CAR_Public/171130.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


          Thursday, November 30, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 237



                            Headlines

ADVANTA SEEDS: Law Firm Secures Class Action Litigation Funding
AERO COMPONENTS: Sued by Cross for Not Paying Overtime Under FLSA
AETNA INC: Suit Over HIV-Medication Disclosure Transferred to Pa.
AVIS BUDGET: Nationwide Class, 2 Subclasses Certified in "Mendez"
BARCLAYS PLC: 2nd Cir. Certifies Barclays Securities Class Action

BAPTIST HEALTH: Sent Illegal Fax Ads, Blake Tishman Alleges
BCA FINANCIAL: Certification of Class Sought in "Reyes" Suit
BIG PHARMA: Bracken County Gets OK to Enter Opioid Class Action
BL RESTAURANT: Court Certifies FLSA Class in "Alverson" Suit
BLATTNER ENERGY: Court Enters Final Judgment in "Hoffman"

BLOOMBERG LP: Judge Denies Motion to Stay Overtime Class Action
BLOOMINGDALE'S INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Vitolo" Suit
BMW BANK: City Select Seeks to Certify Class of Auto Dealerships
BOB EVANS: Faces Class Action Over BIPA Violations
BRIDGEFARMER AND ASSOCIATES: Mellers Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA

CAPITAL ONE: "Porteous" Suit Removed to Nevada District Court
CHEETAH MOBILE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Schneider Moves to Certify 3 Purchasers Classes
CN RAIL: Faces Class Action Over 2015 Gogama Oil Spill
CONAGRA FOODS: Wesson Oil False Labeling Class Action Tossed

COOK COUNTY, IL: Public Defenders File Sexual Harassment Suit
CYTRX CORP: Class Cert. Sought in "Crihfield" Securities Suit
DIGNITY HEALTH: Court OKs Briefing Schedule on Dismissal Bid
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Stoessel Sues Over Vague Collection Letter
EQUIFAX INC: Senate Committee Conducts Hearing on Data Breaches

EQUIFAX INC: State Credit Union Leagues File Data Breach Suits
EXPRESSWAY DELIVERIES: "Landaverde" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
FASTAFF LLC: Certification of Class Sought in "Dalchau" Suit
FLORIDA: Certification of Trailer Chassis Owners Class Reversed
FORD MOTOR: Lott Appeals Ruling in "Vargas" Suit to Ninth Circuit

FRONTIER COMMS: Haeggquist Investigates Potential Misconduct
FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Sued by Ramos Over False Ads, Warranties
G4S SECURE: Abumohor Moves to Certify Class With Two Sub-Classes
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Accused by LaTorre of Breaching Fiduciary Duties
GENERAL MOTORS: "Ellis" Class Settlement Has Final Approval

GILEAD GROUP: Court Certifies "Adams" Suit as Collective Action
GREEN TREE: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in "Foster" Suit
GREIF INC: Faces Class Action Over Noxious Odors at Wis. Plant
HSBC HONG KONG: Wins Judgment in "Giron" Suit; Cert. Bid Tossed
HYDRO-QUEBEC: Coalition Peuple Allume Supports Overbilling Suit

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dec. 18 Deadline Set for Appellant Brief
KEVIN SPACEY: Unruh's Sexual Abuse Claim May Spark Class Action
LAGASSE LLC: Alpha Tech Appeals N.D. Ill. Decision to 7th Circuit
LIBERTY CAPITAL: Scoma Sues Over Illegally Faxed Ads
LOBLAW COS: Sued Over Alleged Prepackaged Bread Price Fixing

LULAROE CO: Cofounders Respond to Pyramid Scheme Class Action
MCHENRY COUNTY, IL: Immigration Class Action Dismissed
MDL 2437: Court Issues Time Out of Depositions Set for Dec. 31
MEDCAH INC: "Taepan" Sues Over Illegal Collection Letter
MONMOUTH COUNTY, NJ: Court Grants Gayle's Bid to Certify Class

MONTAGE HOTELS: Faces "Albaugh" Suit Over Denied Meal Breaks
NAVARROS INC: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Under FLSA
PARAMOUNT TRANSPORTATION: Misclassifies Account Execs, Weber Says
PERSONAL TOUCH: Bridges Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
PINEAPPLE HOSPITALITY: "Smith" Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.

QUALITY RESOURCES: Toney Moves for Class Certification Under TCPA
RECONSTRUCTIVE ORTHOPAEDIC: Wolfington Appeals Order to 3rd Cir.
RUBY TUESDAY: Faces "Breslau" Class Suit Over Acquisition by NRD
RUBY TUESDAY: "Sun" Action Seeks to Halt Sale to NRD Capital
SODEXO INC: Court Denies Certification of Mass. Wait Staff Class

STOLT-NIELSEN: 9th Circuit Affirms Class-Wide Arbitration Ruling
TEPPER & MANN: "Ashwill" Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
THQ INC: Court Grants Final Approval of "Zaghian" Settlement
THRIVENT FINANCIAL: Minn. Judge Rules Against DOL Fiduciary Rule
THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR: Lagos Sues for Denied Breaks, Paystubs

TRG CUSTOMER: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration of Myers' Claims
USCB CORP: Officer of Judgment Ineffective in "Gilmore" Suit
VIKTOR HOHOTS: Faces Class Action Over Failed Asylum Claims
VISALUS: Pastor Faces Class Action Over Failed Pyramid Scheme
VROOM INC: Edelsberg Seeks Certification of Class Under TCPA

VXI GLOBAL: Court Compels Arbitration in Phone Operators' Suit
WD MASONRY: Austria Moves to Certify Class of Workers Under FLSA
WESTERN CONCRETE: Livingston Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Meal Breaks
WILMINGTON TRUST: Brundle Appeals Ruling in "Halldorson" Suit
WILMINGTON TRUST: Constellis Group Appeals Ruling in "Halldorson"

WISCONSIN, USA: Campos Seeks Class Certification for BSI Workers
WONDERFUL CO: "Villanueva" Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Missed Breaks

* Democrats Lament Senate's Decision to Overturn CFPB Rule
* Law Firms Help Advocacy Groups on TCCWNA-Related Amicus Filings
* Longford-Westmeath Optimistic on Mortgage Class Action-Bill





                            *********


ADVANTA SEEDS: Law Firm Secures Class Action Litigation Funding
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Millet, writing for The Northern Daily Leader, reports
that proceedings gain pace in a class action against a seed
supplier.

NSW sorghum growers affected by shattercan were invited to meet
with legal firm Creevey Russell Lawyers at Willow Tree Inn on
November 16.

The firm has recently secured litigation funding for a class
action against Advanta Seeds Pty Ltd, previously trading as
Pacific Seeds.

The action is on behalf of growers who used MR43 Elite sorghum
seed between 2010 and 2014 and have had a shattercane infestation
on their land.

"We are excited to announce we now have funding to proceed with
this class action, which will be conducted for group members on a
no-win, no-fee basis, and involve no out-of-pocket expenses,"
Creevey Russell principal Dan Creevey said. [GN]


AERO COMPONENTS: Sued by Cross for Not Paying Overtime Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB CROSS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AERO COMPONENTS, INC., Case No. 5:17-cv-01226-W (W.D.
Okla., November 14, 2017), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act due to the Defendant's alleged failure to provide
premium pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

Aero Components, Inc., is an Oklahoma for profit business
corporation with its primary place of business in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.  Aero Components styles itself as one of the largest job
shops in the southwest.  Aero Components is owned and operated by
Danny Odom.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          D. Colby Addison, Esq.
          LAIRD HAMMONS LAIRD, PLLC
          1332 SW 89th Street
          Oklahoma City, OK 73159
          Telephone: (405) 703-4567
          Facsimile: (405) 703-4067
          E-mail: colby@lhllaw.com


AETNA INC: Suit Over HIV-Medication Disclosure Transferred to Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California issued an Order transferring to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania the case captioned JOHN
DOE, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. AETNA INC.; AETNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY; AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT; and AETNA HEALTH
OF CALIFORNIA INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-05191-RS (N.D.
Cal.).

On August 28, 2017, a putative class action titled Andrew Beckett,
et al. v. Aetna, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ("EDPA"),
No. 2:17-cv-03864-JS.  In Beckett, two AIDS/HIV legal services
organizations and a private law firm filed a putative class action
on behalf of a plaintiff (under the pseudonym "Andrew Beckett")
alleging various state statutory and other claims arising from the
alleged inadvertent disclosure by Defendant Aetna Inc. and certain
other defendants of certain members' use of HIV-prevention and/or
HIV medication through a windowed envelope. Beckett appears to be
the first-filed case in the nation making these allegations.

A second putative class action entitled S.A. v. Aetna Inc., et
al., No. 2:17-cv-07264-JS (E.D. Pa., filed Aug. 28, 2017) (S.A.)
was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, involving substantially
similar parties, the same legal and factual issues, and
subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California and transferred by stipulation to
the EDPA.

The Action was initially filed on September 7, 2017 and served on
Aetna under September 20, 2017.

On October 10, 2017, a third putative class action entitled R.H.,
et al. v. Aetna Health, Inc., et al., No. 3:17-cv-04566-MMB (E.D.
Pa, filed Oct. 10, 2017) ("R.H.").

The Parties understand and agree that the principal factors that
courts evaluate in a 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) analysis, convenience of
the parties and the interests of justice, strongly favor transfer
to the EDPA in order to preserve judicial economy and streamline
the litigation.

The Plaintiff and Aetna, accordingly, jointly requested the Court
for an order transferring the Action transferred to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 6, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y9r3kq99from Leagle.com.

John Doe, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence D. King --
lking@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.

John Doe, Plaintiff, represented by Linda M. Fong --
lfong@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Mario Man-Lung
Choi -- mchoi@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP &
Matthew B. George -- mgeorge@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP.

Aetna Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew P. Kanny --
mkanny@manatt.com -- Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP.

Aetna Health and Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Matthew P. Kanny, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP.

Aetna Insurance Company of Connecticut, Defendant, represented by
Matthew P. Kanny, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP.

Aetna Health of California Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew
P. Kanny, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP.


AVIS BUDGET: Nationwide Class, 2 Subclasses Certified in "Mendez"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jose L. Linares granted the Plaintiff's renewed motion
for class certification filed in the lawsuit styled JOSE MENDEZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-06537-JLL-JAD
(D.N.J.).

The Class Period began on April 1, 2007 and ended on December 31,
2015.

The Nationwide Class and the two additional subclasses are defined
as:

   a. Nationwide Class: All United States residents who (1)
      rented an Avis or Budget vehicle in the United States
      during the Class Period and, (2) in connection with that
      rental, paid Avis or Budget or their agent HTA for their
      use of e-Toll.

   b. Florida Subclass: All United States residents who (1)
      rented an Avis or Budget vehicle in the State of Florida
      during the Class Period, and (2) in connection with that
      rental, paid Avis or Budget or their agent HTA for their
      use of e-Toll.

   c. New Jersey Subclass: All New Jersey residents who, (1)
      rented an Avis or Budget vehicle in the United States
      during the Class Period, and (2) in connection with that
      rental, paid Avis or Budget or their agent HTA for their
      use of e-Toll.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9vdfr08X


BARCLAYS PLC: 2nd Cir. Certifies Barclays Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Blair A. Nicholas, Esq. -- blairn@blbglaw.com -- of Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote
that the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on
Nov. 6 issued an opinion in Waggoner v. Barclays PLC, No. 16-192-
cv (2d Cir. Nov. 6, 2017), affirming the district court's decision
certifying the case as a class action.

Barclays Decision Adds Weight to "Fraud-on-the-Market" Protections
for Investors

For decades, investors have relied on the "fraud-on-the-market"
presumption, a fundamental principle of modern economics providing
that the price of securities traded in well-developed (i.e.,
"efficient") markets generally reflects all publicly available
material information about the company.  Thus, a material public
misrepresentation distorts the company's stock price, and anyone
who purchases the stock at the market price is presumed to have
relied on the misrepresentation.

Reliance on the fraud-on-the-market, or "efficient market,"
doctrine has come under legal challenge in recent years, and the
Nov. 6 Barclays decision by the Second Circuit is a resounding
victory for the plaintiffs, a significant win for investor rights
more broadly, and a valuable precedent on several important points
of law:

Plaintiffs' burden to show market efficiency in order to benefit
from the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance at class
certification is light.  Indirect evidence of market efficiency,
such as high trading volume and coverage by multiple analysts, can
be sufficient, and plaintiffs are not required in every case to
present direct evidence of efficiency--that is, evidence that the
security's price moved in response to new material information
about the company.

Although defendants may rebut the fraud-on-the-market presumption,
they must do so by a preponderance of the evidence.
Evidence that the security's price did not increase in response to
defendants' alleged false statements does not suffice to rebut the
presumption, because plaintiffs are entitled to rely on a "price
maintenance theory" that the false statements maintained
artificial inflation in the price without increasing it.

Plaintiffs' burden of demonstrating at class certification that
damages can be calculated on a class-wide basis is not demanding
and can be satisfied by showing that the calculation is possible
without actually performing it in detail. [GN]


BAPTIST HEALTH: Sent Illegal Fax Ads, Blake Tishman Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
BLAKE TISHMAN, P.A., a Florida Professional Corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons v. BAPTIST HEALTH SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., BAPTIST
SLEEP CENTERS, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 0:17-cv-62230-JEM
(S.D. Fla., November 14, 2017), alleges that the Defendants sent
the Plaintiff at least three advertisements by facsimile, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Baptist Health South Florida, Inc., is a Florida corporation with
its principal place of business in Coral Gables, Florida.  Baptist
Health is a health care organization operating multiple hospitals
and outpatient medical centers.

Baptist Sleep Centers, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Coral Gables.  Baptist
Sleep Centers is a medical provider specializing in diagnosing and
treating sleep disorders.  The Doe Defendants are persons yet
unknown to the Plaintiff.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BCA FINANCIAL: Certification of Class Sought in "Reyes" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Estrellita Reyes, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated v. BCA Financial
Services, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-24077-JG (S.D. Fla.), asks the
Court to certify this class:

     All persons and entities throughout the United States (1) to
     whom BCA Financial Services, Inc. placed more than one call,
     (2) directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone
     service, but not assigned to the intended recipient of BCA
     Financial Services, Inc.'s calls, (3) by using computer
     assisted dialing technology manufactured or designed by
     Noble, (4) from September 23, 2012 through September 23,
     2016.

Ms. Reyes also asks the Court to appoint Greenwald Davidson Radbil
PLLC as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jMOgs7QP

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          106 East Sixth Street, Suite 913
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 322-3912
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          Jesse S. Johnson, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
                  jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
                  jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com


BIG PHARMA: Bracken County Gets OK to Enter Opioid Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christy Howell-Hoots, writing for The Ledger Independent, reports
that the bridge over Snag Creek on Kentucky 8 has reopened after
being closed for replacement.

Bracken County Judge-Executive Earl Bush made the announcement of
the reopening during fiscal court on Nov. 8.

The bridge closed on June 1 for construction of a new structure.

The new bridge is 33 feet long with two 12-foot lanes and 4-foot
shoulders.

Sunesis Construction Company of West Chester, Ohio, was awarded
the low bid contract for $2.7 million.

During the meeting, Judge Bush also told magistrates a truck hit
the bridge on Hamilton Road on Nov. 7.  The area has been closed
until an inspector can make it to the site.

"The state made the recommendation that the bridge remain closed
until then for safety reasons," Judge Bush said.  "The driver of
the vehicle did quite a bit of damage."

The magistrates also approved the county to enter into an opioid
class action lawsuit with several other counties in Kentucky.

During an October fiscal court meeting, Bracken County Attorney
Beth Moore said several counties in Kentucky have signed up to be
a part of the lawsuit, which would hold opioid manufacturers
accountable for the losses counties face due to opioid usage.

"It's an attempt to hold the manufacturers of these opioids
accountable," Ms. Moore said.  "There's a lot going on with it.  A
law firm started this litigation and, I believe, 40 counties have
signed up.  There's no loss to the county if we become a part of
it.  I think the law firm would take a percentage of it once the
lawsuit is complete, but the county does not have to pay anything
to be a part of it."

Ms. Moore also said she was unsure how the money would be divided
up if the lawsuit is successful.

"I don't know if they would do a flat amount to the counties or
they'll base it on the amount the counties may lose due to the
opioid usage," she said.  "I think it would be difficult to
calculate a number, so I'd say they'll most likely divide the
amount up between all of the counties."

Other items discussed at the meeting included:

   -- Appointing Karin Poe and Tom Goshorn to the Extension board.

   -- Approving monthly claims. [GN]


BL RESTAURANT: Court Certifies FLSA Class in "Alverson" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Richard B. Farrer entered a memorandum and order in the
lawsuit captioned BRADLEY ALVERSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; MELODY BRUSH, RYAN CARVER, ALISSA
TAPIA, ASEONNIA JOHNSON, DEVAN CHONTOS, STEPHEN OLLER, JOSELINE
RIVERA v. BL RESTAURANT OPERATIONS LLC, Case No. 5:16-cv-00849-
OLG-RBF (W.D. Tex.), granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification.

The Court conditionally certifies a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act. The class is comprised of:

     all current and former tipped servers or bartenders employed
     by BL from August 26, 2013 to the present, who did not
     receive the full minimum wage and who (1) did not receive
     notice of the tip credit as required by 29 U.S.C. Section
     203(m); (2) performed non-tip producing side work more than
     20% of the time; or (3) were engaged in dual jobs.

Within 21 days from the date of this Order, the parties are
required to meet and confer regarding the issue of notice, Judge
Farrer rules.  If the parties reach an agreement, Judge Farrer
says, they should notify the Court and jointly submit to the Court
for approval their proposed notice.  If there are portions of the
notice or other related issues on which the parties do not agree,
they should submit their respective positions in a joint advisory
to the Court for resolution.

"IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that any relief requested not expressly
granted herein is DENIED," Judge Farrer adds.

A copy of the Memorandum and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GJi7NSfO


BLATTNER ENERGY: Court Enters Final Judgment in "Hoffman"
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued a final judgment in accordance with term of the
Joint Stipulation of Settlement in the case captioned RODNEY
HOFFMAN, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BLATTNER ENERGY INC., an unknown business
entity, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. ED
CV 14-2195-DMG (DTBx) (C.D. Cal.).

Upon full and final payment by Defendant of the Gross Settlement
Amount, Plaintiff/Class Representative and all Qualified
Claimants, will have by operation of the Final Order and the
Judgment, fully, finally and forever released, relinquished, and
discharged the Released Parties from the Released Claims and the
Class Representative's Released Claims as those terms are
respectively defined in the Settlement, and are forever barred and
enjoined from prosecuting such released claims against the
Released Parties.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 6, 2017 Judgment
is available at http://tinyurl.com/ydhd98wbfrom Leagle.com.

Rodney Hoffman, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel J. Park --
dpark@justicelawcorp.com -- Justice Law Corporation.

Rodney Hoffman, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Han --
dhan@justicelawcorp.com -- Justice Law Corporation, Kenneth H.
Yoon, Kenneth H Yoon Law Offices, 1 Wilshire Blvd # 2200, Los
Angeles, CA 90017, Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh --
statavos@justicelawcorp.com -- Justice Law Corporation & Stephanie
Emi Yasuda -- syasuda@yoonlaw.com -- Law Offices of Kenneth H
Yoon.

Blattner Energy Inc., Defendant, represented by Carly M. Nese --
cnese@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC, Dominic John Messiha --
dmessiha@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC & Julie A. Dunne,
Littler Mendelson.


BLOOMBERG LP: Judge Denies Motion to Stay Overtime Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Grant, writing for Law.com, reports that a Manhattan federal
judge has denied Bloomberg LP's motion to stay a class action
lawsuit as the business media giant lobbies the U.S. Court of
Appeals for permission to appeal orders certifying two classes in
the case.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote of the Southern District of New
York wrote that Bloomberg alleges only a "vague reputational
harm," and not irreparable harm, if the class action suit, focused
on analytics representatives' unpaid overtime, were to proceed to
the class-notice stage while the company petitions the Second
Circuit to hear its appeal.

Moreover, in arguing another motion-to-stay factor to Judge Cote -
- that Bloomberg would have a likelihood of success on the merits
in having the classes decertified -- the judge wrote that one of
Bloomberg's central arguments seemed tenuous at best.

She said that Bloomberg would have trouble convincing the Second
Circuit to decertify the classes based on the argument that
allowing the classes to remain would threaten to end the
litigation without reaching its merits.

"Bloomberg alleges that class certification threatens to terminate
the litigation because it brings its potential liability to over
$193 million," Judge Cote wrote, adding that the company "asserts
that this potential exposure will 'pressure' Bloomberg to settle
the action before trial on the merits."

"But, Bloomberg does not suggest that a judgment in this amount
would seriously threaten Bloomberg's viability as a company," she
wrote, and said that "without a stronger showing, this argument
would require the issuance of a stay in virtually every
certification of a class action."

Judge Cote issued her denial of the stay motion on Nov. 7.
Bloomberg is awaiting an answer from the Second Circuit on its
petition to appeal the class certification rulings by Judge Cote.
A settlement conference is scheduled for Nov. 30 in the lawsuit,
and the plaintiffs have agreed to allow a stay until that point--
but barring a settlement, not beyond that date, Cote noted.

In September, Judge Cote certified a class of hundreds of New
York-based Bloomberg LP analytics representatives, who help
clients navigate their Bloomberg Terminals, in a federal action
aimed at recovering unpaid overtime.  That class' putative
membership includes more than 1,000 current and former employees.

Later in September, she certified a second class, in a separate
order, that consists of hundreds of California-based analytics
representatives.

Judge  Cote focused much of her certification decisions on how the
plaintiffs had met Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)'s
"predominance" requirement, which mandates that a class action
predominantly involve questions of law or fact common to the
class.

