CAR_Public/161221.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, December 21, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 254




                            Headlines

1-800-CONTACTS: "Stillings" Suit Moved from N.D. Cal. to D. Utah
ALASKA AIRLINES: Settles Class Action Over Virgin Acquisition
ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Khang & Khang Files Class Action Lawsuit
ALORICA: Faces Complaint Over Mandatory Arbitration Agreement
ANTHONY'S AVEDA: Starts Class Action Lawsuit Over Water Crisis

APPLE: Former Retail Workers Win $2 Million in Class-Action
ASRC ENERGY: "Alli" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Bonuses
AUTOVEST LLC: Motion to Certify Class in "Brown" Suit Withdrawn
B & B COLEMAN: "Vargas" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over USD-Denominated SSA Bonds

BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over IV Saline Solution Price-Fixing
BLU PRODUCTS: "Aguilar" Alleges Wiretapping in Blu Phones
CANADA: Court Allows Class Action Over School Fees to Proceed
CANADA: Armed Forces Faces Third Sexual-Abuse Class Action
CANADA: McKiggan Hebert, Koskie Minsky File Class Action v. CAF

CANDELA CORP: Faces Class Action Over Ultrashape Power Device
CBE GROUP: Court Grants Truglio's Bid for Class Certification
CHEMTURA CORP: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
CNN: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Action
COINBASE INC: Silver Law Firm, Wites Kapetan Files Class Action

DELAWARE, USA: Bid to Certify Class in "Saunders" Suit Denied
DICK'S SPORTING: TCPA Case Won't Proceed as Class Action
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Brown Withdraws Bid for Class Certification
FACEBOOK INC: Lundin Law Discloses Securities Class Action
FIELDTURF USA: Carteret Borough Files Class Action Lawsuit

GLACIER COUNTY, MT: Taxpayers Appeal Class Action Dismissal
GOLDCORP INC: Glancy Prongay Appointed Class Action Lead Counsel
INTEGRITY HOME: "Cooper" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA
INTERACTIVECORP: Company Control Challenged in CA Pension Suit
IOWA: DOT Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Traffic Tickets

KRAFT HEINZ: "Beale" Suit Seeks Restoration of Retiree Benefits
KROGER: Faces Class Action for Discrimination
L'OREAL USA: Faces Class Action Over Hair Care Product
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Securities Class Action Pending in New York
MCCORMICK & COMPANY: Faces Class Action Over "All Natural" Label

MED-CARE DIABETIC: Arwa Chiropractic Seeks to Certify TCPA Class
OPTUMRX INC: Insurance Meds Clawback Scheme Hit in "Alston" Suit
PAM TRANSPORT: "Browne" Suit Claim Minimum Wages
PATRIOT NATIONAL: Faces Class Action, Court to Set Hearing
PHD FITNESS: Faces Class Action Over Supplement False Advertising

PRIMORIS SERVICES: "Atkins" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
PROBALANCE INC: Status Hearing in "Ulrich" Suit Set for Dec. 22
RAVAGH PERSIAN: "Baten" Suit Seeks Overtime, Reimbursements
RDJE INC: "Olmstead" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
REMINGTON ARMS: Seeks Approval of Rifle Class Action Settlement

RIO TINTO: Guinean Scandal Spurs US Class Action
SAN RAFAEL, CA: "Alviso" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
SET ENTERPRISES: Class of Exotic Dancers Certified Under FLSA
SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Earthquake Class Action Gets the Green Light
SPRINT CORP: Class of Sales Farmers Certified in "McGlon" Suit

SYKES ENTERPRISES: "Meeks" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
TARGET: Motion to Intervene Filed Against Class Action Objectors
TERRAVIA HOLDINGS: Bronstein, Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
TEVA: Faces Class Action Over US Antitrust Probe Into Price-Fixing
TEVA PHARMA: Sued in E.D. Pa. Over Generic Drug Price-Fixing

TREE HOUSE: Closures A Fit Case For Class Action, Official Says
UFC: Fighters' Class Action Lawyers In Dispute with MMAAA
UNITEDHEALTH: "Ackerman" Suit Alleges Prescription Profiteering
VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT: Golans Supplement Bid to Certify Class
WELLS FARGO: Senators Criticize Use of Forced Arbitration

WALT DISNEY: Sued by U.S. Employees Over Discrimination
YAHOO! INC: Failed to Protect Consumers From Hacking, Lawsuit Says

* Class Actions May Face Tougher Limits Under Trump Presidency


                            *********


1-800-CONTACTS: "Stillings" Suit Moved from N.D. Cal. to D. Utah
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled PAM STILLINGS, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.
1-800-CONTACTS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-05400, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah
(Central). The Utah District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-
cv-01257-TS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge
Ted Stewart.

The case is all about Plaintiff and all members of the proposed
class having overpaid for contact lenses that they each purchased
within the past four years from 1-800-Contacts. The Plaintiff will
demonstrate the probable amount of these overcharges at a later
stage of these proceedings. In addition, Plaintiff and each member
of the proposed class have been deprived of information about
contact lenses, competition for their business, and the offer of
alternative and better prices, products, and services.

1-800 Contacts retails contact lenses online for consumers in the
United States. It provides daily disposables, toric lenses, color
lenses, and bifocal lenses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William A. Markham, Esq.
          Dorn Bishop, Esq.
          Jason Eliaser, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM MARKHAM, P.C.
          550 West C Street, Suite 2000
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 221 4400
          E-mail: wm@markhamlawfirm.com
                  db@markhamlawfirm.com
                  je@markhamlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Ronald Marron, Esq.
          Michael Houchin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF
          RONALD A. MARRON, P.C.
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696 9006
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  mike@consumersadvocates.com


ALASKA AIRLINES: Settles Class Action Over Virgin Acquisition
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Silk, writing for Travel Weekly, reports that Alaska
Airlines has agreed to settle a federal class-action claim brought
by consumers opposing its acquisition of Virgin America.
Terms of the settlement are confidential, Alaska said.

The announcement came one day after the Department of Justice
(DOJ) gave antitrust approval to the proposed $4 billion
acquisition.

The complaint, filed in San Francisco, alleged that the merger
would harm consumers by reducing the number of airlines serving
Hawaii and both U.S. coasts; reducing capacity overall, leading to
higher ticket prices and ancillary fees; and depriving passengers
of the lower fares and "unique flying experience" offered by
Virgin America.

As part of the DOJ approval, regulators required Alaska Air to
relinquish some codeshare routes with American Airlines.
"We look forward to closing the transaction in the very near
future," Alaska said.


ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Khang & Khang Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP disclosed the filing of a class action lawsuit
against Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares between February 10, 2014 and November
9, 2016 inclusive, are encouraged to contact the Firm in advance
of the January 17, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

"If you purchased shares of Alexion during the Class Period,
please contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang LLP, 18101
Von Karman Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone:
(949) 419-3834, or by e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com." Khang & Khang
said.

"There has been no class certification in this case. Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member."
Khang & Khang said.

The complaint alleges that Alexion made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: that the Company employed
improper sales practices with respect to its product Soliris; that
the Company's revenues from Soliris sales were unlikely to be
sustainable; and that as a result of the above, Alexion's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. On November 4, 2016, Alexion cancelled an appearance at the
Credit Suisse Healthcare Conference. Following the cancellation,
analysts noticed that the Company also failed to file its
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q with the SEC within two days of its
earnings announcement on October 27, 2016. On November 9, 2016,
Alexion announced that the Company would not be able to timely
file its financial and operating results for the quarter ended
September 30, 2016. When this information was released, shares of
Alexion declined in value, causing investors harm.


ALORICA: Faces Complaint Over Mandatory Arbitration Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Lueders, writing for The Progressive, reports that for four-
and-a-half years, Jennifer Fultz was for many people the face --
make that the voice -- of JPMorgan Chase.  She worked at a call
center in Rockford, Illinois, helping the finance giant's
customers with their banking accounts, credit cards, and auto
loans.  She liked her job, though it paid just $11 an hour, barely
enough for Ms. Fultz, a single mother, to get by.  On three
occasions, she says, her team leader presented her with
certificates of commendation.

"Once you have so many years under your belt you become very
knowledgeable and are able to help customers without putting them
on hold or anything," Ms. Fultz recalls.  "I became very good at
my job."

On Monday, September 12, Ms. Fultz was summoned to a meeting with
the human resources manager at her company, EGS Customer Care. She
was given a form and told she needed to sign it.  The form, titled
"Agreement to Arbitrate," bore the name of EGS's parent company,
Alorica.  It pledged employees to resolve all workplace claims and
disputes through arbitration and not "class action, collective
action, and representative action procedures."

Ms. Fultz says she asked to see a lawyer and was denied.  Instead,
she was given thirty minutes to sign or else be deemed to have
voluntarily resigned.  What happened next highlights both the
casual contempt companies like Alorica have for the rights of
their workers and the extraordinary courage of Jennifer Fultz, who
took a stand on principle rooted in her own family's experience.

This is a story whose reach extends from the lowliest working
stiff to the highest court in the land.  It concerns a massive
corporate-driven rejiggering of the social contract with regard to
access to the courts, impacting a huge segment of U.S. workers and
virtually every consumer.  And it's something most people have
never even heard about.

But for Fultz, it has meant paying a terrible price.  She left
work that day escorted by police, with a box of belongings the
company had retrieved from her desk.  She was fired and lost her
health insurance.  Her former employer initially fought her
efforts to obtain unemployment benefits.  She went from living
paycheck to paycheck to struggling day by day.  She is still
reeling from the unfairness of it all.

"Why should anyone be faced with that kind of choice?" she asks,
through tears.  "To choose between supporting your family or
giving up your employment rights?"

But it's not at all uncommon.  Encouraged by court rulings,
corporations are increasingly insisting that those they do
business with, and those they employ, agree to handle disputes
through arbitration.  In some cases, this makes pursuing certain
claims practically impossible.  In others, it dramatically tilts
the balance in favor of the companies.

"It's huge nationally, what's happening," says Seth Goldstein, a
union-affiliated lawyer who has filed a labor complaint on Ms.
Fultz's behalf.  "It's gigantic.  It's a sweep against everybody.
It's a sweep against consumers.  It's a sweep against employees.
It's a sweep against people who use financial institutions and
nursing homes.  It's the biggest racket. It's a modern-day yellow-
dog contract.  It's a prohibition against collective action."

Yellow-dog contracts, in which workers must vow not to join unions
as a condition of employment, were in widespread use until the
1930s, when they were outlawed.  Critics of mandatory arbitration
agreements say they similarly violate the National Labor Relations
Act, which expressly protects workers who join together for
"mutual aid or protection."

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has in recent years
consistently held that these agreements are illegal.  But the
courts are divided, with some agreeing and some saying that the
Federal Arbitration Act trumps the labor law.  The case is almost
certainly destined for Supreme Court review, probably next year.

But, in the meantime, employees like Ms. Fultz are still being
forced to give up their rights or give up their jobs.

Cliff Palesfsky, civil rights and employment attorney.

Chances are you've agreed to them.  They are clauses included in
all kind of contracts and in the fine print you don't read before
clicking the button that says you have.  Amazon uses them.  So
does Google, Netflix, eBay, and Travelocity.  The clauses require
customers to solve disputes individually through arbitration, not
by joining with each other in class actions.

The increased insistence on arbitration was propelled by two U.S.
Supreme Court decisions authored by the late Justice Antonin
Scalia.  In AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, decided by a 5-4
margin in 2011, the court held that mandatory arbitration clauses
can include class-action bans.  In American Express Co. v. Italian
Colors Restaurant, a 2013 case, the court voted 5-3 to allow
class-action waivers in arbitration clauses even if that made
seeking redress prohibitively expensive.  Wrote Justice Scalia in
that decision, "The fact that it is not worth the expense involved
in proving a statutory remedy does not constitute the elimination
of the right to pursue that remedy." Some people just can't afford
to invoke their rights. (This is the same Justice who could not
find a constitutional problem with executing people who are
actually innocent.)

Companies contend arbitration is a quicker and simpler way to
resolve grievances than going to court or using administrative law
proceedings.  But as The New York Times found in a three-part
series last year, it means far fewer grievances are heard at all:

"By banning class actions, companies have essentially disabled
consumer challenges to practices like predatory lending, wage
theft, and discrimination, court records show."  As federal
Appellate Judge Richard Posner once remarked, "The realistic
alternative to a class action is not 17 million individual suits,
but zero individual suits, as only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for
$30."

Mandatory arbitration clauses were an essential tool for Wells
Fargo as it swindled its own customers out of millions of dollars
by signing them up for accounts and services they didn't request.
The company used language tucked into its account-opening
agreements to repel class-action lawsuits that would have brought
the practice to light.

"By pushing these cases into secret arbitration, Wells Fargo was
able to keep this scandal out of public view for years and
continue profiting from massive fraud," wrote Amanda Werner of the
nonprofit advocacy group Americans for Financial Reform.

In the employment realm, the boom in mandatory arbitration has
hamstrung efforts by nonunion workers to bring collective action
against unfair wage and hour practices, workplace discrimination,
and unjust termination.  Companies from Halliburton to the Olive
Garden have included mandatory arbitration agreements in their
covenants with workers.

Sometimes workers are told to sign agreements, as in Ms. Fultz's
case; sometimes language is included in job-offer letters or
employee handbooks.  A December 2015 report by the Economic Policy
Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, estimated that "a quarter or
more of all employees in non-union workplaces are subject to
mandatory arbitration agreements."

Mr. Goldstein, senior business representative with the Office and
Professional Employees International Union, Local 153, based in
New York City, believes the actual total is closer to half.  So
does Cliff Palefsky, a civil rights and employment lawyer in San
Francisco who has been battling mandatory arbitration for decades.
In fact, he thinks it may be as high as 70 to 80 percent in
California, a state where protections for workers are as strong as
the desire of corporations to circumvent them.

"Management lawyers say it is almost malpractice for companies not
to prohibit class actions," Mr. Palefsky says.  "I mean, they were
given a 'get out of jail free' card."

The desire for this card was heightened by the growing and often
successful use of employment-based class-action lawsuits.  In
2010, the pharmaceutical company Novartis paid $175 million to
settle a lawsuit filed by female employees alleging discrimination
in pay and promotions.  And, in 2007, Nike reached a $7.6 million
settlement in a race-discrimination class action brought on behalf
of black employees in Chicago.

Now such suits are being bottled up. On November 1, a federal
judge blocked a class-action suit alleging race discrimination by
the room-renting company Airbnb, due to its mandatory arbitration
policy.

Mr. Palefsky says it's no mystery why companies prefer
arbitration, usually involving private arbitrators hired by the
companies themselves:

"You never have to stand in front of a public jury.  The media
will never see your case. You can limit damages, you can limit
discovery.  The arbitrators know who's paying them.  You win more
often.  You pay less if you lose." And, in most cases, there is no
right to appeal.

Consumers and employees seldom invoke their right to engage in
individual arbitration and mostly lose when they do.  According to
the Economic Policy Institute report, "Employee win rates in
mandatory arbitration are much lower than in either federal court
or state court, with employees in mandatory arbitration winning
only just about a fifth of the time (21.4 percent)."

"Any notion that it provides greater access to justice is just
fraud," Mr. Palefsky asserts.  "The whole purpose of it is to
suppress claims and make it too expensive."

On September 12, Ms. Fultz made her usual commute from her home in
Roscoe, Illinois, to the EGS office in Rockford.  She arrived in
time for her 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. shift, which she worked five days
a week, with Thursdays and Saturdays off.  She joined about 300
others in the section of the building devoted to JPMorgan Chase.
The Rockford office, she says, has similarly sized operations
serving two other clients, Verizon and CVS Pharmacy.

Ms. Fultz, who will turn thirty-two in mid-December, was born in
Mississippi and raised in Machesney Park, Illinois, where her
parents still live.  She entered the workforce after high school,
including stints at a Chrysler factory, the U.S. Postal Service,
and the Illinois Tollway.  She began working in March 2012 for a
company that was bought out by EGS (Expert Global Solutions),
which was later acquired by Alorica, a California-based firm with
more than 90,000 workers worldwide that promises on its website to
"create insanely great customer experiences."

After fielding calls for about an hour, Ms. Fultz was called in to
meet with then-EGS human resources manager Katie Aldrich and
presented with the "Agreement to Arbitrate."  Ms. Fultz had seen
this document about two months earlier, when she was asked to go
to a company web portal and agree to it.  But there was no way to
decline or make a copy to review, so Ms. Fultz "clicked out."

When her request to have a lawyer review the document was denied
and she was given thirty minutes to sign, Ms. Fultz left the room
and called her father.  "He's always helped me and encouraged me
to stand up for my employment rights," she explains.  "I asked him
what he would do."

John Fultz told his daughter she needed to make her own choice,
understanding that refusing to sign would mean losing her job. But
John has his own work experience to draw on, which he mulled after
the call.  He remembers how, as a young man working at a factory
in Mississippi, he was presented with a blank piece of paper and
told where to sign by a supervisor who said the text would be
added later, when the office copy machine was fixed.  He looked
around him, amazed to see others signing.  He refused, and never
heard about it again.

John worked at other factories where people were missing fingers
and hands, and where burns and broken bones were a regular,
preventable occurrence.  Ten years ago, he was able to quit
working for others and start his own small business, Express
Sharpening Service.  His wife, DeAnn, left her job to join him two
years ago.

"So many companies out there don't treat their employees right,
don't pay their employees right, and then they go a step further
and try to take away your rights," says John, calling that he's
seen workers subjected to "mental cruelty."

The question Jennifer had asked him was, "What would you do?"
After a few minutes, he texted her: "Don't sign it."

Jennifer had by this time signed the form, writing "under protest"
on it.  She took it back.  "I told them I wasn't going to sign it.
I told them I'm here to work.  I want to work."  As her father
advised, she said she was not quitting and asked that police be
called.  They were.

"We have an employee who is refusing to leave the premises, or a
former employee," the caller from EGS told the Rockford dispatch
center.  The call was logged as "disorderly conduct," although the
call log states that she was "NOT DISORDERLY JUST REFUSING." When
police arrived, Ms. Fultz was escorted out.  She was not cited or
charged.

Aldrich, who left EGS shortly after this incident to take a job at
GE Aviation, also in Rockford, did not respond to an interview
request.  Officials at EGS passed the baton to Alorica spokesman
Ken Muche, who declined via email to comment on Fultz's
termination "for privacy reasons, and as a matter of policy."  He
added that arbitration agreements "are common in our industry and,
in fact, are commonly used by many companies in a wide variety of
completely unrelated industries."

After being fired, Ms. Fultz had to explain to her eleven-year-old
son, Ryan, what happened:

"Mommy lost her job, but there was nothing that I did wrong." It's
a hard concept even for her to grasp.

Researching the issue, Ms. Fultz found a Labor Radio story about
another worker who was fired under similar circumstances.
Tara Zoumer, who also drew coverage in The New York Times, had
worked at a $16 billion startup called WeWork, which rents trendy
office space.  Her job at the company's office in Berkeley,
California, included changing out the beer keg that lubricates the
worker bees.

In November 2015, after seven months on the job, Ms. Zoumer was
given a class-action waiver with the Orwellian name

"WeWork Employment Dispute Resolution Program." She was granted a
few days to look it over and realized when she did, "This is going
to completely kill our ability as employees to fight as a
collective unit." She asked what would happen if she did not sign
and was told in an email that "continued employment with WeWork is
sufficient to constitute acceptance of the new employee
documents."

Ms. Zoumer responded that she was not going to sign and planned to
file a claim against the company with California labor officials.
The next day, a Friday, she emailed co-workers urging them to know
their rights before signing.  On Monday, she was fired.  She filed
a complaint with the NLRB, and a lawsuit against the company.

WeWork has confirmed, in filings with the NLRB, that it fired
Zoumer for not signing this and another document but insists it
had every right to do so.  The NLRB in May found merit in several
of Zoumer's charges; the case is still playing out.  But WeWork
cited language in Zoumer's original job offer to thwart her
lawsuit and force her to pursue arbitration in New York.  That
process is pending, although California Governor Jerry Brown
recently signed a bill to bar companies in the future from forcing
California residents to adjudicate their claims out of state.

Ms. Zoumer, who has since found work as "a nanny/chef for a
wonderful family," says the whole experience makes her feel
patriotic. S he realized "this was my right as an American citizen
to have access to the judicial system.  And no one, especially a
company, should ever be able to take that away."

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal agency, has
proposed new rules to bar financial institutions from requiring
arbitration to deny consumers the chance to sue in court. In late
September, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services moved
to prohibit mandatory arbitration by nursing homes that receive
federal funding.  There are calls to similarly restrict for-profit
colleges, some of which have already rescinded their class-action
bans.

An executive order signed by President Obama says companies with
federal contracts over $1 million cannot require arbitration for
civil rights or harassment claims.  The rule, which took effect
October 25, does not apply to wage and hour claims.

Hillary Clinton, as a candidate, vowed to give federal agencies
"broad and clear authority to restrict the use of arbitration
clauses and related provisions in consumer, employment, and
antitrust contexts." Donald Trump, reported Time magazine, was
"quiet on the issue" but made his campaign workers agree to
arbitration.

Democratic Senators Al Franken and Patrick Leahy have each
introduced bills to curb mandatory arbitration.  Former Fox News
anchor Gretchen Carlson, whose own effort to sue over sexual
harassment ran up against a forced arbitration clause, has agreed
to testify in support of the bills.

Harris Freeman, a professor at Western New England School of Law
in Massachusetts, says employees may be better able than consumers
to beat back mandatory arbitration because federal labor law
"grants workers a right to act in concert that no law grants to
consumers."

Since January 2012, the NLRB has taken the position that clauses
to preclude collective action violate the National Labor Relations
Act. But in late 2013, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in
New Orleans ruled that the act is effectively preempted by the
Federal Arbitration Act of 1925.  Mr. Palefsky calls this
interpretation "ridiculous."

The NLRB apparently agrees.  The independent body, in recent years
dominated by Obama appointees, has defied the Fifth Circuit ruling
and continued to reject class-action waivers in dozens of cases.
And some courts have agreed, most notably the Seventh Circuit
Court in Chicago, which in May 2016 ruled against Epic Systems, a
Wisconsin-based software provider, for blocking a class action
brought by employees over the denial of overtime pay.

"There's no doubt the Supreme Court is going to have to accept
this issue for review, because there is a dramatic split on a very
important issue," says Mr. Palefsky.  Both he and
Mr. Goldstein hold out hope that the court will rule that
arbitration cannot be used to deprive workers of substantive
rights, even after the new President is able to make his
appointments.

"I'm as committed as ever after the election, as before the
election, that people's rights need to be upheld," Mr. Goldstein
says.

Ms. Fultz's case is now before the NLRB, based on charges filed by
Mr. Goldstein naming Alorica and EGS.  The company, in fighting
Ms. Fultz's application for unemployment benefits, admitted her
job ended because she refused to sign an arbitration agreement.
(It subsequently failed to appear at a hearing contesting this
decision, and Ms. Fultz was awarded these benefits.) The NLRB, Mr.
Goldstein says, has issued a preliminary ruling in Ms. Fultz's
favor, although the ultimate outcome will likely hinge on the
Supreme Court.

Mr. Goldstein says Ms. Zoumer and Ms. Fultz are the only workers
he knows of who were fired for refusing to sign arbitration
agreements.  He considers them heroes.  Mr. Palefsky is aware of
workers fired in the past but not other current cases. Both
lawyers say they wouldn't counsel anyone to refuse to sign if it
meant losing a valued job.  But, Mr. Goldstein adds, "If they were
willing to do it, I'd represent them in a minute."

Surprisingly, Ms. Fultz says that if she were offered her job back
she'd take it, even after all that's happened and the fact that
she "hadn't had a raise in four years."  Reinstatement with back
pay is a remedy the NLRB and the courts could require.

But there is one thing Ms. Fultz will likely never get back: the
certificates of commendation she had received from her employer
and kept at her desk.  These were, she says, not in the box of
belongings she was given before police escorted her out the door.


ANTHONY'S AVEDA: Starts Class Action Lawsuit Over Water Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephania Jimenez at Kristv.com reports that there are always
winners and losers when an area has a crisis involving a natural
resource such as water. Water distributors won big selling gallons
of water to people across Corpus Christi last December 15. But
some businesses aren't doing so well; they're in the red, and they
want Valero and Ergon Asphalt & Emulsions to pay.

On December 14, the city of Corpus Christi notified residents that
a toxic chemical possibly made its way into the water supply. It
advised people to avoid the city's tap water at all costs. That
was bad news for businesses such as Anthony's Aveda Concept Salon,
a hair salon/spa that needs tap water to serve its customers.

Anthony's Aveda Concept Salon on Everhart Rd. canceled 200
appointments. Attorney Bob Hilliard launched a class-action
lawsuit on its behalf against Valero and Ergon Asphalt &
Emulsions. The asphalt company is blamed for releasing anywhere
from 3-24 gallons of Indulin into the water supply. The chemical
is considered hazardous by the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard.
It causes eye and skin burns and can damage the digestive system
and gastrointestinal tract.

On the evening of December 15, city leaders were awaiting test
results to find out the extent of the damage on our water supply.
The longer the city goes without answers, the longer businesses
such as Anthony's Aveda Concept Salon suffers.

"We're in the holidays. This is Thursday, Dec. 15 . . . . if a
water ban stays through tomorrow, you lose a full holiday
weekend," said Hilliard.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are asking for at least $1 million
in damages. However, that number could change depending on how
long the water ban lasts and how much money businesses lose.


APPLE: Former Retail Workers Win $2 Million in Class-Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Mlot at PC Mag reports that Apple has lost a class-
action lawsuit filed by former employees who claimed the company
denied them sufficient breaks and owed unpaid back wages.

Cupertino must now pay $2 million into a fund to compensate some
21,000 plaintiffs. Workers stand to get a maximum of $95 each,
according to Apple Insider, an amount that is likely to shrink
once legal fees are applied.

Apple did not immediately respond to PCMag's request for comment.

Filed in December 2011 by Brandon Felczer and other former Apple
Store employees, the suit was certified as a class-action in July
2014. Cupertino sought to appeal the ruling, but a three-judge
panel in California's Superior Court denied the tech giant's
motion for dismissal.

Other plaintiffs named in the complaint against Apple include
former retail employees Ryan Goldman, Ramsey Hawkins, and Joseph
Lane Carco.

A similar suit brought against Apple -- filed in 2009 by former
Genius Bar worker Steve Camuti -- also claimed the company failed
to provide employees with breaks in violation of California Labor
Code.


ASRC ENERGY: "Alli" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Bonuses
----------------------------------------------------
Ray Alli, on behalf of those similarly situated and the proposed
Rule 23 Alaska Class Members v. ASRC Energy Services, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00280 (D. Alaska, December 9, 2016),
seeks overtime compensation, all required remuneration, non-
discretionary bonuses, final injunctive and/or declaratory relief,
and prejudgment and post-judgment interest for violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Alaska Wage and Hour Act.

ASRC is an Alaskan Corporation that provides consulting and
contracting services to energy, natural resources, industrial and
power industry companies throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel I. Pace, Esq.
      PACE LAW OFFICES
      101 E 9th Ave, Ste 7A
      Anchorage, AK 99501
      Tel: (907) 222-4003
      Fax: (907) 222-4006
      Email: dan@pacelawoffices.com

             - and -

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

             - and -

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      Jay Forester, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 749-1400
      Fax: (214) 749-1010


AUTOVEST LLC: Motion to Certify Class in "Brown" Suit Withdrawn
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on December 6, 2016, in the case
captioned Scott Brown v. Autovest LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-07969
(N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable
Milton I. Shadur.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Motion hearing set for December 9, 2016, was stricken;

   -- Plaintiff's unopposed motion for entry of stipulation with
      respect to withdrawal of class certification motion is
      granted; and

   -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class is withdrawn without
      prejudice.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3LEfBMlc


B & B COLEMAN: "Vargas" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL ANGEL SANCHEZ VARGAS, on behalf of himself and all other
Plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff,
v. B & B COLEMAN & COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, d/b/a
COLEMAN'S TAVERN & GRILL, and BARRY COLEMAN, an individual, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-11348 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 14, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL).

The Defendants violated federal and state overtime laws by failing
to pay Plaintiff, and other similarly situated cooks, dishwashers,
and kitchen workers, and overtime premium when they worked more
than 40 hours in individual workweeks.

Coleman's Tavern is a restaurant engaged in selling and serving
prepared food and beverages, including alcoholic beverages, to
customers for consumption on the premises.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
          Nicholas P. Cholis, Esq.
          NOLAN LAW OFFICE
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 322 1100
          Facsimile: (312) 322 1106
          E-mail: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com
                  ncholis@nolanwagelaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over USD-Denominated SSA Bonds
----------------------------------------------------------------
IRVING FIREMEN'S RELIEF AND RETIREMENT FUND, on Behalf of Itself,
and, in a Representative Capacity, on Behalf of All Those
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION;
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH,
INC.; BANK OF AMERICA MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED;
CITIGROUP INC.; CITIBANK N.A.; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.;
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS LIMITED; CREDIT AGRICOLE S.A.; CRêDIT
AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK; CRêDIT AGRICOLE SECURITIES
(USA) INC.; CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG; CREDIT SUISSE AG; CREDIT
SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (EUROPE)
LTD.; DEUTSCHE BANK AG; DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES, INC.; NOMURA
HOLDINGS, INC.; NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.; NOMURA
INTERNATIONAL PLC; HIREN GUDKA; AMANDEEP SINGH MANKU; SHAILEN PAU;
BHARDEEP SINGH HEER, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09656
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 14, 2016), seeks relief under federal antitrust
laws and the common law of unjust enrichment.

The Defendants injured Plaintiff and the Class by secretly
colluding to fix the prices of USD-issued Supranationals and
Agencies (SSA) bonds. As a direct and proximate result of
Defendants' collusion, Plaintiff and the Class paid artificially
inflated, anticompetitive prices when they purchased or sold USD-
denominated SSA bonds from Defendants in the secondary market.

Bank of America is an American multinational banking and financial
services corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
It is the second largest bank holding company in the United States
by assets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angela L. Baglanzis, Esq.
          HIPPEL LLP
          360 Lexington Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 922 9182
          E-mail: Angela.baglanzis@obermayer.com

               - and -

          William J. Leonard, Esq.
          OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL &
          HIPPEL LLP
          Centre Square West
          1500 Market Street, Suite 3400
          Philadelphia, PA 19102 2101
          Telephone: (215) 665 3228
          Facsimile: (215) 665 3165
          E-mail: william.leonard@obermayer.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Boni, Esq.
          Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
          BONI & ZACK LLC
          15 St. Asaphs Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 822 0200
          Facsimile: (610) 822 0206
          E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com
                  jsnyder@bonizack.com


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over IV Saline Solution Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
WARREN GENERAL HOSPITAL, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BAXTER INTERNATIONAL INC.;
BAXTER HEALTHCARE CORPORATION; HOSPIRA, INC. and HOSPIRA
WORLDWIDE, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-11353 (N.D.
Ill., Dec. 14, 2016), seeks to recover damages suffered by
Plaintiff and the Class and to secure equitable and injunctive
relief against Defendants for violating the Sherman Act.

The lawsuit is about a conspiracy among the major U.S.
manufacturers of a critical medical product, intravenous (IV)
saline solution (IV Saline Solution), to restrict output and
artificially fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize the prices of
IV Saline Solution sold throughout the United States under the
pretext of a supply shortage, in violation of the Sherman Act.

Baxter is an American health care company with headquarters in
Deerfield, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William H. London, Esq.
          Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
          Robert J. Wozniak, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632 4500
          Facsimile: (224) 632 4521
          E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
                  wlondon@fklmlaw.com
                  dmillen@fklmlaw.com
                  rwozniak@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
          Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
          Brian D. Clark, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL
          NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339 6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339 0981
          E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
                  hmsilton@locklaw.com
                  bdclark@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
          Marco Cercone, Esq.
          R. Anthony Rupp, III, Esq.
          RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF &
          CUNNINGHAM, LLC
          1600 Liberty Building
          424 Main Street
          Buffalo, NY 14202
          Telephone: (716) 854 3400
          Facsimile: (716) 332 0336
          E-mail: bailey@ruppbaase.com
                  cercone@ruppbaase.com
                  rupp@ruppbaase.com


BLU PRODUCTS: "Aguilar" Alleges Wiretapping in Blu Phones
---------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Aguilar, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Blu Products, Inc. and Adups USA
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-25131, (S.D. Fla., December 9,
2016), seeks statutory damages, injunctive and declaratory relief,
pre-judgment and/or post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs and such other and further relief as may be just
and proper resulting from invasion of privacy and violations of
the Wiretap Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Blu is a manufacturer and seller of cell phones while Adups
develops firmware installed on approximately 120,000 Blu phones.
Adups firmware on Blu phones allegedly captured and transmitted to
a server in China the cell phone owners' text messages, personal
contacts, call logs, physical locations and other confidential
data without the knowledge or consent of the cell phone owners.

Plaintiff purchased two R1 HD phones from Amazon.com in September
and October 2016.

Blu Products, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Miami, Florida. Shanghai Adups Technology Co., Ltd. is a Chinese
entity based in Shanghai, People's Republic of China. Adups USA
LLC is a Delaware corporation.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Norwood S. Wilner, Esq.
      Richard J. Lantinberg, Esq.
      THE WILNER FIRM
      444 East Duval St., 2nd Floor
      Jacksonville, FL 32202
      Tel: (904) 446-9817
      Fax: (904) 446-9825
      Email: nwilner@wilnerfirm.com
             rlantinberg@wilnerfirm.com

             - and -

      Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
      Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 363-7500
      Fax: (212) 363-7171
      Email: lfeldman@zlk.com
             cmaccarone@zlk.com

             - and -

      Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
      Correy A. Kamin, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 545-4600
      Fax: (212) 686-0114
      Email: pollack@whafh.com
             kamin@whafh.com


CANADA: Court Allows Class Action Over School Fees to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that Quebec Superior Court has given
the green light to a class-action lawsuit filed by a mother over
various school fees.

The suit seeking damages and interest was authorized on Dec. 6 by
Justice Carl Lachance in Chicoutimi.

Daisye Marcil, the mother of two public school-educated kids,
considers the extra fees to be abusive and launched a suit against
68 school boards in the name of the parents of 900,000 students.

The suit alleges boards allowed the fees to be charged to parents,
contravening the province's Education Act, which guarantees free
elementary and high school education.

The fees have been collected since 2008-2009 by many Quebec
boards.

The action seeks a reimbursement of the fees paid and $100 per
member of the group for punitive damages.

In her own case, Ms. Marcil paid a $41 bill for one year for field
trips, photocopy fees, a recorder, a protractor and a grammar
guide.

The list of items and amounts varies greatly from school to
school.


CANADA: Armed Forces Faces Third Sexual-Abuse Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Galloway, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that a
former reservist from Northern Ontario has launched what she hopes
will be a class-action suit against the federal government for
sexual harassment and discrimination she says she experienced
during the seven years she was a member of the Canadian Armed
Forces.

The lawsuit that Sherry Heyder of Thunder Bay has begun is the
third proposed class-action initiated in recent weeks by former
members of the military who say they were subjected to degrading
treatment in conditions where the sexualization of female staff is
tolerated and ignored.

Ms. Heyder filed her statement of claim in Federal Court.  It
says: "The Canadian Armed Forces is poisoned by a discriminatory
and sexualized culture that condones and encourages sexual
assault, sexual harassment and gender-based discrimination towards
women."

It follows a proposed class-action suit launched in British
Columbia by a Nicola Peffers, a former sailor, who says a superior
subjected her to unwanted sexual advances.  Ms. Peffers says
female and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender members of the
Canadian Forces are routinely subjected to sexual harassment and
abuse.

Meanwhile, a proposed class action filed late in November in the
Ontario Superior Court says two women and a man experienced sexual
assault or sexual harassment in their service with the Canadian
military.  In that suit, the plaintiffs are members of a Canada-
wide peer support group for survivors of "military sexual trauma."

"There is certainly overlap between the different actions," said
Jonathan Ptak, the lawyer for Ms. Heyder, "and that will have to
be worked out and ultimately determined by the court."

Jonathan Vance, the Chief of the Defence Staff, has said he will
not tolerate sexual misconduct.  One of his first orders of
business as head of the military was to initiate what he called
Project Honour to address harmful and inappropriate sexual
behaviour.

Nearly 1,000 Canadian Forces members who took part in a massive
Statistics Canada survey last spring said they had been sexually
assaulted within the previous 12 months.  And a study released
last year by former Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps found
that women in the army, navy, air force and at military colleges
are routinely subjected to degrading expressions, sexual jokes and
unwanted touching.

Ms. Heyder enrolled with the reserves in Thunder Bay when she was
still in high school in 1988 in the hope of joining the infantry.
But, she said in her statement of claim, she was both sexually
harassed and discriminated against professionally.

Shortly after she completed basic training, the statement says,
she "was advised that she was no longer permitted to pursue a
career in the infantry because she was a woman" and was instead
forced to do administrative work.

She claims that sexual harassment, sexual assault and gender-based
discrimination begins when women enter the Canadian Armed Forces,
and that female military personnel learn to keep their concerns to
themselves because the perpetrators go unpunished and complaints
are not taken seriously.

In addition, she says in the statement of claim, the Canadian
Armed Forces has historically discriminated against women on
permissible employment roles and advancement and continues to do
so.

"We have included a great deal of detail with respect to
allegations of fault and failure of duty by the Canadian Armed
Forces and its commanding officers with respect to policies,
conduct, etc., because we wanted to provide a claim which gave a
fulsome outline of the allegations," Mr. Ptak said.

The policies have changed over time, he said.  "But we still
allege in the statement of claim that, notwithstanding the fact
that entry to women has been made permissible in some instances in
certain divisions, they continue to struggle with respect to
discriminatory conduct towards them."


CANADA: McKiggan Hebert, Koskie Minsky File Class Action v. CAF
---------------------------------------------------------------
McKiggan Hebert Lawyers in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and Koskie Minsky
LLP in Toronto, Ontario have commenced a class action against the
Attorney General of Canada on behalf of current and former members
of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National
Defence who were stationed in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince
Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador between 1969 and 1993.

The claim alleges that between the 1950s and the 1990s, the
Canadian government engaged in systematic campaign to identify and
purge lesbians, gay men, and those suspected of being gay from the
Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence.

As a result of their sexual orientation, lesbians, gay men, and
those suspected of homosexuality were put under surveillance,
investigated, interrogated, and denied security clearances.
Pressure was put on these individuals to leave the Canadian
military service.  Gay men and lesbians in the Canadian military
service were systematically harassed, intimidated and
discriminated against.  Ultimately the employment of thousands of
lesbians, gay men, and those suspected of being gay was terminated
without proper compensation or due process of law.

The claim seeks $150 million in damages for breach of fiduciary
duty and breach of the class members' rights under section 15 of
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states that
every individual is equal before and under the law and has the
right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without
discrimination.

"For too long, gay men and lesbians in the Canadian military have
faced inappropriate and unlawful discrimination," says John
McKiggan -- john@mckigganhebert.com -- co-lead counsel at McKiggan
Hebert Lawyers, "and this case can start to right these wrongs of
the past."

McKiggan Hebert Lawyers, based in Halifax, Nova Scotia, is one of
Canada's leading personal injury, medical malpractice and sexual
abuse claim law firms.  John McKiggan Q.C., lead counsel from
McKiggan Hebert Lawyers, has a special interest in representing
victims in civil claims for historical abuse compensation.
McKiggan is co-lead counsel in Hayes v. City of Saint John a
proposed class action filed on behalf of victims of sexual abuse
by former Saint John Police officer Kenneth Estabrooks.  He
represented over 600 former residents of the Shubenacadie Indian
Residential Schools in a claim for compensation for childhood
physical, sexual and racial abuse and loss of cultural identity.
He sits on the steering committee in Baxter v. Canada, a claim
brought on behalf of 70,000 former aboriginal children across
Canada.  McKiggan is counsel in Martin v. Lahey, the first
certified class action under Nova Scotia's Class Proceedings Act
against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Antigonish.

Koskie Minsky LLP, based in Toronto, is one of Canada's foremost
class action, pension, trade union, and litigation firms.  Its
class actions group has been a leader in class actions since 1992
and has prosecuted many of the leading cases in the area.  Kirk M.
Baert, lead counsel from Koskie Minsky LLP, was counsel to the
survivors of former residents of Huronia Regional Centre and 14
other residential facilities for people with disabilities against
the Province of Ontario, wherein the Province agreed to pay
survivors over $103.6 million and to provide an apology to former
residents for the harm they sustained.  Mr. Baert was also counsel
in Cloud v. Canada, the first Indian residential schools class
action certified in Canada, which resulted in a $5 billion pan-
Canadian settlement.


CANDELA CORP: Faces Class Action Over Ultrashape Power Device
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
Barrington plastic surgeon has filed a class action lawsuit
against the makers of the Ultrashape Power device, which
purportedly "uses pulsed, highly focused ultrasound energy to
target and permanently destroy unwanted fat cells," accusing the
company of falsely promising the system would help patients
quickly lose dress sizes and centimeters from their circumference.

On Dec. 2, Renee Burke, who operates a private plastic surgery
practice in the northwest suburb, filed suit in Cook County
Circuit Court against Wayland, Mass.-based Candela Corporation,
alleging the company violated Illinois state consumer fraud laws
when promoting its UltraShape System.

According to the complaint, Dr. Burke has used the system since
May 2015, treating "dozens of patients" with the system.

According to the UltraShape website, the system is the only non-
invasive "body sculpting" treatment approved by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration to target fat cells.  The company lists the
product as a "comfortable," non-surgical alternative to
liposuction and other surgical techniques to reduce body fat
deposits that are "resistant to diet and exercise."

Dr. Burke said she purchased and began using the product on
patients partially in response to what she said were UltraShape
marketing materials declaring patients "would 'lose two dress
sizes in just three treatments' and that 'clinical studies showed
an average 3.3-6.3 cm reduction.'"

However, Dr. Burke said "the representations were not true" and
the patients she treated with UltraShape "did not realize the
results promised by" UltraShape.

Dr. Burke said she no longer uses the system.  However, her
practice's website still includes a page, headlined "5 Things That
Make UltraShape Great," which declares "with a plethora of
products on the market promising to help shape, sculpt, whittle
and thin your body, it can be hard to know what really works.  At
the office of Dr. Renee Burke, we are loving UltraShape."

On UltraShape's website, however, Dr. Burke's office is not listed
among the Chicago area medical practices using the device.

Dr. Burke said she wished to expand the legal action to include
"numerous persons and businesses" who purchased the UltraShape
system, and "did not realize the results" allegedly represented by
UltraShape in its marketing campaign.

The lawsuit asks the court to order Candela Corp. to refund the
purchase price of the UltraShape system to all plaintiffs class
members, and award unspecified compensatory and punitive damages
to Burke and the class members.  The lawsuit also requests
attorney fees and litigation costs.

Dr. Burke is represented in the action by attorney Arnold H.
Landis, of Chicago.


CBE GROUP: Court Grants Truglio's Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Peter G. Sheridan granted the Plaintiff's motion to
certify class in the lawsuit captioned MARNI TRUGLIO, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. CBE GROUP, et al.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-03813-PGS-TJB (D.N.J.).

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


CHEMTURA CORP: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., on Dec. 7 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of holders of Chemtura
Corporation ("Chemtura") common stock in connection with the
proposed acquisition of Chemtura by Lanxess Deutschland GmbH
("Lanxess") announced on September 26, 2016 (the "Complaint").
The Complaint, which alleges violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 against Chemtura, its Board of Directors (the
"Board"), and Lanxess, is captioned Scarantino v. Chemtura
Corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-06051-ER.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra, at
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington,
DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242; by e-mail at info@rl-
legal.com; or at:
http://rigrodskylong.com/investigations/chemtura-corporation-
chmt/.

On September 25, 2016, Chemtura entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Lanxess.  Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, Lanxess will acquire Chemtura, and Chemtura
shareholders will receive $33.50 per share in cash for each share
of Chemtura that they own (the "Proposed Transaction").

The Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder
support for the Proposed Transaction, on November 4, 2016,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a Proxy
Statement (the "Proxy Statement") filed with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Proxy Statement, which
recommends that Chemtura stockholders vote in favor of the
Proposed Transaction, omits material information necessary to
enable shareholders to make an informed decision as to how to vote
on the Proposed Transaction, including material information with
respect to the process and events leading up to the Proposed
Transaction and the opinions and analyses of Chemtura's financial
advisor.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on
behalf of holders of Chemtura common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 5, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

With offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden City, New York,
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. -- http://www.rigrodskylong.com--
regularly prosecutes securities class, derivative and direct
actions, shareholder rights litigation, and corporate governance
litigation, on behalf of shareholders in states and federal courts
throughout the United States.


CNN: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Gene Maddaus, writing for Variety, reports that internal data
shows that African-Americans face a "glass ceiling" at CNN,
according to a class-action lawsuit filed on Dec. 7.

The suit, filed in Atlanta, draws heavily on an internal HR
Diversity Trends Report, which showed that men of color
consistently received the lowest ratings on performance reviews.
The report also found that the upper ranks of management were
substantially less diverse than the company as a whole.

Though CNN and its parent, Turner Broadcasting, which is owned by
Time Warner, have made efforts to diversify, the class-action suit
alleges that once they are hired, African-Americans are held back
by an unfair and arbitrary promotions process.  The suit alleges
that African-Americans must wait much longer for promotions, and
make less than their white counterparts.

The class-action case arose from an earlier lawsuit filed on
behalf of DeWayne Walker, an African-American employee who sued
CNN earlier this year, saying he had been passed over for
promotion nine times.

Attorney Daniel Meachum said that following the filing of that
lawsuit, "we have uncovered stories involving abuse of power,
nepotism, revenge, retaliation, and discrimination."

The class-action suit names two additional plaintiffs:
Celeslie Henley and Ernest Colbert.  Ms. Henley, an administrative
assistant, said she was required to work 12-13 hour shifts while
white administrative assistants worked 8-hour days.  When she
complained to HR about the excessive workload, she was fired,
according to the suit.  Mr. Colbert, a mid-level manager who still
works at TBS, alleged that he was only promoted twice in 19 years.
He also contended that he worked twice as hard as his white
counterparts while being paid thousands less.

CNN declined to comment.


COINBASE INC: Silver Law Firm, Wites Kapetan Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Silver Law Group and Wites & Kapetan, P.A. have filed a nationwide
class action lawsuit in federal court against California-based
Money Services Business and cryptocurrency exchange operator
Coinbase, Inc.

According to the lawsuit, Paul Vernon -- the former CEO and
principal operator of a cryptocurrency exchange and Money Services
Business known worldwide as Cryptsy -- converted approximately
$8.2 million in Cryptsy customer assets over a three-year period
and liquidated to his own benefit those stolen funds through
accounts Mr. Vernon and Cryptsy maintained at Coinbase.  As
alleged in the lawsuit, Mr. Vernon told Coinbase that the $8.2
million represented either a portion of the revenues Cryptsy had
generated from its business or represented Bitcoin that Mr. Vernon
himself personally owned.  Despite Mr. Vernon's assertions of
business revenue and personal ownership, Coinbase -- as a Money
Services Business regulated under the FinCEN division of the U.S.
Treasury Department -- was required to reasonably verify those
facts.  The lawsuit asserts that Mr. Vernon's claims were untrue,
and Coinbase failed to satisfy its regulatory requirements or
perform any reasonable investigation into the suspicious activity
in Mr. Vernon's and Cryptsy's Coinbase accounts. Although the
exact amount remains undetermined, the lawsuit estimates that the
value of the digital funds laundered through Coinbase exceeds
$8,200,000.00.  Mr. Vernon is believed to have absconded with
those funds when he abandoned Cryptsy and fled to China in late-
2015.

The class action lawsuit is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida under Case No. 9:16-cv-
81992.  As stated in the lawsuit, the class of victims pursuing
relief includes "All CRYPTSY account owners who: (1) deposited
Bitcoins, alternative cryptocurrencies, or any other form of
monies or currency at CRYPTSY, (2) had such currency liquidated by
VERNON and CRYPTSY through COINBASE, and (3) have been denied
access to their accounts and funds between May 22, 2014 and the
present date."  The lawsuit asserts claims for aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting conversion,
negligence, and unjust enrichment.  Also joining as a plaintiff in
the lawsuit is James D. Sallah, Esq., the Receiver/Corporate
Monitor appointed by the Court to marshal Cryptsy's assets after
Mr. Vernon's disappearance to China.  Among his many
responsibilities, Mr. Sallah is charged with protecting and
retrieving assets belonging to Cryptsy or its customers, including
by pursuing adjudication against those individuals and entities he
believes acted in concert or participation with Mr. Vernon.

If you have entrusted your cryptocurrency to an exchange or have
lost money in alternative investments, you might have the grounds
upon which to assert a claim to recover your losses.  Silver Law
Group is a nationally-recognized securities law firm headquartered
in South Florida, with satellite offices in New York and
Washington, DC, representing investors worldwide with their claims
for losses due to financial misconduct and investment firm
negligence in securities litigation and arbitration matters.
Likewise, Wites & Kapetan is a South Florida-based firm that has
represented Court-appointed trustees, corporations, investors, and
shareholders in numerous multi-jurisdictional litigation matters
involving securities, commodities, precious metals, asset recovery
matters, Ponzi schemes and other investment frauds.  The two firms
have each successfully recovered multi-million dollar awards for
their clients.

To discuss your legal matter, contact David C. Silver toll-free at
(800) 975-4345 or by e-mail at -- dsilver@silverlaw.com


DELAWARE, USA: Bid to Certify Class in "Saunders" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In a memorandum entered in the lawsuit entitled ROBERT SAUNDERS
a/k/a Shamsidin Ali v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, et al., Case No.
15-1184-GMS (D. Del.), the Hon. Gregory M. Sleet will: (1) deny
the requests for counsel without prejudice to renew; (2) deny the
motions for class certification; (3) grant the motion for leave to
amend; (4) deny the request for entry of default; (5) enter an
order to respond to the plaintiffs motion for injunctive relief;
and (6) enter an order for personal service upon the medical
defendants, who failed to return the waiver of service of summons.

"After reviewing Saunders' motion, the court concludes that the
case is not so factually or legally complex that requesting an
attorney to represent Saunders is warranted.  Saunders' filings in
this case demonstrate his ability to articulate his claims and
represent himself," Judge Sleet opined.  "In addition, he is a
frequent litigator and has much experience in this court."

The plaintiff, Robert Saunders, also known as Shamsidin Ali, an
inmate at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, in Smyrna,
Delaware, filed the lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 19831
and the Americans with Disabilities Act.  He appears pro se and
was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis.  He raises
medical needs claims and claims under the ADA.

A copy of the Memorandum is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/bSDbvI from Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Defendants Department of Corrections and Dr. Vincent Carr and
Cross Claimant Dr. Vincent Carr are represented by:

          Joseph Clement Handlon, Esq.
          DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          114 E Market St.
          Georgetown, DE 19947
          Telephone: (302) 856-5353
          E-mail: joseph.handlon@state.de.us


DICK'S SPORTING: TCPA Case Won't Proceed as Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Tim Bauer, writing for insideARM, reports that on December 1, 2016
a California federal judge issued two rulings in a lawsuit where
an attorney/plaintiff accused Dick's Sporting Goods Inc. (DSG) of
sending him text messages in violation of the TCPA.  The
attorney/plaintiff survived a Motion to Dismiss by DSG but was
deemed not to be an adequate class representative and, as a
result, was denied a request for class certification.

The case is Nghiem v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. (Case No. 8:16-
cv-00097, United States District Court, Central District of
California).

insideARM has previously written about this case.  In July of this
year the same judge ruled that DSG could not compel arbitration in
the case. Our July 6, 2016 story on that decision can be found
here.

Background

Plaintiff Phillip Nghiem (Plaintiff or Nghiem) brought this action
against Defendants DSG and Zeta Interactive Corporation (Zeta) for
violations of the TCPA. Nghiem is a plaintiffs' attorney who
handles consumer and debtor disputes, including TCPA claims.  The
Complaint sought statutory damages, treble damages, attorney's
fees, and an order certifying a class.

The Complaint alleged that DSG administers a marketing program
centered on what they call "mobile alerts" -- text messages sent
to subscribers.  Consumers can sign up for mobile alerts on DSG's
website or by sending a text message with the word "JOIN" to a
number associated with DSG, called a "short code."

On May 4, 2015, Plaintiff enrolled in DSG's mobile alert program
by texting the word "JOIN" to DSG's short code.  Thereafter, on
December 6, 2015, Plaintiff texted the word "Stop" to that same
short code, indicating that he no longer wished to receive mobile
alerts from DSG.  DSG sent Plaintiff a text message indicating
that he had unsubscribed and would no longer receive mobile
alerts.

But, the Complaint alleges that DSG continued to send Plaintiff
text messages, including on at least eight particular occasions
between December 11, 2015 and January 22, 2016.

The Motion to Dismiss the Complaint

On October 27, 2016, DSG filed a Motion to Dismiss, contending
that Plaintiff lacked standing to bring this action in light of
the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136
S. Ct. 1540 (2016), because Plaintiff had not alleged a concrete
and particularized injury in fact as required by Article III of
the Constitution.  In the alternative, they argued that Plaintiff
does not have "prudential standing."

"The issue of "prudential standing" and the arguments made by the
parties and Court's opinion are hyper-technical and best left for
a Law School Civil Procedure exam."

The Honorable Cormac J. Carney, United States District Court
Judge, denied Defendant's motion to Dismiss. After a lengthy
discussion of Spokeo and its aftermath, Judge Carney ruled:

"Based on Spokeo, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff has
alleged an injury-in-fact that is concrete and particularized."

When considering the issue of "prudential standing" Judge Carney
determined:

"The statutory question of the TCPA's "zone of interests" involves
disputed issues of material fact that cannot be resolved by the
Court at this early stage of the case.  What matters at this early
stage are the allegations of the First Amended Complaint (FAC),
and those allegations explicitly state that Plaintiff opted out of
DSG's mobile alerts program and yet continued to receive text
messages from DSG that violated his privacy.  This is all that is
necessary for Nghiem to defeat Defendants' motion."

The Motion for Class Action Certification

Plaintiff sought to certify a class as "[a]ll persons who, after
opting-out of Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc.'s mobile alerts program,
received unconsented text message advertisements from Defendants
via Dick's mobile alerts program."  The FAC alleged that as a
result of Defendants' conduct, "Plaintiff and class members have
had their privacy rights violated, have suffered actual and
statutory damages, and, under the TCPA are each entitled to, among
other things, a minimum of $500.00 in damages for each of
Defendants' violations of the TCPA."  The FAC seeks statutory
damages, treble damages, attorneys' fees, and an order certifying
a class.

Judge Carney wrote:

"Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, district courts have
broad discretion to determine whether a class should be certified.
The party seeking class certification bears the burden of showing
that each of the four requirements of Rule 23(a) and at least one
of the requirements of Rule 23(b) are met.

Rule 23(a) provides that a case is appropriate for certification
as a class action if: "(1) the class is so numerous that joinder
of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or
fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of
the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class."

These four requirements are often referred to as numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy.

Judge Carney determined that the numerosity and commonality
requirements existed in this case.  However, when considering the
typicality and adequacy requirements, the Judge decided that those
requirements were not met.

When considering typicality Judge Carney wrote:

"Ninth Circuit authority directs district courts not to grant
class certification if 'there is a danger that absent class
members will suffer if their representative is preoccupied with
defenses unique to it.' Here, there is such a danger.  Defendants
will continue to dispute whether Nghiem opted in and out of DSG's
mobile alerts program in good faith and if he suffered any
invasion of privacy whatsoever.  Indeed, Defendants will argue at
every opportunity that (1) Nghiem fabricated this lawsuit; (2) he
welcomed and hoped for text messages that violated the TCPA; (3)
he is perpetrating a fraud by claiming his privacy was invaded
when he received more text messages from DSG after opting out of
its mobile alerts program; and (4) he should not be awarded a
penny for his lawyer shenanigans. The major focus of this
litigation will be on these issues and defenses unique to Nghiem,
not on the claims of the class."

When considering adequacy, Judge Carney wrote:

"Defendants argue that Nghiem is not an adequate class
representative because he is subject to defenses that do not apply
to the rest of the class and has no credibility.  While these
arguments primarily relate to typicality, "a named plaintiff who
has serious credibility problems or who is likely to devote too
much attention to rebutting an individual defense may not be an
adequate class representative.  Additionally, "[t]he honesty and
credibility of a class representative is a relevant consideration
when performing the adequacy inquiry 'because an untrustworthy
plaintiff could reduce the likelihood of prevailing on the class
claims.

The Court is convinced that if Nghiem is the class representative,
he and his counsel will have to devote most of their time and
resources trying to refute Defendants' attacks on his character
and his motivations for filing and litigating this lawsuit.  This
skewed focus and diversion of resources will come at the expense
of Nghiem's ability to vigorously prosecute this case on behalf of
the rest of the class and obtain monetary recovery for any members
of the class who undisputedly had their privacy invaded when they
received unwanted text messages from DSG."

insideARM Perspective

This story is interesting to the ARM industry for two reasons.

First. The TCPA/Spokeo discussion is quite topical.  Though, in
this instance the court decided that the case should survive a
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Standing.

Second, the portion of the story relating to the denial of class
certification is also required reading for companies in the ARM
industry that are being sued by alleged "professional" plaintiffs.
Does this case continue a trend in court's view of TCPA cases
started by the June 24, 2016 Opinion and Order in the case of
Stoops v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA (Case No. 3-15-83, United States
District Court, W.D PA) and continued with the August 8, 2016
decision in  Telephone Science Corporation. v. Asset Recovery
Solutions, (Case No. 15-CV-5182, N.D. Ill)?

Here the facts are slightly less salacious.  But, the implications
are similar.  In this case the defendants also believe that the
plaintiff/attorney was trying to manufacture a TCPA claim.

It will be interesting to see where this case goes next.


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Brown Withdraws Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on December 6, 2016, in the case
titled Scott Brown v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-07534 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held
before the Honorable Milton I. Shadur.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Motion hearing set for December 12, 2016, was stricken;

   -- Plaintiff's unopposed motion for entry of stipulation with
      respect to withdrawal of class certification motion is
      granted;

   -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class is withdrawn without
      prejudice; and

   -- Plaintiff's motion to continue is denied as moot.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DxdFs5WC


FACEBOOK INC: Lundin Law Discloses Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm announces a class action
lawsuit against Facebook, Inc. Investors, who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares between April 1, 2015 and November 16,
2016 inclusive, are encouraged to contact the Firm in advance of
the January 23, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

"No class has been certified in the above action yet. Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member."
Lundin Law says.

According to the Complaint, Facebook introduced advertising and
content "metrics," designed to help advertisers assess results for
paid advertising purchases and to "better understand how people
respond to (their) videos on Facebook," by measuring the success
of Facebook advertisements and campaigns. Facebook revealed its
new advertising assessment as an important tool to weigh
engagement with paid campaigns and advertisements. Facebook does
not use a third-party to independently determine the accuracy of
information and new metric tools.

On April 1, 2015, Facebook found problems with the marketing and
content metrics, but did not release this information to the
public and did not release these errors in its SEC filings. The
company still sold a significant amount of Facebook shares for
profit, under this information. Facebook had stated that it found
problems in its video advertising metric, that it had falsified
its average viewing time tool, understated its significance, gave
conflicting releases about the error, and did not reveal other
information about the problems. Facebook failed to inform
investors of the effect the errors would have on future ad
revenue. After announcing an expected reduction in ad revenue and
capital expenditures, the value of Facebook stock dropped, causing
investors harm.

Lundin Law PC was established by Brian Lundin, a securities
litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding
shareholders' rights.


FIELDTURF USA: Carteret Borough Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Ozanian at Forbes reports that the Borough of Carteret in New
Jersey filed a class action complaint on behalf of itself and
others against FieldTurf USA and its parent, Tarkett, last
December 15.

According to the suit, "Plaintiff purchased six defective
Synthetic Grass Fields, defined below, from FieldTurf between late
2006 and 2010, at a time when FieldTurf knew that its marketing
claims and sales campaign were grossly exaggerated, and that the
Synthetic Grass Fields were defective."

U.S. Senators Cory Booker and Robert Menendez have urged the
Federal Trade Commission to open an investigation into FieldTurf's
conduct, noting the need for government officials to be "vigilant
against deception and misuse of taxpayer dollars."

This is the second big suit filed against the artificial turf
company in recent days. Several days ago, Newark, New Jersey
schools filed a class action suit against against FieldTurf, the
nation's leading maker of artificial sports fields, alleging the
company defrauded more than 100 public and private schools and
municipalities in the state.

Two years ago I wrote that schools that have replaced their grass
fields with artificial turf are finding out the hard way that the
plastic stuff doesn't always last as long as advertised.

The Newark complaint capped followed an NJ Advance Media
investigation that revealed the company sold high-end turf for
years after executives knew it was falling apart.


GLACIER COUNTY, MT: Taxpayers Appeal Class Action Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
LeAnne Kavanagh, writing for Pioneer Press, reports that
Elaine Mitchell said she's had numerous taxpayers asking if they
should still pay their Glacier County taxes under protest after a
District Court Judge dismissed the Class Action Suit against
Glacier County and the State of Montana.

"Yes!" said Ms. Mitchell.  "The case is not final," stressed Great
Falls attorney Lawrence A. Anderson, the attorney for
Ms. Mitchell and all other plaintiffs and appellants, on Nov. 30.
Anderson filed a Notice of Appeal to the Montana Supreme Court on
Nov. 29, appealing District Judge Mike Menahan's Nov. 16 order
dismissing the case for lack of standing.

Mr. Anderson, on behalf of Mitchell, et al., filed a Class Action
Lawsuit against Glacier County on Aug. 13, 2015 and later amended
the lawsuit in February 2016.  The Class Action lawsuit allows any
and all Glacier County taxpayers the right to pay their county
taxes under protest until the lawsuit is settled.

Ms. Mitchell stressed, "When I first paid my taxes under protest
in May 2015 it was because the County Commissioners had failed to
address any of the conditions of the Fiscal Year audits of June
2013 and June 2014, which included failure to follow generally
accepted accounting principles and tax statements had been mailed
in spite of the fact that a budget had not been completed,"
explained Ms. Mitchell.

"Now, 18 months later, there still has been no corrective action
taken by the commissioners and there is still no audit scheduled
for the fiscal years ending June 2015 and June 2016.  For these
reasons, I urge taxpayers to continue to pay their taxes under
protest," stated Ms. Mitchell.

Many taxpayers paid their May 2015 taxes under protest, and many
more did so in November 2015 and May 2016.

Ms. Mitchell concluded, "Since taxpayers paid their taxes under
protest in 2015 there have been many more examples of taxpayers'
rights being diminished in Glacier County.  The loss of these
rights is definitely grounds for another class action suit against
Glacier County.  All we are asking the commissioners to do is
follow the laws of Montana while governing."


GOLDCORP INC: Glancy Prongay Appointed Class Action Lead Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on Dec. 7 disclosed that it
has been appointed Lead Counsel in the securities class action
against Goldcorp, Inc. ("Goldcorp") and certain executive officers
of the Company, currently pending in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.

Investors that purchased shares of Goldcorp between March 31, 2014
through October 3, 2016 are encouraged to contact Lesley F.
Portnoy, Esq. of GPM at 310-201-9150 to discuss the status of the
case and the claims in the litigation.

The complaint filed in this lawsuit alleges that defendants misled
investors regarding one of its most important mining assets, and
otherwise engaged in a fraudulent course of conduct surrounding
Goldcorp's mining operations at its Penasquito mine. Located in
Zacatecas, Mexico, the Penasquito mine is the largest gold mine in
Latin America and one of the largest in the world, accounting for
approximately one-third of the Company's sales in 2015.  Yet, the
Company allegedly violated several environmental regulations and
allowed dangerous chemicals to seep into local water reserves.
These action threatened human life nearby and threatened closure
of the Penasquito mine.

If you purchased shares of Goldcorp securities between March 31,
2014 through October 3, 2016, inclusive, or if you have any
questions concerning this case, this announcement, or your rights
or interests with respect to these matters, or if you would like
an update concerning the status of this case, would like to learn
more about the case, or have information and wish to discuss these
matters further, please contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, by
telephone at 310-201-9150, toll-free at 888-773-9224, by email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include
your mailing address, telephone number, transaction date(s) and
number of shares purchased.


INTEGRITY HOME: "Cooper" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
DANA COOPER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. INTEGRITY HOME CARE, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-01293-SWH (W.D. Mo., Dec. 14, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law (MMWL).

According to complaint, the Plaintiff's hours varied from week to
week in 2015 but she regularly worked more than 40 hours a week,
including some weeks in which she worked up to and including 75.
Despite her overtime work, she was not properly compensated for
all overtime hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week for work
performed from January 1, 2015, to the present.

Integrity Home Care offers a full range of services from Companion
Care to Skilled Nursing Care.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714 7115
          Facsimile: (816) 714 7101
          E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          Scott E. Brady, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (225) 925 5297
          Facsimile: (225) 231 7000
          E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                  scott@bohrerbrady.com


INTERACTIVECORP: Company Control Challenged in CA Pension Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
California Public Employees' Retirement System on behalf of itself
and all other similarly situated stockholders of
IAC/InterActiveCorp, Plaintiff, v. IAC/Interactivecorp, Barry
Diller, Edgar Bronfman, Jr., Michael Eisner, Bonnie Hammer, Bryan
Lourd, Alan Spoon, Victor Kaufman, Chelsea Clinton, Alexander Von
Furstenberg, Joseph Levin, David Rosenblatt and Richard F.
Zannino, Defendants, Case No. 12975, (Del. Ch., December 12,
2016), seeks appropriate compensatory damages, together with pre-
and post-judgment interest, costs, expenses, and disbursements of
this action, including attorneys' and experts' fees and such other
and further relief for breach of fiduciary duty.

Plaintiffs allege that IAC's controlling stockholder, Barry
Diller, plans to create a new, non-voting class of stock for the
express purpose of maintaining the Diller family's voting control.
Diller, his family, and their trusts own less than 8% of IAC's
outstanding stock, but wield 44% of the Company's voting power
through super-voting Class B shares. Diller exercises further
control as Chairman and Senior Executive. At 74 years old, he is
now improperly using his control to perpetuate himself in power
for the remainder of his life, and then pass control to family
members who have never run IAC, says the complaint.

California Public Employees' Retirement System owns 171,500 shares
of IAC common stock.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joel Friedlander, Esq.
      Jeffrey Gorris, Esq.
      Christopher M. Foulds, Esq.
      FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS P.A.
      1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2200
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 573-3500

           - and -

      Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
      John Vielandi, Esq.
      David MacIsaac, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      1251 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10020
      Tel: (212) 554-1400

           - and -

      Blair Nicholas, Esq.
      Benjamin Galdston, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
      San Diego, CA 92130
      Tel: (858) 793-0070


IOWA: DOT Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Traffic Tickets
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Clayworth, writing for The Des Moines Register, reports that
an effort to force Iowa to expunge and refund thousands of traffic
tickets is an "extreme measure" that would create "a most profound
impact to the detriment of public safety," the state argued in
court documents made public on Dec. 7.

Iowa asked the Polk County District Court to dismiss an effort to
create a class-action lawsuit against the state, following an
October judge's ruling that the state's transportation department
did not have legal authority to issue a speeding ticket to
16-year-old Peyton Atzen.

Iowa continues to issue tickets, despite the ruling that says DOT
officers are not legally authorized to issue most traffic
citations to noncommercial vehicles.

Three motorists in November launched court actions that would
force the state to reverse course, clear records and refund fines
and court fees.

Tens of thousands of tickets and millions of dollars are on the
line, potentially going back five or more years.

Iowa argues that the October ruling by Polk County District Court
Associate Judge Heather Lauber shouldn't be considered to set
court precedent, partly because district court decisions are not
binding to other district courts.

The state said that motorists who believe they've been wronged by
the system can and should individually challenge their cases.

". . . 'The Atzen ruling' is merely the decision in one case,"
lawyers from the office of Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller argued
in the newly filed court documents.  "Judge Lauber's decision is
an unpublished opinion with no precedential value whatsoever."

At the heart of the issue is a law that restricts the enforcement
powers of state officers.  It limits officers outside of the
state's public safety department from enforcing most moving
violations.

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled nearly 70 years ago that DOT officers
did not have those powers.  A 1990 Iowa attorney general opinion
concurred, saying DOT officers' authority is limited to drunken
driving enforcement and commercial motor vehicle violations
related to registration, size and weight, based on another section
of the law.

Mr. Atzen's attorney, Brandon Brown, and Gina Messamer, another
lawyer at the Parrish Kruidenier law firm, also represent the
three motorists seeking a class-action judgment against Iowa.
Mr. Brown said on Dec. 7 that his team had anticipated the state's
resistance and would continue to seek a court order to halt the
state's ongoing ticketing practice.

Geoff Greenwood, a spokesman for the Iowa Attorney General's
Office, said that the office believes DOT officers have citizen
arrest powers that include traffic citations.  He cited a case
that went before the Iowa Supreme Court in 1994.

The 1994 case involved a South Dakota police officer who had
observed the motorist in both states with a moving violation that
ended with a drunk driving arrest after he was pulled over in
Sioux City.  The court ruled the South Dakota officer had the
right to make the arrest in Iowa for crimes committed in their
presence.

"This means, of course, when a DOT peace officer witnesses a
motorist driving by going 84 miles per hour in a 55 miles-per-hour
zone, he or she does not have to stand pat and allow the
lawbreaker to speed on to the jeopardy of the public's safety,"
Iowa attorneys wrote in the court documents filed Wednesday, which
referenced the speeds Mr. Atzen was ticketed for earlier this
year.

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

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

Revenue from the tickets goes into Iowa's general fund, which is
allocated by lawmakers to state agencies to help conduct state
government work.

On another but similar front, the DOT continues its effort to
prevent city governments from issuing automatic speeding tickets,
saying the fines don't make roads safer.  In that case, revenue
generated from the tickets is directed to city or county
governments, not state government.


KRAFT HEINZ: "Beale" Suit Seeks Restoration of Retiree Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Beale, Sr., Robert Garrow, Melvin Hill, for themselves and
all persons similarly situated, and United Food and Commercial
Workers, Plaintiffs, v. Kraft Heinz Food Company, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00119, (S.D. Iowa., December 9, 2016), seeks
restoration of the Plaintiff's health and prescription drug plans
pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
and the Labor-Management Relations Act.

Plaintiffs are retired Kraft Heinz employee who were members of
United Food and Commercial Workers Local Union 431 and subject to
the terms and conditions of collective bargaining agreements that
includes retiree health and prescription drug insurance. Each
Plaintiff currently receives retiree health and prescription drug
insurance from Kraft Heinz.

During negotiations for the CBA effective July 26, 2010-14, and
the CBA effective July 20, 2014-18, Kraft Heinz representatives
proposed that retiree health care coverage terminate when retirees
reach age 65 and become eligible for Medicare.

Kraft Heinz operates meat processing plants and other food
processing facilities throughout the country. It operates a meat
processing plant located in Davenport, Iowa.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Kurt C. Kobelt, Esq.
      ARELLANO & PHEBUS, S.C.
      1468 N. High Point Road, Suite 202
      Middleton, WI 53562-3683
      Tel: (608) 827-7680
      Fax: (608) 827-7681
      Email: kkobelt@aplawoffice.com

             - and -

      Michael Halpin, Esq.
      MCCARTHY CALLAS CHURCH & FEENEY P.C.
      329 Eighteenth Street
      Rock Island, IL 61201
      Tel: (309) 788-2800
           (309) 558-9062
      Email: mhalpin@mcfe-law.com


KROGER: Faces Class Action for Discrimination
---------------------------------------------
Rewire reports that Jessica Craddock of Nashville was shocked when
the grocery store she had worked at for two years refused to make
accommodations for a difficult pregnancy in 2014.

"I just needed to avoid heavy lifting so that I could stay
healthy," she said in a news release from A Better Balance, a
national legal advocacy organization promoting fairness in the
workplace. "They put me on unpaid leave so I . . . .  had to go
without income when I needed it the most," Craddock, now 24, said.

In a class action lawsuit filed in November by A Better Balance in
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Craddock
is seeking a policy change to allow pregnant Kroger employees to
receive similar workplace accommodations that injured workers
already receive at the grocery chain, which is one of the
country's largest employers.

This case is filed against Kroger Greater Tennessee Division,
which consists of at least 90 stores with more than 12,000
employees, according to court documents.

Although she felt it wasn't safe, Ms. Craddock said she was doing
some heavy lifting in her pregnancy because she was afraid of
losing her job. But when there were complications, she provided a
doctor's note indicating that she should not lift more than ten
pounds.

The store manager told her she could not be accommodated because
Kroger's policy did not allow employees to work with medical
restrictions, with an exception for "on-the-job injuries-workers
compensation," the complaint states.

Ms. Craddock was pushed out of her job into taking unpaid leave,
according to the complaint.

The suit claims that the company's policy violates Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act, which states that "women affected by
pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be
treated the same for all employment-related purposes . . . . as
other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or
inability to work."

The company's Tennessee division policy imposes "a significant
burden on pregnant workers who rely upon income from work to
provide for themselves and their families," the complaint states,
the report notes.

Kroger's discriminatory policy and practice puts many pregnant
workers on unpaid leave, short-term disability with lesser pay, or
deprives them of their jobs altogether, says the complaint, the
report discloses.  Others must risk their health for fear of
losing income during a critical period.

"Pregnant workers at Kroger should not have to choose between
their health and their careers," the complaint states.

"Kroger thinks it's perfectly legal to treat pregnant workers like
second-class citizens," said Dina Bakst, co-founder and co-
president of A Better Balance, in the release. "This is not only
shameful -- but illegal."

Most pregnant women do not need much accommodation except maybe
some breaks, less heavy lifting, or a stool to sit down from time
to time. "That's not a lot to ask for," said Elizabeth Gedmark,
director of the southern office of A Better Balance, to Rewire.
"This is a public health issue and concerns family and women's
health. You would think that one of the largest companies in the
country would step up."

Moreover, policies such as Kroger's disproportionately affect low-
wage women and women of color. "Those who can afford it the least
are hit the hardest," she said.

Tennessee has the highest percentage of minimum wage-workers in
the country. Women of color dominate these jobs and pregnancy
discrimination is most common in low-wage jobs, according to
Allison Glass, state director of the coalition Healthy and Free
TN, which works to ensure that the policies legislators introduce
in Nashville meet the needs of Tennessee women.

"Women are the head family earners for a large percentage of
families across the country and they need to be supported and not
discriminated against at work, especially when pregnant and
planning to expand their family," she told Rewire.

Decades after the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, courts across the
country are seeing cases like this one, especially those involving
pregnant women in physically demanding jobs like UPS and other
retail, food service, and policing, Gedmark said.

"Accommodations for pregnant women at work is an issue that
impacts all women, regardless of race or socioeconomic level,"
said Liz Morris, deputy director of the Center for WorkLife Law
and law professor at University of California in an emailed
comment to Rewire. "Data show that low-wage earners and women of
color are more likely to need an accommodation at work, and these
women are more vulnerable in the workplace during pregnancy as a
result."

In Craddock's case, she lost her apartment and had to move in with
her mother, Gedmark said.

After she was placed on unpaid leave, Craddock filed a charge of
discrimination under Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination
Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act and its Amendments
Act, with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in
Nashville, in May 2014.

The company responded that an "inadvertent mistake" had been made
and allowed her to return to work, according to the lawsuit. The
June 3 letter said Craddock was "mistakenly placed . . . on a
leave of absence." Craddock continues to work at Kroger.

"Kroger allowed her to return to work after A Better Balance
intervened but they still have not changed their policy. It is
really unjust and unfair," Gedmark said to Rewire. "Unfortunately
it shows that companies don't value their female workforce
enough."

While Ms. Craddock and others like her remain subject to the
company's policies, some see the lawsuit filing as significant.

"The beauty of the class-action lawsuit brought by a Better
Balance is that a single woman who has faced discrimination is
seeking relief for other women who have faced -- or will in the
future face-similar unlawful treatment," Morris told Rewire. "By
stepping forward and speaking out on behalf of her coworkers who
have also been discriminated against when they became pregnant,
Ms. Craddock can secure protection for other women who may be
afraid to come forward."

"This lawsuit shows big companies that they can't take their
workers for granted and shirk the law, especially when it comes to
pregnant workers," said Glass. "We should be supporting families
and our economy, not discriminating against women who are working
and pregnant."


L'OREAL USA: Faces Class Action Over Hair Care Product
------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a New York
woman is suing L'Oreal, alleging fraud and negligent
misrepresentation.

Vivian Lee and John Does 1-100 filed a class action complaint,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Nov.
30 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against L'Oreal USA, Inc. alleging false claims regarding its
beauty care products.

According to the complaint, Lee and John Does 1-100 suffered
monetary damages from purchasing a falsely advertised beauty
product.  The plaintiffs allege L'Oreal falsely advertises that
its Advanced Haircare Total Repair Damage-Erasing Balm product
contains a rinse-out reconstructing balm that repairs damaged
hair. The suit says this claim is false.

Lee seeks trial by jury, restitution and disgorgement, interest,
court costs and all relief the court grants.  The plaintiffs are
represented by attorneys C.K. Lee and Anne Seelig of Lee
Litigation Group PLLC in New York.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Case
number 1:16-cv-09266-PGG


L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Securities Class Action Pending in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarraf Gentile LLP on Dec. 7 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. ("L-3" or
the "Company") (NYSE: LLL) concerning possible violations of
federal securities laws on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and is captioned Patel v. L-3
Communications Holdings Inc., et al., No. 1:14-cv-06038. The
complaint alleges that defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements and/or omitted adverse information about the
Company's business and prospects.

No class has been certified in the above action.  Until a class is
certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You
may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member.
Sarraf Gentile LLP has not filed a lawsuit against the defendants.

If you are a current Company shareholder and want to discuss your
legal rights, at no cost and without obligation, please contact
Joseph Gentile at Sarraf Gentile LLP (telephone: 516-699-8890,
extension 12; e-mail: joseph@sarrafgentile.com).

Sarraf Gentile LLP litigates shareholder actions across the United
States.


MCCORMICK & COMPANY: Faces Class Action Over "All Natural" Label
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Lawson, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that what is
natural? The courts are constantly looking at how to resolve this
very issue, according to a Minnesota attorney, as is the case with
another food ingredient labeling lawsuit, this time against spice
maker McCormick & Company.

Megan Holve of New York filed a class action lawsuit against
McCormick & Company Inc., alleging negligent misrepresentation,
which attorney Chris Kennedy of Minnesota says is the only charge
that could possibly be brought by Ms. Holve successfully.

Ms. Holve filed her complaint on behalf of all in the class
defined in her complaint Oct. 13, in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.  She alleges McCormick & Company
made false claims regarding one of its products as all-natural.
"I think there are a number of frivolous lawsuits against large
corporations," Mr. Kennedy said.  "I don't know that is the case
here but it does happen with great frequency.  They're not always
intending to be malicious.  No two people's idea of what all-
natural is is exactly the same."

The complaint from the plaintiff alleges she suffered from
purchasing what she believed to be made from natural ingredients
but wasn't.  She asserts McCormick is responsible because it
alleged its product to be "all natural" but knew it contained
synthetic, artificial and genetically modified ingredients.

Ms. Holve said no reasonable consumer would consider the
ingredients natural by definition.  She asserts the company is
taking advantage of consumer demand for healthier products but not
actually delivering what is claimed.

She cited research from the Consumers' Union to back this up. That
research says 86 percent of consumers define natural as not
containing any artificial ingredients and perceive products
labeled natural as healthier and wholesome.  Moreover, they are
willing to pay higher prices for access to these kinds of
products.

Ms. Holve, in her complaint, said she bought McCormick's Herbes de
Provence roasted chicken & potatoes mix in 2014 and believed the
product she purchased was "natural."  She indicated she would not
have made the purchase had she known the real ingredients
contained in the mix.

She compiled a list of 29 McCormick seasoning blends and gravy
mixes and contends those products ought to be considered in the
suit as well. McCormick also faces several other lawsuits related
to false advertising claims.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, compensatory, treble
and punitive damages, interest, court costs and any further relief
this court grants.  She is represented by attorneys Michael R.
Reese and George V. Granade of Reese LLP in New York, and by
Joshua H. Eggnatz -- JEggnatz@ElpLawyers.com -- of Eggnatz,
Lopatin & Pascucci, LLP in Davie, Florida.


MED-CARE DIABETIC: Arwa Chiropractic Seeks to Certify TCPA Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arwa Chiropractic, P.C., moves the Court to issue an order
certifying the action styled ARWA CHIROPRACTIC, P.C., etc. v. MED-
CARE DIABETIC & MEDICAL SUPPLIES, INC. and STEVEN SILVERMAN, D.C.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-05602 (N.D. Ill.), as a class action pursuant to
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  Arwa Chiropractic proposes
this class definition:

     All persons who were sent one or more facsimiles from
     Med-Care Diabetic & Medical Supplies of Boca Raton, FL on
     any of the following 6 dates: July 2, 2013, July 10, 2013,
     October 2, 2013, October 9, 2013, October 17, 2013, or
     October 25, 2013, stating, "Your patient has asked us to
     contact you regarding authorization for a Nebulizer and its
     medications to help with their breathing problems. . . . In
     order to supply those products to your patient, under the
     Medicare program, we must obtain a signed order by the
     patient's physician."

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as the class
representative, and appoint its attorneys as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rp6HNlfR

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Jonathan B. Piper, Esq.
          Kimberly M. Watt, Esq.
          John P. Orellana, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com
                  jon@classlawyers.com
                  kimberly@classlawyers.com


OPTUMRX INC: Insurance Meds Clawback Scheme Hit in "Alston" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erika Alston, for herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. OptumRX, Inc., Unitedhealth Group Inc., United
Healthcare Services, Inc., inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:16-
cv-02165 (D. Minn., December 9, 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.

Alston is covered by a health plan currently administered by
Optum. Plaintiff has received prescription drug coverage through
this plan but is obligated to make a co-payment when filling a
prescription. The amount Optum requires the pharmacy collect from
the patient often exceeds the amount that 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 Unitedhealth.

UnitedHealth Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries are health care
companies that offer health insurance plans to individuals and
employers. Plaintiff purchased health insurance through
UnitedHealth and receives pharmacy benefits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
     Mark Reinhardt, Esq.
     REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
     E-1250 First National Bank Bldg.
     332 Minnesota Street
     St. Paul, MN 55101
     Telephone: (651) 287-2100
     Email: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.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 -

      David P. McLafferty, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DAVID P. MCLAFFERTY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      923 Fayette Street
      Conshohocken, PA 19428
      Tel: (610) 940-4000
      Fax: (610) 940-4007
      Email: dmclafferty@mclaffertylaw.com


PAM TRANSPORT: "Browne" Suit Claim Minimum Wages
------------------------------------------------
David Browne, Antonio Caldwell, and Lucretia Hall, on behalf of
themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. P.A.M.
Transport, Inc., Daniel Cushman and John Does 1-10, Defendants,
Case No. 4:16-cv-00888, (E.D. Ark., December 9, 2016), seeks
minimum wages due, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable
attorney fees and costs and all other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

PAM is an Arkansas Corporation that maintains a business address
at 297 West Henri de Tonti Blvd., Tontitown, AR 72770 where
Plaintiffs work for Defendants as over-the-road truck drivers.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
      Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
      Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
      Travis Martindale-Jarvis, Esq.
      SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
      1101 KingsHwyN, Suite402
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Phone: (856) 685-7420


PATRIOT NATIONAL: Faces Class Action, Court to Set Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that the court is expected to set a hearing date
for early January 2017 to consider whether a preliminary
injunction will be ordered.

On Nov. 30, shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in court
against Patriot National Inc. and the company's CEO and directors.

On Dec. 7, the court granted temporary restraining order enjoining
the company from issuing a special cash dividend of $2.50 per
share on Dec 9.


PHD FITNESS: Faces Class Action Over Supplement False Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that three
consumers are suing a California fitness company, alleging fraud
and negligent misrepresentation.

Jeff Johnston of Michigan, John Sandviks of South Carolina and
Tanner Kirchoff of Washington filed a class action complaint,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Nov.
26 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
against PhD Fitness LLC of Thousand Oaks, California, alleging the
defendant made misleading claims regarding its supplements to
consumers.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs sustained monetary
damages from purchasing a falsely advertised supplement, Creatine
HCL.  The plaintiffs allege PhD Fitness says its product provides
benefits proven by scientific claims when this is not true.

The plaintiffs seek trial by jury, actual damages, rescind the
plaintiffs' purchases, statutory damages, restitution, court costs
and interest, plus any further relief the court grants. They are
represented by attorneys Nick Suciu III --
nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com -- of Barbat, Mansour & Suciu PLLC in
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, and by Jonathan N. Shub --
jshub@kohnswift.com -- of Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C. in
Philadelphia.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Case
number 2:16-cv-14152-LJM-SDD


PRIMORIS SERVICES: "Atkins" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRANCE ATKINS, GERALD WOODS, and LEANDRE SMITH, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
PRIMORIS SERVICES CORPORATION and PRIMORIS ENERGY SERVICES
CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00524 (S.D. Tex.,
Dec. 14, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages, liquidated
damages, costs, and attorneys' fees owed to workers under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as hourly paid employees who
received a daily per diem, which was not included in the regular
rate calculation for purposes of determining the required overtime
rate pursuant to the FLSA. The per diem represents compensation
that is primarily for the benefit and convenience of Defendants'
hourly employees. As a result, the FLSA requires that this type of
compensation be included in the calculation of the regular rate of
pay for overtime purposes. Because the per diem and other
allowances were not included in the regular rate of pay
calculation, Defendants' hourly paid employees were not properly
compensated at a proper overtime rate of one-and-one-half times
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty
hours in a single week.

Primoris Services is a publicly traded specialty construction and
infrastructure company, with a particular focus on pipelines for
natural gas, wastewater and water.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq.
          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          SHELLIST, LAZARZ, SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621 2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621 0993
          E-mail: bdebes@eeoc.net
                  rprieto@eeoc.net


PROBALANCE INC: Status Hearing in "Ulrich" Suit Set for Dec. 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on December 6, 2016, in the case
entitled John M Ulrich v. Probalance, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-10488
(N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Jorge
L. Alonso.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is entered and
      continued to December 22, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.;

   -- Plaintiff's request for status conference is granted; and

   -- Initial status hearing is set for December 22, 2016, at
      9:30 a.m.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mhNOJsJg


RAVAGH PERSIAN: "Baten" Suit Seeks Overtime, Reimbursements
-----------------------------------------------------------
Abel Baten, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and
the Class, Plaintiff, v. Mr. Kabob Restaurant Inc., First Avenue
Persian Grille, Inc., Parmys Kabob and Grill, Inc., Ravagh
Restaurant Corp., Masoud Tehrani, Monireh Tehrani, Mojgan Raoufi
and Amir Raoufi, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09559, (S.D. N.Y.,
December 12, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages,
including those resulting from an improperly claimed tip credit,
unreimbursed expenses of "tools of the trade" and
maintenance/repair costs, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Law.  The suit also seeks liquidated damages, statutory
penalties and attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants operate a restaurant enterprise under the trade name
"Ravagh Persian Grill" at the following locations, namely 11 East
30th Street, New York, New York 10016, 1135 First Avenue, New
York, New York 10065 and 125 First Avenue, New York, New York
10003. The Restaurants are a family business, commonly owned and
operated by Masoud Tehrani, Monireh Tehrani, Mojgan Raoufi and
Amir Raoufi. Baten was hired by Defendants to work as a delivery
person for the different branches but also performed preparing
salad, cleaning the restaurant, stocking the refrigerators, and
sweeping and mopping the restaurants he was assigned to. For
deliveries, he used his own bike and was never reimbursed for his
maintenance expenses.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RDJE INC: "Olmstead" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Olmstead and similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs,
v. RDJE, Inc., and Ronny D. Jones, Individually, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00198-TCB (N.D. Ga., Dec. 14, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid wages, declaratory
relief, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

The Plaintiff was an hourly paid employee performing general labor
duties within the last three years from March 11, 2012 through
April 23, 2016, for Defendant in Coweta County, Georgia.
During his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff, and those
similarly situated employees, regularly worked more than 40 hours
a week, but were not paid time and one-half his regular rate of
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per work week during one
or more work weeks.

RDJE is a full service construction company headquartered in
Newnan, Georgia, a suburb of Atlanta. The Company provides
construction services for commercial, municipal, private
development and specialty projects.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adian Miller, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          191 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 4200
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 496 7332
          Facsimile: (404) 496 7428
          E-mail: ARMiller@forthepeople.com


REMINGTON ARMS: Seeks Approval of Rifle Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Cohn, writing for CNBC.com, reports that The Remington Arms
Company, which is seeking court approval of a landmark class
action settlement involving alleged defects in its most popular
rifles, said in a series of court filings that its critics have
"ulterior motives" in objecting to the deal.

In one instance, the company claimed, an objector first tried to
extract more than $1 million from the company to buy his silence.

Remington has agreed to replace the triggers in millions of guns,
including its popular Model 700 bolt-action rifle, to settle
allegations that the guns are prone to firing without the trigger
being pulled.  But the company continues to maintain that the guns
are safe, and that the accidents and deaths associated with the
alleged defect are the result of user errors.  Several gun owners
have filed formal objections to the settlement as a result,
alleging the company is deliberately downplaying the risks.

Remington reserved its harshest criticism for Richard Barber, a
Montana man who says his nine-year-old son was killed when a
Remington 700 went off during a family hunting trip in 2000.
Mr. Barber has been a central figure in multiple CNBC reports
about the company since 2010.  Remington settled a wrongful death
claim by the Barber family for an undisclosed amount in 2002, but
Mr. Barber went on to amass a huge trove of internal company
documents and became a sought-after expert on the alleged defect.

Mr. Barber initially served as a paid consultant to the class
action plaintiffs, but resigned in early 2015.  In November, he
filed a formal, 40-page objection to the proposed class action
settlement citing what he called "deceitful and misleading
statements" by Remington and plaintiffs' attorneys.

But in a scathing response filed on Dec. 6, Remington said
Mr. Barber only objected to the settlement after first demanding
that the company pay him $1.5 million, and supply him with two
Remington Modular Sniper Rifles -- which we found listed for sale
online for $21,000 apiece -- plus 4,000 rounds of ammunition.  In
exchange, the company claimed that Barber offered to support any
class action settlement, stop making disparaging statements about
the company, and destroy all of his research.

"In light of Barber's vexatious conduct, his objections to the
class action settlement should be summarily rejected," the filing
said.

In an interview, Mr. Barber acknowledged making the demands but
said Remington is mischaracterizing them in an attempt to deflect
attention from the real issues in the case.  He said the demands
were drawn up by attorneys who no longer represent him, and said
he ultimately withdrew the demands after concluding that he would
be "making a deal with the devil."

Those same attorneys represent plaintiffs in the class action
case, and stand to collect a portion of $12.5 million in fees if
the nationwide settlement is approved.

Remington has generally been careful about publicly criticizing
Mr. Barber, but after he appeared in a 2010 CNBC documentary about
the rifles, the company included him and his family in a point-by-
point rebuttal online.  Mr. Barber sued the company in federal
court for defamation. It was during settlement talks in that case
in 2014 that Mr. Barber -- through his attorneys -- made the
demands.

"You have to talk about a settlement before you go to trial,"
Barber said, and he claims his attorneys pressed him to come up
with a concrete proposal to present to Remington.

"The only thing this company understands is money," he said.

Mr. Barber claimed he had second thoughts and formally withdrew
the offer in an e-mail in April, 2014.  But Remington cited an e-
mail from one of Barber's attorneys in July of that year
reiterating his offer to destroy his document archive if the
defamation case was settled.

By that point, Mr. Barber said, he was desperate to "get my life
back," and believed the company was prepared to stop claiming the
guns were safe.

Remington claims Mr. Barber only dropped his demands after a
federal appeals court ruled in May of 2015 that he had forfeited
his right to make future claims against the company as a result of
the 2002 wrongful death settlement, dismissing the case and
rendering his demands moot.

Mr. Barber said he regrets making the demands, which he said he
assumed were confidential.  He has spoken broadly about settlement
talks in the past and acknowledged them in court filings, but
never volunteered details to the court or CNBC.

"I pray for forgiveness every day for the things I've done and
left undone," he said.

But, he added, "I believe my actions speak for themselves, and
truth is still a defense."

Specifically, Mr. Barber alleges the company and plaintiffs'
attorneys in the class action case intentionally misled the court
about a particular class of Remington rifles -- the Model 600 --
that the company claims is too old to retrofit.  Owners of those
rifles -- several hundred thousand in all -- are ineligible for a
new trigger under the proposed settlement, and can only claim a
$12.50 product voucher.  Mr. Barber alleges the attorneys
concealed the fact that Remington recalled the Model 600 in 1978
and says the company remains obligated to fix it.  In its latest
filing, Remington argues that the recall has been part of the
court record from the beginning of the case.

U.S. District Judge Ortrie D. Smith in Kansas City, who is
overseeing the class action case, has given Mr. Barber until
January 1 to file a formal response to Remington.  Judge Smith has
scheduled a hearing for February 14 to consider final approval of
the settlement.

Other gun owners have alleged that Remington and the plaintiffs'
attorneys have deliberately structured the settlement to
discourage customers from returning their guns and reduce the cost
to Remington, a charge the company and plaintiffs have denied.

But a Connecticut gun owner wrote to the court to complain that he
has been getting the run-around when trying to return his gun,
including "30-minute hold times" on Remington's customer service
line, "representatives that intentionally disconnect the line,"
and a web site that is "plagued with errors."

"I am now convinced the Remington Arms Co. is intentionally making
it difficult for owners, such as me, to have our defective guns
properly repaired," wrote Paul Vigano of New Canaan.

Remington's attorneys have not yet responded in court to the
letter, and did not respond to an e-mail seeking a comment.


RIO TINTO: Guinean Scandal Spurs US Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Peter Ker at Financial Review reports that Rio Tinto has been hit
with a new class action in the US, which claims the company's
Guinean scandal has caused damages and losses for holders of Rio's
American securities.

The class action complaint was filed in a New York court in recent
days.  Among the defendants are former Rio chief executives Sam
Walsh and Tom Albanese, former chief financial officer Guy Elliott
and current Chief Financial Officer Chris Lynch.

The plaintiff, Jeffery P Weiner Supplemental Trust, bought Rio
American depositary receipts (ADRs) between March 16, 2012, and
November 14, 2016.

Mr. Weiner said he was "seeking to recover damages caused by
defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies" under the US Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                    Rio Tinto ADR Share Price

Mr. Weiner identified three occasions in November when news
reports about Rio's Guinean scandal coincided with falls in the
value of Rio's ADRs.

Mr. Weiner alleges Rio Tinto and the four former executives made
materially false and misleading statements when they claimed in
multiple annual reports that the company was "operating within all
applicable laws and regulations" in the nations where it operated.

Mr. Weiner claimed updates on progress towards developing the
Simandou iron ore deposit at the heart of the Guinea scandal also
contained false and misleading statements.

"Throughout the class period, defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the company's business,
operational and compliance policies," he claimed in the filing.

Mr. Weiner also claimed Rio "failed to disclose material adverse
facts about the company's business, operational, and compliance
policies".

"Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that Rio Tinto violated anti-corruption laws in
connection with its operations with respect to the Simandou
project, the foregoing violations would expose the company to
significant scrutiny and large fines, and as a result of the
foregoing, Rio Tinto's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times," he claimed.

The claim is ironic on one level, given the value of Rio ADRs has
risen since the scandal emerged on November 9, when Rio announced
it had contacted fraud and securities regulators over a series of
leaked emails that discussed a controversial $US10.5 million
($14.2 million) payment to a political adviser in Guinea.

Rio's ADRs were fetching $US38.24 on November 9, and had risen to
$US41.50 by the day Mr. Weiner filed his case in a New York court
this week.

Rio's Australian shares have also risen since the scandal became
public.

But the value of Rio's ADRs have fallen by about 28 per cent over
the 56-month period outlined by the class action, which covers
much of the mining industry downturn.

A spokesman for Rio said the company would seek to have the action
dismissed.

Mr. Weiner's claim may not be the last Rio has to face over the
Guinea scandal, with lawyers in Pennsylvania and California
advertising on Friday morning for holders of Rio securities to
come forward with a view to participating in legal action.

The class action is the second legal threat made against Rio this
week, after bitter rival Beny Steinmetz threatened to pursue Rio
for billions of dollars of damages for its alleged role in
convincing the Guinean government to remove Mr. Steinmetz's
company from two tenements covering part of the Simandou project.


SAN RAFAEL, CA: "Alviso" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
Anthony Alviso, Sam Achondo, Melissa Ainsworth, Randall Ainsworth,
Jimmy Alvarez, Daniel Barnes, Justin Barrow, William Berkey, Paul
Bernard, Paul Bowermaster, Richard Brown, Esteban Cespedes, Matt
Chandra, Nathan Clark, Jeffery T. Conover, Chris Cooper, David
Cornell, Paul M. Crimmins, Steven Davis, Chris Donohue, Jeffrey
Endaya, Gregory Geide, Nicholas A. Giusti, Nicolas Gonzalez-Pomo,
Ryan Goodwin, Shawn Gordon, Robert Ground, Richard Hamilton, Jason
Hatfield, Gary Hax, Eric Jennings, Steven Kadzielawa, Kevin
Kelleher, Conan Kelly, James Kieffer, Ryan Kirkpatrick, Kyle
Kleinschmidt, Angel Landaverde, Michael Lewis, Matt Locatelli,
David C. Lopes, Eric Macausland, Kenneth J. Martin, Michael
Mccarthy, Kristen Miller, Evan Minard, Trevor Mollenkopf, Joseph
D. Morel, Mike Morgenlaender, Cameron Mrsny, Rich Nettelman,
Garrett, Northern, Miguel Padilla, Arthur Phillips, Scott
Preckwinkle, Kyle Reuter, Andrew Rogerson, Richard Rojo, Jacob
Santos, Grant Saysette, Andrew Schifando, Jason Schmitt, Mark
Sedlack, David Shubin, Stephan Stornetta, Daniel Sutherlin, Trina
Vadon, Joseph A. Vasco, Bill Wasdyke, Michael Wasdyke, Gabriel
Williams, Graham Winkelman, Robert Winner, Ivan Zhuk, on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v.
City of San Rafael, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-07056 (N.D. Cal.,
December 9, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime and other compensation,
interest thereon, liquidated damages, costs of suit and reasonable
attorney fees, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiffs are current and former employees of the City of San
Rafael, a political subdivision of the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg McLean Adam, Esq.
      D. Paul Bird II, Esq.
      MESSING ADAM & JASMINE LLP
      235 Montgomery Street, Suite 828
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 266-1800
      Facsimile: (415) 266-1128
      Email: gregg@majlabor.com
             paul@majlabor.com.com


SET ENTERPRISES: Class of Exotic Dancers Certified Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William P. Dimitrouleas granted in part the Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification of FLSA Collective Action and
authorization to send notice to the FLSA Class in the lawsuit
entitled SARAH SHAW, REBECCA WILES, JENNIFER SCOTT, and ASHLEY
HOWELL, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situation v. THE SET ENTERPRISES, INC., a Florida Corporation, et
al., Case No. 0:15-cv-62152-WPD (S.D. Fla.).

The Court conditionally certifies a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act consisting of all current or former
entertainers, who worked for Cheetah Hallandale and Cheetah
Pompano during the three years preceding the filing of this action
through and including the date of entry of judgment in the case.

The Plaintiffs were formerly exotic dancers (entertainers) at
Cheetah.  They allege that the Defendants failed to comply with
the FLSA because the Defendants classify entertainers as
independent contractors and the Defendants do not pay entertainers
a minimum wage or overtime wages.

The Court has instructed the parties to confer and to submit a
joint proposed notice.  Within 14 days of the Court's entry of an
order approving the joint proposed notice, the Defendants will
provide the Plaintiffs' counsel with legal or stage name, last
known address, phone number, e-mail address, and phone number of
the entertainers (however that position is titled) who work, or
previously worked, for the two Cheetah clubs at issue on or after
October 13, 2012.  The approved notice will be posted by the
Defendants in a conspicuous place in the dressing rooms that are
frequented by potential collective action members.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7Whw7fWB


SOUTHERN RESPONSE: Earthquake Class Action Gets the Green Light
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Truebridge at Stuff reports that a class action against
Southern Response has been given the green light to continue
proceedings against the Canterbury earthquake insurer.

About 40 policy holders want to sue Southern Response, claiming
misrepresented policies, undue delays in processing and the
understatement of build costs. They want to sue as a joint action,
thereby sharing costs.

In February, the High Court in Christchurch denied the group
permission to proceed as a class action, saying the individual
claims in the action did not appear to have enough in common to
meet the test for a class bid.

The group's lawyers returned to court in a second attempt to have
the class action approved in October.

On December 16, solicitor Grant Cameron said the application to go
ahead with a representative action against the insurer had been
approved.

Mr. Cameron said Justice Warwick Gendall was satisfied that the
strategy employed by Southern Response to settle claims provided a
common "spine" to the group.

Justice Gendall wanted to have the matter "properly ventilated and
determined before the Court", he said.

Mr. Cameron said his clients were "thrilled with the outcome" and
were looking forward to "progress".

"They now have the way forward needed to achieve a fair and
reasonable resolution," he said.

In a statement a Southern Response spokeswoman said the firm was
"disappointed" by the ruling.

The insurer was "concerned" that a representative action would not
"efficiently and fairly" resolve each of its customers' individual
earthquake claims, she said.

"As a result, Southern Response is considering its options,
including an appeal."


SPRINT CORP: Class of Sales Farmers Certified in "McGlon" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Julie A. Robinson granted the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification in the lawsuit styled MICHAEL MCGLON, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. SPRINT
CORPORATION, ET AL., Case No. 2:16-cv-02099-JAR-TJJ (D. Kan.).

The Court conditionally certifies the Plaintiff's collective
action under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for
this class of persons:

     All persons who worked as BISO Inside Sales Farmers for
     Sprint within three years prior to the filing of the
     Complaint.

Plaintiff Michael McGlon is designated as the class representative
and his counsel will act as class counsel.

Judge Robinson denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to
approve his form of notice -- to be reasserted after the parties
have conferred.  The parties will meet and confer in an attempt to
reach an agreement on a proposed notice and consent form to be
sent to putative plaintiffs, including a proposed deadline for the
potential opt-in plaintiffs to join the action.

If an agreement is reached, the parties will submit a joint
proposed notice and consent form to the Court for approval within
21 days of the Court's order.  To the extent the parties are
unable to reach an agreement, the Plaintiff will file a motion
within 21 days of the Court's order, to seek approval of the
proposed forms, and Defendants will have 14 days to respond to the
Plaintiff's motion.  The Defendants may, if necessary, submit an
alternative proposed notice and consent form with its response.
Within 14 days of the Court's Order, the Defendants must provide
the Plaintiff a list of the first and last names, last-known
addresses, dates of employment, location of employment, telephone
numbers, and e-mail addresses of all members of the putative
class.

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


SYKES ENTERPRISES: "Meeks" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JANICE MEEKS, MARY POWERS, and DAVID SLAUGHTER, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Sykes Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Sykes Home Powered by Alpine Access,
the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-03405-JSM-AEP (M.D. Fla., Dec. 14,
2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation for Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated Team Leaders (TLs) who work or have
worked for Defendant Sykes Enterprises pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, TLs' primary value to Sykes is payroll
costs-savings. Sykes requires TLs to work long hours in order to
displace the work of non-exempt ATLs, who perform similar duties.
Specifically, like non-exempt ATLs, TLs spend the majority of
their time performing routine inspections of agents' calls to
track quality-control metrics using standardized forms provided by
Sykes; running routine reports regarding call data; and completing
forms relating to computer-generated metrics.

As a result of Sykes's willful violations of the FLSA, Plaintiffs
and the FLSA Collective have suffered damages by being denied
overtime wages. The Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective have been
deprived of overtime compensation and other wages in amounts to be
determined at trial, and are entitled to recover of such amounts,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys'
fees, costs and other compensation.

Sykes was founded in 1977 and provides comprehensive customer
contact management services in the business process outsourcing
arena to Global 2000 companies in the communications, financial
services, healthcare, technology, transportation, and retail
industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Paolo Meireles, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 South Federal Highway, Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447 8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447 8831

               - and -

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          Melissa Lardo Stewart, Esq.
          Cheryl-Lyn Bentley, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245 1000


TARGET: Motion to Intervene Filed Against Class Action Objectors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Gershman, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
a pair of legal complaints filed recently allege that "objector
blackmail" is corrupting class-action litigation.

The complaints, connected to unrelated cases, are asking courts to
clamp down on serial class-action objectors whom they accuse of
squeezing money from plaintiffs' lawyers by threatening to hold up
settlement payouts.

They allege that lawyers are demanding large payments from
plaintiffs' counsel in exchange for withdrawing frivolous and
time-consuming objections to settlements.  The complaints
characterize the tactics as "objector blackmail," essentially the
class-action equivalent of "patent trolling."

Reuters's Alison Frankel reports on a racketeering lawsuit brought
by consumer class-action firm Edelson PC:

On Dec. 5, the plaintiffs' firm Edelson filed a complaint in
Chicago federal district court against notorious class action
objectors Christopher Bandas and Darrell Palmer, asserting that
Bandas, Mr. Palmer and Illinois lawyer Jeffrey Thut of Noonan
Perillo & Thut are engaged in an ongoing scheme to extort class
action lawyers via frivolous objections to proposed settlements.

Specifically, Mr. Edelson claims that Messrs. Bandas and Palmer
demanded a payment of between $225,000 and $445,000 to drop an
objection to Mr. Edelson's $13.8 million settlement of a
robocalling class action against Gannett. (The objector was
represented in court by Mr. Thut, but Mr. Edelson alleges
Mr. Palmer recruited him and Bandas also purported to be his
counsel.) According to the complaint, Mr. Edelson reluctantly
agreed to pay the objectors $225,000 in order to allow the
settlement to take effect.

"I have read all of his allegations.  He is wrong on the law.  His
claim for RICO is patently frivolous.  And no court in the country
has ever supported his very specious position,"
Mr. Bandas told Am Law Daily, which reported on the suit.

Law Blog has reached out to Messrs. Palmer and Thut for comment.

Separately, a complaint in the form of a motion to intervene has
been filed against objectors in a consumer class-action against
big-box retailer Target alleging false advertising of a joint-pain
supplement.

The motion, filed on Dec. 7 in Illinois federal court, was brought
by Ted Frank, a litigator with the Competitive Enterprise
Institute and himself a frequent objector to class-action
settlements.

Mr. Frank, whose objections typically protest disproportionately
high attorneys' fees, is asking the court to disgorge any payments
made to three objectors in the Target case whom he accuses of
appealing the settlement for personal enrichment.

"Bad-faith" objectors are giving good-faith ones a bad name, his
complaint says.

"[T]he cacophony created by shoddy objections brought by bad-faith
objectors," the lawsuit states," interferes with a court's ability
to fairly consider the reasoned good-faith objections brought by
the Center."


TERRAVIA HOLDINGS: Bronstein, Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against TerraVia Holdings, Inc.
("TerraVia" or the "Company") (TVIA) and certain of its officers,
and is on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Arrowhead securities between August 8, 2016 and November
7, 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/tvia.

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").

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) TerraVia's products caused gastrointestinal
problems, including nausea and vomiting; and (2) consequently,
Defendants' statements about TerraVia's business, operations, and
prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times.

On November 7, 2016, Bloomberg broadcasted a news report, "Soylent
Thinks It Found What Was Making People Sick: Algae." The article
described how Soylent, Rosa Foods, Inc.'s meal replacement drink,
includes an algal flour ingredient provided by TerraVia. This
ingredient has caused Soylent consumers to become sick and Rosa
Foods said it will remove the ingredient by early 2017. Mark
Brooks, TerraVia's Senior Vice President denied that the Company's
algal flour was responsible for making consumers sick, however
Bloomberg added that TerraVia had sent a letter in July to EN-R-G
Foods, LLC, a separate customer, warning that TerraVia's algal
protein ingredient had been linked to a "modest number of reports"
with similar complaints and ailments, like nausea and vomiting,
connected with EN-R-G's Honey Stinger energy bar. Following this
news, TerraVia stock dropped $0.15 per share, or 8.11%, to close
at $1.70 on November 7, 2016.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.

If you suffered a loss in TerraVia, you have until January 17,
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. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our 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. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.


TEVA: Faces Class Action Over US Antitrust Probe Into Price-Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Times of Israel reports that the Israeli pharmaceutical giant Teva
has been fielding a number of legal troubles in recent weeks,
including a class action suit by US investors as a result of a US
Department of Justice probe into alleged price-fixing alongside a
number of other companies in the field, and an internal
investigation into bribery allegations in Romania.

US prosecutors said Dec. 14 that leading pharmaceutical companies,
including Teva Pharmaceuticals and Mylan, have received subpoenas
in a wide-ranging antitrust probe of the industry.

US prosecutors accused two former pharmaceutical executives --
Jeff Glazer, former chief executive of Heritage Pharmaceuticals,
and Jason Malek, the former president of the same company -- of
conspiring with other drug companies to fix prices of an
antibiotic, doxycycline hyclate and the diabetes drug glyburide.

"By entering into unlawful agreements to fix prices and allocate
customers, these two executives sought to enrich themselves at the
expense of sick and vulnerable individuals who rely upon access to
generic pharmaceuticals as a more affordable alternative to brand-
name medicines," said deputy assistant attorney general Brent
Snyder.

According to the lawsuit, Teva is accused of making "false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that [it] was
engaging and/or had engaged in conduct that would result in an
antitrust investigation" and possible "criminal charges against
Teva by the end of 2016 for suspected price collusion."

"In turn, Teva lacked effective internal controls over financial
reporting; and . . . . as a result, Teva's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times," read the
statement by Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm.

Earlier this month, Teva revealed that it is in the midst of an
internal investigation into allegations that the company has been
bribing Romanian healthcare workers into prescribing its
medication.

The probe was launched in 2015 after an anonymous tipster sent a
series of emails to Teva's chief executive, accusing the company
of courting Romanian doctors -- paying them speaking and
consulting fees, covering travel expenses -- in exchange for their
recommending a Teva medication "to as many patients as possible,"
according to the email sent to the company by the tipster and
which was reviewed by Reuters. The emails were also sent to Teva's
audit committee and compliance staff, according to the report.

The specific medication in question was the multiple sclerosis
drug Copaxone, which generated $1.1 billion in sales in Teva's
last quarter, the company said last month in a regulatory filing
according to Reuters.

The tipster informed the company that the information was also
being sent to the Securities and Exchange Commission and the US
Department of Justice.

According to a filing in November cited by Reuters, Teva has been
in "advanced discussions" with both the Justice Department and the
SEC to settle separate bribery allegations in other foreign
countries including Russia, the Ukraine and Mexico.


TEVA PHARMA: Sued in E.D. Pa. Over Generic Drug Price-Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health and Welfare Trust, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Mylan, Inc.,
Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA, Apotex, Inc., Sandoz, Inc.,
Lek Pharmaceuticals, d.d., Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd., Dr.
Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Lupin
Ltd., Cadila Healthcare, Actavis Holdco U.S., and Zydus
Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
06421-TON (E.D. Pa., Dec. 14, 2016), seeks to recover damages, to
the maximum extent allowed under the law, and that a joint and
several judgment in favor of Plaintiff and members of the Damages
Class be entered against Defendants in an amount to be trebled to
the extent laws permit.

The claims in the case arise from a broad conspiracy among
manufacturers of generic drugs to fix the prices charged for those
drugs in recent years. The conspiracy appears to have been
effectuated by direct company-to-company contacts among generic
drug manufacturers, as well as joint activities undertaken through
trade associations such as the Generic Pharmaceutical Association
(GPhA). The unlawful acts undertaken with respect to generic
pravastatin sodium are merely two manifestations of that overall
conspiracy. The Antitrust Division of the United States Department
of Justice (DOJ) commenced in 2014 a wide-ranging criminal
investigation of this broad conspiracy and has caused grand jury
subpoenas to be issued to various Defendants in connection with
the investigation.

Teva is the largest generic drug manufacturer in the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee Albert, Esq.
          Gregory B. Linkh, Esq.
          GLANCY LAW
          122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 682 5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884 0988


TREE HOUSE: Closures A Fit Case For Class Action, Official Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Money Control reports that following Tree House playgroup downing
the shutters on 113 branches across India, the company has come
under a spotlight. It has claimed that it hasn't been able to pay
staff salaries leading to the shutting of branches.

In August, Tree House and Zee Learn revised the terms of their
merger. Both companies were in talks for a deal as early as
December 2015.

Speaking to CNBC-TV18 JN Gupta, Former ED, SEBI, said that there
is a governance issue at the playgroup. "Someone had to question.
It is a fit case for a class action suit, a SEBI probe and action
by Ministry of Corporate Affairs."

The Zee Learn shareholders should review the merger and see
whether it is worthwhile or not, he said.


UFC: Fighters' Class Action Lawyers In Dispute with MMAAA
---------------------------------------------------------
MMAWeekly.com reports that the history of trying to organize mixed
martial arts fighters has been riddled with competing factions
that can't seem to get on the same page in representing the
fighters' best interests.  And it doesn't look like that is going
to change any time soon.

Attorneys representing Cung Le, Jon Fitch, Nate Quarry and other
fighters in a class action lawsuit filed against the UFC in 2014,
sent a letter to Bjorn Rebney about the recently announced Mixed
Martial Arts Athletes Association, claiming he and his "investors"
are being less than forthright about their intentions, and warning
that their attempt to achieve a "settlement" with the UFC could
compromise the efforts of their lawsuit and divide the efforts of
fighters attempting to organize.

"As you must be aware, the fighters are better off united than
divided, and thus your attempts to sow division operate to no
one's advantage but Zuffa's," said the letter from attorneys Eric
L. Cramer, Michael Dell'Angelo, Joseph R. Saveri, and Benjamin D.
Brown, which was obtained by BloodyElbow.com.

The class-action attorneys went on to detail the alleged
improprieties of Mr. Rebney's group when they all met late last
year.

"Worse, as we both know -- but which you have failed to disclose
publicly -- you, your investors, and your legal team had
previously sought to be included in our efforts to prosecute the
UFC Class Action -- as long as you and your investors could share
in any recovery.  Indeed, well after the UFC Class Action was
underway, at the invitation of Ken Pavia, Class Counsel agreed to
attend an October 15, 2015, meeting with you (as the former CEO of
Bellator), representatives of Creative Artists Agency ('CAA'), Mr.
Pavia and your lawyers at the offices of CAA in New York.

"You and your representatives told us that you had formed the
MMAAA, which (you then said) was supported by 'hundreds' of
current and former MMA fighters.  You claimed further that you had
contemplated starting your own rival antitrust action if
Co-Lead Counsel did not meet certain demands.  Five days later, on
October 20, 2015, the 'Mixed Martial Arts Athletes Association'
was registered with the California Secretary of State and assigned
entity number C3836158.2

"Ten days after the meeting at CAA, on October 25, 2015, your
attorneys presented us with your demands.  You proposed that we,
as Co-Lead Counsel, promise to devote a certain percentage of any
class-wide recovery in the Class Action to the MMAAA, which monies
you told us would be used for compensating unnamed 'investors' for
unspecified expenses incurred in establishing the organization,
among other things. You further demanded that your representatives
should be allowed full participation in any settlement
negotiations that might occur in the Class Action. As you know, we
rejected your demands because we believed that they were neither
consistent with applicable canons of professional ethics, nor with
our duties as Co-Lead Class Counsel to protect the interests of
all UFC fighters in the proposed classes that the Court appointed
us (and not you or your lawyers) to represent."

The MMAAA, of course, was quick to respond.  Attorneys Jim Quinn
and Eric Hochstadt sent the following statement to MMAWeekly.com:

"As Georges St-Pierre, Donald Cerrone, T.J. Dillashaw, Tim
Kennedy, and Cain Velasquez made clear in the official public
announcement, the Mixed Martial Arts Athlete Association ("MMAAA")
is all about looking out for the fighters and their well-being
long-term.

"The MMAAA received a 'cease and desist' letter from a group of
lawyers seeking to stop the MMAAA from signing up fighters and
sticking up for their rights against the UFC and its owners WME-
IMG.  The MMAAA will do no such thing.  Those lawyers -- who
represent only a few fighters -- are focused on getting some money
out of one case, of which they seek a significant portion for
themselves.  Those lawyers do not speak for anyone else, and
certainly not the MMAAA and all the fighters the organization
represents now and will quickly grow to represent in the sport.

"Over a year ago, those same lawyers reached out to the MMAAA to
join forces with us.  We had a meeting and made clear that the
MMAAA's primary focus would be on achieving three core goals: 1)
substantially increasing UFC fighter pay to 50%; 2) securing all-
encompassing long term benefits for UFC fighters; and 3) a
settlement to compensate past and current UFC fighters for all of
the UFC's wrongs.  To achieve these goals for the benefit of the
fighters, we also made clear the MMAAA needed to receive a
percentage of a monetary settlement to cover the costs to fund the
MMAAA for staffing and attorneys both for past work getting to
this point and the long fight ahead.  The lawyers made clear that
they did not share the MMAAA's vision.  They are focused on a
short-term monetary recovery, of which they will seek 33%, and
then they are gone from this sport.  We parted ways at that point.

"The MMAAA is all about the fighters benefitting when the UFC is
finally forced to take a powerful group of the fighters seriously.
The MMAAA will be executing on that plan and will not be stopped
in this effort on behalf of fighters."

The fighting between competing fighter organizational factions has
only served to slow progress in forming any sort of significant
entity to represent mixed martial arts athletes.  This current
fray between the filers of UFC anti-trust lawsuit and the MMAAA is
just the latest example, and is sure to slow the efforts of both.


UNITEDHEALTH: "Ackerman" Suit Alleges Prescription Profiteering
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Ackerman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Unitedhealth Group Inc., United
Healthcare Services, Inc., inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 0:16-
cv-04136 (D. Minn., December 12, 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.

Ackerman is covered by a health plan provided the Defendants. He
has received prescription drug coverage through this plan but is
obligated to make a "co-payment" when filling a prescription. The
amount the pharmacy collect from the patient often exceeds the
amount that the insurance pays 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.

UnitedHealth Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries are health care
companies that offer health insurance plans to individuals and
employers. Plaintiff purchased health insurance through
UnitedHealth and receives pharmacy benefits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Vildan A. Teske, Esq.
     Marisa C. Katz, Esq.
     TESKE, MICKO, KATZ, KITZER & ROCHEL, PLLP
     222 South Ninth Street, Suite 4050
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Tel: (612) 746-1558
     Fax: (651) 846-5339
     Email: teske@teskemicko.com
            katz@teskemicko.com

            - and -

     Simon Bahne Paris, Esq.
     Patrick Howard, Esq.
     Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
     SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
     One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
     1650 Market Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215) 575-3986
     Fax: (215) 575-3894
     Email: sparis@smbb.com
            phoward@smbb.com
            ckocher@smbb.com


VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT: Golans Supplement Bid to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled RON GOLAN and DORIT GOLAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-00069-ERW
(E.D. Mo.), file with the Court their supplemental motion for
class certification.

Ron and Dorit Golan ask the Court to approve John Simon, Sr.,
Esq., as co-counsel with Robert Schultz, Esq., and Ronald J.
Eisenberg, Esq., as attorneys for the class.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Schultz, Esq.
          Ronald J. Eisenberg, Esq.
          SCHULTZ & ASSOCIATES LLP
          640 Cepi Drive, Suite A
          Chesterfield, MO 63005
          Telephone: (636) 537-4645
          Facsimile: (636) 537-2599
          E-mail: rschultz@sl-lawyers.com
                  reisenberg@sl-lawyers.com


WELLS FARGO: Senators Criticize Use of Forced Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------
Chris Morran, writing for Consumerist, reports that Wells Fargo is
facing multiple lawsuits from customers and employees over the
long-running fake account fiasco that saw more than two million
bogus, unauthorized accounts being opened in customers' names.
Even though lawmakers and consumer advocates have repeatedly asked
the bank to not sidestep its liability by using an often-ignored
clause in its customer agreement, lawyers for Wells Fargo have
already begun to play that "get out of jail free" card.

Wells -- just like most major banks, telecom and cable companies,
online retailers, and electronics manufacturers -- includes a
forced arbitration clause in its consumer contracts.

These clauses do two things: First, they prevent the customer from
bringing a lawsuit through the legal system.  Instead, any dispute
can be shunted off into private arbitration.  Second, and more
importantly, they prohibit similarly wronged customers from
joining their complaints into a single class action -- even
through arbitration.

Thus, rather than having a handful of named plaintiffs
representing an entire class of harmed individuals, each wronged
customer must go through arbitration on their own.

That might be worth the effort if your individual claim is
substantial, but in many class actions the rewards for a single
class member are often small; however the total damages for the
company can be huge.  The purpose is to hold the wrongdoer
accountable financially and to do so in a public forum, so that
any additional information that might be brought to light does not
remain hidden in a file cabinet somewhere.

As a result of this high-effort, low-reward system, only a small
number of potential plaintiffs ever enter into arbitration -- the
overwhelming majority of bank customers don't even know that they
have signed away this right to sue.

When Wells Fargo acknowledged that its employees had been gaming
the bank's sales quota and incentives system by opening and
closing millions of fake accounts in existing customers' names,
lawmakers directly asked then-CEO John Stumpf if Wells planned to
play the arbitration card to compel the inevitable class actions
out of court and into discrete arbitration disputes.

Mr. Stumpf declined to say yes or no, but the answer was pretty
clear when he responded that he had "instructed my team to do
whatever it takes, within reason, to take care of these
customers," and that he would discuss the issue with his legal
team.

In response, a coalition of senators wrote to Mr. Stumpf, calling
on him to rethink this tactic, arguing that the lack of
transparency surrounding closed arbitration hearings "helps hide
fraudulent schemes such as the sham accounts at Wells Fargo from
the justice system, from the news media, and from the public eye."

More recently, members of both the House and Senate introduced the
Justice For Victims Of Fraud Act, which if passed would forbid
Wells from compelling these disputes into arbitration.

However, the bank has already begun the process of diverting these
lawsuits out of public view and dividing them up into individual
arbitration disputes.

In November, the bank filed a motion to compel arbitration [PDF]
for the 80 plaintiffs in a class action filed in a Utah federal
court.

The bank successfully used a similar tactic to break up a May 2015
class action lawsuit filed more than a year before Wells Fargo
ever publicly admitted to the fake account fraud.

In Sept. 2015, a full year in advance of Wells' $185 million
settlement with state and federal regulators, the court granted
[PDF] the bank's motion to compel that case into arbitration.

The New York Times reported on more of the bank's efforts to keep
these lawsuits out of the courtroom, even though there is no
dispute that Wells Fargo employees opened these unauthorized
accounts.

"It is ridiculous," one of the named plaintiffs in the Utah
lawsuit tells the Times.  "This is an issue of identity theft --
my identity was used so employees could meet sales goals.  This is
something that needs to be litigated in a public forum."

Wells claims that arbitration is a "last resort," in spite of the
fact that it's asking for these cases to be dismissed only weeks
after they have been filed.

"We want to make sure that no Wells Fargo customer loses a single
penny because of these issues," explains the bank in a statement
to the Times.

While making customers whole again is a positive step, it doesn't
address the potential punitive aspect of a class action, wherein
the bank would be made to feel the sting of its bad practices by
having to publicly admit culpability.

"I think it's a major problem when you have a bank that is so
large, doing the things that Wells Fargo did on a systematic
basis, to be able to keep that under wraps," explains one lawyer
representing a Wells customer whose case was forced into
arbitration.

On Dec. 7 Senators Patrick Leahy (VT) and Sherrod Brown (OH) wrote
to new Wells Fargo CEO Tim Sloan expressing their disappointment.

"Wells Fargo's demand to deny defrauded customers their
fundamental rights demonstrates your complete failure to
understand the gravity of the company's actions and an utter
unwillingness, despite promises to the contrary, to actually put
your customers first," reads the letter, also signed by Sen. Al
Franken (MN), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (MA), Dick Durbin (IL), and
Richard Blumenthal (CT).

"Forced arbitration denies Americans their constitutional right to
seek justice in a court of law and shields companies from
accountability -- both from the courts and the public eye,"
continue the senators.  "We will not simply trust you to get this
right as long as your actions continue to belie your words.  We
will not forget that your company has harmed millions of
Americans. We will continue to watch closely and hold you
accountable at every misstep.  We strongly urge you to reconsider
your use of forced arbitration."


WALT DISNEY: Sued by U.S. Employees Over Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------
Fox25boston reports that a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of
250 senior administrative office workers, managers and specialists
accuses Walt Disney Parks and Resorts of laying them off so they
could be replaced by foreign employees.

The suit was filed December 12 by 30 named plaintiffs and was
entered into the record December 13, according to court documents.

This is not the first time this issue has been taken to court.
Similar actions were dismissed in state court in October, and
Disney spokeswoman Kim Prunty told WFTV that she expected this
filing be dismissed as well.

"Like the two other dismissed cases brought by this lawyer, this
latest lawsuit is nonsense and we will defend it rigorously," she
said.

The lawsuit alleges that about 250 people received notice in
October 2014 that on Jan. 31, they would no longer have a job.

The employees being laid off were then responsible for training
the people who would be replacing them, the lawsuit said.  All of
the new employees were "of Indian national origin," the suit
alleges.

Disney Chief Executive Officer Bob Iger addressed the training
issue in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter in June.

"The mistake that was made is that we asked people who were
leaving to help train their successors. That's common in the
business, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's right," he
said. "And looking back, I'm sorry that we did that because
there's something insulting about that. That got a huge amount of
attention and rubbed people the wrong way, and I completely
understand why it would. It just does not pass a smell test, even
if it is common practice."

Mr. Iger also pointed out that the 250 people who were laid off
were maintaining "legacy technology" that the company was moving
away from.

"We decided that we had to upgrade technology, and the best way to
do it was to use a company from the outside to provide that help,"
Mr. Iger told The Reporter. "That affected 250 jobs. So we went to
250 people and said, 'We're basically eliminating your jobs
because we need this higher, more modern technology.'"

Of the 250 people who lost their jobs, 100 were rehired and
another 170 jobs were created at the company.

"So, the net result was actually more jobs, rather than fewer,"
Mr. Iger said.

Pay for the positions the rehired individuals were given was
comparable, if not higher, than their original jobs, Disney said.

Regardless, the lawsuit claims that the 30 named plaintiffs
applied for open positions with Disney that they were "well-
qualified for," but were not rehired.

According to the lawsuit, the individuals suing Disney claim they
were laid off "based solely on their national origin and race."

It is a claim that Disney denies, saying it did not replace the
workers but transferred their job functions to outside vendors,
distributed them among other employees or deemed them as
unnecessary and eliminated them outright.

One of the plaintiffs, Leonardo Perrero, testified before Congress
in February, breaking down in tears at one point while telling the
story of the day he found out his 20-year career with Disney was
soon to be over.

"I clearly remember going to the local church pumpkin sale and
having to tell the kids we couldn't buy any that year because of
my job," he said.

The Disney executive who delivered the news told Mr. Perrero and
others that if they didn't cooperate by training their
replacements, they would get no severance pay, he testified.

"I started to think what kind of American I was becoming," he
said. "Was I going to become part of ruining our country by taking
severance pay in exchange for training my foreign replacement? How
many other American families would be affected by the same foreign
worker that I trained?"

Over the course of 90 days, Perrero and his co-workers trained the
foreign workers until the point when they completely took over the
position.

"The final period of the 90 days was the most disgraceful and
demoralizing, as we had to watch the foreign workers completely
take over our jobs," he said.

Among other things, the lawsuit is seeking reimbursement of lost
wages and benefits and reinstatement to a comparable position at
the company with back pay plus interest.


YAHOO! INC: Failed to Protect Consumers From Hacking, Lawsuit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Cronin Fisk at Bloomberg reports that Yahoo! Inc. allowed
hackers to access personal and confidential information of its
users and failed to warn consumers of a cybersecurity breach, a
proposed class-action lawsuit claims.

The suit followed within hours of Yahoo's disclosure December 14
that a second major security breach may have affected more than 1
billion user accounts. The company said in a statement then it
hasn't been able to identify the "intrusion'' associated with the
theft, which occurred in August 2013.

Suzanne Philion, Yahoo spokeswoman, declined to comment on the
lawsuit.

In September, Yahoo said the personal information of at least 500
million accounts was stolen in 2014, exposing data from a wide
swath of its users. Yahoo said the attacker was a "state-sponsored
actor'' and stolen information may have included names, e-mail
addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth, encrypted passwords and,
in some cases, encrypted-security questions and answers.

"Yahoo failed, and continues to fail, to provide adequate
protection of its users' personal and confidential information,''
New York consumer Amy Vail said in the complaint. "Yahoo users'
personal and private information has been repeatedly compromised
and remains vulnerable.''

Vail filed the suit as a class action, seeking to represent all
U.S. Yahoo users. Multiple lawsuits were filed after the first
breach disclosure as well; those suits have been combined before
one judge in San Jose, California. An initial case-management
conference is scheduled for March 2.

The case is Vail v. Yahoo! Inc., 16-cv-07154, U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California (San Francisco).


* Class Actions May Face Tougher Limits Under Trump Presidency
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carter Dougherty, writing for Inside Sources, reports that
Donald Trump is no stranger to bringing lawsuits -- not by a long
shot.  But he may turn out to be the president that makes bringing
them a lot harder.

The imminent Republican control of the White House and Congress
has created an unexpected opening for advocates of reducing the
number of medical malpractice lawsuits, limiting challenges to
corporate conduct and, above all, making it harder to bring class-
action cases.

"There are an unbelievable number of things that Congress could do
to gut the class action process," said Paul Bland, executive
director of Public Justice, a group that supports the policy and
law behind civil lawsuits.

Most immediately, the new political constellations in Washington
put into doubt plans by the nation's lead consumer financial
regulator to stop mandatory arbitration in contracts for credit
cards, checking accounts and other financial services, a step that
would have opened the door to many more class-action suits.

It may also give running room to Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Virginia
Republican who chairs the House Judiciary Committee, to enact
legislation he's previously introduced that would limit class-
action cases.  And companies may seek changes that have enabled
lawsuits over unwanted telephone calls.

At the same time, the effort could unleash powerful opposition.
Attacking the consumer regulator's work will likely bring liberal
Democrats in the Senate to its defense, possibly using the still-
available filibuster for legislation.  Even business interests,
notably investors, rely on class-action suits.  And the only thing
less popular than politicians might be telephone solicitors that
call in the middle of dinner.

Trump Loves Litigation

If the Trump administration presides over a raft of legislation
that constrains access to the courts, it will be a surprising coda
for a candidate who threatened legal action more than any other.

The blog FiveThirtyEight tallied 20 instances in which Trump said
he'd sue during the campaign alone, mostly involving allegedly
defamatory speech; only 2 of them actually panned out.  USA Today
counted 4,095 lawsuits involving Trump over 30 years, mostly
relating to his hotels, casinos and branding agreements. (Only 14
were media and defamation cases.)

At the same time, limiting class-action suits has long been a
political priority of Republicans, which also explains why trial
lawyers are, overwhelmingly, net contributors to Democrats.  The
lawyers' trade group, the American Association for Justice, gave
Democrats 97 percent of its $1.8 million in contributions this
election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Partly because the incoming administration is not expected to have
the policymaking apparatus that previous ones did, the impulses
for policy in many areas are likely to come from Congress,
especially the House of Representatives.
Rep. Goodlatte introduced the Fairness in Class Action Litigation
and Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act, which the House
passed early this year.

It gives a sense of where he would take legislation in the coming
years.  Most importantly, the bill limits the scope of who can be
covered in a class action suits, which would probably limit both
their number, and the payout -- to plaintiffs and lawyers -- of
suits that do move forward. "Only those people who share injuries
of the same type and extent should be part of a class action
lawsuit," Rep. Goodlatte said when it was introduced.


Arbitration Ban Fight

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created by Congress in
the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, this year proposed banning
clauses that require customers to submit disputes with banks and
other financial services providers to arbitration, and waive their
right to be part of a class-action suit.

The recent scandal over Wells Fargo's fraudulent account openings
has thrown a harsh spotlight on the obscure arbitration process.
In November, Wells asked a federal court to enforce arbitration
for customers in whose names accounts were opened without their
permission, essentially forcing on them a contract which they
never actually signed.

The bid prompted a withering riposte from Sen. Elizabeth Warren,
the Massachusetts Democrat who assailed Wells over the scandal

"After dozens of Wells Fargo customers sued the bank to recover
fees they were charged from these fake accounts, Wells Fargo tried
to boot the claims from court and into the closed-door, industry-
friendly arbitration process," Sen. Warren wrote on Facebook.

Mr. Bland, the trial lawyer, veritably relished the prospect of
Republicans going after the CFPB's plan to ban arbitration.

Telemarketing Calls

"I'm going to call that the Wells Fargo Immunity Act," he said.
"That'll be a great way to start off a Trump presidency.  It gives
the microphone to Elizabeth Warren. It's about siding with banks
not regular people."

Business has long had on its list changes to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, the law that created the do-not-call
lists.  In response to cold-calling telemarketers, the law also
creates grounds for some lawsuits when consumers voluntarily offer
up their telephone numbers to businesses, prompting complaints
that the law is outdated, and that trial lawyers go after not the
ephemeral telemarketers but other firms.

"While protections should remain for consumers, businesses too
need protection from astronomical liability," Becca Wahlquist --
bwahlquist@swlaw.com -- a partner at Snell & Wilmer, told a
congressional committee.

The idea that Republicans would change a law aimed at
telemarketing calls also left the trial lawyer Bland spoiling for
a fight.

The law also bans robocalls and unwanted text messages to cell
phones, and creates a basis for lawsuits, an immensely popular
provision with which voters can instantly identify as more people
shift toward a cellphone-only existence.

"There's a chance that Republicans will bite off way more than
they chew," Mr. Bland said.  "Talk to a bunch of 20 year olds and
they go crazy at the notion that somebody can call or text their
cell phone."

Ira Rheingold, executive director of the National Association of
Consumer Advocates, said too many restrictions on civil suits
could bring out the fissures within the business lobby over how
much access to the courts is too much.  Buy-side investors and
activist investors rely on the judiciary to make their cases.

And not all that class-action cash goes to Democrats.

"The corporate defense bar would be in serious trouble if class-
actions simply went away," Mr. Rheingold said.  "And there are
Republican trial lawyers."



                            *********

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  * * *