---

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

           Wednesday, December 7, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 244




                            Headlines

ACS EDUCATION: Settles Student Loan Borrowers' Suit for $2.4MM
AFEXA LIFE: Court Tosses Cold-FX Class Action Certification Bid
AIRBNB: St. John's County May Join Bed Tax Class Action
AMAZON.COM LLC: Has Until Dec. 7 to File Proof of Service
BATON ROUGE, LA: Settles Alton Sterling Protesters' Class Action

BEVERLY HEALTH: Henna Ahmed May Amend Class Action and Complaint
BLU PRODUCTS: Face Class Action Over "Backdoor" in Phones
BOB'S DISCOUNT: Faces "Marett" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
BOSTIK INC: Removes "Runyon" Suit to C. D. Calif.
BOSTON MARKET: Faces "Marett" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York

BOYD BILOXI: Settles TCPA Class Action in Alabama
BUFFALO WILD: Vegetarian Files Class Action Over Beef Tallow
CALIFORNIA: Judge Dismissed "Stewart" Class Suit
CANAL MANAGEMENT: "Hasselbach" Suit Moved to S.D. of Florida
CASINO RAMA: Hacker Dumps Stolen Customers, Employees Data Online

CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement in "Ford" Suit Has Final Approval
CEMPRA INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
CHRYSLER GROUP: 9th Circuit Reverses Class Certification Ruling
CITYSPRINT: Sued Over Employment Status of Bicycle Couriers
COMCAST: Trustee Files Class Action Over Unfair Competition

CONCORDIA INTERNATIONAL: "Schwartz" Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y.
CORBEIL ELECTRIQUE: Quebec Court Authorizes Consumer Class Action
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL: Clinton Defeat to Boost Class Action
DENVER, CO: Lawyer Files Class Action Over Homeless Sweeps
DOLLAR GENERAL: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on Feb. 2017

DONALD J. TRUMP: DOJ Declines to Intervene in Campaign Text Case
DRAFT FOODS: Court Requires Evidence of Higher Hourly Rates
E-COMMERCE CHINA: Sadis & Goldberg Files Securities Class Action
EL PEDREGAL: Faces "Quito" Suit in Eastern District of New York
FARMERS GROUP: Relators May Not Intervene, 9th Cir. Says

FERGUSON, MO: Class Action Over Illegal Jailings Can Proceed
FLOWERS FOODS: Class Certification Bid in "McCurley" Suit Okayed
FR BISON: "Masters" Lawsuit Removed from Cuyahoga to N.D. Ohio
GALE/TRIANGLE INC: Court Preliminarily Approves "Turk" Settlement
GENERAL MOTORS: "Schiano" Suit Moved from S.D.N.Y. to D.N.J.

GEORGIA POWER: Appeals Court Revives Nuclear Fees Class Action
GEICO GENERAL: MSPA Claims Remanded to Florida State Court
GLOBAL FITNESS: AG Wants Supreme Court to Review Gacho Settlement
GOLDEN EMPIRE: Faces "Chavana" Suit in California Superior Ct.
H K PARIS INC: Faces "Rojas" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York

HILLTOP C&I: Must Pay $500 for Statutory Damages in TCPA Suit
HONORIO OROZCO: Faces "Mondragon" Suit in California Superior Ct.
INGRAM & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Welch" Suit in E.D. of New York
INVICTA WATCH: Sued in Florida Over Defective Pro Diver Watches
IOWA: Faces Class Action Over Illegally Issued Traffic Tickets

JS DREAMS: Settlement in "Potikyan" Suit Has Final Approval
LYFT INC: Faces Class Action in New York Over Toll Fees
MCDONALD'S CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Franchise Workers' Case
MCKINNON & HAMILTON: Faces "Klein" Suit in Southern Dist. of Fla.
MDL 2744: Court Sets Guidelines on Time Records and Expenses

MEDIFIT CORPORATE: Settlement in "Flores" Suit Has Final Okay
MILLENNIAL SOLUTIONS: Faces Class Action Over Solicitation Calls
MYLAN NV: Declines to Testify at Hearing on EpiPen Settlement
NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Court Resolves Payment Method, Claims Handling
NEOVASC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action

NEW YORK: "Polanco" Suit v. Police Dept Goes to S.D.N.Y.
NEW YORK: WNY Caregivers Join Developmental Disabilities Case
NEW YORK BOTANICAL: Faces "Marett" Suit in S.D. of New York
NEW YORK ONE: G. Makkos Seeks Damages of Not Less Than $7,500,000
OK FOODS: "Cato" Remanded to Arkansas Circuit Court

OKINUS INC: Faces "Foster" Suit in Northern Dist. of Georgia
OTB ACQUISITION: "Higgins" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FLSA
OTB ACQUISITION: Faces "Malone" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
PENNYMAC FINANCIAL: Faces "Heidrich" Suit Over FLSA Violation
PETER W SINGER: "Capps" Settlement Gets Initial OK

PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Settles 11 Claims in New York Class Action
POETTKER CONSTRUCTION: All American Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri
REMINGTON: Critics Say Rifle Settlement "Fatally Flawed"
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Ariz. Judge Sends "Taylor" Suit to S.D. Tex.
RUBY TUESDAY: Faces "Marett" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York

STANDARD FIRE: "O'Hara" Suit Removed to Mass. Dist. Ct.
TOMMY BAHAMA: Faces "Marett" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
UNITED HEALTHCARE: 7th Cir. Declines to Rule on Arbitration Bid
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over PACER Document Fees
US IMMIGRATION: "Lyon" Suit Gets Extended Protective Order

UTAH: David Webb May Proceed in Forma Pauperis
VALERO MARKETING: Court Favors Dismissal of "Bautista" UCL Claim
VIZIO INC: Settlement in "Hinshaw" Case Has Final Approval
WAL-MART STORES: Aloe Vera Gel Product Lacks Key Ingredient
WELLS FARGO: Brandon Resident Sues Over Fraudulent Accounts

WELLS FARGO: Consolidated Complaint Filed; Reply Deadline Moved
WELLS FARGO: Settlement in "McLaughlin" Suit Has Initial Approval
WESTERN SKY: 11th Cir. Affirms Ruling in "Parnell" Suit
WISCONSIN SECURE: Wis. Judge Upholds Dismissal of "Tatum" Case
YAHOO! INC: User Files Class Action Over 2014 Data Breach

YIA'S AUTO SALES: 2 Cy Pres Recipients to Split $83,000
ZEN MAGNETS: Appeals Court Strikes Down Magnet Ban Ruling
ZERO GRAVITE: Class Action v. Quebec Chiropractors Can Proceed

* FCC Begins Process to Eliminate Mandatory Arbitration Clauses
* Judge Mazzant Blocks Implementation of DOL's New Overtime Rules


                            *********


ACS EDUCATION: Settles Student Loan Borrowers' Suit for $2.4MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryank Kath, writing for CBS Boston, reports that a national
student loan servicer responsible for handling thousands of
borrower accounts in Massachusetts has agreed to pay $2.4 million
following an investigation by Attorney General Maura Healey's
office, the WBZ I-Team has learned.

ACS Education Services (ACS), now known as Xerox Education
Services, faced allegations that it failed to put struggling
borrowers into income-based repayment plans to lower monthly
payments.  According to the investigation, the student loan
servicer also engaged in harassing debt collection practices and
charged excessive late fees.

"We need to send a message to loan servicers out there that we
take this seriously and we want to make sure people play by the
rules so that students don't get hurt," Ms. Healey told the I-
Team.  "The rules say you're supposed to put students into a
payment plan they can afford."

ACS is the exclusive loan servicer for the Massachusetts Education
Finance Authority (MEFA), a quasi-state agency that offers college
financing to about 140,000 borrowers.

As first reported in October, the I-Team found more than 500
complaints against ACS filed with the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau, along with a class-action lawsuit that alleged
a "scheme to keep borrowers in debt."

Prior to the September interview with the I-Team, a MEFA
spokeswoman said the agency was unaware of the probe into the loan
servicing company.  MEFA has since met with the Attorney General's
Office and worked with ACS to ensure protection of its borrowers.

"MEFA will not tolerate violation of law and will take all
necessary steps to protect borrowers including a competitive
process to review options for a new servicing firm," spokeswoman
Martha Savery told the I-Team.

Under the terms of the settlement, a portion of the $2.4 million
will be paid as restitution to Massachusetts borrowers who were
unable to successfully obtain and remain on income-based repayment
plans.

The loan servicer will also credit any late fee overcharges and is
establishing a "borrower advocacy group" to assist applicants
trying to arrange an affordable repayment plan based on their
income.

In a statement, a company spokesman said the loan servicer
"cooperated fully with the investigation and demonstrated an
acceptance of responsibility."

"We look forward to continuing to work with clients to find other
way to enhance our services to student loan borrowers," the
statement said.

Student loan borrowers who would like to know if they are eligible
for relief under the ACS settlement can call the Attorney
General's Student Loan Assistance Unit hotline at 1-888-830-6277
or inquire online.

Ms. Healey said her office continues to investigate the practices
of other student loan servicers and encourages borrowers to file
complaints.

"This settlement is going to make students whole," Ms. Healey
said.  "And most importantly, it's going to make sure that this
loan servicer has the right practices in place going forward so
that students with these loans are treated fairly."


AFEXA LIFE: Court Tosses Cold-FX Class Action Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Hutchinson, Esq. -- joshua.hutchinson@blakes.com -- and
Robin Reinertson, Esq. -- robin.reinertson@blakes.com -- of Blake,
Cassels & Graydon LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that the
British Columbia Supreme Court recently dismissed an application
for certification of a class action regarding the cold and flu
product Cold-Fx in Harrison v. Afexa Life Sciences Inc.
(Harrison).  The plaintiff alleged that Cold-Fx was falsely
marketed as providing "immediate relief" from cold and flu
symptoms.  Justice Dillon dismissed the application, finding,
among other things, that there was no objectively identifiable
class, no evidence of two or more persons who had common
complaints that they sought to have resolved in a class action, no
rational relationship between the proposed class and the proposed
common issues, and no appropriate representative plaintiff.
Notably, Justice Dillon concluded that Mr. Harrison was merely a
placeholder for his counsel, and not a genuine representative for
the class, as he had been recruited by counsel and there was no
evidence that he had participated in the litigation other than
providing a brief affidavit four years prior to the certification
application.

BACKGROUND

Harrison is the latest word in a long saga of decisions regarding
this proposed class action.  The plaintiff alleged that the
defendants falsely represented in labelling, packaging and
advertising that Cold-Fx provides "immediate relief" from cold and
flu symptoms if taken at the first signs of sickness.  He proposed
a class of all persons resident in British Columbia who purchased
Cold-Fx after March 9, 2002.  In response, the defendants asserted
that Cold-Fx was never marketed as an after-the-fact cold or flu
remedy, only a preventative natural health product that boosts the
immune system.

Despite the straightforward nature of his assertion, the
plaintiff's application was complicated by the wide variety of
misrepresentations -- 27 in total -- that he alleged.  Over the
proposed class period, Cold-Fx was available in a variety of
forms, sizes, and packages, and both the packaging and advertising
changed over time.  In short, the plaintiff alleged different
misrepresentations regarding different packaging and
advertisements, many of which did not contain the alleged
misrepresentations at all.

CERTIFICATION DECISION

A number of the plaintiff's initial claims had been struck or
abandoned as a result of prior applications, that had determined,
among other things, what causes of action were adequately pleaded
and satisfied section 4(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act (CPA).
The certification hearing considered only whether the plaintiffs'
allegations based on fraud, deceit, fraudulent misrepresentation,
the Competition Act, unjust enrichment and waiver of tort,
satisfied the remaining criteria for certification of a class
action. Justice Dillon dismissed the application because the
plaintiff failed to establish the required elements of section
4(1)(b) through (e) of the CPA.

In regard to whether there was an identifiable class, Justice
Dillon accepted the defendants' argument that the proposed class
definition was fatally flawed.  It is critical that there is a
class that is clearly defined from the beginning of the proceeding
and that any person's claim to membership is capable of being
determined by stated, objective criteria.  Further, there must be
an evidentiary basis to establish that there are two or more
members in the class with a common complaint.  Justice Dillon held
that there must also be evidence to show that there is more than
one person who desires to have their complaint determined through
a class action.  In this case, the plaintiff failed to meet this
standard, as there was no evidence that Mr. Harrison or anyone
else purchased Cold-Fx based on the alleged misrepresentations and
no evidential link between the proposed class and any common
complaint.  Notably, Justice Dillon found that second-hand
evidence that there were other persons who had told Mr. Harrison's
counsel that they had purchased Cold-Fx and were interested in the
class proceeding was not sufficient to satisfy this requirement.

Justice Dillon also found that the plaintiff had not shown that
there was a rational relationship between the proposed class
definition and the proposed common issues.  This linkage must have
an air of reality to ensure the class is not excessively broad.
In other words, there must be an objectively established
connection between the proposed class and the alleged claims.  The
proposed class failed to meet this standard because it included
people with no claims against the defendants, since not all of the
Cold-Fx products contained the alleged misrepresentations, not all
the purchasers would have purchased Cold-Fx for immediate symptom
relief, and not all of the purchasers were dissatisfied with the
product.  As a result, the proposed class was impermissibly
overbroad.

With respect to whether Mr. Harrison was an appropriate
representative, Justice Dillon noted that the representative
plaintiff must advance the interests of the class fairly and
adequately, which entails producing a plan for the proceeding and
precludes conflicts of interest with other class members.  The
representative plaintiff cannot be a mere spectator or placeholder
for the proceeding without a genuine stake in the outcome.  Here,
the proposed representative plaintiff was inappropriate because he
had not been "vigorous" in prosecution of the case.  There was no
evidence at the time of the certification hearing that he had been
involved or participated in the litigation since 2012.  Mr.
Harrison had also been recruited to serve as the representative
plaintiff by counsel after he wrote a letter to a local newspaper
criticizing Cold-Fx. Additionally, Justice Dillon found that the
litigation plan was outdated, boilerplate and rudimentary.  It
failed to grapple with the complexities of the proposed class
action and failed to set out a clear plan to determine liability
or damages.

Consequently, the plaintiff's certification application was
dismissed, with costs of the first certification hearing in 2013
thrown away awarded to the defendants.  It is uncommon for costs
of a certification hearing to be awarded in British Columbia, but
the plaintiff had adjourned the first certification hearing in
order to make significant amendments to the pleadings, which
resulted in the action becoming mired in a mess of pleadings
issues and related applications.

IMPLICATIONS

The decision in Harrison affirms the importance of the
certification requirement that there is an objectively
identifiable class of two or more persons with common complaints,
and the need for a rational connection between a proper class
definition and the proposed common issues.  Justice Dillon's
decision is also notable for the finding that Mr. Harrison is a
mere placeholder for his counsel and not a genuine plaintiff with
a real stake in the outcome that would adequately represent a
class of plaintiffs.  Both elements of the decision will be
helpful for defendants that face potential class actions that are
constructions of plaintiffs' counsel, rather than reflections of
real complaints by actual litigants.


AIRBNB: St. John's County May Join Bed Tax Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Jake Martin, writing for St. Augustine, reports that St. Johns
County seems poised to join a class action suit to be brought by a
number of Florida counties against Airbnb, a vacation rental and
sharing economy giant with global reach, for its failure to
collect and remit local bed taxes.

County Attorney Patrick McCormack informed county commissioners at
their Nov. 15 meeting that he could get an invitation to
participate in such litigation before the Dec. 6 commission
meeting.  He said jumping into the fray would be "kind of like
hiring outside council," which he is already authorized to do, but
that he would bring any action with potentially significant costs
before the board for approval.

Mr. McCormack has been coordinating with Dennis Hollingsworth, the
county tax collector, as well as representatives from other
counties seeking protections and remedies from Airbnb.

Mr. Hollingsworth said negotiations with the company began this
summer but have made little headway.

"We're agreeing to disagree but something's got to give," he said.

Other counties participating in those negotiations include Monroe,
Broward and Miami-Dade counties.  Monroe County, which includes
the islands of the Florida Keys, is leading the charge. (According
to Airbnb's website, the Florida Keys ranked in the company's top
ten for highest percentage of homes wish-listed among U.S.
destinations.)

Mr. Hollingsworth said he and others "cannot, with clear
conscience," accept the terms of an agreement Airbnb has pitched
to Florida counties concerning processing and payment of their
local-option taxes.  He said Airbnb refuses to identify its
clients and that a waiver the company has been pushing for is out
of compliance with state statutes.

"We want complete accountability," Mr. Hollingsworth said, adding
the monthly lump sum Airbnb wants to pay would not provide the
information needed to determine accuracy or where exactly the
money is coming from.  He said if his office was to identify, as
an example, a $300,000 shortfall, there are statutory steps it
could take to locate and collect the missing dollars that would be
impeded with such a waiver.

The complications don't stop there.

Mr. Hollingsworth said the county tries to create categories based
on where bed tax dollars are coming in, in order to expend tourism
development dollars appropriately.  He said there are also areas
such as World Gold Village where an additional 2 percent goes
toward funding of the county's convention center.  He said a
process without information on where the money is coming from is
not good enough.

Counties still at odds with Airbnb are looking for recovery of
back taxes and a better deal.

"I have no authority to give amnesty to anyone," Mr. Hollingsworth
said.

According to its website, Airbnb currently has an agreement with
only 22 Florida counties to automatically pay local tourist or
occupancy taxes.  These counties are Bradford, Citrus, Columbia,
DeSoto, Dixie, Flagler, Franklin, Gadsden, Gilchrist, Glades,
Hamilton, Hendry, Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Levy, Madison,
Okeechobee, Pasco, Sumter, Wakulla and Washington.  Agreements
regarding local-option taxes are also in place for Brevard,
Hernando, Indian River, Lee, Orange, Pinellas, Putnam, Santa Rosa
and Taylor counties.

In those counties, hosts collect and pay nothing.  Airbnb collects
and remits the taxes, paid by guests as part of their reservation,
on their behalf.

In counties not listed, hosts need to collect and remit the local
tax on their own.  They have the option to raise nightly rates by
that percentage, ask guests to pay that percentage, or just absorb
the cost.  Hosts in counties not covered by the agreement are
still legally obligated to pay their local tax.

All Airbnb guests staying in the state of Florida, as part of
their reservation, pay the state's Transient Rental Tax of 6
percent as well as the state's discretionary sales surtaxes (0.5
percent to 1.5 percent, varying by county).

St. Johns County's 4-cent bed tax, officially the Tourist
Development Tax, is assessed on short-term transient rentals. This
includes hotel or motel rooms, campground spaces, condominiums,
apartments and even private home rentals that are rented for six
months or less.  The county's Tourist Development Council promotes
tourism in the county through programs funded by the bed tax.

Revenues from the original 2 percent bed tax established in 1986
are split on a 40-30-30 basis, with 40 percent going to
advertising and promotion, 30 percent going to culture and special
events and 30 percent going to beaches and recreation.  Of the
additional 2 percent bed tax that has since been tacked on, 1
percent is dedicated entirely to advertising and promotion while
the other 1 percent is dedicated to administration and special
uses.  This category includes debt service on the St. Augustine
Amphitheatre as well as costs for fireworks displays on the Fourth
of July, New Year's Eve and other special events.

According to a budget workbook for the 2017 fiscal year, the TDC
collected $8,220,259 in bed tax revenues in 2014, an estimated
$8,782,820 in 2015, and an estimated $9,233,064 in 2016.

Commissioner Bill McClure at the Aug. 16 meeting expressed
concerns over "governmental encroachment into our bedrooms," to
which Mr. McCormack said the activity in question is already
taxable and that the issue was really one of collection and
accountability.

Commissioner Jay Morris spoke in favor of pursuing a resolution
with the company, saying every room rented out means one less head
in a hotel or other establishment paying the tax.

Cyndi Humphrey, owner of the Cedar House Inn in St. Augustine,
said the more the merrier.

"People come and learn about the city and they see the diversity
of the product we feature," she told The Record on Nov. 22.  "I
welcome anyone in this city and don't consider them competition."

Ms. Humphrey said she has some friends with Airbnbs and that she
considers the listings a different animal from her bed-and-
breakfast. She said it was above her pay grade to say whether they
should be paying the same taxes or working through the same
processes.

"I hope, at the end of the day, the processes by which they
operate are beneficial to everyone," she said.

Ms. Humphrey said she has not seen a decline in business, but,
rather, the opposite, even as the online network has grown in
popularity.

"Airbnb is a non-issue," she said, likening it to the ride-sharing
service Uber.  "It's a product whose time has come."

However, as McCormack told The Record on Nov. 22, Airbnb "presents
issues that were not contemplated by statutes and regulations, in
manner of what the sharing economy has done."