A name plaintiff in the lawsuit, Eric Roseman, first filed a
putative class complaint in April 2014 in the Southern District.
In August 2016, plaintiffs in the case lodged a motion seeking
class certification for all representatives in the New York
analytics department "who were not paid time and one-half for
hours over 40 worked in one or more weeks at any time within the
six years preceding the filing of this complaint and the date of
final judgment in this matter."

According to Judge Cote, the analytics representatives help
Bloomberg assist clients in operating the well-known, and
worldwide, Bloomberg Terminals, which have been reported to cost
well over $20,000 per year.  The terminal is a computer software
system that allows clients to access and analyze financial data,
Judge Cote said, and it has more than 30,000 different functions.
When clients need help navigating the terminal's functions, they
open a chat window linking them to an analytics representative,
Judge Cote also said.  There allegedly is "limited opportunity for
advancement within the analytics department," she noted, and
Bloomberg estimates that in New York there have been nearly 1,300
employees in the department since April 2008.

The action was reassigned to Judge  Cote on Aug. 15, she noted.
Mr. Roseman and two other named plaintiffs, on behalf of the
class, allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York
Labor Law Section 650 et seq., and the California Labor Code.

In the September New York-class decision, Cote addressed
Bloomberg's argument that the work performed by the
representatives will qualify as exempted "administrative capacity"
work that is not overtime eligible.  She said that the application
of such an exemption would "hinge" on elements that require a
determination of an employee's "primary duty," and that because
the jobs of the purported class members all fell under such a
primary duty, sufficient common questions would predominate.

In her decision on Nov. 7, Judge Cote also knocked down
Bloomberg's contention that allowing a stay would be in the public
interest, because it would avoid an issuing by the plaintiffs of a
notice sent out to potential class members.

"Bloomberg makes general arguments about the public interest
without explaining why the public interest will be furthered in
delaying the notice process in this particular case," she wrote,
adding, "No compelling interest weighs in favor of issuing a stay.

"Indeed, 'the public interest favors a speedy trial and resolution
of this matter,'" she said, citing In re Electronic Books
Antitrust Litigation, 2014 WL 1641699.

"The Court of Appeals frowns upon the use of Rule 23(f) as a
vehicle to delay proceedings in the district court," she added.

Artemio Guerra of Getman, Sweeney & Dunn in Kingston, representing
the plaintiffs, said in an email: "I think that by denying
Bloomberg's request for a stay Judge Cote made it very clear that
Bloomberg's petition to appeal is not likely to succeed.
Certification of the classes was proper. The primary duty of
workers is consistent across the class."

Matthew Lampe -- mwlampe@jonesday.com -- a partner at Jones Day in
Manhattan, represented the defendants.  He couldn't be reached for
comment. [GN]


BLOOMINGDALE'S INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Vitolo" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Nancy Vitolo filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Nancy Vitolo v. Bloomingdale's, Inc., Case No.
2:09-cv-07728-DSF-PJW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

The nature of suit is stated as other labor litigation.

The appellate case is captioned as Nancy Vitolo v. Bloomingdale's,
Inc., Case No. 17-56748, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Mediation Questionnaire was due November 24, 2017;

   -- Transcript must be ordered by December 18, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on January 16, 2018;

   -- Appellant Nancy Vitolo's opening brief is due on
      February 26, 2018;

   -- Appellee Bloomingdale's, Inc.'s answering brief is due on
      March 27, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant NANCY VITOLO, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Monica Balderrama, Esq.
          INITIATIVE LEGAL GROUP APC
          1801 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6082
          Telephone: (310) 556-5637
          Facsimile: (310) 861-9051
          E-mail: MBalderrama@InitiativeLegal.com

Defendant-Appellee BLOOMINGDALE'S, INC., an Ohio corporation, is
represented by:

          Julia H. Azrael, Esq.
          John S. Curtis, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JULIA AZRAEL
          5200 Lankershim Boulevard, Suite 850
          North Hollywood, CA 91601
          Telephone: (818) 766-5177
          Facsimile: (818) 766-5047
          E-mail: jazrael@azraellaw.net
                  jcurtis@azraellaw.net

               - and -

          David E. Martin, Esq.
          MACY'S, INC.
          11477 Olde Cabin Road, Suite 400
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 342-6175
          E-mail: David.e.martin@macys.com

               - and -

          Catherine Sison, Esq.
          MACY'S, INC.
          111 Boulder Industrial Drive, 2nd Floor
          Bridgeton, MO 63044
          Telephone: (314) 342-6715
          E-mail: Catherine.sison@macys.com


BMW BANK: City Select Seeks to Certify Class of Auto Dealerships
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled CITY SELECT AUTO SALES, INC.,
a New Jersey corporation, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly situated persons v. BMW BANK OF NORTH
AMERICA, INC., BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLC, CREDITSMARTS CORP.,
and JOHN DOES 1-12, Case No. 1:13-cv-04595-NLH-JS (D.N.J.), seeks
entry of an order certifying a class defined as:

     All auto dealerships with fax numbers in the Creditsmarts
     database on or before December 27, 2012, that were sent one
     or more telephone facsimile messages between November 20,
     2012 and January 1, 2013, stating in part:

     BMW Bank of North America up2drive
     Attention All Independents !!
     UpToDrive is looking for
     your BUSINESS !!

A copy of the Second Amended Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5weZ0oh1

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM LLC
          134 North La Salle Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com
                  david@classlawyers.com

               - and -

          Alan C. Milstein, Esq.
          SHERMAN, SILVERSTEIN, KOHL, ROSE & PODOLSKY, P.A.
          East Gate Corporate Center
          308 Harper Dr., Suite 200
          Moorestown, N 08057
          Telephone: (856) 662-0700
          E-mail: amilstein@shermansilverstein.com


BOB EVANS: Faces Class Action Over BIPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
Shanna Pearce, Esq. -- spearce@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote
that employees in Illinois are continuing to file class action
complaints against their employers.  Bob Evans Restaurants and
Suparossa Restaurant Group are two of the latest to be accused of
violating the Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act.  Both
companies' employees took issue with their employers' use of their
fingerprints and other biometric information in time-clock and
point of sale systems.  The employees' alleged that their
employers collected and used their information without the written
consent necessary under BIPA.  As Sheppard Mullin has written
previously class action lawyers are increasingly bringing cases
alleging violations of the law.

The Illinois law states, inter alia, that entities in the state
that collect biometric information must provide individuals with
notice about how their biometric information will be used.  There
are also security requirements contained within the law, and
limits on the ability to retain and share biometric information.
BIPA permits recovery of statutory damages and attorney fees.  Any
"aggrieved" person may recover $1,000 or actual damages (whichever
is greater) for each negligent violation and $5,000 or actual
damages (whichever is greater) for each intentional or reckless
violation, as well as attorney's fees, expenses, and costs
(including expert witness fees), in addition to "other relief,
including an injunction."

BIPA was the first state law of its kind. Similar laws now exist
in Texas and Washington. Unlike the Illinois law, though, those
statutes may only be enforced by the states' respective attorneys
general, not by private individuals.  While initial proposed
biometric privacy legislation has failed in a few states recently,
there is new legislation pending in several states, and as public
interest increases it is likely that more will follow.

Putting it Into Practice: Systems using biometric identifiers and
information can be useful, especially for tracking employee hours
and for building security.  Companies who do business in Illinois,
Texas, and Washington should keep in mind the requirements of the
biometric laws like BIPA. Companies doing business in other states
may also want to follow suit, as similar requirements may soon be
in place in their jurisdictions. [GN]


BRIDGEFARMER AND ASSOCIATES: Mellers Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
LISA MELLERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BRIDGEFARMER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. and MOHAMMAD MANSOOR
AHSAN, individually, Case No. 3:17-cv-03143-N (N.D. Tex., November
15, 2017), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages and overtime pay
under the Fair Labor and Standards Act.

Bridgefarmer & Associates, Inc., is a consulting engineering firm
specializing in transportation projects.  Bridgefarmer is
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.  Mansoor Ahsan is the chief
executive officer of Bridgefarmer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sarah M. Schechter, Esq.
          Sean S. Modjarrad, Esq.
          MODJARRAD ABUSAAD SAID LAW FIRM
          212 West Spring Valley Road
          Richardson, TX 75081
          Telephone: (972) 789-1664
          Facsimile: (972) 789-1665
          E-mail: sschechter@modjarrad.com
                  smodjarrad@modjarrad.com


CAPITAL ONE: "Porteous" Suit Removed to Nevada District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit entitled NATASHA PORTEOUS on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CAPITAL ONE
SERVICES, LLC and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. A-17-
762625-C, was removed on November 15, 2017, was removed from the
Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada.  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02866 to the proceeding.

According to the Notice of Removal, the Plaintiff improperly names
Capital One Services, LLC in this action.  The proper party
defendant in this action is Capital One Services II, LLC.

Natasha Porteous filed this action against the Defendant in the
State Court on October 5, 2017.  She generally alleges that the
Defendant required her and all employees in Defendant's call
center department in Nevada to engage in pre-shift and post-shift
work activities off the clock and without compensation.  Thus, she
filed this suit alleging causes of action, including failure to
pay wages in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          Leah L. Jones, Esq.
          THIERMAN BUCK LLP
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
          E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com
                  josh@thiermanbuck.com
                  leah@thiermanbuck.com

Defendant Capital One Services, LLC, is represented by:

          Anthony L. Martin, Esq.
          Tullio J. Marchionne, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Wells Fargo Tower, Suite 1500
          3800 Howard Hughes Parkway
          Las Vegas, NV 89169
          Telephone: (702) 369-6800
          Facsimile: (702) 369-6888
          E-mail: anthony.martin@ogletreedeakins.com
                  tullio.marchionne@ogletreedeakins.com


CHEETAH MOBILE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Nov. 8
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Cheetah Mobile Inc. (NYSE:CMCM)
from April 26, 2017 through October 25, 2017, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Cheetah Mobile investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Cheetah Mobile class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1224.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Cheetah Mobile is using company-controlled accounts to
inflate the gifting on Live.me; (2) Cheetah Mobile overstated its
revenue; and (3) as a result, Cheetah Mobile's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.  On
October 26, 2017, Prescience Point Research Group published a
report asserting, among other things, that approximately 55% of
Cheetah Mobile's reported consolidated revenue does not exist and
Cheetah Mobile uses company-controlled or "fake" accounts on
Live.me to gift other users using company money. On this news,
shares of Cheetah fell $0.37 per share or over 4% to close at
$8.05 per share on October 26, 2017, damaging investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
January 8, 2018.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1224.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

Rosen Law Firm --http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents investors
throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities
class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.  [GN]


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Schneider Moves to Certify 3 Purchasers Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Schneider, Sarah Deigert, Theresa Gamage and Nadia Parikka,
some of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled MARTIN SCHNEIDER,
SARAH DEIGERT, LAURIE REESE, THERESA GAMAGE, TIFFANIE ZANGWILL,
and NADIA PARIKKA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, Case No. 4:16-cv-02200-HSG (N.D. Cal.), move for an
order certifying three classes of purchasers of the Defendant's
food products.

Specifically, the Moving Plaintiffs seek certification of three
classes: the "California Class," the "Maryland Class," and the
"New York Class," on behalf of themselves and others who, between
April 27, 2015, and June 30, 2016, purchased Chipotle's food
products, falsely and misleadingly-advertised as "non-GMO" when,
in fact, those food products contained ingredients that came from
animals that fed on genetically modified ("GM") feed.

The Moving Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives for each of the three classes, and to appoint
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as class counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on February 8, 2018, at 2:00
p.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5wTpfZVS

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          Linda M. Fong, Esq.
          Matthew B. George, Esq.
          Mario M. Choi, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
                  lfong@kaplanfox.com
                  mgeorge@kaplanfox.com
                  mchoi@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
          Donald R. Hall, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com
                  dhall@kaplanfox.com


CN RAIL: Faces Class Action Over 2015 Gogama Oil Spill
------------------------------------------------------
Len Gillis, writing for Timmins Press, reports that a Timmins law
firm has sent a letter out to Gogama area residents and cottagers
advising that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against CN
Rail in connection with the derailment of an oil tanker train and
subsequent oil spill that occurred on March 7, 2015.

The letter, signed by James Wallbridge of Wallbridge, Wallbridge
Trial Lawyers of Timmins, was to advise residents to sign retainer
agreements or to indicate whether or not they wish the law firm to
proceed on their behalf.

The derailment and oil spill occurred in the area of the Makami
River bridge, on the CN mainline near the village of Gogama.  An
eastbound CN Rail train hauling 94 tank cars had a derailment
after riding over a broken rail.  In all, 39 tank cars left the
track.  Some of the cars fell into the river next to be bridge,
exploded and burst into flame.  Several of the cars were breached
releasing many hundreds of thousands of litres of synthetic crude
oil into the river and the surrounding environment.

Mr. Wallbridge's letter said the claim against CN Rail was filed
back in July and that there are indications that the clean-up of
the oil spill in the area is not properly done yet.

"We are advised by Fred Stanley of Walters Forensic Engineering
that the cleanup continues notwithstanding CN and the Ministry of
the Environment's view the oil spill cleanup is complete," said
the letter.

Mr. Wallbridge went on to suggest that more environmental testing
would be needed early next year.

"We are of the view that next spring may be an appropriate time to
review the work that has been done and undertake independent
testing.  We have spoken to the Ministry of Environment's legal
counsel about testing and have indicated that we anticipate their
cooperation in reviewing the overall cleanup."

Mr. Wallbridge also advised that his firm has indicated that the
timetable for the class action should be "held in abeyance"
pending a review of the cleanup in May and June of 2018.

He said his firm elected to proceed by class action to preserve
the limitation period of two years from the date of the
occurrence.  The class action serves to suspend the limitation
period during the certification process, the letter said.

The Gogama-Makami River derailment was the second CN oil train
derailment in that area in the winter of 2015.  Both occurred
along the section of the CN mainline known as the Ruel
Subdivision.  Another train hauling tank cars had derailed three
weeks previous, on Feb. 14, 2015, in a remote bush and wetlands
area, about 35 kilometres north of Gogama.

Canada's Transportation Safety Board filed a report in August
saying that a broken section of rail was the cause of the
derailment at the Makami River bridge. [GN]


CONAGRA FOODS: Wesson Oil False Labeling Class Action Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
August T. Horvath, writing for Ad Law Access, reports that on
October 25, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts dismissed a consumer class action under
Massachusetts law, contending that Wesson vegetable oil is falsely
labeled "100% natural" because it allegedly is extracted from
genetically modified corn, soybean and rapeseed.  Lee v. Conagra
Brands., Inc., 1:17-cv-11042 (D. Mass Oct. 25, 2017).  This was an
unusually clean case in that there was no other ground challenging
the "100% natural" claim and no counts for other legal violations.
The court thus had squarely to decide whether the presence of
genetically modified ingredients renders a product not "natural"
under the law.

The court's decision that GMOs are not necessarily not natural
relied on the FDA's longstanding approach to the use of the term.
The FDA has no formal definition of "natural" as applied to foods,
but its policy, as expressed in the Background section of FDA's
November 12, 2015, request for comments on the subject, is that
"we have not attempted to restrict use of the term "natural"
except for added color, synthetic substances, and flavors" and "we
have considered "natural" to mean that nothing artificial or
synthetic (including colors regardless of source) is included in,
or has been added to, the product that would not normally be
expected to be there."  80 FR 69905.  The court was also
influenced by the FDA's policy not to require special labeling of
products containing genetically modified ingredients based on its
1992 conclusion that "The agency is not aware of any information
showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other
foods in any meaningful or uniform way, or that, as a class, foods
developed by the new techniques present any different or greater
safety concern than foods developed by traditional plant
breeding."  57 FR 22984.

The court concluded, "Because Wesson's '100% natural' label
conforms to FDA labeling policy, it cannot be unfair or deceptive
as a matter of law."  That is a strongly stated, absolute
conclusion.  This was not a pre-emption case, but a determination
on the merits that the label is not deceptive.  One might wonder
how this sits with the view espoused by the Supreme Court in POM
Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 134 S. Ct. 2228 (2014), holding
that food or beverage labels conforming to FDA labeling
regulations can still be false or misleading under Section 43(a)
of the Lanham Act.  The Supreme Court limited its holding to the
federal Lanham Act, so POM Wonderful does not control consumer
class actions brought under state laws, but its underlying logic
was that FDA regulations -- to say nothing of informal "policies"
-- are not the final authority on whether advertising and labeling
statements may deceive consumers.

It will be interesting to see how other courts handle this issue
as it relates to GMOs and all-natural claims, an increasingly
common type of food marketing class action.  Also interesting is
the potential gap opened up between Lanham Act and state consumer
actions in terms of what is deceptive, which heretofore has been
fairly coterminous.  This Conagra decision suggests that in a case
this one or like POM Wonderful v. Coca-Cola, a competitor Lanham
Act action could be permitted despite the label satisfying FDA
regulations or other pronouncements, but the consumer class
actions that typically follow Lanham Act cases, seeking their own
bite at the pie, might not be. [GN]


COOK COUNTY, IL: Public Defenders File Sexual Harassment Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Grimm, writing for Chicago Sun Times, reports that a half-
dozen employees of the Cook County Public Defender's office have
filed a sexual harassment lawsuit, claiming county officials have
done nothing to protect them from inmates who masturbate in front
of them during visits to the jail and courtroom holding cells.

The federal lawsuit describes almost daily encounters in which
detainees masturbate and leer at the lawyers during meetings with
clients -- a phenomenon the complainants say has been on the rise
at the jail dating back to 2015.

The lawsuit seeks class action status on behalf of women working
for the office, including more than 200 of 400 staff attorneys.

Public defenders' "work is grueling and their caseloads are heavy,
but they are almost uniformly driven by their love of the
important work they do," the lawsuit reads.

"However, as a result of the toxic work environment caused and
perpetuated by the defendants in concert, they are forced to
regularly endure heinous sexual misconduct, robbing many of their
love of the job, maybe permanently."

A spokesman for Chief Judge Timothy Evans declined comment on Nov.
8, citing state Supreme Court rules barring judges from commenting
on pending cases.

Public Defender Amy Campanelli's deputy, Lester Finkle, said in a
statement that the office had been working with the sheriff and
judges to come up with a solution for two years.

"The Public Defender's paramount concern is preserving the safety
and well-being of her staff, and she will continue working in good
faith with other stakeholders to find a viable solution," Mr.
Finkle wrote, adding that the office had not yet been served with
a copy of the lawsuit.

In October, Ms. Campanelli, who is named in the lawsuit, decried
the rising number of instances where her staff are subjected to
inmates exposing themselves as a crisis, and called on Sheriff Tom
Dart and Evans to find a solution.

Ms. Campanelli ordered all staff not to enter courtroom lockups,
where defendants routinely expose themselves and masturbate in
front of female attorneys and clerks.

The lawsuit states that the practice is unfair to clients, and
female attorneys, who can't meet privately with detainees at the
jail, and the plaintiffs also take issue with other steps that
have been taken to try to stop the harassment.

Ms. Campanelli has said she wants extra sheriff's officers on hand
in courtroom lockups, a solution Dart has said costs him $40,000
per week in overtime.  Mr. Dart, also named in the lawsuit, has
backed legislation that would have upped the criminal charges
associated with indecent exposure cases that take place in a jail
or prison, but the bill stalled because of opposition from
Ms. Campanelli.

In an email, Mr. Dart's policy chief, Cara Smith, said the sheriff
would continue to try to address the "despicable behavior" by
detainees.  More than 200 detainees have been charged with
indecent exposure since January, including 20 complaints filed by
public defenders.

"We are hopeful the (Defender's) office will work with us to find
solutions to this problem, instead of impeding proposed solutions
we put forth," Ms. Smith said.  "No woman or employee should have
to endure sexual harassment in the workplace."

Mirroring grumbling by some female staff at the busy criminal
court building at 26th Street and California, the lawsuit also
criticizes Ms. Campanelli for barring the sheriff's officers from
shackling all inmates during meetings with attorneys, and faults
Dart's August decision to pull back additional officers who
staffed lockup areas.  Mr. Finkle said on Nov. 8 that the office
could not support legislation that led to harsher penalties for
public indecency, or measures that "subject detainees to inhumane
practices." [GN]


CYTRX CORP: Class Cert. Sought in "Crihfield" Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Callender, Lead Plaintiff of the lawsuit styled NICHOLAS
CRIHFIELD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. CYTRX CORPORATION, STEVEN A. KRIEGSMAN, and JOHN Y.
CALOZ, Case No. 2:16-cv-05519-SJO-SK (C.D. Cal.), moves the Court
for an order certifying this class:

     All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
     CytRx Corporation common stock during the period
     September 12, 2014 to July 11, 2016, inclusive (the "Class
     Period"), and were damaged thereby.

The Lead Plaintiff also seeks appointment as Class Representative
and the appointment of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as Class
Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on March 12, 2018, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pNJ9hg9I

Lead Plaintiff Gregory Callender is represented by:

          Kara M. Wolke, Esq.
          Jonathan M. Rotter, Esq.
          Alexa J. Mullarky, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: kwolke@glancylaw.com
                  jrotter@glancylaw.com
                  amullarky@glancylaw.com

According to the Motion, the following are those who are currently
on the list to receive e-mail notices for this case:

   * Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com;
   * Lionel Zevi Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com;
   * J Alexander Hood, III -- ahood@pomlaw.com;
   * Winston Ping Hsiao -- winston.hsiao@skadden.com;
   * John Christopher Korevec -- john.korevec@skadden.com;
   * Allen L. Lanstra -- allen.lanstra@skadden.com
   * Jeremy A. Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com;
   * Charles Henry Linehan -- clinehan@glancylaw.com;
   * Danielle Leigh Manning -- dmanning@glancylaw.com;
   * Adam C. McCall -- amccall@zlk.com;
   * Jennifer Pafiti -- jpafiti@pomlaw.com;
   * Clifford H. Pearson -- cpearson@pswlaw.com;
   * Michael Harrison Pearson -- mpearson@pswlaw.com;
   * Lesley F. Portnoy -- LPortnoy@glancylaw.com;
   * Robert Vincent Prongay --rprongay@glancylaw.com;
   * Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com;
   * Kasonni M. Scales -- kasonni.scales@skadden.com; and
   * Neil Swartzberg -- nswartzberg@pswlaw.com.


