed by Defendants as a salaried Assistant Manager at one or
more of Defendants' franchised restaurants.

Defendant Fowler Foods, Inc. is an Arkansas corporation with its
principal executive office located in Jonesboro, Arkansas.
Defendants have owned and operated KFC, Taco Bell and other
franchised restaurants in various states, including the States of
Tennessee, Arkansas, Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky, Ohio, Alabama,
Louisiana, Michigan and North Carolina. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


FREEDOMROADS LLC: "Piner" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Elgin Piner, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FreedomRoads, LLC
and Sirpilla RV Centers, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00902
(S.D. Ohio, October 16, 2017), seeks overtime wages, liquidated
damages, costs, attorneys' fees all available relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a service technician from
April 2015 until his termination on or about October 10, 2017.
Piner worked at Camping World of Columbus, performing general
labor on behalf of Defendants repairing RVs, responding to service
calls, and performing miscellaneous labor for the general
maintenance of RVs. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
      COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
      1457 S. High St.
      Columbus, OH 43207
      Telephone: (614) 949-1181
      Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
      Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

             - and -

      Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
      BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
      1457 S. High St.
      Columbus, OH 43207
      Telephone: (614) 704-0546
      Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
      Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com


GAP INC: "Pallagrosi" Sues Over Discount Fraud
----------------------------------------------
Michael Pallagrosi, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Gap, Inc., Gap (Apparel)
LLC, Gap International Sales, Inc., Banana Republic, LLC and
Banana Republic (Apparel) LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-05905,
(N.D. Cal., October 13, 2017), seeks economic and compensatory
damages, statutory, punitive, or exemplary damages, interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and such other relief for violation of
the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and
False Advertising Law of the California Business and Professions
Code.

Defendants allegedly engaged in advertising fictitious prices and
percentage-off discounts in the advertising, marketing, and sale
of apparel and other personal items at their Banana Republic
Factory and Gap Factory stores. Base prices on the price tag of
every item are purportedly jacked-up and "re-discounted" to appear
as if it were "discounted."[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      21550 Oxnard St., Ste. 780
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Tel: (877) 206-4741
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      Email: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com

             - and -

      Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
      DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C.
      5 Greentree Centre
      525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
      Marlton, NJ 08053
      Tel.: (856) 797-9951
      Fax: (856) 797-9978
      Email: sdenittis@denittislaw.com


GBS TOWSON: Court Denies Equitable Tolling in Wage & Hour Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland
issued a Memorandum Opinion granting in part as to Plaintiff's
consented motion to revise the Scheduling Order and denying in
part, without prejudice, as to Plaintiffs' motion to toll the
statute of limitations for class members in the case captioned
IRIS PINEDA LEIVA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GBS TOWSON EAST d/b/a
GINO'S BURGERS AND CHICKEN, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action
No. ADC-16-3765 (D. Md.).

Iris Pineda Leiva, Gladis Brenes Casazola, Carla Pinto, and Geidi
Oromon Ramos brought a collective action against GBC Towson East,
LLC d/b/a Gino's Burgers and Chicken, Aberdeen GBC, LLC, Woodbine
Ventures, Aberdeen, LLC, A & M Hospitality, LLC, Scott Autry,
Jared Miller, and Bridgit Kincaid, alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standard Act, Maryland Wage Payment and Collections Act, and
Maryland Wage Hour Law, quantum meruit, and discrimination under
42 U.S.C. Section 1981.

Plaintiffs' motion includes a request to modify the parties'
Scheduling Order.  The motion states that all parties consent to
extending the deadlines and Defendants' partial opposition
acknowledges their consent to the proposed extension.

The Court will grant the parties' consensual motion to revise
Scheduling Order, which will be modified.

Plaintiffs argue that tolling is the only means of ensuring that
potential Plaintiffs do not suffer the diminution or
extinguishment of their claims as a result of Defendant Autry's
delay, in violation of this Court's order, in providing
information to Plaintiffs as needed to achieve the distribution of
notice.

Defendants counter that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that
they are entitled to equitable tolling because they have failed to
meet their burden for establishing a basis for the doctrine's
application and for a willful FLSA violation which would entitle
them to a three year statute of limitations, rather than a two
year statute of limitations.

Equitable tolling is appropriate in two circumstances: first, when
the plaintiffs were prevented from asserting their claims by some
kind of wrongful conduct on the part of the defendant, and second,
when extraordinary circumstances beyond plaintiffs' control made
it impossible to file the claims on time.

Even though Plaintiffs have offered evidence of conduct by
Defendant Autry that could support equitable tolling, given the
statutory framework and the narrow circumstances under which the
Fourth Circuit has permitted equitable tolling, the circumstances
in this case are not extraordinary enough to support a general
tolling of the statute of limitations.

Therefore, the Court will deny plaintiffs' motion as to tolling
the statute of limitations.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 19, 2017
Memorandum Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/yaz2l8hr
from Leagle.com.

Iris Pineda Leiva, Plaintiff, represented by Jamar R. Brown --
jbrown@rosenbergmartin.com -- Rosenberg Martin Greenberg, LLP.

Iris Pineda Leiva, Plaintiff, represented by Monisha Cherayil --
cherayilm@publicjustice.org -- Public Justice Center, Sally Jean
Dworak Fisher -- dworak-fishers@publicjustice.org -- Public
Justice Center Inc & Louis J. Ebert -- lelbert@rosenbergmartin.com
-- Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP.

Gladis Brenes Casazola, Plaintiff, represented by Monisha
Cherayil, Public Justice Center, Sally Jean Dworak Fisher, Public
Justice Center Inc & Louis J. Ebert, Rosenberg Martin Greenberg
LLP.

Carla Pinto, Plaintiff, represented by Monisha Cherayil, Public
Justice Center, Sally Jean Dworak Fisher, Public Justice Center
Inc & Louis J. Ebert, Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP.

Geidi Oromon Ramos, Plaintiff, represented by Monisha Cherayil,
Public Justice Center, Sally Jean Dworak Fisher, Public Justice
Center Inc & Louis J. Ebert, Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP.

Ledis Anabel Velasquez Villanuevo, Plaintiff, represented by Louis
J. Ebert, Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP & Monisha Cherayil,
Public Justice Center.

Francisco A. Malave Davila, Plaintiff, represented by Louis J.
Ebert, Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP & Monisha Cherayil, Public
Justice Center.

Miguel A. Oromon Esquivel, Plaintiff, represented by Louis J.
Ebert, Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP & Monisha Cherayil, Public
Justice Center.

Rubita Raymundo, Plaintiff, represented by Monisha Cherayil,
Public Justice Center.

Juan Pablo Raymundo, Plaintiff, represented by Monisha Cherayil,
Public Justice Center.

Eunice Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by Monisha Cherayil, Public
Justice Center.

Edin Coto Toledo, Plaintiff, represented by Monisha Cherayil,
Public Justice Center.

GBC Towson East, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher Curtis
Fogleman -- cfogleman@gleason-law.com --  Gleason, Flynn, Emig,
Fogleman & McAfee, Chartered & Patricia L. Morse --
pmorse@gleason-law.com -- Gleason Flynn Emig and Fogleman
Chartered.

Scott Autry, Defendant, Pro Se.

Jared Miller, Defendant, represented by Christopher Curtis
Fogleman, Gleason, Flynn, Emig, Fogleman & McAfee, Chartered &
Patricia L. Morse, Gleason Flynn Emig and Fogleman Chartered.
Bridgit Kincaid, Defendant, Pro Se.


GENERAC POWER: "Tom" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Timothy Tom, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Generac Power Systems, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-1413, (E.D. Wisc., October 16, 2017), seeks unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive
relief, and/or any such other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection
Laws.

Plaintiff worked as a Material Handler and Team Lead at Generac's
3815 Oregon Street, Oshkosh, Wisconsin location where it
manufactures power products. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James A. Walcheske, Esq.
      Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
      Kelly L. Temeyer, Esq.
      WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
      15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304
      Brookfield, WS 53005
      Phone: (262) 780-1953
      Fax: (262) 565-6469
      Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
             sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
             ktemeyer@walcheskeluzi.com


GIANT GLASS: "Cireus" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Iledieu Cireus, and all others similarly-situated v. Giant Glass &
Mirror, Inc., and Joseph M. Martucci, Case No. 0:17-cv-62065 (S.D.
Fla., October 20, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Iledieu Cireus is a resident of Broward County, Florida
and was employed as a glass worker, installer, helper, driver, or
general laborer by Defendants.

Defendants Giant Glass and Joseph M. Martucci, own and operate a
glass design and fabrication business in Broward County, Florida.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert S. Norell, Esq.
      ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
      300 N.W. 70th Avenue, Suite 305
      Plantation, FL 33317
      Tel: (954) 617-6017
      Fax: (954) 617-6018
      E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com


GRAND ISLE: "Sandlin" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Wesley Sandlin, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Grand Isle Shipyard, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-10083 (E.D. La., October 3, 2017), seeks
to recover unpaid back wages with liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, prejudgment and post-judgment interest under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sandlin worked for Grand Isle's oilfield services company as a
safety inspector. He claims that Grand Isle did not maintain time-
keeping facilities thus failed to account for his overtime.[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
      TRAN LAW FIRM
      2537 South Gessner Road, Suite 104
      Houston, TX 77063
      Tel: (713) 223-8855
      Fax: (713) 623-6399
      Email: ttran@tranlawllp.com

             - and -

      Scott Webre, Esq.
      WEBRE AND ASSOCIATES
      2901 Johnston Street, Suite 307
      Lafayette, LA 70503
      Tel: (337) 237-5051
      Fax: (337) 237-5061
      Email: Scott@webreandassociates.com


HUFFINES DENTON: Sued for Denying "Navarro" Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Angel Navarro, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Huffines Denton Autos, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-00741, (E.D. Tex., October 16, 2017), seeks all
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees, costs and expenses of
this action, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and such
other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant's Plano, Texas dealership,
servicing cars in the oil change area. Huffines allegedly did not
pay Navarro overtime for work over 40 hours a week. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Jack Siegel, Esq.
      SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
      10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
      Dallas, TX 75231
      Tel: (214) 790-4454
      Fax: (469) 339-0204
      Email: jack@siegellawgroup.biz
      Website: www.4overtimelawyer.com


IGNITE PAYMENTS: Zam & Zam Appeals E.D.N.Y. Decision to 2nd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Zam & Zam Super Market, LLC, filed an appeal from a
District Court memorandum and order dated October 31, 2017, and
District Court judgment dated October 31, 2017, entered in the
lawsuit titled Zam & Zam Super Market, LLC v. Ignite Payments,
LLC, et al., Case No. 16-cv-6370, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendants have systematically exploited their
position of trust and power by unfairly and deceptively "cramming"
the Plaintiff and their other merchant customers with "optional"
services that the merchants specifically declined and that provide
no benefit to the merchants.

Ignite Payments provides a payment processing solution to agents
and ISOs in the payments industry.

The appellate case is captioned as Zam & Zam Super Market, LLC v.
Ignite Payments, LLC, et al., Case No. 17-3571, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Zam & Zam Super Market, LLC, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          David S. Stellings, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          250 Hudson Street
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 355-9500
          E-mail: dstellings@lchb.com

Defendants-Appellees Ignite Payments, LLC, First Data Merchant
Services Corporation, First Data Corporation and First Data
Merchant Services, LLC, are represented by:

          Caroline Hickey, Esq.
          WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          767 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10153
          Telephone: (212) 310-8527
          E-mail: caroline.hickeyzalka@weil.com


INT'L COSMETICS: Settlement in "Moore" Suit Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DRIA MOORE, an individual, Plaintiff, v.
INTERNATIONAL COSMETICS AND PERFUMES, INC. and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. ED CV 14-1179-DMG (DTBx) (C.D.
Cal.), Judge Dolly M. Gee of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California approved the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for Awards of
Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Incentive Payments.

On Nov. 3, 2017, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of
Class Action Settlement and Motion for Awards of Attorneys' Fees,
Costs, and Incentive Payments came before the Court for hearing
pursuant to the Order of the Court, dated Aug. 4, 2017, on the
application of Plaintiff Moore and the Certified Classes for
approval of the Settlement set forth in the Joint Stipulation of
Class Action Settlement and Release.

Judge Gee finds that the Stipulation was the product of
protracted, arm's-length negotiations between experienced counsel,
and that the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the
best interests of the Classes.  She granted final approval of the
Stipulation.

The certified Class continues to meet all the requirements of
California Code of Civil Procedure section 382, as already found,
and for the reasons set forth, in the Court's Preliminary Approval
Order.  Excluded from the Class are those persons who validly
requested exclusion in accordance with the requirements set forth
in the Preliminary Approval Order.

Except as to Maria Reyes, who has validly and timely requested
exclusion from the Class, the Action is dismissed with prejudice.

In addition, Judge Gee finds that the Class Counsel has skillfully
advanced legal theories on a contingency-fee basis, and their
efforts resulted in satisfactory results for the Class, given all
the circumstances.  The Judge, given these results and the risk
undertaken by the Class Counsel, awarded the Class Counsel
attorneys' fees of 25% of the $115,000 Gross Maximum Settlement
Amount.

The Judge further finds that the Class Counsel's expenses were
reasonably incurred in prosecuting the case, and that the proposed
incentive payment to the Plaintiff is reasonable in light of the
services he performed on behalf of the Classes and the risks he
undertook in bringing and advancing this lawsuit.  Accordingly, he
granted the Plaintiff's requested incentive payment of $10,000 and
the Class Counsel's requested $39,000 in litigation expenses.

Judge Gee further ordered that the Claims Administrator, CPT
Group., will be paid an amount of $12,000 for the administration
of claims in the matter, and said sum will be paid out of the
Gross Maximum Settlement Amount in accordance with the terms of
the Stipulation.

Any amounts of the Gross Settlement Sum that remain after the
payments to the Settlement Class Members, the Named Plaintiff, and
the Class Counsel will be distributed to a cy pres beneficiary to
be designated by the Court, except that if less than $1,000
remains, those  amounts will escheat to the State of California
through its Unclaimed Property Law.

The Judge finds no just reason for delay in the entry of his
Amended Final Judgment and immediate entry by the Clerk of the
Court is expressly directed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Amended Final
Judgment is available at https://is.gd/JKrvv8 from Leagle.com.

Dria Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew T. Ryan --
info@theryanlawgroup.com -- Ryan Law Professional Corporation.

International Cosmetics and Perfumes Inc, Defendant, represented
by Forrest Arthur Hainline, III -- fhainline@goodwinlaw.com --
Doodwin Procter LLP, Hong-An Vu --  hvu@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin
Procter LLP, James C. Rehnquist -- jrehnquist@goodwinlaw.com --
Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice & Kate MacLeman --
kmacleman@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter LLP, pro hac vice.


