CAR_Public/161229.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, December 29, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 260



                            Headlines

ABM SECURITY: Calif. High Court Reinstates $89MM Judgment
ADEPTUS HEALTH: Saxena-Filed Suit Pending in Texas Court
ADT LLC: Edenborough Seeks to Certify Class of Calif. Customers
ADVANCE CLEANING: "Yabron" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ADVANCE STORES: Parties Seek Approval of "Whitehead" Suit Accord

ADVOCATORS GROUP: Faces "Owens" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AIR CANADA: Airport Landlord Loses Bid to Dismiss Crash Suit
ALDI INC: Class Certification of "Griffin" Action Sought
ALEXION PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over Improper Sales Practices
ALLERGAN PLC: Two Women Appointed Antitrust MDL Co-Lead Counsel

ALLY FINANCIAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
ALPHA AND OMEGA: Court Certifies Class Under FLSA in "Webb" Suit
APPLE INC: Workers Obtain Favorable Ruling in Case Over Breaks
AR RESOURCES: Wins Final Approval of "Kielbasinski" Suit Accord
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Retailers Seek Rehearing of Nexium Class Action

AUDI OF AMERICA: Glancy Prongay & Murray Files Class Action
BANDAS LAW: Founder Says Racketeering Class Action Frivolous
BELLAMY'S: Faces Class Action Over Stock Price Drop
BOURNE LEISURE: Hill Dickinson Wins Defense in Norovirus Suit
BSN MEDICAL: Class Certification Sought in RJF Chiropractic Suit

CALIFORNIA: CDOT Violates Homeless People's Rights, Suit Says
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: "Kautsman" Suit Moved to W.D. Washington
CEMPRA INC: Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff Due Jan. 3
CENTENE CORPORATION: Jan. 13 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
CHEMTALL INC: Gets $6MM From Workers' Class Action Settlement

COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Sued Over Medical Repayment Plan Late Fees
CONCERTED CARE: To Close Cordillera Lodge Despite Class Action
COOK COUNTY, IL: Status Hearing in "Rogers" Suit Reset to Jan. 6
CUBA: Victims of State-Sponsored Terrorism to Receive Payouts
DELTA AIR: Non-Exempt Workers Class Certified in "Lopez" Suit

EAGLE ROAD: "Adams" Suit Moved to N.D. Oklahoma
FORSTER GARBUS: Feliciano Seeks Approval of Consumers Class Deal
GILA LLC: Faces "Newsom" Suit in S.D. California
GREEN MOUNTAIN COFFEE: Pension Funds Seek to Certify Class
HAMILTON COUNTY: Federal Class Suit Filed Over Woodmore Bus Crash

HARTFORD FIRE: Certification of Analysts Class Sought in "Allen"
IMPACT ACQUISITIONS: Hearing in "Krupp" Suit Set for January 3
JAY PEAK: Ex-CEO Stenger Denies Class Action Claims
JOHNSON & BELL: First US Firm Named in Data Security Class Action
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Wants Judge to Weigh Financiers' Roles in MDL

KROGER CO: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit in N.D. Alabama
LA TAN: $1.5MM Fingerprint Scan Class Action Settlement Okayed
LANNETT COMPANY: Lundin Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
LEASE FINANCE: Class Certification Sought in Ha Thi Le Suit
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Ill. Court Tosses Flood Insurance Class Action

LOS ANGELES, CA: Certification of Classes Sought in "Yagman" Suit
MARCOAH GROUP: Byer Clinic Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
MDL 2752: "Finnegan" Suit v. Yahoo! Consolidated in N.D. Cal.
MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Faces Wage Payment Class Action
MONAKER GROUP: Faces Securities Class Action in Florida

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Zaklit Seeks to Certify Class and Subclasses
NCAA: Alston Case Moving Towards Settlement
NESTLE: Faces Class Action Over Lean Cuisine Preservatives
OPUS BANK: Kessler Topaz-Filed Securities Suit Remains Pending
OPUS BANK: Lundin-Filed Securities Suit Remains Pending

PATTERN ENERGY: Lundin Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
PENNSYLVANIA: High Court Guidance Sought in Juvenile Convictions
PILOT FLYING J: Jimmy Haslam Deposed in Fuel Rebate Class Action
RCS RECOVERY: Faces "Matos" Suit in M.D. Florida
REMINGTON ARMS: Connecticut Supreme Court to Hear Sandy Hook Case

ROTI RESTAURANTS: Prints Too Many CC Digits on Receipts, Suit Says
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Gilligan" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
SANDERSON FARMS: Khang Law Firm's Securities Suit Remains Pending
SANOFI: Faces Class Action Over Depakine-Related Birth Defects
SETERUS INC: Ciolino Seeks Certification of Borrowers Classes

SI WIRELESS: Tennessee Woman Sues Over Unwanted Auto Texts
SILV COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Strike Kimber's Class Claims Denied
SOLARCITY CORP: Lucero Seeks to Certify Classes and Subclasses
ST. LOUIS RAMS: McAllister Seeks to Certify FANS Class & Subclass
STAAR SURGICAL: Bid to Certify in "Todd" Suit Under Submission

STAFFING SOLUTIONS: Court Refuses to Certify "Yockey" Suit Class
SUPREME INDUSTRIES: Jan. 3 Lead Plaintiff Date in Khang-Filed Suit
SYNGENTA: June 2017 Trial Scheduled in GMO Corn Class Action
SYNGENTA AG: "Stracener" Suit Moved to E.D. Arkansas
SYNGENTA AG: Faces Triple K Suit in South Dakota District Court

TATA CONSULTANCY: Class Action Among Ousted Director's Options
TRANSCARE CORP: Eisenstadt vs. Patriarch Goes to Bankruptcy Court
UBER TECH: Sued for Double Charging in "Instant Pay" Feature
UGU: Local Families Mull Class Action Over Water Debacle
VALVE CORP: "G.G." Suit Moved from King County Court to W.D. Wash

VENGROFF WILLIAMS: Faces "Polizois" Suit in E.D. New York
WAWA INC: Pfeifer Wants to Certify Class of Plan Participants
WCI COMMUNITIES: February 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
WELLS FARGO: General Counsel Delays Retirement Amid Scandal

* 5th Cir. Grants Expedited Hearing in DOL's OT Rule Litigation
* AARP Supports DOL Fiduciary Rule's Class Action Provision
* Bank Biometric Authentication May Spark Consumer Class Action
* CFPB Sued for Not Releasing Arbitration Rulemaking Records
* Connecticut Supreme Court May Re-Invent Design Defect Law

* France Introduces Class Action for Privacy-Related Claims


                            *********


ABM SECURITY: Calif. High Court Reinstates $89MM Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of California overturned an appellate court
ruling in the landmark case of Augustus v. ABM Security Services,
ending an eleven-year battle and upholding the trial court
decision that "on-duty" rest breaks are in violation of California
wage and hour laws.

The court reinstated the trial court's award of $89.7 million in
wages, interest and penalties to a class of approximately 15,000
former and present ABM security guards. Lead counsel for the class
were Drew Pomerance -- dep@rpnalaw.com -- and Michael Adreani --
mba@rpnalaw.com-- of Roxborough, Pomerance, Nye & Adreani, LLP
(RPNA).

"This precedential decision clarifies and sets forth the standard
for all California employers to easily follow: that employees need
to be relieved of all duties during their rest break," explains
Adreani.

The decision originates from RPNA's trial court victory in 2012 on
behalf of a certified class of security guards who were denied off
duty rest breaks in violation of California law. ABM Securities
previously acknowledged that all of its security guards were
required to remain on call during their so-called breaks, which
the court found to be illegal. The trial court held that the
guards remained "under ABM's control" during their breaks by
having to carry and monitor communication radios to respond to
emergencies and other incidents and, thus, were not completely
relieved of all duty during their breaks as required by California
law. The win was a victory for employees throughout California, as
well as for those businesses that lawfully provide off-duty
breaks.

The trial court decision was reversed when the court of appeal
ruled in favor of ABM Securities in 2014, stating that workers can
receive lawful rest breaks even if they are required to perform
some of their regular duties. Rather than following the "subject
to control" definition of "work" long used in California, the
court of appeal based its ruling on a dual definition of the term
which had never previously been utilized under California law.

After granting review of the appellate court's decision, the
California Supreme Court has now ended the controversy over
employee rest breaks which has been the focus of an eleven-year
legal battle.

"We are very grateful the Supreme Court agreed with what we have
believed the law to be and have fought to clarify for the last 11
years," says Pomerance. "We expect there will now be less
litigation over the issue of rest breaks because employees and
employers alike will understand the rights and obligations each
have under the law."

Adreani adds that the decision is an important reminder for all
employers to revisit and ensure their policies are in line with
the law. For a copy of the decision, please contact Straightline
Communications at -- ohanlon@straightlinecomm.com --

Roxborough, Pomerance, Nye & Adreani, LLP (RPNA) is a Los Angeles-
based law firm providing expert legal counsel and representation
to the California business community. Established in 1995, the
firm offers a broad range of legal services in all facets of civil
litigation, with its primary focus on litigation, legislation and
policymaking issues involving insurance and business related
concerns.


ADEPTUS HEALTH: Saxena-Filed Suit Pending in Texas Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action
lawsuit that is now pending in the Tyler Division of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against
Adeptus Health Inc. and certain of the Company's executive
officers and/or directors and underwriters. The deadline to move
for lead plaintiff appointment remains December 27, 2016.

This class action is filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Class A common shares of the Company during
the period between June 25, 2014 and November 1, 2016, inclusive
(the "Class Period). The complaint brings forth claims for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In addition, the class action complaint is also filed on behalf of
investors who purchased Adeptus Health's common stock pursuant or
traceable to the Company's initial public offering of its common
stock (the "IPO") on or about June 25, 2014 and the Company's
secondary public offerings on or about May 5, 2015, July 29, 2015,
and June 2, 2016 (together with the IPO, the "Offerings"). The
complaint brings forth claims for violations of the Securities Act
of 1933.

Adeptus Health is one of the largest operators of independent
freestanding emergency rooms in the United States and has a large
network of partnerships with certain healthcare systems. The
complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made 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 to
investors that: (i) Adeptus Health was engaged in the widespread
overbilling of patients, including low-acuity patients; (ii)
Adeptus Health's billing practices were causing decreases in
patient volume and would subject it to decreased revenues; (iii)
the Company's billing practices exposed it to major financial,
reputational, legal and regulatory risks; (iv) the Company's
financial statements were not compliant with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); and (v) as a result, the Company's
statements were false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you purchased Adeptus Health common stock between June 25, 2014
and November 1, 2016, inclusive, and/or pursuant to one of the
Company's public offerings during the Class Period, you may
contact Lester Hooker -- lhooker@saxenawhite.com -- at Saxena
White P.A. to discuss your rights and interests.

If you purchased Adeptus Health common stock during the expanded
Class Period of June 25, 2014 through November 1, 2016, and/or
pursuant to one of the Company's Offerings during the Class
Period, and wish to apply to be the lead plaintiff in this action,
a motion on your behalf must be filed with the Court by no later
than December 27, 2016. You may contact Saxena White P.A. to
discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff
and your interest in the class action. Please note that you may
also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any action at
this time to be a class member. Saxena White's action was refiled
in the Tyler Division of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas because the first-filed related action
against Adeptus Health is pending in that Division.

Saxena White P.A., located in Boca Raton, Florida, concentrates
its practice on prosecuting securities fraud and complex class
actions on behalf of institutions and individuals. Currently
serving as lead counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions
nationwide, the firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars
on behalf of injured investors and is active in major litigation
pending in federal and state courts throughout the United States.


ADT LLC: Edenborough Seeks to Certify Class of Calif. Customers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Edenborough moves the Court to certify each cause of
action in his first amended complaint filed in the lawsuit
entitled MICHAEL EDENBOROUGH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. ADT, LLC d/b/a ADT SECURITY SERVICES,
INC. a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 3:16-cv-02233-
JST (N.D. Cal.), for class treatment on behalf of this class:

     All residential customers in California who paid for an ADT
     wireless home security system that ADT installed or caused
     to be installed at any time from March 18, 2012 through
     August 15, 2016.

Excluded are: (1) the current and former employees, officers and
directors of ADT and its agents, subsidiaries, parents,
successors, predecessors, and any entity in which they or their
parents have a controlling interest; (2) the judge to whom this
case is assigned and his immediate family; (3) any person who
executes and files a timely request for exclusion from the Class;
(4) any persons who have had their claims in this matter finally
adjudicated and/or otherwise released; and (5) the legal
representatives, successors and assigns of any such excluded
person.

Mr. Edenborough further moves for an order appointing himself as
representative for the class; appointing Chavez & Gertler LLP and
attorney Mark A. Chavez, Esq., as class counsel; and setting
further proceedings regarding the notice to be given to the class.

The Court will commence a hearing on March 9, 2017, at 2:00 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=S5EQNsmh

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark A. Chavez, Esq.
          Nance F. Becker, Esq.
          CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP
          42 Miller Avenue
          Mill Valley, CA 94941
          Telephone: (415) 381-5599
          Facsimile: (415) 381-5572
          E-mail: mark@chavezgertler.com
                  Nance@chavezgertler.com

               - and -

          Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq.
          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2325 E. Camelback Rd., Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com
                  afriedman@bffb.com

               - and -

          Tom Zimmerman, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312)440-0020
          E-mail: Tom@attorneyzim.com


ADVANCE CLEANING: "Yabron" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis M. Yabron, and other similarly-situated individuals v.
Advance Cleaning Group, Inc. and Eddy Montiel, Case No. 1:16-cv-
25208-FAM (S.D. Fla., December 15, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Advance Cleaning Group, Inc. provides maintenance and cleaning
services to companies that provide hotel/hospitality services

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
      Miami, FL 33156
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


ADVANCE STORES: Parties Seek Approval of "Whitehead" Suit Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit titled JORDAN WHITEHEAD v. ADVANCE
STORES COMPANY INC., d/b/a ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC., Case No.
5:16-cv-00250-RBD-PRL (M.D. Fla.), jointly move for an order
initially approving their settlement agreement and setting a
fairness hearing.

More particularly, the Parties seek an order:

   (1) preliminarily approving the proposed settlement as within
       the range of fair, adequate, and reasonable;

   (2) provisionally certifying, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 and
       solely for purposes of the settlement, a settlement class
       consisting of all current and former ASC employees whose
       PII was disclosed as a result of the phishing attack ASC
       suffered on March 7, 2016 (the "Settlement Class");

   (3) approving the Notice Program set forth in the Settlement
       Agreement and approving the form and content of the
       Notice;

   (4) staying all proceedings in this Action pending Final
       Approval of the Settlement and staying and/or enjoining,
       pending Final Approval of the Settlement, any actions
       brought by Settlement Class Members concerning a Released
       Claim;

   (5) amending the Complaint to include Janie Stapleton as a
       named Plaintiff;

   (6) adding Janie Stapleton as a named Plaintiff and amending
       the caption accordingly;

   (7) conditionally designating Jordan Whitehead and Janie
       Stapleton as the Class Representatives for the sole
       purpose of settlement proceedings, and their counsel Jason
       Melton and Jay P. Lechner as Class Counsel;

   (8) appointing Dahl Administration as Settlement Administrator
       and directing that within 60 days after the date on which
       an Order is entered preliminarily approving the
       settlement, the Settlement Administrator shall at ASC's
       expense cause a copy of the Notice to be mailed by United
       States mail, postage pre-paid, to all members of the
       Settlement Class;

   (9) approving the procedures set forth in Section VII of the
       Settlement Agreement for Settlement Class Members to
       exclude themselves from the Settlement Class or to object
       to the Settlement; and

  (10) scheduling a Final Approval hearing for a time and date
       mutually convenient for the Court, Class Counsel, and
       counsel for ASC, at which the Court will conduct an
       inquiry into the fairness of the Settlement, determine
       whether it was made in good faith and should be finally
       approved, and determine whether to approve Class Counsel's
       application for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and
       for Service Awards.

A copy of the Joint Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fF7fHDQW

The Plaintiff and the Settlement Class are represented by:

          Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
          Jason M. Melton, Esq.
          WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
          One Progress Plaza
          200 Central Avenue, #400
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (727) 822-1111
          Facsimile: (727) 898-2001
          E-mail: lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
                  shelley@theFLlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Emmet J. Schwartzman, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A.
          P.O. Box 019101
          Miami, FL 33131-9101
          Telephone: (305) 530-0050
          Facsimile: (305) 530-0055
          E-mail: ESchwartzman@carltonfields.com

               - and -

          Michael B. Miller, Esq.
          Robert J. Baehr, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          250 West 55th Street
          New York, NY 10019-9601
          Telephone: (212) 468-8000
          Facsimile: (212) 468-7900
          E-mail: Mbmiller@mofo.com
                  RBaehr@mofo.com


ADVOCATORS GROUP: Faces "Owens" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keywee Owens, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Advocators Group, LLC, Case No. 6:16-cv-
02149-ACC-GJK (M.D. Fla., December 15, 2016), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Advocators Group, LLC operates a social security disability
advocacy company in Longwood, Seminoles County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. Saba, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 224-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: csaba@wfclaw.com


AIR CANADA: Airport Landlord Loses Bid to Dismiss Crash Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that Transport Canada has failed in its
bid to be excluded from a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of
passengers aboard an Air Canada jet that crashed at the Halifax
airport during a snowstorm last year.

Federal lawyers had argued the department could not be sued
because it did not owe a duty of care to the passengers aboard
Flight 624.

However, Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice Denise Boudreau decided
on Dec. 13 that even though Transport Canada did not owe a duty of
care to the flying public, it had to be included in the lawsuit
because as landlord for the airport, it could be held responsible
for its navigation systems and other equipment.

The Airbus 320 hit the ground about 200 metres short of Runway 05
shortly after midnight on March 29, 2015, as it approached Halifax
Stanfield International Airport in gusty winds and heavy snowfall.
The twin-engine plane bounced into the air and crashed near the
runway threshold before careening along the tarmac for another 570
metres.

An engine and the plane's landing gear were torn from the airframe
amid a shower of sparks and leaking fuel, but there was no fire
and the fuselage remained largely intact.

More than two dozen people were injured in the crash, and
virtually all of the 133 passengers had to spend about 50 minutes
on the tarmac, huddled against a blizzard, before they were taken
to an unheated hangar, the lawsuit alleges.

The other defendants in the case had earlier confirmed they would
not oppose the certification of the class action.  They include
Air Canada, the Halifax International Airport Authority, Nav
Canada and Airbus SAS, the French company that built the jet.

Lawyer Ray Wagner said all of the passengers aboard Flight 624
will be sent letters asking if they want to opt out as a
plaintiff, which would allow them to pursue their own legal
action. The deadline for opting out is March 24.

In a statement of claim, three passengers have come forward to
represent the class of plaintiffs.

In the claim, Kathleen Carroll-Byrne of Halifax said she continues
to suffer from anxiety, a loss of concentration and a fear of
flying.  Halifax resident Asher Hodara said he suffered a mild
traumatic brain injury and dental damage.  Malanga Georges Libboy
of Church Point, N.S., said the crash has left him with profound
psychological stress and pain in his knee, neck and mouth.

None of the allegations in the class action has been proven in
court.

Among other things, the plaintiffs allege the Halifax
International Airport Authority is liable because it failed to
properly clear Runway 05 and did not replace an older-style
navigation system with a more advanced instrument landing (ILS)
system.

Their statement of claim says Air Canada was negligent because the
airline did not provide adequate training for its flight crew,
particularly when it came to landing in harsh weather.

As for Transport Canada, the lawsuit alleges the department was
negligent by inadequately monitoring the airport's compliance with
safety requirements, and choosing not to ensure that the airport
had an adequate emergency response plan.


ALDI INC: Class Certification of "Griffin" Action Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move the Court for an order conditionally
certifying the action styled ANTHONY GRIFFIN, MARK MCINDOO, and
SUSAN DETOMASO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. ALDI, INC., DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Case No. 5:16-cv-
00354-LEK-ATB (N.D.N.Y.), as a collective action, directing that
persons similarly situated to the Plaintiffs be given notice of
the pendency of the action and an opportunity file written
consents to join the action as party plaintiffs, and directing
production of the names and addresses of potential plaintiffs on
an expedited basis.

The putative class action lawsuit is brought pursuant to Section
216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PH6MUzaZ

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam R. Gonnelli, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Telephone: (845) 483-7100
          Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
          E-mail: gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Innessa S. Melamed, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: imelamed@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
          O'HARA, O'CONNELL & CIOTOLI
          7207 E. Genesee Street
          Fayetteville, NY 13066
          Telephone: (315) 451-3810
          Facsimile: (315) 451-5585
          E-mail: fsg@oharalaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Noah A. Finkel, Esq.
          Cheryl A. Luce, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2400
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 460-5000
          Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
          E-mail: nfinkel@seyfarth.com
                  cluce@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Louisa Johnson, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2500
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 885-1500
          Facsimile: (404) 892-7056
          E-mail: lojohnson@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Howard M. Wexler, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          620 Eighth Avenue, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 218-5500
          Facsimile: (212) 218-5526
          E-mail: hwexler@seyfarth.com


ALEXION PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over Improper Sales Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Singer, writing for Hartford Courant, reports that Alexion
Pharmaceuticals Inc. faces a class-action lawsuit on behalf of
investors as it says it's investigating "inconsistent" sales
practices of a key drug.

The lawsuit in U.S. District Court in New York accuses Alexion,
Connecticut's most successful biotech startup, of making false or
misleading statements and failing to disclose that it used
"improper sales practices" for Soliris, which treats a rare blood
disease.

The lawsuit also says the pharmaceutical company's revenue from
Soliris sales were "unlikely to be sustainable."

Several law firms have posted online notices seeking potential
clients in the class-action lawsuit or competing legal actions.

"Alexion and each of the named individual defendants dispute the
allegations and will vigorously defend itself," the company said
in an emailed statement.

Chief Executive Officer David Hallal "resigned for personal
reasons," the company announced on Dec. 12 and Chief Financial
Officer Vikas Sinha left to seek other opportunities.

The lawsuit was filed by a shareholder who purchased Alexion
shares for $177 a share.  Named in the lawsuit are Alexion
Pharmaceuticals, Mr. Hallal, Mr. Sinha and former CEO and founder
Leonard Bell.

Alexion's failure to file a quarterly report within days of its
third-quarter earnings release in October caused investors
"serious harm," the lawsuit says.  The share price fell sharply
shortly after Alexion's announcement Nov. 9.

The company has not yet filed its third-quarter results with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, and announced on Dec. 12 that
it expected to have that data ready by later this month or
January.

Alexandra D. Lahav, a law professor at the University of
Connecticut, called the legal action a standard securities lawsuit
that is "very, very common."

A month ago, the company announced it was investigating claims
that Soliris' sales had been compromised by "sales practices that
were inconsistent with Company policies and procedures."  The
investigation began because of a former employee's whistle-
blowing.

Alexion, which develops and buys drugs from other small biotechs
that treat ultra-rare, life-threatening diseases, posted more than
$3 billion in sales last year.

               Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit

Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. securities from February 10, 2014
through November 9, 2016, inclusive. The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Alexion investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Alexion class action, go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-991.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or -- kchan@rosenlegal.com -- for
information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements to investors
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Alexion employed improper
sales practices with respect to Soliris; (2) consequently,
Alexion's revenues from Soliris sales were unlikely to be
sustainable; and (3) as a result, Alexion's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


ALLERGAN PLC: Two Women Appointed Antitrust MDL Co-Lead Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for Law.com, reports that in an "extremely
rare" move, one that was hailed as an advance for diversity, two
women have been tapped to lead a federal multidistrict antitrust
litigation.

U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania entered an order appointing Roberta Liebenberg of
Fine, Kaplan and Black and Dianne M. Nast of Nast Law as co-lead
counsels in In re Generic Digoxin and Doxycycline Antitrust
Litigation.  The appointment comes a few months after Jan P.
Levine -- levinej@pepperlaw.com -- of Pepper Hamilton was
appointed as lead counsel for the defense.

Dana Alvare, a research fellow at the Sheller Center, who has been
studying the appointment of women and diverse attorneys on
steering committees and as lead counsels, said she has not seen
two women appointed as lead counsel on an MDL in her research,
which looks at appointments over the past five years.

"It's extremely rare for there to be a female-only lead, either
joint or single," Ms. Alvare said.  "It is a really big deal, and
Dianne Nast -- dnast@nastlaw.com -- and Bobbi Liebenberg are
significantly qualified in that field."

In a similarly unusual move, Judge Rufe's order said that the
leadership should encourage younger attorneys to participate.

"The court expects that the leadership will provide opportunities
for attorneys not named to the plaintiff's steering committee,
particularly less-senior attorneys, to participate meaningfully
and efficiently in the MDL, including through participation in any
committees within the plaintiff's steering committee and in
determining which counsel will argue any motions before the
court," Judge Rufe said.

Ms. Liebenberg said she felt that language was an important step
toward ensuring that younger attorneys, many of whom are women and
minority lawyers, will get the opportunities that will ultimately
allow them to one day be appointed as lead counsel in nationwide
litigations.

Ms. Liebenberg, noting that five women were also appointed to the
MDL's 12-attorney steering committee, said it was exciting that
women will lead the MDL in front of a female judge.

Judge Rufe "is someone who's committed to ensuring that the
leadership of cases reflects the diversity of the juries that the
case will be presented in front of and representative of the class
members, who are made up of men and women," Ms. Liebenberg said.

Ms. Liebenberg, who focuses her practice on class actions,
antitrust and complex commercial litigation, spearheaded a study
that found women comprise a disproportionately low percentage of
lead trial attorney posts, and repeat appointments, regardless of
gender, can stifle the new generation of leadership as a whole.

Ms. Nast has been working on MDL panels since the 1980s.  Earlier
this year, she told The Legal that, although for many years there
were no women serving on leadership committees, she noticed that
diversifying the makeup of MDL leadership has become a priority
with many judges lately.

Ms. Nast said in an email that Judge Rufe's order also establishes
an "innovative structure" that allows a single plaintiffs'
steering committee to oversee three separate groups of litigants,
which will allow the attorneys to subdivide if the requirements of
the three groups diverge.

"Many of this group have worked together in the past, and there is
a great deal of respect for one another and their work ethic," Ms.
Nast said.

Ms. Alvare said there have been a handful of similar
encouragements by judges aimed at encouraging younger attorneys to
argue motions, or have more direct involvement in MDLs.  Judge
Rufe's order, she said, may go a long way toward solidifying that
trend.

"The repeat players are overwhelmingly male, overwhelmingly white,
and overwhelmingly of a certain age, so it helps diversity across
the board," Ms. Alvare said.

The defendants in the case are Allergan plc, Impax Laboratories,
Inc., The Lannett Company, Inc., Mylan, Inc., Par Pharmaceuticals
Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., and West-Ward
Pharmaceutical Corp.


ALLY FINANCIAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Ally Financial Inc.
and certain of its officers, and is on behalf of purchasers of
Ally securities pursuant and/or traceable to the company's April
11, 2014 Initial Public Offering. Such investors are advised to
join this case by visiting the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/ally.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Ally Financial Inc., previously known as GMAC Inc. is an American
bank holding company that provides financial products and services
mainly to automotive dealers and their retail customers.

In June of 2016, several news sources reported that car loans
should be considered high risk for auto lenders because of the
problematic default rates from increased subprime lending.
As a response to this alarming report, Ally stated its intent
to begin "dialing back on lending to consumers at the lower end
of the subprime credit score spectrum." Following this news, Ally
stock dropped over 22% per share on June 14, 2016. Then on July
28, 2016, The Wall Street Journal revealed that Ally, along with
some of the largest auto lenders, had reported on second quarter
earnings calls that used car prices are at risk of dropping.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Ally made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1)
the severity of growing subprime auto loan delinquency rates; (2)
deficient underwriting measures employed in the origination of its
subprime auto loans; and (3) the aggressive tactics that were used
with low-income debtors to raise about $2.375 billion in its April
2014 IPO.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/allyor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
Ally you can request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.


ALPHA AND OMEGA: Court Certifies Class Under FLSA in "Webb" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. R. Gary Klausner grants in part and denies in part the
Plaintiff's motion for certification of a class action and
conditional certification of a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act filed in the lawsuit titled WEBB v. ALPHA AND
OMEGA SERVICES INC., Case No. 5:16-cv-01609-RGK-KK (C.D. Cal.).

On June 13, 2016, Michael Webb filed a class action in state court
against Alpha and Omega Services, Inc. ("A&O") and Frank Keller.
The Complaint alleged labor law violations against his employer on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees. On July
21, 2016, the Defendants removed the action to federal court.

According to civil minutes filed on the case docket, the Court
held that it:

   (1) grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
       under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for
       the claims of Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation and
       Unfair Business Practices;

   (2) grants Plaintiff's Motion to certify a FLSA collective
       action for the limited purpose of providing notice to
       potential collective members;

   (3) denies Plaintiff's Motion to approve and authorize the
       mailing of the proposed Notice and Consent forms.
       Plaintiff is ordered to file a Request for Approval of
       Amended Notice and Consent Forms, with amendments
       attached, within seven days of this Order.  Plaintiff
       shall include with his filing, a Proposed Order Granting
       Approval of Notice and Forms and Authorizing Mailing of
       the Notice; and

   (4) on condition that the Court approves and authorizes the
       mailing of Plaintiff's Amended Notice and Consent Forms,
       grants Plaintiff's Motion to compel A&O to produce the
       names and last known addresses of all potential opt-in
       collective members.  A&O is ordered to provide Plaintiff
       with such information within SEVEN DAYS of the Court's
       approval and authorization.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PvSTsE6k


APPLE INC: Workers Obtain Favorable Ruling in Case Over Breaks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shaun Nichols, writing for The Register, reports that a California
court has ruled in favor of Apple Store workers who accused the
iPhone giant of trampling over their employment rights.  It is a
bittersweet victory.

The trial jury on Dec. 12 awarded store staff $2m after Apple was
found to have illegally denied them meal and rest breaks, and was
late giving departing workers their final paychecks.

The class-action complaint was first filed in 2011 in the
California State Court in San Diego by four former employees.  It
was later expanded to a class of more than 21,000 current and
former workers who held jobs at the Apple Store as far back as
2007.

Apple had been accused of a half-dozen violations of state labor
laws, including California laws forbidding the failure to provide
meal and rest breaks, full pay upon termination, and unfair
business practices.

The complaint also makes note of Apple's notorious culture of
secrecy, and how it has extended from Cupertino into the global
chain of retail outlets, where employees are allegedly forbidden
from discussing any information not available on Apple's website.

The lawsuit -- brought by Brandon Felczer, Ryan Goldman, Ramsey
Hawkins, and Joseph Lane Carco -- alleged that Apple Store bosses
forbid all employees from discussing their working conditions and
voicing complaints about possible violations.

"The restriction from discussing anything about Apple or its
policies is reinforced on Apple's labor policies themselves," the
complaint, filed in the county of San Diego, reads.

"The majority, if not all, of Apple's employment policies make it
clear that Plaintiffs aren't allowed to discuss Apple's working
conditions."

While Apple profits have been slipping of late, the $2m payout
would amount to little more than a rounding error on Apple's $9bn
bottom line, and a maximum of $95 per worker.  Chalk this one up
as a win for Apple.


AR RESOURCES: Wins Final Approval of "Kielbasinski" Suit Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Kim R. Gibson granted final approval of the Class
Settlement Agreement between the Plaintiff, individually, and as
representative of the class, and the Defendant in the lawsuit
captioned THOMAS KIELBASINSKI; an individual; on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. A.R. RESOURCES, INC., Case
No. 3:15-cv-00066-KRG (W.D. Pa.).

This Settlement Class is certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

     All consumers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to whom
     A.R. Resources, Inc. mailed a written communication, in
     connection with its attempt to collect a debt, which written
     communications included the stated that a $5.00 convenience
     fee would be added to all credit transactions, and which
     resulted in the consumer being charged such a fee, during a
     period beginning March 13, 2014, and ending October 31,
     2015.

Excluded from the Settlement Class are those persons, who timely
and validly requested exclusion.

The Court approved a form of notice for mailing to the Settlement
Class.

In accordance with the terms of the Agreement, ARR will make these
payments:

   (a) ARR will create these two class settlement funds:

       Actual Damage Fund.  ARR will create an Actual Damage Fund
       of $19,370.  Each Class Member who do not exclude
       themselves and who timely returns a claim form will be
       entitled to receive a payment from the Actual Damage Fund
       in an amount equal to 100% of the "convenience fees" they
       paid ARR.

       Statutory Damage Fund.  ARR will also create a Statutory
       Damage Fund of $5,000, which will be distributed on a pro
       rata basis to each Claimant.

       Claimants will receive a pro rata share of the Class
       Recovery by check.  Any portion of the Class Recovery that
       remains unclaimed after the 60-day void date on the
       Claimants' checks will be distributed as a cy pres award
       to Pennsylvania Legal Aid Network, Inc.;

   (b) ARR will pay the Plaintiff $2,000; and

   (c) ARR will pay Class Counsel $30,000 for their attorneys'
       fees and costs incurred in the action. Class Counsel will
       not request additional fees or costs from ARR or the Class
       Members.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MfKZ3JXr


ASTRAZENECA PLC: Retailers Seek Rehearing of Nexium Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Kroh and Brian Amaral, writing for Law360, report that
retailers and indirect purchasers of heartburn medication Nexium
on Dec. 12 asked the First Circuit for a rehearing of its November
decision declining to revive a pay-for-delay class action against
AstraZeneca PLC and Ranbaxy Inc. over the drug.

Retailers including Walgreen Co., CVS Pharmacy Inc. and Giant
Eagle Inc. said the appeals court's ruling was incorrect on a
question of causality and contradicted the U.S. Supreme Court's
holding in FTC v. Actavis.

"The panel's error has the potential to eviscerate private
enforcement of the antitrust laws in the pharmaceutical industry,
particularly as against unlawful and anti-competitive reverse
payment patent settlement agreements, which can prevent or delay
generic pharmaceutical competition to the ultimate detriment of
United States consumers," the retailers said.

In its decision, the First Circuit said the retailers could not
litigate their theory that Ranbaxy would have launched a generic
version of Nexium despite the risk of being held liable for
damages if AstraZeneca had not paid it to delay the launch in a
patent litigation settlement, the retailers said.  The panel held
that the issue was moot because a lower court ruled the retailers
had not shown that the underlying patents would be judged invalid.

However, that holding was erroneous, the retailers said.  In
Actavis, the Supreme Court recognized that antitrust plaintiffs
should not be required to conclusively litigate patent merits to
determine whether generic drug companies would have entered the
market at risk if not for a reverse payment from a brand drug
company, they said.

The panel also created a circuit split with the Sixth Circuit,
which came down on the other side of the causation question in
2003's In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation, the retailers said.

The end payors, in a separate filing, argued that the First
Circuit should reopen the case to remand it to the district court
for further proceedings because its decision affirming the lower
court's order did not match up with its analysis of the case.

The district court's conclusion that a jury's finding that a large
and unjustified payment took place between AstraZeneca and Ranbaxy
did not necessarily establish a violation of the antitrust law
conflicts with the First Circuit's opinion, which said the payment
confirmed that some antitrust violation resulted from the
settlement, the indirect purchasers said.

"This panel having rejected the district court's conclusion as a
matter of law, plaintiffs should be permitted to try to prove that
defendants' conduct threatens significant health and financial
harm to plaintiffs and the public," the end payors said.

In its decision, the three-judge First Circuit panel kept a 2014
jury verdict for AstraZeneca and Ranbaxy intact, finding the
Nexium buyers had waived some arguments and were incorrect on
others.

The case is significant not only on its own -- Nexium grossed more
than $3 billion a year from 2008 to 2014 -- but also because it is
the first jury verdict on pharmaceutical company settlements since
Actavis, in which the Supreme Court held that courts should apply
the rule of reason to reverse-payment cases.

The end-payor class is represented by J. Douglas Richards --
drichards@cohenmilstein.com -- of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC, Jayne A. Goldstein of Pomerantz LLP, Steve D. Shadowen of
Hilliard & Shadowen LLC, Kenneth A. Wexler --
kaw@wexlerwallace.com -- of Wexler Wallace LLP, and Matthew
Wessler -- matt@guptawessler.com -- of Gupta Wessler PLLC.

The retailers are represented by Barry L. Refsin --
brefsin@hangley.com -- Monica L. Rebuck and Maureen S. Lawrence --
mlawrence@hangley.com -- of Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin &
Schiller, Bernard D. Marcus -- marcus@marcus-shapira.com -- Moira
Cain-Mannix and Brian C. Hill of Marcus & Shapira LLP and Richard
A. Arnold, Scott E. Perwin, Lauren C. Ravkind and Anna T. Neill --
aneill@knpa.com -- of Kenny Nachwalter PA.

Ranbaxy is represented by Jay P. Lefkowitz --
lefkowitz@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

AstraZeneca is represented by Kannon Shanmugam --
kshanmugam@wc.com -- of Williams & Connolly LLP.

The case is In re: Nexium (Esomeprazole Magnesium) Antitrust
Litigation, case numbers 15-2005 and 15-2006, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.


AUDI OF AMERICA: Glancy Prongay & Murray Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP on Dec. 12 disclosed that it has filed
a federal class action lawsuit against Audi of America, LLC and
Audi AG in the Northern District of California regarding the auto
maker's alleged deliberate deception of consumers when it
installed "defeat devices" in certain Audi gasoline engine
automobiles.

According to the Complaint filed in this lawsuit, Audi allegedly
advertised, marketed and sold certain vehicles that contained a
hidden "defeat device" in the automatic transmission of the
automobile.  When the defeat device is activated, the transmission
stays in a low rev mode, using less fuel and producing less CO2.
In normal traffic, the defeat device is deactivated, and the
transmission switches to a mode with higher fuel consumption and
CO2 output resulting in increased noxious gases, and less
desirable fuel efficiency.

The class action lawsuit asserts claims for breach of written and
express warranty, and violations of California consumer protection
laws.  The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages for Audi consumers
and injunctive relief.

Customers throughout the United States who purchased or leased the
following Audi automobiles with a 3.0 gasoline engine and
automatic transmission may have a defeat device installed in their
vehicle:

   -- Audi Q5
   -- Audi Q7
   -- Audi A6
   -- Audi A8

If you own or lease any of the vehicles identified above and wish
to participate in the lawsuit, or have any questions regarding the
litigation, please contact Marc Godino, Esquire, of GPM, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at
310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
mgodino@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
http://glancylaw.com.


BANDAS LAW: Founder Says Racketeering Class Action Frivolous
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek and Jon Bilyk, writing for Legal Newsline, report
that a Texas attorney who often stands in the way of class action
settlements and is now being accused of racketeering in a class
action lawsuit filed in an Illinois federal court says the suit is
senseless.

"The lawsuit is absolutely frivolous," Christopher Bandas of The
Bandas Law Firm, based in Corpus Christi, Texas, said in an email
to Legal Newsline.

Mr. Bandas and his firm are among those defendants being sued by
Edelson PC, a prominent Chicago firm that handles consumer, tech
and privacy class action litigation.

Mr. Edelson filed its lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Dec. 5.  The
named defendants also include law firms Noonan Perillo & Thut, of
Chicago, and the Darrell Palmer Law Offices, of Solana Beach,
Calif. Other individual defendants include attorneys Darrell
Palmer and C. Jeffery Thut.

The defendants are accused in the 49-page complaint of engaging in
a pattern of racketeering and extortion as "professional
objectors," who use the law to extract payoffs, often worth
hundreds of thousands of dollars, in exchange for withdrawing
objections holding up the completion of class action settlement
payments worth millions from corporations and businesses targeted.

Mr. Edelson specifically accuses Mr. Bandas and his firm of
violating the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations
Act and other laws in connection with Mr. Bandas' alleged repeated
moves to interfere with class action settlements, simply to
profit.

The lawsuit asks the Chicago federal court to declare Mr. Bandas
and his fellow defendants "vexatious litigants" and prohibit them
from filing objections to class action settlements, without court
approval.

The lawsuit also asks the court to award unspecified "monetary,
actual, consequential and compensatory damages" to Mr. Edelson and
other class action plaintiffs' lawyers who may join in the legal
action as well as "injunction, statutory and/or declaratory
relief."

Mr. Edelson attorneys, including Edelson founder Jay Edelson, are
representing the firm in the class action.

The lawsuit comes on the heels of an alleged attempt by
Messrs. Bandas, Thut and Palmer to extract payment from Edelson as
the firm sought to finalize a $13.8 million deal to settle a class
action lawsuit against Gannett Co. over alleged violations of the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  That lawsuit alleged
Gannett had used an autodial program to call people on their
mobile phones without obtaining consent, as required under the
TCPA.

Gannett has continued to deny the allegations, but has agreed to
pay the settlement to end the lawsuit and avoid trial.

The settlement was approved in September.  Yet, in October, Mr.
Thut, allegedly in conjunction with Messrs. Bandas and Palmer,
filed an objection on behalf of a man identified as Gary Stewart.
The objection was overruled, and settlement finalized.

Mr. Edelson said Mr. Thut has threatened to appeal, to "hold up
final resolution of the case."  And in November, during a
"mediation session," Mr. Bandas and his associates, without
addressing the merits of the settlement, allegedly demanded
$225,000-$445,000 as a "fee to go away."

After accepting the deal, Mr. Edelson said they also threatened to
inform the court of the payoff, at which time Mr.  Bandas and his
associates allegedly "attempted to back out of the deal."

Yet Mr. Edelson alleged the behavior was only a part of a campaign
of "serial objections" to various class action settlements.

The lawsuit filed notes Mr. Bandas has filed at least 55
objections in the past 10 years, though Mr. Edelson said they
believe "these 55 objections likely represent only a small
fraction of the total number of objections in which Mr. Bandas has
been involved."

Mr. Edelson said Mr. Bandas is the most prolific "serial objector"
in the U.S., followed by Palmer.  Mr. Thut has thus far objected
to six class action settlements, but is "just getting started,"
Mr. Edelson alleges.

The complaint notes the courts have repeatedly criticized
Mr. Bandas and his associates for their "serial objections," and
their pattern of conduct has been documented in court documents,
including in a filing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit, which was publicized in a report by Reuters.

Yet Mr. Edelson said Mr. Bandas and his associates "have often
avoided sanctions and reprimand from the courts . . . because
defendants routinely and purposely fail to file appearances in
cases where they attempt to extort class counsel through improper
objections as a means to avoid consequences."

The complaint does not state how many of Mr. Edelson's class
action settlements Messrs. Bandas, Palmer or Thut have objected
to.

However, Mr. Edelson has had many such settlements in recent
years, with more likely to come.

Among many others, Mr. Edelson served as class counsel in a
lawsuit against Caribbean Cruise Line, Economic Strategy Group,
the Berkley Group and others, securing a $76 million settlement on
behalf of hundreds of thousands of potential plaintiffs who
allegedly received cruise sales pitches, disguised as political
surveys, on their cell phones.  Attorneys in the case, including
the Chicago firm Loevy & Loevy, are poised to collect more than
$24 million in fees from that settlement.

In September, a $12.1 million settlement was approved in a class
action against Nationstar Mortgage over automated telephone calls.
Mr. Edelson was among a group of plaintiffs' lawyers to receive a
combined $3.7 million in attorney fees from the deal, which
scheduled $45 to go to each class member.

Also, a year ago, Mr. Edelson settled with Walgreens for $11
million in a lawsuit alleging the company broke federal law by
sending its customers prescription reminders to customers' cell
phones.  Mr. Edelson was scheduled to earn $2.8 million from that
settlement.

Mr. Edelson said Mr. Bandas is the most prolific "serial objector"
in the U.S., followed by Palmer.  Mr. Thut has thus far objected
to six class action settlements, but is "just getting started,"
Mr. Edelson alleges.

The complaint notes the courts have repeatedly criticized
Mr. Bandas and his associates for their "serial objections," and
their pattern of conduct has been documented in court documents,
including in a filing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit, which was publicized in a report by Reuters.

Yet Messrs. Edelson said Bandas and his associates "have often
avoided sanctions and reprimand from the courts . . . because
defendants routinely and purposely fail to file appearances in
cases where they attempt to extort class counsel through improper
objections as a means to avoid consequences."

The complaint does not state how many of Mr. Edelson's class
action settlements Messrs. Bandas, Palmer or Thut have objected
to.

However, Mr. Edelson has had many such settlements in recent
years, with more likely to come.

Among many others, Mr. Edelson served as class counsel in a
lawsuit against Caribbean Cruise Line, Economic Strategy Group,
the Berkley Group and others, securing a $76 million settlement on
behalf of hundreds of thousands of potential plaintiffs who
allegedly received cruise sales pitches, disguised as political
surveys, on their cell phones.  Attorneys in the case, including
the Chicago firm Loevy & Loevy, are poised to collect more than
$24 million in fees from that settlement.

In September, a $12.1 million settlement was approved in a class
action against Nationstar Mortgage over automated telephone calls.
Mr. Edelson was among a group of plaintiffs' lawyers to receive a
combined $3.7 million in attorney fees from the deal, which
scheduled $45 to go to each class member.

Also, a year ago, Mr. Edelson settled with Walgreens for $11
million in a lawsuit alleging the company broke federal law by
sending its customers prescription reminders to customers' cell
phones. Mr. Edelson was scheduled to earn $2.8 million from that
settlement.


BELLAMY'S: Faces Class Action Over Stock Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------
Mark Hawthorne and Catie Low, writing for Brisbane Times, report
that embattled infant formula and baby food company Bellamy's
Australia is facing a class action lawsuit from legal giant
Maurice Blackburn, with two other firms also considering taking
action on behalf of angry shareholders, in the wake of a $500
million rout of its share price.

Maurice Blackburn released a statement on Dec. 14 confirming it
was "seriously investigating a potential class action claim"
against Bellamy's.  According to the firm's class action principal
Ben Slade, the investigation is focused on "alleged breaches of
its continuous disclosure obligations and for possibly engaging in
misleading or deceptive conduct regarding its infant formula trade
with China".

Maurice Blackburn has opened an online registration page on its
website seeking "shareholders that have been hit by the recent
shock price drop".

News of the class action comes amid mounting speculation that
Bellamy's will ultimately be sold and delisted, with a number of
Chinese buyers looking at the infant formula brand.

After trading as high as $16.50 this time last year, Bellamy's
shares collapsed to a low of $6.80 on December 2, after the
company released a shock trading update that revised its China
sales downward.  Bellamy's has since gone into a trading halt,
followed by a week-long suspension of its shares from the ASX.

The class action follows a BusinessDay report on Dec. 10, which
revealed that Bellamy's market share in Australia collapsed
between April and October this year.  The confidential Aztec data,
showing supermarket and pharmacy sales, revealed that Bellamy's
market share plunged from 25 per cent of the domestic infant
formula sales in April to just 12 per cent by October.  In dollar
terms, Bellamy's went from earning one in every four dollars spent
on baby formula in the country to just one in nine.

Despite the massive decline, Bellamy's failed to issue a single
update to the market or investors that warned of issues that may
impact the company's bottom line.

Bellamy's went into a trading halt on Dec. 12, following
publication of the story.  On Dec. 14, instead of coming out of a
trading halt, the company asked the ASX to suspend its shares
immediately, leaving its shareholders in limbo for another week.

Maurice Blackburn will focus on April and August announcements
made by the company, as well as the Aztec data revealed by Fairfax
Media.

"That data will be something we look at," Mr Slade said.  "It has
been pretty extraordinary market reaction, we saw $500m wiped off
the share price.  It beggars belief that a announcement that
causes such market reaction is something that wasn't known at some
time earlier by the company."

The suspension from the ASX leaves tens of thousands of mum and
dad investors unable to sell their stock, which has plunged from
as high as $16.50 about 12 months ago to just $6.68 on Dec. 9
before the stock went into a trading halt.  Under ASX listing
rules, a voluntary suspension means that no trading in the stock
can take place and all existing buy and sell orders are
automatically "purged" from trading platforms.

Bellamy's said the suspension was "necessary for the company to
manage its continuous disclosure obligations while it continues
with a review in order to finalise an updated announcement on the
impact of trading conditions on the company's expected financial
results."

Trading in Bellamy's shares ahead of its business update on
December 2 has also caught the attention of the corporate
watchdog.  The Australian Securities and Investments Commission
would not comment on Bellamy's specifically except to say that "as
a matter of course it investigated unusual trading volumes ahead
of material events such as profit updates."

Singapore-based analyst Lloyd Moffatt, who once quipped Bellamy's
was so popular it almost sold itself has a view that the "blue sky
story" for the stock is dead.

"They are either going to have to sacrifice revenue growth or
margins and either of those mean less profits and that's before
they've even got to the regulatory issues.

"My view is it will be bought," Mr Moffatt said.

An analyst for Religare, Mr Moffatt predicted Bellamy's was headed
for trouble six months ago on the basis that the infant milk
scandals in China had distorted demand for product in Australia.
"Over the past five years, the birth rate in Australia has been
flat at 310,000 per annum while IMF sales have tripled; we thus
believe that the company's revenue growth run-rate is unlikely to
sustain, going forward."


BOURNE LEISURE: Hill Dickinson Wins Defense in Norovirus Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Howard at Maritime Logistics Professional reports that
Hill Dickinson said it successfully defended its client, Bourne
Leisure, in a 219-claimant class action involving a Norovirus
outbreak which occurred at a Butlin's site in 2011.

More than 4,000 guests and an additional 1,200 team members were
onsite at the time of the outbreak and around 400 people reported
illness.

The firm's client denied liability throughout on the basis that
its policies and procedures for dealing with a Norovirus outbreak
were sufficiently robust and had been appropriately followed. The
claimants' solicitor issued court proceedings in 2014.

Despite expert evidence, provided by a microbiologist,
gastroenterologist and environmental health officer, which
supported Bourne Leisure's defence, the claimants' solicitors
continued on to trial and maintained that it would only settle for
damages and costs, an offer which was refused by the client.

A 15-day trial of the claim was set to commence on 28 November at
London's High Court before Mr Justice Lewis. However, the
claimants' case subsequently disintegrated upon receipt of a joint
report from the parties' microbiology experts, which agreed that
it was improbable that the point source of the causative Norovirus
outbreak was food prepared at Butlin's.

Hill Dickinson evidenced how its client had done nothing to either
cause or exacerbate the outbreak and in addition, was able to
rebut the claimant's quality complaints with records retained at
the resort. Hill Dickinson pressed for the claimants to
discontinue, which they did just 10 days before trial, paying its
client's costs of GBP400,000 ($493,000).

The claimants' law firm had put forward an offer to settle for
damages in the sum of GBP120,000.00 ($147,000,000) (approximately
GBP500.00 ($616,000) per claimant). Their costs schedule, if they
had been successful, inclusive of the 100% success fee uplift,
would have been in the region of GBP6 million ($7.4m).

Commenting on the case, Hill Dickinson partner, David Scott, said:
"This is an excellent result for our client and demonstrates the
advantages of maintaining a robust defence in circumstances where
there can be shown to have been good policies and systems in
place, appropriately implemented and evidenced by retained
documentation."

Dermot King, managing director of Butlin's, added: "Butlin's is an
iconic and trusted British brand and such inaccurate and
defamatory claims can be hugely damaging to our reputation as a
business.

"We have maintained this was a Norovirus outbreak since June 2011.
There was not only an outbreak at Butlin's during this time but
also the surrounding area which affected hospitals and local
schools.

"The outbreak was extremely well controlled and the environmental
health officer visiting the site during the outbreak was satisfied
the policies and procedures were being implemented.

"The Butlin's Norovirus Policy has since been accredited by the
Chartered Institution of Environmental Health and the Royal
Society for Public Health."

This is the second victory of its kind for Hill Dickinson. In what
is seen as a landmark judgment, it was the first law firm to have
successfully defended the first UK class action involving
Norovirus onboard a cruise liner in 2015.


BSN MEDICAL: Class Certification Sought in RJF Chiropractic Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned RJF CHIROPRACTIC CENTER,
INC., an Ohio corporation, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly-situated persons v. BSN MEDICAL, INC. and
JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 3:16-cv-00842-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C.), filed
its "placeholder" motion for class certification and request for
status conference pursuant to Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d
891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011).

RJF Chiropractic proposes this class definition:

     All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
     filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile
     messages of material advertising the commercial availability
     or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on
     behalf of Defendants, (3) from whom Defendants did not
     obtain "prior express invitation or permission" to send fax
     advertisements, and (4) with whom Defendants did not have an
     established business relationship, and/or (5) which did not
     display a proper opt-out notice.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GAqy26Bd

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chad McGowan, Esq.
          McGOWAN HOOD FELDER
          1517 Hampton St.
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 779-0100
          Facsimile: (803) 256-0702
          E-mail: cmcgowan@mcgowanhood.com

               - and -

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


CALIFORNIA: CDOT Violates Homeless People's Rights, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Darwin Bond Graham, writing for East Bay Express, reports that a
complaint filed on Dec. 13 in state court alleges that the
California Department of Transportation is systematically
violating the constitutional rights of homeless people in the
cities of Oakland, Berkeley, and Emeryville by destroying personal
property during "sweeps."  According to the attorneys who filed
the suit, Caltrans' actions amount to a violation of the
California and U.S. constitutions.

"[Caltrans'] illegal actions deprive homeless individuals of
personal belongings that are critical to their survival, such as
clothing, medication, cooking utensils, tents, and blankets, as
well as of irreplaceable personal possessions, such as family
photographs," the attorneys claim in their lawsuit.

One of the plaintiffs in the case, James Leone, alleges that in
April of this year a Caltrans crew accompanied by CHP officers
ordered him to move his camp and belongings off state property,
giving him only five minutes to comply.  According to Leone,
before the five minutes were up, Caltrans workers began throwing
his belongings, including a tent, sleeping bag, camping stove, and
more, into a trash compactor.

"When Mr. Leone successfully pulled his bicycle out of the
compactor before it was could be destroyed, a CHP officer pulled
out his Taser and threatened to use it," the lawsuit alleges.

Attorneys with the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, ACLU of
Northern California, East Bay Community Law Center and the law
firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr say that Caltrans
practices are in violation of the department's own policy, which
was written after two previous lawsuits over the same matter.

A spokesman for the California Department of Transportation told
the Express that Caltrans cannot comment on pending litigation and
declined to address specific allegations.

As the Express previously reported, many East Bay residents who
live on state property around the freeways have experienced what
are called the "sweeps."  In the process, they've lost valuable
property, which they claim is often thrown directly into garbage
compactors rather than stored so that it can later be recovered.

Caltrans officials have maintained, however, that their actions
are not in violation of any laws, and that it's their policy to
store confiscated items that have an apparent value of $50 or more
so that the owners can reclaim them.

Earlier this year, Caltrans provided the Express with access to
its East Bay storage facility.  Inside a shed on the grounds of
the Telegraph Avenue yard in Oakland, were a pair of bicycles,
bike parts, two generators, several tents, and a surfboard.

Osha Neumann of the East Bay Community Law Center, one of the
groups backing the lawsuit, said he's requested inventory records
from Caltrans for confiscated property, and that he thinks the
agency has too little in storage compared to the number of sweeps
they're conducting.

"There is practically nothing there," he said about the storage
shed on Telegraph Avenue.  "There's maybe twelve items, and given
the number of sweeps and amount of stuff they've taken, there's a
big disconnect."

Mr. Neumann said that EBCLC has filed 74 claims for people with
Caltrans over confiscated property but that not a single person
has ever gotten their property back after it was confiscated or
thrown away.  "They've never been successful in getting anything
back," said Mr. Neumann.  "Every single claim has either not been
responded to or denied."


CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: "Kautsman" Suit Moved to W.D. Washington
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Nicolay Kautsman and Olga
Kofanova, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Carrington Mortgage Services LLC and Does 1-10, the Defendant,
Case No. 16-00002-26599-5, was removed from the King County
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington (Seattle). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-01940 to the proceeding.

Carrington Mortgage provides mortgage loan servicing support
services to borrowers and investors in the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Harish Bharti, Esq.
          6701 37th Ave. NW
          Seattle, WA 98117
          Telephone: (206) 819 5484
          E-mail: bharti@lawyer.com

               - and -

          Jason E Anderson, Esq.
          8015 15th Ave. NW, Ste 5
          SEATTLE, WA 98117
          Telephone: (206) 706 2882
          E-mail: jellisandersonecf@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by

          Frederick B Rivera, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE (SEA)
          1201 3rd Ave., Ste 4900
          Seattle, WA 98101-3099
          Telephone: (206) 359 3596
          Facsimile: (206) 359 4596
          E-mail: FRivera@perkinscoie.com

               - and -

          Tina R. Thomas, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE (SEA)
          1201 3rd Ave., Ste 4900
          Seattle, WA 98101-3099
          Telephone: (206) 359 8106
          E-mail: tthomas@perkinscoie.com


CEMPRA INC: Motion to Appoint Lead Plaintiff Due Jan. 3
-------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, reminds investors that a
securities class action has been filed against Cempra Inc. and
certain of its officers. This class action is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons who purchased Cempra between May 1, 2016
and November 1, 2016, both dates inclusive.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

On November 2, 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
reported its preliminary review of Cempra's drug, solithromycin,
to treat community-acquired bacterial pneumonia and specified a
significant safety signal for hepatotoxicity. Following this news,
Cempra stock dropped $9.71 per share or over 58% to $6.95 on
November 2, 2016.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that (1) one of Cempra's lead product candidates, solithromycin,
posed significant safety risks for hepatotoxicity; and (2)
consequently, Cempra's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

No Class has yet been certified in the above action. To discuss
this action, or for any questions, please visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/cempor contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email info@bgandg.com.
Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number. If you suffered a loss in
Cempra, you have until January 3, 2017 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.

                  Khang Law Firm's Statement

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.


CENTENE CORPORATION: Jan. 13 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP disclosed a class action lawsuit against Centene
Corporation. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares
between April 26, 2016 and September 6, 2016 inclusive (the "Class
Period"), are encouraged to contact the Firm in advance of the
January 13, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

If you purchased shares of Centene 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 Centene made materially false and
misleading statements concerning the acquisition of Health Net,
Inc. on March 24, 2016, as well as failed to disclose: that
certain Health Net insurance programs were significantly
underperforming, which led to the need to increase reserves to
offset losses caused by these programs; that Centene overstated
the financial prospects of Health Net; and that as a result of the
above, the Company's statements its business, operations, and
prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times. When this information was disclosed
to the public, the value of Centene fell, causing investors harm.


CHEMTALL INC: Gets $6MM From Workers' Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Li of West Virginia Public Broadcasting reports that in the
decade-long court case William K. Stern, et al. vs. Chemtall,
Inc., et al., workers in coal preparation and wastewater treatment
sought medical monitoring for the potential increase of
neurological problems caused by exposure to hazardous materials
used in their jobs.

As part of the $13.95 million settlement, workers can now use a
free health monitoring program. About $6 million went to
plaintiffs' attorneys, according to the West Virginia Record. The
legal teams decided that the remaining roughly $6 million should
be divided equally between the Blanchette Rockefeller
Neurosciences Institute at West Virginia University and the Robert
C. Byrd Center for Rural Health at Marshall University.

"What we devised was a medical monitoring program where the folks
were able to have examinations to see if they had neurological
problems," said Wheeling attorney R. Dean Hartley. "We expected
that we would have some money left over, because we didn't think
everybody would take part in the examination process. We had
designed into (the settlement) money leftover. What should we do
with it? The parties agreed it should be used for neurological
research."

Mr. Hartley, along with Charleston attorney E. William Harvit,
claims administrator Edward Gompers and Judge David Hummel
traveled to the two campuses to deliver the checks in person.

During the ceremony at West Virginia University, George Spirou,
co-director of BRNI, said the money would help advance studies of
the human brain.

"We're developing and using these new technologies," he said. "So
we are going to be a leader -- I'm telling you now -- we are going
to be a leader in human neuroscience."

The funding will be used at Marshall to tackle health problems
specific to residents of rural areas.


COMMONWEALTH EDISON: Sued Over Medical Repayment Plan Late Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a new
class action lawsuit has charged two of the Chicago area's largest
utility companies with improperly adding finance charges and late
fees to so-called "medical payment arrangements" -- or special
electric and natural gas bill repayment plans required by the
state, should utility customers suffer significant health problems
interfering with their ability to pay their bills on time.

On Dec. 9, plaintiff John Tamburo, identified as a Will County
resident, filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court through attorney
Daniel A. Edelman, of the firm of Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin, of Chicago, against electricity provider Commonwealth
Edison and natural gas utility Nicor, alleging purported billing
practices by the utility companies violated the Illinois Public
Utility Act and the state's consumer fraud law.

According to the complaint, Mr. Tamburo at some point suffered
unspecified "health problems," which, in September, allowed him to
qualify for special protections under Illinois law.

Among other provisions, the law prohibits electric and natural gas
utilities from disconnecting service for at least two months for
failure to pay by residential customers who have a "certified
medical necessity."  The law also requires the utilities to offer
the customers the opportunity to pay back their unpaid bills in
small installments.

Mr. Tamburo said he received those accommodations from both ComEd
and Nicor, and had an arrangement to repay his past due amounts
over 12 months.

However, the plaintiff said, when he received the bills, he noted
ComEd had added a 1.5 percent finance charges of $74 per month,
and Nicor had tacked on late fees boosting his bill by more than
$8 per month.

The complaint said ComEd and Nicor informed Mr. Tamburo adding on
such charges to the monthly installments were part of the
companies' "standard practice."

But those charges, the lawsuit alleged, are not permitted by the
Illinois law governing the medical payment arrangements.

Messrs. Tamburo and Edelman said the utilities' practices likely
mean many others in the state have been similarly assessed finance
charges and late fees.  They asked the court to expand the lawsuit
to become a class action potentially involving any customers who
made medical payment arrangements with ComEd and Nicor over the
last five years. The complaint does not estimate how large that
number of additional plaintiffs may be.

The lawsuit asked the court to order ComEd to repay the finance
charges and Nicor to refund the late fees.  Messrs. Tamburo and
Edelman also asked the court to award unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages, plus attorney fees.


CONCERTED CARE: To Close Cordillera Lodge Despite Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Wyrick, writing for Vail Daily, reports that Cordillera and
the Baltimore firm buying the lodge and spa are firing litigation
bombs back and forth.

Noah Nordheimer's Concerted Care Group says it will close The
Lodge and Spa at Cordillera on Feb 28.  Mr. Nordheimer wants to
spend $80 million to transform it into a health, wellness and
high-end addiction treatment center.

Cordillera's residents returned fire with a $100 million class-
action lawsuit, led by Thomas Wilner, a Washington, D.C., attorney
who heads Cordillera's legal committee.  Mr. Wilner went to war
with the federal government when he represented 11 Kuwaiti
prisoners held in the Guantanamo Bay detention center at the U.S.
Navy base in eastern Cuba.

Cordillera's class-action lawsuit, filed in federal court in
Denver, asks the court to stop Concerted Care Group and current
Lodge owner, Austin, Texas-based Behringer Harvard.  The lawsuit
personally sues Behringer Harvard owner Robert M. Behringer and
its President and CEO Michael D. Cohen.

The lawsuit says Messrs. Behringer and Cohen "aided, abetted and
directed the fraudulent activities of BH and make significant
decisions regarding the operations and assets of BH."

Cordillera's property owners association and metro district are
not parties to the class-action lawsuit.

NORDHEIMER NOT IMPRESSED

Mr. Nordheimer said he remains nonplussed, calling the $100
million lawsuit "frivolous."

"It's frivolous and will be treated as such," Mr. Nordheimer said.

The lawsuit asserts that Behringer Harvard is violating the same
regulations it pushed through in 2009, which do not allow the
kinds of "substantive changes" they now want to make, Mr. Wilner
said.

"They're now asserting it can be replaced by any of the 33 other
uses," Mr. Wilner said.

That $100 million is not a difficult number to reach when you add
up the value of the 900 homes in Cordillera and calculate that
they could drop between 30 and 50 percent in value, as homes have
in other communities when facilities like this are opened, Mr.
Wilner said.

Mr. Nordheimer rejects their claim.

"Any claims that we are negatively impacting home values are
fabricated.  Prices in Cordillera are up since we went under
contract.  I doubt they even looked at the sales data before
filing this," Mr. Nordheimer said.  "We are bringing in doctors
and professionals who trained at Yale, MIT, Stanford, . . . some
of the brightest minds in the country to live and work here.  Yet
they claim I am negatively impacting property values.  . . . Come
on, man!"

ALSO GROUSE ON THE GREEN

Along with the lodge and spa, Mr. Nordheimer said Concerted Care
Group is purchasing Grouse on the Green, the restaurant and
clubhouse for Cordillera's par 3 golf course. His firm also is
buying the Strawberry Park condominiums/Ski Chalet.

"We are excited to be moving ahead with this project,"
Mr. Nordheimer said.

Plans for that building have not been finalized, Mr. Nordheimer
said.

"At this point, we're exploring all of our options for those
ancillary properties, including selling them off to other groups,"
Mr. Nordheimer said.

Cordillera's property owners' association owns the short course.

"I'm not sure if their powers that be thought about how they would
operate a golf course without a clubhouse or parking lot. It seems
like a very large oversight on their part,"
Mr. Nordheimer said.

The par 3 golf course was separated from the property that
operates it, Grouse on the Green, during the litigation with
Cordillera Club owner David Wilhelm.

"It appears to have left the community in a vulnerable position,
another gift from the Wilhelms to Cordillera," Mr. Nordheimer
said.

DISTRICT COURT APPEALS

All this comes on the heels of a pair of lawsuits filed in local
District Court, appealing a unanimous decision by Eagle County's
Board of County Commissioners to allow Mr. Nordheimer to move
ahead with his plan.

Cordillera Property Owners Association and the Cordillera Metro
District sued Eagle County and the county commissioners, asking
District Court Judge Fred Gannett to throw out the commissioners'
decision.

Cordillera homeowners Barbara and Jack Benson sued Eagle County
separately.

Cordillera wants the county commissioners' decision overturned and
damages, costs, reasonable attorneys' fees and "any other relief
that the court may deem just."

"I think the commissioners' decision was influenced a great deal
by the idea that if they did not approve it, they could be sued
under the Americans with Disabilities Act," Mr. Wilner said.

Cordillera's covenants do not allow the lodge to be separated from
the rest of Cordillera and replaced with these other uses, Mr.
Wilner said.

On top of that, those same covenants require 67 percent of the
property owners to approve such a change, Mr. Wilner said.

However, metro district Executive Director Rachel Oys said the
District Court lawsuits were part of Cordillera's appeal and not a
new legal action.

"We believe under Colorado law it's our right to appeal any of
these decisions," Ms. Oys said.

Mr. Nordheimer countered that Cordillera's appeals have nothing to
do with the commissioners' decision.  He said Colorado is second
in the nation for prescription opioid abuse and that "people are
dying at alarming rates, and this facility is desperately needed."

"I have never seen a group of seemingly successful people operate
with such disregard for the law," Mr. Nordheimer said.  "They have
deliberately made immoral and illegal decisions in attempt to
block people's access to care."


COOK COUNTY, IL: Status Hearing in "Rogers" Suit Reset to Jan. 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on December 18, 2016, in the case
titled Keith Rogers v. Sheriff of Cook County, et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-11632 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Edmond E. Chang.

The minute entry states that the status hearing and pending
motions are reset from December 19, 2016, to January 6, 2017, at
9:30 a.m.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=p4nx7xzL


CUBA: Victims of State-Sponsored Terrorism to Receive Payouts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monika Gonzalez Mesa, writing for Law.com, reports that
administrators of a new federal fund for victims of government-
sponsored terrorism will distribute more than $2 billion dollars
early next year to claimants who are now receiving letters
informing them whether and how much they are authorized to receive
from the fund.  Many of the victims hold court judgments against
such states as Cuba and Iran.

Many of those judgments total millions of dollars.  Administrators
have a Dec. 17 deadline to authorize claims.

When a victim holding a court judgment against a country gets paid
by the fund, the foreign government's debt to the victim doesn't
disappear.  Rather, the rights to that portion of the victim's
judgment are transferred to the U.S. government.  The president
then has the right to use that as part of any negotiations with
the country named in the suit.

The U.S. has been in negotiations over a host of issues with both
Cuba and Iran over the last two years.  U.S. and Cuban officials
met in Havana on Dec. 7 to discuss claims, economic issues, human
rights and other matters, including civil aviation, health, law
enforcement, environmental protection, agriculture, migration,
educational and cultural exchanges and human trafficking.

While the fund won't pay off all the judgment debts, and in some
cases, will pay only a fraction of a compensatory judgment, the
fund may go a notable distance toward easing one of the biggest
obstacles to doing business with Cuba -- the fact that Cuban
assets that touch U.S. soil can be seized by those holding
judgments against Cuba.

The U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Act, passed quietly
last December as part of the appropriations bill, will award
millions of dollars to U.S. victims of the 1979 Iranian hostage
crisis and to terrorism victims who hold court judgments against
the governments of Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Sudan,
South Yemen, and Syria.  Although ordinarily nations can't be sued
in civil court under sovereign immunity laws, a 1996 law made it
possible to sue countries designated as state sponsors of
terrorism.

More than 2,800 claims have been filed with the Victims of State
Sponsored Terrorism Fund, although it is still not known how many
of these will ultimately be deemed eligible by the Dec. 17
authorization deadline.  With billions outstanding against the
countries, attorneys said the more than $2 billion expected to be
in the fund this year won't be enough to pay the eligible claims
in full -- at least not in the fund's first distribution.  U.S.
litigants are believed to have more than $10 billion in judgments
against Iran alone, according to Jose M. Ferrer --
jferrer@bilzin.com -- a partner at Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price &
Axelrod in Miami.

The claimants will be notified of the amount of their initial
payments in early 2017, according to the Department of Justice.

Whatever pro-rated amount the fund pays to a judgment holder, the
rights to that amount of the judgment claim are transferred to the
U.S. government.  The president can then pursue the claims, or
waive the debt as a bargaining chip in any negotiations related to
normalizing relations or lifting sanctions against the foreign
state designated a terrorism sponsor, according to the federal
law.

In the case of Cuba, the law is likely to be seen as helpful to
proponents of normalization who argue that engaging with Cuba
makes it easier to lobby for human rights there, Mr. Ferrer said.

Cuba was removed from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism
in May of 2015.  But during the 33 years it was on the list,
terrorism victims obtained an estimated $4 billion in court
judgments that allow their attorneys to seize Cuban government
assets that reach U.S. soil.  The judgments are therefore
considered among the biggest impediments to re-opening trade with
Cuba.

Cuba was placed on the state sponsors of terrorism list in 1982
because of its involvement in the arming, funding and training of
leftist guerrillas in Latin America and Spain, and its harboring
of fugitives.

The judgments are separate from the now approximately $8 billion
in property claims stemming from expropriations of American-owned
properties following the Cuban Revolution, which is largely what
prompted the Cuban embargo in the first place.

Some attorneys representing judgment holders have already received
Department of Justice letters informing them that claims they
represent have been authorized, and specifying the amount they are
eventually eligible to receive.  But the letters do not say how
much will be distributed in 2017, said Andrew C. Hall --
andyhall@hlhlawfirm.com -- founding partner of Hall, Lamb and Hall
in Miami.

Hall represents a number of the pending cases, including victims
of the USS Cole bombing and the family of Gustavo Villoldo, the
holders of the largest of the terrorist judgments against Cuba.
Mr. Villoldo committed suicide after his business was seized by
Fidel Castro's government.  The Villoldo family was awarded a $2.8
billion default judgment in 2011 -- about $1.4 billion of it in
compensatory damages.  The total compensatory damages for the
victims of the USS Cole bombing -- a terrorist attack that took
place in October 2000 against a United States Navy destroyer while
it was being refueled in Yemen -- was $98 million, Mr. Hall said.
Seventeen American sailors were killed and 39 were injured in the
attack.

Those who hold a judgment against a nation designated as a state
sponsor of terrorism are eligible to receive from the fund any
compensatory damages up to a limit of $20 million per individual,
or up to $35 million per family.  Punitive damages and interest
are not included.  Victims of the Iranian hostage crisis, who were
not allowed to sue Iran as part of the Algiers Accord that
negotiated their release, may receive up to $10,000 for each of
the 444 days they were held, or $4.44 million.  A spouse or child
of a hostage can receive a lump sum of $600,000.

Mr. Hall said attorneys representing judgment holders are hopeful
that in the first round of disbursements, their clients will see
up to 30 percent of the amounts they are eligible to receive.

The fund is comprised of money collected by the U.S. from
forfeited property sales and from fines arising from doing
business with state sponsors of terrorism, as well as an initial
$1.025 billion congressional appropriation from the U.S. Treasury.

About $1 billion is expected to come from penalties paid by French
bank BNP Paribas in its record-setting $8.9 billion settlement for
violating sanctions against Iran, Sudan and Cuba, Messrs. Ferrer
and Hall said.

Whenever the sanctions penalty money collected in the fund has
reached $100 million, a new round of disbursements can be paid on
still eligible claims through 2026, when the fund sunsets.

Over the next decade, another $1.5 billion is projected to go into
the fund from criminal and civil fines resulting from pending
cases related to violations of sanctions against Iran, according
to Mr. Ferrer's research on the topic.

Although the law caps attorneys' fees at 25 percent, Mr. Ferrer
said critics see the fund as a windfall for plaintiffs attorneys
and argue against using money from the U.S. Treasury to satisfy
civil judgments against sponsors of terrorism.

"These are judgments against other countries and we are using
taxpayer funds," Mr. Ferrer said.


DELTA AIR: Non-Exempt Workers Class Certified in "Lopez" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Stephen V. Wilson grants in part and denies in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class filed in the lawsuit
styled REYNALDO LOPEZ, ET AL. v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Case No.
2:15-cv-07302-SVW-SS (C.D. Cal.).

On September 17, 2015, the putative class action was removed via
from state court to the District Court.  The putative class
consists of all current and former non-exempt employees of Delta
in the state of California employed between 2011 and 2015.  The
Plaintiffs assert 11 causes of action, including failure to
provide required meal and rest periods, and failure to pay
overtime and minimum wages.  The Plaintiffs filed a motion to
certify the class on all counts in May 2016.  The Court found
several named Plaintiffs to be inadequate representatives of the
class and allowed the Plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint,
which they did so on October 26, 2016.

The Court certifies a liability class pursuant to Rule 23(c)(4) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure based around the single issue
of the regular rate and overtime pay theory. The Class will
consist of persons employed by Delta as non-exempt in Departments
120 and 125 at LAX at any time since July 1, 2011, who were paid
overtime at least once during their employment.

"This class can be easily ascertained by looking at Delta payroll
records.  The issue for this class is whether Delta correctly
calculates the regular rate for purposes of calculating overtime
pay (including, but not limited to, whether Delta should have
included shift differential pay and nondiscretionary bonuses),"
Judge Wilson opined.

"This class will not deal with the issue of overtime hours that
the Court denied to certify," Judge Wilson noted.  "In other
words, for determining damages Delta will only need to look at the
overtime actually paid during the class period.  The Court will
not entertain claims that an employee believes they were not paid
for all hours actually worked and thus deserves credit for more
overtime hours.  Such claims can be litigated in individual
actions," Judge Wilson explained.

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


EAGLE ROAD: "Adams" Suit Moved to N.D. Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled James Adams, on behalf of himself
and other Oklahoma citizens similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Eagle Road Oil LLC, Cummings Oil Company, and John Doe, sued as
John Does 1-25, The Defendants, Case No. CJ-16-00078, was removed
from the Pawnee Cty. Dist. Ct, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00757-CVE-TLW to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to Hon. Judge Claire V Eagan.

Eagle Road is an oil and gas company. It is an affiliate of
Jericho Oil Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex T Gray, Esq.
          STEEL, WRIGHT, GRAY
          & HUTCHINSON, PLLC
          400 W Capitol Ave Ste 2910
          LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 251 1587

               - and -

          Billy Joe Ellington, Esq.
          Po Box 491
          Pawnee, OK 74058

               - and -

          Curt D Marshall, Esq.
          Robin I Greenwald, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 558 5500
          Facsimile: (212) 344 5461

               - and -

          Jeremy Hutchinson, Esq.
          Nate Steel, Esq.
          Steel, Wright, Gray & Hutchinson, PLLC
          400 W Capitol Ave Ste 2910
          LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 251 1587

               - and -

          Scott E Poynter, Esq.
          POYNTER LAW GROUP
          440 W CAPITOL AVE STE 2910
          LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 251 1587

Cummings Oil Company is represented by:

          Kenneth H Blakley, Esq.
          Michael Franklin Smith, Esq.
          MCAFEE & TAFT
          211 N Robinson 10th Fl
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 552 2235
          Facsimile: (405) 228 7435
          E-mail: ken.blakley@mcafeetaft.com
                  michael.smith@mcafeetaft.com


FORSTER GARBUS: Feliciano Seeks Approval of Consumers Class Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move for an order certifying the case entitled
GINGER I. FELICIANO, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, and LYNN ANTISTA, Consolidated Plaintiff Case. No. 2:15-
cv-04338-CLW v. FORSTER, GARBUS & GARBUS, Case No. 2:15-cv-02496-
CLW (D.N.J.), to proceed as a class action and granting
preliminary approval of the parties' class settlement agreement.

The Defendant consents to the filing of the Motion.

The proposed class consists of:

     All Consumers who reside in the State of New Jersey to whom
     Forster, Garbus & Garbus mailed a written communication
     during the period beginning April 7, 2014, and ending
     June 24, 2015, in an attempt to collect a debt on behalf of
     either Sallie Mae or LVNV Funding LLC, which were mailed in
     a windowed envelope such that the file number or QR Code
     containing the file number associated with the Debt was
     visible from the outside of the envelope.

The Plaintiffs' amended complaint was filed pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, which alleges FG&G violated the
FDCPA by mailing consumers collection letters in windowed
envelopes such that the file number or QR Code containing the file
number associated with the Debt was visible from the outside of
the envelope.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kRDN7R6g

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 200
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com

               - and -

          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1325
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          Facsimile: (973) 532-5868
          E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com
                  andrew@sternthomasson.com


GILA LLC: Faces "Newsom" Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gila, LLC. The case
is entitled as Keisha Newsom, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Gila, LLC, doing business
as: Municipal Services Bureau, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-
03063-JLS-JMA (S.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2016). The case is assigned to
Hon. Judge Janis L. Sammartino.

Founded in 1991, Gila offers business process outsourcing focusing
on revenue enhancement services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233 7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297 1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


GREEN MOUNTAIN COFFEE: Pension Funds Seek to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------
The Lead Plaintiffs move for an order certifying the action
entitled LOUISIANA MUNICIPAL POLICE EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
SJUNDE AP-FONDEN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE
GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. GREEN MOUNTAIN COFFEE ROASTERS, INC.,
LAWRENCE J. BLANFORD and FRANCES G. RATHKE, Case No. 2:11-cv-
00289-wks (D. Vt.), as a class action on behalf of a class
consisting of:

     all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
     Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. ("Green Mountain")
     common stock between February 2, 2011 and November 9, 2011
     inclusive, and who were damaged thereby (the "Class").

     Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendants; (ii) members of
     the immediate family of each of the Defendants; (iii) any
     person who was an executive officer and/or director of Green
     Mountain during the Class Period; (iv) any person, firm,
     trust, corporation, officer, director, or any other
     individual or entity in which any Defendant has a
     controlling interest or which is related to or affiliated
     with any of the Defendants; and (v) the legal
     representatives, agents, affiliates, heirs, successors-in
     interest or assigns of any such excluded party.

The Lead Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives and to appoint the law firms of Barrack, Rodos &
Bacine, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, and Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as Class Counsel.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew L. Mustokoff, Esq.
          Kimberly A. Justice, Esq.
          Joshua E. D'Ancona, Esq.
          Joshua A. Materese, Esq.
          Mark B. DeSanto, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: mmustokoff@ktmc.com
                  kjustice@ktmc.com
                  jdancona@ktmc.com
                  jmaterese@ktmc.com
                  mdesanto@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Mark R. Rosen, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq.
          Lisa M. Port, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          3300 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street, Ste. 3300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600
          Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
          E-mail: mrosen@barrack.com
                  jbarrack@barrack.com
                  lport@barrack.com

               - and -

          John C. Browne, Esq.
          Rebecca E. Boon, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: johnb@blbglaw.com
                  rebecca.boon@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Andrew D. Manitsky, Esq.
          LYNN, LYNN, BLACKMAN & MANITSKY, P.C.
          76 St. Paul Street, Suite 400
          Burlington, VT 05401
          Telephone: (802) 860-1500
          Facsimile: (802) 860-1580
          E-mail: amanitsky@lynnlawvt.com


HAMILTON COUNTY: Federal Class Suit Filed Over Woodmore Bus Crash
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chloe Morrison of Nooga.com reports that two law firms have filed
a federal class-action lawsuit on behalf of all the victims of the
Nov. 21 Woodmore Elementary School bus crash that left six
children dead.

Local law firm Berke, Berke & Berke and Maryland-based firm
Murphy, Falcon & Murphy filed the suit in United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

The lawsuit alleges that the Hamilton County Department of
Education, its Supervisor of Transportation Benjamin Coulter and
contract bus company Durham School Services knew that the driver,
Johnthony Walker, 24, often slammed his breaks, drove recklessly
and intentionally swerved as a form of discipline.

It claims that children had been hurt because of those actions
before the crash.

The lawsuit details the trauma of the crash and of the children's
injuries.

"The horror was foreseeable, predictable and preventable,"
according to the lawsuit.

It also alleges both the school system and Durham mismanaged the
buses to save money and/or profit.

All this, the lawsuit alleges, was a violation of the children's
constitutional rights.

Durham Chief Executive Officer David Duke has expressed his
sadness over the crash, announced new safety measures and said the
company would pay for the children's funerals.

A spokeswoman for the Hamilton County School System said leaders
are unable to comment because the litigation is pending.

According to a news release from the law firms, the advantage of
filing in federal court, in which constitutional violations are
asserted, is that plaintiffs aren't subject to the state's
monetary limits on liability for government bodies or Tennessee's
monetary limits on liability for damages.

The complaint is seeking punitive damages against both the bus
company and the transportation supervisor for their roles in the
crash.


HARTFORD FIRE: Certification of Analysts Class Sought in "Allen"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled CORDELL ALLEN, ALIA CLARK,
PATRICIA DEARTH, CHRIS DEPIERRO, JESSICA LEIGHTON, JESSICA PEREZ,
JAMIE RIVERA, LAYFON ROSU, MARISSA SHIMKO, and CAROL SOMERS, On
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. HARTFORD
FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Foreign for Profit Corporation, Case No.
6:16-cv-01603-RBD-KRS (M.D. Fla.), move the Court for an order:

   (1) conditionally certifying this collective class of
       "Analysts" as a national class;

   (2) requiring the Defendant to produce the names, addresses,
       telephone numbers and emails of each putative class
       member;

   (3) compelling notice of this action be sent to all current
       Analysts employed by Defendant who are and/or were
       classified as exempt and all Analysts employed by the
       Defendant within the 3 years preceding the filing of the
       instant motion who are and/or were classified as exempt;

   (4) requiring Defendant to post notice of this action at its
       work sites and on its company intranet site; and

   (5) tolling the statute of limitations back to the date of the
       filing the motion.

According to the Motion, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant both
filed Notices of Pendency of Other Actions and cited to
Monserrate, et al., v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Case no.
6:14-cv-149-ORL-18GJK.  The Plaintiffs assert that the Monserrate
case is virtually identical to their Case.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=A8mLbFEI

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mary E. Lytle, Esq.
          David V. Barszcz, Esq.
          Robert N. Sutton, Esq.
          LYTLE & BARSZCZ, P.A.
          543 N. Wymore Road, Suite 103
          Maitland, FL 32751
          Telephone: (407) 622-6544
          Facsimile: (407) 622-6545
          E-mail: mlytle@lblaw.attorney
                  dbarszcz@lblaw.attorney
                  rsutton@lblaw.attorney

The Defendant is represented by:

          Patrick J. Bannon, Esq.
          Molly C. Mooney, Esq.
          Anthony S. Califano, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          Two Seaport Lane, Suite 300
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 946-4987
          Facsimile: (617) 790-6755
          E-mail: pbannon@seyfarth.com
                  mmooney@seyfarth.com
                  acalifano@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Arlene K. Kline, Esq.
          Melissa S. Zinkil, Esq.
          AKERMAN, LLP
          777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100, West Tower
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 653-5000
          Facsimile: (561) 659-6313
          E-mail: Arlene.kline@akerman.com
                  Melissa.zinkil@akerman.com


IMPACT ACQUISITIONS: Hearing in "Krupp" Suit Set for January 3
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Pamela Pepper entered an order in the lawsuit styled
LINDA KRUPP, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. IMPACT ACQUISITIONS LLC, IMPACT NETWORKING INDIANA,
LLC, and IMPACT NETWORKING LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-00950-PP (E.D.
Wisc.):

   -- granting the Plaintiff's motion for conditional
      certification and court-authorized notice;

   -- denying as moot the Defendants' motion for protective
      order;

   -- denying as moot the Plaintiff's amended motion for leave to
      file a sur-reply brief; and

   -- scheduling hearing on the Defendants' motion to strike, for
      protective order, and for sanctions on January 3, 2017, at
      2:30 p.m.

Linda Krupp brings the putative collective and class action on
behalf of herself and current and former digital service
technicians (DSTs), who were employed and classified as salaried
non-exempt by the Defendants, but were not compensated at one and
one-half times their rate of pay when they worked over 40 hours.
She alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime wages,
which violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and its Wisconsin
counterparts.

The Court appoints the firm of Hawks, Quindel, S.C. as collective
action counsel.  The Court approves the proposed notice of right
to join lawsuit as modified by a 45-day opt-in period.  The Court
also orders that within 10 days of the date of the order, the
Defendants will provide the Plaintiff with an Excel spreadsheet
listing necessary information about any persons whom they believe
meet the collective class definition.

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


JAY PEAK: Ex-CEO Stenger Denies Class Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------
Alan Keays at VT Digger reports that Bill Stenger, the former
Chief Executive Officer of Jay Peak, penned his own filing
defending himself against fraud allegations brought by investors
in a series of projects he headed with his former business partner
Ariel Quiros.

Mr. Stenger earlier this year settled an investor fraud lawsuit
filed against him by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
neither admitting or denying the allegations.

However, in a filing in a class-action lawsuit brought by
investors against him and others associated with the investor-
funded development projects, Mr. Stenger denied wrongdoing. He
points the finger of blame at Mr. Quiros, Jay Peak's owner as well
as a defendant in the case.

The allegations in the class-action lawsuit, led by Brazilian
investor Alexandre Daccache, closely mirror claims made by the SEC
in their lawsuit against Mr. Stenger and Mr. Quiros.

It's unclear if Mr. Stenger's filing in the class-action lawsuit
constitutes a breach of his earlier settlement with the SEC
regarding his agreement to not challenge the claims against him.

Christopher Martin, the SEC attorney, could not be reached
December 21 for comment.

Attorney David Cleary, who represents Mr. Stenger in a separate
case, said December 21 that the agreement with the SEC relates
only to that case.

"In other litigation, it's another issue," Mr. Cleary said. "I
don't think it restricts what he has to do to defend himself in
other actions."

Mr. Cleary added that Mr. Stenger is representing himself in the
Daccache case because he has "limited resources" to pay for legal
services.

The filing by Mr. Stenger is titled as an "answer" to the class-
action lawsuit brought by Daccache and other investors. In the 39-
page submission, Mr. Stenger stridently challenges the claims
against him and demands a trial.

"I deny any knowing involvement in any improper diversion of
investor funds, or any misappropriation of investor funds,"
Stenger wrote in the first paragraph of the filing.

He added, "Allegations made against Ariel Quiros and others on
this issue, particularly with regard to personal use of funds by
others than myself appear accurate, based on information obtained
in connection with the SEC litigation."

The Daccache lawsuit was brought on behalf of a proposed class of
836 people who collectively invested more than $400 million in
several projects led by Mr. Quiros and Mr. Stenger. The projects
spanned eight years in northern Vermont, with money raised from
foreign nationals seeking green cards through the federal EB-5
immigrant investor program.

Defendants in the lawsuit are Mr. Quiros, Mr. Stenger, People's
United Bank, Raymond James and Joel Burstein, a branch manager of
Raymond James in Coral Gables, Florida, where Mr. Quiros did
business. Burstein is also Mr. Quiros' former son-in-law.

The suit was filed after the SEC as well as the state of Vermont
brought investor fraud lawsuits against Mr. Stenger and Mr.
Quiros. Those actions claimed the two men misused $200 million in
investor funds meant to pay for projects in Vermont's Northeast
Kingdom, including hotels at Jay Peak and Burke Mountain.

The SEC case also alleges Mr. Quiros "looted" more than $50
million to pay for personal expenses.

Both the SEC and Daccache cases are pending in federal court in
Miami, which is where Quiros lives and many of his businesses are
located.

Mr. Stenger, in his filing in the Daccache class-action case,
contends that he was not aware that he was he was assisting Mr.
Quiros in any fraud scheme.

"I still do not know, understand, or have sufficient information
to understand or appreciate all of these claims regarding the
movement and commingling of EB-5 funds which were apparently,
unbeknownst to me, occurring in connection with Mr. Quiros's
accounts at Raymond James in Miami, Florida," Mr. Stenger wrote.
"I certainly never knowingly participated in any fraudulent Ponzi,
or other scheme."

Stenger added that he was "never knowledgable" about Mr. Quiros'
use of margin loans to apply investment funds for any EB-5
projects, including the improper use of investor funds for
completion of earlier EB-5 projects.

Those statements appear to contradict information obtained in the
SEC case from former accountants at Jay Peak, Michael Dupont and
John Carpenter.

The SEC referred to an email on Jan. 27, 2009, in which Dupont
complained to Mr. Stenger that he hadn't been able to get bank
statements from Mr. Quiros starting in August 2008.  Mr. Stenger
said in his deposition with the SEC that he didn't remember the
conversation the email referred to.

The SEC pointed out that Mr. Stenger had said he didn't recall any
conversation about margin loans, but Dupont referred to a
shortfall in the accounts and pointed out the statements showed
"ready access margin loans" had been taken out against the
investor funds.

According to the SEC lawsuit, Mr. Quiros, from 2009 to 2012,
leveraged $105 million in investor funds for margin loans.

Later that year Dupont left Jay Peak. He was replaced by John
Carpenter, who, in his deposition with the SEC, said he realized
the developers were commingling funds and using money from new
investors to pay for previous projects and resort operating
expenses.

"On several occasions, I spoke to Mr. Stenger regarding my
concerns regarding the magnitude of the additional costs,"
Carpenter said in his deposition. "When Mr. Stenger and I
discussed how the additional costs would be funded he told me that
future EB-5 projects and management fees earned by Jay Peak
Management, Inc., in future Jay Peak E-5 limited partnerships
would help fund the additional costs from the earlier EB-5 limited
partnerships."

In his answer to the class-action lawsuit filed this week, Stenger
wrote, "I realize what the United States SEC has claimed, but l
was never knowledgeable of, nor did I participate in the
masterminding in any way of any scheme to deprive the investors of
anything."

Mr. Cleary said that it wasn't a commingling of the funds that was
taking place. Instead, he said, a percentage of the "partnership
proceeds" from subsequent projects was being used to complete
earlier projects, which was permitted as long as it was done
"within the confines of the private placement memo."

"(Mr. Stenger's) agreement with Mr. Quiros was no money would be
taken and put anywhere except in the projects until the last
project had been completed," Mr. Cleary said.

As part of his settlement with the SEC, Mr. Stenger has agreed to
cooperate with investigators.  He still faces the possibility of a
monetary settlement, to be determined based on his level of
cooperation and ability to pay.

Mr. Stenger continues to work at Jay Peak. Sources say he comes in
on a daily basis, continues to drive a company car and occupies an
office at the ski area. Michael Goldberg, the court-appointed
receiver, has said he is paying Stenger $50 an hour for special
projects, the equivalent of $100,000 a year.

The state case, in which Clearly is serving as Mr. Stenger's
attorney, remains pending. Cleary filed an answer to that lawsuit
denying the allegations and asking for a jury trial.

Mr. Quiros is challenging the state and federal lawsuits. He is
also contesting the allegations against him in the Daccache class-
action case.


JOHNSON & BELL: First US Firm Named in Data Security Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Strom, writing for The American Lawyer, reports that in the
first public data security class action complaint against a U.S.
law firm, Chicago-based Johnson & Bell was named in a lawsuit that
says the firm failed to protect confidential client information.

The suit against the 100-plus lawyer trial firm was filed in
Chicago's federal court in April but made public on Dec. 9
following courtroom fighting over whether or not the firm had
patched security holes a former client claimed existed in the
firm's time entry system, email system and virtual private
network.

Brought by well-known class-action lawyer Jay Edelson, the case
has been moved to arbitration, where Mr. Edelson says his firm is
seeking class confirmation and will seek damages for allegations
that the lax security put client information at risk.
Mr. Edelson said it is the first class action against a law firm
alleging inadequate data security measures.

The complaint makes no claim that data was stolen or used against
clients.  And the security holes identified in the complaint have
been fixed, Mr. Edelson said, which is why his firm argued to
unseal the case.

In a statement, Johnson & Bell called the lawsuit "specious" and
said it would defend itself against the claims and would pursue
action against the plaintiff when the case concludes.

Law firms and their troves of confidential information are well-
known targets for hackers, and breaches have slowly trickled into
the public view this year.  Cravath, Swaine & Moore and Weil,
Gotshal & Manges were said to be targets of successful hacking
attempts in a March Wall Street Journal article.  Fortune reported
those attacks were directed by hackers with ties to the Chinese
government.

But the lawsuit unsealed on Dec. 9 is a new reputation risk for an
industry where confidentiality is a bedrock of client service.
Johnson & Bell is unlikely to be the last firm named publicly.
Even so, it's unclear what damages could be awarded in cases where
no data breach exists and when the alleged security deficiencies
have been fixed.

Mr. Edelson earlier said he would bring a wave of class-action
claims against law firms his firm identified as lacking basic
security measures.  In a March 30 article, Mr. Edelson told
Bloomberg Big Law Business that he identified 15 such firms.  The
suit against Johnson & Bell was filed two weeks later.

"This is the first that has become public," Mr. Edelson said on
Dec. 9 when asked if he had filed other lawsuits.  "We're not
talking about (cases) that are not in the public record."

Johnson & Bell president William Johnson said his firm's data
systems are secure and its clients' information is protected.

"We will fully defend our firm against this baseless lawsuit and
will seek appropriate action against plaintiffs after the lawsuit
is concluded," Mr. Johnson said in a statement.

The lawsuit has an incestuous backstory.

The data security lawsuit was brought on behalf of Coinabul LLC, a
firm that once promised to trade gold for the digital currency
bitcoin.  Earlier, Coinabul had been sued in July 2014 by a
plaintiff represented by Edelson PC, alleging the company
defrauded its customers out of millions of dollars' worth of
bitcoin.  Coinabul hired Johnson & Bell as defense counsel.
After Johnson & Bell withdrew from the case, Coinabul and
co-defendant Jason Shore were hit with a $1.5 million judgment
last year.  In July, Mr. Shore was dismissed from that case with
prejudice.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Wants Judge to Weigh Financiers' Roles in MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that Johnson & Johnson has asked a federal judge to order
plaintiffs' attorneys applying for lead roles in the multidistrict
litigation over its talcum powder products to disclose whether
they are backed by third-party financiers.

In the request, filed on Nov. 28, Johnson & Johnson attorney Susan
Sharko -- susan.sharko@dbr.com -- said her client was "troubled by
the prospect of third-party litigation finance playing a role in
this MDL proceeding."  She cited a Nov. 21 application in which
attorney Rick Root said his firm, New Orleans-based Morris Bart,
"self-funds its mass torts practice."

"This statement suggests awareness that other applicants for the
plaintiffs' steering committee are not self-funded, but instead
are being financed by outside entities through a practice common
referred to as third-party litigation funding," wrote
Ms. Sharko, a partner in the Florham Park, New Jersey, office of
Drinker Biddle & Reath.  Such "unnamed investors" could "exert
control or influence over plaintiffs' conduct in this litigation,"
she wrote.

In a response on Nov. 29, Mr. Root clarified that his statement
made no reference to how other firms were financed.

Neither Ms. Sharko nor a Johnson & Johnson spokesman responded to
a request for comment.  Mr. Root also did not respond to a request
for comment.

The request highlights increasing concern among the defense bar
that plaintiffs' attorneys should disclose the use of third-party
financing firms. At least one federal district, in California, has
proposed a rule that would require more transparency over outside
funding.

More than 1,700 women have sued Johnson & Johnson, alleging its
talcum powder products caused them to get ovarian cancer.  Most of
the suits are in state courts.  About 200 lawsuits are pending in
Atlantic County, New Jersey, Superior Court.  Another 250
plaintiffs have 60 suits in Los Angeles Superior Court.  And 20
cases are in the 22nd Judicial District in St. Louis, filed on
behalf of more than 1,400 plaintiffs, where juries have come out
with verdicts of $72 million, $55 million and $70 million this
year.

The multidistrict litigation in federal court involves about 60
cases that the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred to U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson on
Oct. 4.  Plaintiffs lawyers have backed Michelle Parfitt and P.
Leigh O'Dell -- Leigh.ODell@BeasleyAllen.com -- to be co-lead
counsel of the MDL.  In their Nov. 21 application, Ms. Parfitt, a
senior partner at Ashcraft & Gerel in Alexandria, Virginia, and
O'Dell, a principal at Montgomery, Alabama's Beasley, Allen, Crow,
Methvin, Portis & Miles, proposed a slate of 17 attorneys to serve
in lead roles but made no mention of third-party funding.  They
did, however, emphasize that the litigation would involve millions
of dollars in discovery costs, with bellwether trials alone
costing up to $1 million apiece.

"Because this litigation involves one of Johnson & Johnson's
flagship products, plaintiffs expect that the litigation will be
hard-fought and protracted," they wrote.  "For these reasons, the
PSC must be composed of sufficient numbers of individuals whose
firms can adequately discover and fund the litigation."

Johnson & Johnson
has questioned the amount of discovery needed in the litigation.

"It is essential for the courts in the talc cases as well as other
litigation to know whether outside investors or hedge funds may be
influencing or controlling the plaintiffs' case and how they may
benefit from it," said Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce's Institute for Legal Reform, a frequent critic of
third-party financing.  "It's also become apparent that funded
cases are often poorly investigated and should receive special
scrutiny from the courts."

The next hearing in the case is scheduled for Jan. 23.


KROGER CO: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit in N.D. Alabama
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Kroger Co. The
case is captioned as Jonathan Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Kroger Co., the
Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-02045-HGD (N.D. Ala., Dec. 21, 2016).
The case is assigned to Hon. Magistrate Judge Harwell G Davis,
III.

The Kroger Company is an American retailer founded by Bernard
Kroger in 1883 in Cincinnati, Ohio. It is the country's largest
supermarket chain by revenue, second-largest general retailer and
twenty-third largest company in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Micah S Adkins, Esq.
          THE ADKINS FIRM PC
          The Kress Building
          301 19th Street North Suite 581
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 206 6718
          Facsimile: (205) 208 9632
          E-mail: MicahAdkins@ItsYourCreditReport.com


LA TAN: $1.5MM Fingerprint Scan Class Action Settlement Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Sparks, writing for Blue Maumau, reports that a court in
Chicago issued its approval this month for a $1.5 million
settlement in the first of two class action lawsuits filed against
L.A. Tan Enterprises, Inc. and some of its local franchisees
claiming they mishandled customers' biometric information, mainly
collected from fingerprint scans.  Out of that settlement,
$600,000 will go to the attorneys who filed the class actions.

In the case, Sekura v. L.A. Tan, filed in Cook County Circuit
Court on November 2015, Edelson P.C. attorneys claimed L.A. Tan
used fingerprint scanning technology rather than a key fob to
identify its customers in a membership database.  They assert that
the nationwide tanning franchisor failed to obtain written consent
from members prior to collecting the biometric data, and failed to
inform them how the information would be stored, and then
destroyed when memberships were terminated or the salons closed.

Edelson attorneys said in a Bloomberg Law article, that this is
the first settlement reached under Illinois' Biometric Information
Privacy Act, which requires companies to gain consent before
collecting a person's biometric data.

The settlement terms require L.A. Tan to pay $125 to each class
member who filed a claim, and to put processes in place to comply
with the Illinois statute or destroy all biometric data it has
obtained.  Attorney Ben Richman made it clear that the lawsuit did
not accuse L.A. Tan of doing anything nefarious or losing or
selling its customers' biometric fingerprint date, the Bloomberg
report stated.  "Rather, the company did not treat the data as
carefully as the law requires," the lawsuit states.

Mr. Richman also stressed that this type of data is "incredibly
sensitive."  He said, "You can get a new social security card if
it's stolen, but you can't go get a new fingerprint or a new face.
This information was incredibly sensitive and it should be treated
as such."

The Bloomberg report said the consequences of losing biometric
data are not yet totally clear.  It told, "In 2015, hackers
breached the federal government's Office of Personnel Management
and stole the fingerprints of 5.6 million government employees." A
cyber security expert wrote, "5.6 million U.S. government
employees need to remember that someone, somewhere, has their
fingerprints.  And we really don't know the future value of this
data."  He said if, in 20 years, we routinely use our fingerprints
at ATM machines, that fingerprint database will become very
profitable to criminals.  And, he said, if fingerprints start
being used on our computers to authorize our access to files and
data, that database will become very profitable to spies."

Another report by the Cook County Record stated that while the
scanning and storage of fingerprint data is permissible, Sekura's
lawsuit argued L.A. Tan broke the Illinois BIPA law by sharing the
scans with an out-of-state, third-party software vendor,
identified as SunLync.

The second lawsuit was filed shortly after the Sekura case, and
was filed against L.A. Tan and franchisee Krishna Schaumburg Tan.
The allegations are similar in that it accuses the franchise owner
of failing provide BIPA-compliant written notification to
customers about the data collection, as well as a retention
schedule and guidelines for permanent destruction of fingerprint
data should the business fail.

Cook County Record said, "With more than 65 percent of L.A. Tan
salons in foreclosure, a figure the lawsuit attributed to a 2013
WilliamBruce.org report, Sekura and Edelson argued the future of
the biometric information collected by L.A. Tan and its
franchisees is also in peril, a concern which they said also
prompted the lawsuit."

L.A. Tan was represented in the class action suit by Baker
Hostetler in Chicago.


LANNETT COMPANY: Lundin Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, disclosed a class action
lawsuit against Lannett Company, Inc. (LCI). Investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares between September 12, 2013
and November 3, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the Firm in advance of the January 17, 2017
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 yet. 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 claims that Lannett made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: that the Company's drug
pricing relied on unsustainable pricing methods; that Lannett
lacked effective internal controls concerning its drug pricing
methods; and that as a result of the above, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. On November 3, 2016, Bloomberg News reported that the
Justice Department is conducting an antitrust investigation of
over a dozen companies, including Lannett, to determine whether
they unlawfully colluded with each other to fix generic drug
prices. When this information was released, shares of Lannett
declined 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.


LEASE FINANCE: Class Certification Sought in Ha Thi Le Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned HA THI LE, HA THI LLC,
HANH THI LE, and HA LE LLC, and all others similarly situated v.
LEASE FINANCE GROUP, LLC, FIRST DATA GLOBAL LEASING, d/b/a GLOBAL
LEASING, FIRST DATA MERCHANT SERVICES CORP. a/k/a FIRST DATA
MERCHANT SERVICES, LLC and PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:16-
cv-14867-LMA-KWR (E.D. La.), filed with the Court their motion to
certify class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=m8DdhRY4

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lawrence J. Centola, III, Esq.
          Neil F. Nazareth, Esq.
          Jason Z. Landry, Esq.
          MARTZELL, BICKFORD & CENTOLA
          338 Lafayette Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 581-9065
          Facsimile: (504) 581-7635
          E-mail: lcentola@mbfirm.com
                  nfn@mbfirm.com
                  jzl@mbfirm.com

               - and -

          Susanne Weiner Jernigan, Esq.
          JERNIGAN LAW FIRM
          829 Baronne Street
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 581-9322
          Facsimile: (866) 703-7621
          E-mail: sue@thejerniganfirm.com

               - and -

          James "Wes" Bearden, Esq.
          J. W. BEARDEN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          829 Baronne Street
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 581-9322
          Facsimile: (504) 703-7651
          E-mail: wes@beardenonline.com


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Ill. Court Tosses Flood Insurance Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Meisel, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois
federal court Dec. 12 tossed a suit from a putative class of
Liberty Mutual Group Inc. policyholders who claimed the insurance
agency overcharged for its flood insurance policies by not
informing customers that their flood risk had been downgraded.
U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis ruled that the federal laws that
govern the National Flood Insurance Program preempt the state law
claims lead plaintiff Leo Podgorski brought against Liberty
Mutual.

Though Mr. Podgorski had argued that the federal preemption of the
Standard Flood Insurance Program only applies to situations in
which a specific insurance claim is under dispute, Judge Ellis
sided with Liberty Mutual, which argued that the federal
preemption is not limited to specific instances of disputed
claims.

"Podgorski cites no authority for the proposition that because
courts have encountered a regulation most frequently in one
context that is the only context in which it can be applied,"
Judge Ellis wrote.  "The existence of claims-handling cases
analyzing preemption in no way limits the applicability of the
SFIP's preemptive effect to only those types of cases."

Mr. Podgorski, a resident of Antioch, Ill., had originally
purchased an SFIP from Liberty Mutual in 2009.  At the time he
purchased the policy, his home was in a flood zone with the
designation "Zone AE," a higher-risk zone according to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency.

Buying flood insurance was a mandatory condition of
Mr. Podgorski's mortgage, he said in his complaint, because of his
Zone AE designation.  But in December 2015, Mr. Podgorski said he
received a notice from his mortgage company informing him that his
insurance policy had been inaccurate as of September 2013, when
FEMA had changed his flood risk designation to "Zone X," an area
of lower risk.

Due to this lower-risk designation, Mr. Podgorski is no longer
required to carry flood insurance, though if he chose to, that
policy would be less expensive than insurance for a home in Zone
AE.

Mr. Podgorski brought six state-law claims against Liberty Mutual
including negligence, negligent misrepresentation, violation of
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act,
unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract and fraud.
Mr. Podgorski and the putative class sought a refund of the excess
premium payments, plus punitive damages.

But Judge Ellis sided with Liberty Mutual on Dec. 12, granting the
company's motion to dismiss Mr. Podgorski's case because
Mr. Podgorski's state-law claims were preempted by federal law.
Additionally, Judge Ellis said, statements from FEMA support
Liberty Mutual's position that state-law claims would be negated
by federal ones.

"The language of both the SFIP and FEMA's related statement with
the proposed rule are expansive and clearly demonstrate an
intention that federal law exclusively governs all claims relating
to SFIPs, not just those relating to claims handling," Judge Ellis
wrote.

No representatives from the parties could be reached for comment
on Dec. 13.

Mr. Podgorski and the class are represented by Salvatore Badala,
Michael Hawrylchak, Paul Maslo and Paul Napoli of Napoli Shkolnik
PLLC.

Liberty Mutual is represented by Mark Bradford --
MABradford@duanemorris.com -- Kevin Fee -- kjfee@duanemorris.com -
- and Amy Gross -- acgross@duanemorris.com -- of Duane Morris LLP.

The case is Podgorski v. Liberty Mutual Group Inc. et al., case
number 1:16-cv-05549 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Certification of Classes Sought in "Yagman" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled STEPHEN YAGMAN, etc. v. ERIC
GARCETTI, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-05944-GHK-E (C.D. Cal.), seeks
certification of two classes of persons consisting of persons, who
were issued parking violation citations within the City of Los
Angeles.  The class definition is:

     "all persons who were issued parking citations by the City
      of Los Angeles and who were required to pay the amount
      demanded on the citation in order to obtain an initial
      hearing on the validity of the citation, and/or who were
      not provided a valid initial hearing by the citation
      issuing agency, the City of Los Angeles, as is required by
      California law, and whose initial adjudications instead
      were contracted out by the City to a private contractor,
      Xerox Corporation."

Eric Michael Garcetti is the current mayor of Los Angeles.

The Court will commence a hearing on January 9, 2017, 9:30 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SNMDG5TM

Plaintiff Stephen Yagman is represented by:

          Joseph Reichmann, Esq.
          YAGMAN & REICHMANN
          475 Washington Boulevard
          Venice Beach, CA 90292-5287
          Telephone: (310) 452-3200
          E-mail: JReichm@aol.com


MARCOAH GROUP: Byer Clinic Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on December 12, 2016, in the case
styled Byer Clinic of Chiropractic, Ltd. v. Marcoah Group USA LLC,
et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-05318 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing
held before the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.

The minute entry states that pursuant to a notice, the Case is
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.  Status hearing set for
December 14, 2016, was stricken, and the motion to certify class
is stricken as moot.  Civil case is terminated.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=exfiWd9m


MDL 2752: "Finnegan" Suit v. Yahoo! Consolidated in N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jim Finnegan, Lucresse Cayemitte,
Thomas Howes, and Derron Appleton, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Yahoo,
Inc., a California corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-09809, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Jose). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:16-cv-07228-LHK to the proceeding.

The Finnegan case is being consolidated with MDL 2752 re: Yahoo
Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was created
by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on December 7, 2016. These putative class actions share
complex factual questions arising from Yahoo's announcement on
September 22, 2016, that a data security breach of its network
occurred in late 2014 in which the personal account information of
at least 500 million Yahoo users was stolen. Common factual
questions are presented with respect to Yahoo's practices in
safeguarding its users' personal information, the investigation
into the breach, the alleged delay in disclosing the breach, and
the nature of the alleged damages. In its December 7, 2016 Order,
the MDL Panel found that centralization will eliminate duplicative
discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with
respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the
parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. The presiding Judges in
the MDL is Hon. Lucy H. Koh, United States District Judge. The
lead case is 5:16-md-02752-LHK.

Yahoo is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Sunnyvale, California. Yahoo was founded by Jerry
Yang and David Filo in January 1994 and was incorporated on March
2, 1995.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert Joel Shelist, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT J. SHELIST, P.C.
          500 N. Michigan Avenue. No. 600
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (312) 226 0675
          E-mail: rjsattorny@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by

          Robert Andrew Chapman, Esq.
          David A. Wheeler, Esq.
          Shannon Therese Knight, Esq.
          CHAPMAN & SPINGOLA LLP
          190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3850
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 630 9202
          E-mail: rchapman@chapmanspingola.com
                  dwheeler@chapmanspingola.com
                  sknight@chapmanspingola.com


MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Faces Wage Payment Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Derek Hawkins, writing for Wisconsin Law Journal, reports that
plaintiffs David Cohan and Susan Schardt filed a putative class
action suit against their former employers, Medline Industries,
Inc., and MedCal Sales LLC (collectively, "Medline"), alleging
violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820
Ill. Comp. Stat. Sec. 115/1 et seq. ("IWPCA"), and other state
wage payment statutes, including the New York Labor Law and
California Labor Code, on behalf of the class.


MONAKER GROUP: Faces Securities Class Action in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood on Dec. 13 disclosed that on December 9, 2016,
a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida against Monaker Group,
Inc.  The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material or false misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price during the Class
Period, which is April 6, 2012 through June 23, 2016.

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, Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com Or, visit the firm's
website at www.federmanlaw.com

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Monaker Group,
Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class
Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above.
You may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this
notice to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class.
However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal
requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Zaklit Seeks to Certify Class and Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned ALFRED ZAKLIT AND JESSY
ZAKLIT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 5:15-cv-02190-CAS-KK (C.D.
Cal.), ask the Court to certify these Class and Subclasses:

  -- IPA 632.7 Late Advisory Cell Phone Class:

     All persons in California whose outbound telephone
     conversations were recorded without their consent by
     Defendants or its agents, during the Class Period, and
     wherein a cellular device was used by the Subclass Member,
     but where Defendants or its agent/s did not advise the
     Subclass Member within 30 seconds of the onset of the call,
     that their call was being recorded, within the one year
     prior to the filing of the original Complaint.

  -- IPA 632.7 Subclass:

     All persons in California whose outbound telephone
     conversations were recorded without their consent by
     Defendants or its agents, during the Class Period, and
     wherein a cellular or cordless device was used by at least
     one party to the conversation, within the one year prior to
     the filing of the original Complaint.

  -- IPA 632.7 Cell Phone Subclass:

     All persons in California whose outbound telephone
     conversations were recorded without their consent by
     Defendants or its agents, during the Class Period, and
     wherein a cellular device was used by the Subclass Member,
     within the one year prior to the filing of the original
     Complaint.

The Plaintiffs also move for their appointment as Class
Representatives, and for appointment of their attorneys as Class
Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on February 13, 2017, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fbAT9eTn

The Plaintiffs are 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@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com

Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC is represented by:

          Mary Kate Kamka, Esq.
          Erik Kemp, Esq.
          SEVERSON & WERSON
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
          San Francisco, CA 94111, USA
          Telephone: (415) 398-3344
          Facsimile: (415) 956-0439
          E-mail: mkk@severson.com
                  ek@severson.com


NCAA: Alston Case Moving Towards Settlement
-------------------------------------------
Steve Berkowitz at USA Today reports that the sides in a lawsuit
against the NCAA and 11 major conferences that seeks damages based
on the difference between the value of a traditional athletic
scholarship and one that also covers the full cost of attending
college provided strong signs December 22 that they are working on
a settlement.

For the second time in four weeks lawyers on all sides signed a
filing with a federal judge in which they asked that all remaining
dates in the case's schedule be put off indefinitely "in the
interests of justice and efficient management of the litigation."
And U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken issued a signed order to
that effect.

When this occurred on Nov. 22, Wilken responded by establishing a
new set of filing deadlines in January and February, and requiring
the parties to submit a status report Thursday.

Acting on behalf of all parties, lawyers for the NCAA made that
submission under provisional seal, asking Wilken to maintain that
shield because: "As the parties explained to the Court's clerk via
teleconference, the information included in the Joint Status
Report is confidential, non-public information entitled to
protection."

Law cited as the basis for keeping the filing secret states that a
party seeking to file a document under seal must "establish that
the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as
a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law."
The request for seal went on to say that the NCAA and the
conferences have conferred with the plaintiffs' lawyers, who
agreed that "given the confidential, non-public information
contained in the Joint Status Report, the Joint Status Report
should be filed under seal."

NCAA spokeswoman Stacey Osburn said the association has no comment
beyond the filing.

Monetary figures and other terms of a settlement that is not fully
in place are examples of the type of information the sides in a
case like this would attempt to keep hidden until a deal is ready
to presented for a judge's consideration. Such deals can have
complex terms before they can be submitted to a judge, and, in
this case, the involvement of so many conference as defendants
could make the process even more delicate.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the case have been seeking to gain
class-action status for an action in which they have said in court
filings they likely would be seeking more than $240 million in
damages.

The plaintiffs have argued that if the NCAA's relatively new rules
allowing cost-of-attendance-based scholarships been in place years
ago, athletes in football, men's basketball and women's basketball
those three sports would have received the more valuable
scholarships -- thus entitling them to damages.

One idea for how to let college athletes have endorsement deals
The period covered by the suit is a function of its original
filing date in March 2014 and federal antitrust law, which would
allow the case to reach back four years. The suit also seeks to
cover athletes in football, men's basketball and women's
basketball who, subsequent to the suit's initial filing, received
-- or are still receiving -- athletic scholarships that do not
cover the full cost of attendance.

Under antitrust law, if a jury decides to award damages to a
plaintiff, the amount is tripled, so more than $720 million could
be at stake in the case. Although the NCAA and 11 conferences are
named as defendants, other Division I schools and conferences are
alleged to have been co-conspirators.

The NCAA and the conferences have argued that schools' varying
approaches to providing financial aid for athletes should prevent
the lawsuit from receiving class-action status.

In a separate portion of this case -- which began on behalf of
former West Virginia football player Shawne Alston -- and in
another related case, Wilken already has granted class-action
status to groups of athletes challenging the NCAA's cost-of-
attendance-based limits on the compensation athletes can receive
while playing college sports. In that portion of this case, and in
the other related case, the plaintiffs are seeking an injunction
that would nullify the new limits.


NESTLE: Faces Class Action Over Lean Cuisine Preservatives
----------------------------------------------------------
TMZ reports that Lean Cuisine has always touted itself as the
healthy alternative . . . which is why some incredulous consumers
have sued the diet giant, claiming its food fare is filled with
preservatives.

Courtney Ross filed a class action suit against Nestle, which
manufactures Lean Cuisine frozen dinners, claiming she went to a
CVS in NYC and bought the Four Cheese Pizza, paying what she
claims is a premium for a preservative-free meal.

Ms. Ross says to her chagrin, she checked the label and saw the
pie contained citric acid, designed to preserve flavor and
freshness.  She says other companies fess up when they use citric
acid, acknowledging it's a preservative.  She mentions Hungry Man,
Jimmy Dean and DiGiorno.

And Ms. Ross then unleashes a litany of Lean Cuisine meals which
contains citric acid, including Asian-Style Pot Stickers, Shrimp
Alfredo, Mushroom Mezzaluna Ravioli and Ranchero Braised Beef.
The suit isn't just about money.  Ms. Ross wants a "corrective
advertising campaign."


OPUS BANK: Kessler Topaz-Filed Securities Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds Opus Bank shareholders
that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers
of Opus securities between July 28, 2014, and October 17, 2016,
inclusive.

FINAL REMINDER: Shareholders who purchased Opus securities during
the Class Period may, no later than December 27, 2016, petition
the Court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this action please visit https://www.ktmc.com/new-
cases/opus-bank#join.

Opus shareholders who wish to discuss their legal rights or
interests with respect to this action are encouraged to contact
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus
Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299 - 7706 or
(610) 667 - 7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com

Opus Bank provides banking products and services to small and mid-
sized companies, entrepreneurs, real estate investors,
professionals and high net worth individuals.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Opus Bank
and certain of its executive officers made materially false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors: (1)
that certain of the Company's loans were of poor quality; (2) that
the Company was over-representing the quality of the loans to the
public; (3) that, as such, the Company failed to properly account
for the loans in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles; (4) that, as a result, the Company would be forced to
recognize large charge-offs associated with the loans; and (5)
that the Company lacked adequate internal controls over accounting
and financial reporting. The complaint further alleges that, as a
result of the foregoing, the defendants' positive statements about
Opus Bank's business, operations and prospects were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On October 17, 2016, the Company issued a press release entitled
"Opus Bank Announces Loan Charge-Offs Will Impact Third Quarter
Earnings." Therein, the Company disclosed that its Third Quarter
2016 financial results "will include a $0.59 per diluted share
impact from loan charge-offs and is expected to result in a net
loss of approximately $0.05 per diluted share for the third
quarter of 2016."

On this news, shares of Opus Bank's stock declined $7.25 per
share, or over 21%, to close at $27.20 per share on October 17,
2016, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Opus shareholders may, no later than December 27, 2016, petition
the Court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check or other counsel,
or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all
class members in directing the litigation. In order to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class in the action. Your ability to share in any recovery is not
affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff. For additional information, or to learn how to
participate in this action, please visit https://www.ktmc.com/new-
cases/opus-bank#join.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state
and federal courts throughout the country. Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and
has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and
individual investors from the United States and around the world.
The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers
(private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the
government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The
complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check.


OPUS BANK: Lundin-Filed Securities Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, disclosed a class action
lawsuit against Opus Bank concerning possible violations of
federal securities laws between July 28, 2014 and October 17, 2016
inclusive. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares
during the Class Period should contact the firm in advance of the
December 27, 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 yet. 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, Opus Bank made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: that some of the Company's
loans were of low quality; that Opus Bank was over-representing
the quality of the loans to the public; that the Company failed to
properly account for the loans in violation of the Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles; that the Company would be forced
to recognize large charge-offs associated with the loans; that
Opus Bank lacked adequate internal controls over accounting and
financial reporting; and that as a result of the above, the
Company's statements about its business, operations, and prospects
were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On October 17, 2016, the Company announced its earnings for the
third quarter 2016 and disclosed that it recognized charge-offs on
eight loan relationships through the allowance for loan losses at
September 30, 2016. When this news was released to the public, the
value of Opus Bank declined, causing investors harm.

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


PATTERN ENERGY: Lundin Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, disclosed the filing of
a class action lawsuit against Pattern Energy Group Inc.
concerning possible violations of federal securities laws between
May 9, 2016 and November 4, 2016 inclusive. Investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Pattern shares during the Class
Period are encouraged to contact the firm prior to the January 10,
2017 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 yet. 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, Pattern made false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: that Pattern's operations
were deficient with respect to various transaction, process level,
and monitoring controls; that Pattern lacked effective internal
financial controls; and that as a result of the above, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times. On November 7, 2016, the Company announced
that it had a material weakness in internal controls over
financial reporting. Pattern stated that its internal controls
were "not effective as of September 30, 2016, due to the
aggregation of internal control deficiencies related to the
implementation, design, maintenance, and operating effectiveness
of various transaction, process level, and monitoring controls."
When this information was disclosed to the public, the value of
Pattern fell, causing investors harm.

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


PENNSYLVANIA: High Court Guidance Sought in Juvenile Convictions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Brambila, writing for the Reading Eagle, reported that
attorneys for Richard Lee Olds, 52, a Pittsburgh inmate serving
life, asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to clarify whether
juvenile convictions for first- and second-degree murder should be
sentenced differently.

Richard Lee Olds was tried before the Honorable Samuel Strauss and
a jury in Allegheny County and was convicted of second degree
murder, robbery and conspiracy in the shooting death of Thomas
Beitler.

According to the report, the murder was committed when Olds was 14
years old, and that court documents described his role in the
incident as "minimal".

According to the Reading Eagle: "In the wake of U.S. Supreme Court
rulings invalidating the commonwealth's mandatory juvenile life-
without-parole sentencing schemes, the court has not yet weighed
in on the rights of juveniles convicted of second-degree murder
who did not kill or intend to kill."

"Court guidance is needed to untangle sentencing statutes,
attorneys for the Atlantic Center for Capital Representation and
the Juvenile Law Center, who filed the petition on Olds' behalf,
insist."

The report recounted that in 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court found in
Miller v. Alabama that mandated life sentences without the
possibility of parole for juvenile defendants were cruel and
unusual punishment.  The court's reasoning was that the young have
both a diminished culpability and a heightened capacity for
change.  The report noted that Pennsylvania was one of a handful
of states that did not retroactively extend this constitutional
right to those convicted before 2012. In January, justices
extended their ruling to include those, like Olds, who were
convicted long ago.

Paula Reed Ward, writing for The Pittsburgh Press, reported that
one of Olds' attorneys, Marc Bookman, the director of the Atlantic
Center for Capital Representation, said: "In Commonwealth v.
Batts, this Court explicitly stated that its ruling did not apply
to juveniles convicted of second-degree murder who neither killed
nor intended to kill and whose cases were final prior to June 12,
2012."

Mr. Bookman, according to the Pittsburgh Press report, noted that
the estimated 175 juvenile lifers in Pennsylvania convicted of
second-degree murder should be excluded from the life maximum
sentence required by Batts.

The Pittsburgh Press noted that Olds in November was resentenced
in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court. Because he has already
served 37 years, Olds immediately became eligible for parole.
However, instead of being released from custody immediately, as
his attorneys argued ought to happen, Olds was denied bond and
must instead go through the parole process, which takes about
three months.

The defense, according to the report, argues that Old and others
like him are eligible for bond because the low end of the new
sentence is 20 years in prison. But prosecutors say that they are
not eligible because the entire sentence includes life in prison.

The Pittsburgh Press report said Olds and his attorneys want the
state Supreme Court to use its King's Bench power, which allows it
to consider any case in a lower court "when it sees the need to
address an issue of 'immediate public importance,' according to
the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts.

The case is, In re: Richard Lee Olds, On His Own Behalf and On
Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated Individuals Appealing from
or Awaiting Resentencing Pursuant to Miller v. Alabama and
Montgomery v. Louisiana, Case No. 127-WM-2016 (Pa. Sup. Ct., Dec.
21, 2016).


PILOT FLYING J: Jimmy Haslam Deposed in Fuel Rebate Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Satterfield, writing for Knox News, reports that Pilot
Flying J President Jimmy Haslam emerged on Dec. 13 from a daylong
deposition in a civil lawsuit over the firm's alleged diesel fuel
rebate scam with another denial of any role or knowledge of the
fraud to which several subordinates have confessed or are facing
indictment.

Mr. Haslam, who also owns the NFL's Cleveland Browns, was ordered
by an Ohio judge to submit to questioning by attorneys
representing three trucking firms that refused to join a class
action settlement that Pilot struck with dozens of other such
companies after a high-profile raid in April 2013 of the company's
headquarters in Knoxville and the resulting indictment of more
than a dozen executives and employees, including former Pilot
president Mark Hazelwood.

The deposition spanned eight hours and took place at a Pilot
conference center in Alcoa. It was not public.  Attorney Chip
Cooper, who represents two of the trucking companies, said
Mr.  Haslam is shielding a transcript of the deposition from the
public.

"Regrettably, we can't discuss the substance of Mr. Haslam's
testimony," Mr. Cooper said.  "We can't discuss it because
Mr. Haslam insisted that his testimony be sealed and therefore
shielded from public view.  We plan to address this with the court
in Ohio, and we encourage the press to do the same."

Both Mr. Haslam and his attorney A.B. Culvahouse issued a
statement on Dec. 13 lambasting the three trucking firms and
vowing Mr. Haslam's innocence.  They did not address the shield
request.

"Our client openly and truthfully answered their questions,"
Mr. Culvahouse said.  "This entire exercise was nothing more than
an effort by the plaintiffs to harass the company into a windfall
settlement."

Mr. Haslam has denied any role in the scheme, in which the FBI
alleges Pilot and its staffers tricked unsophisticated trucking
companies into believing they were receiving discounts on diesel
fuel much greater than the amounts they actually received.  The
FBI has said in court records the scam netted the firm millions.
Pilot's board of directors agreed to settle both the criminal case
pending against the company itself and the class-action
litigation, paying out a total of $179 million.

In his statement, Mr. Haslam again denied knowing what his
underlings were up to.

"I wish I could discuss this entire matter freely with you and
answer your questions as I did the plaintiffs," he said in the
statement.  "I can't do that yet, but I want you to know I
appreciate your interest and look forward to the time when I can.
This is my home and home to our family business.  We continue to
value the support of this community and our relationship with so
many friends."

Ten Pilot staffers, most of them sales executives, have pleaded
guilty to conspiracy charges in U.S. District Court in Knoxville
in connection with the scheme.  Eight executives, including
Hazelwood, were indicted earlier this year.  All have pleaded not
guilty.  A trial is set for next summer.  There are two hearings
set in that case.

It is common for parties in civil lawsuits to undergo depositions
in which opposing counsel is allowed to ask questions but the
person being deposed is accompanied by a lawyer who advises the
client through the process.  What made Mr. Haslam's deposition in
the Ohio case unusual is that any statements he made could be used
by federal prosecutors.  The U.S. Attorney's Office in Knoxville
has steadfastly declined to comment on the status of the probe
against Mr. Haslam.

Three trucking companies who are pursuing their own lawsuit
against Pilot -- FSI Express Inc., of Columbus, Ohio; HB Logistics
of Birmingham, Ala.; and Wright Transportation of Mobile, Ala. --
contend Pilot is shortchanging them in its class-action settlement
and lying about Haslam's knowledge of the scheme.


RCS RECOVERY: Faces "Matos" Suit in M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against RCS Recovery
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Erika Matos, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. RCS
Recovery Services, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; and
Gladstone Law Group, a Florida for profit corporation, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00903-JES-CM (M.D. Fla., Dec. 21,
2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge John E. Steele.

RCS Recovery Services provides debt recovery solutions to the
default mortgage industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maria Alaimo, Esq.
          Viles & Beckman, LLC
          6350 Presidential Ct., Suite A
          Ft Myers, FL 33919
          Telephone: (239) 334 3933
          Facsimile: (239) 334 7105
          E-mail: maria@vilesandbeckman.com


REMINGTON ARMS: Connecticut Supreme Court to Hear Sandy Hook Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Storace, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports
that the Connecticut Supreme Court is bypassing a lower court to
hear an appeal from several families whose loved ones were killed
in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, and who are
trying to sue the manufacturers of the gun used.

The Nov. 29 decision by the high court comes two weeks after nine
families of the victims and a survivor appealed a Superior Court
judge's dismissal of the case.  In October, Fairfield District
Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis granted motions from gun
manufacturers Remington Arms Co. and Bushmaster Firearms to
dismiss the complaint, which was attempting to hold them liable
for the shooting that left 20 children and six educators dead.

Joshua Koskoff, one of the attorneys representing the families,
said on Dec. 1 that "we are very pleased this case was taken by
the [high] court so expeditiously.  I think the case speaks for
itself."

Mr. Koskoff, who is affiliated with the Bridgeport-based law firm
of Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder, added, "At the end of the day, we
believe the laws are applied with fundamental fairness and equity
in mind.  We believe strongly in the legitimacy of our claims.
They are well founded.  We are asking for the Supreme Court to
take a fresh look at this case.  All the families have ever asked
for is their day in court."

In her decision to dismiss, Judge Bellis wrote, in part, "The
allegations in the present case do not fit within the common-law
tort of negligent entrustment under well-established Connecticut
law, nor do they come within [the Protection of Lawful Commerce in
Arms Act]'s definition of negligent entrustment."  The law,
according to Judge Bellis, broadly prohibits lawsuits against gun
makers, distributors, dealers and importers from harm caused by
the criminal misuse of their firearms.

Mr. Koskoff said the last meaningful decision under the law was an
automobile case during the 1930s.

"The laws are not frozen in time and are not static," Mr. Koskoff
said.  "The law is dynamic and it has to apply to contemporaneous
issues and technologies.  This issue has never been resolved by
the Appellate Courts, and the Supreme Court is really where it
belongs."

The families' appeal also stated that the high court should
determine and decipher the true meaning of the Connecticut Unfair
Trade Practices Act, which has many interpretations.  That law, in
essence, states that "any person" who suffers an "ascertainable
loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the
use or employment of a method, act or practice prohibited by CUTPA
may bring an action to recover actual damages."

Mr. Koskoff has maintained that the gun manufacturers bear
responsibility because "they profit and market aggressively and
irresponsibly these assault weapons, which were designed for the
men and women in uniform to see in battle."

The families first sued Remington and others in Connecticut
Superior Court in 2014, alleging the companies shared liability
for the deaths of those gunned down by Adam Lanza.  Mr. Lanza used
a Remington Bushmaster AR-15 rifle.  The plaintiffs allege that
Remington sold the weapon to the distributor, Camfour, which in
turn sold the rifle to the gun shop, Riverview Sales, which then
sold the gun to Mr. Lanza's mother.  Camfour and Riverview are
listed as defendants along with Remington and Bushmaster.
Riverview has since gone out of business.

Attorneys representing Camfour, Riverview, Remington and
Bushmaster did not return calls on Dec. 1.


ROTI RESTAURANTS: Prints Too Many CC Digits on Receipts, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk at Cook County Record reports that Roti
Restaurants, a Chicago-based chain specializing in fast, fresh
Mediterranean-style food, has been served with a class action
lawsuit, alleging the chain prints too many digits from its
customers' credit and debit cards on receipts.

On Dec. 16, plaintiffs Cooper Lindner and Kim Smith filed their
complaint in Cook County Circuit Court, alleging Roti's practice
of printing the first six digits and the last four digits of a
customer's 16-digit card number violates federal law.

The plaintiffs are represented in the action by attorneys Karl G.
Leinberger -- karl@markleinlaw.com -- and Paul Markoff --
paul@markleinlaw.com -- of the firm of Markoff Leinberger LLC, of
Chicago.

Roti operates 13 restaurants in Chicago and the suburbs, and other
locations in and around Washington, D.C.

The lawsuit centers on Roti's purported practice, since at least
July 2014, of printing more than five digits from customers'
credit and debit card numbers on their receipts.

The lawsuit noted the plaintiffs believe the practice violates the
federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, which mandated
retailers and restaurants truncate customers' credit and debit
card numbers to no more than five digits on customer receipts, out
of fear the printed numbers could assist identity thieves.

According to the lawsuit, each of the named plaintiffs purchased
food at Roti restaurants in July 2016 and each of their receipts
included the first six digits and the last four digits of their
card numbers.

The lawsuit alleged Roti should have been aware, as of July 28,
2014, of the federal credit and debit card number truncation
requirements, as, at that time, Visa, Mastercard and other credit
card companies notified merchants in writing of the requirements.

The complaint asks the court to expand the lawsuit to include a
class of additional plaintiffs to potentially include anyone who
bought a meal at Roti restaurants and paid with a credit or debit
card, since July 28, 2014.

The complaint asks the court to award statutory damages of up to
$1,000 per violation, as well as punitive damages and attorney
fees.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Gilligan" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Samsung Electronics
America, Inc. The case is titled as Claire Gilligan, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-09803 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 21, 2016).

Samsung Electronics supplies consumer electronics and digital
products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SANDERSON FARMS: Khang Law Firm's Securities Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP disclosed a class action lawsuit against
Sanderson Farms, Inc., investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares between December 17, 2013 and October 6, 2016
inclusive, are encouraged to contact the Firm in advance of the
December 27, 2016 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

If you purchased shares of Sanderson Farms 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 yet. 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, Sanderson
Farms made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose material information. On September 2, 2016, some media
outlets reported the filing of an antitrust class action lawsuit
against Sanderson Farms and some of its peers for conspiring to
manipulate the price of broiler-chickens. Allegedly, in 2008,
Sanderson Farms, along with Tyson Foods and several other
companies, conspired by sharing proprietary data and reducing
production to support prices. On October 4, 2016, a group of
consumers filed an antitrust class action complaint against
Sanderson Farms and several of its industry peers for violations
of the Sherman Act. On October 7, 2016, Pivotal Research
downgraded peer company Tyson Foods from "buy" to "sell," due to
fears over the class action against the Company and its peers,
which it called "powerfully convincing." When this information was
disclosed to the public, the stock price of Sanderson Farms
declined, causing investors harm.


SANOFI: Faces Class Action Over Depakine-Related Birth Defects
--------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Petrequin, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
a French association of people affected by an epilepsy drug that
caused birth defects launched a class action against
pharmaceutical company Sanofi on Dec. 13.

APESAC President Marine Martin told The Associated Press that
Sanofi now has four months to acknowledge its responsibility
before a judge takes up the case.

The global drug company has been selling Depakine, the
anticonvulsant drug at the center of the class action, in France
since 1967.

Depakine, which contains sodium valproate, is usually prescribed
to treat epilepsy.

Sanofi said in an email to the AP that it had received
notification of the proceedings. The company declined to comment
further.

A study revealed by Le Canard Enchaine newspaper found that
Depakine was prescribed to more than 10,000 pregnant women in
France between 2007 and 2014.  Another report published in
February estimated that around 450 children in France who were
exposed to the drug while in the womb were born with congenital
defects.

The class action alleges that Sanofi failed to properly inform
users about the drug's potential risks for developing fetuses,
said Martin, whose association represents about 2,900 families.

"We want Sanofi to be condemned because it will be very important
for the victims' families," she said.  "It would be recognition
that they suffered harm."

Martin added she is hopeful the class action, which seeks
financial compensation, will help the cases of several families
who also have filed individual lawsuits against the company. Paris
prosecutors opened a preliminary investigation in September.

The Depakine case is the first class action to be brought in
France dealing with a health issue, a milestone made possible by a
new health law that took effect in September.


SETERUS INC: Ciolino Seeks Certification of Borrowers Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Ciolino asks the Court to enter an order determining that
the action titled PATRICK CIOLINO, on behalf of plaintiff and the
class members described below v. SETERUS, INC., formerly known as
IBM LENDER BUSINESS PROCESS SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-09247
(N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action against Seterus, Inc.
The Plaintiff seeks certification of these classes:

     Class A (automatic PMI termination formula class): All
     persons (a) whose loans were being serviced by Seterus, (b)
     who were paying borrower paid private mortgage insurance
     ("PMI"), (b) at the time they entered into a loan
     modification; (d) prior to October, 2016.


     Class B (disclosure/notice class): All persons (a) whose
     loans were being serviced by Seterus, (b) who were paying
     borrower paid private mortgage insurance, (b) at the time
     they entered into a loan modification; (d) within two years
     of the filing date of this action.

The Plaintiff further asks appointment of Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin, LLC as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2z6Qc5EC

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Tara L. Goodwin, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-3593
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  tgoodwin@edcombs.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ralph T. Wutscher, Esq.
          Charles J. Ochab, Esq.
          Greg M. Barbakoff, Esq.
          MAURICE WUTSCHER LLP
          105 W. Madison St., 18th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 416-6170
          E-mail: rwutscher@mwbllp.com
                  cochab@mauricewutscher.com
                  gbarbakoff@mauricewutscher.com


SI WIRELESS: Tennessee Woman Sues Over Unwanted Auto Texts
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella at Madison Record reports that a consumer has filed
a class action lawsuit against SI Wireless LLC, a
telecommunication company, citing alleged violation of telephone
harassment statutes.

Tennessee resident Andrea Campbell, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a complaint on Dec. 8 in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against SI
Wireless LLC alleging that the telecommunications company violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that because of
the defendant's wrongful conduct, she has suffered aggravation,
nuisance, and sleep disruption. The plaintiff holds SI Wireless
LLC responsible because the defendant allegedly continued sending
autodialed text messages to her cellular telephone even after she
revoked her consent, and sent texts using an automatic telephone
dialing system.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks an award of
injunctive and other equitable relief, actual and statutory
damages, attorneys' fees and costs and such other relief that the
court deems reasonable and just. She is represented by Jeremy M.
Glapion -- jmg@glapionlaw.com -- of The Glapion Law Firm LLC in
Wall, New Jersey.


SILV COMMUNICATIONS: Bid to Strike Kimber's Class Claims Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Timothy S. Black denies the Defendant's motion to strike
class allegations in the lawsuit captioned KIMBER BALDWIN DESIGNS,
LLC v. SILV COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-448 (S.D.
Ohio).

The Plaintiff's amended complaint asserts claims on behalf of a
nationwide class and Ohio subclass for: (1) violation of the
Federal Telecommunications Act's anti-slamming provision; (2)
common law fraud; (3) unjust enrichment; and (4) Ohio
Telecommunication Fraud.

The Defendant argues that Plaintiff's class allegations should be
stricken because members of the proposed class lack Article III
standing.

Among other things, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's
class allegations should be stricken because members of the
proposed class lack standing under Article III of the
Constitution.  Judge Black, however, opined that the Defendant's
standing argument fails as a matter of law.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/BLzCx1 from Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christian A. Jenkins, Esq.
          Robb S. Stokar, Esq.
          MINNILLO & JENKINS CO., LPA
          2712 Observatory Avenue
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Telephone: (513) 723-1600
          Facsimile: (513) 723-1620
          E-mail: cjenkins@minnillojenkins.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Esq.
          Todd B. Naylor, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
          One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 345-8291
          Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
          E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
                  tnaylor@gs-legal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert Alan Steinberg, Esq.
          ROBERT STEINBERG CO LPA
          9050 Ambercreek Dr.
          Cincinnati, OH 45236
          Telephone: (513) 510-5122
          Facsimile: (513) 791-7773

               - and -

          Terrence Lee Goodman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TERRENCE L. GOODMAN, LLC
          17 Heritage Rd.
          Cincinnati, OH 45241
          Telephone: (513) 984-3266
          E-mail: terrygoodmanlaw@earthlink.net


SOLARCITY CORP: Lucero Seeks to Certify Classes and Subclasses
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned JOSE ALBINO LUCERO JR., on
Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated v. SOLARCITY
CORP., Case No. 3:15-cv-05107-RS (N.D. Cal.), moves the Court to
certify these classes and subclasses:

     Autodialer Class:

     All individuals in the United States who received one or
     more calls on their cellular telephones from SolarCity Corp.
     from November 6, 2011 to the date that class notice is
     disseminated, where such calls were made through the use of
     an automated telephone dialing system.

     Autodialer Subclass A:

     All individuals in the United States who received one or
     more calls on their cellular telephones from SolarCity Corp.
     from November 6, 2011 to the date that class notice is
     disseminated, where such calls were made through the use of
     an automated telephone dialing system.

     Autodialer Subclass B:

     All individuals in the United States who received one or
     more calls on their cellular telephones from SolarCity Corp.
     from November 6, 2011 to the date that class notice is
     disseminated, where such calls were made through the use of
     an automated telephone dialing system.

     NDNC Class:

     All individuals registered on the National Do Not Call
     Registry whom SolarCity Corp. called more than one time in a
     12-month period on their cellular or landline phone where
     each call was made more than 30 days after registration.

     NDNC Subclass A:

     All individuals registered on the National Do Not Call
     Registry whom SolarCity Corp. called more than one time in a
     12-month period on their cellular or landline phone where
     each call was made more than 30 days after registration, and
     for whom SolarCity Corp.

     NDNC Subclass B:

     All individuals registered on the National Do Not Call
     Registry whom SolarCity Corp. called more than one time in a
     12-month period on their cellular or landline phone where
     each call was made more than 30 days after registration, and
     for whom SolarCity Corp.

In his complaint, Jose Albino Lucero Jr. alleges that SolarCity
Corp. called him and class and subclass members using automatic
telephone dialing systems, without their prior express consent,
and despite the fact that they are registered on the national Do
Not Call list, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Mr. Lucero also asks the Court to appoint him as class
representative, and appoint Bursor & Fisher, P.A. and Nathan &
Associates, APC as class counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on March 9, 2017, at 1:30 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Plaintiff's partially redacted memorandum of points
and authorities in support of his Motion is available at no charge
at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JnAg9TrI

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 989-9113
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: scott@bursor.com
                  jarisohn@bursor.com

               - and -

          Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
          NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
          600 W. Broadway, Suite 700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 272-7014
          Facsimile: (619) 330-1819
          E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com


ST. LOUIS RAMS: McAllister Seeks to Certify FANS Class & Subclass
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled RONALD McALLISTER v. THE ST.
LOUIS RAMS, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-00172-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.), moves for
certification of these Class and Subclass:

      FANS Class:

      All persons or entities who bought one or more PSLs from
      FANS, Inc. and continued to be PSL owners at the end of the
      2015 season.

      FANS MMPA Subclass:

      All natural persons who are members of the FANS Class.

The MMPA Subclass is limited to natural persons because the MMPA
provides for civil actions to recover damages only for persons,
who purchase or lease merchandise "primarily for personal, family
or household purposes."

Excluded from the proposed Class and Subclass are the Defendant,
its Members and employees, and employees of any subsidiary,
affiliate, successors, or assignees of the Defendant.  Also
excluded is any trial judge, who may preside over the Case.

Mr. McAllister also moves that he be designated as Class
Representative and that his attorneys be appointed Class Counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD
          1010 Market Street, Suite 1720
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-5799
          Facsimile: (314) 241-5788
          E-mail: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com

               - and -

          Anthony S. Bruning, Esq.
          Anthony S. Bruning, Jr., Esq.
          Ryan L. Bruning, Esq.
          THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC
          555 Washington Avenue, Suite 600
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 735-8100
          Facsimile: (314) 735-8020
          E-mail: tony@bruninglegal.com
                  aj@bruninglegal.com
                  ryan@bruninglegal.com

               - and -

          Mark Goldenberg, Esq.
          Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Kevin P. Green, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG HELLER & ANTOGNOLI, P.C
          2227 South State Route 157
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 656-5150
          Facsimile: (618) 656-6230
          E-mail: mark@ghalaw.com
                  tom@ghalaw.com
                  kevin@ghalaw.com


STAAR SURGICAL: Bid to Certify in "Todd" Suit Under Submission
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification is taken under
submission in the lawsuit titled Edward Todd v. Staar Surgical
Company, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-05263-MWF-GJS (C.D. Cal.).

"The Court hears oral argument from counsel and takes the matter
under submission.  An order will issue," Judge Michael W.
Fitzgerald said in a civil minutes.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Wernke, Esq.
          POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          E-mail: mjwernke@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin F. Ruf, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 432-1495
          E-mail: kruf@glancylaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Dan E. Marmalefsky, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543
          Telephone: (213) 892-5200
          Facsimile: (213) 892-5454
          E-mail: dmarmalefsky@mofo.com

               - and -

          Kai S. Bartolomeo, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          12531 High Bluff Drive, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92130-2040
          Telephone: (858) 720-5100
          Facsimile: (858) 720-5125
          E-mail: kbartolomeo@mofo.com


STAFFING SOLUTIONS: Court Refuses to Certify "Yockey" Suit Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson denies the Plaintiff's second amended
motion to certify Fair Labor Standards Act collective action filed
in the lawsuit titled CHRISTOPHER A. YOCKEY v. STAFFING SOLUTIONS,
INC. doing business as EXPRESS EMPLOYMENT PROFESSIONALS, Case No.
2:15-cv-00411-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind.).

Mr. Yockey was employed by Express as a temporary worker and
assigned to the ADS, Inc. facility in Brazil, Indiana.  He
initiated this litigation on behalf of himself and a class of
similarly situated individuals, alleging that Express violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act.  He contends that Express failed to
compensate its employees for earned overtime by improperly
rounding time entries; automatically deducting 30-minute meal
breaks when employees did not clock out and back in for lunch; and
deducting 30 minutes for meal breaks, even when those breaks
lasted for 20 minutes or less.

In her order, Judge Magnus-Stinson opined that Mr. Yockey has not
provided sufficient evidence to satisfy even the lenient standard
at the notice stage of certification.  "Even assuming Mr. Yockey
has established that he was subject to improper timekeeping
practices, he has not provided adequate evidence that his proposed
class members were all subject to a common policy or practice that
violated the FLSA," Judge Magnus-Stinson stated.

Mr. Yockey's request that the Court order notice is denied as
moot.  The Court requests that the Magistrate Judge confer with
the parties to address the possibility of an agreed resolution, or
to establish a revised case management plan as to Mr. Yockey's
individual claim.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/3l3CJ0 from Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert F. Hunt, Esq.
          HUNT HASSLER LORENZ & KONDRAS LLP
          100 Cherry Street
          Terre Haute, IN 47807
          Telephone: (812) 232-9691
          Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
          E-mail: hunt@huntlawfirm.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          John A. Drake, Esq.
          John Kenyon Henning, IV, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART PC
          111 Monument Circle, Suite 4600
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 916-1300
          E-mail: john.drake@ogletreedeakins.com
                  john.henning@ogletreedeakins.com


SUPREME INDUSTRIES: Jan. 3 Lead Plaintiff Date in Khang-Filed Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP disclosed a class action lawsuit against Supreme
Industries Inc. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares between July 22, 2016 and October 21, 2016 inclusive (the
"Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the Firm prior to the
January 3, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

If you purchased Supreme Industries 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 yet. 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 throughout the Class Period, Supreme
Industries made false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: the backlog figure from the third quarter of 2015
was a result of the timing of many large orders placed in that
quarter; that the backlog figure for the third quarter of 2016
would not be close to the backlog figure of the third quarter of
2015; and that as a result of the above, the Company's public
statements about its business, operations, and prospects were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 21, 2016, Supreme Industries announced its third
quarter backlog of truck sales declined 22% from the third quarter
2015. On October 22, 2016, Cliffside Research published a report
discussing the unexpected third quarter backlog decline and heavy
insider selling through 2016. When this information was revealed
to the public, the value of Supreme fell, causing investors harm.


SYNGENTA: June 2017 Trial Scheduled in GMO Corn Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Nebraska Rural Radio Association reports that a class-action
lawsuit against Syngenta regarding rejected exports is likely to
head to trial next year, as scheduled.  Online publication Agri-
Pulse reports the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review
a lower court's certification order, allowing the lawsuit to
proceed.

Syngenta called the appeals court ruling "one step in a long
process."  Multiple classes of farmers within the lawsuit are
suing the company because a Syngenta biotech corn trait unapproved
for export to China that was found in export cargos allegedly
pushed corn prices lower in 2013.

Lawyers for the farmers included in the lawsuit estimate the
farmers lost between $5 billion and $7 billion in revenue because
China stopped importing U.S. corn at the time.  The nationwide
class involved in the lawsuit is set for trial in June of 2017.


SYNGENTA AG: "Stracener" Suit Moved to E.D. Arkansas
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled as Hunter Stracener, Robert Curtis
and Ronald Curtis, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Syngenta AG, Syngenta Crop Protection
AG, Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, and
Syngenta Seeds LLC, Case No. 43CV-16-00686, was removed from the
Lonoke County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock). The case is assigned
to Hon. Judge James M. Moody Jr. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 4:16-cv-00913-JM to the proceeding.

Syngenta AG is a global Swiss agribusiness that produces
agrochemicals and seeds. As a biotechnology company, it conducts
genomic research. It was formed in 2000 by the merger of Novartis
Agribusiness and Zeneca Agrochemicals.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
          Johnson & Vines, PLLC
          2226 Cottondale, Suite 210
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: 372 1300
          E-mail: cjennings@johnsonvines.com

The Defendants are represented by

          Chad W. Pekron, Esq.
          Joseph Wayne Price, II, Esq.
          QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS
          & TULL PLLC
          111 Center Street, Suite 1900
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3325
          Telephone: (501) 379 1700
          E-mail: cpekron@qgtb.com
                  jprice@qgtb.com


SYNGENTA AG: Faces Triple K Suit in South Dakota District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Syngenta AG. The
case is captioned Triple K Farms and John Schneider, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Syngenta AG, Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Syngenta Corporation,
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, and Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No.
4:16-cv-04174-RAL (D.S.D., Dec. 20, 2016).

Syngenta AG is a global Swiss agribusiness that produces
agrochemicals and seeds. As a biotechnology company, it conducts
genomic research. It was formed in 2000 by the merger of Novartis
Agribusiness and Zeneca Agrochemicals.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael T. Andrews, Esq.
          ANDERSON, BOTTRELL,
          SANDEN & THOMPSON
          4132 30th Avenue South, Suite 100
          Fargo, ND 58104
          Telephone: (701) 235 3300
          Facsimile: (701) 237 3154
          E-mail: mandrews@vogellaw.com

The Defendants are represented by

          Talbot J. Wieczorek, Esq.
          GUNDERSON, PALMER,
          NELSON & ASHMORE, LLP
          PO Box 8045
          Rapid City, SD 57709-8045
          Telephone: 342 1078
          Facsimile: 342 0480
          E-mail: tjw@gpnalaw.com


TATA CONSULTANCY: Class Action Among Ousted Director's Options
--------------------------------------------------------------
Manoj Kumar, writing for First Post, reports that Tata Sons
managed to oust Cyrus Mistry as a director at Tata Consultancy
Services Ltd's extraordinary general meeting on Dec. 13 solely by
virtue of its 73 percent stake in India's largest IT services
company.  About 86.71 percent of the total shareholders voted out
whom 93 percent voted in favour of Mr. Mistry's removal.  However,
a closer inspection of the voting pattern reveals that 43 percent
of institutional investor votes and 78 percent of retail investor
votes were against the resolution.

Further, Tata Sons has increased its stake in the six remaining
listed companies to bolster its chances of securing a favorable
vote against Mr. Mistry.  Its inability to operate in a more
democratic manner has left it open to attack from minority
shareholders.  Mr. Mistry can rally shareholders from the listed
companies to join Shapoorji Pallonji to file a case against the
Tata Group for the oppression of minority shareholders under
Sections 397-398 of the Companies Act, 1956.

Sections 397-398 of the Companies Act, 1956 find their genesis in
Section 210 of the English Companies Act of 1948.  Prior to this
enactment, shareholders of companies in England had no right to
complain of oppression or mismanagement unless the case fell
within any of the three recognised exceptions to the famous case -
- Foss vs Harbottle.  The only remedy available to shareholders at
the time was to apply for the winding up of a company on the
ground that it was just and equitable to do so.

The terms -- oppression and mismanagement -- are not defined in
the 1956 Act. Sections 397-398 of the 1956 Act set out the
remedies in respect of certain complaints against the management
of the affairs of company.  Under 397, members of the company can
file a petition in the Company Law Board on a complaint that the
affairs of a company are being conducted in a manner oppressive to
certain members.  Section 398 provides remedies for members if,
among other things, a material change in the management or control
of the company (such as the removal of a director) is likely to
result in the affairs of the company being conducted in a manner
prejudicial to the company.  This provision was brought about by
the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1960.

According to the dictionary, oppression is any act exercised in a
manner burdensome, harsh and wrongful.  It suggests a lack of
probity and fair dealing in the affairs of a company to the
prejudice of some portion of its members.  The Supreme Court has
held that it must be shown that the acts of the majority
shareholders were oppressive to the minority members.  In the
exercise of powers, the CLB and the courts are under a duty to see
that democratic functioning of the company in managing its affairs
is ensured.  The recent allotment of extra shares to boost Tata
Sons' stake in the assorted listed companies can be scrutinised
and proved to be oppressive to the minority shareholders interest.

Another option available to Mr. Mistry is Section 245 of CA 2013
provides for class action to be instituted against the company as
well as the auditors of the company.  The Draft Companies Rules
allow for this class action to be filed by the minority
shareholders under Clause 16.1 of Chapter-XVI (Number of members
who can file an application for class action).  On close reading
of Section 245 of the Companies Act, 2013, it can be seen that the
intent of the section is not only to empower the minority
shareholder and/or members of the company but also the depositors.
Unlike Section 399 of CA 1956 which provides for protection to
only shareholder/members of the company, Section 245 of CA 2013
also extends this protection to the class of depositors as well.
However, in the current scenario, the provision of representation
of a class of members or depositors by a particular member or
depositor lacks clarity.

Sub-section (1) of Section 245 provides, "such number of member or
members, depositor or depositors or any class of them, as the case
may be, as are indicated in sub-section (2) may, if they are of
the opinion that the management or conduct of the affairs of the
company are being conducted in a manner prejudicial to the
interests of the company or its members or depositors, file an
application before the Tribunal on behalf of the members or
depositors for seeking all or any of the following orders . . .".
Besides, there being a typographical error in this sub- section
(1) with respect to indicating sub-section (2) instead of sub-
section (3) which provides for the minimum number of members who
can apply for class action there is also some confusion as to the
class on whose behalf such class action can be instituted.  While
'member has been defined in the CA 2013 as including the
subscriber to the memorandum of the company, shareholders and
person whose name is entered in the register of members;
definition for depositor is not provided under CA 2013.
Further, section 245 does not empower the Tribunal with
discretionary power to admit/allow any class suit wherein class of
members or depositors are unable to comply with the minimum number
of members/depositors requirement to be laid down in the Companies
Rules.  Also, on a close reading of Section 241 and Section 245 of
the Companies Act, 2013, we can find duplication in protection
provided to the members in case affairs of the company are
conducted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the
company/members.

The balance of consideration, however, still lies in Tata Sons'
favour as the burden of proof lies solely with Mr. Mistry and the
minority shareholders.  Whatever the outcome, there is no doubt
that this fracas has deflected investor interest in the salt-to-
steel conglomerate.


TRANSCARE CORP: Eisenstadt vs. Patriarch Goes to Bankruptcy Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Eisenstadt v. Patriarch Partners LLC, et al.,
Case No. 16-cv-2831 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of New York.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District
Judge Edgardo Ramos denied the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate
three purported class action cases, including the Eisenstadt Case.
Judge Ramos granted instead the defendants' motion to refer the
cases to the Bankruptcy Court.

Patriarch Partners, a private equity fund, owns TransCare
Corporation, which filed its bankruptcy petition on February 24,
2016.  The Eisenstadt Case is referred to the Bankruptcy Court as
an adversary case and assigned Case No. 16-01282-smb.

The Eisenstadt Case was brought under federal and state Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act against
Patriarch Partners and its affiliates, and Lynn Tilton alleging
that they fired their employees without the required 60-day
notice.

Plaintiff Warren Eisenstadt, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Michael Brian Ershowsky, Esq.
          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Christopher James Kupka, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          E-mail: mershowsky@zlk.com
                  ek@zlk.com
                  ckupka@zlk.com

Defendant Patriarch Partners LLC is represented by:

          Allan S. Bloom, Esq.
          Nayirie Kuyumjian, Esq.
          Kathleen M. McKenna, Esq.
          Andrew Evan Rice, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          11 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 969-4001
          Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
          E-mail: abloom@proskauer.com
                  nkuyumjian@proskauer.com
                  kmckenna@proskauer.com
                  arice@proskauer.com


UBER TECH: Sued for Double Charging in "Instant Pay" Feature
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk at Cook County Record reports that an Uber driver
has dropped off a class action lawsuit against the ride-sharing
giant, alleging Uber has taken double in fees what they said they
would from drivers who use a new instant payment option to cash
out the money they earn from the rides they provide.

On Dec. 19, plaintiff Jamie Whirl filed suit in Cook County
Circuit Court against Uber Technologies, arguing the company
should be made to pay for charging drivers $1 for withdrawing
their money under the company's "Instant Pay" feature, when the
company allegedly told drivers it would charge only 50 cents per
transaction.

The lawsuit, brought through attorneys with the firm of Krislov &
Associates, of Chicago, asks the judge to expand the case to also
include all other Uber drivers who have used the Instant Pay
system to get paid.

Earlier in 2016, Uber's CEO had asserted more than 450,000 drivers
across the U.S. access Uber's ride-sharing app every month.

The lawsuit centers on Uber's rollout of the Instant Pay feature
on its driver app, which allows drivers to instantly access their
pay, rather than wait for a weekly direct deposit to their bank
account. Drivers are allowed up to five such Instant Pay
withdrawals per day.

According to the complaint, Uber had told drivers they could
either obtain an Uber-branded debit card or it would charge 50
cents per Instant Pay withdrawal to use the feature. However, the
lawsuit alleged Uber instead would charge such drivers 50 cents at
the time of withdrawal, but then tack on another 50 cent charge on
the back end of the transaction, at times leaving a negative
balance on the driver's Uber account.

Whirl, who said in her complaint she has driven for Uber since
mid-2015 and has used the Instant Pay feature since it was
unveiled in 2016, said she has complained of the overcharge to
Uber on multiple occasions. She said Uber has at times refunded
some of her money, amounting to $5.50 in refunds.

"However Plaintiff has been overcharged much more than a total of
$5.50," the complaint said. "Moreover, Defendans (Uber) has not
stopped taking $1 per withdrawal, nor has it updated its
disclosures to drivers to inform them that it actually charges $1
per withdrawal."

The lawsuit alleges Uber breached its contract with its drivers
and has violated Illinois consumer fraud laws and consumer
protection laws in other states.

The lawsuit asks the court to order Uber to repay the alleged
overcharges to drivers, and pay unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages, plus attorney fees.


UGU: Local Families Mull Class Action Over Water Debacle
--------------------------------------------------------
Judi Davis, writing for South Coast Herald, reports that a group
of South Coasters is so angry about the water debacle, when
striking Ugu employees turned off their taps, that they are
considering a mass lawsuit against the district municipality.

An emailed petition is now doing the rounds with the authors
requesting that local families contribute R100 to raise the R750
000 they would need to instigate a class action suit against the
district municipality regarding employees "criminal behavior" that
resulted in the "loss of human rights".

It points out that residents had to go days without water and had
to spend precious time and money to obtain it.  The authors also
claim that putting patients' lives at risk by cutting hospital
water supplies was nothing less that criminal conduct.

"The petition objects to the municipality's 'lack of foresight for
not being prepared for such a disaster', claiming there had been
no disaster plan in place and that the district municipality had
lacked the ability to 'safeguard water plants against criminal
conduct"

It also calls for a private investigation into Ugu's financial
affairs.

"R750 000 will enable us to take this matter further, to have this
matter audited, to get the real reason behind the water disaster,
to bring a civil suit and to investigate the laying of criminal
charges," the petition reads.


VALVE CORP: "G.G." Suit Moved from King County Court to W.D. Wash
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled G.G., A.L., and B.S., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Valve Corporation, a Washington corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. 16-00002-28798-1-SEA, was removed from the King County
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington (Seattle). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-01941 to the proceeding.

Valve Corporation is an American video game developer and digital
distribution company headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason T Dennett, Esq.
          Kim D Stephens, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS
          1700 Seventh Ave., Ste 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682 5600
          E-mail: jdennett@tousley.com
                  kstephens@tousley.com

The Defendant is represented by

          Gavin William Skok, Esq.
          James Harlan Wendell, Esq.
          RIDDELL WILLIAMS
          1001 4th Ave Plaza, Ste 4500
          Seattle, WA 98154
          Telephone: (206) 624 3600
          Facsimile: (206) 389 1708
          E-mail: gskok@riddellwilliams.com
                  jwendell@riddellwilliams.com

               - and -

          Sarah E Joye, Esq.
          Williams Kastner (Sea)
          Two Union Square
          601 Union Street, STE 4100
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 628 6600
          E-mail: sjoye@williamskastner.com


VENGROFF WILLIAMS: Faces "Polizois" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vengroff Williams,
Inc. The case is captioned as Fotini Polizois, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Vengroff Williams, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-07011-JFB-GRB (E.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 20, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Joseph F.
Bianco.

Vengroff Williams provides receivables management and business
process outsourcing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Pashkin
          775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 335 1107
          E-mail: mpash@verizon.net

The Defendant is represented by

          Richard J. Perr, Esq.
          FINEMAN KREKSTEIN
          & HARRIS, P.C.
          Ten Penn Center, Suite 1100
          1801 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 893 9300
          Facsimile: (215) 893 8719
          E-mail: rperr@finemanlawfirm.com


WAWA INC: Pfeifer Wants to Certify Class of Plan Participants
-------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Pfeifer and Andrew Dorley move the Court for an order
determining that the claims in their lawsuit entitled GREG PFEIFER
and ANDREW DORLEY v. WAWA, INC., RETIREMENT PLANS COMMITTEE OF
WAWA, INC., JARED G. CULOTTA, MICHAEL J. ECKHARDT, JAMES MOREY,
CATHERINE PULOS, HOWARD B. STOECKEL, DOROTHY SWARTZ, RICHARD D.
WOOD, JR. and KEVIN WIGGINS and WAWA, INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK
OWNERSHIP PLAN, Case No. 2:16-cv-00497-PD (E.D. Pa.), be certified
and maintained as a class action.

The Plaintiffs brought the action under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 on behalf of themselves and this
Class: All persons who were Terminated Employee Participants in
the ESOP as of January 1, 2015 with account balances greater than
$5,000 and the beneficiaries of such participants and any
Alternate Payees whose stock in the Wawa Plan was liquidated
pursuant to 2015 Amendment (i.e. Plan Amendment No. 4) ("Class").
Excluded from the Class are the Defendant Trustees and members of
the Defendant Committee and their immediate families; the officers
and directors of Defendant Wawa and their immediate families; and
legal representatives, successors, heirs, and assigns of any such
excluded persons.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Greg Pfeifer, Andrew
Dorley, and Michael DiLoreto as Class Representatives, and appoint
Feinberg Jackson Worthman & Wasow LLP, Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll, PLLC, and Donahoo & Associates, P.C. as Class Counsel.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
          Jamie Bowers, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          West Tower, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005-3964
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: jbarton@cohenmilstein.com
                  jbowers@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Raymond M. Sarola, Esq.
          Gary L. Azorsky, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          3 Logan Square, 1717 Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 479 5700
          Facsimile: (267) 479-5701
          E-mail: rsarola@cohenmilstein.com
                  gazorsky@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Daniel Feinberg, Esq.
          FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP
          383 4th Street, Suite 201
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 269-7998
          Facsimile: (510) 269-7994
          E-mail: dan@feinbergjackson.com

               - and -

          Richard E. Donahoo, Esq.
          DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          440 W. First Street, Suite 101
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: (714) 953-1010
          Facsimile: (714) 953-1777
          E-mail: rdonahoo@donahoo.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian T. Ortelere, Esq.
          Andrew Napier, Esq.
          Jeremy P. Blumenfeld, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
          Telephone: (215) 963-5150
          Facsimile: (215) 963-5001
          E-mail: brian.ortelere@morganlewis.com
                  andrew.napier@morganlewis.com
                  jeremy.blumenfeld@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          David I. Monteiro, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1717 Main Street, Suite 3200
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 466-4000
          E-mail: david.monteiro@morganlewis.com


WCI COMMUNITIES: February 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., on Dec. 13 disclosed that it has filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Ft. Myers Division, on behalf of
holders of WCI Communities, Inc. ("WCI") common stock in
connection with the proposed acquisition of WCI by Lennar
Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiaries ("Lennar") announced
on September 22, 2016 (the "Complaint").  The Complaint, which
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against
WCI, its Board of Directors (the "Board"), and Lennar, is
captioned Parshall v. WCI Communities, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-
00846-JES-CM (M.D. Fla.).

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

On September 22, 2016, WCI entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Lennar.  Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, Lennar will acquire WCI, and WCI shareholders
will receive $11.75 in cash and a fraction of a share of Lennar
Class A common stock valued at $11.75 for each share of WCI that
they own (the "Proposed Transaction").

The Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder
support for the Proposed Transaction, on November 10, 2016,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a Form S-4
Registration Statement (the "Registration Statement") filed with
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.  The
Registration Statement, which recommends that WCI stockholders
vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits material
information necessary to enable shareholders to make an informed
decision as to how to vote on the Proposed Transaction, including
material information with respect to the process and events
leading up to the Proposed Transaction, the opinions and analyses
of WCI's financial advisors, and potential conflicts of interest.
Plaintiff seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on
behalf of holders of WCI common stock.

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.  Any member of the proposed class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

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


WELLS FARGO: General Counsel Delays Retirement Amid Scandal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Williams-Alvarez, writing for Inside Counsel, reports
that Wells Fargo & Co general counsel James Strother, who planned
to retire at the end of this year, will stay on indefinitely as
top lawyer in order to deal with the aftermath of the bank's
recent fake accounts scandal.  Mr. Strother turned 65 earlier this
year, triggering the company's mandatory age-based retirement
policy for members of the operating committee.

"In light of recent events, the decision has been made to have Jim
Strother remain with the company and continue to serve as our
general counsel, and Jim has agreed to do so," Peter Gilchrist, a
Wells Fargo spokesman, said in a statement.  "A search is
commencing for his successor," Mr. Gilchrist added.

Wells Fargo has come under fire for opening more than 1.5 million
customer bank accounts and applying for up to 565,000 customer
credit cards from 2011 through 2015 without permission from
customers.  In September, the banking giant reached a record-
setting $185 million settlement with state and federal regulators.
The bank said it has fired 5,300 people in relation to the
scandal.  And in October, it was announced that chief executive
John Stumpf would step down immediately to be replaced by chief
operating officer Tim Sloan.  The company is also facing lawsuits
from both former employees and customers.

Mr. Strother has been Wells Fargo's general counsel since 2003. He
was heavily involved in Wells Fargo's acquisition of Wachovia
Corp. in 2008 and more recently advised on the multibillion-dollar
purchases of assets and businesses from General Electric Co.'s
financial unit.  Mr. Strother previously served as the company's
deputy general counsel and before that, executive vice president,
GC and secretary of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage.

An internal policy at the San Francisco-based bank would
ordinarily mean that Mr. Strother has to retire at the end of this
year.  However, as Reuters points out, the company has made
exceptions to this rule in extraordinary circumstances.  For
example, when then-Chairman Richard Kovacevich postponed his
retirement during the financial crisis for more than a year.


* 5th Cir. Grants Expedited Hearing in DOL's OT Rule Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted an expedited
hearing for the Department of Labor in litigation over new
overtime regulations.

The Labor Department is seeking a hearing in its effort to
overturn a trial court's ruling halting the Obama administration's
proposed regulatory revisions that would have doubled for most
employees the salary proposed threshold for overtime pay.  Those
rules were halted from taking effect on
Dec. 1.

The appellate court ordered that oral arguments will be scheduled
after Jan. 31, 2017, 11 days after President-elect Donald Trump is
set to be inaugurated.

For lawyers advising employers, that timing prompts questions,
with speculation that the Labor Department under Trump may drop
the appeal.

"Bottom line for employers is unfortunately much uncertainty,"
Doug Diaz -- ddiaz@archerlaw.com -- a partner with Archer in
Haddonfield, New Jersey, wrote in an email.

"In the event the appeal is successful and the overtime rule is
enforced retroactively, employers may be liable for overtime to
those employees classified as exempt from overtime under the
current rules, but not under the new rule," Mr. Diaz wrote.

"At a minimum, employers should therefore keep accurate records of
hours worked and ideally, if possible, limit overtime until there
is more clarity, in order to reduce any potential exposure in the
event of a successful appeal," Mr. Diaz added.

On Nov. 22, U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant, who presides in a
Sherman, Texas, courtroom, granted Texas and other states their
request for a preliminary injunction to halt the Obama
administration's proposed regulatory revisions, which had been
scheduled to become effective Dec. 1.

Judge Mazzant, who was appointed to the federal bench by President
Barack Obama in 2014, granted the preliminary injunction, siding
with the 21 states challenging the new overtime rules.  The Texas-
led coalition established "a prima facie case" that some of the
Labor Department's proposed changes were without statutory
authority, Judge Mazzant wrote.

The Labor Department had estimated the rule changes would, if
implemented, expand overtime coverage to more than 4 million
additional workers.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, employers must pay their
nonexempt employees time-and-a-half for working more than 40 hours
per week if the employees make less than $23,660 per year.
But under the proposed revision of the FLSA regulations, more
employees would have gotten this mandatory overtime, as the exempt
salary threshold will be raised to $47,476.


* AARP Supports DOL Fiduciary Rule's Class Action Provision
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that the AARP
has long supported the Labor Department's fiduciary rule, but the
group's latest court filing has a new twist: It specifically
praises the way the rule protects a person's right to bring
litigation.

In a proposed amicus brief filed Dec. 9, the AARP and six other
groups thoroughly defended how the fiduciary rule discourages
investment advisers from forcing clients to sign contracts waiving
the right to bring a class action.  This provision is just "one
among several steps" the federal government has taken to "curb
companies' efforts to shield themselves from class actions through
the fine print," the brief contends (Thrivent Fin. for Lutherans
v. Perez , D. Minn., No. 0:16-cv-03289-SRN-HB, proposed amicus
brief filed 12/9/16).

The AARP has filed briefs in each of the pending lawsuits
challenging the DOL's fiduciary rule.  Unlike the comprehensive
briefs filed in Washington, D.C., Texas and Kansas, the AARP's
latest brief focuses specifically on the rule's class action
provision, which critics say violates the Federal Arbitration Act
by disfavoring private arbitration as a means to resolve disputes.

The fiduciary rule, which purports to cut down on allegedly
conflicted advice given to retirement savers by the financial
industry, allows advisers to avoid some of the rule's most
stringent requirements if they refrain from requiring clients to
sign class action waivers.  Fraternal benefit society Thrivent
Financial for Lutherans challenges the legality of this provision,
which the society says will force it to lose its "fraternal
character" by giving up its signature alternative dispute
resolution program.

In defending the fiduciary rule's class action provision, the AARP
cited a recent study on forced arbitration by the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau.  According to the AARP, the report
found that class action waivers don't channel claims to a "better,
faster, cheaper system of dispute resolution."  Rather, they
"suppress claims altogether" and "immunize companies from
accountability," the AARP alleged.

The fiduciary rule, which has survived two legal challenges in the
run-up to its April 2017 applicability date, faces an uncertain
future under President-elect Donald Trump.  While Mr. Trump hasn't
personally commented on the rule, it's been singled out for repeal
by Trump adviser Anthony Scaramucci.  Mr. Trump's recent pick for
Labor Secretary, fast-food CEO Andrew Puzder, has also remained
silent on the rule.

The AARP's brief -- which hasn't yet been accepted by the court
-- was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota by Gupta Wessler PLLC and Teske Micko Katz Kitzer &
Rochel PLLP.  The groups signing onto the AARP brief include: AARP
Foundation, the American Association for Justice, Americans for
Financial Reform, Better Markets Inc., Consumer Federation of
America and the Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association.


* Bank Biometric Authentication May Spark Consumer Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel R. Stoller, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that Apple
Inc. introduced finger print authentication for its iPhone 5s in
September 2013.  Although not the first mobile device or
application to use biometric authentication, it was one of the
most successful smartphone manufacturers to implement use of such
technology.

Financial institutions, online retailers and other applications
have used similar biometric identifiers to prove the identity of
the consumer trying to access the product.

With the growing rate of cyberattacks and data breaches across the
U.S., it would be hard to find a consumer who sees the expansion
of biometric identification as a negative and intrusive loss of
personal privacy.  However, some consumers across the country have
fought back against companies that have allegedly taken biometric
data without consent and stored such data on servers.

Recently, Facebook Inc. has been embroiled in class litigation in
California over the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act (BIPA).
Biometric data refers to fingerprints, DNA and other often
physiological characteristics that can be used to identify a human
being.  Under the Illinois biometrics law no private entity may
obtain or otherwise collect a person's "biometric identifier or
biometric information" unless it informs the subject in writing
that the information is being stored; informs the subject about
"the specific purpose and length of term" of use; and receives
express written authorization to use that information. The class
action is still ongoing.

Even with the potential class action litigation risks, banks and
financial institutions are using biometric technology to help
secure their mobile banking applications.  Recently, Citigroup
Inc., the parent of Citibank NA, launched a new functionality for
its Citi Mobile App for iPhone that include "enhanced log-in
choices" including fingerprint, voice, facial recognition and
personal identification numbers (PIN), the bank said in a recent
statement.

The statement didn't go into the specifics of the data use,
collection and storage capabilities but one could imagine that the
company would have to store at least the basic biometric data to
authenticate users to use the app.

Hopefully, Citibank included consent provisions and other consumer
protection provisions in their privacy policies. Otherwise, the
large New York-based bank may also face consumer class actions.


* CFPB Sued for Not Releasing Arbitration Rulemaking Records
------------------------------------------------------------
Lydia Wheeler, writing for The Hill, reports that the conservative
Cause of Action Institute is suing the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB) for refusing to release the documents it
used in drafting a rule that would ban the use of forced
arbitration clauses in financial contracts.

"The purpose of the [Freedom of Information Act] is to keep
government agencies like CFPB transparent so that policymakers and
the public can evaluate the merits of an agency action," the group
said in its complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia on Dec. 13.

The rule the CFPB proposed in May keeps companies from including
clauses in contracts that make it harder for consumers to sue.
Forced arbitration clauses, often slipped into the fine print, bar
consumers from joining class-action lawsuits or suing on their
own.

Instead, the clauses force consumers to resolve disputes on
alleged abusive practices or unjustified fees, for example,
through privately appointed individuals or an arbitrator -- often
chosen by the company.

The group said the proposed new anti-arbitration rule is likely to
subject numerous financial institutions to a flood of class action
lawsuits, further burdening the courts.

"To issue a regulation affecting such a vast swath of the economy,
and then attempt to conceal the bulk of the documents reflecting
how that decision was made from public view, violates the law and
the American people's right to know," the John Vecchione, vice
president of the Cause of Action Institute, said in a statement.

The group is asking the court to order CFPB to produce all records
and the portions of records that are being withheld and force CFPB
to reimburse its attorney fees.


* Connecticut Supreme Court May Re-Invent Design Defect Law
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy H. D'Amico, Esq. -- jeremy@damicopettinicchi.com -- and
Michael A. D'Amico, Esq., of D'Amico and Pettinicchi, in an
article for The Connecticut Law Tribune, report that for over half
a century, Connecticut product liability law has been premised on
strict liability.  See Garthwait v. Burgio, 153 Conn. 284, 289
(1965) (holding manufacturer culpable even when it "has exercised
all possible care in the preparation and sale of [its] product").

Manufacturers are in a better position than the injured party to
design their products safely and absorb the cost of injury.  The
Connecticut Supreme Court's decision in Izarelli v. R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., released early in 2016, reaffirmed this keystone of
product liability jurisprudence when the court held that the
modified consumer expectation test is the primary test for design
defect claims. See Izarelli, 321 Conn. 172, 193 (2016) (setting
forth the standards "for a strict product liability action based
on defective design generally . . .").

Despite this long-standing principle, the court is now considering
whether it should abandon its strict product liability premise for
design defect claims, and replace it with section 2(b) of the
Restatement (Third) of Torts, which requires the plaintiff to
prove the manufacturer's foreseeability of harm, and prove the
effectiveness of a reasonable alternative design. See Bifolck v.
Philip Morris, Inc. (See FEDB-CV-060001768-S
http://appellateinquiry.jud.ct.gov/AppealNoInq.aspx(Connecticut
Supreme Court docket for Bifolck); see also Restatement (Third) of
Torts, Products Liability Sec. 2(b) (Am. Law Inst. 1998)).
Nineteen years earlier, the court held that a plaintiff should not
be required to present evidence of a reasonable alternative design
to prevail in a design defect case. Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic
Tool Co., 241 Conn. 199 (1997).  The sound public policy upon
which this precedent rests remains unchanged, and as manufacturers
increasingly develop products that operate beyond the common
understanding of the ordinary consumer, strict product liability
remains necessary to protect the rights of injured consumers.

Adopting section 2(b) of the Restatement (Third) will
fundamentally alter Connecticut's design defect product liability
law by turning the focus of the jury away from the dangerous
nature of the product itself, and towards the conduct of the
manufacturer in designing the product. See Potter, 241 Conn. at
221-22 ("In weighing a product's risks against its utility, the
focus of the jury should be on the product itself, and not on the
conduct of the manufacturer.")

The court's decisions in Potter and Izarelli thoroughly discuss
the history of product liability law in Connecticut and its strict
liability origins. See Potter v. Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., 241
Conn. 199, 207-15 (1997); Izarelli, 321 Conn. 184-93; see also
Douglas A. Kysar, "The Expectations of Consumers," 103 Colum. L.
Rev. 1700 (2003) (reviewing the development of product liability
law).  The public policy behind strict product liability law is
entrenched in the theory that the manufacturer is in the best
position to protect against the harm caused by its products. See
Potter, 241 Conn. at 209 (citing Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co.
of Fresno, 24 Cal. 2d 453, 461 (1944) (stating the public policy
of strict liability includes "(1) manufacturers could readily
absorb or pass on the cost of liability to consumers as a cost of
doing business; (2) manufacturers would be deterred from marketing
defective products; and (3) injured persons, who lack familiarity
with the manufacturing process, would no longer shoulder the
burden of proving negligence.") Public policy recognizes that a
manufacturer cannot feasibly design every danger out of the
product.  But the compromise in allowing a manufacturer to sell a
product that may cause harm is that the manufacturer be held
responsible for the harms that are caused by unreasonably
dangerous products, regardless of foreseeability.

Connecticut adopted Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of
Torts in 1965, expanding liability of product sellers from those
in privity with the manufacturer to any person injured by an
"unreasonably dangerous" product. Garthwait v. Burgio, 153 Conn.
284, 289 (1965); see also Harmon v. Digliani, 148 Conn. 710, 718
(1961). A manufacturer is not liable for all injuries caused by
its products, but only those injuries caused by a product that is
unreasonably dangerous. A product is unreasonably dangerous when
it is "dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be
contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the
ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its
characteristics." See Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 402A cmt.
i (Am. Law Inst. 1965). Section 402A laid the framework for the
court's adoption of the "consumer expectation test" used to
determine product seller liability.  The consumer expectation test
requires plaintiffs to prove:

   (1) The defendant was engaged in the business of selling the
product;

   (2) The product was in a defective condition unreasonably
dangerous to the consumer or user;

   (3) The defect caused the injury for which compensation was
sought;

   (4) The defect existed at the time of the sale, and;

   (5) The product was expected to and did reach the consumer
without substantial change in condition.

(Izarelli, 321 Conn. at 184-85 (citing Giglio v. Conn. Light &
Power Co., 180 Conn. 230, 234 (1980)); see also Rossignol v.
Danbury School of Aeronautics, 154 Conn. 549, 561-62 (1967)).
The consumer expectation test adopted by the court and espoused in
the Restatement (Second) was developed at a time when product
liability law primarily involved manufacturing defect claims. See
Izarelli, 321 Conn. at 187-88.  In manufacturing defect cases, a
consumer's expectations of the "defective" product can be compared
against the other "non-defective" products sold by the
manufacturer. Generally, a consumer expects a product to be
manufactured as the manufacturer intended and in conformance with
the rest of the product line.  Strict product liability in
manufacturing defect claims incentivizes manufacturers to develop
robust quality control systems to ensure its products are safe and
operate as intended before entering the stream of commerce.
Strict product liability in design defect cases serves as strong a
role in incentivizing manufacturers to design safe products.
Arguably, it is a stronger incentive.  A manufacturer can have
100% quality control, but if the design of the product is
unreasonably safe, no amount of quality control will protect the
consuming public.  But criticism emerged that the consumer
expectation test was ill-suited for design defect claims. See Id.
at 199-200 (citation omitted) ("[a]lthough the consumer
expectations standard was conventionally viewed as more protective
to plaintiffs than the risk-utility standard, it now is clear that
courts have used the consumer expectations test most frequently to
deny recovery to plaintiffs in cases involving obvious design
hazards.") The court noted that the consumer expectation test may
pose difficulties for the plaintiff because "one could not simply
compare the defective product to others in the product line to
make an objective assessment of the consumer's expectations of the
product." Izarelli, 321 Conn. at 188.

An example of a narrow reading of the consumer expectation test
illustrates this concern. Consider the court's example of a table
saw sold without a safety guard. See Izarelli, 321 Conn. at 202.
If all table saws sold by every manufacturer were made without a
guard, then a strict interpretation of the consumer expectation
test would likely preclude a claim for injuries caused by the
spinning blade.  As the safety expectations of ordinary consumers
regarding dangerousness are shaped by "ordinary knowledge common
to the community," the dangers associated with a visible spinning
blade may not be considered "unreasonable." See Izarelli, 321
Conn. at 199 ("In many instances manufacturers have been absolved
from liability when an obvious danger caused serious injury, even
though that injury could have been averted by a design
modification that would not have added significantly to the cost
of the product or impaired its usefulness.") (citation omitted).
In reiterating the public policy of protecting consumers and
incentivizing manufacturers to design safe products discussed in
Potter, the court in Izarelli made clear that the "modified
consumer expectation test" is the primary test for design defect
claims. See Izarelli, 321 Conn. at 211 ("[I]t would be contrary to
the public policy of this state to . . . immunize a manufacturer
from liability for manipulating the inherently dangerous
properties of its product to pose a greater risk of danger to the
consumer.") While the modified consumer expectation test is the
primary test for design defect claims, the consumer expectation
test remains an option for plaintiffs when a "product failed to
meet the ordinary consumer's minimum safety expectations, such as
res ipsa type cases." Id. at 194; see also Id. at 191 (stating
consumer expectation test can be used when "the incident causing
injury is so bizarre or unusual that the jury would not need
expert testimony to conclude that the product failed to meet the
consumer's expectations.").

The court initially adopted the modified consumer expectation test
in Potter.  The court in Izarelli clarified that the purpose of
the modified consumer expectation test is to "essentially provide
the jury with information that a fully informed consumer would
know before deciding whether to purchase the product." Izarelli,
321 Conn. at 209.  The modified consumer expectations test
requires the plaintiff to offer into evidence, the product's risks
and its utility so that the jury can determine whether a
"reasonable consumer would consider the product design
unreasonably dangerous." Id. at 190 (quoting Potter, 241 Conn. at
221). Some of the factors a plaintiff may utilize to meet her
burden include: (1) the usefulness of the product, (2) the
likelihood and severity of the danger posed by the design, (3) the
feasibility of an alternative design, (4) the financial cost of an
improved design, and (5) the feasibility of the increased price
upon the consumer. Id. at 221 n.15; see also Potter, 241 Conn. at
221 (listing factors that a jury "may consider" but noting
plaintiffs are "not limited to" those listed).  While a plaintiff
may offer evidence of a reasonable alternative design, there is no
requirement that a plaintiff must do so to meet its burden of
proof as a matter of law. See Potter, 241 Conn. at 221 ("The
availability of a feasible alternative design is a factor that the
plaintiff may, rather than must, prove in order to establish that
a product's risks outweigh its utility.").
Theoretically, and as illustrated in the table saw example above,
the modified consumer expectation test protects plaintiffs by
permitting more claims to be heard by the jury.  Nevertheless, by
making the modified consumer expectation test the primary test,
plaintiffs are now required to expend significant sums to ensure
the factors listed in Potter's proposed jury charge are addressed
and persuasively presented. Potter, 241 Conn. at 221 n.15.  While
not legally required to produce evidence of each factor, leaving
factors unaddressed is dicey, as juries may not be persuaded in
the absence of proof on all factors mentioned in the judge's
charge, including a reasonable alternative design.  But, although
more difficult to prove, the modified consumer test remains true
to the public policy of strict product liability.  The jury's
focus remains on the product itself and its dangerous
propensities.

Section 2 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts discusses the
product liability claims.  Under Section 2(b) a product is
defectively designed when: "The foreseeable risks of harm posed by
the product could have been reduced or avoided by the adoption of
a reasonable alternative design . . . and the omission of the
alternative design renders the product not reasonably safe."
(Restatement (Third) of Torts, Products Liability Sec.  2(b)).
The court addressed the adoption of this test 19 years ago in
Potter.  There, the court considered a draft version of section
2(b) of the Restatement (Third) of Torts, which is identical to
that found in the published version of the Restatement (Third) of
Torts. Compare Potter, 241 Conn. at 216 (quoting draft of Section
2(b)) with Restatement (Third) of Torts, Products Liability Sec.
2(b)).  The court rejected the test in section 2(b) stating, "the
feasible alternative design requirement imposes an undue burden on
plaintiffs that might preclude otherwise valid claims from jury
consideration." Potter, 241 Conn. at 217.  After the court's
decision in Potter, the drafters of section 2(b) in the
Restatement (Third) of Torts added sections 3 and 4 to state that
a reasonable alternative design need not be proved in res ipsa-
type cases or when the manufacturer violates the law. See
Restatement (Third) of Torts, Products Liability Sec. 3 cmt. b.1.;
id. cmt. a. (noting that section 3 applies to design defects that
are "identical to that which would ordinarily be caused by a
manufacturing defect.") However, Section 2(b) remains unchanged.

The test proposed in section 2(b) requires the court to sever
design defect claims from its strict product liability roots, cut
ties with the public policy supporting its holding in Potter, and
rebalance protection of the innocent consumer with the financial
interests of manufacturers. Section 2(b) adopts principles of
negligence for design defect claims.  Comments to this section
explain that the test "for products that are defectively designed
or sold . . . achieve[s] the same general objectives as does
liability predicated on negligence." Id. at cmt. a. In addition,
there is the requirement that a plaintiff must prove a reasonable
alternative design, and its effectiveness.

Strict product liability for design defects serves to protect the
consuming public in ways the negligence standard proposed in
section 2(b) will not.  Strict liability creates a strong
incentive for manufacturers to adequately design, develop, and
test the product before it enters the market.  It sends the
message to manufacturers that they should take care to allocate
resources to develop safe designs and to discover defects.  Strict
liability provides that manufacturers who fail to perform these
steps will face liability for their failures.  This tells
manufacturers, "if you want to earn a profit off your product
marketed to the consuming public, then you will bear the
responsibility of injuries caused."  Rightly, it emphasizes the
wellbeing of the consumer over the profit of the manufacturer.
In contrast, the test in section 2(b) lowers the bar from strict
liability to negligence. It focuses the jury's inquiry on the
conduct of the manufacturer in designing the product.

Incorporating elements of foreseeability will greatly increase the
burden on plaintiffs.  It is antithetical to the policy that those
who "lack familiarity" should not "shoulder the burden of proving
negligence." Potter, 241 Conn. at 209.  Just as ordinary consumers
lack familiarity in the manufacturing process of the products they
buy, ordinary consumers also do not generally have insight into
manufacturing design or development processes.  The consumer is
significantly disadvantaged.

In addition to changing Connecticut's design defect law to a
negligence standard, section 2(b) also mandates plaintiffs to
prove a reasonable alternative design.  While plaintiffs may offer
evidence of reasonable alternative designs at trial, making proof
of a reasonable alternative design a requirement will preclude
plaintiffs from filing valid product liability claims where value
cannot justify the expense of introducing such evidence at trial -
- assuming plaintiffs can even muster the huge resources and army
of experts necessary to prove a reasonable alternative design.  In
a time of out-of-control litigation costs that already bar many
legitimate claims from seeing the light of a courtroom, legal
tests which substantially increase these costs stand as a barrier
to justice. Further, there is a real concern that manufacturers of
products designed with no reasonable alternative will be
immunized. See Potter, 241 Conn. at 219; see also Tincher v. Omega
Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014) (same).
Let's use driverless cars as an example.  Testing of these robot
cars is occurring on public roads in many states across the
country. Consider a scenario where a consumer is harmed because
the driverless car causes a non-res ipsa type accident.  Absent
specific contrary legislation on driverless cars, under section
2(b), a plaintiff must submit evidence of a reasonable alternative
design.  Two ways come to mind: (1) obtain design information from
a competitor that may make a safer driverless car, or (2) hire a
team of experts to design, build, and present a working marketable
prototype of a driverless car.  As to the former, it is highly
unlikely that a competing manufacturer will provide a plaintiff
with its product design information voluntarily, and there are no
discovery tools for which a plaintiff can obtain the information
of a manufacturer's competitor.  As to the latter, the cost in
proving this reasonable alternative design will be an impossible
task for almost every plaintiff.  Because driverless car
technology is still in its testing phase, there may not be a
reasonable alternative design available, and therefore, a
plaintiff's claim will be precluded at the outset.

The modified consumer expectation test permits a plaintiff to rely
on a reasonable alternative design, or utilize one or more of the
several other factors listed in Potter to prove her case. See
Potter, 241 Conn. at 221 n.15.  Thus, a plaintiff can present the
risks and utility of a driverless car that is prone to crashing in
certain situations.  The jury can assess either of these products
through the lens of an ordinary consumer.  The focus remains on
the safety of the product and the protection of the consuming
public.

If the drafters of section 2(b) were truly concerned with
"creating incentives for manufacturers to achieve optimal levels
of safety in designing and marketing products," then strict
liability for design defect claims would persist. Restatement
(Third) of Torts, Products Liability Sec.  2(b) cmt. a. The
modified consumer expectation test allows the jury to utilize
"ordinary knowledge common to the community" to assess the
product. See Izarelli, 321 Conn. at 190 ("Under the 'modified'
consumer expectation test, the jury would weigh the product's
risks and utility and then inquire in light of those factors,
whether a 'reasonable consumer would consider the product design
unreasonably dangerous.'") The judgment of the jury and what an
ordinary consumer expects should not be supplanted for what a
manufacturer failed to foresee. See Restatement (Second) of Torts
Sec. 402A cmt. i. "[P]ublic policy demands that the burden of
accidental injuries caused by products intended for consumption be
placed upon those who market them." Restatement (Second) of Torts
Sec. 402A, cmt. c. This has been the law in Connecticut for half a
century.  It is supported by sound public policy and should
continue to persist for the benefit and safety of the consuming
public.


* France Introduces Class Action for Privacy-Related Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Delphine Charlot, Esq. -- delphine.charlot@alston.com -- of Alston
& Bird, in an article for JDSupra, reports that a few weeks ago,
France passed the Digital Republic Act which significantly
enhances French citizens' rights to privacy by offering new
avenues to exercise rights and granting new powers to the French
data protection authority.  A recent amendment to the Data
Protection Act, adopted November 18, 2016, goes a mile farther and
introduces a new type of class action for privacy-related matters.

Class actions were introduced into the French Consumer Code quite
recently, in 2014.  Although largely inspired by the U.S.-style
class action, class actions in France have a slightly different
scope:

   -- In contrast to the U.S., in France punitive damages are not
allowed, and where compensation may be sought, it must correspond
to actual damages or loss suffered.

   -- Only certain matters or industries fall within the scope of
the Consumer Code provisions: unfair commercial practices and
anti-competitive behavior by professionals in the context of the
sale of goods or the provision of a service have been the trigger
for class actions since 2014.  The November 18 law extends class
actions to privacy-related claims, and other matters such as
discrimination, damage to the environment, and medical damages
arising from treatments and products.

   -- Only specific, approved associations may bring a class
action on behalf of consumers, who must give them a mandate to act
in court.  Consumers may give such mandates from the start of
proceedings or may opt-in to proceedings at a later stage, within
a time period established by the court.

   -- Representative associations may introduce class actions
where (i) at least two consumers who are placed in a similar
situation, (ii) suffer from a material loss, (iii) as a result of
a breach of a legal or contractual obligation by a professional.
Given the procedural restrictions described above, only seven
class actions have been introduced in France to date.  However,
the significant extension in scope under the new law may modify
the state of play.

For privacy-related class actions, (i) at  least two individuals
placed in a similar situation (ii) who suffer from a damage caused
by a breach of the French Data Protection Act, (iii) may bring an
action before a civil or administrative court, (iv) against a data
controller or a data processor, (v) through an approved consumer
association, a declared privacy rights association, or an official
employee union, (vi) in order to seek an injunction to stop the
infringement.  Note that, unlike other types of French class
actions, individuals may not obtain monetary compensation for
damage caused.

It can be expected that the new regime will increase litigation on
privacy-related grounds.  However, consumer associations have
started to litigate in the field of privacy without a class-action
mandate.  In March 2014, French leading consumer association Que
Choisir brought internet giants Twitter, Facebook and Google to
court, arguing that modifications of the companies' respective
terms and conditions constituted unfair commercial practices.
Associations such as Que Choisir may now directly rely on the
French Data Protection Act, thus bringing privacy into the
spotlight.

The timing of the new French regime is no mere coincidence.  It
anticipates the application of the General Data Protection
Regulation ("GDPR") on May 25, 2018.  The GDPR expressly sets
forth a right for individuals to mandate not-for-profit bodies,
organizations or associations, whose statutory objective is data
protection in the public interest, to lodge a complaint, exercise
the right to an effective judicial remedy, and/or obtain
compensation for damages. The new French regime also resembles
German provisions that went into force on February 24, 2016.

It is clear, more than ever, that companies should take privacy
seriously and get ready for the GDPR by its May 25, 2018 deadline.
While class actions for privacy infringements may not result in
awards for financial damage in France, they raise other
substantial risks for companies, including reputational harm and
litigation expense.


                            *********

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  * * *