DIGNITY HEALTH: Court OKs Briefing Schedule on Dismissal Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, issued an Order approving
stipulation and setting briefing schedule on motion to dismiss the
amended class action complaint in the case captioned STARLA
ROLLINS on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DIGNITY HEALTH, a
California Non-profit Corporation, HERBERT J. VALLIER, an
individual, the members of the Dignity Retirement Committee, and
JOHN and JANE DOES, each an individual, 1-20, Defendant, No. 13-
CV-1450 JST (N.D. Cal.).

The parties will brief Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended
Class Action Complaint on the following schedule:

   a. Defendants will file their motion to dismiss on or before
December 15, 2017.

   b. Plaintiffs will file their response on or before February 2,
2018.

   c. Defendants will file any reply fourteen days after
Plaintiffs file their response.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 6, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y7hlafjefrom Leagle.com.

Starla Rollins, Plaintiff, represented by Juli E. Farris --
jfarris@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP.

Starla Rollins, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Graver --
cgraver@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac
vice, Havila C. Unrein -- hunrein@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback LLP, Karen L. Handorf -- khandorf@cohenmilstein.com --
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Lynn Lincoln
Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro
hac vice, Matthew M. Gerend -- mgerend@kellerrohrback.com --
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., pro hac vice, Michelle C. Yau --
myau@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro
hac vice & Ron Kilgard -- rkilgard.kellerrohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback, P.L.C., pro hac vice.

Patricia Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Graver,
Keller Rohrback L.L.P..

Dignity Health, Defendant, represented by Barry Scott Landsberg,
Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP, 2621 Manning Ave., Los Angeles, CA,
90064-3204, Charles M. Dyke, Nixon Peabody LLP, One Embarcadero
Center, Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA 94111-3600,  Colin Michael
McGrath, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP, Craig Steven Rutenberg,
Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP, 2621 Manning Ave., Los, Angeles,
CA, 90064-3204, David S. Shapiro -- dshapiro@boerschshapiro.com --
Attorney at Law, pro hac vice, Harvey L. Rochman, Manatt Phelps &
Phillips, LLP, 2621 Manning Ave., Los Angeles, CA, 90064-3204,
Matthew J. Frankel, Nixon Peabody LLP, One Embarcadero Center,
Suite 1800, San Francisco, CA 94111-3600, R. Bradford Huss --
bhuss@tuckerhuss -- Trucker Huss, A Professional Corporation &
Sean T. Strauss -- sstrauss@tuckerhuss.com -- Trucker Huss.

Herbert J. Vallier, an individual, Defendant, represented by Barry
Scott Landsberg, Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP, Charles M. Dyke,
Nixon Peabody LLP, Colin Michael McGrath, Manatt Phelps &
Phillips, LLP, Craig Steven Rutenberg, Manatt Phelps & Phillips,
LLP, David S. Shapiro, Attorney at Law, pro hac vice, Harvey L.
Rochman, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP, Matthew J. Frankel, Nixon
Peabody LLP, R. Bradford Huss, Trucker Huss, A Professional
Corporation & Sean T. Strauss, Trucker Huss.

Members of the Dignity Health Retirement Committee, Defendant,
represented by Charles M. Dyke, Nixon Peabody LLP, Harvey L.
Rochman, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP, R. Bradford Huss, Trucker
Huss, A Professional Corporation & Sean T. Strauss, Trucker Huss.

Members of the Dignity Health Retirement Plans Sub-Committee,
Defendant, represented by Barry Scott Landsberg, Manatt Phelps &
Phillips LLP, Charles M. Dyke, Nixon Peabody LLP, Colin Michael
McGrath, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP, Craig Steven Rutenberg,
Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP, David S. Shapiro, Attorney at Law,
pro hac vice, Harvey L. Rochman, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP, R.
Bradford Huss, Trucker Huss, A Professional Corporation & Sean T.
Strauss, Trucker Huss.

United States of America, Movant, represented by Emily Newton,
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch.

Lynn Morris, Movant, represented by Catha Alison Worthman --
catha@feinbergjackson.com -- FEINBERG JACKSON WORTHMAN & WASOW &
Jacob Avery Richards -- jrichards@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback L.L.P..

Caroline Plaza, Movant, represented by Catha Alison Worthman,
FEINBERG JACKSON WORTHMAN & WASOW & Jacob Avery Richards, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P..

Veronica Tench, Movant, represented by Catha Alison Worthman,
FEINBERG JACKSON WORTHMAN & WASOW & Jacob Avery Richards, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P..

Jacqueline Murray, Movant, represented by Catha Alison Worthman,
FEINBERG JACKSON WORTHMAN & WASOW & Jacob Avery Richards, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P..

Maidaflor Maybir, Movant, represented by Catha Alison Worthman,
FEINBERG JACKSON WORTHMAN & WASOW & Jacob Avery Richards, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P..

Jocelyn Manacmul, Movant, represented by Catha Alison Worthman,
FEINBERG JACKSON WORTHMAN & WASOW & Jacob Avery Richards, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P..

Donna Gutierrez, Movant, represented by Catha Alison Worthman,
FEINBERG JACKSON WORTHMAN & WASOW & Jacob Avery Richards, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P..

Eleanore de Dios, Movant, represented by Catha Alison Worthman,
FEINBERG JACKSON WORTHMAN & WASOW & Jacob Avery Richards, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P..

Elenita Santos-Funai, Movant, represented by Catha Alison
Worthman, FEINBERG JACKSON WORTHMAN & WASOW & Jacob Avery
Richards, Keller Rohrback L.L.P..

Daughters of Charity Health System, Objector, represented by
Richard L. Gallagher -- Richard.Gallagher@ropesgray.com --  Ropes
& Gray LLP.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Stoessel Sues Over Vague Collection Letter
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shloma Stoessel, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-06561, (E.D. N.Y., November 9, 2017),
seeks actual, damages, statutory damages, costs, and attorney's
fees under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC sent an initial collection letter
to Stoessel attempting to collect a consumer debt to Barclays Bank
over a credit card debt. It falsely stated who the original
creditor was. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EQUIFAX INC: Senate Committee Conducts Hearing on Data Breaches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hamza Shaban, writing for The Washington Post, reports that
members of the Senate Commerce Committee challenged Equifax's
chief executive on Nov. 8 about the credit reporting agency's
sweeping data collection and its one-sided relationship with
millions of Americans whose personal information it harvests for
profit.

Equifax revealed in September that attackers may have compromised
the sensitive information of as many as 145 million people.  But
for many Americans -- and for Senators at the Nov. 8 hearing -- it
was unclear why Equifax was storing information about them in the
first place.

The hearing into the data breaches -- the fifth so far -- featured
testimony from current and former officials from Equifax, Yahoo
and Verizon, and added to the uproar about the company's policies
and its response to the breach.

In one notable exchange, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.)
asked the interim chief executive officer of Equifax, Paulino do
Rego Barros, why consumers do not have a say in opting in or out
of the company's data collection.

"This is part of the way the economy works," Mr. Barros said.  But
he was swiftly interrupted.  "The consumer doesn't have a choice,
sir.  The consumer does not have a choice on the data that you're
collecting," Sen. Masto said.

Her line of questioning echoed other lawmakers who have pushed
back against fundamental aspects of Equifax's business, which have
faced widespread scrutiny after the data breach came to light.

After confirming with Mr. Barros that it is Equifax, and not
consumers, that owns all the granular data collected about them,
and that consumers cannot request to exit the company's files,
Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.) asked the current Equifax chief if it
was right that the company maintains that arrangement.  "I think
it's not my perspective to say it's right or wrong," Mr. Barros
said.

When Marissa Mayer, the former chief executive of Yahoo was asked
if consumers should own their own data, however, she said, "Yes. I
believe that they should."

Even as Mr. Barros said it is up to Equifax to earn the public's
trust, he did not commit to proactively notifying all the
consumers who were potentially affected by the breach.  "We are
actively, actively engaged with consumers to make sure that they
use the products that we have today," Mr. Barros said when asked
by Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), pointing to the company's Web
page, social media and a team dedicated to engaging with
consumers.

Mr. Barros told the committee that 30 million people have visited
Equifax's website to learn if their information was stolen.

However, Sen. Baldwin suggested that was only a fraction of those
who might have been affected by the breach. "30 million? Out of
145 million," Sen. Baldwin said.

Several senators on the panel said new legislation is needed to
prod companies like Equifax and Yahoo to better protect consumer
data.  Such measures would grant the Federal Trade Commission
greater powers to enforce "reasonable" cybersecurity standards and
for the agency to impose fines on negligent businesses.

"If we are going to do anything meaningful we must have the
political will to hold these companies accountable," said
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), the ranking member of the committee.
"We can either take action with common sense rules or we can start
planning for our next hearing on this issue."

During the four previous congressional hearings about the Equifax
data breach, lawmakers took issue with the extended period of time
it took the company to disclose the intrusion, its cybersecurity
practices, and the use of arbitration clauses.

Such clauses typically require customers to settle disputes they
have with companies through a third party rather than going to
court or joining a class-action lawsuit.

On Nov. 8, Equifax again, defended its use of arbitration.  "We
work according to the law and use the tools that the industry uses
to have arbitration in place," said Barros.

Equifax is also facing multiple federal investigations over its
handling of the hack and reports that executives sold an unusual
amount of stock before the breach was publicly disclosed. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: State Credit Union Leagues File Data Breach Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Palash Ghosh, writing for CU Journal, reports that more than a
month after the Credit Union National Association announced its
class action lawsuit against Equifax -- in the wake of the credit
bureau's massive data breach impacting nearly half of the total
U.S. population -- state credit union leagues representing more
than a dozen states have filed lawsuits, along with a number of
individual credit unions.

But with so many consumers involved -- estimated at approximately
145 million, which exceeds the total number of U.S. credit union
members -- the question arises: Why haven't still more joined the
class action suit?

In a statement emailed to Credit Union Journal, CUNA Chief Counsel
Susan Parisi said "As with any lawsuit, a potential party must
evaluate the pros and cons of joining given their own particular
set of circumstances, such as the damages they have experienced,
and decide whether or not to participate."

According to Michael Bell, an attorney specializing in credit
union issues with Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC of Royal Oak,
Mich., "Some credit unions could choose to proceed on their own
[rather than joining CUNA's class action suit].  Perhaps they feel
they have unique damages and that they will not be properly
represented by a class of credit unions.  They may desire to go it
alone against Equifax."

Such is the case with the Wisconsin Credit Union League, which
announced that it is also suing the credit bureau; however it will
serve as a named plaintiff in a suit initially brought by Summit
Credit Union, which is separate from the suit filed by CUNA.

WCUL noted that the suit from Summit CU, a $2.9 billion-asset
institution based on Madison, Wis., asked the court to "certify
the class action, grant it damages and enjoin Equifax from
continuing to pursue its negligent business practices."

Brett Thompson, president & CEO of WCUL, told Credit Union Journal
via email that "Summit is a member of the league and we agreed to
be a named plaintiff in that action before CUNA filed its suit.
We strongly support both Summit's and CUNA's lawsuits against
Equifax, and anticipate the actions will be consolidated at a
future date."

Today Summit is a community-chartered credit union, but
historically it served CUNA employees.  Summit is believed to be
the first financial institution of any kind to file suit against
Equifax over the breach.

And CUNA isn't the only national trade association sounding off
against the credit bureau.  The National Association of Federally-
Insured Credit Unions has also been vocal in the wake of the
breach.  NAFCU, like CUNA, has long pressed legislators for
stronger national data security standards, and in testimony before
Congress, NAFCU representatives suggested ways legislators could
create a national data security standard to reduce the number of
data breaches, as well as minimize their impact.

Similarly, NAFCU VP of Legislative Affairs Brad Thaler has also
written a letter to lawmakers suggesting that credit bureaus like
Equifax be subject to the same regulatory requirements depository
institutions face.

'All credit unions should benefit'

The Michigan Credit Union League was one of the first leagues to
signal its intent to join CUNA's class action suit, and President
and COO Ken Ross explained that the nature of class actions are
such that "named plaintiffs" are leaders in the lawsuit, while
"class" plaintiffs enjoy the benefits of the ultimate settlement
without the time and expense incurred by the lead plaintiffs named
in the lawsuit.

"It would be impractical and unnecessary to have each of thousands
of credit unions nationwide included as named plaintiffs," he
said.  "Regardless, once a settlement is reached, all credit
unions should benefit from the outcome."

J. Scott Sullivan, president and CEO of the Nebraska Credit Union
League, noted that before NCUL joined the suit as a named
plaintiff, he and other league leaders "weighed several issues."

"Unlike a stolen credit or debit card, this is not an isolated
incident," he said.  "Wrongdoers now have access to highly
sensitive and personally identifiable information allowing them to
open new accounts, credit cards, open loans and commit fraud."

In addition, the case will likely take years to resolve, which may
ultimately serve as a deterrent to some parties entering into this
litigation.

One other potential hurdle is that as more parties sign on for the
class action suit, any potential return becomes smaller, since
monies will have to be distributed among a larger number of
plaintiffs.

But attorney Bell counters that size in this issue is "largely
irrelevant" because it is "highly likely" that all the various
class action lawsuits will be consolidated by the court system
anyway.

Similarly, MCUL's Ross said if history is any indication, the
numerous lawsuits will be eventually "collapsed" into a single
case, and this consolidation will take place in a single venue
when the class action is certified by a U.S. District Judge.

"Regardless of size, once a settlement is negotiated and
ultimately approved by the judge, relief will be provided to
affected credit unions," he explained.

The Nebraska League's Sullivan asserted that the size of the class
isn't what matters in this instance.

"It was about taking affirmative action to hold Equifax
accountable for the financial harm caused to our credit unions for
their failure to safeguard our credit unions' members' highly
sensitive and personally identifiable information," he specified.
"Equifax's data security deficiencies were so significant that,
even after hackers entered its system, their activities went
undetected for at least two months. This blatant disregard for the
security of confidential data is unacceptable.

To what end?
Another question the suit raises is the issue of an end goal or
what can actually be accomplished?

Although Bell's law firm is not involved in this litigation, he
said he assumes that the plaintiffs are seeking to recover damages
incurred due to this data breach.

Michael Wishnow, senior vice president-marketing & communications
at Pennsylvania Credit Union Association, another plaintiff in the
suit, said PCUA had two basic goals in joining the suit: to ensure
credit unions are reimbursed for any losses incurred and to
emphasize that data breaches are disproportionately caused by
third parties such as Equifax, retailers and health insurers,
while financial institutions like credit unions are often
"saddled" with all the costs.

"All entities need to be held to the same data security standards
as banks and credit unions," Wishnow said.

Sullivan declared that the Nebraska league has taken this specific
action principally "to stop Equifax from continuing its inadequate
security practices and demand enhanced data protection measures in
the future."

Beyond that, many have set their sites for victory higher. Jeff
Olson, president and CEO of the CU Association of the Dakotas,
said the Equifax breach highlights the need for tougher state- and
federal-level data-protection and cybersecurity standards.

MCUL's Ken Ross agreed, noting that CUs are likely to "suffer
financial losses as a result of this data breach, which is the
latest in a long line of data breaches where credit unions are
left holding the bag in a broken system."

According to Ross, the "sheer magnitude" of this breach could be
the thing that finally brings about "long-overdue Congressional
action on this topic."

"Our member credit unions -- big and small -- are getting hit hard
from these data breaches," Ross added, "and we hope this action
spurs public policymakers to take action to remedy the situation
and provide equity to community-based institutions."

Jared M. Ross, senior vice president, association services &
governmental affairs at the League of Southeastern Credit Unions &
Affiliates, another plaintiff, echoed those hopes.

"If we do not hold merchants and other entities collecting
sensitive date accountable, then what is the incentive to protect
consumer information?," he pondered.  "We have seen Congress has
been slow to bring meaningful change in the area of data security,
and we are hopeful that not only will this lawsuit provide credit
unions with the relief they deserve, but that it will bring
attention to the entire issue of data security." [GN]


EXPRESSWAY DELIVERIES: "Landaverde" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Landaverde, as individuals and on behalf all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Expressway Deliveries, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. BC682811 (Cal. Super., November 9, 2017),
seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for failure to pay for all
hours worked and minimum wage rate, failure to authorize or permit
required meal periods, failure to authorize or permit required
rest periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate
wage statements, injunctive relief and other equitable relief,
reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under California
Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law of the California Business and
Professions Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage
Orders.

Expressway Deliveries is in the business of providing delivery
services where Landaverde worked as a driver. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Anthony Choe, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY CHOE
      3700 Wilshire Boulevard, Ste. 260
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 7S8-4448
      Facsimile: (213) 788-4450.


FASTAFF LLC: Certification of Class Sought in "Dalchau" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned STEPHANIE DALCHAU and
MICHAEL GOODWIN, individuals on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. FASTAFF, LLC; U.S. NURSING CORPORATION; and
DOES 1 to 10 inclusive, Case No. 3:17-cv-01584-WHO (N.D. Cal.),
ask the Court to conditionally certify, for purposes of providing
notice of this action, the following collective:

     All individuals who, at any time within three years prior to
     the date of conditional certification, worked an assignment
     pursuant to an Assignment Agreement Letter with Fastaff,
     LLC, during which they received a housing stipend or in-kind
     housing, worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more
     workweeks, and had the value of their housing benefit
     excluded from their regular rate for purposes of calculating
     overtime.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to approve their proposed Notice
and order its dissemination to the collective via both regular and
electronic mail.  The Plaintiffs also ask that the deadline for
members of the collective to opt-in to this lawsuit be set for 120
days from the mailing of the Notice, and that the Court order the
to provide Plaintiffs, within 14 days of granting conditional
certification, the contact information -- including the names,
last known addresses, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses --
for all putative members of the collective.

The Court will commence a hearing on December 20, 2017, at 2:00
p.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zpieiS6P

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


FLORIDA: Certification of Trailer Chassis Owners Class Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, issued an
Opinion reversing the trial court's Order Certifying Two Sub-
Classes in the case captioned FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
and JIM BOXOLD, in his official capacity as Secretary of the
Florida Department of Transportation, Appellants, v. TROPICAL
TRAILER LEASING, LLC, et al., Appellees. Case No. 1D16-4586. (Fla.
Dist. App.) Case remanded.

The Florida Department of Transportation appeals the trial court's
non-final order certifying two sub-classes in favor of Appellee,
Tropical Trailer Leasing, LLC.

The Department argues that the trial court abused its discretion
on three grounds: deciding the merits of Tropical Trailer's claim;
certifying broader sub-classes than requested by Tropical Trailer;
and finding that Tropical Trailer proved the elements of rule
1.220, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.

Tropical Trailer leases trailers to third parties. It filed suit
to invalidate the Department's method of assessing tolls for towed
trailers.  Tolls were previously assessed against the vehicle
pulling the trailer.  Following the advent of cashless billing,
SunPass transponders were installed on vehicles, and the
Department began assessing tolls without requiring vehicle drivers
to stop; but not all semi-trucks had SunPass transponders
installed. The Department later implemented the toll-by-plate
billing system, using either front-plate cameras or rear-plate
cameras to capture photographs of license plates to assess tolls.
Tropical Trailer sued the Department for erroneously interpreting
sections 316.003(21) and 316.1001, Florida Statutes (2010), to
authorize the Department to assess tolls against the trailer
owner, instead of the owner of the vehicle towing the trailer.

In its initial complaint, Tropical Trailer alleged it was suing on
behalf of the following class:

     All owners of a trailer or semitrailer or chassis who within
the four years preceding the filing of this lawsuit were charged a
highway toll by [the Department] because the driver of the
motorized vehicle towing the trailer or semitrailer or chassis
failed to immediately pay the applicable toll.

In its order granting Tropical Trailer's motion, the trial court
certified two sub-classes, even broader than requested:

   (1) The owners of all trailers towed on the turnpike for which
the Department used the toll-by-plate method of toll imposition
between October 6, 2010 and June 30, 2012; and

   (2) the owners of all trailers towed on the turnpike for which
[the Department] used the toll-by-plate method of toll imposition
since July 1, 2012.

Rule 1.220(c)(2)(D)(ii), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure,
provides that any pleading shall contain a definition of the
alleged class. Rule 1.220(d)(1) provides that after hearing the
court shall enter an order determining whether the claim is
maintainable on behalf of a class on the application of any party
or on the court's initiative.

Federal district courts have held that trial courts abuse their
discretion when they certify a class that is broader than the
class defined in the complaint. See Johnson v. Harley-Davidson
Motor Co. Group, LLC, 285 F.R.D. 573, 577 n.2 (E.D. Ca. 2012),
declining to use expanded class definition proposed in motion for
class certification, and resorting to class definition in
complaint. Clarke v. Baptist Mem'l Healthcare Corp., 264 F.R.D.
375, 381 (W.D. Tenn. 2009), requiring plaintiffs to file an
amended complaint to expand the proposed class definition.

The District Court of Appeal does not hold that a class may not be
expanded once a definition has been proposed in a complaint. The
District Court of Appeal simply adheres to the rule that the
proper procedural method to expand a class is by moving to amend
the complaint, and then moving to certify the newly defined class.

Tropical Trailer alleged in its motion for class certification
that the class grew exponentially from approximately 40 members to
over 180,000 members. The massive expansion went far beyond the
alleged class definition Tropical Trailer pled in its amended
complaint, to which it was bound.

Expanding a class beyond what was pled in the complaint unfairly
surprised the Department, because it was not on notice to defend
against such a broad class definition.  Further, the procedural
requirements are in place to ensure and protect the parties' right
to due process. Ernie Haire Ford, Inc. v. Gilley, 903 So.2d 956,
959 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), reversing a trial court's class
certification where no motion for class certification was filed,
on the grounds that it violated the defendant's due-process right
to be heard on the issue.

