CAR_Public/161215.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, December 15, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 250




                            Headlines

132 NINTH AVENUE: Faces "Zayas" Suit in S.D. of New York
1317 RESTAURANT: "Guevara" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Court Grants Summary Judgment in "Wise"
ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Teachers Fund Files Suit Over Pravastatin
AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Mass. Shareholder Class Action

ALABAMA: Inmate Testifies in Mental Health Class Suit
ALLIED HOME: Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable, Judge Says
AMERIGAS PROPANE: Faces "Spence" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ANNAPOLIS ROAD: "Loeza" Files Lawsuit Under FLSA, Md. Labor Laws
ARLINGTON COUNTY: "Battaglini" Action Seeks to Recover OT Pay

ASSOCIATED COLLECTORS: Faces "Boucher" Suit in E.D. of Wisconsin
ATTENDS HEALTHCARE: "Storey" Suit Over Adult Diapers Dismissed
B/E AEROSPACE: Undervalued Merger Deal Hit in "Dodds" Case
BANDAS LAW: Edelson Suit Alleges Racketeering, Extortion
BANK OF AMERICA: Riviera Police Fund Files Anti-trust Case

BANK OF AMERICA: Discovery Bid in Alaska Pension Fund Suit Nixed
BARNHILL CONTRACTING: "Pittman" Race Bias & Wages Suit Dismissed
BEHR PAINT: Faces "McBain" Suit Under FLSA and Calif. Labor Code
BMW AUSTRALIA: To Pay Back $72 Million to Ordinary Car Buyers
CACH LLC: Bid to Arbitrate Granted in Part in "Snyder" Suit

CALIFORNIA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Raisin Growers' Suits
CANADA: Former Sailor to Launch Sexual Harassment Class Action
CANADA: Inuvik Native Band Identifies Members Qualified in Suit
CARNEGIE PARK: Judge Favors Dismissal Over Injunction
CENTRAL PORTFOLIO: Faces "Shepard" Suit in Dist. Minnesota

CEVA LOGISTICS: "McDonald" Files Suit Under California Labor Code
CHER OIL: Cushing-Area Residents File Class Action Over Quake
CIMIC: Faces New Class Action, February 22 Hearing Set
CONN APPLIANCES: Judge Recommends Dismissal in "Alvarado" Suit
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Summary Judgment Filed in Receipt Class Action

DOLGENCORP LLC: "Harnen" Action Seeks Overtime Pay
DR REDDY'S LABORATORIES: PA Teachers Fund Files Anti-Trust Suit
EL TAMARINDO: "Rivera" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA
FAITH CONSTRUCTION: "Eroglu" Action Seeks Overtime Pay
FOUR CORNERS: "Badger" Suit Alleges ADA Violation

GATESTONE & CO: Illegally Collects Debt, "Alderman" Suit Claims
GEORGIA: DJJ Faces Suit for Civil Rights Act Violation
HESO INC: Faces "Lopes" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA, NYLL
HITACHI METALS: Price-fixing of Brake Hoses Alleged by Emerald
HUA DA INC: Faces "Zayas" Suit in Southern District of New York

ICE CREAM HOUSE: "Galicia" Suit Alleges FLSA, NYLL Violations
INFINITE CARE: Judge Grants Final Approval of Class Settlement
INTERNATIONAL GENERAL: OT Pay Recovery Sought in "Bilbao" Suit
JVK OPERATIONS: Guevara Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under NY Labor Law
KAISER PERMANENTE: No Violation in Anti-Assignment, Judge Says

KENTUCKY: "Woodcock" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky
MACROCURE LTD: "Lax" Suit Alleges Securities Violations in Merger
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Judge Nixes Fans' Suit Over Safety Net
MARS INC: E.D. Pa. Judge Sends FACTA Suit to S.D.N.Y.
MCKESSON CORP: "Hunt" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages

MDL 1917: Chunghwa Settlement Allocation Plan Has Final OK
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: "Elfaridi" Suit Alleges Defective Sun Roof
MERCER HEALTH: "Stapf" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Law
MIDLAND CREDIT: "Lopera" Suit Can't Proceed as Class
MINOR LEAGUE: Establishes Political Committee to Fight Suit

MNM PROPERTIES: "Saucedo" Suit Alleges Violations of FLSA, NYLL
NAPOLI'S PASTARIA: "Crespo" Suit Seeks Overtime, Alleges Tax Fraud
NBTY INC: Court Trims Claims in "Porter" Suit
NEIMAN MARCUS: Faces "Huang" Class Suit in E.D. New York
NZK PRODUCTIONS: Eckert Seeks Monetary Damages Under Labor Code

OCWEN FINANCIAL: Weiner Loses Bid to Compel Production of Docs
OMNI LIMOUSINE: Mooney Suit Stayed Pending McSwiggin Case
OPTUMRX INC: Faces "Davis" Suit for Drug Overpricing
OSHKOSH, WI: Released Prisoner May Amend Complaint
PATRICK M. CONNELLY: "Allah-Mensah" Suit Survives Dismissal Bid

PILOT CORP: 11th Cir. Confirms Original Jurisdiction Under CAFA
PREMIERE NUTRITION: Faces False Advertising Class Action
QUALITY SERVICE: Overtime Pay Demanded in "Casasus" Labor Suit
RALEIGH HEART: Patient Exposure Cases Obtain Class Action Status
RHODE ISLAND: Human Services Dept. Faces "Gemmell" Class Action

ROYAL BANK: Reaches Settlement With Three of Five Investor Groups
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over Trash Bill Overcharges
RESIDENTIAL CREDIT: Sekula Files Appeal in 11th Cir.
SAINT-GOBAIN: Ground Water Contamination Alleged in "Dowling" Suit
SALEM INTERNATIONAL: W.Va. High Court Sends Suit to Arbitration

SANTA FE NATURAL: False Advertising Suite Filed by "Hebert"
SCOTT'S BREWERY: Judge Spurns Application Approach, Tosses Suit
SI WIRELESS: Faces "Campbell" Suit in Southern Dist. of Illinois
STAR INSURANCE: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal in "Sheehan" Suit
SUPERIOR TANK: Miranda et al. Allege Violations of FLSA

TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE: "Kirk" Suit Alleges Violations of FLSA
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces "Browder" Class Suit in N.D. Texas
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: For-Profit Colleges Optimistic Despite Case
TURN AROUND: "Kinslow" Suit Alleges Non-payment of Wages, OT Work
TYSON FOODS: "Chung" Class Suit Transferred to W.D. Arkansas

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces "Mastra" Suit Alleging ERISA Violations
UNITED STATES: DOL Requests Expedited Ruling on Injunction Appeal
US CABLE CORP: "Bandsuh" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
VITAL RECOVERY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
WEST PENN ALLEGHENY: 3rd Cir. Won't Hear Hospital Employees' Suit

WINDHAVEN INSURANCE: Faces "Nedd" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
WYANDOTTE, MI: Tax Statute Deprives Dist. Court of Jurisdiction
ZIMMER BIOMET: January 31 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

* CFPB's Effort to Curb Mandatory Arbitration May Face Challenges


                            *********


132 NINTH AVENUE: Faces "Zayas" Suit in S.D. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 132 Ninth Avenue
Limited Liability Company. The case is captioned Edwin Zayas,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. 132 Ninth Avenue Limited Liability Company, and DLP
Group, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09496 (S.D.N.Y., Dec.
8, 2016).

DLP Group is doing business in a construction-related industry.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


1317 RESTAURANT: "Guevara" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Najera Guevara, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 1317 Restaurant Co LLC, Jonathan
Bash and Mark Bash, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09442 (S.D. N.Y.,
December 7, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the New York
Labor Law, as well as spread of hours and overtime wage orders of
the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs of suit.

Najera is a former employee of 1317 Restaurant Co LLC which
operates as Fratelli Pizza & Wine Bar, an Italian restaurant owned
by Jonathan Bash and Mark Bash, located at 1317 First Avenue, New
York, New York 10021. He worked as a dishwasher, delivery worker
and porter. Najera worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per
week, without receiving the applicable minimum wage or appropriate
overtime compensation for the hours over 40 per week that he
worked as well as spread of hours premium. He also alleges that
the Defendants failed to maintain accurate time-keeping.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Court Grants Summary Judgment in "Wise"
------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Linley, Esq. -- robin.linley@blakes.com -- and Jessica Lam,
Esq. -- jessica.lam@blakes.com -- of Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP,
in an article for Lexology, report that in a recent class action
decision, Wise v. Abbott Laboratories Limited (Wise), Justice
Perell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Court) granted
the defendant's motion for summary judgment in advance of
certification, concluding that there was no genuine issue
requiring a trial because there was insufficient evidence of
general causation.  The decision highlights the potential for
defendants to use of summary judgment to resolve a class action
before certification in appropriate cases.

BACKGROUND

Abbott Laboratories (Abbott) is the manufacturer of a topical
ointment known as AndroGel(R), a testosterone replacement therapy
for the treatment of hypogonadism (testosterone deficiency) in
men.

The representative plaintiff brought a proposed class action
against Abbott alleging that AndroGel causes serious
cardiovascular (CV) events, such as heart attacks and strokes; and
that AndroGel was sold by Abbott as a remedy for "LowT", an
alleged fabricated disease made up by Abbott to sell more of its
product.  In selling AndroGel for LowT, the plaintiffs alleged
that the drug had no therapeutic benefits, and that Abbott had
therefore been unjustly enriched and should compensate the class
members for their economic losses incurred in purchasing the
product. The plaintiffs also sought recovery of damages from the
defendant based on the allegations of failure to warn and the
novel claim of "waiver of tort".

Abbott denied all claims of negligence, and submitted that the
plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed on the grounds that they
could not prove general causation, which was a constituent element
in all of their product liability claims.  Conversely, the
plaintiffs submitted that if they won, the case would be
appropriate for a partial summary judgment in their favour -- with
the result that three of the five certification criteria would be
satisfied.

Significantly, the parties filed more than 11,000 pages in
materials for the motion, including 22 expert reports from nine
experts.  There were six days of oral argument.

The Court held that there were four major issues on the motion.
The Court's findings with respect to each of these issues are
briefly canvassed below.

DECISION

Is the Case Appropriate for Summary Judgment?

The Court held that at the heart of the "no genuine issue
requiring a trial" test for granting summary judgment is the need
to undertake a "judicial gut check."  The motions judge must be of
the view that sufficient evidence has been presented on all
relevant points to allow him or her to draw the inferences
necessary to make dispositive findings.  Justice Perell concluded
that the case at bar was an appropriate case for summary judgment
because he had "no doubt" that he had sufficient evidence on all
relevant points and both sides had put forward sufficient evidence
to make their respective arguments about the dispositive issues.

Is There a Genuine Issue Requiring a Trial About General
Causation?

On this issue, the Court held that a constituent element of the
tort of negligence is that the defendant's negligence caused the
plaintiff's injuries.  The Court went on to discuss two aspects to
the proof of causation: "general causation", which concerns
whether the defendant's misconduct has the capacity to cause the
alleged harm; and "specific causation", which concerns whether the
general capacity to harm was actualized in the particular case.

The defendant's relied heavily on the landmark decision Andersen
v. St. Jude Medical Inc. (St. Jude) to argue that in order to meet
the legal standard of proof based on a balance of probabilities, a
minimum statistical risk ratio of 2.0 must be demonstrated in
order to establish general causation.  The Court, however,
disagreed.  First, the Court distinguished St. Jude by holding
that the 2.0 risk ratio in St. Jude arose in the context of the
court's discussion of specific causation, which Justice Perell
held "has little to do with the risk ratio threshold for proof of
general causation". Second, he was not prepared to find that legal
proof of general causation should be confined to statistical
analysis alone.

While the Court was prepared to find on the evidence that there
was a genuine issue about general causation -- in particular,
whether AndroGel could cause serious CV events -- using its fact-
finding powers under the summary judgment rules, the Court found
that the plaintiffs had failed to establish general causation on a
balance of probabilities.  Furthermore, the Court found that the
case at bar was not a case that permitted an inference of general
causation to be drawn from the evidence of association and
biological plausibility.  None of the experts or the regulators
were prepared to commit to an opinion that the association between
AndroGel and serious CV events was causal, and the plaintiffs'
experts admitted that "association" does not establish
"causation".  Applying a "but-for" test, based on the evidence,
the Court was not convinced that AndroGel could cause heart
attacks or other serious CV events on a balance of probabilities
and concluded that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial
about general causation.

Is There a Genuine Issue Requiring a Trial About the Duty to Warn?

The Court held that an association between a product and a
dangerous condition may give rise to a duty to warn on the part of
a manufacturer even if the association has not been demonstrated
to be causal.  While the Court did not make a finding about
whether or not the defendants breached a duty to warn (while
noting that the evidence tended to favour the view that the
warnings were adequate), the Court held that the plaintiffs'
failure to warn claim must still fail, because even assuming a
breach of the standard of care, they failed to prove general
causation.  A defendant's failure to warn that causes no harm is
not negligent.  Further, the Court found that there was no genuine
issue requiring a trial about the duty to warn because the
plaintiffs were unable to prove that any harm was caused by the
breach of that duty.

Unjust Enrichment and Pure Economic Loss

As a factual matter, the Court found that on the evidentiary
record produced, physicians were diagnosing their patients as
having LowT on a set of symptoms and prescribed them AndroGel as
the treatment for that diagnosis.  In these circumstances, the
Court concluded ". . . almost by definition it cannot be said that
a worthless good was being sold".

As a legal matter, the Court found that the plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment claim failed because following Arora v. Whirlpool
Canada LP, there is no pure economic loss for selling worthless or
shoddy goods that are not dangerous for the uses for which they
are sold.  AndroGel was not a shoddy good and any of the dangers
in its use, insofar as they were known to exist, had been
disclosed in the warnings provided.

Given that general causation had not been established, the Court
found that there was no predicate wrongdoing upon which to base
the novel claim of waiver of tort.

IMPLICATIONS

The decision in Wise demonstrates that summary judgment can be an
effective tool for defendants in the resolution of a class
proceeding, in appropriate cases.  Wise further suggests that
Ontario courts are entirely embracing the "culture shift" called
for in Hryniak v. Mauldin, and the move away from the conventional
trial and a broad interpretation of the summary judgment rules in
the interests of fairness and proportionality. In the wake of
Wise, defendants will want to carefully consider seeking leave to
bring a summary judgment motion before certification.


ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Teachers Fund Files Suit Over Pravastatin
---------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and 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
No. 2:16-cv-06321-TON (E.D. Pa., December 6, 2016), alleges
conspiracy among Defendants to raise the prices of pravastatin
sodium tablets and to allocate markets and customers for
pravastatin in the United States.

Defendants are among the world's largest generic drug
manufacturers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
     Liberato P. Verderame, Esq.
     EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC
     3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
     Newtown, PA 18940
     Phone: (215) 867-2399
     Fax: (267) 685-0676
     E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com
             lverderame@edelson-law.com

        - and -

     Paul J. Scarlato, Esq.
     GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C.
     8 Tower Bridge, Suite 1025
     161 Washington Street
     Conshohocken, PA 19428
     Phone: (484) 342-0700
     Fax: (484) 580-8747
     E-mail: scarlato@lawgsp.com


AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Mass. Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Novelion Therapeutics Inc., a biopharmaceutical company dedicated
to developing new standards of care for individuals living with
rare diseases (the "Company"), on Dec. 5 disclosed that on
December 3, 2016, Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, an indirect, wholly-
owned subsidiary of Novelion, entered into an agreement in
principle to settle all claims in the class action shareholder
lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (the "Class Action Litigation").

The agreement provides for an aggregate settlement payment by or
on behalf of Aegerion of $22.25 million.  The Company expects $22
million of the settlement will be funded by Aegerion's insurance
proceeds and $250,000 will be funded by Aegerion.  The settlement
would include the dismissal of all claims against Aegerion and the
named individuals in the Class Action Litigation without any
liability or wrongdoing attributed to them.  The settlement
remains subject to further documentation, court approval, and
other customary conditions, including Aegerion's right to
terminate the settlement in the event an agreed upon percentage of
class members do not participate.

"We are encouraged by our continued execution on yet another
important strategic initiative," said Chief Executive Officer Mary
Szela.  "Under Novelion's new management team, which has been
significantly strengthened by recent hires in key leadership
positions, the Company's subsidiary, Aegerion, has now entered
into an agreement in principle to settle the Class Action
Litigation, demonstrably reduced its cost structure, and
stabilized its balance sheet via the QLT merger."

Novelion also announced plans to undertake a reverse stock split
of its common shares on the basis of a consolidation ration of one
for five (1:5) (the "Consolidation").  The Consolidation is
expected to take effect on or about December 16, 2016.  The
purpose of the Consolidation, which was approved by Novelion's new
board of directors, is to increase the per share trading price of
Novelion's common shares in order to eliminate non-fundamentally
related trading restrictions on many investors.

Ms. Szela continued, "The reverse stock split is driven purely
from a position of revitalized strength, and aims to provide a
compelling investment opportunity to a larger breadth of
institutional investors that may otherwise be prohibited from
investing in lower price-per-share equities."

The Company will seek approval from the Toronto Stock Exchange
("TSX") to effect the Consolidation and has provided notification
of the Consolidation to NASDAQ.

Subject to TSX approval, every five common shares issued and
outstanding immediately prior to the effective date of the
Consolidation will automatically convert into one common share. As
a result of the Consolidation, the approximate number of issued
and outstanding common shares will be reduced from 92,653,562 to
18,530,712.  Each shareholder's percentage ownership in the
Company and proportional voting power will remain unchanged after
the Consolidation, except for minor changes and adjustments
resulting from the treatment of fractional shares.  No fractional
shares will be issued in connection with the Consolidation and any
fractional shares that would have otherwise been issued will be
rounded down to the nearest whole number, therefore no cash will
be received in lieu of fractional shares.  Proportional
adjustments will be made to the Company's outstanding stock
options, warrants and restricted stock units, as well as to the
conversion rate for the outstanding convertible notes of the
Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, Aegerion Pharmaceuticals.

               About Novelion Therapeutics Inc.

Novelion Therapeutics is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to
developing new standards of care for individuals living with rare
diseases.  The Company seeks to advance its portfolio of rare
disease therapies by investing in science and clinical
development.  Novelion has a diversified commercial portfolio
through its indirect subsidiary, Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
which includes MYALEPT(R) and JUXTAPID(R), and is also developing
zuretinol acetate for the treatment of inherited retinal disease
caused by underlying mutations in RPE65 or LRAT genes.  Aegerion
is planning to file a Marketing Authorization Application in the
EU in December 2016 for metreleptin to treat generalized
lipodystrophy and a subset of partial lipodystrophy.  Aegerion
recently received approval for lomitapide in Japan and plans to
launch in January of 2017.


ALABAMA: Inmate Testifies in Mental Health Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Kelsey Davis, writing for Montgomery Advertiser, reports that an
inmate testified on Dec. 5 about the lack of mental health
treatment he has received in his six years of incarceration,
signaling the first day of trial for a class action lawsuit
brought on behalf of all Alabama inmates.

Jamie Wallace, a 24-year-old housed at Donaldson Correctional
Facility who suffers from bipolar disorder, ADHD, mild retardation
and schizophrenia, testified that he was not asked about his
mental health status when he first entered prison.

He said he was taken off his Wellbutrin prescription, which helped
him not hear voices in his head, and placed on a different
medication for a 30-day trial turn.

"(Physicians at Donaldson) told me they couldn't afford
Wellbutrin," Mr. Wallace said.

The new medications caused his temperament to decline.  He
testified that he cut his wrists and neck multiple times and tried
to hang himself, and that an officer enabled him to do so by
providing him a razor.

"(Officer Hill) said, 'You want to kill yourself? Here, do it with
this,'" he said.

Mitesh Shah, an attorney representing the defendants, began laying
the groundwork to impeach Mr. Wallace as a credible witness.

"You testified that you haven't seen a psychiatrist in six months.
That's not true, is it? You have met with psychiatrists and
counselors many many times, haven't you?" Mr. Shah asked.

Mr. Wallace answered that he was only seen by mental health
professionals after he had been put in a crisis cell.

"Until I come to that crisis cell (mental health professionals)
ain't coming to see me worth a damn, sir," Mr. Wallace said.

Shah did not get to complete his cross-examination.  U.S. District
Judge Myron Thompson had Mr. Wallace removed from the witness
stand so Wallace could "calm down."

The litigation began in 2014, when the Southern Poverty Law Center
and the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program filed a
180-page complaint against ADOC, then-ADOC Commissioner Kim Thomas
(current Commissioner Jefferson Dunn has since inherited the suit)
and Ruth Naglich, ADOC associate commissioner of health services.

The case has been split into two phases: one regarding physical
health claims and one regarding mental health claims.

In March, the parties reached an agreement on the non-mental
health claims.  The part of the trial that began on Dec. 5 focuses
solely on ADOC's mentally ill inmates, which the plaintiffs'
attorneys allege have been egregiously neglected.

The defendants have denied the allegations, stating in a court
filing that the plaintiffs' complaint "reveals inflammatory, self-
serving statements that inaccurately characterize inmates' medical
and mental health conditions . . . and demonstrate a basic
misunderstanding of technical medical or mental health
terminology."

ADOC also stated through court filings that its cooperation with
the settlement should not be construed as an admission of any
legal violation.

"To the contrary, ADOC denies every material allegation of the
complaint," read part of the settlement.

The complaint, which refers to ADOC statistics, says nearly 40
percent of inmates has some form of mental illness. That's nearly
double what Alabama's general population experiences.

Wanda Laird, executive director of the National Alliance on Mental
Health Alabama, estimates one in five people in the state has
suffered from a mental illness during their lifetime.


ALLIED HOME: Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable, Judge Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Judy Cates of the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth
District, reversed a lower court's order granting defendants'
motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case entitled
ROSEMARY KEEFE, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALLIED HOME MORTGAGE CORPORATION
and ALLIED HOME MORTGAGE CAPITALCORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees,
No. 5-15-0360

Defendants Allied Home Mortgage Corporation and Allied Home
Mortgage Capital Corporation were in the business of brokering
mortgages and providing mortgage related services in several
states in the United States, including Illinois. Plaintiff,
Rosemary Keefe, contacted the defendants for assistance with the
refinancing of a loan on her property in Berwyn, Illinois. On May
18, 1999, Keefe signed several refinancing documents, which
included an arbitration rider and two months later, the parties
closed on the loan.

On September 2, 2004, Keefe filed a class action complaint against
the defendants. Keefe alleged that the defendants engaged third
parties to provide certain loan-related services, such as credit
reports and appraisals, and paid the fees charged for those
services. On December 15, 2004, the defendants filed a motion to
compel arbitration and stay judicial proceedings based upon the
arbitration rider. The plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition
and asserted that the arbitration rider was unenforceable because
it was cost-prohibitive, unsupported by consideration, against
public policy, and procedurally and substantively unconscionable.

The trial court denied the defendants' motion to compel
arbitration. Defendants appeal the denial and in an opinion issued
on July 10, 2009, the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District,
found that the arbitration rider was supported by adequate
consideration but that the provision prohibiting class
arbitrations was substantively unconscionable.  The court also
determined that the provision prohibiting class arbitrations was
severable from the remainder of the arbitration rider, leaving the
agreement to arbitrate in place.  The case was remanded to the
circuit court with directions to sever the provision prohibiting
class actions and to enforce the remainder of the arbitration
clause.

Within days after the opinion was issued, the parties' chosen
arbitrator, the National Arbitration Forum (NAF), became embroiled
in a controversy. The Minnesota Attorney General filed a complaint
against the NAF. On July 28, 2009, the NAF entered into a consent
decree with the Minnesota Attorney General, and agreed to stop
accepting all consumer cases for arbitration. On September 23,
2009, plaintiff filed a motion in the circuit court, and argued
that the arbitration rider was unenforceable because the NAF was
no longer able to arbitrate this dispute.

On October 27, 2009, the defendants filed a memorandum in
opposition and argued that the unavailability of the NAF did not
render the arbitration rider unenforceable because the NAF was not
designated as the exclusive arbitral forum and because the circuit
court was authorized to appoint a substitute arbitrator under
section 5 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). On January 7,
2011, the defendants filed a second motion to compel arbitration.

On October 14, 2014, the circuit court granted the defendants'
motion to compel arbitration. Appeal followed.

Justice Cates reversed the order of the circuit court granting
defendants' motion to compel arbitration and remanded the suit for
further proceedings.

Justice Cates held that the unavailability of the NAF and the
absence of the 1999 NAF Code leave the parties without their
designated arbitrator and the rules specifically chosen to govern
the arbitration. The designation of the NAF as the arbitral forum
and the term mandating use of the 1999 NAF Code were integral to
the parties' agreement to arbitrate. The arbitration rider
specifically omitted the procedural rules set forth in sections 5
through 16 of the FAA, leaving the court without any rules by
which this arbitration should proceed. It is not within the
province of the appellate court, or the trial court, to rewrite
the arbitration rider to reinstate omitted terms or to add new
terms. Such actions would violate basic rules of contract law and
run contrary to the clear intent of the parties as expressed by
the plain language in the arbitration rider. The unavailability of
the NAF as an arbitral forum and the absence of the 1999 NAF Code
render the parties' agreement to arbitrate unenforceable.

A copy of Justice Cates's opinion dated November 28, 2016, is
available at https://goo.gl/BdMSRG from Leagle.com.

Attorneys for Appellant:

Jeffrey J. Lowe, Esq.
James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
Carey, Danis & Lowe
8235 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: 314-725-7700
Facsimile: 314-678-3401

Attorney for Appellees:

Michael A. Brockland, Esq.
Cosgrove Law Group, LLC
Pierre Laclede Tower II, 7733 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1675
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: 314-563-2490
Facsimile: 314-968-7371


AMERIGAS PROPANE: Faces "Spence" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amerigas Propane,
Inc. The case is styled GERALD SPENCE, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND ON BEHALF OF THE GENERAL
PUBLIC, the Plaintiff, v. AMERIGAS PROPANE, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. BCV-16-102871 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 8, 2016).

Amerigas markets retail propane to residential, commercial,
industrial, agricultural, and motor fuel propane customers in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vecchi, Jill Marie, Esq.
          The Turley Law Firm, APLC
          7428 Trade St
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234 2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234 4048
          E-mail: jvecchi@turleylawfirm.com


ANNAPOLIS ROAD: "Loeza" Files Lawsuit Under FLSA, Md. Labor Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
ESTELA PONCE LOEZA, 5634 Whitfield Chapel Road, Apt. 303
Lanham, MD 20706, (Prince George's County), Plaintiff, on behalf
of herself and all similarly situated individuals, v. ANNAPOLIS
ROAD SERVICES, INC., 7303 Hanover Parkway, Suite A, Greenbelt, MD
20770 (Prince George's County), Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-03901-
GJH (D. Md., December 6, 2016), was brought to recover damages for
Defendant's alleged willful failure to pay overtime wages, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and
Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Defendant owns and operates Prince George's County roadside
service station.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin Zelikovitz, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ZELIKOVITZ, PLLC
     519 H Street NW Washington, DC 20001
     Phone: (202) 803-6083
     Fax: (202) 683-6102
     E-mail: justin@dcwagelaw.com


ARLINGTON COUNTY: "Battaglini" Action Seeks to Recover OT Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Battaglini, Matthew Cobb, Jose Ortiz, Bosephus Bennett,
Trevor Burrell, Norman Clark, Claude Conde, John Delaney, Jr.,
William Earley, Randall Higgins, Jeffrey Kramer, Joseph Ligthfoot,
Geoffrey Mayer, Robert Patterson, Robert Pye, Myron Richardson,
Nicola Salameh, Thomas Shamblin, Tiffanye Wesley, George Williams
and Michael Woodson, Plaintiff, v. County of Arlington, VA,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01510, (E.D. Va., December 6, 2016),
bring this collective action in accordance with 29 U.S.C. of the
Fair Labor Standards Act against the defendant on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated because of unlawful
deprivation of plaintiffs' rights to overtime compensation as well
as to seek compensation, damages, equitable and other relief
available under Virginia Code Section 9.1-700, et seq.

Plaintiffs have been employed by the County of Arlington,
Virginia, assigned to one or more of the County's 10 fire
stations.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      T. Reid Coploff, Esq.
      Sara L. Faulman, Esq.
      Thomas Woodley, Esq.
      WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY LLP
      1101 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Suite 1000
      Washington, DC 20005
      Phone: (202) 833-8855
      Email: taw@wmlaborlaw.com
             slf@wmlaborlaw.com
             trc@wmlaborlaw.com


ASSOCIATED COLLECTORS: Faces "Boucher" Suit in E.D. of Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Associated
Collectors, Inc. The case is titled Heather L. Boucher, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Associated Collectors, Inc., a Wisconsin Corporation; and John and
Jane Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01629 (E.D.
Wisc., Dec. 8, 2016).

Associated Collectors has been serving healthcare, communications,
government and commercial markets throughout the Midwest for over
fifty years.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ATTENDS HEALTHCARE: "Storey" Suit Over Adult Diapers Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge George Caram Steeh of the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, granted defendant's renewed motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint filed in the case BEVERLY K.
STOREY, and BRENDA L. CARL, Plaintiffs, v. ATTENDS HEALTHCARE
PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-13577 (E.D. Mich.)

Attends Healthcare Products, Inc. sells a variety of adult
incontinence protection products, including extended-wear
incontinence products.  Plaintiffs Beverly Storey and Brenda Carl
purchased extended wear products in Arizona and Michigan
respectively. Plaintiffs allege that contrary to defendant's
representations/omissions, the extended wear products were not
safe for long-term use because they increased the risk of adverse
health consequences like urinary tract infections and skin
irritation leading to skin ulcers.
Plaintiffs asserts breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
breach of implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose,
violation of Michigan and Arizona consumer protection acts, and
unjust enrichment under Michigan and Arizona law.  They aspire to
represent a nationwide class of consumers who have purchased the
Extended Wear Products throughout the United States. Therefore,
plaintiffs have also asserted the four causes of action listed
above under the laws of all fifty states and the District of
Columbia.
The court previously granted defendant's renewed motion to dismiss
the first amended complaint because a fundamental flaw permeated
all four counts. The court explained that all four counts are
premised on plaintiffs' contention that defendant's extended wear
products are not safe for long term use. But plaintiffs have
utterly failed to allege any facts that would render such
contention plausible, other than a conclusory allegation that use
of the extended wear products increases the risk of adverse health
consequences.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint and four counts, all
of which were also featured in the first amended complaint.
Defendant now moves to dismiss the second amended complaint.
Judge Steeh granted defendant's renewed motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint. Judge Steeh observed that plaintiffs did
not provide any evidence regarding the design of defendant's
product and whether it exposes consumers to waste. While some
adult incontinence protection products may expose users to waste,
creating a risk of UTI and skin ulcers, defendant's product may be
a skin friendly design that does not pose this risk, much less an
increased risk from extended wear. Without such evidence,
plaintiffs have failed to plead sufficient facts to support their
contention, and therein have failed to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted under any of the four counts. Plaintiff
makes a series of conclusory allegations that are not entitled to
weight under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard.
A copy of Judge Steeh's opinion and order dated November 28, 2016,
is available at https://goo.gl/EQuZ4G from Leagle.com.

Beverly K. Storey, Plaintiffs, represented by Kevin F. O'Shea --
kfo@miller.law -- at Miller Law Firm

Attends Healthcare Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Jonathan C. Bunge -- jonathanbunge@quinnemanuel.com -- Michelle R.
Schmit -- michelleschmit@quinnemanuel.com -- at Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP; A. Michael Palizzi --
palizzi@millercanfield.com -- Michael C. Simoni --
simoni@millercanfield.com -- at Miller, Canfield


B/E AEROSPACE: Undervalued Merger Deal Hit in "Dodds" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Kipp Dodds, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., Amin J. Khoury, James
F. Albaugh, David J. Anderson, Richard G. Hamermesh, Jonathan M.
Schofield, Mary M. Vandeweghe and John T. Whates, Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-25038, (S.D. Fla., December 5, 2016), seeks to enjoin
Defendants from holding the shareholder vote on a merger and
taking any steps to consummate it.  The lawsuit further seeks
damages, costs and disbursements of the action, including
reasonable attorneys' and expert fees, as well as expenses and
such other and further relief resulting from violations of the
Securities Exchange Act.

On October 23, 2016, B/E Aerospace announced that it had entered
into a merger with Quarterback Merger Sub Corp., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Rockwell Collins, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, B/E Aerospace shareholders will receive $34.10
in cash and the equivalent of $27.90 in Rockwell Collins common
stock, subject to a two-way 7.5% collar. Plaintiff alleges that
the Merger consideration is insufficient and claim that analysts
at Deutsche Bank AG set a $66.00 price target for shares of B/E
Aerospace common stock as of October 6, 2016, and the financial
analyses performed by B/E Aerospace's financial advisors indicate
the Company is worth as much as $73.02 per share. The Board
allegedly authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and
misleading joint proxy statement/prospectus with the SEC, in
violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

B/E Aerospace, Inc. is a manufacturer of aircraft passenger cabin
interior products for the commercial and business jet aircraft
markets.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

              - and -

      Scott R. Shepherd, Esq.
      Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      1625 N. Commerce Parkway, Suite 320
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
      Telephone: (954) 515-0123
      Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
      Email: sshepherd@sfmslaw.com
             nzipperian@sfmslaw.com


BANDAS LAW: Edelson Suit Alleges Racketeering, Extortion
--------------------------------------------------------
Edelson PC, an Illinois professional corporation, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The
Bandas Law Firm PC, Christopher Bandas, Law Offices of Darrell
Palmer PC d/b/a Darrell Palmer Law Office, Joseph Darrell Palmer,
Noonan Perillo & Thut Ltd., C. Jeffery Thut, Gary Stewart and John
Does 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-11057 (N.D. Ill., December
5, 2016), seeks compensatory damages, reasonable costs, pre- and
post-judgment interest, injunctive, statutory and/or declaratory
relief and such other and further relief as equity for violation
of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, acts of
extortion under the Hobbs Act, the unauthorized practice of law
under the Illinois Attorney Act, and Wire Fraud.

Defendants are accused of filing last-minute objection to a class
action settlement to lose, often on purpose and then threaten to
or actually appeal to a higher court, all in an attempt to extort
a nuisance payment from class counsel to go away to avoid the
delay of the appeals process. Upon settlement, they return as soon
as the next class action seeks court approval for a settlement and
start the entire process anew, often tantamount to blackmail
and/or extortion.

Defendants allegedly abuse the system, seeking to profit from the
labor of class counsel across the country who prosecute fair and
court-approved class action settlements.

Edelson PC is a professional corporation incorporated and existing
under the laws of the State of Illinois.

The Bandas Law Firm is a professional corporation incorporated and
existing under the laws of the State of Texas with its principal
place of business located at 500 N. Shoreline Boulevard, #1020,
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401. This is owned by Christopher Bandas.

Law Offices of Darrell Palmer PC is a suspended professional
corporation incorporated and existing under the laws of the State
of California with its principal place of business located at 603
North Highway, 101 Suite A, Solana Beach, California 92075. This
is owned by Joseph Darrell Palmer.

Noonan Perillo & Thut Ltd., is a corporation incorporated and
existing under the laws of the State of Illinois with its
principal place of business located at 25 North County Street,
Waukegan, Illinois 60085, owned by Jeffery Thut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay Edelson, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Tel: (312) 589-6370
      Fax: (312) 589_6378
      Email: jedelson@edelson.com
             brichman@edelson.com

             - and -

      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      Eve-Lynn Rapp, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      123 Townsend Street, Suite 100
      San Francisco, CA 94107
      Tel: (415) 212-9300
      Fax: (415) 373-9435
      Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com
             erapp@edelson.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Riviera Police Fund Files Anti-trust Case
----------------------------------------------------------
City of Riviera Beach Police Officers' Pension Fund, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bank Of
America, N.A., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., Bank Of
America Merrill Lynch International Ltd., Credit AGricole
Corporate And Investment Bank, Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse
Group AG, Credit Suisse International, Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank AG, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Nomura
International PLC, Nomura Securities International, Inc., Hiren
Gudka, Amandeep Singh Manku, Shailen Pau and Bhardeep Singh Heer,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09398 (S.D. N.Y., December 6, 2016),
seeks damages for violations of federal antitrust laws; reasonable
attorneys' fees and expenses; and such further relief in violation
of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act.

Defendants are traders of supranational, sub-sovereign, and agency
bonds (SSA Bonds) denominated in various currencies and allegedly
colluded with each other to fix the prices of these bonds sold to
and purchased from investors in the secondary market. Defendants
allegedly conspired to artificially inflate the prices Plaintiff
paid for SSA bonds and to artificially lower the prices for which
they sold SSA bonds in their transactions.

Bank of America, N.A. is a banking and financial services firm
with its principal place of business located at 100 North Tryon
Street, Charlotte, North Carolina.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch International Limited is a
subsidiary of Bank of America, N.A., with its principal place of
business located at 2 King Edward Street, London EC1A 1 HQ,
England.

Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank is a banking entity
headquartered at 9, quai du President Paul Doumer, La Defense
Cedex, 92920 Paris, France.

Credit Suisse is a banking entity with a New York foreign branch
office located at 11 Madison Avenue, 24th Floor, New York, New
York.

Deutsche Bank is a banking entity with a New York foreign branch
office located at 60 Wall Street, 4th Floor, New York, New York.

Nomura is a financial services company with its principal place of
business at 1 Angel Lane, London EC4R 3AB, England

Hiren Gudka, Singh Manku and Shailen Pau were bond traders
employed by Bank of America and Deutsche Bank.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
      Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
      Donald R. Hall, Esq.
      Matthew P. McCahill, Esq.
      Jason A. Uris, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 687-1980
      Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
      Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
             ffox@kaplanfox.com
             dhall@kaplanfox.com
             mmccahill@kaplanfox.com
             juris@kaplanfox.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Discovery Bid in Alaska Pension Fund Suit Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jesse M. Furman of the Southern District of New
Jersey, denied plaintiffs' motion to compel production of
documents in the case ALASKA ELECTRICAL PENSION FUND, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., Defendants,
No. 14-CV-7126 (JMF)

Plaintiffs brought claims under the Sherman Act and, under state
law, for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, alleging that
defendants, fourteen banks that dominate the market for interest
rate derivatives and set ISDAfix rates and ICAP Capital Markets
LLC (ICAP), an inter-dealer broker that served as the
administrator in charge of setting ISDAfix rates until January 26,
2014, engaged in a longstanding conspiracy to manipulate ISDAfix
rates in order to extract higher profits from interest rate swaps
and swaptions. Plaintiffs have reached settlements with a number
of defendants.

Defendants' conduct with respect to ISDAfix has been the subject
of investigations by several government agencies, including the
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FR"), the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the New York Department of
Financial Services (DFS).

Mindful of the investigations, plaintiffs requested that
defendants disclose all documents that they had produced in
connection with any Department of Justice, CFTC, or DFS
investigation relating to ISDAfix or Swap Spreads, including all
correspondence, white papers, narrative statements, disclosures,
interrogatory responses, questionnaire responses, expert reports,
presentations, or briefs. Even more broadly, they also requested
that defendants disclose all documents that they had produced to
any governmental regulator, agency, department, committee, or
other entity not identified in the requests relating to ISDAfix
and all documents they had received from any governmental
regulator, agency, department, committee, or other governmental
entity, including correspondence, subpoenas, civil investigative
demands, or other request for information or documents" relating
to ISDAfix.

Minor variations aside, defendants agreed to provide all pre-
existing documents previously produced to CFTC in response to the
Commission's ISDAfix-related investigation. But Defendants refused
to produce certain materials relating to the government
investigations. In particular, defendants including ICAP have
refused to produce the CFTC subpoenas or written inquiries from
FRB, OCC, and DFS. The written communications between counsel and
the regulators such as cover letters, emails and written
correspondence regarding search parameters, document custodians,
and other aspects of the regulators' inquiries. The written
communications regarding tolling agreements and the tolling
agreements themselves, the white papers, memoranda, and briefs
created by counsel in connection with the Governmental Regulators'
investigations; and the written communications regarding
miscellaneous and administrative matters, such as scheduling
meetings and calls. Additionally, some defendants declined to
produce documents such as slide decks and powerpoint presentations
presented to, but never produced to, the CFTC. Defendants objected
on the ground that the withheld documents were irrelevant, not
proportional to the needs of the case, and privileged on several
grounds.

Plaintiffs moved to compel production of all the withheld
regulatory documents.

Judge Furman held that in the management of discovery and thus the
grant or denial of a motion to compel lies within the sound
discretion of the district court. In exercising that discretion,
the court concludes that plaintiffs' motion must be denied on
relevance, proportionality, and overbreadth grounds.
Significantly, in so concluding, the court does not hold that all
of the documents within the scope of plaintiffs' requests are
irrelevant. Instead, the Court finds "that Plaintiffs have not
sufficiently articulated the relevance of the documents sought.
Because production of all of the requested documents would be
unduly burdensome, the court will not require defendants to review
all documents to determine which documents are relevant.
Plaintiffs may tailor more specific discovery requests detailing
the documents or topics requested. Plaintiffs' motion to compel is
denied without prejudice to renewal in the event that defendants
refuse to comply with narrower, more proper discovery requests.

By letter, plaintiffs sought leave to file certain documents in
redacted form. The court granted the motion temporarily, pending
its decision on the underlying dispute. Filings that are relevant
to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the
judicial process are considered judicial documents to which a
presumption in favor of public access attaches. Moreover, the mere
fact that information is subject to a confidentiality agreement
between litigants is not a valid basis to overcome that
presumption. Thus, any party that believes any redacted material
should remain redacted is ordered to show cause in writing, no
later than two weeks from the date of the opinion and order, why
doing so would be consistent with the presumption in favor of
public access. If, by that deadline, no party contends that a
particular document should remain under seal or in redacted form,
then plaintiffs shall promptly file that document on ECF.

A copy of Judge Furman's opinion and order dated November 16,
2016, is available at https://goo.gl/l6rE2B from Leagle.com.

Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher M. Burke -- cburke@scott-scott.com -- Thomas Kay
Boardman -- tboardman@scott-scott.com -- Sylvia Sokol --
ssokol@scott-scott.com -- Kristen M. Anderson -- kanderson@scott-
scott.com -- at Scott Scott, LLP; Daniel Lawrence Brockett --
danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- Daniel Paul Cunningham --
danielcunningham@quinnemanuel.com -- Marc Laurence Greenwald --
marcgreenwald@quinnemanuel.com -- Steig Olson --
steigolson@quinnemanuel.com -- Jeremy Daniel Andersen --
jeremyandersen@quinnemanuel.com -- Jonathan Bacon Oblak --
jonoblak@quinnemanuel.com -- at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
LLP; David W. Mitchell -- davidm@rgrdlaw.com -- Patrick Joseph
Coughlin -- patc@rgrdlaw.com -- Brian O. O'Mara --
bomara@rgrdlaw.com -- Randi Dawn Bandman -- randib@rgrdlaw.com --
at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP; Ronald Judah Aranoff --
Aranoff@bernlieb.com -- Stanley D. Bernstein --
Bernstein@bernlieb.com -- at Bernstein Liebhard, LLP

Genesee County Employees' Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by Christopher M. Burke -- cburke@scott-scott.com --
at Scott Scott, LLP; Daniel Lawrence Brockett--
danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- at at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan LLP

Magnolia Regional Health Center, Plaintiff, represented by Stuart
Halkett McCluer -- R. Bryant McCulley -- at McCulley McCluer PLLC;
Michael C. Dell'Angelo -- mdellangelo@bm.net -- at Berger &
Montague, P.C.; Daniel Lawrence Brockett --
danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- Jonathan Bacon Oblak --
jonoblak@quinnemanuel.com -- at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
LLP

The County of Beaver, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Lawrence
Brockett -- danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- Jonathan Bacon Oblak -
- jonoblak@quinnemanuel.com -- at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan LLP

The City of New Britain, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M.
Burke -- cburke@scott-scott.com -- Donald A. Broggi --
dbroggi@scott-scott.com -- Peter Anthony Barile, III --
pbarile@scott-scott.com -- at Scott Scott, L.L.P.; Daniel Lawrence
Brockett -- danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- Jonathan Bacon Oblak -
- jonoblak@quinnemanuel.com -- at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan LLP

The County of Westmoreland, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel
Lawrence Brockett -- danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- Jonathan
Bacon Oblak -- jonoblak@quinnemanuel.com -- at Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan LLP

The County of Montgomery, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M.
Burke -- cburke@scott-scott.com -- Daniel Lawrence Brockett --
danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- Jonathan Bacon Oblak --
jonoblak@quinnemanuel.com -- at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
LLP; Peter Anthony Barile, III -- pbarile@scott-scott.com -- at
Scott Scott, L.L.P.; Charles Thomas Caliendo --
ccaliendo@gelaw.com -- Robert Gerard Eisler -- reisler@gelaw.com -
- at Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.

The County of Washington, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M.
Burke -- cburke@scott-scott.com -- Daniel Lawrence Brockett --
danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com -- Jonathan Bacon Oblak --
jonoblak@quinnemanuel.com -- at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
LLP; Donald A. Broggi -- dbroggi@scott-scott.com -- Peter Anthony
Barile, III -- pbarile@scott-scott.com -- at Scott Scott, L.L.P.

Bank Of America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Adam Selim
Hakki -- ahakki@shearman.com -- Richard Franklin Schwed --
rschwed@shearman.com -- at Shearman & Sterling LLP

Barclays Bank PLC, Defendant, represented by Alexander John
Willscher -- willschera@sullcrom.com -- Benjamin Robert Walker --
walkerb@sullcrom.com -- David Harold Braff -- braffd@sullcrom.com
-- Jeffrey T. Scott -- scottj@sullcrom.com -- Matthew Joseph
Porpora -- porporam@sullcrom.com -- Matthew Alexander Schwartz --
schwartzmatthew@sullcrom.com -- at Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP;
Andrew Zenner Michaelson -- amichaelson@bsfllp.com -- Jonathan
David Schiller -- jschiller@bsfllp.com -- at Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP

BNP Paribas SA, Defendant, represented by Alejandro Hari Cruz --
acruz@pbwt.com -- Deirdre Ann McEvoy -- Joshua Aaron Goldberg --
jgoldberg@pbwt.com -- Amy Neda Vegari -- avegari@pbwt.com --
William Francis Cavanaugh, Jr. -- wfcavanaugh@pbwt.com -- at
Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP

CitiGroup Inc., Defendant, represented by Alan M. Wiseman --
awiseman@cov.com -- Andrew D. Lazerow -- alazerow@cov.com --
Andrew Arthur Ruffino -- aruffino@cov.com -- Jamie A. Heine --
jheine@cov.com -- at Covington & Burling, L.L.P.

Deutsche Bank AG, Defendant, represented by James L. Brochin --
jbrochin@paulweiss.com -- Moses Silverman --
msilverman@paulweiss.com -- Aaron Sean Delaney --
adelaney@paulweiss.com -- at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. and HSBC Bank PLC, Defendants, represented by
Edwin R. Deyoung -- Andrew L. Fish -- Gregory Thomas Casamento --
gcasamento@lockelord.com -- Roger Brian Cowie --
rcowie@lockelord.com -- at Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP

Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, Defendant, represented by Jay B.
Kasner -- jay.kasner@skadden.com -- Paul Madison Eckles --
paul.eckles@skadden.com -- Shepard Goldfein --
shepard.goldfein@skadden.com -- Thomas Mcauley Leineweber --
thomas.leineweber@skadden.com -- at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher
& Flom LLP

UBS AG, Defendant, represented by Peter Sullivan --
psullivan@gibsondunn.com -- Eric Jonathan Stock --
estock@gibsondunn.com -- Jefferson Eliot Bell --
jbell@gibsondunn.com -- Joel Steven Sanders --
jsanders@gibsondunn.com -- Lawrence Jay Zweifach --
lzweifach@gibsondunn.com -- Nathaniel L. Bach -- at Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, LLP

Nomura Securities International, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Joseph John Frank -- joseph.frank@shearman.com -- Brian Howard
Polovoy -- bpolovoy@shearman.com -- Heather Lamberg Kafele --
hkafele@shearman.com -- Katherine Mallory Tosch Brennan --
mallory.brennan@shearman.com -- at Shearman & Sterling LLP

JPMorgan Chase & Co., Defendant, represented by Arthur J. Burke --
arthur.m.t.burke@davispolk.com -- at Davis Polk & Wardwell

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Eric Jonathan
Seiler -- eseiler@fklaw.com -- Andrew W. Goldwater --
agoldwater@fklaw.com -- Anne Elizabeth Beaumont --
abeaumont@fklaw.com -- Jamuna D. Kelley -- jkelley@fklaw.com --
Priyanka Kishore Wityk -- pwityk@fklaw.com -- at Friedman, Kaplan,
Seiler & Adelman, LLP

Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Ian
Schacter -- kenneth.schacter@morganlewis.com -- Anthony R. Van
Vuren -- anthony.vanvuren@morganlewis.com -- Jon Randall Roellke -
- jon.roellke@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP

Credit Suisse AG, New York Branch, Defendant, represented by David
George Januszewski -- djanuszewski@cahill.com -- Herbert Scott
Washer -- hwasher@cahill.com -- Landis C. Best -- lbest@cahill.com
-- at Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth
Vicens -- evicens@cgsh.com -- Leah Brannon -- lbrannon@cgsh.com --
Sue Siyan Guan -- sguan@cgsh.com -- Thomas J. Moloney --
tmoloney@cgsh.com -- at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP

ICAP Capital Markets, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian S.
Fraser -- bfraser@rkollp.com -- Rowan Gaither, IV --
rgaither@rkollp.com -- Shari A. Brandt -- sbrandt@rkollp.com -- at
Richards Kibbe & Orbe LLP


BARNHILL CONTRACTING: "Pittman" Race Bias & Wages Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The clerk of court of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina entered an order on Nov. 29, 2016,
dismissing the case GLORIA PITTMAN, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. BARNHILL
CONTRACTING COMPANY, Defendant, No. 4:15-CV-184-FL (E.D.N.C.),
without prejudice.

District Judge Louise W. Flanagan had granted plaintiff's motion
for voluntary dismissal of certain claims and directed the
plaintiff to file an amended complaint by Nov. 28.  The judge
warned that the plaintiff's remaining claim will be dismissed in
the event plaintiff makes no motion for leave to amend or
substitute on or before Nov. 28.  No such motion was filed.

Pittman is a resident of Rocky Mount, North Carolina, and an
employee of Barnhill Contracting Company. Barnhill is a
corporation engaged in construction projects in North Carolina,
with offices and principal place of business in Rocky Mount.
Pittman commenced a putative class action and collective action on
November 19, 2015, asserting claims for race discrimination and
statutory fair labor violations, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated persons, under Title VII, 42 U.S.C.
Section 2000e et seq; the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29
U.S.C. Section 201; and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act
(NCWHA), N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 95-25.1 et seq. Plaintiff filed a
notice of filing of consents to join collective action on May 27,
2016. That same date, defendant answered and filed a motion to
dismiss, asserting that plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed
for lack of standing and failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
The court stayed case scheduling activities pending resolution of
defendant's motion to dismiss.

On September 22, 2016, before defendant's motion had fully
ripened, plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss, stating, that she do
not want to go any further on the case. At the hearing, plaintiff
plainly expressed her intention to voluntarily dismiss the action
as to her Title VII and NCWHA claims, on the recognition that any
motion to substitute parties in plaintiff's stead on such claims
would be futile because of statute of limitations issues.

Plaintiff requested, however, a stay of decision on dismissal of
the FLSA claim up to November 28, 2016, to allow plaintiff to
assess whether to move for leave to amend or substitute as
plaintiff any individual who has filed consents to join the FLSA
collective action. Defendant acknowledged at hearing that
plaintiff's filing of consents to join the FLSA collective action
preserved the right of those individuals to join the FLSA
collective action, upon appropriate motion, within the scope of
such consents.
Judge finds good cause to grant plaintiff's motion for voluntary
dismissal of plaintiff's Title VII and HCWHA claims, without
prejudice. Based upon the parties' representations at hearing, the
court holds in abeyance the remaining part of plaintiff's motion
to dismiss. In the event plaintiff makes no motion for leave to
amend or substitute on or before November 28, 2016, plaintiff's
remaining FLSA claim shall be dismissed without prejudice, without
further order of the court, on the basis of plaintiff's motion for
voluntary dismissal. In light of the disposition of plaintiff's
motion to dismiss, the court denies without prejudice defendant's
motion to dismiss, allowing defendant to renew the motion upon any
filing made by plaintiff due November 28, 2016.

A copy of Judge Flanagan's order dated November 18, 2016, is
available at https://goo.gl/QnpGMS from Leagle.com.

Gloria Pittman, Plaintiff, represented by Alvin L. Pittman --
office@apittman-law.com -- at Law Offices of Alvin L. Pittman

Barnhill Contracting Company, Defendant, represented by Isaac
Augustin Linnartz -- ilinnartz@smithlaw.com -- Jonathan Travis
Hockaday -- thockaday@smithlaw.com -- Kerry A. Shad --
kshad@smithlaw.com -- Kimberly J. Korando -- kkorando@smithlaw.com
-- Patrick D. Lawler -- plawler@smithlaw.com -- at Smith Anderson
Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP


BEHR PAINT: Faces "McBain" Suit Under FLSA and Calif. Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN MCBAIN, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BEHR PAINT CORPORATION, a California
Corporation, BEHR PROCESS CORPORATION, a California Corporation;
and MASCO CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case
No. 3:16-cv-07036 (N.D. Cal., December 8, 2016), was filed under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, the
California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, and the
Unfair Competition Law.

Behr manufactures paints, primers, stains, and floor coatings, and
sells those products to Home Depot.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Laura L. Ho, Esq.
     William C. Jhaveri-Weeks, Esq.
     Byron Goldstein, Esq.
     Ginger L. Grimes, Esq.
     GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
     300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Phone: (510) 763-9800
     Fax: (510) 835-1417
     E-mail: lho@gbdhlegal.com
             wjhaveriweeks@gbdhlegal.com
             brgoldstein@gbdhlegal.com
             ggrimes@gbdhlegal.com


BMW AUSTRALIA: To Pay Back $72 Million to Ordinary Car Buyers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bachelard, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that prestige carmaker BMW will pay back $72 million to ordinary
Australian car buyers who were misled into believing they could
afford one of the luxury German vehicles.

The massive consumer pay-back -- perhaps Australia's largest ever
-- will also see the Munich-based company's finance arm paying $5
million into a "community benefit fund" to help educate people
about financial literacy.

Fairfax Media can reveal that BMW Australia Finance has signed an
enforceable undertaking with the corporate regulator to repay the
money after we revealed in August that the company was giving big
loans to people with zero or even negative disposable incomes.

A scathing review found that, while the company's most reckless
salesmen were rewarded with bonuses, BMW had given a loan of
$27,000 to a single mother of 10 children even though she was in
casual employment and had negative disposable income.

It gave $23,300 to a refugee aged 21 who had been employed for
just one month and whose income was overstated.  And it granted a
loan of nearly $50,000 to a 76-year-old man based on earning
projections rather than the man's real income.  The loan was
almost twice the value of the car.

The company accepted false loan documents to justify their
decisions.

The "remediation" program, agreed with the Australian Securities
and Investments Commission, is open to all customers of BMW
Finance, Alphera Financial Services and Mini Financial Services
brands -- all fully-owned subsidiaries of BMW.

The company will write off $50 million in loans that the company
should never have made, will make $14.6 million in direct payments
to people who were ripped off or misled and grant $7.5 million in
interest rate reductions on current loan contracts.

The program is understood to identify at least 15,000 customers
who suffered hardship when borrowing to buy the European marque
between January 2011 and August 2016.

The company will write off $50 million in loans that the company
should never have made, will make $14.6 million in direct payments
to people who were ripped off or misled and grant $7.5 million in
interest rate reductions on current loan contracts.

The program is understood to identify at least 15,000 customers
who suffered hardship when borrowing to buy the European marque
between January 2011 and August 2016.

The agreement came as BMW Australia Finance faced the real threat
of a class action from disgruntled borrowers, who were often left
owing more than their car was worth.  Sources said such a class
action would have had a good chance of success because there was
evidence that the company's management was aware of the failures
and lack of controls in its business.

ASIC believes that BMW Finance had a "sales-driven culture" that
failed to comply with the requirements of the credit laws.

"This is an example of the staggering cost of poor business
practices and should act as a warning to other car financiers to
get their houses in order."

Details of the company's poor lending practices came to light in
August when an ASIC-appointed accounting firm, Ernst & Young,
conducted a forensic audit of the company's books.  Out of 100 BMW
customer files that it considered questionable, the accountants
found 98 per cent breached the consumer credit code. In the vast
bulk of these files, the finance company had underestimated
people's monthly spending when assessing them for a loan.

Ernst & Young's appointment has been extended until the end of
next year, and it will conduct a "live review" of a sample of new
loans that BMW is writing.


CACH LLC: Bid to Arbitrate Granted in Part in "Snyder" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Helen Gillmor of the District of Hawaii granted in
part defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismiss claims,
in the case MARIA SNYDER, Plaintiff, v. CACH, LLC; MANDARICH LAW
GROUP, LLP; DAVID N. MATSUMIYA; TREVOR OZAWA, Defendants, Civ. No.
16-00174 HG-KSC

Plaintiff Maria Snyder opened a credit card account with Maryland
National Bank, N.A. in 2005. In 2006, the account was transferred
to Bank of America, N.A. (USA), also known as FIA Card Services,
Inc. (Bank of America). Snyder alleges that in March 2009, Bank of
America reported to Equifax that she had a delinquent credit card
balance in the amount of $8,064.

On 2010, Bank of America entered into a settlement in a federal
class-action lawsuit in Ross v. Bank of America, N.A. (USA), MDL
No. 1409, Civ. No. 07-7116 (S.D. N.Y. 2010). Snyder claims that
pursuant to the settlement agreement, Bank of America agreed that
it would not enforce the arbitration provisions set forth in
certain credit card agreements, including hers.

On April 15, 2015, defendant CACH, LLC, with the assistance of
defendant Attorney David N. Matsumiya and defendant Mandarich Law
Group, filed a lawsuit in the District Court of the First Circuit,
State of Hawaii against Snyder in an attempt to collect her credit
card debt. On August 25, 2015, in the Hawaii State Court
proceedings, CACH, LLC filed a motion for summary judgment, which
was denied.

Plaintiff then filed her complaint and alleges that defendants
violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the
Hawaii State Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices Act in their
attempts to collect a debt from her.

CACH, LLC filed a motion to compel arbitration on behalf of itself
and the remaining defendants as its agents. CACH, LLC asserts that
the threshold questions of arbitrability are matters that should
be decided by an arbitrator and not the court. CACH, LLC argues
that the clear and unmistakable language contained in the
arbitration provision of the plaintiff's Credit Card Account
Agreement mandates that an arbitrator decide the issues of
arbitrability. CACH, LLC added that the Ross settlement is not
applicable to plaintiff because plaintiff's credit card account
was transferred from Bank of America to defendant CACH, LLC before
the Ross settlement was finalized.

Judge Gillmor granted in part defendant's motion to compel
arbitration and dismiss claims and stated that a court may dismiss
the case in favor of arbitration if it is clear that all claims
are subject to arbitration. But in the present case, there is a
dispute as to the threshold question of the applicability of the
Ross settlement to plaintiff's arbitration agreement. The case is
stayed pending resolution of that question.

A copy of Judge Gillmor's order dated November 16, 2016, is
available at https://goo.gl/Nhx2XL from Leagle.com.

Maria Snyder, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, represented by Justin
A. Brackett -- justinbrackettlaw@gmail.com -- at Justin A.
Brackett, Attorney at Law

Defendants, represented by:

Thomas M. McGreal, Esq.
Law Offices of Thomas McGreal
301 W. Mission Blvd
Pomona, CA 91766-1606
Telephone: 909-620-5000
Facsimile: 909-397-7119


CALIFORNIA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Raisin Growers' Suits
------------------------------------------------------
Michael Doyle, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that
numerous California raisin growers are seeking federal
compensation for crops surrendered years ago as part of an old
supply management system.

Three new court decisions could help them.

In two lawsuits that seek to become a large class action, and a
separate suit filed by a single Fresno County farm, growers seek
government payments to offset what's been deemed a government
"taking" of their property.  A federal judge kept all three
lawsuits alive, rejecting Justice Department efforts to dismiss
them.

"At this point, the government should just settle and write the
checks," said attorney James A. Moody, who represents Fresno
County-based Lion Farms.  "In my view, the case is over at this
point."

Potentially, a lot is at stake.

The overlapping lawsuits blossoming at the U.S. Court of Federal
Claims, about one block from the White House, sprouted from a 2015
Supreme Court decision in a case brought by Fresno County grower
Marvin Horne.  The high court sided with Mr. Horne's argument that
the mandatory setting aside of a portion of his crop required
payment under the 5th Amendment.

"Raisins are private property, the fruit of the growers' labor,
not public things subject to the absolute control of the state,"
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote in the Horne case.  "Any
physical taking of them for public use must be accompanied by just
compensation."

Several months after the Supreme Court's high-profile green light,
raisin growers began following up at the lesser-known claims
court.

The three decisions issued by Judge Loren A. Smith did not delve
into the merits of the three raisin-related claims.  Instead, the
71-year-old judge, appointed by President Reagan, simply concluded
that the suits were not precluded by the statute of limitations
despite the passage of years.

Judge Smith set Dec. 20 as a date for attorneys in all three cases
to come up with a schedule and report indicating how the cases
should proceed.

One suit, filed by Lion Farms, seeks compensation for raisins
turned over to a "reserve" pool for the 2006-2010 crop years.  The
reserve was designed to stabilize the market and sustain prices by
regulating supply.

Another suit, a potential class action initially filed by grower
Earl O. Boyajian, seeks compensation for the 2007-2010 crop years.
Boyajian farms a 98-acre vineyard and has been in the raisin
business for more than 55 years.  Mr. Boyajian has subsequently
sought to be replaced on the case by another grower, Ray Hickman.

The third suit, filed on behalf of raisin grower Bruce Ciapessoni,
Madera-based Hansen Enterprises and several others, similarly
seeks compensation for raisins turned over during the 2002-2009
crop years.  This suit, like Mr. Boyajian's, seeks the added heft
that would come with being certified by Smith as a class action.

"There are more than 3,000 raisin growers whose raisins have been
subject to a reserve-pool requirement in each year in which such a
requirement was imposed over the past decade alone," attorneys
with McDermott Will & Emery said in a legal filing last year for
the Ciapessoni lawsuit.

McDermott Will & Emery has represented Sun-Maid Growers of
California, a large cooperative based in Kingsburg, in other
raisin-related litigation.

A federal marketing order has governed the raisin industry since
1949.  Initiated by industry members and authorized by Congress,
marketing orders in general are supposed to help maintain quality
standards and provide stable markets.  The raisin marketing order
also authorizes volume control.

The raisin order says that handlers, who pack and process the
raisins, may have to withhold part of their crop for a "reserve
tonnage" managed by the Raisin Administrative Committee.  The set-
aside raisins may be sold below fair value for purposes such as
federal nutrition programs.

Raisin handlers, for instance, set aside 47% of their crop during
the 2002-03 season and 30% for 2003-04, but they were paid for
only part of what they surrendered.  Volume controls have not been
imposed in recent years.

If Smith certifies either the Mr. Boyajian or the Ciapessoni
lawsuits as a class action, it would expand to cover all growers
whose raisins were set aside for the reserve-pool requirement
during the relevant years.  Among other consequences, this would
enhance the growers' bargaining power with the government.


CANADA: Former Sailor to Launch Sexual Harassment Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dirk Meissner, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that a
former sailor says she is launching a proposed class-action
lawsuit to change the culture of harassment and abuse in the
Canadian Armed Forces after the military rejected her complaints
of unwanted sexual advances by a superior.

Nicola Peffers said in a statement of claim that female and
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender members of the Canadian
Forces are routinely subjected to sexual harassment and abuse.
Ms. Peffers, 34, said on Dec. 5 in a conference call from Germany
that she did not receive protection or justice after directing her
complaints about fear tactics, sexual advances and abuse to senior
officials in the Canadian Forces.

Her lawyers sat at a news conference in Victoria as the woman
spoke on the phone and said she joined the navy nine years ago to
serve and become part of the world's greater good.

However, she left in 2012 after complaints of harassment and
sexual assault were not properly investigated or dealt with, she
said.

Ms. Peffers was based at Canadian Forces Esquimalt near Victoria
and served on frigates.

"When I arrived, I learned the culture was not one of camaraderie,
at least for women or LGBTQ members," she said.  "The culture was
one of fear and intimidation.  The culture was one of abuse,
discrimination, bullying and harassment.  The culture was of
sexual assault."

Ms. Peffers said when she failed to comply with the sexual demands
of one of her superiors she faced retaliation and professional
repercussions.

"The culture of the Forces tried to strip me of my dignity and my
humanity and spat me out when I would not let that happen," she
said.  "I reported complaints through all the proper channels.  I
did not receive justice."

Her lawyers told the news conference they expect hundreds and
perhaps thousands of military members to join the class action,
which seeks to compensate alleged victims and change the culture
of the Canadian Forces.

"It is unfair to ask Forces members to protect us if they need
every ounce of their courage to survive discrimination and abuse,
harassment and assault inflicted by their peers and superiors,"
said lawyer Natalie Foley.

Ms. Foley said attempts by the military to help and protect
victims of harassment and abuse have been woefully inadequate.
The Department of National Defence said it is aware of the legal
action and since the Attorney General of Canada has only recently
seen the lawsuit, it is being reviewed to determine next steps.
None of the allegations have been proven in court.

Canada's chief of defence staff said he was disappointed and angry
after a Statistics Canada survey found a troubling number of
sexual assaults and other misconduct among active service
personnel in the military.