INTEC COMMUNICATIONS: "Lopez" Suit Seeks OT Wages, Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
Alex Leo Lopez, on behalf of himself and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Intec Communications, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-03077, (S.D. Tex., October 13, 2017),
seeks to recover overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a cable technician performing
cable TV and security installation services in 2015-2017. Intec
allegedly does not maintain accurate time records of all hours
worked by Lopez and deducts certain costs and expenses from the
wages such as toll charges and gas expenses incurred causing their
regular hourly rates in some instances to fall below the federal
minimum wage. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg M. Rosenberg, Esq.
      Tracey D. Lewis, Esq.
      ROSENBERG & SPROVACH
      3518 Travis Street, Suite 200
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (713) 960-8300
      Fax: (713) 621-6670


INTELIQUENT INC: "Torres" Sues Over Illegal SMS Ads
---------------------------------------------------
Carlos Torres, in behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Inteliquent, Inc. and Neutral Tandem-Louisiana,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-10022, (E.D. La., October 3, 2017),
seeks an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unsolicited
text message activities, statutory and trebled damages, all
expenses of this action and such other relief under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

Defendants sent unsolicited text messages, without consent, to
cellular telephones, including that of the Plaintiff's, while
using an automatic telephone dialing equipment with the capacity
to store and dial telephone numbers, en masse.

Inteliquent is a communications enabler offering network-based
voice and messaging services to wireless, cable, carriers and
communication service providers.  Neutral Tandem is a subsidiary
of Inteliquent, Inc. [BN]

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


JACKSON HEWITT: Court Grants Move to Dismiss "Lomeli" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued an Order granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
the case captioned LUIS LOMELI, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. JACKSON
HEWITT, INC.; TAX SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC. d/b/a JACKSON HEWITT
TAX SERVICE; JJF & AC, INC. d/b/a Guanajuato Insurance Agency and
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service; JUAN FLORES, an individual; and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Defendants, No. 13-cv-08389 (C.D. Cal.).

JH, Inc. and TSA move to dismiss the FAC because: (1) each cause
of action is grounded in fraud, but Lomeli does not meet the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b); and (2) for
each cause of action Lomeli fails to allege facts sufficient to
state a claim for relief under Rule 8.  JH, Inc. and TSA also move
to strike the class allegations in the FAC.

JH, Inc. and TSA, one of JH, Inc.'s subsidiaries, operate a tax
preparation business. Juan Flores controls JJF & AC, Inc., and
operates a Jackson Hewitt location in South Gate, California,
which is a franchise of the Jackson Hewitt enterprise. Lomeli
claims that Defendants manipulated several of his tax returns, and
submitted them to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) without his
consent.

JH, Inc. and TSA move to dismiss the entire FAC because it does
not allege fraud with particularity, as required by Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 9(b).

Lomeli relies on People v. JTH Tax, Inc., which upheld the trial
court's limited agency finding under a substantial evidence
standard of review. 212 Cal.App.4th 1219, 1247. On review after a
bench trial, the California Court of Appeal analyzed the trial
court's holding that, even if Liberty's franchisees are not its
agents for all purposes, they are its agents at a minimum for
purposes of advertising.  The appeals court analyzed whether a
franchisor could be vicariously liable for the illegal advertising
of its franchisee.

In affirming the trial court's finding of an agency relationship,
the court explained that the franchisor admitted that it had
control over the franchisee's advertisements, which were the
allegedly illegal conduct, for reasons other than just protecting
its intellectual property.

Here, while JH, Inc. and TSA may have control over the
franchisee's advertisements, the conduct complained of is the
filing of fraudulent tax returns and charging of undisclosed fees,
which relates directly to the actions of franchisee employees, in
this case, Flores. The control JH, Inc. and TSA have over the
franchisee, as alleged by Lomeli, does not rise to the complete or
substantial control of the instrumentality of harm that is
required.   finding franchisor not vicariously liable for acts of
franchisee's employees.

Lomeli claims he also pleads apparent agency because JH, Inc. and
TSA strove to separate themselves from the mom and pops' by
emphasizing the unity of their enterprise, franchisees and all.
But he provides no authority for the proposition that these
statements would establish an apparent agency relationship, and
the Court declines to find it for him.

Direct Allegations of Fraud

To comply with Rule 9(b), allegations of fraud must be specific
enough to give defendants notice of the particular misconduct
which is alleged to constitute the fraud charged so that they can
defend against the charge and not just deny that they have done
anything wrong.

Lomeli relies on the rule from Wool, which relaxes the heightened
pleading requirements as to matters peculiarly within the opposing
party's knowledge, and in cases where the corporate fraud is
conveyed in group-published materials. Wool, 818 F.2d at 1439-40.
Lomeli points to advertisements, which he contends are fraudulent
group-published materials allowing group allegations of fraud, but
he ignores the rule from Wool that in such cases, the
particularity requirement may be satisfied if the allegations are
accompanied by a statement of the facts upon which the belief is
founded."

Lomeli does not provide a statement of facts supporting his belief
that JH, Inc. and TSA were complicit in, or actively perpetrated
fraud. All of Lomeli's allegations surround his experiences at the
South Gate Jackson Hewitt franchise location, which he then
characterizes as allegations against Jackson Hewitt.

Accordingly, the Court grants JH and TSA's Motion to Dismiss.

Motion to Strike

JH and TSA also filed a Motion to Strike the class allegations in
Lomeli's FAC.  While the Court foresees several issues with
Lomeli's class allegations, it declines to rule on JH, Inc. and
TSA's Motion to Strike at this juncture, and denies it, as moot,
in light of the Court's ruling on the Motion to Dismiss.

The Court grants JH, Inc. and TSA's Motion to Dismiss, with leave
to amend.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 19, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y9ngxfnhfrom Leagle.com.

Luis Lomeli, Plaintiff, represented by Paul A. Traina --
paul@stalwartlaw.com -- Stalwart Law Group.

Luis Lomeli, Plaintiff, represented by Dylan Ruga --
dylan@stalwartlaw.com -- Stalwart Law Group, Ian P. Samson --
ian@stalwartlaw.com -- Engstrom Lipscomb and Lack & Ji-In Lee
Houck -- jiin@stalwartlaw.com -- Stalwart Law Group.

Jackson Hewitt, Inc, Defendant, represented by Robert J.
Herrington -- herringtonr@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP &
Ryan Christopher Bykerk -- bykerkr@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig
LLP.

Tax Services of America, Inc, Defendant, represented by Robert J.
Herrington, Greenberg Traurig LLP & Ryan Christopher Bykerk,
Greenberg Traurig LLP.

JJF and AC, Inc, Defendant, represented by Janet A. Contero -
janetcontero@gmail.com  --  & Mark R. Smith --
Mark@MarkRSmithLaw.com Law -- Office of Mark R Smith PC.
Juan Flores, Defendant, represented by Janet A. Contero & Mark R.
Smith, Law Office of Mark R Smith PC.


KEEFE COMMISSARY: Reichert Sues for Unlawful Taking of Property
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Reichert, and all others similarly-situated v. Keefe
Commissary Network, LLC dba Access Corrections; Rapid Investments,
Inc., dba Rapid Financial Solutions, dba Access Freedom; and Cache
Valley Bank, Case No. 3:17-cv-05848 (W.D. Wash., October 20,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act and the Washington Consumer
Protection Act including the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against
the taking of property without just compensation.

Plaintiff Jeffrey Reichert lives in and is a citizen of Kingston,
Washington.

Defendant Keefe Commissary Network, LLC, a subsidiary of Keefe
Group, Inc., is a Missouri corporation that does business under
various trade names, including "Access Corrections."  Keefe is an
operator of commissary stores inside correctional facilities and
offers a wide array of services to correctional institutions,
including prepaid debit release cards.

Defendant Rapid Investments, Inc. is a Utah corporation that does
business as Rapid Financial Solutions and other various trade
names, including "Access Freedom."

Defendant Cache Valley Bank is a state chartered bank based in
Utah. Cache Valley Bank is a member of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation and has over $950 million in assets and 13
offices throughout Utah. Cache Valley Bank has contracted with
Rapid Investments to issue prepaid debit cards nationwide and is
located at 101 N. Main, Logan, Utah 84321. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark A. Griffin, Esq.
      Laura R. Gerber, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Tel: (206) 623-1900
      Fax: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com
              lgerber@kellerrohrback.com


KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Ct. Grants Final OK of "Helde" Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington issued a Judgment and Order granting Plaintiff's Motion
for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case
captioned KEVIN HELDE, JON BODILY, and MAX TENA, on their own
behalf and on the behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC., an Arizona
corporation, Defendant, No. 2:12-cv-00904-RSL (W.D. Wash.).

Plaintiffs allege that Knight willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs
and a certified Class of employee drivers (Class) for wage and
hour abuses in violation of Washington law.

On May 24, 2017, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary
Approval of Settlement. That Order directed the Settlement
Administrator to provide Notice to the Class, which informed Class
members of: (a) the proposed Settlement, and the Settlement's key
terms; (b) the date, time, and location of the Final Approval
Hearing; and (c) the right of any Class Member to opt out of or
object to the proposed Settlement, and an explanation of the
procedures to exercise those rights.

The Court confirms the proposed Settlement Class satisfies the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, as found in the Court's Order
Granting Class Certification, Order Reinstating Plaintiffs' Rest
Break Claim and Certifying Class, and the Order Granting
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, and finds that
the Settlement Class is properly certified as a class for
settlement purposes.

The Court finds that the Settlement was entered into in good faith
as the result of arm's-length negotiations between experienced
attorneys, that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate,
and that the Settlement satisfies the standards and applicable
requirements for final approval of this class action Settlement
under Washington law and the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.

In addition to any recovery that Plaintiffs may receive under the
Settlement, and in recognition of the Plaintiffs' efforts on
behalf of the Settlement Class, the Court approves the payment of
service awards to the Plaintiffs, in the amount of $10,000 each,
to be paid pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

The Clerk of the Court is ordered to enter this Final Order of
Judgment and Dismissal with Prejudice.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 19, 2017 Judgment
and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybrywwggfrom
Leagle.com.

Kevin Helde, Plaintiff, represented by Greg Alan Wolk, REKHI &
WOLK, P.S., 529 Warren Ave N #201, Seattle, WA 98109

Kevin Helde, Plaintiff, represented by Hardeep S. Rekhi, REKHI &
WOLK, P.S., 529 Warren Ave N #201, Seattle, WA 98109, Toby James
Marshall -- tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW
GROUP PLLC & Erika L. Nusser -- enusser@terrellmarshall.com --
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC.

John Bodily, Plaintiff, represented by Greg Alan Wolk, REKHI &
WOLK, P.S., Hardeep S. Rekhi, REKHI & WOLK, P.S., Toby James
Marshall, TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC & Erika L. Nusser,
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC.

Max Tena, Plaintiff, represented by Greg Alan Wolk, REKHI & WOLK,
P.S., Hardeep S. Rekhi, REKHI & WOLK, P.S., Toby James Marshall,
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC & Erika L. Nusser, TERRELL
MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC.

Knight Transportation Inc, an Arizona Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Eric S. Beane -- eric.beane@dlapiper.com --  DLA
PIPER US LLP, pro hac vice, Anthony Todaro --
anthony.todaro@dlapiper.com --  DLA PIPER US LLP, Jeffrey B.
DeGroot -- jeffrey.degroot@dlapiper.com --  DLA PIPER US LLP &
Stellman Keehnel -- stellman.keehnel@dlapiper.com --  DLA PIPER US
LLP.


LAGASSE LLC: Judgment on Pleadings Bid in Alpha Tech Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled ALPHA TECH PET INC., ET AL., Plaintiffs, v.
LAGASSE, LLC, ET AL., Defendants, Case Nos. 16 C 513 & 16 C 4321
(N.D. Ill.), Judge Thomas M. Durkin of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted the
Defendants' motion to deny class certification and denied its
motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Alpha Tech alleges that defendants the Defendants sent it eight
unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk
Fax Protection Act of 2005.  Alpha Tech also makes class
allegations on behalf of others similarly situated.  In December
2016, the Court consolidated Alpha Tech's case with another case
pending in this district for pre-trial proceedings.  The other
case, Craftwood II, Inc. et al. v. Essendant, Inc., asserts the
same claims against Essendant and effectively seeks to represent
the same class.

The Alpha Tech and Craftwood Plaintiffs seek to certify classes of
all persons and entities to whom Essendant sent fax transmissions
from May 1, 2011 to May 1, 2015, which would implicate
approximately 1.5 million faxes in 725 separate transmissions to
nearly 24,000 unique fax numbers.  They propose dividing the class
into three categories based on the content of the faxes.
Discovery closed a number of months ago, and on Aug. 23, 2017, the
Court adopted Magistrate Judge Valdez's Aug. 1, 2017 ruling
denying the Plaintiffs' motion to reopen discovery.

Currently before the Court are two motions by the Defendants: (i)
a motion to deny class certification and a motion for judgment on
the pleadings on portions of the Plaintiffs' individual claims.
The central basis of both motions is a recent change in the law.

In March 2017, a split panel of the D.C. Circuit struck down a
rule from the Federal Communications Commission rule requiring
both unsolicited and solicited faxes to include opt-out notices
with certain language.  The D.C. Circuit held this rule, known as
the "Solicited Fax Rule," "unlawful to the extent that it requires
opt-out notices on solicited faxes."  It found that the TCPA's
clear statutory text reached only unsolicited fax advertisements,
meaning that the FCC did not have the authority to promulgate a
rule regarding solicited faxes.

Since Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. FCC was decided earlier this
year, several courts have found class certification inappropriate
in TCPA cases where, to determine whether any putative member of
the proposed class had a TCPA claim, a court would first be
required to determine whether that proposed class member
solicited' the faxes it received.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs cannot show that their
proposed classes meet Rule 23's requirements in light of the
individualized consent issues resulting from the D.C. Circuit's
decision in Bais Yaakov.  The Plaintiffs respond that Bais Yaakov
is not governing law in this circuit, and in any event,
individualized consent issues do not defeat class certification
(which they seek further discovery to help show).

Judge Durkin disagrees on both fronts.  He likewise finds Bais
Yaakov binding and the individualized consent issues created by
Bais Yaakov dispositive of the Plaintiffs' class certification
claims.  He says individualized consent issues would require a
series of mini-trials, thus defeating predominance and
superiority.  Regardless of other questions that may be common to
the class, identifying which individuals consented would
undoubtedly be the driver of the litigation.  The Judge therefore
granted the Defendants' motion to deny class certification.

Because motions for judgment on the pleadings are technically
improper when they pertain only to parts of claims, the Judge
denied the Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings.  But
the legal principles set forth in his opinion regarding the impact
of Bais Yaakov apply equally to the Plaintiffs' remaining,
individual claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/foymoC from Leagle.com.