The District Court of Appeal holds that Tropical Trailer
improperly sought to expand the scope of the class through its
motion for class certification and, instead, should have further
moved to amend its complaint. Further, the trial court abused its
discretion by expanding the scope of the class beyond the class
definition proposed in the amended complaint.

A full-text copy of the District Court of Appeals' November 6,
2017 Opinion is available at http://tinyurl.com/yblgub77from
Leagle.com.

Clinton L. Doud, Chief Counsel, Civil Litigation; Ryan Scott
Bourgoin, Assistant General Counsel, Civil Litigation; George S.
Reynolds, IV, and Marc A. Peoples, Assistant General Counsels,
Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, for Appellants.

Diane G. DeWolf -- diane.dewolf@akerman.com -- of Akerman LLP,
Tallahassee; A. Rodgers Traynor Jr., and Lawrence D. Silverman --
lawrence.silverman@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Miami, for
Appellees.


FORD MOTOR: Lott Appeals Ruling in "Vargas" Suit to Ninth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Objectors Brenda Lott, Suzanne Lutz, Carlie Olivant, Gail Slomine
and Philip Woloszyn filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Omar Vargas, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, Case No.
2:12-cv-08388-AB-FFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Ford Motor
has agreed to provide "substantial cash payments" and other
benefits to the owners of about 1.5 million of its Fiesta and
Focus models that had to be repaired due to allegedly
malfunctioning transmissions.

The deal comes after years of litigation, including a year of
settlement negotiations and covers owners and lessees of 2011 to
2016 Ford Fiestas and 2012 to 2016 Ford Focuses, the Plaintiffs
said in their motion for preliminary approval of the agreement.

The appellate case is captioned as Omar Vargas, et al. v. Ford
Motor Company, Case No. 17-56745, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Mediation Questionnaire was due November 24, 2017;

   -- Transcript must be ordered by December 14, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on January 16, 2018;

   -- Appellants Brenda Lott, Suzanne Lutz, Carlie Olivant, Gail
      Slomine and Philip Woloszyn's opening brief is due on
      February 22, 2018;

   -- Appellees Robert Bertone, Ford Motor Company, Michelle
      Harris, Sharon Heberling and Omar Vargas' answering brief
      is due on March 26, 2018; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
      service of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees OMAR VARGAS, ROBERT BERTONE, MICHELLE HARRIS,
and SHARON HEBERLING, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, are represented by:

          Robert Kenneth Friedl, Esq.
          Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
          Ryan H. Wu, Esq.
          Tarek Zohdy, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556-4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
          E-mail: robert.friedl@capstonelawyers.com
                  Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com
                  Ryan.Wu@CapstoneLawyers.com
                  tarek.zohdy@capstonelawyers.com

               - and -

          Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3038
          E-mail: elechtzin@bm.net

Objectors-Appellants  BRENDA LOTT, SUZANNE LUTZ, CARLIE OLIVANT,
GAIL SLOMINE and PHILIP WOLOSZYN are represented by:

          Nancy E. Gray, Esq.
          GRAY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          11500 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 400
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 452-1211
          Facsimile: (888) 729-2402
          E-mail: ngray@grayfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael T. Kirkpatrick, Esq.
          PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP
          1600 20th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20009-1001
          Telephone: (202) 588-1000
          Facsimile: (202) 588-7795
          E-mail: mkirkpatrick@citizen.org

Defendant-Appellee FORD MOTOR COMPANY is represented by:

          Tamara Alicia Bush, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 457-1815
          E-mail: tbush@dykema.com

               - and -

          Janet L. Conigliaro, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          400 Renaissance Center, 35th floor
          Detroit, MI 48243
          Telephone: (313) 568-5372
          E-mail: jconigliaro@dykema.com

               - and -

          Fred J. Fresard, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          39577 Woodward Ave.
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 203-0593
          Facsimile: (248) 203-0763
          E-mail: ffresard@dykema.com

               - and -

          Krista L. Lenart, Esq.
          John Mark Thomas, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
          2723 South State Street
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 214-7676
          Facsimile: (734) 214-7696
          E-mail: klenart@dykema.com
                  jthomas@dykema.com


FRONTIER COMMS: Haeggquist Investigates Potential Misconduct
------------------------------------------------------------
Haeggquist & Eck, LLP ("HAE") on Nov. 8 announced an investigation
of potential corporate misconduct at Frontier Communications
Corporation (NASDAQ: FTR) ("Frontier" or the "Company").
Specifically, HAE is examining potential misrepresentations by
Frontier insiders concerning wireline operations Frontier acquired
from Verizon (NYSE: VZ) in April 2016. Frontier has since
belatedly admitted that many of the acquired wireline operations
included non-paying accounts. Indeed, by February 2017, Frontier
suffered an $80 million net loss for the fourth quarter of 2016,
largely due to these underperforming assets.  This huge decline
was followed by a $75 million first quarter 2017 net loss, among
other negative financial impacts. Frontier's stock trading price
fell substantially with the announcement of these losses.

Several securities class action lawsuits were filed against
Frontier in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut ("the Class Action").  The Class Action currently
seeks damages on behalf of shareholders who purchased and/or
acquired Frontier's securities between April 1, 2016 and May 2,
2017.  The deadline to move to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
Class Action ("Lead Plaintiff Deadline") is November 27, 2017.

Frontier Shareholders Have Legal Options

Frontier shareholders may contact Amber Eck or Kathleen Herkenhoff
by phone at 619-342-8000, or by e-mail to ambere@haelaw.com or
kathleenh@haelaw.com, to seek further information concerning the
Class Action, Lead Plaintiff Deadline, or other types of
representative actions available to seek relief for the above
described misconduct.  If you choose to e-mail the firm, please
include a telephone number where we may contact you to expedite
answering your inquiries.

Haeggquist & Eck, LLP is a nationally recognized leader in
shareholder rights and consumer protection law. Members of the
firm have helped shareholders recover more than $1 billion of
value for themselves and/or for the companies in which they have
invested. [GN]


FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Sued by Ramos Over False Ads, Warranties
-----------------------------------------------------------
AARON RAMOS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FRY'S ELECTRONICS, INC., and DOES 1-10 Inclusive, Case
No. 3:17-cv-02320-MMA-BLM (S.D. Cal., November 15, 2017), is
brought against Fry's Electronics to stop its alleged practice of
falsely advertising and selling warranties for their graphics
cards that they have no intention of honoring and to obtain
redress for a class of consumers, who were misled by the Company.

The Company advertised to consumers that a warranty would
accompany the purchase of its graphics cards, whereby the consumer
product would be replaced if it was defective, Mr. Ramos asserts.
He contends that the Company refused to replace or refund the
Graphics Card he bought because he had not registered the card
with the manufacturer.  He alleges that the Company did not inform
him about the registration.

Fry's Electronics, Inc., is a corporation that does business in
California, including San Diego County, that is incorporated in
California and headquartered in San Jose, California.

Fry's Electronics sells, services, and supports computer hardware
and software products, personal electronics, and convenience and
general merchandise items.  The Company provides personal and
Apple computers, notebooks and netbooks, iPads, iPods, tablets,
MP3 players, networking equipment, PC and electronic components,
mobile and telecommunications products, audio and video products,
TVs, cameras and telescopes, car electronics, office products,
software products, video games and toys, movies and music items,
eBooks and eReaders, science related products, health and beauty
items, and appliances, as well as ICs, components, and
accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


G4S SECURE: Abumohor Moves to Certify Class With Two Sub-Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Abumohor moves the Court to conditionally certify a
representative class in the case captioned EDUARDO ABUMOHOR and
those similarly situated v. G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC., Case
No. 1:17-cv-23258-DPG (S.D. Fla.), and permit court-supervised
notification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

Generally, Mr. Abumohor asserts, the "Class" consists of employees
and former employees of the Defendant, who are considered victims
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Specifically, the Class is
divided into two sub-classes, defined as:

     OFF THE CLOCK SUB-CLASS:

     All those employees (past or present) of Defendant for
     anytime from three years prior to their consent to join this
     action until end of this case, who worked in the Miami area,
     who were paid hourly, who received work related off duty
     phone calls, emails, and/or text messages, who received or
     gave off duty briefs pre and post shift, or were engaged to
     wait to work while off duty and were not compensated for
     this time, and worked at least one workweek.

     OVERTIME WAGE SUB-CLASS:

     All those employees (past or present) of Defendant for
     anytime from three years prior to their consent to join this
     action until end of this case, who worked in the Miami area,
     who were paid hourly, who received less than 1.5x their
     regular wage for any hours worked over 40 in a workweek and
     worked at least one workweek.

Mr. Abumohor also asks the Court to:

   1. provide Defendant 15 days to turn over all of the contact
      information in their files for all those that fit the Class
      definition, including e-mails, phone numbers, mailing and
      residential address;

   2. permit Plaintiff's counsel to contact and send notice out
      to the Class and provide the potential class members at
      least 30 days from that date they receive Notice to opt in
      to this case;

   3. appoint him as the Class Representative, and that he may
      enter into settlement agreements and attend mediation on
      behalf of the Class so long as they are mutually agreed
      with any decision, but that any agreement reached must be
      then submitted to the Court for approval before it becomes
      binding or final; and

   4. order that the parties shall conduct mediation within 60
      days of this Order.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=b9gUeaRp

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq.
          SORONDO ROSENBERG LEGAL PA
          1825 Ponce de Leon Blvd., #329
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (786) 708-7550
          Facsimile: (7860 204-0844
          E-mail: rer@sorondorosenberg.com


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Accused by LaTorre of Breaching Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA LaTORRE and ROBYN BERGER, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated and the GE RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN v.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, SSGA FUNDS MANAGEMENT, INC., GE ASSET
MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED, GE RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN TRUSTEES and
DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 1:17-cv-12267 (D. Mass., November
15, 2017), accuses the Defendants of breaching their fiduciary
duties of prudence and loyalty with respect to the Plan in
violation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act, to the
detriment of the Plan and its participants and beneficiaries.

General Electric Company is a New York corporation headquartered
in Boston, Massachusetts, that operates a global digital
industrial company and, until 2016, operated an investment
management business through GE Asset Management Incorporated that
served as the investment advisor to the conflicted and imprudent
Plan options.  GE is the Plan's sponsor and administrator and one
of the Plan's fiduciaries.

SSGA Funds Management, Inc., is an investment management firm and
subsidiary of the Plan's custodian, the State Street Corporation.
SSGA is the successor entity to GE Asset Management Incorporated,
and currently serves as the investment manager for the Plan
options.  GE Asset Management Incorporated is a subsidiary of GE
and its assets and investment professionals were acquired by State
Street in July 2016.  GEAM formerly served as the investment
advisor for the Plan options.

GE Retirement Savings Plan Trustees are fiduciaries of the Plan
and for much, if not all, of the Class Period were officers of GE
Asset Management.  The Doe Defendants are other entities or
persons, who were fiduciaries of the Plan during the Class Period,
the identities of whom are currently unknown to the
Plaintiffs.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward F. Haber, Esq.
          Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
          Seaport East
          Two Seaport Lane
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 439-3939
          Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
          E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com
                  astewart@shulaw.com

               - and -

          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Evan J. Kaufman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: ekaufman@rgrdlaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: "Ellis" Class Settlement Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan issued an Order granting Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement, Certifying Class, Awarding Attorney's Fees and Service
Awards and Final Judgment in the case captioned TIFFANY ELLIS,
STEPHEN TYSON, GAIL BRALEY, DAVID LYALL, LINDA KEMP, SYLVESTER
TIBBITS, LUCAS CRANOR, MARY CRAWFORD, IRENE STAGER, NATASHA FORD,
and GARRY WILLET, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. General Motors, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-11747-GCS-APP (E.D. Mich.).

A fairness hearing was held before the Court to determine: (a)
whether the proposed Settlement should be granted final approval
as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (b) whether the proposed Class
should be certified for settlement purposes; (c) whether Class
Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses and service
awards for the Plaintiffs should be granted; and (d) whether a
final judgment granting approval of the Settlement and dismissing
the Action with prejudice should be entered.

Notice was published under the terms of the Preliminary Approval
Order.

The Court grants final approval to the proposed Settlement.

Factors supporting the grant of final approval to this Settlement
include, inter alia:

   -- The reaction of the Class has been extremely favorable. Only
2 Class members out of approximately 7,622 have opted out of the
Settlement and there have been 0 objections.

   -- The amount of the Settlement is reasonable, adequate, and
fair given the strengths and weaknesses of the case.

The Court finds, for purposes of effectuating this Settlement
only, that the prerequisites for a class action under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) have been satisfied in that:

   a. The number of Class Members is so numerous that joinder of
all members thereof is impracticable.

   b. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class,
including the meaning and importance of the alleged
misrepresentations at issue to a reasonable consumer.

   c. The claims of the Named Plaintiffs are similarly situated to
absent Class Members, and their claims are typical of the claims
of the Class they represent because they have alleged that they
purchased the Class Vehicles that contained the alleged
misrepresentations at issue.

   d. The Named Plaintiffs have fairly and adequately represented
the interests of the Class and have no interests in conflict with
the Class.

   e. The questions of law and fact common to the members of the
Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members of the Class.

   f. A class action is superior to other available methods for
the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy; and

   g. The Class is ascertainable because the membership can be
determined with reference to objective criteria, i.e., whether a
Class member bought a Class Vehicle.

The Court grants final certification for purposes of settlement to
the proposed Settlement Class, defined as:

   ALL PERSONS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES WHO PURCHASED OR LEASED A
RETAIL NEW MODEL YEAR 2016 CHEVROLET TRAVERSE, BUICK ENCLAVE OR
GMC ACADIA WITH A WINDOW STICKER DISPLAYING INCORRECT EPA-
ESTIMATED FUEL ECONOMY AND FIVE-YEAR FUEL COSTS FROM AN AUTHORIZED
GM DEALER AND WHO HAVE NOT EXECUTED A RELEASE OF ANY AND ALL
CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE ACTION IN FAVOR OF GM IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE 'COMPENSATION PROGRAM DESCRIBED BELOW AND WHO HAVE NOT
OTHERWISE RELEASED THEIR CLAIMS AGAINST GM SET FORTH IN THE
ACTION, AND WHO DO NOT SUBMIT TIMELY REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION.

The Court affirms the appointment of Plaintiffs Tiffany Ellis,
Stephen Tyson, Gail Braley, David Lyall, Linda Kemp, Sylvester
Tibbits, Lucas Cranor, Mary Crawford, Irene Stager, Natasha Ford,
and Gary Willet as Class Representatives, and finds that they have
adequately represented the Settlement Class for purposes of
entering into and implementing the Agreement.

The Court affirms the appointment of The Miller Law Firm, P.C. and
McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP as counsel for the Settlement Class
(Class Counsel).

After carefully considering Class Counsel's application, the Court
awards Class Counsel the full amount of $1,285,000.00 in
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses and incentive awards of $500
to each Class Representative.

Factors supporting the grant of fees include:

   a. The time and labor expended by Class Counsel on behalf of
the Class;

   b. The complexity and risks of the litigation;

   c. The monetary results achieved in this Settlement;

   d. The quality of the representation;

   e. The contingent nature of the fee;

   f. The reasonableness of the request fee under both the
percentage method and the lodestar cross check; and

   g. The value of the litigation to the public.

The Court has reviewed and considered each firm's declaration in
support of the Motion for fees and finds:

   a. The amount of hours expended by Class Counsel was reasonable
in light of the litigation.

   b. The hourly rate requested for each counsel was reasonable
and the Court approves these rates.

Plaintiffs' counsel stated that Class Counsel expended $16,203.01
during the pendency of this litigation. The Court finds the
expenses incurred by Class Counsel were advanced with no guarantee
of recovery and were reasonably required to prosecute the case.
The Court grants Class Counsel's request for reimbursement of
expenses. This reimbursement is included in the fee award.

The Court grants Plaintiffs' request for service awards in the
amount of $500 for each Plaintiff. This amount shall also be paid
from the total fee award finally approved by the Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 6, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y9pvdor6from Leagle.com.

Sean Tolmasoff, Plaintiff, represented by Sharon S. Almonrode, The
Miller Law Firm, P.C. -- ssa@miller.law

Sean Tolmasoff, Plaintiff, represented by E. Powell Miller --
epm@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm.

Garry Willit, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph G. Sauder --
jgs@mccunewright.com -- McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, Sharon S.
Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm, P.C. & E. Powell Miller, The
Miller Law Firm.

Natasha Ford, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph G. Sauder, McCune
Wright Arevalo, LLP, Sharon S. Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm,
P.C. & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm.

Tiffany Ellis, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph G. Sauder, McCune
Wright Arevalo, LLP, Sharon S. Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm,
P.C. & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm.

David Lyall, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph G. Sauder, McCune
Wright Arevalo, LLP, Sharon S. Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm,
P.C. & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm.

Irene Stager, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph G. Sauder, McCune
Wright Arevalo, LLP, Sharon S. Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm,
P.C. & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm.

Mary Crawford, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph G. Sauder, McCune
Wright Arevalo, LLP, Sharon S. Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm,
P.C. & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm.

Linda Kemp, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph G. Sauder, McCune
Wright Arevalo, LLP, Sharon S. Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm,
P.C. & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm.

Stephen Tyson, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph G. Sauder, McCune
Wright Arevalo, LLP, Sharon S. Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm,
P.C. & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm.

Lucas Cranor, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph G. Sauder, McCune
Wright Arevalo, LLP, Sharon S. Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm,
P.C. & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm.

Gail Braley, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph G. Sauder, McCune
Wright Arevalo, LLP, Sharon S. Almonrode, The Miller Law Firm,
P.C. & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm.

Sylvester Tibbits, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph G. Sauder,
McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, Sharon S. Almonrode, The Miller Law
Firm, P.C. & E. Powell Miller, The Miller Law Firm.

General Motors, LLC, Defendant, represented by Mark A. Stern --
mstern@honigman.com --  Honigman, Miller & Robert B. Ellis --
robert.ellis@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis.

Donald L. Bayt, Objector, Pro Se.

Angelo L. Taylor, Sr., Objector, Pro Se.

Sherron H. Taylor, Objector, Pro Se.


GILEAD GROUP: Court Certifies "Adams" Suit as Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Henry Lee Adams, Jr., entered an order in the lawsuit
titled ROWLAND JEFFERY ADAMS, etc. v. GILEAD GROUP, LLC, etc., et
al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01566-HLA-JBT (M.D. Fa.), granting the
Plaintiff's Motion to Conditionally Certify Collective Action to
the extent discussed in the order; the parties are directed to
confer on or before December 4, 2017, regarding the form of notice
and method of dissemination to the opt-in Plaintiffs.

The parties shall file a notice with the Court on or before
December 8, 2017, articulating any agreement they have reached as
to the proposed form of notice and dissemination, Judge Adams
states.  The Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Reply is
granted to the extent Plaintiff may file a reply to Defendants'
opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Toll the Statute of
Limitations or before December 8, 2017, if he cannot reach an
agreement with Defendants regarding same.

The Plaintiff's complaint seeks overtime pay under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  The Plaintiff was employed by Realtime as a Field
Collection Agent for Comcast accounts.  The Plaintiff alleges that
the Defendants shaved overtime hours and forced him to work off-
the-clock.

From September 1, 2012, to September 2, 2016, Defendant Realtime
Results, LLC, provided collection, field retention, and asset
recovery services for its clients, which were primarily cable
service providers.  Realtime closed its collection division on
September 2, 2016, due to unprofitability and has not employed a
Field Collection Agent since September 2, 2016.

Plaintiff's Complaint is an "opt-in" collective action on behalf
of "All 'Field Collection Agents' (a/k/a "Retention Specialists")
who worked for Defendants, nationwide, from August 1, 2013 to
present, who worked in excess of 40 hours in on [sic] or more
workweeks and were not compensated at one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
one or more workweeks as required by the FLSA."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pmT76jpU


GREEN TREE: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in "Foster" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James D. Whittemore denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification filed in the lawsuit styled TRACY FOSTER and
CORNELL FOSTER v. GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-
01878-JDW-MAP (M.D. Fla.).

The Fosters bring this action on behalf of themselves and a class
of consumers in Hillsborough County, Florida, alleging violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act.  They allege that Green Tree attempted
to collect a debt while knowing they were represented by counsel
and that Green Tree has an internal policy to continue contacting
a debtor although it knows the debtor to be represented by an
attorney.

The Plaintiffs sought certification of the following FCCPA class
and FDCPA subclass:

     FCCPA Class:

     All individuals in Hillsborough County, Florida: (1) who had
     a mortgage loan serviced by Green Tree that was incurred
     primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, (2)
     who were represented by counsel regarding the mortgage debt,
     (3) and whom Green Tree contacted directly in an attempt to
     collect the mortgage debt after it was notified they were
     represented by counsel, (4) on or after August 12, 2013.

     FDCPA Subclass:

     All individuals in Hillsborough County, Florida: (1) who had
     a mortgage loan serviced by Green Tree that was incurred
     primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, (2)
     that Green Tree acquired after it was in default, (3) who
     were represented by counsel regarding the mortgage debt, (4)
     and whom Green Tree contacted directly in an attempt to
     collect the mortgage debt after it was notified they were
     represented by counsel, (5) on or after August 12, 2014.

Judge Whittemore opines that it cannot be said that class issues
predominate over the individual issues with respect to the
proposed class member claims and Green Tree's defense.  And it
follows that the Fosters have not established that a class action
is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of the controversy under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Whittemore adds.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=93UZXlnO


GREIF INC: Faces Class Action Over Noxious Odors at Wis. Plant
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Diedrich, writing for Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, reports
that residents living near an industrial barrel refurbishing plant
in St. Francis on Nov. 8 sued the company, saying the facility
belches noxious fumes over their homes, diminishing their quality
of life as well as their property values.

Three residents -- Michael Tennessen, Deborah Kessel and Robert
Kress -- sued the plant's parent company, Greif Inc., a $3.3
billion packaging company based in Ohio, alleging its operations
are a nuisance and that it is guilty of negligence for failing to
improve operations as recommended by a safety consultant.