The findings included an estimated 960 men and women who said they
were victims of sexual assaults in the last year, with some
incidents occurring after Gen. Jonathan Vance gave an order for
such behaviour to stop when he took over as chief in July 2015.


CANADA: Inuvik Native Band Identifies Members Qualified in Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mackenzie Scott, writing for CBC News, reports that the Inuvik
Native Band has identified about 40 members who were day scholars
at residential schools and may benefit from an ongoing class-
action lawsuit against the federal government.

Day scholars attended Indian Residential Schools during the day
but went home at night.  Day scholars weren't included in the
Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement in 2006 and did
not receive compensation.

Everyone who was a day scholar and the children of people who were
day scholars are automatically included in the class-action
lawsuit, which was certified in June 2015.

Indigenous groups across Canada are trying to identify and count
the potential beneficiaries of the lawsuit.  However, the Inuvik
Native Band had a very late start to spreading the word and
started to take recent action due to an inquiry from a
representative of the Gwich'in Tribal Council.

"She had asked me about this particular file.  After looking
through things, I came across what was left of any action on it
from the past.  Then I contacted the initiating band," said
Edward Wright, the acting administrator of the Inuvik Native Band.

Missed band deadline

Mr. Wright, who is new to his position, found the document that he
said went "by the wayside" about six months after the info was
initially sent out to bands across Canada.

Mr. Wright found out that it was too late for the band itself to
become a part of the band class of the lawsuit -- if First Nation
groups wanted to opt-in, the deadline was in February.

The lawsuit's co-ordinators were also collecting forms from
individuals as data collection -- to get an estimated count of
those eligible as they head into settlement negotiations.

Mr. Wright said he found that information out about a week before
the Nov. 30 deadline for the count.

"I just a put message on and started dealing with people mainly
for the Inuvik Native Band . . . as well as other members from
some of the communities and past members that live in
Yellowknife," said Mr. Wright.

Mr. Wright said in the short period of time, there were about 40
inquiries made.  He said if there had been more time, more names
would have been collected.

"A lot of our people in not just Inuvik but the whole Beaufort
Delta, many, many people attended residential schools as well as
day schools," said Mr. Wright.

Even if they were not counted by Nov. 30, all former day scholars
and their children are still included in the suit.

Negotiations to begin

In October, the federal government appointed a ministerial special
representative and negotiations toward a settlement are expected
to begin in the New Year.  The process is expected to take years.

Jo-Anne Gottfriedson with the Tk'emlups te Secwepemc Indian band
in the B.C. Interior is the co-chair and co-ordinator for the day
scholars class action lawsuit.  She says information about the
lawsuit has been passed along to all the bands across Canada since
May, and that time is of the essence.

"Three of our plaintiffs have already passed away in this last
year," she said.

"The most important goal that we want to achieve is to have the
opportunity and the right to regain our language and our culture,
and to have healing for our people."

She said about 98 bands across Canada opted-in to the band class
of the lawsuit.


CARNEGIE PARK: Judge Favors Dismissal Over Injunction
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Sylvia G. Ash of the Supreme Court, Kings County, denied
plaintiffs'' motion for preliminary injunction and granted
defendants' motions to dismiss, in the case BEVERLY KESSLER,
ROBERT KESSLER, JERROLD GENDLER M.D., JOSEPH QUENQUA, AND "JANE
DOES #1-100", ON THEIR OWN BEHALF, AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. CARNEGIE PARK ASSOCIATES, L.P.,
CARNEGIE PARK TOWER, LLC, THE RELATED COMPANIES, L.P., 200 EAST
62ND OWNER, LLC, HFZ 90 LEXINGTON AVENUE OWNER LLC, HFZ 88
LEXINGTON AVENUE OWNER LLC, HFZ 235 WEST 75TH STREET OWNER LLC,
HFZ 344 WEST 72ND STREET LLC, CLASSON ESTATE ONE LLC, 380 PROSPECT
PARTNERS LLC, 466 FIFTEENTH STREET PARTNERS LLC, AND "JOHN DOES
#1-100", Defendants, Docket No. 514588/15 (N.Y.)

On December 20, 1984, CPA purchased a property, located at 200
East 94th Street, in Manhattan, from the City of New York, and, in
1987, a building was constructed on the property. The building was
a 31-story tower that consisted of luxury residential apartments
on the first through penthouse floors and four commercial units.
None of the apartments were rent-controlled, and the tenants paid
market-rate rents for their apartments.

Named plaintiffs Beverly Kessler, Robert Kessler, Jerrold Gendler,
M.D., Joseph Quenqua are all senior citizens who resided as
tenants in rental apartments in the building. From approximately
2008 to March 2015, Beverly and Robert occupied apartment # 216
and Joseph occupied apartment #2718. Jerrold occupied apartment
#2011 from approximately 2004 to 2015.

By 2014, during the time that plaintiffs were tenants, CPT had
acquired ownership of the building from CPA. On April 30, 2014,
CPT submitted a non-eviction offering plan to the Office of the
Attorney General of the State of New York to convert the building
into a condominium with 325 residential units, which was to be
offered by it under the terms set forth in the offering plan. The
Office of the Attorney General accepted CPT's offering plan for
filing on December 22, 2014, and the offering plan was declared
effective on August 14, 2015.

Upon the expiration of their leases, plaintiffs vacated their
apartments and they are presently no longer in possession of them.
After plaintiffs vacated their apartments, CPT sold or entered
into contracts to sell nearly 87% of the condominium units in the
building.

On December 1, 2015, plaintiffs filed their summons and complaint
against CPT, CPA, and related affiliates. Plaintiffs allege that
the offering plan constituted a unilateral option contract which
contained terms for tenants who resided in the building under
which they could either purchase the apartments in which they
lived or remain in occupancy of their apartments as tenants. They
assert that these contractual provisions granted an option to
tenants, who were 62 years of age or older or disabled and in
occupancy of their apartments on the date that the Attorney
General accepted the offering plan for filing, to elect, within 60
days of the date the Attorney General accepted the plan for
filing, on forms promulgated by the Attorney General and presented
to them, to become non-purchasing tenants. They further assert
that the offering plan provided that if they elected to become
non-purchasing tenants, they could not be evicted from their
apartments and had the right to remain as tenants with rents that
were protected from unconscionable increases.

Plaintiffs allege that since they were all senior citizens on the
date that CPT's offering plan was filed with the Office of the
Attorney General, CPT should have given them the option to become
non-purchasing tenants who would be protected from eviction and
unconscionable rent increases. They assert that CPT failed to give
them a form to elect to become non-purchasing tenants. They claim
that if they had been given the form to elect to become non-
purchasing tenants, they would have exercised their right to
become non-purchasing tenants with protective rights, as senior
citizens.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 11, 2016.
Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges nine causes of action.
Plaintiffs' first, second, third, fourth, fifth, seventh, and
ninth causes of action seek damages of not less than one hundred
million dollars. Plaintiffs' sixth cause of action seeks damages
of two hundred million dollars. Plaintiffs' eighth cause of action
seeks damages of not less than $20 million.

On April 8, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
injunction to: (1) enjoining defendants from giving possession of
apartments, which had been previously occupied by tenants who were
disabled and/or were 62 years of age or older, to any prospective
buyers or third-party individuals, from otherwise taking steps to
frustrate or prevent the members of this protected class of
tenants from re-occupying the apartments in which they had once
resided, and from transferring the rights of use, occupancy, and
possession to any third party other than the members of this
protected class, and (2) requiring defendants to take the
following steps and actions: (a) immediately account for and
provide a reconciliation of all apartments in their buildings
which were occupied by persons who were disabled and/or were 62
years of age or older at the time that the offering plans were
declared effective for these buildings, (b) provide all
documentation, including leases, riders, lease renewals,
correspondence, and opt-in forms concerning the persons residing
in the apartments in the subject buildings between the time that
the offering plan for each building was sent to the Office of the
Attorney General and the time that the offering plan was declared
effective, (c) disclose all contracts and agreements in which
defendants have sold or are in contract to sell apartments in
their buildings that had been occupied by persons who were
disabled and/or were 62 years of age or older at the time that the
offering plan was declared effective for each of these buildings,
(d) disclose to the prospective purchasers of apartments in
defendants' buildings that this class action has been filed, in
which members of the class are asserting rights to the use,
occupancy, and possession of the apartments that they may be
purchasing and that these buildings may have a number of units
which are occupied by members of this class, and (e) identify all
other legal proceedings to which defendants are parties.

200 East 62nd Owner moves, under motion sequence number two,
pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), for an order dismissing plaintiffs'
amended complaint as against it in its entirety, or, in the
alternative, for an order transferring the claims against it to
New York County pursuant to CPLR 507.

CPA, CPT, and Related move, under motion sequence number three,
for an order: (1) pursuant to CPLR 507, transferring venue of this
action to New York County, or, in the alternative, (2) pursuant to
CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), dismissing plaintiffs' amended
complaint as against them in its entirety.

Judge Ash denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in
its entirety. 200 East 62nd Owner's motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
amended complaint as against it and CPT, CPA, and Related's motion
to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint as against them are both
granted, and plaintiffs' action as against 200 East 62nd Owner,
CPT, CPA, and Related are severed and dismissed. In view of the
granting of the motions to dismiss, 200 East 62nd Owner's motion
and CPT, CPA, and Related's motion, insofar as they seek, in the
alternative, an order transferring venue of the action to New York
County, have been rendered moot.

Judge Ash observed that defendants have entered into contracts for
the sale of their condominium units or cooperative units or have
already sold these units. A preliminary injunction, which would
prevent defendants from delivering possession and transferring the
rights of use and occupancy of the units to buyers, would impair
existing contracts for the sale of units scheduled for closing.

To the extent that plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction
seeks an order requiring defendants to produce extensive documents
and information, it is, in effect, seeking discovery. CPLR article
31 provides the procedure by which parties may seek discovery.
Plaintiffs have not demonstrated any basis for seeking such
discovery by way of a preliminary injunction. Thus, plaintiffs'
motion for a preliminary injunction must be denied in its
entirety.

A copy of Judge Ash's decision and order dated November 22, 2016,
is available at https://goo.gl/VUdIsF from Leagle.com.


CENTRAL PORTFOLIO: Faces "Shepard" Suit in Dist. Minnesota
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Central
Portfolio Control, Inc.

The case is captioned Heather Shepard, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Central Portfolio Control,
Inc., Case No. 0:16-cv-04108-JRT-KMM (D. Minn., December 7, 2016).

Central Portfolio Control, Inc. operates a debt collection agency
located at 10249 Yellow Circle Drive, Suite 200, Hopkins, MN
55343.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert L. Hyde, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino del Rio South, Ste. 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: bob@westcoastlitigation.com

         - and -

      Anthony P. Chester, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      120 S. 6th St., Suite 2050
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (952) 225-5333
      Facsimile: (800) 635-6425
      E-mail: tony@westcoastlitigation.com


CEVA LOGISTICS: "McDonald" Files Suit Under California Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL MCDONALD, an individual; Plaintiff, v. CEVA LOGISTICS U.S.,
INC., a Delaware corporation; CEVA FREIGHT, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
Defendants, Case 3:16-cv-02961-W-MDD (S.D. Cal., December 5,
2016), seeks relief including, but not limited to, alleged unpaid
wages, interest, damages, business expenses, and penalties based
on California Labor Code.  Plaintiff further intends to seek
penalties on his behalf and other allegedly aggrieved employees of
Defendants on behalf of the Labor and Workforce Development
Agency, for such Labor Code violations providing for penalties.

Defendants provide supply chain and logistics services, including
ground delivery services for various customers in the United
States, including California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Timothy J. O'Leary, Esq.
     David L. Skilling, Esq.
     SKILLING O'LEARY, PC
     401 West A Street, Suite 1745
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 500-4027
     Fax: (888) 483-3049


CHER OIL: Cushing-Area Residents File Class Action Over Quake
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Remer, writing for KTUL, reports that several Cushing-area
residents have filed a class action lawsuit after a 5.0-magnitude
earthquake in November.

The suit, filed on Dec. 5 by attorneys representing David and Myra
Reid, names five energy companies as defendants.  The defendants
are:

     -- Cher Oil Company Ltd
     -- Crown Energy Company
     -- FHA Investments LLC
     -- Petrowarrior LLC
     -- White Star Petroleum LLC

David Reid, who owns the Cushing Citizen newspaper, which was
heavily damaged in the quake, says he knew litigation would occur
and he wanted to make sure the town and its residents had the best
attorneys attached to the case.

He says the citizens of Pawnee acted swiftly after they
experienced damaging quakes and he thought it was time to act on
behalf of Cushing.

Mr. Reid says his building, which he lives and works in, is just
one of several that sustained damage and other property owners are
involved in the suit.

The plaintiffs are asking for damages in excess of $10,000.
The Nov. 6 quake occurred little more than a mile west of Cushing,
damaging dozens of buildings and resulting in minor injuries.  A
mid-rise building that served as a retirement home in downtown
Cushing was evacuated, leaving some residents without a place to
stay.


CIMIC: Faces New Class Action, February 22 Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Palmer, writing for The Australian, reports that
construction and engineering giant CIMIC is facing a fresh class
action, after a statement of claim was filed by law firm Maurice
Blackburn on November 23.

CIMIC, formerly known as Leighton, said it had obtained a copy of
the claim but had not been formally served.

It comes more than two years after the company agreed to settle a
separate class action run by Maurice Blackburn that saw
shareholders receive compensation of $69.5 million.  That suit
followed claims of misleading conduct as it announced heavy
writedowns and losses in 2011.

The latest case has been filed to the ACT registry of the Federal
Court, with the lead applicant Inabu Pty Ltd as trustee for the
Alidas Superannuation Fund.

Inabu was the applicant at the centre of the settled case in 2014,
with CIMIC contending the new class action appeared to show little
variation from the last.

"The proceedings are brought on behalf of a similar class and make
similar allegations as proceedings which commenced in 2013 in the
Supreme Court of Victoria," the company said.

"Those proceedings were permanently stayed by the Supreme Court of
Victoria."

The engineering group also said "nearly identical proceedings in
relation to the same subject matter" had been introduced into the
Supreme Court of Victoria on April 14, 2015.

"CIMIC continues to deny the claim in the Supreme Court of
Victoria and is defending those proceedings," the company said.

"CIMIC also denies there is a proper basis for the further claim
now commenced in the Federal Court and will defend the
proceedings."

The first hearing for the new case is slated for February 22 at
9.30am (AEDT).


CONN APPLIANCES: Judge Recommends Dismissal in "Alvarado" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Andrew W. Austin of the Western District Texas,
Austin Division, recommends that the defendants' motion to dismiss
be granted and ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration, in
the case JOSE ALVARADO, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. CONN APPLIANCES, INC., Cause No. 1:16-CV-464-LY (W.D.
Tex.)

Jose Alvarado made a couple of purchases at Conn Appliances, Inc.
in August. The debt made by Alvarado had contracts that contain
arbitration clauses.

Conn later assigned the contracts to Conn Credit I, LP. Though
Conn is no longer a party to the contracts, Conn states that it
acts as an agent and servicer for Credit in its attempts to
collect on the Contracts. Moreover, Conn and Credit maintain a
formal written agreement memorializing their relationship.

Alvarado filed a purported class action lawsuit against Conn,
alleging that Conn's debt collection practices violate the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Conn moved to dismiss the lawsuit pursuant to the arbitration
clause in the contract. Alvarado responds that Conn cannot enforce
the arbitration clause, because it ceased being a party to the
contract after the contract was assigned to Credit. Conn disagrees
on the merits of Alvarado's reading of the contract, and the
impact of the assignment of the agreement to Credit. Further, Conn
argues that under the language of the contracts, gateway issues of
arbitrability including the issue raised by Alvarado are for the
arbitrator, so the court should compel arbitration.
The district court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Andrew
W. Austin for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 636(b)(1)(A), FED. R. CIV. P. 72, and Rule 1(c) of
Appendix C of the Local Rules.
Magistrate Judge Austin agrees with the defendant and made an
observation that Conn was an original signatory of the contract,
as it first signed the contract and then assigned the agreement to
Credit after execution. Moreover, the arbitration clause states
that it would survive the transfer of the agreement, so there is a
reasonable argument that Conn remains a party to the arbitration
clause and thus, even after the assignment, is not a non-party to
the agreement. Conn continued to be involved with the contract by
servicing it after it was assigned to Credit.

Magistrate Judge Austin recommends that the district court grant
defendants' motion to dismiss and order the parties to proceed to
arbitration. The parties may file objections to the report and
recommendation. A party's failure to file written objections to
the proposed findings and recommendations, within 14 days after
the party is served with a copy of the report shall bar that party
from de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings
and recommendations in their report and, except upon grounds of
plain error, shall bar the party from appellate review of
unobjected to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions
accepted by the district court.

A copy of Judge Austin's Report and Recommendation dated November
17, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/19dysi from Leagle.com.

Jose Alvarado, Plaintiff, represented by James L. Davidson --
jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com -- Aaron D. Radbil --
aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com -- at Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC

Conn Appliances, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christina M.
Putman -- Christopher M. Jordan -- jjordan@munsch.com -- Michael
Allen Harvey -- mharvey@munsch.com -- at Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr,
PC


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Summary Judgment Filed in Receipt Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie D. Hoffmeister, Esq. --
julie.hoffmeister@troutmansanders.com -- and David N. Anthony --
david.anthony@troutmansanders.com -- Esq., of Troutman Sanders
LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that as previously reported,
the named plaintiff in Paci v. Costco Wholesale Corporation filed
a Fair Credit Reporting Act putative class action against Costco
alleging that the retailer's receipts contained more digits of the
payment card's account number than is permitted under the Act.

The parties recently filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
Costco argued that it did not violate the Act because the "extra"
six digits permissibly revealed only the type of card Paci used
for her purchases and not any personal information.  Those first
six digits are identical on all cards, Costco stated.  Costco also
argued that the statute only applies to receipts provided to
customers "at the point of sale or transaction."  Here, in
contrast, Paci received the receipt in an area separate and apart
from the cash registers.  Costco finally argued that Paci lacks
Article III standing to maintain her class action because the
receipt at issue has been secured in a file cabinet since she
received it, and she has never established how the receipt could
have been used to facilitate identity theft.

In her summary judgment motion, Paci argued that discovery "has
confirmed that the receipt is printed within a Costco store and
that the machine that prints the subject receipt is part of
Costco's point of sale system," thus entitling Paci to judgment as
a matter of law.  Paci also argued that she satisfies Article III
standing requirements.  According to Paci, "[t]he plain language
of the statute . . . indicates that the violation, the concrete
harm, is completed once the electronically printed receipt is
'provided to the cardholder at the point of sale or transaction.'"
She concludes that an invasion of a legally protected interest is
sufficient to satisfy Article III.  Paci also briefly argues that
expending time to protect her receipt instead of simply throwing
out her receipt could also constitute concrete injuries.

The motions are expected to be fully briefed by the beginning of
January.


DOLGENCORP LLC: "Harnen" Action Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Cindy Harnen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Dolgencorp, LLC d/b/a Dollar General,
Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00330, (N.D. Fla., December 7, 2016),
seeks unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, interest, costs,
and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Florida Minimum Wage Act.

Dolgencorp, LLC, does business as Dollar General, operating
discount department stores retailing basic consumer goods.
Defendant's manager, Jodi McGee, would clock out the Plaintiff at
10:30 pm, but Plaintiff and all others similarly situated were
required to continue working thereafter for anywhere from 30
minutes to an hour or more.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Chad E. Levy, Esq.
      Law Offices of Levy & Levy, P.A.
      915 Middle River Drive, Suite 518
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33304
      Tel: (954) 763-5722
      Fax: (954) 763-5723
      Email: chad@levylevylaw.com
             assistant@levylevylaw.com


DR REDDY'S LABORATORIES: PA Teachers Fund Files Anti-Trust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and 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 No. 2:16-cv-06322, (E.D. Pa., December 6,
2016), is a  class action for claims under federal and state
antitrust laws to recover damages and obtain injunctive and
equitable relief for the substantial injuries the Plaintiff and
others similarly situated have sustained against Defendants,
arising from their conspiracy to raise the prices of divalproex
sodium extended-release tablets and to allocate markets and
customers for this product in the United States.

Defendants are among the world's largest generic drug
manufacturers.

Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund is a
voluntary employee benefits plan with principal place of business
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It provides health benefits,
including prescription drug benefits, to approximately 34,000
participants, and their spouses and dependents. It purchased and
paid for supra-priced pravastatin.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
      Liberato P. Verderame, Esq.
      EDESON AND ASSOCIATES LLC
      3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
      Newtown, PA 18940
      Tel: (215) 867-2399
      Fax: (267) 685-0676
      Email: mcdelson@edelson-law.com
             lverderame@edelson-law.com

             - and -

      Paul J. Scarlato, Esq.
      GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, RC.
      8 Tower Bridge, Suite 1025
      161 Washington Street
      Conshohocken, PA 19428
      Tel: (484) 342-0700
      Fax: (484) 580-8747
      Email: scarlato@lawgsp.com


EL TAMARINDO: "Rivera" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA RIVERA, on her own behalf and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. EL TAMARINDO CAFE, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, and NESTOR A. AMAYA, an individual, the Defendants, Case
No. 0:16-cv-62888-WJZ (S.D. Fla., Dec. 2, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages to all servers/waitpersons pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Florida Minimum Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to timely pay
its servers their weekly pay checks. Each time Defendants failed
to pay the Plaintiff on the regular pay day, a minimum wage
violation occurred where the Plaintiff, and others similarly
situated, became entitled to an award of minimum wage liquidated
damages.

The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer lost earnings,
emotional distress, loss of self-esteem and other injuries as a
direct result of El Tamarindo's violations.

El Tamarindo operates a Latin American food restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FAITH CONSTRUCTION: "Eroglu" Action Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Marco H. Eroglu, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class Members Plaintiffs, v. Faith Construction Inc.,
Fatih Dag and Hesham Hassane, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06787,
(E.D. N.Y., December 9, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum wages, unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, interest, costs
and disbursements, and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and in addition, unpaid spread of hours premium
pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

Defendants operated a construction company where Plaintiff worked
as a construction worker, earning $14.00 per hour for working from
7:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, for a total of
60 hours and worked on average of two nights per week for an
average of 8 hours totalling 68 hours. He claims to be denied
overtime pay for hours in excess of 40 per week.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Leopold Raic, Esq.
      AKIN LAW GROUP PLLC
      45 Broadway, Suite 1420
      New York, NY 10006
      Tel: (212) 825-1400


FOUR CORNERS: "Badger" Suit Alleges ADA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Josie Badger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Four Corners Property Trust, Inc., Four
Corners Operating, Partnership, LP And, Four Corners, GP, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01828, (W.D. Pa., December 7, 2016),
seeks permanent injunction, costs of suit, reasonable attorneys'
fees, and such other relief under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.

Badger has a mobility disability and is dependent on a wheelchair
for mobility. She was allegedly denied full and equal access to
parking lots and paths of travel.

Defendant's properties are located at 1010 Pittsburgh Mills
Boulevard, Tarentum, Pennsylvania and at 8400 McKnight Road,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and are leased out to Darden
Restaurant's, Inc.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
      Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
      Stephanie K. Goldin, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
      1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Tel: (412) 322-9243
      Fax: (412) 231-0246


GATESTONE & CO: Illegally Collects Debt, "Alderman" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Alderman and Jean Losada, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Gatestone & Co. International Inc.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-14541-RLR (S.D. Fla., December 7, 2016), seeks to
stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.

Gatestone & Co. International Inc. provides accounts receivable
management and call centre services for financial institutions,
and various government bodies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GEORGIA: DJJ Faces Suit for Civil Rights Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------
N. T., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Officer Raphael Howell, Officer Erika Rainey, Captain Victor
Martin, Counselor Samantha Daniels, Counselor Latonya Durden,
Director John Brady, Assistant Director Kendra Strowbridge,
Assistant Director Lawrence Paul Cloutier, Director Ronald
Brawner, Director Melvin Womble, Commissioner Amy Howell,
Commissioner L. Gale Buckner, Deputy Commissioner Sarah Draper,
Deputy Commissioner Michael McNeely, Director Martha Dalesio, Case
No. 1:16-cv-04524-LMM (N.D. Ga., December 7, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Civil Rights Act.

The Defendants operate the Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice
(DJJ), a multi-faceted agency that provides a wide range of
services for youthful offenders across the state.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Demetra Duan Ford, Esq.
      FORD LAW, LLC
      931 Monroe Drive, NE
      Atlanta, GA 30308
      Telephone: (404) 392-5500
      E-mail: fordesq@yahoo.com

         - and -

      La Tisha G. Dear, Esq.
      LA TISHA G. DEAR, LLC
      Building 1, 2900 Chamblee-Tucker Road
      Atlanta, GA 30084
      Telephone: (770) 455-1350
      E-mail: esq24lgd@aol.com

         - and -

      Sidney Leighton Moore, Esq.
      THE MOORE LAW FIRM PC
      400 Colony Square, Suite 2000
      1201 Peachtree Street NE
      Atlanta, GA 30361
      Telephone: (678) 237-0330
      E-mail: leighton@moorefirmpc.com

         - and -

      Thomas Gatewood Sampson II, Esq.
      THOMAS KENNEDY SAMPSON & TOMPKINS, LLP
      3355 Main Street
      Atlanta, GA 30337
      Telephone: (404) 688-4503
      E-mail: w.sampson@tkstlaw.com

HESO INC: Faces "Lopes" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA, NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
VALDINEI LOPES, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. HESO, INC., HAVANA WIRING & ELECTRICAL
CORP., QUALITY USED ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT INC., EMPIRE ELECTRICAL
SOLUTION INC. and HERNAN F. SOCARRAS a/k/a FRANK SOCARRAS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06796 (E.D.N.Y., December 8, 2016),
seeks to remedy violations of the wage and hour provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and to remedy violations of the New York
Labor Law.

The Defendants provide residential, commercial, and industrial
electrical services in the New York tri-state area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William Cafaro, Esq.
     108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
     New York, NY 10018
     Phone: (212) 583-7400


HITACHI METALS: Price-fixing of Brake Hoses Alleged by Emerald
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emerald Capital Advisors Corporation, trustee for FAH Liquidating
Trust, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Hitachi Metals, Ltd, Defendant, Case No.
5:16-cv-14245 (E.D. Mich., December 5, 2016) seeks to recover
treble damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys fees,
resulting from violations of the Sherman Act.

Hitachi Metals, Ltd. and its co-conspirators are alleged of
suppressing and eliminating competition by agreeing to allocate
sales of, to rig bids for, and to fix, raise, and maintain the
prices of brake hose sold in the United States and elsewhere at
supra-competitive levels.

Emerald Capital Advisors Corporation, in its capacity as Trustee
for the FAH Liquidating Trust is the successor in interest of
Fisker Automotive, which purchased automotive brake hoses directly
from Hitachi Metals, Ltd.

Hitachi Metals, Ltd. is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of Japan, with its principal place of business in Tokyo,
Japan, and U.S. subsidiaries in various locations, including New
Albany, Indiana.

Plaintiff was represented by:

      David H. Fink, Esq.
      Darryl Bressack, Esq.
      Nathan J. Fink, Esq.
      FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW
      38500 Woodward Ave; Ste. 350
      Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
      Telephone: (248) 971-2500
      Email: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com
             dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com
             nfink@finkandassociateslaw.com

             - and -

      Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
      William H. London, Esq.
      Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
      Brian M. Hogan, Esq.
      FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
      2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
      Bannockburn, IL 60015
      Telephone: (224) 632-4500
      Email: skanner@fklmlaw.com
             wlondon@fklmlaw.com
             mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com
             bhogan@fklmlaw.com

             - and -

      Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
      Randall B. Weill, Esq.
      Michael S. Smith, Esq.
      PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
      One City Center
      P.O. Box 9546
      Portland, ME 04112-9546
      Telephone: (207) 791-3000
      Email: ghansel@preti.com
             rweill@preti.com
             msmith@preti.com

             - and -

      Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
      William E. Hoese, Esq.
      Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
      KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
      One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 238-1700
      Email: jkohn@kohnswift.com
             whose@kohnswift.com
             dabrahams@kohnswift.com

             - and -

      Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
      William G. Caldes, Esq.
      Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
      SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
      1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 496-0300
      Email: espector@srkw-law.com
             bcaldes@srkw-law.com
             jjagher@srkw-law.com

             - and -

      Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq.
      BONSIGNORE TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
      2513 Morocco Avenue
      North Las Vegas, NV 89108
      Telephone: (888) 461-8710
      Email: rbonsignore@class-actions.us

             - and -

      R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
      Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
      SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
      706 Sansome Street
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 217-6810
      Email: rick@saveri.com
             cadio@saveri.com

             - and -

      Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
      Thomas C. Bright, Esq.
      CERA LLP
      595 Market Street, Suite 2300
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 777-2230
      Email: scera@cerallp.com
             tbright@cerallp.com


HUA DA INC: Faces "Zayas" Suit in Southern District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hua Da Inc. The case
is entitled Edwin Zayas, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hua Da Inc., and Hot Sichuan
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09493 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 8,
2016).

Hua Da operates a Chinese 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


ICE CREAM HOUSE: "Galicia" Suit Alleges FLSA, NYLL Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM GALICIA, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. ICE CREAM HOUSE ON BEDFORD AVE LLC,
ICE CREAM HOUSE, LLC, DANIEL KLEIN, DAVID KLEIN, and VICTOR KLEIN,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06738-CBA-PK (E.D.N.Y., December 6,
2016), seeks to remedy violations of the wage and hour provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants are involved in the manufacture and distribution of
various food items, including, but not limited to, ice cream,
sorbets, paninis, and pasta.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William Cafaro, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
     108 West 39th Street, Suite 602
     New York, NY 10018
     Phone: (212) 583-7400


INFINITE CARE: Judge Grants Final Approval of Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nitza I. Qui¤ones Alejandro of the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, granted plaintiff's motion for final approval of
settlement agreement and for approval of attorneys' fees and
costs, in the case JESSICA RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. INFINITE CARE,
INC. Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-1824 (E.D. Pa.)

On April 8, 2015, Jessica Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint, against
Infinite Care, Inc., alleging that Infinite Care violated the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988, 29
U.S.C. Sections 2101-2109 et seq. (WARN Act), when it ordered the
closing of a facility plant at 6423 Rising Sun Avenue,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19111, resulting in the termination of
Rodriguez's employment and that of over 1,000 similarly situated
employees who worked at or reported to the facility. Plaintiff
avers that the class of plaintiffs included all employees who
worked at the facility and were terminated when the plant closed
on February 27, 2015.

Plaintiff and defendant agreed to avoid further costly litigation
and the uncertainties and risks associated therewith, to settle,
compromise, and resolve any and all demands, claims, damages, and
causes of action arising from the complaint, and to enter into a
settlement agreement which included certification of the proposed
settlement class.

On March 31, 2016, plaintiff and defendant filed a joint motion
for order (1) Preliminarily Approving Settlement Agreement; (2)
Approving Form and Manner of Notice to the Proposed Settlement
Class; (3) Scheduling a Final Fairness Hearing for the Final
Consideration and Approval of the Settlement; and (4) Finally
Approving the Settlement. The court granted the motion for
preliminary approval and found that the proposed notice of
settlement met the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(2)(B), and
ordered, the settlement class certified be as follows:

All of those employees laid off on or about February 27, 2015, and
thereafter, as the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the plant
closing, who suffered an employment loss as defined by the Warn
Act, who do not opt-out of the Settlement Class.

On September 19, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for final approval
of settlement agreement and for approval of attorneys' fees and
costs.

The proposed class action settlement agreement contains the
following material terms:

     -- Defendant has agreed to pay the sum of $472,000.00 for
distribution to class members. Though plaintiff argues that
$3,000,00.00 is the maximum liability to which defendant could
have been subject, the maximum actual recovery was limited to
$472,000.00, the total remaining funds held in escrow as part of
defendant's guilty plea to several felonies.

     -- $5,000.00 of the settlement amount shall be paid to
representative plaintiff Jessica Rodriguez, for her service to the
class and the time and effort spent litigating the action.

     -- One-third of the remaining settlement amount, totaling the
sum of $155,666.67, and reasonable costs up to $10,000.00, will be
paid to The Gardner Firm, P.C. and Lankenau & Miller, LLP,
contingent upon approval of the class settlement, for attorneys'
fees and costs. The remaining settlement amount will be
distributed evenly to those settlement class members who did not
opt-out of the settlement.

     -- Judge Quinones Alejandro of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, granted plaintiff's motion for final approval of
settlement agreement and for approval of attorneys' fees and costs
in the amount of $155,666.67 and reimbursement of expenses not to
exceed $10,000.00, and awards the sum of $5,000.00 to the class
representative, Jessica Rodriguez.

A copy of Judge Qui¤ones Alejandro's memorandum opinion dated
November 17, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/nKsu4D from
Leagle.com.

JESSICA RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, represented by:

STUART J. MILLER, Esq.
LANKENAU & MILLER LLP
132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: 212-581-5005
Facsimile: 212-581-2122

     - and -

JAMES E. HUGGETT -- jhuggett@margolisedelstein.com -- SARAH ENNIS
-- sennis@margolisedelstein.com -- at MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN; M. VANCE
MCCRARY -- vmccrary@thegardnerfirm.com -- MARY E. OLSEN --
molsen@thegardnerfirm.com -- at THE GARDNER FIRM

INFINITE CARE, INC., Defendant, represented by STEVEN K. LUDWIG --
sludwig@foxrothschild.com -- FRANZ ESPANOL --
fespanol@foxrothschild.com -- at FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP


INTERNATIONAL GENERAL: OT Pay Recovery Sought in "Bilbao" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Henry E. Bilbao and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
International General Supply, LLC, Carlos A. Paz, Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-25070 (S.D. Fla., December 6, 2016), requests double
damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and
severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

International General Supply., LLC. -- http://www.igsup.com/-- is
as enterprise specializing in all type of mid-size and small-size
electric machines. It is located at 5465 NW 112th Path, Doral, FL
33178. Plaintiff worked for the Defendant an average of 63 hours a
week and was paid an average of $25.00 per hour but was never paid
anything at all for approximately 3,000 overtime hours worked over
40 hours in a week.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      Email: zabogado@aol.com


JVK OPERATIONS: Guevara Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under NY Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
RUBEN ALEXANDER GUEVARA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. JVK OPERATIONS LIMITED;
VINOD SAMUEL; MICHAEL CONNELL; and any other related entities, the
Defendants, Case No 609544/2016. (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 7, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation owed to the
Plaintiff and all similarly situated persons who are presently or
were formerly employed by JVK Operations Limited pursuant to the
New York Labor Law, the Labor Law Article, and the New York Codes,
Rules and Regulations (NYCRR).

According to the complaint, the Defendants have engaged in a
policy and practice of requiring their employees to regularly work
in excess of 40 hours per week, without providing proper overtime
compensation as required by applicable state law.

JVK Operations provides linen service for hospital systems, long
term care centers, and specialty care centers throughout the tri-
state area.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873 9550


KAISER PERMANENTE: No Violation in Anti-Assignment, Judge Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Alan C. Kay of the District of Hawaii,
rejected Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.'s motion for summary
judgment and ruled that medical providers have the right to sue
the company for the denial of benefits to health plan
participants.

The case is, TOBY SIDLO, on behalf of himself, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v. KAISER PERMANENTE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a California non-profit corporation, KAISER FOUNDATION
HEALTH PLAN, INC., a foreign non-profit corporation, and DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-50, Defendants. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC.,
a foreign non-profit corporation, Plaintiff, v. HAWAII LIFE FLIGHT
CORPORATION, a Hawaii corporation, and AIR MEDICAL RESOURCE GROUP,
INC., a Utah Corporation, Defendants. HAWAII LIFE FLIGHT
CORPORATION, a Hawaii corporation, Counterclaim Plaintiff, v.
KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., a foreign non-profit
corporation, Counterclaim Defendant, Civ. No. 16-00073 ACK-KSC (D.
Haw.)

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (KFHP) serves as a claim
fiduciary of certain group health plans within the State of Hawaii
that are governed by Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 ERISA. Consolidated plaintiff Toby Sidlo and a group of
proposed class members were participants in or beneficiaries of
the plans.

Hawaii Life Flight Corporation (HLF) provided medical air
transportation services to certain members of KFHP's health plans
and submitted claims to KFHP for reimbursement of those services.
Air Medical Resource Group, Inc. (AMRG) shares certain corporate
officers with HLF and holds a FAA Part 135 certificate, under
which certain aircraft operate. HLF is one of at least nine
medical transportation companies affiliated with AMRG.

On February 18, 2016, KFHP filed a complaint against HLF and AMRG
for violation of 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3). In its complaint,
KFHP alleges HLF and AMRG have violated and attempted to violate
an anti-assignment provision contained in KFHP's health plans
within Hawaii, which are governed by the ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section
1001 et seq. KFHP alleges that HLF and/or AMRG have repeatedly
attempted to procure broad assignments of members of the plans'
rights, interest, claims for money due, benefits and/or
obligations under the plans, in violation of the anti-assignment
provision. More specifically, KFHP asserts that the Sidlo
litigation has been brought by HLF and/or AMRG in Sidlo's name,
which constitutes a violation of the anti-assignment provision.

HLF and AMRG filed an answer to the complaint on April 14, 2016
and on that same day HLF filed a counterclaim against KFHP and
asserts unfair competition in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes
Section 480-2, tortious interference with contract, defamation and
trade libel/disparagement. HLF asserts that KFHP, in connection
with its health insurance services, has made written and oral
demands that hospitals arrange for emergency transportation of
patients exclusively through or as designated by KFHP, even where
those hospitals have contracts with HLF and contrary to the
federal law that exclusively provides that emergency patient
transport is arranged by the treating physician. Further, HLF
contends that KFHP has sent letters to patients that received air
ambulance services from HLF, which letters contain numerous
falsehoods, misrepresentations, and otherwise disparaging and
defamatory statements regarding HLF.

On July 18, 2016, KFHP filed its motion for summary judgment
against HLF and AMRG, along with a memorandum in support of motion
and a concise statement of facts in support of the motion for
summary judgment. In its motion, KFHP requests that the court
issue an order declaring that KFHP's health plans contain an
enforceable anti-assignment provision; that KFHP has not waived
the anti-assignment provision; and that HLF and AMRG cannot
enforce assignments against KFHP through, among other things, the
Sidlo litigation and any other use of an assignment to stand in
the shoes of members.

On October 17, 2016, HLF and AMRG filed an opposition to KFHP's
motion, as well as a response to KFHP's concise statement of
facts. In their opposition, HLF and AMRG request that summary
judgment be granted in their favor pursuant to Local Rule 56.1(i).

Judge Kay denied KFHP's motion for summary judgment against HLF
and AMRG and granted summary judgment on KFHP's complaint in favor
of HLF and AMRG pursuant to Rule 56(f) and Local Rule 56.1(i).
Judge Kay observed that the anti-assignment provisions contain no
language specifically barring assignments to non-contracted
providers like HLF.
The Court is guided by the Fifth Circuit's reasoned approach to
anti-assignment provisions, and finds that the evidence supports
that approach with respect to the anti-assignment provision at
issue. The court concludes that KFHP's members may assign their
rights under the health plans to medical providers that offer the
very services for which the members have a right to benefits.
HLF has received only a right to payment of benefits, not a right
to bring suit under ERISA to recover such benefits.  As an
assignee of Sidlo's right to benefits, HLF also has a right to sue
for the denial of those benefits.
A copy of Judge Kay's order dated November 17, 2016, is available
at https://goo.gl/EXJb3n from Leagle.com.

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Alana Peacott-Ricardos -- apeacottricardos@goodsill.com -- Gail Y.
Cosgrove -- gcosgrove@goodsill.com -- Lisa W. Munger --
lmunger@goodsill.com -- at Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel;
Alison H. Hong -- ahong@seyfarth.com -- Kathleen Cahill Slaught --
kslaught@seyfarth.com -- Michelle M. Scannell --
mscannell@seyfarth.com -- at Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Hawaii Life Flight Corporation and Air Medical Resource Group,
Inc., Defendants, represented by Andrew James Lautenbach --
alautenbach@starnlaw.com -- Mark J. Bennett --
mbennett@starnlaw.com -- Orian J. Lee -- at Starn O'Toole Marcus &
Fisher

Hawaii Life Flight Corporation, Counter Claimant, represented by
Andrew James Lautenbach -- alautenbach@starnlaw.com -- Mark J.
Bennett -- mbennett@starnlaw.com -- Orian J. Lee -- at Starn
O'Toole Marcus & Fisher

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., Counter Defendant,
represented by Alana Peacott-Ricardos --
apeacottricardos@goodsill.com -- Gail Y. Cosgrove --
gcosgrove@goodsill.com -- Lisa W. Munger -- lmunger@goodsill.com -
- at Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel; Alison H. Hong --
ahong@seyfarth.com -- Kathleen Cahill Slaught --
kslaught@seyfarth.com -- Michelle M. Scannell --
mscannell@seyfarth.com -- at Seyfarth Shaw LLP


KENTUCKY: "Woodcock" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Kentucky
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Brian Woodcock, Ruben Rios
Salinas, Keath Bramblett, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Rodney Ballard,
LaDonna Thompson, Doug Crall, MD, Mrs. Cookie Crews, Dr. Frederick
Kemen, MD, Correct Care Solutions, LLC, Case No. 15-CI-63, was
removed from the Franklin Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky (Frankfort). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00096-GFVT to the
proceeding.

Commonwealth of Kentucky is a state located in the east south-
central region of the United States.

Correct Care Solutions, LLC operates a healthcare company that
provides behavioral health, residential treatment, and related
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Camille Bathurst, Esq.
      Gregory Allen Belzley, Esq.
      BELZLEY BATHURST, ATTORNEYS
      P.O. Box 278
      Prospect, KY 40059
      Telephone: (502) 292-2452
      E-mail: camillebathurst@aol.com
              gbelzley@aol.com

The Defendant Commonwealth of Kentucky is represented by:

      Lainie Crouch Kaiser, Esq.
      OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
      700 Capital Avenue, Suite 118
      Frankfort, KY 40601
      Telephone: (502) 696-5602

         - and -

      Taylor Payne, Esq.
      OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
      1024 Capital Center Drive, Suite 200
      Frankfort, KY 40601-8204
      Telephone: (502) 696-5342
      E-mail: Taylor.Payne@ky.gov

The Defendant Rodney Ballard is represented by:
      Linda Marion Keeton, Esq.
      OFFICE OF LEGAL SERVICES-DEPT OF CORRECTIONS
      275 E. Main Street
      P.O. Box 2400
      Frankfort, KY 40602-2400
      Telephone: (502) 564-4726
      Facsimile: (502) 564-5037
      E-mail: lindam.keeton@ky.gov

The Defendant Correct Care Solutions, LLC is represented by:

      Megan Pullem O'Reilly, Esq.
      BLACKBURN, DOMENE & BURCHETT PLLC
      614 W. Main Street, Suite 3000
      Louisville, KY 40202
      Telephone: (502) 584-1600
      Facsimile: (502) 584-9971
      E-mail: moreilly@bdblawky.com


MACROCURE LTD: "Lax" Suit Alleges Securities Violations in Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HELENE LAX, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. TOMER KARIV, DAVID BEN AMI, ZEEV
BRONFELD, RANAN GROBMAN, KATHERINE WOLF, YUVAL YANAI, MACROCURE
LTD., and LEAP THERAPEUTICS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
09438-GBD (S.D.N.Y., December 7, 2016), accuses Defendants of
issuing a materially incomplete and misleading proxy statement and
prospectus in connection with the proposed merger between
Macrocure and Leap.  The case alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act.

Macrocure is a biotechnology company focused on developed cell
therapy products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     270 Madison Avenue
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212-545-4600
     Fax: 212-686-0114
     Email: gmn@whafh.com

        - and -

     Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
     New York, NY 10118
     Phone: 212-971-1341
     Fax: 212-601-2610
     Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Judge Nixes Fans' Suit Over Safety Net
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of
California, granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
first amended complaint, in the case GAIL PAYNE, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, v. OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL, ET AL.,
Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-03229-YGR (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs assert six claims: (1) negligence; (2) fraudulent
concealment; (3) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law,
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et seq. (UCL); (4)
violation of California Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq. (CLRA);
(5) violation of California Civil Code Section 1668; and (6)
personal injury.

For Counts 1 through 5, plaintiffs seek injunctive relief on
behalf of the class. Count 6 is plaintiff Smith's personal and
individual claim for damages based on negligence, arising from the
personal injury that she suffered on June 7, 2015, when hit by a
ball at Dodgers Stadium.

Plaintiffs Gail Payne and Stephanie Smith assert these claims
against the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball d/b/a Major
League Baseball (MLB), its acting Commissioner Robert D. Manfred,
Jr., and all 30 MLB teams.

Plaintiff Payne alleges that she experiences fear as a result of
the lack of netting at these stadiums. She testified that she
fears for her safety and feels like she's in imminent danger of
being hit by a ball when attending games at the Oakland Coliseum
sitting in certain sections of the stadium that are unprotected by
netting because foul balls sometimes enter in these sections.
Payne recounted an instance when she might have been hit by a foul
ball that came into her section if she had not ducked out of its
way. Notwithstanding her experience, Payne has never been injured
at an A's game at the Oakland Coliseum. She plans to attend future
games at the Coliseum, but cannot say on which dates and has not
purchased any tickets yet.

Plaintiff Smith testified that she is afraid of attending baseball
games, but her fear is grounded in a serious injury she sustained
while attending a Dodgers game in June 2015. She has not attended
any games in California since that time, turning down invitations
due to her fear. She does not intend to attend any future games.
However, she would consider attending future games if netting were
expanded.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing that plaintiffs lack
standing to assert their claims for injunctive relief, as their
risk of future injury is speculative and not sufficiently
immediate.

On April 8, 2016, the court granted in part defendants' motion to
dismiss against the non-California-based Clubs for lack of
personal jurisdiction, but deferred its ruling on the remainder of
the motion to allow for limited jurisdictional discovery and
supplemental briefing related to the issue of standing. The court
allowed discovery related to the probability that a given
individual, seated in plaintiffs' specific sections at the two
California stadiums in question, would be hit by a stray ball or
bat in the course of a given game or season.

Judge Rogers granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
first amended complaint. The court concludes that plaintiff Payne
does not have standing to bring her claims and dismisses Counts 1-
5 with respect to Payne.

Unlike Payne, plaintiff Smith was actually injured while attending
an L.A. Dodgers game in Los Angeles on June 7, 2015. Nevertheless,
the analysis with respect to standing for Counts 1-5 is similar.
Smith's fear, while understandable, is not supported by data
showing injury to be likely to reoccur, and such is insufficient
for standing under Counts 1-5. The fact that plaintiff Smith has
already been injured by a foul ball before does not increase her
risk of injury in future. In fact, her awareness of the risks
associated with stadium distractions arguably reduces her risk
compared to the average attendee. The court grants defendants'
motion to dismiss with respect to Smith as well. Having dismissed
Counts 1-5 with respect to both plaintiffs Payne and Smith on the
threshold issue of standing, the court need not evaluate
defendants' other proffered bases for dismissal.

On count 6, plaintiff Smith has not specified against which
defendant or defendants she brought her personal injury claim. As
her injury occurred at the Los Angeles Dodgers stadium, the court
analyzes her claim as against the Los Angeles Dodgers. First, the
Los Angeles Dodgers are a resident of the Central District of
California, not the Northern District of California. Therefore,
venue is improper here under 28 U.S.C. section 1391(b)(1). Second,
Smith sustained her injury in Los Angeles, which means that no
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the
claim occurred in the Northern District of California. Third,
plaintiff may bring her claim in the Central District of
California. Accordingly, the court dismisses Count 6 on improper
venue grounds.

Judge Rogers dismisses without leave to amend counts 1-5 for lack
of standing and dismisses without prejudice or leave to amend
count 6, plaintiff Smith's individual claim for negligence in
connection with her personal injury.

A copy of Judge Rogers's order dated November 16, 2016, is
available at https://goo.gl/lXeGXt from Leagle.com.

Gail Payne, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D. Friedman --
jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Anthea Grivas -- antheag@hbsslaw.com --
Jerrod C. Patterson -- jerrodp@hbsslaw.com -- Steve W. Berman --
steve@hbsslaw.com -- at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP; Marion
Magdalene Reilly -- Robert Carl Hilliard -- at Hilliard Munoz
Gonzales, LLP

Stephanie Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Jerrod C. Patterson --
jerrodp@hbsslaw.com -- Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- at
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP; Marion Magdalene Reilly -- Robert
Carl Hilliard -- at Hilliard Munoz Gonzales, LLP

Robert Gorman, Plaintiff, represented by Steve W. Berman --
steve@hbsslaw.com -- at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP; Marion
Magdalene Reilly -- Robert Carl Hilliard -- at Hilliard Munoz
Gonzales, LLP

The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, The Oakland Athletics, The
Toronto Blue Jays, The San Francisco Giants, The San Diego Padres,
The Los Angeles Dodgers, Toronto Blue Jays Baseball Club, San
Francisco Giants Enterprises LLC, San Diego Padres Baseball Club,
L.P., Oakland Athletics Limited Partnership, Los Angeles Dodgers
LLC, Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, Robert D. Manfred,
Jr., and Angels Baseball LP, Defendants, represented by John
Watkins Keker -- jkeker@kvn.com -- Philip James Tassin --
ptassin@kvn.com -- Robert Adam Lauridsen -- alauridsen@kvn.com --
Thomas Edward Gorman -- tgorman@kvn.com -- at Keker & Van Nest LLP

The Seattle Mariners, The Texas Rangers, The Kansas City Royals,
The Minnesota Twins, The Houston Astros, The Detroit Tigers, The
Cleveland Indians, The Chicago White Sox, The New York Yankees,
The Tampa Bay Rays, The Boston Red Sox, The Baltimore Orioles, The
Colorado Rockies, The Arizona Diamondbacks, The St. Louis
Cardinals, The Pittsburg Pirates, The Milwaukee Brewers, The
Cincinnati Reds, The Chicago Cubs, The Washington Nationals, The
New York Mets, The Miami Marlins, The Atlantic Braves, Washington
Nationals Baseball Club, LLC, Tampa Bay Rays Baseball Limited,
Rangers Baseball Express LLC, St. Louis Cardinals LLC, The
Baseball Club of Seattle LLP, Pittsburgh Associates, LP, The
Philadelphia Phillies, New York Yankees Partnership, Sterling
Mets, L.P., Minnesota Twins Baseball Club, Milwaukee Brewers
Baseball Club, L.P., Miami Marlins, L.P., Kansas City Royals,
Houston Astros, LLC, Detroit Tigers, Inc., Colorado Rockies
Baseball Club, Ltd., Cleveland Indians Baseball Company Limited
Partnership, The Cincinnati Reds LLC, Chicago White Sox Ltd.,
Chicago National League Ball Club, LLC, Boston Red Sox Baseball
Club Limited Partnership, Baltimore Orioles Limited Partnership,
Atlanta National League Baseball Club, Inc., and Arizona
Professional Baseball LP, Defendant, represented by John Watkins
Keker -- jkeker@kvn.com -- Philip James Tassin -- ptassin@kvn.com
-- at Keker & Van Nest LLP


MARS INC: E.D. Pa. Judge Sends FACTA Suit to S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lawrence F. Stengel of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted defendant's motion to dismiss the case
COLLEEN CAMPBELL, Plaintiff. v. MARS, INC., Defendant, Civil
Action No. 16-4035 (E.D. Pa.)

Mars, Inc. is a large manufacturer of food products, with its most
recognizable brand being M & M chocolates. It is a privately held
Delaware corporation headquartered in McLean, Virginia and s has a
subsidiary, Mars Drinks, LLC, headquartered in West Chester,
Pennsylvania and incorporated in Delaware. Mars operates M & M
themed stores in New York, Nevada, and Florida.

Colleen Campbell visited the Times Square M & M store in New York
on July 23, 2016 and made a purchase with her credit card. The
computer generated receipt she received displayed the first six
digits and last four digits of her credit card number. On July 27,
2016, Campbell brought a putative class action suit against Mars,
alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act (FACTA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1681c(g)(1).

Mars filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal
jurisdiction, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and for failure
to state a claim.

Judge Stengel granted defendant's motion to dismiss as the present
court lacks personal jurisdiction over the subject matter and
transferred the case to the Southern District of New York.

The court cannot exercise general jurisdiction over Mars in
Pennsylvania, Judge Stengel said. Mars is incorporated in Delaware
and headquartered in Virginia. The Pennsylvania market comprises
less than 8% of Mars's total sales. And the contacts of Mars
Drinks, a subsidiary of Mars located in West Chester,
Pennsylvania, do not reach a sufficient magnitude to render Mars's
contacts so continuous and systematic as to render them
essentially at home in Pennsylvania.

A copy of Judge Stengel's memorandum dated November 22, 2016, is
available at https://goo.gl/QLhqgf from Leagle.com.

COLLEEN CAMPBELL, Plaintiff, represented by:

ERIC G. ZAJAC, Esq.
ZAJAC ARIAS & TRICHON PC
1835 Market Street, 26th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: 215-575-7615
Facsimile: 215-575-7640

MARS, INC., Defendant, represented by GINA ROSWELL --
groswell@brownconnery.com -- STEPHEN J. DEFEO --
sdefeo@brownconnery.com -- at BROWN & CONNERY LLP; CHRISTOPHER
ALAN SUAREZ -- csuarez@wc.com -- KENNETH J. BROWN -- kbrown@wc.com
-- at WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP


MCKESSON CORP: "Hunt" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Veronica L. Hunt, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. McKesson Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-01390, (W.D. Pa., December 8, 2016), seeks money damages
in an amount equal to the overtime compensation they are due;
liquidated damages; interest; reasonable attorney fees and costs;
and all other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

McKesson Corporation is headquartered at One Post Street, San
Francisco, CA 94104. It provides pharmaceutical, medical supplies
and health care solutions for medical providers, pharmacies,
health plans and manufacturers in Pennsylvania and elsewhere in
the United States. Defendant hired Plaintiff as a SalesForce.com
Administrator on or about October 1, 2014. She is currently titled
as a Marketing Research analyst, normally working in excess of 50
hours each week without overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
      THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP
      100 First Avenue, Suite 650
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Tel: (412) 227-0763
      Email: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com

             - and -

      John R. Linkosky, Esq.
      JOHN LINKOSKY & ASSOCIATES
      715 Washington Avenue
      Carnegie, PA 15106
      Tel: (412) 278-1280
      Email: linklaw@comcast.net


MDL 1917: Chunghwa Settlement Allocation Plan Has Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the Northern District of California
granted final approval of the Chunghwa settlement allocation plan,
in the case entitled IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. This Order Relates To: ALL INDIRECT PURCHASER ACTIONS,
Case No. C-07-5944 JST (N.D. Cal.)

The case is predicated upon an alleged conspiracy to price-fix
cathode ray tubes (CRTs), a core component of tube-style screens
for common devices including televisions and computer monitors.
The conspiracy ran from March 1, 1995 to November 25, 2007, which
involved many of the major companies that produced CRTs, and
allegedly resulted in overcharges of hundreds of millions, if not
billions, of U.S. dollars to domestic companies that purchased and
sold CRTs or finished products containing CRTs for purposes such
as personal use.

The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' (IPPs) settled with Chunghwa
for $10,000,000 in 2011. The Chunghwa settlement postponed
approval of the allocation of funds pending additional settlements
with the remaining defendants.

On July 7, 2016, the court granted final approval of the
settlements between the IPPs and those other defendants.  In the
same order, the court preliminarily approved the Chunghwa
settlement allocation plan and notice procedures, but ordered that
the claim period be reopened for 120 days for resellers in the 24
Chunghwa settlement states. The court gave resellers 60 days to
object to the settlement because they had not been given notice of
the plan or the opportunity to file claims.

The IPPs have submitted a memorandum of points and authorities in
support of final approval of the Chunghwa Settlement allocation
plan, stating that that notice was provided in accordance with the
court's order. The IPPs have proposed that each state's pro rata
share will be divided 50/50 between resellers and end-users, and
then distributed to reseller and end-user claimants on a pro rata
basis. Under the plan, payment amounts will be based on the number
of valid claims filed, as well as on the number and type of CRT
Products purchased.

Judge Tigar granted final approval of the Chunghwa settlement
allocation plan, lifted the stay on the distribution of funds, and
authorized plaintiffs to distribute the settlement funds to class
members.

Under the Chunghwa settlement, funds will be distributed to
claimants in 24 states pro rata in accordance with those states'
respective populations in 2000. The Attorneys General of Illinois
and Oregon will be allocated 8.59% and 2.37% of the Net Settlement
Fund, respectively. The Attorneys General will distribute those
monies to residents of Illinois and Oregon, with the remaining
funds distributed to claimants in the other 22 states. Objections
to the 50/50 allocation were considered and rejected by the court
in its July 7 order, and no additional objections have been
received. As the court recognized, although it is possible that a
more precise allocation plan could be fashioned, undertaking such
an effort would be time consuming and costly. Moreover, the
standard of review requires only an allocation plan that has a
reasonable, rational basis, it does not require the best possible
plan of allocation. The court sees no reason to change its
conclusion that the 50/50 allocation is fair, reasonable, and
adequate.

A copy of Judge Tigar's order dated November 16, 2016, is
available at https://goo.gl/1PAEqC from Leagle.com.

Mr. Martin Quinn, Special Master, Pro Se

Crago, Inc., on behalf of itself and others similarly situated dba
Dash Computers, Inc. a Kansas City corporation, Plaintiff,
represented by Bruce Lee Simon -- bsimon@pswlaw.com -- Ashlei
Melissa Vargas -- Clifford H. Pearson -- cpearson@pswlaw.com --
Daniel L. Warshaw -- dwarshaw@pswlaw.com -- Jonathan Mark Watkins
-- Aaron M. Sheanin -- asheanin@pswlaw.com -- at Pearson Simon &
Warshaw, LLP; Guido Saveri -- guido@saveri.com -- at Saveri &
Saveri, Inc.; Christopher Wilson -- Daniel D. Owen --
dowen@polsinelli.com -- Patrick John Brady --
jbrady@polsinelli.com -- at Polsinelli Shughart PC; Esther L.
Klisura -- eklisura@slenvironment.com -- at SL Environmental Law
Group PC; Anne M. Nardacci -- anardacci@bsfllp.com -- at Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP; James P. McCarthy --
jmccarthy@lindquist.com -- at Lindquist & Vennum

Hawel A. Hawel d/b/a City Electronics, a California business,
Plaintiff, represented by Betty Lisa Julian --
betty.julian@mccormickbarstow.com -- at McCormick Barstow LLP;
Cadio R. Zirpoli -- zirpoli@saveri.com -- Geoffrey Conrad Rushing
-- GRushing@saveri.com -- Gianna Christa Gruenwald -- Guido Saveri
-- guido@saveri.com -- Richard Alexander Saveri -- rick@saveri.com
-- at at Saveri & Saveri, Inc.; Anne M. Nardacci --
anardacci@bsfllp.com -- at Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP; Fred A.
Silva -- fsilva@damrell.com -- Clinton Paul Walker -- Kathy Lee
Monday -- kmonday@damrell.com -- Roger Martin Schrimp --
rschrimp@damrell.com -- at Damrell, Nelson, Schrimp, Pallios,
Pache & Silva

Orion Home Systems, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Cadio R.
Zirpoli -- zirpoli@saveri.com -- Geoffrey Conrad Rushing --
GRushing@saveri.com -- Guido Saveri -- guido@saveri.com -- Richard
Alexander Saveri -- rick@saveri.com -- at at Saveri & Saveri,
Inc.; Joseph W. Cotchett -- jcotchett@cpmlegal.com -- Steven Noel
Williams -- swilliams@cpmlegal.com -- at Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy
LLP; Anne M. Nardacci -- anardacci@bsfllp.com -- at Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP; James P. McCarthy --
jmccarthy@lindquist.com -- at Lindquist & Vennum; Randy R. Renick
-- rrr@hadsellstormer.com -- at Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP;
Terry Gross -- terry@gba-law.com -- Adam C. Belsky -- adam@gba-
law.com -- Monique Alonso -- monique@gba-law.com -- Sarah Crowley
-- at Gross Belsky Alonso LLP

Jeffrey Figone, a California resident, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian
Joseph Barry -- bribarry1@yahoo.com -- at Law Offices of Brian
Barry; Dennis Stewart -- dstewart@hulettharper.com -- Julie A.
Kearns -- at Hulett Harper Stewart LLP; Donald L. Perelman --
dperelman@finekaplan.com -- Gerard A. Dever --
gdever@finekaplan.com -- Matthew Duncan -- mduncan@finekaplan.com
-- at Fine Kaplan & Black RPC; Jeffrey Chad Shea --
sheaj_2000@yahoo.com -- at Jeffrey Chad Shea, Attorney at Law;
Joseph Goldberg -- JG@FBDLAW.com -- Josh Ewing -- Vincent J. Ward
-- VJW@FBDLAW.com -- at Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Urias &
Ward PA; Veronica Besmer -- veronica@besmerlaw.com -- Besmer Law
Firm; Joseph Mario Patane -- Lauren Clare Capurro --
laurenrussell@tatp.com -- Mario Nunzio Alioto -- malioto@tatp.com
-- at Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP

Chad Klebs, a Minnesota resident, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Craig C.
Corbitt -- ccorbitt@zelle.com -- Christopher Thomas Micheletti --
cmicheletti@zelle.com -- Judith A. Zahid -- jzahid@zelle.com --
Qianwei Fu -- qfu@zelle.com -- at Zelle LLP; Anne M. Nardacci --
anardacci@bsfllp.com -- at Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP; James
P. McCarthy -- jmccarthy@lindquist.com -- at Lindquist & Vennum;
Francis Onofrei Scarpulla -- fos@scarpullalaw.com -- Patrick
Bradford Clayton -- at Law Offices of Francis O. Scarpulla; Jennie
Lee Anderson -- jennie@andrusanderson.com -- Lori Erin Andrus --
lori@andrusanderson.com -- at Andrus Anderson LLP; Mario Nunzio
Alioto -- malioto@tatp.com -- at Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott,
LLP; Richard Michael Hagstrom -- rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com -- at
Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC

Princeton Display Technologies, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, a New Jersey corporation, Plaintiff,
represented by Bryan L. Clobes -- bclobes@caffertyclobes.com -- at
Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP; James P. McCarthy --
jmccarthy@lindquist.com -- at Lindquist & Vennum; Lee Albert --
lalbert@glancylaw.com -- Susan Gilah Kupfer --
skupfer@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP; James E.
Cecchi -- JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- Lindsey H. Taylor --
LTaylor@carellabyrne.com -- at Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody
& Agnello, P.C.; Anne M. Nardacci -- anardacci@bsfllp.com -- at
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP; Marisa C. Livesay --
livesay@whafh.com -- Betsy Carol Manifold -- manifold@whafh.com --
Francis M. Gregorek -- Gregorek@whafh.com -- Rachele R. Rickert --
rickert@whafh.com -- at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP

Carmen Gonzalez, a California resident, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated,, Plaintiff, represented by James
McManis -- jmcmanis@mcmanislaw.com -- Marwa Elzankaly --
melzankaly@mcmanislaw.com -- at McManis Faulkner; Mario Nunzio
Alioto -- malioto@tatp.com -- at Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott,
LLP; Anne M. Nardacci -- anardacci@bsfllp.com -- at Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP; James P. McCarthy --
jmccarthy@lindquist.com -- at Lindquist & Vennum

Margaret Slagle, a Vermont resident, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated,Gary Hanson, a North Dakota resident, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, John
Larch, a West Virginia resident, David G. Norby, a Minnesota
resident, Craig Stephenson, a New Mexico resident, and Samuel J.
Nasto, a Nevada resident, Plaintiffs, represented by Joel Flom --
joel@flomlaw.com -- at Jeffries Olson & Flom PA; Joseph Mario
Patane -- Lauren Clare Capurro -- laurenrussell@tatp.com -- Mario
Nunzio Alioto -- malioto@tatp.com -- at Trump, Alioto, Trump &
Prescott, LLP; Anne M. Nardacci -- anardacci@bsfllp.com -- at
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP; James P. McCarthy --
jmccarthy@lindquist.com -- at Lindquist & Vennum; Kenneth Leo
Valinoti -- at Valinoti & Dito LLP; Lawrence Genaro Papale -- at
Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale; Robert B. Gerard -- at Gerard
Selden & Osuch; Sherman Kassof -- heevay@yahoo.com -- at Law
Offices of Sherman Kassof; M. Eric Frankovitch -- Michael G. Simon
-- at Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon; Seymour J.
Mansfield -- smansfield@foleymansfield.com -- at Foley & Mansfield

Barry Kushner, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Michelangelo Alioto,
Jr., -- Joseph M. Alioto, Sr. -- Angelina Alioto-Grace -- Theresa
Driscoll Moore -- at Alioto Law Firm; Daniel R. Karon --
dkaron@karonllc.com -- at Karon LLC; Daniel Joseph Mulligan -- at
St. James Recovery Services, P.C.; Derek G. Howard --
derek@dhowlaw.com -- at Derek G. Howard Law Firm, Inc.; Jeffrey D.
Bores -- jbores@chestnutcambronne.com -- at Chestnut & Cambronne

Brian A. Luscher, a Arizona resident, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Angelina
Alioto-Grace, Alioto Law Firm, Joseph Michelangelo Alioto, Jr.,
Alioto Law Firm, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump &
Prescott LLP, Robert James Pohlman, Ryley Carlock & Applewhite PC,
Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum

Steven Ganz, a California resident, Plaintiff, represented by John
Dmitry Bogdanov, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Josef Deen Cooper, Cooper
& Kirkham, P.C., Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump &
Prescott LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Tracy R. Kirkman, Cooper &
Kirkham PC

Dana Ross, a California resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Kathleen Styles Rogers, The Kralowec Law Group, Susan Gilah
Kupfer, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum

Brigid Terry, a Wisconsin resident, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jean B. Roth,
Mansfield Tanick & Cohen, Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto,
Trump & Prescott, LLP, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP,
Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, Mario
Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Robert J.
Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC, Seymour J. Mansfield,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman
Kassof, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James
P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum

Southern Office Supply, Inc, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gilmur Roderick
Murray, Murray & Howard, LLP, Daniel R. Karon, Karon LLC, Donna F.
Solen, Lexington Law Group, Drew A. Carson, Miller Goler Faeges,
Issac L. Diel, Sharp McQueen, Krishna Brian Narine, Meredith
Narine, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP,
Steven J. Miller, Miller Goler Faeges, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum

Meijer, Inc., On behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory K. Arenson, Kaplan Fox
and Kilsheimer LLP, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Kilsheimer & Fox LLP,
David Paul Germaine, pro hac vice, Gary Laurence Specks, Kaplan
Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Joseph Michael Vanek, Vanek Vickers & Masini
PC, pro hac vice, Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group PC,
pro hac vice, Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C.,
Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum

Meijer Distribution, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory K. Arenson,
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Kilsheimer
& Fox LLP, David Paul Germaine, pro hac vice, Gary Laurence
Specks, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Joseph Michael Vanek, Vanek
Vickers & Masini PC, pro hac vice, Linda Phyllis Nussbaum,
Nussbaum LLP, pro hac vice, Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law
Group, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP &
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum

Arch Electronics, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J.
Bolognese, Bolognese & Associates LLC, Gregory K. Arenson, Kaplan
Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer, LLP, pro hac vice, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer, LLP, Joshua H. Grabar, Bolognese & Associates, LLC,
Kevin Bruce Love, Hanzman Criden & Love, P.A., pro hac vice, Linda
Phyllis Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum

Studio Spectrum, Inc., is a California business, Plaintiff,
represented by Steven F. Benz, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd,
Collin R. White, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel,
P.L.L.C, pro hac vice, David Nathan-Allen Sims, Saveri & Saveri,
Inc., Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc. & James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum

Kory Pentland, a Michigan resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Jeff S. Westerman, Westerman
Law Corp, Paul F. Novak, Milberg LLP, pro hac vice, Andrew J.
Morganti, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump &
Prescott LLP, Peter G.A. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum

Radio & TV Equipment, Inc, is a business headquartered in Fargo,
North Dakota, Plaintiff, represented by Lisa J. Rodriguez,
Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards LLP, Jason Kilene, Gustafson Gluek
PLLC, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum

Brady Lane Cotton, a Florida resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Christina
Diane Crow, Jinks, Crow & Dickson P.C., J. Matthew Stephens,
McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, James Michael Terrell, McCallum,
Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto,
Trump & Prescott, LLP, Robert Gordon Methvin, Jr., McCallum
Methvin & Terrell PC, Robert Gordon Methvin, Jr., McCallum,
Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Lynn W.
Jinks, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC & Nathan A. Dickson, Jinks Crow &
Dickson PC

Colleen Sobotka, a Florida resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP,
Christopher William Cantrell, J. Matthew Stephens, McCallum
Methvin & Terrell PC, James Michael Terrell, McCallum, Methvin &
Terrell, P.C., Keith Thomson Belt, Jr., Belt Law Firm, P.C.,
Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Robert
Page Bruner, Belt Law Firm, P.C., Robert Gordon Methvin, Jr.,
McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, Robert Gordon Methvin, Jr.,
McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum,
Lynn W. Jinks, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC & Nathan A. Dickson, Jinks
Crow & Dickson PC

Daniel Riebow, a Hawaii resident, Plaintiff, represented by Mario
Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare
Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum

Travis Burau, a Iowa resident, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth
Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump
& Prescott LLP, Paul F. Novak, Milberg LLP, pro hac vice, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum

Andrew Kindt, a Michigan resident, Plaintiff, represented by James
P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto
Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump &
Prescott, LLP & Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP

James Brown, a Michigan resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Paul F. Novak, Milberg LLP, pro hac
vice, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum

Alan Rotman, a Minnesota resident, Plaintiff, represented by Mario
Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare
Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum

Ryan Rizzo, a Minnesota resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Paul F. Novak, Milberg LLP, pro hac
vice, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum

Charles Jenkins, a Mississippi resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, J. Matthew
Stephens, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, James Michael Terrell,
McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump,
Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Robert Gordon Methvin, Jr.,
McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Lynn W.
Jinks, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC & Nathan A. Dickson, Jinks Crow &
Dickson PC

Daniel R. Hergert, a Nebraska resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum

Adrienne Belai, a New York resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum

Joshua Maida, a North Carolina resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Paul F. Novak, Milberg LLP, pro hac
vice, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum

Rosemary Ciccone, a Rhode Island resident, Plaintiff, represented
by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Robert J.
Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC, Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum

Frank Warner, a Tennessee resident, Plaintiff, represented by
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum

Albert Sidney Crigler, a Tennessee resident, Plaintiff,
represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott
LLP, Robert Brent Irby, McCallum, Hoaguland Cook & Irby LLP, Eric
D. Hoaglund, McCallum Hoaglund Cook & Irby LLP, Lauren Clare
Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Richard Freeman
Horsley, King, Horsley & Lyons, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Richard
Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Aaron M. Sheanin,
Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Allan Steyer, Steyer Lowenthal
Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Christopher L. Lebsock, Hausfeld
LLP, David Yau-Tian Hwu, Saveri and Saveri Inc., Donald Scott
Macrae, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Guido
Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Jayne Ann Peeters, Steyer Lowenthal
Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Jill Michelle Manning, Steyer
Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Matthew Dickinson
Heaphy, Saveri and Saveri, Michael Paul Lehmann, Hausfeld LLP,
Stephanie Yunjin Cho, Hausfeld LLP, Travis Luke Manfredi, Saveri
and Saveri Inc, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum & P. John Brady, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy PC

Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Lingel
Hart Winters, Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters, Robert J.
Gralewski, Jr., Kirby McInerney LLP, Charles Matthew Thompson,
Charles M. Thompson, P.C., Craig C. Corbitt, Zelle LLP, Jennie Lee
Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP, Jennifer Susan Rosenberg, Bramson,
Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser, John Dmitry Bogdanov, Cooper &
Kirkham, P.C., Josef Deen Cooper, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Joseph
Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Judith A.
Zahid, Zelle LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump &
Prescott, LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott
LLP, Sylvie K. Kern, Law Offices of Sylvie Kulkin Kern, Theresa
Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm, Tracy R. Kirkham, Cooper &
Kirkham, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Kirby
McInerney LLP, Charles Matthew Thompson, Charles M. Thompson,
P.C., Christopher Thomas Micheletti, Zelle LLP, Craig C. Corbitt,
Zelle LLP, David Nathan Lake, Law Offices of David N. Lake,
Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Law Offices of Francis O. Scarpulla,
Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP, John Dmitry Bogdanov,
Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Josef Deen Cooper, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C.,
Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Judith
A. Zahid, Zelle LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump &
Prescott, LLP, Lawrence Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G.
Papale, Lingel Hart Winters, Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters,
Matthew Duncan, Fine, Kaplan and Black, RPC, Paul F. Novak,
Milberg LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Brent Irby, McCallum, Hoaguland
Cook & Irby LLP, Sylvie K. Kern, Law Offices of Sylvie Kulkin
Kern, Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm, Timothy D. Battin,
Straus & Boies LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner,
LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum

State of Washington, State of Washington Attorney General 800 5th
Avenue Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 206-464-7030 State of
Washington, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan A. Mark, Attorney
General of Washington, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum

Electrograph Systems, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies Schiller &
Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum

Electrograph Technologies Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies Schiller &
Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum

Interbond Corporation of America, Plaintiff, represented by Stuart
Harold Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner, William A. Isaacson,
Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP &
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum

Office Depot, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Stuart Harold
Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & James
P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum

Compucom Systems Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Lewis Titus
LeClair, McKool Smith, P.C., William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Mike
McKool, McKool Smith, P.C., Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum

Costco Wholesale Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Cori
Gordon Moore, Perkins Coie LLP, David Burman, Perkins Coie LLP,
pro hac vice, David P. Chiappetta, Perkins Coie LLP, Eric J.
Weiss, PERKINS COIE LLP, Euphemia Nikki Thomopulos, Hirschfeld
Kraemer LLP, Nicholas H. Hesterberg, Perkins Coie LLP, pro hac
vice, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Steven
Douglas Merriman, Perkins Coie LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner,
LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum

Alfred H. Siegel, Alfred H. Siegel, as Trustee of the Circuit City
Stores, Inc. Liquidating Trust, Plaintiff, represented by Brian
Gillett, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., David M. Peterson, Susman Godfrey
LLP, John Pierre Lahad, Susman Godfrey LLP, Johnny William Carter,
Susman Godfrey LLP, Jonathan Jeffrey Ross, Susman Godfrey L.L.P.,
Jonathan Mark Weiss, Klee Tuchin Bogdanoff Stern LLP, Matthew C.
Behncke, Susman Godfrey LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, Robert J. Pfister, Klee, Tuchin, Bogdanoff & Stern
LLP, Robert Sabre Safi, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Samuel J. Randall,
Kenny Nachwalter PA, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James
P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Kenneth S. Marks

Department of Legal Affairs, Plaintiff, represented by Patricia A.
Conners, Attorney General's Office, R. Scott Palmer, Office of the
Attorney General, Liz Ann Brady, Office of the Attorney General,
Nicholas J. Weilhammer, Office of the Attorney General, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum

Office of the Attorney General, Plaintiff, represented by Patricia
A. Conners, Attorney General's Office, R. Scott Palmer, Office of
the Attorney General, Liz Ann Brady, Office of the Attorney
General, Nicholas J. Weilhammer, Office of the Attorney General,
Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum

Best Buy Co., Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Bernice Conn, Robins
Kaplan L.L.P., David Martinez, Robins Kaplan LLP, Jill Sharon
Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Kenneth S.
Marks, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Samuel J.
Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller
& Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, K. Craig
Wildfang, Attorney at Law & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan
L.L.P.

Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Bernice Conn, Robins Kaplan L.L.P., David Martinez, Robins Kaplan
LLP, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi
L.L.P., Kenneth S. Marks, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, Samuel J. Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA, William A.
Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller &
Ciresi, K. Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law & Roman M. Silberfeld,
Robins Kaplan L.L.P.

Best Buy Purchasing LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Bernice Conn,
Robins Kaplan L.L.P., David Martinez, Robins Kaplan LLP, Jill
Sharon Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P.,
Kenneth S. Marks, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner
LLP, Samuel J. Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA, William A. Isaacson,
Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, K.
Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins
Kaplan L.L.P.

Best Buy Stores, L.P., Plaintiff, represented by Bernice Conn,
Robins Kaplan L.L.P., David Martinez, Robins Kaplan LLP, Jill
Sharon Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P.,
Kenneth S. Marks, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner
LLP, Samuel J. Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA, William A. Isaacson,
Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, K.
Craig Wildfang, Attorney at Law & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins
Kaplan L.L.P.

Best Buy.com LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Bernice Conn, Robins
Kaplan L.L.P., David Martinez, Robins Kaplan LLP, Jill Sharon
Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Kenneth S.
Marks, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Samuel J.
Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller
& Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, K. Craig
Wildfang, Attorney at Law & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan
L.L.P.

Magnolia Hi-Fi, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan LLP, Kenneth S. Marks, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Elliot
S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Jill Sharon Casselman,
Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., K. Craig Wildfang,
Attorney at Law & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan L.L.P.

Good Guys, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner
LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.
KMart Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP, William J. Blechman, Kenny Nachwalter PA,
Christina Maria Ceballos-Levy, Kenny Nachwalter, P.A., pro hac
vice, Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP, Jalaine Garcia, James T.
Almon, Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Kenneth S. Marks, Kevin J. Murray,
Kenny Nachwalter PA, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner
LLP, Richard A. Arnold, Kenny Nachwalter, Ryan C. Zagare, Kenny
Nachwalter, PA, Samuel J. Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA & William
A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner

Old Comp Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell
& Moring LLP, Daniel Allen Sasse, Crowell & Moring LLP, Deborah
Ellen Arbabi, Crowell and Moring LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner

Radioshack Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Daniel Allen Sasse, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Deborah Ellen Arbabi, Crowell and Moring LLP, Philip J. Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner

Sears, Roebuck and Co., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP, William J. Blechman, Kenny Nachwalter PA,
Christina Maria Ceballos-Levy, Kenny Nachwalter, P.A., pro hac
vice, Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP, Jalaine Garcia, James T.
Almon, Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Kenneth S. Marks, Philip J. Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Richard A. Arnold, Kenny
Nachwalter, Ryan C. Zagare, Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Samuel J.
Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller
& Flexner & Kevin J. Murray, Kenny Nachwalter PA

Target Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell &
Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and Moring LLP,
Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Kenneth S. Marks, Matthew
J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP,
Samuel J. Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA & William A. Isaacson,
Boies Schiller & Flexner

Giovanni Constabile, On behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lingel Hart Winters,
Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters

Gio's Inc, a California corporation, Plaintiff, represented by
Lingel Hart Winters, Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters.
Schultze Agency Services, LLC, on behalf of Tweeter Opco, LLC and
Tweeter Newco, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by William A. Isaacson,
Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP &
Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP

Tweeter Newco, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner &
Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP.
ABC Appliance, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner

Marta Cooperative of America, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Anne
M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner

P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, Plaintiff, represented
by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J.
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson,
Boies Schiller & Flexner

Sharp Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Colin C. West, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP & Jonathan Alan Patchen, Taylor & Company Law
Offices, LLP

Janet Ackerman, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Chad Shea,
Attorney at Law

Gloria Comeaux, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. Bonsignore,
Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Kerry Lee Hall, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. Gralewski,
Jr., Gergosian & Gralewski LLP, Christopher Thomas Micheletti,
Zelle LLP & Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney LLP

Jeff Speaect, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. Bonsignore,
Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC

Tech Data Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Melissa Willett,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, Mitchell E. Widom, Bilzin Sumberg Baena
Price & Axelrod, LLP, Robert Turken, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price &
Axelrod LLP, Scott N. Wagner, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod
LLP, pro hac vice, Stuart Harold Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner,
William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP & Philip J. Iovieno, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP

Tech Data Product Management, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Robert Turken, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J. Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Scott N. Wagner, Bilzin Sumberg
Baena Price & Axelrod LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner

Sharp Electronics Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Cheryl
Ann Galvin, Taylor & Company Law Offices, Craig A. Benson, Paul
Weiss LLP, Gary R. Carney, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and
Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan Alan Patchen, Taylor &
Company Law Offices, LLP, Joseph J. Simons, Paul Weiss LLP,
Kenneth A. Gallo, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP,
Kenneth S. Marks, Kira A. Davis, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and
Garrison LLP, pro hac vice & Stephen E. Taylor, Taylor & Company
Law Offices, LLP

Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America, Inc.,
Plaintiff, represented by Cheryl Ann Galvin, Taylor & Company Law
Offices, Craig A. Benson, Paul Weiss LLP, Gary R. Carney, Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan
Alan Patchen, Taylor & Company Law Offices, LLP, Joseph J. Simons,
Paul Weiss LLP, Kenneth A. Gallo, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP, Kenneth S. Marks, Kira A. Davis, Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison LLP, pro hac vice & Stephen E.
Taylor, Taylor & Company Law Offices, LLP

Dell Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Debra Dawn Bernstein, Alston
& Bird LLP, Elizabeth Helmer Jordan, Alston & Bird LLP, Matthew
David Kent, Michael P. Kenny, Alston & Bird LLP, Rodney J. Ganske,
Alston & Bird LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP &
Michael John Newton, Alston & Bird

Dell Products L.P., Plaintiff, represented by Debra Dawn
Bernstein, Alston & Bird LLP, Elizabeth Helmer Jordan, Alston &
Bird LLP, Matthew David Kent, Alston + Bird LLP, Michael P. Kenny,
Alston & Bird LLP, Rodney J. Ganske, Alston & Bird LLP, James
Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP & Michael John Newton,
Alston & Bird

Magnolia Hi-Fi, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan LLP, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller
and Ciresi L.L.P., Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi
& Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan L.L.P.

Viewsonic Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and
Moring LLP, Daniel Allen Sasse, Crowell & Moring LLP, Deborah
Ellen Arbabi, Crowell and Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell &
Moring LLP, Kenneth S. Marks, Matthew J. McBurney, Crowell &
Moring LLP, Robert Brian McNary, Crowell & Moring LLP & Samuel J.
Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA

JEFF CRAIG, Plaintiff, Pro se

MINA ASHKANNEJHAD, Plaintiff, Pro se

INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFF CLASS, Plaintiff, represented by Alan
R. Plutzik, Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP & Theresa
Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm

Eleanor Lewis, Plaintiff, Pro se

Kirby McInerney LLP, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J.
Gralewski, Jr., Kirby McInerney LLP

YRC, INC., Creditor, represented by Jeffrey M. Judd, Judd Law
Group

Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., ("Chunghwa Malaysia")
is a Malaysian company, and Chunghwa Picture Tubes, LTD.,
("Chunghwa PT") is a Taiwanese company, Defendants, represented by
Joel Steven Sanders -- jsanders@gibsondunn.com -- Austin Van
Schwing -- aschwing@gibsondunn.com -- Rachel S. Brass --
rbrass@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP; Adam C.
Hemlock -- adam.hemlock@weil.com -- at Weil Gotshal and Manges
LLP; David C. Brownstein -- dbrownstein@fbj-law.com -- Jacob P.
Alpren -- jalpren@fbj-law.com -- William S. Farmer -- wfarmer@fbj-
law.com -- at Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP

Hitachi, Ltd., is a Japanese company, Defendant, represented by
Eliot A. Adelson -- eliot.adelson@kirkland.com -- James Mutchnik -
- james.mutchnik@kirkland.com -- at Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Douglas
L. Wald -- douglas.wald@aporter.com -- Sharon D. Mayo --
sharon.mayo@aporter.com -- at Arnold & Porter LLP; Katherine
Hamilton Wheaton; Christopher M. Curran -- ccurran@whitecase.com -
- at White & Case; Jeffrey L. Kessler -- jkessler@winston.com --
Winston & Strawn LLP; John M. Taladay --
john.taladay@bakerbotts.com -- Jon Vensel Swenson --
jon.swenson@bakerbotts.com -- at Baker Botts L.L.P.; Michael W.
Scarborough -- mscarborough@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP; Steven Alan Reiss --
steven.reiss@weil.com -- at Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP

Hitachi America, Ltd., ("Hitachi America") is a New York company,
Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson --
eliot.adelson@kirkland.com -- James Mutchnik --
james.mutchnik@kirkland.com -- at Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Jeffrey L.
Kessler -- jkessler@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP; Katherine
Hamilton Wheaton; Michael W. Scarborough --
mscarborough@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP

Hitachi Asia, Ltd., ("Hitachi Asia") is a Singaporean company,
Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson --
eliot.adelson@kirkland.com -- James Mutchnik --
james.mutchnik@kirkland.com -- Barack Shem Echols --
barack.echols@kirkland.com -- at Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Adam C.
Hemlock -- adam.hemlock@weil.com -- Steven Alan Reiss --
steven.reiss@weil.com -- at Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP;
Christopher M. Curran -- ccurran@whitecase.com -- at White & Case;
Jeffrey L. Kessler -- jkessler@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn
LLP; John M. Taladay -- john.taladay@bakerbotts.com -- Jon Vensel
Swenson -- jon.swenson@bakerbotts.com -- at Baker Botts L.L.P.;
Michael W. Scarborough -- mscarborough@sheppardmullin.com -- at
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP; Sharon D. Mayo --
sharon.mayo@aporter.com -- Douglas L. Wald --
douglas.wald@aporter.com -- at Arnold & Porter LLP; Ian T. Simmons
-- isimmons@omm.com -- at O'Melveny & Myers LLP

Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd., (IDDC), and Irico Group Corp.,
(IGC) are Chinese entities, Defendants, represented by Joseph R.
Tiffany, II -- at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

Panasonic Corporation of North America, (PCNA) is a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, represented by David L. Yohai --
david.yohai@weil.com -- Bambo Obaro -- bambo.obaro@weil.com --
David E. Yolkut -- david.yolkut@weil.com -- Kajetan Rozga --
kajetan.rozga@weil.com -- Kevin B. Goldstein --
kevin.goldstein@weil.com -- Lara Elvidge Veblen --
lara.trager@weil.com -- Ryan Michael Goodland --
ryan.goodland@weil.com -- Steven A. Reiss -- steven.reiss@weil.com
-- Adam C. Hemlock -- adam.hemlock@weil.com -- at Weil Gotshal and
Manges LLP; Eva W. Cole -- ewcole@winston.com -- A. Paul Victor --
pvictor@winston.com -- Aldo A. Badini -- abadini@winston.com --
James F. Lerner -- jlerner@winston.com -- Jeffrey L. Kessler --
jkessler@winston.com -- Jennifer Stewart -- jstewart@winston.com -
- John Selim Tschirgi -- jtschirgi@winston.com -- Martin C.
Geagan, Jr. -- mgeagan@winston.com -- Matthew Robert DalSanto --
mdalsanto@winston.com -- Molly Donovan -- mmdonovan@winston.com --
Sofia Arguello -- sarguello@winston.com -- at Winston and Strawn
LLP; Amy Lee Stewart -- astewart@roselawfirm.com -- at Rose Law
Firm; Andrew R. Tillman -- at Paine Tarwater Bickers & Tillman;
Christopher M. Curran -- ccurran@whitecase.com -- at White & Case;
Douglas L. Wald -- douglas.wald@aporter.com -- Sharon D. Mayo --
sharon.mayo@aporter.com -- at Arnold & Porter LLP; John Clayton
Everett, Jr. -- clay.everett@morganlewis.com -- Kent Michael Roger
-- kent.roger@morganlewis.com -- Michelle Park Chiu --
michelle.chiu@morganlewis.com -- Scott A. Stempel --
scott.stempel@morganlewis.com -- atMorgan, Lewis Bockius LLP; John
M. Taladay -- john.taladay@bakerbotts.com -- Jon Vensel Swenson --
jon.swenson@bakerbotts.com -- at Baker Botts L.L.P.; Margaret Anne
Keane -- margaret.keane@dlapiper.com -- at DLA Piper LLP

Samtel Color, Ltd., ("Samtel") is a Indian company, Defendant,
represented by William Diaz -- wdiaz@mwe.com -- at McDermott Will
& Emery LLP

Beijing-Matsushita Color CRT Company, Ltd., ("BMCC") is a Chinese
company, Defendant, represented by Terry Calvani, Freshfields
Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and
Manges LLP, Bruce C. McCulloch, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US
LLP, Christine A. Laciak, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP,
Craig D. Minerva, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Jeffrey
L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Richard Sutton Snyder, Freshfields
Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP

LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., ("LGEUSA") is a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, represented by Miriam Kim, Munger, Tolles & Olson, Brad
D. Brian, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Cathleen Hamel Hartge, Munger
Tolles and Olson LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas
L. Wald, Esteban Martin Estrada, Munger Tolles and Olson, Hojoon
Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, John
Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice,
John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker
Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Laura K. Lin, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis
Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP,
Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Xiaochin Claire
Yan, Munger Tolles and Olson, LLP & William David Temko, Munger,
Tolles & Olson LLP

Philips Electronics North America Corporation, ("PENAC") is a
Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock,
Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,
Douglas L. Wald, Ethan E. Litwin, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett,
Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, John M. Taladay,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Joseph
A. Ostoyich, Howrey LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Richard P. Sobiecki, Baker Botts LLP, pro hac vice, Scott A.
Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon D. Mayo,
Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl
LLP, Stuart Christopher Plunkett, Baker Botts, Tiffany Belle
Gelott, Baker Botts LLP, pro hac vice, Van H. Beckwith, Baker
Botts L.L.P., pro hac vice & Erik T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, ("SEC") is a South Korean company,
Defendant, represented by Ian T. Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Michael Frederick Tubach, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Courtney C. Byrd,
pro hac vice, David Kendall Roberts, O'Melveny and Myers LLP,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Kent Michael Roger,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin Douglas Feder, O'Melveny and
Myers LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP, David Roberts, O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Haidee L.
Schwartz, O'Melveny & Myers LLP

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., ("SEAI") is a New York
corporation, Defendant, represented by Ian T. Simmons, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Michael Frederick Tubach, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Benjamin Gardner Bradshaw, O'Melveny & Meyers LLP, Courtney C.
Byrd, pro hac vice, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Kent
Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin Douglas Feder,
O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, David Roberts, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Haidee L. Schwartz, O'Melveny & Myers LLP & James Landon McGinnis,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

MT Picture Display Co., LTD, fka Matsushita Toshiba Picture
Display Co., Ltd. ("MTPD") is a Japanese entity, Defendant,
represented by A. Paul Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP, Aldo A.
Badini, Winston & Strawn LLP, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and
Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, David E. Yolkut,
Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Douglas L. Wald, Eva
W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, Gregory Hull, James F. Lerner,
Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton
Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kajetan Rozga, pro hac vice, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges
LLP, pro hac vice, Margaret Anne Keane, DLA Piper LLP, Martin C.
Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew Robert
DalSanto, Winston and Strawn LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis
& Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Scott A.
Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon D. Mayo,
Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP, pro
hac vice, Steven A. Reiss, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Steven Alan
Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal
and Manges LLP & David L. Yohai

Panasonic Corporation, fka Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.,
Ltd. ("MEI"), is a Japanese entity, Defendant, represented by
David L. Yohai, Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, A. Paul Victor,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston & Strawn LLP, Amy
Lee Stewart, Rose Law Firm, pro hac vice, Bambo Obaro, Weil,
Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, David E.
Yolkut, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Douglas L.
Wald, Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, James F. Lerner, Winston
& Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton
Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., John Selim Tschirgi, Winston and
Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P.,
Kajetan Rozga, pro hac vice, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Kevin B. Goldstein, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP,
Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, pro hac vice,
Margaret Anne Keane, DLA Piper LLP, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston
and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Molly M.
Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Ryan Michael
Goodland, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, pro hac vice, Scott A.
Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon D. Mayo,
Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP, pro
hac vice, Steven A. Reiss, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, pro hac
vice, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP & Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP

Hitachi Displays, Ltd., ("Hitachi Displays") is a Japanese company
also known as Japan Display Inc, Defendant, represented by Eliot
A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White &
Case, Douglas L. Wald, Ian T. Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
James Mutchnik, pro hac vice, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, pro hac vice,
Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil,
Gotshal & Mangesl LLP

Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), ("HEDUS") is a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland
& Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn
LLP & Katherine Hamilton Wheaton

Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda., ("Philips
Brazil") is a Brazilian company, Defendant, represented by Ethan
E. Litwin, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston
& Strawn LLP & Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P.

Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., ("HEDUS") is a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil
Gotshal and Manges LLP, Barack Shem Echols, Kirkland Ellis LLP,
pro hac vice, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L.
Wald, Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker
Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine
Hamilton Wheaton, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven
Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP

Beijing Matsushita Color Crt Company, LTD., Defendant, represented
by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP & Richard Sutton
Snyder, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP

Hitachi America, Ltd, Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges
LLP, Barack Shem Echols, Kirkland Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Ian T.
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James Mutchnik, pro hac vice &
Katherine Hamilton Wheaton

Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges
LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L. Wald, Ian T.
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel
Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP &
Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP

Hitachi Displays, Ltd., also known as Japan Display Inc,
Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Barack Shem Echols,
Kirkland Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher M. Curran, White &
Case, Douglas L. Wald, Ian T. Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, Michael W. Scarborough,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold &
Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP

Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Defendant, represented by Eliot
A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Ian T. Simmons, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, James Mutchnik, pro hac vice, Jeffrey L. Kessler,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, pro hac vice &
Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Hitachi Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland
& Ellis LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Barack
Shem Echols, Kirkland Ellis LLP, pro hac vice, Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Douglas L. Wald, Ian T. Simmons, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, James Mutchnik, pro hac vice, Jeffrey L. Kessler,
Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon
Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton,
pro hac vice, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan
Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP

Koninklijke Philips N.V., "KPNV", Defendant, represented by Adam
C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Christopher M. Curran,
White & Case, Douglas L. Wald, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, pro hac vice, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel
Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey LLP, Kent
Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Richard P. Sobiecki, Baker Botts LLP, pro hac
vice, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac vice,
Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil,
Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Stuart Christopher Plunkett, Baker Botts,
Tiffany Belle Gelott, Baker Botts LLP, pro hac vice, Van H.
Beckwith, Baker Botts L.L.P., pro hac vice & Erik T. Koons, Baker
Botts LLP

LG Electronics USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas L.
Wald, Miriam Kim, Munger, Tolles & Olson, William David Temko,
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and
Manges LLP, Cathleen Hamel Hartge, Munger Tolles and Olson LLP,
Esteban Martin Estrada, Munger Tolles and Olson, Gregory J.
Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Hojoon Hwang, Munger
Tolles & Olson LLP, Ian T. Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey
L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles
& Olson LLP, Xiaochin Claire Yan, Munger Tolles and Olson, LLP,
Bethany Woodard Kristovich, Munger Tolles and Olson LLP, Jonathan
Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson, Laura K. Lin, Munger,
Tolles and Olson LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP

MT Picture Display Co., LTD, Defendant, represented by Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, David L. Yohai, Weil,
Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, A. Paul Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP, Aldo
A. Badini, Winston & Strawn LLP, Amy Lee Stewart, Rose Law Firm,
pro hac vice, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher
M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L. Wald, Eva W. Cole, Winston &
Strawn LLP, James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart,
Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P.,
John Selim Tschirgi, Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Jon
Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin B. Goldstein, Weil, Gotshal and Manges
LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, pro hac
vice, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Molly M. Donovan, Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, Ryan
Michael Goodland, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, pro hac vice,
Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon
D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn
LLP, pro hac vice & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP

Panasonic Corporation, Defendant, represented by David L. Yohai,
Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and
Manges LLP, Amy Lee Stewart, Rose Law Firm, pro hac vice, Bambo
Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White &
Case, Douglas L. Wald, Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey
L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and
Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, pro hac vice, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel
Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, pro
hac vice, Matthew Robert DalSanto, Winston and Strawn LLP, Michael
W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle
Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston &
Strawn LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac
vice, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston
and Strawn LLP, pro hac vice & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal &
Mangesl LLP

Panasonic Corporation of North America, Defendant, represented by
David L. Yohai, Weil, Gotshal, & Manges, LLP, Amy Lee Stewart,
Rose Law Firm, pro hac vice, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and
Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L. Wald,
James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and
Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, pro hac vice, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel
Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP,
pro hac vice, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, pro
hac vice, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott
A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Sharon D.
Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP,
pro hac vice & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP

Philips Electronics Industries (Taiwan), Ltd., Defendant,
represented by Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P..
Philips Electronics North America, Defendant, represented by Jon
Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey LLP & Erik T. Koons, Baker
Botts LLP

Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda., Defendant,
represented by Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P..
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by David
Kendall Roberts, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Kent Michael Roger,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Defendant, represented by Ian T.
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP & Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP

Samtel Color, Ltd., Defendant, represented by William Diaz,
McDermott Will & Emery LLP

Toshiba America Consumer Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Samuel J. Sharp,
pro hac vice & William H. Bave, III, pro hac vice.
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brent
Caslin, Jenner & Block LLP, Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block
LLC, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Charles B.
Sklarsky, Jenner and Block, LLP, pro hac vice, Gabriel A. Fuentes,
Jenner & Block, LLP, Harold A. Barza, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, LLP, Jory M. Hoffman, Jenney & Block LLP, pro hac vice,
Kevin Yoshiwo Teruya, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP,
Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block LLP, Ryan Seth Goldstein, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP & Shaun M. Van Horn, Jenner And
Block LLP

Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc., also known as Technicolor USA,
Inc., Defendant, represented by Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre Baker
Daniels LLP, pro hac vice, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and
Manges LLP, Anna Marie Konradi, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, pro hac
vice, Emily E. Chow, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey Scott Roberts, Faegre Baker Daniels, pro hac vice, Kathy
L. Osborn, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, pro hac vice & Ryan M. Hurley

Thomson S.A., also known as Technicolor SA, Defendant, represented
by Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Adam C. Hemlock,
Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Anna Marie Konradi, Faegre Baker
Daniels LLP, pro hac vice, Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels
LLP, pro hac vice, Emily E. Chow, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, pro
hac vice, Jason de Bretteville, Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth,
Jeffrey Scott Roberts, Faegre Baker Daniels, pro hac vice, Kathy
L. Osborn, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, pro hac vice & Ryan M. Hurley

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., Defendant, represented by
Erik T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP, Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP & Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP

Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc, Defendant,
represented by Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block LLC, Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Charles B. Sklarsky, Jenner
and Block, LLP, Gabriel A. Fuentes, Jenner & Block, LLP, Harold A.
Barza, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Jory M. Hoffman,
Kevin Yoshiwo Teruya, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP,
Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block LLP, Ryan Seth Goldstein, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP & Shaun M. Van Horn, Jenner And
Block LLP

Philips Taiwan Limited, Defendant, represented by Erik T. Koons,
Baker Botts LLP, pro hac vice, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and
Manges LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., pro hac vice, Jon
Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., pro hac vice, Joseph A.
Ostoyich, Howrey LLP, pro hac vice, Stuart Christopher Plunkett,
Baker Botts & Tiffany Belle Gelott, Baker Botts LLP

Philips do Brasil Ltda., Defendant, represented by Erik T. Koons,
Baker Botts LLP, pro hac vice, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and
Manges LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., pro hac vice, Jon
Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., pro hac vice, Joseph A.
Ostoyich, Howrey LLP, pro hac vice, Stuart Christopher Plunkett,
Baker Botts & Tiffany Belle Gelott, Baker Botts LLP

Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael T.
Brody, Jenner & Block LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and
Manges LLP, Charles B. Sklarsky, Jenner and Block, LLP, Gabriel A.
Fuentes, Jenner & Block, LLP, Harold A. Barza, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Jory M. Hoffman, Jenney & Block LLP,
Kevin Yoshiwo Teruya, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan LLP &
Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block LLC

Alan Frankel, Respondent, Pro se

Christopher Wirth, Movant, Pro Se

Mitsubishi Digital Electronics Americas, Inc., Interested Party,
represented by Brent Caslin, Jenner & Block LLP, Michael T. Brody,
Jenner & Block LLP, pro hac vice & Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner &
Block LLC

Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc., Interested Party,
represented by Brent Caslin, Jenner & Block LLP, Gabriel A.
Fuentes, Jenner & Block, LLP, Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block
LLP, pro hac vice, Ryan Seth Goldstein, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan LLP, Shaun M. Van Horn, Jenner And Block LLP & Terrence
Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block LLC

State of California, Interested Party, represented by Emilio
Eugene Varanini, IV, State Attorney General's Office & Paul Andrew
Moore, Attorney at Law

Newegg Inc., Interested Party, represented by Gordon M. Fauth,
Jr., Litigation Law Group

Atty for Non-Party Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Interested
Party, represented by Dianne L. Sweeney, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP

Sean Hull, Individual, Objector, represented by Joseph Darrell
Palmer & Timothy Ricardo Hanigan, Lang Hanigan & Carvalho, LLP.
Sean Hull, Objector, represented by Timothy Ricardo Hanigan, Lang
Hanigan & Carvalho, LLP

Gordon Morgan, Objector, represented by Timothy Ricardo Hanigan,
Lang Hanigan & Carvalho, LLP

Douglas W. St. John, Objector, represented by Andrea Marie Valdez,
Andrea Valdez, Esq. & Joseph Scott St. John.
Dan L. Williams & Co., Objector, represented by Paul Brian Justi,
Law Offices of Paul B. Justi

John Finn, Steve A. Miller, P.C. 1625 Larimer St. No. 2905 Denver,
CO 80202 303-892-9933, Objector, represented by Steve A. Miller,
Steve A. Miller, P.C.

Laura Fortman, Steve A. Miller, P.C. 1625 Larimer St. No. 2905
Denver, CO 80202 303-892-9933, Objector, represented by Steve A.
Miller, Steve A. Miller, P.C.

Rockhurst University, Objector, represented by Jill Tan Lin,
Attorney at Law & Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm

Gary Talewsky, Objector, represented by Jill Tan Lin, Attorney at
Law & Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm

Harry Garavanian, Objector, represented by Jill Tan Lin, Attorney
at Law & Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm

Paul Palmer, Individual, Objector, represented by Joseph Darrell
Palmer.
Donnie Clifton, Objector, represented by Jan Leigh Westfall, Law
Offices of Jan Westfall.

Josie Saik, Objector, represented by George Cochran

MR brian barry, Objector, Pro Se

MR brian barry, Objector, represented by Brian Joseph Barry, Law
Offices of Brian Barry

Douglas A. Kelley, as Chapter 11 Trustee for Petters Company, Inc.
and related entities, and as Receiver for Petters Company, LLC and
related entities, Miscellaneous, represented by Philip J. Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner

John R. Stoebner, as Chatper 7 Trustee for PBE Consumer
Electronics, LLC and related entities, Miscellaneous, represented
by Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A.
Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner

State of Connecticut, George Jepsen, Connecticut Attorney General,
Miscellaneous, represented by Gary Becker, Attorney General of
Connecticut

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Maura Healey, Attorney General of
Massachusetts, Miscellaneous, represented by Matthew Mark Lyons,
Office of the Attorney General of Massachusetts

McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Miscellaneous, represented by
James Michael Terrell, McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C.

State of Illinois, Intervenor, represented by Blake Lee Harrop,
Office of the Attorney General & Chadwick Oliver Brooker, Office
of the Illinois Attorney General

State of Oregon, Intervenor, represented by Tim David Nord, Oregon
Department of Justice


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: "Elfaridi" Suit Alleges Defective Sun Roof
-------------------------------------------------------------
Said Elfaridi, Hend Aitoufella, Dean Jarman, and Katherine Jarman
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, Daimler AG, a foreign corporation, Defendants,
Case No. 4:16-cv-01896 (E.D. Mo., December 5, 2016), seeks actual
damages, punitive damages, and/or any other form of monetary
relief, restitution, disgorgement and or other equitable relief,
repair of defective panoramic sunroofs, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit,
including expert witness fees and such other and further relief
for breach of implied and express warranty of merchantability,
unjust enrichment and violations of the Washington Consumer
Protection Act, Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Mercedes through its various entities designs, manufactures,
markets, distributes, and sells Mercedes automobiles in Missouri
and multiple other locations in the United States and worldwide.
Mercedes and/or its agents designed, manufactured, and installed
the panoramic sunroofs in the Class Vehicles. Mercedes also
developed and disseminated the owner's manuals and warranty
booklets, advertisements, and other promotional materials relating
to the Class Vehicles.

Defendant Daimler Aktiengesellschaft is a foreign corporation
headquartered in Stuttgart, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany. It is
engaged in the business of designing, engineering, manufacturing,
testing, marketing, supplying, selling, and distributing motor
vehicles.

Plaintiffs are owners of vehicles made by the Defendants and
allege that their panoramic sun roofs spontaneously tend to
shatter during the course of normal use.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Sarah S. Burns, Esq.
      SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
      One Court Street
      Alton, IL 62002
      Telephone: (618) 259-2222
      Facsimile: (618) 259-2251
      Email: sburns@simmonsfirm.com

             - and -

      Paul J. Hanly, Jr., Esq.
      Mitchell M. Breit, Esq.
      SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
      112 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016-7416
      Telephone: (212) 784-6400
      Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
      Email: phanly@simmonsfirm.com
             mbreit@simmonsfirm.com

             - and -

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
      Adam A. Edwards, Esq.
      Lisa A. White, Esq.
      First Tennessee Plaza
      800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
      Knoxville, TN 37929
      Telephone: (865) 247-0080
      Facsimile: (865) 533-0049
      Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
             mark@gregcolemanlaw.com
             adam@gregcolemanlaw.com
             lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com

             - and -

      Ronald J. Eisenberg, Esq.
      SCHULTZ & ASSOCIATES LLP
      640 Cepi Drive, Suite A
      Chesterfield, MO 63005
      Telephone: (636) 733-6647
      Facsimile: (636) 537-2599


MERCER HEALTH: "Stapf" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH STAPF, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERCER HEALTH
& BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION LLC, a Limited Liability Company; and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC643007 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Dec. 7, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages of under
$5,000,000.00 pursuant to the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant knowingly and
intentionally failed to comply with the Labor Code, causing
damages to Plaintiff, and the other members of the California
Labor Sub-Class. These damages include, but are not limited to,
costs expended calculating the true time worked and the amount of
employment taxes which were not properly paid to state and federal
tax authorities. These damages are difficult to estimate.
Therefore, Plaintiff, and the other members of the California
Labor Sub-Class may elect to recover liquidated damages of $50.00
for the initial pay period in which the violation occurred, and
$100.00 for each violation in subsequent pay period pursuant to
Labor Code, in an amount according to proof at the time of trial
(but in no event more than $4,000.00 for Plaintiff and each
respective member of the California Labor Sub-Class).

Mercer provides benefits consulting and brokerage services. The
company provides health and benefits services, including benefits
design and delivery, benchmarking and data analysis, outsourcing,
and compliance.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551 1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551 1232
          Firmsite: www.bamlawca.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: "Lopera" Suit Can't Proceed as Class
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington of the Middle
District of Florida, Tampa Division, granted defendant's motion to
strike class allegation in the case FERNANDO LOPERA, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND
CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-1448-T-33JSS
(M.D. Fla.)

On June 6, 2016, Fernando Lopera filed a putative class action
complaint, alleging that Midland Credit Management, Inc. violated
multiple provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. The court dismissed the case for
failure to prosecute after Lopera failed to respond to two orders
for status report.

On August 19, 2016, Lopera requested the court to reopen the case
and explained that he did not receive the court's orders because
counsel's contact information with the clerk was out-of-date. The
court granted Lopera's motion and the case was reopened on August
22, 2016.

On September 26, 2016, Lopera filed a notice, styled as a letter
to the court, in which Lopera requested an extension of time to
move for class certification and complete discovery. The court
struck that notice for failure to comply with Local Rule 3.01(f),
which requires all requests for relief to be filed in the form of
a motion, and 3.01(g), which requires that the moving party confer
with opposing counsel before filing a motion. The following day
Midland filed its motion to strike the class allegations in the
complaint. On October 12, 2016, Lopera filed his response and
cross-motion for extension of time to move for class
certification.

Judge Hernandez Covington granted defendant's motion to strike the
class allegation in the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross-
motion for extension of time to move for class certification.
Pursuant to Local Rule 4.04(b), M.D. Fla., within ninety days of
filing the complaint, a plaintiff shall move for a determination
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1) as to whether the
case is to be maintained as a class action, unless the time is
extended by the Court for cause shown.

As the complaint was filed on June 6, 2016, a motion to move for
class certification or motion for extension of time to seek class
certification was due by September 6, 2016. However, Lopera did
not file a motion by that date. On September 26, 2016, Lopera
filed a notice, requesting an extension of time to move for class
certification, in violation of the Local Rules. After the notice
was stricken, Lopera did not immediately resubmit his request in a
proper motion. Rather, on October 12, 2016, Lopera included his
cross-motion to extend the class certification deadline in his
response to Midland's motion to strike. Thus, Lopera did not
properly move for an extension of time until over a month after
the ninety day deadline had passed.

A copy of Judge Hernandez Covington's order dated November 17,
2016, is available at https://goo.gl/X9DwD7 from Leagle.com.

Fernando Lopera, Plaintiff, represented by:

Alex A. Stern, Esq.
1300 Washington Ave, #191625
Little Guy Law Firm
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Telephone: 305-900-5489

     - and -

Joseph Karl Jones, Esq.
Jones Wolf and Kapasi, LLC
555 5th Avenue, Suite 1700
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: 646-459-7971
Facsimile: 646-459-7973

Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by Cory W.
Eichhorn -- cory.eichhorn@hklaw.com -- Erica S. Gooden --
erica.bartimmo@hklaw.com -- at Holland & Knight, LLP

Peter J. Grilli, Mediator, represented by Peter John Grilli -- at
Peter J. Grilli, PA



MINOR LEAGUE: Establishes Political Committee to Fight Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Josh Norri, writing for Baseball America, reports that in its
continued effort to fight a lawsuit brought by a group of former
players seeking increased wages and back pay, Minor League
Baseball on Dec. 5 announced the establishment of a political
action committee.

MiLB president Pat O'Conner and Stan Brand, the league's chief
legal counsel, announced the creation of the PAC at the opening
session of this year's Winter Meetings.  The goal of the PAC,
Brand said, was to lobby Congress for help the league's
"legislative issues."

"I think it's everything," Mr. Brand said.  "And . . .  while (the
players' lawsuit is) the most immediate and pressing, it's
probably true that we're going to face this down the road in some
other format.  Rather than, as I said, wait to remobilize, we're
going to be proactive, get engaged, get our troops engaged, get an
infrastructure in place that allows us to immediately respond."

The league scored a significant victory this summer when the judge
presiding over the case in district court in San Francisco ruled
that the players' suit, as it was constructed, could not proceed
as a class-action lawsuit.

The logic behind the ruling was that the minor league experience
varied so starkly from player to player that it would be difficult
to apply one ruling to all cases.

Specifically, the players are seeking the enforcement of the 1938
Fair Labor Standards Act, which entitles workers to a minimum
wage, which varies in each state.  Minor league players are not
covered by this law, however, and as result are paid very little.

Minor league salaries begin at around $1,100 per month at the
lowest levels, and the players are paid only in-season.  They do
not get paid during spring training, instructional league or in
the Arizona Fall League.

Phillies farmhand Dylan Cozens told the crowd assembled to watch
him receive his Joe Baumann Award for leading the minor leagues in
home runs that the $8,000 prize that came with the honor was more
than he made all season.

In response to the judge's ruling, the players, whose legal team
is led by former player and now lawyer Garrett Broshuis,
re-formatted their case to include only players who spend all
season in one state.  For example, those who play in the Rookie-
level Arizona and Gulf Coast Leagues, and the high Class A Florida
State and California Leagues.  Those players' wages would fall
under one minimum wage all season long, and their experiences
would be uniform enough to possibly qualify for inclusion in a
class-action lawsuit.

Minor league baseball's caucus in Congress has turned over
considerably since its creation, and the establishment of the PAC
is part of an effort to reorganize the league's presence on
Capitol Hill.

"Because of procedurally what has happened in the Congress and the
difficulties in getting legislation, we've got to adjust to that,"
Mr. Brand said.  "We were lucky.  We had the ability because of
the depth of the relationships and involvement in the communities
to not have to worry about that.  And now we do, I think.  The PAC
. . . gives us another tool to re-enforce who we are and why we're
important."

This summer, two Congressional representatives -- Brett Guthrie
(R-Ky.) and Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.) -- introduced the Save America's
Pastime Bill, which was designed to combat the players' lawsuit.
After receiving intense pressure on social media, Ms. Bustos
dropped her support for the bill.

O'Conner threw his support behind the bill at the time.

"Minor League Baseball would like to thank Congressman Guthrie and
Congresswoman Bustos for their leadership on this issue facing
Minor League Baseball and for gathering bipartisan Congressional
support," he said.

"For over 115 years, Minor League Baseball has been a staple of
American communities, large and small, and with the help of
Congressman Guthrie, Congresswoman Bustos and other members of
Congress, it will remain so for years to come."


MNM PROPERTIES: "Saucedo" Suit Alleges Violations of FLSA, NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN SAUCEDO, FELIPE GARCIA ARROYO, JUAN LUIS REYES GARCIA, and
JOSE ROBERTO CUATEPITZI HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MNM PROPERTIES LP (d/b/a
MNM PROPERTIES), MNM PROPERTIES LLC (d/b/a MNM PROPERTIES),
MITCHELL BANCHIK, and MICHAEL ASCH, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
09413 (S.D.N.Y., December 6, 2016), was filed to recover alleged
unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, and the "spread of hours"
and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor.

Defendants own, operate, and/or control a construction company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 317-1200
     Fax: (212) 317-1620


NAPOLI'S PASTARIA: "Crespo" Suit Seeks Overtime, Alleges Tax Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Crespo, Jeremiah Rivera, Isreal Alvarenga and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Steve and Tara's Italian
Restaurant, Inc. doing business as Napoli's Pastaria, Steve Barry,
Individually and Tara Barry, individually, Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-01520 (M.D. Fla., December 8, 2016), seeks to recover
damages for retaliation and unpaid back wages, an additional
amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Steve and Tara's Italian Restaurant, Inc. operates as Napoli's
Pastaria where Plaintiffs worked as cooks and cleaners. They claim
to have been denied overtime pay.

Plaintiffs also file civil damages for fraudulent filing of
information returns under the IRS by failing to properly record
all wage payments made to Plaintiffs and pay FICA and other
applicable employment taxes on their behalf.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Earl M. Johnson, Jr., Esq.
      Post Office Box 40091
      Jacksonville, FL 32203
      Tel: (904) 356-5252
      Fax: (904) 394-3288
      Email: jaxlawfl@aol.com

             - and -

      Alex King, Esq.
      200 E. Forsyth Street
      Jacksonville, FL 32202
      Tel: (904) 355-7777
      Email: A1ex@HodgesKing.com
             Pleadings@HodgesKing.com


NBTY INC: Court Trims Claims in "Porter" Suit
---------------------------------------------
District Judge Manish S. Shah of the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in part defendants' motion to
dismiss, in the case RYAN PORTER and HAARIN KWON, Plaintiffs, v.
NBTY, INC., UNITED STATES NUTRITION, INC., HEALTHWATCHERS (DE),
INC., and MET-RX NUTRITION, INC., Defendants, No. 15 CV 11459
(N.D. Ill.)

Defendant NBTY, Inc., along with its subsidiaries, United States
Nutrition, Inc., Healthwatchers (DE), Inc., and Met-Rx Nutrition,
Inc., manufactured and sold the protein supplements Body Fortress
Super Advanced Whey Protein, Body Fortress Super Advanced Whey
Isolate, and Met-Rx MyoSynthesis Whey.

Plaintiff Ryan Porter bought Body Fortress Super Advanced Whey
Protein from at least two different retail stores in Illinois.
Plaintiff Haarin Kwon, a New York citizen, ordered the same
product from Amazon.com.

Plaintiffs brought claims on behalf of a nationwide class under
consumer fraud statutes of Illinois, New York, and eight other
states, as well as claims for breach of express warranty and
unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs allege that defendants engaged in a
practice known as protein-spiking, nitrogen-spiking, or amino-
spiking in the manufacture of its whey protein products.

According to plaintiffs, because the products' labeling
highlighted the protein content, defendants should have used an
alternative method to calculate these amounts. That alternative
method, the Protein Digestibility-Corrected Amino Acid Score,
measures the protein quality of the food and requires the
manufacturer to determine the amount of essential amino acids
contained within the product. The digestibility-corrected score
provides a more precise measurement of the protein content of the
product, excluding free-form amino acids and other non-protein
ingredients. Because defendants used the nitrogen-based
measurement rather than the alternative method, the protein-
content statements on their products' labels were based on the
additional ingredients.

Plaintiffs also allege that defendants used the terms protein and
whey protein interchangeably on the products' packaging, leading
consumers to believe that every statement of the products' protein
content referred to whey protein in particular. Because the
statements overstated the amount of whey protein contained in the
products, plaintiffs believe the statements were false and
misleading.

Defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs' claims.

Judge Shah granted defendants' motion to dismiss in part.
Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim under New York law and their
breach of express warranty claims are dismissed, as are any claims
relating to products they did not purchase.

Under both the UCC and Illinois law, a plaintiff buyer must within
a reasonable time after he discovers or should have discovered any
breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy.
Plaintiffs allege that plaintiffs' counsel served defendants with
such pre-suit notice in the form of a letter, attaching that
letter to the complaint. However, as defendants point out,
plaintiffs' counsel sent the letter on behalf of a nonparty,
Dalton Becky, and a class of all similarly situated purchasers of
Body Fortress Protein Powder. Plaintiffs' claims for breach of
express warranty are dismissed because, despite their arguments to
the contrary, plaintiffs do not allege that they provided
defendants with pre-suit notice. The letter was no notice at all
because it was not from plaintiffs. One purpose of the pre-suit
notice requirement is to facilitate settlement of the buyer's
claim. Plaintiffs' failure to notify defendants of the breach
defeats that purpose, defendants did not know that the plaintiffs
contested a transaction.

Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim is based on the same
allegations that serve as the bases for their claims under New
York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350, defendants
deceived plaintiffs using misleading labeling. Plaintiffs cannot
prevail on their unjust enrichment claim without also meeting the
elements of their statutory claims. To the extent that the claims
succeed, the unjust enrichment claim is duplicative. If
plaintiffs' other claims are defective, an unjust enrichment claim
cannot remedy the defects.

A copy of Judge Shah's memorandum opinion and order dated November
28, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/9jbmry from Leagle.com.

Ryan Porter, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph J Siprut --
jsiprut@siprut.com -- Richard Lane Miller, II --
rmiller@siprut.com -- Richard Steven Wilson -- rwilson@siprut.com
-- at Siprut PC; Frederick J. Klorczyk III -- fklorczyk@bursor.com
-- Philip L. Fraietta -- pfraietta@bursor.com -- at Bursor &
Fisher, P.A.; Nick Suciu, III -- nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com -- at
Barbat, Mansour & Suciu PLLC

Haarin Kwon, Plaintiff, represented by Frederick J. Klorczyk III -
- fklorczyk@bursor.com -- Philip L. Fraietta --
pfraietta@bursor.com -- at Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

United States Nutrition, Inc. and NBTY, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Rachael Cecelia Brennan Blackburn --
rblackburn@aandglaw.com -- Robert M. Andalman --
randalman@aandglaw.com -- at A & G Law LLC; William A. Delgado --
wdelgado@willenken.com -- at Willenken Wilson Loh & Delgado LLP

Met-Rx Nutrition, Inc. and Healthwatchers (DE), Inc., Defendants,
represented by Rachael Cecelia Brennan Blackburn --
rblackburn@aandglaw.com -- Robert M. Andalman --
randalman@aandglaw.com -- at A & G Law LLC


NEIMAN MARCUS: Faces "Huang" Class Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against The Neiman
Marcus Group, LLC.

The case is captioned Li Huang, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, Case
No. 1:16-cv-06763-AMD-RER (E.D.N.Y., December 7, 2016).
The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC engages in the online sale of
designer apparel, shoes, handbags, jewelry, and beauty products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NZK PRODUCTIONS: Eckert Seeks Monetary Damages Under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
CONNOR ECKERT, an Individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated the Plaintiff, v. NZK PRODUCTIONS, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC643017 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 7, 2016), seeks to
recover monetary damages, including full restitution from
Defendants as a result of Defendants' unlawful, fraudulent and/or
unfair business practices in violation of the California Labor
Code (Labor Code); the California Business and Professions Code;
and the California Industrial Welfare Commission.

According to the complaint, with regard to Defendants' California
based Production Assistants, the Defendants have failed to provide
timely uninterrupted 30-minute meal periods; failed to authorize
and permit all paid rest periods; failed to timely furnish
accurate itemized wage statements; violated Labor Code; and
conducted unfair business practices.

NZK Productions is a motion picture and tape distribution company
located in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce Kokozian, Esq.
          KOKOZIAN LAW FIRM, APC
          9440 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 510
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (323) 857 5900


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Weiner Loses Bid to Compel Production of Docs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes of the Eastern District of
California, denied plaintiff's motion to compel production of
documents, in the case DAVID WEINER, individually and on behalf of
other members of the public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, et al.,
Defendants, No. 2:14-cv-2597 MCE DB (E.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff has alleged that the defendants engaged in a pattern and
practice of unlawfully charging marked up prices on broker price
opinions (BPOs') and titles searches to borrowers in default, and
engaged in a scheme to disguise hidden, marked-up fees assessed to
homeowners in default on their mortgages. Specifically, plaintiff
alleges that in furtherance of the scheme, defendants funnel
default-related services, including BPOs and title searches
through their affiliated businesses and mark up the cost of these
services.

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel and seeks further production of
documents with respect to documents numbers120, 121, 129 and 6.
Requests for production of documents numbers 129 and 6 seeks
defendants' internal communications relating to their decision to
spin-off third-party Altisource Solutions S.A. Requests for
production of documents numbers 120 and 121 seek documents
produced by defendants to the New York Department of Financial
Services (NYDFS) which ultimately led to a consent order between
defendants and the NYDFS.

Plaintiff argues that the internal communications discovery is
highly relevant to class-certification, because defendants'
motivation for spinning-off Altisource bears directly on their
classwide intent to fraudulently conceal marked-up default-related
costs from consumers. With respect to the documents defendants
produced to the NYDFS, plaintiff argues that such discovery
requests bear directly on the uniformity of defendants' practices,
fraudulent intent, classwide evidence of the RICO enterprise, as
well as establishing the scope of the fraudulent practices and the
precise timeframe.

Plaintiff asserts that the discovery at issue has such a
significant bearing on issues such as predominance and
commonality, that the fact that the information simultaneously
concerns the merits is insignificant and provides defendant no
basis to refuse to respond. In support of such argument, plaintiff
quotes Lindell v. Synthes USA, No. 1:11-cv-2053 LJO BAM, 2013 WL
3146806. Plaintiff also cites Bias v. Wells Fargo & Co., 312
F.R.D. 528, 535, in support of the argument that the timeframe for
the scheme, the geographic and substantive scope, and the nature
of the borrowers impacted all factor into the formulation of the
class definition.

Magistrate Judge Barnes denied plaintiff's motion to compel
observing that plaintiff did not articulate how the discovery at
issue bears on predominance or commonality, aside from speculative
and conclusory statements such as if the requested communications
reveal a common practice applied uniformly to plaintiff and all
class members, it strongly supports class certification." The
discovery at issue in Lindell, however, was interrogatories and
requests for production of documents seeking specific, targeted,
information related to expense reimbursement and wage deductions
for the entire class. In this case, plaintiff is not seeking
specific, targeted information about the potential class.
Plaintiff is seeking defendants' internal communications
concerning its business decision and all documents produced to the
NYDFS in another action.

Another observation made by the Magistrate Judge is that plaintiff
has done little to explain precisely how he thinks the discovery
at issue will establish a timeframe for the scheme, its geographic
and substantive scope, or the nature of the borrowers impacted. In
analyzing the plaintiff's motion for class certification in Bias,
the court did not reference any discovery similar to that
plaintiff seeks in the case. Instead, the Bias court focused on
the evidence that seems, to the undersigned, plainly relevant to
class certification.

A copy of Judge Barnes's order dated November 22, 2016, is
available at https://goo.gl/wz7ZLV from Leagle.com.

David Weiner, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Alberstone --
dalberstone@baronbudd.com -- Roland Karim Tellis --
rtellis@baronbudd.com -- Evan M. Zucker -- ezucker@baronbudd.com -
- Peter Klausner -- pklausner@baronbudd.com -- Mark Pifko --
mpifko@baronbudd.com -- at Baron & Budd, P.C.; Isaac Miller -- at
Branstetter Stranch & Jennings

Defendants, represented by Elizabeth Lemond McKeen --
emckeen@omm.com -- Ashley Pavel -- apavel@omm.com -- Catalina Joos
Vergara -- cvergara@omm.com -- Erika Maki Rasch -- erasch@omm.com
-- James Abbott Bowman -- jbowman@omm.com -- at O'Melveny & Myers
LLP


OMNI LIMOUSINE: Mooney Suit Stayed Pending McSwiggin Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr. of the District of Nevada,
granted defendant's motion to stay in the case RONALD KEEN and
ROBIN MOONEY, Plaintiffs, v. OMNI LIMOUSINE, Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-01903-JCM-GWF (D. Nev.)

Plaintiffs Ronald Keen and Robin Mooney filed a collective and
class action complaint on August 10, 2016. Plaintiffs allege, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, various causes
of action against Omni Limousine for unpaid wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Nevada Revised Statutes, and the Nevada
Constitution.

Prior to the lawsuit, a case entitled McSwiggin v. Omni Limousine,
Case No. 2:14-cv-02172-JCM-NJK, was already filed asserting
essentially identical claims on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated.  The plaintiffs in the McSwiggin matter sought
an extension of the deadlines for providing notice and opting in
to the litigation on November 10, 2015 but counsel's inexcusable
neglect made the judge to deny the request to extend the opt-in
deadline on July 29, 2016. The district court did, however, advise
the plaintiffs' counsel that its ruling did not prohibit
prospective plaintiffs from pursuing litigation against Omni
individually or as members to a separate collective action.
Currently pending in the McSwiggin case is plaintiff's motion to
certify class and Omni's motion for decertification.

Based on the motions filed in McSwiggin, Omni requests that the
matter be stayed pending the resolution of the motions because
they will affect the instant litigation.  Omni argues that a stay
is warranted under the first-to-file rule because the current
matter is duplicative of McSwiggin and should not be used by
plaintiffs' counsel to hedge their bets in the event the McSwiggin
matter is not certified. Omni additionally asserts that a stay of
the case will avoid burdensome and unnecessary expenses for both
parties.  Plaintiffs do not oppose a stay of the case. They do,
however, request that if a stay is granted, that the court toll
the statute of limitations so that the rights of putative opt-in
plaintiffs will be protected.

Magistrate Judge Foley granted defendant's motion to stay and the
case shall be stayed until such time as the court deems it
appropriate to lift the stay, which it will do once the district
court rules on the motions pending in McSwiggin v. Omni Limousine,
Case No. 2:14-cv-02172-JCM-NJK. The statute of limitations shall
be tolled until the court determines that a stay is no longer
necessary.

Equitably tolling the statute of limitations will eliminate any
prejudice suffered by potential plaintiffs and preserve their
claims that will otherwise be lost as a result of the stay. The
court finds that the best way to avoid any unnecessary burdens and
expenses and to ensure the rights of any potential class member
who would choose to, and have the right to, opt-in at a later date
would be to stay the matter and toll the statute of limitations
until the court determines it is appropriate to proceed with the
merits of the case.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Foley's order dated November 18, 2016,
is available at https://goo.gl/aYvF6P from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:
Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
Leah Lin Jones, Esq.
Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
Joshua R. Hendrickson, Esq.
Thierman Buck, LLP
7287 Lakeside Dr.
Reno, NV 89511-76520
Telephone 775-284-1500
Facsimile: 775-703-5027

Omni Limousine, Defendant, represented by Anthony L. Hall --
ahall@hollandhart.com -- Rico Cordova -- rncordova@hollandhart.com
-- at Holland & Hart LLP


OPTUMRX INC: Faces "Davis" Suit for Drug Overpricing
----------------------------------------------------
GAIL DAVIS, for herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. OptumRX, Inc., Cigna Health and Life Insurance
Company and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-
02165 (C.D. Cal., December 7, 2016), seeks restoration of profits;
equitable relief; injunction prohibiting Defendants from
continuing their clawback scheme,]; accounting and disgorgement of
profits; restitution; reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and
such other relief for violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 and the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

Davis is covered by a health plan provided through her husband's
employer and currently administered by Cigna and Optum. Ms. Davis
has received prescription drug coverage through this plan. She is
obligated to make a copayment when filling a prescription. The
amount Optum requires the pharmacy collect from the patient often
exceeds the amount that Cigna and/or Optum pay the pharmacy for
the patient's prescription drug. This results in the patient being
overcharged for prescription drugs and results in the patient
paying the entire copayment and the Defendants collecting hidden
additional payments. There is no sharing of costs between the
patient and the plan.

Optum is a California corporation with its principal place of
business in Irvine, California. Optum is a pharmacy benefits
manager and currently manages the coverage and policies provided
by Cigna.

Cigna is a Connecticut company with its principal place of
business in Bloomfield, Connecticut and is authorized to do
business in the State of California. Cigna provides insurance
coverage and administrative services across the country,

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (310) 684-2504
      Fax: (855) 274-1888
      Email: amansfield@whatleykallas.com

             - and -

      Joe R. Whatley, Jr.
      Edith M. Kallas
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Fl.
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212) 447-7060
      Fax: (800) 922-4851
      Email: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
             kallas@whatleykallas.com

             - and -

      Henry Quillen, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      159 Middle Street, Suite 2C
      Portsmouth, NH 03801
      Tel: (603) 294-1591
      Fax: (800) 922-4851
      Email: hquillen@whatleykallas.com

             - and -

      Alex T. Gray, Esq.
      Nate Steel, Esq.
      Scott Poynter, Esq.
      STEEL, WRIGHT, GRAY & HUTCHINSON, PLLC
      400 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2910
      Little Rock, AR 72201
      Tel: (501) 251-1587
      Fax: (501) 244-2614
      Email: alex@swghfirm.com
             nate@swghfirm.com
             scott@poynterlawgroup.com

             - and -

      Thomas D. Mauriello, Esq.
      MAURIELLO LAW FIRM
      1181 Puerta Del Sol, #120
      San Clemente, CA 92673
      Tel: (949) 542-3555
      Fax: (949) 606-9690
      Email: tomm@maurlaw.com


OSHKOSH, WI: Released Prisoner May Amend Complaint
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge James D. Peterson of the Western District of
Wisconsin, ruled on plaintiff's motion to file an amended
complaint in the case DAVID D. AUSTIN II, Plaintiff, v. JUDY P.
SMITH, EDWARD WALL, and REXFORD SMITH, Defendants, No. 15-cv-525-
jdp (W.D. Wis.)

David D. Austin II, proceeding pro se, filed a suit against
Oshkosh Correctional Institution (OCI) when he was still a
prisoner at OCI. He has since been released from prison and is
currently represented by counsel. Austin is proceeding on claims
that OCI prison officials violated his constitutional rights.
Specifically, Austin says that the plexiglass sheets covering the
windows of all cells in the R-Unit block of OCI cause the cells to
be extremely hot and potentially unsafe. He alleges that
defendants are deliberately indifferent to the unreasonable health
and safety risk posed by the permanently closed windows in his
cell in violation of the Eighth Amendment and that sealing the
windows in one unit of the prison constitutes arbitrarily unequal
treatment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Before obtaining counsel, Austin filed a motion for
reconsideration of the court's screening order, a motion for class
status, and a motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

Upon reconsideration, Judge Peterson granted Austin's leave to
proceed on the due process claim. Transfer from a cell with a
window that opens to a dangerously hot cell with a plexiglass
covering on the window may be a deprivation of liberty requiring
due process. On the motion for class status Judge Peterson
observed that a pro se litigant cannot fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class. Austin has since retained
counsel and indicated that he intends to refile a motion for class
status. Judge Peterson will dismiss the current pending motion
without prejudice. Should Austin, through counsel, file a motion
for class status, Judge Peterson will give that motion proper
consideration.

Austin has filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint to (1)
include a demand for jury trial; (2) include a request for
punitive damages, (3) sue defendant Edward Wall, former secretary
of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, in his personal
capacity only, and (4) name Jon Litscher, current secretary of the
Wisconsin Department of Corrections, as a defendant in his
official capacity. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2).
The lawsuit is still in its early stages, and the court has set a
scheduling conference to discuss possible amendments to the
scheduling order, so there is no reason to think that defendants
would be prejudiced by the changes. Judge Peterson will grant
Austin's request and accept the amended complaint as the operative
pleading in the case.

A copy of Judge Peterson's order dated November 22, 2016, is
available at https://goo.gl/eRmZVA from Leagle.com.

David D. Austin, II, Plaintiff, represented by:

Thomas J. Nitschke, Esq.
Blaise & Nitschke, P.C.
123 N. wacker Dr., Ste 250
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: 312-488-6602
Facsimile: 312-803-1940

Rexford Smith and Judy P. Smith, Defendant, represented by
Katherine D. Spitz -- at Wisconsin Department of Justice

Edward Wall, Defendant, represented by Katherine D. Spitz --
atWisconsin Department of Justice; Samuel C. Hall --
shall@crivellocarlson.com -- Zachary James Flood -- at Crivello
Carlson, S.C.


PATRICK M. CONNELLY: "Allah-Mensah" Suit Survives Dismissal Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paula Xinis of the District of Maryland, denied
defendant's motion to dismiss, in the case FRANK ALLAH-MENSAH,
Plaintiff, v. LAW OFFICE OF PATRICK M. CONNELLY, P.C., Defendant,
Civil Action No. PX-16-1053 (D. Md.)

On April 8, 2016, Frank Allah-Mensah filed a putative class action
complaint on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
alleging that the Law Office of Patrick M. Connelly, P.C. had
violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(3) and 15 U.S.C. Section
1692e(10) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The
Allah-Mensah contends that the law office sent him an initial
collection letter on July 14, 2015 and that the letter failed to
advise that only the debt collector may assume the debt is valid
in the absence of a dispute from a consumer.

Allah-Mensah claims in count I that the language of the collection
letter is in direct contravention of the FDCPA, which requires a
debt collector to send the consumer a written notice containing a
statement that "unless the consumer, within thirty days after
receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any
portion thereof the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt
collector". In count II, Allah-Mensah claims that because the
letter failed to explain that only the debt collector may assume
the debt valid, such omission was a false representation and
deceptive means to attempt to collect the debt by asserting that
the debt would be assumed valid generally, not just by the debt
collector in violation of Section 1692g. Allah-Mensah, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, seeks statutory damages
as allowed by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k(a)(2)(A) of the FDCPA.

The law office filed a motion to dismiss and contends that the
plaintiff and the other putative class members lack standing to
pursue their claims because they have failed to allege a
cognizable injury-in-fact, as reiterated in the Supreme Court's
recent decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.

Judge Xinis is persuaded that plaintiff has pleaded sufficiently a
concrete injury resulting from alleged violations of the FDCPA.
The invasion of a statutorily conferred right may, in and of
itself, be a sufficient injury to undergird a plaintiff's standing
even in the absence of other harm. Judge Xinis denied defendant's
motion to dismiss.

A copy of Judge Xinis's memorandum opinion dated November 17,
2016, is available at https://goo.gl/hQHZCm from Leagle.com.

Frank Allah-Mensah, Plaintiff, represented by:

Edward Matthew Poretz, Esq.
6B Nashua Court
Baltimore, MD 21221
Telephone: 855-499-9586
Facsimile: 443-863-4908

     - and -

Matthew T Sheffield, Esq.
Law Offices of Michael Lupolover PC
12 Sylan Ave Suite 300
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 0763
Telephone: 201-461-0059
Facsimile: 201-608-7116

Law Office of Patrick M. Connelly, P.C., Defendant, represented
by:

Ronald S Canter, Esq.
The Law Offices of Ronald S Canter LLC
200A Monroe St #104
Rockville, MD 20850
Telephone: 301-424-7490


PILOT CORP: 11th Cir. Confirms Original Jurisdiction Under CAFA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Durkin, Esq., and Michael Grill, Esq., of Holland & Knight
LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that in Wright
Transportation, Inc. v. Pilot Corporation, et al., the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the U.S. Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) confers original federal
jurisdiction over state law claims brought under CAFA even when
related class action claims are dismissed.

CAFA jurisdiction, like conventional diversity jurisdiction, is
not destroyed by post-filing events.  Thus, CAFA jurisdiction "is
not easily defeated."

Because CAFA vests federal district courts with original
jurisdiction over remaining state law claims, district courts need
not analyze supplemental jurisdiction in such circumstances.
In Wright Transportation, Inc. v. Pilot Corporation, et al., the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit considered whether
a district court retains original jurisdiction over state law
claims following the dismissal of class action claims brought
under the U.S. Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), codified
at 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d).  CAFA conveys original subject matter
jurisdiction to federal courts when the aggregated claims of the
class members exceed $5 million, the proposed class has at least
100 members and at least one class member is a citizen of a state
different from any defendant.

The Wright case was unique in that prior appellate decisions
addressed only suits that were filed in state court and then
removed to federal court pursuant to CAFA.  In Wright, plaintiff
Wright Transportation Inc. initially filed all of its claims --
state and federal -- in federal court, alleging that jurisdiction
existed under CAFA.  After its class claims were dismissed, Wright
sought to dismiss and refile its state law claims in Alabama state
court.  Defendants argued that, under CAFA, the federal district
court could not divest itself of original jurisdiction over the
remaining claims. The Eleventh Circuit agreed.

Background

Wright was a customer of Pilot Corporation, the nation's largest
operator of over-the-road diesel fuel truck stops.  Wright filed a
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Alabama in July 2013, alleging that certain Pilot
employees withheld rebates and discounts owed to Wright and other
customers.  A court-approved settlement of a competing class suit
in the Eastern District of Arkansas subsequently deprived Wright
of standing to pursue its class claims.  The defendants thereafter
filed a motion to dismiss Wright's remaining claims. The Alabama
district court granted the motion in part, allowing Wright to
maintain only its breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims
pursuant to Alabama law.

Following a series of motions and procedural events, Wright moved
to dismiss its own complaint, without prejudice, for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.  Absent its class claims, Wright
argued that the district court should decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.  The
defendants opposed the motion to dismiss, arguing that the
district court was vested with original jurisdiction over Wright's
claims, pursuant to CAFA.

With only the state law claims left to resolve, the district court
analyzed the issue as one of supplemental jurisdiction, which
district courts may exercise at their discretion.  The court
declined to exercise its supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed
the lawsuit in its entirety.  Wright then filed a lawsuit in
Alabama state court, raising nearly identical claims to those in
its federal action.  Several defendants appealed the district
court's order dismissing the federal lawsuit and also filed a
motion to abate Wright's state court suit.

The Appeal

On appeal, defendants argued that when original jurisdiction is
conferred under CAFA, "it sticks for the entire life of the case,
such that it could not be destroyed by later events," including a
rival class settlement or failure to obtain class certification.
Wright argued that the district court's dismissal of the class
claims destroyed CAFA jurisdiction.

The Eleventh Circuit first reviewed its own precedent, as well as
precedent from the Seventh, Fifth and Second Circuits, for the
proposition that, at least in cases removed to federal court,
post-removal events "do not oust CAFA jurisdiction."  But the
court explained that the difference between CAFA cases originally
filed in federal court versus those removed from state courts can
be material.  Removal cases "present concerns about forum
manipulation that counsel against allowing a plaintiff's post-
removal amendments to affect jurisdiction."  But when a plaintiff
first files in federal court, as Wright did, forum manipulation is
a lesser concern.  District courts may therefore consider post-
filing amendments to federal pleadings when such amendments drop
all class claims when considering jurisdiction.

However, the court held that this difference did not destroy
original jurisdiction.  The court noted that Wright's class claims
were not eliminated through amendment, but rather were dismissed
by the district court.  Because all of Wright's claims -- state
and federal -- were brought pursuant to CAFA at the time they were
filed, the district court had original jurisdiction over each
claim.  Thus, "CAFA continue[d] to confer original federal
jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims in this suit."
The Eleventh Circuit further clarified that the district court's
analysis of the issue as one of supplemental jurisdiction was
incorrect.  District courts need only invoke supplemental
jurisdiction when the case involves individual state law claims
that were never subject to CAFA jurisdiction.

Considerations for Litigants

The Eleventh Circuit's decision clarifies that original
jurisdiction will follow both state and federal claims that are
initially filed in federal court pursuant to CAFA, even when all
of the plaintiff's class claims are dismissed after filing,
subject to three exceptions below.  This holding is consistent
with precedent that focused on removal cases, which held that
original federal jurisdiction follows claims that are removed from
state to federal courts pursuant to CAFA.  In the removal context,
original federal jurisdiction will survive despite
post-removal actions, including dismissal, lack of certification
or pleading amendments that may otherwise eliminate the class
claims.

However, in the context of cases originally filed in federal
court, the Wright court cautioned that CAFA will not convey
original federal jurisdiction when 1) a plaintiff that originally
files in federal court subsequently amends its complaint to
eliminate all of its class claims, 2) a plaintiff brings state
claims separate from and never subject to CAFA and 3) claims
purportedly filed under CAFA are dismissed because they are
frivolous or lack the expectation that a class may eventually be
certified.  In the third scenario, the Eleventh Circuit noted that
such claims would not be subject to jurisdiction under CAFA in the
first place. None of these exceptions were at issue in Wright.


PREMIERE NUTRITION: Faces False Advertising Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Northern California Record,
reports that an Illinois consumer claims that an Emeryville
company's joint health supplements are falsely advertised.

Sandra Dent filed a complaint individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated on Nov. 21 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California against Premiere Nutrition
Corp., formerly known as Joint Juice Inc., alleging that the
supplement manufacturer obtained profit through unfair or
deceptive trade or commerce.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that she was
enticed to purchase defendant's Joint Juice product, which
promises to help support and nourish cartilage, lubricate joints
and improve joint comfort without any limitation on which joints
for adults of all ages.  The suit states that despite defendant's
representations, meta-analysis studies conclude that glucosamine,
alone or with chondroitin sulfate, is not effective in providing
the represented joint health benefits.

The plaintiffs hold Premiere Nutrition Corp. responsible because
the defendant allegedly failed to provide its promised health
benefits and deceived consumers into paying for deceptive products
at premium prices.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment in her
favor; declare the case as a class action; designate class
representative and class counsel; actual, punitive and statutory
damages; injunctive relief; attorneys' fees; litigation costs;
interest and further relief as may be just.  She is represented by
Timothy G. Blood, Leslie E. Hurst and Thomas J. O'Reardon II of
Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP in San Diego, Todd D. Carpenter --
tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com -- of Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela &
Carpenter LLP in San Diego, Adam J. Levitt and Edmund S. Aronowitz
of Grant & Eisenhofer PA in Chicago and Joseph J. Siprut of Siprut
PC in Chicago.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case
number 3:16-cv-06721


QUALITY SERVICE: Overtime Pay Demanded in "Casasus" Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yoan Casasus, individually, and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Quality Service Towing, Inc. and
Rodolfo Varela, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-25107
(S.D. Fla., December 8, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum wages,
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, unlawfully withheld
wages, statutory penalties, other damages, and attorney's fees for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a tow truck and salvaging company owned by
Rodolfo Varela, where Plaintiff worked as a tow truck driver.
Plaintiff was routinely forced to work the shift of 7 a.m. to 7
p.m. from Mondays to Saturday in exchange for a $400 weekly wage,
which did not meet the required hourly minimum wage.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Miguel Armenteros, Esq.
      PERLMAN, BAJANDAS, YEVOLI & ALBRIGHT, PL
      283 Catalonia Avenue, Suite 200
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 377-0086
      Facsimile: (305) 377-0782
      Email: miguel@pbyalaw.com


RALEIGH HEART: Patient Exposure Cases Obtain Class Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Holdren, writing for Register-Herald Reporter, reports that
a Raleigh County circuit judge granted a motion certifying cases
against the Raleigh Heart Clinic as a class action lawsuit.

The suit was filed in March against the clinic for potential
patient exposure to HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C.

Patients who had a cardiac stress test performed at Raleigh Heart
Clinic between March 1, 2012, and March 27, 2015, received a
letter in March from the West Virginia Department of Health and
Human Resources, indicating they should be tested for the
diseases.

In addition to Raleigh Heart Clinic, the following individuals
were named as defendants in the lawsuit: Thair Bargouthi, MD,
primary physician and president of Raleigh Heart Clinic; Nahla
Bargouthi, MD, secretary and vice president of Raleigh Heart
Clinic; John Does 1-10; and an unnamed hospital.

The lawsuit is seeking damages, punitive damages, declaratory
judgments, costs, attorneys' fees and other relief.

Attorney Stephen New said the defense has 30 days from the
certification to file notice of appeal.  If they file notice, the
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals will set a schedule for the
appeal proceedings.

New estimates between 100 and 110 people tested positive for HIV,
hepatitis B or hepatitis C and qualify to be part of the suit.


RHODE ISLAND: Human Services Dept. Faces "Gemmell" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Melba Depena
Affigne. The case is captioned Helen Gemmell and Mea Martinez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Melba Depena Affigne, in her official capacity as
Director of the Rhode Island Department of Human Services, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00650-S-LDA (D.R.I., Dec. 8, 2016).
The case is assigned to Hon. Chief Judge William E. Smith.

Rhode Island, a U.S. state in New England, is known for sandy
shores and seaside Colonial towns. It is home to several large
cities, including Newport, which is famed for sailing and Gilded
Age mansions, such as The Breakers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lynette J. Labinger, Esq.
          RONEY & LABINGER LLP
          344 Wickenden Street
          Providence, RI 02903
          Telephone: (401) 421 9794
          Facsimile: (401) 421 0132
          E-mail: Labinger@roney-labinger.com


ROYAL BANK: Reaches Settlement With Three of Five Investor Groups
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Martin, writing for Telegraph, reports that Royal Bank of
Scotland faces the prospect of a lengthy legal battle with
shareholders despite offering to pay out GBP800m in an attempt to
avoid going to court over claims it misled investors who took part
in its GBP12bn rescue fundraising at the height of the financial
crisis.

The state-owned lender, which has not admitted any liability, said
it had reached a "full and final settlement" with three of the
five shareholder groups that have been pursuing claims totalling
GBP4bn against the bank.

The trio -- three separate groups of institutional investors --
account for 77pc of the claims by value and the shareholders will
receive 41.2p for each pound that they invested in the cash call
eight years ago.

However, two groups made up of tens of thousands of retail
investors have not agreed to the settlement, meaning RBS could
still go to court next March in an expensive legal battle that
could last up to seven years.

Before the settlement offer, RBS had spent around GBP100m dealing
with the claims.

A spokesman for the RBoS Shareholder Action Group, which
represents 27,000 retail investors in a case led by Signature
Litigation, said: "We had no option but to reject this inadequate
offer and remain committed to seeking justice for our members
through the courts."

Leon Kaye, the founder of the eponymous class action law firm that
acts for the RBS Rights Issue Action Group, which represents about
4,000 retail investors and is the other claimant that has not
settled, said: "It's not a very generous offer, to put it
politely.

"As matters stand, we're considering our position."

The bank said the GBP800m it has set aside, which is provided for
by existing provisions it has made, was to cover all five claimant
groups if the outstanding two agreed to the offer.

A host of City investors, including BlackRock, Lloyds Banking
Group's Scottish Widows business and Aviva, have settled with the
lender as part of the deal.

The institutional shareholders are represented by three law firms:
Stewarts Law, Mishcon de Reya and Quinn Emanuel.

It marks the latest attempt by Ross McEwan, RBS's chief executive,
to resolve one of the many long-standing problems from its past
that continue to overhang the bank, some of which are stopping the
Government from selling down its 73pc stake.

The capital raising at the heart of the investor claims took place
just months before RBS' GBP45bn Government bailout in 2008, and
some shareholders allege they were misled about the bank's
financial health ahead of the cash call.

If the the RBoS Shareholder Action Group does pursue RBS in the
courts, it would lead to further scrutiny of the lender's actions
in the run-up to, and during, the financial crisis.  While the
four other investor groups had made claims against the bank, the
action group is also pursuing individual former RBS directors,
including ex-chief executive Fred Goodwin and former chairman Tom
McKillop.

"We have been very clear that we wanted to deal with as many of
our legacy litigation issues as possible during 2015 and 2016,"
said Mr McEwan.

"We are pleased to have reached this agreement and hope that it
will be accepted by the remaining claimant groups so that this
long course of complex and costly litigation can now be
concluded."

Gary Greenwood, an analyst at Shore Capital, warned that RBS might
take a bigger hit than the GBP800m it has so far earmarked if it
ends up in court.

"It remains possible that a further amount may need to be set
aside should agreement not be reached with the remaining two
shareholder groups and were RBS to lose the subsequent court
case," he said.

As well as the legal claims over the GBP800m capital raising, RBS
also faces a potential fine from the US Department of Justice over
allegations it mis-sold mortgage-backed securities before the
financial crisis.  Some estimates put the penalty the bank might
receive at more than $12bn.

RBS must also offload its Williams & Glyn (W&G) branch network, a
divestment that has been forced on it by the European Commission
as a condition of the bank's Government rescue.  The Edinburgh-
based lender has already warned it expects to miss a Brussels-
imposed deadline of the end of next year to sell W&G, a deal that
has proved problematic to execute.

Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, has said the Government will not
sell any more RBS shares until both issues are resolved.

To add to the pressure on Mr McEwan, RBS failed the Bank of
England's annual stress test and so must shore up its capital
position to the tune of GBP2bn.  The prospect of a large US fine
was one of the reasons RBS failed the test.


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over Trash Bill Overcharges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Scott Davidson, writing for Las Vegas Review-Journal,
reports that a class action lawsuit filed against Republic
Services on Dec. 2 claims the waste-disposal company is illegally
overcharging Clark County property owners by placing multiple $60
liens on homes for overdue trash bills.

The lawsuit states that the county ordinance allows Republic
Services to file only a single, $60 perpetual lien against each
home.

"We want to protect the people of Clark County against an abusive
practice by a company that is a virtual monopoly," said
Las Vegas-based attorneys James Adams, who filed the lawsuit in
Clark County District Court with fellow attorney Puoy Premsrirut.
"We believe this happens a lot to Mr. Joe Homeowner."

Tim Oudman, market vice president of Republic Service, rebutted
the allegations.

"We believe our billing practices are consistent with the
franchise agreement and our commitment to a community we are
fortunate to serve," he wrote in a statement.

Ms. Premsrirut said she believes that tens of thousands of
property owners could have been overcharged during the past four
years.

Republic Services has held an exclusive franchise agreement with
Las Vegas since 1985; with Clark County since 1993, under prior
ownership; with North Las Vegas since 1978; and with Henderson
since 1973, under prior ownership.  Republic Services is the only
waste-disposal company allowed to collect municipal solid waste.

Mr. Adams said he's seeking to stop Republic Services from placing
more than one lien on a property and also getting refunds for any
property owners who were overcharged by the company.

The lawsuit alleges Republic Services violated Nevada's Consumer
Fraud Act and the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practice Act.

The lead plaintiffs are local real estate professional Maxwell
Steinberg, Valtus Real Estate LLC and Rutt Premsrirut, who founded
Valtus and is Puoy Premsrirut's brother.


RESIDENTIAL CREDIT: Sekula Files Appeal in 11th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------
JOHN C. SEKULA and JACQUELINE SEKULA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff - Appellants, v.
RESIDENTIAL CREDIT SOLUTIONS, INC.; AMERICAN WESTERN HOME
INSURANCE, a.k.a. American Western Home Insurance Company; and
SERVICE, the Defendant - Appellees, Case No. 16-17451 (11th Cir,
Dec. 8, 2016), is an appeal filed before the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from a lower court decision in
Case No. 6:15-cv-02104-GAP-KRS (M.D. Fla., Dec. 15, 2015).

The Appellants are represented by:

          Cristina Maria Pierson, Esq.
          KELLEY UUSTAL, PLC
          700 Se 3rd Ave Ste 300
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Business: 954 522 6601
          Personal: 954 522 6601

Residential Credit Solutions, Inc. is represented by:

          Christopher Boeck, Esq.
          Elizabeth Joy Campbell, Esq.
          Robert Thompson Mowrey, Esq.
          LOCKE LORD, LLP
          2200 Ross Ave Ste 2200
          Dallas, TX 75201-2748
          Business: 214 740 8000

American Western Home Insurance is represented by:

          Rodger Eckelberry, Esq.
          Mark A. Johnson, Esq.
          Robert J. Tucker, Esq.
          Michael Sebastain Vitale, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
          65 E STATE ST STE 2100
          Columbus, OH 43215-4260

The SERVICE is represented by:

          Jordan M. Lewis, Esq.
          JORDAN LEWIS, PA
          4473 NE 11TH AVE
          FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33334
          Business: 954-616-8995

               - and -

          John J. Uustal, Esq.
          KELLEY UUSTAL, PLC
          700 Se 3rd Ave Ste 300
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Business: 954 522 6601
          Personal: 954 522 6601


SAINT-GOBAIN: Ground Water Contamination Alleged in "Dowling" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jean Dowling, James Bollengier, Brenda Morse, Brian Mendez, Amy
Mendez, Individually and As Natural Parent and Personal
Representative For , M.M., Beverly Volner, James Volner, Dawna
Worcester, Richard Slide, Erin Slide, Individually and As Natural
Parent and Personal Representative For , C.S. and M.S., Jonathan
Kiley, Jennifer Kiley, individually and as natural parent and
personal representative for , A.K., K.K., E.K.1 and E.K.2, April
Provencher, Phyllis Provencher, Richard Provencher, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., individually and as
successor in interest to Chemfab, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00528 (D.N.H., December 5, 2016), seeks implementation of a
testing and monitoring protocol to test drinking water for the
properties belonging to the members of the Class; an order
establishing a medical monitoring protocol; general, compensatory,
exemplary, consequential, nominal, and punitive damages; attorney
fees and costs; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and such
other relief resulting from public nuisance and negligence.

Saint-Gobain's facilities have been linked to the contamination of
surface and groundwater with perfluorooctanoic acid,
perfluorooctanesulfonic acid and, and other manufactured compounds
which have been detected at levels exceeding the current EPA
Health Advisory Limit of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) in the
groundwater that provides water to the communities through both
municipal water systems and private wells. Defendant operates a
plastics plant on Daniel Webster Highway in Merrimack.

Plaintiffs are affected residents and have all complained of
various medical ailments allegedly resulting from exposure to
these contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hunter Shkolnik, Esq.
      Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
      Louise Caro, Esq.
      NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
      360 Lexington Avenue, Eleventh Floor
      New York, NY, 10017
      Tel: (212) 397-1000
      Email: hunter@napolilaw.com
             pnapoli@napolilaw.com
             lcaro@napolilaw.com

             - and -

      Kirk Simoneau, Esq.
      Lawrence A. Vogelman, Esq.
      NIXON VOGELMAN BARRY SLAWSKY SIMONEAU P.A.
      77 Central Street
      Manchester, NH 03101
      Tel: (603) 669-7070
      Email: ksimoneau@davenixonlaw.com
             lvogelman@davenixonlaw.com


SALEM INTERNATIONAL: W.Va. High Court Sends Suit to Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Brent D. Benjamin of the Supreme Court of Appeals West
Virginia, reversed an order by the Circuit Court of Harrison
County denying a motion to stay proceedings pending mandatory
alternative dispute resolution, and remanded to the circuit court
for further proceedings the case captioned as, SALEM INTERNATIONAL
UNIVERSITY, LLC, A FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION, AND JOHN
LUOTTO, PRESIDENT, Defendants Below, Petitioners v. TAYLOR BATES,
MICHELLE SYLVA, AMY NORTHROP, CLARISSA HANNAH, AND GENA DELLI-
GATTI ON BEHALF OF THEMESELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs Below, Respondents, No. 15-0948 (W. Va.)

Respondents Taylor Bates, Michelle Sylva, Amy Northrop, Clarissa
Hannah, and Gena Delli-Gatti on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated are former students in Salem
International University LLC's nursing program who each signed
enrollment agreements with Salem, attended classes, and paid
tuition to Salem. Upon their enrollment, they signed enrollment
agreements that contained an arbitration clause.

In August 2013, the respondents filed a putative class action
complaint against Salem and alleged that they were nursing
students who were enrolled at Salem in October 2012 and thereafter
and were denied the opportunity to complete their coursework in
nursing at Salem as a result of the nursing program's loss of
accreditation. The respondents stated claims for violation of the
State Consumer Credit and Protection Act, W. Va. Code Sections
46A-6-101-110, negligence, breach of contract, breach of the duty
of good faith and fair dealing, and conversion of personal
property.

In 2014, Salem filed a motion to stay proceedings pending
mandatory alternative dispute resolution in which it asserted that
the respondents agreed to arbitrate their claims against Salem
through the American Arbitration Association (AAA) pursuant to the
enrollment agreement they signed.

Respondents asserted that the arbitration agreement at issue is
unenforceable because Salem had not complied with any of the
requirements of the AAA provision, the arbitration agreement at
issue exempts class actions from arbitration, and the arbitration
agreement is procedurally and substantively unconscionable.

By order entered August 27, 2015, the Circuit Court of Harrison
County denied Salem's motion to stay proceedings pending mandatory
alternative dispute resolution. Salem appealed.

Salem posits that the circuit court ruled that the arbitration
agreement is valid by referring to it as "this otherwise valid
arbitration agreement." Salem admits that the circuit court did
not undertake an in depth analysis or a meaningful discussion of
the validity of the agreement, but that the court included in its
order the relevant legal principles applicable to determining the
validity of an arbitration agreement. Further, Salem avers that
the respondents cannot now challenge the validity of the
arbitration agreement because the respondents failed to cross-
assign as error before the Supreme Court of Appeals West Virginia
the circuit court's determination that the arbitration agreement
was valid except for its ambiguity regarding the respondents'
right to bring class action litigation. Regarding the waiver
issue, Salem argues that the circuit court erred in finding that
the class action waiver language in the arbitration agreement is
ambiguous.

Justice Benjamin held that any challenges to the arbitration
agreement's validity are not properly before the court. Citing the
case of Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Co. v. Daugherty, No. 13-
0253, 2013 WL 6152606 (W. Va. November 22, 2013), the Supreme
Court of Appeals West Virginia declined to address a cross-
assignment of error that was not presented with the required
specificity. According to Justice Benjamin, no cross-assignment of
error was presented challenging the circuit court's determination
that the arbitration agreement at issue was otherwise valid. The
high court will not address the respondents' arguments regarding
the validity of the arbitration agreement; rather, the court will
only address whether the arbitration agreement contains an
enforceable class action litigation waiver.

Justice Benjamin also observed that the arbitration agreement is
not ambiguous and that the arbitration agreement acts as a class
action litigation waiver barring the respondents from seeking
judicial relief as a class.

A copy of Justice Benjamin's order dated November 16, 2016, is
available at https://goo.gl/yo9Zpm from Leagle.com.

Michael S. Garrison -- mgarrison@spilmanlaw.com -- Kelly J. Kimble
-- kkimble@spilmanlaw.com -- Eric W. Iskra --
eiskra@spilmanlaw.com -- at Spilman, Thomas & Battle, PLLC,
Attorneys for Petitioners

Attorney for Respondents:

Charles R. "Rusty" Webb, Esq.,
The Webb Law Centre, PLLC
716 Lee St E
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: 304-344-9322


SANTA FE NATURAL: False Advertising Suite Filed by "Hebert"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jacques-Rene Hebert, Sara Benson, Carol Murphy, Francisco Chavez,
Joshua Horne, Albert Lopez, and Abigail Emmons, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Santa
Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc., Reynolds American Inc. and R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01390, (M.D.
N.C., December 7, 2016), seeks injunctive relief, monetary damages
with prejudgment interest, statutory damages, restitution of
Defendants' ill-gotten gains, reasonable costs and expenses of
suit, including their attorneys' fees, and further relief
resulting from unjust enrichment, breach of implied and express
warranty, various state consumer protection acts and fair business
dealings policies.

Plaintiffs allege that by uniformly using the terms "Natural" and
"Additive-Free" on each and every label of cigarettes manufactured
and sold by the Defendants, they intentionally convey to consumers
that their Natural American Spirit cigarettes are safer and
healthier to smoke than other competing cigarettes despite the
fact that smoking any cigarette, in general, is dangerous and
hazardous to health and that there is no safe cigarette
commercially available within the United States.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
      RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C.
      1612 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 300
      Wilmington, NC 28403
      Tel: (910) 772-9960
      Fax: (910) 772-9062
      Email: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com

             - and -

      Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq.
      Jonathan R. Gdanski, Esq.
      Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq.
      SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
      1212 SE 3rd Avenue
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Telephone: (954) 467-8800
      Facsimile: (954) 320-9509
      Email: scott@schlesingerlaw.com
             jgdanski@schlesingerlaw.com
             jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com

             - and -

      John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
      Scott W. Weinstein, Esq.
      Marisa K. Glassman, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
      201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
      Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
             sweinstein@forthepeople.com
             mglassman@forthepeople.com

             - and -

      Melissa Wolchansky, Esq.
      Amy E. Boyle, Esq.
      HALUNEN LAW
      1650 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 605-4098
      Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
      Email: wolchansky@halunenlaw.com
             boyle@halunenlaw.com

             - and -

      Caleb Marker, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
      2381 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 328
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90254
      Telephone: (877) 500-8780
      Email: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com

             - and -

      Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
      14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
      Scottsdale, AZ 85254
      Telephone: (800) 493-2827
      Email: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com

             - and -

      Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
      Bethesda, MD 20814
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
      Email: charles@cuneolaw.com

             - and -

      D. Greg Blankinship
      FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
      445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
      White Plains, NY 10605
      Telephone: (914) 298-3281
      Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
      Email: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
             jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
             tgarber@fbfglaw.com

             - and -

      Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
      Alexander R. Safyan
      PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
      15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (818) 788-8300
      Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
      Email: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
             asafyan@pswlaw.com

             - and -

      James W. Gustafson, Esq.
      SEARCY, DENNEY, SCAROLA, BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A.
      517 N. Calhoun St.
      Tallahassee, FL 32301
      Tel: (850) 224-7600
      Facsimile: (561) 383-9454
      Email: jwg@searcylaw.com

             - and -

      Michael R. Reese, Esq.
      100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10025
      Telephone: (212) 643-0500
      Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
      Email: mreese@reesellp.com

             - and -

      Matthew D. Schultz, Esq.
      LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR
      316 S. Baylen St., Suite 600
      Pensacola, FL 32502
      Telephone: (850) 435-7140
      Facsimile: (850) 436-7141
      Email: mschultz@levinlaw.com

             - and -

      Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
      651 Arroyo Drive
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 696-9006
      Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
      Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com


SCOTT'S BREWERY: Judge Spurns Application Approach, Tosses Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James D. Peterson of the District of Wisconsin,
granted defendants' motions to dismiss, in the case JOE ROBBINS,
Plaintiff, v. SCOTT SVEHLA, SCOTT'S BREWERY COLLECTIBLES, LLC,
NICHOLAS MARTIN, SPORTS-4-LESS, PHARMACY STATION, INC., and GERALD
MILLER, Defendants, No. 16-cv-532-jdp (W.D. Wis.)

Joe Robbins, a sports photographer, brought a copyright
infringement claims against defendants, alleging that they have
copied and are currently copying, displaying, publishing,
distributing, and otherwise infringing his copyright in one of his
photographs of Aaron Rodgers, a quarterback for the Green Bay
Packers. Defendants are sports memorabilia dealers.

Robbins alleges that defendants' alleged infringements are part of
a larger pattern and practice of the defendants selling what
amounts to counterfeit products that feature unlicensed and
infringing reproductions of photographs. Robbins initially alleged
that he had registered his copyright in the photograph with the
United States Copyright Office, but later on conceded that he does
not have a registration number or a certificate of registration.
Robbins does not dispute that the United States Copyright Office
has not yet issued a certificate of registration for the
photograph.

Defendants Nicholas Martin d/b/a Sports-4-Less and Gerald Miller
and Scott Svehla d/b/a Scott's Brewery Collectibles, LLC,  move to
dismiss the first amended complaint for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). All moving defendants offer the same
basis for dismissal and that is Robbins did not possess a valid
copyright registration when he commenced the action. Robbins
responds that the application approach controls and that the fact
that he applied for registration is sufficient.

Judge Peterson declines to adopt the application approach and, as
a result, grants defendants' motions. Judge Peterson says there
are sound policy arguments for the application approach, but they
do not count for much in the face of statutory text with a clear
meaning. And those policy arguments would not have much traction
in the case.

Judge Peterson also notes that Robbins proposes to proceed with a
class action, so it is hard to see why Robbins and the putative
class counsel would not simply expedite the application for
registration. The cost -- $800 -- seems very modest for a case
brought on behalf of numerous defendants.

A copy of Judge Peterson's order dated November 22, 2016, is
available at https://goo.gl/Tz75U9 from Leagle.com.

Joe Robbins, Plaintiff, represented by:

Kevin Patrick McCulloch, Esq.
Nathaniel Kleinman, Esq.
Nelson & McCulloch LLP
155 E 56th Street
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: 212-355-6050

Scott Svehla and Scott's Brewery Collectibles, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Gregory T. Everts -- gregory.everts@quarles.com --
at Quarles & Brady

Nicholas Martin, Sports-4-Less, and Gerald Miller, Defendants,
represented by John Paul Fredrickson -- jpf@boylefred.com -- at
Boyle Fredrickson, S.C.

Pharmacy Station, Inc., Defendant, represented by James C. Ratzel
-- at Ratzel & Associates, LLC

West Bend Mutual Insurance Company, Intervenor Defendant,
represented by Rick J. Mundt -- at Winner, Wixson & Pernitz;
Daniel John Cunningham -- dcunningham@tresslerllp.com -- at
Tressler LLP

Owners Insurance Company, Intervenor Defendant, represented by
Ryan Ray Graff -- at Nash, Spindler, Grimstad & Mccracken

Scott's Brewery Collectibles, LLC, Counter Claimant, represented
by Gregory T. Everts -- gregory.everts@quarles.com -- at Quarles &
Brady

West Bend Mutual Insurance Company, Counter Defendant, represented
by Rick J. Mundt -- at Winner, Wixson & Pernitz; Daniel John
Cunningham -- dcunningham@tresslerllp.com -- at  Tressler LLP


SI WIRELESS: Faces "Campbell" Suit in Southern Dist. of Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SI Wireless, LLC.
The case is captioned Andrea Campbell, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SI Wireless, LLC,
and Does 1-25, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01320-NJR-SCW (S.D.
Ill., Dec. 8, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Nancy J.
Rosenstengel.

SI Wireless was founded in 2010. The company's line of business
includes providing two-way radiotelephone communication services
such as cellular telephone services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeremy Glapion, Esq.
   GLAPION LAW FIRM
   1704 Maxwell Drive
   Wall, NJ 07719
   Telephone: (732) 455 9737
   Facsimile: (732) 709 5150
   E-mail: jmg@glapionlaw.com


STAR INSURANCE: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal in "Sheehan" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge John M. Rogers of the United States Court of
Appeals, Sixth Circuit, affirmed the judgment of the district
court, in the case CRAIG SHEEHAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STAR
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellees, No. 16-1692 (6th
Cir.)

Craig Sheehan accidentally fell and injured his head at work,
allegedly resulting in difficulties with his memory, he sought
compensation under Michigan's Workers' Disability Compensation Act
from his employer, CJB Trucking, Inc. (CJB). Star Insurance
Company was then the insurer for CJB's workers' compensation
claims, and as a part of its standard procedure for handling a
claim like Sheehan's, it sent him a letter.

Star sent Sheehan a letter requesting that he undergo an
independent examination by a psychologist, which the insurer had
arranged for that purpose. The notice indicated that failure to
report for said examination may result in the loss of the
compensation benefits. Sheehan reported for the exam, which lasted
7 to 8 hours.

A year and a half later Sheehan brought a putative class action
suit in diversity against Star alleging, among other things, that
by sending the letter requesting an independent medical exam Star
had falsely imprisoned him under Michigan law. Because the letter
allegedly threatened him with the loss of his workers'
compensation benefits if he refused to submit to the
neuropsychological exam with Dr. Greiffenstein, an examination
that Sheehan claims inflicted on him, mental anguish, outrage at
loss of liberty, and emotional distress, and because Dr.
Greiffenstein was allegedly also not a physician or surgeon
authorized to practice medicine in Michigan, Sheehan claimed that
Star had not only restrained him against his will, but had done so
unlawfully under Michigan's workers' compensation law. He sought
compensation in excess of $75,000, along with interest, costs, and
attorney's fees.

The district court dismissed Sheehan's complaint. Sheehan appeals
the dismissal of his false imprisonment claim and alleges that the
letter Star sent to him was not a request but a threat, and that
under Michigan's law of false imprisonment.

Judge Rogers affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case
and held that Sheehan's claim of false imprisonment fails because
Star did not restrain him in any sense recognized by Michigan law.
Michigan law requires for false imprisonment that the defendant
have somehow constrained the plaintiff's liberty or freedom of
movement, whether manually or in some other way. Contrary to
Sheehan's arguments, defendant's act does not amount to the tort
of false imprisonment under Michigan common law. Sheehan's actions
were sufficiently voluntary, that there was no imprisonment, as
the district court reasoned. The district court properly dismissed
Sheehan's claim.

A copy of Judge Rogers's opinion dated November 22, 2016, is
available at http://bit.ly/2h9M5s7from Leagle.com.


SUPERIOR TANK: Miranda et al. Allege Violations of FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS MIRANDA, HIPOLITO BORROMEO, HERNAN ESPINOZA, JOSE
GUTIERREZ, KEVIN MATAMOROS, WALTER MENJIVAR, ELIAS MIRANDA, SAMUEL
MIRANDA, RODOLFO RICO, EDGAR RODRIGUEZ, JONATHAN
RODRIGUEZ, ROGELIO SALAS, CESAR VELASQUEZ, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SUPERIOR TANK CO.,
INC. a/k/a SUPERIOR BOLTED TANK CO., INC., Defendant, Case No.
6:16-cv-00083 (S.D. Tex., December 8, 2016), alleges that
Defendants is violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by forcing
its employees to work a substantial amount of overtime without
properly paying all compensation due, thus depriving them of
rightful compensation for their hours worked that Superior is
legally obligated to pay.

Superior Tank Co., Inc., a/k/a Superior Bolted Tank Co., Inc., is
a company that designs, fabricates, and builds bolted and welded
steel storage tanks throughout the United States including Texas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
     Justin C. Jenson, Esq.
     BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC
     440 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 425-7100
     Fax: (713) 425-7101
     E-mail: rcowan@bpblaw.com


TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE: "Kirk" Suit Alleges Violations of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
Tracy E. Kirk, Plaintiff vs. TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE OPERATING COMPANY,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00222-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind.,
December 6, 2016), is a class and collective action lawsuit
against Tenneco to address alleged class-wide wage and hour
violations committed by Tenneco against its hourly-paid employees
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE OPERATING COMPANY, INC. operates an automobile
part manufacturing facility in Jeffersonville, Clark County,
Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq.
     HUNT, HASSLER, KONDRAS & MILLER LLP
     100 Cherry Street
     Terre Haute, IN 47807
     Phone: (812) 232-9691
     Fax: (812) 234-2881
     E-mail: kondras@huntlawfirm.net


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces "Browder" Class Suit in N.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Toyota Motor
Sales USA Inc. and Toyota Motor Corporation.

The case is captioned Heidi Browder, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. and
Toyota Motor Corporation, Case No. 3:16-cv-03387-G (N.D. Tex.,
December 7, 2016).

Headquartered in Torrance, California, the Defendants operate the
North American Toyota sales, marketing, and distribution
subsidiary devoted to the U.S. market.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: For-Profit Colleges Optimistic Despite Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Schuman, writing for The Atlantic, reports that Strayer
Education, Inc., the company that owns the for-profit Strayer
University, hadn't experienced a sudden, significant increase in
its stock price in more than a year.  Then, as November 9 came to
a close and it was clear that Donald J. Trump had won the
election, the company's stock jumped from $58 to $66 per share. It
wasn't the only for-profit college to see a boon after the
presidential votes were tallied -- even those that have faced
federal probes, like DeVry and the University of Phoenix, saw
their stock values rise.

This was quite a change from the reasons for-profits have usually
appeared in the news -- often simply a chronicle of which ones had
just closed their campuses or filed for bankruptcy -- amid the
Obama administration's second-term crackdown on select for-profit
institutions accused of engaging in unscrupulous recruiting
practices and making unfulfilled career promises.

Perhaps investors in the for-profits were optimistic about
President-elect Trump's promises to undo as many government
regulations as possible.  Or perhaps, given that Trump had once
operated a for-profit real-estate seminar series, branded as a
"university" bearing his name, they saw in him someone who
supports for-profit colleges, too.

That particular institution, of course, was recently embroiled in
a class-action fraud lawsuit, which Trump settled 10 days after
the election to the tune of $25 million (though he said on Twitter
that he would have prevailed).  On its face, the Trump University
settlement would appear to signal caution to those with a stake in
for-profits, namely colleges whose business practices have already
come under scrutiny.  But nearly everything about this particular
fraud case was an outlier, from the brazenness of Trump
University's "playbook," to its high-dollar class-action
settlement, to the fact that it made it to court (and, thus, also
the public record) in the first place.

A central tenet of one of the complaints in the class-action
lawsuit, Cohen v. Trump, was that operating Trump's seminars as
"Trump University" (which went on until 2010), was a blatantly
fraudulent act.  That is, per the Cohen complaint, not only did
the events not offer direct access to Trump's real-estate
"secrets," but the operation conferred neither degree nor
certification, making it unlike any actual university.

Although Trump himself claimed in a promotional video that the
seminars' faculty consisted of hand-selected "professors and
adjunct professors" whose quality rivaled those in the Ivy League,
the events instead allegedly delivered independent sales
contractors, paid in commission.  Additionally, the Cohen
complaint alleges participants filled out detailed financial
statements, ostensibly for the purpose of setting investment
goals, but actually "to assess the liquid assets that each student
has to spend on the next Trump University program." While the
first seminar was offered free of cost, according to the
complaint, it upsold to a "Fulfillment Seminar" costing $1,495,
which was followed by a $34,995 "Gold Elite" program. (Trump's
answer to the Cohen complaint either denied all allegations of
wrongdoing, or claimed Trump was "without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth" of those
allegations.)

Rather than overpromise a lucrative new career in a hot field, as
some for-profit universities have been criticized of doing, Trump
University was, according to the complaints, a simple get-rich-
quick racket with the word "university" attached -- a word that
eventually disappeared in 2010, after the New York State Education
Department demanded Trump remove it, as using it without any
attendant properties of an institution of higher learning was
illegal.  The primary reason, then, that the American for-profit
market doesn't seem rattled by the Trump settlement is that Trump
U was, simply put, accused of running a full-fledged scam that had
little to do with universities at all, for-profit or otherwise.
It's worth noting that some for-profit schools do produce good
outcomes for students, with many of the institutions offering more
flexible scheduling than nonprofit and public colleges do for
nontraditional students.  And while the unscrupulous minority of
the for-profits, such as the now-defunct Corinthian Colleges, were
also accused of running scams, those alleged scams were of a
markedly different nature.

The other reason the Trump settlement seems to be having little
effect on investor confidence in the for-profits accused of
wrongdoing has to do with a popular legal tactic that will likely
keep many disgruntled for-profit students out of the courtroom to
start with: mandatory arbitration agreements, in which those who
sign them effectively sign away their rights to sue.

According to Katherine Chiarello, a commercial litigator based in
Austin, Texas, the primary reason the Trump case made it to court
in the first place was that Trump's program "apparently did not
have a mandatory arbitration provision," which was "the only
reason [the case] was able to get into court and into a public
forum, where there could be public scrutiny of the alleged bad
acts." (Texas was the site of another Trump University probe,
which the state dropped amid controversy.)

An extensive April 2016 report by the Century Foundation found
that 98 percent of students enrolled at for-profit universities
receiving federal aid must sign mandatory-arbitration provisions
in their enrollment materials, compared to just 7 percent of
students at traditional nonprofit or public colleges.
Ms. Chiarello said that for for-profit students who feel they've
been defrauded and have signed away their ability to go to court,
the arbitrator "may be financially inclined to side with the for-
profit university" because of the university's potential as a
repeat customer.  Further, though agreements vary between
institutions, Ms. Chiarello explained that they usually "purport
to limit the kind of damages you can recover," either by amount or
by preventing class actions -- and thus, often suits altogether.
"It can be very difficult to find a lawyer that can take on an
individual's case," as opposed to a class action such as Cohen v.
Trump, Ms. Chiarello said, "because the risk-reward" of a single
client, meaning the potential payoff is insufficient.

Steve Gunderson, the president and CEO of Career Education
Colleges and Universities (CECU), an advocacy organization for the
for-profit education industry, challenged Ms. Chiarello's claims,
arguing that mandatory-arbitration clauses are instead in place to
protect students at the for-profits.  For it's not just that
litigators will be loath to take on individual clients -- they
also have little interest in small class actions either.  "In
small and medium-sized schools," he said, "class-action suits are
not going to happen, because no lawyer will take them on" given
the comparatively small number of claimants. "If you want to
protect the student, arbitration may be the best vehicle."

The Obama administration, however, was concerned about the effects
of mandatory arbitration on students who'd been defrauded by for-
profit colleges.  In fact, on the cusp of the election, the U.S.
Department of Education had actually introduced a new set of
regulations, designed to protect both students and taxpayers from
"predatory institutions."  A key provision of the new regulatory
effort, the department explained in an October 28 press release,
was "permanently banning any pre-dispute arbitration agreements"
for all students who took out federal loans to pay tuition.  This
would account for almost all for-profit students: Some 86 percent
of the tuition funds in this industry stem from federal-aid
programs. (Under the new regulations, the student and school could
still agree to voluntary arbitration, a provision Gunderson says
was added after "they heard us" about arbitration's advantages.)

These new provisions -- which Gunderson denounced before they were
finalized -- will take effect in July of 2017, when Trump will
have been president for six months.  Given the president-elect's
stance on government regulations (and, presumably, being the
subject of a class-action lawsuit), there is no indication that
the mandatory-arbitration ban will see the light of day. (The
press office of the Trump transition team did not respond to a
request for comment.)

Today, the stock price of Strayer -- a group consistently lauded
as one of the industry's better actors -- is hovering around $75 a
share.  That's the highest it's been since November of 2014, just
after the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau sued Corinthian
Colleges for predatory lending, coinciding with a nationwide
decline in for-profit enrollment.  With Trump headed to the White
House, $25 million settlement or no, investors in America's
remaining for-profit universities apparently believe they're
headed for a resurgence.  As they should be, says
Ms. Chiarello.  As long as for-profits' students have to sign
those arbitration agreements, she said, the institutions can look
forward to looser regulations and few lawsuits.  "I think," she
says, "that they are probably feeling pretty good right about
now."


TURN AROUND: "Kinslow" Suit Alleges Non-payment of Wages, OT Work
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leo Kinslow, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TURN AROUND COMMUNICATIONS,
INC.; and DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC
642609 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, December 2, 2016),
alleges that Defendant has had a consistent policy of failing to
pay wages and/or overtime to all Proposed Class Members when they
work more than eight hours in a day or forty hours in a week.

TURN AROUND COMMUNICATIONS, INC. --
http://www.turnaroundcommunications.net/-- provides diverse
services to the telecommunications industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
     Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq.
     KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
     16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
     Encino, CA 91436
     Phone: (818) 990-8300
     Fax: (818) 990-2903
     E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
             liane@kingsleykingsley.com

        - and -

     Walter L. Haines, Esq.
     UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
     5550 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
     Huntington Beach, CA 92649
     Phone: (562) 256-1047
     Fax: (562) 256-1006


TYSON FOODS: "Chung" Class Suit Transferred to W.D. Arkansas
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Jonah Chung, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tyson Foods Inc.,
Donnie Smith, and Dennis Leatherby, Case No. 1:16-cv-08108, was
transferred from District of New York Southern to the U. S.
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas
(Fayetteville). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-
cv-05354-PKH to the proceeding.

The Defendants operate a food manufacturing company headquartered
in Springdale, Arkansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
      Joseph Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665

The Defendant is represented by:

      David F. Graham, Esq.
      SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP
      One South Dearborn
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 853-7000
      Facsimile: (312) 853-7036
      E-mail: dgraham@sidley.com

         - and -

      Dorothy Jane Spenner, Esq.
      SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
      787 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 839-5300
      Facsimile: (212) 839-5407
      E-mail: dspenner@sidley.com


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces "Mastra" Suit Alleging ERISA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Mastra, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. UnitedHealth Group Inc.; UnitedHealthcare,
Inc.; and United Healthcare Services, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-04119 (D. Minn., December 8, 2016),
alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 and the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.

The case alleges that Defendants, acting themselves and through
their agents, required network pharmacies to charge insured
patients unauthorized and excessive amounts for prescription
drugs. Defendants "clawed back" these excessive payments by
forcing the pharmacies to pay the unauthorized and excessive
charges to Defendants after collecting them from the insureds.

Defendant UnitedHealth Group Inc., through its wholly owned
subsidiaries, including Defendants UnitedHealthcare, Inc. and
United Healthcare Services, Inc., is a fully integrated health
insurance company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
     Karla M. Gluek, Esq.
     Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
     Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
     GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
     Canadian Pacific Plaza
     120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 333-8844
     Fax: (612) 339-6622
     E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
             kgluek@gustafsongluek.com
             mlooby@gustafsongluek.com
             jbourne@gustafsongluek.com


UNITED STATES: DOL Requests Expedited Ruling on Injunction Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Justin R. Barnes, Esq., and Eric R. Magnus, Esq., of Jackson Lewis
P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, report that on
December 2, one day after filing its appeal of the preliminary
injunction blocking its new salary basis regulations, the DOL
filed a request for expedited briefing and oral argument in the
appeal.  The DOL has requested that the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals set an expedited schedule whereby briefing would be
complete on February 7, 2017 and oral argument would occur on the
first available date thereafter.  According to the DOL, the
injunction was issued in error because the Fair Labor Standards
Act gives the DOL "broad latitude" to issue regulations defining
and delimiting the white collar exemptions, including the salary
basis test.  The DOL also notes in its request that the district
court below set an expedited schedule for considering the motion
for preliminary injunction.  The States who initially filed the
lawsuit challenging the DOL salary basis regulations have
indicated that they oppose the DOL's request for expedited
briefing and oral argument.  The Fifth Circuit may not grant the
DOL's request for an expedited schedule, but even if it does the
appeal would not be resolved by the January 20, 2017 inauguration
of President-elect Trump even under the DOL's proposed schedule.
Under the Trump Administration, the DOL could withdraw the appeal
or issue new proposed rules.  Congress could also pass new
legislation nullifying the DOL regulation.


US CABLE CORP: "Bandsuh" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Zach Bandsuh, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. US Cable Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-01828, (N.D. Ohio., December 8, 2016), seeks unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees,
and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

US Cable is a private cable contracting company that provides
design and construct cable, telephony, and call center services.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant between October 2014 and
November 2016 as a cable installer for customers throughout
Northeast Ohio.

Plaintiff and other cable installers were classified by Defendant
as independent contractors and were paid on a points-based system
based on their productivity and denied them overtime for hours
worked over 40 per week.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Steiner, Esq.
      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
      920 Rockefeller Building
      614 W. Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Phone: (216) 696-5000
      Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
      Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
             david@lazzarolawfirm.com


VITAL RECOVERY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Felipe Magallon, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Vital Recovery Services, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-02971-
JAH-BLM (S.D. Cal., December 7, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Vital Recovery Services, LLC owns and operates a third-party
collection agency in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Asil A. Mashiri, Esq.
      MASHIRI LAW FIRM
      11251 Rancho Carmel Drive
      Suite 500694
      San Diego, CA 92150
      Telephone: (858) 348-4938
      Facsimile: (858) 348-4939
      E-mail: alexmashiri@yahoo.com


WEST PENN ALLEGHENY: 3rd Cir. Won't Hear Hospital Employees' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge D. Brooks Smith of the United States Court of Appeals,
Third Circuit, dismissed an appeal in the case STEVEN HALLE, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. WEST PENN
ALLEGHENY HEALTH SYSTEM INC. WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA HEALTHCARE
SYSTEM INC; ALLE KISKI MEDICAL CENTER; ALLEGHENY GENERAL HOSPITAL;
ALLEGHENY GENERAL HOSPITAL SUBURBAN CAMPUS; WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA
HOSPITAL; WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITAL FORBES REGIONAL CAMPUS;
ALLEGHENY MEDICAL PRACTICE NETWORK; ALLEGHENY SPECIALTY PRACTICE
NETWORK; WEST PENN PHYSICIAN PRACTICE NETWORK; ALLEGHENY SINGER
RESEARCH INSTITUTE; HIGHMARK INC; ALLEGHENY HEALTH NETWORK; JOHN
W. PAUL; BART METZGER; CHRISTOPHER T. OLIVIA; JOHN LASKY;
CANONSBURG GENERAL HOSPITAL SENORA TARPLEY; KATIEJO BIGENHO; WAYNE
HABER, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other opt-in
plaintiffs, Appellants, No. 15-3089 (3d Cir.)

In 2009, two groups of plaintiffs filed separate but similar
complaints against two large Western Pennsylvania hospitals and
their affiliated health care facilities and centers:  the Camesi
v. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, No. 3:09-cv-00085 (W.D
Pa.), and the Kuznyetsov v. West Penn Allegheny Health System,
Inc., No. 2:09-cv-00379 (W.D. Pa.), but was later consolidated
into No. 2:10-cv-00948 (W.D. Pa.). The complaints alleged that the
hospital defendants violated the FLSA by failing to properly pay
their employees for work performed during scheduled meal breaks.
The named plaintiffs purported to bring the claims as collective
actions on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
employees pursuant to FLSA Section 16(b), 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b).

The district judges handling the cases conditionally certified the
collective action. Both judges approved detailed notices to be
sent to potential collective action members. Among other things,
the notices advised that, by consenting to opt in to the suit, an
employee would join in the lawsuit, await the outcome, and give up
the right to sue separately. The notices further provided that
once people have had the chance to opt in, the court will decide
whether people who have opted in may participate in this
collective action. Only people similarly situated to the
plaintiffs may participate in this collective action.

The parties conducted collective action related discovery for
nearly two years, including expert discovery and fact discovery of
the named plaintiffs and a sample of the collective action
members. The district judges then entertained cross-motions by the
plaintiffs to certify the collective actions and by the defendants
to decertify the collective actions, but eventually both judges
decertified the collective actions. Both judges concluded that the
opt-in plaintiffs were not similarly situated to the named
plaintiffs. When they decertified the two collective actions, the
judges also dismissed the claims of all opt-in plaintiffs without
prejudice to re-filing individual actions.

In an express effort to seek immediate appellate review of the
decertification orders, the named plaintiffs in both Camesi and
Kuznyetsov moved to voluntarily dismiss their claims with
prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The district judges granted the motions and the named
plaintiffs promptly filed notices of appeal.

The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit court
consolidated the two appeals. In Camesi v. Univ. of Pittsburgh
Med. Ctr., 729 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 2013), and dismissed the appeals
for lack of jurisdiction. The third circuit determined that the
named plaintiffs in Camesi and Kuznyetsov improperly had attempted
to short-circuit the procedure for appealing an interlocutory
order that is separate from, and unrelated to, the merits of their
case. It further determined that, by voluntarily dismissing their
claims with prejudice, the named plaintiffs mooted their claims in
Camesi and Kuznyetsov. In doing so, the named plaintiffs
extinguished any residual representational interest they may once
have had in bringing claims on behalf of individuals who had filed
consents to opt in to the collective action.

Soon after the issuance of opinion in Camesi, the same law firm
that represented the Camesi/Kuznyetsov plaintiffs filed two new
FLSA collective action complaints on behalf of two new sets of
named plaintiffs against the same hospital defendants, raising
substantially the same FLSA claims concerning work during unpaid
meal breaks. The new complaints proposed slightly different
definitions of the collective actions than had been proposed in
Camesi and Kuznyetsov. The follow-up to Camesi was Belle v. Univ.
of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., No. 2:13-cv-01448 (W.D. Pa.), while the
follow-up to Kuznyetsov was Halle v. West Penn Allegheny Health
Sys., No. 2:13-cv-01449 (W.D. Pa.). Both cases were assigned to
Judge Bissoon, who had presided over Camesi.

In Belle, before the named plaintiffs filed a motion to
conditionally certify a collective action, more than 900
individuals filed consents to opt in. The defendants moved to
dismiss the collective action allegations on grounds of issue
preclusion, arguing that the issue of certification of the
collective action had been fully litigated in Camesi and should
not be relitigated in Belle. Judge Bissoon agreed. By order dated
September 29, 2014, she concluded that, despite minor tweaks,
Belle was a redux of Camesi in which the theories of liability
remained materially unchanged.

As in Belle, numerous individuals filed consents to opt in to
Halle before Judge Bissoon had an opportunity to address whether a
collective action should be conditionally certified. Also as in
Belle, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the collective
action allegations on the ground of issue preclusion.

On November 6, 2014, Judge Bissoon granted the motion,
incorporating by reference her opinion on issue preclusion in
Belle. On July 27, 2015, the sole named plaintiff in Halle, Steven
Halle, accepted an offer of judgment from West Penn under Rule 68
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the amount of $2,392.00
for back pay and liquidated damages. Consistent with the terms of
Halle's acceptance, Judge Bissoon entered judgment against West
Penn, dismissed Halle's claims against the remaining defendants
with prejudice, and administratively closed the case.

Three of the Halle opt-in plaintiffs, Senora Tarpley, KatieJo
Bigenho, and Wayne Haber filed an appeal. Steven Halle did not
appeal and is not participating in the appeal. Appellants are
three hospital employees who claim they were not properly
compensated for work performed during meal breaks. Appellants
contend it would be unfair to dismiss the appeal because it leaves
the opt-in plaintiffs without an opportunity to obtain appellate
review of Judge Bissoon's decision to dismiss the collective
allegations from Halle's complaint now that West Penn has picked
off Halle by offering him a Rule 68 judgment which mooted his
claims.

Chief Judge Smith dismissed the appeal and observed that when the
opt-in plaintiffs were dismissed without prejudice, they did not
suffer an adverse judgment on the merits of any claim. They lost
nothing but the ability to proceed in Halle's case. That does not
give rise to a right to pursue an appeal from Halle's individual
final judgment. To obtain appellate review of an order
decertifying a collective action, the plaintiff must either
proceed to a final judgment on the merits of his or her individual
claims or seek the District Court's permission to pursue an
immediate appeal.

A copy of Chief Judge Smith's opinion dated November 18, 2016, is
available at https://goo.gl/AxBofU from Leagle.com.

David S. Fryman -- fryman@ballardspahr.com -- Elizabeth K. McManus
-- mcmanuse@ballardspahr.com%20 -- at Ballard Spahr LLP, Counsel
for Appellee

Counsel for Appellant:

Jonathan W. Ferris, Esq.
J. Nelson Thomas, Esq.
Thomas & Solomon
693 East Avenue
Rochester, NY 14607
Telephone: 877-272-4066

The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit panel consists
of Chief Judge D. Brooks Smith and Judges Thomas L. Ambro and J.
Michael Fisher


WINDHAVEN INSURANCE: Faces "Nedd" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Nedd, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, v. WINDHAVEN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 8:16-cv-03363 (M.D. Fla., December 8, 2016), alleges that
the Defendant failed to pay overtime compensation as required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

WINDHAVEN INSURANCE COMPANY -- http://windhaven.insurancestep.com
-- offers auto insurance coverage.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mary E. Lytle, Esq.
     David V. Barszcz, Esq.
     Robert N. Sutton, Esq.
     LYTLE & BARSZCZ, P.A.
     543 N. Wymore Road, Ste. 103
     Maitland, FL 32751
     Phone: (407) 622-6544
     Fax: (407) 622-6545
     E-mail: mlytle@lblaw.attorney
             dbarszcz@lblaw.attorney
             rsutton@lblaw.attorney


WYANDOTTE, MI: Tax Statute Deprives Dist. Court of Jurisdiction
---------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Alice M. Batchelder of the United States Court of
Appeald, Sixth Circuit, vacated the district court's opinion and
remanded the case so that the district court may remand the case
to state court, in the case JAMES P. PAGE, individually and in a
representative capacity, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF
WYANDOTTE, MI, et al., Defendants-Appellees, No. 15-2442 (6th
Cir.)

The City of Wyandotte provides water, cable television, and
internet services to its residents through Wyandotte Municipal
Services (WMS), a department of the City, and WMS Cable, a
subdepartment.

Plaintiff James Page resides in the City of Wyandotte, Michigan,
and receives water and cable services from the City owned
utilities. Page sued the City, its mayor, and its City Council in
state court, alleging that the transfers violate the United States
Constitution, the Michigan Constitution, and the City Charter, and
alleging various other common law grounds for relief. He sought
certification as a class action, a declaratory judgment, an
injunction, damages, and attorney fees.

The City removed the case to federal court, citing Page's federal
constitutional claims. But Page moved to remand, arguing that,
because the franchise fees are taxes, the Tax Injunction Act
deprived the federal court of subject matter jurisdiction.

The district court denied the motion to remand with respect to
Page's federal claims, proceeding to dismiss the complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Noting simply that it had
federal question jurisdiction over the federal constitutional
claims, the district court concluded that it was sufficient for it
to exercise jurisdiction. The court declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Page's state law claims, and it
remanded those claims to the state court. Page filed a motion for
reconsideration, but the district court did not clarify its
reasoning.  The district court later granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the federal claims under Rule 12(c).

Page appeals the denial of his motion to remand and the dismissal
of his claims.

Judge Batchelder agrees with Page that the Tax Injunction Act
deprived the district court of jurisdiction to hear Page's case.
The 6th Circuit vacated the district court's opinion and remanded
so that the district court may remand the case to state court.
Judge Batchelder says even if the City could somehow demonstrate
that the revenue from the franchise fees covered the portion of
the cost of providing City services that is attributable to the
utilities, she is still convinced that the franchise fees would be
taxes within the meaning of the Act. The Tax Injunction Act
therefore bars federal court jurisdiction over Page's attempt to
enjoin, suspend or restrain that revenue stream.

A copy of Judge Batchelder's opinion dated November 17, 2016, is
available at https://goo.gl/fAlTyQ from Leagle.com.


ZIMMER BIOMET: January 31 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.
("Zimmer" or the "Company") (NYSE: ZBH) and certain of its
officers, and is on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired Zimmer securities between September 7, 2016 and
October 31, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").  Such
investors are advised to join this case by visiting the firm's
site: http://www.bgandg.com/zbh.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Zimmer designs, develops, manufactures and markets orthopedics
products, including knee, hip, shoulder, elbow, foot and ankle
artificial joints and dental prostheses.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose: (1) supply chain problems led to a reduction in order
fulfillment rates, particularly in Zimmer's knee and hip
portfolios; (2) as a result, Zimmer would not meet its revenues
and profit projection; and (3) consequently, Zimmer's statements
about its business, operations, and prospects, were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/zbh or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484.  If you suffered a loss in Zimmer
you have until January 31, 2017 to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Its primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of its clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.


* CFPB's Effort to Curb Mandatory Arbitration May Face Challenges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Schroeder, writing for The Hill, reports that president-
elect Donald Trump would be able to roll back financial
regulations worth at least $1.7 billion to the industry and others
that must meet those rules, according to new analysis.

There are nine rule-writing projects recently completed by
regulators that Trump would be able to immediately rescind after
taking office, as the incoming president has vowed to dismantle
the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.

Making major changes to the law could be politically tricky, given
that easing rules on the financial sector typically serves as a
potent attack for advocates for tougher rules.  Democrats are
likely to fight hard on making wholesale changes to the law,
enacted in 2010 following the financial crisis.

But the conservative American Action Forum has identified nine
regulations that Trump would be able to immediately shelve, even
with no help from Congress.  That's because those rules have been
completed within the last 60 legislative days of the current
Congress.  The Congressional Review Act empowers the next Congress
and administration to rescind those new rules until Congress
decides to give them the green light.

None of the rules are cornerstones of Dodd-Frank; nearly all the
major rules have already been completed and would require
legislation to alter or repeal.  But they do add up to a
significant amount of work for those who would have to comply --
$1.7 billion in estimated costs and 1.2 million compliance hours.
The rules cover a wide range of issues, including detailing how
records and data should be kept, as well as several rules aimed at
the derivatives marketplace.

The largest rule on the chopping block is a project from the
Securities and Exchange Commission.  Those rules, finalized in
June, require companies to publicly disclose any payments made to
governments worldwide to facilitate the extraction of oil, natural
gas or other minerals.

The regulations, aimed at fighting corruption and keeping
governments accountable for these types of projects, were
estimated to cost companies $1.2 billion and require 217,408 hours
to comply.

And there are other unfinished pieces of regulatory work that also
stand to hit a roadblock, whether they are completed in President
Obama's final days in office or as Trump takes control.

One of the largest looming on the horizon is a rule-writing
project from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  That
agency has expressed a desire to curb the use of "mandatory
arbitration" language in consumer financial contracts, which bars
people from taking companies to court in class-action lawsuits.
That rule was proposed in May and has yet to be finalized.  It has
already attracted criticism from Republicans and industry backers,
and faces a difficult path to completion with a Trump
administration on its way.




                            *********

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  * * *