Alpha Tech Pet, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brian J. Wanca --
bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca.

Alpha Tech Pet, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Charles Darryl
Cordero -- cdc@paynefears.com -- Payne & Fears LLP, Daniel F. Lula
-- dfl@paynefears.com -- Payne & Fears Llp, Glenn L. Hara --
ghara@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, Ross Michael Good --
rgood@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson Wanca & Ryan M. Kelly --
rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca.

Lagasse, LLC, Defendant, represented by Henry T. Kelly --
hkelly@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley, Drye & Warren, Lauri Mazzuchetti
-- lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com -- Kelley Drye & Warren Llp, pro
hac vice & Givonna Saint Clair Long -- glong@kelleydrye.com --
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP.

Essendant Management Services LLC, Defendant, represented by Henry
T. Kelly, Kelley, Drye & Warren, Lauri Mazzuchetti, Kelley Drye &
Warren Llp, pro hac vice & Givonna Saint Clair Long, Kelley Drye &
Warren LLP.

Essendant Co., Defendant, represented by Henry T. Kelly, Kelley,
Drye & Warren, Lauri Mazzuchetti, Kelley Drye & Warren Llp, pro
hac vice & Givonna Saint Clair Long, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP.

United Stationers Inc., Defendant, represented by Henry T. Kelly,
Kelley, Drye & Warren, Lauri Mazzuchetti, Kelley Drye & Warren
Llp, pro hac vice & Givonna Saint Clair Long, Kelley Drye & Warren
LLP.


LTD MERCHANT: "Kilpatrick" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Kilpatrick, and all others similarly-situated v. LTD
Merchant Services, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01005 (W.D. Tex.,
October 20, 2017), is brought against the Defendant for violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff Suzanne Kilpatrick is a citizen of Austin, Texas.

Defendant LTD Merchant Services, Inc. is a commercial payment
systems company. LTD Merchant Services, Inc. maintains its head
offices in Miami, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LULAROE LLC: "Lemberg" Sues Over Deceptive Refund Policy
--------------------------------------------------------
Stella Lemberg, Jeni Laurence, Amandra Bluder and Carissa
Stuckart, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. LuLaRoe, LLC and Does 1-10, Defendants,
Case No. 17-cv-02102 (C.D. Cal., October 13, 2017), seeks nominal,
actual and compensatory damages, restitution of all monies,
expenses, costs and disgorged profits from the unlawful and unfair
business practices in violation of the California Business and
Professions Code, reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, costs and
interest, equitable and declaratory relief, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest and such other and further relief for violation
of California's Unfair Competition Law, Unfair Advertising Law and
for unjust enrichment and breach of contract, breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Defendants are clothing manufacturers, selling clothing nationwide
through a multi-level marketing model. LuLaRoe created a direct-
buyer system so consumers must go through "representatives" or
"consultants" to buy LuLaRoe's clothing products.

LuLaRoe has a 100% refund policy for independent retailers who
would opt to cancel their dealership contract. However, in
actuality, it retained 10% as a non-refundable "shipping fee"
which it claims in not part of the refund policy. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amber L. Eck, Esq.
      Aaron M. Olsen, Esq.
      HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
      225 Broadway, Suite 2050
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 342-8000
      Fax: (619) 342-7878

             - and -

      Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
      Kelly M. Purcaro, Esq.
      COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
      Park 80 West - Plaza One
      250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
      Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
      Telephone: (201) 845-9600
      Facsimile: (201) 845-9423
      Email: psp@njlawfirm.com
             kmp@njlawfirm.com


MANUFACTURERS & TRADERS: "Fynn" Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on September 22, 2017 captioned
Edward R. Flynn, Terry S. Seyler, and Gene E. Daisey, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Manufacturers and
Traders Trust Company a/k/a M&T Bank, Case No. 02754 was removed
on October 26, 2017, from the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia County to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:17-cv-04806-WB to the proceeding.

The case alleges that M&T engages in a pattern and practice of
failing to provide statutorily complaint, commercially reasonable
notices when repossessing and reselling a financed vehicle.

Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company operates a bank holding
company headquartered in Buffalo, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott W. Parker, Esq.
      Fred W. Hoensch, Esq.
      Kristin M. Mykulak, Esq.
      PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLC
      1635 Market Street, 11th Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (267) 908-9808
      Facsimile: (267) 908-9888
      E-mail: scott.parker@piblaw.com
              fred.hoensch@piblaw.com
              kristin.mykulak@piblaw.com


MARY KAY: 3d Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Beauty Consultants' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an
Opinion affirming the District Court's dismissal, on grounds of
forum non conveniens, the putative class action lawsuit filed by
Ina M. Collins, a Mary Kay Inc. beauty consultant.

Mary Kay moved to dismiss the suit on forum non conveniens
grounds, relying on two written agreements that set forth terms
and conditions of the parties' relationship.

Mary Kay is a Texas-based company that sells cosmetics to
customers via beauty consultants.  Collins is a New Jersey
resident who worked as a Mary Kay beauty consultant in New Jersey
in a few capacities, including Independent Sales Consultant and
"Independent Sales Director."  The putative class consists of
individuals who are New Jersey residents and have worked as Mary
Kay beauty consultants, in a variety of titles, from September
2009 to the present.

Collins and Mary Kay entered into two written agreements that set
forth the general terms and conditions of their relationship: The
Agreements contained substantively identical forum selection
clauses:

   "The parties further agree that if any dispute or controversy
arises between them concerning any matter relating to this
Agreement that any issues which either party may elect to submit
for legal jurisdiction shall be submitted to the jurisdiction of
the courts of the State of Texas and the parties agree that the
proper venue shall be Dallas, Dallas County, Texas."

The District Court relied on federal common law in reaching its
decision to grant Mary Kay's motion.

Collins centers her appeal on the proper interpretation of the
Agreements' forum selection clauses. Specifically, she argued in
her opening brief that we should reverse the District Court's
dismissal because her claim is outside the scope of the forum
selection clause included in the Agreements.

Under the familiar doctrine of Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, 304 U.S.
64, 78 (1938), federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction
apply state law to substantive issues and federal law to
procedural issues.

Here, the District Court applied federal law to its entire
analysis, reasoning that questions of venue are procedural rather
than substantive in nature. But in selecting this body of law, the
District Court did not draw any distinction between questions of
the clauses' enforceability and questions of interpretation.
Because the parties did not appear to dispute which body of law
governed the interpretation, the Third Circuit simply applied
general contract law principles" to determine that the clause
encompassed the plaintiff's claim we referenced both Delaware
state law and federal law when interpreting the scope of the forum
selection clause at issue, without explicitly addressing which law
controlled.

In sum, the Third Circuit finds no reason under this Circuit's
precedent or the Erie doctrine to apply federal common law to
interpret the forum selection clauses in the Agreements here.
Accordingly, the Third Circuit will apply state contract law to
assess the scope of the clauses and decide whether they encompass
Collins' NJWPL claim.

Having established that state contract law, rather than federal
common law, governs the interpretation of the forum selection
clauses here, the Third Circuit determines which state's contract
law applies.

Collins has not demonstrated that either of the two exceptions
outlined in Restatement Section 187(2) should apply, the Third
Circuit holds.  There is no dispute that the parties have a
substantial relationship to the state of Texas. Further, Collins
has not shown why New Jersey has a materially greater interest" in
the application of its own contract law to the interpretation of
the forum selection clauses, or how the application of Texas
contract law to interpret the scope of the forum selection clauses
would offend the fundamental policy of New Jersey.

Accordingly, the Third Circuit will apply Texas contract law to
interpret the scope of the forum selection clause in the
Agreements.

Under Texas contract law, the Agreements' forum selection clauses
encompass Collins' wage claim.  The forum selection clauses in the
Agreements provided that if any dispute or controversy arises
between the parties concerning any matter relating to this
Agreement, the case must be filed in Texas state court.

Collins argues that because her claim is not for breach of
contract, it is not within the scope of the forum selection
clauses. Yet Collins concedes in her supplemental briefing that
courts applying Texas law interpret forum selection clauses
covering claims relating to an agreement as broad in scope.
Collins has not cited to authority applying Texas law to exclude
wage claims from a forum selection clause of comparable breadth to
the clauses here.

Collins' wage claim relates to her working relationship with Mary
Kay and thus implicates the contents of the Agreements. The
Agreements establish the relationship between Collins and Mary Kay
and outline its terms and conditions. While the Agreements
themselves are not determinative of whether Collins qualifies as
an employee afforded wage law protection or an unprotected
independent contractor, the Agreements will be relevant to
understanding the contours of the parties' affiliation.

Further, the Agreements touch on consultants' purchases from the
company, a key issue in Collins' sole claim: that Mary Kay
mandated certain prohibited payments from its beauty consultants.

In the absence of authority suggesting that Texas law would
interpret this broad forum selection clause to exclude Collins'
wage claim, the Third Circuit holds her claim falls within its
scope.

Having concluded that Collins's claim falls within the scope of
the Agreements' enforceable forum selection clauses, the Third
Circuit turns to the District Court's application of the forum non
conveniens framework.

The Third Circuit said it is mindful of the predicament that could
arise for a plaintiff who (a) performs work in her home state for
a company headquartered in another state, (b) seeks the
substantive protections guaranteed by her home state's wage
payment law; and (c) is subject to forum selection and choice-of-
law clauses in her employment agreement that point outside of her
home state.  But it is incumbent on plaintiffs in those situations
to challenge the enforceability of the forum selection clauses and
to outline for the lower court exactly how they stand to be
deprived of the wage payment protections they are otherwise
guaranteed. Collins made no attempt to do so in this case.

Accordingly, the Third Circuit affirms the decision of the
District Court to dismiss this action on forum non conveniens
grounds.

The appeals case is captioned INA M. COLLINS, On behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated persons, Appellant, v. MARY KAY,
INC.; ABC CORP.; JANE AND JOHN DOES, the latter parties' names
being currently unknown and fictitious, No. 16-3178 (3rd Cir.).

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' October 19, 2017 Opinion
is available at http://tinyurl.com/y9524fu6from Leagle.com.

RAVI SATTIRAJU, ESQ. [ARGUED], The Sattiraju Law Firm, 116 Village
Boulevard, Princeton, NJ 08540, Counsel for Appellant,
CHRISTINE A. AMALFE -- camalfe@gibbonslaw.com -ESQ. [ARGUED],
STEVEN G. SANDERS, ESQ., RICHARD S. ZACKIN --
rzackin@gibbonslaw.com -- ESQ., Gibbons P.C., One Gateway Center,
Newark, NJ 07102, Counsel for Appellee Mary Kay, Inc.


MCS MORTGAGE: "Karlin" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------Peter
Karlin, individually and on behalf of himself and all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v. MCS Mortgage Bankers, Inc.,
David Kotkin, Stephen Petuck and Frank Walter, Defendants, Case
No. 17-cv-06011 (E.D. N.Y., October 14, 2017), seeks unpaid
overtime wages with liquidated, compensatory, punitive and treble
damages, redress for failure to comply with the notice and record
keeping requirements of New York labor laws, injunctive relief
including treble and liquidated damages, as well as prejudgment
and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs and such
other and further relief for breach of contract and the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Plaintiffs worked as loan originators for the Defendants' mortgage
lending business.

MCS Mortgage Bankers, Inc. operates as a mortgage lending company.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin R. Marino, Esq.
      J.R. Stevenson, Esq.
      STEVENSON MARINO LLP
      75 Maiden Lane, Suite 402
      New York, NY 10038
      Tel: (212) 939-7228
      Fax: (212) 531-6129
      Email: jmarino@stevensonmarino.com
             jrs@stevensonmarino.com


MDL 2796: Audobon Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on October 10, 2017 captioned
Audubon Imports, LLC, d/b/a Mercedes Benz of Baton Rouge,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, BMW North America, LLC, Volkswagen
AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi AG, Audi of America,
LLC, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG, Porsche Cars of North America,
Inc., Daimler AG, and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01127 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:17-cv-06094-CRB to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation No.
2796. The lead case is 3:17-md-02796-CRB.

The case asserts that 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:

      Michelle Adrien Parfitt, Esq.
      ASHCRAFT & GEREL LLP
      4900 Seminary Rd., Suite 650
      Alexandria, VA 22311
      Telephone: (703) 931-5500
      Facsimile: (703) 820-1656
      E-mail: mparfitt@ashcraftlaw.com


MDL 2796: "Reder" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on August 2, 2017 styled
Glen Reder and Lonny Gold, individually and on behalf of 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, Mercedesbenz USA, LLC, Mercedes-Benz
U.S. International, Inc., Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC, DR. ING. H.C.F.
Porsche AG, Porsche Cars of North America, Inc., Volkswagen AG,
and Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-05724 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-
06103-CRB to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation No.
2796. The lead case is 3:17-md-02796-CRB.

The case arises out of the conspiracy to unlawfully inflate prices
and increase maintenance costs for diesel passenger vehicles
manufactured and sold by Defendants.

The Defendants are in the business of developing, manufacturing,
and selling cars and motorcycles worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce L. Simon, Esq.
      PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 433-9000
      Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
      E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com

         - and -

      Allan Steyer, Esq.
      Donald Scott Macrae, Esq.
      Jill Michelle Manning, Esq.
      STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
      One California Street, Suite 300
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 421-3400
      Facsimile: (415) 421-2234
      E-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com
              smacrae@bamlawlj.com
              jmanning@steyerlaw.com

         - and -

      Anna M. Horning Nygren, Esq.
      Kristen G Marttila, Esq.
      Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
      W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
      100 Washington Avenue South Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: amhorningnygren@locklaw.com
              kgmarttila@locklaw.com
              rkshelquist@locklaw.com
              wjbruckner@locklaw.com

         - and -

      Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
      Michael Harrison Pearson, Esq.
      PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
      15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (818) 788-8300
      Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
      E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
              mpearson@pswlaw.com

         - and -

      Kyle G. Bates, Esq.
      Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
      2000 Powell Street Suite 1400
      Emeryville, CA 94608
      Telephone: (415) 421-7100
      Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
      E-mail: kbates@schneiderwallace.com
              tschneider@schneiderwallace.com

         - and -

      Neil Swartzberg, Esq.
      MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
      1001 Page Mill Road, Building 2
      Palo Alto, CA 94304
      Telephone: (650) 812-1353
      Facsimile: (650) 213-0260
      E-mail: nswartzberg@manatt.com

         - and -

      Steven A. Hart, Esq.
      HART MCLAUGHLIN & ELDRIDGE, LLC
      121 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 1050
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 955-0545
      Facsimile: (312) 971-9243
      E-mail: shart@hmelegal.com

The Defendant Porsche Cars of North America, Inc. is represented
by:

      Norman A. Armstrong Jr., Esq.
      KING AND SPAULDING LLP
      1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 200
      Washington, DC 20006
      Telephone: (202) 626-8979
      E-mail: narmstrong@kslaw.com

         - and -

      Peter A. Strotz, Esq.
      KING & SPALDING LLP
      633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1700
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 443-4363
      Facsimile: (213) 443-4310
      E-mail: pstrotz@kslaw.com


MDL 2796: "Grodzen" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on August 29, 2017 captioned Rudolf
Grodzen and Vikram Chatrath, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. BMW AG; BMW 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; Mercedes-Benz Vans,
LLC; Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Case No. 2:17-cv-06401 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:17-cv-06105-CRB to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation No.
2796. The lead case is 3:17-md-02796-CRB.

The case arises out of the conspiracy to unlawfully inflate prices
and increase maintenance costs for diesel passenger vehicles
manufactured and sold by Defendants.

The Defendants are in the business of developing, manufacturing,
and selling cars and motorcycles worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Atnip III, Esq.
      HELLMUTH AND JOHNSON PLLC
      8050 West 78th Street
      Edina, MN 55439
      Telephone: (952) 941-4005
      Facsimile: (952) 941-2337
      E-mail: jatnip@hjlawfirm.com


MDL 2796: "Kremer" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed on August 8, 2017 titled Victor
Kremer and Michelle Martin, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. BMW AG, BMW 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 of North America, Inc., Daimler AG, Mercedes-Benz USA,
Mercedes-Benz Vans, LLC, Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Robert
Bosch GMBH, and Robert Bosch LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-05865 was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-
06104-CRB to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation No.
2796. The lead case is 3:17-md-02796-CRB.

The case arises out of the conspiracy to unlawfully inflate prices
and increase maintenance costs for diesel passenger vehicles
manufactured and sold by Defendants.

The Defendants are in the business of developing, manufacturing,
and selling cars and motorcycles worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin H. Klein, Esq.
      Stuart G. Gross, Esq.
      GROSS & KLEIN LLP
      The Embarcadero
      Pier 9, Suite 100
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 671-4628
      Facsimile: (415) 480-6688
      E-mail: bklein@grosskleinlaw.com
              sgross@grosskleinlaw.com


MEC DEVELOPMENT: "Jefferson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Jefferson, Wayne Lewis and Gregory Brown, an individual,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. MEC Development, LLC and Does 1-100, Defendants,
Case No. 17-at-00777 (E.D. Cal., October 13, 2017), seeks unpaid
overtime compensation, restitution, statutory penalties, civil
penalties, liquidated damages, meal and rest break premium
payments, interest and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendant provides personnel and program/project management
services over a wide range of technical and business disciplines
including but not limited to asset/property management, sustaining
engineering, corrosion control, program management, training and
exercise support, facilities management, warehousing and logistics
services and administrative/back office support where Plaintiffs
worked as logisticians. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. Daniel Miles, III, Esq.
      Archie I. Grubb, II, Esq.
      BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
      218 Commerce Street
      Montgomery, AL 36104
      Tel: (334) 269-2343
      E-mail: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
              archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com

              - and -

      Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
      Matthew S. Weiler, Esq.
      Emily C. Aldridge, Esq.
      BLEICHMAR, FONTI & AULD LLP
      1999 Harrison Street, Suite 670
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Tel.: (415) 445-4003
      E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com
              mweiler@bfalaw.com
              ealdridge@bfalaw.com


MINNESOTA: Suit vs. DOL Stayed Pending BIC Exemption Reassessment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, Plaintiff, v. R.
Alexander Acosta, Secretary of Labor, and United States Department
of Labor, Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-03289 (SRN/DTS) (D. Minn.),
Judge Susan Richard Nelson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota granted the Plaintiff's Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction, granted the Defendants' Motion for a Stay,
denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment, and withdrew the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment.

Thrivent filed the present suit on Sept. 29, 2016, asserting that
the Best Interest Contract Exemption" ("BIC Exemption")'s bar on
class action waivers violates the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA")
and is accordingly unenforceable because it exceeds Department of
Labor ("DOL")'s statutory authority.  By way of relief, Thrivent
asked that the Court declare the class action waiver bar to be in
violation of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") and the FAA
and enjoin its enforcement.  Both parties agreed to proceed
immediately with summary judgment briefing.

Initially, DOL argued that the BIC Exemption's ban against class-
action waivers did not violate the FAA, and that DOL had the
authority to condition exemptions on adherence to certain
standards, including allowing class actions.  The amici also
asserted this argument in support of DOL's position.

However, shortly after the submission of the summary judgment
briefing, but prior to the hearing on the motions, DOL requested a
stay of the proceedings.  Additionally, on March 1, 2017, DOL
informed the Court that (i) the Department had proposed an
extension of the April 10, 2017 applicability date for the
rulemaking and exemptions, and initiated a 45-day comment period,
and (ii) in Hugler, 2017 WL 514424, the court granted summary
judgment to DOL on an FAA claim challenging the provision at issue
in the case.  The Court declined to issue a stay at that time, and
heard argument on the cross summary judgment motions.

In July 2017, DOL filed a notice of withdrawal of its cross-motion
for summary judgment and its opposition to the Plaintiff's summary
judgment motion, explaining that the Department no longer defends
the one regulatory provision challenged in this action -- the
application of BIC Exemption Section II(f)(2) to arbitration
agreements.  Also, DOL renewed its request for a stay, arguing
that because the challenged provision was not yet applicable to
Thrivent, and DOL was reassessing both the exemption and broader
rulemaking, a stay would promote judicial economy and likewise
conserve the parties' resources.  Thrivent opposes DOL's Motion to
Stay.

Shortly thereafter, Thrivent filed its Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction.  Although Thrivent would prefer a ruling on its Motion
for Summary Judgment, short of a dispositive ruling, it asks the
Court to issue a preliminary injunction enjoining the Defendants,
as well as all other federal agencies, from implementing or
enforcing against Thrivent the BIC Exemption to DOL's Fiduciary
Rule.  Moreover, if a preliminary injunction is granted, Thrivent
would be willing to explore an appropriately crafted stay of these
proceedings.

Judge Nelson granted Thrivent's Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction.  The implementation and enforcement of the BIC
Exemption's antiarbitration condition against Thrivent is
preliminarily enjoined and restrained until the conclusion of this
litigation or such time as the Court so orders.  Until the
preliminary injunction is dissolved or modified by the Court,
Thrivent will not be considered out of compliance with the BIC
Exemption as a result of maintaining its MDRP, which includes the
individual arbitration of member disputes.  Given that this
injunction is issued against an agency of the United States, no
bond is required.

Given DOL's reassessment of the challenged provision of the BIC
Exemption, the Judge finds that DOL has sufficiently demonstrated
the need for a stay.  Staying the matter will allow the
administrative process to fully develop, possibly resolving this
dispute, and thereby promoting judicial economy.  Moreover, in
light of Thrivent's injunctive relief, awarded Thrivent will not
be prejudiced by the entry of a stay at this time.  In fact,
Thrivent expressed its willingness to enter into a stay if the
Court were to grant its Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

Accordingly, Judge Nelson granted DOL's Motion for a Stay.
Following the issuance of the preliminary injunction, the Judge
stayed these proceedings, pending further order of the Court.  The
parties will jointly file a status report every 60 days addressing
whether a continued stay of proceedings is necessary.

As previously noted, DOL's pending Motion for Summary Judgment is
withdrawn.  In light of his rulings concerning injunctive relief
and a stay, Judge Nelson denied Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment without prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/S0Yflh from Leagle.com.

Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew
B. Kay -- akay@cozen.com -- Cozen O'Connor, pro hac vice.

Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher L. Schmitter -- cschmitter@greeneespel.com -- Greene
Espel PLLP & Mark L. Johnson -- mjohnson@greeneespel.com -- Greene
Espel PLLP.

United States Department of Labor, Defendant, represented by Emily
Sue Newton -- emily.s.newton@usdoj.gov -- DOJ & Galen Thorp --
galen.thorp@usdoj.gov -- DOJ, pro hac vice.

R. Alexander Acosta, Defendant, represented by Emily Sue Newton,
DOJ & Galen Thorp, DOJ, pro hac vice.

AARP, Amicus, represented by Deepak Gupta --
deepak@guptawessler.com -- Gupta Wessler PLLC, pro hac vice &
Vildan A. Teske, Teske, Micko, Katz, Kitzer & Rochel, PLLP.

AARP Foundation, Amicus, represented by Deepak Gupta, Gupta
Wessler PLLC, pro hac vice & Vildan A. Teske, Teske, Micko, Katz,
Kitzer & Rochel, PLLP.

AAJ, Amicus, represented by Deepak Gupta, Gupta Wessler PLLC, pro
hac vice & Vildan A. Teske, Teske, Micko, Katz, Kitzer & Rochel,
PLLP.

Americans for Financial Reform, Amicus, represented by Deepak
Gupta, Gupta Wessler PLLC, pro hac vice & Vildan A. Teske, Teske,
Micko, Katz, Kitzer & Rochel, PLLP.

Better Markets, Inc., Amicus, represented by Deepak Gupta, Gupta
Wessler PLLC, pro hac vice & Vildan A. Teske, Teske, Micko, Katz,
Kitzer & Rochel, PLLP.

Consumer Federation of America, Amicus, represented by Deepak
Gupta, Gupta Wessler PLLC, pro hac vice & Vildan A. Teske, Teske,
Micko, Katz, Kitzer & Rochel, PLLP.

Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association, Amicus, represented
by Deepak Gupta, Gupta Wessler PLLC, pro hac vice & Vildan A.
Teske, Teske, Micko, Katz, Kitzer & Rochel, PLLP.


METALCRAFT OF MAYVILLE: "Mazurek" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Mazurek, and all others similarly-situated v. Metalcraft
of Mayville, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-01439 (E.D. Wis., October 20,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the Wisconsin law.

Plaintiff Richard Mazurek is a resident of Dodge County in the
State of Wisconsin. Plaintiff Mazurek is a former employee of
Metalcraft who worked as a CNC Machinist at Metalcraft's West
Bend, Wisconsin location from on or around November 24, 2008 to on
or around April 30, 2017.

Defendant Metalcraft of Mayville, Inc. operates a precision metal
fabrication and custom manufacturing facilities. Defendant's
principal place of business is located in Mayville Wisconsin. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
      Summer Murshid, Esq.
      Timothy Maynard, Esq.
      Claire Roehre, Esq.
      Hawks Quindel, S.C.
      222 East Erie, Suite 210
      P.O. Box 442
      Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
      Tel: (414) 271-8650
      Fax: (414) 271-8442
      E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
              smurshid@hq-law.com
              tmaynard@hq-law.com
              croehre@hq-law.com


NATIONWIDE EVICTION: Conditional Class Cert in "Russell" Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
denying Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification in the
case captioned DAN RUSSELL, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONWIDE EVICTION, LLC,
Defendant, Civil Action H-17-0008 (S.D. Tex.).

Pending before the court is a renewed motion for conditional
certification of a collective action filed by plaintiff Dan
Russell.

Russell filed this suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
claiming that Nationwide wrongfully failed to pay Russell, and
others similarly situated, legally-owed overtime wages.

According to Russell, he worked in excess of forty hours a week
but was not paid overtime wages. Russell alleges that Nationwide
paid him a flat fee for each court appearance, even though some
court appearances required him to work upwards of twelve hours per
day. Russell alleges that Nationwide violated the FLSA by failing
to pay him, and others similarly situated, at one-and-one-half
times their regular pay rates for the hours worked in excess of
forty in a week.

Section 207(a) of the FLSA requires covered employers to
compensate non-exempt employees at overtime rates for time worked
in excess of forty hours per week.  Section 216(b) creates a cause
of action against employers who violate the overtime compensation
requirements. Section 216(b) also permits an employee to bring a
collective action lawsuit against an employer on behalf of himself
and other employees similarly situated.

The plaintiff bears the burden of making a preliminary factual
showing that a similarly situated group of potential plaintiffs
exists.  To establish this, the plaintiff must make a minimal
showing that: (1) there is a reasonable basis for crediting the
assertion that aggrieved individuals exist; (2) those aggrieved
individuals are similarly situated to the plaintiff in relevant
respects given the claims and defenses asserted; and (3) those
individuals want to opt in to the lawsuit.

The statement relied on by Russell provides no evidence that any
other individual has interest in joining the lawsuit. Further, in
the ten months that this case has been on file, only one
individual (Travis Pryor) other than Russell has opted into the
lawsuit. Thus, the only indication that others might be interested
in joining the lawsuit is Pryor's consent to join.

This court has previously declined to conditionally certify
collective actions when plaintiffs have presented more evidence
than what Russell has here.

Here, Russell provides no indication at all that others would be
interested in joining the suit.  The plaintiff's affidavit stated
that he remembers talking to some [other employees] about overtime
not being paid to us. Another employee did file an affidavit
indicating that he would like to opt in if the class was certified

Here, Russell's declaration provides no indication that others
actually want to join, leaving the Pryor consent as the only
indication of any interest by other individuals. Russell has
failed to make a minimal showing that other similarly situated
individuals want to opt in.

Thus, Russell's renewed motion for conditional certification of a
collective action is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 19, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/y7by5k3ofrom Leagle.com.

Dan Russell, Plaintiff, represented by Alfonso Kennard, Jr.,
KENNARD RICHARD PC, 2603 Augusta Drive, 14th Floor, Houston, TX
77057

Nationwide Eviction, LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael D.
Mitchell -- michael.mitchell@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins et
al.


NAVIENT CORP: Pope Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------
Eli Pope, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Navient Corporation, John F. Remondi,
Somsak Chivavibul and Christian M. Lown, Case No. 17-cv-08373 (D.
N.J., October 16, 2017), seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Navient provides asset management and business processing services
to education, health care, and government clients at the federal,
state, and local levels in the United States.

According to the complaint, Navient's 2017 Q2 10-Q report failed
to disclose that the Company engaged in the facilitation of
subprime loans, steering student borrowers into payment plans that
postponed bills, allowing interest to accumulate rather than
helping them enroll in income-driven repayment plans. On October
5, 2017, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro filed a
lawsuit Pennsylvania against Navient and one of its subsidiaries.
On this news, shares of the Company fell $2.10 per share or over
14% from its previous closing price to close at $12.60 per share
on October 5, 2017.

Plaintiff purchased Navient securities at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period and lost substantially upon the
revelation of the alleged corrective disclosure. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


NRRM LLC: Court Denies Partial Bid to Strike "Kundinger" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LINDA KUNDINGER, Plaintiff, v. NRRM, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 17-cv-321-jdp (W.D. Wis.), Judge James D. Peterson of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin denied
the Defendant's partial motion to strike the Plaintiff's class
action complaint.

Kundinger filed a putative class action complaint against the
Defendant, alleging that NRRM improperly obtained drivers'
personal information from the Wisconsin Department of Motor
Vehicles and used the information to send advertisements for
aftermarket automobile services.  Kundinger claims that NRRM
violated the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 ("DPPA"),
which prohibits illegitimate uses of drivers' personal information
registered with the DMV.

NRRM moves to strike three paragraphs from the class action
complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).

Kundinger alleges in paragraphs 22 through 24 that NRRM has an "F"
rating from the Better Business Bureau ("BBB") because NRRM sent
letters to various individuals and misled them in various ways,
such as implying that NRRM was a manufacturer or dealer.  These
allegations pertain to Kundinger's DPPA claim.  The DPPA prohibits
the use of drivers' personal information except for the 14
enumerated categories of use, such as use in the normal course of
business by a legitimate business.  The challenged allegations
tend to show that NRRM used the information for an illegitimate
purpose not excused under the DPPA.

NRRM contends that paragraphs 22 through 24 are impertinent
because they relate to BBB reviews of NRRM's marketing practices
in general without explicitly referring to personal information
from the DMV.  But Kundinger's allegation is that NRRM used the
information from the DMV to identify names and addresses of
potential customers and sent unconsented mail to those
individuals, as evidenced by the BBB reviews.  So, Judger Peterson
finds that the BBB reviews are pertinent.

As for prejudice, NRRM contends that the challenged allegations
would distract from the actual issues and would be prejudicial to
NRRM.  But NRRM does not develop this argument, and there appears
to be no reason why the court or a jury would be confused by the
allegations here.  Therefore, Judge Peterson denied NRRM's motion
to strike is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/M4OLor from Leagle.com.

Linda Kundinger, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce A. Schultz --
bschultz@cnsbb.com -- Coyne, Schultz, Becker & Bauer, S.C..

Linda Kundinger, Plaintiff, represented by Amy E. Keller --
akeller@dlcfirm.com -- DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Andrew Byron
Miller -- miller@starrausten.com -- Starr Austen & Miller, LLP &
Jacob M. O'Brien -- obrien@starrausten.com -- Starr Austen &
Miller, LLP.

NRRM, LLC, Defendant, represented by Colin Michael Luoma --
cml@carmodymacdonald.com -- Carmody MacDonald P.C., Stephen Todd
Hamby -- sth@carmodymacdonald.com -- Carmody MacDonald P.C. & Tina
N. Babel -- tnb@carmodymacdonald.com -- Carmody MacDonald P.C.


ORBITAL ATK: Sedon Sues to Halt Merger Deal, Seeks Projections
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Sedon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Orbital ATK, Inc., David W. Thompson,
Ronald R. Fogleman, Kevin P. Chilton, Roxanne J. Decyk, Lennard A.
Fisk, Ronald T. Kadish, Tig H. Krekel, Douglas L. Maine, Roman
Martinez IV, Janice I. Obuchowski, James G. Roche, Harrison H.
Schmitt and Scott L. Webster, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-01164
(E.D. Va., October 16, 2017), seeks to preliminarily and
permanently enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert
with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the
acquisition of Orbital ATK by Northrop Grumman Corporation; or in
in the event defendants consummate the merger, rescinding it and
setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages, costs of this
action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts'
fees and such other and further relief in violation of Sections
14(a) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Northrop Grumman will acquire Orbital ATK where Orbital
stockholders will have the right to receive $134.50 in cash for
each share of common stock they own. Said transaction is valued at
approximately $9.2 billion.

Defendants filed a proxy statement that failed to include
Orbital's projections utilized by its financial advisor, Citigroup
in its financial analyses, including the impact of cash pension
reimbursements and contributions and annual cash flows on its net
income, says the complaint.

Orbital ATK is an aerospace and defense systems company and
supplier of related products to the U.S. government, allied
nations and prime contractors, whose main products include launch
vehicles and related propulsion systems, satellites and associated
components and services, composite aerospace structures, tactical
missiles, subsystems and defense electronics and precision
weapons, armament systems and ammunition.

Northrop Grumman is a Delaware corporation and leading global
security company that offers products, systems and solutions for
undersea, aerospace and cyberspace. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
      1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290
      Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
      Email: denright@zlk.com
             etripodi@zlk.com

             - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
      Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212) 682-3025
      Fax: (212) 682-3010


PATON ENGINEERS: "Patai" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Patai, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Paton Engineers and Constructors (CA) LLC
and Paton Engineers and Constructors (U.S.) Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 17-cv-03104 (S.D. Tex., October 16, 2017), seeks to recover
overtime for the hours they work in excess of forty per week;
liquidated damages; and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Paton Engineers is a full-service engineering, construction,
automation and project management firm where Patai worked as a
piping designer from February 2016 to June 2017. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      Curt Hesse, Esq.
      Bridget Davidson, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      Lyric Center
      440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739


PINNACLE ENGINEERING: "Thomas" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Thomas, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
employees Plaintiff, v. Pinnacle Engineering, Inc. and Pinnacle
Project Services, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-03113, (S.D.
Tex., October 16, 2017), seeks overtime premium, liquidated
damages, reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees, costs, expert
fees, mediator fees, and out-of-pocket expenses incurred by
bringing this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Pinnacle Engineering, Inc. provides a full range of environmental,
industrial, civil engineering, and remedial field services.

Pinnacle Project Services Group assists industrial, petrochemical
and refining clients with planning, scheduling, cost control and
administrative support and more. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dennis A. Clifford, Esq.
      THE CLIFFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      712 Main Street, Suite 900
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (713) 999-1833
      Fax: (866) 232-0999
      Email: dennis@cliffordemploymentlaw.com


PNC MERCHANT: Faces Healing Suit in N.Y. Over Unauthorized Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Healing for the Abused Woman Ministries and Kelwin Inkwel, LLC, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. PNC
Merchant Services Company, L.P., Case No. 1:17-cv-06255 (E.D.N.Y.,
October 26, 2017), arises out of the Defendant's unlawful practice
of assessing improper fees not authorized in the merchant
agreement.

PNC Merchant Services Company, L.P. is a Delaware limited
partnership that is co-owned by PNC Bank, N.A. and the country's
largest payment processor. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PRIMERITUS FINANCIAL: Odahl Sues Over Repossession Procedure
------------------------------------------------------------
Charlynn Odahl, Plaintiff, v. Primeritus Financial Services, Inc.,
Key Auto Recovery and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. BC679797 (Cal. Super., October 16, 2017), is a class
action complaint that seeks actual, statutory, punitive,
restitution and disgorgement of illicit gains, injunctive relief,
pre-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses
incurred in the investigation, filing and prosecution of this
action and such other and further relief for violation of the
Unfair Competition Law, Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and the Collateral Recovery Act.

On March 26, 2012, Odahl purchased an automobile on credit from an
auto dealership under a retail installment sales contract by BMW
Financial Services N.A., LLC. The latter issued a repossession
assignment to Primeritus to repossess said vehicle when Plaintiff
went default. Key Auto repossessed subject vehicle by entering a
secured, gated garage and driving its vehicle into Plaintiff's
private property without permission. Key Auto also failed to
properly notify plaintiff of the seizure of the vehicle within 48
hours and failed to mail her a written inventory of her personal
items in the vehicle. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander B. Trueblood, Esq.
      TRUEBLOOD LAW FIRM
      10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1600
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Telephone: (310)443-4139
      Facsimile: (310) 943-2255

             - and -

      Brandon A. Block, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON BLOCK A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
      433 North Camden Drive, Suite 600
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 887-1440
      Facsimile: (310) 496-1420


PUBLIC HEALTH: "Morris" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marvella Morris and Noel Cord, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Public Health Management
Corporation (PHMC) and Turning Points for Children, Defendants,
Case No. 17-cv-04620 (E.D. Pa., October 17, 2017), seeks all
available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

PHMC offers a broad array of programs spanning behavioral
health/recovery, nurse-managed primary care, chronic disease
management and prevention, tobacco control, obesity prevention,
early intervention, HIV/AIDS, violence intervention, homeless
health services and parenting support for families. Turning Points
is an accredited human services agency headquartered at 4329
Griscom Street, Philadelphia, PA 19124. It joined PHMC as an
affiliate in March 2013.

Plaintiffs have been jointly employed by PHMC and Turning Points
to provide various social services to children and families in
Philadelphia's foster care system. Morris is currently employed in
the position of Case Manager, while Cord recently resigned from
the position of Outcome Specialist. Morris typically works
approximately 60-70 hours per week, while Cord typically worked
approximately 50 hours per week, both without overtime premiums.
[BN]

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
     Tel: (215) 884-2491


RAMSGATE INSURANCE: "Ganier" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Ganier, and all others similarly-situated v. Ramsgate
Insurance, Inc., Ramsgate Program Managers, Inc., 1st Quality
Insurance Group Inc, all dba 1st Quality Insurance Group, and
Thomas Rumfelt, Case No. 8:17-cv-02463 (M.D. Fla., October 20,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiff Robert Ganier resided in Lake Wales and worked for the
Defendants from May 2017 until September 2017.

Defendants operate a business enterprise selling insurance
policies to businesses from multiple offices and locations, and
through numerous sales agents across the U.S. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
      FELDMAN WILLIAMS LLC
      18801 N. Dale Mabry Hwy. #563
      Lutz, FL 33548
      Tel: (813) 639-9366
      Fax: (813) 639-9376
      E-mail: mlf@feldmanlegal.us


RJ REYNOLDS: "Tarrow" Suit Remanded to California State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANDREW TARROW, Plaintiff, v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO
COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. SACV 17-01568-CJC(KESx)
(C.D. Cal.), Judge Cormac J. Carney of the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Southern Division, granted the
Plaintiff's motion to remand, and denied as moot the Defendants'
motion to stay.

Defendant RJRT and its parent corporation Reynolds American, Inc.
("RAI") sell tobacco products.  They formerly employed Plaintiff
as a Territory Manager in their Riverside, California division.
RJRT and RAI employ Defendants William Roth and Daniel Harrington
as Senior Directors for their Southern and Northern California
regions, respectively.  Roth and Harrington oversee and control
RJRT and RAI's operation in their region, and each manages
approximately half of the Territory Managers in California.  Roth
and Harrington, the only two Senior Directors in California, were
and are the highest-ranking individuals within RAI and RJRT in the
state.

Tarrow filed the action on Aug. 8, 2017, in the Orange County
Superior Court as a putative class action alleging ten causes of
action: failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to permit rest breaks, unlawful collection or
receipt of wages due for "personal use," failure to indemnify for
expenditures incurred in discharge of duties, waiting time
penalties, failure to pay using proper instrument at the place of
discharge, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
conversion, and violation of California Business & Professions
Code Section 17200.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants misclassified Territory
Managers as "exempt" employees and had various policies and
practices that gave rise to their claims.  He brings the action on
behalf of a proposed class of the Defendants' current and former
employees who hold/held the position of Territory Manager for the
four years preceding the filing of the action who were also
intentionally misclassified as 'exempt' employees by the
Defendants.

The Defendants removed the action to this Court on Sept. 11, 2017.
Before the Court is the Plaintiff's motion to remand, and the
Defendants' motion to stay.

Judge Carney finds that the Plaintiff seeks both monetary damages
and injunctive relief from all five Defendants joint and
severally.  The alleged California Labor Code violations are pled
as being caused by Roth and Harrington's creation of policies and
practices or their enforcement of RJRT and RAI's policies and
practices.  The damages appear to be the same whether caused by
Roth and Harrington, or caused by the other Defendants.  As pled,
significant damages can be attributed to Roth and Harrington's
conduct, therefore, the Judge concludes that the Plaintiff has
sufficiently alleged that he seeks "significant relief" from the
local Defendants for purposes of the local controversy exception.

The Judge also finds that nothing in CAFA indicates a
congressional intention to turn a jurisdictional determination
concerning the local Defendant's 'alleged conduct' into a mini-
trial on the merits of the Plaintiff's claims.  He Court can look
only to the allegations found in the Plaintiff's Complaint when it
determines whether the local controversy exception applies.
Accordingly, based on the allegations of the Complaint, he
concludes that the Plaintiff has sufficiently pled that Roth and
Harrington's conduct provides a "significant basis" for the
alleged conduct for which the Plaintiff seeks relief.

For these reasons, Judge Carney granted the Plaintiff's motion to
remand and denied as moot the Defendants' motion to stay.

Finally, with respect to the Plaintiff's request for the Court to
exercise its discretion to award attorneys' fees and costs in
remanding the removed case to state court under Section 1447(c),
Judge Carney finds that the Defendants had an objectively
reasonable basis to remove the action under CAFA.  First, there
are many similar cases pending in the Central District at this
time.  And second, there are no reported Ninth Circuit decisions
on similar facts presented here that hold the local controversy
exception applies.  Accordingly, the Judge will deny the
Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ajCpR4 from Leagle.com.

Andrew Tarrow, Plaintiff, represented by Natalie Mirzayan --
mirzayann@yahoo.com -- Law Offices of Natalie Mirzayan.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Defendant, represented by Aaron Lee
Agenbroad -- alagenbroad@JonesDay.com -- Jones Day & Liat Yamini -
- lyamini@JonesDay.com -- Jones Day.

Reynolds American, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aaron Lee
Agenbroad, Jones Day & Liat Yamini, Jones Day.

Staci Meyer, Defendant, represented by Aaron Lee Agenbroad, Jones
Day & Liat Yamini, Jones Day.

William Roth, Defendant, represented by Aaron Lee Agenbroad, Jones
Day & Liat Yamini, Jones Day.

Daniel Harrington, Defendant, represented by Aaron Lee Agenbroad,
Jones Day & Liat Yamini, Jones Day.


SOLARCITY CORP: "Daugherty" Stayed Pending Outcome of "Morris"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BREANA DAUGHERTY, on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v.
SOLARCITY CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-05155-WHA (N.D. Cal.),
Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the parties stipulation to stay the
case pending the outcome of Morris et al. v. Ernst & Young, LLP.

On Jan. 13, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Morris.
The parties requested a stay of the appeal pending before the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the stay was granted
on Aug. 28, 2017.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Morris on Oct. 2, 2017.
The parties believe that a stay pending a decision in Morris will
be more efficient for this Court and the parties.  The parties
submit their joint stipulation to stay the case pending the
outcome of Morris.

The Court granted their stipulation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/A7cet6 from Leagle.com.


SPARK NETWORKS: "Vana" to Halt Merger Deal, Claims Shortchanged
---------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Vana, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Spark Networks, Inc., Brad Goldberg,
Michael J. Mcconnell, Michael Brodsky, Ian V. Jacobs, John
H.Lewis, Danny Rosenthal,And Walter L. Turek, Defendants, Case No.
17-cv-07603 (C.D. Cal., October 17, 2017), seeks to enjoin the
shareholder vote on the merger of the businesses of Spark and
Affinitas under a holding company, New Spark, organized under the
laws of Germany; and in the event defendants consummate the
merger, rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory
damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for
attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief for
violation of Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Under the terms of the merger agreement, Spark stockholders will
be entitled to receive, 0.1 for each share of Spark common stock,
representing 0.1 ordinary shares of new Spark. Consequently,
current Spark stockholders will collectively own approximately 25%
of New Spark, while Affinitas stockholders will collectively own
approximately 75% of New Spark.

According to the complaint, Defendants filed a proxy statement
that failed to include Orbital's projections utilized by its
financial advisor, B. Riley & Co., LLC. Plaintiffs allege that the
intrinsic value of the Company's common stock is materially in
excess of the amount offered for those securities in the proposed
acquisition given its prospects for future growth and earnings.

Spark operates premium online dating platforms EliteSingles,
eDarling and Attractive World. It operates a number of other
niche-focused and international websites and mobile applications.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Bower, Esq.
      MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
      600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
      Culver City, CA 90230
      Tel: (213) 446-6652
      Email: dbower@monteverdelaw.com

             - and -

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
      The Empire State Building
      350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
      New York, NY 10118
      Telephone: (212) 971-1341
      Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


SPEEDY CASH: "Payton" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Payton, and all others similarly-situated v. Speedy Cash
and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 2:17-cv-07777 (C.D. Calif.,
October 24, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff Jonathan Payton is a resident of Los Angeles,
California.

Defendant Speedy Cash offers online payday loans, as well as
installment loans and lines of credit for larger amounts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SPEEDYPC SOFTWARE: Court Certifies Class in Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion granting
Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class and Subclass in the case
captioned ARCHIE BEATON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SPEEDYPC SOFTWARE, a British
Columbia company, Defendant, No. 13-cv-08389 (N.D. Ill.).

This putative class action arises out of Beaton's purchase of a
license to use the SpeedyPC's software.  SpeedyPC promotes its
software through online advertisements and on websites as being
capable of increasing computer speed and performance, removing
harmful computer errors, and protecting users' privacy and
security.  Beaton alleges that these representations do not
reflect the software's true capabilities. Instead, the software
has two main functions: first, it is a registry cleaner and
second, it removes superfluous temporary files from a user's hard
drive. According to Beaton, these functions "do not come close to
squaring with SpeedyPC's representations about the functionality
of SpeedyPC Pro.

According to Beaton, SpeedyPC breached implied warranties of
fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability and committed
fraudulent misrepresentation under various consumer protection
laws.

Beaton first proposes as the Class:

     All individuals living in the United States who downloaded a
free trial of SpeedyPC Pro and thereafter purchased the full
version between October 28, 2011 and November 21, 2014.
On behalf of the Class, Beaton seeks to litigate contractual
warranty claims for breaches of the implied warranties of fitness
for a particular purpose and merchantability. These claims arise
under British Columbia law.

Beaton also proposes as the Subclass:

     All Class members who reside in Illinois, California,
Colorado, Florida, New York, Oregon, Alabama, Tennessee, New
Jersey, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Vermont,
Massachusetts, Michigan, and Washington, D.C.

Numerosity

SpeedyPC's records reflect that over 574,000 individuals
downloaded the free trial of SpeedyPC's software before purchasing
the full version of SpeedyPC's software.  Thus, both the Class and
Revised Subclass are sufficiently numerous under Rule 23.

Commonality

For class certification, only one question of law or fact common
to the class is required.

Here, there are undoubtedly questions of law and fact that are
common to the Class and Revised Subclass. The Class's contractual
warranty claims raise legal questions about whether customers can
avail themselves of these warranties or whether they have been
disclaimed by the End User License Agreement accompanying
SpeedyPC's software. These claims will also include factual
questions about what function SpeedyPC's software was marketed as
performing, whether the software did in fact perform that
function, whether customers expressly or impliedly made known that
they were purchasing the software for that purpose, and whether
customers were harmed.

And these factual questions also arise with respect to the Revised
Subclass's ICFA claims.

Typicality

SpeedyPC contends that, in Beaton's deposition, he conceded that
his experience with SpeedyPC's software was different than that of
other customers. To this end, SpeedyPC cites Beaton's deposition
testimony where SpeedyPC's counsel showed Beaton an anonymous
positive internet review of SpeedyPC's software and he responded,
I'm just going on my own experience. My own experience does not
coincide with this individual's response or his computer. This
does not constitute a concession by Beaton that his experience
with SpeedyPC's software was different from others.

Beaton's response implied that he had no knowledge of the posting
individual's experience. As such, he was simply saying that
because he had a negative experience with SpeedyPC's software, he
differed in opinion from the anonymous positive internet review he
was shown. Nowhere did he concede that SpeedyPC's software
functioned differently for other people or computers.
Thus, SpeedyPC has provided no reason to think that Beaton's
claims are atypical.

Adequacy of Representative and Counsel

To determine whether the class representatives will adequately
represent the class as a whole, courts examine whether: (1) the
representatives have antagonistic or conflicting claims with the
other class members; and (2) the counsel for named plaintiffs can
sufficiently represent the class.

The fact that opposing counsel in other cases have accused Edelson
of sanctionable conduct and incompetence does not disqualify them
as class counsel. SpeedyPC only trudges up adversarial claims
against Edelson, SpeedyPC has not pointed to any judicial rulings
on those adversarial claims. The most SpeedyPC does is point out
that in another class action case against Speedy, Edelson had to
change the named plaintiff and then subsequently voluntarily
dismissed its complaint.

In essence, SpeedyPC asks this Court to disqualify Edelson from
class-action litigation for once voluntarily dismissing a case.
That is not enough and thus the Court rejects the request. Based
on a review of the dockets of the cited Edelson matters and
Edelson's conduct in this matter, the Court has not seen anything
indicating Edison lacks the competence to adequately litigate this
case.

Thus, the Court finds that Beaton and his counsel Edelson are
adequate representatives of the Class and Revised Subclass.
The Court finds that Beaton's proposed Class and Revised Subclass
meet the requirements of Rule 23(a).

Analysis under Rule 23(b)

Predominance of Common Questions

Generally, predominance is satisfied when common questions
represent a significant aspect of a case and can be resolved for
all members of a class in a single adjudication. In other words,
common questions can predominate if a common nucleus of operative
facts and issues underlies the claims brought by the proposed
class.

SpeedyPC does not address these common questions, but rather poses
ten material questions that it claims require individual attention
such that they would predominate over the common questions
relating to the Class and Revised Subclass:

   (1) Who did the class member purchase the software from?

   (2) Was the software purchased primarily for business or
personal use?

   (3) Did the software work?

   (4) Was the class member deceived into purchasing the software?

   (5) What was the value of the software as promised to the class
member?

   (6) What was the value of the software as delivered to the
class member?

   (7) Did the class member provide notice of its claim to Speedy?

   (8) Is the class member's claim time barred?

   (9) Did the class member request a refund?

  (10) Was a refund issued to the class member?

The Court disagrees and does not find that these questions
predominate over the common questions that relate to the Class and
Revised Subclass.

Question (1) is best addressed through a common proceeding because
the evidence shows that the class members purchased the premium
version of SpeedyPC's software through the free version's portal
and were directed to one of two payment processors.
Similarly, questions (3), (4), (5), and (6) too can be addressed
through a common proceeding, because each of these questions is
intricately related to SpeedyPC's representations about the
software and the function of the software. Beaton alleges that
SpeedyPC's software did not properly diagnose problems with
computers and therefore did not confer any benefit on customers of
SpeedyPC's premium software product.

Questions (2), (7), (8), (9), and (10) are questions that may
require individual responses and evidence, but they do not
predominate over the common questions relevant to the Class and
Revised Subclass. Each of these questions is, as a general matter,
sufficiently simple that there are streamlined mechanisms
available to determine which of the Class members has a viable
claim.

Superiority of Class Action

In light of all this, the Court determines that the class action
is a superior way of proceeding. Chiefly, as discussed, there are
common questions of law and fact relating to the Class and Revised
Subclass that predominate over any individual questions. Moreover,
the claims of the Class and Revised Subclass are manageable. The
Class's claim is under the law of British Columbia, Canada and the
Revised Subclass's claim is under the ICFA.

The Court grants Beaton's motion to certify the class to bring
contractual warranty claims for breaches of the implied warranties
of fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 19, 2017
Memorandum Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/yct8de2p
from Leagle.com.

Archie Beaton, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Harris Richman -
- brichman@edelson.com --  Edelson PC.

Archie Beaton, Plaintiff, represented by Rafey S. Balabanian --
rbalabanian@edelson.com --  Edelson PC, Amir Cheyenne Missaghi --
amissaghi@edelson.com --  Edelson PC, David Ira Mindell --
dmindell@edelson.com --  Edelson P.C. & Eve-Lynn J. Rapp --
erapp@edelson.com --  Edelson P.C..

SpeedyPC Software, Defendant, represented by James Kenneth Borcia
-- jborcia@tresslerllp.com -- Tressler LLP & Kevin Krikor Kearney
--  kkearney@tresslerllp.com -- Tressler LLP.


STATE FARM: Show Cause Order in "Ayers" Discharged
--------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Orlando Division, issued an Order discharging the Show
Cause Order in the case captioned FRANK AYERS, Plaintiff, v. STATE
FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; RUTH MIER GRAHAM;
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY; TAMMY BOOTH; and STEVEN
HERSH, Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-1265-Orl-37TBS (M.D. Fla.).

Plaintiff asserts, among others, a putative class action breach-
of-contract claim against Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company. The Class Claim rests on the theory that State
Farm is required to provide its insureds with counsel prior to the
initiation of a third-party bodily injury lawsuit.

After State Farm removed the action to the District Court, the
Court concluded that it lacked sufficient evidence to determine
whether State Farm had satisfied the Class Action Fairness Act's
jurisdictional threshold and ordered it show cause why this case
should not be remanded.  State Farm and Plaintiff responded to the
Show Cause Order, and the matter was set for a hearing on October
17, 2017.  At the October 17 Hearing, the Plaintiff addressed the
Show Cause Order and considered several pending motions.

The Court concluded that it lacked sufficient evidence to
determine whether State Farm had satisfied the Class Action
Fairness Act's jurisdictional threshold and ordered it show cause
why this case should not be remanded.

The Court's Show Cause Order is discharged.

Defendant State Farm's Motion to Dismiss Complaint and
Incorporated Memorandum of Law is denied without prejudice.

Defendant State Farm's Motion to Redesignate Case from Track Two
to Track Three and Motion to Bifurcate Discovery is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 19, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/ybsh66elfrom Leagle.com.

Frank Ayers, Plaintiff, represented by Henry Arnold Seiden, Seiden
Law, 301 Clematis Street Suite 201, West Palm Beach, FL 33401

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by Benjamine Reid -- breid@carltonfields.com --
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA, David Matthew Allen --
mallen@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA &
Jeffrey A. Cohen -- jacohen@carltonfields.com -Carlton Fields
Jorden Burt, PA.

Ruth Mier Graham, Defendant, represented by David Cyril Knapp,
James A. Coleman, PA, James A. Coleman, James A. Coleman, PA,
Kendall B. Rigdon, Rigdon, Alexander & Rigdon, LLP & Kurt Edward
Alexander, Rigdon, Alexander & Rigdon, LLP, 2405 N. Courtnay Pkwy.
Suite 202Merritt Island, FL 32953

Government Employees Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Kendall B. Rigdon, Rigdon, Alexander & Rigdon, LLP & Kurt Edward
Alexander, Rigdon, Alexander & Rigdon, LLP.

Tammy Booth, Defendant, represented by Alan Jeffrey Nisberg --
anisberg@butler.legal -- Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP & John
W. Weihmuller -- jweihmuller@butler.legal -- Butler Weihmuller
Katz Craig LLP.

Steven Hersh, Defendant, represented by Alan Jeffrey Nisberg,
Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP & John W. Weihmuller, Butler
Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP.


TARGET CORPORATION: Sued Over Up & Up Makeup Remover Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Megan McAteer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Target Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-07848 (C.D. Cal.,
October 26, 2017), is an action for damages as a result of the
Defendant's failure to properly warn consumers, either in their
extensive television, print, and online marketing of the Up & Up
Makeup Remover Cleansing Towelettes -- Evening Calm Products or on
the package labeling that one or more of the Products' active
ingredients creates an irritating and allergic reaction causing a
burning sensation on the face and turns the face red.

Target Corporation is the second-largest discount store retailer
in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Francis J. "Casey" Flynn Jr., Esq.
      CAREY DANIS & LOWE
      6220 W 3rd St # 415
      Los Angeles, CA 90036
      Telephone: (314) 662-2836
      E-mail: francisflynn@gmail.com

          - and -

      Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq.
      Ashton Smith, Esq.
      JONES WARD PLC
      The Pointe
      1205 E. Washington St., Suite 111
      Louisville, KY 40206
      Telephone: (502) 882-6000
      Facsimile: (502) 587-2007
      E-mail: jasper@jonesward.com
              ashton@jonesward.com


TATE & KIRLIN: "Marconi" Suit Disputes Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Marconi, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tate & Kirlin Associates, Inc.
and John Does, 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-04411, (E.D. Pa.,
October 3, 2017), seeks statutory and actual damages, costs of
this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further
relief for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Tate & Kirlin was tasked to collect the alleged debt of Marconi to
Verizon Wireless. Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection letter
indicating that "a negative credit bureau report reflecting on
your credit record may be submitted to a credit reporting agency
by the current account owner if you fail to fulfill the terms of
your credit obligations." The threat of reporting the alleged debt
to the credit bureaus can be considered a simple coercion. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Antranig Garibian, Esq.
      GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES
      1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Email: ag@garibianlaw.com


TEMPUR SEALY: "Rabin" Suit Alleges Breach of Express Warranty
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel S. Rabin, and all others similarly-situated v. Tempur Sealy
International, Inc. and Mattress Firm, Inc. dba Mattress Firm,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02619 (D. Kan., October 24, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for alleged breach of express warranty
pursuant to Kansas law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Kansas and resides in
Overland Park, Kansas.  In January 2012, Plaintiff purchased a
Sealy brand Stearns & Foster mattress from a Mattress Firm store
in Overland Park, Kansas.

Defendant Sealy is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Lexington, Kentucky.  Sealy manufactures and distributes
mattresses for sale through retailers to consumers under a variety
of brands and names including Stearns and Foster.  Sealy purchased
the Stearns & Foster Company in late 1983.

Defendant Mattress Firm is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Houston, Texas, and currently operates over 3,500 locations across
49 states nationwide. Defendant Mattress Firm is a bedding
retailer. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin N. Hutnick, Esq.
      BERMAN & RABIN, P.A.
      15280 Metcalf
      Overland Park, KS 66223
      Tel: (913) 649-1555
      Fax: (913) 652-9474
      E-mail: bhutnick@bermanrabin.com


TENDER LOVING: "Jones-Dowd" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Sue Ellen Jones-Dowd, and all others similarly-situated v. Tender
Loving Family Care Inc., T.L.F.C. Companion Services LLC, and
Annika D'Andrea, Case No. 6:17-cv-06726 (W.D. N.Y., October 20,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Sue Ellen Jones-Dowd is a resident of the State of New
York and was employed by the Defendants from March 2013 to March
2016 as home health aides.

Defendants own and operate a New York State licensed home care
services agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Mullin, Esq.
      FERR & MULLIN, P.C.
      7635 Main St. Fishers
      P.O. Box 440
      Fishers, NY 14453
      Tel: (585) 869-0210
      E-mail: rlmullin@FerrMullinLaw.com

          - and -

      Justin M. Cordello, Esq.
      Cordello Law, PLLC
      95 Allens Creek Rd., Bldg. 2, Ste 215
      Rochester, NY 14618
      Tel: (585) 857-9684
      E-mail: justin@cordellolaw.com


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Merger Docs Lacking Projections, Claims "Berg"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Berg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Terraform Global, Inc., Peter Blackmore,
Fred Boyle, Christopher Compton, Hanif Dahya, Mark Lerdal, David
J. Mack, Alan B. Miller, Jack Stark, David Ringhofer, Gregory
Scallen, Brookefield Asset Management, Orion US Holdings LLP and
Bre GLBL Holdings Inc., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-03044 (D. MD.,
October 17, 2017), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons
acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or
closing the acquisition of Terraform by affiliates of Orion US
Holdings; rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding
rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate the merger;
as well as costs of this action, including reasonable allowance
for attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

TerraForm Global owns and operates renewable energy generation
assets worldwide. The Company generates electricity through solar,
wind, and hydro-electric projects and serves utility, commercial,
industrial and government customers. TerraForm Global holds wind
and solar projects in South Africa, India and China.

Under the terms of the merger agreement, Terrform's Class A common
stock will be converted to the right to receive $5.10 in cash.

Defendants filed a proxy statement that failed to include
financial projections and valuation analyses performed by its
financial advisor, Centerview Partners, LLC including a fully-
taxed unlevered free cash flow of the company from 2017 to 2026,
says the complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 295-531
      Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
      Email: bdl@rl-legal.com

             - and -

      Thomas J. Minton, Esq.
      GOLDMAN AND MINTON
      3600 Union Ave., Suite 201
      Baltimore MD 21211
      Tel: (410) 783-7575
      Fax: (410) 783-1711
      Email: tminton@charmcitylegal.com

             - and -

      RM LAW PC
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Suite 300
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: 324-6800


TESLA MOTORS: "Paige" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT, Final Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Christin Paige, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v. Tesla
Motors, Inc., Supplier Link Services, Inc. and Does 1-100, Case
No. RG17878917 (Cal. Super., October 16, 2017), seeks unpaid wages
including overtime, meal and rest period compensation, final pay,
penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Tesla is an electric car manufacturer --
https://www.tesla.com/about -- operating from its Fremont factory
in California. Supplier Link Services is a third party sorting and
engineering company located in Fremont, California providing
quality control solutions, including onsite engineering,
inspection and rework services. Paige claims to be jointly
employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt factory staff. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRANZVIA LLC: "Hirsch" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Aaron Hirsch, and all others similarly-situated v. Tranzvia LLC,
Case No. 4:17-cv-00763 (E.D. Tex., October 24, 2017), is brought
against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to cease all
unsolicited telephone calling activities to consumers, and an
award of statutory damages to the members of the Classes under the
TCPA equal to $500 per violation, together with court costs,
reasonable attorneys' fees, and treble damages.

Plaintiff Aaron Hirsch is a citizen of Maryland and resides in
Montgomery County, Maryland.

Defendant Tranzvia LLC operates a technology services company that
purportedly offers payment technology services and other services.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Warren T. Burns, Esq.
      Daniel Charest, Esq.
      BURNS CHAREST LLP
      900 Jackson Street, Suite 500
      Dallas, TX  75202
      Tel: (469) 904-4550
      Fax: (469) 444-5002
      E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
              dcharest@burnscharest.com


TUNNEL TAXI: "Lemache" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Jose Sanaicela Lemache, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tunnel Taxi Management, LLC,
Millennium Taximeter Corp., Skilman Consulting Corp., Taxopark
Garage Inc., Evgeny A. Friedman and Mamed Dzhaniyev, Defendants.,
Case No. 17-cv-02183, (N.D. Ohio, October 16, 2017), seeks unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Evgeny A. Friedman and Mamed Dzhaniyev own taxi auto shops located
at 4407 Vernon Blvd, Queens, New York 11101, where Lemache worked
as a mechanic. [BN]

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200


UTILIKON LLC: "Medina" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Gregorio Medina, Jose David Aguilar, Wilmer Gavarrete, Alberto
Perez, Jesus Quinto, Gabriel Villeda, Ricardo Zuniga Samano,
Simeon Amaya Soriano, Sergio Carrillo, individually and on behalf
of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. Utilikon, LLC
and Chagnon Dean Early, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-03093, (S.D.
Tex., October 13, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees owed under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Utilikon is a subcontractor for infrastructure construction
services, including installation of fiber-optic cables where
Aguilar, Gavarrete, Perez, Quinto, Villeda, Samano, Soriano and
Carrillo were employed as general laborer while Medina was
employed as a supervisor. They were involved in digging trenches
and installing piping and fiber optic cable in the piping and
trenches. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
      2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Tel: 713-868-3388
      Fax: 713-683-9940
      Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
             vijay@buenkerlaw.com


VIRGINIA: Court Refuses to Review Sovereign Immunity Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned SHERRY LYNN THORNHILL, for herself and as
Administrator of the Estate of her son, Shawn Christopher Berry,
deceased, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. F. GLENN AYLOR, et al., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 3:15CV00024 (W.D. Va.), is before the United States
District Court for Western District of Virginia, Charlottesville
Division, on defendants' motion for reconsideration of their
motion to certify to the Supreme Court of Virginia the question of
whether regional jail authorities and their employees are entitled
to sovereign immunity under Virginia law.

Thornhill filed an amended class action complaint against eleven
defendants, including the Central Virginia Regional Jail
Authority, Superintendant F. Glenn Aylor, and several employees at
the Central Virginia Regional Jail, arising out of Berry's death
while in custody.  Defendants then filed separate motions to
dismiss, which the court granted in part and denied in part.  Only
Count II, asserting a claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983, and Count III, alleging wrongful death in violation of
Virginia Code Section 8.01-50, remain pending against the
Authority, Aylor, and three of the employees.

A decision was issued in Haleem v. Quinones, No. 5:17-cv-00003,
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16138 (W.D. Va. Sept. 30, 2017), granting
sovereign immunity to a Virginia regional jail authority and
granting the defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction.

The United States District Court for Western District of Virginia,
Charlottesville Division, rejected the defendants' argument that
the state sovereign immunity granted to Virginia sheriffs when
performing discretionary acts flows from the sheriffs to regional
jail authorities and their employees because the sheriffs sit on a
board that oversees those authorities. Although a possibly novel
argument, the court recognized that the mere existence of a novel
theory does not compel certification. Indeed, certification is
unnecessary when existing case law permits the court to reach a
reasoned and principled conclusion.

The court recognized that here, the existing case law addresses
when an employee of a state agency is entitled to sovereign
immunity and whether an entity or individual is an agent of the
Commonwealth entitled to sovereign immunity for discretionary
acts.  The court further noted that this argument presents a
factual inquiry, and not a question of Virginia law for which Rule
5:40 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia provides a
basis for certification.  Sovereign immunity is a defensive plea
presenting distinct issues of fact which, if proved, create a bar
to a plaintiff's right of recovery.

The court continues to find its prior analysis persuasive.  The
court will deny the motion for reconsideration.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 19, 2017
Memorandum Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/y92cdkvg
from Leagle.com.

Sherry Lynn Thornhill, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Olin
Wilson, Wilson Law PLC, 125 Southampton Drive, Harrisonburg, VA
22801

Sherry Lynn Thornhill, Plaintiff, represented by Uri Nazryan, 1600
Wilson Blvd #905, Arlington, VA 22209 & Mitchell J. Rotbert,
Rotbert Business Law P.C.,  8937 Shady Grove Court, Gaithersburg,
MD 20877. pro hac vice.

F. Glenn Aylor, Defendant, represented by Channing Maria Thomas,
Phillips & Thomas Law, PLLC, Helen Eckert Phillips, Phillips &
Thomas Law, PLLC, Po Box 517, Abingdon, VA, 24212-0517 & Francesca
Evans Fornari -- fef@stlawva.com -- St. John Bowling Lawrence &
Quagliana LLP.

Central Virginia Regional Jail Authority, Defendant, represented
by Channing Maria Thomas, Phillips & Thomas Law, PLLC, Helen
Eckert Phillips, Phillips & Thomas Law, PLLC & Francesca Evans
Fornari, St. John Bowling Lawrence & Quagliana LLP.

Christie M. Apple-Figgins, Defendant, represented by Channing
Maria Thomas, Phillips & Thomas Law, PLLC, Helen Eckert Phillips,
Phillips & Thomas Law, PLLC & Francesca Evans Fornari, St. John
Bowling Lawrence & Quagliana LLP.

Jasmine Buckner-Jones, Defendant, represented by Channing Maria
Thomas, Phillips & Thomas Law, PLLC, Helen Eckert Phillips,
Phillips & Thomas Law, PLLC & Francesca Evans Fornari, St. John
Bowling Lawrence & Quagliana LLP.

Amanda Pitts, Defendant, represented by Helen Eckert Phillips,
Phillips & Thomas Law, PLLC & Francesca Evans Fornari, St. John
Bowling Lawrence & Quagliana LLP.


WENDO FURNITURE: "Liu" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Guobin Liu, and all others similarly-situated v. Wendo Furniture
NY Inc., Wanyi Chen, and "John" Hu, Case No. 1:17-cv-06216 (E.D.
N.Y., October 24, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Guobin Liu is a resident of New York. Plaintiff worked
for the Defendants as a furniture delivery and assembly worker
from August 2015 to September 2017.

Defendant Wendo Furniture NY Inc. owns and operates a furniture
business located at 3609 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11354. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ge Qu, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718) 353-8588
      E-mail: rqu@hanglaw.com


WILSON COUNTY, KS: Settlement in "Ogden" Suit Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RUSSELL K. OGDEN, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v.
PETE FIGGINS, In his Official Capacity as Sheriff for Wilson
County, Kansas, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-CV-02268-JAR (D. Kan.),
Judge Julie A. Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas granted the final approval to the parties'
Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(e)(2).

The Plaintiffs filed the class action asserting claims,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 for declaratory and injunctive relief against
the Defendant in his official capacity as Sheriff of Wilson
County, Kansas.  The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's
postcard-only mail policy is an unconstitutional violation of the
First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of inmates at the Wilson
County Correctional Facility and their friends and family members.

On June 16, 2017, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement, which included the Agreement
reached by the parties.  In an Order dated July 19, 2016, the
Court preliminarily approved the Agreement with instruction to
give notice to the Settlement Class.  After notice to Settlement
Class members and a fairness hearing, the Court now considers the
Agreement for final approval and entry.

Judge Robinson finds that the evidence presented to the Court
supports approval and adoption of the Agreement.  The parties
fairly and honestly negotiated the Agreement.  The record
demonstrates that the Agreement is the result of cooperative,
good-faith, and arms'-length negotiation by skilled counsel who is
familiar with litigating civil rights claims.

The Judge is satisfied that the Agreement provides meaningful,
immediate recovery to all Settlement Class members that might
otherwise be unrecoverable after a decision on the merits.
Finally, the Agreement maintains the safety-based limitations on
prison correspondence discussed to protect the jail's security
interests.  Thus, the Agreement complies with the Prison
Litigation Reform Act.

In sum, Judge Robinson concludes that the Agreement proposed by
the parties is fair, reasonable, and adequate.  Therefore, she
granted the parties' Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2).  The Judge adopted and
entered the Agreement as part of the judgment in the case and
instructed the Clerk of the Court to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
claims with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/WByzWi from Leagle.com.

Russell K Ogden, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua A. Glickman --
josh@sjlawcollective.com -- Social Justice Law Collective, Pl.

Russell K Ogden, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen D. Bonney --
dbonney@aclukansas.org -- ACLU Foundation of Kansas.

Beatrice Hammer, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua A. Glickman,
Social Justice Law Collective, Pl & Stephen D. Bonney, ACLU
Foundation of Kansas.

John Smith, Class representative, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua
A. Glickman, Social Justice Law Collective, Pl & Stephen D.
Bonney, ACLU Foundation of Kansas.

Sheriff Pete Figgins, Defendant, represented by Andrew D. Holder -
- aholder@fisherpatterson.com -- Fisher, Patterson, Sayler &
Smith, LLP & Terelle A. Mock -- mock@fisherpatterson.com --
Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith, LLP.


WOLFGANG'S STEAKHOUSE: Court Dismisses "Fullwood" FACTA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CYNTHIA M. FULLWOOD, Plaintiff, v. WOLFGANG'S
STEAKHOUSE, INC. and ZMF RESTAURANTS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 13
Civ. 7174 (KPF) (S.D. N.Y.), Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted
the Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and denied
the Plaintiff's request for leave to amend.

The Plaintiff brings the putative class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act of 2003 ("FACTA").  The Plaintiff alleges that
the Defendants repeatedly violated FACTA by printing full
expiration dates on otherwise properly-redacted credit card
receipts.  The Defendants have, for the fourth time, moved to
dismiss the action.

In 2014, Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing
that he Plaintiff did not adequately plead a willful violation of
FACTA.  The Court denied that motion in light of the Plaintiff's
proposed amendments, which were subsequently filed as the Second
Amended Complaint in this matter.

In 2015, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).  The Court denied that motion,
finding that the Plaintiff had plausibly alleged a willful
violation of FACTA.

In 2016, Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint,
this time under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for a
lack of standing in light of the Supreme Court's decision in
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.  This time, the Court granted that motion.
However, because the Second Amended Complaint had been filed pre-
Spokeo, the Court granted leave to amend and instructed the
Plaintiff to plead facts showing she suffered a "concrete and
particularized injury."

The Plaintiff filed her Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") on Feb.
14, 2017.  The Plaintiff's TAC contains numerous further
additions, including more information about the risk and
prevalence of identity theft, the legislative history of FACTA,
and additional case law and secondary legal authority.