The three filed a class-action complaint in Milwaukee County
Circuit Court.  Their attorneys will be seeking to have Circuit
Judge Stephanie Rothstein to certify it as a class action, which
would allow other residents to join it.

The suit proposes to allow any residents with similar complaints
in a one-mile ring around the plant, in the 3900 block of S.
Pennsylvania Ave., to join the suit, which seeks unspecified
damages.

"I am proud of Robert, Debbie and Mike for stepping forward to
take on this big company," said Milwaukee attorney Michael Lueder,
who also is working with a Detroit firm on the case.

"These folks just want to be able to let their kids and grandkids
enjoy the yard on a sunny day.  They want to invite guests for
barbecues without embarrassment.  They want to hang their clothes
out on the line and pull them down smelling fresh, and not like
unpleasant chemicals."

A Greif spokeswoman said the company had not seen the lawsuit and
therefore could not comment.

A Journal Sentinel investigation, published in February, uncovered
a host of problems that endangered workers and residents living
near the company's plant in St. Francis as well as facilities in
Oak Creek, Milwaukee and three other states.

Workers at the plants told the Journal Sentinel chemicals were
routinely mixed together, triggering dangerous reactions that
resulted in chemical and heat-related burns, injuries from
exploding barrels, breathing difficulties and other health
problems.

Residents, especially those living near the St. Francis plant,
said in a meeting following publication that it is often miserable
living near the facility.  The smell can be so powerful that
residents are forced to stay in their homes. They say the fumes
lead to burning eyes, sore throats and headaches

Following the Journal Sentinel investigation, agents from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency spent several days interviewing
residents near the St. Francis plant. The EPA investigators
themselves reported experiencing health problems during that time.

The EPA is one of at least five government agencies investigating
the plants following the news organization's investigation, at the
urging of several members of Congress.  The state Department of
Natural Resources and U.S. Department of Transportation together
have uncovered three dozen violations.

Mercury levels over the legal limit have been found in wastewater
coming from the St. Francis plant for at least four years.
Following the investigation, officials met with the company, which
promised to clean it up.

The three plants, known locally as Mid-America, are operated by
Container Life Cycle Management, a joint venture majority owned by
Greif.

The plants refurbish 55-gallon steel drums and large plastic
chemical containers, cleaning them for reuse or recycling.  Those
drums that cannot be refurbished are burned.

The company has "negligently created an unreasonable risk of harm"
by sending noxious odors into the neighborhood, the suit says.
[GN]


HSBC HONG KONG: Wins Judgment in "Giron" Suit; Cert. Bid Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Otis D. Wright, II, entered an order in the lawsuit
titled RAMIRO GIRON, NICOLAS J. HERRERA, ORLANDO ANTONIO MENDEZ v.
HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANK COMPANY, LTD., a foreign company, HSBC
BANK USA, N.A., a national banking association; and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-08869-ODW-JC (C.D. Cal.):

   * granting the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment;
   * denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class;
   * denying as moot the Defendant's Motion for Sanctions; and
   * denying as moot the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike and
     Exclude.

The Plaintiffs allege that they wired money to the bank accounts
of a Ponzi scheme they refer to as "WCM777."  WCM777 held accounts
at Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank Company, Ltd. ("HSBC Hong Kong").
The Court previously dismissed HSBC Hong Kong from this action for
lack of personal jurisdiction.  The only remaining defendant is
HSBC Bank USA, N.A.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of individuals,
who "invested and lost money with any of the WCM777 entities by
transferring or having their money transferred to one of the
WCM777 accounts at HSBC Hong Kong."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=b2O11gXp


HYDRO-QUEBEC: Coalition Peuple Allume Supports Overbilling Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Coalition Peuple allume, the instigator of the movement "Let's
Get Our Money Back From Hydro-Quebec" is supporting a class action
in Superior Court against Hydro-Quebec so that the Crown
corporation pays back the $ 1.2 billion overpaid by Quebeckers
between 2008 and 2013.

"This is one of the largest class action to be filed in Quebec.
This amount represents the result of excessive profits resulting
from higher returns than those established by the Regie de
l'energie as being just and reasonable, said Freddy Molima,
president of the Coalition Peuple allume, recalling having sent a
formal notice to the Prime Minister last April asking the
government to reimburse the money overpaid by Hydro-Quebec's
customers since 2008.  Having received no response, members of the
coalition have decided to take action by going to court."

The class action was filed in the Montreal courthouse this
morning.  The lawsuit against Hydro-Quebec also involves the Regie
de l'energie and the Government of Quebec.  It's asking for the
full reimbursement, corresponding to the performance gaps for the
years 2008 to 2013 that the Crown Corporation cashed in, in
contravention of the contract with its customers, for an amount of
$ 1,222,900,000.

"The Coalition Peuple allume was launched on the social action
network Weroes.com.  Outraged to learn that Hydro-Quebec had
overbilled them, more than 45,000 people joined the action plan to
claim a refund," proudly explained the creator of the platform,
Alain Migneault, adding that to be kept informed of all the
details about the class action and to join the citizen action,
people must register on the website Weroes.com. [GN]


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Dec. 18 Deadline Set for Appellant Brief
-----------------------------------------------------------
Harris Martin Publishing reports that the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court
of Appeals has issued the briefing schedule in the appeal of an
order dismissing a talcum powder class action, requesting the
appellant brief by Dec. 18.

The briefing schedule, filed Nov. 7, asked that the appellees
filed their respective briefs within 30 days of service of the
appellant's brief.

In July, the MDL Court granted Johnson & Johnson's motion to
dismiss the first amended complaint filed in the Estrada action,
but allowed the plaintiffs leave to amend.  In that decision, the
MDL Court concluded that the plaintiffs lacked Article III
standing. [GN]


KEVIN SPACEY: Unruh's Sexual Abuse Claim May Spark Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Villani and Joe Dwinell, writing for Boston Herald, report
that Heather Unruh's complaint against Kevin Spacey could be the
cornerstone of a class-action suit against the Hollywood star,
similar to the cases filed against the Archdiocese of Boston
during the clergy sex abuse scandal.

And such a sweeping civil action could cost the now-banished
"House of Cards" actor millions, said Boston civil litigation
lawyer Mark Itzkowitz.

"An award could be astronomical," said Mr. Itzkowitz.  "The fact
that so many people are coming forward against Spacey lends
credibility" to Ms. Unruh's accusation.

The former Channel 5 anchor told reporters on Nov. 8 Spacey plied
her underage son with alcohol in June 2016 at the Club Car
restaurant on Nantucket.  He then allegedly grabbed the then-18-
year-old's genitals, she said.  Prosecutors said they have
launched an investigation.

Attorney Mitchell Garabedian, who is representing Unruh's son,
said he is exploring taking civil action against the A-list actor.

Spacey's career has been in a free fall, and he announced he is
seeking treatment after actor Anthony Rapp said Spacey made an
unwanted sexual advance at him during a party at Spacey's home in
the 1980s, when Spacey was 26 and Rapp was just 14.

Filmmaker Tony Montana and others have since come forth with
similar allegations against the 58-year-old Spacey.

Hub attorney Carmen L. Durso said accusers lining up against
Spacey makes a case against him that much stronger.

"If he has 10 victims, you could theoretically have all 10 victims
testify at a civil trial," Ms. Durso said.  "It gives the jury a
basis for believing the victim, buttressing the victim's
credibility in talking about something that other people agreed
that person did before and was in a habit of doing."

Ms. Durso said the key is showing a pattern of alleged criminal
behavior.

"Modus operandi. What it means is the person who did the crime
engaged in prior similar acts. It shows he had a way of doing
this," Ms. Durso said.

"Most of the other cases were people in which (Spacey) had some
power over them, he had some ability to exercise some authority,
or they were in a position where they felt he was able to control
their life," Ms. Durso said.  "That really enhances damages."

As for a possible class-action suit, Ms. Durso said it's not
likely. [GN]


LAGASSE LLC: Alpha Tech Appeals N.D. Ill. Decision to 7th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Alpha Tech Pet, Inc., Craftwood Lumber Company and
Craftwood II, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in their
lawsuit titled Alpha Tech Pet, Inc., et al. v. Essendant, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00513, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The appellate case is captioned as Alpha Tech Pet, Inc., et al. v.
Essendant, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-8023, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 22, 2017, the
Honorable Thomas M. Durkin entered a memorandum opinion and order
in the lawsuit:

   (1) granting the Defendants' a motion to deny class
       certification; and

   (2) denying the Defendants' motion for judgment on the
       pleadings on portions of the Plaintiffs' individual
       claims.

According to the Memorandum Opinion & Order, the Plaintiffs also
filed a motion to grant class certification on which the Court
held briefing in abeyance pending its decision on the Defendants'
motion to deny class certification.  For the same reasons that the
Defendants' motion to deny class certification is granted, Judge
Durkin denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

In its complaint, Plaintiff Alpha Tech alleges that Defendants
LaGasse LLC, Essendant Management Services LLC, Essendant Co., and
United Stationers, Inc., sent Alpha Tech eight unsolicited fax
advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005.

In December 2016, the Court consolidated Alpha Tech's case with
another case pending in this district for pre-trial proceedings.
The other case is Craftwood II, Inc. et al. v. Essendant, Inc.,
No. 16-cv-4321.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners ALPHA TECH PET, INC.; CRAFTWOOD LUMBER
COMPANY, an Illinois corporation; and CRAFTWOOD II, INC., a
California business doing business as BAY HARDWARE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Glenn L. Hara, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008-0000
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: ghara@andersonwanca.com

Defendants-Respondents ESSENDANT, INC., a Delaware corporation
doing business as ESSENDANT AND ESSENDNT; ESSENDANT CO., doing
business as ESSENDANT and ESSENDNT; LAGASSE, LLC; ESSENDANT
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Illinois limited liability company; and
UNITED STATIONERS, INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation, are
represented by:

          Givonna St. Clair Long, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
          333 W. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-0000
          Telephone: (312) 857-7070
          E-mail: glong@kelleydrye.com


LIBERTY CAPITAL: Scoma Sues Over Illegally Faxed Ads
----------------------------------------------------
Scoma Chiropractic, P.A., a Florida corporation, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. Liberty Capital Group, Inc. and John Does 1-5,
Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00615, (M.D. Fla., November 9, 2017),
seeks compensatory damages including interest thereon, reasonable
costs and expenses incurred including counsel fees and expert fees
and such equitable, injunctive or other relief under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax
Prevention Act of 2005.

On June 14, 2016, Defendants used a telephone facsimile machine,
computer, or other device to send an unsolicited facsimile to
Plaintiff without prior express invitation or permission, says the
complaint. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan M Kelly, Esq.
     ANDERSON WANCA
     3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
     Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
     Tel: (847) 368-1500
     Fax: (847) 368-1501
     Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


LOBLAW COS: Sued Over Alleged Prepackaged Bread Price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP on Nov. 8 disclosed that a class action
has commenced against national grocery chains and bakeries and
their parent corporations. The Plaintiff alleges that Loblaw
Companies, Sobeys, Metro, Wal-Mart Canada, Giant Tiger, Canada
Bread, Weston Foods Canada and their parent corporations conspired
to fix the price of packaged bread in Canada since 2001.

The Class Action has been filed in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice on behalf of all Canadians, excluding residents of Quebec,
who purchased packaged bread since 2001.

On November 1, 2017 the Competition Bureau executed raids at the
head offices of some of the defendants in a criminal investigation
tied to the alleged price fixing of packaged bread.

The lawsuit seeks $1 billion in damages and an additional $100
million in punitive damages.

Consumers wishing to obtain more information can visit
https://www.strosbergco.com/class-actions/bread/

Strosberg Sasso Sutts LLP -- http://www.strosbergco.com-- is one
of Canada's preeminent boutique litigation law firms.  The firm
has recovered more than $2 billion for its clients. [GN]


LULAROE CO: Cofounders Respond to Pyramid Scheme Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Friedman, writing for Good Housekeeping, reports that the
fashion brand LuLaRoe is the target of a $1 billion lawsuit that
claims the company is a pyramid scheme.  But the people behind the
brand, which sells its products through what they call "individual
retailers" or "consultants," say that couldn't be further from the
truth.  Mark and DeAnne Stidham, who cofounded LuLaRoe four years
ago, spoke out in their defense in an interview with CBS News.

On October 23, a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of three
LuLaRoe consultants (Aki Berry, Tiffany Scheffer and Cheryl
Hayton) and anyone else who sold products between 2013 and now.
The suit claims the company is running a pyramid scheme, in which
the true focus is getting more people to join the scheme, not
necessarily selling products to customers.

The lawsuit argues that the plaintiffs were recruited "through
manipulation and misinformation."  The plaintiffs say they were
"doomed from the start" and pressured into buying more products
they couldn't sell, even encouraged to sell breast milk to make
the finances work.  The lawsuit seeks $1 billion from the company.

In the interview, the Stidhams admitted that a small group of
sellers at higher levels make $500,000 more per year in bonuses,
made off the sellers below them.  But they say more than half make
$1,000 or more a month, and argue claims their company is a
pyramid scheme are false.

"We have a multi-billion dollar business.  It was not built by
tricking people into giving us their money," Mark said, adding
that he believes some criticism is coming from competitors.  "What
that is an uneducated opinion.  They haven't looked at who we are
because we sell product through to a consumer, and it's highly-
desirable product.  That is not a pyramid scheme."

Previously, LuLaRoe faced backlash for what some unhappy customers
called defective clothing, which had poor-quality fabric that led
to holes and rips.  LuLaRoe, which claimed only a tiny percentage
of their products had this problem, issued refunds to anyone who
was unhappy, and launched a "happiness" policy for customers,
offering refunds or exchanges within 90 days of purchase.

DeAnne insists that sellers shouldn't believe that selling for
LuLaRoe is going to be easy.  "I think it's easy, that's me. Okay,
for me in my background in my life experience.  I do not say it's
easy for everyone," she said.  "That's what I think they heard and
it's not the truth." [GN]


MCHENRY COUNTY, IL: Immigration Class Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Zoellick, writing for Daily Herald, reports that a class
action immigration lawsuit filed against McHenry County Sheriff
Bill Prim and his office has been dismissed, according to reports.

The McHenry County sheriff's office announced on Nov. 8 in a news
release that attorneys representing a plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed the case on Nov. 7 on the verge of another hearing,
ending two months of legal proceedings.

"The end of this legal action underscores my contention that we
have followed the law and continue to follow the law," Mr. Prim
said in the release.  "As I stated on the day this controversy
first began: 'Public safety [is] our foremost consideration.'"

According to the sheriff's office, the controversy began when the
Illinois Trust Act went into force and effect in late August.  The
act allows for the release of inmates who have posted bond or
served time and remain in custody solely on a U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) hold or detainer.

The sheriff's office said Niceforo Macedo-Hernandez, a citizen of
Mexico and one of the named plaintiffs in the suit, was held in
the jail on domestic battery charges filed after an incident at
his home in Crystal Lake, and that the suit accused the sheriff's
office of holding Macedo-Hernandez on an immigration detainer in
violation of the Illinois Trust Act.

Mr. Prim thanked State's Attorney Patrick Kenneally and his staff
for the time and effort they devoted to defending the case. [GN]


MDL 2437: Court Issues Time Out of Depositions Set for Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania issued a Memorandum regarding Use of Contention
Statements to Avoid Discovery Disputes and Move the Litigation
Forward in the case captioned IN RE: DOMESTIC DRYWALL ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: Ashton Woods Holdings LLC,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. USG Corp., et al., Defendants, MDL No. 13-
2437, Civil Action No. 15-cv-1712 (E.D. Pa.).

Numerous discovery problems erupted during the course of the case
on both liability and damages issues.

As a result of the class action discovery, and the Court's ruling,
no further discovery has been necessary as to the issue of an
agreement relating to the Plaintiffs' the principal discovery
issues have related to their purchases of drywall, the fact of
injury, and the amount of damages.

A second round of contention statements is now being utilized in
the Ashton Woods case, where constant discovery battles were being
fought over document requests and depositions. These disputes need
not be detailed. However, the Court realized, on the eve of a
hearing on one of many motions to compel, that in the interest of
fairness and conservation of resources by both the Court and
counsel, service of contention statements should precede any
further depositions.

The Court further determined there should be a time out of the
many depositions that had been scheduled by the then-existing
December 31, 2017 discovery deadline, pending service of
contention statements as to the fact of damage and the amount of
damage.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 6, 2017
Memorandum is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybxua8qzfrom
Leagle.com.


MEDCAH INC: "Taepan" Sues Over Illegal Collection Letter
--------------------------------------------------------
Linda Taepan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Medcah, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-
00553, (D. Haw., November 9, 2017), seeks injunctive relief
ordering Defendant to cease and desist from adding any interest to
any account it services unless, and until, it has reviewed the
original contract signed by the alleged debtor; to cease and
desist from adding any pre-judgment interest to any account it
services unless, and until, it has obtained a court ordered
judgment against the alleged debtor; statutory damages, costs of
litigation including a reasonable attorneys' fees and such other
and further relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
and Hawaii Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices statutes.

Medcah, Inc. is regularly engaged in the business of collecting
debt on behalf of its clients. Defendant has alleged that Taepan
incurred an obligation to pay money arising out of an Oceanic Time
Warner Cable and The Radiology Group bill, threatening her that
more interest would accrue on her account unless she paid it off
the account and communicating to Ms. Taepan that she owed a
different and greater amount than what she actually owes. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin A. Brackett, Esq.
      515 Ward Avenue
      Honolulu, HI 96814
      Tel: (808) 377-6778
      Email: justinbrackettlaw@gmail.com


MONMOUTH COUNTY, NJ: Court Grants Gayle's Bid to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Freda L. Wolfson granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the lawsuit entitled GARFIELD GAYLE v. WARDEN
MONMOUTH COUNTY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, et al., Case No. 3:12-
cv-02806-FLW-DEA (D.N.J.).

The certified class is defined as:

     the right of all persons within the District of New Jersey,
     now and in the future, who are mandatorily detained pursuant
     to 8 U.S.C. Section 1226(c) to obtain a bond hearing on the
     basis of a substantial claim to relief that would prevent
     the entry of a removal order, which includes challenging the
     constitutionality of the Joseph hearing process, namely, the
     allocation of the burden of proof and the contemporaneous
     recording of the hearing.

Judge Wolfson appoints plaintiffs Garfield Gayle and Neville Sukhu
as class representatives.  Plaintiff Sheldon Francois is dismissed
from the case.

"[T]he due process claims involving the current version of Form I-
286 and its addendum are dismissed because Plaintiffs are not
adequate representatives for these class claims, and thus, they
lack standing to pursue the claims," Judge Wolfson also rules.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Msiwfw1q


MONTAGE HOTELS: Faces "Albaugh" Suit Over Denied Meal Breaks
------------------------------------------------------------
Roman Albaugh and Stephanie Ngo, as individuals and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Montage Hotels and
Resorts, LLC and Does 1-10, Defendant, Case No. 30-2017-DD954S69
(Cal. Super., November 9, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages and
interest thereon, redress for failure to authorize or permit
required meal periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide
accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of
continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages
due upon separation of employment, failure to provide a day-off
per week and payment of vested vacation time, injunctive relief
and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and
interest under California Labor Code and applicable Industrial
Wage Orders.

Montage operates luxury hotels and resort facilities in Laguna
Beach, California, Beverly Hills, California, Deer Valley, Utah,
Bluffton, South Carolina and Lahaina, Hawaii. Plaintiffs worked at
the Montage hotel and resort facilities in Laguna Beach,
California. Albaugh and Ngo worked as lobby lounge supervisor and
front desk agent respectively. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
      Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
      Taylor L. Emerson, Esq.
      BRADLEY GROMBACHER, LLP
      2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
      Westlake Village, CA 91361
      Telephone: (805)212-5124
      Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
      E-Mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
              kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com


NAVARROS INC: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADALBERTO MARTINEZ, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NAVARROS INC., D/B/A NAVARROS UNDERGROUND
DRILLING INC., ANGEL NAVARRO, KORIN NAVARRO and MIGUEL A. NAVARRO,
Case No. 5:17-cv-01170 (W.D. Tex., November 15, 2017), is a
collective action to recover overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Navarros Inc., doing business as Navarros Underground Drilling
Inc., is an Illinois for-profit corporation, licensed to and doing
business in the state of Texas.  The Individual Defendants are
managing members and directors of the Company.

The Defendants operate in multiple states across the United
States.  The Defendants are in the business of drilling tunnels
for the construction of city and municipal utility tunnels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq.
          ANDERSON2X, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com
                  cgordon@a2xlaw.com


PARAMOUNT TRANSPORTATION: Misclassifies Account Execs, Weber Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS WEBER, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED v.
PARAMOUNT TRANSPORTATION LOGISTICS SERVICES, LLC, A FLORIDA
CORPORATION, R&L CARRIERS, INC., AN OHIO CORPORATION, AND AFC
WORLDWIDE EXPRESS, INC., A GEORGIA CORPORATION, D/B/A R&L GLOBAL
LOGISTICS, Case No. 2:17-cv-00627-SPC-CM (M.D. Fla., November 15,
2017), alleges that the Defendants have failed to comply with the
Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying the Plaintiff and all
other account executives as exempt from overtime compensation at
their offices throughout the country.

The Defendants operate under various trade names under the R&L
brand.  The Defendants provide domestic and international shipping
solutions to their customers, including transportation, logistics
and supply chain management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
          P.O. Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
          E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com


PERSONAL TOUCH: Bridges Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JULIA BRIDGES, on behalf of herself and all those similarly
situated v. PERSONAL TOUCH HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC AND LESLIE
HENRY, Case No. 2:17-cv-12423 (E.D. La., November 14, 2017), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages and
liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Personal Touch Healthcare Services, LLC, is a Louisiana company
and engaged in business in Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana.  Leslie
Henry, a Louisiana resident, is the sole manager/member owner of
the Company.

