CAR_Public/161222.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, December 22, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 255




                            Headlines

1-800 CONTACTS: Faces "Zimmerman" Suit Over Contact Lens Pricing
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Depakote Personal Injury Cases Consolidated
ADVANCED CARE: TCPA Class Action Settled for $9.25 Million
AFL: Website Launched for Sport Concussion Class Action
ALABAMA: Trial Begins in ADOC Mental Health Class Action

ALLSAINTS USA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Receipt Class Action
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTH: Court Rules on Bids to Strike Evidence
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Certification Bid Voluntarily Withdrawn
AMSHER COLLECTION: Placeholder Motion for Class Cert. Filed
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA: 5th Cir. Rules on Jurisdiction Issue

ASSOCIATED COLLECTORS: Boucher Class Certification Bid Continued
BARKWORKS: Lawsuit Serves as Warning for Would-Be Puppy Purchasers
BELLAMY'S: Directors Brace for Investor Class Action
CALHOUN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL: Inmate's Class Cert. Bid Tossed
CEMPRA INC: Khang & Khang Files Class Action Lawsuit

CHEVRON: Seeks Dismissal of Nigerian Gas Rig Blast Class Action
COASTAL CHEMICAL: Rooks Seeks to Certify Land Technicians Class
COLLECTO INC: Placeholder Motion for Class Certification Filed
COPELAND SCROLL: Judge Moore Recuses Himself from Class Action
CRAWFORD AND COMPANY: "Elbling" Suit Seeks Unpaid Benefits

DAKOTA PLAINS: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
DESIGNED RECEIVABLES: Class Certification Sought in "Kochlani"
DIGNITY HEALTH: Supreme Court to Review ERISA Appellate Rulings
DOLLAR GENERAL: "Lambert" Suit Seeks Certification of 3 Classes
DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Khang & Khang Files Class Action Lawsuit

EARTHGRAINS DISTRIBUTION: Class Certification Bid Due May 1
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Two Discrimination Lawsuits Reinstated
FELICIA NORWOOD: Class Certification Hearing Continued
FIAT CHRYSLER: Volkswagen Attorney to Defend Emissions Case
FIELDTURF USA: Newark School System Files Class Action

FIELDTURF: Bloomfield Township Reacts to Duraspine Controversy
FLOWERS FOODS: Settles North Carolina Class Action for $9-Mil.
GENERATIONS HEALTHCARE: Smith Seeks to Certify Health Aides Class
GEO GROUP: Court Dismisses "Gold" Suit
GEORGIA: Reaches Milestone in Child Protection Class Action

GLOBAL SERVICE: Class Certification Sought in Hofer" Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settles Rate Rigging Class Action For $77.3 Million
HAL HAYS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Duarte" Suit Claims
HARTFORD, IN: Judge Weighs in on Sex Offender Ordinance
HOEGH AS: BC Court May Hear RoRo Price Fixing Class Action

IMPRIMIS PHARMA: Sobol's Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Tossed
INDONESIA: Jakarta Governor Faces Class Action Over Blasphemy
JC PENNEY: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Advertising
JETSUITE INC: Ward Asks Court to Approve Deal, Certify Class
JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Federman & Sherwood Reminds Investors of Suit

KARIS MANAGEMENT: Faces "Gertie" Suit in Ill. Over Value Meal
LEONE HALPIN: "Palin" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Scroggins Seeks Class & Subclass Certification
MADISON, IL: Dismissal of "Bueker" Claim vs RLI Affirmed
MANALAPAN, FL: Dismissal of "Navellier" Suit Partly Affirmed

MAXIMUS INC: "Harvey" Suit Won't Proceed as Class Action
MCBURNEY CONCRETE: "Paz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
MCDONALD'S: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action
MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE: Verma Seeks Certification of 2 Classes
MISHAWAKA HOUSING: Court Narrows Claims in "Wright" Suit

MYER: Judge Tosses Shareholder Litigator's Class Action
NARCONON: Judge Wu Denied Bid to Certify Class & Subclass
NATIONAL SERVICE: "Meyer" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
NBTY INC: CAF Files Motion to Intervene in Class Action
NELSON & WATSON: Court Certifies Settlement Class in "Maldonado"

NEW ALLIANCE: Consumer Can't Bring TCPA Class Action Claims
NEW ORIENTAL: Gainey Mckenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
NEW ORIENTAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
NORTH AMERICAN POWER: Overcharging Suit Belongs to Dist. Court
NZK PRODUCTIONS: Ex-Production Assistant Sues Over Meal Breaks

ORLEANS PARISH: Deceased Inmate's Family Sues Sheriff
PAIN THERAPEUTICS: January 16 Proof of Claim Filing Deadline Set
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Lundin Law Files Securities Class Action
PILOT CORP: "Wright" Claims Belong to Dist. Court, 11th Cir. Says
POST HOLDINGS: Settles Egg Antitrust Class Action Claims

PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Blue Ash Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
PROSTEAM CARPET: "Wegat" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
QUICKEN LOANS: "McLemore" Suit Seeks Certification of 4 Classes
RAYONIER INC: Pension Trust Seeks Certification of Class
RED APPLE: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Conway" Suit Claims

REPUBLIC SERVICES: "Taylor" Suit Seeks Class Certification
ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL: Rich Seeks to Certify Drivers Class
ROOMS TO GO NORTH: Sued Over ForceField Protection Plans
ROSS STUART: Court Narrows Claims in "Burns" Suit
RSI ENTERPRISES: Class Certification Sought in "Loveland" Suit

RUTHERFORD COUNTY: Certification of Students Class Sought
SAMSUNG: To Begin Galaxy Note 7 Software Update Amid Class Action
SCHLESINGER ELECTRICAL: Montana Files Suit Seeking Damages
SCORES BALTIMORE: Strip Club Dancers File Wage Suit
SIRIUSXM: Turtles Royalty Class Action Settlement Favorable

SMART TOYS: Faces We-Vibe App Privacy Class Action
SONESTA INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Byrd" Suit Says
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: "Khaziran" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
STARBUCKS: Court to Review De Minimis Doctrine Issue Next Year
STERN & EISENBERG: Court Denied Class Cert. Bid in "Beach" Suit

THERANOS: Investors File Securities Class Action
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Khang & Khang Files Class Action Lawsuit
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Attorneys Recount Fraud Class Action Litigation
UBS FINANCIAL: Pretrial, Settlement Conference Moved to March 7
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Cotromano Seeks Certification of Class

USAA CASUALTY: Montana Reverses "Byorth" Class Certification
USF REDDAWAY: Moss, et al. Seek Certification of Class
VENTURE DATA: Bid for Class Certification Sought in "Mey" Action
VIRGINIA: Study Reports on Driver's License Suspensions
VIRGINIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE: Okimoto Seeks Certification of Class

VOLKSWAGEN: EU to Take Action v. 7 Member States Over Emissions
WACKENHUT CORP: Statistical Sampling Allowed to Certify Case
WAL-MART STORES: Court Nixes Female Employee's Gender Bias Claims
WALLACE & RUSH: Court Denied FLSA Class Certification Bid as Moot
WELLS FARGO: Closed-Door Arbitration Draws Legislative Backlash

XEROX CORPORATION: Lundin Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
YAHOO! INC: 5 of 23 Data Breach Suits Joined in San Jose Court
ZIMBABWE: Lawyers Mull Class Action Over Exorbitant Bank Charges
ZOO PRINTING: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Wage Statements

* Environmental Class Actions Expected to Grow in Australia
* Retirement Plan Class Action Trend to Continue in 2017


                            *********


1-800 CONTACTS: Faces "Zimmerman" Suit Over Contact Lens Pricing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Zimmerman, Sara Hartman, Iysha Abed, Robert Weinstein, Jill
Schulson, and Leia Pinto v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., Case No. 2:16-
cv-06417-AB (E.D. Penn., December 12, 2016), arises from a series
of bilateral no-bidding agreements between 1-800 Contacts and
numerous competitors in the market for online sales of contact
lenses that prevent the parties to those agreements from competing
against one another through online search advertisements.

1-800 Contacts, Inc. is the largest online seller of contact
lenses in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua D. Wolson, Esq.
      Jerry R. De Siderato, Esq.
      DILWORTH PAXSON, LLP
      1500 Market St., Suite 3500E
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      E-mail: jwolson@dilworthlaw.com
              jdesiderato@dilworthlaw.com


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Depakote Personal Injury Cases Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE DEPAKOTE: RHEALYN ALEXANDER, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 12-
CV-52-NJR-SCW. Lead Consolidated Case (S.D. Ill.), Judge Nancy J.
Rosenstengel has issued an order to join cases together as to
common issues of fact and law to facilitate the resolution of the
vast number of outstanding cases alleging injury by Abbott
Laboratories Inc.'s product, Depakote.

The Court currently has 129 cases, involving approximately 698
plaintiffs, pending on its docket directly related to the Depakote
litigation.  Noting that the bellwether process and global
settlement efforts have failed, Judge Rosenstengel determined that
batching the cases together along common issues of fact and law is
the only way to effectively, efficiently, and justly move through
the volume of cases before the Court.

Judge Rosenstengel thereby vacated the trial dates of the three
remaining bellwether trials:

     (1) H.B. and parent Stacy Bartolini, 12-cv-0053;
     (2) T.C. and parent Kayla Rose McGuinness-Colon, 12-cv-0694;
         and
     (3) E.R.G. and parent Christina Raquel, 12-cv-0055.

Consequently, the judge also denied the pending pretrial motions
specifically related to each of the three cases, as well as in
case number 15-cv-702 and 14-cv-847, without prejudice to be
refiled at a later date.  However, Plaintiff's Motions to Show
Good Cause Regarding Sealed Documents in case No. 15-cv-702 were
granted.

Judge Rosenstengel designated Case No. 12-cv-52-NJR-SCW, Alexander
et al., v. Abbott Laboratories Inc. as the lead case for claims
involving Depakote litigation, and the Court will be establishing
a Plaintiffs' Leadership Counsel and will be soliciting names for
Lead and/or Liaison counsel by separate order.

A full-text copy of Judge Rosenstengel's November 22, 2016
memorandum and order is available at https://is.gd/8qHrWU from
Leagle.com.

Regina Vickers, Plaintiff, represented by Lance P. Brown, Sam C.
Mitchell & Associates.

Casey's General Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas S.
Teasdale -- dteasdale@teasdalelaw.com -- Teasdale & Associates,
LLC.


ADVANCED CARE: TCPA Class Action Settled for $9.25 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
William Daley and Kathryn Rattigan of JD Supra Business Advisor
reports that earlier this month, a Louisiana federal judge granted
final approval of a $9.25 million settlement between Advanced Care
Scripts Inc. (Advanced Care) and a class of plaintiffs--led by
Jefferson Radiation Oncology LLC (Jefferson Radiation), a
Louisiana-based treatment facility. Plaintiffs alleged that
Advanced Care sent fax advertisements that violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), by failing to include the
federally mandated opt-out notice. The class of potentially 24,000
members consisted of anyone who received faxes from Advanced Care
or its vendors that failed to include the opt-out provision,
reaching all the way back to April 29, 2011.

Advanced Care attempted to place liability on WestFax
Inc.(WestFax)--the third party vendor it hired to transmit the
faxes--claiming WestFax represented that the opt-out notices were
included. However, that attempt fell short when, after moving for
summary judgment, all claims against WestFax were dismissed in
early July.

This case illustrates that failure to adhere to the TCPA's
stringent requirements can result in major financial ramifications
for businesses. Businesses should be sure that autodialed faxes
are being sent in compliance with the TCPA's requirements.
Moreover, there is another takeaway from this settlement --
businesses may encounter difficulties when attempting to assign
liability to telecommunications companies.


AFL: Website Launched for Sport Concussion Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Cherny, writing for The Age, reports that a professional
sports concussion class action in Australia is a step closer after
the launch of a website seeking expressions of interest from
former athletes.

The website concussionmatters.com.au is by outspoken concussion
campaigner Peter Jess, the veteran player agent who has long
railed against perceived inaction from the AFL in relation to head
injuries.

The website asks players to detail their condition and diagnosis.
"We want to help you and provide an opportunity for you to obtain
medical support and adequate compensation," the website says.

"If you suffered concussion/head injury while playing sport --
AFL, Rugby League, Rugby Union, Soccer, Basketball or other
professional sports -- we want to ensure you have access to proper
medical support and are compensated for the effect this may have
on your life -- now or in the future.

"Concussion Matters will contact everyone who registers and will
arrange to test those most at risk using multi-modality analysis
using objective and validated neurological testing methods.

"In addition to diagnosing potential medical issues, Concussion
Matters will seek to develop a Class Action to compensate those
people who have been affected."

Concussion has become an increasingly sensitive topic in
Australian sport.  The Australian Athletes Alliance -- a
conglomerate of Australian player unions -- recently established a
concussion working group with the aim of funding independent
research into concussion.  The AFL has helped bankroll research
into the effects of head knocks to players, although a timeframe
for the release of data has been elusive.

The league also sent a contingent to the recent International
Consensus Conference on Concussion in Sport in Berlin.

Several AFL players have retired in recent seasons as a result of
concussion, including Brisbane Lions pair Matt Maguire and Justin
Clarke, North Melbourne's Leigh Adams and Geelong's Sam Blease.
Melbourne's Heritier Lumumba had much of his 2016 season wiped out
because of concussion, and is set to retire as a result.  The
prospect of the former Collingwood player taking legal action
against the Demons has been mooted.

Cricket Australia has also upped its game in terms of concussion
management, recently introducing a concussion substitute -- one of
the recommendations to come from an independent report into the
death of Phillip Hughes following a blow to the head from a
bouncer in November 2014.

The extent of the concussion problem is however contentious.
Earlier this year, Associate Professor Paul McCrory -- who is part
of the AFL's concussion working group -- slammed the media for
"over-simplifying" the issue, particularly in the US where the NFL
finalised a $US1 billion settlement with thousands of former
players.

There is also a divergence in views surrounding the management of
concussions.

A recent Harvard University study into the health of American
football players questioned practices surrounding club doctors,
and whether players, suggesting that players better utilise
personal doctors.  "Club doctors are clearly fundamental to
protecting and promoting player health," the report said.

"Yet given the various roles just described, it is evident that
they face an inherent structural conflict of interest.  This is
not a moral judgment about them as competent professionals or
devoted individuals, but rather a simple fact of the current
organisational structure of their position in which they
simultaneously perform at least two roles that are not necessarily
compatible."


ALABAMA: Trial Begins in ADOC Mental Health Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Open Minds reports that a trial started on December 5 for a class
action lawsuit against the Alabama Department of Corrections
(ADOC); the plaintiffs allege that the state's prison mental
health services are so inadequate that the system violates the
prisoners' rights to be protected from cruel and unusual
punishment.  The lawsuit, Braggs, et al., v. Jefferson Dunn, et
al., was filed in June 2014 by Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)
and the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (ADAP) on behalf of
the 25,000 Alabamians in state custody.  It alleges ADOC neglected
inmates' health needs and violated the Americans with Disabilities
Act.


ALLSAINTS USA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Receipt Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that the
U.S. wing of a British high-end retail clothier has failed in a
gambit to persuade a federal judge to dismiss a class action
lawsuit alleging it broke federal law by printing too many credit
card digits on its customers' receipts -- and has been stuck with
a bill for $58,000 for its opponents' legal costs, as the federal
judge sent the case back to Cook County court for further
proceedings.

On Dec. 7, U.S. District Judge Elaine Bucklo remanded to Cook
County Circuit Court the class action lawsuit brought by Chicago
law firm Edelson P.C. on behalf of plaintiff Barbara Mocek and
perhaps hundreds of others against AllSaints USA, a United
Kingdom-based retailer of leather coats and other clothing.
AllSaints operates retail outlets across the U.S., including in
the Chicago area, and operates a distribution center in
Bolingbrook.

According to the lawsuit, which was filed in July in Cook County
court, Ms. Mocek had accused AllSaints of violating the federal
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act by issuing receipts to
customers on which were printed 10 of the digits from the credit
card customers had used to pay for their purchases.  The lawsuit
noted the federal law allowed only up to five digits to be printed
on those receipts.

The lawsuit said this practice by AllSaints allegedly left
"thousands of AllSaints customers . . . burdened with a heightened
risk of payment card fraud and identity theft" by exponentially
increasing the ease with which identity thieves could guess
customers' 16-digit credit card numbers.

Ms. Mocek alleged she had received such a receipt, on which were
printed 10 of her credit card's digits, while shopping at an
AllSaints store in Rosemont.

Ms. Mocek's lawsuit demanded AllSaints be made to pay "actual,
statutory and punitive damages" for violating the FACTA.

In response to Ms. Mocek's legal action, AllSaints moved to
transfer the case to Chicago federal court, asserting it was a
more proper venue for the lawsuit.

However, just a month after taking the case to federal court,
AllSaints filed a motion on Sept. 30, asking Judge Bucklo to
dismiss the case altogether, asserting the federal court itself
lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.  To support its assertion,
AllSaints cited the U.S. Supreme Court's Spokeo decision, in which
the court found plaintiffs need to demonstrate a concrete injury
stemming from a technical violation of a privacy law, such as
FACTA.

In response to that request, Ms. Mocek's attorneys asked Judge
Bucklo to allow them to continue their lawsuit in Cook County
court, where they had originally filed the case, and to sanction
AllSaints for effectively prolonging the litigation by sending it
to federal court to begin with.

Judge Bucklo backed Ms. Mocek's position, saying federal law
dictates in a case in which both parties believe a federal court
lacks jurisdiction, the case should be returned to state courts
for further proceedings.

Judge Bucklo also declined to analyze the case in light of the
Supreme Court's findings in Spokeo.

And she agreed that AllSaints should be made to pay for their
maneuver, saying AllSaints "lacked an 'objectively reasonable
basis for seeking removal.'"

"To be clear, there is no question that if defendant wished to
litigate the merits of plaintiff's federal claim in a federal
forum, it was free to remove the case and seek to establish
federal jurisdiction, regardless of whether I may ultimately have
concluded that plaintiff lacked standing under Spokeo," Judge
Bucklo wrote.

"But defendant did not pursue that avenue. Instead, defendant
tried to have it both ways by asserting, then immediately
disavowing, federal jurisdiction, apparently in hopes of achieving
outright dismissal, with prejudice, rather than the remand
required by (federal law.)"

Judge Bucklo ordered AllSaints to pay Edelson $58,112, which were
the fees she determined were generated in litigating the matter in
federal court.

AllSaints was represented in the matter by the firm of Proskauer
Rose LLP, with offices in Chicago and New York.


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTH: Court Rules on Bids to Strike Evidence
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jeffrey Cole denied the plaintiff's first motion to strike,
but granted the plaintiff's second motion to strike evidence in
the case captioned PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE, INC., an Ohio
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. ALLSCRIPTS HEALTH
SOLUTIONS, INC. and ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE LLC, Defendants, No. 12
C 3233 (N.D. Ill.).

The plaintiff has filed two separate motions: the first is a
motion to strike evidence that the defendants have relied on in
their motion for summary judgment and in their response to the
plaintiff's motion for class certification.  The second came a
month and a half after the defendants had filed their response.

The plaintiff targeted 14 of the Declarations the defendants
attached to and relied upon in their response brief.  Five of
those 14 Declarations are apparently also a part of another "junk
fax" case the plaintiff has filed, Physicians Healthsource, Inc.
v. A-S Medications, 12-CV-5105, which is pending before Judge
Gottschall.  The Declarations are relevant to the issue of
predominance as it relates to individualized issues of consent to
receive faxes.

The plaintiff filed its second motion to strike -- targeting a
fifteenth Declaration, that of Judi Desorcie -- on July 21, 2016.

While it is unclear why the plaintiff needed 52 or even 45 days to
file a motion to strike, the plaintiff claimed surprise and argued
that none of the 15 Declarants was properly disclosed by the
defendants during discovery, that they should be barred from
testifying and their Declarations stricken pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c)(1).

The defendants first argued that the identities of the 14
Declarants "were otherwise made known" to the plaintiff in 2013
when the defendants produced "BFX Reports."  The plaintiff pointed
out that this list contained 17,781 names or fax targets, and that
there has been no elaboration by the defendants either at the time
of production or by way of subsequent disclosure under Rule
26(1)(a).  The plaintiff submitted that it is asking far too much
for the production of this extensive list to constitute making the
14 Declarants "otherwise known" through the "discovery process or
in writing" as required by Rule 26(e)(1)(A).

Judge Cole pointed out that although well over 17,000 entries is a
huge list to pour over, still, the plaintiff is the master of its
law suit and thus is the arbiter of the parameters of the
litigation.  The judge stated that obviously, bringing a massive
class action against a business necessitates obtaining and sifting
through far more discovery than would have been imposed upon
plaintiff and counsel had they limited their pursuit to
plaintiff's individual claim.  The judge noted that the plaintiff
did not call the Court's attention to any point in discovery where
it requested information from the defendants as to who from the
BFX lists might have solicited faxes or consented to receive them
from the defendants.  To the judge, it seemed that, once the
plaintiff had the massive list, the plaintiff chose not to
initiate any further or pointed inquiry.

Further, Judge Cole found that there would seem to be little if
any prejudice to be cured.  The judge noted that, according to the
plaintiff's reply in support of its motion for class
certification, the Declarations are "of no evidentiary value
whatsoever" because, while the Declarants claim they gave
permission for faxes, they cannot even remember receiving any or
when they gave permission.

Finally, Judge Cole found that there appears to be no likelihood
of disruption to trial and that there is little or no evidene of
bad faith.

The second undisclosed yet allegedly revealed witness is Ms.
Desorcie, one of defendants' employees.  According to the
defendants, the plaintiff learned of Ms. Desorcie at the
deposition of Yaniv Schiff in another case pending before Judge
Gottschall some years earlier.  The defendants asked the court to
find that Ms. Desorcie was "otherwise made known" as a witness in
this case through the cryptic deposition testimony and comments of
another witness and in a different case before Judge Gottschall.

Judge Cole, however, found that the defendants' contention that
Ms. Desorcie's role as a witness in this case was made known
through the discovery process in an earlier case before a
different judge and in the context of the deposition on which the
defendants rely, makes a mockery out of Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 26(e)(1)(A) and the full disclosure of information that
the Rules seek to achieve.

Judge Cole thus held that Ms. Desorcie's Declaration must be
stricken and will not be considered in the resolution of the
pending dispositive motions and, should this matter go to trial,
she will not be allowed to testify.

A full-text copy of Judge Cole's December 2, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/Nct3rB from
Leagle.com.

Physicians Healthsource, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brian J.
Wanca -- bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca.

Physicians Healthsource, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Phillip
A. Bock -- phil@classlawyers.com -- Bock & Hatch, LLC, Christopher
Phillip Taylor Tourek -- christopher@classlawyers.com -- Bock &
Hatch LLC, James Michael Smith -- jim@classlawyers.com -- Bock &
Hatch LLC, John P. Orellana, Krislov & Associates, Ltd., Julia
Lynn Titolo -- julia@classlawyers.com -- Bock, Hatch, Lewis &
Oppenheim, LLC, Kerry Ann Bute -- kbute@mrjlaw.com -- Montgomery,
Rennie & Johnson, LPA, Matthew Elton Stubbs -- mstubbs@mrjlaw.com
-- Montgomery Rennie & Jonson, Max G. Margulis, Margulis Law
Group, Ross Michael Good -- rgood@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson
Wanca, Ryan M. Kelly -- rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson &
Wanca, Tod Allen Lewis -- tod@classlawyers.com -- Bock & Hatch,
LLC & Wallace Cyril Solberg -- wsolberg@andersonwanca.com --
Anderson Wanca.

Allscripts-Misy's Healthcare Solutions, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Livia McCammon Kiser -- lkiser@sidley.com -- Sidley
Austin LLP, Andrew Jacob Chinsky -- achinsky@sidley.com -- Sidley
Austin Llp & Lawrence P. Fogel -- lawrence.fogel@sidley.com --
Sidley Austin LLP.

Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., Allscripts Healthcare, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Livia McCammon Kiser, Sidley Austin
LLP.

Defendant, represented by Livia McCammon Kiser, Sidley Austin LLP.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Class Certification Bid Voluntarily Withdrawn
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Andrea R. Wood entered an order in the lawsuit styled as
Lucas Huddleston, the Plaintiff, v. American Airlines, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09100 (N.D. Ill.), providing for the
voluntary withdrawal of a motion for class certification by
agreement of the parties without prejudice to refiling at a later
date.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on December 14,
2016, initial disclosures were to be made by December 2, 2016.
Fact Discovery will close on September 5, 2017. Initial Rule
Expert Disclosures are due by October 5, 2017. Disclosures of
Rebuttal Experts are due by November 6, 2017. All Expert Discovery
will be completed by December 5, 2017. Status hearing is set for
April 11, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aROs9H90


AMSHER COLLECTION: Placeholder Motion for Class Cert. Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled IRMA GOMEZ, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMSHER COLLECTION
SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01656-PP (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff moves the court to certify a class.

The Plaintiff further moves the Court to both stay the motion for
class certification and to grant Plaintiff (and Defendant) relief
from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and
requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=W1zP31cy

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com


ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA: 5th Cir. Rules on Jurisdiction Issue
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOAN GALE FRANK; JON A. BELL; DOCTOR SAMUEL
BUKRINSKY; JAIME ALEXIS ARROYO BORNSTEIN; PEGGY ROIF ROTSTAIN;
JUAN C. OLANO; JOHN WADE, in his capacity as trustee of the
Microchip ID Systems, Inc. Retirement Plan, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-
Appellees, v. THE COMMONWEALTH OF ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, Defendant-
Appellant. THE OFFICIAL STANFORD INVESTORS COMMITTEE, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, Defendant-Appellant, No. 15-
10717, Cons. with No. 15-10788 (5th Cir.), the United States Court
of Appeals, Fifth Circuit reversed in part a district court's
determination that it had jurisdiction over the suits involving
the Commonwealth of Antigua and Barbuda ("Antigua"), and its
alleged involvement with the Stanford Ponzi scheme.

The consolidated cases involved in the appeal are:

     (1) Frank et al. v. Commonwealth of Antigua &
         Barbuda, No. 15-10717 (the "Frank suit"); and

     (2) Official Stanford Investors Committee v.
         Antigua & Barbuda,  No. 15-10788 (the "OSIC suit").

As a foreign nation, Antigua challenged the district court's
jurisdiction in each suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities
Act (FSIA).  The district court determined that it had
jurisdiction over the suits under both the commercial activity and
waiver exceptions of the FSIA.

Antigua appealed the district court's rulings, but did not contest
the application of the commercial activity exception to OSIC's
breach of contract claims.

With regards to the commercial activity exception, Frank and OSIC
argued that two different financial losses had a "direct effect"
on investors in the United States: (1) Stanford's Ponzi scheme
itself and (2) Antigua's failure to repay the loans it received
from Stanford.

The Fifth Circuit, however, found that the plaintiffs' theories
failed to satisfy the "direct effect" requirement of the
commercial activity exception.  The appellate court found that the
financial loss to American investors involved in Stanford's Ponzi
scheme is not an "immediate consequence" of Antigua's actions
because  Stanford's criminal activity served as an intervening act
interrupting the causal chain between Antigua's actions and any
effect on investors.  The appellate court also found that the
relationship between Antigua and the plaintiffs is too indirect to
satisfy the "direct effect" requirement.

The Fifth Circuit thus reversed the district court's holding that
the commercial activity exception applies to the Frank suit and
OSIC's tort and Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA)
claims.

The district court also found that provisions of two  loan
agreements that Antigua entered into with Stanford explicitly
waived sovereign immunity for OSIC's contract claims based on
either loan.  The agreement for the first of the loans, referred
to as the "$40 Million Loan," was provided to Antigua to "pay
salaries and for other discretionary purposes."  The second loan,
referred to as the "$31 Million Loan," was provided to Antigua by
Stanford to build a hospital.

Antigua contested the scope of the district court's waiver ruling
and asked the Fifth Circuit to limit the district court's ruling
on the waiver exception to apply only to $71 million ($31 Million
Loan + $40 Million Loan) in breach of contract claims.  The
appellate court, however, found that the district court's order
itself already provides Antigua with the relief it seeks.

A full-text copy of the Fifth Circuit's November 22, 2016 ruling
is available at https://is.gd/XYhxgH from Leagle.com.


ASSOCIATED COLLECTORS: Boucher Class Certification Bid Continued
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William C. Griesbach entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned as HEATHER L. BOUCHER, the Plaintiff, v. ASSOCIATED
COLLECTORS INC. and JANE AND JOHN DOES, the Defendants, Case No
1:16-cv-01629-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), granting Plaintiff's motion to
enter and continue her motion for class certification.

Plaintiff Heather Boucher brought this putative class action
against Defendants Associated Collectors Inc. and Jane and John
Does, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qIc4VP40


BARKWORKS: Lawsuit Serves as Warning for Would-Be Puppy Purchasers
------------------------------------------------------------------
Yubanet.com reports that the holiday season is already in full
gear and the Animal Legal Defense Fund has a message for those
considering a puppy as a gift: do your research. The sad reality
is that pet stores still receive their supply of puppies mainly
through puppy mills. Puppy mills are breeding facilities that
treat puppies as cash crops instead of living, feeling animals,
employing horrendous standards of care for the mother dogs and
producing sick animals prone to illness, injury, genetic and
behavioral problems. No matter how cute that puppy in the window
is, you do not want to support puppy mills this holiday season. An
ongoing lawsuit against southern California pet store chain
Barkworks alleges the store works hard to hide the awful truth
about the puppies they peddle.

The Animal Legal Defense Fund, the nation's preeminent legal
advocacy organization for animals, is representing aggrieved
consumers as Plaintiffs in a putative class action lawsuit against
Barkworks for the company's pattern and practice of misleading
purchasers about the health and source of their puppies. The
Plaintiffs, on behalf of thousands of consumers, claim they were
led to believe by Barkworks that they were bringing home a healthy
puppy from a reputable breeder when, in reality, Barkworks
routinely sources from puppy mills whom have been cited by the
USDA for violations, and its medical, transport and sanitary
protocols do little to protect the health of these fragile young
puppies. As a result, the Plaintiffs allege, many consumers were
deceived into purchasing puppies from deplorable puppy mills and
these puppies faced numerous medical problems upon purchase. On
Nov. 14 the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification
in Orange County Superior Court, Complex Division, before Judge
Thierry Colaw, arguing the lawsuit should proceed as a class
action because the Plaintiffs represent tens of thousands of
fellow puppy purchasers exposed to Barkworks' harmful
misrepresentations and business practices in similar ways. Nearly
every week, additional puppy purchasers come forward with
tragically familiar stories.

These purchasers have suffered financially and emotionally,
spending hundreds to thousands of dollars on veterinary care for
their new puppies, and watching the animals struggle with
illnesses and even die of their diseases within a matter of months
or a few years. Plaintiffs will file their reply brief in support
of their motion for class certification just before Christmas,
with a hearing set for January 27, 2017.

"People considering buying a dog this holiday season can avoid
supporting puppy mills by rescuing a companion from a shelter
instead," says Animal Legal Defense Fund Executive Director
Stephen Wells. "This holiday season, remember that a puppy is a
lifetime companion and commitment, not a cute gift in a store
window."

Consumers who purchased a dog from Barkworks are encouraged to
contact the Animal Legal Defense Fund at legalcase@aldf.org or
707-795-2533.


BELLAMY'S: Directors Brace for Investor Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Elysse Morgan, writing for ABC, reports that baby formula maker
Bellamy's has gone sour, entering into a trading halt to try to
end a horror sell-off sparked by fears that weaker-than-expected
sales in China could get worse.

In the last financial year it was one of the ASX's fastest-growing
companies, with its share price up 133 per cent and profit up 322
per cent, but a shock update to investors wiped half a billion
dollars from the company's share price in minutes.

So is the dream over for Bellamy's and what's the deal with China?

What changed?

On December 2, Bellamy's came out with a truth bomb to investors:
China sales aren't going as well as hoped and there are some big
regulatory hurdles on the near horizon.

Bellamy's warned that changes to China's food import rules had led
to stockpiles of its product and demand was not meeting forecasts.

The news had analysts slashing earnings forecasts, stunning
investors, who promptly dumped the stock -- it lost 43 per cent
that day to end at $6.85.  It has since fallen further, closing at
$6.68 before going into the trading halt on Dec. 12.

The news came two months after the company's annual general
meeting, where it now appears that Bellamy's may have glossed over
the headwinds coming from China.

At the October meeting, the success of Bellamy's in China was
heralded with "revenues up 331 per cent" and regulatory changes
were portrayed as "long-term growth opportunities", with chief
executive Laura McBain informing investors that the company had
been planning for the changes "for two years".

But the December 2 update reveals it could be much more than that
and the trading update expected on Dec. 7 would hopefully bring
more information to the table for investors.

Bosses are under question

The whole episode has meant a big loss of credibility for
Bellamy's management, particularly the chief executive.

Ms McBain was already under fire from investors, who voted down
her $1,380,000 pay packet at the AGM, scoring the company its
first strike.

It was also not a good look when Ms McBain and chairman Rob
Woolley sold some of their Bellamy shares in August shortly after
the company's share price hit an eight-month high, netting them
$2.4 million and $2.92 million respectively.

There are serious questions about who knew what when.  In response
to an ASX enquiry over the update of December 2, Bellamy's
management says it only became aware of the material impact of the
slow November sales that morning.

Corporate governance expert Professor Stephen Taylor says that is
unlikely.

"The nature of the disclosures that have been made are difficult
to reconcile with the absence of any seismic event that could have
caused a sudden disruption to sales patterns -- it is something
that would have developed over time," he says.

Is this the beginning of the end?

It is unlikely that this would be the end of Bellamy's, more like
the end of its darling status.

Nearly three quarters of Bellamy's revenue comes from sales in
Australia, which should in theory not be at risk from changing
Chinese tastes and regulatory changes.

However, a proportion of those sales are to customers who send it
overseas at a mark-up.

Bellamy's strategy for growth was further penetration into China
and South-East Asia.  Growth in China was running at 24 per cent a
year versus low single-digit growth within Australia.

What's worrying for investors is that if the Chinese strategy is
at risk, then the company's entire business model is looking a lot
less appetising.

The share price was expected to take another battering on Dec. 14
when the company was expected to come out of its trading halt with
the release of another update.

"The fact they are releasing a full review of operations means
they will have found weaknesses and I expect a negative reaction
on the market.  How low it will go will depend on how far off
renewed estimates they are," Professor Taylor says.
Will Blackmores and A2 suffer the same fate?

Bellamy's is not the only company which has found favour by
capitalising on Chinese hunger for Australian health products.

A2 milk is perhaps the company whose business model most closely
resembles Bellamy's.

While Bellamy's point of difference is being organic, A2's point
of difference is that its milk products only contain A2 protein,
which it claims means less tummy discomfort for consumers.

CLSA investment analyst Shaun Weick says A2 Milk is still a buy
because of its formula's strong performance in China, which
"reflects the growing relative strength of the product, indicating
increased trust and brand credibility amongst Chinese parents".

Credit Suisse agrees and suggests that the fall in A2 Milk's share
price, thanks to Bellamy's downfall, could be an opportunity for
brave investors.

Although Blackmores also produces baby formula, it's best known
for its vitamin range, which has experienced a huge swell of
demand from China.

But like Bellamy's and A2 Milk, the biggest risks for Blackmores
are for further changes in Chinese consumer regulation and the
risk of cheaper alternatives eating away at its margins.  Or,
changing tastes.

Will shareholders get anything back?

The ASX has already sent the company a please explain and it is
likely the corporate watchdog ASIC will have a look at who knew
what when, and see if there has been a breach of the Corporations
Act.

The ABC understands that several class action law firms are
readying themselves to launch a case against the directors of the
company.

With slashed earnings forecast it is unlikely that Bellamy's share
price will ever hit the heady highs of earlier this year, so those
who bought in at the top are likely to remain significantly out of
pocket.


CALHOUN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL: Inmate's Class Cert. Bid Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Timothy P. Greeley entered an order in the lawsuit
entitled VINCENT ONGORI, et al., the Petitioners, v. REBECCA
ADDUCCI, et al., the Respondents, Case No. 2:16-cv-00224-GJQ-TPG
(W.D. Mich.), denying a motion in support of certification of
class.

Judge Greeley said, "In the report and recommendation that was
issued on December 14, 2016, the [Court] determined that
Petitioners did not meet Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4), which requires
that the class have a class representative that will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class. Because Petitioners
are proceeding pro se, they cannot fairly and adequately protect
the interests of the class.(Generally, pro se prisoners cannot
adequately represent a class)".

Ms. Aducci is the Field Office Director at the Calhoun County
Correctional Center in Michigan.

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


CEMPRA INC: Khang & Khang Files Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP disclosed a class action lawsuit against Cempra,
Inc. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between
May 1, 2016 and November 1, 2016 inclusive (the "Class Period"),
are encouraged to contact the Firm prior to the January 3, 2017
lead plaintiff motion deadline.

If you purchased Cempra shares 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 --

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.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Cempra made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that
solithromycin posed significant safety risks for hepatotoxicity,
so the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. On November 2, 2016, the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration posted a preliminary review on its
website of Cempra's drug, solithromycin, highlighting a
significant safety signal for hepatotoxicity. When this news was
disclosed to the public, shares of Cempra decreased in value,
causing investors harm.


CHEVRON: Seeks Dismissal of Nigerian Gas Rig Blast Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Babatunde Akinsola, writing for Naija247 News, reports that citing
problems with fraud, a lack of evidence and obstacles to enforcing
a U.S. court's judgment overseas, a Chevron attorney on Dec. 9
urged a federal judge not to certify a class of Nigerian residents
seeking $1.5 billion in damages over a 2012 gas rig explosion.

Lead plaintiff Dr. Foster Ogola sued Chevron in January 2014,
claiming an estimated 65,000 residents of the Niger Delta Region
in Southern Nigeria suffered health problems and loss of income
from fishing and farming due to contamination caused by the blast.

The KS Endeavor, an offshore natural-gas drilling well six miles
off the coast of Southern Nigeria in North Apoi Field, exploded on
Jan. 16, 2012, igniting a fire that burned for 46 days.

During a hearing on Dec. 9, Chevron attorney Robert Mittelstaedt
ticked off a long list of reasons why U.S. District Judge Susan
Illston should deny class certification, starting with obstacles
in verifying individual claims of income loss, property damage and
health problems.

Chevron received 5,630 claims for damages from potential class
members as of mid-September and found fraudulent signatures or
thumbprints on several of the claims forms, according to the oil
giant's opposition brief.

"Some of the claims were people who had been deceased before the
incident," Mr. Mittelstaedt said.

He added that the class's counsel, Jacqueline Perry, had
acknowledged there would be "bad apples" because Nigeria is a
"corrupt place."

"The only way to weed out the bad apples is to go one by one," Mr.
Mittelstaedt argued.

Proving how much Nigerian fishermen actually lost in income due to
alleged water contamination poses another challenge,
Mr. Mittelstaedt said, because no records exist to verify their
income.

Mr. Mittelstaedt said Nigerians "rarely" file income tax returns,
and that Chevron has received no tax filings from those claiming
damages, despite repeated requests.

But Judge Illston did not seem totally convinced.  "It's
troublesome here that because of the way a country conducts its
business, they could never have recourse," she said.  "That they
could never have recourse because of the way they live feels
wrong."

Mr. Mittelstaedt said the court must rely on the plaintiffs'
testimony as evidence, but he pointed out several inconsistencies
from Nigerian fishermen's depositions.

He showed the judge excerpts from two deposition videos to
illustrate his point.

The Chevron attorney also argued plaintiffs should press their
claims in the proper venue -- Nigerian court -- where at least 70
lawsuits over the 2012 gas rig explosion have already been filed,
including one class action.

"I assume Chevron is not embracing Nigeria's jurisdiction over
it," Judge Illston replied.

The judge acknowledged there could be problems ensuring class
members would be precluded from pursuing claims over the explosion
in Nigerian court if a U.S. court had already awarded damages.

Turning to the debate over environmental harm, Mr. Mittelstaedt
sought to discredit two of the plaintiffs' expert witnesses as
plagiarizers.

The plaintiffs asked the court in November for permission to
substitute one expert, Professor Jasper Abowei, whom Chevron
accused of "self-plagiarizing work from an earlier study," with
another expert, Professor Eyiwunmi Falaye.

But Mr. Mittelstaedt also hurled accusations of plagiarism at the
plaintiff's proposed substitute expert, claiming Falaye copied a
report from the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico and
simply changed the words "oil spill" to "gas blowout."

Moving past plagiarism, Mr. Mittelstaedt contended that neither
expert cited any data related to the gas rig explosion in their
reports.  He also argued the plaintiffs' analyses of seabed
samples failed to identify "in any reasonably scientific way" the
impact caused by the blast or its zone of impact.

In a reply brief to Chevron's opposition to class certification,
the plaintiffs said sonar imaging shows gas has likely continued
to seep from the seafloor because of the blast, and that a study
of seabed samples "unequivocally" shows the blowout "had long-
term, persistent impacts on the surrounding marine habitat."

The plaintiffs also say an analysis of roundworms found in seabed
samples shows the seafloor habitats were "subject to persistent
and ongoing" stress.

After about 90 minutes of debate, Judge Illston took the arguments
under submission.

The plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint in September 2015
after now-retired U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti dismissed the
suit with leave to amend last year.

Dr. Ogola and four others were terminated as named plaintiffs in
September 2015.  Natto Iyela Gbarabe, a fisherman from the Koluama
community in the Southern Ijaw Local Government area of Bayelsa
State in the Niger Delta, now serves as the sole named plaintiff.

Potential damages for the gas rig explosion could exceed $1.5
billion, according to the fourth amended complaint.

Chevron, which Forbes names as the world's third-largest oil and
gas company, earned $129.9 billion in revenue and $4.58 billion in
profits last year, according to the company's 2015 annual report.


COASTAL CHEMICAL: Rooks Seeks to Certify Land Technicians Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as KURTIS ROOKS, Individually and On
Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, v. COASTAL CHEMICAL CO., LLC,
Case No. 4:16-cv-00296 (S.D. Tex.), Rooks asks the Court to
certify a class of:

   "Rooks' coworkers who performed similar job duties and
   received similar pay."

Rooks says Costal Chemical failed to pay its land technicians
overtime as required under federal law. Coastal maintained a
uniform pay practice of paying the workers a salary and bonus
without any overtime compensation, which violates the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OznD6waA

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
          FIBICH LEEBRON, COPELAND,
          BRIGGS & JOHNSON 1150 Bissonnet
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751 0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751 0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
                  jbresler@fibichlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch
          Matthew S. Partment
          BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877 8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877 8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
                  mparet@brucknerburch.com


COLLECTO INC: Placeholder Motion for Class Certification Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JAMES WILLIAMS, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. COLLECTO, INC.
d/b/a EOS CCA, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01657-WED (E.D.
Wisc.), Mr. James Williams moves the court to certify a class.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to both stay the motion for
class certification and to grant Plaintiff (and Defendant) relief
from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and
requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zqtL7JdF

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com


COPELAND SCROLL: Judge Moore Recuses Himself from Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Lebanon Daily Record reports that an area judge has recused
himself from a class action lawsuit against a local manufacturer.

On Dec. 6, 26th Judicial Circuit Judge Stanley Moore recused
himself from the class action lawsuit against Copeland Scroll
Compressors in Lebanon, as well as its parent company, Emerson
Electric; two local employees, Laura Rumfelt and Marilyn Brown;
and several other companies involved in the manufacture,
distribution and monitoring of allegedly dangerous chemicals used
at the local plant, including Nalco Chemical, Rohm and Haas
Company, ExxonMobil and John P. Jurgiel and Associates, Inc.  The
case has been sent to the presiding judge's office for judge
assignment, according to court records.


CRAWFORD AND COMPANY: "Elbling" Suit Seeks Unpaid Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------
RONALD ELBLING, an individual, Plaintiff, v. CRAWFORD AND COMPANY,
a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-20, the Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-02951-L-KSC (S.D. Cal., Dec. 7, 2016), seeks to recover
past unpaid benefits due to Plaintiff, and an order enforcing
Plaintiff's rights to future benefits.

The Plaintiff seeks damages related to the denial of his request
for benefits. The exact amount of loss will be subject to proof at
the time of trial. In addition, Plaintiff has lost interest on the
money owed to him and has incurred attorneys' fees. In light of
the fact that Plaintiff has been forced to retain one or more
attorneys to represent him in the present action, he is entitled
to an award of reasonable attorney's fees and the costs of the
action.

The action arose under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (ERISA), and more particularly for the wrongful denial of
deferred compensation benefits earned by Plaintiff after 14 years
of loyal service to the Defendant. Throughout the duration of
Plaintiff's employment, he participated in a deferred compensation
plan that included earned Long-Term Incentive Credits (LTIC). When
he retired, Plaintiff had earned over $76,000 worth of these
longterm credits and Plaintiff was fully vested. Immediately after
retiring from Crawford, Plaintiff chose to work for competitor
Vericlaim, and Defendants subsequently denied him access to his
earned LTIC benefits on the basis that Plaintiff violated the non-
compete provision of his deferred compensation plan. The non-
compete provision was neither restricted geographically nor by
length of time. Defendant's non-compete provisions essentially
prohibit vested employees from ever working for competitors
anywhere in the world.

Plaintiff alleges that the Crawford LTIC agreement with Plaintiff
and those similarly situated violate public policy because the
policy is unfair and discriminatory.

Crawford & Company is the world's largest independent provider of
claims management solutions to insurance companies and self-
insured entities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin N. Schwartz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF EDWIN NEAL SCHWARTZ
          600 West Broadway, Suite 700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 289 8887
          E-mail: eschwartz@edwinlegal.com


DAKOTA PLAINS: Gainey McKenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Dakota Plains Holdings, Inc., in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of common stock of Dakota Plains between
March 23, 2012 through August 15, 2016, seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

According to the Complaint, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or did not reveal that: (1) Dakota
Plains failed to disclose that Ryan Gilbertson and Michael L.
Reger, co-founders of Dakota Plains predecessor company, had
actual control of Dakota Plains' business and operations; (2)
Dakota Plains and its management colluded with Gilbertson and
Reger to misappropriate Dakota Plains' assets for Gilbertson and
Reger's personal gain at the expenses of Dakota Plains investors;
(3) Dakota Plains lacked effective and adequate internal controls;
and (4) as a result, Defendants' public statements about Dakota
Plains' business, operations and prospects were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the Complaint alleges that investors suffered
monetary damages.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 14, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey
McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at --
tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- or -- gegleston@gme-law.com --


DESIGNED RECEIVABLES: Class Certification Sought in "Kochlani"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled GUY KOCHLANI, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. DESIGNED
RECEIVABLES SOLUTIONS INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-04482-
JVS-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court in a
hearing on October 16, 2017 before the Hon. James V. Selna to
certify a class of:

   "all persons within the United States who received any
   collection telephone calls from Defendant to said person's
   cellular telephone made through the use of any automatic
   telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice
   and such person had not previously consented to receiving such
   calls within the four years prior to the filing of this
   Complaint".

The Plaintiff will also move the Court for appointment of
Plaintiff as Class Representative, and for appointment of
Plaintiffs' attorneys as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=a0Uhi3OP

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DIGNITY HEALTH: Supreme Court to Review ERISA Appellate Rulings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for California Labor Law News, reports that a
court challenge that pits church-based health networks against
ERISA provisions and interpretations is to be heard by the highest
court in the land, following notification on December 2 that the
US Supreme Court is going to weigh in by agreeing to review recent
decisions by the appellate courts.  As one of the health networks
is based in California, the case is expected to have some
influence and impact on California ERISA labor law.

At issue is an interpretation of just what a church-affiliated
hospital is, and whether or not it has to see affiliation with an
actual, brick-and-mortar church in order to qualify for exemptions
observed in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

Amongst three health networks embroiled in the litigation is
Dignity Health, headquartered in California.  Dignity has joined
with Saint Peter's Healthcare System, based in New Jersey, and
Advocate Healthcare Network, which is based in Illinois.

The California ERISA dispute mirrored by the other two health
networks has to do with provisions and fiduciary tenets normally
required by ERISA.  There are exemptions, however, for faith-based
health networks affiliated with a church, whereby the latter --
assuming they qualify -- do not have to undertake fiduciary
obligations and minimum-funding requirements.

What got them here was a putative class action launched by
employees who assert their employers are not, in actual or real
sense affiliated with a church in the first instance, and thus
take exception to any claim by the health networks that they
qualify for exemption under that qualification.

Based upon the assertion the church-based hospital(s) are
capitalizing on an ERISA exemption for which they don't correctly
qualify, workers are therefore taking the position that their
retirement funds have been left vulnerable with the lack of
minimum funding requirements, insurance or disclosure should the
funds dip beneath a certain plateau.

The health networks are fighting back, contending that any
reversal of an exemption would oppose long-standing positions
taken by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), US Department of
Labor (DOL) and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.
Billions of dollars' worth of claims are on the line.

According to documents, the Seventh, Third and Ninth Circuits
found that the retirement plans of the three networks cannot be
excluded from ERISA as "church plans."

The health networks appealed their case to the US Supreme Court,
which has agreed to review the findings of the lower appellate
courts.

Religious freedom groups are defending the faith-based health
networks, and their decision to take their ERISA case to the
highest court in the land.

To that end the Alliance Defending Freedom group, in a statement
following the decision by the high court to review, said that "the
government shouldn't attempt to go into the theology business by
assuming it has the ability or expertise to decide whether a
faith-based ministry is religious enough to be a ministry."

The cases are Saint Peter's Healthcare System et al. v. Laurence
Kaplan, Case No. 16-86, Advocate Health Care Network et al., Case
No. 16-74, and Dignity Health et. al. v. Starla Robbins, Case No.
16-258, in the Supreme Court of the United States.


DOLLAR GENERAL: "Lambert" Suit Seeks Certification of 3 Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled THERA LAMBERT and AMY CONNOR, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-11319
(N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to certify these
classes:

National Class:

   "all persons in the United States who, within four (4) years
   of the filing of this Complaint, purchased the Product";

Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class:

   "all persons in the States of California, Florida, Illinois,
   Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
   New York, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin who, within four (4)
   years of the filing of this Complaint, purchased the Product";
   and

Illinois Subclass:

   "all persons in the State of Illinois who, within four (4)
   years of the filing of this Complaint, purchased the Product".

The Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed Classes purchased
from Defendant the product DG Body Soothing Aloe Gel (the
"Product"), for personal use and not for resale. Defendant's
claims that its Product contains "Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Extract"
are false, and its Product label is misleading.

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

Thera Lambert and Amy Connor, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Berman, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
                  jberman@andersonwanca.com

               - and -

          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
          1644 Bracken Rd.
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
          Telephone: (313) 303 3472
          E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com

               - and -

          Jonathan N. Shub, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238 1700
          E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Jason Thompson, Esq.
          Lance Young, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355 0300
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
                  lyoung@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Patrick S. Almonrode, Esq.
          THE JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          500 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (877) 561 0000
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW, P.C.
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247 0090
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          Susan S. Brown, Esq.
          RAM, OLSON,
          CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
          101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433 4949
          E-mail: mram@rocklawcal.com
                  sbrown@rocklawcal.com

               - and -

          Rachel Soffin, Esq.
          Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223 5505
          E-mail: rsoffin@forthepeople.com
                  jcohen@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363 7500
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com
                  lfeldman@zlk.com

               - and -

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson Street, #209
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 237 1775
          E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com


DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Khang & Khang Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP disclosed a class action lawsuit against Dynavax
Technologies Corporation. Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares between March 10, 2014 and November 11, 2016
inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the Firm
by the January 17, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

If you purchased shares of Dynavax 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 --

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.

The complaint alleges that Dynavax made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: that the phase 3 HBV-23
trial for the Company's lead vaccine product, HEPLISAV-B, was not
designed in accordance with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration's concerns and issues; that the Company failed to
provide sufficient information to the FDA in its Revised Biologics
License Application for the drug; that Dynavax's resources will
not be sufficient for the Company to advance the HEPLISAV-B
program on its own; and that, as a result of the above, the
Company's financial statements and statements about its business,
operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. On November 14, 2016, Dynavax announced that
it received a Complete Response Letter from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration requesting additional information on the Company's
HEPLISAV-B product in connection with its Biologics License
Application. When this information was disclosed, shares of
Dynavax declined in value, causing investors serious harm.


EARTHGRAINS DISTRIBUTION: Class Certification Bid Due May 1
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Cormac J. Carney entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned as RUDY URENA AND VICTOR URENA V. EARTHGRAINS
DISTRIBUTION, LLC, AND EARTHGRAINS BAKING CO., INC., Case No.
8:16-cv-00634-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal.), granting Plaintiffs' ex parte
application seeking to continue the class certification deadline,
currently calendared for January 30, 2017, by 90 days.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs' deadline to file their motion for class
certification is continued to May 1, 2017. Defendants shall have
30 days from the filing of the opening papers to file their
opposition. Plaintiffs may file their reply papers within 21 days
of the filing of the opposition. The Court shall hear the motion
on July 17, 2017, at 1:30 p.m. Any further request for a
continuance in this case, however, will be strongly disfavored.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WgamNKd4


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Two Discrimination Lawsuits Reinstated
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jamal Eric Watson, writing for Diverse, reports that two federal
discrimination lawsuits against the Art Institute of Pittsburgh
that were reinstated in October have now advanced in a national
class-action process, following the most recent order issued by
U.S. District Judge Nora Barry Fischer.

The race-discrimination, age-discrimination, and retaliation cases
of Michael Scott and LaMont Jones -- former admissions counselors
at a school owned by Pittsburgh-based, for-profit college giant
Education Management Corporation (EDMC) -- date to 2012, when the
two men filed separate charges at the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission in Pittsburgh but were barred from having
their subsequent lawsuits heard by a pair of federal judges in
Pittsburgh in early 2015.

When their cases were reinstated in October, their attorney, Amos
Jones, seized on the Third Circuit judges' broad invalidation of
the "implied" acceptance that EDMC erroneously claimed existed and
barred the lawsuits.  The Philadelphia-based three-judge panel
unanimously declared this method of arbitration-contract
presentation had been struck down in Pennsylvania since at least
the year 2000.

"We now have national implications in any state where the presence
of these now-invalidated arbitration policies caused employees
with grievances to forbear from activating their legal recourse
toward court under the false pretenses and fraudulent inducements
misleading them into thinking they were barred from so doing,
starting in Pennsylvania," Mr. Jones said.  "By virtue of the
broad and clear victory at the Third Circuit, we are undertaking a
multi-state analysis to determine where else employees were
tricked to their detriment, as former or current employees come
forward following the landmark unanimous decision of October."

Immediately following the cases' reinstatement, the Pittsburgh
plaintiff's class-action firm of Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C.
joined Amos Jones on the case.

In her November 28 order, Fischer, whose 2015 dismissal was
overturned but who now has one of the cases back before her, noted
that "should the parties wish to consolidate (Jones v. EDMC) with
(Scott v. EDMC), the parties shall file a joint motion requesting
same" and set a hearing date of December 19.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia
agreed with the men in its orders reversing Fischer and U.S.
District Court Judges David Cercone, who presides over Scott's
case.

"Whatever the validity of EDMC's legal theory that continuing to
work can, in and of itself, constitute implied assent to new terms
of employment, that rule does not control the outcome here," the
three-judge panel held in October.

Mr. Jones, who as a professor has published on law, economics, and
race, lamented what he alleges has been "great waste in these two
cases, not our own making at all."

"What's so unfortunate," Mr. Jones recalled, "is that, five hours
after EDMC management rolled out this fake ADR agreement in
October 2012, I painstakingly warned of particular legal
deficiencies and advised them, in good faith, that the fate of
that company was in their hands, in communication that was later
presented in the court filings in these cases.  And now, here we
are more than four years later, with discrete victims' damages in
the millions of dollars, now stretching over several jurisdictions
in a massive fraud case morphed exponentially."

EDMC's lead counsel, Casey Ryan of Reed Smith LLP in Pittsburgh,
did not return a telephone call seeking comment.

The Plaintiffs argue that EDMC's attempted curtailment of their
rights interfered with in-process federal investigations and the
rights relating to those, constituting illegal retaliation under
the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The admissions officers were fired in late 2012 and early 2013,
several months after they had filed charges challenging the ADR
policy that EDMC announced on October 3, 2012, but made
retroactive to July 1, 2012, one month before Messrs. Jones and
Scott had filed their federal charges.  After EDMC fired them,
they amended their EEOC complaints to add the terminations to
their cases as well, alleging them to be acts of additional
retaliation.  Despite EDMC's claims about mandatory arbitration,
the men finally sued the school in 2014 for wrongful termination
and discrimination.  The trial courts dismissed both cases in
April 2015 before they were reinstated in October 2016 on appeal.


FELICIA NORWOOD: Class Certification Hearing Continued
------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert M. Dow Jr. entered an order in the lawsuit
entitled Blake Donegan, the Plaintiff, v. Felicia F. Norwood, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-11178 (N.D. Ill.), generally
continuing Plaintiff's motions for class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on December 15,
2016, Defendant's response to Plaintiff's motion for class
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was due by
noon on December 20, 2016. The Plaintiff may file a reply if he
wishes to do so by 4:30 p.m. on December 21, 2016. The motion is
taken under advisement and the Court anticipates a ruling on
December 22, 2016.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=b7hTpgG0


FIAT CHRYSLER: Volkswagen Attorney to Defend Emissions Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Wayland, writing for The Detroit News, reports that a lead
attorney involved in Volkswagen AG's diesel emissions-cheating
scandal and $14.7 billion settlement will defend Fiat Chrysler
Automobiles NV against similar accusations.

New York-based attorney Robert Giuffra Jr. --
giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- a partner of Sullivan & Cromwell, and two
other attorneys on Dec. 6 submitted motions in federal court in
San Francisco to appear as counsel for Fiat Chrysler to defend
against a class-action lawsuit filed Dec. 1 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

The suit accuses Fiat Chrysler of installing software made by
Robert Bosch GmbH that masked excess exhaust emissions.  The
German-based auto supplier was behind the software tied to VW's
emissions scandal.

"The (companies) knowingly concealed the use of an emissions-
cheating defeat device and illegally high emissions levels up to
10 times the legal limit in EcoDiesel vehicles, and sold them
under false pretenses," according to a release earlier this month
from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, which filed the lawsuit.

The firm estimates that consumers paid premiums of up to $4,700
for vehicles that fail to meet federal emissions standards and are
on the road illegally.  The suit alleges defeat device affects
140,000 Ram 1500s and 9,000 Jeep Grand Cherokee models, selling at
3,000 per month.

Fiat Chrysler, in a statement on Dec. 8, said the company "does
not believe that these claims have merit," and it "intends to
contest this lawsuit vigorously."

The company did not immediately have a comment on Giuffra, who is
currently National Coordinating Counsel for Volkswagen in
connection to its recent diesel emissions scandal, representing
the company.  Fiat Chrysler is a longstanding client of Sullivan &
Cromwell.

Bosch on Dec. 8 did not immediately respond for comment on the
litigation.

The suit accuses Fiat Chrysler and Bosch of supporting and
participating in a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
(RICO) enterprise, and charges FCA with committing fraudulent
concealment, false advertising and acting in violation of
consumer-rights laws by selling vehicles equipped with an
emissions system that during normal driving conditions emits many
multiples of the allowed level of pollutants such as NOx (mono-
nitrogen oxides).  In order to appeal to environmentally conscious
consumers, the lawsuit states that FCA erroneously "claims that
'no NOx' exits the tailpipe."

According to the complaint, affected vehicles will "necessarily be
worth less in the marketplace because of their decrease in
performance and increased wear on their cars' engines.

The lawsuit seeks reimbursement for a proposed nationwide class of
consumers who purchased or leased the affected vehicles, as well
as injunctive relief and equitable relief for FCA and Bosch's
misconduct related to the design, manufacture, marketing, sale and
lease of affected vehicles.

Wolfsburg-based VW faces an industry-record $16.5 billion, and
counting, in criminal and civil litigation fines after admitting
last year that its diesel cars were outfitted with a "defeat
device" that lowered emissions to legal levels only when it
detected the vehicle was being tested.

Volkswagen has agreed to a settlement with U.S. regulators that
calls for the company to spend about $10 billion to fix or buy
back about 475,000 polluting 2.0-liter vehicles as a part of a
$14.7 billion deal between regulators and the beleaguered German
automakers. Under that agreement, Volkswagen will compensate
owners who purchased the diesels before September 2015 with
payments of $5,100 to $10,000, depending on the age of the car.

The class-action lawsuit involving the diesel emissions
allegations against Fiat Chrysler is unrelated to other litigation
earlier this year involving a gear shifter on more than 1.1
million vehicles that may confuse drivers as well as
investigations by federal officials into the automaker's monthly
sales reporting practices.


FIELDTURF USA: Newark School System Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
FloorDaily reports that FieldTurf USA's legal troubles intensified
on December 7 as the Newark, New Jersey school system filed a
class-action lawsuit against the company, alleging that it had
defrauded more than 100 schools in the state by knowingly selling
them faulty athletic fields, according to NJ.com.

"The nine-count complaint, which largely relies on NJ Advance
Media's reporting, alleges FieldTurf violated the state Consumer
Fraud Act by concealing knowledge of the turf's problems, and by
failing to change marketing and advertising claims," reports the
site.  "The suit also alleges breach of contract, negligence and
unjust enrichment."

FieldTurf officials have strongly denied allegations of fraud and
say they did not hide problems with the turf from customers.
What's more, they maintain the turf's deterioration does not
affect player safety.

FieldTurf has been replacing fields that fail while under
warranty.

The suit only covers New Jersey, though establishments in
California, New York, Texas, Washington, Pennsylvania, Illinois
and Massachusetts have fields in question as well.


FIELDTURF: Bloomfield Township Reacts to Duraspine Controversy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erin M Roll, writing for NorthJersey, reports that a brand of
athletic turf used on two Bloomfield township fields is coming in
for increased scrutiny due to a recent media report.

But Parks and Recreation Director Mike Sceurman said on Dec. 9
that the township has not been experiencing any issues with its
two Duraspine fields, aside from expected wear and tear in high-
traffic sections of the fields.

Vassar Field and the Clark's Pond South Field both have Duraspine
surfaces, and Mr. Sceurman said that both fields were last redone
in 2010.

Duraspine is a brand of turf formerly manufactured by the company
FieldTurf.  NJ Advance Media did a multimedia report called "The
100-Yard Deception," alleging that Duraspine fields start to
deteriorate well before the warranty runs out.  The report also
alleged that the manufacturers had concealed this from would-be
buyers for several years.

Mr. Sceurman said that it was truthful to say that Bloomfield has
not experienced the same issues that some other Duraspine field
owners have experienced.  "Whether we're lucky, or it's a
combination of luck and maintenance, it's hard to say," he said.

Mr. Sceurman said that Bloomfield does twice-a-year maintenance on
the fields, with an outside contractor coming in to replenish the
pellets and check for any debris.  This is in addition to routine
checks by both the Department of Public Works and the Parks and
Recreation staff, he said.  And the township also does concussion
testing, involving dropping a weighted ball on key parts of the
field to simulate a player hitting the ground.

Mr. Sceurman said that Vassar is an all-turf field, except for the
pitcher's mound, while Clark's Pond is both turf and clay.

He mentioned that the fields' drainage systems had performed very
well, including during a recent town tournament that took place
following a heavy rainstorm.  "Five minutes after the rain stopped
we were playing baseball again," he said.

Glen Ridge's Washington Field is outfitted with a FieldTurf
surface as well, but Glen Ridge Parks and Recreation Director
Jim Cowan said on Dec. 9 that the field uses another specific
model known as Revolution.

"It's several generations ahead of Duraspine," Mr. Cowan said,
noting that Duraspine was produced in the early 2000s.

Washington Field was outfitted with its current turf surface in
2015.

FieldTurf released a statement to the media denying the
allegations of the NJ Advance Media report.  In a statement on its
website, the company said, "The idea that we kept it quiet or
covered it up is simply not accurate.  We sued our fiber supplier,
publicly declaring what we believed the defect to be and stating
which types of customers we expected to be impacted." The company
also claims that 96 percent of its Duraspine fields in New Jersey
have made it through their warranty period and beyond.

Several municipalities and school districts are reported to be
filing a class action lawsuit against FieldTurf.

On Dec. 7, the New Jersey School Boards Association announced, via
a statement on its website, that it would be assisting boards of
education in exploring legal action against FieldTurf.  "The news
reports should anger anyone concerned about corporate
responsibility, the health of students and the preservation of
limited resources," NJSBA Executive Director Lawrence S. Feinsod
stated.  "They allege fraud and deception that bilked taxpayers
out of millions of dollars."

Mr. Sceurman said he was confident that Bloomfield would get
several more years of use out of the turf fields.  However, he
said that the township would be following the continuing news
coverage and the ongoing class action lawsuit.  If there was an
opportunity for the township to recoup some of the money it had
spent on installing the Duraspine fields, he said that the
township would look into taking advantage of it.

"No matter what kind of turf you have, you can't expect it to last
forever," he said.


FLOWERS FOODS: Settles North Carolina Class Action for $9-Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
On December 9, 2016, Flowers Foods, Inc. and Flowers Baking Co. of
Jamestown, LLC, reached an agreement to settle Rehberg et al. v.
Flowers Foods, Inc. and Flowers Baking Co. of Jamestown, LLC, a
class action lawsuit that was filed in March 2013 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
(Charlotte Division).  The settlement provides for payment of $9.0
million, comprised of $5.2 million in settlement funds and $3.8
million in attorneys' fees.  The settlement also contains certain
non-economic terms that are intended to strengthen and enhance the
independent contractor model, which remains in place. This
agreement, which covers approximately 270 distributor territories,
is subject to court approval.

                   About Flowers Foods, Inc.

Flowers Foods, Inc. (NYSE:FLO) is a producer and marketer of
bakery products. The Company operates in two segments: direct-
store-delivery segment (DSD Segment) and warehouse delivery
segment (Warehouse Segment).  The DSD segment's production plant
locations include Birmingham, Alabama; Opelika, Alabama;
Tuscaloosa, Alabama; Goldsboro, North Carolina; Jamestown, North
Carolina, and Oxford, Pennsylvania. The Warehouse Segment's
production plant locations include Montgomery, Alabama; Texarkana,
Arkansas; London, Kentucky; Tucker, Georgia; Cedar Rapids, Iowa
(mix plant); Cleveland, Tennessee, and Crossville, Tennessee.  The
Company's DSD Segment operates approximately 40 bakeries that
market a range of bakery foods, including breads, buns, rolls,
tortillas and snack cakes.  The Warehouse Segment produces frozen
bread and rolls, and snack cakes.  The Warehouse Segment's
Company-owned brands include Mrs. Freshley's, European Bakers and
Broad Street Bakery.


GENERATIONS HEALTHCARE: Smith Seeks to Certify Health Aides Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled as DEANGELA SMITH, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v.
GENERATIONS HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-00807-ALM-TPK (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff moves the Court
to enter an order conditionally certifying the case as a
collective action for unpaid wages pursuant to Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

A conditional class is defined as:

   "all current and former Home Health Aides or other job titles
   performing similar job duties employed by Generations
   Healthcare Services, LLC and/or Generations Too, LLC at any
   time since August 19, 2013, who worked over 40 hours per week
   and were not paid overtime for hours worked over 40 in a
   workweek".

The Plaintiffs move the Court to enter an order:

   1. approving the Court-authorized notice and consent to sue
      form;

   2. compelling Defendants to produce within 14 days of the
      Order granting the motion, the full name, all known
      addresses, e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers of the
      potential class members;

   3. permitting Plaintiff's Counsel to send within 14 days of
      receipt of the Class list from Defendants, the Court-
      authorized notice and consent to sue form via US Mail and
      electronic mail to putative class members;

   4. requiring Defendants to post a copy of the Court-authorized
      notice in its facility;

   5. allowing 90 days for putative Class members to return their
      consent to sue form to Plaintiff's counsel for filing with
      the Court; and

   6. appointing the undersigned counsel, Johnson Becker, PLLC,
      and Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Rafferty &
      Proctor, P.A. as counsel for members of the putative class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zVkY7IO5

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William F. Cash III, Esq.
          Brandon L. Bogle, Esq.
          LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS,
          MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, PA
          316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 435 7059
          E-mail: bcash@levinlaw.com
                  bbogle@levinlaw.com

               - and -

          Jacob R. Ruseh, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          Saint Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436 1800
          Facsimile: (612) 436 1801
          E-mail: jrusch@jonhsonbecker.com
                  mnephew@jonhsonbecker.com


GEO GROUP: Court Dismisses "Gold" Suit
--------------------------------------
John E. Steele granted the defendants' motions to dismiss,
rejecting the plaintiff's amended complaint in the case captioned
BERNARD DAVID GOLD, Plaintiff, v. GEO GROUP INC., Operator of GEO,
MIKE CARROLL, Secretary DCF, GEORGE ZOLEY, GEO Group Inc., KRISTIN
KANNER, Director SVP, DONALD SAWYER, Dr., Facility Director FCCC,
CHRIS CATRON, Security Director FCCC, WILLIAM PRICE, Health
Administrator FCCC, BRIAN MASONY, DCF Attorney FCCC, and REBECCA
JACKSON, Defendants, No. 2:16-cv-73-FtM-29MRM (M.D. Fla.).

Bernard David Gold, proceeding pro se, is a civil detainee at the
Florida Civil Commitment Center (FCCC) in Arcadia, Florida.  On
January 14, 2016, Gold and 18 other residents and former residents
of the FCCC filed a putative class action complaint challenging
the constitutionality of the Florida statutes governing the civil
commitment of sexually violent predators and raising a litany of
additional individual-specific claims regarding the residents'
treatment at the FCCC.  The Court denied class certification and
dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted.  However, each
individual plaintiff was permitted to file his own separate
amended complaint.

Gold filed an amended complaint on March 23, 2016.  As relief,
Gold requested that "substantial changes be made to Florida's sex
offender civil commitment scheme," and sought two million dollars
in punitive and compensatory damages.

Three motions were filed seeking dismissal of Gold's amended
complaint:

     (1) the motion to dismiss filed on August 12, 2016 by Chris
         Catron, Rebecca Jackson, Brian Masony, William Price,
         and Donald Sawyer;

     (2) the motion to dismiss filed on August 12, 2016 by Mike
         Carroll and Kristin Kanner; and

     (3) the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint
         filed on September 14, 2016 by GEO Group, Inc. and
         George Zoley.

All three motions to dismiss generally asserted that Gold's
amended complaint contains vague, confusing allegations that
simply do not make sense, preventing any defendant from properly
addressing the allegations raised against them.  The motions also
urged that the amended complaint should be dismissed because it
failed to comply with the Court's earlier order to amend.  Carroll
and Kanner further argued that, to the extent the Court considers
the claims in the amended complaint on their merits, they are
entitled to qualified immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Carroll and Kanner also argued that they are entitled to dismissal
of the claims against them because the lawsuit is based solely
upon their supervisory roles, and respondeat superior liability is
not addressable under 42 U.S.C. section 1983.

Judge Steele found that, as argued by the defendants, Gold's
failure to describe in sufficient detail the unconstitutional
actions taken by the individual defendants makes it impossible for
these defendants to meaningfully reply to, or otherwise defend
against, the allegations against them.  Judge Steele also found
that despite clear instructions regarding his obligation to submit
a cogent, decipherable complaint, Gold merely cut and pasted
portions of the prior class-action complaint to the amended
complaint without complying with the order to amend and without
explaining exactly how each named defendant is alleged to have
violated his constitutional rights.

Judge Steele also found that the allegations appeared to be based
upon findings by the United States District Court of the District
of Minnesota in the case captioned Karsjens v. Jesson, 109
F.Supp.3d 1139 (D. Minn. 2015), that portions of the Minnesota
statutes governing sexually violent predators (Minnesota SVP
statutes) are facially unconstitutional.  Gold appeared to believe
that the Florida SVP statutes are either identical to, or similar
enough to, the Minnesota SVP statutes that the Minnesota court's
analysis applies equally to the Florida SVP statutes.  Judge
Steele, however, held that this assumption is incorrect.  The
judge, therefore, dismissed the following allegations regarding
the facial unconsitutionality of the Florida SVP statutes, for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted:

     -- any claims based upon allegations that the probable cause
        hearings as described in the Florida SVP statutes are
        unconstitutional (because they are conducted ex parte and
        without the benefit of counsel);

     -- any claims based upon allegations that the Florida SVP
        statutes are unconstitutional because they do not provide
        for period assessments of a detainee's mental condition
        or a "judicial by-pass mechanism";

     -- any claims predicated upon the alleged facial
        unconstitutionality of the Florida SVP statutes as they
        relate to release criteria;

     -- any claims challenging the facial constitutionality of
        the Florida SVP statutes as they relate to the detainees'
        burden of proof; and

     -- any claims challenging the facial constitutionality of
        the Florida SVP statutes as they relate to the
        defendants' requirement to take affirmative action on
        behalf of individuals who no longer satisfy the criteria
        for continued commitment.

Judge Steele likewise dismissed Gold's equal protection claim and
First Amendment access claim for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.

Because all claims were dismissed, Judge Steele no longer
addressed Carroll's and Kanner's arguments regarding qualified
immunity, Eleventh Amendment immunity, and respondeat superior
liability.

A full-text copy of Judge Steele's December 2, 2016 opinion and
order is available at https://is.gd/pEyoLW from Leagle.com.

GEO Group Inc., George Zoley, Donald Sawyer, Chris Catron, William
Price, Brian Masony, Rebecca Jackson are represented by:

          Gregory A. Kummerlen, Esq.
          WIEDERHOLD, MOSES, KUMMERLEN & WARONICKI, PA
          340 Columbia Dr., Suite 111
          West Palm Beach, FL 33409
          Tel: (561)615-6775
          Fax: (561)615-7225

Mike Carroll, Kristin Kanner are represented by:

          Katelyn Brooke Wright, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL


GEORGIA: Reaches Milestone in Child Protection Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Georgia officials have entered
an agreement that could provide a way out of a decade-old court
order that has cost the state millions to revamp its child
protection system.

The deal marks a milestone in a class-action lawsuit filed when
some said the state's system for abused and neglected children was
in shambles, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.

That 2002 case focused on foster children in Fulton and DeKalb
counties, where caseloads were through the roof and many children
lived in dirty, overcrowded shelters that exposed them to
violence, sexual assault and drugs.

State child protection officials in 2005 agreed to a formidable
set of court-ordered mandates and monitoring.

This latest agreement, approved this month by a federal judge in
Atlanta, acknowledged the state's improvement and the system's
increasing stability.  The case is known as the Kenny A. lawsuit.

"The fact that we are preparing to exit Kenny A. is a testament to
the hard work of our staff" and the support of state leaders, said
Bobby Cagle, who took the reins of the state Division of Family
and Children Services in 2014.  "The key thing is that we will be
able to control our own destiny as an agency."

However, Mr. Cagle acknowledged that two to four years may pass
before the state is free of court oversight.  The state must do
more work to reduce caseloads, stabilize a front-line staff
plagued by high turnover, and phase out the use of hotels to house
foster children.

Once released, the state can then direct certain funding that had
been spent on the lawsuit to better the lives of foster children
across the state, he said.

The new agreement comes at a time of increasing challenges for the
state child protection system, which has seen a significant
increase in the number of children entering foster care.  The
number of foster children has risen from 7,600 in 2013 to 13,266
in October of this year.

That's a 75 percent increase that officials attribute in part to a
new centralized call-in system.  Some advocates also point to the
increasing abuse of prescription drugs, especially opioids, which
lead some addicted parents to neglect their children.

The explosive rise in foster children has contributed to a severe
shortage of foster homes.

The state has already made strides in reducing caseloads,
improving response times to allegations of abuse, and ensuring
that foster kids are kept healthier and safer, said Ira Lustbader
of Children's Rights, a New York-based group that has brought
similar lawsuits across the country.  The shelters in Fulton and
DeKalb were shut down in 2003.

The new agreement modifies several of the 31 performance measures
set for the agency in 2005, some of which have become outdated and
others that proved too difficult to meet and maintain.  Over the
years, the state has been unable to shake itself free from the
court mandate, and has spent some $12 million on legal fees
associated with the case, Cagle said.

Mr. Lustbader said he is confident that the state, once released
from the court agreement, will not revert to its troubled ways. He
said the agreement will put in place an infrastructure that will
sustain it.

State Rep. Mary Margaret Oliver, D-Decatur, said she believes the
state has made enough progress to where it can move toward exiting
the court order.  She wants to see some of the money spent on
tracking, experts and lawyers used to help children in the system.


GLOBAL SERVICE: Class Certification Sought in Hofer" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled as JOSEPH HOFER, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL SERVICE GROUP
LLC and DOE DEFENDANT 1, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-11391
(N.D. Ill.), Mr. Joseph Hofer asks the Court to certify a
Telephone Consumer Protection Act case as a class action for the
following classes of similarly-situated persons:

   "all persons whose cell phone, on or after a date four years
   prior to the filing of this action, GSG called using an
   unattended message with respect to the alleged debt of
   another".

   Excluded is any person who provided his number to either
   defendant.

The Plaintiff further requests that the Court appoint Plaintiff
Joseph Hofer as class representative, and his attorneys as class
counsel.

Global Service Group used an automatic telephone dialing system to
make repeated, prerecorded-voice debt collection calls to the cell
phones of Plaintiff and others without their prior express
consent. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act and implementing
regulations and FCC orders (collectively, TCPA), prohibit any
person or entity from "mak[ing] any call (other than a call made
for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of
the called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system or
an artificial or prerecorded voice to any telephone number
assigned to a cellular telephone service[.]" The statute provides
for injunctive relief and minimum damages of $500 per violation,
which can be trebled where the statute was "willfully or
knowingly" violated.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SXoLK0Zy

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Robert T. Healey, Esq.
          HEALEY LAW, LLC
          640 Cepi, Suite A
          Chesterfield, MO 63005
          Telephone: (314) 401 3261
          Facsimile: (636) 590 2882
          E-mail: bob@healeylawllc.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Settles Rate Rigging Class Action For $77.3 Million
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond at Financial Review reports that Goldman Sachs has
agreed to pay US$56.5 million ($77.3 million) to resolve a U.S.
class action lawsuit accusing it and other banks of rigging an
interest rate benchmark used in the US$553 trillion derivatives
market.

The proposed settlement was disclosed in papers filed in federal
court in Manhattan on December 16. It came after seven other banks
agreed in May to pay a combined US$324 million to resolve the
litigation.

As part of the deal, Goldman has also agreed to provide lawyers
for the plaintiffs evidence including transaction data, documents
and witness interviews, which could be used in litigations against
the remaining banks, the court papers said.

Neither a spokesman for Goldman Sachs nor a lawyer for the
plaintiffs immediately responded to a request for comment late on
Friday.

The case is one of many pending in Manhattan federal court
accusing banks of conspiring to rig rate benchmarks, securities
prices or commodities prices.

In the lawsuit, several pension funds and municipalities accused
14 banks, including those that settled, of conspiring to rig the
"ISDAfix" benchmark for their own gain from at least 2009 to 2012.
Companies and investors use ISDAfix to price swaps transactions,
commercial real estate mortgages and structured debt securities.

The lawsuit accused the banks of executing rapid trades before the
rate was set each day. It said the banks also caused UK brokerage
ICAP to delay trades until they moved ISDAfix where they wanted,
and post rates that did not reflect market activity.

U.S. and European regulators have also examined whether ISDAfix
was set properly. The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission
has secured settlements of US$115 million with Barclays in May
2015 and US$250 million with Citigroup in May 2016.

To date in the class action, seven other banks have settled,
including JPMorgan Chase & Co, Bank of America, Credit Suisse and
Deutsche Bank.

The remaining defendants are BNP Paribas, HSBC Holdings, Morgan
Stanley, Nomura Holdings, UBS, Wells Fargo & Co and ICAP, lawyers
for the plaintiffs said.


HAL HAYS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Duarte" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Duarte and Able Galicia, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Hal Hays Construction, Inc.,
Heritage Transportation, Inc. and Doe 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. BC643928 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 13, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay the Plaintiffs and other
current and former truck driver employees for all hours worked and
off-the-clock work.

Hal Hays Construction, Inc. owns and operates a construction
company located at 4181 Latham St, Riverside, CA 92501.

Heritage Transportation, Inc. owns and operates a freight shipping
and trucking company in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen Glick, Esq.
      M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN GLICK
      1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1480
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 387-3400
      Facsimile: (213)387-7872
      E-mail: sglick@glicklegal.com


HARTFORD, IN: Judge Weighs in on Sex Offender Ordinance
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BRIAN VALENTI, on his own behalf and on
behalf of a class of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
HARTFORD CITY, INDIANA, Defendant, Cause No. 1:15-CV-63-TLS (N.D.
Ind.), Judge Theresa L. Springmann granted in part and denied, in
part, the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment.  The
judge also granted in part and denied, in part, the defendant's
cross-motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiff, Brian Valenti, was convicted in California in 1993
of a sex offense involving a child under the age of 14, and was
therefore required to register as a sex offender under Indiana
law.  Shortly after he moved to Hartford City in 2014, a member of
the police department informed Valenti about the Hartford City
Ordinance 2008-01, titled "Regulation of Sex Offenders," as
amended by Ordinance 2015-10.

Valenti on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, sued
the City of Hartford City, Indiana.  Valenti asserted that the
Ordinance is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and violates the
Indiana Constitution's prohibition against ex post facto
punishment.

For the due process challenge, Judge Springman has certified a
class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
23(b)(2).  The class includes all persons who currently, or will
in the future, live in, work in, or visit Hartford City, Indiana,
and who are, or will be, sex offenders as defined in Amended
Ordinance 2008-01.  The relief sought for the class was injunctive
and declaratory.  Valenti also sought damages on his own behalf.

Valenti moved for Partial Summary Judgment as to liability.  The
City responded by filing a Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.

Judge Springman found that the effects of the Ordinance "are so
punitive in nature as to constitute a criminal penalty."  The
judge found that the Ordinance imposes substantial affirmative
restraints that are historically considered punishment and
triggered by a past criminal conviction, and does so in a manner
that is excessive in relation to the Ordinance's stated purpose.
The judge found that the Ordinance violates the Indiana
Constitution's prohibition on ex post facto laws because it
imposes burdens that have the effect of inflicting greater
punishment on Valenti than what could have been imposed in 1988
when he committed the crime.  Judge Springman thus held that
Valenti is entitled to a judgment that applying the Ordinance to
him violates Indiana's ex post facto laws.

Judge Springman also found that the Ordinance does not provide
minimum guidelines to govern law enforcement's determination of
what kind of circumstances would suggest that a person's purpose
is to satisfy an unlawful sexual desire.  The judge found that the
Ordinance does not sufficiently distinguish between innocent
conduct and conduct threatening harm and that it remains ambiguous
what kind of circumstances would suggest to a reasonable person
that the reason a person is loitering or circulating around a
place is to accomplish one of the prohibited purposes.  Judge
Springman thus concluded that the Ordinance fails to provide
adequate guidance and authorizes arbitrary and discriminatory
enforcement.

In his Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Valenti requested that
the Court "[p]ermanently enjoin Ordinance 2008-01."  Judge
Springman agreed insofar as the plaintiff is asking that the City
be enjoined from enforcing the Ordinance against him because it
would be an ex post facto punishment.  The judge, however, does
not find a basis for the request if Valenti is asking that the
Ordinance be permanently enjoined as to all individuals or all
class members.

A full-text copy of Judge Springmann's December 1, 2016 opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/IFJkoD from Leagle.com.

Brian Valenti, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth J. Falk --
kfalk@aclu-in.org -- ACLU of Indiana.

Hartford City Indiana, Defendant, represented by Eric M. Wilkins
-- ewilkins@hsk-law.com -- Hunt Suedhoff Kalamaros LLP & Linda A.
Polley -- lpolley@hsk-law.com -- Hunt Suedhoff Kalamaros LLP.


HOEGH AS: BC Court May Hear RoRo Price Fixing Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Kyle R. Taylor, Esq. -- ktaylor@agmlawyers.com -- of Affleck
Greene McMurtry LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that a
court may hear a price fixing action against foreign defendants
that never had any business presence in the jurisdiction if the
defendants allegedly participated in a conspiracy that impacted
the jurisdiction, a British Columbia court recently confirmed.

The case was Ewart v. Nippon Yusen Kabushiki Kaisha, a class
action alleging anticompetitive conduct by operators of roll-
on/roll-off ships that are used to transport vehicles.  The claim
alleged the defendants had conspired to limit competition and
increase prices for the worldwide shipment of vehicles.  The
proposed class consisted of purchasers of new vehicles the
defendants shipped.

Two of the defendants, Hoegh AS, of Norway, and Hoegh U.S. were
based outside Canada and claimed to have no business presence in
British Columbia.  According to Hoegh, the only shipments it made
to Canada were to Nova Scotia.  It made no shipments to British
Columbia.

Hoegh argued that because it had no presence in British Columbia
and did not ship any vehicles sold there, the British Columbia
court did not have jurisdiction to hear the action against it.
The plaintiff responded that the court could hear the action
against Hoegh under a British Columbia statute providing that a
court may hear a proceeding against a party if there is a "real
and substantial connection" between the province and the facts on
which the proceeding is based.

The court held that it could hear the action against Hoegh because
the plaintiff had established a real and substantial connection
between the alleged price fixing conspiracy and British Columbia.
The plaintiffs generalized pleadings alleged that the defendants,
including Hoegh, "allocated sales, territories, customers or
markets for supply of Vehicle Carrier Services".  The court
distinguished the Ontario decision Shah v. LG Chem, Ltd., which
held that the plaintiff there failed to establish a real and
substantial connection to Ontario because it did not show a "good
arguable case" that the foreign defendant did anything that
contributed to the alleged conspiracy.  In Shah, the foreign
defendant had filed affidavit evidence denying participation in
any conspiracy, while Hoegh did not submit such evidence.  Even
though, according to Hoegh, the conspiracy allegations were "thin
and general", absent any evidence to the contrary, the court could
accept the plaintiff's pleadings as true in order to hear the case
against the foreign defendant.

The decision demonstrates the risk foreign companies face of
having to answer for price fixing claims in Canada even in
provinces where the company does not conduct any business.
Foreign defendants may have trouble escaping such litigation
unless they can show they did not participate in the alleged
wrongdoing.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about
your specific circumstances.


IMPRIMIS PHARMA: Sobol's Placeholder Bid for Class Cert. Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled as DR. LOUIS L. SOBOL, M.D., a Michigan
resident, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. IMPRIMIS
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-14339-NGE-
EAS (E.D. Mich.), Dr. Louis L. Sobol moved the Court for entry of
an order certifying a class of:

   "each person that was sent one or more telephone facsimile
   messages promoting the commercial availability or quality of
   property, goods, or services from "ImprimisRX" but not stating
   on its first page that the recipient may make a request to the
   sender not to send any future ads and that failure to comply
   with such a request within 30 days is unlawful."

The Plaintiff filed the motion soon after the filing of its Class
Action Complaint in order to avoid an attempt by Defendant(s) to
moot Plaintiff's individual claims in this class action. However,
in this case, additional discovery is necessary for the court to
determine whether to certify the class Plaintiff seeks to
represent. As a result, Plaintiff will seek leave to pursue class
discovery as soon as practicable.

A copy of the Motion dated Dec. 13 is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=niowlQTU

Two days after the filing of the request, the Hon. Nancy G.
Edmunds entered an order denying the Plaintiff's placeholder
motion.  The Court said, "The general rule, which prompted
Plaintiff's motion, is that a court must dismiss a class action if
the named plaintiff's individual claim becomes moot before class
certification. Wilson v. Gordon, 822 F.3d 934, 942 (6th Cir.
2016). But an exception to this rule sometimes applies where the
defendant's actions mooted the plaintiff's individual claim.
Id. at 947. Courts refer to this exception as the "picking off"
exception, and the Sixth Circuit has applied it in various
circumstances for over thirty years. See id. at 948 (citing
Blankenship v. Secretary of HEW, 587 F.2d 329, 331-33 (6th Cir.
1978)). In light of Wilson, the Court cannot identify a reason for
granting Plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff's class action will not
become moot if Defendant "picks off" his individual claims, so a
placeholder class certification is unnecessary. See Compressor
Eng'g Corp. v. Comfort Control Supply Co., 2016 WL 4502467 (E.D.
Mich. Aug. 29, 2016).

A copy of the Order dated Dec. 15 is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3Po53EIb

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Robert M. Hatch, Esq.
          Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
          David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St,, Ste. 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658 5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658 5555

               - and -

          Richard Shenkan, Esq.
          Shenkan Injury Lawyers, LLC
          P.O. Box 7255
          New Castle, PA 16107
          Telephone: (800) 601 0808
          Facsimile: (888) 769 1774


INDONESIA: Jakarta Governor Faces Class Action Over Blasphemy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Coconuts Jakarta reports that FPI leader Habib Novel filed a civil
lawsuit against Jakarta Governor Basuki "Ahok" Tjahaja Purnama for
Rp 204 million to cover cost of his own private investigation into
Ahok's blasphemy case.  On Dec. 8, yet another lawsuit against the
governor was filed -- a Rp 407 billion class action lawsuit that
its initiators assert is being filed on behalf of all Muslims in
Indonesia.

The lawsuit was filed by Ali Lubis, the vice chairman of the
lawyers group Advokat Cinta Tanah Air (ACTA).  Another member of
ACTA, Gerindra Party politician and lawyer Habiburokhman, filed
the other lawsuit against Ahok on behalf of Novel.

"The group being represented in this lawsuit is all Indonesian
citizens who are Muslims, and the group's representative is Ali
Hakim Lubis, an Indonesian Muslim citizen," ACTA lawyer Ali
Nurhayati said on Dec. 8 as quoted by Detik.

Nurhayati said the lawsuit is based on Article 98 of the Criminal
Code which allow victims of crime to demand compensation for their
cases.  He did not specify what material damages Ahok's alleged
blasphemy caused to all Muslims in Indonesia, but Nurhayati did
say his team was ready to corroborate the claim with evidence,
witnesses and experts.

The ACTA lawyer said the lawsuit's key demand was compensation
amounting to Rp 470 billion.  It also asks that Ahok be forced to
purchase advertisements in nine national newspapers to issue an
apology to all Muslims (despite the fact that there are already
literally thousands of new stories about his numerous past
apologies already).

"[We are asking that] that the defendant be punished by paying
damages to the plaintiff for material losses amounting to Rp 470
billion that would be distributed to all members of the group in
the form of Muslim worship facilities that would be coordinated by
the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) in every major city throughout
Indonesia," Nurhayati said.

To say that this civil lawsuit is on behalf of all Muslims in
Indonesia seems like quite a stretch, considering that less than
half of all Indonesians believe Ahok actually committed blasphemy.
We're also wondering how exactly Ahok's words could have possibly
caused Rp 470 billion worth of material damages to Muslims, unless
ACTA is planning to argue that Ahok should be held responsible for
the costs of organizing the massive protests against him.  Which
wouldn't be a very surprising argument for them to make,
considering that they also think Ahok should repay Habib Novel for
the money the FPI leader spent privately investigating Ahok's
alleged crime.


JC PENNEY: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Advertising
--------------------------------------------------------
Shan Li, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that the Los
Angeles city attorney's office has sued four big retailers,
alleging  deceptive advertising that it says misled shoppers into
believing that thousands of products were on sale at a hefty
discount.

The retailers -- JC Penney, Sears, Kohl's and Macy's -- falsely
advertised high "list" or "regular" prices on merchandise that was
never actually for sale at that price, according to the lawsuits
filed on Dec. 8 in Los Angeles County Superior Court. That led
customers to believe that they were getting a better bargain with
the "sale" price than they actually were.

These tactics -- called false reference pricing -- "play a major
role in the companies' overall marketing and business strategies,"
the L.A. city attorney's office said in a statement.

JC Penney said it "doesn't comment on pending litigation." Macy's
said it does not "comment on litigation matters."  Sears declined
to comment, while Kohl's did not respond to a request for comment.

California law bans retailers from touting a higher original price
unless a product was actually for sale at that price within three
months of the ad running.  Retailers are also allowed to advertise
a higher former price if the ad "exactly and conspicuously" states
the date when that price was in effect.

"Customers have the right to be told the truth about the prices
they're paying -- and to know if a bargain is really a bargain,"
City Atty. Mike Feuer said in the statement.

Online shopping has increasingly given consumers the power to
comparison shop from the comfort of their couches.  But the rise
of Amazon.com has put pressure on traditional retailers to draw
eyeballs to their own websites, analysts said.

"Brick-and-mortar retailers have a major problem," said
Ron Friedman, a retail expert at advisory and accounting firm
Marcum in Los Angeles.  "It's very difficult for them to compete
because the millennials and youth today want to shop online."

The kind of pricing tactics described in the lawsuits are endemic
to the retail industry today, Mr. Friedman said.  Savvy shoppers,
however, have become used to looking at the sale price instead of
the advertised original price.

Even retailers that do sell products at the list price will often
start dropping the price within a few weeks, he said.

"There is no regular-priced merchandise, especially in stores like
Sears or Kohl's or T J Maxx," he said.  "The whole category is all
about the sale price."

The lawsuits, which are seeking civil penalties and injunctions to
prohibit such practices, cite several recent examples of false
advertising.

In February, JC Penney began selling a maternity bathing suit top
online for a "sale" price of $31.99, down from an "original" price
of $46, according to one suit.  That top was later marked down to
$21.99 and then $14.99 -- all the while compared to $46. However,
it was never for sale at $46, the suit alleges.  The highest price
was $31.99.

High-ticket items were also subject to this kind of inaccurate
pricing.

Sears, for example, began selling a front-loading Kenmore washer
in April, according to one suit.  On the first day it appeared
online, Sears showed the washer on sale at $999.99, down from
$1,179.99 -- even though it was never sold for more than $999.99.

"As time went on, the item had a series of different false
discounts," the suit alleges. Sears eventually discounted the item
down to $649.99 while "falsely advertising a discount from the
$1,179.99 false reference price."

This is not the first time that retailers have gotten in trouble
for false reference pricing schemes.

In 2015, class action lawsuits were filed against JC Penney and
Kohl's accusing the retailers of tricking customers by inflating
original prices.  JC Penney eventually settled the suit for $50
million in cash and store credit to customers, and Kohl's agreed
to pay $6.15 million.


JETSUITE INC: Ward Asks Court to Approve Deal, Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CARLY WARD, on behalf of herself and on
behalf of a Class of all other persons similarly situated
Plaintiff, v. JETSUITE, INC., an unknown business entity,
JETSUITEX, INC., an unknown business entity, SUPERIOR AIR
CHARTER, LLC, an unknown business entity, DELUX PUBLIC CHARTER,
LLC, an unknown business entity, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-00584-AG-AS (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court on January 23, 2017, at 10:00 a.m
before the Hon. Andrew J. Guilford, for preliminary approval of
the parties' joint stipulation of settlement of her California
class action claims, and entry of an order conditionally
certifying the collective and class action claims for settlement
purposes.

The Plaintiff said, "The proposed Settlement is fair, adequate,
and reasonable and in the best interests of the Class as a whole,
and the procedures proposed by the parties are adequate to ensure
the opportunity of class members to participate in, opt out of, or
object to the Settlement".

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0SYojF7K

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard E. Quintilone Ii, Esq.
          Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq.
          QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
          22974 El Toro Road Suite 100
          Lake Forest, CA 92630-4961
          Telephone: (949) 458 9675
          Facsimile: (949) 458 9679
          E-mail: REQ@QUINTLAW.COM
                  ABL@QUINTLAW.COM


JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Federman & Sherwood Reminds Investors of Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 13, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington
against Juno Therapeutics, Inc.  If you purchased Juno
Therapeutics, Inc. shares prior to or between June 4, 2016 and
July 7, 2016 and still hold the stock and wish to join this
litigation as a potential derivative plaintiff, please contact our
office as soon as possible. Federman & Sherwood has extensive
experience and expertise in prosecuting securities litigation
involving financial fraud. We represent investors throughout the
country in shareholder litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:

         Robin Hester
         FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
         10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
         Oklahoma City, OK 73120
         E-mail: rkh@federmanlaw.com


KARIS MANAGEMENT: Faces "Gertie" Suit in Ill. Over Value Meal
-------------------------------------------------------------
James W. Gertie, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Karis Management Company, Inc. d/b/a
McDonald's, Case No. 2016CH16080 (Ill. Cir. Ct., December 13,
2016), arises out of McDonald's restaurants' misleading
advertisement of a food combination designated an "Extra Value
Meal" but the combination actually costs more than if each item
were bought separately, thus making it no "value" at all, let
alone an "extra value."

Karis Management Company, Inc. operates more than 10 McDonald's
restaurants in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul F. Markoff, Esq.
      Karl G. Leinberger, Esq.
      MARKOFF LEINBERGER LLC
      134 N LaSalle St Ste 1050
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 726-4162
      Facsimile: (312) 674-7272
      E-mail: paul@markleinlaw.com
              karl@markleinlaw.com


LEONE HALPIN: "Palin" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned TRACY PALIN, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. LEONE HALPIN,
LLP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00369-JES-MRM (M.D. Fla.),
the Plaintiff moves the Court to certify a class consisting of:

   "all Florida citizens who were the subject of debt collection
   activity from LEONE HALPIN, LLP in an attempt to collect a
   debt incurred for personal, family or household purposes who
   were sent demand letters not returned undelivered by the U.S.
   Post Office during the one year period prior to filing the
   original complaint in this action through the date of class
   certification".

In an amended complaint, the Plaintiff alleges violations of the
Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, and the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GM8G03PI

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maria R. Alaim, Esq.
          VILES & BECKMAN, LLC
          6350 Presidential Court, Suite A
          Fort Myers, FL 33919
          Telephone: (239) 334 3933
          Facsimile: (239) 334 7105
          E-mail: Maria@vilesandbeckman.com


LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Scroggins Seeks Class & Subclass Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled MARILYN R. SCROGGINS, on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LIFEPOINT
HEALTH, a corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00338-WKW-
CSC (M.D. Ala.), Marilyn R. Scroggins moves to certify a class and
subclass of persons who received healthcare treatment from a
healthcare facility owned or operated by the Defendant.

The Class consists of:

   "all persons in the United States who received any kind of
   healthcare treatment from any healthcare facility owned or
   operated by LifePoint Health, while covered by health
   insurance or while a participant in a group health and welfare
   plan, and who, within six years preceding the commencement of
   this action, paid directly or indirectly, or were billed,
   amounts for covered treatment in excess of their copays and
   deductibles".

Excluded from the Class are (1) the officers, directors, and
employees of LifePoint Health, and healthcare facilities owned or
operated by LifePoint Health; and (2) all judicial officers of the
United States who preside over or hear this case, and all persons
related to them as specified in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455(b)(5).

The Unjust Enrichment Subclass consists of:

   "all persons in the United States who received any kind of
   healthcare treatment from any healthcare facility owned or
   operated by LifePoint Health, while covered by health
   insurance or while a participant in a group health and welfare
   plan, and who, within six years preceding the commencement of
   this action, paid, directly or indirectly, amounts for covered
   treatment in excess of their copays and deductibles".

Excluded from the Class are (1) the officers, directors, and
employees of LifePoint Health, and healthcare facilities owned or
operated by LifePoint Health; and (2) all judicial officers of the
United States who preside over or hear this case, and all persons
related to them as specified in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455(b)(5).

Defendant's billing of its insured patients for amounts exceeding
their copays and deductibles violated the provider agreements
entered into between the insured patients' health insurers/group
health plans and Defendant's hospitals. Defendant has unjustly
enriched itself with revenues it was not entitled to keep.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John E. Goodman, Esq.
          Hillary C. Campbell, Esq.
          BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
          One Federal Place
          1819 Fifth Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203-2104
          Telephone: (205) 521 8000
          Facsimile: (205) 521 8800
          E-mail: jgoodman@bradley.com
                  hcampbell@bradley.com


MADISON, IL: Dismissal of "Bueker" Claim vs RLI Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SCOTT BUEKER et al., Appellants, v. MADISON
COUNTY, ILLINOIS, et al. (RLI Insurance Company, Appellee), No.
120024 (Ill.), the Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the
judgments of the appellate court and the circuit court of Madison
County dismissing the plaintiffs' claim against RLI Insurance
Company (RLI).

Plaintiffs brought this action in their own interest and on behalf
of a purported class of similarly situated persons to recover
damages resulting from an alleged scheme to inflate the interest
rate delinquent property taxpayers in Madison County, Illinois,
were compelled to pay to those who purchased delinquent taxpayer
debt.  The alleged conspiracy scheme was perpetrated by the former
Madison County Treasurer and Collector, Fred Bathon, who
purportedly agreed with certain defendants to manipulate the
delinquent tax purchasing system.  The plaintiffs brought suit
against those involved in the scheme, as well as Madison County.
The plaintiffs also brought suit directly against the defendant,
RLI, the entity acting as surety on Bathon's statutory public
official bond required as the Madison County Treasurer and
Collector.

RLI moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim against it pursuant to
section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  RLI argued that the
plaintiffs are not the proper claimants under the terms of the
public official bond or under the statutes that require its
procurement.  The circuit court granted RLI's motion to dismiss
with prejudice, upon determining that the plaintiffs were not
proper parties to seek redress directly against the public
official bond.  The appellate court affirmed.

The Supreme Court of Illinois stated that the proper claimant on a
statutory public official bond is the named obligee, unless the
legislature has expressed in the statutory language its intent to
allow others to sue directly on the bond.  The Court further
stated that Section 3-10003 of the Counties Code and section 19-40
of the Property Tax Code require the covered public official to be
the named principal and "the People of the State of Illinois" to
be the named obligee.  The Court found nothing, either expressly
or by implication, in section 3-10003 of the Counties Code or
section 19-40 of the Property Tax Code indicating a legislative
intent that private citizens may sue for damages on the public
official bond running only to "the People of the State of
Illinois" as obligee.  Accordingly, the Court held that, under the
plain language of section 3-10003 of the Counties Code and section
19-40 of the Property Tax Code, the plaintiffs are not proper
claimants against the statutory public official bond required for
county collectors and treasurers.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's December 1, 2016 opinion
is available at https://is.gd/9WRFIV from Leagle.com.


MANALAPAN, FL: Dismissal of "Navellier" Suit Partly Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit affirmed in
part and vacated, in part, the district court's dismissal of the
plaintiffs' claims in the case captioned LOUIS NAVELLIER, WENDY
NAVELLIER, individuals, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE OF
FLORIDA, TOWN OF MANALAPAN, a Florida township, Defendants-
Appellees, No. 16-11994 (11th Cir.).

Louis and Wendy Navellier filed a civil-rights suit in federal
district court against the State of Florida and the Town of
Manalapan, seeking a refund of the $232,000 they paid under
protest to satisfy a judgment the Town obtained against them and
to avoid losing their home.  The Navelliers' home was located on a
1.2-acre parcel of land in Manalapan and had been claimed by the
Navelliers as a homestead.  The Navelliers also sought a
declaratory judgment that Florida's homestead exemption is
unconstitutional because it treats municipal homeowners who claim
homestead protection for homes located on parcels of land larger
than a half-acre unequally, and to prospectively enjoin the
defendants from enforcing judgments against the homestead property
of such municipal homeowners.  The plaintiffs styled their suit as
a class action, brought on behalf of all similarly-situated
Florida municipal homeowners who have claimed a homestead
exemption on properties larger than a half-acre, and they sought
to be certified as the lead plaintiffs.

The district court found that the Navelliers lacked standing and
dismissed the claims without prejudice for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).  The court
alternatively found that the complaint was subject to dismissal on
the merits for failure to state a claim, under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6).  The Navelliers appealed, challenging both the district
court's standing and merits determinations.

After careful review, the Eleventh Circuit agreed with the
district court that the Navelliers lacked standing to pursue their
claims against the State of Florida and their claims for
declaratory and injunctive relief against both defendants, the
State and the Town, and affirmed the district court's dismissal
without prejudice of those claims.

The Eleventh Circuit concluded, however, that the Navelliers had
standing to pursue their claim for damages against the Town,
though the appellate court agreed that the complaint failed to
state a claim on the merits.  Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit
vacated the dismissal without prejudice of the Navelliers' damages
claim and remanded for the district court to dismiss that claim
with prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Eleventh Circuit's December 1, 2016 ruling
is available at https://is.gd/yYXaJN from Leagle.com.

Laura K. Wendell -- lwendell@wsh-law.com -- Daniel Lawrence Abbott
-- dabbott@wsh-law.com -- Carrol Y. Cherry Eaton --
carrol.cherryeaton@myfloridalegal.com -- Trevor Christopher Jones,
for Defendant-Appellee.

Lyubov Zeldis, Samuel Kornhauser, for Plaintiff-Appellant.


MAXIMUS INC: "Harvey" Suit Won't Proceed as Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled as REGIS HARVEY, AMANDA COLLINS, ANDREA
MCDONALD, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MAXIMUS INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:14-cv-00161-BLW (D. Idaho), the Hon. B. Lynn Winmill entered an
order denying Plaintiffs' motion to Certify a class.

The Court said, "Plaintiffs' fraud and promissory estoppel claims
clearly require a showing of individual reliance, and there are
too many unanswered questions in this case to establish a
presumption of reliance. For example, did each individual class
member rely on the offer letters' language of a career opportunity
when accepting employment? And, if not, did the class members rely
on an oral promise of career employment? If so, what exactly was
said in each individual interview to each class member that could
have been a promise, and were these oral promised said in exactly
the same way in every interview? Clearly there are fundamental
issues of reliance here that Plaintiffs have not provided answers
to. Further, in depositions, the named Plaintiffs did not
establish that they relied on written or oral representations of
career employment in accepting the positions at MAXIMUS. The Court
cannot presume reliance on a class-wide basis when there are clear
discrepancies and unanswered questions regarding individual
reliance for each plaintiff. Discovery is over in this case, and
Plaintiffs have not shown that presumed
reliance is proper here. Because individual issues of reliance
clearly predominate over any common issues, the predominance
element of Rule 23(b)(3) is not met. Because Plaintiffs have
failed to meet the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a) and
the predominance standard of Rule 23(b)(3), the Court need not
discuss the remaining elements of Rule 23(a) or Rule 23(b)(3) and
declines to do so. As such, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify
class is denied."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=s5DcpGfY


MCBURNEY CONCRETE: "Paz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan A. Paz and Alejandro Zelaya, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. McBurney Concrete Construction,
Inc., Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC643762 (Cal.
Super. Ct., December 13, 2016), seeks to recovery of overtime,
minimum and premium wages and waiting time penalties pursuant to
the California Labor Code.

McBurney Concrete Construction, Inc. owns and operates a
construction company located at 501 W Glenoaks Blvd, Glendale, CA
91202.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen Glick, Esq.
      M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN GLICK
      1055 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1480
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 387-3400
      Facsimile: (213)387-7872
      E-mail: sglick@glicklegal.com


MCDONALD'S: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk at Cook County Record reports that a Des Plaines
man has brought a consumer fraud class action against a suburban
Chicago McDonald's franchisee, alleging the restaurant group
should be made to pay for allegedly false advertising on its menu,
as the group's pricing of its two cheeseburger "Extra Value Meal"
causes customers to pay 41 cents more than they would if they just
ordered their two burgers, fries and drink separately.

On Dec. 13, plaintiff James Gertie filed suit in Cook County
Circuit Court against McDonald's and local franchise business
Karis Management Company. According to the lawsuit, the Des
Plaines-based Karis group owns and operates "more than 10" Chicago
area McDonald's restaurants, including at least five in Des
Plaines and Niles.

Gertie is represented in the action by attorneys Paul F. Markoff -
- paul@markleinlaw.com -- and Karl G. Leinberger --
karl@markleinlaw.com -- of Markoff Leinberger LLC, of Chicago.

According to the complaint, Gertie purchased a Two Cheeseburger
Meal from at least five of Karis' McDonald's restaurants in Des
Plaines and Niles from Oct. 14 to Nov. 13. Each time, the lawsuit
said, Gertie was charged $5.90 for the meal.

However, the lawsuit said, posted menu prices indicated the
restaurants would have sold Gertie and other customers two
cheeseburgers for $2.50, a medium order of French fries for $1.99
and a medium soft drink for $1 -- a total of $5.49.

Yet, the lawsuit said, the Two Cheeseburger Meal posted on the
menu for $5.90 was advertised as a "Extra Value Meal," despite the
customer being charged more for the bundled meal, rather than the
a la carte order.

"Defendant, the operator of several McDonald's restaurants,
advertised for sale a food combination designated as an 'Extra
Value Meal' but the combination actually costs more than if each
item were bought separately, thus making it no 'value' at all, let
alone an 'extra value,'" the lawsuit said.

Gertie and his lawyers have asked the court to expand their
lawsuit to a class action, to potentially include hundreds of
others who may have purchased the cheeseburger meals at Karis'
locations, including the restaurants in Des Plaines and Niles and
others in Wheeling, Antioch, Grayslake and Volo.

The lawsuit asks the court to award plaintiffs the amount they
were overcharged, as well as asking the defendants to repay all
overcharges. The lawsuit further requests punitive damages and
attorney's fees.


MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE: Verma Seeks Certification of 2 Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled RAJESH VERMA, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE GROUP, INC., a Florida corporation d/b/a/
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL JACKSONVILLE; NPAS, INC., a Tennessee
corporation; and MEDICREDIT, INC., a Missouri corporation, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00427-HLA-JRK (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff seeks certification of two classes of similarly situated
persons defined as follows:

Medicredit Class:

   "i. all persons residing in the territorial United States,
   excluding the Court and its staff; ii. who was the subscriber
   of a cellular telephone number; iii. To which Medicredit
   placed a telephone call using the Noble Dialing System; and
   iv. for which Medicredit's records reflect a DNK code in the
   period starting July 14, 2015 and through the date of
   certification";

NPAS Class:

   "i. all persons residing in the territorial United States,
   excluding the Court and its staff; ii. who was the subscriber
   of a cellular telephone number; iii. to which NPAS placed a
   telephone call using the Genesys Dialing System; and iv. For
   Which NPAS's records reflect a Smart Code of either 11, 13,
   15, 42, 584, or 770 in the period starting April 11, 2012 and
   through the date of certification".

According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in a widespread
practice of placing robocalls to third parties who did not owe the
debts that they were trying to collect, and who therefore did not
consent to receive the robocalls. Defendants' records identify
hundreds of thousands of these calls.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xj27aQoF

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Murphy, Esq.
          MURPHY LAW FIRM
          1212 S.E. 2nd Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 763 8660
          E-mail: rphyu@aol.com
                  rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com

               - and -

          Eric W. Kem, Esq.
          THE KEM LAW FIRM, P.A.
          2233 N.W. 41st Street, Suite 700-H
          Gainesville, FL 32606
          Telephone: (352) 275 7151
          E-mail: ekem@kemlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 West Monroe, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726 1092
          E-mail: keith@keoghlaw.com


MISHAWAKA HOUSING: Court Narrows Claims in "Wright" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr. granted in part and denied, in part,
Mishawaka Housing Authority's (MHA) motion to dismiss and granted
MHA's motion to strike the class allegations in the case captioned
MARY BETH WRIGHT, Plaintiff, v. MISHAWAKA HOUSING AUTHORITY and
COLLEEN OLUND, Defendant, Cause No. 3:15-cv-532 RLM-MGG (N.D.
Ind.).

The plaintiff, Mary Beth Wright, alleged that the MHA and its
former director, Colleen Olund, discriminated against her on the
basis of her handicap when it removed and destroyed her
wheelchair, furniture, and other property while she was
hospitalized.  She also argued that she represents a class of
similarly situated persons.  Ms. Wright based her claims of
discrimination on three anti-discrimination statutes: the Federal
Housing Act Amendments, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and
the Rehabilitation Act.  She also argued that MHA violated the Due
Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution,
and Indiana conversion and constitutional law.

Both defendants moved to dismiss the action and to strike the
class allegations.

Ms. Wright's first argument is that MHA violated her rights under
the Fair Housing Act Amendments when it discriminated against her
on account of her disability.

Ms. Wright's second count is that MHA violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act, which "provide[s] a clear and comprehensive
national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against
individuals with disabilities."

Last, Ms. Wright argued that MHA violated the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973, which makes it illegal for an "otherwise qualified
individual with a disability . . ., solely by reason of her or his
disability, [to] be excluded from the participation in, be denied
the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any
program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance
. . . ."

Judge Miller found that Ms. Wright did not state a plausible claim
of intentional discrimination, as none of the facts alleged
suggest that MHA destroyed Ms. Wright's property precisely because
she's disabled.  The judge found that instead, the facts suggest
only that it did so because she didn't maintain the apartment in a
way that allowed them to treat the bedbug problem.

Judge Miller also found that Ms. Wright stated no plausible claim
based on disparate impact, as Ms. Wright did not allege any
particular practice of MHA or any statistical disparity indicating
that MHA acted in a way that disparately impacted the disabled.

Judge Miller, however, found that Ms. Wright stated plausible
claims that MHA failed to provide a reasonable accommodation under
the anti-discrimination statutes.  Because Ms. Wright pleaded
prima facie claims under the FHAA, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act
based on MHA's alleged lack of reasonable accommodation, Judge
Miller denied MHA's motion to dismiss with respect to her first
three claims.

Ms. Wright's fourth and sixth claims argued that MHA and Ms. Olund
deprived her of due process and equal protection of the law in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Judge Miller found that because Ms. Wright did not allege a
plausible claim based on discriminatory intent, she likewise
didn't allege a plausible Equal Protection Clause claim.  The
judge also found that Ms. Wright did not articulate a plausible
account of how she was denied due process, considering that she
received notice of her upcoming eviction and her obligation to
remove her personal property in time, and that the notice advised
her that she had access to MHA's grievance procedures and the
courts in order to defend against the eviction.  Ms. Wright's
fourth and sixth claims were thus dismissed.

Because Ms. Wright stated a plausible claim for relief under the
anti-discrimination statutes, Judge Miller held that the court has
supplemental jurisdiction to rule on her claims under Indiana law,
whereby "[T]he Indiana Due Course of Law requirement of Article 1,
Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution is analogous to the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."  However, the judge
explained that Ms. Wright did not allege a plausible due process
claim under the United States Constitution, and so she also did
not allege a plausible due course claim under the Indiana
Constitution.

As to Ms. Wright's tortious conversion claim, Judge Miller pointed
out that such claim must plausibly allege that MHA "knowingly or
intentionally exerted unauthorized control over" Ms. Wright's
property.  The judge found that it is enough that Ms. Wright
alleged facts indicating that MHA intended to perform the acts
that deprived her of her right to the property, even if she did
not allege that MHA knew the deprivation to be unauthorized.  The
judge concluded that she has met this burden.

Judge Miller thus denied MHA's motion to dismiss as it applies to
Ms. Wright's fifth claim and granted it as it applies to Ms.
Wright's seventh claim.

MHA also moved to strike all allegations regarding Ms. Wright's
representation of a purported class of absent persons pursuant to
Rules 12(f), 23(c)(1)(A), and 23(d)(1)(D).

Judge Miller found that Ms. Wright did not demonstrate that her
individual claim is "typical" of that of any proposed class.  The
jduge explained that the kinds of accommodations requested by
class members will vary a great deal, as the plaintiffs might have
different handicaps and request different accommodations for them.
Thus, the judge held that whether a proposed accommodation is
"reasonable" will vary a great deal from case to case.  Judge
Miller concluded that Ms. Wright did not show common questions of
law or fact or that her case is typical for the class.  The judge
thus granted MHA's motion to strike class allegations.

In summary, Judge Miller granted MHA's motion to dismiss in part
as to Ms. Wright's fourth, sixth, and seventh claims, denied the
motion in part as to Ms. Wright's first, second, third, and fifth
claims, and granted MHA's motion to strike the class allegations

A full-text copy of Judge Miller's December 1, 2016 opinion and
order is available at https://is.gd/xdEAsn from Leagle.com.

Mary Beth Wright, Plaintiff, represented by Kent Hull, Hull Law
Firm.

Mishawaka Housing Authority, Colleen Olund, Defendants,
represented by Eric L. Samore -- esamore@salawus.com --
SmithAmundsen LLC, pro hac vice, Ronald D. Balfour --
rbalfour@salawus.com -- SmithAmundsen LLC & Steven P. Lammers --
slammers@salawus.com -- SmithAmundsen LLC.


MYER: Judge Tosses Shareholder Litigator's Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Eli Greenblat, writing for The Australian, reports that one-man
shareholder litigator Mark Elliott has lost his bid to wage a
court battle against department store owner Myer, after the
Supreme Court found Mr. Elliott used the court for an
"illegitimate" purpose which was an abuse of process.

Going further, the court found Mr Elliott's statements of evidence
"repeated and rehearsed".

It marks the second time in recent years that Mr Elliott's
interesting business model -- of buying shares in a swath of
publicly listed companies and then launching class actions if a
profit downgrade sparks a collapse in the share price -- has come
under fire from a judge.

A Supreme Court judge in 2014 argued Mr Elliott, a former partner
with Minter Ellison, had likely set up his Melbourne City
Investments (MCI) vehicle for the purpose of launching class
action law suits to generate legal fees for himself.

It was the turn of Justice Michael Sifris of the Supreme Court who
handed down his judgment on MCI's court case against Myer,
relating to the retailer's profit downgrade in 2015, which sent
shares in the company plummeting.

Justice Sifris has ordered a permanent stay against the
proceedings brought by Mr Elliott's MCI and labelled the case an
abuse of process.

"Why then has MCI commenced this proceeding?," Mr Sifris said in
his 37 page ruling on Dec. 9.

"If the predominant purpose is to generate income for Elliott and
or his associates it is an abuse of the process.  If however, the
income, such as it may be, simply flows from the vindication of
legal rights, being, the predominant purpose of the proceeding, it
is not an abuse of the process."

But Justice Sifris found the former to be true.

"In my opinion the court's process has been engaged for an
illegitimate or collateral purpose and accordingly the proceedings
is an abuse of process.  The predominant purpose of this
proceeding is to generate, not legal fees, but income or revenue
for interests associated with Elliott."

MCI had alleged losses and damage resulting from a statement made
in the context of Myer's full-year 2014 results, and a public
forecast given by former Myer chief executive Bernie Brookes at
the company's full-year results presentation on September 11,
2014.  Myer shares slumped in March 2015 after the company was
forced to admit it would not meet its full-year profit consensus
forecasts.

Mr Elliott, a one-time senior executive at Computershare, set up
MCI as a vehicle to launch shareholder class actions against
listed companies.  He quickly began scooping up small parcels of
shares in more than 145 publicly-listed companies, sometimes
investing less than $700 in each company.

He has particularly focused on companies that have issued profit
downgrades which have then led to substantial falls in stock
prices.

In 2013 MCI began separate shareholder class actions against
Treasury Wine, Leighton and WorleyParsons, claiming failure to
properly disclose price-sensitive information related to profit
downgrades as well as misleading or deceptive conduct.

In 2014 Mr Elliott suffered a setback when the Supreme Court of
Victoria fired a broadside at his business model, arguing he had
likely set up his Melbourne City Investments vehicle for the
purpose of launching class action law suits to generate legal fees
for himself.

The comments were made in relation to Mr Elliott's actions against
Treasury and Leighton who banded together to have their cases
thrown out of court, citing abuse of process.


NARCONON: Judge Wu Denied Bid to Certify Class & Subclass
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Connie L. Rana, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
Narconon of Northern California, et al., the Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-02182-GW-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. George H. Wu entered an
order denying without prejudice these class and subclasses:

The Class:

   "all individuals in the United States who paid for drug
   rehabilitation services at Narconon Centers owned or operated
   by NFS during the Class Period and (1) who did not sign an
   admission agreement, or (2) whose admission agreement does not
   contain a mandatory arbitration clause".

The California Subclass:

   "all individuals in the United States who paid for drug
   rehabilitation services at Narconon Centers owned or operated
   by NFS within the State of California during the Class Period
   and (1) who did not sign an admission agreement, or (2) whose
   admission agreement does not contain a mandatory arbitration
   clause"' and

The Nevada/Texas/Colorado Subclass:

   "all individuals who paid for drug rehabilitation services at
   Narconon Centers owned or operated by NFS with the states of
   Nevada, Texas, and Colorado during the Class Period and (1)
   who did not sign an admission agreement, or (2) whose
   admission agreement does not contain a mandatory arbitration
   clause".

The Court said, "The class definitions as proposed in the
[Plaintiffs'] reply brief continues to be overbroad and does not
address all of Defendants' concerns, particularly that satisfied
class members suffered no damages. The revised language proposed
by Plaintiffs necessarily sweeps in individuals who paid for the
drug rehabilitation services but were not exposed to any
misrepresentations or omissions of material facts regarding the
success rate or the secular nature of the Program".

The Court held that Plaintiffs' belated revisions of their class
definitions in their moving and reply was procedurally improper
because Defendants had no opportunity to fully respond to the
revised definitions. This impropriety is fatal to the Motion to
Certify. The Court will not consider revised class definitions
absent an amended complaint, or at a minimum a new motion for
class certification with delineated class definitions that do not
morph during the briefing process.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5BdkBxr3

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gretchen M. Wilson, Esq.
          Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP
          936 N 34th St. Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816 6603
          E-mail: info@terrellmarshall.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          William H. Forman, Esq.
          Peggy Dayton, Esq.
          SCHEPER KIM & HARRIS
          Telephone: (213) 613 4682
          Facsimile: (213) 613 4656
          E-mail: wforman@scheperkim.com


NATIONAL SERVICE: "Meyer" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MELISSA MEYER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL
SERVICE BUREAU INCORPORATED, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-
05264-RGK-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on
August 1, 2017, at 9:00 a.m., before the Hon. R. Gary Klausner,
for an order granting Plaintiff's motion for class Certification
of:

   "all persons within the United States who received any
   telephone calls from Defendant to said person's cellular
   telephone made through the use of any automatic telephone
   dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice and such
   person had not previously consented to receiving such calls
   within the four years prior to the filing of the Complaint."

The Plaintiff will also move the Court for appointment of
Plaintiff as Class Representative, and for appointment of
Plaintiff's attorneys as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=09MK2Y6S

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF
          TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          324 S. Beverly Dr., No. 725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com


NBTY INC: CAF Files Motion to Intervene in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Frank Bednarz, writing for Competitive Enterprise Institute,
reports that the Center for Class Action Fairness filed a motion
to intervene and seek disgorgement from for-profit "professional
objectors" in Pearson v. NBTY, Inc., a case dealing with allegedly
deceptive marketing practices by makers of health supplements.

The Center became involved in the case in 2014 when it objected to
a class action settlement that would have provided attorneys $4.5
million but less than $900,000 to the class.  On appeal, the
Seventh Circuit agreed and reversed approval of the "selfish"
settlement.  Thanks to the Center's objection, the parties
negotiated a new settlement providing the class with more than $3
million additional recovery.  The new settlement was approved
August 25, 2016.

The new settlement was opposed by three professional objectors --
that is, objectors who threaten to hold up class action
settlements unless they are paid to go away.  Courts and
commentators have criticized professional objectors, who
essentially demand blackmail from settling parties.  In this case,
defendants paid professional objectors to drop their appeals,
which they did November 7.

The Center opposes professional objectors who provide no benefit
to class members, so it filed a motion for CCAF Director Ted Frank
to intervene and disgorge the objector blackmail.  If the motion
is granted, the quid pro quo payments to the three objectors in
this case will be disbursed fairly to all class members.

Disgorgement will also deter professional objectors nationwide
from bringing objections solely for their own personal profit with
no benefit to the class.  With fewer poorly-argued and
unmeritorious objections brought by self-interested professionals,
courts may better evaluate arguments by good-faith objectors --
like the Center for Class Action Fairness.


NELSON & WATSON: Court Certifies Settlement Class in "Maldonado"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ALFREDO MALDONADO, on behalf of himself and
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.NELSON, WATSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLC; CBE GROUP; and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:15-cv-05940-MAH (D.N.J.), the Hon. Michael Hammer
certified a settlement class defined as:

"all Consumers who reside in the State of New Jersey to whom
Nelson, Watson & Associates, LLC or CBE Group mailed a written
communication during the period beginning August 3, 2014, and
ending August 3, 2015, in an attempt to collect a debt on behalf
of Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., which were mailed in a windowed
envelope such that certain alpha numeric information associated
with the consumer's debt was visible from the outside of the
envelope".

The Court:

   1. defines the "Class Claims" as those claims arising from
      Defendants' collection letters, which were mailed in a
      windowed envelope such that certain alpha numeric
      information associated with the consumer's debt was visible
      from the outside of the envelope;

   2. appoints Plaintiff as the Class Representative;

   3. appoints Plaintiffs' counsel, Andrew T. Thomasson, Philip
      D. Stern, and Yongmoon Kim as Class Counsel; and

   4. appoints Dahi Administration as the Settlement
      Administrator to administer notice to the class and the
      settlement.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dNTxHv8f


NEW ALLIANCE: Consumer Can't Bring TCPA Class Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allan Enriquez, writing for insideARM, reports that the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held in a
non-precedential opinion that a consumer, in the circumstances of
this case, did not have standing to bring putative class action
claims after entry of judgment in his favor on his individual
claims pursuant to the defendants' offer of judgment under Rule 68
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A consumer filed an individual and putative class action alleging
that several companies violated the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act , 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, and New York's General
Business Law, Sec. 399-p.

The district court dismissed the consumer's putative class action
claims for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction after the entry
of judgment in his favor pursuant to an offer of judgment under
Rule 68.  The consumer appealed.

The Second Circuit began its analysis by addressing its prior
ruling in Tanasi v. New Alliance Bank, 786 F.3d 195 (2d Cir.
2015).  There, the Second Circuit, contrary to the opinion of
other circuits, held that an unaccepted offer of settlement or
judgment, on its own, will not moot a plaintiff's claims.
However, any individual claims are rendered moot where a judgment
has been entered and plaintiff's claims have been satisfied.
Subsequently, the Supreme Court of the United States in Campbell-
Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016), came to the same
conclusion as the Second Circuit.

The Second Circuit noted that it had not addressed the issue of
whether, in all cases, the rendering moot of a plaintiff's
individual claims undermines the plaintiff's standing to pursue
claims on behalf of a putative class.  In Tanasi, the Second
Circuit explicitly left open the question of whether unresolved
class action claims can ever provide an independent basis for
justiciability.  Ultimately, the Court decided not to reach this
question here because the consumer did not have any connection to
a "live claim of his own" or any cognizable interest in pursuing
the class claims.

The Second Circuit cited Campbell-Ewald for the rule that Article
III limits federal court jurisdiction to cases and controversies
at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is
filed.  The Court then distinguished the effect of a putative and
a certified class.

The Second Circuit determined that although a certified class may
obtain independent status for purposes of standing, where the
individual claims of the putative class representative are
rendered moot prior to certification, in general, the entire
action becomes moot.  Consequently, the Court held that because
the consumer was the sole individual representative for the
putative class, once his claim was no longer live, no plaintiff
remained in a position to pursue the class claims.

The Court acknowledged that in certain circumstances the rendering
of a named plaintiff's individual claim as moot will not remove
the basis for the associated class action.  However, the Court
determined that none of those circumstances applied to the
consumer.  For example, the Second Circuit examined the relation
back doctrine, which occasionally allows a court to review a class
certification decision even after a plaintiff's individual claims
have been rendered moot.  But that line of cases was inapplicable
here because there was no class certification decision or any
other reason to link the consumer's once-live claim to the now-
independent class claims.

The Second Circuit then rejected the consumer's argument that his
expectation of an incentive reward as representative of the
putative class gave him a personal stake in the class litigation.

The Court noted that standing requires that a plaintiff allege a
concrete injury that creates a legally protected interest in
pursuing the litigation.  The Court determined that the consumer's
interest in a potential incentive award was merely a purely
hypothetical possibility of recovery that did not meet the
standing requirements, because an incentive reward is not
guaranteed but rather solely within the discretion of the district
court after a class is certified and recovery occurs.

Moreover, in this matter there was never a determination as to
whether there might be a cognizable class in this case, as he
never moved for class certification.  Consequently, the Court held
that the consumer did not meet the requirements for standing.

Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the trial
court.


NEW ORIENTAL: Gainey Mckenna Files Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against New Oriental Education & Technology Group
Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey on behalf of purchasers of common stock of New Oriental
Education between September 27, 2016 and December 1, 2016 (the
"Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and/or
misleading statements about: (1) New Oriental's college
application activities; and (2) as a result, Defendants'
statements about New Oriental Education's business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Reuters published an article December 2, 2016 revealing that New
Oriental has been accused of engaging in college application
fraud. The article states "[e]ight former and current new Oriental
employees . . . . told Reuters the firms have engaged in college
application fraud, including writing application essays and
teacher recommendations, and falsifying high school transcripts."
The same day, Reuters released and update claiming that, due to
its earlier report detailing academic fraud allegations at New
Oriental, the American International Recruitment Council ("AIRC")
"will investigate the company in response to the report" and the
AIRC's president-elect called the allegations "highly concerning."

On this news, shares of New Oriental fell $6.99 per share from its
previous closing price to close at $42.00 per share on December 2,
2016, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 13, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or
to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston,
Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail
at -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com --  or -- gegleston@gme-law.com --


NEW ORIENTAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc. and certain
of its officers.   The class action, filed in United States
District Court, District of New Jersey, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired New Oriental American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs")
between September 27, 2016 and December 1, 2016, both dates
inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased New Oriental ADRs during
the Class Period, you have until February 13, 2017 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at --
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com -- or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

New Oriental is a Cayman Islands corporation headquartered in
Beijing, People's Republic of China ("PRC"). New Oriental provides
private educational services under the New Oriental brand in the
PRC.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that:  (1) New Oriental engaged in college application fraud; and
(2) as a result, defendants' statements about New Oriental's
business, operations and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On December 2, 2016, Reuters published a report detailing
allegations of academic fraud at the company. Specifically,
Reuters reported that eight former and current New Oriental
employees informed Reuters that New Oriental "engaged in college
application fraud, including writing application essays and
teacher recommendations, and falsifying high school transcripts."

On that same day, Reuters reported that the American International
Recruitment Council, which certifies agencies that recruit foreign
students on behalf of U.S. colleges, will investigate the company
in response to the Reuters report.

On this news, shares of the Company fell $6.99 per share or over
14% from its previous closing price to close at $42.00 per share
on December 2, 2016, damaging investors.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


NORTH AMERICAN POWER: Overcharging Suit Belongs to Dist. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PEGGY ZAHN, Appellant, v. NORTH AMERICAN
POWER & GAS, LLC, Appellee (The People of the State of Illinois ex
rel. Lisa Madigan, Attorney General of Illinois, Intervenor-
Appellant, No. 120526 (Ill.), the Supreme Court of Illinois
answered a question of Illinois law that was certified for
instruction from the Supreme Court by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

Peggy Zahn, a residential consumer of electric power, filed a
class action against the North American Power & Gas, LLC (NAPG) in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.  NAPG is an alternative retail electric supplier (ARES)
within the meaning of section 16-102 of the Electric Service
Customer Choice and Rate Relief Law of 1997, which is part of the
Public Utilities Act.

Zahn's complaint invoked the district court's diversity
jurisdiction and sought damages based on violation of the Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, common-law breach of
contract, and unjust enrichment.

NAPG moved to dismiss Zahn's complaint for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.  The district court
granted that motion.  Zahn then appealed to the Seventh Circuit.

In the appeal, the Seventh Circuit certified the following
question for instruction from the Supreme Court of Illinois: Does
the Illinois Commerce Commission have exclusive jurisdiction over
a reparation claim, as defined in Sheffler v. Commonwealth Edison
Co., 2011 IL 110166, brought by a residential consumer against an
alternative retail electric supplier, as defined by section 16-102
of the Electric Service Customer Choice and Rate Relief Law of
1997?

In assessing whether the district court erred in dismissing Zahn's
complaint, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the dispositive
threshold issue is whether an Illinois state court would have had
subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's claims or
whether exclusive jurisdiction over those claims lies, instead,
with the Illinois Commerce Commission.  The Seventh Circuit
reasoned that if the Commerce Commission alone has jurisdiction to
hear claims of this kind under Illinois law and such claims are
not within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Illinois state
courts, it necessarily follows that a federal district court
sitting in diversity cannot entertain them either.

The Supreme Court answered the question in the negative.

The Supreme Court explained that ARESs were not part of the
traditional regulatory system established to govern public
utilities, and were introduced under the Rate Relief Law as part
of an effort to partially deregulate Illinois's electricity
market.  The Supreme Court pointed out that ARESs are expressly
excluded from the definition of "public utility" under the Public
Utilities Act and are not "electric utilities" under section 16-
102 of the Rate Relief Law, but are simply "nonutilities licensed
to sell retail electricity".  The Supreme Court further pointed
out that, in contrast to public utilities, an ARES's prices are a
matter of contract between the ARES and its customers, and that
the prices they are permitted to charge are not established by the
Commerce Commission through the conventional rate-making process
and do not have to be submitted to the Commerce Commission for
approval under the "just and reasonable" standard.   Accordingly,
the Supreme Court held that the justification for giving the
Commerce Commission exclusive original jurisdiction over the
disputes involving rates charged by public utilities is absent
where the complaint concerns overcharging by an ARES.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's December 1, 2016 opinion
is available at https://is.gd/mDn2Re from Leagle.com.


NZK PRODUCTIONS: Ex-Production Assistant Sues Over Meal Breaks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Maddaus, writing for Variety, reports that a former
production assistant on ABC's "The Bachelor" has filed a class-
action lawsuit alleging that he did not get adequate meal breaks.

Connor Eckert, a production assistant from September 2014 to
October 2016, alleges that NZK Productions -- the company behind
the long-running reality series -- violated California labor laws.
The suit alleges that P.A.'s were not afforded 30-minute meal
breaks and paid rest periods, and NZK did not provide accurate
wage statements.  The suit seeks class status on behalf of all of
the company's production assistants in California.

NZK did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Wage-and-hour suits are not uncommon in the reality TV world,
where workers tend to be non-union.  In 2009, several networks and
reality show producers agreed to a $4 million class action
settlement.  Fremantle Media, the producer of "American Idol," was
subsequently sued on similar grounds, as was 495 Productions, the
company behind "Jersey Shore."

The Writers Guild of America, West, has long campaigned against
producers, accusing them of denying meal breaks to non-union
reality show writers.

California has some of the strictest labor laws in the country,
making it a prime target for plaintiffs' attorneys in other
industries as well.


ORLEANS PARISH: Deceased Inmate's Family Sues Sheriff
-----------------------------------------------------
Christopher Knoll, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that
Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin Gusman has been sued by the family
of 34-year-old Orleans Parish inmate Calvin Thomas (a.k.a Calvin
Deal).

The family claims Mr. Thomas' death was wrongful and a result of
the prison allegedly being understaffed and inhabited by abusive
employees.

The suit was filed in mid-November, almost a year to the day of
Mr. Thomas' Nov. 15, 2015, death.

Suffering from sickle-cell anemia and Hepatitis C, the family of
Mr. Thomas claims that his mistreatment was compounded by the
callous disregard by the prison toward the health of inmates,
which they allege was fueled by Sheriff Gusman.

Reportedly in the throes of sickle-cell related pain, Mr. Thomas
purportedly was transported to University Medical Center where he
died three days later.  The suit alleges that medication that
would have helped Mr. Thomas was denied to him.

Mr. Thomas was held at the Orleans Justice Center awaiting trial
for charges related to robbery and drugs.  At the time of his
death, he had been waiting two months for a hearing.  During that
brief stay, family and friends of Mr. Thomas reported that he was
"attacked and stabbed" by another inmate, "choked by a security
guard" inside lockup and repeatedly ignored during bouts of
illness.

Years of reported abuse had earlier resulted in a class-action
suit filed against the prison.  In 2009, the U.S. Department of
Justice released a report citing Orleans Parish Prison as being
infested with abusive guards and teeming with inmate neglect.
Three years later, the sheriff was sued for another inmate's death
(Jones v. Gusman) that resulted in prisoner health care being
addressed at the prison.

Adina Marx-Arpadi of the Orleans Parish Prison Reform Coalition
told the Louisiana Record that another result of Jones v. Gusman
was that the prison was put into "federal receivership" and was
overseen by compliance director Gary Maynard, whose duties began
this past October.  The shift in responsibility, according to
Ms. Marx-Arpadi, is very real.

"The sheriff may weigh in and give advice," Ms. Marx-Arpadi told
the Louisiana Record.  "The compliance director answers only to
the federal court.  The sheriff has virtually no power, and is
sheriff primarily in name only."

Sheriff Gusman further removed himself from an active role in the
prison in 2014 when he agreed to an $83 million contract with
Correct Care Solutions (CCS) that was part of reforms suggested by
the U.S. Department of Justice report.  CCS is a private company
created to provide "medical and behavioral health services for . .
. state hospitals . . . civil commitment centers, as well as
local, state and federal correctional facilities."

Ms. Marx-Arpadi said the CCS contract "was very controversial."

"It was very expensive and was negotiated behind closed doors, and
the IG [inspector general] had some words about it," she said.

For its' first year of operations, the CCS contract called for $15
million to provide "basic health care" to OPP, a total the New
Orleans City Council found "obscenely expensive" given the
skeletal staff CCS was imparting to the prison.

"We're paying for nonexistent employees while (CCS) ramps up --
phantom employees," council president Stacy Head told the
New Orleans Advocate in a 2014 hearing on the matter.

The current lawsuit claims that abuse still exists due to "the
belief that (deputies) can violate the rights of persons . . .
with impunity, and that such conduct will not adversely affect
their opportunities for promotion and other employment benefits."
Correct Care Solutions is also named in the suit.

The Louisiana Record attempted to contact the Orleans Parish
Sheriff's Office for comment but did not receive a response.


PAIN THERAPEUTICS: January 16 Proof of Claim Filing Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION

KB PARTNERS I, LP Individually and
on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

PAIN THERAPEUTICS, INC., REMI
BARBIER, NADAV FRIEDMANN, and
PETER RODDY

Defendants.

Case No.  A-11-CV-1034-SS

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS
MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION.

TO:    ALL PURCHASERS OF THE COMMON STOCK OF PAIN THERAPEUTICS,
INC., DURING THE PERIOD FROM DECEMBER 27, 2010 AND JUNE 26, 2011,
BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD").

Excluded from the Class are defendants, officers and directors of
Pain Therapeutics, Inc., members of their immediate families,
heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which defendants
have or had a controlling interest.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.
YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, that a
hearing will be held on December 16, 2016, at 11 a.m., before
Honorable Sam Sparks, United States District Judge, at the
courthouse for the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas, Austin Division, 501 West Fifth Street, Austin,
TX 78701, for the purpose of determining, among other things,: (1)
whether the proposed Settlement of the Class's claims against the
Settling Defendants for $8.5 million should be approved as fair,
reasonable and adequate; (2) whether the Plan of Allocation is
fair and reasonable, and should be approved; (3) whether the
application by Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses should be approved; (4) whether the Lead Plaintiff/Class
Representative's application for reimbursement of costs and
expenses should be granted; and (5) whether the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice against the Settling Defendants as set
forth in the Settlement Stipulation filed with the Court.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Pain Therapeutics common
stock between December 27, 2010 and June 26, 2011, both dates
inclusive, your rights may be affected by this Action and the
Settlement thereof.  If you have not received the detailed Notice
of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Expenses, and Final Approval Hearing (the "Notice") and Proof
of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain them free of charge by
contacting the Claims Administrator, by mail at: Pain Therapeutics
Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o KCC Class Action Services, P.O.
Box 43372, Providence, RI 02940-3372, by email at
info@paintherapeuticslitigation.com; by telephone at 1 866-348-
7651; or by visiting the website at
www.paintherapeuticslitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Class and wish to share in the
Settlement money, you must submit a Proof of Claim no later than
January 16, 2017 establishing that you are entitled to recovery.
As further described in the Notice, you will be bound by any
judgment entered in the Action, regardless of whether you submit a
Proof of Claim, unless you exclude yourself from the Class, in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, by no
later than November 25, 2016.  Any objections to the Settlement,
Plan of Allocation or attorney's fees and expenses must be filed
and served, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the
Notice, no later than November 25, 2016.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to
Class Counsel: Tamar Weinrib, Esq., Pomerantz LLP, 600 Third
Avenue, New York, NY 10016, taweinrib@pomlaw.com.

INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE
CLERK'S OFFICE, THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL

DATED:  September 1, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR WETERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Lundin Law Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, announces a class action
lawsuit against Pilgrim's Pride Corporation concerning possible
violations of federal securities laws between February 21, 2014
and October 6, 2016 inclusive. Investors, who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period, are reminded to
contact the firm in advance of the December 19, 2016 lead
plaintiff motion deadline.

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.

According to the Complaint, during the Class Period, Pilgrim's
Pride made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: the Company systematically colluded with several of
its industry peers to fix prices in the market for broiler
chickens; that the foregoing conduct constituted a violation of
federal antitrust laws; that Pilgrim's Pride revenues during the
class period were the result of illegal conduct; that as a result
of the above, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times. On October 7, 2016,
Pivotal Research downgraded its peer company Tyson Foods, Inc.
from "buy" to "sell," due to fears of a class action against Tyson
Foods, Pilgrim's Pride, and other peers over price collusion in
the broiler-chicken market. Allegedly, in 2008, Tyson Foods,
Pilgrim's Pride, and several other companies conspired by sharing
proprietary data and reducing production to support prices. When
this news was announced, shares of Pilgrim's Pride fell in value,
which caused investors harm.

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


PILOT CORP: "Wright" Claims Belong to Dist. Court, 11th Cir. Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned WRIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC., Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. PILOT CORPORATION, PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS LLC, d.b.a.
Pilot Flying J, JAMES A. HASLAM, III, JOHN FREEMAN, Defendants-
Appellants, BRIAN MOSHER, MARK HAZELWOOD, Defendants, No. 15-15184
(11th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
reversed the district court's finding that the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA) does not vest the federal courts with original
jurisdiction over state-law claims after the class claims are
dismissed.

In July 2013, Wright Transportation, Inc., an Alabama corporation
that had a fuel-discount contract with Pilot Corporation, Pilot
Travel Centers LLC, d/b/a Pilot Flying J, and the named employees
of each (collectively, "Pilot"), brought a federal lawsuit as a
class action on behalf of itself and others who had fuel-discount
contracts with Pilot.  Wright alleged that Pilot and certain Pilot
employees systematically shortchanged some trucking companies with
whom Pilot had discount agreements by failing to give them the
agreed-upon benefits.  Wright brought several claims against Pilot
under both state and federal law.

Wright first filed suit in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Alabama in July 2013.  Although many of
the claims were based in state law, Wright alleged it was proper
for the court to exercise federal jurisdiction over all of the
claims.

In January 2014, the District Court granted part of the
defendants' motion to dismiss Wright's claims.  In this ruling,
the District Court also dismissed all of the class claims asserted
in the complaint because a rival class-action suit reached a
court-approved settlement in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas.  Wright and Pilot had
acknowledged that the judicial approval of the settlement would
"deprive [Wright] of standing to pursue [its] class claims."
While the District Court dismissed the state-law claims for breach
of contract and unjust enrichment brought for the class, those
claims survived for Wright individually.

Meanwhile, in April 2014, six separate suits were pending against
Pilot in five other federal judicial districts around the country.
At Pilot's urging, these six other suits were consolidated with
Wright's into one multidistrict-litigation (MDL) proceeding in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

In July 2015, the MDL court found new information that deprived it
of diversity jurisdiction over this case.  Yet Pilot urged the MDL
court to retain jurisdiction over Wright's suit because Wright
originally asserted its claims under CAFA.  Without deciding the
question of jurisdiction under CAFA, the MDL court remanded the
case to the Alabama District Court in September 2015.

On remand to the District Court, Wright moved to dismiss its
remaining claims without prejudice so that it could refile in
Alabama state court.  Pilot argued in opposition that the District
Court had original jurisdiction under CAFA and, alternatively,
should continue to retain supplemental jurisdiction.

The District Court dismissed the CAFA argument, finding that CAFA
does not vest the federal courts with original jurisdiction over
state-law claims after the class claims are dismissed.

Pilot argued that the District Court erred in holding it did not
have original jurisdiction over Wright's state-law claims under
CAFA.  Specifically, Pilot argued that CAFA conferred original
jurisdiction over all of Wright's claims at the time Wright filed
them, such that the jurisdiction could not have divested when the
class claims were later dismissed.  Pilot asked the Eleventh
Circuit to rule that once this original jurisdiction is conferred
under CAFA, it sticks for the entire life of the case, such that
it could not be destroyed by later events like the class
settlement in the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Wright argued that the District Court's dismissal of the class
claims after the settlement in the Eastern District of Arkansas
destroyed CAFA jurisdiction.

The Eleventh Circuit, however, noted that settlement occurred
after Wright filed its complaint, and Wright advanced no argument
that the complaint was frivolous or deficient under CAFA at the
time it was filed.  The appellate court found that when the post-
filing action that did away with the class claims is not an
amendment to the complaint, there is no basis for distinguishing
cases originally filed in federal court under CAFA from those
removed to federal court.  The Eleventh Circuit therefore
concluded that CAFA continues to confer original federal
jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims in the suit.

A full-text copy of the Eleventh Circuit's November 22, 2016
ruling is available at https://is.gd/kKHA26 from Leagle.com.

Stephen M. Tunstall, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Mark Christian King -- cking@lightfootlaw.com -- Walter Joseph
McCorkle -- jmccorkkle@balch.com -- Stephen D. Brody --
sbrody@omm.com -- Parker D. Kasmer -- pkasmer@sidley.com -- Glenn
M. Kurtz -- gkurtz@whitecase.com -- Joshua D. Weedman --
jweedman@whitecase.com -- Gregory Starner --
gstanner@whitecase.com -- Martin G. Durkin, Jr. --
martin.durkin@hklaw.com -- Michael Anthony Grill, Simon Auerbach,
Michael P. O'Day -- michael.oday@dlapiper.com -- William Gordon
Ball, for Defendant-Appellant.


POST HOLDINGS: Settles Egg Antitrust Class Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Post Holdings, Inc., a consumer packaged goods holding company, on
Dec. 8 disclosed that it has reached an agreement to settle all
class claims (asserted by direct purchasers of shell eggs) against
Michael Foods, Inc. in In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust
Litigation, a class action lawsuit filed in 2008 in federal court
in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  Michael Foods will
settle all class claims with a $75 million payment.  This
litigation pertains to a timeframe that predates Post's
acquisition of Michael Foods, which was completed in June 2014.

"While we remain confident that our conduct has at all times been
lawful and entirely appropriate, we believe this settlement is in
the best interest of our shareholders, employees, customers and
consumers because it effectively eliminates the distraction,
expense, and exposure of this complex litigation," said
Rob Vitale, President and Chief Executive Officer.

Post expects to record a pre-tax charge in the first quarter of
its fiscal year 2017 for the settlement of this matter, which will
be treated as an adjustment for purposes of calculating Adjusted
EBITDA and other non-GAAP measures.  Under current law, the
settlement is deductible for federal income tax purposes.

The terms of the settlement must be formally documented and are
subject to approval by the court following notice to all class
members.  While Post expects the settlement will receive the
needed approval, there can be no assurance that the court will
approve the agreement as proposed by the parties.  This settlement
does not affect the action filed on behalf of indirect purchasers
of shell eggs (who were unsuccessful in class certification), or
dismissed claims by direct purchasers of egg products (which
dismissal is being appealed).


PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Blue Ash Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BLUE ASH AUTO, INC., ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-
APPELLANTS, v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INS. CO., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-
APPELLEES, Nos. 104251, 104252 (Ohio Ct. App.), the Court of
Appeals of Ohio, Eight District affirmed the decision of the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas which denied class action
certification on the plaintiffs-appellants' claims against the
defendants-appellees.

In the consolidated class action case, the appellants, Blue Ash
Auto, Inc., Finney Automotive Company, Inc., Russell Westfall and
Westfall Auto Sales L.L.C., are independent auto body shops that
have performed repairs on vehicles insured under the policies of
Progressive.  The appellants alleged that Progressive tortiously
interferes with their business practices by dictating what
services and parts it is willing to pay for when appellants are
tasked with repairing a Progressive insured automobile.  The
appellants also alleged that Progressive dictates the labor rates
that it is willing to pay without regard to a particular shop's
rates.  The appellants alleged that these limitations do not
necessarily allow for them to restore an insured's car to its
original, pre-loss condition and that the limitations violate both
Ohio law and Progressive's own insurance policies.  The appellants
sought damages for parts and labor expended in excess of
Progressive's limitations.  The appellants also sought declaratory
relief in the form of an order requiring Progressive to indemnify
them from any liability arising from their compliance with
Progressive's restrictions.

Progressive argued that its practices are part of the competitive
market for auto repair services in Ohio and that its own "Direct
Repair Program" auto body shops are able to repair an insured's
vehicle to its pre-loss condition under the same terms offered to
the plaintiffs.

The trial court denied class certification on both of the
appellants' claims for tortious interference and declaratory
judgment, finding that the appellants failed to meet their burden
under four of the seven requirements set forth in Civ.R. 23(A).

The Court of Appeals of Ohio found no abuse of discretion in the
trial court's conclusions.

The trial court concluded that the appellants cannot maintain
their Civ.R. 23(B)(2) declaratory judgment claim because it is
merely incidental to their damages claim.  The appellate court
agreed with the trial court that any indemnification would be
premised on an initial decision that the estimate provided by
Progressive was inadequate based on the unique facts of each case.
The appellate court found that these issues simply cannot be
resolved on a class-wide basis with any finality without
considering the facts pertinent to a particular instance of
negligent repair.  Because the appellants' desired declaration
would merely lay the foundation for subsequent individualized
determinations of liability, the appellate court concluded that
the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying class
certification on appellants Civ.R. 23(B)(2) declaratory judgment
claim.

The trial court also found that the appellants' proposed class
certification of their tortious interference claim did not satisfy
the predominance requirement of Civ.R. 23(B)(3).  The appellate
court agreed with the trial court that an individualized inquiry
would be necessary for not just each potential class member, but
every separate instance where such class members conducted a
repair under the alleged limitations imposed by Progressive, and
that the court would have to examine each repair and consider
whether the additional services or parts that Progressive
allegedly denied to the particular class member were necessary to
restore the damaged vehicle in question to its pre-loss condition.
The appellate court thus found no abuse of discretion on the part
the trial court in holding that any common questions of law or
fact in the case fail to predominate over the voluminous
individual questions that would need to be resolved.

A full-text copy of the Court's December 1, 2016 journal entry and
opinion is available at https://is.gd/55fTi8 from Leagle.com.

James B. Rosenthal -- jbr@crklaw.com -- Joshua R. Cohen --
jcohen@crklaw.com -- Cohen Rosenthal & Kramer, Hoyt Block
Building, Suite 400, 700 West St. Clair Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio
44113; Dennis A. Becker, 526 Wards Corner Road, Suite A, Loveland,
Ohio 45140; Erica L. Eversman, Eversman Law Offices, 846 N.
Cleveland Massillon Road, Akron, Ohio 44333; Peter D. Traska,
Traska Law Firm, L.L.C., 4352 Pearl Road, Suite A, Cleveland, Ohio
44109, Attorneys for Appellant.

Michael Edward Mumford -- mmumford@bakerlaw.com -- Ernest E. Vargo
-- evargo@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler L.L.P., Key Tower,
Suite 2000, 127 Public Square, Cleveland, Ohio 44114; Michael R.
Nelson -- michael.nelson@sutherland.com -- Sutherland Asbill &
Brennan L.L.P., 1114 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor, New York,
New York 10036, Attorneys for Appellees.


PROSTEAM CARPET: "Wegat" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Wegat and Jeff Puglisi, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Prosteam Carpet Care, LLC, Gina
Krohn, and James F. Krohn, II, Case No. 4:16-cv-01931 (E.D. Miss.,
December 13, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and other relief pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of residential and
commercial cleaning of flooring and upholstery, with a specific
focus on carpet cleaning.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Russell C. Riggan, Esq.
      Samuel Moore, Esq.
      RIGGAN LAW FIRM, LLC
      132 West Washington Avenue, Suite 100
      Kirkwood, MO 63122
      Telephone: (314) 835-9100
      Facsimile: (314) 735-1054
      E-mail: russ@rigganlawfirm.com
              smoore@rigganlawfirm.com


QUICKEN LOANS: "McLemore" Suit Seeks Certification of 4 Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled TAMIKA MCLEMORE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. QUICKENS LOANS
INC., a Michigan corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-
14397-AJT-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff filed a placeholder
motion seeking to certify these classes:

Pre-Recorded Message Class:

   "all persons in the United States who (1) on or after four
   years prior to the filing of this action, (2) Defendant (or a
   third person acting on behalf of Defendant called using a pre-
   recorded message, (3) on the person's cellular telephone, (4)
   for the purpose of selling Defendant's products and services,
   and (5) for whom Defendant claims it obtained prior express
   consent in the same manner as Defendant claims it obtained
   prior express consent to call the Plaintiff";

Autodialed No Consent Class:

   "all persons in the United States who (1) on or after four
   years prior to the filing of this action, (2) Defendant (or a
   third person acting on behalf of Defendant) called using the
   same equipment that was used to call the Plaintiff, (3) on the
   person's cellular telephone, (4) for the purpose of selling
   Defendant's products and services, and (5) for whom Defendant
   claims it obtained prior express consent in the same manner as
   Defendant claims it obtained prior express consent to call the
   Plaintiff";

Do Not Call Registry Class:

   "all persons in the United States who (1) on or four years
   prior to the filing of this action, (2) Defendant (or a third
   person acting on behalf of Defendant) called more than one
   time on his/her cellphone, (3) within any 12-month period, (4)
   where the cellphone number had been listed on the National Do
   Not Call Registry for at least thirty days, (5) for the
   purpose of offering the called party a loan, and (6) for whom
   Defendant claims it obtained prior express consent in the same
   manner as Defendant claims it obtained prior express consent
   to call the Plaintiff"; and

No Mortgage Class:

   "all renters in the United States who (1) on or after four
   years prior to the filing of this action, (2) Defendant (or a
   third person acting on behalf of Defendant) called using a the
   same technology that was used to call the Plaintiff, (3) on
   the person's cellular telephone, (4) for the purpose of
   offering the called party the opportunity to refinance the
   called party's supposed mortgage loan, where (5) Defendant
   claims it obtained prior express consent in the same manner as
   Defendant claims it obtained prior express consent to call the
   Plaintiff".

The Defendant obtained the telephone numbers of thousands of
consumers nationwide -- including Plaintiff and proposed classes
of consumers -- and made unsolicited calls to those consumers to
market its services. Through that conduct, Defendant not only
invaded their personal privacy, it repeatedly violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), a federal statute
enacted specifically to protect consumers from unsolicited calls
like those alleged in the case.

Quicken Loans is a direct-to-consumer home lender; it has provided
home purchase financing products to more than 2 million borrowers
and closed more than $140 billion in mortgage loans in 2013 and
2014 alone.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kvmr0O2q

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          Woodrow & Peluso, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, Colorado 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213-0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
          E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com


RAYONIER INC: Pension Trust Seeks Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit Re: Rayonier Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:14-cv-01395-TJC-JBT (M.D. Fla.), the Pension Trust Fund for
Operating Engineers and the Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust
Fund ask the Court to issue an order:

   1. certifying the action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23
      and certifying the class as defined as:

      "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
      acquired Rayonier Inc. ("Rayonier" or the "Company") common
      stock during the period from October 26, 2010 through
      November 7, 2014, inclusive, and who were damaged (the
      Class).

      Excluded from the Class are (i) Defendants; (ii) members
      of the immediate family of each Individual Defendant; (iii)
      any person who was an officer or director of Rayonier; (iv)
      any firm or entity in which any Defendant has or had a
      controlling interest; (v) any person who participated in
      the wrongdoing alleged; (vi) Defendants' liability
      insurance carriers; (vii) any affiliates, parents, or
      subsidiaries of Rayonier; (viii) all Rayonier plans that
      are covered by ERISA; and (ix) the legal representatives,
      agents, affiliates, heirs, beneficiaries, successors-in-
      interest, or assigns of any excluded person or entity, in
      their respective capacity as such.

   2. appointing Operating Engineers and Lake Worth as Class
      Representatives; and

   3. appointing Lead Counsel as Class Counsel.

According to the complaint, Rayonier and its former senior
executives made a series of misrepresentations and omissions about
the Company's harvesting practices in its critical Pacific
Northwest Region, claiming that Rayonier was harvesting well below
the "sustainable" level and accurately reporting its "merchantable
timber." The Company's later admissions of the true facts caused
its stock price to plummet 20%, wiping out nearly a billion
dollars of market capitalization. In situations like this, courts
across the country have recognized that class
certification is appropriate. Led by two institutional investors -
- the type that Congress envisioned should lead securities fraud
class actions -- this case is ideally suited for class treatment,
as it satisfies each of the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vx99L2im

Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs the Pension Trust Fund for Operating
Engineers and the Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust
Fund and Lead Counsel for the Class:

          David R. Stickney, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Uslaner, Esq.
          Brandon Marsh, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
          & GROSSMANN LLP
          12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 793 0070
          Facsimile: (858) 793 0323
          E-mail: davids@blbglaw.com
                  jonathanu@blbglaw.com
                  brandon.marsh@blbglaw.com

Counsel for Lead Plaintiff the Lake Worth Firefighters

          Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
          KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN,
          JENSEN & LEVINSON
          7080 Northwest 4th Street
          Plantation, FL 33317
          Telephone: (954) 916 1202
          Facsimile: (954) 916 1232
          bob@robertdklausner.com


RED APPLE: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Conway" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Conway, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Red Apple Consultants, LLC, TEG Staffing Inc. d/b/a
Eastridge Workforce Recruitment, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. CGC-16-555896 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 13, 2016),
arises out of the Defendant's uniform policy and systemic scheme
of wage abuse against their hourly paid employees in California.

The Defendants own and operate an industry, business, and
establishment in San Francisco, California, for the purpose of
assisting customer store owners with sale campaign and
merchandising to increase sales of products at the store level.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mattew Righetti, Esq.
      John Glugoski, Esq.
      Micheal Righett, Esq.
      RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, PC
      456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 983-0900
      Facsimile: (415) 397-9005


REPUBLIC SERVICES: "Taylor" Suit Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CHARLES TAYLOR and RICHARD LaBRYER,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-00502 (S.D, Tex.), the Plaintiffs move the Court for
conditional certification and notice to putative class Members:

In order to facilitate the purposes of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) collective action provisions, the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to provide the following relief to Plaintiffs:

   1. order Republic to produce to Plaintiffs' counsel within 14
      days of the granting of this Motion, in a computer-readable
      format such as Excel, the contact information (including
      the names, addresses, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses,
      employee identification numbers, dates of birth, dates of
      employment with corresponding locations of employment and
      whether employed as residential, industrial, or commercial
      driver's license numbers and social security numbers) for
      each Putative Class Member;

   2. approve the form and content of Plaintiffs' proposed
      judicial notice and reminder notice;

   3. order that judicially-approved notice be sent to all
      Putative Class Members via First Class Mail and e-mail, and
      allow the hiring of a third-party administration company,
      for use at Plaintiffs' discretion;

   4. authorize Putative Class Members to execute their consent
      forms electronically;

   5. authorize a 60-day notice period for Putative Class Members
      to join the case; and

   6. approve that notice be sent to the Putative Class Members
      twice -- the first time within 30 days of receiving the
      list of Putative Class Members from Republic and a second
      time 30 days after, but only to those Putative Class
      Members who have not yet submitted their Consent Forms; and

   7. For any such other relief as this Court deems just and
      proper.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ayvS2roC

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          Anderson2X, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: austin@a2xlaw.com
                  clif@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com


ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL: Rich Seeks to Certify Drivers Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled NICHOLAS E. RICH, an individual; on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL SERVICES, LLC; CENTRAL CAL TRANSPORTATION,
LLC; MORGAN SOUTHERN, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-07330-DMG-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs will move on February 17, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., the
Court for a class certification.

The Plaintiffs claim that Defendants have misclassified their
drivers as independent contractors rather than as employees and,
as such, have (1) failed to provide Plaintiffs with meal periods
pursuant to California Labor Code and California Industrial
Welfare Commission Order; (2) failed to provide Plaintiffs with
rest breaks; (3) failed to pay Plaintiffs minimum wages; (4)
failed to pay Plaintiffs all wages upon separation (5) failed to
furnish Plaintiffs with timely and accurate wage statements; (6)
failed to pay Plaintiffs all wages owed every pay period; (7)
failed to reimburse Plaintiffs for business-related expenses; and
(8) violated California Unfair Competition Law.

A copy of the Motion is available at:

     http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yG52FSl5

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
Cheryl A. Kenner, Esq.
Shant A. Karnikian, Esq.
KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
644 S. Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 217 5000
Facsimile: (213) 217 5010
E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com
        ck@kbklawyers.com
        sk@kbklawyers.com

     - and -

Nicholas J.P. Wagner, Esq.
Andrew B. Jones, Esq.
Daniel M. Kopfman, Esq.
Lawrence M. Artenian, Esq.
WAGNER, JONES, KOPFMAN & ARTENIAN LLP
1111 E. Herndon, Ste. 317
Fresno, CA 93720
Telephone: (559) 449 1800
Facsimile: (559) 449 0749


ROOMS TO GO NORTH: Sued Over ForceField Protection Plans
--------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Henderson, writing for Triangle Business Journal, reports
that national plaintiffs firm Cohen Milstein -- which opened an
office in Raleigh earlier this year -- is representing plaintiffs
in a class action lawsuit against Rooms to Go North Carolina Corp.

The suit alleges that Rooms to Go customers purchased, along with
furniture, "ForceField" fabric and leather protection plans from
the company that were either improperly applied or not applied at
all.

"Because of Defendants' deceptive conduct and failure to honor
their contractual obligations, Plaintiff and putative class
members spent millions on ForceField Protection Plans that had
little value," the complaint states.

Former North Carolina Court of Appeals Judge Martha Geer, a
partner in Cohen Milstein's Raleigh office, is heading the charge
for lead plaintiff Kenny Triplett and other class members in the
case.

Judge Geer did not return a request for comment on the case;
however, in an interview last month, she noted the significance of
a national plaintiffs firm making the move to North Carolina,
particularly when it comes to class actions.

Most plaintiffs firms in the state are small shops with one to
five attorneys, said Judge Geer.

"Many of them have indicated to me that they don't even think
about the potential for class action or large civil litigations,"
she said.  Partnering with Cohen Milstein will provide the
"resources to participate in larger scale litigation they can't do
on their own both inside and outside of North Carolina."

A spokeswoman for Rooms to Go -- which opened a $40 million, 1.45
million-square-foot facility in Harnett County last year -- did
not respond to a request for comment regarding the lawsuit.

Attorneys for Rooms to Go haven't yet filed an appearance in the
case.  The suit was filed at the beginning of December in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. On Dec.
6, the lawsuit was selected for mediation.


ROSS STUART: Court Narrows Claims in "Burns" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Judge Linda V. Parker granted in part and denied, in part, Edward
Rose & Sons, LLC's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended
complaint in the case captioned PARKER BURNS, Plaintiff, v. ROSS
STUART & DAWSON, INC., and EDWARD ROSE & SONS, LLC a/k/a THE
VILLAGE, Defendants, Civil Case No. 16-10917 (E.D. Mich.).

In 2007, Rose entered into an agreement with Ross, Stuart &
Dawson, Inc. (RSD) titled, "Edward Rose & Sons Demand Letter
'Duns' Agreement".  A "Duns Letter" or "Dunning Letter" is a
notice to a customer that payment of an account receivable is
overdue.  According to the defendants' agreement, RSD agreed to
provide Rose demand letter services, and that Rose will pay $3.45
for 5,000 units.

On March 14, 2016, Parker Burns, who received a letter to collect
on an alleged debt, initiated an action claiming that the
defendants violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA) and Michigan's Regulation of Collection Practices Act
(RCPA) by sending the letter.  Burns brought the lawsuit as a
putative class action on behalf of other consumers who received
the same letter, alleging that the defendants violated the FDCPA
and RCPA

In his Amended Complaint filed April 25, 2016, Burns alleged that
RSD is a "flat-rater" under 15 U.S.C. section 1692j.  Burns
further alleged that the defendants are violating sections 1692e
and 1692e(10) of the FDCPA "with a contracted scheme and plan to
using [sic] false, deceptive and misleading representations and
means in connection with the collection of debts . . . using
letters such as [the letter sent to Plaintiff]."  Burns claimed
that Rose is violating section 1692e(14) of the FDCPA by using RSD
"to conduct its own debt collection under the guise of just being
the creditor even though the letter . . . is written to promote
all contact and collection efforts by only Defendant Rose. . . ."
Burns asserted that the defendants' conduct also violates sections
1692a(6) and 1692f of the FDCPA, as well as Sections 252(n), (e),
(f), and (q) of the RCPA, Mich. Comp. Laws section 445.252(n),
(e), (f), (q).

On May 12, 2016, Rose moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  Rose sought
dismissal of Burns' claims against it, contending first that Rose
is not liable as a "flat-rater" because it did not design,
compile, and furnish the letter Burns received.  Second, Rose
argued that the actions complained of do not legally constitute
"flat-rating" because RSD participated in the collection process
and thus Rose is not a "debt collector" subject to liability under
the FDCPA.  Rose contended that Burns' state law claims fail
because they are duplicative of his FDCPA claims or he fails to
allege facts supporting the claims.

Judge Parker found sufficient allegations to support Burns' claim
that: (1) RSD is a flat-rater; (2) The defendants engaged in a
flat rating scheme; and (3) Rose can be held liable under the
FDCPA because it used this scheme to create the false impression
that RSD was engaged in the collection of Burns' debt, when, in
fact, RSD did nothing more than draft and send the letter to
Burns.

Judge Parker, however, found that the Amended Complaint is devoid
of facts to support Burns' claim that the defendants violated
sections 252(f), (n), or (q) of the RCPA.  The judge found that
the Amended Complaint did not allege a violation by any employee
of Rose or RSD, nor did it allege a procedure that should have
been implemented.

Judge Parker thus concluded that Burns alleged sufficient facts to
state viable claims against Rose for violations of sections
1692a(6), 1692e(10), and 1692e(14) of the FDCPA and Section 252(e)
of the RCPA.  The judge, however, also concluded that Burns failed
to allege any facts to support violations of Sections 252(f), (n),
or (q) of the RCPA and those claims are dismissed.

A full-text copy of Judge Parker's December 1, 2016 opinion and
order is available at https://is.gd/YSYUXa from Leagle.com.

Parker Burns, Plaintiff, represented by Brian P. Parker --
brianparker@collectionstopper.com -- Brian P. Parker Assoc..

Ross, Stuart & Dawson, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charity A.
Olson, Olson Law Group.

Edward Rose & Sons, LLC aka and dba The Village, Defendant,
represented by Andrew M. Pauwels -- apauwels@honigman.com --
Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn & Michael P. Hindelang --
mhindelang@honigman.com -- Honigman, Miller.


RSI ENTERPRISES: Class Certification Sought in "Loveland" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled PETER LOVELAND, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. RSI
ENTERPRISES, INC., the Defendant, Case No2:16-cv-01653-NJ (E.D.
Wisc.), Mr. Peter Loveland moves the Court to certify a class.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to both stay the motion for
class certification and to grant Plaintiff (and Defendants) relief
from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and
requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com


RUTHERFORD COUNTY: Certification of Students Class Sought
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled as T.H., a minor child, and S.M., as parent
and next friend, and individually, and J.D., a minor child, and
T.D. and K.D., As parents and next friends, and individually;
and persons similarly situated, the PLAINTIFFS, v. RUTHERFORD
COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, the DEFENDANT, Case No. 3:16-cv-01367
(M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify:

a class defined as:

   "all current and future 504-eligible students (but not IDEA)";
   and

a subclasses defined as:

   "(1) future students who have not yet received an evaluation
   for related services and must be evaluated properly (2)
   current students who have received an evaluation for services
   but for whom the consideration of direct related services or
   health services was not permitted".

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint Gilbert Russell
McWherter Scott & Bobbitt, PLC as counsel to the class because
they are familiar to this Court and have the necessary blend of
being well-versed in federal litigation, education-reform
litigation, special-education litigation, and class-action
litigation.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dC0dEZz8

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin S. Gilbert, Esq.
          SCOTT & BOBBITT PLC
          100 W. Martin Luther King Blvd, Suite 504
          Chattanooga, TN 37402
          Telephone: (423) 499 3044
          Facsimile: (731) 664 1540
          E-mail: jgilbert@gilbertfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Reed, Esq.
          COPE, HUDSON, REED,
          AND MCCREARY, PLLC
          16 N. Public Square
          Murfreesboro, TN 37130
          E-mail: jreed@mborolaw.com

               - and -

          Melinda Jacobs
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MELINDA JACOBS
          163 Kelly Ridge Road
          Townsend, TN 37882
          E-mail: jacobslawmelinda@gmail.com

               - and -

          Joyce Safley, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MELINDA JACOBS
          321 Billingsly Court, Suite 16
          Franklin, TN 37064
          E-mail: jacobslawjoyce@gmail.com


SAMSUNG: To Begin Galaxy Note 7 Software Update Amid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PYMNTS reports that the end is near.  Samsung announced on
Dec. 9 that a forthcoming software update for Galaxy Note 7s will
brick the smartphone model.

The software update was set to start to roll out starting on Dec.
19. Samsung said the software update, which will be distributed
within 30 days, will be designed to prevent Galaxy Note 7 devices
in the U.S. from charging, effectively eliminating the troubled
smartphone model's ability to function as mobile devices.

Samsung will be working with its carrier partners to notify
consumers -- with the exception of Verizon, said Reuters -- to
encourage any remaining Galaxy Note 7 owners to participate in the
smartphone return program. Consumers who have a Galaxy Note 7
device can either exchange their phone for another Samsung model
or receive a refund.

Verizon reportedly said it would not take part in the update to
protect Galaxy Note 7 users who do not have another device to
switch to.  As of now, Samsung reports that over 93 percent of all
recalled Galaxy Note 7 devices had been returned as a part of the
U.S. exchange program.

Samsung recalled 2.5 million Galaxy Note 7 Phones back in
September after it was discovered that the phone's battery unit
had the nasty tendency to overheat and catch fire.

Then, in October, it was found that at least four of the
replacement Note phones had also caught on fire.  One phone
ignited moments before the airplane it was on left the ground,
leading to a U.S. Transportation Department ban of the smartphone
model on all flights or in checked baggage.

Samsung announced back in October of this year that the tech giant
would permanently pull the Galaxy Note 7 phone from the market.
The company's U.S. unit is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit
brought on behalf of three former Galaxy Note 7 owners
representing the Samsung customers who experienced phone troubles.


SCHLESINGER ELECTRICAL: Montana Files Suit Seeking Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
MONTANA DATACOM, INC., the Plaintiff, v. SCHLESINGER ELECTRICAL
CONTRACTORS, INC., JACOB LEVITA, ROBERT SOLOMON, SAKS FLAGSHIP
REAL PROPERTY LLC and JOHN DOES NOS. 1-5, the Defendant, Case No.
160145/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 7, 2016), seeks recovery of
moneys due to Montana in connection with its provision to
Schlesinger of certain wire and cable products, including through
the foreclosure of a certain mechanic's lien duly filed by Montana
as to the Premises.

According to the complaint, Schlesinger purchased the Products
from Montana for installation at various construction/development
sites located throughout New York City. Thereafter, Montana
provided and delivered the Products to Schlesinger at a series of
different locations at which Schlesinger had been contracted to
provide electrical services, including the Premises. As a result
of Schlesinger's failure to make payment, Montana has been damaged
in the amount of $13,454.50, together with interest from the dates
on which each of the Products were provided, together with
Montana's costs and expenses.

Montana seeks to recover from Schlesinger, Levita, Solomon, and
John Does Nos. 1-5, jointly and severally, punitive damages in an
amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $250,000.00.
Montana further demands judgment adjudging that Montana and all
other claimants similarly situated have claims against a trust
fund for the amount of their respective claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Borg, Esq.
          BORG LAW LLP
          370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 800
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (917) 495 4790


SCORES BALTIMORE: Strip Club Dancers File Wage Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Jessica Anderson, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that
dancers at strip clubs have long been considered "independent
contractors" whose wages consist solely of tips.  But a wave of
lawsuits against clubs across the country -- including in
Baltimore, New York, Atlanta, San Diego and Denver -- has
challenged that, and legal victories in Maryland and elsewhere
have added dancers to payrolls at some clubs.

In New York City, more than 2,000 dancers who worked at Rick's
Cabaret between 2005 and 2012 were awarded $10.9 million in a
class-action lawsuit they brought against their employer.

"These are employees, no different from waiters or waitresses,"
and deserve a base compensation, said Gregg C. Greenberg, a Silver
Spring attorney who has represented nearly 60 dancers in lawsuits
against clubs across the state.

Under Maryland law, tipped employees can receive $3.63 an hour,
less than the minimum wage of $8.75 for jobs where employees
receive no tips.

Mr. Greenberg's most recent case was brought by Stephanie Gamble,
who went by the name of "Lady Luck" as a dancer and bartender at
Chez Joey, club on The Block in Baltimore.  Ms. Gamble contended
that she was not an independent contractor, but an employee who
worked regular shifts at the club and never received a paycheck.

Ms. Gamble settled out of court last month and received unpaid
wages, Mr. Greenberg said.  He would not disclose the amount, and
Gamble could not be reached for comment.

Mr. Greenberg also represented six women who sued two adult clubs
in Prince George's County in federal court in 2012, alleging that
the clubs did not pay them the minimum wage required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act and state wage laws.

After the women won their case in U.S. District Court, the clubs
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in
Richmond, Va.

The dancers argued that they "were closely regulated by
defendants, from their hours to their earnings to their workplace
conduct," according to court documents.

Attorneys for the clubs argued that the dancers were "free agents
that came and went as they pleased," and used the clubs as a
rented space, according to court documents.

Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III said the clubs' argument did not
hold up.  The "relaxed working relationship represented by
defendants -- the kind that perhaps every worker dreams about --
finds little support in the record," he ruled in upholding the
lower court ruling in June.

Cari Tabor, who sued the Baltimore club Scores in 2014, said that
on a good night, she could make $1,000 in tips.  But sometimes she
didn't make enough to cover fees charged by the club.  She said a
minimum wage helps make sure employees are being compensated for
their time.

"It's a base start," she said.

Historically, strip clubs have treated dancers differently from
other staff when it comes to pay.

"It's always been that way until recent cases.  If you were a bar
or a nightclub and hired a band, or comedians, you wouldn't think
of those entertainers as employees," said Baltimore attorney Peter
Prevas, who has represented several clubs, including Chez Joey in
Gamble's lawsuit.

Mr. Prevas said when strip clubs bring in adult film stars to
dance for a limited engagement, they are not considered employees,
either.

"The industry has always treated it that way," he said.

Mr. Prevas said he first started seeing the pay lawsuits about
five years ago.  He said paying dancers a regular wage is a large
expense that could potentially put some clubs out of business.

"It's all over the country," he said.  "I read all the reported
cases all over the country, and there's lots."

Andrew Alley, owner of Scores Baltimore, declined to comment on
specific cases, but said the lawsuits are driven by attorneys
looking to make money.

Ms. Tabor, 38, said in her lawsuit against Scores that she was
charged "house fees" during each shift she worked.  Her suit also
alleged that she could be charged for gaining weight.

"There's plenty nights where you have to pay $80 to work that
night," said Ms. Tabor, who said she began stripping when she was
17 but has since stopped.

"Really, we were the ones making them money," she said.

Her case against Scores was dismissed by a judge, who cited a
three-year statute of limitations.  She stopped working at Scores
in 2011.

Alley would not say whether Scores pays hourly wages to dancers
now.

Norma Jean's began issuing paychecks to dancers after several
lawsuits were brought against the club since 2013.  In one case,
brought by Tanae Taylor, which was settled last November, the club
paid $27,000 to Taylor plus additional legal fees, according to
court records.

Transitioning to paychecks took some time, and cost the club.

"You've got many clubs that don't do what we do," said Peter
Ireland, one of the club's owners.  "It hurts us, but in the long
run, they're going to eventually hit them, too," he said of other
clubs.

Jeanean Lawson, manager at Norma Jean's, said the Baltimore club
used to write all of its payroll checks by hand because it did not
have many employees.  But after adding about 80 dancers, the club
switched to a payroll company to handle the task, she said.

"It's very different.  It affects our bottom line.  It's an
expense we didn't have to pay," Ms. Lawson said.  "It could easily
break any successful business."

But Ms. Lawson said the hourly pay is a way to show employees they
are valued.

"We can't make money without them," she said.  "They deserve
respect like anyone else."

On a recent night on The Block, Kabrina Hudnell, a former dancer,
waited to meet friends.

She said she stopped dancing because business at the clubs has
slowed and she wasn't making any money.  She pointed to clubs on
The Block where she previously worked and said they still do not
pay dancers an hourly wage.

"They are not even paying us.  We're just sitting there naked for
eight hours.  They're really not looking out for us," said
Hudnell, 22.  "The pay ain't fair at all.  If you don't have
dancers, you don't have a strip club," she said.

Nearby, Kate Miller, 21, waited for her mother to pick her up
after a shift at Chez Joey.  She sells drinks, which requires her
to wear lingerie and heels, but she doesn't dance. She said does
not earn an hourly wage but makes money by getting patrons to buy
$25 "ladies' drinks" in her name.

"Today, I only did three. It's not too packed," she said.

Ms. Miller, who lives in Baltimore County, said she now works only
part time at the club after getting a job at a hotel front desk,
where she makes a steady hourly wage.  She hopes to move into the
hotel position full time.

"It's different working for just tips.  Hourly, you get paid for
your time being there," even if it's slow, she said.


SIRIUSXM: Turtles Royalty Class Action Settlement Favorable
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ed Christman, writing for Billboard, reports that losing between
25 and 40 million dollars in a legal settlement would be a
crippling blow for virtually any company -- but for satellite
radio giant SiriusXM, which cut such a deal in November after a
long battle with pop group The Turtles over pre-1972 royalty
payments, it could turn out to be a triumph.

For the past eight years SiriusXM has not been paying royalties on
the music it plays that was recorded before 1972, the year that
the U.S. copyright for master recordings became part of federal
law.  The Turtles contested the provision with a class-action
lawsuit filed against SiriusXM in 2013. (In 2014 The Turtles also
sued Pandora, which hasn't paid royalties for pre-1972 recordings
since 2011.)

The suit assert that, while such songs are not covered by federal
law, they are protected by state laws and are entitled to royalty
payments. (So far, the Turtles' suits against Sirius have
prevailed in California and New York, although they lost in
Florida; all three decisions are under appeal.)

On Nov. 28 Sirius and The Turtles reached an agreement around that
$25 million to $40 million payout, which would go to both The
Turtles and independent labels that own music made before 1972.
While the settlement doesn't put a stop to any legal proceedings,
it does act as a form of insurance for The Turtles and labels
participating in the class action, guaranteeing that they will
receive a pro-rata share of royalties from the $25-40 million
pool.  The settlement simultaneously protects SiriusXM by placing
an upper limit on its financial obligation. (If the Turtles
prevail in all three appeals, the pool grows by $5 million each
time, but caps the settlement at $40 million.)

SiriusXM issued a statement at the time of its agreement with The
Turtles and class participants, noting that "the agreement does
not resolve the fundamental legal question in these lawsuits --
whether the law grants owners of pre-1972 recordings a right to
control performances of those recordings -- with each side
retaining the right to pursue appeals on that issue." (Moreover,
the settlement still needs to be approved by the courts.)

The Turtles' legal team, of Gradstein & Marzano, are currently
vetting administrators to oversee the payout.  The class action is
inclusive for all indie labels and has been set up as an opt-out
system. Once the claim process begins, master recording copyright
owners will be able to look though a list of songs issued before
1972 -- songs that have been played a combined total of 11.8
million times.  After labels stake a claim on the records they own
the rights to, they will receive a pro-rata share of the funds
based on their number of plays, expected to range from $15 to $25
per.

Sirius reached a similar settlement with the major labels and
ABKCO in 2015, agreeing to pay out $210 million for their
recordings made before 1972.

So . . . where is the win for SiriusXM, which is potentially out
$40 million? As part of the agreement, SiriusXM also gets a 10-
year license to play the pre-1972 recordings at issue in the three
suits, and has agreed to pay royalties out of a pool of revenue
comprising 5.5 percent of its gross revenue.  That rate has some
major label executives concerned, since it is only half of the
rate -- 11 percent of revenue -- that SiriusXM is scheduled to pay
in 2017.

While SiriusXM has the highest per-play payout in the U.S.
industry, its overall revenue payout is one of the lowest.  Many
interactive services pay as much as 70 percent of revenue for
publishing and recorded master royalties; Pandora's
non-interactive service pays about 45 percent.  SiriusXM's main
competitor, terrestrial radio, pays nothing for playing master
recordings, and pays about 2.5 percent to 4 percent of revenue to
songwriters.

Some major label executives fear Sirius will attempt to position
the Turtles' settlement rate of 5.5 percent rate as a benchmark
that the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) could use when setting
statutory rates in the future. In fact, the CRB relied heavily on
two such direct deals when setting rates for digital radio last
year.

If Sirius can get the judges which determine statutory royalty
rates to agree that 5.5 percent represents a benchmark -- and thus
doesn't give SoundExchange their 23 percent rate -- then the $25-
40 million it's looking down the barrel at paying now could end up
saving it $570 million a year over the next five years (the period
currently being considered in the CRB's rate setting process).

SiriusXM generated revenues of $4.6 billion in 2015. Extrapolated
against that year's statutory rate, 10.5 percent of gross revenue,
the company should have paid out roughly $480 million to labels
and artists that year (if it hadn't deducted royalties for the
pre-1972 recordings).  At the 23 percent level, that would mean a
$1.05 billion payout to labels.

Henry Gradstein -- hgradstein@gradstein.com -- partner at
Gradstein & Marzano, dismisses the notion of the settlement rate
being cited as a benchmark in future talks.  He says it's not
clear that every state has a law protecting the pre-1972
recordings and that The Turtles settlement is based on having a
victory in only three states, which only represent about 13
percent of Sirius subscriber base. (That's why the going-forward
royalty fee cited in the settlement will decrease by 2 percent if
The Turtles lose in New York and 1.5 percent if they lose in
Florida, which would leave the 10-year licensing deal with only a
2 percent of revenue royalty pool.)

Making matters worse, from the perspective of those worried about
a precedent-setting benchmark, a 5.5 percent rate is not the only
deal that SiriusXM might put forth as representing a benchmark
deal.  According to the court documents, 5.5 percent is the
highest rate of all the direct deals SiriusXM has cut with indie
labels.


SMART TOYS: Faces We-Vibe App Privacy Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Owais Sultan, writing for Hackread, reports that the vibrators
that have the ability to connect to the internet have come under
the hammer for gathering private data of customers.  The
manufacturer of these Smart Toys aims to settle a class-action
privacy lawsuit, which was recently filed by a complainer in an
Illinois federal court, by agreeing to the terms of the
plaintiff's claims.

It is being claimed by the plaintiff that the vibrators are
violating customer's privacy by capturing app settings in which
the user sets vibration levels and the duration for which the
vibrators were used.

The Canadian based manufacturer has reportedly "agreed to terms"
against the claims of the accuser.  The accuser filed a lawsuit in
September "on behalf of herself and a putative settlement class."

The accuser is an anonymous woman from Chicago, who claimed that
the abovementioned smart toys work with an app, which is available
for both iOS and Android devices.  Apparently, the app collects
information without the knowledge or consent of the customers. The
collected information includes the frequency and duration of usage
of the toys and the vibration settings as well as temperature
levels of vibrators.

It is worth noting that the We-Vibe app lets users control the
vibrator remotely through their smartphones, which has to be
paired with the device.  It does not necessarily require the
creation of an account with the company.

Eve-Lynn Rapp, the law firm's attorney which filed the Chicago
woman's lawsuit, stated that this incident is yet another
"incredible" example of how consumers' privacy is being violated
through innovative yet unreliable smart gadgets.

The accuser bought the We-Vibe vibrator in May for $130 after
which she downloaded the We-Vibe's-Connect app.  However, she
complained in her lawsuit that she was never informed by the
manufacturer that "personally identifiable" information will be
monitored as soon as the app was activated.

The spokesperson of Standard Innovation, Denny Alexander stated
that:

"There's been no allegation that any of our customers' data has
been compromised. However, given the intimate nature of our
products, the privacy and security of our customers' data are of
utmost importance to our company.  Accordingly, we take concerns
about customer privacy and our data practices seriously."


SONESTA INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Byrd" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Byrd, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Sonesta International Hotels Corporation, Case No. 16-3548
(Mass. Cmmw. Ct., December 13, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

Sonesta International Hotels Corporation operates Royal Sonesta
Boston hotel in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas Beauvais, Esq.
      Lou Saban, Esq.
      ATTORNEY AT LAW
      PO Box 761235
      Malden, MA 02176
      Telephone: (781) 462-1669
      E-mail: thomas@beauvaislegal.com


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: "Khaziran" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andre Khaziran, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Sonic Automotive, Inc., FAA Beverly Hills,
Inc. d/b/a Beverly Hills BMW, and Does 1 through 30, inclusive,
Case No. BC643719 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 13, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, wages for
meal and rest period violations, reimbursement of business
expenses, restitution, as well as other statutory penalties and
damages owed pursuant to California Labor Code.

The Defendants operate an automobile dealership located at 5070
Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90036.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shadie L. Berenji, Esq.
      Tsolik Kazandjian, Esq.
      BERENJI LAW FIRM, APC
      8383 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 708
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 855-3270
      Facsimile: (310) 855-3751
      E-mail: berenji@employeeiustice.law
              kazandjian@employeejustice.law

STARBUCKS: Court to Review De Minimis Doctrine Issue Next Year
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Breslin, writing for Northern California Record, reports that
it is a lawsuit that has largely made its way through the court
system under the radar, but it is one with potentially major
implications for businesses, both large and small.

The class-action suit against Starbucks centers on whether a
worker should be paid for the time it takes to arm an alarm, walk
out of the store and lock the door.  The California Supreme Court
has agreed to review a plaintiff's arguments in the case after it
was thrown out by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  A ruling
is expected next year.

The Supreme Court will decide whether a long-standing federal rule
-- the de minimis doctrine that employees do not have to be paid
for the small amount of time spent on premises after clocking out
-- applies to California labor law.

"The case has huge implications for California employers," Anthony
Zaller, a Los Angeles-based employment lawyer, told the Northern
California Record.  "Will the court recognize that employers have
a de minimis defense? If not, it will change the landscape and you
will see a lot more of these type of wage and hour class actions
against every size of businesses.  What might happen is just the
threat of a lawsuit, and potentially spending thousands on
defending it, may lead employers to settling cases."

Douglas Troester filed a lawsuit alleging that Starbucks violated
the California Labor Code by failing to pay him for short periods
of time he spent closing the store.

He alleged Starbucks failed to pay him for time spent walking out
of the store after activating the security alarm, for the time he
spent turning the lock on the store's front door, and for the time
he spent occasionally reopening the door so that a co-worker could
retrieve a coat.

The plaintiff, represented by attorney David Spivak, of the Spivak
Law Firm, filed a class-action suit under the California Labor
Code for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to
provide accurate written wage statements and failure to timely pay
all final wages.  Mr. Spivak did not return calls asking for
comment.

Starbucks filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to
dismiss the plaintiff's case based upon the de minimis doctrine.
The trial court agreed.

"People are really looking for something for nothing," Betty
Toccoli, president of the California Small Business Association
told the Northern California Record.  "We are trying to keep jobs,
and this sort of thing makes some business owners not want to hire
people.  This potentially sets a precedent.  If it does go
through, there are serious ramifications, and this in California
where we just got hit with $15 an hour minimum wage. This case is
against business, and it's one more thing to harm job creation."

Mr. Zaller said it is hard to say why the Supreme Court takes on
certain cases but he speculated that the main reason the court
granted review of this one is because de minimis is a federal rule
and the plaintiff has argued that it does not apply to California.

This clarification is needed despite other courts noting that
California's Division of Labor Standards Enforcement -- "the
agency empowered to enforce California's labor laws" -- has
adopted the federal regulation in its manual.  Under de minimis,
which has been in place for five decades, it is thought that 10
minutes in any day does not have to be counted when calculating
wages.

While the California Supreme Court has not adjudicated on this
matter, the Court of Appeal Fourth Appellate District applied a
federal standard when permitting employers to round employee time
entries to the nearest five minutes, one-tenth, or a quarter of an
hour.  The case was Candy Shops Inc. v. Superior Court,
Mr. Zaller said, and the rounding was expected to be in favor of
both parties.

Given the uncertainty, the Supreme Court agreed to take it up. The
Supreme Court's decision in the Starbucks case could potentially
have a wider impact regarding whether other federal wage and hour
doctrines have any place in interpreting California law, Mr.
Zaller said,

"It seems realistic to expect the court to rule in favor of
Starbucks because without some standard the argument could come
down to seconds and that is when it gets ridiculous," Mr. Zaller
said.  "It really should not give rise to a lawsuit just as long
as employers are not trying to take advantage of employees."

If the Supreme Court does rule in favor of the plaintiff,
Mr. Zaller said he does not expect the legislature to step in and
pass a pro-employer law.

"The California legislature is very pro-plaintiff and will not
disagree," he said.


STERN & EISENBERG: Court Denied Class Cert. Bid in "Beach" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as MAXINE BEACH, on Behalf of Herself and
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. STEVEN K.
EISENBERG, STERN & EISENBERG, P.C. and AMERICAN HERITAGE FEDERAL
CREDIT UNION, Case No. 2:15-cv-05942-TJS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Timothy J. Savage, J. entered an order on December 12, 2016
denying without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6DjwGEoL


THERANOS: Investors File Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Mercury News, reports that
removed from the volatile world of the public stock markets,
private startups are usually safe from the investor lawsuits that
plague Silicon Valley companies every time their shares plunge.

But in a rare case, embattled blood-testing startup Theranos was
sued by investors claiming that the Palo Alto company conned them
out of hundreds of millions of dollars.

The securities class action, filed before Theranos has even hinted
at plans for an initial public offering, highlights the
increasingly risky legal environment private companies must
navigate and showcases the dangers investors face when dealing in
private securities.  Theranos is an egregious example --
shareholders accuse the company of lying and knowingly peddling a
product that didn't work -- but experts say more startups could
face these types of suits as the market for private securities
continues to expand.

"What you've seen over the last four or five years -- particularly
around the unicorn phenomenon -- is people buying shares in these
companies with little to no information, largely driven by hype
and hope," said Robert Ackerman Jr., founder of Allegis Capital, a
venture capital firm with offices in San Francisco and Palo Alto.
"And then, when the facts reveal themselves, or when they get more
information, they're surprised."

Buoyed by floods of venture capital money that have poured in over
the past few years, startups such as Uber and Airbnb are putting
off IPOs while simultaneously tempting investors with valuations
reaching tens of billions of dollars.  Meanwhile, employees at
these companies have bills to pay, so they're cashing out by
selling their shares on largely unregulated private markets.  And
investors, excited by the "unicorn" hype -- the glowing aura that
seems to surround private companies with valuations of $1 billion
or higher -- are snapping up those shares.

But unlike publicly traded companies, which disclose quarterly
financial reports and are subject to regular analyst reviews,
private companies pick and choose what, if any, information to
reveal.

Theranos is an unusual case, because its investors claim the
company intentionally defrauded them -- something that may have
happened regardless of whether the company was public or private.
But Reed Kathrein, one of the lawyers who filed the suit, said if
Theranos had been public at the time, the company would have been
subject to greater oversight and the problems with its product may
have come to light sooner.

"I think it shows the dangers of investing in these companies,"
the Berkeley-based lawyer said.  "You don't have the same
protections. You don't have the same disclosure requirements."

According to the lawsuit, Theranos spent three years drawing in
investors with false promises about the company's revolutionary
technology that could test for hundreds of diseases using a
pinprick's worth of blood.  Founder Elizabeth Holmes gave hundreds
of interviews and appeared in articles in major publications --
many of which the plaintiffs' lawyers are using as evidence in
their case against the company.

In October, The Wall Street Journal punctured the Theranos dream
with an article claiming the company was struggling to turn its
revolutionary idea into a reality, and that its signature machine
was being used for just a handful of tests.  The article marked
the start of a downward spiral for the company -- after being hit
with sanctions from federal regulators and voiding tens of
thousands of its blood tests, Theranos agreed to close its blood-
testing facilities and lay off more than 40 percent of its
workforce.  On Dec. 8, the company announced that it will retire
its "board of counselors," whose members includes former
Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger.

A San Francisco hedge fund that invested in Theranos sued the
company in October, followed a month later by Walgreens --
Theranos' former partner.

The lawyers in the class-action suit against Theranos say their
clients poured at least $633 million into the startup.  They have
lost millions, the lawyers claim, citing a Forbes report that
concluded Theranos' value has dropped more than 90 percent --
plummeting from $9 billion to $800 million in two years.

Hilary Taubman-Dye, a San Mateo-based technical recruiter and one
of the named plaintiffs in the suit, bought Theranos shares in
August 2015 via SharesPost, an online marketplace that matches
buyers and sellers of private securities.  The sale was still
pending when the Wall Street Journal story broke in October, and
she and other investors unsuccessfully tried to cancel their
purchases, according to the lawsuit.

Ms. Taubman-Dye declined to comment through her lawyer.

The other named plaintiff, Robert Colman, bought Theranos shares
in September 2013 through a Lucas Venture Group venture capital
fund.

In addition to Ms. Taubman-Dye, Kathrein said "quite a few" other
class-action members used SharesPost.  To put money into private
securities through a platform like SharesPost, investors typically
must be "accredited," meaning they have a net worth of at least $1
million or an annual income of $200,000. In theory, they are
sophisticated investors who know their way around a good deal.

But last spring new rules went into effect that opened the door
for anyone to invest in private startups through equity
crowdfunding platforms.  Those platforms work like Kickstarter,
but instead of receiving a T-shirt or an early edition of a
product in exchange for their cash contributions, investors
receive a stake in the company.

As startups continue to avoid going public and the private
securities market becomes more popular, new exchanges that try to
offer safe ways for investors to buy are popping up.  Nasdaq
Private Market, which launched in 2014 and gives private companies
control over who can buy and sell their shares, handled $544
million in deals during the first half of 2016 -- a 136 percent
increase from the first half of the year before.

"I think what we're seeing is the growing pains associated with
the secondary market," Mr. Ackerman said.  "And what I expect what
we will see over time is more institutionalization of secondary
sales, where there will be more information available."


TREEHOUSE FOODS: Khang & Khang Files Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP disclosed a class action lawsuit against
TreeHouse Foods, Inc. Investors, who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares between February 1, 2016 and November 2, 2016
inclusive (the "Class Period"), are reminded to contact the Firm
prior to the January 17, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

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

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.

The complaint alleges that TreeHouse made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: that the Company's private
label business and acquisition strategy were underperforming; that
TreeHouse overstated its full-year 2016 guidance; and that as a
result of the above, TreeHouse's statements about its business,
operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When this information
was revealed to the public, the value of TreeHouse fell, causing
investors harm.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Attorneys Recount Fraud Class Action Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristina Davis, writing for San Diego Union Tribune, reports that
the Trump University lawsuit landed at a small downtown San Diego
law firm the way so many cases do -- with a phone call.

Aaron Olsen -- aarono@zhlaw.com -- an attorney at Zeldes
Haeggquist & Eck, took the call in January 2010 and, unlike the
prosecutors and other civil attorneys who had blown off former
student Tarla Makaeff, he listened to her story.

The class-action lawsuit she filed against Donald Trump and his
defunct Trump University became a centerpiece of the presidential
campaign, featured in debates and on "Saturday Night Live."  The
end result: a $25 million settlement by the president-elect for
thousands of former students 6 1/2 years later.

Trump did not admit any liability or wrongdoing in settling the
case, saying the resolution allows him to focus on his
presidential transition.

For the attorneys in the two firms who worked on the case, taking
on defendants like real estate mogul Donald Trump wasn't new.
They'd gone up against Apple, Pfizer, Walmart, Sony Electronics
and Mattel.  But none of them could have anticipated the
trajectory this lawsuit would take as Trump went from celebrity to
GOP presidential front runner to the nation's next commander in
chief.

In interviews with The San Diego Union-Tribune, the attorneys
recounted one of the most significant lawsuits of their careers.

"Nobody could have seen Donald Trump's rise politically," attorney
Helen Zeldes said.  "We took the case long before the White House
was a sparkle in his eye."

Looking back, the lawyers who buried themselves in the case said
the charisma and economic solutions Trump used to influence Trump
University students are the same traits he used to win over
voters.

"He says things that resonate with people and that people have
been waiting to hear," said San Diego attorney Jason Forge, who
was among lawyers from the much larger Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd firm brought on to help litigate the case.  "He did that as a
candidate and did that with Trump University.  What do you want to
hear most when economic times are at their worst? They want to
hear there's a way out of this. They want to hear there's hope.  A
guy as successful as he's been, and been through bad times
financially, is who you want to hear from.

"The guy has an uncanny knack for sensing what people want to hear
and what will motivate them," Mr. Forge said.

That savvy helped launch him to the White House.

"His genius at creating his brand is really impressive," said
attorney Rachel Jensen.  "We've seen that through this case.  He
knows how to create a narrative and get people motivated and knows
how to close the deal."

How the case began

When Ms. Zeldes heard about Ms. Makaeff's call to her firm -- a
four-person operation in 2010 -- her ears perked up.

"I thought, 'Trump University.  Is there a university I hadn't
heard of? Is this a real university? Do people really think this
is a university?'" she recalled.

As luck would have it, a 90-minute Trump University preview
seminar was being held in San Marcos.  Ms. Zeldes decided to check
it out.

"My heart broke," Ms. Zeldes said.  "I thought, wow, this is
really a dog and pony show.  You walk in and there's these big
life-sized posters of Donald Trump.  I got to hear the pitch and
see people really compelled by the pitch they were making. . . .
They'd say 'How many people lost equity on their homes? How many
want to leave that legacy for their children? How many of you want
to learn how to make that money back?'"

The attendees were encouraged to pay $1,500 for a three-day
seminar to learn more, which led to pitches for a $35,000 yearlong
program promising real estate riches, according to former
students.  Ms. Makaeff claimed to have spent about $60,000 in all.

Ms. Zeldes' firm took the case on a contingency, but before filing
the complaint in San Diego federal court the attorneys brought on
Robbins Geller, which had more staff and resources.

Once the lawsuit was filed on April 30, 2010, the phone calls
started coming in.

"I probably personally spoke to almost 400 people who took Trump
University courses," attorney Amber Eck recalled.  "These are
devastating stories."

From seniors to business people to real estate entrepreneurs, the
students had similar stories of being encouraged to max out one,
two or three credit cards to pay for Trump University courses, Eck
said, or to take out retirement savings, inheritances or home
equity credit.

The attorneys' big break in the case came when they began hearing
from former Trump University employees.  They leaked playbooks and
scripts used by instructors long before the items were released in
discovery.

The documents detailed the room layout during seminars, the
temperature the thermometer should be set at ("no more than 68
degrees"), the many comebacks that employees could use when
students were reluctant to put down money.

"They specifically set up the room so the exit would be blocked so
it'd be difficult to get past a Trump University person,"
Ms. Eck said.

Trump fights back

Early on in the case, Trump delivered a counter punch, suing Ms.
Makaeff for defamation.

"There was no grace period where there was smooth sailing," said
Ms. Jensen, of Robbins Geller.  "This case always had challenges
by virtue of who the defendant is."

Trump's suit made its way to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals, and Makaeff prevailed.

Jensen questioned Trump during his first deposition in 2012 at
Trump Tower in New York and described the encounter as
confrontational. "He threatened to sue me and my firm. There was
bullying and intimidation going on," she said.

Trump aggressively defended his program. He and his legal team
said Makaeff and other disgruntled students didn't put in enough
effort to succeed in business and partly blamed the downturn in
the real estate market for their troubles.

"The student evaluations received throughout the courses of Trump
University were extraordinarily positive," Trump lawyer Daniel
Petrocelli said in an interview. "People sought out this program
because they wanted to better their lives, supplement their
income, change jobs, reach out and try something new and different
in their lives to challenge themselves, and that's much of what
the courses and instruction offered people."

Attorney Jason Forge, of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, speaks to
the press after a Trump University court hearing in San Diego.
Behind him are attorneys Rachel Jensen, Patrick Coughlin and Amber
Eck.

Mr. Forge, from Robbins Geller, was brought on as a lead litigator
in the case in 2013.  He'd gained a reputation as a hard-charging
assistant U.S. attorney and was part of the team that prosecuted
Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham in the largest bribery scandal in
congressional history.  He also brought his experience prosecuting
white-collar criminals under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act to the Trump case.

"The more I thought about it the more I thought this could be a
pretty good RICO case," Mr. Forge said.  "The allegations in this
case are not that different from the kind of Ponzi schemes I
worked on at the U.S. Attorney's Office."

The lawyers tried to add a RICO cause of action to the lawsuit,
but it was denied.  So they filed a separate class-action lawsuit
using RICO.  Art Cohen, a Northern California businessman and
former student who had contacted the attorneys with offers to
participate in the case, became the class representative.

Case put in national spotlight

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio injected Trump University into the national
conversion in February when he leveled a series of attacks against
Trump during a televised Republican presidential debate.

"I was at the gym.  I'm on the elliptical and the guys next to me
are talking about, 'Hey, did you hear about Trump University?'"
Ms. Zeldes recalled.  "The Republicans were using our case to try
to get rid of Trump, then it became a household word."

Trump's lawyer said the case suddenly became a "political
football."

"The case was used, unfairly so, with enormous distortions by
political opponents to try to take shots at Mr. Trump, and
Mr. Trump handled himself deftly when asked about it. . . . His
opponents were searching for anything they could to undermine his
popularity with the public and used the case as a political
weapon, and ended up obviously failing," Mr. Petrocelli said.

He called the press coverage on the case overwhelmingly biased.
"That was probably the biggest challenge, overcoming the negative
publicity that portrayed the case in a very unfair and inaccurate
light," Mr. Petrocelli said.

That's also when Trump lashed out at the judge overseeing the
case, calling U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel a "Mexican" who
was biased against him for his views on immigration.  Judge Curiel
was born in Indiana to Mexican immigrants.

But Trump's rise politically did little to change the inner
workings of the case, other than present logistical scheduling
challenges, the attorneys said.

The intense media scrutiny had its effect on Ms. Makaeff, who'd
been suffering from health problems and family issues and decided
she couldn't take the stress of being a class representative any
longer. The judge allowed her to step back from the case.  That
left as named plaintiffs Chula Vistan Sonny Low, 75, a retired
foreign service officer who works at Home Depot to pay off his
Trump University debt, John Brown in New York, and J.R. Everett in
Florida.

Trump gets deposed

Attorneys found a more cooperative, engaged Trump in his final two
depositions, in December 2015 and January 2016.

"He would give much more candid responses than typical of a real
polished CEO who knows how to smile and shine you on without
really answering questions.  That's not his style," said Mr.
Forge, who did the questioning.  "He gave answers to a lot of
questions, and I would not question the sincerity at all. I
respected him for giving us very real answers.

"It ties back into the persona he has, not as if his persona is a
fake one.  He wants to be seen, and it's well earned.  He's
somebody who calls it as he sees it."

Ms. Eck attributes Trump's candor to the strong evidence that was
piled up against him by that point.  "Once you have someone in a
box it's easier to get the testimony," she said.  She also thinks
Trump was anticipating the transcripts of the depositions would be
made public -- which they were.

The final deposition, at Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas,
included friendly chit-chat.

"He was downright charming. He was very nice," said Mr. Forge.
"He asked me on break, 'Are you surprised how I'm doing in the
polls?' And I said, 'I have to say, I am.'

"'That's OK, so am I,'" Trump responded, according to Forge.

The conversation surrounding Trump's campaign continued.

"I said, 'A lot of things you are saying are really great.  Other
things are really scary,'" Mr. Forge said.  Trump didn't appear to
take offense at the comment, he said.

The stunning downfall of San Diego Congressman Cunningham also
came up.  "I said (Trump) was right on the money about how corrupt
the system was, not just the rank corruption that (the Cunningham)
case involved, but that so many people told us over the course of
that investigation that if Cunningham would have been smarter, he
would have worked the system to get just as much money without
breaking the law."

Both sides get ready for the trial

In federal court, the vast majority of civil cases settle. In this
case, it was assumed by everyone that the battle would be waged at
trial.

At the forefront of everyone's mind: How in the world do you pick
a jury for a case like this -- two weeks after the defendant just
won the most divisive presidential election in modern U.S.
history?

"Obviously the political angle of it was unprecedented.  It was
going to be a visceral approach, a lot of gut level
determinations," Mr. Forge said.  "It was hard to imagine what
group of folks we were going to be left with who didn't have
strong feelings one way or another about the defendant. . . . From
a clinical perspective, it was one of the things I was looking
forward to the most. From a litigation perspective, it was a
gigantic source of stress."

Mr. Petrocelli, who represented the Goldman family in the civil
trial against O.J. Simpson, agreed, saying he anticipated a Trump
jury to be even more challenging to select.

In the end, it didn't matter.

Days after Trump was elected, Judge Curiel strongly urged both
sides to meet with U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Miller in an
attempt to settle.  The parties met about a week later in an
intensive mediation session.

Each side sat in separate rooms, and Miller would go back and
forth. Neither side exchanged dollar amounts.  Judge Miller was
the only one with that information.

"Both sides took a tremendous amount of trust in Judge Miller,"
Mr. Forge said.

It worked.  The parties looped in the New York Attorney General's
Office -- which in 2013 filed a similar lawsuit against Trump
University -- and a $25 million settlement was reached resolving
all three cases.

"Mr. Trump felt it was in the best interests of the public and his
duty to the office of the presidency to settle all the cases, even
though we felt very confident in the merits of our position," Mr.
Petrocelli said.  Settlement also meant avoiding protracted
appeals that would have been likely in the case.

In the two San Diego cases, the 7,000 or so class members will be
able to recover at least half of the money they spent on Trump
University, possibly more.

The plaintiffs lawyers agreed not to take any costs or fees -- a
loss in the millions.

"The decision came from the very top of our firm. It was not a
demand made," Ms. Jensen said.  "To make sure as a class they can
recover the maximum amount, make sure our fees did not get in the
way of allowing this to settle so our country could move on."

Attorney Alreen Haeggquist said it was a difficult decision, but
the right one.

"It's not like a bill goes out at the end of every month. No one
is paying for your time.  When you're with a small firm, you
struggle with having to keep it all going, paying support staff
and employees and keep the lights on while doing this kind of
work."

Does this settlement mean Trump may be more willing to resolve the
myriad other lawsuits pending against him?

"If anyone thinks this sets the precedent to cause him to roll
over, I strongly advise them to think again," Mr. Forge said.


UBS FINANCIAL: Pretrial, Settlement Conference Moved to March 7
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CARMELO ROMAN, RICARDO ROMAN-RIVERA and SDM
HOLDINGS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs. v. UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. OF PUERTO
RICO; UBS TRUST COMPANY OF PUERTO RICO; PUERTO RICO INVESTORS TAX-
FREE FUND IV, INC.; PUERTO RICO FIXED INCOME FUND III, INC.;
PUERTO RICO FIXED INCOME FUND V, INC.; PUERTO RICO INVESTORS BOND
FUND I, INC.; PUERTO RICO AAA PORTFOLIO BOND FUND, INC.; PUERTO
RICO AAA PORTFOLIO BOND FUND II, INC.; MIGUEL A. FERRER; CARLOS J.
ORTIZ, Defendants, Civil No. 12-1663CCC (D.P.R.), Judge Carmen
Consuelo Cerezo has entered an order resetting:

     -- a pre-trial/settlement conference to March 7,
        2017, at 5:00 p.m.; and

     -- a jury trial to April 27, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. in
        Courtroom 4.

Judge Carmen Consuelo Cerezo issued a statement of reasons on her
September 30, 2016 order adopting the U.S. Magistrate Judge's
March 1, 2016 Report and Recommendation (R&R) on class
certification in the case.

The named plaintiffs in Civil No. 12-1663(CCC), Carmelo Roman,
Ricardo Roman-Rivera and SDM Holdings, Inc., individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, filed the action on August
13, 2012.  It was typified as a "Class Action Complaint" and
included 10 defendants: two corporate defendants, UBS Services
Inc. of Puerto Rico, a broker dealer and a subsidiary of UBS
Financial Services, Inc., (UBSFS) and UBS Trust Company of Puerto
Rico, (UBST); individual defendants, Miguel A. Ferrer and Carlos
J. Ortiz, chairman/CEO and managing director of UBSPR, and six
closed-end management investment companies, identified as
defendants Puerto Rico Investors Tax-Free Fund IV, Inc., Puerto
Rico Fixed Income Fund III, Inc., Puerto Rico Fixed Income Fund V,
Inc., Puerto Rico Investors Bond Fund I, Inc., Puerto Rico AAA
Portfolio Bond, Inc., and Puerto Rico Portfolio Bond II, Inc.
(collectively "the Funds).

All of the allegations of the Complaint are tied to a scheme to
defraud perpetrated by the corporate and the individual defendants
relating to the marketing and sale of closed-end funds to
plaintiffs and other investors similarly situated.  The claims
were brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, sections
10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10(b)-5.

Upon motion for consolidation, the action was consolidated by
Judge Besosa with Civil No. 12-1849(CCC), brought by Onnasis
Corporation and Julio Tormes-Rodriguez which named seven
additional closed-end funds as defendants.  However, on November
10, 2014, Onnasis and Tormes filed a motion for voluntary
dismissal, without prejudice, which was granted by the Court on
November 26, 2014.

The Court then entered an order on February 3, 2015 in Civil No.
12-1663(CCC), the sole remaining action, filed by Roman, Roman-
Rivera and SDM, striking as unnecessary and to avoid confusion:
Consolidated Amended Complaint and Second Consolidated Amended
Complaint.

Roman, Roman-Rivera and SDM sought reconsideration of the order
which request was denied.  They then argued that U.S. Magistrate-
Judge McGiverin used the wrong complaint on the class
certification issue and that he had to use the stricken Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint (SCAC) instead of the original
complaint that governed the plaintiffs' claims.

Judge Cerezo found no justification to modify the Court's February
3, 2015 denial.  The judge found that, in any event, the final
disposition of the issues referred to the U.S. Magistrate-Judge on
the class certification request remains unaltered whether the
analysis is made utilizing the original complaint filed by the
plaintiffs in Civil No. 12-1663(CCC) or the Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint later filed in the two consolidated actions.
The judge noted that throughout their original class action
complaint, the one that governs proceedings pursuant to the
February 3, 2015 Order, and also in the Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint, submitted by way of footnote number 3 in their
class certification motion, the plaintiffs have repeated a
particular pattern of conduct incurred by UBSPR and UBSFS to
defraud them as investors by manipulative tactics.

Judge Cerezo also noted that the parties were granted a period to
conduct class certification discovery by June 10, 2015, before
referral of the class certification motion to the U.S. Magistrate-
Judge.  The judge found that there is nothing in the report of the
plaintiffs' expert nor do plaintiffs point to any specific data or
opinion by their expert that alters the findings of fact and
conclusions of law reached by the U.S. Magistrate-Judge in his
R&R.

The R&R sets forth the following basic findings of fact relevant
to plaintiffs' request for class certification under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(b)(3), highlighting that Rule 23(b)(3) has two additional
prerequisites not included in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a): "that [1] the
questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over
any questions affecting only individual members, and [2] that a
class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy."

     (1) The Funds were not traded on a public exchange and did
         not trade on an efficient market.

     (2) UBS-PR sold the Funds through approximately 145
         Financial Advisors (FAs), who functioned as brokers for
         23 different Funds.

     (3) The FAs' discussions with customers were individualized
         to meet the specific needs of each customer, and those
         discussions were interactive and varied based on each
         customer's situation, needs, objectives, and questions
         asked.

     (4) This being the case, the plaintiffs acknowledged that
         most, if not all, of investors' information regarding
         the [Funds] came from their Fas.

     (5) The plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Edward S. O'Neal, testified
         that whether an individual investor decided to purchase
         or sell a [F]und could depend on what the FA told the
         investor.

     (6) Testimony from the plaintiffs representing the putative
         class confirmed that the information each of them had
         available when purchasing the Funds varied.

A full-text copy of Judge Cerezo's November 22, 2016 statement of
reasons is available at https://is.gd/kixdnK from Leagle.com.

Carmelo Roman, Ricardo Roman-Rivera, Plaintiffs, represented by
Amanda F. Lawrence -- alawrence@scott-scott.com -- Scott & Scott
LLP, pro hac vice, David R. Scott -- david.scott@scott-scott.com -
- Scott & Scott LLP, pro hac vice, Eric M. Quetglas-Jordan,
Quetglas Law Office, Hector E. Pedrosa-Luna, The Law Offices of
Hector E. Pedrosa-Luna, Jennie M. Espada-Ocasio, Espada Esquire
Legal Services Psc, Joseph P. Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-
scott.com -- Scott & Scott, LLP, pro hac vice, Juan R. Requena-
Davila, Andrea Farah -- afarah@scott-scott.com -- Scott Scott,
Attorneys at Law, LLP, pro hac vice, Beth A. Kaswan --
bkaswan@scott-scott.com -- Scott Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, pro
hac vice, Richard P. Rouco, Quinn, Connor, Weaver, Davies & Rouco,
pro hac vice & Luis E. Minana, Luis E. Minana & Associates.

SDM Holdings, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Amanda F. Lawrence,
Scott & Scott LLP, Eric M. Quetglas-Jordan, Quetglas Law Office,
Hector E. Pedrosa-Luna, The Law Offices of Hector E. Pedrosa-Luna,
Jennie M. Espada-Ocasio, Espada Esquire Legal Services Psc, Juan
R. Requena-Davila, Andrea Farah, Scott Scott, Attorneys at Law,
LLP, pro hac vice, Beth A. Kaswan, Scott Scott, Attorneys at Law,
LLP, pro hac vice, Richard P. Rouco, Quinn, Connor, Weaver, Davies
& Rouco, pro hac vice & Luis E. Minana, Luis E. Minana &
Associates.

UBS Financial Services, Inc. of Puerto Rico, Defendant,
represented by Mauricio O. Muniz-Luciano --
mauricio.muniz@oneillborges.com -- O'Neill & Borges, Paul J.
Lockwood -- paul.lockwood@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP, pro hac vice, Ubaldo M. Fernandez-Barrera --
ubaldo.fernandez@oneillborges.com -- O'Neill & Borges & Salvador
J. Antonetti-Stutts -- salvador.antonetti@oneillborges.com --
O'Neill & Borges.

UBS Trust Company of Puerto Rico, Carlos J. Ortiz, Defendants,
represented by Mauricio O. Muniz-Luciano, O'Neill & Borges, Nicole
A. DiSalvo, Skadden, ARPS, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, pro hac
vice, Paul J. Lockwood, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP,
pro hac vice, Ubaldo M. Fernandez-Barrera, O'Neill & Borges &
Salvador J. Antonetti-Stutts, O'Neill & Borges.

Puerto Rico Fixed Income Fund III, Inc., Puerto Rico Fixed Income
V, Inc., Defendants, represented by Roberto C. Quinones-Rivera,
McConnell Valdes, LLC.

Miguel A. Ferrer, Defendant, represented by Paul J. Lockwood,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, pro hac vice, Stephanie
A. Weathers-Lowin, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, pro hac vice,
Enrique G. Figueroa-Llinas, Bobonis, Bobonis & Rodriguez Poventud,
Francis C. Healy, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, pro hac vice,
Guillermo J. Bobonis, Bobonis, Bobonis & Rodriguez Poventud &
Melvin A. Brosterman, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, pro hac vice.

UBS Financial Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Nicole A.
DiSalvo, Skadden, ARPS, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, pro hac vice,
Paul J. Lockwood, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, pro
hac vice, Ubaldo M. Fernandez-Barrera, O'Neill & Borges, Salvador
J. Antonetti-Stutts, O'Neill & Borges & Mauricio O. Muniz-Luciano,
O'Neill & Borges.

UBS Financial Services of Puerto Rico Inc., represented by Nicole
A. DiSalvo, Skadden, ARPS, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, pro hac
vice, Paul J. Lockwood, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP,
pro hac vice, Salvador J. Antonetti-Stutts, O'Neill & Borges.

UBS Trust Company of Puerto Rico, Carlos J. Ortiz, Consol
Defendants, representeds by Paul J. Lockwood, Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, pro hac vice & Salvador J. Antonetti-
Stutts, O'Neill & Borges.

Miguel A. Ferrer, Consol Defendant, represented by Enrique G.
Figueroa-Llinas, Bobonis, Bobonis & Rodriguez Poventud, Guillermo
J. Bobonis, Bobonis, Bobonis & Rodriguez Poventud, Paul J.
Lockwood, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, pro hac vice,
Francis C. Healy, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, pro hac vice &
Melvin A. Brosterman, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, pro hac vice.

Puerto Rico Fixed Income Fund, Inc. III, Consol Defendant,
represented by Roberto C. Quinones-Rivera, McConnell Valdes, LLC &
Amelia Cristina O'Neill-Vega, McConnell Valdes, LLC.
Puerto Rico Fixed Income Fund, Inc. V, Consol Defendant,
represented by Roberto C. Quinones-Rivera, McConnell Valdes, LLC &
Amelia Cristina O'Neill-Vega, McConnell Valdes, LLC.


UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Cotromano Seeks Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as RICHARD COTROMANO, BETHANY COTROMANO,
FRANK DECARLO, PAULETTE DECARLO, GREGORY DUNSFORD, JENNIFER
DUNSFORD, JOYCE FEATHERSTON, BILL FEATHERSTON, ROBERT T. NEWFIELD,
TRACY NEWFIELD, JOSEPH ADINOLFE, and KAY SAMSON, Class
Representatives, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES, Pratt
& Whitney Group, A Connecticut Corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. 9:13-cv-80928-KAM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
grant their motion for class certification of:

"all persons who owned residential properties in the Acreage on
either August 24, 2009 or February 10, 2010."

These dates are tied to specific notices from government agencies
respecting the elevated incidence of pediatric cancer at the
Acreage, a semi-rural, predominantly residential neighborhood in
Palm Beach County, Florida.  Plaintiffs sue for UTC's alleged
contamination of their neighborhood.

In August 2009, the Florida Department of Health (DOH) declared
that the level of pediatric brain tumors in the Acreage was
significantly elevated. On February 10, 2010, the Palm Beach
County Health Department designated the Acreage as a cancer
cluster. Thus, the date upon which a property owner must have
owned property in the Acreage to be included within the class is
tied to their ownership of the property during the time of the
public disclosure of the existence of the cancer cluster.

All proposed class Plaintiffs have sustained the same injury.

UTC has argued that not all class members have suffered damages.

Plaintiffs counter that this argument centers on whether damages
require individualized proof.  They assert that all members of the
proposed class claim a diminution in their property values and ask
that those damages be calculated using a mass appraisal
methodology. Plaintiffs contend that they have established that
individual issues will not predominate over common ones.

It is not prerequisite to certification that Plaintiffs submit a
trial plan with their class certification motion. If the Court so
directs, however, Plaintiffs can and will present a feasible trial
plan.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4WL0GtQ7

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Haberman
          SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
          1212 S.E. 3RD Ave.
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 320-9507
          Facsimile (954) 320-9509
          E-mail: scott@schlesingerlawoffices.com
                  jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com

                - and -

          Mara R. P. Hatfield, Esq.
          SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA
          BARNHART & SHIPLEY, P.A.
          2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
          West Palm Beach, FL 33409
          Telephone: (561) 686 6300
          Facsimile: (561) 383 9539
          E-mail: mrh@searcylaw.com
                  hatfieldteam@searcylaw.com
                  dtm@searcylaw.com

                - and -

          Bryan S. Gowdy, Esq.
          CREED &GOWDY, P.A.
          865 May Street
          Jacksonville, FL 32204
          Telephone: (904) 350 0075
          Facsimile: (904) 503 0441
          E-mail: bgowdy@appellate-firm.com
                  filings@appellate-firm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Heather Carney Costanzo, Esq.
          Gerard Joseph Curley, Jr., Esq.
          Gregor J. Schwinghammer, Jr., Esq.
          Fabienne E. Fahnestock, Esq.
          GUNSTER YOAKLEY &STEWART, P.A.
          777 S Flagler Drive, Suite 500E
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 655 1980
          Facsimile: (561) 655 5677
          E-mail: Hcostanzo@gunster.com
                  jcurley@gunster.com
                  gschwinghammer@gunster.com
                  jhoppel@gunster.com
                  Pdavid@gunster.com
                  Ffahnestock@gunster.com
                  Ivanegas@gunster.com

               - and -

          Alexander L. Groden, Esq.
          Andrew C. MacNally, Esq.
          Daniel R. McElroy, Esq.
          Sean W. Gallagher, Esq.
          BARTLIT BECK HERMAN PALENCHAR & SCOTT, LLP
          54 W Hubbard Street, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 494 4408
          Facsimile: (312) 494 4440
          E-mail: alex.groden@bartlit-beck.com
                  andrew.macnally@bartlit-beck.com
                  daniel.mcelroy@bartlit-beck.com
                  sean.gallagher@bartlit-beck.com


USAA CASUALTY: Montana Reverses "Byorth" Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PETER BYORTH and ANN McKEAN, on behalf of
themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs and
Appellees, v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, and JOHN DOES I-X,
Defendants and Appellants, No. DA 16-0013 (Mont.), the Supreme
Court of Montana reversed the order of the Thirteenth Judicial
District Court in Yellowstone County which certified the class
action pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 23.

On April 24, 2015, Peter Byorth and Ann McKean filed a complaint
against USAA Casualty Insurance Company alleging breach of
fiduciary duties, breach of contract, and violations of the Unfair
Trade Practices Act, section 33-18-201, MCA (UTPA).  The
plaintiffs argued that USAA's practice of sending medical claims
to Auto Injury Solutions (AIS) was "an improper cost containment
scheme designed to wrongfully deprive Montana consumers of their
first-party medical pay benefits."  The plaintiffs sought to
recover actual and punitive damages and to enjoin USAA from
submitting future claims to AIS for review.

On December 29, 2015, the District Court issued an order
certifying the proposed class, concluding that "all members of the
proposed class, including Byorth and McKean, were subject to the
same claims processing procedure of outsourcing claims to AIS."
The District Court certified the class as follows: "Under Mont. R.
Civ. P. 23(b)(3) the Court certifies the following class: (a) all
Montana consumers who (b) were insured by USAA for med pay
benefits and (c) who submitted a claim for med pay benefits from
April 2007 to April 2015, and (d) had their claim denied in whole
or in part following a file review by AIS or because of an
asserted coding error."

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Montana turned to the four
requisites of Rule 23(a).  The Supreme Court concluded that the
District Court abused its discretion in finding that the
requirements of numerosity, commonality and typicality were
satisfied.

As to numerosity, the Supreme Court found that very little
certification-related discovery is present in the record, and that
as a consequence, there is no evidence of the number of claimants
who had their claims denied in whole or in part.

The Supreme Court also found that the record lacks an evidentiary
basis for finding commonality, explaining that the mere act of
sending claims to an outside contractor like AIS -- without more -
- is not the type of programmatic conduct that satisfies
commonality.  The Supreme Court pointed out that the question of
whether all class members had claims reviewed by AIS is precisely
the type of superficial question that fails to demonstrate a
common injury.  In other words, the question would have to
identify the allegedly unlawful, systematic program in place at
AIS that causes the denials.  Upon a full review of the record,
the Supreme Court was unable to locate any evidence of the alleged
algorithm employed by AIS to systematically deny claims.

Because typicality and commonality overlap to the extent both are
measured by the reach of common questions of law or fact, the
Supreme Court cannot overlook the fact that the record does not
contain evidence of the alleged common question that unites not
only the class as a whole, but also the named representatives with
the absent class members.

USAA did not dispute adequacy on appeal.  In a footnote to its
opening brief, USAA reserved a potential challenge to the adequacy
of the named representatives until it has taken discovery from the
plaintiffs.  The Supreme Court thus declined to address adequacy
further.

The District Court did not mention Rule 23(b) until the
penultimate page of its certification order.  Even then, the
District Court did so in passing: "Under Mont. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)
the Court certifies the following class . . . ."  The Supreme
Court found it unclear whether the District Court undertook any
analysis in determining that the class satisfied Rule 23(b)(3),
and therefore concluded that the District Court abused its
discretion by certifying the class under Rule 23(b)(3) without
assessing predominance and superiority.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's November 22, 2016 opinion
is available at https://is.gd/jqNwav from Leagle.com.

Ian McIntosh -- imcintosh@crowleyfleck.com -- Kelsey E. Bunkers
-- kbunkers@crowleyfleck.com -- Crowley Fleck, PLLP, Bozeman,
Montana

Jessica G. Scott -- scott@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell
LLP, Denver, Colorado, for Appellants.

John Heenan, Colette B. Davies, Bishop & Heenan, Billings,
Montana, for Appellees.


USF REDDAWAY: Moss, et al. Seek Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ROBERT MOSS and JAMIEL WATKINS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. USF REDDAWAY, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:15-cv-
01541-JAK-FFM (C.D. Cal.), Robert Moss and Jamiel Watkins move the
Court for certification of a class consisting of:

   "all California residents employed as truck drivers by USF
   Reddaway, Inc. ('Defendant' or 'Reddaway') in California who
   held California drivers' licenses, and who were paid, in whole
   or in part, on the basis of a certain amount per mile during
   the Class Period from June 30, 2011 through the present" (the
   "Class", "putative class", or "California line haul drivers").

The case is in connection with Plaintiffs' California Labor Code
and unfair competition law claims based on Reddaway's: (1) failure
to pay the Class separately and hourly for their time spent in
California on rest breaks, pre-trip and post-trip inspections, and
completion of work-related paperwork; (2) failure to provide paid
rest breaks or pay missed rest break premiums for unpaid rest
breaks; (3) issuance of incomplete wage statements to a "wage
statement and PAGA subclass" consisting of those putative class
members employed by Reddaway from June 30, 2014 to the present;
(4) failure to pay compensation due on separation of employment,
including unpaid rest break time and pay for the non-driving
tasks, triggering penalties to a "waiting time penalty subclass"
of putative class members whose employment ended from June 30,
2012 to the present; and (5) unfair business practices.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3TUu0gvb

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
          Telephone: (310) 277-0614
          Facsimile: (310) 277-0635

               - and -

          Julian Hammond, Esq.
          HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
          1829 Reisterstown Rd. Suite 410
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (310) 601 6766
          Facsimile: (310) 295 2385


VENTURE DATA: Bid for Class Certification Sought in "Mey" Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as DIANA MEY, individually and on behalf
of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated, the
Plaintiff v. VENTURE DATA, LLC, PUBLIC OPINION STRATEGIES, the
Defendants, Case No. 5:14-cv-00123-JPB-JES (N.D. W.Va.),
Diana Mey moves for certification of a class defined as:

   "all persons in the United States to whom, on June 11, August
   19, or September 9, 2014, Venture Data placed a call on his or
   her cellular telephone line, using the Pro-T-S or CFMC dialer,
   and as part of a Public Opinion Strategies survey.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint the Plaintiff'
counsel as class counsel

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BgsM7VoT

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John W. Barrett, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
          Ryan M. Donovan, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345 6555
          E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com
                  jmarshall@baileyglasser.com
                  rdonovan@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
          99 High St., Suite 304
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 738 7080
          E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com
                  anthony@broderick-law.com

               - and -

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


VIRGINIA: Study Reports on Driver's License Suspensions
-------------------------------------------------------
Frank Green, writing for Richmond Times-Dispatch, reports that
about 38,000 times each year, driving privileges are stripped from
Virginians -- not for traffic offenses, but instead for drug
offenses.

Dubbed a relic of the war on drugs, Virginia law automatically
suspends the licenses of anyone convicted of even minor drug
offenses, reports a new Prison Policy Initiative study.

The study contends the law is counterproductive and unnecessarily
burdens low-income offenders by limiting their ability to get or
keep a job to pay court fines and costs or child support.

The automatic suspensions for drug offenses also are said to
jeopardize public safety -- people with suspended licenses caught
driving fall deeper into the justice system while police, the
courts and the Department of Motor Vehicles are tied up dealing
with suspensions unrelated to traffic law enforcement.

Driver's license suspensions in Virginia already were in the
spotlight from other developments this year:

   -- A class action lawsuit filed in federal court by the
Charlottesville-based Legal Aid Justice Center alleges the license
suspensions of Virginians unable to pay court fines and costs --
when those who can afford to pay keep their licenses
-- is discriminatory and violates constitutional protections.

   -- A new rule quietly adopted by the Virginia Supreme Court
that takes effect in February offers some relief to offenders by
requiring all courts in the state to offer defendants unable to
pay court fines and costs within 30 days deferred or installment
payment plans before suspending their licenses.

The new study, "Reinstating Common Sense: How driver's license
suspensions for drug offenses unrelated to driving are falling out
of favor," says that in 1991, Congress threatened states with a
loss of federal highway funds if they did not automatically
suspend the licenses of drug offenders.

Today, only Washington, D.C., Virginia and 11 other states still
automatically suspend licenses -- a total of 190,000 a year.

The study reports that in the fiscal year that ended June 30,
2015, there were 38,849 suspensions in Virginia for drug
convictions unrelated to driving and a similar number the previous
year.

According to the Department of Motor Vehicles, there were 38,130
in the year that ended June 30, 2016.  The department said "orders
issued" does not equal the total number of customers, since some
may have received more than one order.

"While a majority of states have opted out of the federal law, 12
states and Washington, D.C., have continued to hurt their own
citizens with these needless license suspensions," said Joshua
Aiken with the Prison Policy Initiative, a nonprofit, nonpartisan
group.

Mr. Aiken said, "The report finds that the burden of these
suspensions falls most heavily on low-income people and people of
color."

The Prison Policy Initiative agrees that possessing a driver's
license should reflect responsible driving and that license
suspensions are a logical tool for enforcing laws against reckless
driving, leaving the scene of a crash and other driving offenses.

But the group complains that nationally, 40 percent of license
suspensions were for reasons not related to driving.

"In some states, littering, burning trash, skipping school and
unpaid student loans result in driver's license suspensions.  Most
states suspend driver's licenses for unpaid court fines and fees
and failure to pay child support," the report said.

According to the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, a snapshot
of the number and types of license suspensions, as of Sept. 3,
shows there were 10,869 for non-motor vehicle drug suspensions;
20,746 for failure to satisfy court judgments; and 7,989 for
failure to pay child support.

In court papers filed this year, the Virginia Attorney General's
Office said the suspension of licenses to protect highway safety
is a legitimate governmental purpose and so are suspensions for
failure to pay court fines and costs, because they assist courts
in enforcing court orders.

Concerning suspension for nondriver-related issues, Richmond
Commonwealth's Attorney Michael Herring concedes, "There is wide
disagreement on the effectiveness of the sanction.  Some say it is
regressive and results in disparate impact on the disadvantaged."
And, he said, "I tend to agree."

A DMV spokeswoman explained that state law automatically requires
the department to revoke administratively the "driving privilege"
for six months for someone convicted of any nondriving drug crime
-- even a misdemeanor possession charge with no jail time.

Defendants can apply to the court for a restricted license that
permits driving to work, for example.  The department said that of
the 38,000 drug-related suspensions in the year that ended June
30, 10,450 were granted restricted privileges at the time of the
convictions.

The Prison Policy Initiative argues that restricted licenses are
not a substantive solution to unnecessarily suspended licenses. In
some states, the process for winning a restricted license can be
longer than the suspension.

In the past three years, five state legislatures -- in Ohio,
Massachusetts, Georgia, Delaware and Indiana -- have voted to
abolish automatic suspensions, the study says.

At least one related bill has been filed for the upcoming General
Assembly session in Virginia.

Introduced by state Sen. Adam Ebbin, D-Alexandria, the proposal
would not strip adults convicted of simple marijuana possession of
their license.  It would be contingent on written assurance from
the U.S. Department of Transportation that Virginia will not lose
any federal funds.

The Prison Policy Initiative study notes that a 2013 best
practices guide by the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators reported: "It was estimated that as many as three-
fourths of suspended or revoked drivers continue to drive. This
fact indicates that driver license suspension is no longer the
solution to enforce compliance."

"The costs of arresting, processing, administering and enforcing
social nonconformance-related driver license suspensions create a
significant strain on budgets and other resources and detract from
highway and public safety priorities," the association wrote.

The guide recommends that state legislators repeal laws requiring
the suspension of licenses for nontraffic safety reasons.
Angela Ciolfi, senior attorney with the Legal Aid Justice Center,
which filed the class action suit on behalf of four plaintiffs in
July, said their case is solely about suspensions for failure to
pay court debt due to the inability to pay -- and not suspension
as a result of sentencing for drugs or any other reason.

"We are focused on the punishment of poverty as such and the
cascading harms that flow from driving people further into debt
when they can't meet their basic needs," she said.

Among other things, the suit alleges that courts issuing
suspensions for failure to pay court costs and fines fail to take
into account a debtor's ability to pay.

The justice center said that in the year that ended June 30, 2015,
the Virginia DMV issued 366,773 orders of driver's license
suspensions resulting from unpaid court fines or costs -- more
than one-third of which were for offenses unrelated to driving.
Most of those affected are low-income drivers.

The loss of a license can mean the loss of the only way to reach
work.  As a result, many people are forced to choose between
losing their jobs or risking getting locked up for driving
illegally.

Last month, the U.S. Department of Justice waded into the case by
filing a brief that contends that suspending a driver's license is
unconstitutional if it is done without providing due process and
without assessing whether the individual's failure to pay was
willful or the result of an inability to pay.

In its response opposing the suit, the Virginia Attorney General's
Office wrote that under Virginia law, "any individual who fails to
pay court-imposed fines and costs will have his driver's license
suspended, regardless of income, race, gender, nationality, or
other trait."
Absent dissimilar treatment, the Equal Protection Clause of the
Constitution is not at issue, the state lawyers argued.

"Although Plaintiffs have set forth what could be described as a
persuasive argument that courts should give indigent criminal
defendants greater latitude with respect to the imposition or
repayment of fines and costs, what they have presented is, at its
heart, a policy argument -- and this is not a policymaking forum.
It is a court of law," the office wrote to U.S. District Judge
Norman Moon.

The Attorney General's Office recently filed another motion to
dismiss the suit -- this one in light of a new rule by the
Virginia Supreme Court.  The rule was adopted by the justices last
month and takes effect in February.

Among other things, the rule requires a judge to take into account
a defendant's financial resources and obligations, including
indigence, as well as anything owed in other courts when
determining the amount and length of time to pay court fines and
costs under a deferred or installment payment plan.

Randolph Rollins, founder and president of Drive to Work, a
charitable organization that helps people win back their licenses,
said the current state law allows judges to defer payment of fines
and costs to a later date or to set up an installment plan for an
offender to avoid suspending his or her license.

Prior to the new rule, Rollins, the secretary of public safety in
the administration of Gov. Douglas Wilder, said, "Each individual
court made its own decisions.  Some of them didn't give pay plans
at all.  Some of them gave pay plans that were very liberal.
Others were very restrictive about it."

The rule standardizes things and also tells courts that where
available, "the court should liberally use community service work
as an option to defray fines and costs, especially where the
defendant is unable to make substantial payments."

The Attorney General's Office argues: "The Virginia Supreme Court,
therefore, has enacted the very policy Plaintiffs seek. For this
reason, there is no further relief that could or should issue in
this case and these proceedings are moot."

Ms. Ciolfi welcomes the new rule but strongly disagrees that it
fixes the problem targeted by the suit.  Rather, she said, it
acknowledges that the system is broken.

"The Supreme Court deserves our praise for its leadership in
helping people avoid the court debt trap.  If the rules are
implemented in both letter and spirit, they offer tremendous
potential to stem the tide of drivers entering the license-for-
payment pipeline," Ms. Ciolfi said.

But she said the rule does not "alter the fundamental flaw in the
license-for-payment system, which is the mandatory and automatic
nature of the driver's license suspension statute."

Rollins, with Drive to Work, believes the new rule "is a pretty
significant development."


VIRGINIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE: Okimoto Seeks Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
in the lawsuit titled RICHARD THOMAS OKIMOTO, on his behalf, and
for all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL
VIRGINIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE and VIRGINIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM,
Case No. 6:16-cv-00075-NKM (W.D. Va.), Mr. Richard Okimoto moves
the Court to conditionally certify a class of:

   "all employees employed by the Defendants who have worked two
   contemporaneous jobs for Defendants in which the primary duty
   of their employment remained a non-exempt positions at any
   point in the last three years".

In the alternative, should the Court find the definition of the
collective action members too expansive, the Plaintiff moves that
the class includes:

   "all employees employed by the Defendants who have worked two
   contemporaneous jobs for Defendants in which one position was
   that of Adjunct Instructor and in which the primary duty of
   their employment remained a non-exempt position at any point
   in the last 3 years".

The Plaintiff further moves the Court to facilitate notice by
ordering Defendants to provide the names and addresses of all such
persons to undersigned counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6flA9Gem

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Strelka, Esq.
          STRLEKA LAW OFFICE, PC
          119 Norfolk Avenue., S.W.
          Suite 330, Warehouse Row
          Roanoke, VA 24011
          Telephone: 540 283 0802
          E-mail: thomas@strelka.com
                  leigh@strelka.com


VOLKSWAGEN: EU to Take Action v. 7 Member States Over Emissions
---------------------------------------------------------------
JURIS reports that the European Commission on Dec. 8 announced
plans to take action against seven member states for failing to
fulfill their obligations under EU law when they did not set up
penalty systems to deter manufacturers from violating the
legislation, particularly after Volkswagen (VW) [corporate
website] was investigated for implementing software in its
vehicles that could cheat emissions tests.  The Commission will
take action against Germany, Luxembourg, Spain and the UK because
they issued approvals for VW vehicles and did not enforce the
provisions on penalties against the manufacturer after it was
discovered they cheated the emissions tests.  Germany and the UK
have further been accused of not disclosing to the Commission
information it requested concerning nitrogen oxide emissions and
Volkswagen irregularities.  Notices were also sent to Czech
Republic, Greece and Lithuania because they have not introduced
penalty systems against car manufacturers in their national laws.

VW is facing legal difficulty around the world over the emissions
scandal.  South Korea announced on Dec. 7 that it plans to fine
VW over false advertising.  In October, A Spanish court ordered
Volkswagen to pay damages to a VW vehicle owner who purchased his
car in 2011.  A US judge approved a $14.7 billion settlement in
October between VW and the US Department of Justice, the Federal
Trade Commission, the state of California and car owners who filed
a class action lawsuit over the company's emissions scandal.  In
September a German court said VW faces over USD $8.2 billion in
damage claims from investors.  That same month, the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission sued VW and its local
subsidiary for misleading customers.  In August a district court
in Germany ruled that a collective complaint against VW may move
forward.  Like US-style class-action lawsuits, the collective
complaint was launched on behalf of multiple investors who lost
money following the diesel emissions cheating scandal.  Last March
the US FTC filed suit against VW for false advertising.


WACKENHUT CORP: Statistical Sampling Allowed to Certify Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Tochner, Esq. -- stuart.tochner@ogletreedeakins.com -- of
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., in an article for
JDSupra, reports that statistical sampling has always been an
effective and efficient way for plaintiffs to establish class
action liability in California. After some hope that a 2011
decision by the Supreme Court of the United States might hamper
that ability, a California appellate court has reaffirmed
statistical sampling as a viable method available to class action
plaintiffs to prove their cases.

On November 21, 2016, California's Second District Court of Appeal
ruled that wage-and-hour plaintiffs are not barred from using a
sample of statistical evidence as a basis to prove class
certification and permitted the use of such evidence in a class
action brought by a class of 10,000 to 13,000 security officers
against their employer.

The decision in Lubin v. The Wackenhut Corp., B244383 (November
21, 2016) limited the application of the Supreme Court's employer-
friendly decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes 564 U.S. 338
(2011).  In Wal-Mart, the Supreme Court had reversed a grant of
class certification as to 1.5 million female employees alleging
gender discrimination, ruling that a lower court's reliance upon
statistical sampling had been misplaced.  The trial court in Lubin
had initially granted plaintiff's motion for class certification,
but then reversed itself, based upon the then-newly decided Wal-
Mart case.  The Second District reversed that decision, restoring
instead the trial court's original decision to certify the class.

The plaintiffs in Lubin alleged that the putative class members
had signed written on-duty meal period agreements that did not
include certain required revocation language.  Rather than review
each relevant agreement, the parties agreed to a statistical
sampling of agreements, and to extrapolate the extent of compliant
language to the entire class.  After Wal-Mart was decided,
however, the employer moved to decertify the class, contending
that statistical sampling was now improper.  The trial court
agreed, and decertified the class.

Quoting a new Supreme Court case from 2016, the Second District in
Lubin ruled that "Wal-Mart does not 'stand for the broad
proposition that a representative sample is an impermissible means
of establishing classwide liability.'"  Rather, the admissibility
of statistical sampling depends "on the degree to which the
evidence is reliable in proving or disproving the elements of the
relevant cause of action."  Statistical sampling, the court
concluded, may not have been sufficiently reliable in the Wal-Mart
case (which was a Title VII gender discrimination case), but it
was sufficiently in probative in this wage-and-hour matter.

Lubin therefore clarifies that statistical sampling can still be
used in limited circumstances to establish liability, subject to
the relevancy concerns articulated in Wal-Mart.  It is one more
weapon available to plaintiffs' attorneys to prove class action
claims, and is not summarily barred as the trial court had held in
this case.


WAL-MART STORES: Court Nixes Female Employee's Gender Bias Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Cronin Fisk and Della Hasselle, writing for Bloomberg
News, report that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. convinced a Louisiana jury
it didn't discriminate against a woman who said she was denied
promotions in a first test trial of hundreds of claims after the
retailer won a U.S. Supreme Court decision barring a nationwide
class action.

The New Orleans jury on Dec. 7 rejected a claim by Ravion Fairley,
who alleged that she was paid less than men in identical positions
and wasn't offered a higher-paying job as a meat cutter while
working for the company because Wal-Mart "adhered to strict
gender-segregated roles."

Wal-Mart countered that Ms. Fairley was paid based on her
experience, didn't ask for the promotion and had admitted being
afraid of the cutting saws used by butchers.

Ms. Fairley's complaint is one of about 2,000 claims filed with
the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging bias in
pay and promotions after the national class action was discarded,
according to plaintiffs' lawyers.  Ms. Fairley filed her lawsuit
last year after the EEOC issued a letter allowing her to sue.

"We are extremely disappointed in the result," said
Matthew Morgan, a lawyer for Ms. Fairley.  "We had hoped,
obviously, for a different outcome.  We are mostly disappointed
for our client."

Randy Hargrove, a Wal-Mart spokesman, said the company had treated
and compensated Fairley appropriately and "consistent with the
law.''

"We have had strong policies against discrimination for many years
and have a long history of providing advancement opportunities for
our associates," Mr. Hargrove said in an e-mailed statement.

Five more cases are scheduled for trial over the next six months,
each claiming bias going back as far as 1999.

Plaintiffs' lawyers will be using Fairley's case and the other
trials to decide how to pursue the hundreds of claims remaining
with the EEOC.

'Extraordinary Challenge'

Pursuing a claim in which the alleged discrimination happened more
than a decade ago is an "extraordinary challenge," said attorney
Cyrus Mehri, who represents plaintiffs in employment cases and
isn't involved in the Wal- Mart litigation.

"Evidence gets stale, memories fade, and the harm doesn't seem
that urgent," he said in a phone interview. Some of the remaining
women could win, but "there's a headwind against all these cases,"
Mr. Mehri said.

Wal-Mart had sought to dismiss the suits, citing delays in filing
them. The plaintiffs said the statute of limitations didn't apply
because the claims were put on hold while the women's class action
was pending.

The attempted class action began in 2001 when six current and
former Wal-Mart workers sued the company claiming systemic
discrimination against women in pay and promotions.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 reversed lower-court decisions
allowing the women to sue as a group on behalf of about 1.5
million workers. The court found the women failed to point to a
common corporate policy that led to gender discrimination at
thousands of Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores in the U.S.

California, Texas

Plaintiffs' lawyers made multiple attempts at regional class
actions, including filings in California, Texas and Florida.  They
had little success as judges found the new suits also didn't meet
required standards for class actions.  Only one of these cases
remains, brought in Tennessee for women who work in stores in that
state and parts of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia and Mississippi.  It
was also initially dismissed but revived by a federal appeals
court.

Ms. Fairley complained that when she worked in the meat department
in the Wal-Mart's Covington, Louisiana, store, "men were meat
cutters and women were meat wrappers, and meat wrappers made
less," according to court papers.  "There was only one female meat
cutter during Fairley's tenure and she was harassed by her male
coworkers, who stated, 'It just didn't look right for a woman to
be cutting the meat.'" This woman, Ms. Fairley said, was told meat
cutting was a "male's job."

Ms. Fairley claims she was excluded from higher-earning positions
and paid less than males in the same jobs while working for Wal-
Mart from 1997 to 2005.   She said she began doing the work of a
lead associate in the seafood department, but didn't get the title
or a management-level raise and was paid less than male employees
under her.  A male employee doing similar work made $6 to $7 more
per hour than she did, Mr. Morgan, her lawyer, told jurors on Dec.
5.

She was paid less than she deserved, Ms. Fairley testified at
trial on Dec. 7.  "It was disappointing to know I was doing all of
this work and not even getting paid for it.''

Wal-Mart argued there was no discrimination and women weren't
excluded.  "This case has nothing to do with equal pay for equal
work," Wal-Mart attorney Stephen Beiser told the jury on Dec. 5.

"Ms. Fairley wants to be paid now, not years ago, the same as
people did for completely different jobs that required completely
different skill levels," he said.  "This has nothing to do with
gender and everything to do with merit."

The case is Fairley v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 15-cv-00462, U.S.
District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans).


WALLACE & RUSH: Court Denied FLSA Class Certification Bid as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled DE'MARCUS THOMAS v. WALLACE, RUSH, SCHMIDT,
INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-00572-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La.), the Hon. Brian A.
Jackson entered an order:

   1. denying as moot Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify
      a Fair Labor standards Act collective class action and send
      notice to the Class;

   2. denying as moot Defendant's motion for partial dismissal;

   3. denying as moot Defendant's motion to strike class
      allegations; and

   4. denying as moot Plaintiff's Motion for leave to file reply
      memorandum;

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


WELLS FARGO: Closed-Door Arbitration Draws Legislative Backlash
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kartikay Mehrotra, Laura J Keller and Romy Varghese, writing for
Bloomberg News, report that Wells Fargo & Co.'s attempt to force
aggrieved customers into closed-door arbitration over its fake-
accounts scandal is drawing a legislative backlash in its home
state of California and risks subjecting the bank to another round
as a public punching bag.

Following pledges at Capitol Hill hearings and in advertisements
that it would rebuild customer trust, the San Francisco-based
lender moved to avoid facing many claims in open court.  Even as
Donald Trump's surprise election may ease pressure from
Washington, the arbitration issue injects new life into the
scandal and could further tarnish the firm's reputation.

"It goes once again to the bank's not following the rules, and
they get away with it at the detriment of the consumer,"
Ed Mills, an analyst at FBR Capital Markets, said in an interview.
"It's a concern that Wells Fargo is trying to have it both ways."

California state Senator Bill Dodd, a Democrat, has responded to
Wells Fargo's arbitration stance, introducing a bill this month to
override forced-arbitration clauses in contracts created through
fraud. He said his legislation is, in part, a pushback against
likely attempts to weaken U.S. regulations.

"Unfortunately, we're more likely to see an erosion of consumer
protection at the federal level over the next several years,"
Mr. Dodd said.

Wells Fargo admitted this year that its bankers may have created
millions of fraudulent accounts.  It fired thousands of employees,
made refunds to customers and agreed to pay fines totaling $185
million.  That was followed by congressional hearings and the
resignation of Chief Executive Officer
John Stumpf.

"We are working very hard to undo harm that may have been caused
to our customers, including contacting those affected to ensure
they still want their accounts, reimbursing improper fees and
issuing refunds," Wells Fargo spokeswoman Jennifer Dunn said in an
e-mailed statement.  "We want to make sure that no Wells Fargo
customer loses a single penny because of these issues."

'Basic Fairness'

In setting up the fake accounts, bank employees entered existing
customers into new contracts requiring that any related disputes
be handled in private.  At issue is whether such terms are binding
on customers for bogus accounts.

"It's a question of basic fairness, that a large bank is denying
you some of your legal rights based upon something you never
signed," Mr. Mills said.  "That probably reignites some of the
populist angst against the bank that is still simmering."

In a class-action complaint filed in October in Los Angeles
federal court, consumers are demanding monetary damages.  They say
they were victimized by a bank intent on bolstering its balance
sheet.  While individual damages could be under $100, the cost of
paying a class comprising the owners of millions of fraudulent
accounts exponentially increases the price tag of litigation.

That begins to explain why Wells Fargo would prefer to avoid
class-action disputes, said Ken Feinberg, the Obama
administration's former paymaster who mediated resolution of
disputes with BP Plc, General Motors Co. and Volkswagen AG.

'Riskiest' Path

"If they can get away with it, it's sound policy -- but the path
they're currently following is also the riskiest," said
Mr. Feinberg.  "It's hard to imagine the court won't ultimately
say that the arbitration clauses are unconscionable."

Wells Fargo considers arbitration a "last resort" when resolving
customer disputes, according to Dunn.  She said that while
arbitration bars customers from pursuing class-action cases, it
doesn't block them from other legal venues like small claims
court.  Arbitration is faster and cheaper than litigation, she
said.

In the three months since Wells Fargo settled with the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, it has forfeited business and lost
its title as the world's most valuable bank to rival JPMorgan
Chase & Co.  The lender's executives twice endured hours-long
grillings on Capitol Hill, including one from Senator Elizabeth
Warren, who called for the U.S. Department of Justice and the
Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate the bank.
Those agencies are investigating, as are another federal
department, state attorneys general, prosecutors' offices and
congressional committees.  Wells Fargo's stock, which has gained
5.4 percent for the year, is still the worst performer among the
10 largest U.S. banks and trails the 27 percent rise of the KBW
Bank Index.

Lawsuits Multiply

Attorneys have filed at least 30 lawsuits in state and federal
courts since Wells Fargo acknowledged its malfeasance, with fresh
litigation still finding its way to court.  Three consumer
disputes are at varying stages.  One case in a California district
court was voluntarily dismissed within two weeks of its filing,
which could be an indication of a settlement or private
arbitration.

The bank's home state isn't proving hospitable.  Democrats won a
two-thirds majority in the California Legislature last month, and
now hold a so-called supermajority in both houses.  Even if
Governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, opposed them, lawmakers can set
their agenda almost at will without the support of Republicans.

California's John Chiang, the first state treasurer to pull
business from Wells Fargo because of the fake-accounts
controversy, is considering action on arbitration, said his
spokesman, Marc Lifsher.

Democrats on Capitol Hill have also raised concerns about Wells
Fargo's use of forced arbitration.  Lawmakers led by Sherrod
Brown, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, proposed
legislation that would allow the customers' lawsuits.  But
President-elect Trump's victory and the Republican control of
Congress may lead to less regulation, dimming the bill's
prospects.

Trump's win has complicated the CFPB's efforts to curb mandatory
arbitration agreements that consumers make with financial-services
companies.  The bureau proposed a rule earlier this year that
would circumvent those clauses by allowing groups of people to
join together to pursue class-action lawsuits when they feel
they've been wronged.  Trump could make that more difficult.

Mr. Dodd, the California lawmaker, said he and his colleagues
should work to counter Washington's moves.

"It's more important than ever for California to be a national
leader on protecting consumers," he said.


XEROX CORPORATION: Lundin Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firms, announces a class
action against Xerox Corporation concerning possible violations of
federal securities laws. Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Xerox shares between April 23, 2012 and October 23, 2015,
are reminded to contact the firm before the December 23, 2016 lead
plaintiff motion deadline.

To participate in this class action lawsuit, you can call Brian
Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail him
at brian@lundinlawpc.com.

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.

According to the Complaint, Xerox repeatedly touted its new
software product, Health Enterprise, as an important growth area
for the Company, which would operate at low cost and high profit
margin. Xerox's statements pertaining to the profitability and
growth prospects of the Health Enterprise business were materially
false and misleading because Xerox failed to disclose: that the
Company's existing Health Enterprise projects were experiencing
major delays and cost overruns; that Xerox would be unable to
deliver Health Enterprise implementations at sustainable profits;
and that as a result of the above, the Company's statements about
its business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.

On October 26, 2015, Xerox released its third quarter 2015
financial results, which were disappointing due to costs
associated with the implementation of Health Enterprise and the
termination of Health Enterprise contracts with two state
agencies. When this news was disclosed, shares of Xerox fell in
value, causing investors harm.

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

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.


YAHOO! INC: 5 of 23 Data Breach Suits Joined in San Jose Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ethan Baron, writing for Silicon Beat, reports that five of at
least 23 lawsuits against Yahoo over its record-setting and
controversial data breach have been consolidated into one suit,
set to be heard in federal court in San Jose.

Yahoo, which is in the midst of a $4.8 billion sale to Verizon, in
September announced that hackers in 2014 had stolen personal
information from at least 500 million user accounts.  The firm
said at the time that it had discovered the breach, believed to be
the largest data theft in history, during a "recent"
investigation.

But last month in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing,
Yahoo admitted it had known about the breach, which it has blamed
on a state-sponsored actor, in 2014.  And the company in the
filing said that the Verizon sale could fall through.

Within hours of Yahoo's original announcement in September about
the hacking, the first suit was filed.  The following day,
Ronald Schwartz, identified as a Yahoo user from New York, filed a
similar lawsuit, also seeking class-action status, against Yahoo.
More such actions followed.

On Dec. 7, a panel of federal judges combined those two cases and
three others into one suit, and set it to be heard in U.S.
district court in San Jose under Judge Lucy Koh.  Four of the
suits were filed originally in California, and one in Illinois.

"These actions involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses," the panel said.  "Yahoo's corporate headquarters is
located within the district, and therefore relevant documents and
witnesses are likely to be located there."

The five lawsuits have in common questions about Yahoo's
protection of users' data; the company's investigation of the
breach; the "alleged delay in disclosing the breach;" and the
nature of the alleged damages, the panel said.

Schwartz, in his suit, called Yahoo "grossly negligent" in its
handling of user data.

The first suit, filed in San Diego the day Yahoo revealed the
hack, had been filed by plaintiffs who before the revelation had
suspected their personal data had been stolen somehow.  "They were
trying to figure out how people were accessing their information,"
their lawyer David Casey told the Mercury News at the time.  "When
this (breach) became public, they put two and two together."

Meanwhile, the fate of Yahoo remains uncertain.  The sale was to
close in the first quarter of next year.  Many analysts believe
that if the sale to Verizon does go through, Verizon will pay a
discounted price because of the breach and Yahoo's response to it.


ZIMBABWE: Lawyers Mull Class Action Over Exorbitant Bank Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zimbabwe Star reports that lawyers in Zimbabwe, currently facing
crippling liquidity constraints, are planning to file a class
action against commercial banks in an attempt to force them to
reduce what they call exorbitant charges.

One of the lawyers, Fadzai Mahere, said in a tweet on Dec. 10, "I
met with a team of lawyers prepared to drive a class action
against the banks to challenge, inter alia (among other things),
the grossly unreasonable and extortionate bank charges, and the
irrational, arbitrary and capricious withdrawal limits."


ZOO PRINTING: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Corrales, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Zoo Printing, Inc., DDZ Inc., Printbuyer
LLC, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC643755 (Cal.
Super. Ct., December 13, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to provide employees with accurate itemized wage
statements.

The Defendants own and operate a printing company in Los Angeles,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry W. Lee, Esq.
      Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
      DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
      515 S. Figtieroa Street, Suite 1250
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213)488-6555
      Facsimile: (213) 488-6554


* Environmental Class Actions Expected to Grow in Australia
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jason Betts, Esq. -- Jason.Betts@hsf.com -- and Christine Tran,
Esq., of Herbert Smith Freehills, in an article for Australian
Financial Review, report that most Australians are familiar with a
class action involving contaminated water made famous by the
Hollywood films A Civil Action and Erin Brockovich.  The latter
claim against power company, Pacific Gas, secured damages of
$US333 million -- one of the biggest US settlements at the time.

Environmental class action litigation has dominated litigation
growth in the United States and Canada for years.  The scene is
set for these kinds of cases -- focused on economic loss -- to
grow in Australia.

Having traditionally taken a backseat to shareholder and consumer
class actions, environmental toxic torts are firmly back on the
litigation agenda in Australia.  Class action promoters such as
IMF Bentham, Shine Lawyers and Slater & Gordon are already
investigating possible environmental toxic tort class actions in
Australia and that trend can be expected to continue.  By shifting
away from personal injury to economic loss claims, these actions
may have a greater chance of success.

There is increasing publicity about the alleged adverse health
effects of chemicals used in Australia across a range of
industries, including fire suppression foam, fabric protectants
and industrial insulators.  Product innovation has increased the
prevalence of synthetic chemical substances in Australia, sparking
the interest of plaintiffs' law firms and class action funders to
explore the possibility of environmental toxic tort class actions
alleging contamination of the surrounding environment.

In Australia, toxic torts traditionally targeted personal injuries
said to be caused by exposure to chemical substances and
pollutants.  This type of claim is a nice fit for the class action
vehicle: alleged damage to a large number of people or even entire
communities; potential social impacts that attract media
attention; and claims that are too expensive to run individually,
but in aggregate justify the costs of class action proceedings.

Yet despite this fit, toxic torts have been slow to gain a
foothold in the Australian litigation environment, predominantly
because the links between chemical exposure and personal injury
have been tenuous, relying on difficult or developing
epidemiological and scientific evidence.

Claims riskier than others

In many cases the harms manifested -- cancers, infections, birth
defects -- are present in normal populations and therefore cannot
be persuasively traced back to the chemical exposure.  Confounding
factors also arise, for example individuals exhibiting hereditary
risks to certain diseases or pre-existing conditions that
complicate the causal analysis.  This makes the claims riskier
than other forms of class actions, and less attractive to
plaintiffs' law firms and funders as a result.

Aware of these pitfalls, promoters of the next wave of toxic tort
class actions have adapted by concentrating on economic loss,
rather than personal injuries.  Beyond the potential human
effects, the leakage or release of toxic substances into
groundwater and waterways has the capacity to impair property
values, spoil livestock and impede marine and fishing activities.
This may translate into economic loss for local property owners
and business (e.g. farmers, fishermen, tourism-related operators)
impacted financially by the contamination.  Broader economic loss
may exist, particularly if contaminations adversely affect the
local economy or reduce existing services available to residents,
further impairing property values.

Australian companies may be vulnerable to environmental claims
alleging private nuisance given that the law has long recognised
claims relating to the emission of odours, dust and chemical
particles, noise and other pollutants.  Potential liability is not
limited to those who created the pollution, but may apply to
companies that have adopted it, negligently permitted it to
continue, or failed to remedy the nuisance.

Given some of the forecast growth in consumer contact claims -- a
predicted area of exponential growth -- has been dampened by the
High Court's recent bank fees decision, environmental toxic torts
may become an area of focus and growth for promoters of class
actions looking for new frontiers. Funders will certainly be
buoyed by the recent Full Federal Court decision in support of a
"common fund" doctrine, which makes it easier to bring such claims
on a funded basis. Australian corporations would be wise to take
stock of their environmental compliance measures.


* Retirement Plan Class Action Trend to Continue in 2017
--------------------------------------------------------
Brian M. Kalish, writing for Employee Benefit Adviser, reports
that the Department of Labor's new fiduciary rule drove the past
year in retirement and, despite uncertainty as to how President-
elect Trump will approach the rule, it is still expected to have a
big impact on retirement plans as it takes effect in April 2017.
As for the rest of the retirement world, 2016 will be remembered
as a year of several class-action lawsuits against mostly large
plans.

Nevin Adams, chief of marketing and communications at the
Arlington, Va.-based industry trade group the American Retirement
Association, urges advisers to be ready for the fiduciary rule
to begin as planned, as Trump has not said anything about the
fiduciary rule.  Any changes to the rule are "probably a second-
tier effort, so [the fiduciary rule] will come into play the way
it is laid out and [may] get tweaked later," Mr. Adams says.

He thinks tweaks, which he notes is wild speculation, may be
around the best interest contract exemption and how it applies and
conditions associated with it.  "The sense is this is still pretty
[difficult] and compliance will be an issue," he says.

This past year as the fiduciary rule developed offered a "very
important opportunity to start -- yet again -- a conversation
around fiduciary best practices and [to] clarify rules with
clients and prospects," says Shelby George, SVP of advisor
services at Rochester, N.Y.-based investment manager Manning &
Napier.

Alex Assaley, principal and lead adviser for retirement plans at
Bethesda, Md.-based AFS 401(k) Retirement Services, says that
while multiple people in the industry, including himself, believe
the structure of the fiduciary rule is a good thing, it is going
to "drastically change the industry and some things that are going
to be changed are for the better, in terms of removing conflict of
inflict and ensuring there is proper disclosure around
relationships and conflicts of interests."

Lawsuits
In addition to the industry-changing fiduciary rule, 2016 can be
also be summed up as a year of major lawsuit against plans,
"centered around high-cost, poor-performing investments riddled
with hidden fees and used to pay vendors and promote conflicts of
interests," says Brian Menickella, co-founder and managing partner
at King of Prussia, Pa.-based financial services firm The Beacon
Group of Companies.

While suits against plans have gone on for a decade, there was a
fresh wave of litigation this year, with arguments moving beyond
allegations of charging excessive fees to allegations of not using
the lowest class of mutual funds, Adams adds.

The court cases reveal "the levels of abuse that are prevalent in
the 401(k) plans of [the] biggest companies. But the sheer volume
of them in alarming," Mr. Menickella explains. "No institution has
been exempt; large companies, small companies and even some of the
most respected universities have been targeted. This has resulted
in a tsunami of lawsuits."

In August, lawsuits were filed against Yale University, the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and New York University
after the institutions allegedly made their employees pay
excessive fees for retirement plans, according to The Wall Street
Journal.

"The common denominator in all the cases was that the compensation
models to advisers were conflicted," explains
Mr. Menickella.  "Specifically, advisers . . . were not required
to put their clients' best interest above their own."

As a result of these suits, the term fiduciary became more of a
buzzword, leading clients to ask more questions, a trend
Mr. Menickella expects to continue into 2017.

In addition, the lawsuits, Mr. Menickella says, have led to
employees becoming smarter about their retirement and looking for
employers to step up their game due the influx of 2016 401(k)
class-action suits.

Mr. Assaley predicts that these suits may also lead to a trend of
moving to low-cost index funds, which strip out revenue sharing.
His firm has moved all clients to a zero revenue-sharing
environment, where his fees are charged as a line item.

"The raised consciousness trend started in 2016 and will increase
in 2017 with the implementation of the fiduciary rule," Mr.
Menickella explains.  "The trend is that people are becoming more
aware and demanding their advisers act in a best interest
capacity."

Adams expects these suits to continue through 2017, and
may begin against smaller plans.  "Hopefully that has your
attention," he says.  "The whole industry will tell you big plans
today, but little plans tomorrow."

Other issues

Among other 2016 issues in retirement were:

   -- Higher gains: In Fidelity's latest quarterly analysis in
November, it found that the average account balance of a 15-year
saver was $331,200, up from $43,900 in 2001.

   -- Emphasis on retirement: As a result of the Affordable Care
Act, the appeal of healthcare benefits to employees has decreased,
while simultaneously increasing the importance of retirement plans
as a tool to recruit and retain employees, according to a survey.
A September survey by Harris Poll on behalf of Nationwide found
that 29% of owners of businesses with fewer than 300 employees
that offer 401(k) plans and plan to increase contributions say
that they are doing so because the ACA has made health benefits
less attractive to employees.  Further, 43% of business owners who
plan to increase contributions to their company's 401(k) plan say
they are doing so because their plan is now more important for
attracting and retaining employees as a result of the ACA.

   -- Emphasis on financial wellbeing: In its August Retirement
Plan Governance Survey, Willis Towers Watson found that employers
are increasingly concerned for their employees' financial
wellbeing and are planning to take action to help them retire in a
timely manner. Many of the employers surveyed responded that they
plan to shift resources to financial wellness and retirement
readiness over the next couple of years.

   -- Growth of robo-advisers: Robo-advisers reach all kinds of
employees who don't have easy access to financial advice. It
combines technology with a human touch to most benefit employees,
says Andrew Wank, director of business development at Bloom.

2017 tax reform
Looking ahead, a big buzzword in 2017 will be tax reform, American
Retirement Association's Adams believes. "We know that President-
elect Trump is committed to doing something on tax reform [and] he
has a lot of support for that on Capitol Hill," he says.

With the last major tax reform in 1986, Mr. Adams predicts that
the preferential tax treatment of retirement plans will be a
target in this new round of reform.  Previous proposals by Rep.
Kevin Brady (R-Texas), chairman of the powerful House Ways & Means
Committee, have pointed to a do-it-yourself retirement model, as
opposed to the emphasis behind the structure of an employer-based
plan, Adams says.

Trump told the AARP in an interview that his plan is to pass
comprehensive tax reform by "removing carve-outs for special
interests and reducing the number of brackets."  He also said he
would attempt to eliminate the alternative minimum tax and the
death tax.  Improving the economy and repealing the Dodd-Frank and
Affordable Care Acts, he told the AARP, would "bring market forces
to bear that will increase competition and lower costs to
consumers."

The one thing most experts agree on is that nothing will happen
immediately.  It always takes time for a new administration to
gather steam.

"Tax reform is our big issue," Mr. Adams says of the American
Retirement Association.  "We think it will be a big deal and we
fully expect it to be battle for people who care about the private
sector."



                            *********

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  * * *