The Defendants now, for the fourth time, move to dismiss the TAC
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for a lack of
standing.  The Plaintiff filed her opposition to the Defendants'
motion on May 10, 2017, and Defendants filed their reply in
support of their motion on May 23, 2017.

Judge Failla explains that after the Second Circuit's decision in
Crupar-Weinmann v. Paris Baguette America, Inc., the Court ordered
the parties to file supplemental memoranda.  The Defendants
predictably, and accurately, argue that Crupar-Weinmann demands a
finding that the Plaintiff lacks Article III standing because the
pleadings in Crupar-Weinmann and the instant case are
"substantially indistinguishable," and because, under the Second
Circuit's reasoning, it does not matter that the Plaintiff's
receipts could have been exposed to the public.  Unless and until
the Second Circuit revisits its holding in light of the
Plaintiff's arguments or precedent from its sister Circuits, the
Court is bound by Crupar-Weinmann to dismiss the Plaintiff's TAC
under Rule 12(b)(1) for a lack of Article III standing.

With respect to the Plaintiff's allegation that she received non-
compliant receipts from Wolfgang's at unspecified times before
Oct. 3, 2013, the Judge finds that it is not clear from the TAC or
from the Plaintiff's briefing when the Plaintiff discovered the
violations.  Without this critical fact, it is impossible for the
Court to determine whether the Plaintiff's new allegation is
subject to the two-year time bar or whether it was properly filed
within five years of the violation.  The required facts are not
before the Court, and no matter: the Plaintiff lacks standing to
sue and her claim must be dismissed on that basis.

Judge Failla denied the Defendants' request for reconsideration.
The Defendants also argue in their supplemental brief that Crupar-
Weinmann warrants reconsideration of the Court's prior denial of
the Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim for reckless behavior.  However clever
this argument may be, the Judge says, having found that it lacks
subject matter jurisdiction, cannot engage in this analysis.

Finally, the Judge denied the Plaintiff's request for leave to
amend.  She explains that the Plaintiff has filed four complaints
in this matter, an initial and three amended complaints.  With
respect to the latter category, the Plaintiff filed her first
amended complaint as a matter of right under Rule 15, and received
permission from the Court to file the second and third amended
complaints.  The Plaintiff now seeks leave to amend, yet again,
but does not proffer what amendments she would make.  The Judge
cannot conceive of any amendment that would cure the Plaintiff's
lack of standing that she has not already had ample opportunity to
make.

For the reasons she stated, Judge Failla granted the Defendants'
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) and denied the Plaintiff's
request for leave to amend.  She directed the Clerk of Court to
terminate all pending motions, adjourn all remaining dates, and
close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Nov. 3, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/aZet2Y from Leagle.com.

Cynthia M. Fullwood, Plaintiff, represented by Asher Hawkins --
ahawkins@frankllp.com -- Frank LLP.

Cynthia M. Fullwood, Plaintiff, represented by Bridget Veronica
Hamill -- bhamill@frankandbianco.com -- Frank LLP, Gregory Alan
Frank -- mfrank@frankandbianco.com -- Frank LLP, Marvin Lawrence
Frank, Frank LLP & Peter Y. Lee, Lee LLC Dba Peter Y. Lee, Esq.

Wolfgang's Steakhouse, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric Joseph
Shimanoff -- ejs@cll.com -- Cowan, Liebowitz, & Latman, PC & Joel
Schmidt, Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C..

ZMF Restaurants LLC, Defendant, represented by Eric Joseph
Shimanoff, Cowan, Liebowitz, & Latman, PC & Joel Schmidt --
jks@cll.com -- Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C..


XEROX HR: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss FAC in "Chendes" ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Class Action
Complaint in the case captioned PATRICK CHENDES, JILLIAN SMITH,
and DION TUMMINELLO, Plaintiffs, v. XEROX HR SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 16-13980 (E.D. Mich.).

Plaintiffs are participants in three Ford Motor Company retirement
plans. They bring this proposed class action against Defendant
Xerox HR Solutions, LLC, the company that provides platform and
recordkeeping services for the administration of their plans or
alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA).

Plaintiffs bring four claims for this allegedly wrongful activity.
First, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant and FE breached their
fiduciary duties to the Plan participants and beneficiaries in
violation of ERISA. Second, Plaintiffs allege various prohibited
transactions" in violation of ERISA by both Defendant and FE.
Third, Plaintiffs claim that, even if Defendant is not a
fiduciary, Defendant is liable for FE's commission of prohibited
transactions because Defendant knowingly received improper payment
from FE, a fiduciary to the Ford Plans. Finally, Plaintiffs allege
that Defendant failed to meet its disclosure obligations under 29
C.F.R. Section 2550.408b-2(c).

Defendant's Fiduciary Liability (Count I)

Defendant's first argument on this motion to dismiss is that
Plaintiffs cannot state a claim for breach of fiduciary duties or
for prohibited transactions because neither Defendant nor FE was a
fiduciary of the plan with respect to the challenged conduct.
Plaintiffs disagree. Plaintiffs premise Defendant's fiduciary
status on three grounds.

Discretion over Compensation

First, Plaintiffs claim that Xerox HR is a fiduciary because it
had discretion over the amount of its compensation.  Plaintiffs do
not allege that the agreement between Xerox and the Plans in any
way permitted Xerox to exercise discretion in how much money it
received from the Plans.  Rather, Plaintiffs rely on the fact that
their agreement with Defendant did not limit Defendant's ability
to seek further compensation elsewhere.  Indeed Plaintiffs, in
response to the motion to dismiss, refer not to Defendant's
discretion in retaining funds from Plaintiffs, but rather to
Defendant's discretion over the compensation it received from FE.

Any fees that Defendant collected were collected from FE, and were
based firstly on an arm's length negotiation between Defendant and
FE not Defendant's discretion as it related to the Plans. Even
after Defendant and FE entered into their agreement, Defendant's
compensation was based on factors outside of Defendant's
discretion: namely, the number of participants who used FE's
services and the valuation of the assets of those participants.
Even so, Defendant's receipt of a portion of FE's fees is entirely
dependent on whether the Plan's participants engage FE's services
in the first place. If participants in the Plans choose not to use
FE's services, Defendant receives no such fees at all.

Because Defendant did not have discretion over the amount of its
own compensation as it relates to Plaintiffs, Defendant was not
acting as a fiduciary in collecting fees from FE.

Election of a Fiduciary

Second, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant is a fiduciary because
it selected another fiduciary FE and many courts have held that
appointing an ERISA fiduciary is itself a fiduciary act.

Plaintiffs seem to suggest, in this portion of the complaint, that
by control over the negotiation of terms and conditions, they mean
simply that FE, after contracting with the Ford Plans, would still
be required to pay Defendant a portion of its fees. The court
doubts that such an allegation -- an allegation that does not say
that Defendant was directly involved in the Ford-FE negotiations
rises to the level of appointment of a fiduciary sufficient to
impose fiduciary liability.

However, as Plaintiffs' complaint is unclear on this point.
Plaintiffs will be given leave to replead to allege to the extent
that they can facts demonstrating that Defendant exercised de
facto control over the election of FE as a fiduciary for the
Plans.

Control Over the Ford-FE Agreement

Defendant is an ERISA fiduciary, according to Plaintiffs, because
fiduciary status is ultimately a matter of functional control over
a plan or its assets and the agreement between Ford and FE amounts
to a plan asset over which Defendants had functional control.

Plaintiff has cited no authority for the proposition that a
contract for services independently negotiated between third
parties constitutes an intangible property interest rising to the
level of a plan asset. The court, therefore, finds no reason to
conclude that the Ford-FE agreement was an "asset" of the plan.
Accordingly, Defendant was not a fiduciary based upon the
proffered theory that it exercised control over the Ford-FE
agreement.

Whether Defendant's Fees Were Reasonable

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' claims should also be dismissed
because Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege that
Defendant's fees were unreasonable.

Dismissal on the basis of whether or not the fees in this case
were unreasonable would be inappropriate. Indeed, an indefinite
concept like reasonableness is precisely the kind of factual
inquiry inappropriate for a motion to dismiss. While the fee-
sharing arrangement itself, as Defendant notes, is not per se a
violation of ERISA, it does not follow that Defendant's
arrangement must have been reasonable.

The court declines Defendant's invitation to dismiss on this
basis.

Prohibited Transaction Claims (Count II and III)

Count II is premised on Defendant's status as a fiduciary and
alleges four types of prohibited transactions in violation of
Section 406(a) and Section 406(b).  Count III alleges that even if
Defendant is not a fiduciary Defendant is subject to appropriate
equitable relief for FE's prohibited transactions.

Defendant's Fiduciary Liability

The court agrees with Defendant that the payments from FE to
Defendant do not constitute plan assets.  The court determined
that once the fees are collected from the mutual fund's assets and
transferred to one of the Fidelity entities, they become
Fidelity's assets again, not the assets of the Plans. Citing 29
U.S.C. Section 1001(b)(1), which exempts assets of an investment
company issuing securities from being plan assets under ERISA.

Plaintiffs maintain that this myopic view, if adopted, could
provide an easy roadmap to launder self-dealing payments.
But Plaintiffs have cited no authority holding that funds paid by
a plan to a service provider continue to be plan assets after the
transfer. And they fail to present any meaningful way that a court
could draw a line representing where plan assets, once lawfully
paid as fees to a service provider under the terms of a negotiated
agreement, would cease to be plan assets. Plaintiffs' argument is
accordingly rejected.

This does not, however, dispose of Plaintiffs' argument that
Defendant committed a prohibited transaction under Section
406(a)(1)(C), which, by its plain language, does not require
assets of the plan. Defendant contends that it cannot be liable
under this provision because the plan was not a party to the
Xerox-FE Agreement, and therefore the Defendant could not have
caused the plan to engage in a transaction with FE as required by
Section 406(a).

Under the complaint as currently alleged, the court agrees.
Plaintiffs have nowhere alleged facts that would tend to show that
Defendant even if it were acting as a fiduciary caused the Ford
Plans to enter into a transaction constituting the furnishing of
goods, services, or facilities between the plan and a party in
interest.

Plaintiffs, however, will be given leave to replead facts that
would make this claim plausible on its face.

Defendant's Non-Fiduciary Liability

Plaintiffs claim in Count III that even if Defendant is not a
fiduciary with respect to the challenged conduct, FE undoubtedly
is. Defendant, therefore, can still be liable to Plaintiffs for
prohibited transactions under ERISA Section 406(a)(1)(C),
(a)(1)(D), (b)(1), or (b)(3) because Defendant is a party in
interest" to the Ford Plans.

The court agrees that there is nothing to suggest that FE was a
fiduciary to the Ford Plans when it negotiated its own
compensation with Ford. While FE became a fiduciary to the Ford
Plans with respect to the investment advice it provided, it was
not wearing its fiduciary hat when it negotiated its agreement
with Ford.   Moreover, there is nothing to suggest that FE was
acting as a fiduciary for the Ford Plans when it negotiated its
agreement with Defendant, either.

And while Plaintiffs make the blanket statement in their response
to the motion to dismiss that the Ford Plans' other fiduciaries
are, by definition, fiduciaries that should have been aware that
Defendant's receipt of fees constituted a prohibited transaction,
the court finds this claim nowhere alleged or supported in the
complaint.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs' claim for non-fiduciary liability under
Count III is dismissed.

Plaintiffs are given leave to replead, if they can, that the Ford
Plans' other fiduciaries caused the Plans to enter into a
transaction that they knew or should have known was prohibited.

Defendant's Safe Harbor Under Section 408(b)(2)

Defendant argues that even if Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged
that it engaged in prohibited transactions, Defendant is still
entitled to dismissal because "Xerox's receipt of fees from FE
falls comfortably within the prohibited transaction exemption set
forth in ERISA Section 408(b)(2).

Plaintiffs point out in their response, this safe harbor is a
defense that is not an appropriate basis for dismissal on a motion
to dismiss.  An ERISA plaintiff need not plead the absence of
exemptions to prohibited transactions. Defendants contend that
this court may properly consider this exemption because Plaintiffs
put it in play by anticipating it in their complaint.

Here, the court finds nothing in the complaint to suggest that
Plaintiffs have inadequately pled that FE's fees were
unreasonable. The court, therefore, will not dismiss the complaint
on the basis of Defendant's proposed safe harbor.

Disclosure Requirements (Count IV)

Plaintiffs claim that Defendant is liable for its failure to
disclose its fee sharing arrangement. Defendant contends that
there is no basis to conclude that this regulation provides a
private right of action.

Plaintiffs cite no authority for the proposition that this
regulation provides a private right of action, and the court has
found none. Rather, Defendant argues and the court agrees that
Plaintiffs improperly rely on the slight-of-hand substitution of
ERISA for this subchapter to support their argument that Section
2550.408b-2(c) provides a private right of action.

In the court's view, Congress' use of the phrase this subchapter
means nothing other than that; this provision is limited to the
actual statutory language, and excludes ERISA regulations like
Section 2550.408b-2(c) from the scope of civil enforcement through
a private cause of action.

A full-text copy of the District Court's October 19, 2017 Opinion
and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y7oga5klfrom
Leagle.com.

Patrick Chendes, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis A. Lienhardt --
dal@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm, P.C..

Patrick Chendes, Plaintiff, represented by Ellen T. Noteware --
enoteware@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., James A. Bloom --
jbloom@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
Wotkyns LLP, Todd S. Collins -- tcollins@bm.net -- Berger &
Montague & Sharon S. Almonrode -- ssa@miller.law -- The Miller Law
Firm, P.C.

Jillian Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis A. Lienhardt, The
Miller Law Firm, P.C., Ellen T. Noteware, Berger & Montague, P.C.,
James A. Bloom, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP,
Todd S. Collins, Berger & Montague & Sharon S. Almonrode, The
Miller Law Firm, P.C..

Dion Tumminello, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis A. Lienhardt,
The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Ellen T. Noteware, Berger & Montague,
P.C., James A. Bloom, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns
LLP, Todd S. Collins, Berger & Montague & Sharon S. Almonrode, The
Miller Law Firm, P.C..

Xerox HR Solutions, LLC, Defendant, represented by Colin M.
Battersby -- battersby@millercanfield.com -- Miller, Canfield,,
Conor T. Fitzpatrick -- Fitzpatrick@millercanfield.com -- Miller
Canfield Paddock & Stone, PLC, Emily C. Hootkins --
emily.hootkins@alston.com -- Alston and Bird LLP, H. Douglas
Hinson -- doug.hinson@alston.com -- Alston & Bird, Michael P.
Coakley -- coakley@millercanfield.com -- Miller, Canfield, &
Patrick C. DiCarlo -- pat.dicarlo@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP.



                             *********


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  * * *