The Company provides home health care services to patients
throughout Louisiana.  The Defendants are reimbursed for the
services they provide by third-party private insurers and/or
Medicare or Medicaid.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
          Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON+JACKSON
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 599-5953
          Facsimile: (888) 988-6499
          E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net
                  mjackson@jackson-law.net


PINEAPPLE HOSPITALITY: "Smith" Suit Removed to N.D. Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Molly Smith, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Pineapple
Hospitality Company and Pineapple Restaurant Group, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 17-cv-08106, (Ill. Cir., November 9, 2017),
was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

Smith alleges that the Defendants implemented a timekeeping system
that relied on the collection, storage, and usage of employees'
fingerprints and biometric information without informed consent in
violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Myles McGuire, Esq.
      William P. Kingston, Esq.
      MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
      55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 893-7002
      Fax: (312) 275-7895
      Email: info@mcgpc.com

Defendants is represented by:

      Michael J. Burns, Esq.
      SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
      560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 397-2823
      Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
      Email: mburns@seyfarth.com

             - and -

      Thomas E. Ahlering, Esq.
      SEYFARTH SHAWLLP
      233 South Wacker Drive
      Chicago, IL 60606-6448
      Telephone: (312) 460-5000
      Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
      Email: tahlering@seyfarth.com


QUALITY RESOURCES: Toney Moves for Class Certification Under TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled SARAH TONEY, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. QUALITY RESOURCES, INC.,
and CHERYL MERCURIS, Case No. 1:13-cv-00042 (N.D. Ill.), seeks
certification of a class of persons, who were sent automated
telephone calls on their cellular telephones by Quality Resources,
Inc., at the direction of Cheryl Mercuris, its owner and operator.

The proposed class is defined as:

     All persons who are or were the subscribers of the telephone
     numbers on the Class List, and to whom, from January 3, 2009
     through the date of preliminary approval, Quality Resources,
     Inc., made a call or calls through its Vicidial calling
     system on their cellular telephones promoting Sempris goods,
     and where the cell phone number was obtained as a result of
     a transaction at the website www.stompeez.com.

     The following persons are excluded from the Class: Quality,
     any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of Quality, Ms.
     Mercuris and the officers, directors, agents, servants or
     employees of Quality as of the entry of the Preliminary
     Approval Order, Class Counsel, and any judge presiding over
     the Action.

The case alleges that the Defendants' calls violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Ms. Toney also asks the Court to appoint her as Class
Representative, and to appoint her attorneys as Co-Lead Class
Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BTGI923v

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
          Daniel J. Marovitch, Esq.
          BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
          155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 729-5288
          Facsimile: (312) 729-5289
          E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com
                  dmarovitch@burkelawllc.com

               - and -

          Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
          1 South Avenue, Suite 3
          Natick, MA 01760
          Telephone: (508) 655-1415
          Facsimile: (508) 319-3077
          E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net

               - and -

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
          BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
          99 High St., Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (508) 221-1510
          Facsimile: (617) 830-0327
          E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
                  anthony@broderick-law.com


RECONSTRUCTIVE ORTHOPAEDIC: Wolfington Appeals Order to 3rd Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Andrew Wolfington filed an appeal from a court ruling in
his lawsuit styled Andrew Wolfington v. Reconstructive Orthopaedic
Associates II PC, et al., Case No. 2-16-cv-04935, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The appellate case is captioned as Andrew Wolfington v.
Reconstructive Orthopaedic Associates II PC, et al., Case No. 17-
3500, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 17, 2017, three
Pennsylvania attorneys were sanctioned on Sept. 29 in federal
court for bringing what a judge described as a "remarkable"
proposed class action for a man, who sued a knee surgery center
after it worked with him on a payment plan.

U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson found that the attorneys --
Eric Rayz, Esq., Gerald Wells, Esq., and Michael Yarnoff, Esq., --
did no due diligence before filing the lawsuit on behalf of their
client, describing the suit as a groundless attempt to avoid
paying for his surgery.

The judge tagged the attorneys for failing to engage in even "the
most cursory check" into plaintiff Andrew Wolfington's financial
records, noting that while Mr. Wolfington accused the Rothman
Institute of providing no warning that it would make withdrawals
from his bank account, the health care provider never actually
made a single withdrawal.

"Defendant has no immunity from litigation, but it is clear that
groundless lawsuits against medical providers increase the cost of
medical care, and increased expenses of medical providers have
contributed to the drastic increase in health care costs which are
a matter of public concern," Judge Baylson said.  "Thus, public
policy warrants sanctions when a groundless suit is filed against
a medical provider."

Mr. Wolfington was preparing to undergo knee surgery at the
Rothman Institute in 2015 when he was told by the provider shortly
before his scheduled procedure that he would have to pay the
insurance deductible of over $2,000 upfront, according to the
Sept. 29 opinion.

He sued in September 2016, accusing Rothman of ultimately lending
him the funds and putting him on a payment plan, but failing to
outline the terms of the financing agreement in writing and making
unauthorized deductions from his checking account, the opinion
says.

Mr. Wolfington and his attorneys filed the suit as a nationwide
class action, suggesting that Rothman had violated the Truth in
Lending Act and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act when dealing with
other patients.

Later that year, after Rothman provided evidence that after Mr.
Wolfington made an initial $200 down payment, he never made any
additional payments, Judge Baylson threw out the suit with
prejudice.  The judge then, on his own volition, initiated a
sanctions inquiry to weigh whether the suit was frivolous and
whether it could have been avoided had the lawyers done proper
research.

After a round of briefing, a hearing and another round of
briefing, the judge determined that the lawyers fell short of
their obligations.

"In view of the seriousness of the charges, even a most cursory
check of plaintiff's financial records would have been part of a
reasonable investigation, especially because, as we now know,
reviewing the records for any of the eight months from the
plaintiff's operation to the filing of the complaint would have
revealed that many allegations in the complaint were false," Judge
Baylson said.

"The filing of the complaint as a class action was particularly
egregious.  If the bank records had been secured, it would have
been obvious that there was no basis whatsoever to allege
plaintiff could represent a class," he continued.

The ruling places the attorneys on the hook to pay Rothman's
attorneys' fees. Judge Baylson gave Rothman 14 days to tabulate
its costs, followed by another 14 days for the attorneys to
respond with any differing assessment.

"We strongly disagree with Judge Baylson's analysis and opinion
and intend to seek all appropriate remedies at the district and/or
appellate level," the attorneys said in a joint statement.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant ANDREW WOLFINGTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, is represented by:

          Robert J. Gray, Esq.
          Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
          CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY LLP
          2200 Renaissance Boulevard, Suite 275
          King of Prussia, PA 19406
          Telephone: (610) 822-3700
          Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
          E-mail: rgray@cwglaw.com
                  gwells@cwglaw.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Levant, Esq.
          LEVANT MARTIN TAUBER & WALKER
          320 North 18th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 567-8300
          E-mail: RLevant@LMTPC.com

               - and -

          Arkady Rayz, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite A
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364-5030
          E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Yarnoff, Esq.
          KEHOE LAW FIRM
          41 Madison Avenue, 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (215) 792-6676
          E-mail: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com

Defendants-Appellees RECONSTRUCTIVE ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATES II PC,
aka The Rothman Institute, and ROTHMAN INSTITUTE are represented
by:

          Laura D. Ruccolo, Esq.
          CAPEHART & SCATCHARD PA
          8000 Midlantic Drive
          Laurel Corporate Center, Suite 300S
          P.O. Box 5016
          Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
          Telephone: (856) 234-6800
          E-mail: lruccolo@capehart.com


RUBY TUESDAY: Faces "Breslau" Class Suit Over Acquisition by NRD
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID BRESLAU, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. RUBY TUESDAY, INC., JAMES F. HYATT, STEPHEN I. SADOVE,
F. LANE CARDWELL, JR., MARK W. ADDICKS, KEVIN T. CLAYON, DONALD E.
HESS, BERNARD LANIGAN, JR., JEFFREY J. O'NEIL, Case No. 3:17-cv-
00496 (E.D. Tenn., November 14, 2017), stems from a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which the Company will be acquired by the
Atlanta-based private equity group NRD Capital Management LLC
through its affiliates RTI Holding Company, LLC, and Holding's
wholly owned subsidiary, RTI Merger Sub, LLC.

On October 16, 2017, Ruby Tuesday's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Holding
and Merger Sub.  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
Holding will purchase each issued and outstanding share of Ruby
Tuesday common stock for $2.40 in cash.  Upon completion of the
Merger, Merger Sub will merge with and into Ruby Tuesday, with
Ruby Tuesday surviving the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of
Holding.

Ruby Tuesday is a Georgia corporation, with its principal
executive offices located in Maryville, Tennessee.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

Founded in 1972, Ruby Tuesday owns, operates, and franchises "bar
and grill" casual dining restaurants.  As of September 5, 2017,
there existed 599 Ruby Tuesday restaurants in 41 states and 14
foreign countries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank L. Watson, III, Esq.
          William F. Burns, Esq.
          WATSON BURNS, PLLC
          253 Adams Avenue
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 529-7996
          Facsimile: (901) 529-7998
          E-mail: fwatson@watsonburns.com
                  bburns@watsonburns.com

               - and -

          Carl L. Stine, Esq.
          Adam J. Blander, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759-4600
          Facsimile: (212) 486-2093
          E-mail: cstine@wolfpopper.com
                  ablander@wolfpopper.com


RUBY TUESDAY: "Sun" Action Seeks to Halt Sale to NRD Capital
------------------------------------------------------------
Yanxia Sun, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., James F. Hyatt, II,
Stephen I. Sadove, Mark W. Addicks, Donald E. Hess, Kevin T.
Clayton, Jeffrey J. O'Neill, Bernard Lanigan, Jr., F. Lane
Cardwell, Jr., RTI Holding Company, LLC, RTI Merger Sub, LLC, and
NRD Partners II, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00482 (E.D.
Tenn., November 9, 2017), seeks to enjoin defendants and all
persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing the acquisition of Ruby Tuesday by NRD
Capital, rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory
damages in the event defendants consummate the merger.

The lawsuit also seeks 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.

NRD Capital will acquire all of the outstanding shares of common
stock of Ruby Tuesday for $2.40 per share. The deal is valued at
approximately $335 million and is expected to close in the first
quarter of 2018.

The Plaintiff says Defendants filed a proxy statement that failed
to include financial projections and valuation analyses performed
by its financial advisor, UBS Securities LLC, critical to making
their decision on the said merger.

Ruby Tuesday is a casual dining restaurant chain with restaurants
in 41 states, 14 foreign countries and Guam. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Al Holifield, Esq.
      HOLIFIELD JANICH RACHAL & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      11907 Kingston Pike, Ste. 201
      Knoxville, TN 37934
      Tel: (865) 566-0115
      Fax: (865) 566-0119
      Email: aholifield@holifieldlaw.com

             - and -

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


SODEXO INC: Court Denies Certification of Mass. Wait Staff Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
issued an Opinion and Order denying Plaintiff's Amended Motion for
Class Certification in the case captioned TRACEY LAZO, JAMEN
HARPER, MUSTAPHA JARRAF, NY'COLE YOUNG THOMAS, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SODEXO, INC., Defendant, Civil
Action No. 15-13366-GAO (D. Mass.).

After the parties conducted relevant discovery, the plaintiffs
moved to certify a class of at least 604 Sodexo food and beverage
wait staff and service employees working at thirty-five (35)
Massachusetts Sodexo locations where Sodexo has imposed, and
improperly retained, a 'service charge,' on patron food and
beverage purchases.

Tracey Lazo, Jamen Harper, and Mustapha Jarraf have brought this
putative class action against Sodexo, Inc., a company that
contracts with various educational, health care, and business
institutions to provide food related services and facilities
management.  The plaintiffs allege that the defendant violated the
Massachusetts Tips Act, Mass. Gen. Laws Section 152A, by retaining
money collected from patrons as service charges, rather than
remitting the monies to wait staff and service employees as the
statute requires.

Massachusetts Tips Act

The Massachusetts Tips Act provides that if an employer or person
submits a bill, invoice or charge to a patron or other person that
imposes a service charge or tip, the total proceeds of that
service charge or tip shall be remitted only to the wait staff
employees, service employees, or service bartenders in proportion
to the service provided by those employees. Mass. Gen. Laws
Section 152A(d).

The Act defines service charge as: "a fee charged by an employer
to a patron in lieu of a tip to any wait staff employee, service
employee, or service bartender, including any fee designated as a
service charge, tip, gratuity, or a fee that a patron or other
consumer would reasonably expect to be given to a wait staff
employee, service employee, or service bartender in lieu of, or in
addition to, a tip." Section 152A(a).

The statute however permits an employer to impose on a patron any
house or administrative fee in addition to or instead of a service
charge or tip, if the employer provides a designation or written
description of that house or administrative fee, which informs the
patron that the fee does not represent a tip or service charge for
wait staff employees, service employees, or service bartenders.

In this case, the plaintiffs contend that their claims meet the
conditions of subsection (3) of Rule 23(b), which is satisfied if
the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class
members predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members, and that a class action is superior to other available
methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.

The record evidence shows that Sodexo provides a variety of
different services to a variety of different clients at a variety
of different locations employing a variety of different practices
regarding fees. The plaintiffs broadly assert that class
certification is appropriate because the ultimate resolution is
based on one central issue the legality of Defendant's practice
and policy of collecting and retaining service charges from
patrons.

That claim is refuted by the factual record. Even if it were
assumed that every member of the putative class had some version
of a claim for relief under the Tips Act, the dissimilarities in
billing practices and work procedures across the proposed
locations, and therefore across class members, reflect an utter
lack of a "practice and policy" of charging fees that was common
to all service venues.

A determination, for instance, that the defendant violated the
Tips Act based upon the service fee imposed on evening catering
orders at MassMutual would not resolve whether the defendant
violated the Act based upon an administrative charge imposed on
linen rental and balloons at One Lincoln Street, or upon the one-
cent administrative charge imposed a few times at Reebok, or upon
a charge at Merrimack that was applied but then refunded, or upon
the absence of a fee for themed dining events at Plimoth
Plantation. The plaintiffs' proposed class is so broad that it
includes class members who worked at locations for which there is
no evidence offered that fees were even imposed.

The three named plaintiffs worked together at One Lincoln Street,
so they have at least some things in common with each other. What
they have not shown is that there are questions of fact or law
that can be given a common answer across the various services
provided by Sodexo over the range of various locations, governed
by differing contractual terms and fees between Sodexo and the
client. Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the named
plaintiffs were not aggrieved by the same practice or policy as
the putative class members because there appears to be no practice
or policy common to the multiple locations where the putative
class members worked.

For example, a determination that Sodexo violated the Tips Act
with respect to the three named plaintiffs working at One Lincoln
Street would do nothing to determine whether the statute had been
violated at other locations where other services were rendered on
varying terms. It follows, of course, that the plaintiffs'
individual claims are therefore not typical of the variety of
different claims that would have to be asserted by workers at
other locations.

The plaintiffs have failed to show a consistent practice or policy
regarding the imposition of fees across their proposed class
locations that would permit class-wide resolution of their claim,
by permitting the determination of a common answer to a class-wide
issue.   Accordingly, they have not established either commonality
or typicality as required by Rule 23(a)(2)-(3).

The plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification is denied.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 6, 2017 Order is
available at http://tinyurl.com/y8mqve2wfrom Leagle.com.

Tracey Lazo, Plaintiff, represented by Edward A. Prisby, Raipher
D. Pellegrino Associates, P.C., 265 State St, Springfield, MA
01103 USA.

Tracey Lazo, Plaintiff, represented by John P. Regan, Jr., Regan,
Lane & Messinger LLP, 43 Bowdoin St a, Boston, MA 02108, USA

Jamen Harper, Plaintiff, represented by Edward A. Prisby, Raipher
D. Pellegrino Associates, P.C. & John P. Regan, Jr., Regan, Lane &
Messinger LLP.

Mustapha Jarraf, Plaintiff, represented by Edward A. Prisby,
Raipher D. Pellegrino Associates, P.C. & John P. Regan, Jr.,
Regan, Lane & Messinger LLP.

Ny'Cole Young Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Edward A. Prisby,
Raipher D. Pellegrino Associates, P.C. & John P. Regan, Jr.,
Regan, Lane & Messinger LLP.

Sodexo, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas J. Hoffman --
HoffmanD@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC & Jonathan R. Shank
-- Jonathan.Shank@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC.


STOLT-NIELSEN: 9th Circuit Affirms Class-Wide Arbitration Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gail E. Jankowski, Esq. -- gjankowski@carltonfields.com -- and
Kristin A. Shepard, Esq. -- kshepard@carltonfields.com -- of
Carlton Fields, in an article for Mondaq, wrote that after an
employer allegedly released personally identifiable information of
its employees as the result of a phishing scam, plaintiff employee
filed a putative class action lawsuit, alleging claims including
negligence, breach of contract, invasion of privacy, and other
claims.  The employer moved to compel bilateral arbitration
pursuant to the arbitration agreement plaintiff signed in
connection with his employment.  The district court found that the
arbitration agreement -- which did not mention class-wide
arbitration -- was ambiguous as to class arbitration, and, as
such, would be construed against the employer under California
law.  The district court thus allowed class-wide arbitration to
proceed.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed.  Although acknowledging the
Supreme Court's finding in Stolt-Nielsen that under the Federal
Arbitration Act, a party may not be compelled to submit to class
arbitration unless "there is a contractual basis for concluding
that the party agreed to do so," the Ninth Circuit panel went on
to find that the lack of an express reference to class arbitration
was "not the 'silence' contemplated in Stolt-Nielsen."  As such,
the Ninth Circuit construed the language "arbitration shall be in
lieu of any and all lawsuits or other civil legal proceedings
relating to my employment" as authorizing class arbitration and
further found that its interpretation of that clause "require[d]
no act of interpretive acrobatics" and was "the most reasonable"
interpretation possible.  The Ninth Circuit subsequently denied
the employer's motion for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc.

Will other circuits share the Ninth Circuit's view? Stay tuned. In
the meantime, employers should note that a generic arbitration
clause may not preclude class-wide arbitration -- at least in
traditionally plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions.  Moreover, as we
have previously reported, the validity of express class action
waiver clauses in employer/employee arbitration agreements is in
dispute; the Supreme Court recently heard oral argument on
consolidated petitions to resolve a circuit split on whether
arbitration agreements that prohibit employees from pursuing work-
related claims on a class basis violate the National Labor
Relations Act.  The Solicitor General has weighed in favoring the
enforcement of such agreements.  If the Supreme Court agrees,
expect even more employers to add class action waivers to their
employment arbitration agreements in an effort to limit litigation
exposure and expense. [GN]


TEPPER & MANN: "Ashwill" Suit Asserts FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
MARK ASHWILL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. TEPPER & MANN, P.C., AND MIDSTATE COLLECTION
SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-02264-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.,
November 14, 2017), accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

Tepper is an entity that uses mails and telephone in the business
of attempting to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or
due, or asserted to be owed or due, another.  Midstate retained
Tepper to collect a debt from the Plaintiff on its behalf.

Midstate is an entity, which acquires debts in default merely for
collection purposes.  Midstate is a debt buyer that purchases
large volumes of defaulted debt at a deep discount and then
profits by collecting the receivables at close to face value.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


THQ INC: Court Grants Final Approval of "Zaghian" Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Western Division, Los Angeles, issued a Judgment
dismissing with prejudice the case captioned KHALIL ZAGHIAN,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. THQ INC., BRIAN J. FARRELL, and PAUL J. PUCINO,
Defendants, Case No. 2:12-cv-05227-R (C.D. Cal.).

The Court approved a Settlement and found that the Settlement is,
in all respects, fair, just, reasonable and adequate to the
Settlement Class. The Court also reaffirmed its findings and
conclusion that, for purposes of the Settlement only, the
Settlement Class meets the prerequisites for bringing a class
action set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(a) and
the requirements for maintenance of a class action under Rule
23(b)(3).  The Court, accordingly, makes final its previously
conditional certification of the Settlement Class.

The Court dismisses the Litigation and all Settled Claims of the
Settlement Class with prejudice, without costs as to any Settling
Party. There is no reason for delay in the entry of this Final
Judgment and Order of Dismissal with prejudice and immediate entry
by the Clerk of the Court is expressly directed pursuant to Rule
54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 6, 2017 Judgment
and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y8mqve2wfrom
Leagle.com.

Khalil Zaghian, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Oliver O'Mara --
bomara@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP.

Khalil Zaghian, Plaintiff, represented by Darren J. Robbins
darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, David C.
Walton -- davew@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP,
Lionel Zevi Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, Mario Alba, Jr. -- malba@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman and Dowd LLP & Samuel H. Rudman -- Srudman@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice.

Mike Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Apton --
aapton@zlk.com -- Levi and Korsinsky LLP, pro hac vice, Adam C.
McCall -- amccall@zlk.com -- Levi and Korsinsky LLP, Avi N. Wagner
-- avi@thewagnerfirm.com -- The Wagner Firm, Nicholas I. Porritt -
- nporritt@zlk.com -- Levi and Korsinsky LLP, pro hac vice &
Thomas M. Gottschlich -- tgottschlich@zlk.com -- Levi and
Korsinsky LLP, pro hac vice.

Brian J Farrell, Defendant, represented by Koji F. Fukumura --
kfukumura@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Blake M. Zollar --
bzollar@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & Ryan E. Blair --
rblair@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.

Paul J Pucino, Defendant, represented by Koji F. Fukumura, Cooley
LLP, Blake M. Zollar, Cooley LLP & Ryan E. Blair, Cooley LLP.


THRIVENT FINANCIAL: Minn. Judge Rules Against DOL Fiduciary Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Hilton, writing for InsuranceNewsNet, reports that a judge
ruled against the fiduciary rule in a case involving Thrivent.

A Minnesota judge sided with plaintiffs in a lawsuit to stop the
Department of Labor fiduciary rule, but also granted a stay.