The online marketplace connects people with places to rent with
people looking for unique, and, often, wallet-friendly places to
stay for vacation.  Airbnb makes its money by taking 3 percent
from the host and charging guests a 6 percent to 12 percent
service fee.

Even as regulation of the sharing economy tightens, Airbnb has
been enjoying valuations hovering around $30 billion.

According to its website, Airbnb has serviced more than 60,000,000
guests through about 2,500,000 listings in more than 34,000 cities
in 191 countries.  Listings include almost 3,000 castles and about
1,400 tree houses.

Searches for rentals in St. Augustine, St. Augustine Beach and St.
Johns County for different lengths of stay at various points
around the year yield hundreds of listings.  There are cottages,
apartments, entire homes, as well as shared rooms and private
rooms. Some listings have dozens if not hundreds of reviews.

A general search for St. Augustine rentals without check-in or
check-out dates yielded 300-plus results averaging out to $167 a
night with plenty of options to be found between $60 and $90 a
night.

Mr. Hollingsworth said anyone renting their property out for six
months or less must have an occupational license and must pay the
bed tax.  He said most Airbnb hosts who have called his office
with concerns are interested in operating within the law but that
Airbnb seems to have given local hosts some conflicting
information concerning payment of local-option taxes.

He encouraged any Airbnb hosts with questions or concerns to call
his office at 209-2250.

"We just want to get it right," he said.  "They call, we'll work
with them."


AMAZON.COM LLC: Has Until Dec. 7 to File Proof of Service
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SANTIAGO RAYA, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-02005-MMC (N.D. Cal.), District Judge
Maxine M. Chesney directed the Defendants, Amazon.com, LLC and
Golden State FC, LLC, to file proof of service of the requisite
notice to the appropriate state and federal officials.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1715(b), "not later than 10 days after
a proposed settlement of a class action is filed in court, each
defendant that is participating in the proposed settlement" must
serve notice of the proposed settlement "upon the appropriate
state official of each state in which a class member resides and
the appropriate federal official."

The Court may not issue an order granting the final approval of
the proposed settlement earlier than 90 days after the later of
the dates on which the appropriate federal official and the
appropriate state official are served with the notice required.
However, in the case, the record does not appear to contain proof
of service of the requisite notice.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 22, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/xNBmvR from Leagle.com.

Santiago Raya, Plaintiff, represented by Isam Charles Khoury --
ikhoury@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer.

Santiago Raya, Plaintiff, represented by James Jason Hill --
jhill@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Michael David Singer
-- msinger@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer & Diana Marie
Khoury -- dkhoury@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer.

Amazon.com LLC, Defendant, represented by Rebecca D. Eisen --
reisen@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Eric
Meckley -- eric.meckley@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Joseph A. Nuccio -- joseph.nuccio@morganlewis.com -- Morgan
Lewis and Bockius LLP, Richard G. Rosenblatt --
richard.rosenblatt@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
pro hac vice, Roberta H. Vespremi --
roberta.vespremi@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Sacha Marie Steenhoek -- ssteenhoek@morganlewis.com -- Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP & Theresa C. Mak --
theresa.mak@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP.


BATON ROUGE, LA: Settles Alton Sterling Protesters' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Sommerfeldt, writing for New York Daily News, reports that
scores of people were arrested in July after taking to the streets
of Baton Rouge, La., in protest of the shooting death of 37-year-
old Alton Sterling at the hand of a police officer.

On Nov. 22, Baton Rouge's Metro Council voted to approve the
$100,000 settlement of a federal class-action lawsuit brought by
those protesters, ending a months-long dispute over First
Amendment rights.

The city will pay out $230 to each of the 92 plaintiffs in the
lawsuit, according to court documents obtained by The Advocate.
The remaining money will go toward covering bond fees, attorney's
fees and other unaccounted-for costs.

Prominent Black Lives Matter organizer DeRay Mckesson was among
the dozens of protesters arrested during the summer demonstrations
that erupted after a white cop was caught on camera fatally
shooting Sterling, a black man, outside a convenience store on
July 5.

Their lawsuit claimed that cops became overly aggressive in
response to the protesters and used "unconstitutional tactics" to
infringe upon their rights to freedom of speech and peaceably
assemble.

"It was clear that the arrests were unconstitutional and the
lawsuit aims to correct for the impact of the arrests on people's
lives," Mr. Mckesson told the Daily News on Nov. 23, adding that
he hopes Baton Rouge police will aptly reform their arrest
procedures.

Mr. McKesson and a few other protesters were initially being
prosecuted by the East Baton Rouge district attorney for allegedly
obstructing a highway and disorderly conduct.  But, in light of
the class-action settlement, the district attorney's office
announced that it would no longer pursue litigation against Mr.
McKesson and his fellow protesters.

Some on the Baton Rouge council were not too happy about the
settlement.

Metro Councilman John Delgado was one of two on the 12-member body
to vote against the settlement payout and claimed the outcome will
encourage protesters to act recklessly in the future.

"I have no interest in paying $100,000 in taxpayer dollars to
people who are coming into our city to protest," Mr. Delgado said.

But yes-voters challenged that the dollar figure would have been a
lot higher if just one of the 92 plaintiffs actually managed to
prove he or she had been wrongfully arrested.

Mr. Mckesson, meanwhile, charged that police officers were the
only ones engaging in dangerous behavior.

"I am hopeful that the lawsuit discourages this sort of
recklessness moving forward," he said.


BEVERLY HEALTH: Henna Ahmed May Amend Class Action and Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HENNA AHMED, an individual, Plaintiff, v. BEVERLY
HEALTH AND REHABILITATION SERVICES, INC.; GGNSC ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES, LLC and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-01747-WBS-KJN (E.D. Cal.), District Judge William B. Shubb
granted the parties' stipulation for Plaintiff to file a First
Amended Class Action and Individual Complaint.

The Court further granted the Defendant 21 days after service of
the filed First Amended Class Action and Individual Complaint
within which to answer or otherwise plead in response.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 10, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/bB43oG from Leagle.com.

Henna Ahmed, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Joshua Wasserman --
rwasserman@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley P.C..

Beverly Health and Rehabilitation Services, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Andrew B. Millar -- drew.millar@dinsmore.com --
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, pro hac vice, Charles Matthew Roesch --
chuck.roesch@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore and Shohl LLP, pro hac vice
& Jessica Grace Wilson -- jessica.wilson@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore
& Shohl LLP.


BLU PRODUCTS: Face Class Action Over "Backdoor" in Phones
---------------------------------------------------------
Jeff John Roberts, writing for Fortune, reports that a U.S.
company is facing a class action lawsuit following reports it sold
thousands of Android phones containing software that sent
consumers' private messages to companies in China.

Miami-based Blu Products, which sells low cost phones through
Amazon and BestBuy, came to attention when the New York Times
identified it as among the phone makers whose products contained a
so-called "backdoor."

In this case, the backdoor served to send copies of users' text
messages and phone call data every 72 hours to a Chinese software
firm called Shanghai AdUps Technologies.  It also relayed other
data, such as information about location and app usage, every 24
hours.  The Shanghai firm reportedly collects such data for
advertising purposes.

Following the report of the secret backdoor, Blu Products told the
Times that 120,000 of its devices had been affected and that it
had pushed out a software update to stop them sending information
to China.  It also said it had not known about the backdoor.

But the incident also led Rosen Legal, a firm specializing in
class action lawsuits, to post a "security alert" warning
consumers about the backdoor, and inviting those who had bought
certain Blu Products devices to be part of an investigation and
participate in the lawsuit.  The notice also explained how
consumers could determine if their devices had been affected by
what the firm calls "spyware":

You can check to see if your Blu Products phone was affected by
going to the Settings Menu in Android, selecting "Apps," followed
by "Show System" and then "Wireless Update."  If your version of
Wireless Update is from 5.0.x to 5.3.x, or above, you phone was
affected and you may be a member of the class action.

Blu Products, for its part, dismissed the law firm's allegations.

"This is a non issue and there is no wrong doing from BLU to
warrant any such claim.  There were no damages that anyone
suffered, and this is a typical knee jerk ambulance chaser who
dismisses details and is uneducated on the subject," said
Carmen Gonzalez, senior marketing director for Blu Products, said
in an email to Fortune.

The controversy comes at a time of growing concern over how
phones, and many other Internet-connected devices, are susceptible
to hacking or intrusive software that records or transmits private
information.  A security firm reported the existence of another
powerful backdoor in over 3 million Android devices that permits
third parties to monitor the device owners' communications.


BOB'S DISCOUNT: Faces "Marett" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bob's Discount
Furniture of NY, LLC. The case is captioned Lucia Marett, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Bob's Discount Furniture of NY, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-09218 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2016).

Bob's Discount retails furniture and bedding products in the
Northeast and mid-Atlantic regions of the United States. The
company provides living room, bedroom, dining room, kids,
entertainment, and home office furniture, as well as mattresses
and home accents.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


BOSTIK INC: Removes "Runyon" Suit to C. D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------
Bostik Inc. has filed a notice to remove the case captioned
PATRICK E. RUNYON (AS TRUSTEE OF THE PATRICK E. RUNYON AND TERRI
E. RUNYON REVOCABLE TRUST DATED AUGUST 7, 2015), JOSEPH S. SHUSTER
AND GEORGANNE L. SHUSTER, AND EVERARDO VIDRIO AND ZEFERINA VIDRIO,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. BOSTIK, INC., a Delaware Corporation; DAVID C.
GREENBAUM CO., INC., a California Corporation; LEONARD'S CARPET
SERVICE, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CIVDS1614938, from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California - Eastern Division. The District Court
assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-02413-RGK-SP to the proceeding.

Bostik asks the District Court to accept jurisdiction of the State
Court Action.

Bostik provides adhesive technologies across a wide range of
sectors.

Bostik is represented by:

          David R. Scheidemantle, Esq.
          Joshua J. Pollack, Esq.
          SCHEIDEMANTLE LAW GROUP P.C.
          35 East Union Street, Suite B
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (626) 638 1758
          Facsimile: (626) 628 1950
          E-mail: dscheidemantle@ScheidemantleLawGroup.com
                  jpollack@ScheidemantleLawGroup.com



BOSTON MARKET: Faces "Marett" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boston Market
Corporation. The case is styled Lucia Marett, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Boston Market
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. #: 1:16-cv-09216 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 29, 2016).

Boston Market, known as Boston Chicken until 1995, headquartered
in Golden, Colorado, is a chain of American fast casual
restaurants. It is owned by private equity firm Sun Capital
Partners, headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


BOYD BILOXI: Settles TCPA Class Action in Alabama
-------------------------------------------------
Julie D. Hoffmeister, Esq. --
julie.hoffmeister@troutmansanders.com  -- and David N. Anthony,
Esq. -- david.anthony@troutmansanders.com -- of Troutman Sanders
LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Alabama recently
granted final approval of a class action settlement against Boyd
Biloxi LLC, alleging that Biloxi sent telemarketing messages that
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The class action Complaint was originally filed on July 16, 2014.
The named plaintiff alleged that Biloxi made calls to him and the
putative class members offering free tickets to concerts or other
special promotions.  After engaging in discovery for more than a
year, the parties reached a settlement through mediation.

The settlement class consists of "all persons who, since
October 16, 2013 through May 11, 2016, received a telephone call
to a residential or cellular telephone number initiated by, on
behalf of or at the direction of Boyd Biloxi which used an
artificial and/or pre-recorded voice message or was placed by an
automatic telephone dialing system ["ATDS"]."  The class consists
of over 68,000 individuals.  33 class members submitted requests
for exclusion, and two pro se objections were filed.

Each class member who submits a valid claim will receive a $150
gift card for food, beverages, concert tickets, hotel rooms, or
gift shop items at Boyd Biloxi properties.  The company also
agreed to implement policies for its marketing activities using
prerecorded messages or an ATDS to comply with the TCPA.  The
settlement agreement further provides for an attorneys' fee award
of up to $2 million and an incentive award of $3,500 for the named
plaintiff.


BUFFALO WILD: Vegetarian Files Class Action Over Beef Tallow
------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a consumer has filed a class action
lawsuit against Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc., citing alleged negligent
misrepresentation.

Alexa Borenkoff filed a complaint on behalf of all others
similarly situated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc., alleging
that the establishment refused to inform their vegetarian
consumers that its products are cooked in beef tallow.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she
suffered damages from being misled into purchasing food items that
use beef tallow as an ingredient.  The plaintiff holds Buffalo
Wild Wings, Inc. , esponsible because the defendant allegedly
failed to disclose to the plaintiff of using beef tallow as an
ingredient in their food items.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks compensatory
damages, restitution, punitive damages, all legal fees and
interest plus any other relief as this court deems just.  She is
represented by Michael L. Braunstein --
MBraunstein@BraunsteinFirm.com -- of The Braunstein Law Firm, PLLC
in New City.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Case
number 7:16-cv-08532-VB


CALIFORNIA: Judge Dismissed "Stewart" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM LEE STEWART, JR., Plaintiff, v. DEBRA
ASUNCION, WARDEN, M. BUECHTER, ASSOCIATE WARDEN, and M. VOONG,
CHIEF OFFICER, OFFICE of APPEALS, Defendants, No. CV 16-5872 JFW
(AJW), (C.D. Cal.), District Judge John F. Walter dismissed the
action, without prejudice to seek relief in the class action
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, Armstrong v. Brown, Case No. 94-2307 CW.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 18, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/sEsdiw from Leagle.com.

William Lee Stewart, Jr., Plaintiff, Pro Se.


CANAL MANAGEMENT: "Hasselbach" Suit Moved to S.D. of Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Rita Hasselbach, other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Canal Management, Inc., A
Florida Profit Corporation, individually, and Anthony G. Askowitz,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 562012CA001690OCXXXX, was
removed from the 19th Judicial Circuit Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft Pierce). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-14525-RLR to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Robin L. Rosenberg.

Canal Management offers warehouse space for rent to entrepreneurs
who want to establish their businesses in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anne Marie Estevez, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
          200 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 5300
          Wachovia Financial Center
          Miami, FL 33131-2339
          Telephone: (305) 415 3330
          Facsimile: (305) 415 3001
          E-mail: aestevez@morganlewis.com


CASINO RAMA: Hacker Dumps Stolen Customers, Employees Data Online
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CTV Barrie reports that a collection of personal and private
information stolen during the Casino Rama cyberattack has been
dumped online.

A five gigabyte file containing more than 14,000 documents was
uploaded to a torrent website on Nov. 21.  The information belongs
to people who've won big at the casino and former employees.

The files contain social insurance numbers, wage information,
photo ID and confidential emails.  The dump also contains an
illustration of Casino Rama's computer network.

"It's my employee file with everything in it.  There's nothing
I'm ashamed of, but everything's out there," says Jennifer Alton,
a former Casino Rama employee.  "You start to think about your
credit rating and SIN number."

This is the second Casino Rama dump to happen since the
information was stolen earlier this month.  The resort says it
became aware of the situation on Nov. 4.

Casino officials have said customers' credit inquiries and
collection and debt information were stolen, along with employees'
information, including payroll data, social insurance numbers and
dates of birth.

Cyber security experts tell CTV News that at first glance, it
doesn't appear the information was encrypted.

A class-action lawsuit has been filed against the casino by
Charney Lawyers.  The suit is seeking $50 million in damages.

"Releasing this information on the net could result in identity
theft because it's exposed to criminals who can access it and may
also mean that the information has been used previously for
identity theft," says lawyer Ted Charney.  "Secondly it's of
concern because it's publicly embarrassing for the individuals who
are exposed."

In a statement, a spokesperson for Casino Rama says they deeply
regret the release of any stolen information and that data
security is a top priority.

The hacker says new data will be dumped weekly.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement in "Ford" Suit Has Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRANCHESCA FORD, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
CEC ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a Kansas corporation; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:14-cv-01420-RS (N.D. Cal.),
District Judge Richard Seeborg granted final approval the Class
Action Settlement.

The final approval shall be with respect to all current and former
hourly employees employed by Defendant in California in non-exempt
positions at any time from January 27, 2010 through March 24,
2016.

Plaintiff Franchesca Ford is a suitable representative and is
appointed the representative for the Settlement Class. The Court
also finds that Capstone Law APC satisfies the professional and
ethical obligations attendant to the position of Class Counsel,
and thus, appoints Capstone Law APC as counsel for the Settlement
Class.

The settlement of civil penalties under Private Attorneys General
Act (PAGA) in the amount of $5,000 is approved. 75% or $3,750,
shall be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development
Agency. The remaining 25% or $1,250, will be allocated to
participating Class Members.

Moreover, the Court approves claims administration expenses in the
amount of $69,043.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 18, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/afQPYo from Leagle.com.

Francesca Ford, Plaintiff, represented by Katherine Ward Kehr --
Katherine.Kehr@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC.

Francesca Ford, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Thomas Theriault
-- Matthew.Theriault@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC,
Robert Joseph Drexler, Jr. -- Robert.Drexler@capstonelawyers.com -
- Capstone Law APC, Jonathan Sing Lee --
Jonathan.Lee@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Liana Carol
Carter -- Lianna.Carter@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC,
Ryan Hung-Hsi Wu -- Ryan.Wu@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law
APC & Stan Karas -- Stan.Karas@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law
APC.

CEC Entertainment, Inc., Defendant, represented by Liz Kathryn
Bertko -- lbertko@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld
LLP, Christopher Kenneth Petersen -- cpetersen@akingump.com --
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld, Donna Marie Mezias --
dmezias@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP & Julia
Ingrid DeBeers -- jdebeers@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer
and Feld.

Richard Sinohui, Objector, represented by Trush Merrick James --
jtrush@earthlink.net -- Trush Law Office, APC.


CEMPRA INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") announced that
a class action has been commenced on behalf of purchasers of
Cempra, Inc. ("Cempra") (NASDAQ: CEMP) common stock during the
period between October 22, 2015 and November 1, 2016 (the "Class
Period").  This action was filed in the Middle District of North
Carolina and is captioned Pasqual v. Cempra, Inc., et al., No. 16-
cv-1356.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from November 4, 2016.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com.  If you are a member of this class, you
can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/cempra/.  Any member of the putative
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member.

The complaint charges Cempra and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Cempra is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that develops
antibiotics for the treatment of infectious diseases.  Cempra's
lead product, solithromycin, is being developed in oral capsule,
intravenous and suspension formulations for the treatment of
community-acquired bacterial pneumonia ("CABP"), as well as for
other indications.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
violated the federal securities laws by disseminating false and
misleading statements to the investing public.  Specifically,
defendants misleadingly informed investors that solithromycin was
not associated with liver toxicity and drug-induced liver injury.
As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, Cempra
stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period, reaching a high of $32.81 per share on November 25, 2015.

Then, on November 2, 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
released a report analyzing Cempra's clinical development program
of solithromycin to treat CABP, which highlighted a significant
safety signal for hepatotoxicity and drug-induced liver injury.
As a result of this news, the price of Cempra stock dropped $11.35
per share to close at $7.30 per share on November 2, 2016, a one-
day decline of nearly 61% on volume of 20.7 million shares.

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

Robbins Geller is widely recognized as one of the leading law
firms advising U.S. and international institutional investors in
securities litigation and portfolio monitoring.  With 200 lawyers
in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history and was ranked first
in both total amount recovered for investors and number of
securities class action recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 Report for
the last two years.  Robbins Geller attorneys have shaped the law
in the areas of securities litigation and shareholder rights and
have recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of the Firm's
clients.  Robbins Geller not only secures recoveries for defrauded
investors, it also strives to implement corporate governance
reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors
worldwide.


CHRYSLER GROUP: 9th Circuit Reverses Class Certification Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that in a lawsuit against Chrysler,
plaintiff Steve Doyle will not be able to certify the suit as
class action, and an attorney from Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan &
Aronoff LLP provided an explanation for the rejection by the Ninth
Court of Appeals.

Mr. Doyle sued Chrysler, alleging the company failed to disclose a
defect in its window regulator replacements.  Mr. Doyle intended
to bring a class action lawsuit for those who both purchased
Chrysler's replacement regulator, or otherwise had a replacement
regulator installed.

The decision came Oct. 24 at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In a California Consumers Legal Remedies Act case against
Chrysler, Mr. Doyle's request to certify as class action,
previously granted by a district court, was denied after Chrysler
appealed.

Chrysler attorneys successfully argued Doyle's partial
reimbursement damages model does not stand up the test in the
Supreme Court's decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend.  They also
argued that the district court failed to account for the
typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23, because
Mr. Doyle only purchased a regulator.  However, Mr. Doyle's case
came apart in Chrysler's appeal because the proposed class
included people who never purchased a regulator but had one
installed.

"The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's certification of
the class because Doyle failed to satisfy several of Rule 23's
requirements -- namely predominance, typicality, and adequacy,"
said attorney Anthony C. Sallah in an email to Legal Newsline.
"But the main reason underpinning Doyle's failure to satisfy those
requirements is his proposed class was defined as persons who both
purchased a replacement part and those who had one installed.

"Doyle himself purchased a replacement regulator, so his claim was
not typical of individuals that did not purchase a replacement
regulator, but instead had one installed.  And he could not
adequately represent the proposed class members because his
damages model -- a partial reimbursement approach -- did not
account for individuals that had a window regulator 'installed,'
and thus had no out of pocket expenses to reimburse. Essentially,
the Ninth Circuit determined that those individuals would be
better off bringing their own lawsuits and seeking their own
damages, likely for repairs."

Mr. Sallah mentioned the importance of being able to measure
damages on a classwide basis.

"Finally, Doyle's damages model was not measurable on a class
level [or a 'classwide basis] because it could not produce a
classwide result," Mr. Sallah said.  "His partial reimbursement
theory simply couldn't account for those individuals that did not
pay for a replacement regulator.  Although individualized findings
regarding damages -- or how much each class member would be
entitled to -- will not always prevent class certification, Doyle
didn't have a common methodology for determining those damages."

If Mr. Doyle's methodology was faulty, why did the previous court
rule in his favor?

"The district court's class certification decision focused on
Doyle's allegation of the existence of a common defect, rather
than the 'purchased' vs. 'installed' distinction highlighted by
the Ninth Circuit," Mr. Sallah said.  "The district court reasoned
that because all class members were alleged to have suffered
"injury" due to the same conduct of Chrysler -- a defect in its
replacement regulators -- class certification was proper because
any damage award would compensate for this single injury.

"Unfortunately for Doyle, the Ninth Circuit found convincing that
some class members purchased replacement regulators while others
did not, and as such, Doyle did not have a common damages
methodology for the class members."

Mr. Doyle could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court but chances are
slim they will hear the case anyway.

"The case is back in the district court, where the parties will
likely confer together with the district court judge on how the
case will proceed," Mr. Sallah said.  "Doyle could have filed a
petition for rehearing en banc, which essentially asks the court
of appeals to reconsider a decision of the panel of the court, but
he did not."

The case is Doyle v. Chrysler Group, LLC.  Mr. Doyle was
represented by attorneys from Arias Ozello & Gignac LLP, Foley
Bezek Behle & Curtis LLP and Goldenberg Schneider & Groh LPA.


CITYSPRINT: Sued Over Employment Status of Bicycle Couriers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Johnson, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that the
legal battle over workers' rights in the so-called "gig economy"
continues to intensify, with the first of four disputes relating
to the employment status of bicycle couriers beginning in late
November.

A courier has initiated proceedings against U.K. delivery company
CitySprint to demand workers' rights, including paid vacation and
rest breaks.  As with the majority of gig economy workers,
couriers at CitySprint are classed as self-employed, meaning they
do not receive workers' rights and protections, and also do not
legally have to be paid the national minimum wage.

Similar cases are pending against Addison Lee, eCourier and Excel
Group Services, and are due to be heard by the same judge next
year.

The Independent Workers Union of Great Britain, which is backing
the cases, said that the couriers are not truly self-employed, as
they tend to work for just one company at a time, have no control
over their rates of pay and are told what to do by managers at the
courier firms.  CitySprint's 3,500 couriers wear a company uniform
and are tracked by a GPS unit, the union added.
CitySprint is represented by Squire Patton Boggs.  Representing
the union are Jason Galbraith-Marten QC, barrister from Cloisters
Chambers, and solicitors Bates Wells Braithwaite.

The disputes follow the landmark ruling that U.K. drivers for
mobile cab-hailing app company Uber must be classified as workers,
rather than self-employed.

U.K. workers' trade union GMB, which brought the two test cases in
July, described the Uber ruling as a "monumental victory" and said
it would have "major implications" for the so-called gig economy,
where people work independently via smartphone apps such as Uber,
Lyft and TaskRabbit, without a fixed contract.

"Uber drivers and thousands of others caught in the bogus self-
employment trap will now enjoy the same rights as employees," said
GMB legal director Maria Ludkin.  "This loophole that has allowed
unscrupulous employers to avoid employment rights, sick pay and
minimum wage for their staff and costing the government millions
in lost tax revenue will now be closed."

Uber, which was represented by DLA Piper, said it will appeal the
ruling.  The San Francisco-based company is facing similar claims
in the United States and agreed to pay up to $100 million to end a
class action suit over the employment status of drivers, but the
settlement was rejected by a federal judge in August.  It also
faced fines and legal action in other countries, including France.

The level of self-employment has risen rapidly in the U.K. since
the recession, with one in seven workers now self-employed.


COMCAST: Trustee Files Class Action Over Unfair Competition
-----------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for PennRecord, reports that a trustee has
filed a class action lawsuit against Comcast Corp. and Comcast
Cable Communications, LLC, citing alleged unfair competition.

Keven Danow, as the trustee of the Morris Hitzig Revocable Living
Trust filed, a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on Nov. 17, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against the defendants alleging that they
made recurring automatic fund withdrawals from plaintiff's late
step-father.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he suffered
monetary damages on behalf of his deceased step-father. The
plaintiff holds Comcast Corp. and Comcast Cable Communications,
LLC responsible because the defendants allegedly continued to
withdraw funds from the account of plaintiff's step-father despite
their business relationship having ended following his death.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment against
the defendant for damages, injunctive relief in excess of $75,000,
court costs and any further relief this court grants.  He is
represented by Richard Maniskas of Wayne.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case
number 2:16-cv-06052-PD


CONCORDIA INTERNATIONAL: "Schwartz" Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned David Schwartz, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Concordia
International Corp., Mark Thompson, and Adrian de Saldanha,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06576, was removed to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
according to a case docket entry dated November 28, 2016.

The case alleges violations of the U.S. Securities Act.

Concordia International (formerly AMCo) is part of the Concordia
International Corp, a diverse international company.

The Defendant is represented by:

     Mark A. Robertson, Esq.
     NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
     1301 Avenue of the Americas
     New York, NY 10019-6022
     Phone: (212) 318-3000
     Fax: (212) 318-3400
     E-mail: mark.robertson@nortonrosefulbright.com


CORBEIL ELECTRIQUE: Quebec Court Authorizes Consumer Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Prefontaine, Esq. -- eprefontaine@osler.com -- Francois
Laurin-Pratte, Esq. -- flaurinpratte@osler.com -- and Gillian
Scott, Esq. -- gscott@osler.com -- of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt
LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that in the recently decided
case Cantin c. Ameublements Tanguay inc., 2016 QCCS 4546 (the
"Cantin Case"), the Superior Court of Quebec granted authorization
of a proposed class action by consumers against various
respondents, including a franchisor Corbeil Electrique Inc.
("Corbeil"), for alleged misrepresentations in relation to the
purchase of extended warranties.  In doing so it confirmed a trend
that Quebec Courts, at least at the authorization stage, are
unwilling to unpack whether or not a contractual relationship
exists between a franchisor and a customer of its franchisee.

Key Factual Background & Decision

Corbeil is the owner of a franchise system in respect of the sale
of household appliances.  According to the claim, false
representations were made to the petitioner by: (1) Corbeil on
their website; and (2) by an employee of the franchisee, Eric
Dubreuil Inc. (the "Corbeil Franchisee"); about the need to
purchase an extended warranty.  Corbeil sought to have the claim
against it dismissed at the authorization stage on the basis that
there was no legal relationship between it and the petitioner.
However, the Court rejected Corbeil's argument and authorized the
class action against it, concluding that it would be premature at
the authorization stage to attempt to unravel the legal
relationships connecting Corbeil, the Corbeil Franchisee and the
petitioner.  Notably, at the authorization stage, the allegations
of a petitioner are taken to be true, and according to the Court,
the following allegations as pleaded by the petitioner created
confusion as to the identity of the petitioner's co-contracting
party:

    1. The invoice for the purchases received by the petitioner
included Corbeil's business name and logo;

    2. The Corbeil Franchisee was listed as one of Corbeil's
branches on Corbeil's website;

   3. Corbeil did in fact offer extended warranties directly to
consumers, and it was therefore impossible at the authorization
stage to distinguish between Corbeil warranties and the one
purchased by the petitioner from the Corbeil Franchisee; and

   4. The petitioner alleged that he chose to do business with
Corbeil, which is why he chose to purchase his appliance from the
Corbeil Franchisee.

A Trend in Franchise Cases

This outcome is not unprecedented. In an earlier  case, Fortier c.
Meubles Leon ltee, 2014 QCCA 195 (the "Fortier Case"), a similar
alleged confusion as to the identity of the consumer's co-
contracting party led the Court  to authorize a class action
against Corbeil.  Affirming the reasoning of the Superior Court,
the Court of Appeal noted in the Fortier Case that Corbeil's
invoice stated that it "[our translation] was represented by the
franchisee", suggesting that the Corbeil franchisee was Corbeil's
agent as opposed to an independent party.

The franchise business model is by its very definition one where
independently operated businesses, "franchisees", contract with a
franchisor for the use of the franchisor's established system of
operations, branding and trademarks.  Transactions at the consumer
level occur between the consumer and the franchisee, and do not
tend to involve the franchisor.  The doctrine of corporate
separateness therefore dictates that absent certain narrow and
specific circumstances, a franchisor should not be held directly
responsible to consumers for issues that arise in their business
interactions with franchisees.  However, despite the corporate
separateness of a franchisor and a franchisee, consumers may
nonetheless assume that they are dealing directly with the
franchisor given the association of the franchise business with
the franchisor's often well-known and established trademarks and
brand.  As class actions become an increasingly common way for
consumers to enforce their rights, this assumption may have
particularly detrimental consequences for franchisors.
The Consequences

The authorization decisions in the Fortier Case and more recently
in the Cantin Case are preliminary decisions only, and as such
they do not preclude franchisors from ultimately demonstrating
that there are insufficient legal connections between them and the
customers of their franchisees to establish liability. However,
these decisions confirm that at least at the authorization stage
of an action, where the allegations of a petitioner are accepted
as true, it will be difficult for franchisors to extricate
themselves from actions brought against them by ultimate
consumers.  This signals a likely increase in class actions with
multiple defendants in a franchise context and of more franchisors
having to mount costly defences for the successful determination
of these cases on their merits.

In order to protect themselves from consumer class actions,
franchisors must work to ensure that their role vis-…-vis
consumers is as clear as possible.  Maintaining such clarity
should increase a franchisor's chance of defeating a consumer
class action at the authorization stage, and certainly, if
necessary, later on its merits.


DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL: Clinton Defeat to Boost Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Sainato, writing for Observer, reports that the lawyers
who filed a class action lawsuit in federal court against the
Democratic National Committee (DNC) and former chair Debbie
Wasserman Schultz for rigging the primaries have awaited a ruling
on the DNC lawyers' motion to dismiss the suit.  But Bernie
Sanders supporters' claim that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz
violated their charter and undermined democracy to ensure Hillary
Clinton's coronation was only strengthened after Clinton lost to
one of the most unpopular presidential candidates in recent
history.

The narrative propagated by the DNC, Wasserman Schultz and the
mainstream media that Democrats were completely united behind
Clinton turned out to be a myth.  Based on exit polls, 9 percent
of Democrats voted for Trump.  Thousands of Sanders supporters
wrote their man in as their choice for president.  In Vermont,
Sanders placed third as a write-in candidate, with over 18,000
voters.  Though the write-ins for Sanders and votes for Green
Party candidate Jill Stein didn't add up to enough to sway the
election for Clinton, voter turnout in counties and swing states
previously won by Barack Obama are a result of the overconfidence
and hubris of the Clinton campaign, who assumed that it was "her
turn."

The class action lawsuit against Wasserman Schultz and the DNC
presents an opportunity for Sanders supporters to receive
vindication and recognition that their candidate's path to the
nomination was subverted in favor of the Democratic Party
establishment's preferred candidate.

The data strongly suggests Sanders would have won in a general
election against Trump, as his economic populism rivaled Trump's.
Meanwhile Clinton's focus on donors and establishment support
backfired in states where resentment toward the status quo has
increased under Obama's presidency.  Millennials, which Obama
depended upon to turn out and vote for him in 2008 and 2012,
didn't show up for Clinton at the polls.  They were Sanders'
strongest demographic of supporters.  And Sanders' grassroots
campaign and core of volunteers on the ground could have
challenged the regions Clinton lost due to a combination of
overconfidence and negligence (according to her own staff).  Obama
won these place due to a similar grassroots campaign effort.

Clinton embraced the reality TV qualities of Trump's campaign,
such as the feud between Mark Cuban and Trump.  Trump was a
billionaire, so she would get her own who backed her -- and hated
Trump.  Turns out that Cuban-Trump feud was inauthentic, as Cuban
was recently seen meeting with Trump's Chief Strategist Stephen
Bannon.  The focus on Trump's squabbles and crazy speeches
lessened the critical eye on Clinton; Sanders would have tried to
steer focus towards the important issues.

After Clinton partisans denigrated Sanders for being "ridiculous"
for refusing to fall in line behind Clinton, and asserting the
primaries were rigged, Clinton supporters are now pushing for a
movement to audit the election results in three swing states.
Sanders supporters have actual evidence to corroborate their
claims. The New York Times' Nate Cohn has debunked many of the
arguments driving the Clinton supporters' claims that the general
election results don't add up.

WikiLeaks emails revealed Wasserman Schultz used her position to
develop the DNC into an extension of the Clinton campaign, while
staff worked behind the scenes to attack Sanders.  Emails from
Clinton campaign chair John Podesta revealed they had a say in DNC
staff decision-making, helped plan the Democratic National
Convention, and developed strategies for the DNC to implement for
the sole benefit of Clinton.  DNC interim chair Donna Brazile was
exposed as having helped the Clinton campaign cheat before CNN
debates.

Documents released by hacker Guccifer 2.0 revealed that Clinton
was referred to as the nominee, and her victory was treated as a
certainty in DNC documents before the primaries even began.  The
DNC and Wasserman Schultz, obligated to neutrality per the DNC
charter, violated that neutrality, acting as a performance-
enhancing drug that boosted Clinton's candidacy in the primaries.
Whether Clinton would have won anyway can only be speculated, but
the evidence that democracy was subverted in order to help Clinton
beat Sanders is overwhelming.


DENVER, CO: Lawyer Files Class Action Over Homeless Sweeps
----------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Frias, writing for Spare Change News, reports that
Denver-based lawyer Jason Flores-Williams got tired of seeing
homeless people in his neighborhood being sent out of the city in
droves.

He and Terese Howard, an organizer for Denver Homeless Out Loud,
have joined the fight to protect homeless people from what they
call unconstitutional "homeless sweeps" throughout the city.

"There are no more rooms in the shelter and the shelters are not
an option for many, many reasons beyond the fact that they are
actually full," Ms. Howard said.  "We've been pushing away and
criminalizing the homeless across Denver and across the nation."

An ordinance against unauthorized camping passed by the city
council in 2012 allows law enforcement officials to remove people
they believe to be homeless from city streets in an effort to keep
sidewalks clear.  Ms. Howard said these sweeps result in a loss of
personal belongings and sleep deprivation for many of the homeless
people impacted.

The complaint filed by Mr. Flores-Williams says the city has
increased the amount of sweeps after promising to reduce them and
continues to unfairly target homeless people by destroying their
property without their consent.

"Under the US Constitution you have to have cause to remove and
detain people under the fourth amendment, which grants equal
protection," Mr. Flores-Williams said.  "Everyone has the right to
be treated equally."

The sweeps, also known as raids, have affected more than 5,000
people, Mr. Flores-Williams said.  In his complaint he said there
have been many instances where homeless people have had their
personal belongings, including military records and identification
thrown away by police after the raids.

The 36-page complaint names nine plaintiffs that were homeless and
says they were unfairly targeted by these raids, some of which had
"to go so far out from the familiarity of downtown that they end
up sleeping in dangerous areas where they have been raped" or
killed, Mr. Flores-Williams said in his complaint.

Denver Police directed all questions to the City's Attorney's
Office, but did provide a record of citations given for
unauthorized camping spanning from June 2014 to October 2015,
which showed a total of 17 citations written at four different
locations.

Denver Mayor Michael B. Hancock's spokeswoman Jenna Espinoza
dismissed the claim that the city was sweeping homeless people off
the streets.

"We are simply working to keep areas clean and safe for all
residents while also working to understand the challenges faced by
those on the streets so that we might connect them to shelter and
housing," she said in a statement.

Ms. Espinoza went on to say that the city spends $50 million a
year on direct and indirect homeless services and has since
connected 995 homeless people to housing in the last 23 months

"In the last several years, the city has increased direct
services, including overnight and day shelter service as well as
increased access to housing for all people," she said in her
statement.  "The city's practice is to first try and connect
people to services and treatment, and if that doesn't work, people
are given notice, usually multiple times, before any enforcement
action is taken.  These are complex challenges and we strive to be
as compassionate as possible while also ensuring safety and public
health for all Denver residents."

A federal judge is reviewing the complaint and is in the process
of determining whether it will move forward as a class action
lawsuit.

"The outcome we hope will be to stop these unconstitutional
inhumane sweeps and for the city to start treating all people with
respect and as human beings," Mr. Flores-Williams said. "We're
reaching that point where we're now starting to organize and fight
back."


DOLLAR GENERAL: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on Feb. 2017
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SULLIVAN v. DOLGEN CALIFORNIA, LLC, A TENNESSEE
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Case No. 3:15-cv-01617-JD (N.D. Cal.),
District Judge James Donato preliminarily approved the parties'
proposed settlement agreement and set a hearing for Feb. 23, 2017,
to consider final approval of the settlement.

The settlement class consists of 1,069 individuals who were
employees of Dollar General stores on or after February 20, 2011.

Under the proposed settlement agreement, Dollar General will pay
$300,000 into a non-reversionary Settlement Fund, which will be
the source of payments to class members, the costs of notice and
settlement administration, any Court-approved service awards,
attorneys' fees, costs, and litigation expenses, and payment of a
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) penalty portion to the Labor
& Workforce Development Agency. Moreover, Class Counsel and Dollar
General will jointly administer the settlement at an estimated
cost of $4,500.

The parties are directed to file their motion for final approval,
as well as any motion for attorneys' fees and costs and service
awards, by February 2, 2017. The Court will decide at the final
approval stage any attorney's fees request and whether the named
plaintiff will receive an incentive payment for service as the
class representative, a practice that the Court has some concerns
about, as stated in prior class settlement orders.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 14, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/DEa6j4 from Leagle.com.

Julie Sullivan, Plaintiff, represented by Elise Rochelle
Sanguinetti -- elise@asstlawyers.com -- Arias, Sanguinetti, Stahle
& Torrijos, LLP.

Julie Sullivan, Plaintiff, represented by Mickel Montalban Arias -
- mike@asstlawyers.com -- Arias Sanguinetti Stahle & Torrijos, LLP
& Mikael Hans Stahle -- mikael@asstlawyers.com -- Arias
Sanguinetti Stahle & Torrijos, LLP.

Dolgen California, LLC, a Tennessee limited liability company,
Defendant, represented by Brian David Fahy --
bfahy@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP & Joel Steven Allen --
jallen@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP.


DONALD J. TRUMP: DOJ Declines to Intervene in Campaign Text Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the U.S. Department of Justice has declined to intervene in a
nationwide class action filed against President-elect Donald
Trump's campaign organization over unsolicited text messages.

The case, filed by two Illinois residents on April 25, alleges
that Donald J. Trump for President Inc. sent unsolicited text
messages to thousands of cellphone numbers using an automatic
telephone dialing system in violation of the U.S. Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  The complaint seeks $500 in
statutory damages for each class member -- an amount that could be
trebled if the campaign's conduct was "willful or knowing."

The campaign has sought dismissal, citing a provision of the TCPA
under which the U.S. Federal Communications Commission has in the
past two years exempted various entities including the government,
banks, health care companies and schools.  Such exclusions,
according to the Trump campaign's dismissal motion, are "textbook
content discrimination" against political campaigns in violation
of free speech under the First Amendment and the Fourteenth
Amendment's equal protection clause.

"Protestors having already thwarted Trump for President from
communicating its message to supporters at campaign rallies,
plaintiffs now seek to deploy the TCPA's content-based
restrictions to prevent Trump for President from communicating its
message to supporters through text messages," wrote Trump campaign
attorney Martin Jaszczuk -- mjaszczuk@lockelord.com -- in
September.  "This effort, however, violates the robust protections
that the First Amendment provides for political speech."

Because it was challenging the TCPA's constitutionality,
Mr. Trump's campaign invited the DOJ to weigh in.  But on
Nov. 21, Bailey Heaps, a trial attorney in the federal programs
branch of the DOJ's Civil Division in Washington, notified the
court that the government would not intervene.  DOJ spokeswoman
Nicole Navas declined to comment.

Joseph Siprut, managing partner of Chicago's Siprut P.C., a
prominent class action plaintiffs attorney who is co-lead counsel
in the case, did not respond to a request for comment, nor did Mr.
Jaszczuk, who is head of the TCPA class action litigation section
at Locke Lord and a partner in Chicago.

The DOJ's declination comes after the department in December
intervened in a TCPA case in California against Facebook Inc.,
which has raised a First Amendment challenge over the statute.

It also comes as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for
Legal Reform has identified the TCPA as a target of potential tort
reform due to a "ton of abuse."

In addition to the constitutional arguments, the Trump campaign
claims that the case should be dismissed because plaintiffs have
failed to prove that it used an automatic telephone dialing system
to send the text messages.  The campaign also noted that one of
the lead plaintiffs gave his phone number in order to sign up to a
Trump campaign rally on March 11 in Chicago.


DRAFT FOODS: Court Requires Evidence of Higher Hourly Rates
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DRAFT FOODS GROUP, INC., A
Virginia corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, No. 1:14-cv-01137-LJO-EPG (E.D. Cal.), Chief District
Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill ordered the Plaintiff to file, within 14
days from the November 22, 2016 Order, an evidence supporting the
hourly rate requested in his motion for attorneys' fees. The Court
further ordered that upon expiration of the 14-day period, it will
consider Plaintiffs' motions and the pending Magistrate Judge's
issued Findings and Recommendations (F&Rs) submitted for final
decision.

The Plaintiff has objected to the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation to award a lesser amount of attorneys' fees.
Plaintiff seeks $583,275 in attorneys' fees, which amounts to
33.3% of the gross settlement fund value of $1,750,000. The
magistrate judge found the hourly rate sought by Plaintiff's
counsel (between $525 and $700 per hour) was too high and did not
comport with the hourly rates of similarly experienced attorneys
in the district.

The Court held that it is not clear from the face of the case
authority cited by the Plaintiff why a higher hourly rate was
deemed the prevailing market rate in Fresno, California other than
general citation to prior cases, and the Court declines to cull
the records in those cases to determine what other objective
evidence may have supported the award of higher hourly rates.

Therefore, the Court requested for an objective support in the
record of the case -- i.e., some type of local rate report and/or
affidavits of local counsel -- that either establish $525 to $700
is the prevailing hourly market rate in Fresno for attorneys of
similar experience and skill or that $525 to $700 is an out-of-
district hourly rate that should be awarded because local counsel
could not be retained or the special expertise of outside-the-
district counsel was necessary.

A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://goo.gl/NNPwHs
from Leagle.com.

Jose Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Cat Nguyen Bulaon,
Westrup & Associates.

Jose Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip R. Poliner,
Westrup Klick LLP & R. Duane Westrup, Westrup Klick LLP.

Kraft Foods Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alex Santana --
asantana@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC, Douglas J. Farmer -
- doug.farmer@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart, PC & Victoria Lyons Tallman, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak
& Stewart, P.C..


E-COMMERCE CHINA: Sadis & Goldberg Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sadis & Goldberg LLP ("Sadis & Goldberg") on Nov. 23 disclosed
that a class action has been commenced in the United States
District Court of the Southern District of New York on behalf of
former minority common stockholders of E-Commerce China Dangdang,
Inc. ("Dangdang") who held Dangdang common stock at any time
between May 28, 2016 and the September 20, 2016 (the "Class
Period") closing of a merger transaction.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from November 23, 2016.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiffs' counsel,
Sam Lieberman of Sadis & Goldberg at (212)-573-8164 or via email
at slieberman@sglawyers.com.  If you are a member of this class,
you can contact plaintiffs' counsel to view a copy of the
complaint.  Any member of the putative class may also move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice,
or may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member.

The complaint charges Dangdang, some of its affiliates, and
certain of its officers and directors with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") as well as
common law claims for breach of fiduciary duties and
misrepresentation.

On May 28, 2016, Dangdang's board of directors agreed to sell
Dangdang in a going private-merger to a buyers' group that
included its controlling stockholder and that held as a group over
80% of the voting power.  The board did so while rejecting a
higher offer from an independent third-party bidder.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants' Form 13E-3 and related
disclosures, filed in June 2016 were materially misleading in
claiming that the Special Committee that voted to accept the low
bid from the controlling group had "independent" control of the
sales process and that the merger was "procedurally fair" when in
fact the Special Committee was not independent, did not engage the
services of independent counsel, and the going-private merger was
not entirely unfair.  These misrepresentations violated Section
13(e) of the Exchange Act and Rule 13e-3 thereunder.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all holders of
Dangdang common stock during the Class Period, including the fair
value of their common stock cashed out in the Going-Private
transaction.

This action was filed by Sadis & Goldberg --
http://www.sglawyers.com-- which has significant experience
prosecuting securities law claims and class actions. Sadis &
Goldberg has represented hedge funds, other investment funds, and
individual investors in securities litigation for almost two
decades.


EL PEDREGAL: Faces "Quito" Suit in Eastern District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against El Trono De Mexico
Sports Bar. The case is captioned Olga Cristina Quito,
Individually and on behalf of other similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. El Pedregal Restaurant, Corp., doing business as El
Trono De Mexico Sports Bar; Hugo Lopez; Juan Lopez; Jesus Ramirez;
and Erika Saavedra, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06634
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2016).

The Defendant owns and operates a restaurant in Woodside, New
York.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


FARMERS GROUP: Relators May Not Intervene, 9th Cir. Says
--------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth
Circuit, denies the petition for writ of mandamus of the relators,
holding them to have not demonstrated an abuse of discretion of
the trial court, and striking their intervention in a class action
styled, Sandra Geter, on Behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Farmers Group. Inc., et al, Trial Cause
Number E-167,872.

Mandamus will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or
violation of a duty imposed by law when that abuse cannot be
remedied by appeal.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that the relators have not
demonstrated an abuse of discretion by the trial court for which
no adequate remedy by appeal exists.

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's Order dated November 14, 2016 is
available at https://goo.gl/33KGo6 from Leagle.com.

Wayne Reaud -- wreaud@rmqlawfirm.com -- L. DeWayne Layfield, John
Werner, for Sandra Geter, Real party in interest.

Layne E. Kruse -- layne.kruse@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Lawrence
L. Germer -- llgermer@germer.com -- Katherine D. MacKillop, Carlos
Ray Rainer Jr., for Farmers Group, Inc., Real party in interest.

Joseph C. Blanks, for Gerald Hooks, Jr., Relator.

Katherine D. Mackillop --
katherine.mackillop@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Carlos Ray Rainer
Jr., Layne E. Kruse, Lawrence L. Germer, for Fire Insurance
Exchange, Real party in interest.


FERGUSON, MO: Class Action Over Illegal Jailings Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
KTVI reports that a federal judge ruled a class action lawsuit
against the city of Ferguson can move forward.  The suit alleges
Ferguson illegally jailed between 5,000 and 6,000 people for some
18,000 days.  They were jailed because they couldn't pay small
amounts of money to the city owed for various tickets and
violations.

The judge rejected Ferguson's two attempts to have the case
dismissed.


FLOWERS FOODS: Class Certification Bid in "McCurley" Suit Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Paul McCurley, III, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Flowers Foods, Inc.
and Derst Baking Company, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:16-
cv-00194-JMC (D. S.C.), District Judge J. Michelle Childs granted
the parties' Joint Stipulation for Class Certification and Notice
and Consent Form.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants and the other
distributors of the Defendants' products have been "misclassified
as independent contractors" resulting in the denial of the
Plaintiff's rights and benefits of employment, including, but not
limited to overtime pay.

The Court certifies the class consisting of all individuals who,
through a contract with the Defendants or otherwise, performed or
perform as Distributors for Defendants under an agreement with
Derst Baking Company, LLC and who were classified by the
Defendants as "independent contractors" in Georgia and/or South
Carolina at any time from January 20, 2013 to November 14, 2016,
and who file a consent to join this action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 216(b), except those Distributors who have executed an
arbitration agreement or class action waiver.

The Court further approves the Notice and Consent Form and all the
remaining agreed provisions of the parties' Joint Stipulation.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 14, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/WoIYZr from Leagle.com.

Paul McCurley, III, Plaintiff, represented by Brady Ryan Thomas --
bthomas@rpwb.com -- Richardson Patrick Westbrook and Brickman.

Paul McCurley, III, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher James
Moore -- cmoore@rpwb.com -- Richardson Patrick Westbrook and
Brickman, James F. Walsh, Jr., Limehouse and Walsh, Matthew
Anderson Nickles -- mnickles@rpwb.com -- Richardson Patrick
Westbrook and Brickman & Terry Edward Richardson, Jr. --
trichardson@rpwb.com -- Richardson Patrick Westbrook and Brickman.

Flowers Foods Inc, et al., Defendants, represented by Charles T.
Speth, II -- ted.speth@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins
Nash Smoak and Stewart, Lucille L. Nelson --
luci.nelson@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and
Stewart, Michael Oliver Eckard --
michael.eckard@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak
and Stewart & Margaret S. Hanrahan --
maggie.hanrahan@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak
and Stewart, pro hac vice.


FR BISON: "Masters" Lawsuit Removed from Cuyahoga to N.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
The action captioned ALISON D. MASTERS, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly situated shareholders of GAS NATURAL, 608
Birchwood Drive Willoughby, OH 44094 Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL B.
BENDER, JAMES P. CARNEY, RICHARD K. GREAVES, ROBERT B. JOHNSTON,
GREGORY J. OSBORNE, MICHAEL R. WINTER, KEVIN J. DEGENSTEIN,
JENNIFER HABERMAN, JAMES E. SPRAGUE, c/o Gas Natural Inc. 1375
East Ninth Street Suite 3100, Cleveland, OH 44114, JED. D.
HENTHORNE, c/o Energy West Montana, Inc., 1 1st Avenue South,
Great Falls, MT 59401, VINCENT A. PARISI, c/o Nisource, Inc., 801
East 86th Ave. Merrillville, IN 46410, FR BISON HOLDINGS, INC.,
c/o Corporation Service Company, Statutory Agent, 2711 Centerville
Rd., Suite 400 Wilmington, DE 19808, FR BISON MERGER SUB, INC.,
c/o CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service, Statutory Agent, 50 West
Broad Street, Suite 1800, Columbus, OH 43215, FIRST RESERVE
ENERGY, INFRASTRUCTURE FUND II, L.P., One Lafayette Place,
Greenwich, CT 06830, ANITA G. ZUCKER (INDIVIDUALLY), 4838 Jenkins
Avenue, North Charleston, SC 29405, ANITA G. ZUCKER (Trustee of
the Article 6 Marital Trust Under the First Amended and Restated
Jerry Zucker Revocable Trust Dated, April 2, 2007), 4838 Jenkins
Avenue, North Charleston, SC 29405, THE INTERTECH GROUP, INC., c/o
Michael Bender, Statutory Agent, 4838 Jenkins Avenue, North
Charleston, SC 29405, NIL FUNDING CORPORATION, c/o Corporation
Service Company, Statutory Agent, 2711 Centerville Rd., Suite 400
Wilmington, DE 19808, Defendants, GAS NATURAL INC., c/o 1600 CNB
Corp., Statutory Agent, 1375 East Ninth Street, 29th Floor
Cleveland, Ohio 44114, Nominal Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02880-
PAG, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County,
Ohio to the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio, Eastern Division, according to a case docket entry dated
November 28, 2016.

The case alleges violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act in
connection with the proposed acquisition of Defendant Gas Natural
Inc. by Defendant First Reserve Energy Infrastructure Fund II,
L.P.

Gas Natural Inc., a holding company, distributes and sells natural
gas to end-use residential, commercial and industrial customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John Q. Lewis, Esq.
     Seth J. Linnick, Esq.
     Christina E. Marino, Esq.
     Casey L. Holzapfel, Esq.
     TUCKER ELLIS LLP
     950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
     Cleveland, OH 44113-7213
     E-mail: john.lewis@tuckerellis.com
             seth.linnick@tuckerellis.com
             christina.marino@tuckerellis.com
             casey.holzapfel@tuckerellis.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     Mitchell G. Blair, Esq.
     Fritz E. Berckmueller, Esq.
     CALFEE, HALTER & GRISWOLD LLP
     1405 East Sixth Street
     Cleveland, OH 44114
     Phone: (216) 622-8200
     Fax: (216) 241-0816
     E-mail: mblair@calfee.com
             fberckmueller@calfee.com

        - and -

     Joseph C. Weinstein, Esq.
     Sean L. McGrane, Esq.
     SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
     4900 Key Tower
     127 Public Square
     Cleveland, OH 44114
     Phone: (216) 479-8500
     Fax: (216) 479-8780
     E-mail: joe.weinstein@squirepb.com
             sean.mcgrane@squirepb.com

        - and -

     Kip T. Bollin, Esq.
     Mark R. Butscha, Jr., Esq.
     THOMPSON HINE
     3900 Key Tower
     127 Public Square
     Cleveland, OH 44114
     Phone: (216) 566-5500
     Fax: (216) 566-5800
     E-mail: kip.bollin@thompsonhine.com
             mark.butscha@thompsonhine.com


GALE/TRIANGLE INC: Court Preliminarily Approves "Turk" Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEVE TURK, an individual, Plaintiff, v.
GALE/TRIANGLE, INC. a New Jersey corporation; and PERFORMANCE TEAM
FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation; and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00783-MCE-DB
(E.D. Cal.), District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. preliminarily
approved the parties' Settlement.

The Settlement provides for an incentive award to Plaintiff of up
to $10,000, whereas the Notice of Class Action Settlement provides
for an incentive award of up to $7,500.

The Plaintiff is preliminarily appointed as Class Representative.
Meanwhile, S. Brett Sutton and Jared Hague of Sutton Hague Law
Corporation, P.C. are preliminarily appointed as Class Counsel,
and Simpluris, Inc. is appointed as the Claims Administrator.

The Court further ordered the Plaintiff to:

     (a) file a Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs on or before
         December 12, 2016, such that the Class Members will have
         at 21 days prior to the deadline to respond to the Class
         Notice to evaluate Class Counsel's attorney fee request;
         and,

     (b) file a Motion for Final Approval, including any
         information intended to support his request for an
         incentive award, and cost of Settlement Administration,
         on or before January 12, 2016.

The hearing for Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of
Settlement and Release Agreement is scheduled for February 23,
2016.

The Court also ordered that the Notice of Class Action Settlement
shall be revised as follows prior to mailing:

     (a) Sections 8 and 10 shall provide for an incentive award
         to Plaintiff of up to $10,000;

     (b) Section 11 shall provide that the final approval hearing
         will be in the Eastern District of California; and,

     (c) Section 22 shall provide that the final approval hearing
         will be before Judge Morrison C. England.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 18, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/KvhEG6 from Leagle.com.

Steve Turk, Plaintiff, represented by S. Brett Sutton --
brett@suttonhague.com -- Sutton Hague Law Corporation, PC.

Steve Turk, Plaintiff, represented by Jared Hague, Sutton Hague
Law Corporation, PC & Joseph Vidal Macias, Sutton Hague Law
Corporation, PC.

Gale/Triangle, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by Mark David
Kemple -- kemplem@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig.


GENERAL MOTORS: "Schiano" Suit Moved from S.D.N.Y. to D.N.J.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Brian Schiano, Dawn Schiano, Alex
Sajovits, and Leah Sajovits On Behalf of Themselves and All Other
Persons Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04770, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Camden). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-08853 to the
proceeding.

General Motors is an American multinational corporation
headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, that designs, manufactures,
markets, and distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells
financial services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bruce Heller Nagel, Esq.
          Randee Michele Matloff, Esq.
          NAGEL RICE, LLP
          103 EISENHOWER PARKWAY, SUITE 201
          ROSELAND, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 618 0400
          Facsimile: (973) 618 9194
          E-mail: bnagel@nagelrice.com

GEORGIA POWER: Appeals Court Revives Nuclear Fees Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Land, writing for Daily Report, reports that the Georgia
Court of Appeals has revived a proposed class action accusing
Georgia Power Company of overcharging ratepayers on fees added to
their bill to help pay for two new reactors at Plant Vogtle.

Plaintiffs' attorney Glenn Richardson said the utility has been
improperly calculating the municipal franchise fees ever since the
additional revenues were approved by the Legislature and Public
Service Commission and added to bills staring in 2011,
overcharging ratepayers by as much as $150 million, "and it's
growing every day."

The suit, already trimmed by an earlier appellate ruling, had been
dismissed by Fulton County Superior Court Judge Constance Russell,
who ruled last year that the plaintiffs had not exhausted all
their administrative remedies by appealing to the Public Service
Commission before suing.

But the Nov. 16 appellate ruling said that the method used to
calculate the usage fee was a matter for the courts, not the PSC,
to decide.

The additional fees were approved to raise a projected $1.6
billion to help cover Georgia Power's share of the cost of the new
reactors, originally projected to be approximately $6 billion but
now over budget by more than $1.7 billion.

Mr. Richardson said the franchise fee is supposed to be calculated
on a customer's electricity usage, but that the utility has been
throwing in other charges including the nuclear fee.

Mr. Richardson was the speaker of the state House of
Representatives when the nuclear fees were approved.

"Paying for Plant Vogtle was never supposed to be that expensive,"
said Mr. Richardson, who filed the suit with former Gov. Roy
Barnes.

A Georgia Power spokesman said the opinion will be appealed to the
Georgia Supreme Court.

"We maintain that the Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC) has
the sole legal authority and responsibility for setting rates and
fees for Georgia consumers," said Georia Power's Jacob Hawkins.

"We are authorized through rates approved by the PSC to recover
municipal franchise fees (paid to cities and municipalities, not
for the benefit of the company) on revenue we generate through
service for our customers, including tariffs such as NCCR and
ECCR," Mr. Hawkins said.  "Additionally, the refunds the
Plaintiffs are seeking are inconsistent with the revenue
requirements found by the Georgia PSC and the resulting rate
design approved in three separate rate cases."


GEICO GENERAL: MSPA Claims Remanded to Florida State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, Plaintiff, v. GEICO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 16-21538-CIV-GAYLES/TURNOFF
(S.D. Fla.), District Judge Darrin P. Gayles granted the
Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, thus, handing the case over to the
Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff, as assignee of Florida Healthcare Plus (FHCP), has
brought several actions against automobile insurance companies,
seeking to recover payments FHCP made to medical providers for
treating its enrollees' injuries from automobile accidents.  On
March 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed this action against Geico General
in the Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida; Case
No. 15-005294. On November 9, 2015, while Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss was pending, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. On
December 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a
Second Amended Complaint. On March 31, 2016, the Miami-Dade trial
court granted the motion and deemed the Second Amended Class
Action Complaint for Damages filed. The Second Amended Complaint
seeks class certification.

On April 29, 2016, Defendant removed the case asserting that this
Court has original and diversity jurisdiction. Defendant alleges
that removal is timely pursuant to the revival exception.

The Court held that, although the Second Amended Complaint
increased the value of Plaintiff's claims, it arises out of the
same facts as the initial pleading. Thus, it warrants a remand.

The Court further denies the Plaintiff's request for attorney's
fees as the Court finds that the Defendant had an objectively
reasonable basis for seeking removal. It was adjudged that the
case is closed for administrative purposes and all pending motions
are denied as moot.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 22, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/oSpCBU from Leagle.com.

MSPA Claims 1, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Frank Carlos
Quesada, MSP Recovery Law Firm.

MSPA Claims 1, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by John Hasan Ruiz, MSP
Recovery Law Firm, Justin Matthew Tolley, MSP Recovery & Rebecca
Rubin-del Rio, John H Ruiz PA.

GEICO General Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Omar
Andres Giraldo -- omar.giraldo@csklegal.com -- Cole, Scott &
Kissane, P.A. & Peter David Weinstein --
peter.weinstein@csklegal.com -- Cole Scott Kissane PA.


GLOBAL FITNESS: AG Wants Supreme Court to Review Gacho Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Iandolo, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Arizona
Attorney General Mark Brnovich announced that he is leading a
coalition of 17 attorneys general from across the nation to
protect consumers from class action settlement process abuses.

The coalition filed a brief in the U. S Supreme Court, urging the
court to draft a nationwide rule making it so class action
attorneys' fees in common-fund cash settlements are based on the
amount actually paid out to the consumers in the class.  According
to the coalition, this rule would help class action lawsuits
better benefit consumers by ensuring the lawyers get paid in
correlation to the amount consumers get paid.

Mr. Brnovich, using his statutory authority to speak for Arizonans
covered by federal class action settlements, filed the brief as a
"friend of the court."

The brief asks the Supreme Court to review Gascho v. Global
Fitness Holdings LLC.  In this case, the class action lawyers
agreed to a settlement fund of $15.5 million, allowing them to
seek $2.4 million in fees.  The consumers in the case, however,
walked away with only $1.6 million.  The other 90 percent of the
fund purportedly reverted back to the defendant.

Mr. Brnovich and the coalition argue this happens all too often.
They urge the Supreme Court to set a firm rule that would require
fee percentage to be a percentage of only the money actually paid
out of the common fund to members of the class.


GOLDEN EMPIRE: Faces "Chavana" Suit in California Superior Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Golden Empire
Equipment, Inc. The case is entitled ADALBERTO CHAVANA ON BEHALF
OF OTHER MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC SIMILARLY SITUATED AND ON
BEHALF OF AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS
GENERAL ACT ("PAGA"), the Plaintiffs, v. GOLDEN EMPIRE EQUIPMENT,
INC. A NEVADA CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. BCV-16-102796
(Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 29, 2016).

Golden Empire serves equipment rental and equipment sales needs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          411 N Central Ave., Ste 500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230 7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230 7259
          E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com


H K PARIS INC: Faces "Rojas" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against H K Paris Inc. The
case is titled Jesler Baten Rojas, Individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. H K Paris Inc., doing
business as Voila 76 Country Kitchen; Kenneth Gin; and Shantall,
Doe, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09269 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 30,
2016).

The Defendant owns and operates a petite, relaxed eatery offering
sandwiches & other cafe fare made with locally sourced
ingredients.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


HILLTOP C&I: Must Pay $500 for Statutory Damages in TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BERGER CHIROPRACTIC LLC, CONSTRUCTION LABORERS
WELFARE FUND, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. HILLTOP C&I, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:16CV00678 AGF (E.D. Mo.), District Judge
Audrey G. Fleissig granted the Plaintiff's amended motion for
default judgment for statutory damages in the amount of $500.
However, the Court rejected the Plaintiff's request for treble
damages in the amount of $1,500.00.

The Court held that since the Plaintiff has failed to establish
that the Defendant's Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
violation was willful or knowing, the request for treble damages
will be rejected.

The class action alleges that the Defendant transmitted
unsolicited advertisements via telephone facsimile machines to
Plaintiff, and others, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, and state common law of conversion.

A copy of a Court's Order dated November 10, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/TfexeP from Leagle.com.

Berger Chiropractic LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip A. Bock
-- phil@classlawyers.com -- BOCK AND HATCH, LLC.

Berger Chiropractic LLC, Plaintiff, represented by James M. Smith
-- jim@classlawyers.com -- BOCK AND HATCH, LLC.


HONORIO OROZCO: Faces "Mondragon" Suit in California Superior Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Honorio Orozco
Trucking, Inc. The case is captioned FERNANDO MONDRAGON ON BEHALF
OF OTHER MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC SIMILARLY SITUATED AND ON
BEHALF OF AGGRIEVED EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO THE PRIVATE ATTORNEYS
GENERAL ACT ("PAGA"), the Plaintiffs, v. HONORIO OROZCO TRUCKING,
INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. BCV-16-
102795 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 29, 2016).

Honorio Orozco is a trucking company running a freight hauling
business from Norwalk, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          411 N Central Ave., Ste 500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230 7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230 7259
          E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com


INGRAM & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Welch" Suit in E.D. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ingram & Associates,
Inc. The case is entitled Yissel Welch and Jeffrey DelMoral, on
behalf of themselves individually and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ingram & Associates, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-06642 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 30, 2016).

Igram & Associates provides in-depth counseling as well as single
session therapy for people and families in need.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq.
          FAGENSON & PUGLISI
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 704
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (212) 268 2128
          Facsimile: (212) 268 2127
          E-mail: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com


INVICTA WATCH: Sued in Florida Over Defective Pro Diver Watches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Newman Ferrara LLP disclosed that the firm filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against Invicta Watch Company of America, Inc.
("Invicta") on behalf of purchasers of the Invicta Pro Diver
Series Watches ("Pro Diver Watches").  The action, entitled Felice
v. Invicta Watch Company of America, Inc.,
16-cv-62772-RLR, alleges violations of the Magnuson-Moss Act, a
federal product warranty statute, as well as claims under
Florida's deceptive practices and false adverting laws, and common
law claims for breach of express warranty.

Invicta, one of the world's largest watch manufacturers, markets
and sells the Pro Diver Watches both directly and indirectly
through numerous retail partners.  The Pro Diver Watches, which
sell for between $75 and $250, are advertised as water sports
watches, suitable for diving and serious water activity, with
various models purporting to have water resistance from depths of
50 meters to 300 meters (i.e., 165 to 984 feet).  In truth, the
Pro Diver Watches are prone to leakage at any depth and in
connection with non-marine activities where the product is exposed
to water.  Pro Diver Watches regularly experience condensation
under the watch crystal and malfunction due to exposure to
moisture.  Despite years of complaints and negative product
reviews by purchasers of the Pro Diver Watches who experienced
this particular defect, Invicta has taken no steps to remedy the
problem.  This lawsuit seeks to address that failure.

Any one who purchased or owns a Pro Diver Watch and experienced a
lack of water resistance may contact Newman Ferrara attorneys
Jeffrey Norton (jnorton@nfllp.com) or Roger Sachar
(rsachar@nfllp.com) to obtain information about this case or learn
more about their rights.

Newman Ferrara -- http://www.nfllp.com-- maintains a multifaceted
practice based in New York City with attorneys specializing in
complex commercial and multi-party litigation, securities fraud
and shareholder litigation, consumer protection, civil rights, and
real estate.


IOWA: Faces Class Action Over Illegally Issued Traffic Tickets
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Clayworth, writing for The Des Moines Register, reports more
than 20,000 tickets written by the Iowa Department of
Transportation were illegally issued, a situation that obligates
the state to refund the fines and remove the wrongful convictions
from motorists' records, according to a new court filing seeking
class-action status against the state.

If successful, Iowa could be on the hook to repay millions of
dollars in fines and court costs dating back five years.

The Nov. 22 court filing builds upon an ongoing legal battle
launched earlier this year after a DOT officer issued a speeding
ticket to 16-year-old Peyton Atzen, a student at Southeast Polk
High School.

Mr. Atzen and his family successfully argued in Polk County
District Court that Iowa law limits officers outside of the
state's public safety department from enforcing most moving
violations.  His ticket was dismissed.

In response, two other motorists with recent speeding tickets from
DOT officers filed a request for a court injunction against the
state.  They argued that their tickets were illegally issued and
that the state's DOT should be ordered immediately to stop issuing
most citations to noncommercial motor vehicles.

On Nov. 22, the request for an injunction was amended and now
seeks class-action status.

The amended lawsuit adds Stuart resident Rick Rilea to the lawsuit
"as a representative for all others who have received and paid
citations" that were illegally issued by the DOT, the lawsuit
said.

Mr. Rilea has already paid his fine for a speeding ticket issued
by a DOT officer in Warren County in September. That included a
$300 fine plus $165 in court costs and surcharges for traveling 66
mph in a 55 mph work zone along Interstate Highway 35.

The Nov. 22 amended lawsuit alleges that the state knowingly has
been "unjustly enriched" by the tickets, noting the Iowa Supreme
Court ruled nearly 70 years ago that DOT officers did not have
those powers.

A 1990 Iowa attorney general opinion concurred, saying DOT
officers' authority is limited to drunken driving enforcement and
commercial motor vehicle violations related to registration, size
and weight, based on another section of the law.

"If defendants do not relent and acknowledge their lack of
authority, plaintiffs and those similarly situated are at risk of
being illegally stopped, illegally issued citations and illegally
convicted," the lawsuit filed by Brandon Brown and Gina Messamer,
attorneys at the Parrish Kruidenier law firm, said.

DOT officials have insisted that their officers receive the same
training as public safety officers.  Tickets are issued based on
public safety, not revenue, the department has argued.

The agency intends to "vigorously assert a number of defenses" on
the merits of the case, Andrea Henry, a spokeswoman for the Iowa
DOT, said on Nov. 22.  The agency has never made enforcement
decisions based on revenue, she said.

"It is contrary to public welfare and safety, as well as good
sense and logic, to suggest that individuals have a right to
disregard public safety laws or will suffer irreparable harm if
they are not allowed to disregard public safety laws," Ms. Henry
said on Nov. 22.

A Register review in July showed the DOT had issued more than
25,000 tickets over a five-year period.  Roughly half of those --
nearly $2 million in payments -- were to noncommercial vehicles,
which are the tickets being challenged as illegal.  Each ticket,
with court costs, averaged about $150.

The Nov. 22 class-action lawsuit seeks to extend beyond speeding
tickets.  It encompasses most moving violations to noncommercial
vehicles, including seat belts, expired insurance cards and
failure to obey traffic control devices.

Records Mr. Brown obtained from the DOT show that adds thousands
of additional tickets to the mix of potentially expunged traffic
violations and refunds.


JS DREAMS: Settlement in "Potikyan" Suit Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANGELA POTIKYAN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JS DREAMS, INC. and CRISTCAT
CALABASAS, INC. (individually and collectively doing business as
JOHNNY ROCKETS - COMMONS AT CALABASAS), and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:13-cv-06237-JEM (C.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott granted final approval of the
parties' Settlement.

The Court has previously certified the class consisting of all
consumers who, at any time during the period January 18, 2012 to
March 15, 2013, made a purchase or other transaction at the Johnny
Rockets Calabasas Restaurant (located at 4799 Commons Way, Suite
J, Calabasas, California 91302) using their credit card or debit
card.

Pursuant to the Agreement, the Court enters judgment against
Defendant Cristcat in the total amount of $37,370,881.68. The
$37,370,881.68 amount includes $33,735,000 in statutory damages;
$3,373,500 in punitive damages; $248,313 in Class Counsel's
attorney's fees; $5,000 as a service (incentive) award to the
Class Representative, and $10,468.68 in Class Counsel's costs.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 17, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/5k8EOs from Leagle.com.

Angela Potikyan, Plaintiff, represented by Chant Yedalian --
chant@chant.mobi -- Chant and Company APLC.

JS Dreams Inc, Defendant, represented by Andrew Edward Smyth --
andrew@smythlo.com -- Smyth and Smyth.

Cristcat Calabasas, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew E.
Hess -- matthew.hess@hesslawyers.com.


LYFT INC: Faces Class Action in New York Over Toll Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that
individuals have filed a class-action lawsuit against Lyft Inc., a
transportation company, citing alleged fraud and unjust
enrichment.

Josh Applebaum filed a complaint on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated on Sept. 9, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Lyft Inc.
alleging that the transportation company breached the duty of good
faith and fair dealing.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that, on May 30,
named plaintiff Josh Applebaum availed himself of the
transportation services of defendant from New York City to New
Jersey.  However, he was charged the full cash toll price of $15
for the Holland Tunnel toll instead of the E-Z Pass discounted
rate of $12.50, which he only discovered upon receipt of the
emailed invoice for the trip at a later time, which caused the
plaintiff damages, including lost money and forced retention of
counsel.

Further, the alleged unlawful practice was estimated to earn an
extra $81,180 daily for the defendant, computed at around $2.46
per toll discount from 11,000 Lyft drivers at approximately three
tolls per driver daily.

The plaintiffs hold Lyft Inc. responsible because the defendant
allegedly caused plaintiffs to pay for overcharged toll fees and
failed to inform plaintiffs that it would charge the full toll
price.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek certify class
action, appoint representative and counsel, reimbursement,
disgorgement of profits, injunction restraining overcharging,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, disbursements, special
damages of approximately $60 million and further relief that the
court deems just.

They are represented by Allyson L. Stein and Eli Fuchsberg of The
Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Firm LLP in New York and Kevin Caldwell as
Of Counsel in Larchmont, New York.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Case
number 1:16-cv-07062


MCDONALD'S CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Franchise Workers' Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Iafolla, writing for Reuters, reports that McDonald's Corp
has asked a federal judge to throw out a proposed class action
filed by workers at a California franchise, arguing that it cannot
be held liable for state law violations just because workers
believed the company rather than the local franchisee was their
employer.

In a brief, McDonald's, represented by Jones Day, tried to
convince a federal judge for a second time to stop a lawsuit from
proceeding under a theory of ostensible agency, a California
common law doctrine that says a company can be held liable for
labor law violations if workers reasonably believed it was their
employer.  The laws that the plaintiffs sued under, however,
McDonald's argued, limit liability to those that have control over
working conditions.


MCKINNON & HAMILTON: Faces "Klein" Suit in Southern Dist. of Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against McKinnon & Hamilton,
PLLC. The case is captioned Patricia A Klein, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. McKinnon &
Hamilton, PLLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and Charles
W. McKinnon, individually, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-14527-
RLR (S.D. Fla., Nov. 30, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge
Robin L. Rosenberg.

McKinnon & Hamilton is a law firm located in Vero Beach Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sovathary K. Jacobson, Esq.
          Leo Wassner Desmond, Esq.
          DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          5070 A1A Suite D
          Vero Beach, FL 34963
          Telephone: (772) 231 9600
          Facsimile: (772) 231 0300
          E-mail: jacobson@verobeachlegal.com
                  lwd@verobeachlegal.com


MDL 2744: Court Sets Guidelines on Time Records and Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David M. Lawson established specific guidelines and
rules for work done and expenses incurred for the common benefit
of all the Plaintiffs in the case styled, IN RE: FCA US LLC
MONOSTABLE ELECTRONIC GEARSHIFT LITIGATION, MDL No. 2744, Case
Number 16-md-02744 (E.D. Mich.).

The Court clarified that the recovery of common benefit attorney's
fees and cost reimbursements will be limited to Participating
Counsel, consisting of Lead Counsel and members of the Plaintiffs'
Steering Committee, any other counsel authorized by Lead Counsel
to perform work that may be considered for common benefit
compensation, and counsel who specifically have been approved by
the Court as Participating Counsel before incurring any such cost
or expense.

Moreover, the Court advised that all time must be accurately and
contemporaneously maintained, under the Common Benefit Timekeeping
Protocols. Participating Counsel must keep contemporaneous billing
records of the time spent in connection with Common Benefit Work
on the multidistrict litigation (MDL), indicating with specificity
the hours (in tenth-of-an-hour increments) and billing rate, along
with a description of the particular activity.

The Court further noted that the Counsels may use their customary
billing rates in monthly time reports. However, use of those rates
does not guarantee payment. The Court will exercise its discretion
to determine reasonable and appropriate rates as the circumstances
may warrant.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 17, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/J8y02C from Leagle.com.

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

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

Timothy Weber, Plaintiff, represented by E. Powell Miller --
epm@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm, Joseph H. Meltzer --
jmeltzer@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Peter A.
Muhic -- pmuhic@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP &
Sharon S. Almonrode -- ssa@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm,
P.C..

Bernadine Hartt, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Honigman --
dhonigman@manteselaw.com -- Mantese Honigman, PC, Douglas Toering
-- dtoering@manteselaw.com -- Mantese Honigman, P.C., Gerard V.
Mantese -- gmantese@manteselaw.com -- Mantese Honigman, P.C., E.
Powell Miller -- epm@miller.law -- The Miller Law Firm & Robert K.
Shelquist -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen
PLLP.


MEDIFIT CORPORATE: Settlement in "Flores" Suit Has Final Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRANCISCO FLORES and GIULIA FERRARIS, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
MEDIFIT CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-03423-WHO (N.D. Cal.),
District Judge William H. Orrick granted the Plaintiff's Motion
for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the sum of $3,750 shall be
paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency for
the release of Private Attorneys General Act Claims.

An award of attorneys' fees of $325,000 is approved and awarded to
Class Counsel as provided for in the Settlement. Moreover, The
Plaintiff Flores shall be awarded an Enhancement Award in the
amount of $4,500, and Plaintiff Ferraris shall be awarded an
Enhancement Award in the amount of $1,500.

Also, the Court approves the payment of $20,500 to Rust
Consulting, Inc. for administration fees, which includes all costs
and fees incurred to date, as well as estimated costs and fees
involved in completing the administration of the Settlement.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 15, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/CK8hO5 from Leagle.com.

Francisco Flores, Plaintiff, represented by Scott Edward Cole --
scole@scalaw.com -- Scott Cole & Associates, APC.

Francisco Flores, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Adam Graham --
jgraham@scalaw.com -- Law Offices of Stephen M. Murphy.

Medifit Corporate Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian
T. Ashe -- bashe@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Elizabeth
Jarvis MacGregor -- emacgregor@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP &
Michael Anderson Wahlander -- mwahlander@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth
Shaw LLP.


MILLENNIAL SOLUTIONS: Faces Class Action Over Solicitation Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a Chatsworth man alleges that a business lending company
unlawfully contacted him in an attempt to solicit its services and
has filed a class-action suit.

Edward Makaron filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on Nov. 14 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against Millennial Solutions LLC, doing
business as Global Business Lending, and Does 1 through 10
alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that beginning
in March, the defendants contacted him using an automatic
telephone dialing system without his consent.  The plaintiff holds
Millennial Solutions LLC and Does 1 through 10 responsible because
the defendants allegedly called him despite his number being
registered on the Do-Not-Call Registry.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks statutory
damages, treble damages, and any other relief as the court deems
just.  He is represented by Todd M. Friedman, Adrian R. Bacon and
Meghan E. George of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC in Woodland
Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 2:16-cv-08452-R-MRW


MYLAN NV: Declines to Testify at Hearing on EpiPen Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Journal reports that Obama administration
officials and Mylan N.V. were declining to send representatives to
testify at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in November that
would explore the government's $465 million settlement with the
pharmaceutical company over its alleged misclassification of the
life-saving device EpiPen for purposes of Medicaid rebates.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of Senate Judiciary, has
questioned the fairness of the deal that Mylan said it had reached
in October with the U.S. Justice Department and regulatory
agencies.  The settlement, which Mylan announced in a news
release, came amid the public outcry over Mylan's decision to
increase the price of its epinephrine auto-injector EpiPen.
The Justice Department and Centers for Medicaid and Medicare
Services haven't commented on the settlement.  Mylan didn't admit
any wrongdoing.

On Nov. 21, Sen. Grassley rebuked U.S. regulators -- and Mylan --
for refusing to participate in a hearing -- "Oversight of the
EpiPen Crisis and Settlement: Where is the Federal Government in
Looking Out for Taxpayers and Patients?

Sen. Grassley's full statement:
The Obama administration is dodging accountability for an
expensive problem, and now a company is following its bad example.
Taxpayers have paid and based on reports, continue to pay,
hundreds of millions of dollars more for the EpiPen than they have
to pay.  This happened because either the agencies in charge
dropped the ball, the company gamed the system, or both.
Ironically, the company was eager to talk about this problem a few
weeks ago in a press release to investors but not before the
United States Senate.  It's a shame government agencies and the
company are ducking accountability under a voluntary process.  One
way or another, I intend to get answers for patients and
taxpayers.

Mylan is represented by Kathryn Ruemmler --
kathryn.ruemmler@lw.com -- a Latham & Watkins partner who is
global co-chairwoman of its white-collar defense practice and a
former White House counsel in the Obama administration.

Ms. Ruemmler said in a letter to Sen. Grassley that the company
would decline to testify at the hearing.

"We understand that representatives of those government agencies
have confirmed to the committee that they are not able to send a
witness to testify or provide further information about this
matter while it is pending," Ms. Ruemmler wrote.  "Given the
stated focus of the proposed hearing, the fact that it involves a
pending matter, and that the government agencies in question will
not be able to send a witness to testify or provide further
information, Mylan respectfully declines to invitation to
testify."

The order blocks the U.S. Department of Labor from implementing
its proposed new overtime rules that were scheduled to take effect
on Dec. 1.


NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Court Resolves Payment Method, Claims Handling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re NASSAU COUNTY STRIP SEARCH CASES, No. 99-CV-
2844 (DRH), (E.D.N.Y.), District Judge Denis R. Hurley issued a
Memorandum and Order addressing the methodology by which class
claimants are to be paid, and the procedures for handling "book
and bail" claims.

The Court decided that the better approach for the methodology of
payment is to have funds transmitted periodically to the claims
administrator and have the administrator issue and track the
processing of payment checks.

In addition, the Court adopted, with two minor modifications, on
the parties' general procedures regarding the "book and bail"
claimants. The proposed procedure provides that KCC Class Action
Services LLC, the class administrator, will send the Defendants
with the claim forms of all book and bail and hybrid claimants and
that the Defendants will have 90 days to determine whether to
challenge those book and bail claims.

The two modifications of the Court on the book and bail proposed
procedures include that, starting on the 10th of December, 2016
and continuing on the 10th of each month thereafter through March,
KCC will send via email a copy of the claim forms of all book and
bail and hybrid class claimants received through the end of the
prior month; if no such claim forms have been received, KCC shall
similarly notify the Defendants. Also, in the event that the
Defendants notify KCC and the Plaintiffs that they do not object
to a particular book and bail claim, KCC shall include said claim
in its next Payment Report.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 17, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/iJxAov from Leagle.com.

Francis O'Day, Plaintiff, represented by Robert L. Herbst, Herbst
Law PLLC.

Francis O'Day, Plaintiff, represented by Mariann Meier Wang --
mwang@chwllp.com -- Cuti Hecker Wang LLP, Matthew D. Brinckerhoff
-- mbrinckerhoff@ecbalaw.com -- Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady
PC & Robert L. Herbst, Herbst Law PLLC.

John Iaffaldano, Plaintiff, represented by Martin E. Restituyo --
restituyo@restituyolaw.com -- Law Offices of Martin E. Restituyo,
P.C., Robert L. Herbst, Herbst Law PLLC, Jeffrey G. Smith --
smith@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz & Robert
L. Herbst, Herbst Law PLLC.

Gardy Augustin, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Robert L. Herbst,
Herbst Law PLLC & Jonathan C. Moore, Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP.

Nassau County Sheriff's Department, et al., Defendants,
represented by Liora M. Ben-Sorek, Nassau County Attorney's
Office, Robert F. Van Der Waag, Nassau County Attorney Office,
Christine Ann Lobasso, Office of the Nassau County Attorney,
Dennis J. Saffran, Nassau County Attorney's Office, Gerald C.
Waters, Jr. -- gwaters@meltzerlippe.com -- Meltzer Lippe Goldstein
& Breitstone, LLP & Joseph Nocella -- josephnocellajr@gmail.com --
Nassau County Attorney's Office.


NEOVASC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Neovasc Inc. disclosed that the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts granted the Company's motion to
dismiss with prejudice in the case of Grobler v. Neovasc Inc, et
al., Civil Action No. 16-11038-RGS, a putative securities class
action that was filed on June 6, 2016 against the Company and
certain of the Company's officers.

The Court ruled in favor of the Company and its officers on all
claims and ordered the entire case closed.  The Company is not
aware as to whether, and presently cannot foresee whether, the
plaintiff will appeal the dismissal of his claims or will file any
post-dismissal motions.


NEW YORK: "Polanco" Suit v. Police Dept Goes to S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADHYL POLANCO, Plaintiff, V. THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
and NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants, No. 15-CV-5083
(WFK) (CLP), (E.D. N.Y.), District Judge William F. Kuntz, II
transferred the class action to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The Plaintiff asserted claims of employment discrimination and
retaliation based on race and national origin, and the violation
of First Amendment rights.

The Court held that a transfer is appropriate because the
Plaintiff is also a named Plaintiff in a previously-filed class
action pending in the Southern District of New York concerning the
same issues. Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that
a substantial part of the events giving rise to his claim arose in
the Southern District, and records relevant to the practices which
are the subject of this complaint are located in the Southern
District.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 15, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/cofo6z from Leagle.com.

Adhyl Polanco, Plaintiff, represented by Chukwuemeka Nwokoro --
emekanwokoro@aol.com -- Nwokoro & Associates, P.C..

The City of New York, et al., Defendants, represented by Kathleen
Marie Comfrey -- kcomfrey@law.nyc.gov -- Office of the Corporation
Counsel.


NEW YORK: WNY Caregivers Join Developmental Disabilities Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
WHECTV reports that caregivers in Western New York have joined a
class action lawsuit demanding better services for adults with
developmental disabilities.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of more than 2,000 eligible
individuals in western NY and their families and caregivers.  The
lawsuit is seeking expanded certified residential living
opportunities for all adults with developmental disabilities.

"They are now in their 20s, isolated from anyone around their age,
living in their house with their parents and whoever their parents
are bringing in to help with their care, that's very isolating to
the person with these disabilities," says
Dane Overfield, a father and caregiver.

"They won't allow for new community residences or supported
apartments, or any residence opportunities," says Bruce Goldstein.
"As a result, they're putting a burden on these parents even as
those parents age."

The NYS Office for People With Developmental Disabilities provided
this statement:

"The Office for People With Developmental Disabilities takes the
needs of those in our system who require residential services and
are living with aging caregivers very seriously.  We have taken a
number of steps to address this issue, including immediate steps
to expand residential, day and respite options for those living at
home.  In addition, OPWDD is currently in the process of
developing a multi-year housing plan in concert with stakeholders
to create new residential opportunities to meet the needs of those
living at home with aging caregivers.  We can't comment on the
pending litigation."


NEW YORK BOTANICAL: Faces "Marett" Suit in S.D. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The New York
Botanical Garden. The case is styled Lucia Marett, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The
New York Botanical Garden, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09224
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2016).

The New York Botanical Garden is a botanical garden and National
Historic Landmark located in the Bronx, New York City. The 250-
acre site's verdant landscape supports over one million living
plants in extensive collections.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


NEW YORK ONE: G. Makkos Seeks Damages of Not Less Than $7,500,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE MAKKOS, a Member of NEW YORK ONE LLC, Suing in the Right of
NEW YORK ONE LLC, the Plaintiff(s), v. NEW YORK ONE LLC and THOMAS
MAKKOS, the Defendant(s), Case No. 656159/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Nov. 25, 2016), seeks to recover damages of not less than
$7,500,000.00, together with interest, costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees from Defendant Thomas Makkos for failure to
perform his duties imposed upon him as a member of the company.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff entered into an
Operating Agreement with T. Makkos, which provided for the
operation, management, development, furtherance and conduct of the
Company. Pursuant to the terms, conditions and covenants contained
in the Agreement, "[t]he Members shall have all necessary and
appropriate powers to carry out the purposes of the Company,
including, without limitation, the power to execute, acknowledge
and deliver any and all documents and instruments deemed
appropriate to carry out any of the foregoing or the purposes and
intent of the Agreement."

The Plaintiff, George Makkos, by his attorneys of record, Sacco &
Fillas, LLP, complaining of Defendants, as a Member of New York
One LLC, on behalf of himself and of all the Members similarly
situated, is suing in the right of the Company to procure a
judgment in its favor.

The Company has assets in the nature of monies, equipment,
inventory, and good will. The assets are valued at approximately
$10,000,000.00.

The complaint says Defendant, T. Makkos, has failed to administer
the affairs of the company in a skillful, diligent and careful
manner; has failed to perform the duties imposed upon him as a
Member of the Company; and has failed to give proper care and
oversight to the business and affairs of the Company, and has
neglected the same.  Moreover, T. Makkos has siphoned monies and
other assets away from the Company, without Plaintiff's knowledge
or consent, and transferred them into various entities under his
sole control. He has allegedly utilized these monies and other
assets for his own benefit, or for the benefit of various entities
under his sole control.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott J. Laird, Esq.
          SACCO & FILLAS, LLP
          31-19 Newtown Avenue
          Astoria, NY 11102
          Telephone: (718) 269 2232
          Facsimile: (718) 559 6530


OK FOODS: "Cato" Remanded to Arkansas Circuit Court
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, DARRELL CATO; JEFFREY BIGGS; MARGEE WILLIAMS; and
MARIO MALLETT, each individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. OK FOODS, INC., Defendant, No.
2:16-CV-02202 (W.D. Ark.), Chief District Judge P. K. Holmes, III
approved the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand the case to the Circuit
Court of Sebastian County, Arkansas.

The Court held that for the case to be removable, any member of a
class of plaintiffs must be a citizen of a state other than
Arkansas or a foreign state or foreign state citizen.

In the case, the proposed class consists of all hourly, nonexempt
production employees, excluding employees who only worked in the
supply and cooler departments, who were, are, or will be employed
at Defendants' Fort Smith production facilities at any time within
the three years prior to the filing of the Complaint through the
date of final disposition of the action and who are citizens of
the state of Arkansas.

Plaintiffs argued that all the Plaintiffs and proposed class
members are citizens of Arkansas, and so the minimal diversity of
citizenship sufficient under Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) to
vest original jurisdiction in the District Court does not exist in
the case.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 10, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/zp4AMJ from Leagle.com.

Darrell Cato, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Gary William
Udouj, Sr., Law Offices of Gary W. Udouj P.A..

Darrell Cato, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by John Holleman,
Holleman & Associate P.A., Stephen M. Sharum, Stephen M Sharum &
Timothy A. Steadman, Holleman & Associates, P.A..

OK Foods, Inc., Defendant, represented by James Raymond Carroll --
jr.carroll@kutakrock.com -- Kutak Rock, LLP, Jeff Fletcher, Kutak
Rock LLP, Jess L. Askew, III, KUTAK ROCK LLP & Matthew Scott
Jackson, Kutak Rock LLP.


OKINUS INC: Faces "Foster" Suit in Northern Dist. of Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Okinus, Inc. The
case is captioned Kendra Foster, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Okinus, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-04406-TCB (N.D. Ga., Nov. 29, 2016). The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge Timothy C. Batten, Sr.

Okinus provides credit solutions for furniture retailers and
consumers. The company was formerly known as Quality Time of
America, Inc. Okinus was founded in 2004 and is based in Pelham,
Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Shireen Hormozdi, Esq.
          Hormozdi Law Firm, LLC
          1770 Indian Trail Lilburn Road, Suite 175
          Norcross, GA 30093
          Telephone: (678) 395 7795
          Facsimile: (866) 929 2434
          E-mail: shireen@norcrosslawfirm.com



OTB ACQUISITION: "Higgins" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES HIGGINS and KATRINA MALONE, individually, and on behalf
of other current and former similarly situated employees,
Plaintiffs, v. OTB ACQUISITION, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability
Company, ARGONNE CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, a Georgia Limited
Liability Company, BORDER HOLDINGS, J LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, and GOLDEN GATE CAPITAL, INC., a California
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02929 (W.D. Tenn.,
November 28, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid straight time
wages, unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation and other
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants own and operate or, have owned and operated, On The
Border (OTB) restaurants in numerous states across the United
States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


OTB ACQUISITION: Faces "Malone" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
KATRINA MALONE and JAMES HIGGINS, individually, and on behalf of
other current and former similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs,
v. OTB ACQUISITION, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
ARGONNE CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, a Georgia Limited
Liability Company, BORDER HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, and GOLDEN GATE CAPITAL, INC., a California
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02930 (W.D. Tenn.,
November 28, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid straight time
wages, unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation and other
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants own and operate or, have owned and operated, On The
Border (OTB) restaurants in numerous states across the United
States during the relevant period of this action.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


PENNYMAC FINANCIAL: Faces "Heidrich" Suit Over FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
ERICH HEIDRICH, ERIC KIDD, and MARIA ANGELICA CASTRO, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. PENNYMAC
FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; PENNYMAC MORTGAGE INVESTMENT
TRUST; and PRIVATE NATIONAL MORTGAGE ACCEPTANCE CO., Defendants,
Case No. 2:16-at-01447 (E.D. Cal., November 28, 2016), seeks to
recover damages, restitution, penalties under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and the relevant
Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders.

PENNYMAC FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. engages in the mortgage banking
and investment management activities in the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Chris Baker, Esq.
     Mike Curtis, Esq.
     BAKER CURTIS & SCHWARTZ, P.C.
     44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3520
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: (415) 433-1064
     Fax: (415) 520-0446
     E-mail: cbaker@bakerlp.com
             mcurtis@bakerlp.com


PETER W SINGER: "Capps" Settlement Gets Initial OK
--------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARY CAPPS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LAW OFFICES OF PETER W. SINGER,
et al., Defendants, No. 15-cv-02410-BAS(NLS), (S.D. Cal.),
District Judge Cynthia Bashant granted the Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.

The proposed class is composed of all consumers with addresses
within the State of California who were sent a letter by the Law
Offices of Peter W. Singer on behalf of MCT Group, Inc. in an
attempt to collect a debt which, according to the nature of the
creditor or the debt, or the records of the creditor or the
Defendants, was incurred for personal, family or household
purposes. Each Class [M]ember was sent such a letter between
October 26, 2014, and the date of final execution of the
Settlement Agreement.

The Defendants agree to establish a Settlement Fund in the amount
of $11,606.16 to pay solely for awards to Class Members. Thus, all
Class Members who have not opted out of the Class will be sent a
check for $66.70 -- their pro rata share of the $11,606.16
Settlement Fund -- by the Settlement Administrator. Moreover, all
checks not cashed within 180 days of issuance will be allocated to
a cy pres recipient, the Voluntary Legal Services Program of
Northern California, which assists low-income clients with legal
problems associated with debt collection.

The parties have negotiated for Class Counsel to receive an award
of $39,000 for attorneys' fees and costs, to be paid 30 days after
final approval of the Settlement. The Defendants shall pay the
Settlement Administrator a fee not to exceed $4,000 to perform all
responsibilities as set forth in the Settlement Agreement

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on March 13, 2017.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 21, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/MHGheS from Leagle.com.

Mary Capps, Plaintiff, represented by Jared M. Hartman --
jaredhartman@jmhattorney.com -- Semnar & Hartman LLP.

Law Offices of Peter W. Singer, Defendant, represented by Heather
Rosing -- hrosing@KlinedinstLaw.com -- Klinedinst PC & Lindsey
Nicole Casillas -- LCasillas@KlinedinstLaw.com -- Klinedinst PC.

MCT Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by June D. Coleman --
jcoleman@kmtg.com -- Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard.


PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Settles 11 Claims in New York Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reese Ewing, writing for Reuters, reports that Brazil's state-run
oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA said that it reached deals to
settle 11 suits that are part of a class action suit against the
company in the New York Federal Court of the United States.

Paul Kiernan, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reported that
Petroleo said it has agreed to settle 11 investor lawsuits related
to corruption, the latest step toward resolving a major source of
uncertainty and potential liability.

The lawsuits had been filed in New York by shareholders seeking to
recoup losses they say were triggered by revelations in 2014 of a
vast bribery scheme surrounding Petrobras. They had been
consolidated into a class-action suit claiming tens of billions of
dollars in losses.

The agreements announced include a variety of institutional
investors such as Aberdeen Emerging Markets Fund, State of Alaska
Department of Revenue, Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and
Abbey Life Assurance Company Ltd. These come on top of settlements
with four other groups of shareholders, including bond giant
Pacific Investment Management Co. LLC, that Petrobras announced in
October.

Petrobras didn't disclose the amount involved in the settlement
but said it is covered by a $364 million provision marked down in
its third-quarter earnings.

The company added that the deals "do not constitute any
recognition of responsibility by Petrobras, which will continue
defending itself firmly in the remaining lawsuits under way."

An additional 12 individual lawsuits consolidated into the class
action remain open, including one by the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation Trust.

"At the moment, it is not possible for Petrobras to make a
reliable estimate as to the outcome of the class action," the
company said.


POETTKER CONSTRUCTION: All American Suit Moved to E.D. Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled All American Painting, L.L.C.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Poettker Construction Company and John Does 1-10,
the Defendants, Case No. 16SL-CC03793, was removed from the
Circuit Court of St. Louis County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-01875 to the proceeding.

Poettker Construction provides construction management, negotiated
general contracting, design/build, program management, and other
pre- and post-construction services to the retail, healthcare,
institutional and specialty construction, and industrial and
corporate markets in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Max G. Margulis, Esq.
          MARGULIS LAW GROUP
          28 Old Belle Monte Rd.
          Chesterfield, MO 63017
          Telephone: (636) 536 7022
          Facsimile: (636) 536 6652
          E-mail: maxmargulis@margulislaw.com

Poettker Construction Company is represented by:

          Thomas L. Azar, Jr., Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN, LLP
          One US Bank Plaza
          505 N. 7th Street
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 552 6409
          Facsimile: (314) 552 7409
          E-mail: tazar@thompsoncoburn.com



REMINGTON: Critics Say Rifle Settlement "Fatally Flawed"
--------------------------------------------------------
Scott Cohn, writing for CNBC, reports that a proposed class action
settlement aimed at fixing millions of allegedly defective
Remington rifles is "fatally flawed" and "a dysfunctional sham,"
critics say, addressing only a small number of guns while leaving
millions more in the public's hands.  In court filings, the
critics, all of whom own various firearms covered under the
settlement, are urging a federal judge to reject the deal.

The tentative agreement -- reached nearly two years ago but still
stalled in court -- covers some 7.5 million guns, including the
popular Model 700 rifle and a dozen other firearms with similar
designs.  CNBC first reported in a 2010 documentary about
allegations that for decades the company covered up a design
defect that allows the guns to fire without the trigger being
pulled. Lawsuits have linked the alleged defect to at least two-
dozen deaths and hundreds of injuries.

Remington has steadfastly denied the allegations, even though it
has agreed to replace the triggers free of charge on most of the
guns.  Under language in the proposed settlement, the company
continues to maintain that the guns are safe and free of defects.
That provision of the deal is particularly irksome to critics, who
say it is designed to convince owners not to submit their guns for
repair, reducing the cost to Remington.

Notices sent to gun owners thus far "not only downplayed the
potential danger, but undermined any sense of urgency to take
action and repair their rifle," according to an objection filed on
behalf of Lewis Frost of Harahan, Louisiana, and Richard Denney of
Norman, Oklahoma, who each own three Model 700 rifles.

"Clearly, the not so subtle message is that 'your gun is safe;
don't waste your time or part with your gun for purposes of this
meritless defect claim by greedy lawyers'," the filing said.

Attorneys for Remington and class action plaintiffs did not
respond to emails seeking a comment.  The plaintiffs' lawyers
stand to collect $12.5 million in fees if the settlement is
approved.

The U.S. District Judge overseeing the class action case, Ortrie
D. Smith of Kansas City, Missouri, has already expressed
skepticism about the deal.  Last December, hours after a CNBC
follow-up investigation uncovered more internal Remington
documents discussing the alleged defect, Judge Smith ordered the
parties to come up with a more effective plan to notify the public
about the trigger replacement offer.

In response, the parties added nationwide radio ads and a social
media component to the campaign.  As of August, before the
enhanced push began, only about 6,500 claims out of 7.5 million
guns had been filed, according to court filings.  The parties have
not provided any updates on the response rate since then.

In an affidavit filed as part of Messrs. Frost and Denney's
objection, Philadelphia-based consultant Todd Hilsee -- an expert
in class action claims notices -- argues that even with the
enhanced campaign, 95 percent of the guns in question will not be
repaired.

Also criticizing the settlement -- his first formal objection to
the deal -- is Richard Barber, a Montana man whose nine-year-old
son was killed in 2000 when he says a Remington Model 700 fired
unexpectedly during a family hunting trip.  The Barber family
reached a wrongful death settlement with Remington in 2002, and
Mr. Barber initially served as a paid consultant to the plaintiffs
in the class action case.  But he said he resigned in 2014 after
the plaintiffs joined Remington in asking Judge Smith to seal the
very documents Barber had uncovered to bolster their case.

"This alleged maneuver would render me and my research useless and
would forever protect Remington's darkest secrets from ever being
exposed," Mr. Barber wrote in a 40-page letter filed with the
court on Nov. 18.

Judge Smith ultimately denied the joint request for a so-called
protective order.  The advocacy group Public Justice published
thousands of the documents in an online database.

Of particular concern to Mr. Barber is a class of discontinued
Remington guns that are also covered under the class action
settlement but are ineligible for a trigger replacement.  Some
250,000 of the guns are still on the market, including models 600,
660, Mohawk 600, and the XP-100 bolt-action pistol. Remington
claims the guns, produced between 1962 and 1982, are too old to be
retrofitted, and is instead offering owners a $12.50 product
voucher.

Mr. Barber said the provision ignores the fact that Remington
previously recalled the guns in 1978 over the same safety issues,
and remains obligated to fix them.  He alleged Remington and the
plaintiffs in the class action case deliberately hid that
information from Judge Smith, and said Remington should face
penalties as a result.

"I am requesting this court to sanction Remington and its counsel
for their willful disregard for the integrity of the courts
generally and to attempt to defile your court to secure the
proposed settlement by use of alleged fraudulent statements," Mr.
Barber wrote.

Remington and plaintiffs lawyers have not yet responded to
Mr. Barber's allegations.

The parties have until Jan. 17 to submit any proposed changes to
the settlement agreement.  Judge Smith has scheduled a hearing
Feb. 14 to consider final approval.

Customers interested in taking advantage of the trigger
replacement offer can learn more about how to file a claim by
visiting a special website run by a third-party claims
administrator.

The tentative settlement involves Remington Models 700, Seven,
Sportsman 78, 673, 710, 715, 770, 600, 660, XP-100, 721, 722, and
725.


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Ariz. Judge Sends "Taylor" Suit to S.D. Tex.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Charles Taylor and Richard LaBryer, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Republic Services, Inc., Defendant, No. CV16-02760-PHX DGC (D.
Ariz.), District Judge David G. Campbell approved the Defendant's
Motion to Transfer Venue, thus handing over to the Southern
District of Texas the jurisdiction to hear the case. A copy of the
Court's Order dated November 21, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/Ig2KA9 from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs are ten individuals from Texas and two from
Pennsylvania who claim that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) when it failed to pay them overtime and
engaged in other improper compensation practices.

The Court held that the convenience of the parties and witnesses
favors transfer to Texas because a substantial majority of
relevant witness will be located in Texas, not Arizona. Moreover,
with a majority of witnesses located in Texas, the compulsory
process in Texas will produce more live witnesses than compulsory
process in Arizona.

The Court further explained that the costs of trial are likely to
be significantly higher in Arizona because of the many Texas
parties and witnesses who would be required to travel to Arizona
for trial.

Richard LaBryer, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Austin W.
Anderson -- aanderson@phippsandersondeacon.com -- Anderson2X,
PLLC, Lauren Elizabeth Braddy, Anderson2X PLLC, William Clifton
Alexander, Anderson2X, PLLC & Zachary Evan Mushkatel, Mushkatel &
Becker PLLC.

Republic Services Incorporated, et al., Defendants, represented by
Alec R. Hillbo -- alec.hillbo@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree
Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, Esteban Shardonofsky --
sshardonofsky@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Kara L. Goodwin -
- kgoodwin@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Mark G. Kisicki --
mark.kisicki@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart PC & Noah A. Finkel -- nfinkel@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth
Shaw LLP.


RUBY TUESDAY: Faces "Marett" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ruby Tuesday, Inc.
The case is captioned Lucia Marett, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09220 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2016).

Ruby Tuesday is an American multinational foodservice retailer
that owns, operates, and franchises Ruby Tuesday restaurants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


STANDARD FIRE: "O'Hara" Suit Removed to Mass. Dist. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned, KIERAN O'HARA on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE STANDARD FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, the
Defendant, Civil Action No. 1681CV02648B has been removed from the
Massachusetts Superior Court, Middlesex County to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.  The District
Court assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-12378-GAO to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that he purchased an automobile insurance
policy from Standard Fire, which included Personal Injury
Protection (PIP) benefits. The Plaintiff also alleges that on May
29, 2016, he was involved in an automobile accident and presented
a claim to Standard Fire for lost wages under the PIP portion of
the Policy. In adjusting his insurance claim for PIP benefits,
Standard Fire calculated his average weekly gross wage based on
75% of his net profits from self-employment rather than 75% of his
gross income from self-employment. Plaintiff contends that, under
Massachusetts law and pursuant to the terms of policy, it was
improper for Standard Fire to pay him based on the net profit
amount rather than the gross income amount when it adjusted his
PIP claim for lost wages.

Standard Fire is an insurance company organized under Connecticut
law, with its principal place of business in Hartford,
Connecticut.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Wystan M. Ackerman, Esq.
          Jonathan E. Small, Esq.
          280 Trumbull Street
          Hartford, CT 06103 3597
          Telephone: (860) 275 8200
          E-mail: wackerman@rc.com
                  jsmall@rc.com


TOMMY BAHAMA: Faces "Marett" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tommy Bahama Group,
Inc. The case is entitled Lucia Marett on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Tommy Bahama
Group, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09212 (S.D.N.Y., Nov.
29, 2016).

Tommy Bahama designs, manufactures, and retails apparel and
accessories for men and women. Its products portfolio includes
shirts and polo shirts.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

UNITED HEALTHCARE: 7th Cir. Declines to Rule on Arbitration Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case styed, SANDRA RIEDERER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED
HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellant, No. 16-3041 (7th
Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit,
affirmed a District Court's Order denying the Defendant's motion
asking the lower court to refer the proceeding to a series of
arbitrations, one for each employee.

Citing the case, Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp., 823 F.3d 1147 (7th
Cir. 2016), the District Court held invalid a contractual waiver
of employees' opportunity to proceed collectively.

Despite the Defendant's contention to overrule the cited case, the
Court further discussed that the Lewis case faces multiple
petitions for certiorari pending before the Supreme Court. The
Seventh Circuit said the Supreme Court serves as the right forum
for the Defendant's arguments.

A copy of the Seventh Circuit's Order dated November 10, 2016 is
available at https://goo.gl/VILSXM from Leagle.com.

Larry A. Johnson, II, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Katherine Mendez -- kmendez@seyfarth.com -- for Defendant-
Appellant.

Summer H. Murshid -- smurshid@hq-law.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellee.


UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over PACER Document Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Bolado, writing for Law360, reports that a Florida lawyer
filed a putative class action against the federal government
alleging the Public Access to Court Electronic Records system, or
PACER, improperly charges users for viewing judges' opinions.

Theodore D'Apuzzo, a litigator in Fort Lauderdale, said that
despite a requirement that all written judicial opinions be made
available free of charge, PACER still charges for some opinions.

"Despite the plain language of the fee schedule, and the
E-Government Act's directive, many documents constituting judicial
opinions are not available for free in PACER," he said. "Instead,
PACER users wishing to access such opinions are forced to pay,
just as with every other type of document available on PACER."

Mr. D'Apuzzo said that under the E-Government Act of 2002, which
established PACER, all federal courts, including district and
bankruptcy courts, must provide access to the substance of all
written opinions issued by the court.  The problem is that it is
left up to each individual judge or his or her staff to designate
a document as a "judicial opinion" for the purposes of PACER,
according to the suit.

"The result is that numerous documents that constitute a judicial
opinion under the Judicial Conference's definition, or any other
objective standard . . . are not flagged as 'judicial opinions'
for purposes of PACER billing, thus forcing users to pay to access
them," Mr. D'Apuzzo said.

He points to several opinions for which he says he was charged,
including a 29-page opinion granting a motion to dismiss from the
bankruptcy court in the Eastern District of Michigan, a memorandum
opinion and order from the District of Columbia, and opinions from
the Southern District of Ohio and the Middle District of Florida.
Each of the documents is referred to specifically as an opinion,
but was not made available free of charge, according to the suit.

Mr. D'Apuzzo hopes to represent a class of PACER users who within
the last six years paid to access a document constituting a
judicial opinion in the system.  Government agencies, judges and
their staff, and PACER users who have incurred more than $10,000
in improper charges to access judicial opinions would be excluded
from the class, according to the suit.

He is requesting compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.

Mr. D'Apuzzo is represented by Nicole W. Giuliano of Giuliano Law
PA and Morgan Weinstein of Van Ness Law Firm PLC.

Counsel information for the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts was unavailable.

The case is Theodore D'Apuzzo PA et al. v. U.S., case number 0:16-
cv-62769, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.


US IMMIGRATION: "Lyon" Suit Gets Extended Protective Order
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, AUDLEY BARRINGTON LYON, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v.
U.S. IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., Defendants, No.
3:13-cv-05878-EMC (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Edward M. Chen
entered an Extended Stipulated Protective Order during the term of
the parties' settlement.

Accordingly, the sensitive and confidential information may
include:

     (a) security arrangements; security plans, practices,
         policies, procedures, protocols or guidelines; security
         audits or reviews; building layouts; or documents
         reflecting architectural plans, blueprints or schematics
         whose efficacy may be undermined by disclosure to the
         public, including but not limited to floor plans or
         plans specific to building security features,
         enhancements or vulnerabilities;

     (b) information subject to the Privacy Act or the official
         information privilege that is protected from disclosure,
         in order to comply with the law;

     (c) material containing private and confidential third-party
         Information protected by the right to privacy guaranteed
         in the Federal Constitution and the First Amendment, in
         order to protect the privacy interest of those third-
         parties; and,

     (d) other information that Defendants are precluded from
         publicly disclosing by regulation or statute.

In the case, the protections conferred by the Stipulation and the
Order cover not only Protected Material, but also (a) any
information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (b) all
copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected
Material; and (c) any testimony, conversations, or presentations
by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material.

Even after final disposition of the litigation, the
confidentiality obligations imposed by the Order shall remain in
effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a
court order otherwise directs,

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 18, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/aWjwIz from Leagle.com.

Audley Barrington Lyon, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Alexis
Jeuk-Ling Yee-Garcia, Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP.

Audley Barrington Lyon, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Angelica H.
Salceda -- asalceda@aclunc.org -- ACLU of Northern California,
Carl Takei, American Civil Liberties Union, Charles J. Ha, Orrick
Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP, Christine Melissa Smith, Orrick
Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP, Christine Patricia Sun --
csun@aclunc.org -- ACLU Foundation of Northern California,
Christopher Joseph Siebens, Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe, pro hac
vice, David S. Keenan, Orrick Herrington Sutcliffe, pro hac vice,
Emily K. Brown -- emily.brown@orrick.com -- Orrick, Jaya N.
Kasibhatla, Orrick, Herrington, Sutcliffe LLP, pro hac vice, Julia
Harumi Mass, Esq. -- jmass@aclunc.org -- American Civil Liberties
Union of Northern California, Inc., Marc VanDerHout --
mv@vblaw.com -- Van Der Hout & Brigagliano, Michael Temple Risher
-- mrisher@aclunc.org -- ACLU Foundation of Northern California,
Inc., Shannon Christine Leong, Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe,
Trish Higgins, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe & Robert P. Varian -
- rvarian@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., Defendants,
represented by Jennifer A. Bowen, U.S. Department of Justice,
Brian Christopher Ward, Department of Justice, Colin A. Kisor,
Office of Immigration Litigation, Elizabeth J. Stevens, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Katherine J. Shinners, U.S. Department of
Justice, Lauren Crowell Bingham, United States Department of
Justice & Victor M. Mercado-Santana, US DOJ.


UTAH: David Webb May Proceed in Forma Pauperis
----------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID WEBB, Plaintiff, v. HEATHER S. WHITE et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-CV-512-DN-PMW (D. Utah), District Judge
David Nuffer adopted a Memorandum Decision issued by United States
Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner, denying the Plaintiff's motion
for the appointment of a counsel, thus, permitting him to proceed
in forma pauperis.

The Court held that there is no constitutional right to appoint a
counsel in a civil case, but a counsel may be appointed to
represent a litigant who is unable to afford counsel. Hence, the
appointment of a counsel in a civil case is left to the sound
discretion of the district court.

The thrust of Plaintiff's allegations is that the Defendants, who
are private attorneys and law firms, violated the law and caused
Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, injury by successfully
raising sovereign immunity defenses on behalf of their clients in
various civil rights lawsuits.

According to the Decision, the case is in early stages and the
Plaintiff's complaint is being reviewed for its sufficiency as
part of an in forma pauperis screening and has not been served on
Defendants.

Therefore, given the state of the proceedings and the concerns
with the sufficiency of the complaint and the merits of
Plaintiff's claims, the Court ordered that the analysis and
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are accepted and the
Memorandum Decision is adopted.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 10, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/WjoVGg from Leagle.com.

David Webb, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


VALERO MARKETING: Court Favors Dismissal of "Bautista" UCL Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FAITH BAUTISTA, Plaintiff, v. VALERO MARKETING AND
SUPPLY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-05557-RS (N.D. Cal.),
District Judge Richard Seeborg granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiff's Unfair Competition Law claim.  To the
extent the claim relies on an alleged violation of California
Financial Code section 13081(b), it is dismissed with prejudice.

The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant deceived her by charging
the credit card price to debit card purchases of gas, without
indicating the credit card price applied to such purchases.

The Defendant's motion to dismiss rests on the Plaintiff's
continuing failure to allege that any debit card purchases at his
gas station required personal identification number (PIN) entry.

The Court held that the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint never
entered a PIN in connection with a debit card purchase at the gas
station, but instead raises the new legal argument that section
13081(b) is not limited to debit card transactions requiring PIN
entry. The Court further noted that through the Plaintiff's
silence, she waived the right subsequently to argue section
13081(b) applies to transactions not requiring PIN entry.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 18, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/NiqUXl from Leagle.com.

Faith Bautista, Plaintiff, represented by Rafael Bernardino, Jr. -
- rbernardino@hbdlegal.com -- Hobson, Bernardino Davis, LLP.

Faith Bautista, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Chagas
Martins -- cmartins@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP,
pro hac vice, Jason Henry Alperstein -- jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Jason A. Hobson --
jhobson@hbdlegal.com -- Hobson Bernardino Davis LLP, Patrick W.
Daniels -- patrickd@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Roxana Miller Pierce -- rpierce@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice & Stuart Andrew Davidson --
SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice.

Valero Marketing and Supply Company, Defendant, represented by
Adam Friedenberg -- afriedenberg@glynnfinley.com -- Glynn &
Finley, LLP, Lauren Elizabeth Wood -- lwood@glynnfinley.com --
Glynn & Finley LLP & Robert Charles Phelps --
bphelps@glynnfinley.com -- Glynn & Finley LLP.


VIZIO INC: Settlement in "Hinshaw" Case Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KIRK HINSHAW, individually, and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VIZIO, INC., and DOES 1
through, 100, inclusive, Case No. SACV14-00876-DOC (ANx), (C.D.
Cal.), District Judge David O. Carter granted the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Final Approval of Settlement.

For purposes of the Settlement and the Final Judgment, the
Settlement Class shall consist of all persons residing in the
United States who purchased a VIZIO television between January 1,
2014 and June 23, 2014 and were unable to access streaming content
from Amazon Instant Video after connecting the television to the
internet.

The Court held that the value of the settlement is $1,826,340, and
such amount will be distributed to participating class members on
a pro rata basis.

Moreover, the Court awarded the Class Counsel in the amount of
$440,000 representing approximately 19% of the settlement award.
The Court also approves the hourly rate of $700 for attorney
Jeffrey Wilens and $700 for attorney Jeffrey Spencer.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 15, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/KN0hKP from Leagle.com.

Kirk Hinshaw, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey P. Spencer --
jps@spencerlaw.net -- Spencer Law Firm.

Kirk Hinshaw, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey N. Wilens --
jeff@lakeshorelaw.org -- Lakeshore Law Center.

Vizio Inc, Defendant, represented by David I. Hurwitz --
dih@birdmarella.com -- Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks
Lincenberg & Rhow & Ekwan E. Rhow -- eer@birdmarella.com -- Bird
Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks Lincenberg Rhow PC.


WAL-MART STORES: Aloe Vera Gel Product Lacks Key Ingredient
-----------------------------------------------------------
Derek Hawkins, writing for Washington Post, reports that aloe vera
-- the spiky green succulent found in warm climates around the
world -- has long been touted as a remedy for a range of ailments.
Almost none have been verified, but that hasn't stopped companies
from bottling the plant's juices and selling them as commercial
topical gels in major pharmacies and retailers.

The list of purported benefits is long.  People typically use aloe
gels to treat burns, frostbite and sores, and some claim it can
relieve heartburn, lower blood pressure and even slow the growth
of breast cancer.  The National Center for Complementary and
Integrative Health says there's not enough evidence to support any
of that.

Now, there may be another reason to be skeptical of bottles
touting aloe.  Bloomberg reports that lab tests it recently
commissioned showed "no indication" that store-brand aloe gels
purchased from Walmart, Target and CVS contained the plant's
juices.  A fourth gel from Walgreens tested positive for one of
three "markers" that indicate the presence of aloe, but not the
other two, the results showed.  On their ingredients labels, all
the products listed aloe barbadensis leaf juice, Bloomberg
reported.

According to Bloomberg, the tests found:

"Aloe's three chemical markers -- acemannan, malic acid and
glucose -- were absent in the tests for Walmart, Target and CVS
products conducted by a lab hired by Bloomberg News.  The three
samples contained a cheaper element called maltodextrin, a sugar
sometimes used to imitate aloe.  The gel that's sold at another
retailer, Walgreens, contained one marker, malic acid, but not the
other two.  That means the presence of aloe can't be confirmed or
ruled out, said Ken Jones, an independent industry consultant
based in Chapala, Mexico. . . ."

The four gels that Bloomberg had analyzed were Wal-Mart's Equate
Aloe After Sun Gel with pure aloe vera; Target's Up & Up Aloe Vera
Gel with pure aloe vera; CVS Aftersun Aloe Vera Moisturizing Gel;
and Walgreens Alcohol Free Aloe Vera Body Gel.  The lab that did
the testing requested anonymity to preserve its business
relationships.

The report comes as alternative medicines and "natural" products
have come under increased scrutiny from regulators, and the
findings could strike a blow to the market for aloe products,
which include gels, creams, vitamin tablets and drinks.  The U.S.
market for aloe vera products grew 11 percent last year to $146
million, according to Bloomberg.

Fruit of the Earth, a company that makes gels for Walmart and
Target, and its supplier, Concentrated Aloe Corp., both disputed
the test results, according to Bloomberg.

"We've been in the business a long time and we know where the raw
ingredients come from," Fruit of the Earth general counsel
John Dondrea said.  "We stand behind our products."

CVS defended the gels in a statement to CBS News.

"We are committed to bringing high quality products to consumers,
and maintain ongoing contact with suppliers to ensure that they
meet our high standards," CVS said.  "We have reviewed with the
supplier, and they have affirmed the product's authenticity."

Walmart gave a similar statement to Mashable.

"We hold our suppliers to high standards and are committed to
providing our customers the quality products they expect," a
Walmart spokesperson said.  "We contacted our supplier and they
stand behind the authenticity of their products."

Walgreens told Bloomberg their aloe suppliers verified that their
products contained the plant.  A Target representative was not
immediately available for comment on Nov. 22; the company declined
to comment in Bloomberg's story.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration doesn't have much leverage
to regulate aloe vera products, which don't require agency
approval to be sold at retailers.  The Fair Packaging and Labeling
Act requires companies to list ingredients on cosmetic products,
but the FDA doesn't review that information before the products
appear in stores.  The Food Drug and Cosmetics Act does, however,
prohibit false or misleading labeling.

Some consumers have already gone to court to challenge the
ingredients in aloe vera products.  Lawsuits seeking class action
status are pending against the four pharmacies and Fruit of the
Earth, claiming the products contain no aloe vera at all.

Attorneys in one lawsuit wrote: "No reasonable person would have
purchased or used the products if they knew the products did not
contain any aloe vera."


WELLS FARGO: Brandon Resident Sues Over Fraudulent Accounts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jade Isaacs, writing for Saint Peters Blog, reports that a Florida
woman launched a class-action lawsuit against Wells Fargo Bank
after employees created millions of fraudulent accounts
nationwide.

Brandon resident Nadine Stanton is suing on behalf of herself and
others affected by the fraudulent accounts created by employees of
the California-based banking giant.  Ms. Stanton is a practice
manager at United Vein Centers.

Ms. Stanton is claiming to be one of thousands of victims of the
bank's "colossal scheme" where they broke the law in numerous ways
including using private information and data without consent.

Without permission of customers, employees performed several
unauthorized tasks -- opened accounts, transferred funds, applied
for credit cards, received debit cards, and enrolled in online
banking services.

Funds from authorized accounts would be transferred into the
accounts that were opened without the client's knowledge.

Additionally, at least 565,000 customers had applied for and
opened credit cards in their names.  These credit cards then
negatively impacted credit scores and amassed additional fees.

According to an analysis by Wells Fargo, more than 2 million
unauthorized accounts were opened.

Upon opening their accounts, every customer is required to provide
private information to the bank, such as Social Security numbers
and addresses.

All employees have access to client information on the banks
centralized database.

"Cross-selling" is a strategy used by the bank "to leverage its
current customers into purchasing more Wells Fargo products or
using more Wells Fargo services," per the suit.

There was an enormous pressure put onto employees to cross-sell.
Financial incentives were provided to employees for getting more
customers to sign up.  Similarly, those who failed to cross-sell
could face termination.

To avoid this, a widespread practice began among employees where
they would open unauthorized accounts under client's names.

By putting unachievable quotas on its employees, the suit says the
bank was inducing unlawful actions.

Wells Fargo has fired nearly 5,300 employees that were accused of
misusing the client information.

Ms. Stanton claims that there hasn't been an effort on the banks
end to contact those affected by this con.

In the suit, Ms. Stanton is seeking damages on behalf of all
affected customers in Florida for "negligence, identity theft,
invasion of privacy, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and
negligent supervision of employees."

Like other Wells Fargo customers, Ms. Stanton acknowledged she
agreed to an arbitration clause when she opened her account.
However, the suit argues that court action is appropriate in this
case, since the bank's actions fall "outside the boundary and
scope of the foregoing arbitration agreement."

Wells Fargo is the fourth largest bank in the country, with over
9,000 locations nationwide and nearly 265,000 full-time employees.


WELLS FARGO: Consolidated Complaint Filed; Reply Deadline Moved
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, GARY HEFLER, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY,
JOHN G. STUMPF, JOHN R. SHREWSBERRY and CARRIE L. TOLSTEDT,
Defendants, and STEVE KLEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY,
JOHN G. STUMPF, JOHN R. SHREWSBERRY and CARRIE L. TOLSTEDT,
Defendants, Case Nos. 3:16-cv-05479-JST, 3:16-cv-05513-JST (N.D.
Cal.), District Judge Jon S. Tigar granted the parties'
stipulation extending the Defendants' time to respond the
complaint for 60 days, following the filing of a Consolidated
Class Action Complaint.

The parties anticipated that the Class Action Complaints for the
Defendants' Violations of the Federal Securities Laws will be
consolidated, that a lead plaintiff and lead counsel will be
appointed by the Court, and that a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint will be filed after.

The stipulation also provides that the Defendants and the
Plaintiffs do not waive any of their rights or positions in law or
in equity, and that the Defendants do not waive any objection or
defense they may raise to the Court's personal jurisdictional over
them or to the propriety of venue in the case.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 18, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/WrzbRC from Leagle.com.

Gary Hefler, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn A. Williams --
shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Gary Hefler, Plaintiff, represented by Aelish Marie Baig --
aelishb@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Jason C.
Davis -- jdavis@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Wells Fargo & Company, Defendant, represented by Brendan P. Cullen
-- cullenb@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Christopher M.
Viapiano -- viapianoc@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP &
Sverker K. Hogberg -- hogbergs@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell
LLP.


WELLS FARGO: Settlement in "McLaughlin" Suit Has Initial Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LATASHA McLAUGHLIN, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.,
d/b/a WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, Defendant, No. C 15-02904 WHA
(N.D. Cal.), District Judge William Alsup preliminarily approved
the Plaintiff's proposed settlement agreement.

The case has two certified classes of Plaintiff borrowers:

     -- Class of borrowers who, within one year prior to the
        filing of the complaint, received payoff statements
        that failed to disclose insurance proceeds was certified
        to pursue damages.

     -- Another class of borrowers for whom the Defendant held
        insurance proceeds on the date of the class certification
        order was certified to pursue declaratory relief.

The proposed settlement agreement establishes a damages class fund
of $880,000.00, to be distributed evenly among accounts held by
class members.

In addition to monetary benefits to the class, the proposed
settlement agreement compels the Defendant to change its business
practices to address the issues raised in the lawsuit.
Specifically, the agreement provides that the Defendant "will
revise the templates used to generate payoff statement letters for
all residential mortgage loans that it services to include
. . . language" disclosing insurance proceeds held by the
Defendant.

The Court further approved these dates and deadlines:

     (a) dissemination of the mail notice to the class members on
         December 8, 2016;

     (b) filing of the class counsel's motion for final approval,
         as well as any motion for attorneys' fees or an
         incentive award on January 12, 2017;

     (c) last day of class members to object or opt out, for
         the Defendant to oppose the attorneys' fees motion, and
         for the claims administrator to file proof of mailing
         notice on February 9, 2017;

     (d) response of the class counsel to respond to any
         objections or oppositions on February 23, 2017;

     (e) filing of the notices of appearances of the attorneys,
         who intend to appear at the final approval hearing, on
         March 2, 2017; and,

     (f) hearing of the final approval on March 9, 2017.

The Court held that the final pretrial conference and trial dates
are vacated, subject to reset if final approval is not granted.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 18, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/eH6cJB from Leagle.com.

Latasha McLaughlin, Plaintiff, represented by Aidan Chowning
Poppler -- cpoppler@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio.

Latasha McLaughlin, Plaintiff, represented by Kristin J. Moody --
kmoody@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio, Patricia I. Avery
-- pavery@wolfpopper.com -- Wolf Popper LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew
Insley-Pruitt -- MInsley-Pruitt@wolfpopper.com -- Wolf Popper LLP,
pro hac vice & Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr. --
jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio.

Wells Fargo Bank NA, Defendant, represented by Ashley Lynn Shively
-- ashively@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Peter Joseph Kennedy
-- pkennedy@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP & Raymond A. Cardozo
-- rcardozo@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP.


WESTERN SKY: 11th Cir. Affirms Ruling in "Parnell" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, affirmed an
Order denying Defendant Cashcall's motion to compel arbitration,
in the case styled, JOSHUA PARNELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WESTERN
SKY FINANCIAL, LLC, etc., et al., Defendants, CASHCALL, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant, No. 16-11369 (11th Cir.).

In the case, CashCall purchased the loan that Western Sky had made
to Parnell, assuming the rights to Parnell's repayment of the
loan. After Parnell repaid the loan to CashCall, Parnell filed a
putative class action complaint in Georgia state court against
CashCall. The putative class action complaint alleged that the
loan agreement's terms imposed excessively high interest rates on
borrowers, denied borrowers a right to be heard in a court of
competent jurisdiction, and was otherwise unconscionable, in
violation of the Georgia Payday Lending Act. Thus, CashCall moved
to compel arbitration, based on the arbitration clause of the loan
agreement, requiring the parties to resolve any dispute through
binding arbitration.

The Eleventh Circuit held that Parnell's amended complaint
challenged the delegation provision, which specifically aims to
avoid sending the question of the arbitrations clause's
enforceability to an arbitrator. Also, the alternative Western Sky
arbitrations that CashCall submits as evidence were not conducted
by a Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Nation (CRSTN) authorized
representative.

In a similar case of Parm v. National Bank of California, it
expressly held that the loan agreement requires the use of such a
CRSTN authorized representative. Thus, the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed the March 14, 2016 order of the district court.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 21, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/eViJ7k from Leagle.com.

Nancy H. Baughan -- nbaughan@phrd.com -- for Defendant-Appellant.

William James Holley, II, for Defendant-Appellant.

Erin McGarry Moore -- emoore@phrd.com -- for Defendant-Appellant.

James Warren Hurt, Jr. -- jhurt@hurtstolz.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellee.

Christopher Neil Armor, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Scott Zweigel -- szweigel@phrd.com -- for Defendant-Appellant.

Austin K. Brown -- austin.brown@skadden.com -- for Defendant-
Appellant.

Jennifer Z. Gindin -- jennifer.gindin@skadden.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.

Joseph L. Barloon -- joseph.barloon@skadden.com -- for Defendant-
Appellant.

Leah Marie Nicholls, for Plaintiff-Appellee.


WISCONSIN SECURE: Wis. Judge Upholds Dismissal of "Tatum" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT TATUM, and all similarly situated DOC/CCI
Inmates, Plaintiff, v. DENNIS CIMPL, et al., Defendants, No. 14-
cv-690-jdp (W.D. Wis.), District Judge James D. Peterson upholds
the July 21, 2016 order of dismissal against the Plaintiff by
denying his motion for reconsideration and motion for recusal.

The Plaintiff, a prisoner at the Wisconsin Secure Program
Facility, alleges the Defendants, mostly judges and court
employees, have violated his First, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and
Fourteenth Amendment rights in various ways during his criminal
proceedings and civil actions.

District Judge Peterson had previously denied the Plaintiff's
motion for failure to state a claim and subsequently denied
another Plaintiff's motion to amend the said judgment.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 14, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/3tRZjz from Leagle.com.

Robert L. Tatum, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


YAHOO! INC: User Files Class Action Over 2014 Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Northern California Record,
reports that a Yahoo user alleges she was the victim of identity
theft after a 2014 data breach.

Kimberly Heines filed a complaint individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated on Nov. 14 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against Yahoo! Inc.
alleging breach of implied contract and violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she has
been a Yahoo user since 1999 and that she was the victim of
identity theft in 2015.  The suit states the data breach occurred
in 2014 and announced by the defendant in 2016.  The plaintiff
holds Yahoo! Inc. responsible because the defendant allegedly
failed to safeguard and protect the private information of
plaintiff and class members and failed to provide timely and
accurate notice to plaintiff that their private information was
compromised as a result of the data breach.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment against
defendant, certify case as class action, appoint class
representative and class counsel, restitution and disgorgement of
the revenues, damages, costs of suit, attorneys' fees and further
relief as the court may deem just.  She is represented by David
Azar -- dazar@milberg.com -- of Milberg LLP in Santa Monica and
Ariana J. Tadler -- atadler@milberg.com -- and Andrei V. Rado --
arado@milberg.com -- of Milberg LLP in New York.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case
number 5:16-cv-06590


YIA'S AUTO SALES: 2 Cy Pres Recipients to Split $83,000
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BOR PHA and NOU LEE, Plaintiffs, v. YIA YANG; YIA
YANG dba YIA'S AUTO SALES; YIA YANG dba PLANTINUM FINANCIAL; YIA'S
AUTO SALES, INC.; GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY and DOES 3
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:12-cv-01580-TLN-DAD
(E.D. Cal.), District Judge Troy L. Nunley ordered Heffler Claims
Group to distribute the remaining residual of $83,245.86 divided
equally in the amount of $41,622.93 in checks made out to the
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and the California
Rural Legal Assistance.

According to the parties' stipulation, California Rural Legal
Assistance Foundation and the California Rural Legal Assistance
are appropriate recipients of the cy pres, in equal amounts, after
payment of class administration. This is based on the fact that
the Hmong Women's Heritage Association is no longer in existence,
its website is down, and its phones have been disconnected.

The Court further ordered that, from the current balance in the
account of $98,902.39, Heffler Claims Group is to be paid
$15,656.53 for class administration.

A copy of the Court's Order dated November 16, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/MyS0HN from Leagle.com.

Nou Lee, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan Kemnitzer, Kemnitzer
Barron & Krieg, PC.

Nou Lee, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Elliot Jason Conn --
elliot@kbklegal.com -- Kemnitzer Anderson Barron and Ogilvie LLP,
Nancy Barron, Kemnitzer, Barron & Krieg, Llp & Adam McNeile --
adam@kbklegal.com -- Kemnitzer, Barron & Krief, Llp.

Yia Yang, et al., Defendants, represented by Daniel Paul Costa --
dpc@costalaw.net -- Costa Law Firm, Daniel Paul Costa, Costa Law
Firm & Sterling Scott Winchell, Sterling Scott Winchell --
winchell@oclawsolutions.com -- A Professional Law Corporation.


ZEN MAGNETS: Appeals Court Strikes Down Magnet Ban Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
C. Ryan Barber, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
a divided federal appeals court on Nov. 22 struck down product-
safety standards that effectively banned the sale of small, high-
powered magnets sold widely in toys and puzzles, handing a victory
to a company that had long fought the regulations.

Responding to concerns that strong magnets could pose serious harm
if ingested, the Consumer Product Safety Commission in 2014
extended safety requirements for toys to products designed for
adults.  The rule posed a threat to Zen Magnets LLC, a distributor
of popular sets of small, spherical magnets that became popular
desk trinkets.

Writing for the 2-1 majority, Judge David Ebel of the Denver-based
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit found, in part, that
the commission based its regulations on a flawed analysis of the
danger posed by magnet sets.  Judge Ebel said the commission
relied on an imprecise review of emergency room reports that
referred to magnet-related injuries.

"We take issue not with the commission's methodology, but rather
with the degree of uncertainty the commission condoned when
implementing it: According to the commission, ninety percent of
the injury reports on which it ultimately relied only 'possibly'
involved the subject magnets sets," Judge Ebel wrote in the
decision, joined by Judge Neil Gorsuch.

Judge Gorsuch was listed among of 21 judges President-elect Donald
Trump recently named as potential U.S. Supreme Court candidates to
fill the seat vacated by Antonin Scalia's death in February.
Judge Robert Bacharach, appointed by President Barack Obama, wrote
in dissent on Nov. 22.

In his dissent, Judge Bacharach noted that the commission also
reviewed a survey of doctors, comments from experts and a medical
journal.

"These sources support the commission's findings that injuries
increased when the magnet sets entered the market and that the
magnets posed an unreasonable risk of injury," Judge  Bacharach
wrote.

Scott Wolfson, a spokesman for Elliot Kaye, chairman of the safety
commission, said the agency "will assess what the next steps will
be" -- a review that is likely to be influenced by Trump.  Judge
Wolfson declined to comment on how the new administration, in
choosing the agency's leadership, might shape the commission.

At least one child has died from ingesting high-powerful magnets,
and several others have been rushed into surgery, Mr. Wolfson
said.  He noted that the products have become popular as fake
piercings for teens.

"There is no question from our perspective, even with this ruling,
of how deadly serious the risk of these products are to not only
young children but also tweens and teens," Mr. Wolfson said.

David Japha, a Denver-based lawyer representing Zen Magnets, said
his client showed "courage and intestinal fortitude" in
challenging the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

"What's huge here is that the court found, in terms of the
particulars of the cost-benefit analysis, the methodology used by
the [commission] was not correct," Japha said. "So that is very
big."

Long attracted to magnets
Magnets have drawn the commission's attention since 2008, when
Congress passed mandatory toy safety standards that prohibited any
product "designed, manufactured, or marketed" for children that
contains a small, highly powered magnet that could come loose.

In 2011, after receiving reports of injured children, the
commission stepped up enforcement against companies that marketed
magnet sets to appeal to children younger than 14.

By mid-2012, the commission had negotiated settlements with 10
companies that agreed to stop importing and selling magnet sets.
The agency filed administrative complaints against three other
companies, including Zen Magnets, alleging that their products
failed to comply with the toy standard or had a defect.

Zen Magnets has proved a vocal defendant in the commission's in-
house proceedings.  In March, Zen Magnets claimed victory when an
in-house judge, Dean Metry, ruled that "proper use of Zen Magnets
and Neoballs creates no exposure to danger whatsoever."

Mr. Metry found the company's warnings against swallowing the
magnets were effective.


ZERO GRAVITE: Class Action v. Quebec Chiropractors Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
CTV Montreal reports that a class action lawsuit against 13 Quebec
chiropractors has been authorized to proceed.

The chiropractors from the private clinic Zero Gravite are accused
of promoting and using a treatment that Health Canada said had no
scientific benefit.

They were using a device called the Axiom DRX9000, a spinal
decompression unit where patients are stretched to relieve back
pain.

Thirteen Quebec chiropractors are facing a class-action lawsuit.

Health Canada removed the manufacturer's licence in 2010 because
it said the company did not provide the scientific information
needed to prove that it provided scientific benefits to people.

Patient Frantz Charles said it made his back problem worse.

"After, like, 30 treatments, I was still suffering, hurting. I
said to the doctor I want to stop, I cannot continue. I was in
pain," he said.

Lawyer Jean-Francois Leroux, representing the clients, maintains
that the chiropractors put money and business ahead of the
patients' well-being.

"From our point of view they should have just stopped using the
machine since there was no scientific proof about the benefits of
the machine," said Mr. Leroux.

Stephanie Beaulne is one patient who was convinced by the
chiropractors and their commercials.

She took out a loan to pay for $4,300 in treatments.

"I had nothing to lose except for money," she said.

She is still making payments on the loan, and has had four
surgeries since she stopped.

Mr. Leroux is asking the chiropractors to give back the money they
took from clients.

"First of all, we are asking for the reimbursement of the
treatments.  Second of all, we are asking for $10,000 in order to
try to repair the damage caused by undergoing the treatment, and
on top of that, there's $5,000 that is being claimed for punitive
damages," he said.

The private clinics that employed the chiropractors went bankrupt
in 2013, but the medical professionals are still practicing.

Some are also the subject of complaints.

"Some of the doctors that have been working with Zero Gravity have
undergone complaints by the public," said Jean-Francois Henri,
president of the Quebec Order of Chiropractors.

He said that the order informed chiropractors to stop using the
DRX 9000 and to stop advertising its supposed benefits.

Those who did not were disciplined.

So far 650 people have signed up for the case, but it could affect
up to 8,000 people.

If successful, it could result in a claim for costs and damages of
$120,000,000.


* FCC Begins Process to Eliminate Mandatory Arbitration Clauses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin A. Gore, Esq. -- kgore@carltonfields.com -- and James B.
Baldinger, Esq. -- jbaldinger@carltonfields.com -- of Carlton
Fields, in an article for Mondaq, report that on November 2, the
FCC released its Report and Order adopting new broadband privacy
rules after a 3-2 vote.

Among other extensive obligations, the new rules require broadband
Internet service providers to notify customers about the
information they collect and share, and the entities they share
the information with.  A consumer must now "opt in" before the ISP
may gather and share certain kinds of sensitive information, such
as web browsing, app usage, and financial and health information.
A consumer must also have the option to "opt out" of allowing non-
sensitive information to be obtained and shared.  There are also
specific notification requirements in the event of an unauthorized
disclosure of a customer's personal information.

In a statement, FCC Commissioner Tom Wheeler stated that the rules
were crafted "to provide consumers increased choice, transparency
and security online."  For broadband service providers and other
telecommunications carriers, the new rules almost certainly mean
big changes in the way they do business.

Wheeler also promised the changes would not end there.  In his
statement, he noted that the "time has also come to address the
harmful impacts of mandatory arbitration requirements" and said
the FCC had already commenced an internal process designed to
produce a notice of proposed rulemaking by February 2017.

According to the 2016 Carlton Fields Class Action Survey, nearly
67% of companies currently use arbitration clauses to offset the
risks and costs of high-stakes class actions and almost 69% of
companies are handling one or more class action lawsuits on an
ongoing basis.  With the FCC's proposed rulemaking, this could
mean an overall increase in high-exposure class actions,
particularly for broadband Internet service providers and other
telecommunications carriers.  In fact, corporate counsel predicted
that the next wave of class action suits will most likely involve
data privacy and security issues.

Carlton Fields regularly defends corporate clients, including
financial services and telecommunications firms, against class
action lawsuits spanning a wide range of subject matters and
across several industries including telecommunications, banking,
insurance, construction and mass torts.  The firm is ranked
nationally in Tier 1 for mass tort litigation/class actions.  In
addition, the firm's attorneys regularly handle related cutting-
edge appellate issues and advise clients on regulatory matters
involving these industries.


* Judge Mazzant Blocks Implementation of DOL's New Overtime Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Williams-Alvarez, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports
that an eleventh-hour ruling has spared companies from having to
adjust salaries to comply with new overtime pay rules slated to go
into effect Dec. 1.  While many companies welcomed the surprising
decision, others were left scrambling, employment lawyers say.

As reported, U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant of the Eastern
District of Texas, who was appointed by President Barack Obama,
issued a nationwide preliminary injunction on Nov. 22.  The order
blocks the U.S. Department of Labor from implementing its proposed
new overtime rules that were scheduled to take effect on Dec. 1.

Currently, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, employers must pay
nonexempt employees overtime if they make under $23,660 per year.
The DOL's proposed revisions, which were finalized in May, would
raise that threshold to $47,476 and would create automatic updates
to the threshold every three years.

Judge Mazzant concluded that the 21 plaintiff states, which
brought the lawsuit against the Labor Department in September, had
established a prima facie case that the agency had exceeded its
statutory authority with some of the proposed revisions.

While Judge Mazzant's injunction is preliminary, court watchers
say that the DOL overtime rules are pretty much dead in the water.
Judge Mazzant could have a change of heart and refuse to issue a
permanent injunction, but his strongly worded opinion suggests
that that's unlikely.  The DOL is likely to appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, but that court has a
business-friendly reputation.  "Now that these regulations have
been put on hold, the likelihood of them going into effect as
written is very, very low," says Michael Jones --
mdjones@reedsmith.com -- an employment lawyer at Reed Smith.

For many companies, this is a huge relief, says Clare Draper --
clare.draper@alston.com -- a partner at Alston & Bird.  "Dec. 1
has been a looming and very short deadline for most businesses and
nonprofits, so this is a welcome reprieve for them," he says.
"Employers, at least for now, can breathe easy for a while."

Companies that already made payroll changes -- and announced the
changes to employees -- are in a tough position.  Reversing course
and nixing salary increases would be a blow to employee morale,
Mr. Jones says.  "If you've already paid someone a higher salary,
it's very hard to take that back from an employer relations
standpoint," Mr. Jones says.  "However, in industries with tight
margins, like hospitality and retail, you may have to think of
taking them back because if your competitors aren't paying them,
you've put yourself at a competitive disadvantage."

Thankfully, most companies aren't in this tough spot, Mr. Jones
says. "For the most part, employers I've talked to have not issued
paychecks with the new salary levels, so it's notifying employees
that a court basically prevented the changes from going into
effect," he says.  "It's really a messaging thing. I think you
basically blame it on the external party."

While some employers are peeved that they prepared for a rule
change that's now unlikely to happen, there may be a silver
lining, says Dena Sokolow -- dsokolow@bakerdonelson.com -- a
Tallahassee-based employment lawyer with Baker Donelson.
Ms. Sokolow says that the DOL's attempt at a rule change forced
companies to review how they classify employees -- something a lot
of companies might not have done otherwise.  "In all the years
I've been practicing employment law, I don't think I've ever seen
so much discussion over the exemptions," she says.  "A lot of
employers took a close look at their exemptions, and I think that
was a good exercise."


                            *********

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 2016. 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 Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *