CAR_Public/161208.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, December 8, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 245




                            Headlines

246-18 REALTY: Faces "Zayas" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
ADVANCED BOOTING: Disabled Cars with "Boots", Class Suit Says
ADVOCATE HEALTH: Supreme Court to Review Pension Law Exemption
ALERE INC: April 5 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss
ALERE INC: Amended Complaints Filed in INRatio Class Actions

ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Class Certification Motion Pending
AMD: Court Allows Investors' Class Action Over Llano to Proceed
AMEREN CORP: Posts Immaterial Liabilities in Municipal Tax Case
ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit Over Stock Price Drop
AXXIS ELECTRIC: T Square Alleges Diversion of Trust Funds

B/E AEROSPACE: Shareholders Want to Enjoin Rockwell Merger
BANK OF AMERICA: Accused of Misleading Merrill Lynch Brokers
BAYADA HOME: Faces "Higgins" Suit Under FLSA, Penn. Wage Act
BODY SCULPT: "Esteppe" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA
BRENTWOOD VILLAGE: Judge Won't Enjoin Building Redevelopment

CEMPRA INC: Lied About Health Risks, Investors Say
CHICAGO, IL: Lawsuits Pile Up Over East Area Relocation Process
CHICAGO FAMOUS: Faces "Jordan" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law
CLEAR SPRINGS: Asks Court to Decertify Farm-Workers Class
COMMUNITY VOCATIONAL: Files Appeal in Pennsylvania Super. Ct.

CRESTWOOD MIDSTREAM: Settlement of "Aron" Suit Approved
CRST EXPEDITED: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Sexual Harassment
DELTA APPAREL: Flores Seeks Payment of OT & Minimum Wages
DENVER MANAGEMENT: Adzhikosyan Seeks Wages Under Labor Code
DMNO LLC: Judge Certifies Bartenders and Servers Class

DR. REDDY'S: Faces UCFW Local Suits Over Drug Prices
DUKE ENERGY: Settlement of Price Reporting Suits Being Finalized
DUKE ENERGY: Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration Pending
ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR: "Fisher" Suit Moved from N.D. to C.D. Cal.
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Employee Racial Discrimination Suit

FCA US: Accused of Emissions Cheating, Class Suit Says
FORA FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Bid in "Dolemba" Continued to Jan 25
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: "Brooks" Sues Over RESPA, FCRA Violation
GENERAL NUTRITION: Lied About Efficacy of Supplements, Suit Says
GIGAPIX STUDIOS: Investor Files Class Suit Over Fraudulent Claim

GOHEALTH LLC: Placeholder Motion to Certify Class Tossed
GREAT SENECA: Faces Class Action Over Alleged FDCPA Violations
GREENVILLE CHRISTIAN: Sexual Abuse Class Action Ongoing in Canada
HCSB FINANCIAL: "Shelley" Action Settled and Dismissed
HESKA CORPORATION: "Fauley" Class Suit Remains Pending

HOME DEPOT: Settles Customer Data Breach Class Action
INSULET CORP: Arkansas Teacher Retirement Sys. Case Underway
INTERMARK FOODS: "Canga" Suit Seeks Double Damages Under FLSA
JET CONCRETE: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
JOHN BRADSHAW: Collison Seeks Approval of $40-Mil. Settlement

L'OREAL USA: Lee, et al. Sue Over Hair Repair Balm False Ad
LAWRENCE LIVERMORE: Retirees' Class Action Faces Delay
LIFE STORAGE: Insurance Program Violates NJ Laws, Plaintiffs Say
LYFT INC: Teamsters' Objection to Deal Rejected
MARLAN INC: Faces "Marshall" Suit Under FLSA, Col. Wage Laws

MASTERCARD INC: Faces Class Action in UK Over Excessive Charges
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Sharpe" Suit in E.D. of Pennsylvania
MOPHIE INC: "Stotz" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
MT. HOOD MEADOWS: Faces "Harris" Class Suit Over Value Passes
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Sued in Iowa Over Telephone Call Violations

NEW CHOPSTICKS: Faces "Wei" Suit Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
NEW YORK CITY HOUSING: "Brown" Suit to Recover OT Pay, Damages
NO PRESSURE: "Espinoza" Suit Seeks to Recoup Pay Under FLSA
NRG ENERGY: Must Defend Against California TCPA Case
NRG ENERGY: Defendants in "Braun" Case Challenge Jurisdiction

NRG ENERGY: "Ahmed" Class Suit in Delaware Underway
NRG ENERGY: Oral Argument Today in Natural Gas Litigation
NY PIZZA: Faces "Emanuelson" Suit Under FLSA, N. Mex. Wage Act
PATRIOT NATIONAL: "Wasik" Wants to Block Dividend Transaction
PERSONNEL STAFFING: Faces Class Action Over Hiring Discrimination

PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Settlement Reached in Bushansky Litigation
POETTKER CONSTRUCTION: All American Seeks Class Certification
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces "Rikos" Suit in Western Dist. of Arkansas
PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT: Class Cert. Bid in "Daniels" Granted
PTE SYSTEMS: Faces "Jordan" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Court Ruled on Bid to Dismiss in PICA Case
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Settlement of Sterling Heights Has Final OK
REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Mealer" Suit in N.D. of Texas
RJ REYNOLDS: Jury Awards $10MM to Smoker in Tobacco Case
ROCKSTAR INC: Faces "Haas" Lawsuit Under California Labor Code

ROOMS TO GO: Faces "Triplett" Suit in E.D. of North Carolina
SALON DE QUARTIER: Faces "Hdir" Lawsuit Seeking to Recoup Wages
SAMSUNG CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Washing Machine Recall
SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: "Robles" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. C.D. Cal.
SHORE CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Magana" Suit Over FLSA Violation

SHUTTERFLY INC: Collects "Scans of Face Geometry", Suit Claims
SOUTHERN COMPANY: Class Certification Motion Underway
TAKAAKI KOYAMA: "Laguna" Suit Seeks OT Wages Under Labor Code
TARGET CORP: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Faraji" Suit Claims
TC PIPELINES: Class Action Appeal to Be Heard in Late-2016

TEAM HEALTH: Chancery Court Approval Stipulation & Case Dismissal
TEAM OIL: "Staggert" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
TEXAS: Objects to Report in Class Action Against DFPS
TEXMASTERS EXPRESS: "Clarke" Suit to Recover OT, Reimbursements
TEXMASTERS EXPRESS: "Fontinha" Suit Alleges Violations of FLSA

TIME WARNER: "Howard" Suit Claims FLSA, Ohio Wage Act Violations
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: May Have Lost Fraud Suit, Report Says
TUROCZY BONDING: Faces "Freeman" Suit Over Unpaid Commissions
TYSON FOODS: Faces Securities Suit in Ark. Over False Statements
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Opposes Seattle's Proposed Union Rules

UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Hearing Date Not Yet Set in Class Action Appeal
UNITED STATES: Lawmakers Rush to Pass Bills on Enlistment Bonuses
USA-CANADA INTERNATIONAL: Ningbo Zhelun Files Class Action
WAL-MART STORES: Must Face Truck Drivers' Wage Class Action
WASHINGTON: Settles Hep C Drug Medicaid Coverage Class Action

WCI COMMUNITIES: Shareholders Want to Enjoin Sale to Lennar
WELLS FARGO: Court Certified Class in Delco Electrical Suit
WELLS FARGO: Wants to Resolve Fake Account Suits Via Arbitration
WELLS FARGO: Lieber Sues Over Failure to Provide Loan Info
WESTERN RIVERSIDE: "Loya" Suit Moved from Super Ct. to C.D. Cal.

WIRELESS CENTER: "Haught" Suit Seeks to Recoup Pay Under FLSA
WORLD ACCEPTANCE: "Epstein" Case Parties in Discovery

* Class Actions Over Malpractice in Pension Plans Pile Up
* Lawyer Sees Growth Industry in Privacy Breach Class Actions
* Litigation Funders in Australia Need Regulation


                            *********


246-18 REALTY: Faces "Zayas" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 246-18 Realty, LLC.
The case is styled Edwin Zayas, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. 246-18 Realty, LLC;
Westville Restaurant, Inc.; and Hurricane Strauss, Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09307 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 1, 2016).

Westville operates a restaurant in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Bahamonde, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF
          JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, PC
          2501 Jody Court
          North Bellmore, NY 11710
          Telephone: (516) 783 9662
          Facsimile: (646) 435 4376
          E-mail: James@CivilRightsNY.com


ADVANCED BOOTING: Disabled Cars with "Boots", Class Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aimee Sachs, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that an
Atlanta company has unlawfully pocketed millions of dollars from
people parking in the city by disabling their vehicles with
"boots" without first posting a warning that it might do so, a
class claims in court in Atlanta.

In a lawsuit filed in Fulton County State Court on Nov. 14, the
lead plaintiffs claim Advanced Booting Services failed to comply
with city ordinances that require "certain signage at any location
where vehicle immobilization occurs."

Advanced Booting Services is licensed by the city and offers its
booting services to privately-owned parking lots in the metro-
Atlanta area.

The plaintiffs open their complaint by noting that there is no
provision in the Georgia Official Code which expressly authorizes
vehicle immobilization on private property.

Turning to the local ordinance most relevant to their case, they
point to  language in Atlanta's code that says, "Signs shall be
located at each designated entrance to a parking lot or parking
area where parking prohibitions are to be effective."

"Where there is no designated entrance, such signs shall be
erected so as to be clearly visible from each and every parking
space," the ordinance continues.

Signs must be at least seven and a half square feet by three feet
and must be at least four feet above the site grade. If there is
no designated entrance, the sign should be six feet above the site
grade, the complaint says.

The plaintiffs say that in each of their cases, they had to pay
475 to have the boots removed from their cars.

"Defendant ABS knowingly and maliciously interfered with the
possession or use of plaintiffs' and other class member's vehicles
without consent," the lawsuit says. ". . . By failing to disclose
the facts, defendant intended to induce plaintiffs and the other
class members into paying a fee for removal of the boot."

The plaintiffs are represented by Matt Wetherington of Atlanta.

City officials could not immediately be reached for comment.


ADVOCATE HEALTH: Supreme Court to Review Pension Law Exemption
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Lessmiller, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the Supreme Court said it will decide whether a federal
pension law's exemption for church retirement plans applies if the
plan was not initially established by a church.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, outlines
specific safeguards for employee retirement plans, like minimum
funding, vesting requirements and fiduciary responsibilities for
plan administrators. However, the law exempts church plans from
those requirements.

Maria Stapleton, Judith Lukas, Sharon Roberts and Antoine Fox are
former and current employees of Advocate Health Care Network with
vested claims to benefits under the company's retirement plan.

Advocate runs 12 hospitals and 250 other health-care facilities in
Illinois. It is not a church, but has contractual relationships
with the Metropolitan Chicago Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America and the Illinois Conference of the United Church
of Christ.

The employees filed a class-action lawsuit in 2014, claiming
Advocate violated ERISA by not funding the plan at sufficient
levels, requiring employees to work for five years before benefits
are fully vested, and not clarifying participants' rights to
future benefits.

Stapleton and the other plaintiffs argued that, even if Advocate
could dodge liability under ERISA's church-plan exemption, the
exemption is a violation of the First Amendment's prohibition on a
state establishment of religion.

A federal judge denied Advocate's motion to dismiss the class
action, finding that its employee retirement plan does not fall
under ERISA's church exemption because a qualifying church plan
needs to be established by a church.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed in March, ruling that a plan
established by a church-affiliated organization, such as a
hospital, is not exempt from ERISA's requirements.

"Although the legislative record clearly supports an intent to
continue to allow employees of church-affiliated organizations to
be included in church plans, no part of that record suggests an
intent to allow a church-affiliated corporation to claim the
exemption for a plan unless the church itself has established the
plan," Judge Ilana Rovner wrote for a three-judge panel.

In July, Advocate Health Care appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court,
arguing in a petition for a writ of certiorari that church-
affiliated organizations are exempt from ERISA, regardless of
whether a church itself established the organization's pension
plan.

"The three federal agencies charged with interpreting ERISA--the
Internal Revenue Service, Department of Labor, and Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation -- agree that such plans qualify for ERISA's
'church plan' exemption, and since 1983 have issued opinion after
opinion reaffirming that view," the petition states. "Countless
nonprofit religious hospitals, orphanages, schools, day-care
centers, and old-age homes have structured their pension plans in
reliance on these agencies' views and on the until-now-unanimous
lower court decisions confirming their exempt status."

The Supreme Court granted Advocate a writ of certiorari late
Friday. It will decide whether ERISA's church-plan exemption
applies only to retirement plans initially established by a
church.

Per its custom, the high court did not comment on its decision to
hear the case.


ALERE INC: April 5 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss
-----------------------------------------------
Alere Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that the court has scheduled oral
argument on the company's motion to dismiss an amended class
action complaint for April 5, 2017.

The Company said, "On April 21, 2016, a class action lawsuit
captioned Godinez v. Alere Inc., was filed against us in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On
May 4, 2016, a second class action lawsuit captioned Breton v.
Alere Inc., was filed against us in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. Both of these class
actions purport to assert claims against us and certain current
and former officers for alleged violations of Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the
Exchange Act. Each plaintiff seeks to represent a proposed class
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our common
stock during the period May 9, 2013 through April 20, 2016. Each
complaint seeks damages allegedly caused by alleged materially
misleading statements and/or material omissions by us and the
officers regarding our business, prospects and operations, each
plaintiff claims, which allegedly operated to inflate artificially
the price paid for our common stock during the class period. Each
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees
and costs."

"On July 11, 2016, the court entered an order consolidating the
two actions and appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. A
consolidated amended complaint filed on September 23, 2016 alleges
certain additional misleading statements and omissions and changes
the proposed class period to May 28, 2015 through July 27, 2016.

"We are filing our motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
November 8, 2016 and the court has scheduled oral argument on that
motion for April 5, 2017.

"We are unable at this time to determine the outcome of this class
action lawsuit or our potential liability, if any."


ALERE INC: Amended Complaints Filed in INRatio Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Alere Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that the plaintiffs in the class
action by Dina Andren and by J.E, J.D., have filed amended class
action complaints.

The Company said, "On May 26, 2016, a class action complaint,
captioned Dina Andren, et al. v. Alere Inc., et al., was filed
against us in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, and the plaintiffs filed an amended class
action complaint on October 3, 2016."

"In addition, on July 22, 2016, a class action complaint captioned
J.E, J.D., and all others similarly situated v. Alere Inc., Alere
San Diego, Inc. and Alere Home Monitoring, Inc., was filed against
us in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, and the plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint on October 10, 2016.

"These class actions, as amended, purport to assert claims against
us under several legal theories, including fraud, breach of
warranty, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violation of
applicable unfair competition/business practice statutes in
connection with the manufacturing, marketing and sale of our
INRatio products. The seven named plaintiffs in the Dina Andren
class action seek to represent a proposed class of all persons who
purchased, rented or otherwise paid for INRatio products during
the period January 1, 2009 to the present in the United States, or
alternatively, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Maryland,
New York, and/or Pennsylvania. The two named plaintiffs in the
J.E, J.D., and all others similarly situated class action seek to
represent a proposed class of all persons who purchased, rented or
otherwise paid for INRatio products during the period April 1,
2008 to present.

"Both class action complaints seek restitution and damages
allegedly resulting from inaccurate PT/INR readings and from the
purchase of devices and/or test strips that claimants say they
would not have purchased had they known of the alleged propensity
of these devices to yield inaccurate PT/INR results. Among other
things, plaintiffs in these class action lawsuits seek a refund of
money spent on INRatio products. Each complaint also seeks
unspecified compensatory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys'
fees and costs.

"We are unable, at this time, to predict the outcome of these
class action lawsuits."


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Class Certification Motion Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that
bBriefing on Physicians Healthsource, Inc.'s class certification
motion is complete and pending before the Court, and no trial date
has been scheduled.

The Company said, "On May 1, 2012, Physicians Healthsource, Inc.
filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against us. The complaint alleges
that, on multiple occasions between July 2008 and December 2011,
we or our agent sent advertisements by fax to the plaintiff and a
class of similarly situated persons, without first receiving the
recipients' express permission or invitation in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 (the
"TCPA"). The plaintiff seeks $500 for each alleged violation of
the TCPA, treble damages if the Court finds the violations to be
willful, knowing or intentional; and injunctive and other relief.
Allscripts answered the complaint denying all material allegations
and asserting a number of affirmative defenses, as well as
counterclaims for breach of a license agreement."

"After plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration of the
counterclaims was granted, Allscripts made a demand in arbitration
where the counterclaims remain pending.  Discovery in the proposed
class action has now concluded.

"On March 31, 2016, plaintiff filed its motion for class
certification.  On May 31, 2016, we filed our opposition to
plaintiff's motion for class certification, and simultaneously
moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiff's claims. Plaintiff
submitted its reply memorandum in support of its motion for class
certification and its opposition to our motion for summary
judgment on July 14, 2016 and July 21, 2016, respectively.

"Briefing on plaintiff's class certification motion, accordingly,
is complete and currently pending before the Court. No trial date
has been scheduled."

Allscripts Healthcare Solutions delivers information technology
("IT") and services to help healthcare organizations achieve
better clinical, financial and operational results.


AMD: Court Allows Investors' Class Action Over Llano to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Farrell, writing for Fudzilla, reports that a US court has
allowed AMD investors to carry out a class action against the
company over its Llano antics.

The lawsuit claims that AMD bosses, including Rory Read and Lisa
Su, made "false and misleading statements to investors about the
manufacturing and subsequent launch of, as well as the demand for,
its Llano microprocessor" back in 2011 and 2012.  Their case
claims that AMD and its management violated the Securities
Exchange Act.

The court has ruled that anyone who bought AMD stock between April
4, 2011 and October 18, 2012 is covered by the lawsuit.

In 2011 Llano looked promising.  Although its CPU cores were not
great on the performance scores, the chip had the Radeon IGP,
which made it great as an integrated system which put Intel to
shame.

But the shareholders claim that AMD artificially inflated the
company's share price by making false statements about Llano,
which it had touted as "the most impressive processor in history".

Originally set for product launch in the fourth quarter of 2010,
sales of the Llano were delayed because of problems at the
company's chip manufacturing plant, the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit said AMD's then-Chief Financial Officer Thomas Seifert
told analysts on an April 2011 conference call that problems with
chip production for the Llano were in the past, and that the
company would have ample product for a launch in the second
quarter.

AMD continued to state that there were no problems with supply,
concealing the fact that it was only shipping Llanos to top-tier
computer manufacturers because of supply constraints, the lawsuit
said.

By the time Advanced Micro was ready to ramp up shipments in late
2011, no one was interested and this resulted in an inventory
glut.  AMD eventually disclosed in October 2012 that it was
writing down $100 million of Llano inventory as not saleable, the
lawsuit said.


AMEREN CORP: Posts Immaterial Liabilities in Municipal Tax Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Ameren and Ameren
Missouri recorded immaterial liabilities on their respective
balance sheets as of September 30, 2016, and December 31, 2015,
representing their estimate of the probable loss due as a result
of a class action lawsuit related to municipal taxes.

The cities of Creve Coeur and Winchester, Missouri, on behalf of
themselves and other municipalities in Ameren Missouri's service
area, filed a class action lawsuit in November 2011, against
Ameren Missouri in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County,
Missouri. The lawsuit alleges that Ameren Missouri failed to
collect and pay gross receipts taxes or license fees on certain
revenues, including revenues from wholesale power and interchange
sales.

Ameren and Ameren Missouri believe there is a remote possibility
that a liability relating to this lawsuit could be material to
Ameren and Ameren Missouri's results of operations, financial
position, and liquidity. Ameren Missouri believes its defenses are
meritorious and is defending itself vigorously. However, there can
be no assurances that Ameren Missouri will be successful in its
efforts.

Ameren, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, is a public utility
holding company under PUHCA 2005. Ameren's primary assets are its
equity interests in its subsidiaries, including Ameren Missouri
and Ameren Illinois.


ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Suit Over Stock Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals stock dropped from $9.36 to $1.44 after
the failure of its three proposed drugs for liver disease,
shareholders claim in Los Angeles federal class action.

The case is captioned, JODI SIEGEL, Plaintiff, v. ARROWHEAD
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., CHRISTOPHER R. ANZALONE, and KENNETH A.
MYSZKOWSKI, Defendants., Case No. 2:16-cv-8954 (C.D Cal.).

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

          Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          9430 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 400
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Tel: (310) 209-2468
          Fax: (310) 209-2087
          E-mail: service@ssbla.com

               - and -

          Melissa Emert, Esq.
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          6 East 45th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          Tel: (212) 687-7230
          Fax: (212) 490-2022
          E-mail: memert@ssbny.com


AXXIS ELECTRIC: T Square Alleges Diversion of Trust Funds
---------------------------------------------------------
T SQUARE CONTRACTING, LTD., Plaintiff, v. STANLEY M. ISAACS
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER, INC., AXXIS ELECTRIC INC., and KOSTANTINOS
KAPATOS, Defendants, INDEX NO. 656187/2016 (N.Y. Sup., County of
New York, November 28, 2016), alleges on behalf of other similarly
situated that Defendants, as trustees and/or defacto trustees of a
trust formed pursuant to the NYS Lien Law engaged in, and continue
to engage in, activities to divert trust funds that should have
been paid to Plaintiff T Square for services rendered.

Plaintiff is a small business providing residential and commercial
contracting services.

Defendant is an electrical company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Irene Tenedios, Esq.
     LEVITT LLP
     129 Front Street
     Mineola, NY 11501
     Phone: (516) 248-9700


B/E AEROSPACE: Shareholders Want to Enjoin Rockwell Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a class of B/E Aerospace shareholders has asked a federal
judge in Wilmington, Del., to enjoin the company's merger with
Rockwell Collins, which will pay them $34.10 per share in cash and
$27.90 in shares of Rockwell Collins common stock.

The case is captioned, THE VLADIMIR GUSINSKY LIVING TRUST,
individually and On  ehalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. B/E AEROSPACE, INC., AMIN J. KHOURY, JAMES F.
ALBAUGH, DAVID J. ANDERSON, RICHARD G. HAMERMESH, WERNER
LIEBERHERR, JONATHAN M. SCHOFIELD, MARY M. VANDEWEGHE, JOHN T.
WHATES, ROCKWELL COLLINS, INC., and QUARTERBACK MERGER SUB CORP.,
Defendants., Case No. 12957 (Del. Ch.).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

         Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
         Brian D. Long, Esq.
         Gina M. Serra, Esq.
         RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
         2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
         Wilmington, DE 19803
         Tel: (302) 295-5310

              - and -

         RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
         Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
         995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311
         Wayne, PA 19087
         Tel: (484) 588-5516


BANK OF AMERICA: Accused of Misleading Merrill Lynch Brokers
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wursthorn and Christina Rexrode, writing for The Wall
Street Journal, report that Bank of America Corp. is being accused
of misleading some of its Merrill Lynch brokers after introducing
changes to its international dealings that a lawsuit alleges
"devastated" the brokers' businesses and relationships with
clients.

Lawyers for three former Merrill brokers -- part of the so-called
Thundering Herd, who worked in the U.S. but focused on clients in
foreign countries -- said the brokers were "significantly
hindered" by changes introduced by the bank in July 2015.  Those
changes included slashing the number of countries in which the
bank could target clients and curtailing the brokers' ability to
travel outside the U.S.

Merrill also mandated that international clients still serviced by
the firm have to travel to the U.S. to meet with their broker at
least once a year.

An amended complaint to the lawsuit, filed on Nov. 22 in federal
court in the Western District of North Carolina, alleges that the
bank misled its brokers to believe the firm was committed to
serving international clients to keep the brokers from leaving the
firm.  An initial complaint was filed in April.

"They were recruiting financial advisers into the firm . . .
without telling them they planned this change," said Michael
Taaffe, a lawyer at Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick LLP in Sarasota,
Fla., which is representing the former Merrill brokers.

Mr. Taaffe said the suit, which seeks class-action status, aims to
hold Merrill accountable for how its decisions harmed brokers'
businesses and to ensure the brokers are adequately compensated.

Merrill will continue fighting the charges.  "We have denied and
continue to deny these allegations from this case brought early
this year and have already asked the court to dismiss it," a firm
representative said.

Brokers at firms such as Merrill can keep their client
relationships as they move from one firm to another and the
revenue they generate from those clients factors into how they are
paid.  Mr. Taaffe says some brokers affected by the changes have
lost more than half of their clients because of the loss of access
to business in the clients' home countries and other restrictions.

Mr. Taaffe also alleged that many brokers were blindsided by the
changes as they contradicted statements made directly to brokers
and publicly by Bank of America Chief Executive Brian Moynihan.
"Wealthy clients, corporate clients and institutional investors .
. . operate around the globe.  We have been building out our
capabilities to serve them in all those markets," Mr. Moynihan
said in a late 2010 speech, according to the suit.

Merrill has lost dozens of brokers in the wake of the changes.
When Bank of America reported fourth quarter 2015 and first
quarter 2016 earnings, it said departures tied to the changes in
its international business dragged down its broker head count in
those periods.

Miguel Sosa was one of the brokers who left Merrill during that
period.  At the bank, he served mostly wealthy investors in Spain
and the Caribbean, but, after the changes, his Spanish business
was eliminated and his work in the Caribbean was either
"eliminated or severely restricted, depending on the client's
country," according to the complaint. Since leaving Merrill, Mr.
Sosa launched his own firm, Premia Global Advisors LLC in Coral
Gables, Fla.

Because of Merrill's changes, Mr. Taaffe said the brokers "lost a
lot of clients because clients don't want to change firms
repeatedly," adding that the clients are the brokers' "lifeblood."


BAYADA HOME: Faces "Higgins" Suit Under FLSA, Penn. Wage Act
------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE HIGGINS, for herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. BAYADA HOME HEALTH CARE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-02382-MEM (M.D. Pa., November 30, 2016), alleges that
Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage by knowingly classifying its home health
Clinicians as overtime exempt and knowingly failing to pay them
any overtime premium wages for the overtime work they performed
despite knowing they were paid pursuant to a hybrid wage scheme
that is plainly inconsistent with their classification as overtime
exempt.

Bayada Home Health Care, Inc.'s core business involves the
provision of home health care services in at least 22 states,
including Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David J. Cohen, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     604 Spruce Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19106
     Phone: (215) 873-4836

        - and -

     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Phone: 312-233-1550
     Fax: 312-233-1560


BODY SCULPT: "Esteppe" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------
Catherine Esteppe, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Body Sculpt
International, LLC, d/b/a Sono Bello, Body Sculpt of Atlanta, LLC,
d/b/a Sono Bello, and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-04407-AT (N.D. Ga., November 29, 2016), seeks restitution
for alleged damages resulting from Defendants' failure to pay
their patient care consultants and other consultants overtime
wages in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants offer laser liposuction and body transformation,
including body contouring and facial lifting.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John L. Mays, Esq.
     MAYS & KERR LLC
     235 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 202
     Atlanta, GA 30303
     Phone/Fax: (404) 855-0820
     Email: john@maysandkerr.com

        - and -

     Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
     NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
     One Embarcadero Center, Suite 720
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 277-7235
     Fax: (415) 277-7238
     Email: helland@nka.com
            helland@nka.com

        - and -

     Brittany B. Skemp, Esq.
     NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
     4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55427
     Phone: (612) 256-3200
     Fax: (612) 338-4878
     Email: bbachmanskemp@nka.com


BRENTWOOD VILLAGE: Judge Won't Enjoin Building Redevelopment
------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Ryan, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge found it premature to enjoin redevelopment of a
Washington, D.C., apartment complex that families worry will force
out poorer residents.

Two women brought the lawsuit this past August, seeking a federal
injunction against plans a plan to overhaul Brookland Manor
Apartments, a 20-acre apartment complex in northeast Washington at
the intersection of Rhode Island and Montana Avenues that has
housed low-income families for decades.

Brookland Manor has offered subsidized housing under the federal
Section 8 program since 1977, and less than 10 percent of the
complex's 535 apartments are rented at full, market-rate without
public assistance, plaintiffs Adriann Borum and Lorretta Holloman
told the court.

The women filed suit to stop a redevelopment proposed in 2014 by
Mid-City Financial Corp., which wants to  convert 134 four- and
five-bedroom apartments at the complex into smaller, more
profitable, one- and two-bedroom units.

The residents say such construction will force out as many as 149
households, jacking up the prices of the few three-bedroom
apartments that would remain in the complex.

D.C. ordinances prevent large families from living in small
apartments, and both women behind the putative class action rent
four-bedroom apartments.

U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras refused last week to issue a
preliminary injunction, seeing no evidence of imminent,
irreparable harm from the redevelopment.

Because the proposed demolition of buildings in the complex is not
slated to happen for years, the residents' fears are still largely
speculative, according to the Nov. 21 ruling.

"Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that any families -- let
alone a disproportionate number of them -- are facing the imminent
threat of being forced to relocate until well after the case can
be fully adjudicated," Contreras wrote, a 40-page opinion filed in
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Holloman had told the court about the home she shares with her
"aging mother, brother with special needs and three minor
children," including one son autism.

Contreras noted that renovations would not force out Holloman
until 2023, however, and Borum, the other named plaintiff in the
suit, would not be forced out until 2020.

"Even if the proposed class were certified here, vague stories and
misgivings from tenants are insufficient for plaintiffs to
shoulder their burden of showing that an irreparable injury will
likely occur if the court waits to adjudicate the dispute on the
merits," Contreras wrote.

The ruling notes that the court can always revisit the possibility
of injunctive relief if there is evidence that a family faces real
danger of being forced out of their home.

Mid-City and property manager Brentwood Village had hoped to
dismiss the case, but failed to undermine the residents'
statistical analysis.

Though the developers had said the analysis relied on "cherry-
picked" data to show that redevelopment would disproportionately
hurt families, Contreras said the evidence is sufficient at this
juncture.

"Plaintiffs do analyze the effect that the entire project will
have on all existing tenants of Brookland Manor," Contreras wrote.
"Given that plaintiffs adequately allege that the proposed
redevelopment project will affect Brookland Manor families over
three times as much as it will nonfamilies, they state a claim."

The case is captioned, ADRIANN BORUM, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
BRENTWOOD VILLAGE, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.: 16-
1723 (RC) (D.D.C.).


CEMPRA INC: Lied About Health Risks, Investors Say
--------------------------------------------------
Gina Carrano, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
class of disgruntled shareholders claims in federal court in
Greensboro, N.C. that Cempra's cover-up of liver-damage risks
associated with its lead antibiotic sent its stock prices plunging
when the truth was revealed.

Lead plaintiff Sheri Pasqual sued Cempra Inc. in Greensboro, N.C.,
federal court, alleging that the pharmaceutical company
"artificially inflated prices" of its stock shares by glossing
over serious red flags that arose in clinical trials for an
antibiotic meant to treat pneumonia and gonorrhea.

Pasqual says she bought Cempra stock after its executives marketed
its solithromycin product as not only safe, but as an upgrade over
a similar antibiotic that came under Food and Drug Administration
scrutiny in 2007 for adverse liver effects.

Her purchase initially appeared to be a shrewd one, with Cempra
stock prices skyrocketing amid the company's marketing blitz and
topping out at a rate of $32.81 per share in November 2015.

But shareholders' fortunes took a tumble when the FDA released a
report a year later stating that Cempra's clinical trials for
solithromycin actually "highlighted a significant safety signal
for hepatoxicity and drug-induced liver injury," according to the
18-page lawsuit.

Stock prices plummeted after that, falling 61 percent to a low of
$7.30 per share less than a day after the FDA released its report,
the complaint states.

Cempra execs allegedly "deceived the investing public regarding
[the] prospects" of its solithromycin drug, despite knowing about
the red flags raised by their clinical studies.

Their omissions constitute fraud and violate the federal
Securities Exchange Act, Pasqual claims.

Not only did Cempra conceal drug data, its head honchos outright
deceived the public about the chances of liver damage associated
with the antibiotic, according to the lawsuit.

Cempra CEO and co-founder Prabhavathi Fernandes allegedly
dismissed the risks of the drug on multiple occasions, having
assured attendees at a January 2016 healthcare conference that the
company was "very pleased with the safety of [the drug] as well as
the efficacy."

"We did not believe we have any side effects of liver toxicity in
[the] particular patients" who were monitored for an increase in
liver enzyme activity after taking the drug, she reportedly said
at the conference.

Fernandes and her staff "employed devices, schemes and artifices
to defraud" consumers and keep them from making an informed
decision about the value of Cempra stock, Pasqual claims in the
suit.

Pasqual is seeking unspecified damages on behalf of herself and a
proposed class of Cempra stockholders.

A public relations representative for Cempra said that the company
declined to comment on the allegations in the complaint.

Along with Fernandes and Cempra, the complaint also names as
defendants Mark Hahn and David Oldach, the company's CFO and Chief
Medical Officer, respectively.

Pasqual is represented by L. Bruce McDaniel of McDaniel & Anderson
in Raleigh, N.C.

McDaniel is joined by several San Diego co-counselors: David
Walton and Trig Smith of Robbins, Geller, Rudman & Dowd, and Frank
Johnson, Brett Weaver and Phong Tran of Johnson & Weaver.

The case is captioned, SHERI PASQUAL, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. CEMPRA, INC.,
PRABHAVATHI FERNANDES, MARK W. HAHN and DAVID W. OLDACH,
Defendants, No. 1:16-cv-01356 (M.D.N.C.).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

L. BRUCE McDANIEL, Esq.
McDANIEL & ANDERSON, L.L.P.
Lafayette Square
4942 Windy Hill Drive
Raleigh, NC 27609
Telephone: 919/872-3000
919/790-9273 (fax)
State Bar No. 5025

     - and -

DAVID C. WALTON, Esq.
TRIG R. SMITH, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-8498
Telephone: 619/231-1058
Fax: 619/231-7423

     - and -

FRANK J. JOHNSON, Esq.
BRETT M. WEAVER, Esq.
PHONG L. TRAN, Esq.
JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619/230-0063
619/255-1856 (fax)


CHICAGO, IL: Lawsuits Pile Up Over East Area Relocation Process
---------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Lyons, writing for Post-Tribune, reports that as some East
Chicago residents grapple with living on a large swath of toxic
land, contaminated with high levels of lead and arsenic left
behind by massive industrial factories, many also have turned to
the courts seeking help and answers.

Frustrated by a relocation process that some feel has crept along
too slowly, and a perceived lack of transparency, some East
Chicago residents have filed a wave of litigation aimed at
government agencies and the private companies they blame for the
heavy pollution underneath their homes, court records show. The
lawsuits are seeking monetary damages and to assign culpability,
while others are aimed at giving residents a voice in their
relocation and the clean-up process, court records show.

To date, three lawsuits have been filed in federal court and one
in Lake County Superior Court.  The city has received six tort
claim notices, a legal filing required before filing a lawsuit
against a governmental agency.

"The governmental agencies and personnel, including mayors and
governors, knew that more than 1,000 people were being exposed to
these chemicals every day, but they did absolutely nothing about
it," attorney Eric Pavlack, who is representing more than 250
residents, said in a statement. "Now, these families will be left
to deal with the profound consequences of these officials'
inaction and negligence the rest of their lives."

While it's been common knowledge that affected areas, including
the West Calumet Housing Complex, are on or near a federal
Superfund site, the degree of contamination wasn't divulged to the
public until last spring.  That's when East Chicago Mayor Anthony
Copeland announced that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
test results found dangerously high levels of lead and arsenic in
the soil.  Mr. Copeland declared the more than 1,000 residents in
the public housing complex would have to move.

Barely a month after Mr. Copeland told residents they would be
relocated, the first lawsuit against city officials arrived at
federal court, and claimed the city was negligent in not notifying
West Calumet residents sooner of the lead issues at the site.

More than 250 individuals have submitted tort claim notices, legal
filings required before submitting a lawsuit to a court, to the
City of East Chicago, the city's Department of Public Health,
Copeland, the East Chicago Housing Authority, the Indiana
Department of Environmental Management, the State Department of
Health, Gov. Mike Pence, and the Carrie Gosch Elementary School,
according to court documents.

The pending lawsuits claim officials knew about the high levels of
lead and arsenic in the ground but didn't properly inform
residents.  Each plaintiff is seeking the maximum of $700,000 in
damages.

East Chicago officials had no comment on pending litigation.

Another class action suit claims government officials should have
known about contamination at the former U.S.S. Lead site,
according to court documents, and the city's plans to demolish the
complex and relocate the tenants is discriminatory, according to
court documents.

"Whenever there is some sort of disaster, there is inevitably a
whole host of lawsuits about it," said Antony Page, professor and
vice dean of Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law.

City and state officials aren't alone in the litigation.

A class action lawsuit filed by LeRithea Rolan and Lamottca
Brooks, on behalf of the housing complex's residents, claims that
Atlantic Richfield Company, DuPont and the Chemours Company should
be responsible for the costs residents have incurred by being
forced from their homes because of the lead and arsenic the now-
demolished factories left in the ground.

The most recent filing, submitted to Lake County Superior Court,
asked the court to award $100 million in damages to the residents
because of decades of "negligent, recklessness and intentional
release of dangerously large amounts of toxins into the
environment."

Some lawsuits may be filed in hopes of forcing someone to take
responsibility, Mr. Page said, and some litigants may want an
apology and acknowledgment of wrongdoing.

"It isn't necessarily just money," Mr. Page said.

Beyond residents' claims of negligence, other filings have sought
answers from the EPA and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development to smooth the relocation and clean-up process.

Disasters affect where people live and their communities,
Mr. Page said, and the legal system can help spur action from
government agencies.

"Using the legal system to have a voice in that absolutely makes
sense," Mr. Page said.

Debbie Chizewer, of Northwestern University Pritzker School of
Law's Environmental Advocacy Clinic, which is assisting the
residents, said external pressure can get a party to take action.

In the relocation's early stages, a group of residents, through
the Shriver Center, complained to HUD that the process was broken,
and not giving residents enough time or resources to find proper
alternative housing outside of West Calumet.

HUD agreed to ensure all eligible West Calumet residents have
access to relocation benefits, including housing vouchers; waiving
any rent owed by residents from July 22 to March 31, or until
their tenancy ends; and reimbursing rent paid for November.

A second filing, in the U.S. District Court for Northern Indiana,
asked the court to give Calumet neighborhood residents a more
effective voice in ongoing discussions between the EPA, the U.S.
Justice Department and the two companies previously held
responsible for contamination at the Superfund site.  The motion
said residents previously had been left out of the process, which
has a tremendous effect on their daily lives, according to court
documents.

David Chizewer, of Goldberg Kohn Ltd., which is representing the
residents at no charge, said the court system is extremely
powerful and open to people and it can be used to compel a large
company or government agency to take action.  Courts may require
clean up oraward financial damages, he said.

"The power of that legal system is brought to bear," Mr. Chizewer
said.


CHICAGO FAMOUS: Faces "Jordan" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARCUS JORDAN, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. CHICAGO FAMOUS
SEAFOOD LLC., D/B/A THE CRAZY CRAB CHICAGO, MICHAEL L. JACKSON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND MICHAEL LUSTER, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-10912 (N.D. Ill., November 29, 2016), seeks to recover
lost wages for Plaintiff(s) under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Portal-to-Portal Act, and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

CHICAGO FAMOUS SEAFOOD LLC., D/B/A THE CRAZY CRAB CHICAGO, offers
restaurant services to the public.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John William Billhorn, Esq.
     BILLHORN LAW FIRM
     53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Phone: 312) 853-1450


CLEAR SPRINGS: Asks Court to Decertify Farm-Workers Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SHELENE JEAN-LOUIS, JUDES PETITFRERE, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. CLEAR SPRINGS FARMING, LLC, a Foreign Limited
Liability Company, FLORIDA GOLD CITRUS, INC., a Florida Profit
Corporation, JACK GREEN JR., individually, and HOWARD LEASING,
INC. a Foreign Limited Liability company, the Defendants, Case No.
8:13-cv-03084-JSM-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Defendants move the Court
to decertify the class of:

"any and all black/Haitian/Afro-Haitian/African American
seasonable agricultural employees or farm-workers of Defendants
who applied to and/or were hired by Defendants on or about March
19, 2012 for a specific crew with the group designation of C13 for
a six (6) week period during the 2012 Florida harvesting season
and not provided any work by Defendants on the basis of their
race, color, and/or national origin".

The Defendants said, "Plaintiffs have offered no evidence capable
of ameliorating the clear manageability issues present in this
case. Accordingly, collective treatment of Plaintiffs' claims for
money damages is inappropriate, if not impossible. Under the
causes of action asserted and the damages claimed, Plaintiffs
simply cannot establish Rule 23(b) predominance because the number
of individual-specific issues pertaining to compensatory damages,
including, the emotional and psychological harm allegedly
suffered, far outnumber the common questions amongst them. The
Supreme Court in Wal-Mart has made clear that employers such as
Clear Springs have a constitutional right to litigate individual
defenses and Plaintiff has presented no class-wide evidence that
would alleviate Defendants' due process concerns. Thus, the class
must be decertified".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yI7LYcX7

The Defendants are represented by:

          Amy Darby, Esq.
          GORDON & REES, LLP
          400 N. Tampa Street, Suite 2800
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 444 9700
          E-mail: adarby@gordonrees.com


COMMUNITY VOCATIONAL: Files Appeal in Pennsylvania Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erie Insurance Exchange, Petitioner v. Mildon Bus Lines, Inc., and
Community Vocational Schools of Pittsburgh, Inc., individually and
as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, the
Respondent, Case No. 121-WDM-2016 (Penn. Super. Ct., Dec. 1,
2016), is an appeal filed before the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania from a lower court decision in a class action, Case
No. GD-10-003030 (Allegheny Cty. Ct., Sep. 12, 2016).

Petitioner Erie Insurance Exchange is represented by:

          Molotsky, Allan C., Esq.
          Lettieri, Frances Anne, Esq.
          Vodzak, Matthew Daniel, Esq.
          Fowler Hirtzel McNulty & Spaulding, LLP
          2000 Market Street, Suite 550
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 457 4568

Respondent Community Vocational Schools of Pittsburgh, Inc. is
represented by:

          Manogue, David J., Esq.
          Telephone: (724) 816-9757

Respondent Mildon Bus Lines, Inc. is represented by:

          Curran, M. Scot, Esq.
          Telephone: (724) 228 4747


CRESTWOOD MIDSTREAM: Settlement of "Aron" Suit Approved
-------------------------------------------------------
Crestwood Equity Partners LP and Crestwood Midstream Partners LP
said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2016, that the court has approved the
settlement of the Aron class action lawsuit.

On May 20, 2015, Lawrence G. Farber, a purported unitholder of
Crestwood Midstream, filed a complaint in the Southern District of
the United States, Houston Division, as a putative class action on
behalf of Crestwood Midstream's unitholders, entitled Lawrence G.
Farber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Crestwood Midstream Partners LP, Crestwood Midstream
GP LLC, Robert G. Phillips, Alvin Bledsoe, Michael G. France,
Philip D. Gettig, Warren H. Gfellar, David Lumpkins, John J.
Sherman, David Wood, Crestwood Equity Partners LP, Crestwood
Equity GP LLC, CEQP ST Sub LLC, MGP GP, LLC, Crestwood Midstream
Holdings LP, and Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC. This complaint
alleges, among other things, that Crestwood Midstream's general
partner breached its fiduciary duties, certain individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and due
care, and that other defendants aided and abetted such breaches.

On July 21, 2015, Isaac Aron, another purported unitholder of
Crestwood Midstream, filed a complaint in the Southern District of
the United States, Houston Division, as a putative class action on
behalf of Crestwood Midstream's unitholders, entitled Isaac Aron,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs.
Robert G. Phillps, Alvin Bledsoe, Michael G. France, Philip D.
Getting, Warren H. Gfeller, David Lumpkins, John J. Sherman, David
Wood, Crestwood Midstream Partners, LP Crestwood Midstream
Holdings LP, Crestwood Midstream GP LLC, Crestwood Gas Services
GP, LLC, Crestwood Equity Partners LP, Crestwood Equity GP LLC,
CEQP ST Sub LLC and MGP GP, LLC. The complaint alleges, among
other things, that Crestwood Midstream's general partner and
certain individual defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 by filing an
alleged incomplete and misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement
with the SEC.

On August 12, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to consolidate
the Farber and Aron cases, which the court granted on September 4,
2015. Farber subsequently dismissed his claims against all the
defendants on September 16, 2015. Aron filed a motion for
temporary restraining order and requested an expedited preliminary
injunction hearing, which had been scheduled for September 23,
2015.

On September 22, 2015, however, the parties entered into a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) with respect to a proposed
settlement of the Aron lawsuit. The settlement contemplated by the
MOU is subject to a number of conditions, including notice to the
class, limited confirmatory discovery and final court approval of
the settlement. In October 2016, the court approved the
settlement.

"The settlement did not have a material impact to our consolidated
financial statements," the Company said.

Crestwood Equity is a publicly-traded (NYSE: CEQP) Delaware
limited partnership that develops, acquires, owns or controls, and
operates primarily fee-based assets and operations within the
energy midstream sector.  It provides broad-ranging infrastructure
solutions across the value chain to service premier liquids-rich
natural gas and crude oil shale plays across the United States.
It owns and operates a diversified portfolio of crude oil and
natural gas gathering, processing, storage and transportation
assets and connect fundamental energy supply with energy demand
across North America. Crestwood Equity is a holding company and
all of its consolidated operating assets are owned by or through
its wholly-owned subsidiary, Crestwood Midstream, a Delaware
limited partnership.


CRST EXPEDITED: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Sexual Harassment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pilon, writing for The Investigative Fund, reports that when
Karen Carlson started working at trucking behemoth CRST in
June 2013, the company's team trucking branch CRST Expedited had
for years been the subject of complaints from scores of women that
it had not done enough to prevent sexual harassment.

As the employee relations manager, Ms. Carlson was responsible for
conducting investigations of employee concerns and tracking trends
within the department, including its investigative duties. So it
was surprising when Mary Review recently reviewed a deposition
released as part of a pending class action case against CRST
Expedited, a branch of the larger company, on behalf of women who
claim they've been harassed.  In it, Ms. Carlson talked about how
the company handles sexual harassment claims: the accusation is
always considered unfounded unless there is outside corroboration
or an admission from the accused -- a high bar with sexual
harassment and assault.

The Carlson deposition underscores a July report from Mary Review,
in partnership with the Investigative Fund, that chronicled the
patterns of sexual harassment and lack of enforcement many women
in the trucking industry face.  A review of documents and
interviews with dozens of drivers, lawyers and industry experts
described an atmosphere in which women were allegedly subjected to
on-the-job harassment ranging from catcalling to rape, as well as
a system that may be incentivized to not investigate or handle
claims.  The putative class-action lawsuit against CRST Expedited
could include more than 125 women, a lawyer for them said.  Among
the issues they cite is harassment of women in male-female driving
teams, which can send a woman alone with a driving partner in a
truck for days on end.

In her deposition, Ms. Carlson was asked about a situation in
which there is no outside evidence, just the word of the accuser
against the word of the accused.  Was it CRST policy, Ms. Carlson
was asked, to always deem the accusation uncorroborated? Ms.
Carlson said yes, though she also said a driver's certification
could be revoked after multiple complaints.  Ms. Carlson was also
asked whether the company took such prior unsubstantiated
complaints into account when investigating a subsequent complaint
against a driver.  She said no.  "Each case is going to stand on
its own merit," she said.

"We explore as fully as we possibly can to determine if there is
any witnesses," Ms. Carlson said, "any additional information that
can be located through whatever means to make a determination one
way or the other.  But if we simply don't have any additional
information, then we cannot say that the infraction occurred."

Team trucking, from a human resources standpoint, is an inherently
difficult workplace to navigate, as it's common for two drivers to
be on the road for a long time by themselves, often in terrain
where cell reception can be patchy.  Which makes external
corroboration -- like witnesses or crime scene evidence --
especially unlikely.

While the company said it went to great efforts to separate
accused and accuser drivers, "nine times out of ten," Ms. Carlson
said, "there are no witnesses, and so really it is a he-said she-
said matter."  The company also had "no written policy" that
explains when a driver manager is supposed to split up drivers --
for instance as soon as he or she receives a sexual harassment
complaint -- or what a manager has to do to pass along knowledge
of a complaint on to the next dispatcher or driver manager.

A lawyer representing the women in the class asked whether there
are substantial barriers to firing; Ms. Carlson said she was not
aware CRST had such a policy.  Ms. Carlson also said that during
her time at CRST staffing in the human resources division "has
always been an issue" Ms. Carlson said. (She testified that there
are four people in her department who handle employee complaints.)
She also was asked about complaints from drivers who said that
after they complained about sexual harassment, they were taken off
truck without pay and also, sometimes, forced to pay for their own
hotel rooms while they waited for a ride back home.  Ms. Carlson
testified that she didn't know whether or not CRST had a policy
that would compensate drivers in such situations.

Kevin Visser, an attorney representing CRST, declined to comment
on the deposition, citing the pending litigation.  Previously,
speaking generally about the company, Mr. Visser said that the
company logs complaints about drivers and has added more
information regarding sexual harassment to its employee
orientations, among other efforts.  In the deposition, however,
Carlson said that CRST had "no tolerance for harassment or
discrimination based on sex, gender, and gender identity."


DELTA APPAREL: Flores Seeks Payment of OT & Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
OMAR MICHAEL FLORES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DELTA APPAREL, INC., a Georgia
corporation; KIMCO STAFFING SERVICES, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
641499 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 28, 2016), seeks overtime and
minimum wages, premium wages for missed meal and rest periods,
penalties, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have had a consistent
policy of failing to pay wages, including minimum wages, overtime
wages, to Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees in the State of
California in violation of California state wage and hour laws as
a result of, including but not limited to, unevenly rounding time
worked.

Delta Apparel specializes in the design, merchandising, sales, and
marketing of a variety of lifestyle branded activewear, apparel,
and headwear for men.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 553 3600
          Facsimile: (310) 553 3603

               - and -

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          BIBIYAN & BOKHOUR, P.C.
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067 2328
          Telephone (310) 438 5555
          Facsimile (310) 300 1705

               - and -

          Farzin Hatanian, Esq.
          TIATAM AW TNR
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 853 0147
          Facsimile: (310) 300 1582


DENVER MANAGEMENT: Adzhikosyan Seeks Wages Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
ARAM ADZHIKOSYAN, an individual, and MOES 1-1,000, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
DENVER MANAGEMENT, INC., a California corporation doing business
as Denver Industries, Inc. and Denver Electric, Inc.; MANAGEMENT
DENVER INDUSTRIES, INC., a California corporation doing business
as Denver Industries, Inc. and Denver Electric, Inc.; DORAN
GRINSTEIN, an individual; DEAN FELDMAN, an individual; DOES 1-100,
inclusive, the Defendant(s), Case No. BC641844 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Nov. 28, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the California
Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the similarly situated employees on
whose behalf Plaintiffs bring this action include, without
limitation, all current and former non-exempt employees who worked
for Defendants at their business location at 6935 Valjean Avenue,
Van Nuys, California 91406, under which Defendants did business
during the relevant time period and at the subject address, within
the four years prior to the commencement of the action, who were:
(1) not paid all earned straight time
wages; (2) not paid all earned overtime wages; (3) were not
permitted timely, paid, uninterrupted 10 consecutive minute rest
periods in compliance with the provisions of Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order; (4) not timely paid all straight time
wages, overtime wages, or California Labor Code section 226.7
compensation earned as of the time of the termination of their
employment relationship with Defendants; and (5) not provided
lawful wage statements in compliance with California Labor Code.

The Defendants are electrical contractors in Van Nuys, CA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Jones, Esq.
          Alex V. Vo, Esq.
          SANTIAGO & JONES
          21300 Victory Blvd., Suite 810
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 657 5600
          Facsimile: (818) 657 5605
          E-mail: Diones@.santiagoioneslaw.com
                  Avo@.santiagoioneslaw.com


DMNO LLC: Judge Certifies Bartenders and Servers Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JAMES BLACK, ET AL., the Plaintiff, v.
DMNO, LLC, ET AL., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02708-SM-KWR
(E.D. La.), the Hon. Susie Morgan entered an order conditionally
certifying a class of workers:

   "(1) employed as a bartender and paid as an hourly
   employee at Doris Metropolitan within the past three years and
   were not paid overtime, and/or

   (2) employed as a server or assistant server at Doris
   Metropolitan, paid less than $7.25 per hour in direct cash
   wages (e.g., you were paid $2.13/hour), and you were required
   to tip out a portion of your tips to managers and/or
   owners/managers".

The Court further ordered that Plaintiffs may, at their expense,
notify other potential class members of this action using the
Proposed Notice attached to Plaintiffs' reply memorandum in
support of their motion for conditional class certification and
judicial notice, modified to reflect the class definition set
forth. Plaintiffs shall use the Consent Form attached to
Defendants' memorandum in opposition to the motion for class
certification.

A copy of the Order Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0X4fhCEx


DR. REDDY'S: Faces UCFW Local Suits Over Drug Prices
----------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a union local welfare fund brought separate federal class
actions in Philadelphia against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Mylan
and other drugmakers that it says has inflated the prices of
pravastatin and other generic drugs.

The cases are captioned, UCFW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Actavis
Holdco U.S., Inc., Apotex Corp., Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc.,
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,
Inc., and Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., Defendants, Case 2:16-
cv-06057-TON (E.D.Pa.).

UCFW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc.,
Impax Laboratories, Inc., Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., and
Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-06058-
GEKP (E.D. Pa.).

Counsel for Plaintiff UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund and the
Proposed Classes:

Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
Paul Costa, Esq.
Adam J. Pessin, Esq.
FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
One South Broad Street, Suite 2300
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Tel: (215) 567-6565
Fax: (215) 568-5872
E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
        pcosta@finekaplan.com
        apessin@finekaplan.com

     - and -

Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
Jay L. Himes, Esq.
Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
Domenico Minerva, Esq.
Robin A. Van Der Meulen, Esq.
Matthew J. Perez, Esq.
Rudi Julius, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Tel: (212) 907-0700
Fax: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com
        jhimes@labaton.com
        kgarvey@labaton.com
        dminerva@labaton.com
        rvandenneulen@labaton.com
        mperez@labaton.com
        rjulius@labaton.com


DUKE ENERGY: Settlement of Price Reporting Suits Being Finalized
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that settlement of
Price Reporting class action lawsuits involving Duke Energy
Trading and Marketing, LLC (DETM), are being finalized and will be
subject to court approval. The settlement amounts are not material
to Duke Energy.

Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC (DETM), a non-operating
Duke Energy affiliate, was a defendant, along with numerous other
energy companies, in four class action lawsuits and a fifth
single-plaintiff lawsuit pending in a consolidated federal court
proceeding in Nevada. Each of these lawsuits contains similar
claims that defendants allegedly manipulated natural gas markets
by various means, including providing false information to natural
gas trade publications and entering into unlawful arrangements and
agreements in violation of the antitrust laws of the respective
states. Plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts.

In February 2016, DETM reached agreements in principle to settle
all of the pending lawsuits. Settlement of the single-plaintiff
settlement was finalized and paid in March 2016. Settlement of the
class action lawsuits are currently being finalized and will be
subject to court approval. The settlement amounts are not material
to Duke Energy.

Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina, subject to regulation by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Duke Energy operates in the
United States (U.S.) and Latin America primarily through its
direct and indirect subsidiaries.


DUKE ENERGY: Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that Plaintiffs
have filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's order
granting Duke Energy Florida and Florida Power & Light Company's
motions to dismiss a class action complaint.

On February 22, 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of a putative
class of Duke Energy Florida and FP&L's customers in Florida. The
suit alleges the State of Florida's nuclear power plant cost
recovery statutes (NCRS) are unconstitutional and pre-empted by
federal law. Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to repayment of
all money paid by customers of Duke Energy Florida and FP&L as a
result of the NCRS, as well as an injunction against any future
charges under those statutes. The constitutionality of the NCRS
has been challenged unsuccessfully in a number of prior cases on
alternative grounds.

Duke Energy Florida and FP&L filed motions to dismiss the
complaint on May 5, 2016.  On September 21, 2016, the Court
granted the motions to dismiss with prejudice.  Plaintiffs filed a
motion for reconsideration. Following a ruling on the motion for
reconsideration, the plaintiffs will have 30 days to file an
appeal.

Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina, subject to regulation by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Duke Energy operates in the
United States (U.S.) and Latin America primarily through its
direct and indirect subsidiaries.


ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR: "Fisher" Suit Moved from N.D. to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Keana Fisher, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles, the Defendant, Case
No. 3:16-cv-05882, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Eastern Division -
Riverside). The Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:16-cv-02479-ODW-KK to the proceeding. The case is assigned to
Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II.

Enterprise Rent-A-Car provides car rental services. The Company
offers fleet management, used car sales, vehicles sharing, and
commercial truck rental services. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company
serves its clients in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Samuel Greenstone, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201 9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201 9160
          E-mail: MGreenstone@glancylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Benjamin Juhyeok Kim, Esq.
          Melissa K. Zonne, Esq.
          ALLEN MATKINS LECK GAMBLE
          MALLORY & NATSIS LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street Suite 2800
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
          Telephone: (213) 622 5555
          Facsimile: (213) 620 8816
          E-mail: bjkim@allenmatkins.com


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Employee Racial Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Paul Pitt, writing for Parent Herald, reports that Facebook is the
most popular social media site today.  Many are entertained and
pleased with FB's power to reconnect the people all over the
world.  However, Mark Zuckerberg's social media site is currently
facing a lawsuit.

Facebook is currently facing a racial discrimination lawsuit after
two employees named Robert Baron Duffy [former employee] and
Robert Louis Gary [current employee] from North Carolina facility
complained about a manager who uses racial slurs when dealing with
black employees.  In addition to this, the blacks were paid less
than their white colleagues.

The suit was filed on Nov. 22 in US District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The complaint demand for over
$25,000 compensatory and punitive damages per plaintiff. The
lawyer of the complainants believes that Facebook failed to
respond to the first complaint as it goes beyond one person.

However, the FB spokesperson believes that the claims have no
merit.  However, he added that management has already investigated
the matter and took quick action to address the issue. Facebook
already terminate the manager.  They have also provided an
"extensive anti-bias, anti-harassment and anti-discrimination
training to all data center employees nationwide," CNET reported.

This is not the first time that Facebook faces a lawsuit.  In
2011, FB faces a class-action lawsuit after users complained that
their names and faces were used in a "Sponsored Story" ad without
their consent.  The misleading ad was removed in June 2013.  It
also led to Facebook giving FB users more control over how their
names and images will be used in ads.

The trial run for two years and in August 2013, the California
court granted Facebook a $20 million settlement.  Every FB user
who appeared in the unsanctioned promotional is eligible for a $15
payout.  The distribution is scheduled on November 17 and some FB
users already received their bounty, Quartz reported.


FCA US: Accused of Emissions Cheating, Class Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Italian automaker FCA and
German engine-parts maker Robert Bosch are the latest foreign
companies accused of emissions cheating, on Dodge Ram and Jeep
Grand Cherokee models, in a federal class action filed in San
Francisco.

The case is captioned, JOSE CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, a
corporation organized under the laws of Germany; and ROBERT BOSCH
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants, Case 3:16-
cv-06909 (N.D.Cal.).

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes:

Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Jessica M. Thompson, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
        jessicat@hbsslaw.com

     - and -

Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com


FORA FINANCIAL: Class Cert. Bid in "Dolemba" Continued to Jan 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Scott Dolemba, the Plaintiff, v. Fora
Financial, LLC, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-10651
(E.D, Ill.), the Hon. Andrea R. Wood entered an order granting
Plaintiff's motion to continue class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on November 29,
2016, the Plaintiff's Motion to certify class is entered and
continued to January 25, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.  The motion presentment
date of November 29, 2016, was stricken.

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


FREEDOM MORTGAGE: "Brooks" Sues Over RESPA, FCRA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Claudette Brooks, on her behalf and on behalf of a class and
subclass of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Freedom
Mortgage Corp., Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-03849 (D. Md.,
November 30, 2016), seeks equitable relief, including without
limitation, costs and reasonable attorney's fees for violation of
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Ms. Brooks is the owner of the real property subject to this
action located at 3400 Forest Rose Court, District Heights, MD
20747. She refinanced her mortgage loan with her VA benefits
through a funded loan arranged by Amerigroup Mortgage Corporation
on behalf of now defunct GMAC Mortgage LLC. Said loan was assigned
to Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC and subsequently transferred the loan
to Freedom on or about March 2, 2016.

Freedom acquired the servicing rights of Ms. Brooks' Loan when Ms.
Brooks defaulted on the Loan and sought to reorganize her personal
finances in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy reorganization in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland.

Defendant repeatedly threatened to foreclose the said property
despite her claims that Freedom and Ocwen had improperly applied
her mortgage payments during her Bankruptcy Plan as well as her
post-petition payments and had not properly applied her payments
since January 1, 2016 and that Freedom was claiming amounts not
validly due from her and were far in excess of any arrearage in
light of the accounting made by the Bankruptcy Trustee and her
payments made thereafter.

Freedom Mortgage Corporation provides residential mortgage lender
services.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip R. Robinson, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW CENTER LLC
      8737 Colesville Road, Suite 308
      Silver Spring, MD 20910
      Phone: (301) 448-1304
      Email: phillip@marylandconsumer.com


GENERAL NUTRITION: Lied About Efficacy of Supplements, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that GNC lied about the efficacy
of its L-Glutamine dietary supplements, a class claims in Chicago
federal court.

The case is captioned, SEAN WAGNER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL NUTRITION
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-10961 (N.D. Ill.)

Counsel For Plaintiff And The Proposed Putative Classes:

Klint L. Bruno, Esq.
Michael L. Silverman, Esq.
THE BRUNO FIRM
900 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 4E
Chicago, IL 60607
Phone: 773.969.6160
E-mail: kbruno@brunolawus.com
        msilverman@brunolawus.com

     - and -

Nick Suciu III, Esq.
BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
1644 Bracken Road
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
Phone: 313.303.3472
E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com


GIGAPIX STUDIOS: Investor Files Class Suit Over Fraudulent Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Gigapix Studios raised $22 million through the fraudulent claim
that it was making a 3-D animated version of "The Wizard of Oz,"
an investor claims in a class action in Sacramento Superior Court.

The case is captioned, KENNETH HARTMAN, an individual, on behalf
of a1l others similarly situated, Plaintiff. VS. GIGAPIX STUDIOS,
INC. and Docs l-100, inclusive, Defendants (Cal. Super, Sacramento
County).

Attorneys for Plaintiff Kenneth Hartnar, and all others similarly
situated:

          Lawrence J. Salisbury Esq.
          SAUSBURY LEGAL CORP
          656 5d' Ave., Suite R
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 241-27 60
          Email: lsalisbury@salisburylegal.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Redmond, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. REDMOND
          701 Howe Avenue, Suite A-3
          Sacramento, California 95825
          Telephone: (916) 444-8240
          Facsimile: (916) 444-8242
          Email: mr@markredmondlaw.com


GOHEALTH LLC: Placeholder Motion to Certify Class Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Debra Rafano, Plaintiff, v. GoHealth, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-10272 (N.D, Ill.), the Hon. John
Z. Lee entered an order striking Plaintiff's motion to certify
class without prejudice.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on November 29,
2016, Plaintiff's motion to certify class is stricken without
prejudice in light of Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783,
787 (7th Cir. 2015), which overruled Damasco v. Clearwire Corp.,
662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), as well as in light of Campbell-
Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 670 (2016) (holding that a
lapsed offer of judgment has no effect on the justiciability of a
case or a live controversy between the litigating parties). As
such, there is no longer binding authority that requires a class
certification motion to be filed prematurely.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=r1AcPifC


GREAT SENECA: Faces Class Action Over Alleged FDCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kara Kenney, writing for TheIndyChannel.com, reports that even if
you thought your credit card debt was dead and buried, it could
come back to haunt you.

Dead companies could be coming after your money years after
they've gone out of business, Call 6 Investigates has learned.

Mark Harrison, a factory worker in Indianapolis, opened up a
credit card 10 years ago and had forgotten about it.

Until he received a notice in 2013 that he owed Great Seneca
Financial Corporation $862.

Mr. Harrison paid up out of fear they would garnish his wages, but
Mr. Harrison later learned Great Seneca Financial Corporation
dissolved in 2009.

"I'm a blue collar worker working hard to provide for my family,"
said Mr. Harrison.  "They're going after thousands of people like
myself.  It's not right."

Indianapolis consumer law attorneys Steve Hofer and Keith Hagan
said Mr. Harrison is not alone.

"We know there are at least 10,000 people in Indiana being
affected by dead companies," said Mr. Hofer.

They've filed a class action lawsuit alleging debt collectors are
not fully disclosing they represent dead companies that no longer
exist.

Mr. Hagan explained the original credit card company typically
takes a tax write-off when they sell your debt to a debt
collector.

Indiana law requires those debt collectors to have proof they've
been "assigned" the debt.

"The debt collector is making a bet they can buy this debt for
pennies on the dollar and collect on it, and if they don't have
the right paperwork, they can't," said Mr. Hagan.  "If that
assignment isn't in the court file, they have no right to collect
on your debt, and they have no proof of who actually owns that
debt."

Mr. Hagan points out companies have 20 years to collect on a
judgment in Indiana, so a bad decision could come back to haunt
you even if you currently pay your bills on time.

Old debt and judgments disappear from your credit report after
seven years, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

"So, the court agrees to garnishment and automatically your pay is
taken out and you have no idea why," said Mr. Hagan.

The class action lawsuit, filed in October in federal court,
accuses numerous parties of pretending to be "dead companies," and
alleges they violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Defendants include Aries Capital Partners, Aries Data Collections,
Asta Funding, Palisades Collection, Palisades Acquisition, and
Parker Moss.

Moss released this statement to Call 6 Investigates:

"Both the state and federal constitutions provide that anyone can
file a lawsuit.  At this point, that is all there is, a lawsuit.
There has been no determination of wrongdoing by any judge or
jury.  We do not believe that we did anything wrong and intend to
defend this lawsuit to a successful conclusion.  However, we
prefer to try this case before the judge and jury and not in the
press, and therefore decline further comment."

Call 6 Investigates also reached out to several other attorneys
representing defendants in the lawsuit, and is waiting to hear
back.

Consumer Mark Harrison wants to warn other people that dead
companies can come after their money.

"It can happen to you and it's happening to people every day, so
you have to be careful," said Mr. Harrison.  "Do your homework."

Call 6 Investigates is working for you to help you protect your
money.

"If you don't protect your rights, nobody is going to," said
Hagan.

Mr. Hofer said every time a new debt collector is assigned your
debt, you're supposed to get 30 days to dispute it.

"Every time your account changes hands, write them a letter and
say 'I dispute it and what makes you own this?' said Mr. Hofer.
"They have to prove they bought your debt."

Mr. Hofer said he's aware of at least five dead companies you
should be on the lookout for: Great Seneca Financial Corporation,
Centurion Financial Corporation, Colonial Credit Corporation,
Monarch Capital Corporation and Platinum Financial Service
Corporation.


GREENVILLE CHRISTIAN: Sexual Abuse Class Action Ongoing in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Ann Bragg, writing for Cape Cod Times, reports that a man
with ties to the Community of Jesus in Orleans and a controversial
but now defunct school in Ontario is facing charges in Canada that
he sexually assaulted a boy under the age of 18 in the late 1980s.

Robert Farnsworth, 49, of Wolford Township, Ontario, was arrested
Oct. 5 by the Ontario Provincial Police and charged with one count
of sexual assault and one count of gross indecency, following an
investigation that began early this year after a man claimed to
have been the victim of a sexual assault between 1986 and 1987.

Mr. Farnsworth's next court appearance was scheduled for Nov. 24.
He has yet to enter a plea to the two charges.

Orleans town census records from 1989 show Farnsworth lived at 5
Bay View Drive, the address of the 14-acre Community of Jesus
property at Rock Harbor.  The religious organization's attorney,
Jeffrey Robbins, said Farnsworth lived in the private home of a
member of the church.

"That's not a link," Mr. Robbins said about the allegations
against Farnsworth and his time in Orleans.

Mr. Farnsworth is the son of Charles Farnsworth, the co-founder
and former headmaster of Grenville Christian College in Maitland,
Grenville County, Ontario.  The shuttered K-13 private school and
its leaders are defendants in a $225 million class action lawsuit
in Ontario Superior Court.  The lawsuit alleges mistreatment of
residential students from 1973 to 1997, including the systematic
indoctrination of students in the teachings and practices of the
Community of Jesus.

Charles Farnsworth died in 2015.

The class action lawsuit filed in 2007 alleges residential
students at the school underwent humiliating "light sessions" and
exorcisms, experienced "excessive, abusive and inappropriate
punishments" such as being forced to cut the lawn with scissors,
and had communication cut off from their families.  During a
"light session" students were forced to confess sins, real or
imagined, as staff members challenged or screamed at the students,
according to an amended statement of claim filed on March 15,
2010, as part of the lawsuit.  The lawsuit alleges the school
failed to protect students from sexual, physical, psychological,
emotional and spiritual abuse; failed to provide adequate
supervision of students; hired unqualified staff; and imposed
demeaning and brutal tasks as discipline.

Punishment of Grenville students included being sent to the
Community of Jesus, the lawsuit says.

Attorneys for the school and Charles Farnsworth denied the
allegations in a statement of defense filed in September 2010,
including the allegation that there was a campaign to "promote and
indoctrinate students in the teachings and practices of the
Community of Jesus."

"What was 'promoted' at Grenville was conducting oneself with
respect for others and in accordance with basic human moral values
predominantly accepted as such in Canadian society," according to
the statement.

The class action lawsuit was certified in 2014 and the case is
ongoing.

On the day after his arrest, police brought Robert Farnsworth to
the Ontario Court of Justice in Brockville, and he was released on
$2,000 bond on each charge.  At his court appearance, he was
ordered to stay away from nine people, including at least one of
the class action's representative plaintiffs, Andrew Hale-Byrne, a
court official said.  The alleged incident that spawned the
charges against Mr. Farnsworth occurred in Grenville County, which
includes the town of Maitland where the Grenville school was
located, but officials have not said whether it is connected
directly to the college.

Making any connection between Robert Farnsworth living at the
complex in Orleans nearly three decades ago and the charges he now
faces in Ontario is "a disgraceful bit of guilt by association"
and a "terrible smear," Robbins said.

Robert Farnsworth's attorney, Michael O'Shaughnessy, of
Brockville, Ontario, did not return messages seeking comment for
this story.  The Times could not locate contact information for
Robert Farnsworth.

The origins of the Community of Jesus trace back to the early
1960s in Orleans when two Episcopal women -- Cay Andersen and Judy
Sorensen -- became known for their Bible teaching, prayer and
practical insights in applying scriptural principles to daily
living, according to the church's website.  After Ms. Andersen's
death in 1988 and Ms. Sorensen's retirement in 1992, Betty Pugsley
was elected church leader.  Today, about 225 adults and 50
children and young people live as households in 30 privately
owned, multifamily homes that surround the church, including 25
celibate men and 60 celibate women.

Mary Haig, of Orleans, known now as Mary Haig French, is also
named as a defendant in the class action lawsuit because she is
the executor of the will of defendant J. Alastair Haig, according
to Ontario-based attorney Sabrina Lombardi, who represents the
plaintiffs.

J. Alastair Haig was the Grenville school's co-founder and came to
the Community of Jesus in 1983, leaving the headmaster role to
Charles Farnsworth, according to the lawsuit.

Mr. Haig told the Times in 1981 that the Community of Jesus had
saved the college in 1973 from its moral and financial problems.
Haig French, who was an administrator and teacher at the school,
did not return a message seeking comment for this story. J.
Alastair Haig died in 2009.

Many school staff members belonged to the church and regularly
visited the Cape to study Community of Jesus doctrine and learn
discipline, and children from the Community were sent to the
Ontario school, according to church and school officials who have
spoken with the Times in the past.

But Robert Farnsworth was not a staff member at Grenville, said
Toronto attorney Geoffrey Adair, who represents the school in the
class action lawsuit.  And Robert Farnsworth was never a member of
the Community of Jesus, Robbins said.

Hale-Byrne, who wrote a book published in 2015 about Grenville's
history from 1973 to 1997 and its connection with the Community of
Jesus from his perspective and research, disagrees.

"The 1986 Grenville yearbook clearly references him as staff 'Mr.
Robert Farnsworth' and they identify him as responsible for junior
dormitory and coaching junior boys basketball," he said. "The
yearbook clearly states, 'Robert is known for getting the junior
boys to bed.'"

And all of the staff at Grenville during the period covered by the
class action lawsuit -- 1973 to 1997 -- were members of the the
Community of Jesus, Hale-Byrne said.

"They all wore the Community of Jesus ring and took vows to
Mothers Cay, Judy and Betty, and that includes Robert Farnsworth,"
he said.


HCSB FINANCIAL: "Shelley" Action Settled and Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
HCSB Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that a settlement
agreement has executed and an order of dismissal has been filed in
the class action lawsuit by Robert Shelley, thereby ending the
matter.

On July 19, 2012, Robert Shelley, in his individual capacity and
on behalf of a proposed class of other similarly situated persons,
filed a lawsuit against the Company and Horry County State Bank in
the Court of Common Pleas for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit,
State of South Carolina, County of Horry, Case No. 2012-CP-26-
5546. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff and other similarly
situated persons were contacted by employees of the Bank, that
those employees solicited a sale of Bank stock, and that the Bank
employees did not disclose material information about the Bank's
financial condition prior to their respective purchases of stock.

The complaint seeks the certification of a class action to include
all purchasers of Bank stock solicited between July 1, 2009 and
December 31, 2011. The plaintiff has asserted violations of the
South Carolina Uniform Securities Act, negligence and civil
conspiracy, and seeks actual, punitive and treble damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company and the Bank made a motion for summary judgment in
March 2014, which the court granted on April 8, 2014. Robert
Shelley subsequently filed a motion to reconsider, which was
denied.  Mr. Shelly subsequently filed a notice of appeal with the
South Carolina Court of Appeals.

Both parties completed their respective briefing and oral
arguments were scheduled for October 6, 2016.  However, opposing
counsel initiated settlement discussions a few days before the
appeal was to be heard and a compromise was reached by the
parties.  A settlement agreement was executed and an order of
dismissal filed, thereby ending this matter.

HCSB Financial Corporation was incorporated on June 10, 1999 to
serve as a bank holding company for its wholly owned subsidiary,
Horry County State Bank.


HESKA CORPORATION: "Fauley" Class Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Heska Corporation continues to defend against a class action
lawsuit by Shaun Fauley, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

The Company said, "On March 12, 2015, a complaint was filed
against us by Shaun Fauley in the United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois alleging our transmittal of
unauthorized faxes in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act
of 2005, as a class action seeking stated damages of the greater
of actual monetary loss or five hundred dollars per violation. We
intend to defend the Company vigorously in this matter."

Heska Corporation and its wholly-owned and majority-owned
subsidiaries sell advanced veterinary diagnostic and specialty
products.


HOME DEPOT: Settles Customer Data Breach Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Greg Meckbach, writing for Canadian Underwriter, reports that how
companies respond to data breaches in which criminals obtain
sensitive customer data is "hugely important" in reducing the risk
of a class-action lawsuit, a lawyer suggested Nov. 23 to insurance
professionals.

At the November luncheon of the Property Casualty Underwriters
Club, guest speaker Patrick Hawkins -- PHawkins@blg.com --
discussed several recent court cases, including a class action
lawsuit -- now settled in Ontario -- against Home Depot Inc.

Court records indicate that in 2014, Home Depot's payment card
system was hacked by criminals.

Class action lawsuits were filed in Saskatchewan and Ontario.  A
settlement in the Ontario lawsuit was approved this past August by
Mr. Justice Paul Perrell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

"Home Depot acted hugely proactively on this," said Mr. Hawkins, a
lawyer for Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, during the PCUC luncheon in
Toronto.  "They apologized. They immediately offer a full credit
monitoring service."

As part of the settlement, Home Depot agreed to create a fund of
$250,000 to compensate plaintiffs for the risk of a fraudulent
charge on credit cards, the risk of identify theft and the
inconvenience for checking their credit card statements.

Justice Perrell noted that Home Depot apologized in press releases
and assured its customers that they would not be responsible for
fraudulent charges on their accounts

As of August, there was "no evidence that a Class Member absorbed
a fraudulent charge," Justice Perrell wrote at the time.

"The case for Home Depot being culpable was speculative at the
outset and ultimately the case was proven to be very weak,"
Justice Perrell wrote.  "The real villains in the piece were the
computer hackers, who stole the data.  After the data breach was
discovered, there was no cover up, and Home Depot responded as a
good corporate citizen to remedy the data breach.  There is no
reason to think that it needed or was deserving of behaviour
modification.  Home Depot's voluntarily-offered package of
benefits to its customers is superior to the package of benefits
achieved in the class actions."

Justice Perrell "commented positively," Mr. Hawkins said on
Nov. 23, adding that if a corporation hit by a privacy breach were
to offer services such as credit monitoring and identity theft
insurance in, "where there is a risk," they are "significantly
limiting the chances of a successful class action."

Noteworthy was the refusal of Justice Perrell to approve costs to
plaintiff counsel of more than $400,000, Hawkins suggested at the
luncheon, held at the DoubleTree Hotel north of Toronto City Hall.

In Home Depot, Justice Perrell valued the settlement to be
$400,000.

"The judge said, 'and the plaintiffs' class counsel want $400,000
as well?'" Hawkins noted.  "The court said that's a bit much in
these circumstances and they reduced it to $120,000."

That case "was settled on incredibly favourable terms I am going
to say, to Home Depot," Mr. Hawkins told PCUC members.

Another class action settlement the Hawkins referred to was Evans
v. The Bank of Nova Scotia.

Michael and Crystal Evans filed a lawsuit in Ontario against
Richard Wilson and his employer, the Bank of Nova Scotia.  They
applied to have it certified as a class action suit.  Court
records indicate that Wilson, a mortgage administration officer,
provided "private and confidential information of Bank customers
to his girlfriend, who then disseminated the private information
to third parties for fraudulent and improper purposes."  A
"substantial number of the Bank's customers became victims of
identity theft and fraud, which has negatively affected their
credit rating," Mr. Justice Robert Smith of the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice wrote in 2014.

Bank of Nova Scotia identified 643 customers whose files were
accessed by Wilson from July, 2011 through May, 2012.

In court, the bank argued it "cannot be held vicariously liable
for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion for a deliberate breach
of customers' privacy rights by one of its employees."

The Evans case was settled, Hawkins said Nov. 23, adding 165 class
members, who were victims of identity theft, received $7,000 each.

"Everyone else, who just got notified and nothing happened to them
-- they got no money," Hawkins said.

The tort of "intrusion upon seclusion" was recognized by the Court
of Appeal for Ontario in 2012 in its ruling in Jones v. Tsige.
Winnie Tsige, an employee of Bank of Montreal, was sued by Sandra
Jones, a co-worker and also a bank customer.  Tsige viewed Jones'
bank records.  Initially the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
dismissed the lawsuit but that was overturned on appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada "has consistently interpreted" section
8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms "as protecting
the underlying right to privacy," Mr. Justice Robert Sharpe wrote
on behalf of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Jones v. Tsige.

"It is within the capacity of the common law to evolve to respond
to the problem posed by the routine collection and aggregation of
highly personal information that is readily accessible in
electronic form," Justice Sharpe added.  "Technological change
poses a novel threat to a right of privacy that has been protected
for hundreds of years by the common law under various guises and
that, since 1982 and the Charter, has been recognized as a right
that is integral to our social and political order."

Concurring were then-Chief Justice Warren Winkler and then-
Associate Chief Justice Douglas Cunningham.

In awarding damages, a court must take into account the
circumstances, including "any distress, annoyance or embarrassment
suffered by that person or his family arising from the violation
of privacy" and "the conduct of that person and the defendant,
both before and after the commission of the violation of privacy,
including any apology or offer of amends made by the defendant,"
Justice Sharpe wrote.

"There is a whole list of factors that the Court of Appeal talks
about in assessing the level of damages and amongst those factors
-- and this was in an individual action -- they said it is
important to know how someone responds to the beach," Mr. Hawkins
noted during the PCUC luncheon.  "Has there been an apology? Has
it stopped?"


INSULET CORP: Arkansas Teacher Retirement Sys. Case Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Insulet Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the case, Arkansas
Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet, et al., 1:15-cv-12345,
remains outstanding.

Between May 5, 2015 and June 16, 2015, three class action lawsuits
were filed by shareholders in the U.S. District Court,
Massachusetts, against the Company and certain individual current
and former executives of the Company. Two suits subsequently were
voluntarily dismissed.

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet, et al., 1:15-cv-
12345, which remains outstanding, alleges that the Company (and
certain executives) committed violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making allegedly false and misleading statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages in
connection with the Company's allegedly inflated stock price
between May 7, 2013 and April 30, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees
and costs.

Due in part to the preliminary nature of this matter, the Company
currently cannot reasonably estimate a possible loss, or range of
loss, in connection with this matter.

Insulet Corporation is primarily engaged in the development,
manufacturing and sale of its proprietary Omnipod Insulin
Management System, an innovative, discreet and easy-to-use insulin
infusion system for people with insulin-dependent diabetes.


INTERMARK FOODS: "Canga" Suit Seeks Double Damages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM JIMENEZ CANGA, and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. INTERMARK FOODS, INC. a/k/a INTERMARK MARKETING
SERVICES, INC., MARIA EPRES IBANEZ, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-24934-MGC (S.D. Fla., Nov. 28, 2016), seeks double damages and
reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and severally,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, between the period of December 19,
2014 through December 14, 2015, the Plaintiff worked an average of
60 hours a week for Defendants and was paid an average of $8.33
per hour but was never paid the extra half time rate for any hours
worked over 40 hours in a week as required by the FLSA. The
Plaintiff therefore claims the half time overtime rate for each
hour worked above 40 in a week.

The Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay
Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act as Defendants knew of the overtime requirements of the FLSA
and recklessly failed to investigate whether Defendants' payroll
practices were in accordance with the FLSA.

Intermark Foods is a hispanic food distributor in South Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. Zidell, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865 6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865 7167
          E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


JET CONCRETE: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Fausto Alvarez, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Jet Concrete Services, LLC, Edward Keenan
and Jason Rodgers, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-16693, (E.D. La.,
November 30, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, interest,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs for violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Jet Concrete Services is a limited liability company organized
under the laws of Louisiana with its principal place of business
in Metairie, Louisiana. It is a New Orleans-based concrete
subcontractor specializing in commercial, civil, and residential
concrete work where Plaintiff worked as a manual laborer who
regularly worked over 40 hours per week, but was not compensated
properly for the overtime hours rendered.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roberto Luis Costales
     3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Telephone: (504) 534-5005
     Facsimile: (504) 272-2956
     Email: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com

            - and -

     William H. Beaumont
     3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Telephone: (504) 483-8008
     Email: whbeaumont@gmail.com

            - and -

     Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
     3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Telephone: (504) 534-5005
     Email: emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com


JOHN BRADSHAW: Collison Seeks Approval of $40-Mil. Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LISA J. COLLISON, the Plaintiff, v. JOHN D.
BRADSHAW, P.C., a Legal Professional Corporation, and JOHN D.
BRADSHAW, individually, the Defendant(s), Case No. 1:16-cv-00270-
RHB-PJG (W.D. Mich.), Lisa Collison asks the Court to:

   (1) certify the settlement class of:

       "(a) all persons with addresses in the State of Michigan;
       (b) to whom the Defendants sent a letter that sought to
       charge a $4.00 convenience fee for the processing of
       electronic payments made to the Defendant; (c) in an
       attempt by Defendants to collect a debt purportedly was
       incurred for personal, family, or household purposes and
       thereafter assigned for the purpose of collection by the
       Defendant; (d) during the period beginning March 1, 2015
       and ending March 1, 2016".

   (2) appoint Lisa Collison as the settlement class
       representative;

   (3) appoint Brian Parker, Esq. and Nicholas A. Reyna as class
       counsel;

   (4) preliminarily approve the proposed Settlement Agreement;

   (5) approve the form and methods of the proposed Class Notice;

   (6) and grant such further relief as the Court deems
       reasonable and just.

The proposed Settlement would establish a $40,00000 cash
settlement fund.  Plaintiff's counsel intends to seek -- and
Defendants will not oppose a request for -- fees and costs to be
paid from the Settlement Fund in an amount not to exceed $17,500.
The amount available for distribution to Class Members (Net
Settlement Fund) is $22,500.  The Defendants have represented that
there are 11,276 people in the proposed class.

The Parties acknowledge that the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act limits class recovery of statutory damages to the lesser of
$500,000.00 or 1% of the Defendants' net worth, whichever is less.
The Defendants by their counsel, have made certain representations
to Class Counsel concerning Defendants' net worth based upon
information provided by Defendants. As a result of significant in-
depth settlement discussions and negotiations regarding the case
and the net worth of the Defendants, the Parties have agreed that
the Defendants will pay an amount of damages which is more than
the maximum amount of 1% damages that could be recovered under the
FDCPA if a class were successfully certified on the merits at
trial and on appeal. The foregoing information concerning the
Defendants' net worth is also a material term of this Agreement.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KaaAQ5JV

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas A. Reyna, Esq.
          528 Bridge St., Ste.
          Grand Rapids, MI 49504
          Telephone: (616) 235 4444
          E-mail: Nickreyna7@hotmail.com

               - and -

          Brian P. Parker (P48617)
          1A 2000 Town Ctr., Ste. 1900
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: (248) 342 9583
          E-mail: brianparker@collectionstopper.com


L'OREAL USA: Lee, et al. Sue Over Hair Repair Balm False Ad
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vivian Lee and John Does 1-100, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. L'OREAL USA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09266-PGG (S.D.N.Y., November 30,
2016), alleges deceptive practices in marketing, advertising and
promotion of the L'Oreal Paris(R) Advanced Haircare Total Repair 5
Damage Erasing Balm.

Defendant designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes and
sells popular consumer beauty products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Anne Seelig, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212-465-1188
     Fax: 212-465-1181


LAWRENCE LIVERMORE: Retirees' Class Action Faces Delay
------------------------------------------------------
The Independent reports that a class action lawsuit aimed at
returning Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory retirees to
University of California health care programs will be delayed by
at least a month after it was found that the list of class members
appears to be short by nearly 2,000 names.

If the list can be updated by mid-December, the parties to the
suit expect to meet in Superior Court in Oakland then to consider
possible next steps.

The retirees lost UC health care starting in 2008 after the
Laboratory's operating contract was moved from the University to a
for-profit consortium, Lawrence Livermore National Security. They
filed suit in 2008.

A valid class membership list is required for experts representing
the retirees to calculate potential damages in case there were a
settlement or trial.

According to a court document called a joint case management
statement, the names and contact information of 4,536 potential
class members were established in late 2014 based on a spreadsheet
provided under subpoena by the for-profit consortium, LLNS.

After some retirees exercised their right to opt out of the suit,
a class of 4,383 remained.

In late May of this year, during a meeting of attorneys
representing the parties to the suit, health benefits documents
were discovered indicating that there might be many more members
of the class, including 1,255 more retirees and survivors and 706
more dependents of former employees.

The possibility that the 2014 LLNS spreadsheet was incomplete had
been raised soon after it was produced when the retirees noted a
2007 financial report from the Laboratory that showed "5,594
'eligible annuitants,'" according to the case management
statement.

After questioning the discrepancy in numbers, the retirees were
assured that "LLNS has double checked the data and re-verified its
response to the subpoena showing 4,536 class members," the
statement said.

Commenting on the difference in numbers, a Laboratory spokesperson
suggested that some of those on the added list might not have been
employees.  "We produced the information available to us at that
time through our (healthcare) service provider . . . If there are
additional individuals who should be part of the class, they were
not reflected in our records as of late 2014."


LIFE STORAGE: Insurance Program Violates NJ Laws, Plaintiffs Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
Life Storage, Inc. and Life Storage LP said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that a class action complaint has been amended to add a
claim that the Company's insurance program violates New Jersey
consumer protection laws.

On or about August 25, 2014, a putative class action was filed
against the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law
Division Burlington County. The action seeks to obtain
declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief for a class of
consumers based upon alleged violations by the Company of the New
Jersey Truth in Customer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Insurance
Producer Licensing Act.

On October 17, 2014, the action was removed from the Superior
Court of New Jersey Law Division Burlington County to the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The Company brought a motion to partially dismiss the complaint
for failure to state a claim, and on July 16, 2015, the Company's
motion was granted in part and denied in part.

On October 20, 2016, the complaint was amended to add a claim that
the Company's insurance program violates New Jersey consumer
protection laws. The Company intends to vigorously defend the
action, and the possibility of any adverse outcome cannot be
determined at this time.

Life Storage, Inc., formerly known as Sovran Self Storage, Inc.,
is a real estate investment trust, or REIT, that owns its assets
and conducts its operations through the Operating Partnership, a
Delaware limited partnership, and subsidiaries of the Operating
Partnership. Effective August 15, 2016, the Parent Company changed
its name from "Sovran Self Storage, Inc." to "Life Storage, Inc."
and the Operating Partnership changed its name from "Sovran
Acquisition Limited Partnership" to "Life Storage LP".


LYFT INC: Teamsters' Objection to Deal Rejected
-----------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in San Francisco, rejected teamsters'
objections to a proposed $27 million settlement between Lyft and a
class of 163,000 California drivers from the bench on December 1,
but also delayed finalizing the deal.

The Uber Lyft Teamsters Ride Share Alliance, or ULTRA, filed a
lengthy brief opposing the deal in October, claiming it fails to
adequately compensate full-time drivers and forces workers to
waive their rights to sue Lyft on violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

During a final settlement approval hearing on December 1, U.S.
District Judge Vince Chhabria appeared to grow increasingly
frustrated with an objecting attorney's inability to offer
specifics on why he should reject the deal.

Attorney Robert Bonsall said doubling compensation for those who
drove 30 hours or more a week for Lyft is inadequate because it
gives part-time drivers a relatively high level of compensation
for less work. But Bonsall could not say exactly what the
multiplier should be for full-time drivers.

"How can I accept your objection if you can't tell me what an
appropriate allocation should be?" Chhabria asked.

Bonsall replied that he would need more data to arrive at an exact
figure, but he couldn't say precisely what data he needed to
calculate the number.

"Have you not thought about this enough?" Chhabria asked.

Turning to a settlement provision that shields Lyft from lawsuits
over alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
Bonsall said the federal statute requires workers to affirmatively
opt in to waive their rights to sue.

Because claims of FLSA violations were never raised in the Cotter
v. Lyft suit, Bonsall argued Lyft could not simply add that
condition to the settlement and force California drivers to waive
their rights.

"The waiver in this case will implicate the federal rights of
individual drivers in a way not consistent with the statute,"
Bonsall said. "They will be bound by this without ever opting in."

But Chhabria said that happens in class action settlements "all
the time," and he sees no reason why FLSA claims should be treated
differently than state-law claims also being waived as part of the
deal.

The judge seemed more open to arguments that drivers were not
sufficiently notified of the settlement terms and their rights to
opt out or object to the deal, however.

Objectors complained the actual text of the agreement was not
posted online and that class members were not given adequate time
to object to the motion for attorneys' fees, which was filed after
the deadline for objections. The attorneys are seeking $3.67
million in fees, or 13.6 percent of the $27 million settlement.

"I will give more thought on whether further notice is needed,"
Chhabria said at the end of the hearing.

During the objections phase of the hearing, a deaf Lyft driver
named Colin Piotrowski told the judge through an interpreter about
the issues he faces as a driver with hearing problems.

Piotrowski said he had trouble getting Lyft to correct the
misclassification of his vehicle as a 5-seater rather than a 7-
seater, which makes him lose money on rides. He also described
problems getting in touch with Lyft to complain about a passenger
who hit him in the head, and that he sometimes misses rides
because the app uses audible rather than visual cues to alert
drivers to ride requests.

The settlement agreement includes no provision to address issues
for deaf or hearing-impaired drivers, but it does require Lyft to
end its policy of terminating drivers for any reason.

Class attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan told the judge that 84,000
drivers, or 51 percent of the class, had filed claims for
reimbursement thus far.

As of mid-November, class attorneys estimated that drivers who
drove more than 2,000 hours for Lyft since May 2012 would receive
payments of approximately $11,000 to reimburse vehicle expenses
and unpaid overtime.

As part of the deal, the drivers agree to waive their claims that
Lyft misclassified them as independent contractors and denied them
employment benefits.

Liss-Riordan said drivers may continue submitting claims to
receive a portion of the settlement fund up until the first
distribution is allocated to drivers. That will occur about six
months after the judge grants final approval to the settlement,
she said.

The class attorney noted that the settlement will not prohibit
drivers from challenging Lyft's arbitration clause, which requires
drivers to resolve employment claims through arbitration rather
than through the courts. Liss-Riordian said she has an appeal
pending in the First Circuit against a ruling upholding Lyft's
arbitration clause in Massachusetts.

The case is captioned, PATRICK COTTER, ALEJANDRA MACIEL, and
JEFFREY KNUDTSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. LYFT, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:13-CV-04065-VC (N.D. Cal.).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs COTTER, MACIEL, and KNUDTSON on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated:

Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com

     - and -

Matthew D. Carlson, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
466 Geary St., Suite 201
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 630-2651
E-mail: mcarlson@llrlaw.com

Attorneys for Objectors: ULTRA, TEAMSTERS JOINT COUNCILS NUMBERS 7
AND 42, HELEN HEBERT and VALERIE MITCHELL

TEAGUE P. PATERSON, Esq.
LORRIE BRADLEY, Esq.
BEESON, TAYER & BODINE, APC
483 Ninth Street, 2nd Floor
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 625-9700
Facsimile: (510) 625-8275
Email: tpaterson@beesontayer.com
       lbradley@beesontayer.com


MARLAN INC: Faces "Marshall" Suit Under FLSA, Col. Wage Laws
------------------------------------------------------------
HEIDI MARSHALL in her individual capacity and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MARLAN INC. D/B/A RALSTON ROAD
CAFE, EVAN MARLANGOUSTSOS, an individual, and RIA MARLANGOUSTSOS,
an individual Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02927 (D. Col.,
December 1, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid or underpaid wages and
other damages under the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado
Minimum Wage Act.

Defendant Marlan Inc. operates a cafe.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Penn A. Dodson, Esq.
     Alexander L. Gastman, Esq.
     ANDERSONDODSON, P.C.
     11 Broadway, Suite 615
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 961-7639
     Fax: (646) 998-8051
     E-mail: penn@andersondodson.com
             alex@andersondodson.com


MASTERCARD INC: Faces Class Action in UK Over Excessive Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Isobel Frodsham, writing for Mailonline, reports that the UK's
former chief financial ombudsman has said that everyone in Britain
could get GBP300 if he wins a GBP14 billion lawsuit against
MasterCard over card charges.

Walter Merricks, who is leading the class action lawsuit against,
has said that charges the company imposed over 16 years were
"excessive".

The case revolves around the charges imposed by MasterCard on
retailers for processing credit and debit card payments over 16
years.

These "interchange fees" were passed on to all shoppers regardless
of whether they were MasterCard customers or not in higher prices
on everything from a pair of shoes to the weekly groceries.

Mr. Merricks is aiming to help consumers their money back.

Speaking to The Sun, he said the charges were worse than PPI as
people realised that they had the insurance.

He said: "Financial institutions are spotting ways to make more
money from consumers.  This was an invisible way of doing it.
"We think we have a good chance of success because they've already
been found guilty of fixing these fees at an excessive level."

The legal action is supported by the consumer group Which? and a
high-profile American legal firm.

Mr. Merricks, who is a lawyer, oversaw complaints and
investigations into mis-selling cases by banks and other financial
institutions during his ten years as the Chief Financial
Ombudsman.

He has now pointed out that the fact that card-processing charges
were too high between 1992 and 2008 has already been established
by European courts.

He believes the only issue in question is how much this cost
British consumers -- and how much they should be repaid.

Speaking to The Daily Mail previously, he said: "The prices of
everything we all bought from 1992 to 2008 were higher than they
should have been as a result of the unlawful conduct of
MasterCard.

"To be clear, there is no question that MasterCard acted illegally
in the way it conducted its business, a business that affects all
of us.  All of us overpaid to the tune of up to GBP19billion
during a period lasting 16 years."

He went on to say: "Although most of us did not know this, experts
who study the retail economy knew it was happening -- and so did
MasterCard.

"My aim is to get the redress to which UK consumers are entitled
and to ensure that MasterCard cannot hold on to the illegal
profits it made.  This case should send a signal to companies that
break competition laws at the expense of UK consumers that they do
so at their financial peril."

The case is a new type of US-style class action claim which was
made possible by the Consumer Rights Act, which came into effect
last year.

All consumers are automatically included in the legal case unless
they choose to opt out.

A spokesman for MasterCard said: "MasterCard continues to disagree
with the basis of the proposed collective action and we will
strongly oppose this claim in the event the court decides to hear
the case.

"Our payments network delivers choice to consumers and real value
through the benefits of security, convenience and consumer
protection, and we are committed to investing in our services in
order to continue to meet the rapidly evolving needs of all our
customers."


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Sharpe" Suit in E.D. of Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management. The case is titled SHIRLEY D. SHARPE AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT
and MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-06256-JD
(E.D. Pa., Dec. 1, 2016).

Midland Credit helps consumers resolve past-due debt obligations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cary L. Flitter, Esq.
          FLITTER MILZ, P.C.
          450 N. Narberth Ave., Suite 101
          NARBERTH, PA 19072
          Telephone: (610) 822 0782
          Facsimile: (610) 667 0552
          E-mail: cflitter@consumerslaw.com


MOPHIE INC: "Stotz" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Eric Stotz individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mophie
Inc., Defendant, Case No. BC639116, was removed from the Los
Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-08898 to the
proceeding.

Mophie designs and manufactures mobile battery cases. The company
provides battery cases, battery and storage products, universal
batteries and belt clips.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel Scott Silverman, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          2049 Century Park East Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 299 9900
          Facsimile: (310) 229 9901
          E-mail: dsilverman@venable.com


MT. HOOD MEADOWS: Faces "Harris" Class Suit Over Value Passes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
class action accuses Mt. Hood Meadows Oreg. of advertising $379
"value passes," but charging $499 at checkout, in Multnomah County
Court in Portland, Ore.

The case is captioned, CHRIS HARRIS, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, vs. MT. HOOD
MEADOWS OREG., LLC., an Oregon limited liability company,
Defendant, 16CV39854, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON
FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY.

Lead Trial Attorney for Plaintiff:

      Michael Fuller, Esq.
      Olsen Daines PC
      US Bancorp Tower
      111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150
      Portland, Oregon 97204
      Direct 503-201-4570
      E-mail: michael@underdoglawyer.com


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Sued in Iowa Over Telephone Call Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUDY SILVERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00113-RGE-HCA (S.D. Iowa, Nov. 28,
2016), seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief from
Defendant as a result of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
violations.

According to the complaint, the matter in controversy exceeds
$5,000,000.00, as each member of the proposed Classes is entitled
to between $500.00 and $1,500.00 in statutory damages for each
call that has violated the TCPA. Further, Plaintiff's alleged
Classes include at least one Class member belonging to a different
state.

The Defendant allegedly violated the TCPA with respect to
Plaintiff and the Willful or Knowing Call Class by voluntarily
placing non-emergency calls to the cellular telephone number of
the Plaintiff using an automated telephone dialing system with
knowledge that it did not have the prior express consent of the
Plaintiff, and after being instructed to stop calling. The TCPA
provides Plaintiff with a private right of action against
Defendant Navient for its willful and/or knowing violations of the
TCPA.

Navient Solutions provides loan management, servicing, and asset
recovery solutions to clients in higher education and business
clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          H. J. Dane, Esq.
          David P. Mitchell, Esq.
          H. J. DANE LAW OFFICE
          1111 East River Drive
          Davenport, IA 52803
          Telephone (563) 326 0006
          Facsimile (563) 326 6204
          E-mail: hjdane@hjdane.com

               - and -

          MANEY & GORDON, P.A.
          101 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 3170
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone (813) 221 1366
          Facsimile (813) 223 5920
          E-mail: david@mitchellconsumerlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert P. Cocco, Esq.
          ROBERT P. COCCO, P.C.
          1500 Walnut Street, Suite 900
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone (215) 351 0200
          Facsimile (215) 261 6055
          E-mail: rcocco@rcn.com


NEW CHOPSTICKS: Faces "Wei" Suit Over Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
WEI GONG YANG and HAI LONG YU, 42-55 Colden Street Flushing, NY
11355; and HAI LONG YU, the Plaintiffs, v. NEW CHOPSTICKS, INC.,
d/b/a CHOPSTICKS CHINESE RESTAURANT, QING LU, and HUA CHEN, 3 Park
Street Cumberland, Maryland 21502, Resident of Allegany County,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03786-ELH (D. Md., Nov. 22,
2016), is a collective and class action seeking to recover unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorney's fees
and cost under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Maryland Wage
and Hour Law.

According to the complaint, Defendants hired Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated employees to work as a cook and a kitchen aid.
Defendants failed to compensate Plaintiffs and others for all
hours worked. Defendants completed these illegal acts by not
paying Plaintiffs and other similarly situated for over overtime
for any worked over 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the FLSA collective
plaintiffs also seek declaratory judgment and injunction against
the Defendant's officers, agents, successors, employees,
representative and any and all persons acting in concert with them
as provided by law, from engaging in unlawful practices.

The Defendants operate a restaurant located at 3 Park Street
Cumberland, Maryland.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shaoming Cheng, Esq.
          CHENG YUN LAW PLLLC
          6072 Deer Ridge Trail,
          Springfield, VA 22150
          Telephone: (703) 887 6786
          E-mail: jcheng@chengyunlaw.com


NEW YORK CITY HOUSING: "Brown" Suit to Recover OT Pay, Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Brown, Nicholas Sciarrino, Jordan Ashby, Kevin Keenan,
Carlos Diaz, Iran Malave, Victor Colon, Plaintiffs, v. New York
City Housing Authority, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09263, (S.D.
N.Y., November 30, 2016), bring this collective action in
accordance with 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act against the defendant on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated because of deprivation of their right to
overtime compensation, including liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and costs.

Plaintiffs are and have been, employed by the New York City
Housing Authority as Maintenance Workers or Heating Plant
Technicians.

New York City Housing Authority is a juridical entity under New
York public housing laws and is a legally separate entity from the
City of New York. It has its principal office and place of
business located at 250 Broadway, New York, NY 10007.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
      WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY LLP
      1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
      Washington, DC 20005
      Phone: (202) 833-8855

             - and -

      Hope Pordy, Esq.
      SPIVAK LIPTON LLP
      1700 Broadway, Suite 2100
      New York, NY 10019
      Phone: (212) 765-2100
      Fax: (212) 765-8954
      Email: hpordy@spivaklipton.com


NO PRESSURE: "Espinoza" Suit Seeks to Recoup Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN ESPINOZA, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated Who Consent to Their Inclusion in a Collective
Action; Plaintiff, v. NO PRESSURE ROOF CLEANING, LLC and PAUL
GUITARD, Individually; Defendants, Case No. 9:16-cv-81932-DMM
(S.D. Fla., November 30, 2016), alleges that employees were not
being paid overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 in
a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

NO PRESSURE ROOF CLEANING, LLC is classified as a janitorial
services company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph Odato, Esq.
     Dennis A. Creed, III, Esq.
     CREED & PINKARD, PLLC
     13043 West Linebaugh Avenue
     Tampa, FL 33626
     Phone: (813) 444-4332
     Fax: (813) 441-6121
     Email: jodato@creedlawgroup.com
     Email: dcreed@creedlawgroup.com


NRG ENERGY: Must Defend Against California TCPA Case
----------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc.'s request to dismiss a class action in
Califiornia has been denied, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016.

Three purported class action lawsuits have been filed against NRG
Residential Solar Solutions, LLC -- one in California and two in
New Jersey.  The plaintiffs generally allege misrepresentation by
the call agents and violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, claiming that the defendants engaged in a
telemarketing campaign placing unsolicited calls to individuals on
the "Do Not Call List." The plaintiffs seek statutory damages of
up to $1,500 per plaintiff, actual damages and equitable relief.

On July 8, 2016, NRG filed a Rule 11 Motion seeking dismissal of
NRG from the California case. The Rule 11 Motion was denied on
August 16, 2016.

NRG Energy, Inc., is an integrated competitive power company that
aims to create a sustainable energy future by producing, selling
and delivering energy and energy products and services in major
competitive power markets in the U.S. in a manner that delivers
value to all of NRG's stakeholders. NRG has one of the nation's
largest and most diverse competitive generation portfolios
balanced with a leading retail electricity platform. The Company
owns and operates approximately 46,000 MW of generation; engages
in the trading of wholesale energy, capacity and related products;
transacts in and trades fuel and transportation services; and
directly sells energy, services, and innovative, sustainable
products and services to retail customers under the names "NRG,"
"Reliant" and other retail brand names owned by NRG.


NRG ENERGY: Defendants in "Braun" Case Challenge Jurisdiction
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case, Braun v. NRG Yield, Inc., have filed
demurrers and a motion challenging jurisdiction, NRG Energy, Inc.
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2016.

On April 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed a putative class action
lawsuit against NRG Yield, Inc., the current and former members of
its board of directors individually, and other parties in
California Superior Court in Kern County, CA.  Plaintiffs allege
various violations of the Securities Act due to the defendants'
alleged failure to disclose material facts related to low wind
production prior to the NRG Yield, Inc.'s June 22, 2015 Class C
common stock offering.  Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages,
rescission, attorney's fees and costs.

On August 3, 2016, the court approved a stipulation entered into
by the parties. The stipulation provided that the plaintiffs would
file an amended complaint by August 19, 2016, which they did on
August 18, 2016. The Defendants filed demurrers and a motion
challenging jurisdiction on October 18, 2016.

NRG Energy, Inc., is an integrated competitive power company that
aims to create a sustainable energy future by producing, selling
and delivering energy and energy products and services in major
competitive power markets in the U.S. in a manner that delivers
value to all of NRG's stakeholders. NRG has one of the nation's
largest and most diverse competitive generation portfolios
balanced with a leading retail electricity platform. The Company
owns and operates approximately 46,000 MW of generation; engages
in the trading of wholesale energy, capacity and related products;
transacts in and trades fuel and transportation services; and
directly sells energy, services, and innovative, sustainable
products and services to retail customers under the names "NRG,"
"Reliant" and other retail brand names owned by NRG.


NRG ENERGY: "Ahmed" Class Suit in Delaware Underway
---------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case, Ahmed v. NRG Energy, Inc. and the NRG
Yield Board of Directors, have filed responsive pleadings, NRG
Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On September 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed a putative class action
lawsuit against NRG Energy, Inc., the directors of NRG Yield,
Inc., and other parties in the Delaware Chancery Court. The
complaint alleges that the defendants breached their respective
fiduciary duties with regard to the recapitalization of NRG Yield,
Inc. common stock in 2015. The plaintiffs generally seek economic
damages, attorney's fees and injunctive relief. The defendants
filed responsive pleadings on November 4, 2016.

NRG Energy, Inc., is an integrated competitive power company that
aims to create a sustainable energy future by producing, selling
and delivering energy and energy products and services in major
competitive power markets in the U.S. in a manner that delivers
value to all of NRG's stakeholders. NRG has one of the nation's
largest and most diverse competitive generation portfolios
balanced with a leading retail electricity platform. The Company
owns and operates approximately 46,000 MW of generation; engages
in the trading of wholesale energy, capacity and related products;
transacts in and trades fuel and transportation services; and
directly sells energy, services, and innovative, sustainable
products and services to retail customers under the names "NRG,"
"Reliant" and other retail brand names owned by NRG.


NRG ENERGY: Oral Argument Today in Natural Gas Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
NRG Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the court will
hear oral argument on several motions in the Natural Gas
Litigation, including plaintiffs' motion on class certification on
December 8, 2016.

GenOn Energy, Inc., is party to several lawsuits, certain of which
are class action lawsuits, in state and federal courts in Kansas,
Missouri, Nevada and Wisconsin. These lawsuits were filed in the
aftermath of the California energy crisis in 2000 and 2001 and the
resulting FERC investigations and relate to alleged conduct to
increase natural gas prices in violation of state antitrust law
and similar laws. The lawsuits seek treble or punitive damages,
restitution and/or expenses. The lawsuits also name as parties a
number of energy companies unaffiliated with NRG.

In July 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada,
which was handling four of the five cases, granted the defendants'
motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against GenOn
in those cases. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which reversed the decision of the
District Court.

GenOn along with the other defendants in the lawsuit filed a
petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court
challenging the Court of Appeals' decision and the Supreme Court
granted the petition. On April 21, 2015, the Supreme Court
affirmed the Ninth Circuit's holding that plaintiffs' state
antitrust law claims are not field-preempted by the federal
Natural Gas Act and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court left open whether the claims were preempted on
the basis of conflict preemption. The Supreme Court directed that
the case be remanded to the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nevada for further proceedings.

On March 7, 2016, class plaintiffs filed their motions for class
certification. Defendants filed their briefs in opposition to
class plaintiffs' motions for class certification on June 24,
2016. On December 8, 2016, the court will hear oral argument on
several motions, including plaintiffs' motion on class
certification.

On May 20, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada heard argument on the defendants' motion for summary
judgment in one of the Kansas cases. On May 24, 2016, the court
granted the motion for summary judgment as to the GenOn entity in
one of the Kansas cases. GenOn has agreed to indemnify CenterPoint
against certain losses relating to these lawsuits.

In September 2012, the State of Nevada Supreme Court, which was
handling the remaining case, affirmed dismissal by the Eighth
Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada of all
plaintiffs' claims against GenOn. In February 2013, the plaintiffs
in the Nevada case filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to
the U.S. Supreme Court. In June 2013, the Supreme Court denied the
petition for a writ of certiorari, thereby ending one of the five
lawsuits.

NRG Energy, Inc., is an integrated competitive power company that
aims to create a sustainable energy future by producing, selling
and delivering energy and energy products and services in major
competitive power markets in the U.S. in a manner that delivers
value to all of NRG's stakeholders. NRG has one of the nation's
largest and most diverse competitive generation portfolios
balanced with a leading retail electricity platform. The Company
owns and operates approximately 46,000 MW of generation; engages
in the trading of wholesale energy, capacity and related products;
transacts in and trades fuel and transportation services; and
directly sells energy, services, and innovative, sustainable
products and services to retail customers under the names "NRG,"
"Reliant" and other retail brand names owned by NRG.


NY PIZZA: Faces "Emanuelson" Suit Under FLSA, N. Mex. Wage Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond I. Emanuelson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NY PIZZA SLICE HOUSE, LLC,
JESSIE CARREON, AND CARLOS CARREON, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
01312 (N. Mex., November 30, 2016), seeks to recover alleged
unpaid tips and unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

NY Pizza Slice House, LLC is engaged in restaurant operations,
including table service and takeout of Italian-themed food.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Raul A. Carrillo, Jr., Esq.
     Steven E. Jones, Esq.
     P.O. Box 457
     Las Cruces, NM 88004-0457
     Phone: (575) 647-3200
     Fax: (575) 647-1463


PATRIOT NATIONAL: "Wasik" Wants to Block Dividend Transaction
-------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Wasik, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STEVEN M. MARIANO, CHARLES H. WALSH, JOHN
R. DEL PIZZO, QUENTIN P. SMITH, JR., JAMES O'BRIEN, SEAN BIDIC,
AUSTIN J. SHANFELTER, AND PATRIOT NATIONAL INC., Defendants, seeks
to enjoin Defendants from proceeding with a Dividend and
Repurchase transactions wherein the Company will pay dividend of
$2.50 per share and allow a repurchase of up to $40 million of
stocks.  The transactions allegedly have no other benefit but to
enrich Mr. Mariano as the Company's controller.

Patriot National is an independent provider of comprehensive
technology-enabled outsourcing solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael P. Kelly, Esq.
     Andrew Dupre, Esq.
     Renaissance Centre
     405 N. King Street, 8th Floor
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 984-6300
     Fax: (302) 984-6399

        - and -

     Eduard Korskinsky, Esq.
     Amy Miller, Esq.
     William J. Fields, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINKSKY LLP
     30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 363-7500
     Fax: (212) 363-7171
     E-mail: ek@zlk.com
             amiller@zlk.com
             wfields@zlk.com


PERSONNEL STAFFING: Faces Class Action Over Hiring Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Tarm, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
national job-placement firm discriminated against blacks in favor
of Hispanic workers to comply with racially based criteria of
companies seeking temporary workers in factories, on assembly
lines or for other low-skilled positions, a federal class-action
lawsuit filed on Dec. 6 on behalf of several African-Americans
alleges.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago, says that
Personnel Staffing Group LLC and its clients used code words to
distinguish races and to disguise racially guided decisions that
could be deemed violations of federal civil rights law, including
by referring to blacks as "guapos," which means "pretty boys" in
Spanish, and to Hispanics as "bilinguals."

The filing describes the temporary employment sector as one of the
fastest growing in the country, saying there are more than 300
temp agencies with over 900 offices in Illinois alone.

Some companies that use temporary workers seek to get around anti-
discrimination laws by relying on job-placement agencies, a Dec. 6
statement from lawyers and activists announcing the litigation
contended.  The practice was akin to companies asking agencies "to
launder their overt discrimination," said
Catherine Ruckelshaus, a general counsel for the National
Employment Law Project.

Personnel Staffing Group LLC, which was incorporated in Florida
and also goes by MVP and MVP Staffing, has more than 60 offices in
nearly 40 states.  The lawsuit cites instances of alleged bias by
one of its branch offices in the Chicago suburb of Cicero.
Multiple messages seeking comment from a head office of Personnel
Staffing Group just outside Chicago were not returned.

The 33-page lawsuit was filed on behalf of five African-American
laborers, and seeks class certification to cover potentially
thousands of black people allegedly denied work based on race.  It
names Personnel Staffing Group and seven client firms, saying they
bear joint responsibility "for the pattern or practice of
excluding or severely restricting job assignments for African-
American laborers."

Agency workers would be instructed through "thinly-veiled
stereotypes," including references to street gangs or types of
clothes, to convey the message that certain clients did not want
African-Americans sent to job sites, the lawsuit said.  Some firms
who did not want blacks would allegedly return documentation on a
specific black laborer after one day marked: "Do Not Return."

A sworn statement from one former agency employee filed along with
the lawsuit said that Personnel Staffing Group managers would warn
subordinates to not send African-Americans to clients who said
they didn't want blacks "because MVP could lose the account if I
did."

Another former agency employee alleged that superiors instructed
staff to lie to black people that there was a "hiring freeze" at a
company they inquired about.  When some staffers complained and
said that would be illegal, the manager responded "that this is
what the customer wants, so it is on them, not us," the former
employee alleged in her statement.

Some companies, the suit said, claimed blacks were more likely to
complain about low pay or work-safety issues and said those were
reasons for preferring Hispanics.  It also says that in instances
where blacks got jobs, they were often offered less desirable
work.  The filing cited one example of African-Americans working
in a hot oven room of a bakery, where some became overwhelmed by
the heat and collapsed.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and a court order
barring all the companies from the alleged racial screening.


PINNACLE FINANCIAL: Settlement Reached in Bushansky Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
parties to the Bushansky litigation have entered into a settlement
agreement.

On May 9, 2016 a purported class action complaint was filed in the
Chancery Court for the State of Tennessee, 20th Judicial District
at Nashville, styled Stephen Bushansky, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, versus Avenue Financial
Holdings, Inc. Ronald L. Samuels, Kent Cleaver, David G. Anderson,
Agenia Clark, James F. Deutsch, Marty Dickens, Patrick G. Emery,
Nancy Falls, Joseph C. Galante, David Ingram. Stephen Moore, Ken
Robold, Karen Saul and Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc.,
Defendants (Case No. 16-489-IV), alleging that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
approving the sale of Avenue for an inadequate price as the result
of a flawed sales process, agreeing to the inclusion of
unreasonable deal protection devices in the Merger Agreement,
approving the Avenue Merger in order to receive benefits not
equally shared by all other shareholders of Avenue, and issuing
materially misleading and incomplete disclosures to Avenue's
shareholders. The lawsuit also alleges claims against Avenue and
Pinnacle for aiding and abetting the individual defendants'
breaches of fiduciary duties.

The plaintiff purports to seek class-wide relief, including but
not limited to: monetary damages, and an award of interest,
attorney's fees, and expenses. On May 18, 2016, the Bushansky
litigation was transferred to the Davidson County, Tennessee
Business Court Pilot Project (Business Court).

On October 18, 2016, the parties to the Bushansky litigation
entered into a settlement agreement regarding the litigation and
in connection therewith have agreed on a Stipulation of
Settlement, a Proposed Order on Notice and Scheduling, a Proposed
Notice to class members, and a Proposed Final Order and those
documents have been submitted to the Business Court for its
approval. In connection with the settlement, the parties have
agreed on an amount of attorneys' fees and expenses, $300,000,
that the plaintiff's counsel will request from the Business Court
and to which the defendants will not object. This amount has been
reflected in the September 30, 2016 statement of financial
position and income statement for the three and nine months ended
September 30, 2016.

The proposed settlement is conditioned upon, among other things,
preliminary approval by the Business Court, as well as final
approval of the proposed settlement after notice is given to
Avenue's shareholders. Pinnacle Financial believes the claims
asserted in the Bushansky action are without merit but has entered
into the settlement to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties
inherent in litigation. There can be no assurance that the
Business Court will approve the settlement in all respects and if
the Business Court does not approve the proposed settlement, the
proposed settlement as contemplated by the Stipulation of
Settlement and memorandum of understanding the parties entered
into in June 2016 could become void.

Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc. is a bank holding company whose
primary business is conducted by its wholly-owned subsidiary,
Pinnacle Bank.  Pinnacle Bank is a commercial bank headquartered
in Nashville, Tennessee.


POETTKER CONSTRUCTION: All American Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned 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. 4:16-cv-01875-RLW (Mo. Cir, Ct.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for class certification of:

   "all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
   filing of this action, (2) were sent by or on behalf of
   Defendants any telephone facsimile transmissions of material
   making known the commercial existence of, or making
   qualitative statements regarding any property, goods, or
   services (3) with respect to whom Defendants cannot provide
   evidence of prior express permission or invitation for the
   sending of such faxes, (4) with whom Defendants does not have
   an established business relationship or (5) which were sent an
   advertisement by fax which did not display a proper opt out
   notice".

The Plaintiff said, "In the alternative if the Court determines
that this class certification motion be dismissed without
prejudice as being premature, the Plaintiff requests that the
Court issue an order that Defendant not be allowed to make an
offer of judgment or a settlement offer until the Court sets a
scheduling order and the Plaintiff is allowed time to conduct
discovery and file a future class certification motion pursuant to
the Court's scheduling order and that the future class
certification motion will relate back to the filing of the
original class certification motion".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3M7EVx6k

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

               - and -

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368 1501
          E-Mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces "Rikos" Suit in Western Dist. of Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Procter & Gamble
Company. The case is captioned Dino Rikos, Tracey Burns, and Leo
Jarzembrowski, On Behalf of Themselves, All Others Similarly
Situated and the General Public, the Plaintiff, v. The Procter &
Gamble Company, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-mc-00103-TLB (W.D.
Ark., Dec. 1, 2016).

Procter & Gamble Co., also known as P&G, is an American
multinational consumer goods company headquartered in downtown
Cincinnati, Ohio, United States, founded by William Procter and
James Gamble, both from the United Kingdom.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT: Class Cert. Bid in "Daniels" Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LAPATRICK DANIELS, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff v. JUDGE
REBECCA F. DOHERTY PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT INDUSTRIES, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 6:15-cv-02567-RFD-PJH (W.D, La.), the Hon.
Patrick J. Hanna entered an order granting Parties' joint motion
for conditional certification.

The Court ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the Notice and
Consent Forms, submitted with the Parties' Motion, are authorized
to be disseminated by first class U.S. Mail and by e-mail.

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


PTE SYSTEMS: Faces "Jordan" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
James Jordan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PTE SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL LLC, a Florida
Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-24991-JLK
(S.D. Fla., December 1, 2016), alleges that Defendant has a policy
and practice of failing to pay hourly paid laborers full and
proper overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendant offers post-tensioning construction work and
engineering services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard Celler, Esq.
     RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
     7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
     Davie, FL 33314
     Phone: (866) 344-9243
     Fax: (954) 337-2771
     E-mail: Richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Court Ruled on Bid to Dismiss in PICA Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in the case,
PICA et al. v. Deutsche Bank, et al., the Court has issued a
decision regarding Defendants motion to dismiss: (i) sustaining
Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims concerning the trust at
issue; (ii) dismissing Plaintiffs' tort claims for breach of
fiduciary duty; and (iii) dismissing Plaintiffs' claims of breach
of duty to avoid conflicts of interest. The Court granted
Plaintiffs' leave to file an amended complaint.

In February 2016, the Company, together with other institutional
investor plaintiffs, filed an amended complaint in federal court.
In March 2016, the Company, together with other institutional
investors, filed a complaint in California State Superior Court,
captioned BlackRock Balanced Capital Portfolio (FI), et al. v.
Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, asserting claims relating to
the PSA trusts.

In May 2016, the Company, together with other institutional
investors, filed an amended class action complaint in California
State Superior Court.

In July 2016, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended
federal court complaint. In August 2016, Defendant filed a
demurrer and motion to strike the amended state court class action
complaint.

In October 2016, the Court issued a decision regarding Defendants
motion to dismiss: (i) sustaining Plaintiffs' breach of contract
claims concerning the trust at issue; (ii) dismissing Plaintiffs'
tort claims for breach of fiduciary duty; and (iii) dismissing
Plaintiffs' claims of breach of duty to avoid conflicts of
interest. The Court granted Plaintiffs' leave to file an amended
complaint.

Prudential Financial, a financial services leader with
approximately $1.314 trillion of assets under management as of
September 30, 2016, has operations primarily in the United States,
Asia, Europe and Latin America.  Through its subsidiaries and
affiliates, the Company offers a wide array of financial products
and services, including life insurance, annuities, retirement-
related services, mutual funds, and investment management.  It
offers these products and services to individual and institutional
customers through one of the largest distribution networks in the
financial services industry.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Settlement of Sterling Heights Has Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Court has
issued a final judgment approving the settlement in the case, City
of Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System v.
Prudential Financial, Inc., et al.

The case relates to financial disclosures concerning death
benefits and unclaimed property.

In April 2016, the parties entered into a proposed agreement to
resolve the class action claims asserted in the amended complaint.
Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a motion for an order preliminarily
approving the settlement in accordance with the parties' April
2016 Stipulation of Settlement.

In June 2016, the Court issued an order "preliminarily approving
settlement and providing for notice."  In September 2016, the
Court issued a final judgment approving the settlement and
dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice.

Prudential Financial, a financial services leader with
approximately $1.314 trillion of assets under management as of
September 30, 2016, has operations primarily in the United States,
Asia, Europe and Latin America.  Through its subsidiaries and
affiliates, the Company offers a wide array of financial products
and services, including life insurance, annuities, retirement-
related services, mutual funds, and investment management.  It
offers these products and services to individual and institutional
customers through one of the largest distribution networks in the
financial services industry.


REGIONAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Mealer" Suit in N.D. of Texas
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Regional Management
Corporation. The case is captioned Traivis Mealer, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Regional Management Corporation and Regional Finance Corporation
of Texas, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-03343-B (N.D. Tex., Dec.
1, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Jane J Boyle.

Regional Management is a diversified specialty consumer finance
company providing a broad array of loan products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Walt D Roper, Esq.
          THE ROPER FIRM PC
          3001 Knox Street, Suite 405
          Dallas, TX 75205
          Telephone: (214) 420 4520
          Facsimile: (214) 856 8480
          E-mail: walt@roperfirm.com


RJ REYNOLDS: Jury Awards $10MM to Smoker in Tobacco Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Knoll, writing for Florida Record, reports that one of
the thousands of cases developed following the end of the Engle
progeny suit filed in Florida against cigarette manufacturers
Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds (RJR) has marked a victory for
those claiming the two companies had purposefully hidden or
continued to hide evidence of the addictive power of nicotine.

On Nov. 16, a jury awarded former nurse Mary Howles $4 million in
compensatory damages.  She also was awarded $6 million in punitive
damages.  The payout is to be split between named defendants R.J.
Reynolds and Philip Morris.  Ms. Howles has said she smoked for 34
years and was diagnosed with cancer and chronic pulmonary
obstructive disease (COPD) in 1995.

A year earlier, a massive class action lawsuit against the tobacco
industry, Engle v. Liggett Group Inc., had been filed. In 2006,
however, another Florida judge ruled that Engle be struck down.
Instead, the judge declared that individual claimants could
proceed with their own suits and could rely on some of the
findings from Engle and other litigation cases.  To utilize other
suit findings, the court had said that a claimant must establish a
"causal link" tying together the forming of an addiction from
deceptive tobacco marketing that resulted in a smoking-related
disease.

The Florida Record talked to John Londot -- londotj@gtlaw.com --
attorney with Greenberg Traurig LLC out of Tallahasse, about
Engle's effect on the Howles decision.  Mr. Londot said that while
the practice of turning a class action suit into a bevy of
individual litigations was "a little out of the ordinary," what he
found "very unusual" was how the court allowed case findings to be
shared communally by separate claimants.

The splicing of claims associated with Engle and the ability to
use findings from other cases essentially allows individual cases
the resources normally available to only class-action suits.

Mr. Londot was asked if the scrapping of Engle had contributed to
the thousands of cases on the state's docket, and he responded
that it did indeed create "a ready market for lawyers" but did not
believe such a result was intended.

The plaintiff's suit, Howles v. R.J. Reynolds, stated that the
deceptive advertising and trade practices of RJR, including Philip
Morris, contributed to Ms. Howles' addiction and led to her
sickness.  The 17th Circuit Court of southern Florida heard her
claims and a jury came down on the side of Ms. Howles.

During the punitive phase of the hearing, lawyers for Philip
Morris and RJR stated that the old days of cover-ups and cooking
the books were over and that the stringent government regulations
and oversight of the industry made such practices impossible.
Philip Morris' attorney, Walter Cofer, argued that the Ms. Howles
case was doing nothing more than punishing the current generation
of a company's employees for the sins of their industry fathers.
Mr. Londot told the Florida Record that Cofer's argument was
"factually correct".

In the end, the jury agreed with Ms. Howles' attorney, Alex
Alvarez, in that the two defendants could have done more to ensure
public safety.  Mr. Alvarez successfully sued the two tobacco
giants for $16 million in punitive damages that he says was
necessary in order to make the ruling a punishment Philip Morris
and RJR would feel.


ROCKSTAR INC: Faces "Haas" Lawsuit Under California Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
JARED HAAS, an individual, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. ROCKSTAR, INC., a California Corporation; ROCKSTAR
BEVERAGE CORPORATION, a Nevada Corporation; ROCKSTAR BEVERAGE
GROUP, a business entity of unknown form; DHR OPERATIONS, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 642094, (Cal. Super., County of
Los Angeles, November 29, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid
wages and interest thereon for failure to pay for all hours worked
at least at minimum wage; failure to pay overtime premium wages
for overtime hours worked; failure to timely provide all required
meal periods or pay meal period premium wages; failure to
authorize or permit all required rest periods or pay rest period
premium wages; statutory penalties for failure to provide timely
and accurate wage statements; waiting time penalties in the form
of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all
wages due upon separation of employment; liquidated damages for
failure to pay minimum wage; unjust enrichment; injunctive relief
and other equitable relief; reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to
California Labor Code.

Rockstar, Inc. produces energy drinks for people with active and
exhausting lifestyles ranging from athletes to rock stars.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lee R. Feldman, Esq.
     Leonard H. Sansanowicz, Esq.
     FELDMAN BROWNE OLIVARES
     12400 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1100
     Los Angeles, CA 90025
     Phone: (310) 207-8500
     Fax: (310) 207-8515
     E-mail: lee@leefeldmanlaw.com
             leonard@leefeldmanlaw.com


ROOMS TO GO: Faces "Triplett" Suit in E.D. of North Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rooms To Go North
Carolina Corp. The case is titled Kenny Triplett, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Rooms To
Go North Carolina Corp., doing business as Rooms to Go; R.T.G.
Furniture Corp., doing business as Rooms to Go; RTG America, LLC;
The Jeffrey Seaman 2009 Annuity Trust; and Retail Management
Services Corp., the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00926-FL
(E.D.N.C., Dec. 1, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon.
District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan.

Rooms To Go is a Seffner, Florida-based furniture store chain with
226 stores operating in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia and Puerto Rico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Martha A. Geer, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN
          SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          150 Fayetteville St., Suite 980
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 890 0560
          Facsimile: (919) 890 0561
          E-mail: mgeer@cohenmilstein.com


SALON DE QUARTIER: Faces "Hdir" Lawsuit Seeking to Recoup Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fatima Hdir, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. SALON DE QUARTIER, INC. and SEBESTEN
AYACHE, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06605 (E.D.N.Y., November 29,
2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, and
liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate several hair salons.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
     NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
     1517 Voorhies Ave., 2nd Fl.
     Brooklyn, NY 11235
     Phone: (718) 808-2224
     E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


SAMSUNG CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Washing Machine Recall
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ross McLaughlin and Sandra Hermiston, writing for CTV Vancouver,
report that Samsung customers are pushing back and demanding the
company fully compensate them for defective and dangerous washing
machines that were recalled earlier this year.

A Trail, B.C. man has launched a class action lawsuit over
Samsung's washing machine recall, calling it inadequate, and a
Langley woman feels the company is actually making money off its
response to the faulty products.

Samsung has recalled more than three million top loading washing
machines in North America after hundreds of reports of the
machines exploding, and several reports of injuries.

Brandy Robertson says her machine wasn't even two years old when
the recall was announced.  Samsung offered to repair her machine
or give her a $410 rebate towards another Samsung product.
Ms. Robertson felt compelled to buy a new machine.  But the money
Samsung was offering up, fell far short of the $900 it cost her.
Coupled with the delivery fee she had to pay, she's out almost
$600 on a machine she thought would last for years.

"They should be replacing full cost of the top loaders. I
shouldn't have to be out money," she said, ""I think they are
making money off of their recall."

London lawyer Matthew Baer represents the Trail man who has filed
a class action lawsuit against Samsung Canada which stated the
company failed to ensure that the affected machines were safe and
that the compensation is wholly inadequate to cover the damages
suffered by the plaintiff.

"You have these people who have washing machines which in a lot of
instances are one and two years old and now they're being offered
a fraction of what they paid for it and they need to buy a
replacement washing machine," said Mr. Baer, "We've had some
people say haven't been given an option to get any money other
than if they didn't buy a Samsung product."

On its website Samsung is offering a free in-home repair and
warranty extension or a rebate towards the purchase of a new
Samsung washer, including a loyalty incentive.

A customer service representative confirmed the restrictions of
the rebate to CTV News.

Samsung has not filed a response to the lawsuit and told CTV News
is a statement that "we aren't able to comment on an ongoing legal
matter."

In the meantime, Ms. Robertson's new front loader isn't even a
month old but already needs a replacement seal.  She says she will
definitely be joining the class action lawsuit.

A class action lawsuit has also been filed against Samsung in the
U.S.  CTV News pressed Samsung for more answers on replacing the
machines with other brands and getting full replacement value but
haven't received a response.


SCHNEIDER NATIONAL: "Robles" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. C.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled William Robles, an individual, on
behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Schneider National Carriers, Inc., a
Corporation, and 1-50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. RIC
1612222, was removed from the Riverside County Superior Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Eastern Division - Riverside). The Central District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-02482 to the proceeding.

Schneider National is a provider of truckload, intermodal and
logistics services. Schneider's solutions, include Regional, Long-
Haul, Expedited, Dedicated, Bulk, Intermodal, Brokerage, Cross-
Dock Logistics, Supply Chain Management and Port Logistics.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SHORE CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Magana" Suit Over FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
MAGDALENO BIBIAN MAGANA, on behalf of himself and other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SHORE CONSTRUCTION, LLC and
KRISTI CATON, Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-01653 (W.D. La.,
November 30, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

SHORE CONSTRUCTION, LLC is in the business of providing labor and
human resources services for companies in the oil and gas
industry, marine construction and repair industry, and other
industrial fields.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
     3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Phone: (504) 534-5005
     Fax: (504) 272-2956
     E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com

        - and -

     William H. Beaumont, Esq.
     3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Phone: (504) 483-8008
     E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com

        - and -

     Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
     3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Phone: (504) 534-5005
     E-mail: emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com


SHUTTERFLY INC: Collects "Scans of Face Geometry", Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class claims in Chicago
federal court that the online photo service Shutterfly collects
and stores "scans of face geometry" for every person who appears
in a photograph, even if the person is not a Shutterfly user.

The lead plaintiff is Alejandro Monroy and the only defendant is
Shutterfly Inc.

The case is captioned, ALEJANDRO MONROY, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SHUTTERFLY, INC.,
Defendant., Civil Action No. 16-cv-10984 (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Katrina Carroll, Esq.
Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
Ismael T. Salam, Esq.
LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Telephone: (312) 750-1265
E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
        kshamberg@litedepalma.com
        isalam@litedepalma.com

     - and -

Tina Wolfson, Esq.
Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
Meredith S. Lierz, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
1016 Palm Avenue
West Hollywood, CA 90069
Tel: (310) 474-9111
Fax: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
        rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
        mlierz@ahdootwolfson.com

     - and -

David P. Milian, Esq.
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN GONYA, LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
Miami, Florida 33131
Tel: (305) 372-7474
Fax: (305) 372-7475
E-mail: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com
        fhedin@careyrodriguez.com


SOUTHERN COMPANY: Class Certification Motion Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
The Southern Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the court has held
a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all of the
plaintiffs' claims.

Nicor Gas and Nicor Energy Services Company, wholly-owned
subsidiaries of Southern Company Gas, and Nicor Inc. are
defendants in a putative class action initially filed in September
2011 in state court in Cook County, Illinois. The plaintiffs
purport to represent a class of the customers who purchased the
Gas Line Comfort Guard product from Nicor Energy Services Company
and variously allege that the marketing, sale, and billing of the
Gas Line Comfort Guard product violated the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, constituting common
law fraud and resulting in unjust enrichment of these entities.
The plaintiffs seek, on behalf of the classes they purport to
represent, actual and punitive damages, interest, costs, attorney
fees, and injunctive relief.

On October 26, 2016, the court held a hearing on the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and the defendants' motion for
summary judgment on all of the plaintiffs' claims. The ultimate
outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time.

Southern Company is a holding company that owns all of the common
stock of the traditional electric operating companies and the
parent entities of Southern Power and Southern Company Gas and
owns other direct and indirect subsidiaries.


TAKAAKI KOYAMA: "Laguna" Suit Seeks OT Wages Under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUNIOR AMILCAR GONZALEZ LAGUNA, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TAKAAKI KOYAMA, an
individual; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC641998 (Cal. Super. Ct., Nov. 28, 2016), seeks to recover
overtime wages, premium wages for missed meal and rest periods,
penalties, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the
California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have had a consistent
policy or practice of failing to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff
and other non-exempt employees in the State of California in
violation of California state wage and hour laws as a result of,
without limitation, Plaintiff and similarly situated employees
routinely working over 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week
without being properly compensated for the hours worked in excess
of 8 per day or 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
          BIBIYAN & BOKHOUR, P.C.
          287 South Robertson Boulevard, Suite 303
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 438-5555
          Facsimile: (310) 300 1705
          E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
                  mehrdad@tomorrowlaw.com


TARGET CORP: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Faraji" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that noting that her primary duties as an executive team lead at
Target included shelving products, sweeping and cashier duties,
Neda Faraji wants to represent a class in Riverside, Calif.,
accusing the retailer of failing to pay overtime, among other
violations of California labor law.


TC PIPELINES: Class Action Appeal to Be Heard in Late-2016
----------------------------------------------------------
TC PipeLines, LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that plaintiff's appeal
in the case, Employees Retirement System of the City of St. Louis
v. TC PipeLines GP, Inc., et al., is expected to be heard in late-
2016.

On October 13, 2015, an alleged unitholder of the Partnership
filed a class action and derivative complaint in the Delaware
Court of Chancery (Chancery Court) against the General Partner,
TransCanada American Investments, Ltd. (TAIL) and TransCanada, and
the Partnership as a nominal defendant.   The complaint alleges
direct and derivative claims for breach of contract, breach of the
duty of good faith and fair dealing, aiding and abetting breach of
contract, and tortious interference in connection with the 2015
GTN Acquisition, including the issuance by the Partnership of $95
million in Class B Units and amendments to the Partnership
Agreement to provide for the issuance of the Class B Units.

Plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin future issuances of
Class B Units to TransCanada or any of its subsidiaries,
disgorgement of certain distributions to the General Partner,
TransCanada and any related entities, return of some or all of the
Class B Units to the Partnership, rescission of the amendments to
the Partnership Agreement, monetary damages and attorney fees.
To the extent the claims are derivative, the Partnership would be
the beneficiary of any monetary award.

The Partnership does not expect legal fees or the impact of the
decision on plaintiffs' other requests to be material.  In April
2016, the Chancery Court granted the Partnership and other
defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint.  The
plaintiff has appealed the decision to dismiss its claims.  The
appeal is expected to be heard in late-2016.

TC PipeLines owns its pipeline assets through three intermediate
limited partnerships (ILPs), TC GL Intermediate Limited
Partnership, TC PipeLines Intermediate Limited Partnership and TC
Tuscarora Intermediate Limited Partnership.


TEAM HEALTH: Chancery Court Approval Stipulation & Case Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Team Health Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Delaware
Court of Chancery has approved a Stipulation and Order Concerning
Dismissal of a Consolidated Action and Approving Notice of Payment
of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses.

On August 14, 2015, a purported stockholder of IPC filed a
putative class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware (the Court of Chancery), captioned Smukler v.
IPC Healthcare, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11392-CB.  On August 18,
2015, a second purported stockholder of IPC filed a putative class
action in the Court of Chancery, captioned Crescente v. Singer, et
al., C.A. No. 11405-CB.  On September 11, 2015, the Court of
Chancery entered an order (the Consolidation Order) consolidating
the two actions under the caption In re IPC Healthcare, Inc.,
Consolidated C.A. No. 11392-CB (the Consolidated Action), and a
consolidated class action complaint (the Consolidated Complaint)
was filed on September 18, 2015.  The Consolidated Complaint named
as defendants the members of IPC's board of directors, the
Company, and Intrepid Merger Sub, Inc. (Merger Sub).  The
Consolidated Complaint alleged that the IPC directors breached
their fiduciary duties, and that the Company and Merger Sub aided
and abetted those breaches, by failing to disclose certain
material information in the IPC Preliminary Schedule 14A relating
to the proposed acquisition of IPC by the Company (the
Transaction).  The Consolidated Complaint sought, among other
relief, a preliminary injunction and recovery of the costs of the
Consolidated Action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and
expenses.

On November 6, 2015, plaintiffs' counsel and defendants' counsel
executed a memorandum of understanding, or MOU, memorializing the
terms of an agreement in principle pursuant to which IPC agreed to
make certain supplemental disclosures relating to the Transaction
in a Form 8-K, and plaintiffs agreed to dismissal of the
Consolidated Action with prejudice and the release of certain
claims.  On November 6, 2015, IPC filed a Form 8-K with the
supplemental disclosures with the SEC.

On April 11, 2016, following a series of rulings by the Court of
Chancery in other actions challenging mergers, plaintiffs and
defendants agreed to replace the MOU with an agreement that
plaintiffs would voluntarily dismiss the Consolidated Action on
the basis that it was mooted by the supplemental disclosures
contained in the Form 8-K.  On April 12, 2016, the Court of
Chancery entered a Stipulation and Order Concerning Plaintiffs'
Voluntary Dismissal of the Action and Plaintiffs' Counsel's
Anticipated Application for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses (the Dismissal Order).  The Dismissal Order dismissed the
Consolidated Action as moot and dismissed the claims asserted in
the Consolidated Complaint with prejudice as to the named
plaintiffs and without prejudice as to other members of the
purported class.  The Court of Chancery retained jurisdiction over
the Consolidated Action solely for the purpose of adjudicating the
anticipated application by plaintiffs' counsel for an award of
fees and expenses.

On May 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed their application for an award
of fees and expenses, in the total amount of $350,000. The Company
filed its opposition to such application on June 30, 2016, and, on
July 14, 2016, plaintiffs filed their reply papers. Subsequent to
the filing of plaintiffs' reply papers, plaintiffs' counsel and
defendants' counsel engaged in arm's-length discussions regarding
the payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses to
plaintiffs' counsel. The Company has agreed to pay plaintiffs'
counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of $100,000, inclusive of
expenses.

On October 31, 2016, the Court of Chancery approved a Stipulation
and Order Concerning Dismissal of the Consolidated Action and
Approving Notice of Payment of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses,
entered into by the parties, which provided for the payment of
$100,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel,
the final dismissal and closing of the Consolidated Action, and
the provision of notice to stockholders of the payment to
plaintiffs' counsel.  The Court of Chancery has not been asked to
review, and will pass no judgment on, the payment or amount of the
agreed-upon fee to plaintiffs' counsel or its reasonableness.


TEAM OIL: "Staggert" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned SCOTT STAGGERT, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TEAM OIL TOOLS,
LP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00822-JLG-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiff moves the Court for:

   (1) conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act
      (FLSA) collective action;

   (2) an order compelling Defendant Team Oil Tools, LP, to
       produce the names, last known addresses, phone numbers,
       and email addresses for each member of the Class; and

   (3) court-facilitated notice of the lawsuit to all Class
       Members.

The case is brought under the FLSA seeking compensation for unpaid
overtime wages and other relief under Ohio and Pennsylvania law.
Defendant Team Oil Tools, LP misclassified Plaintiff Scott
Staggert and the Class Members as exempt from overtime. Despite
the fact that these employees work well in excess of forty hours
per week performing arduous manual labor in the oil and gas
industry, Team Oil failed to pay them overtime wages when they
worked more than forty hours.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WzDpM0SI

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
          Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
          THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
          920 Rockefeller Building
          614 W. Superior Avenue
          Cleveland, Ohio 44113
          Telephone: 216 696 5000
          Facsimile: 216 696 7005
          E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
                  chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com

               - and -

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          John Anthony Neuman, Esq.
          Kennedy Hodges, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd. Suite 200
          Houston, Texas 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523 0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523 1116
          E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com


TEXAS: Objects to Report in Class Action Against DFPS
-----------------------------------------------------
Lana Shadwick, writing for Breitbart, reports that the State of
Texas has filed objections to the special masters' report in the
class action lawsuit filed on behalf of children in the care of
the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS).

The 37-page legal document objects to, among other things, that
"the Court's underlying findings of class-wide constitutional
violations are unsupported by reliable expert testimony or other
competent, admissible evidence."

The State also objects on the ground that the findings of
constitutional violations in the Court's December 17, 2015 Order
"are too vague to permit the remedies proposed in the
Recommendations to be precisely tailored to cure those purported
constitutional violations."

Lawyers representing the state, the Office of the Attorney
General, also urge that the recommendations by the masters do not
meet the standards articulated in the Judge's memorandum opinion,
and are overbroad because they are not narrowly tailored to
redress violations; instead, the masters seek to implement what
they deem are "best practices, for which there is no
constitutional duty."

As reported by Breitbart Texas, two masters appointed by the
federal judge in the lawsuit against the state agency issued their
recommendations in a formal report and filed it on
November 7.

Children's Rights, an advocacy group based in New York, filed a
class action lawsuit against the Lone Star State in March 2011 on
behalf of approximately 12,000 children.  The advocacy group has
filed 19 lawsuits and been successful in 15.  Among other
complaints, they urge that "Far too many children" in the
Permanent Managing Conservatorship (PMC) of the department are
"subjected to immeasurable and permanent harm" and "deprived of
the opportunity for a safe childhood."

In December 2015, Judge Janis Graham Jack ordered the State of
Texas to enact reforms.  As reported by the Dallas Morning News,
the judge noted that the department was underfunded and called the
long-term foster care system "broken."  She also noted the
frequency of sexual and other abuse, as well as the use of
psychotropic medications.

The judge appointed two special masters in the spring of 2016 and
Kevin Ryan and Francis McGovern released their list of
recommendations on November 7.

Among many other recommendations in the 13-page report, the
masters called for cutting the loads of caseworkers by 50 percent
which would require hiring more caseworkers.  According to The
Dallas Morning News, caseworkers are now assigned about 30 cases
each. The masters reported that manageable caseloads is tied to
worker satisfaction and improved turnover rates.  Their paperwork
and the electronic filing system also "must become more
efficient," the masters said. Caseworkers should be able to spend
more than 26 percent of their time with foster children and this
can be accomplished in-person or via available technology like
Skype or Facetime.  They should also conduct PMC visits at least
monthly and DFPS should make a report to the Court every six
months.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott appointed a former chief of the Texas
Rangers, Henry "Hank" Whitman, Jr., as the new Commissioner of the
embattled agency in April of this year, as reported by Breitbart
Texas.

The Department's Legislative Appropriations Request (LAR) for
fiscal years 2018-2019 includes a request for funding "above the
FY 2018-19 baseline request for six exceptional items totaling
$498.1 million general revenue ($534.0 million All Funds)."  The
LAR Administrator Statement provides, "New staffing requests total
1,823.4 FTEs in FY 2018 and 1,943.0 FTEs in FY 2019."

The case is captioned, M.D., by her next friend, Sarah R.
Stukenberg, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GREG ABBOTT, in his official
capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, et al., Defendants,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-00084 (S.D.Tex.).


TEXMASTERS EXPRESS: "Clarke" Suit to Recover OT, Reimbursements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Clarke, Individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Texmasters Express Inc.
Texmasters Express Medical Couriers, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-
03334 (N.D. Tex., November 30, 2016), seeks minimum and overtime
wages due but not paid, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest
and attorneys' fees and expenses under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendant operates a medical courier service in various cities
throughout Texas where Plaintiff worked as a courier driver. He
claims overtime compensation for hours worked any particular week
over 40 hours as well as reimbursement for transportation expenses
for using their own vehicles in delivering.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. Goodman, Jr.
      KILGORE & KILGORE PLLC
      3019 Carlisle Street
      Dallas, TX 75204
      Tel: (214) 379-0831
      Fax: (214) 379-0840

           - and -

      Gennaro Du Terroil, Esq.
      18756 Stone Oak Pkwy., Suite 200
      San Antonio, TX 78258-4001
      Tel: 210-998-5645


TEXMASTERS EXPRESS: "Fontinha" Suit Alleges Violations of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN FONTINHA, Individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. TEXMASTERS EXPRESS INC. DBA
TEXMASTERS EXPRESS MEDICAL COURIERS, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-
03338-M (N.D. Tex., December 1, 2016), holds Defendant liable
under the Fair Labor Standards Act for minimum wages due but
allegedly not paid and for overtime compensation due but allegedly
not paid.

Defendant operates a medical courier service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert E. Goodman, Jr., Esq.
     KILGORE & KILGORE PLLC
     3019 Carlisle Street
     Dallas, TX 75204
     Phone: (214) 379-0831
     Fax: (214) 379-0840

        - and -

     Gennaro Duterroil, Esq.
     18756 Stone Oak Pkwy., Suite 200
     San Antonio, TX 78258-4001


TIME WARNER: "Howard" Suit Claims FLSA, Ohio Wage Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAYLON HOWARD, 1039 Reinhard Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43206, and
TRACY DEWALD, 1433 Hunters Lake Drive E, Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio
44221, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. TIME WARNER CABLE INC., c/o CT Corporation System,
1300 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, and CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC c/o CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service
50 W. Broad St., Suite 1800, Columbus, Ohio 43215 and TWC
ADMINSTRATION LLC c/o CT Corporation System, 1300 East Ninth
Street Cleveland, Ohio 44114, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01129-
ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, November 29, 2016), alleges that
Defendants have practices and policies of not paying its hourly,
non-exempt employees in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

Defendants are cable telecommunications companies that own and
operate a number of call centers that sell products and services
to customers, such as residential cable, internet, home phone, and
home management services nationwide, including in Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
     Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
     THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
     920 Rockefeller Building
     614 W. Superior Avenue
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Phone: 216-696-5000
     Fax: 216-696-7005
     E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
             chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: May Have Lost Fraud Suit, Report Says
-------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
even after President-elect Donald Trump agreed to settle three
lawsuits against his now-defunct real estate school for $25
million -- and acknowledged no wrongdoing per the agreement -- he
remained convinced he would have won the first trial, which would
have begun Nov. 28 in San Diego federal court.

"The ONLY bad thing about winning the presidency is that I did not
have time to go through a long but winning trial on Trump U. Too
bad!" the president-elect wrote on Twitter the day after the
global settlement awarding $21 million to two classes in
California and $5 million to settle a case brought by New York's
attorney general was announced.

If Low v. Trump University and the other two cases had not been
settled ahead of its Nov. 28 trial date, America would have had
for the first time in its history a president-elect going to trial
on fraud claims just weeks before being sworn in as president.

While Trump remains convinced he would have easily prevailed in
the class action claiming Trump University misrepresented Trump
handpicked instructors and the "university" title led students to
believe the school was accredited, the evidence points to what
could have been a hard-fought battle.

The Low case, filed in 2010, was the first of three lawsuits
against Trump and his real estate school. Cohen v. Trump, also in
San Diego, and the lawsuit filed by New York Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman followed in 2013. All three cases relied on
essentially the same fraud claims: misrepresentations about Trump
University instructors and the misleading title that led students
to believe the school was accredited or on par with the country's
top business schools.

The president-elect has always insisted the claims were bogus,
saying Trump University students who didn't find real estate
success were lazy or unable to succeed because of their own
failings.

In a campaign stump in San Diego this past May, Trump went on a
10-minute rant about the two cases in the local federal court and
famously called U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who presided
over the two San Diego cases, a "hater of Donald Trump" -- a
comment that led many Republican leaders to denounce the then-
candidate's skepticism of the fairness of the judicial process.
Trump vowed shortly after not to discuss the case publicly and
remained mostly mum until the settlement was announced Nov. 18.

While Trump pointed to thousands of positive student reviews of
Trump University, the plaintiffs' attorneys gathered thousands of
other documents -- including internal training manuals and
communications -- that pointed to a business that directed its
employees to convince people to pay thousands for "elite" Trump
University packages regardless of how cash-strapped the students
were. Trump University "playbooks" unsealed by the court this
summer revealed sales managers were encouraged to sell the most
expensive seminars even if it meant potential students had to max
out their credit cards, take out loans or tap into retirement
funds to do so.

One Trump University sales manager, Ronald Schnackenberg, said in
his deposition he resigned because he was reprimanded for not up-
selling a couple the elite $35,000 package, which they would have
had to pay for by taking out a loan and using disability income.

"I found it particularly offensive that while Trump University
claimed it wanted to help consumers make money in real estate, in
fact Trump University was only interested in selling every person
the most expensive seminars they possibly could. I was disgusted
by this conduct and decided to resign," Schnackenberg said.

University of Utah law professor and consumer-law expert
Christopher Peterson said in a phone interview that the most
troubling evidence he's come across in his research of the case
was from sworn affidavits by former Trump University students who
said they lost their life savings or ended up in desperate
circumstances because they believed and invested in the real
estate school.

Peterson cited the example of Kathleen Mese, the mother of a son
with Down syndrome who was struggling financially but believed her
Trump University mentor could help her make enough to support her
family. After investing $25,000 in the program, Mese's Trump
University mentor didn't return her calls or give her the real
estate mentorship she paid for, Peterson said.

"That's just banal fraud no matter who does it," Peterson said.

Peterson wrote an academic paper this fall which made the case
that under the Constitution, Trump could be impeached for "high
crimes and misdemeanors" due to the federal racketeering claims in
the Cohen case.

Despite the settlement, Peterson said, Trump could still be
legally impeached -- though he said "as a practical matter, a
political matter, it is likely this issue will be pushed out of
the headlines and public discussion."

The law professor also pointed to heightened consumer-protection
laws in many states which ensure senior citizens -- who typically
have robust retirement savings accounts and are vulnerable to
predatory sales practices and scams -- don't fall prey to get-
rich-quick schemes.

Sonny Low, the lead plaintiff in the 2010 case, was the
representative on the financial elder abuse claim. After the
settlement was announced Nov. 18, his attorney Rachel Jensen
revealed he had to get a job at his local Home Depot store to pay
back the thousands in debt he owed for a Trump University
education.

Peterson said that rather than go through with the trial and "face
further embarrassment and press that he was scamming older
Americans," Trump's decision to settle was "strategically sound
given the significant probability he would have lost."

The law professor added, "I was not convinced he was going to win
the trial. There was compelling documentary evidence indicating he
committed fraud."

While the New York case claimed students across the country paid
$40 million to learn Trump's real estate secrets from instructors
purported to be handpicked by the president-elect, the $25 million
settlement will recover at least half if not all of what students
paid to learn from the businessman-turned-world leader.

"It's easy to lose sight of the individual victims who lost so
much in this case because of the dramatic political backdrop. But
what this case was about, what the story was about, is the people
who were harmed and treated unfairly," Peterson said.


TUROCZY BONDING: Faces "Freeman" Suit Over Unpaid Commissions
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABIODUN FREEMAN, 3156 Lamar Ct., Willard, OH 44890, On behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TUROCZY
BONDING COMPANY, c/o Incorp. Services, Inc., 9435 Waterstone Blvd.
#140, Cincinnati, OH 45249, - and - EDDIE LEE LEGACY, INC.
c/o Garrett Michael McClellan, 1200 West Third Street, Suite 190,
Cleveland, OH 44113 - and - CUFFS OFF BAIL BONDS, INC., c/o Brian
Jerome Cole, 4085 Chain Bridge Road, Ste. 100, Fairfax, VA 22030
- and - EDDIE E. LEE IRREVOCABLE TRUST LTD., co Lake City Bank,
Trustee, c/o David M. Findlay, 202 East Center Street, Warsaw, IN
46581, - and - LAKE CITY BANK, TRUSTEE FOR EDDIE E. LEE
IRREVOCABLE TRUST LTD., c/o David M. Findlay, 202 E. Center St.,
Warsaw, IN 46581, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02891-DAP (N.D.
Ohio, November 30, 2016), alleges that Turoczy Bonding owes unpaid
commissions on the premiums it collected after the indemnitors'
initial payments.

Turoczy Bonding Company is engaged in the surety bail bonds
business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
     Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
     SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
     The Superior Building
     815 Superior Avenue E., Suite 1325
     Cleveland, OH 44114
     Phone: 440-498-9100
     E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
             riwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com

        - and -

     Thomas A. Downie, Esq.
     46 Chagrin Falls Plaza #104
     Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
     Phone: 440-973-9000
     E-mail: tom@chagrinlaw.com


TYSON FOODS: Faces Securities Suit in Ark. Over False Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
HAROLD M. VO ELLINGER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. TYSON FOODS, INC., DONALD J.
SMITH and DENNIS LEATHERBY, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-
05340-TLB (W.D. Ark., Nov. 28, 2016), seeks to recover losses on
behalf of the investors who purchased Tyson securities.

The Defendants allegedly engaged in a scheme to defraud and made
numerous materially false and misleading statements and omissions
to investors regarding Tyson's business and operations, including
by (a) falsely stating that the Tyson's fiscal year 2015
("FY2015") ran from September 28, 2014 to October 3, 2015.
Company's products, including chicken, compete against other
suppliers on price and other variables; (b) falsely describing the
markets in which the Company sells chicken as "intensely
competitive"; (c) falsely ascribing Tyson's strong margins in the
sale of chickens to changes they had made in the Company's
business strategies; and (d) concealing the true reason for
Tyson's high margins and profits from the sale of chickens.

Contrary to Defendants' representations, Tyson, as well as many of
its competitors, was engaged in a massive price-fixing scheme that
was designed to, and did, artificially inflate Tyson's profits by
limiting the output of "broiler" chickens ("broilers"), which make
up 98% of all chicken meat sold in the United States.

The stock price declines during the Class Period caused hundreds
of millions of dollars in losses to Tyson investors, who relied on
the accuracy of Defendants' statements and suffered damages when
the truth began to be revealed.

Tyson purports to be one of the world's largest food companies and
a recognized market leader in chicken, beef and pork production.
The Company claims to operate a fully vertically integrated
chicken production process consisting of breeding stock, contract
growers, feed production, processing, further processing,
marketing and transportation of chicken and related allied
products, including animal and pet food ingredients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allen Carney, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          519 West 7th Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 312 8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312 8505

               - and -

          Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 244 2203
          Facsimile: (615) 252 3798

               - and -

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
          HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
          1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
          Atlanta, GA 30338
          Telephone: (770) 392 0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392 0029


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Opposes Seattle's Proposed Union Rules
---------------------------------------------------------
Greg Bensinger, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Seattle has issued proposed rules governing which app-based taxi
drivers could vote to unionize, drawing rebukes from both Uber
Technologies Inc. and Lyft Inc.

The draft rules, released by the Seattle Finance and
Administrative Services department, allow for drivers with at
least 52 rides over a three-month period to vote in a potential
union election.

That qualification excludes more infrequent drivers, which Uber
and Lyft say would lead to a less-representative vote.  Full-time
drivers are more likely to support the idea of unions than part-
time drivers, who prefer the flexibility of contractor status.

"Every driver that would be covered by a union agreement should
have the right to vote on it," a Lyft spokesman said in a
statement.  "By proposing rules that would disenfranchise nearly
50% of all drivers, the City of Seattle has embarked on a
fundamentally unfair, undemocratic process."

Uber said the city "greatly missed the mark" at the expense of
thousands of drivers.  "We join our drivers in calling on Seattle
to stand up for the basic rights of all rideshare drivers by
giving everyone a vote on their future," said Brooke Steger,
Uber's Pacific Northwest general manager, in a statement.

Seattle is the first major city to open the door for ride-hailing
and taxi drivers to unionize.  If drivers there choose to form a
union it would give them new power to negotiate increased pay,
better work conditions and how background checks are conducted,
among other things, according to the proposed rules.

Maintaining a contract workforce is crucial for Uber and Lyft
because it keeps costs low and allows them to pass along expenses
such as gasoline, car maintenance and insurance to the drivers.
Some drivers say the ride-hailing firms change their commission
rates without notice or may bar them from the service with little
recourse; others, especially those who driver more infrequently,
say being treated as contractors allows them the freedom to drive
just a few hours a week.

The question of whether to treat workers as employees for on-
demand services like grocery delivery and housecleaning has roiled
Silicon Valley.  Labor costs could rise an estimated 20% or more,
say venture investors, upending some firms' business models.  Some
startups, like shipping company Shyp Inc. and grocery delivery
startup Instacart Inc., have chosen to reclassify at least some of
their workers as employees.

Seattle's move could also serve as a guide for drivers and other
workers in the so-called "gig economy" seeking to organize their
labor pool in additional cities.  Lyft and Uber oppose unions,
arguing the appeal of the service for drivers is the flexibility
provided by their contractor status. It could also drive up the
price of the service for customers who would have to underwrite
higher labor costs.

The push to unionize drivers in Seattle was led by the App-Based
Drivers Association, a local group representing hundreds of
drivers for Uber and other services, as well as Seattle Teamsters
Local 117.

A spokeswoman for the local Teamsters chapter said the vote should
be decided largely by the drivers that make the bulk of the trips.
"They are trying to dilute the bargaining unit," the spokeswoman
said of Uber and Lyft.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which lobbies on behalf of
businesses, earlier this year sued to block the Seattle measure,
but the suit was dismissed by a federal judge because the
ordinance hadn't yet taken effect.

"Though I continue to have reservations around the legislation
that created this process, I believe in the drivers' right to
improve their working lives through collective bargaining," said
Seattle Mayor Ed Murray, who had opposed the law, in a statement.

Uber continues to contest class-action suits potentially affecting
thousands of drivers in California and Massachusetts who are
seeking greater benefits. It offered $100 million to settle the
suits, but the settlement was rejected by a judge in August.

The fight over drivers' employment status has extended beyond U.S.
borders.  A London tribunal in October ruled that Uber drivers are
entitled to workers' rights including paid holidays and minimum
wage, possibly affecting some 30,000 drivers there. Uber is
appealing that decision.


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Hearing Date Not Yet Set in Class Action Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that an
appellate court has not set a hearing date on the appeal in the
case, City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System v. Sterling
Financial Corp., et al., No. CV 09-00368-EFS.

The Company assumed, as successor-in-interest to Sterling, the
defense of litigation matters pending against Sterling. Sterling
previously reported that on December 11, 2009, a putative
securities class action complaint captioned City of Roseville
Employees' Retirement System v. Sterling Financial Corp., et al.,
No. CV 09-00368-EFS, was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington against Sterling and
certain of its current and former officers.

On June 18, 2010, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
alleging that the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making
false and misleading statements concerning Sterling's business and
financial results. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 30, 2010, Sterling moved to dismiss the Complaint, and
the court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice on
August 5, 2013. On October 11, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended consolidated complaint with the same defendants, class
period, alleged violations, and relief sought.

On January 24, 2014, Sterling moved to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint, and on September 17, 2014, the court
entered an order dismissing the amended consolidated complaint in
its entirety with no further leave to amend.

On October 24, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the district
court's order granting the motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint.

Appellant filed its opening brief on April 3, 2015 and the Company
filed its reply brief on June 17, 2015; additional appellate
briefing was filed in the third quarter 2015. The appellate court
has not set a hearing date as of the date of this filing.

Umpqua Holdings Corporation, an Oregon corporation, is a financial
holding company with two principal operating subsidiaries, Umpqua
Bank and Umpqua Investments, Inc.


UNITED STATES: Lawmakers Rush to Pass Bills on Enlistment Bonuses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBSLA.com reports that Sgt. 1st Class Bryan Strother has been a
spokesman of sorts for many of the California National Guard
members told to pay back thousands of dollars in enlistment
bonuses they got a decade ago.

"I'm worried about future good faith in the military and its
contracts," Mr. Strother said.

He filed a class-action lawsuit and was part of the push to bring
attention to the issue.

Now that there are three proposed bills in Congress to solve the
problem, Mr. Strother is saying slow down.

He feels politicians are rushing to be first to pass a bill
without listening to all concerns.

"There are all kinds of soldiers that could fall through the
cracks, soldiers that have not even been paid their bonuses,"
Mr. Strother said.

He points to Bruce Himelright, a veteran who served in Iraq and
was awarded a Bronze Star for bravery.

According to the lawsuit, he was only given half his promised
bonus, then was told he'll never get the other half.

"He wasn't paid, and yet he paid in blood and watched two of his
buddies pay with their lives that day," Mr. Strother said.

The proposed bills don't address cases like his or answer how
future contracts will be addressed, he said.

"I'm not looking to get rich; I'm looking to make our system
better," Mr. Strother said of his lawsuit.

Each of the bills' sponsors, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein's
office, responded that they are happy to talk more about concerns
and do believe their proposed bills meet the needs of soldiers who
acted in good faith.

Rep. Adam Schiff added in a statement: "We are moving forward with
expedition only because there are few remaining days in session,
and we would like to make sure that soldiers can enjoy the
holidays without any further concern over the problem."

Rep. Jeff Denham said: "We will be hosting a veterans hearing,
taking testimony to see what other issues may be out there."

The Department of Defense has paused efforts to get money back and
said each soldier's case would be reviewed by July.


USA-CANADA INTERNATIONAL: Ningbo Zhelun Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fraser, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that a Chinese
immigration services company has filed a class-action lawsuit
against a company with head offices in Richmond after about 90
people from China who paid a total of $11.9 million were denied
entry to Canada.

Ningbo Zhelun Overseas Immigration Service Co. Ltd. says in the
lawsuit that in 2012 it established a business relationship with
USA-Canada International Investment Inc. (UCII) to help "client-
investors" from China to come to Canada.

The Chinese firm, located in the city of Ningbo south of Shanghai,
says that in late 2013 UCII advised them that a program in Yukon
to attract skilled international entrepreneurs was an "easy"
program through which potential client-investors could immigrate
compared to other programs.

It says that between late 2014 and the summer of 2015, Zhelun
promoted the Yukon Business Nominee Program and recruited about 90
applicants in China and that Zhelun and its clients paid a total
of $11,900,718 to UCII.

Though UCII assured them there would not be any assessment
interviews conducted by Canadian officials on the applicants,
Zhelun says that in June 2015, it received correspondence from
Canadian immigration services requesting multiple clients to come
in for screening interviews in Hong Kong.

Zhelun says it was assured there was no cause for alarm about the
interview requests and in July 2015, about 60 applicants showed up
in Hong Kong and were subjected to interviews.

It says the clients who were interviewed were told they were not
successful and that a certificate of nomination allegedly issued
by Yukon government was false or invalid.

Permanent-residence cards for Zhelun's clients were denied and
they were told they would not be able to re-apply to immigrate or
visit Canada for a five-year period, says the suit.

"The applicants who attended the scheduled interviews were
humiliated and embarrassed as a result of the failed Hong Kong
interviews and failing to obtain their documents that would lead
to their permanent residency cards or visas."

When Zhelun approached UCII about the problems the clients had
experienced, it was told the matter was being looked into and that
letters were being sent to Yukon government, says the lawsuit
filed in B.C. Supreme Court.

Zhelun sought to recover the nearly $12 million and contacted UCII
frequently, and the clients were "deeply concerned" about their
investments, says the suit.

But while UCII said it recognized that the money was returnable in
the event it was not successful in obtaining the permanent-
residence cards, UCII said it was not able to repay the amounts as
they had been invested in various businesses, says the lawsuit.

"Zhelun has, on multiple occasions, demanded repayment of Zhelun's
investment . . . As a result of UCII's actions, Zhelun and its
clients have incurred and will continue to incur significant
expenses and damages."

The suit says it is "understood" that last summer the Canada
Border Services Agency and/or the RCMP attended the Richmond
offices of UCII, an immigration consultant and a lawyer involved
in the case to "investigate details and confiscate materials
relating to the herein claim."

In an email, the RCMP said it does not divulge whether
investigations are ongoing unless charges are laid or if public
information is sought in order to advance an investigation, or
should investigative findings indicate a public safety risk.  CBSA
could not be reached.

The plaintiffs, who filed the lawsuit in the form of a class-
action proceeding on behalf of Zhelun's clients, are seeking that
the nearly $12 million be repaid.

They also want an accounting of any and all financial transactions
related to the Zhelun investments and an order restraining the
defendants from dealing with or disposing of assets and properties
wherein Zhelun's investment proceeds were used or invested.

The company is also seeking unspecified general and special
damages.

No response has yet been filed to the lawsuit, which contains
allegations that have not been proven in court.  UCII could not be
reached for comment.


WAL-MART STORES: Must Face Truck Drivers' Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pablo lopez, writing for Fresno Bee, reports that a Fresno law
firm scored a major win on Nov. 23 against Wal-Mart with a
multimillion-dollar verdict against the retail giant in a federal
class-action lawsuit that affects hundreds of truckers in
California.

A jury ruled in U.S. District Court in San Francisco that Wal-Mart
Stores Inc. violated California's minimum wage law when it failed
to pay its drivers for all the tasks they do.  Right before noon,
the jury awarded the drivers $54 million in damages

Those unpaid tasks include waiting in line to load or unload their
cargo, time spent to fill out federally mandated trip slips, and
washing and fueling their trucks.

Under California law, the drivers must be paid for all the time
that they were subject to Wal-Mart's control, said Fresno attorney
Nicholas "Butch" Wagner, whose firm of Wagner Jones Kopfman &
Artenian represented nearly 840 past and present Wal-Mart drivers,
including about 200 from the Valley.

Mr. Wagner said additional damages and penalties could push the
total that Wal-Mart owes to $150 million.

Wal-Mart has three distribution centers in California located in
Porterville, Apple Valley and Red Bluff.

Wal-Mart spokesman Randy Hargrove said company officials "do not
believe the facts support the decision."  He said the company
plans to file post-trial motions and likely will appeal.

"Our drivers are among the highest paid in the industry, earning
from approximately $80,000 to over $100,000 per year,"
Mr. Hargrove said, noting that 90 percent of Wal-Mart drivers have
been with the company more than 10 years.  "We strongly believe
that our truck drivers are paid in compliance with California law
and often in excess of what California law requires."

The civil dispute began in 2008 when the Fresno law firm accused
Wal-Mart of wage theft.  Wal-Mart then picked the U.S. District
Court in the Northern District of California in San Francisco to
settle the civil dispute.

In 2015, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Illston ruled Wal-Mart
violated California's minimum wage law, leaving damages as the
major issue to be decided.

Mr. Wagner has contended that Wal-Mart shortchanges its drivers by
paying them by the mile.

Unlike other states where paying by the mile is permissible,
California law says truck drivers are supposed to be paid for all
the tasks they do, Mr. Wagner said.

But Wal-Mart's lawyers contended in court filings that
Mr. Wagner's interpretation of the law is wrong.

The central issue is no different than that of a housekeeper who
is paid not by the hour but for each house cleaned, the Wal-Mart
lawyers contend.

To clean a house, the housekeeper must sweep the floors, vacuum
the rugs, scrub the bathrooms, mop the tiles, wait for them to
dry, wipe down the countertops and so forth.

"Nothing in the Labor Code requires a separate 'pay code' for each
act that goes into cleaning the house," Wal-Mart's lawyers say in
court papers.

If Mr. Wagner's interpretation of the law is correct, the lawyers
said in court filings that it would lead to absurd results that
the California Legislature never could have intended: It would
require a separate pay code for wringing a mop, carrying a bucket
of cleaning supplies and for each sweep of the broom.

"Does the Labor Code require drivers to be separately paid for
putting a key in the ignition or while sitting at a stop light?"
the lawyers said.  Must Wal-Mart use a separate pay code for a
pre-trip inspection and other duties of a trucker?

"Plaintiffs provide no principled explanation -- nor any legal
authority -- as to why a separate pay code must be assigned to
each and every act comprising the various activities that
employees are already paid to perform."

But Mr. Wagner said the unpaid tasks add up to wage theft.  His
firm accused Wal-Mart of violating a number of California labor
laws, including failing to give its drivers meal and rest breaks.

One big point of contention is whether drivers are adequately
compensated for sleeping in their cabs during layovers.

In court documents, Wal-Mart says it pays its drivers $42 to
remain in the cab during the required 10-hour layover period.
Mr. Wagner says Wal-Mart is being disingenuous.

"Forty-two dollars for 10 hours isn't even minimum wage,"
Mr. Wagner said, contending that Wal-Mart offers this bonus so
truckers will live in their truck and act as security guards so no
one breaks into it.

After the verdict, Mr. Wagner said he was proud of his firm that
has seven lawyers.  Wal-Mart was defended by legal giants Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher and Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary. The
two legal firms have more than 1,700 lawyers.

The trial started on Halloween and took nearly four weeks to
complete.  Jurors deliberated about nine hours over three days
before reaching their verdict, Mr. Wagner said.  Of the $54
million in damages, a vast majority of it was for Wal-Mart not
paying its drivers during the required layover period, he said.

"Hopefully this verdict sends a message to other trucking firms
who are committing wage theft," Mr. Wagner said, noting that his
firm has civil trials pending against three large trucking firms.


WASHINGTON: Settles Hep C Drug Medicaid Coverage Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Molly Rosbach, writing for Yakima Herald, reports that the Health
Care Authority has reached a settlement agreement in a class
action lawsuit that sought broader coverage of costly hepatitis C
drugs for Medicaid patients in Washington state.

The settlement has yet to be approved by a judge.

In the past several years, multiple pharmaceutical companies
nationwide have developed direct-acting antiviral drugs that cure
hepatitis C in more than 90 percent of patients.  But the drugs
are extremely expensive -- for example, Harvoni, introduced in
2014, has a list price of $1,100 a day, or $94,500 for a 12-week
course. (After automatic drug rebates and other discounts,
Medicaid pays about half that price for each patient.)

But under the state's previous restrictions, Medicaid patients
with hepatitis C could only access the expensive curative drugs if
they had advanced liver disease, gauged by a "fibrosis" score,
which measures the level of scarring on the liver.

A class suit representing about 28,000 Medicaid patients was filed
against the Health Care Authority in February, alleging that 900
people in the state had been denied access to curative treatment
based on their fibrosis score.  A preliminary injunction was
issued in May, barring the state from denying coverage based on
fibrosis score.  If approved, the settlement agreement would make
that change permanent, opening access to medically necessary
treatment to all hep C patients covered by Medicaid.

"The state agreed to remove the fibrosis scores as . . . a means
of rationing who got access to the drugs," said attorney
Amy Crewdson with Columbia Legal Services, which filed the lawsuit
along with Seattle law firm Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger.
For sick patients seeking a cure, "Fibrosis scores were the big
barrier."

The legal team filed the settlement agreement on Nov. 21 and is
now awaiting a judge's preliminary approval to the proposed order.
After that's granted, the judge has to schedule a "fairness
hearing" where final approval or denial of the settlement will be
determined.  The hearing will be sometime in 2017.

Once preliminary approval is given and a date set for the fairness
hearing, the state must send out notification to all members of
the class suit alerting them to the hearing if they wish to go and
submit comments or testify in person.

That notification element is a big benefit of the settlement,
lawyers say, because it requires the state to inform Medicaid
clients who are eligible for the costly treatment and may have
even been denied treatment in the past.

Ms. Crewdson says the state has to notify three groups of people,
with notices written by the legal team that brought the suit --
one for people who are still on Medicaid but were denied expensive
hep C treatment in the past; one for people the state believes to
no longer be enrolled in Medicaid but who were denied hep C
treatment by the agency in the past; and one for people who are
currently on Medicaid whom the state has reason to believe could
be hep C-positive.

The terms reached in the settlement -- ceasing to deny hep C
treatment based on fibrosis score -- are only effective for three
years because the Health Care Authority wanted an expiration date,
Ms. Crewdson said.

Hopefully, after three years, the increased access will be
sufficiently entrenched and will remain in place long-term.

"If (the agency) reverted to their policy of rationing in three
years, it's likely we would just sue them again," Ms. Crewdson
said.


WCI COMMUNITIES: Shareholders Want to Enjoin Sale to Lennar
-----------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a class of shareholders has asked a federal judge in
Wilmington, Del., to enjoin the sale of WCI Communities to Lennar
Corp., saying the $643 million deal is the result of an unfair
process and gives investors inadequate consideration.

The case is captioned, STEPHEN BUSHANSKY, On Behalf of Himself and
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. WCI COMMUNITIES,
INC., KEITH E. BASS, STEPHEN D. PLAVIN, PATRICK J. BARTELS, JR.,
MICHELLE MACKAY, DARIUS G. NEVIN, CHARLES C. REARDON, CHRISTOPHER
E. WILSON, LENNAR CORPORATION, MARLIN BLUE LLC, and MARLIN GREEN
CORP., Defendants., Case No. 12947 (Del. Ch.).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
     O'KELLY & ERNST, LLC
     Daniel P. Murray, Esq.
     901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Tel: (302) 778-4000
     E-mail: rernst@oelegal.com
             dmurray@oelegal.com

          - and -

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


WELLS FARGO: Court Certified Class in Delco Electrical Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled DELCO ELECTRICAL CORP., SAT CONTRACTING,
INC., GM DATA COMMUNICATIONS, INC., EXPERTEL COMMUNICATIONS LTD.,
STARCOM COMMUNICATION SERVICES, INC., and LONG ISLAND OFFICE DATA
COMM CONSULTING GROUP, INC., the Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO
CAPITAL FINANCE, INC., and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Case No. 2:13-
cv-07207 (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon Leonard Wetler entered an order that:

   a. a plaintiff class is certified, consisting of:

      "all entities that furnished, installed, and/or maintained
      elephonic/electrical cabling or equipment and all related
      work on behalf of Teltronics, Inc. ("Teltronics") on New
      York City school construction projects";

   b. the Plaintiffs are designated as the class representatives
      in the prosecution of this action; and

   c. the form of notice to the potential class
      participants, comprised of all creditors of Teltronics as
      disclosed in and ascertained from Teltronics' Chapter 11
      bankruptcy case, filed on June 27, 2011 in the United
      States Bankruptcy Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa
      Division, Case No. 8:1 l-bk-12150 KRM (the "Bankruptcy
      Case") -- in Support of Motion for an Order Approving Class
      Certification and Form of Notice to Class Participants and
      Related Relief ("Kushner Declaration") -- is approved.

The Court further ordered that:

   1. Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP is authorized to render necessary
      legal services to represent the interests of the class

   2. service of the Notice shall be made on or before December
      12, 2016;

   3. Plainitffs' counsel shall file an Affidavit of Service
      indicating that such service has been made on the Court
      docket on or before December 12, 2016;

   4. all claims must be received by Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP no
      later than January 9, 2017, and the notice shall be
      modified to reflect the deadline for submission of claims.

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


WELLS FARGO: Wants to Resolve Fake Account Suits Via Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paige Winfield Cunningham, writing for Washington Examiner,
reports that Wells Fargo is asking for dozens of its customers to
resolve lawsuits they're bringing through private arbitration,
instead of court.

The bank asked the U.S. District Court in Utah to order its
customers to settle their disputes outside the court, according to
legal documents filed on Nov. 23.  The motion is in response to a
class action lawsuit Wells Fargo is facing for opening 2 million
deposit and credit card accounts without permission from
customers.

The scandal has roiled Wells Fargo, the third-largest U.S. bank,
leading to the resignation of its CEO John Stumpf as the bank was
probed by federal investigators.  The bank has so far agreed to
pay $185 million in penalties and $5 million to customers.

But Wells Fargo is trying to enforce mandatory arbitration rules
it inserts into agreements its customers sign when opening a bank
account.

In its filing Nov. 23, the bank pointed to those agreements, which
prohibit customers from joining class actions or suing the bank.
The Supreme Court has said banks are allowed to impose such rules,
although they're criticized by consumer advocates and some
Democrats for denying customers the legal protections of court
proceedings.

Yet a court pointed to those arbitration clauses earlier this year
when it dismissed another lawsuit against Wells Fargo.


WELLS FARGO: Lieber Sues Over Failure to Provide Loan Info
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported an Ohio woman claims in a class-
action lawsuit in Cleveland that Wells Fargo ignored borrowers who
made written requests for specific information about their
mortgage loans.

The case is captioned RACHEL LIEBER, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, 2588 South Taylor Road
Cleveland, OH 44118 Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, c/o Tim
Sloan, CEO 420 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA94104, CASE NO.
CV 16 871894, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO.

Counsel for the Plaintiff and Class:

Marc E. Dann, Esq.
Brian D. Flick, Esq.
THE DANN LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 6031040
Cleveland, OH 44103
(216) 373-0539 telephone
(216) 373-0536 facsimile
E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com

     - and -

Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
Maebetty Kirby, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES P.C.
77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, Illinois 60602
(312) 440-0020 telephone
(312) 440-4180 facsimile
www.attorneyzim.com
E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
        matt@attorneyzim.com
        maebetty@attorneyzim.com


WESTERN RIVERSIDE: "Loya" Suit Moved from Super Ct. to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled George Loya, On Behalf of Himself
and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Western
Riverside Council of Governments and Renovate America, Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. RIC1614434, was removed from the Riverside
County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-02478 to the
proceeding.

The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) is comprised
of 17 cities in Western Riverside County, the County of Riverside,
the Eastern Municipal Water District and the Western Riverside
Water District. It is a subregion of the Southern California
Association of Governments, stretching from Orange County in the
west to the City of Banning on the eastern edge and City of
Temecula on the southern edge. It is a fast-growing region, with a
diverse mix of development. WRCOG is the joint powers agency that
provides the region's collective voice on important regional
issues.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


WIRELESS CENTER: "Haught" Suit Seeks to Recoup Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY HAUGHT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiffs, v. THE WIRELESS CENTER, INC., Defendant, Case
3:16-cv-00942-HEH (E.D. Va., November 30, 2016), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid wages and overtime, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a large specialty-based retailer of wireless
communication products, services and accessories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Harris D. Butler, III, Esq.
     Zev H. Antell, Esq.
     Paul M. Falabella, Esq.
     BUTLER ROYALS, PLC
     140 Virginia Street, Ste. 302
     Richmond, VA 23219
     Phone: (804) 648-4848
     Fax: (804) 237-0413
     Email: harris.butler@butlerroyals.com
            zev.antell@butlerroyals.com
            paul.falabella@butlerroyals.com


WORLD ACCEPTANCE: "Epstein" Case Parties in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------
World Acceptance Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 4, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
parties in the class action complaint by Edna Selan Epstein are
engaged in discovery.

On April 22, 2014, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint, Edna Selan Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et
al., in the United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina (case number 6:14-cv-01606) (the "Edna Epstein Putative
Class Action"), against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between April 25,
2013 and March 12, 2014.

Two amended complaints have been filed by the plaintiffs, and
several other motions have been filed in the proceedings. The
complaint, as currently amended, alleges that (i) the Company made
false and misleading statements in various SEC reports and other
public statements in violation of federal securities laws
preceding the Company's disclosure in a Form 8-K filed March 13,
2014 that it had received the above-referenced CID from the CFPB
(ii) the Company's loan growth and volume figures were inflated
because of a weakness in the Company's internal controls relating
to its accounting treatment of certain small-dollar loan re-
financings and (iii) additional allegations regarding, among other
things, the Company's receipt of a Notice and Opportunity to
Respond and Advise letter from the CFPB on August 7, 2015.

The complaint seeks class certification for a class consisting of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between January 30, 2013 and August 10, 2015,
unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company believes the complaint is without merit. On January
29, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

On August 24, 2016, the Court entered an order denying the
defendants' motion to dismiss. On September 28, 2016, the Lead
Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to certify the action as a class
action.

The time for the Company to respond to the Lead Plaintiff's motion
for class certification has not yet expired.

On October 7, 2016, the defendants filed an answer to the
complaint. The parties are presently engaged in discovery.

The Company is a small-loan consumer finance company headquartered
in Greenville, South Carolina that offers short-term small loans,
medium-term larger loans, related credit insurance products and
ancillary products and services to individuals who have limited
access to other sources of consumer credit.  In U.S. branches, the
Company offers income tax return preparation services to its loan
customers and other individuals.


* Class Actions Over Malpractice in Pension Plans Pile Up
---------------------------------------------------------
Gillian Tett, writing for The Financial Times, reports that more
than 70m Americans suddenly have a pressing reason to check their
pension statements.  The US presidential election result has
unleashed wild swings in equity and bond prices, prompting the S&P
500 index to outperform 10-year Treasury bonds by more than 10 per
cent in just 11 days.  This could dent the fortunes of many of
those who have a 401(k) -- the most common form of employer-
sponsored defined contribution plan -- particularly if they hold
those 10-year Treasury bonds.

There is another reason why 401(k) holders might want to scan
their statements: litigation.  And investors of all stripes should
take note.  In the past year there has been an explosion in class
action lawsuits over alleged malpractice in these pension plans.

These suits have not yet garnered much public attention.  That is
partly because the legal action is fragmented, spread between
different courts, and cases are often settled in private.

Moreover, the pension industry often looks dull and the sums
involved (rarely above $100m) tend to be small compared with the
multibillion-dollar dramas seen in banking since 2008.

While 401(k) tussles may not grab headlines, they do touch many
household names.  In the past six months, for example, Delta Air
Lines employees have sued Fidelity over alleged mismanagement of a
401(k) plan; staff at Edward Jones, the financial advisory
company, have sued their employer over the in-house pension plan.
There have been similar suits at Franklin Templeton, New York Life
Insurance, American Century and Neuberger Berman. And a $150m
class action suit has been lodged against Morgan Stanley.

Details vary but all have a similar theme: plaintiffs claim that
members of 401(k) schemes have been charged excessively high fees,
sometimes because the asset managers used unnecessary third-party
advisers.  The salient point, in other words, is not fund
performance but the investment process.  As in other financial
fields, litigants claim financiers have used an opaque web of
transactions to scalp clients.

Is this charge justified? It is hard for outsiders to tell since
the industry is so complex and fragmented.  America is estimated
to have about 600,000 different 401(k) funds, holding more than
$4tn of assets, and the fine print is usually bewildering for a
novice.

Lawyers working for asset managers insist the criticism is
overdone.  "401(k) schemes have been great for American workers,"
says James Carroll -- james.carroll@skadden.com -- of Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, who is defending "numerous" clients
against 401(k) suits.  "All these lawsuits do is burden the
employers with additional expenses -- no one is going to benefit
except lawyers." Indeed, Mr. Carroll and others argue the trend is
driven by opportunism: a US Supreme Court decision last year made
it easier for plaintiffs to launch complaints and triggered the
boom. (Most notably, courts no longer presume asset managers are
behaving prudently.) "Cases which are utterly without merit are
now getting out of the starting block," Mr. Carroll says.

Lawyers representing the plaintiffs vehemently disagree, saying
malpractice is widespread in the 401(k) world, partly because
there is so little independent scrutiny.  "So many plans have had
excessive fees," says Jerry Schlichter, a Missouri lawyer who has
spearheaded the litigation wave.  "The assets were in a dark
closet with no transparency, and the employer had no real
financial incentive to keep fees down."

Mr. Schlichter estimates that the suits have already clawed back
$300m in excess fees and fines for members of 401(k) schemes,
mostly in out-of-court settlements.  That in turn is pushing fees
down across the industry, he argues.

A cynic might say $300m is a modest sum, given the size of the
401(k) world -- and that asset management fees would probably be
falling anyway, given growing pressure on the investment industry
to cut costs.

The one thing that almost everyone appears to agree on, however,
is that the litigation genie will not go back into the bottle.
"These cases will carry on [into 2017]," Mr. Carroll says.

While that might dismay companies and 401(k) sponsors paying the
legal bills, it does have a silver lining. Until now, most people
have paid scant attention to how their schemes are run, partly
because the fine print is complex and seemingly dull.

It would be nice to hope that this wave of litigation finally
sparks more scrutiny and much needed transparency.  If so, that is
welcome indeed after a decade of paltry investment returns -- and
just as a spell of wild markets looms in a Trumpian world.


* Lawyer Sees Growth Industry in Privacy Breach Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Meckbach,, writing for Canadian Underwriter, reports that the
rise of class action lawsuits alleging privacy breaches is raising
the question of whether a corporation can be held vicariously
liable when employees cause privacy violations to plaintiffs who
do not actually prove they were harmed, a lawyer warned insurance
professionals on Nov. 23.

Patrick Hawkins, a lawyer with Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, was the
keynote speaker at the Property Casualty Underwriters Club
November luncheon.

He noted there is a "growth industry" in class action lawsuits
alleging privacy breaches.

"We think there are roughly 33 data privacy breach class actions
that have been commenced in Canada," Mr. Hawkins told attendees at
the event in Toronto.

He referred to several lawsuits, including the Court of Appeal for
Ontario ruling released in 2012 in Jones v. Tsige.

Sandra Jones and Winnie Tsige were employees of the Bank of
Montreal.  Ms. Jones was also a BMO customer.  Court records
indicate that Ms. Tsige -- who was in a relationship with Jones'
former husband -- accessed and reviewed Ms. Jones' bank records on
174 occasions in 2006 through 2009.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed Ms. Jones' lawsuit
in 2011 but that decision was overturned on appeal.  The Bank of
Montreal was not a party to the case.

"The Court of Appeal created this new tort and said, 'Okay this is
a circumstance where information being so readily available
electronically, that never used to be available before, we need a
way to vindicate rights of people and to prevent people from doing
this,'" Mr. Hawkins said at the PCUC luncheon Nov. 23.  "So they
created this new tort called intrusion upon seclusion, which is a
new claim."

The Court of Appeal for Ontario, in Jones v. Tsige, "said some
things about damages that really gives rise to and spawns class
actions," Mr. Hawkins added.  "Unlike traditional tort law or
traditional civil law and civil damages, proof of harm to a
recognized economic interest is not required.  So you are not
required to prove that somebody has actually suffered damage. Just
because you are a little bit annoyed and somebody has looked at
your private records, that can be a circumstance where we award
damages."

In class-action lawsuits where an employer is named as a
defendant, there is a question of whether or not damages can be
awarded against the firm if no harm is proven, Hawkins suggested.

"I think that is a really important thing that is going to have to
be sorted out a in class action context in privacy breach," where
the corporation has compensated people who were actually harmed,
he suggested.

"Do the rest of the people who are just a little bit ticked off,
or a little bit annoyed or a little bit worried, do they actually
recover from the corporation?" he asked.  "And then, what's it
worth? Plaintiff's lawyers are really pushing that it's a no-harm
tort and then a little bit of annoyance is worth something.  From
the defence side, we are pushing that a little bit of annoyance is
worth nothing."


* Litigation Funders in Australia Need Regulation
-------------------------------------------------
Ross McInnes, Esq. -- rmcinnes@claytonutz.com -- and Nick
Mavrakis, Esq. -- nmavrakis@claytonutz.com -- of Clayton Utz, in
an article for The Australian Business Review, reports that when
Australia introduced a dedicated regime for class action
litigation nearly 25 years ago, a significant battleground was
whether it should be an "opt-out" or "opt-in" process.

The desire to promote "access to justice" and "judicial
efficiency" meant that parliament settled on an opt-out regime.
Class actions could be commenced on behalf of all group members,
and if they did not want to be a part of the claim, they were
given a chance to opt out of the litigation.

When litigation funders joined the scene, the opt-out regime
didn't sit neatly with their business model.  It meant they had to
bring claims on behalf of "free-riders" -- group members who stood
to benefit from the litigation funder's -- investment without
contributing to the return.

A new battleground opened.  The court determined that the law did
not preclude a "closed-class" approach to class actions.

But closed-class proceedings do not sit well with the policy
considerations of access to justice.  From a litigation funder's
perspective, they also leave meat on the carcass -- potentially
large numbers of group members from whom a funding commission
could be extracted.

The past couple of years have seen a string of applications in
class action litigation seeking to grapple with this conundrum. It
seemed to be accepted that the costs associated with prosecuting
class action proceedings should be borne equally among group
members.  Where views differed was over the way in which fairness
should be imposed and whether the funder should be entitled to
payment from group members who did not sign up for the funder's
services.

Some courts made "common fund"-type orders at the time of, or in
order to facilitate, settlement of proceedings.  In the Pathway
Investments case, the Victorian Supreme Court approved a class
action settlement that required all group members to pay a portion
of their distribution to the funder.

In Farey v NAB, the Federal Court made similar orders to
facilitate settlement negotiations.

It has not all been smooth sailing.  In Blairgowrie v Allco, the
Federal Court refused to make an order that would have entitled a
litigation funder to commissions from all group members.

The reason? Because the main motivation for the application
appeared to be to make the class action financially viable for the
funder.  The full Federal Court's recent decision in Money Max has
seen the class action industry come full circle.

With a solid nod to access to justice, the court gave the green
light to a common fund order at the start of litigation.  If the
decision survives any appeal to the High Court, the effect will be
that all group members are required to pay a funding commission to
the litigation funder, including those who do not sign up to the
funding agreement.

So nearly 25 years later we may be back to where it all began: an
opt-out regime driven, apparently, by a desire of litigation
funders to promote access to justice.

If the Money Max approach becomes the norm, we are likely to see
more open class representative proceedings.  If so, there are
broader policy questions that now need to be grappled with in
Australia's class action industry.

The litigation funding industry remains lightly regulated.  If we
move to an environment in which it is easier and commercially more
attractive for funders to commence open class action proceedings,
now is the time for parliament to consider what controls need to
be put in place to properly protect all interests.

If the price of access to justice is requiring group members to
pay a fee to a litigation funder even if they have not signed up
to the funder's services, then it may be time for parliament to
consider an appropriate rate of return on a litigation funder's
investments.

A proper consideration of the prudential controls that funders
need to meet is also required to ensure group members are not left
high and dry if a funder finds itself in financial difficulty.

The interests of corporate Australia also need to be taken into
account.  Outside the US, a corporation is most likely to face a
class action in Australia.

This recent development to make starting class actions more
attractive will likely be a source of perplexity -- and concern.
The potential for unmeritorious class actions to be started by
litigation funders with a view to forcing an early, reputationally
driven settlement cannot be ignored.

While the litigation funding market is home to some sophisticated
players who have proven track records in commencing claims with
strong prospects, we are increasingly seeing smaller players and
foreign entrants whose motivations are yet to be properly tested.

The courts and parliament must be mindful of those developments in
an environment that encourages funded class actions.




                            *********

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  * * *