In a Nov. 2 decision, Judge Susan Richard Nelson granted a
preliminary injunction to Thrivent Financial, accepting
plaintiff's claims of irreparable harm if the class-action
provisions contained in the DOL rule are permitted to become law.

Judge Nelson also sided with the DOL in granting a stay requested
by regulators.  The department is close to publishing an 18-month
delay of the second phase of the fiduciary rule, which includes
the class-action component found within the Best Interest Contract
Exemption.  The delay would push the applicability date to July 1,
2019.

Regulators have hinted to the court that the issues Thrivent is
challenging might be resolved during the delay period.  Legal
experts say they expect the class-action portion to be excised
from the rule by the Trump DOL.

"Notwithstanding DOL's current efforts to extend the BIC
Exemption's applicability date, its own guidance recognizes that
regulated entities such as Thrivent 'may incur undue
expense to comply with conditions or requirements that [DOL]
ultimately determines to revise or repeal,'" the Nelson opinion
reads.

Filed in September 2016, Thrivent's 29-page lawsuit claimed the
DOL rule will render its dispute resolution mechanism obsolete.
Thrivent's mechanism prohibits class actions.

"Nothing in ERISA gives DOL authority to preclude financial
institutions and their clients from entering into and enforcing
arbitration agreements that include class action waivers,"
Thrivent's complaint reads.

The fiduciary rule took effect in part on June 9.  It requires
advisors and agents to act as fiduciaries, make no misleading
statements and accept only "reasonable" compensation. [GN]


THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR: Lagos Sues for Denied Breaks, Paystubs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Lagos as an individual, and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Thyssenkrupp Elevator
Corporation and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
BC682972 (Cal. Super., November 9, 2017), seeks redress for
Defendant's failure to provide meal periods, rest periods, minimum
wages, overtime, complete and accurate wage statements and payment
of vested vacation time, including declaratory relief, damages,
penalties, equitable relief, costs and attorneys' fees, resulting
from unfair business practices and violation of the California
Labor Laws of the Business and Professions Code.

Christopher Lagos worked for Thyssenkrupp Elevator Corporation in
their Los Angeles County office as a Sales Representative from
approximately June 16, 2014 to September 15, 2017.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kane Moon, Esq.
      Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
      MOON & YANG, APC
      3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1820
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 232-3128
      Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
      E-mail: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
              justin.marquez@moonyanglaw.com


TRG CUSTOMER: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration of Myers' Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Aleta A. Trauger granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and to dismiss the action
titled MYLEE MYERS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TRG CUSTOMER SOLUTIONS, INC. d/b/a IBEX
GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, Case No. 1:17-cv-00052 (M.D. Tenn.).

That portion of the motion seeking to compel arbitration of
Plaintiff Mylee Myers' claims is granted, but that portion of the
motion seeking dismissal of this case in its entirety is denied,
Judge Trauger opines.

The Court grants the Plaintiff 30 days within which to file a
motion to amend the Complaint to substitute appropriate named
plaintiffs from among the current opt-in plaintiffs.  If no motion
to amend is filed within that time frame, the Defendant may renew
its motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification and the
Issuance of Court-Supervised Notice is denied without prejudice.

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


USCB CORP: Officer of Judgment Ineffective in "Gilmore" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia, Macon Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiff
Phillip Gilmore's motion to declare Defendant USCB Corporation's
offer of judgment ineffective in the case captioned PHILLIP
GILMORE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. USCB CORPORATION, Defendant, Civil Action No. 5:17-
CV-119 (MTT) (M.D. Ga.).

Gilmore filed a class action complaint under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging that USCB Corporation used an
automatic telephone dialing system to place non-emergency calls to
cellular telephone numbers without obtaining consent and engaged
in a conduct that harassed, oppressed, or abused consumers in
connection with collecting debts.

USCB Corporation made to Gilmore a $7,500 offer of judgment in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68.

Gilmore argues that USCB Corporation's Rule 68 offer of judgment
should be declared ineffective because it places him in the
untenable position of choosing between his personal interest and
the interest of the putative class he seeks to represent.

First, some courts strike the Rule 68 offer of judgment. These
courts reason that striking the offer is necessary to prevent an
improper conflict of interest between a putative class
representative and the putative class.  Second, rather than
striking the offer of judgment, some courts have declared the
offer ineffective. These courts reason that there is no procedural
mechanism to strike an offer of judgment because Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(f) permits striking matters only from
pleadings.

By offering Gilmore $7,500, which Gilmore could not accept without
breaching his duty to the putative class and could not reasonably
expect to surpass at trial, USCB Corporation attempts to shift
onto Gilmore the costs incurred after the offer was made.  This
pickoff attempt is an abuse of the Federal rules that is designed
to do nothing more than frustrate class actions.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that USCB Corporation's offer of
judgment is ineffective for purposes of Rule 68(d).

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 6, 2017 Order is
available at  http://tinyurl.com/y7rw2xbofrom Leagle.com.

PHILLIP GILMORE, Plaintiff, represented by AARON D. RADBIL --
aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com.

PHILLIP GILMORE, Plaintiff, represented by JAMES L. DAVIDSON  --
jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com -- & SHIREEN HORMOZDI --
shireen@norcrosslawfirm.com

USCB CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by JOHN HENRY BEDARD, JR.
40 Technology Parkway, South Suite 202, Norcross, GA 30092- 2906 &
MICHAEL KEVIN CHAPMAN --  michchap@me.com


VIKTOR HOHOTS: Faces Class Action Over Failed Asylum Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Keung, writing for Toronto Star, reports that three
Toronto lawyers who were found guilty of professional misconduct
in handling Roma refugees' asylum claims, are facing separate
class-action lawsuits from their former clients.

The proposed class-action members would comprise refugee claimants
from Hungary who sought asylum in Canada from Jan. 1, 2009 through
Dec. 31, 2013, were represented by Viktor Hohots, Joseph Farkas or
Erzsebet Jaszi, and had their claims rejected due to the lawyers'
alleged negligence.

"We have alleged that these lawyers accepted legal aid retainers
but abdicated their professional responsibilities, engaged in
professional misconduct and negligently represented their
clients," said litigation lawyer Sean Brown, who represents the
plaintiffs.

The lawsuits claim the lawyers exhibited "a systemic pattern of
conduct, which resulted in many of the defendant's clients
receiving inadequate and negligent service, such that they lost
the opportunity to have their claims decided on their merits."

All three lawyers had previously been found guilty by the Law
Society Tribunal of failing to properly serve their clients.

Mr. Hohots, who was called to the bar in 2003, was suspended from
practising as a lawyer for five months, and barred from practising
refugee law for two years.  He also had to undergo a review and
was ordered to pay $15,000 in legal fees.

Mr. Farkas, who was licensed in 1991, was suspended for six
months, placed under supervision and ordered to pay $200,000 in
costs to the law society.  He has already served his suspension
but is appealing the finding of professional misconduct and the
costs award.  A decision is pending.

Ms. Jazsi was disbarred and ordered to pay $50,000 in costs.  She
died earlier this year, and the class-action lawsuit names her
estate as the defendant.

The lawyers have not yet filed statements of defence in response
to the proposed lawsuits.  Mr. Hohots did not respond to the
Star's requests for comment about the allegations.  Mr. Farkas
also declined to comment. The allegations against the trio have
not been proven in court.

According to an Osgoode Hall Law School study, there were more
than 11,000 Roma refugee claimants, mostly from Hungary, in Canada
between 2008 and 2012, and only 8.6 per cent of their claims were
successful while more than half were abandoned or withdrawn,
largely as a result of poor legal representation. The three
lawyers were counsel to hundreds of Roma refugees in Greater
Toronto.

"We represent some of the most vulnerable members of society,
refugee claimants who were victimized in their home country on the
basis of their ethnicity.  Miraculously, they made it to the
safety of Canada and were prepared to go through our refugee
system," said Mr. Brown.

According to the proposed lawsuits, the former clients of the
lawyers -- abroad or still in Canada -- would qualify to join the
action if they failed their asylum claims and their counsel:

   -- abdicated their own responsibilities and inappropriately
passed their professional tasks to others;
   -- failed to complete and file the narrative of the client's
asylum claim with supporting evidence;
   -- completed or filed "manifestly inadequate and incorrect"
information in the client's claim;
   -- failed to appear at asylum hearings;
   -- failed to arrange for translation services for meetings and
hearings as needed.

In the statement of claim against Mr. Hohots, Istvan Horvath, one
of the three representative plaintiffs, claims the lawyer did not
attend his refugee hearing, which was attended by another woman
who arrived late and was unfamiliar with his case. Horvath's claim
was rejected in June 2012, but he was ultimately permitted to stay
in Canada on humanitarian grounds.

In the lawsuit against Ms. Farkas, former client Renata Galamb
says her asylum narrative was completed by a Hungarian-language
interpreter who was employed at the lawyer's office.  She alleges
the interpreter included false statements in her asylum claim and
that she never met the lawyer until the date of her hearing.  Her
claim was rejected in 2012, but a new lawyer successfully got her
case reopened.  It is ongoing.

Samuel Horvath, who came to Canada for asylum in 2009, claims in
his lawsuit that the asylum narrative that Ms. Jaszi completed for
him was returned by the refugee board for deficiencies.  He
alleges the lawyer failed to show up at his first refugee hearing
and "was completely incoherent and seemed to be intoxicated" at
the rescheduled hearing.  He and his family were deported back to
Hungary in 2014 after their asylum claim was refused. [GN]


VISALUS: Pastor Faces Class Action Over Failed Pyramid Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Low, writing for KDVR, reports that Pastor Vince Owens runs a
tiny church in Aurora, but critics say he talked a big game when
it came to ViSalus.

A class-action lawsuit calls the company "a failed pyramid scheme"
that persuaded people to sell weight-loss shakes, vitamins and
energy bars, and preferably to recruit others beneath them to sell
the products.

"Nobody wants to buy this stuff that's in my cabinet," Caprece
Byrd said.

The 51-year-old Aurora woman is one of the plaintiffs suing the
founders of ViSalus and her former Pastor Vince Owens.  Ms. Byrd
says Pastor Owens convinced her ViSalus would make her easy money,
lots of it.

"Six protein bars is $25," said Ms. Byrd, who said looking back,
realizes the prices bordered on the ridiculous.

But in 2015 and 2016, Ms. Byrd said she and other distributors
were promised equity in ViSalus at seminars held in the basement
of the Household Of Faith Empowerment Temple owned by Pastor
Owens.

In seminars across the country the lawsuit states: "Stage-managed
'get rich like me' performances enticed innocent, unsophisticated
people to buy distributorships, only to learn that the only way to
make money from the distributor rights was to recruit others.
Almost 400,000 people in the United States, including over 200,000
just in 2012 paid money to become a distributor and participated
in a massive operation."

Ms. Byrd said she would pay $1,000 for a startup kit that included
shakes, vitamins and other products to be sold to friends, family,
neighbors and anyone else she could convince.

Once she bought $25,000 worth of product, she supposedly gained
"equity in ViSalus that she was told would lead to a big payday in
April.

"My pastor is saying that this is something that he himself
purchased the church outright and his home, his children's home,
college funds and I wanted that for my family," Ms. Byrd said.

Like any multilevel marketing firm, Byrd was supposed to recruit
distributors beneath her so her brother Bryant Watts was selling
ViSalus too.

"I would like a mobile home.  I would like to go on trips. I want
to take my family to Disneyland," said Mr. Watts, mentioning all
the things he said Owens told him were possible if he sold ViSalus
products.

Instead, Mr. Watts told the Problem Solvers he ended up losing
more than $25,000 in his bid to get "Equity" status with ViSalus.

Renea White said she too was swept into the operation by Owens.

"I believe him," Ms. White said.  "I was promised something, a
legacy for my kids that I`ll never have."

Ms. White said she also ended up spending more than $25,000 on
products she had trouble reselling.

As for the big "equity" payout in April, the three distributors
said it turned out to be a hoax.

That was the aha moment that convinced Ms. Byrd, Mr. Watts and Ms.
White to joined the class action lawsuit.

"I'm out thousands of dollars. I spent my son's college tuition,"
said Ms. Byrd, who admitted she took out a $100,000 home equity
loan and gave the money to ViSalus believing the company would pay
her a bigger amount back based on her "equity" in a company she
was told was worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

In late October, Pastor Owens was approached outside his church,
just minutes before he was to host a ViSalus seminar.

Question: I'd like to ask you if ViSalus is a pyramid scheme?

Owens: I don't know.

Question: You don't know if Visalus is a pyramid scheme?

Owens: I don't know.

Question: Can you tell me, did you misuse religion to recruit
people to join ViSsalus?

Owens: How could you do that?

Question: You tell me.

Owens: I don't know.

Question: The people that are suing you, are they ever going to
get their money back?

Owens: I have no idea.

Question: Do you think you deceived people?


Owens: Thank you, (walking away) Thank you.

Question: Vincent what happened to the big payout?

Owens: Have a nice day.

Question: Did you make $600,000 off of ViSalus?

Owens: Have a nice day sir.

In a 2015 YouTube promotion video made with Nick Sarnicola, the
founder of ViSalus, Owens bragged he made "over $600,000 in equity
with ViSalus so I admire you guys right now.  There`s equity on
the table right now.  Run for it like a man with your hair on
fire."

The class-action lawsuit against Owens and the founders of ViSalus
was filed in the company's home state of Michigan.

Attorneys for ViSalus said the company committed no wrongdoing and
has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

A judge has yet to rule on that motion. [GN]


VROOM INC: Edelsberg Seeks Certification of Class Under TCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled MARK EDELSBERG, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VROOM, INC.,
Case No. 0:16-cv-62734-DPG (S.D. Fla.), seeks certification of
this class pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act:

     All subscribers within the United States (i) who were sent a
     text message (ii) on his or her cellular telephone (iii)
     from or on behalf of Vroom, Inc. (iv) ____________________
     (v) after placing an advertisement on ____________________
     in connection with the sale of a vehicle (vi) for a period
     of four (4) years prior to the filing of the Complaint to
     the date of class certification.

Excluded from the Class is Vroom, Vroom's directors and officers,
immediate families of Vroom's directors and officers, or the legal
representatives, agents, affiliates, heirs, successors-in-
interests or assignees of any such excluded person.

Mr. Edelsberg also asks the Court to appoint him as class
representative; to appoint Hiraldo, P.A., Scott D. Owens, P.A.,
Shamis & Gentile, P.A., and Edwards Pottinger, LLC, as class
counsel; and to set a deadline for submission of proposed class
notice.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Seth M. Lehrman, Esq.
          EDWARDS POTTINGER, LLC
          425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524-2820
          Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
          E-mail: seth@epllc.com

               - and -

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


VXI GLOBAL: Court Compels Arbitration in Phone Operators' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Defendant's Motion for Arbitration in the case captioned
JARROD PYLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. VXI GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-220 (N.D. Ohio).  Complaint is
dismissed.

Plaintiff filed this collective action for relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  In his complaint, plaintiff avers
that he was employed by defendants at a call center located in
Canton, Ohio.  During this time, and before he was eventually
promoted to a salaried position, he held the position of Phone
Operator.

He maintains that he and other Phone Operators were required to
work more than forty (40) hours in any given week without
receiving overtime compensation as required by federal law. By
this action, plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime allegedly
owed to him, and he also seeks to represent a collective of all
Phone Operators employed by defendants during any week within
three years of the filing of the complaint.

Plaintiff does not dispute that his FLSA claim is covered by the
arbitration agreement, nor does he disagree that the arbitration
agreement is silent as to class-wide arbitration. In fact, he
admits both facts in his complaint.  Noting that Sixth Circuit law
now provides that collective/class waivers in employment
arbitration agreements violate the National Labor Relations Act
(NLRA), he maintains that requiring him to proceed to arbitration
on an individual basis would be illegal.

While he opposes defendants' motion to compel, he indicates that
he would be willing to participate in collective arbitration
proceedings, if defendants are amenable. Defendants decline
plaintiff's offer and maintain that class-wide arbitration is not
provided for in the agreement.

The Sixth Circuit applies a four-pronged test to determine whether
an unwilling party can be compelled to arbitrate: (1) the Court
must determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate; (2) the
Court must determine the scope of that agreement; (3) if federal
statutory claims are asserted, the Court must consider whether
Congress intended those claims to be non-arbitrable; and (4) if
the Court concludes that some, but not all, of the claims in the
action are subject to arbitration, it must determine whether to
stay the remainder of the proceedings pending arbitration.

The Court rules that there is no question that the record facts
satisfy the four-prong test.

First, it is undisputed that the parties entered into an agreement
to bring all employment-related claims, including all wage and
hour claims and claims to enforce federal laws, to binding
arbitration.

Second, plaintiff concedes that his claim, which seeks to recover
additional compensation for allegedly unpaid wages, falls within
the scope of the arbitration agreement, which provides for
arbitration of all claims involving wages, bonuses, commissions or
any other form of compensation.

Third, it is well settled that FLSA claims, such as the one
presented in plaintiff's complaint, may be subject to arbitration.

As to the fourth prong, in cases where all claims are referred to
arbitration the litigation may be dismissed rather than merely
stayed.

All four prongs, therefore, are met, and plaintiff offers no
argument to the contrary.

Relying exclusively on the recent decision in Alternative
Entertainment, plaintiff argues that the ruling brings an end to
Defendants' request that the Court order Mr. Pyle to proceed to
individual rather than collective arbitration. Such an order would
be illegal. But plaintiff fails to recognize an important
distinction between the facts surrounding that decision and the
manner in which plaintiff's FLSA claim has presented itself.

In Alternative Entertainment, the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB) sought enforcement of its administrative decision that
Alternative Entertainment had violated the NLRA by requiring its
employees to agree to arbitrate all claims concerning or arising
out of their employment individually. This action gave the Sixth
Circuit the opportunity to weigh in on a circuit split over the
question of whether federal law permits employers to require
individual arbitration of employees' employment-related claims.
Alt. Entm't, 858 F.3d at 401.

The Fifth and Eight Circuits have concluded that such agreements
do not violate the NLRA.

The Sixth Circuit most recently revisited the issue in
AlixPartners, LLP v. Brewington, 836 F.3d 543 (6th Cir. 2016).
Once again, the court was faced with an arbitration agreement that
was silent on the availability of class arbitration and, once
more, the court emphasized that an agreement must expressly
include the possibility of classwide arbitration for us to
conclude that the parties agreed to arbitrate. Reed Elsevier, 734
F.3d at 600).

In ruling that the plaintiff would have to proceed to arbitration
on an individual basis, the court relied on the fact that it could
not presume consent to class arbitration from the parties mere
silence, as well as the language of the agreement that limited the
impact of the arbitrator's decision to the parties to the
agreement.

The court in Alternative Entertainment fails to even mention these
recent Sixth Circuit decisions, let alone suggest that its ruling
applies not only to arbitration agreements containing express
class-wide waivers, but also to those agreements that are silent
on the subject. Indeed, in Morris, a decision upon which the court
in Alternative Entertainment relied, the court specifically
distinguished arbitration agreements with express waivers from
silent agreements when it noted that under Stolt, an arbitrator
may not add to the terms of an arbitration agreement, and
therefore may not order class arbitration unless the contract
provides for it. This does not require a court to enforce an
illegal term. Morris, 834 F.3d at 985 n.8 (citing Stolt,559 U.S.
at 684).

Under these circumstances, the Court must conclude that the
decision in Alternative Entertainment was not intended to apply to
arbitration agreements that are silent on the issue of class-wide
arbitration and, therefore, do not contain an illegal term, such
as an express waiver of the right to class-wide arbitration.
Instead, the Court finds the decision in Reed Elsevier and its
progeny controlling. It is undisputed that the arbitration
agreement makes no reference whatsoever to class-wide arbitration,
and the Court cannot infer the availability of such a vehicle
based on mere silence. The Court therefore concludes that the
parties' arbitration clause does not authorize class-wide
arbitration, and holds that plaintiff must proceed to arbitration
on an individual basis.

Defendants' motion to compel arbitration is granted in full. The
parties are directed to proceed to bilateral arbitration before a
neutral arbitrator in accordance with the parties' agreement. The
case is dismissed.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 6, 2017
Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at
http://tinyurl.com/ya82ahnyfrom Leagle.com.

Jarrod Pyle, Plaintiff, represented by Peter D. Winebrake -
pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com -- Winebrake & Santillo.

VXI Global Solutions, Inc, Defendant, represented by Todd L. Nunn
-- todd.nunn@klgates.com -- K&L Gates & Thomas J. Lipka --
tlipka@mnblawyers.com -- Manchester, Newman & Bennett.

VXI Global Solutions, LLC, Defendant, represented by Todd L. Nunn,
K&L Gates & Thomas J. Lipka, Manchester, Newman & Bennett.


WD MASONRY: Austria Moves to Certify Class of Workers Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO AUSTRIA, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated individuals v. WD MASONRY, L.L.C., WILLIAM MATHIS, AND
GUY KOONTZ, Case No. 3:17-cv-00624-JJB-EWD (M.D. La.), asks the
Court to enter an order conditionally certifying this class of
similarly situated individuals:

     Individuals who, within the three-year period preceding the
     date of the Court's Order, were employed as construction
     laborers on construction projects of WD Masonry, L.L.C., and
     who were paid their regular rate of pay for all hours worked
     in excess of 40 hours per week.

In his complaint -- collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act -- the Plaintiff asserted claims on behalf of a
collective class for overtime wages wrongfully not paid to them by
the Defendants.

In addition, Mr. Austria asks the Court to (1) authorize notice of
this collective action to potential members of the FLSA Collective
Class; (2) order Defendants to produce to Plaintiff's counsel
within 14 days a computer-readable database that include the names
of all potential members of the FLSA Collective Class along with
their last known mailing address and telephone number; and (3)
approve the proposed notice and consent form submitted herewith.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JtByWK7m

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel B. Davis, Esq.
          Randall E. Estes, Esq.
          James R. Bullman, Esq.
          ESTES DAVIS LAW, LLC
          850 North Boulevard
          Baton Rouge, LA 70802
          Telephone: (225) 336-3394
          Facsimile: (225) 384-5419
          E-mail: dan@estesdavislaw.com
                  randy@estesdavislaw.com


WESTERN CONCRETE: Livingston Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Meal Breaks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Livingston and Chris Livingston on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated and the general public,
Plaintiffs, v. Western Concrete Pumping, Inc. and Does 1 through
100, Defendants, Case No. BC682818 (Cal. Super., November 9,
2017), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for failure to pay
for all hours worked and minimum wage rate, failure to authorize
or permit required meal periods, failure to authorize or permit
required rest periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide
accurate wage statements, injunctive relief and other equitable
relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest under
California Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law of the California
Business and Professions Code and applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders.

Western is a public works contractor which conducts business as a
licensed construction contractor for concrete related services
with address at 2181 La Mirada Drive, Vista, CA 92081, providing
concrete pumping services for municipalities and public agencies
throughout California. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard E. Donahoo, Esq.
      Sarah L. Kokonas, Esq.
      Judith L. Camilleri, Esq.
      DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES
      440 West First Street, Suite 101
      Tustin, CA 92780
      Telephone: (714)953-1010
      Email: rdonahoo@donahoo.com
             skokonas@donahoo.com
             camilleri@donahoo.com

             - and -

      Frank A. Bayr, Esq.
      WESTERN LEGAL INC.
      30320 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 101
      San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
      Telephone: (949) 538-3050
      Email: ffankbayr@westem-legal.com.


WILMINGTON TRUST: Brundle Appeals Ruling in "Halldorson" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim P. Brundle, a Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled Andrew
Halldorson v. Wilmington Trust Retirement and Institutional
Services Company, Case No. 1:15-cv-01494-LMB-IDD, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria,
filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the case.

The other plaintiff is Andrew Halldorson, who filed the lawsuit on
behalf of the Constellis Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on
behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr.
Halldorson filed the lawsuit alleging that the Defendant had
engaged in a prohibited transaction under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, specifically by permitting the Employee Stock
Ownership Plan to purchase Constellis Group, Inc.'s stock.

Other appeals have also been filed in the lawsuit.

The appellate case is captioned as Tim Brundle v. Wilmington
Trust, N.A., Case No. 17-2323, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that initial
forms are due within 14 days.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellee TIM P. BRUNDLE, on behalf of the Constellis
Employee Stock Ownership Plan, is represented by:

          Tillman J. Breckenridge, Esq.
          Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
          Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1054 31st Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463-2101
          Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
          E-mail: tbreckenridge@baileyglasser.com
                  rjenny@baileyglasser.com
                  gporter@baileyglasser.com

Party-in-Interest CONSTELLIS GROUP, INC., is represented by:

          Edward Lee Isler, Esq.
          Micah Ephram Ticatch, Esq.
          ISLER DARE, PC
          1945 Old Gallows Road
          Vienna, VA 22182
          Telephone: (703) 748-2690
          Facsimile: (703) 748-2695
          E-mail: eisler@islerdare.com
                  mticatch@islerdare.com

Defendant-Appellant WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A., as successor to
Wilmington Trust Retirement and Institutional Services Company, is
represented by:

          James Patrick McElligott, Jr., Esq.
          Summer Speight, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          800 East Canal Street
          P. O. Box 3916
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-4329
          Facsimile: (804) 698-2111
          E-mail: jmcelligott@mcguirewoods.com
                  sspeight@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Stephen William Robinson, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          1750 Tysons Boulevard
          Tysons Corner, VA 22102-3915
          Telephone: (703) 712-5469
          E-mail: srobinson@mcguirewoods.com


WILMINGTON TRUST: Constellis Group Appeals Ruling in "Halldorson"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Party-in-Interest Constellis Group, Inc., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit titled Andrew Halldorson v. Wilmington
Trust Retirement and Institutional Services Company, Case No.
1:15-cv-01494-LMB-IDD, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia at Alexandria.

The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are ANDREW HALLDORSON, on behalf of
the Constellis Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a
class of all other persons similarly situated, and TIM P. BRUNDLE,
on behalf of the Constellis Employee Stock Ownership Plan.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr.
Halldorson, on behalf of the Constellis Employee Stock Ownership
Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly
situated, filed a lawsuit alleging that the Defendant had engaged
in a prohibited transaction under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, specifically by permitting the Employee Stock
Ownership Plan to purchase Constellis Group, Inc.'s stock.

Other appeals have also been filed in the lawsuit.

The appellate case is captioned as Constellis Group, Inc. v.
Wilmington Trust, N.A., Case No. 17-2324, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that initial
forms are due within 14 days.[BN]

Party-in-Interest-Appellant CONSTELLIS GROUP, INC., is represented
by:

          Edward Lee Isler, Esq.
          Micah Ephram Ticatch, Esq.
          ISLER DARE, PC
          1945 Old Gallows Road
          Vienna, VA 22182
          Telephone: (703) 748-2690
          Facsimile: (703) 748-2695
          E-mail: eisler@islerdare.com
                  mticatch@islerdare.com

Defendant-Appellee WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A., as successor to
Wilmington Trust Retirement and Institutional Services Company, is
represented by:

          James Patrick McElligott, Jr., Esq.
          Summer Speight, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          800 East Canal Street
          P. O. Box 3916
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 775-4329
          Facsimile: (804) 698-2111
          E-mail: jmcelligott@mcguirewoods.com
                  sspeight@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Stephen William Robinson, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          1750 Tysons Boulevard
          Tysons Corner, VA 22102-3915
          Telephone: (703) 712-5469
          E-mail: srobinson@mcguirewoods.com


WISCONSIN, USA: Campos Seeks Class Certification for BSI Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs seek certification as a class action the lawsuit
titled EFRAIN CAMPOS, JUAN NIETO, STANLEY NEWAGO, AND SIX UNNAMED
PLAINTIFFS v. MICHAEL DITTMAN, LINDA ALSUM O'DONOVAN, DAVE
KURKOWSKI, LUCAS M. WEBER, KEVIN W. PITZEN, BRAD HOMRE, CINDY
O'DONNELL, Case No. 3:17-cv-00545-jdp (W.D. Wisc.).

Michael Dittman is the Warden at Columbia Correctional
Institution, in Portage, Wisconsin.

The Plaintiffs' rights were violated in the same manner as Badger
State Industries employees at the Institution, the Plaintiffs
allege.  They contend that they exercised their First Amendment
rights and by exercising that right and the Defendants retaliated
against them and further terminated them without due process of
law.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yzGM02xq


WONDERFUL CO: "Villanueva" Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Missed Breaks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lidia Villanueva, as individuals and on behalf all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Wonderful Company LLC and
Does 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. BC682965 (Cal. Super.,
November 9, 2017), seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for
failure to pay for all hours worked and minimum wage rate, failure
to authorize or permit required meal periods, failure to authorize
or permit required rest periods, statutory penalties for failure
to provide accurate wage statements, waiting time penalties in the
form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all
wages due upon separation of employment, injunctive relief and
other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and
interest under California Labor Code, Unfair Competition Law of
the California Business and Professions Code and applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Defendants are in the business of growing, harvesting, bottling,
packaging and marketing various food products, including fruits,
nuts, water and juices where Villanueva was employed from 2006
until approximately September 2017 operating packaging machines.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
      Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq.
      Stephanie A. Kierig, Esq.
      HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
      2274 East Maple Ave.
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Tel: (424) 292-2350
      Fax: (424) 292-2355
      Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
             fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
             arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com
             skierig@haineslawgroup.com


* Democrats Lament Senate's Decision to Overturn CFPB Rule
----------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a two-hour
hearing on frivolous lawsuits before a U.S. Senate committee may
have lacked focus on pending legislation but did produce a few
noteworthy moments -- including Sen. Al Franken's assertion that
there are "bad actors" filing meritless lawsuits, though he is
opposed to the reforms presented.

With the fate of a group of legal reform bills in their hands,
senators in the Judiciary Committee were told on Nov. 8 that small
businesses are suffering because of lawsuit abuse in the civil
justice system -- though one Republican senator who recently sided
with Democrats on a courtroom matter did not indicate which way he
is leaning on these proposals.

The committee heard testimony from two business organizations
supporting measures like the Fairness in Class Action Litigation
Act, a bill that passed the House of Representatives in March with
the support of Republicans, while a law professor and former
plaintiffs attorney said these proposed bills would close
courtroom doors to Americans.

Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley, R-IA, called the hearing "a
necessary and overdue checkup of" the civil justice system.

"I'm all the more frustrated when our legal system--and the rules
that govern it--is abused, bogged down with meritless claims, or
twisted to benefit some at the expense of others,"
Mr. Grassley said.

"I'm frustrated when this system is used not to correct a harm,
but to inflict one."

Meanwhile, Democrats like Minnesota's Franken criticized the
proposed legislation and lamented the Senate's decision to
overturn a proposed rule that would have prevented financial
services companies from banning their customers from bringing
class action lawsuits.

The Senate, in a 50-50 vote that allowed Vice President Mike Pence
to cast the tiebreaker, stymied the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau's rule targeting mandatory arbitration clauses.

"Now I know that there are bad actors out there -- those who file
frivolous lawsuits against hard-working and honest businesspeople
-- but these bills aren't the solution," Sen. Franken said.

"They don't help weed out frivolous claims early on. They seek to
deter meritorious claims by making class action suits so
expensive, lengthy and onerous that people won't bother to bring
them in the first place.

"So we shouldn't let the unscrupulous behavior of a few
individuals undermine Americans' fundamental rights when they
experience a violation of their civil rights, are defrauded by
powerful corporations or are seriously injured by a defective
product."

Bills currently before the Senate Judiciary Committee target
abuses in the asbestos recovery system, require judges to sanction
litigants who bring meritless arguments, make changes to the class
action system and protect businesses brought into court because
they are headquartered in jurisdictions in which plaintiffs
attorneys wish to file their lawsuits.

One possible wild card in the committee is Sen. John Kennedy, R-
LA, one of two Republicans who voted with Democrats on the CFPB
arbitration rule.  The GOP holds 52 seats in the Senate, and the
votes of Sen. Kennedy and South Carolina's Lindsey Graham created
the need for Mr. Pence's tiebreaker.

Members of the committee frequently turned the conversation at the
Nov. 8 hearing to the arbitration rule, though President Donald
Trump has already signed the legislation that killed it.

Sen. Kennedy is one of 11 Republicans on the Judiciary Committee
against nine Democrats. He gave no indication on how he felt about
the legal reform bills, instead using his time to ask the
panelists invited to speak about solutions to the problems they
perceive.

Plaintiffs firms have invested heavily in Demoratic members of the
Judiciary Committee. For instance:

  -- Franken has brought in more than $1.1 million from lawyers
since 2013, including $73,200 from Susman Godfrey;

  -- Connecticut's Richard Blumenthal has also received more than
$1.1 million since 2013, with asbestos firm Simmons Hanly Conroy
pitching in $37,200 and Connecticut's Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder
adding $35,802;

-- Illinois' Dick Durbin, with almost $1.2 million from lawyers
since 2013, received $96,300 from the Simmons Firm, which has its
home office in Illinois' famed asbestos hotbed Madison County, and
another $88,200 from fellow asbestos firm Cooney and Conway of
Chicago; and

-- Minnesota's Amy Klobuchar has taken almost $2.5 million from
lawyers since 2005. One of her major donors is Robins Kaplan
($120,191).

The panelists included Elizabeth Milito, senior executive counsel
at the National Federation of Independent Business, which
represents small businesses, and Skadden Arps attorney John
Beisner, who spoke on behalf of the U.S. Chamber Institute for
Legal Reform.  The ILR owns Legal Newsline.

The NFIB represents the interests of small businesses. Its members
typically employ 10 people and report gross sales of about
$500,000 per year.  Ms. Milito says three-quarters of small
business owners are concerned about frivolous or unfair lawsuits--
and that fear forces them to make decisions they would not usually
make.

Also testifying was Myriam Gilles, a former plaintiffs attorney at
Kirkland & Ellis and current professor and vice dean at the
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University.

Legal reform bills that were passed by the House in March and now
wait for action in the Senate include:

The Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act

It would make sanctions mandatory against attorneys who file
frivolous lawsuits. Currently, judges have discretion on whether
to impose sanctions.

Plaintiffs also have a 21-day safe harbor in which they can
withdraw their claims after a motion for sanctions has been filed.

The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act

It requires that classes consist of members with the same type and
scope of injury.

Class action attorneys would not be able to use relatives as lead
plaintiffs, and any agreement in which a third party has agreed to
finance the lawsuit in return for a portion of its proceeds would
have to be disclosed.

The Furthering Asbestos Claims Transparency Act

It seeks to increase transparency in the asbestos trust system, in
which about 100 companies that were targeted frequently by
asbestos lawsuits declared bankruptcy to establish trusts to
compensate victims.

The legislation would require trusts to respond to information
sought from them by defendants in asbestos lawsuits.  Defendants
in those lawsuits want to ensure that plaintiffs' attorneys aren't
fully blaming their products while also blaming the products of
companies that established trusts -- behavior detailed in a
bankruptcy judge's landmark 2014 ruling.

The Innocent Party Protection Act

The bill's House sponsor contends trial lawyers use what's called
"fraudulent joinder" to keep lawsuits in their preferred local
courts as opposed to a federal court.  To achieve this, they join
innocent small businesses to a lawsuit in the local jurisdiction
where they want the trial to be held.

When they've successfully moved the case to a state court, the
trial lawyers typically end up dropping the small business from
the case, but not before the small business incurs significant
legal costs defending itself, Rep. Ken Buck, R-CO, says.

The class action bill drew the most discussion from senators and
the panelists, including on the very function of a class action.
While Mr. Beisner argued plaintiffs attorneys should only be paid
after class members are (which would result in much smaller
attorneys fees awards in many cases), Ms. Gilles testified that
the current system encourages plaintiffs attorneys to bring
lawsuits that help deter corporate wrongdoing -- no matter the
specifics of settlements that provide very little to class
members.

Mr. Grassley was quick to cite one of Gilles' articles, published
in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

"Class action plaintiffs lawyers are indeed independent
entrepreneurs driven by the desire to maximize their gain, even at
the expense of class members' compensation," she wrote.

"Where the conventional wisdom has gone wrong, however, is in
condemning this as a bad thing and proposing reforms for class
action practice designed to correct this conflict by increasing
the compensation of absent class members."

After Mr. Grassley called this stance "troubling," Ms. Gilles said
the passage was taken out of context.  Class actions with small
settlements for individuals who have to fill out forms to recover
them provide a more important result, she said.

"I think that if we wanted to try to get money back in the hands
of class members, we wouldn't do it this way," she said.

"I totally disagree with John on this and on so many things. It's
not what the class action rule was all about.  The class action
rule is all about deterrence.

"It's about detecting wrongdoing, early and more efficiently than
enforcers can, and it's about deterring wrongdoing."

Mr. Beisner had testified that the class action system doesn't
care about what compensation is being given to individual class
members and that Gilles' article argues that that isn't a problem.

"I'm sorry, but that's not the purpose of class actions,"
Mr. Beisner said.  "If you look at the rule the advisory committee
adopted, it's all about getting compensation to class members.

"The purpose is to try to do that in a more efficient manner and
when you've got a lot of class members who have the same claims,
to provide an opportunity to do that.

"But to say that we shouldn't care about class members -- I don't
understand then why there's a concern about class actions not
being available versus arbitration if the whole point is we're not
going to get compensation to them anyway." [GN]


* Law Firms Help Advocacy Groups on TCCWNA-Related Amicus Filings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Johnson, writing for ROI, reports that the bottom line
(whatever that translates to in Latin) is that New Jersey's law
firms that assist in amicus curiae -- or, in English, friend of
the court -- take that work very seriously.

As an explainer: When there's a major legal case that bubbles its
way up to the Supreme Court of New Jersey, advocacy groups often
ask to become involved as amicus curiae to provide their
perspective on the potential implications of a judicial decision.

Those in this role look to law firms for counsel.  And those
involved in this work perhaps have the best idea of how to get the
shoe to drop on issues that hold the utmost significance for New
Jersey businesses that have to reckon with the state and federal
laws.

Among the many legal sector rank-and-file with experience in this
area are attorneys at McCarter & English LLP and Lowenstein
Sandler LLP.

Edward Fanning Jr., immediate past chair of a group focused on
product liability, mass torts and consumer class actions at
McCarter & English in Newark, explained that the idea is for
amicus support to articulate the position of an organization that
is not involved in the case.

"Because a decision may have an impact outside of that individual
case that these groups are either arguing for or against,"
Mr. Fanning said. "We do that for the business community, for
important industry sectors here in New Jersey."

It takes a case that raises an issue of substantial public
importance to compel business groups to seek amicus status, he
added.  A recent example of his firm's amicus representation was
in support of multinational Hoffmann-La Roche, a defendant in a
case that reached the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

In one of two amicus briefs his firm filed in ongoing appeals in
that litigation (which involves a lawsuit based on allegations of
injuries caused by the drug Accutane), involved whether there
should be a review of the state's standard for expert witnesses
-- apparently more lax than other states.

At the cross-section of public policy and the legal sector, amicus
briefings are a battleground in which competing views of the world
outside of a case can come to bear on informing judicial
decisions.  And the plaintiff and defense perspectives certainly
do clash.

"Some plaintiffs and their attorneys, though not all, look for
various ways to use our courts as profit centers far more than as
mechanisms to protect truly injured consumers or society as a
whole," Mr. Fanning said.

Specifically, Mr. Fanning likes to point to lawsuits that allege
violations of the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty
and Notice Act, and the way its recent rediscovery has led to
costly class action litigation for businesses.

"Some enterprising plaintiffs lawyers scour the internet looking
for what may be technical violations of obscure consumer statutes,
like TCCWNA, in the fine print of companies' seldom-read website
terms of use," he said.  "Then they find a plaintiff who
supposedly was exposed to -- but not harmed by -- those terms of
use and, despite the lack of any injury or loss whatsoever, bring
a putative class action lawsuit."

That's the kind of litigation abuse that the state's trade and
industry groups, in conjunction with outside amicus counsel, have
sought to prevent, Mr. Fanning said.

In many situations, the plaintiff side participates as amicus
curiae, too, giving voice to counterbalancing consumer-centered
groups such as the New Jersey Association for Justice.  That
organization did not respond to ROI-NJ requests for an interview.

But, in general terms, the argument from its corner of the ring in
disputes involving TCCWNA is that between the business --consumer
dichotomy is a large disparity in bargaining power, with consumers
-- without the legal representation that companies have -- often
being misled about what their rights are when agreeing to
contracts.

Another attorney who regularly provides amicus support to the
business community, Gavin Rooney -- grooney@lowenstein.com -- of
Lowenstein Sandler LLP, argues that a company that had no intent
to mislead should not be in danger of being sued by customers who
haven't suffered financial loss or injury of any kind.

"So, the hope and expectation is a combination of Supreme Court
opinions will rein in these cases, which have caused a fair amount
of trouble for New Jersey-based businesses or businesses around
the country who offer goods or services through their website
portals to consumers located here," Mr. Rooney said.

Whether related to amicus filings or not, the courts have seemed
to shift thinking about the application of this statute, putting
more of a burden on plaintiffs.

Recently, in litigation that began over difference in the amount a
customer was charged for drinks bought at the bar and then at a
table while dining at TGI Friday's, a court tossed out a class
action lawsuit for an alleged lack of proof that victims in the
lawsuit were "aggrieved consumers," a standard under TCCWNA.

What's hoped to come soon from those playing defense against the
statute -- like Mr. Rooney, who helped produce an amicus briefing
for the New Jersey Civil Justice Institute in support of the
defense in that TGI Friday's case -- is clarification of what
makes for an "aggrieved consumer."

"Because, if it can be demonstrated in a way my mother would
recognize, as opposed to some lawyer arguing about angels dancing
on the head of a pin, then it's going to be impossible to get
these cases certified as class action lawsuits because no one has
actually been harmed at all," Mr. Rooney said.

Mr. Rooney and others that do amicus counsel can't promise they
have special insight into what a court will ultimately decide and
how it will bear out; only that they will take the work more
seriously than almost anything else they do.

"It's so important that we're able to provide perspective on the
use and misuse of statutes to the detriment of well-intentioned
businesses operating here," Mr. Fanning said.

A senior project for junior associates

Countless hours of work go into a firm's researching, writing and
overall preparation for an amicus brief.  Often, that work goes to
some of a firm's top junior associates.

And while all that page-turning might not sound exhilarating,
there is a kicker: It might be any given associate's first shot at
making an impact that rises above a lawyer's day-to-day work.

David Pierce -- dpierce@lindabury.com -- even as a president and
partner at Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper P.C. who has
the seniority that comes with being with his firm since 1986, can
recognize the importance of this for junior associates.

"The fact of the matter is, if you've got an amicus filing, it
means there's a substantial issue that has a very real potential
to have significant impact," Mr. Pierce said.  "So much so that
you can even have an issue brought to court in which underlying
litigants decide it's in best interest to settle, but amici can
petition the court to say, 'Look, these two litigants settled
their dispute, yet this is an important public policy issue and
it's going to occur again and again, so there has to be some
ruling.

"So, it definitely gives more junior people a chance to dive into
something that's more substantial than (something like) a
malpractice case." [GN]


* Longford-Westmeath Optimistic on Mortgage Class Action-Bill
-------------------------------------------------------------
Midlands 103 reports that a Longford-Westmeath TD is confident
that his legislation to introduce class-action suits will receive
cross-party support.

Labour's Willie Penrose will introduce his Bill to the Dail which
he hopes will allow those wronged by the tracker mortgage scandal
to take legal action against the banks.

A class action suit is used in many other countries, and allows
one or more plaintiffs to file a law suit on behalf of a larger
group. [GN]



                             *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Joseph Cardillo at 856-381-
8268.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *