CAR_Public/170111.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, January 11, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 8



                            Headlines

ALBERTSON'S LLC: Court Partly Granted Class Certification Bid
ALLERGAN PLC: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Class Action
ATLANTIC LOTTERY: N.L. Court Certifies Video Lottery Class Action
AMERICAN CHEMICALS: Settlement Class Preliminarily Certified
AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Grosz" Suit Seeks Certification of 2 Classes

AVIS BUDGET: Mendez Seeks to Certify Class; Fla., N.J. Subclasses
BASHAM LUMBER: Milkes Insurance's Claims Dismissed
BELLMAWR, NJ: Settles Class Action Over Rental Unit C/O
BERTUCCI'S GROUP: Feb. 9 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
BRIDGEVIEW BANK: Loan Officers Class Certified in "Pieksma" Suit

CANADA: Mothers Wants EI Sickness Benefits Litigation Resolved
CAPITAL ACCOUNTS: Faces "Tiernan" Suit in M.D. of Tennessee
CATALINA HOTEL: "Pierre" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
CENTRAL CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Arufe" Suit in S.D. of New York
CHARLES J. THOMAS JR: Junk Fax Suit Wins Class Certification

CHARLOTTE SCHOOL: Legal Battle Over Student Loans Ongoing
CHASE BANK: Class Cert. Bid Filed in Suit Over Amazon Credit Card
CLICKSPARK LLC: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
COLLIER COUNTY, FL: Immigrant Teens Barred from Public Schools
COMMUNITY PHYSICAL: Girolamo Class Cert. Bid Tossed, Deal Reached

CONAGRA FOODS: 9th Cir. Widens Split on Ascertainability Issue
CONAGRA FOODS: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Backus" Suit
CONCENTRIX CORP: Armstrong's Bid to Certify Class Partly Granted
CREDIT CONTROL: March 29 Fairness Hearing Set in "Wood" Suit
CREDIT PROCESS: Innovative Suit Seeks Certification of Class

CVB FINANCIAL: March 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
DIMORA RISTORANTE: Court Denies Class Certification in "Shala"
DJNG INC: "Castaneda" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to S.D. Cal.
DRILL GREEN: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DURHAM PSBE: Joint Bid to Certify Classes Filed in "Cerrato" Suit

EHT PHARMACY: Court Terminates Centerville Clinics Class Suit
ELECTCHESTER MANAGEMENT: "Belvin" Suit Seeks Class Certification
ELIZABETH GRADY: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Claims
EMERGENCY SERVICES: Brantingham Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
ERIC GARCETTI: Class Cert. in "Yagman" Denied as Premature

ET & K FOODS: Faces "Santos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Biometric Data
FALONI & ASSOCIATES: "Maldonado" Case Settlement Approval Sought
FORD MOTOR: Court Refuses to Certify 3 Classes in "Philips" Suit
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: "Atis" Suit Trimmed, FLSA Class Certified

GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Leifer, et al. Sue to Keep Insurance Reserves
GOOGLE INC: CEI Objects to $5.5MM Class Action Settlement
GORDO TAQUERIA: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
GREENSKY LLC: Class Certification Sought in "Alfortish" Suit
HARALAMBOS BEVERAGE: Sued Over Failure to Provide Meal Break

HEALTH RESOURCE: "Brown" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
HERSHEY'S: Seeks Dismissal of Kisses Packaging Class Action
HOANG AN: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
HYLAND'S INC: Faces Class Action Over Teething Tablets in N.Y.
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Panoramic Sunroof Class Action Can Proceed

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Judge to Approve Sonata Class Action Settlement
ILLINOIS: Class Action Over Autism Medicaid Coverage Pending
INNOVATION VENTURES: Cert. of Classes Sought in 5-Hour Energy MDL
INT'L BANK: Can File Motion to Compel Arbitration, Court Rules
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Court Certifies Class in Securities Case

IOWA: Student Funding Formula Class Action Pending
J.M. HOLM: "Arredendo" Suit Seeks Certification of Painters Class
JAY PEAK: Daccache Seeks Certification of Investors Class
JENNINGS LINDSAY: July 7 Hearing on Franco Class Cert. Bid Set
JET'S AMERICA: Placeholder Motion for Class Certification Filed

JOHN D. BRADSHAW: May 31 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
JP SPORTS: Settlement in "Davis" Suit Wins Court Approval
LA TAN: Class Action Over Customer Fingerprints Settled
LANNETT CO: Rochester Drug Alleges Levothyroxine Price-Fixing
LEASE FINANCE: Le May Refile Bid to Certify Class, Court Rules

LIFE INSURANCE: Seamen File Class Action Over Disability Benefits
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Faces "Mukamal" Suit in S.D. of Florida
LUNADA BAY BOYS: Certification of Surfers Class Sought
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Court Certifies Class in "Hayes" Suit
MCKEE FOOD: Judge Denies Bid to Certify Distributors Class

METLIFE INC: March 9 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
METROPOLITAN MUSEUM: March 14 Hearing on Class Action Settlement
MICHAEL MATTEUCCI: Bid for Class Certification in "Rouse" Denied
MICHIGAN: Salem's Bid to Certify Lady Prisoners Class Denied
MICROSOFT INC: Supreme Court Set to Hear Xbox 360 Class Action

MINNESOTA: Appeals Court Says Sex Offender Program Constitutional
MODANI HOUSTON: Class Cert. Sought in Muhire & Trent Case
MYER HOLDINGS: Former Shareholder Files Class Action
MYLAN: Class Action Over EpiPen Pricing Pending in Cincinnati
NATIONAL RECOVERY: FDCPA Class Certified in "Zirogiannis" Suit

NCB MANAGEMENT: Class Cert. Bid in "Williams" Denied as Moot
NEW JERSEY: "Holmes" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
NEW YORK: Police Dep't Allows Sikh Officers to Wear Full Turbans
NORTH CAROLINA: Lewis' Bid to Certify Prisoners Class Denied
NORTH SHORE: Faces "Otero" Suit in S.D. of New York

ONE INC: Judge Allows "After School" App Class Action to Proceed
ORCHESTRATE HOSPITALITY: Edwards Seeks Final OK of $163,699 Deal
OREGON: Post No. 122 Sued Over Failure to Pay Workers Properly
PALOS VERDES, CA: More Details Unveiled in Lunada Bay Class Suit
PARIS MAINTENANCE: "Moncion" Alleges Violations of FLSA, NYLL

PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Faces "Cho" Suit Over Securities Act Breach
PEARLAND CAPITAL: Class Certification Sought in "Stewart" Suit
PICK-A-PART: Faces "Torres" Suit in Eastern Dist. of California
PILOT CORP: 11th Circuit Clarifies Jurisdiction in Class Action
PREMIER NUTRITION: Faces False Advertising Class Action in Calif.

PRESSLER & PRESSLER: Faces "Flores" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
PROBALANCE INC: Class Certification Hearing Continued to Jan. 17
Q.S. SAN LUIS: Court Okays "Orduna" Class Action Settlement
RCI HOSPITALITY: Exotic Dancers File Suit Over Unpaid Wages
RCP AMERICA: Cert. of Detailers Class Sought in "Allen" Suit

ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL: "Rich" Suit Moved From C.D. to E.D. Cal.
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORATION: Court Certifies Class in "Spates" Suit
ROCKWATER ENERGY: Gomez Seeks Certification of Employee Class
SALERNO'S & SONS: Parties in "Gonzalez" Suit to Confer on Jan. 13
SANTA FE NATURAL: "Hebert" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2695

SAVERS LLC: Assistant Managers Class Certified in "Godhigh" Suit
SILVER BELL: "Ortiz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SMSSI OF CALIFORNIA: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL: Certification of Class Sought in "Rule" Suit
SOVRAN SELF STORAGE: June 5 Hearing on Castro Class Cert. Bid

SWEET BLESSINGS: "White" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
TCI CONTRACTING: "Moya" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
TEMPLE TERRACE, FL: Class Certification Sought in Lea Family Suit
TESLA MOTORS: Law Firms Call for NHTSA Probe Into Model X Defects
TESLA MOTOR: More Details Emerge in Model X SUA Class Action

TOYOTA MOTOR: Tacoma Owners Set to Get Settlement Notices
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Attorney Challenges Class Action Settlement
UNITED STATES: Insurers' Suit Over Risk Corridor Program Pending
UNITED STATES: Class Certification in FICA Tax Refund Suit
U.S. XPRESS: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Ayala" Suit

US SECURITY: Decertification Bid Denied in Light of Settlement
UTJOK ZAIDAN: Faces "Hardjowirogo" Suit in N.Y. Supreme Court
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Diesel Car Emissions Scandal Costs to Spike
VOLT MANAGEMENT: Fails to Provide Proper Rest Breaks, Suit Claims
WELLS FARGO: Summary Judgment Dismissal of FLSA Claims Affirmed

* Class Action Waiver Enforceability in Arbitration Reaffirmed
* Five New Jersey Lawyers Named in Racketeering Class Action
* Queensland Introduces Class Action Regime
* Scandals Marred Automotive Industry in 2016
* Stroock Names Five New Partners, Special Counsel for 2017



                            *********


ALBERTSON'S LLC: Court Partly Granted Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Antonio Diaz, the Plaintiff v. Albertson's
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-00257-DSF-JEM (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Dale S. Fischer entered an order granting in part and
denying in part Plaintiff' motion for class certification.

The Court said, "For the question of whether Defendant could hire
additional pharmacists, research into local labor markets will be
necessary. The adjudication of this issue will not rely on common
facts, and Plaintiff's trial plan fails to address how this issue
can be litigated on a classwide basis. But for the question of
whether it would be impractical for Defendant to suspend
Pharmacists' operations for an off-duty meal break, the Court
finds that a class action would be superior. Given the evidence
that the nature of the pharmacists' work does not vary by
location, Defendant's arguments in support of a nature of the work
exception would apply classwide. Further, as Plaintiff points out,
damages can be calculated simply by multiplying the total shifts
worked by any pharmacist who signed the agreement by his or her
hourly wage. The Court grants Plaintiff's motion for class
certification as to the meal period class for the specific issue
of whether it would be impractical for Defendant to suspend
pharmacists' operations to allow off-duty meal breaks."

The Court further said, "Plaintiff contends that the common
question is whether the nature of the pharmacists' work precludes
an off-duty rest period. Plaintiff argues that if the nature of
the work precludes an off-duty meal period, then it must also
preclude an off-duty rest period. The Court is not persuaded by
this argument. Indeed, the evidence of record shows that Defendant
allows pharmacists to have off-duty rest breaks, which are ten or
fifteen minutes as opposed to the longer thirty-minute meal break.
More importantly, Plaintiff provides no evidence -- aside from
Plaintiff's own declaration -- that any employees have actually
been denied off-duty rest breaks. Defendant submits declarations
from several pharmacists showing that Defendant allowed them to
take off-duty rest breaks. Further, Defendant's rest break policy
complies with the applicable laws and wage orders. Therefore,
Plaintiff has failed to show common proof that Defendant did not
permit the purported class from taking rest breaks. The Court
denies class certification for the rest period class."

Plaintiff's 17200 claim is derivative of the meal period and rest
period claims. Accordingly, the Court denies certification of this
class for any rest period violations. But the 17200 class --
currently defined to include employees against whom Defendant
committed unlawful business practices -- cannot be certified for
any meal period violations because it constitutes an impermissible
"fail-safe" class. Adadhunas v. Negley, 626 F.2d 600, 604 (7th
Cir. 1980). The members of such a class would be
"bound only by a judgment favorable to plaintiffs but not by an
adverse judgment. "The Court redefines this class to be co-
extensive with the meal period class.

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


ALLERGAN PLC: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, on Jan. 3 disclosed that it has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against Allergan plc
("Allergan") and certain of its current or former officers.  The
case is titled Rosenberg v. Allergan PLC, et al., No. 17-00025.
The class action is filed on behalf of all those who purchased
Allergan common stock between February 25, 2014 and November 2,
2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").  It seeks to recover damages
against the defendants for violations of the federal securities
laws.

Allergan is an Ireland-based specialty pharmaceuticals company
that develops, manufactures, markets and distributes medical
aesthetics, biosimilar and over-the-counter pharmaceutical
products worldwide.  It has operations in more than 100 countries.
The Complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the business and operations of
Allergan in violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Specifically, while Defendants
made statements about the Company's business strategy and its
financial results, as was subsequently revealed, it was likely
that the U.S. Department of Justice was going to file criminal
charges against Allergan and several other pharmaceutical
companies for unlawfully colluding to fix generic drug prices.
Once this information was disclosed to the market, the price of
the Allergan's stock dropped precipitously.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Allergan common stock
during the Class Period, you have until January 3, 2017 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  To discuss
this action, please contact info@aftlaw.com or call toll free
(800) 440-8986.  If inquiring by e-mail, please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, which is based in New York and
has an office in California, has extensive experience in
shareholder and securities class action cases.


ATLANTIC LOTTERY: N.L. Court Certifies Video Lottery Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VOCM reports that the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and labrador
has certified a class action lawsuit against the Atlantic Lottery
Corporation regarding VLT's.  The class action involves an
estimated 30,000 players of line games on video lottery terminals
in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The suit alleges that unlike other forms of legalized gambling,
VLT line games are designed to deceive players.  Lawyer
Ches Crosbie says Atlantic lotto deceptively generates tens of
millions of dollars from VLT's each year, and hands over most of
the profits to the province.

He says VLT's cause over twice the rate of problematic gambling
compared to other forms of legalized gambling.

One of the plaintiffs, Doug Babstock of St. John's, says the games
have been cheating people for many years.  He's happy that the
corporation will have to answer to it in court.

He says you are guaranteed mathematically to lose your money. He
says in one plaintiff's case it was nothing to lose as much as
$1,000 in just two hours of play.

Mr. Crosbie adds that there are more honest ways to raise revenue.


AMERICAN CHEMICALS: Settlement Class Preliminarily Certified
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Kathleen M. Williams entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned ABC BARTENDING SCHOOL OF MIAM I, INC., et al., the
Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN CHEMICALS & EQUIPMENT, INC. d/b/a 'GORILLA
GLIDES'', et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-23142-KMW (S.D.
Fla.), granting preliminary approval of the parties' settlement
and certifying this settlement class:

     "all persons or legal entities in the United States who,
     during the Class Period, owned, used, subscribed to, or
     controlled any fax numbers) on the Facsimile List, and who
     received a facsimile advertisement from or on behalf of
     Defendants American Chemicals & Equipment, Inc., including
     its subsidiaries, affiliates, and d/b/a's and/or Steven K.
     Mote, including but not limited to facsimile advertisements
     promoting (1) "Gorilla Glides", "www.GorillaGlides.com'',
     and offering "Gorilla Glides" floor protection products,
     and/or (2) "dstockup.com", and offering office supply
     products."

The Court preliminarily appoints Plaintiffs as the representatives
of the Settlement Class, and preliminarily appoints Plaintiffs'
attorneys -- Wallen Hernandez Lee Madinez, LLP; Bellin &
Associates LLC', and Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP -- as class counsel.

The Court approves the appointment of Tillman & Co., P.C. and
Heffler Claims Group to serve jointly as the Settlement
Administrator to administer the settlement, including by providing
Class notice, maintaining the settlement website, assisting
settlement class members in completing and submitting claim forms,
receiving such claim forms, and issuing benefit checks to approved
claimants.

The Court sets these deadlines and dates for the acts and events
contemplated in the settlement agreement:

              Act/Event                     Deadline/Date

   Claim/opt-out/objection Deadlines      March 7, 2017
   Motion for entry of Final Approval     March 23, 2017
   Oder and Judgment
   Fee and Cost Application               March 23, 2017
   Settlement Administrator's             March 30, 2017
   Declaration regarding compliance
   with Class Notice
   Final Approval Hearing                 April 6, 2017

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=B1CzQbsB


AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Grosz" Suit Seeks Certification of 2 Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ROBERT GROSZ, on behalf of plaintiff and the
class members described below, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN EXPRESS
BANK FSB, and AMERICAN RECOVERY SERVICE INCORPORATED, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-07029-SJF-AYS (E.D.N.Y.), Mr. Robert
Grosz asks the Court to enter an order to certify two classes:

Count I, against ARSI, alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

   Class 1 consists of (a) all natural persons who satisfied
   judgments (b) entered in New York courts (c) with ARSI (d)
   whose judgments were not satisfied of record within 20 days
   after receipt of payment (e) where the payment was received by
   ARSI on or after a date one year and 20 days prior to the
   filing of this action.

Count II, against American Express, alleges violation of New York
Civil Practice Law and Rules 5020.

   Class 2 consists of (a) all persons (natural or otherwise) who
   satisfied judgments (b) entered in New York courts (c) where
   the judgment creditor is American Express Bank FSB (d) whose
   judgments were not satisfied of record within 20 days after
   receipt of payment (e) where the payment was received by
   American Express Bank FSB or its agent on or after a date 3
   years and 20 days prior to the filing of this action.

The Plaintiff further asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin, LLC and The Law Offices of Lawrence Katz, PC be appointed
counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sPXAk9Tm

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tiffany N. Hardy, 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 courtecl@edcombs.com

               - and -

          Lawrence Katz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE KATZ PC
          445 Central Avenue, Suite 201
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 374 2118
          Facsimile: (516) 706 2404


AVIS BUDGET: Mendez Seeks to Certify Class; Fla., N.J. Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned JOSE MENDEZ, Individually
and On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. AVIS BUDGET
GROUP, INC. d/b/a BUDGET RENT A CAR SYSTEM, INC. and AVIS RENT A
CAR SYSTEM, LLC; and HIGHWAY TOLL ADMINISTRATION, LLC, Case No.
2:11-cv-06537-JLL-JAD (D.N.J.), moves the Court for:

   (1) certification of a Nationwide Class, a Florida Subclass,
       and a New Jersey Subclass;

   (2) the appointment of Plaintiff as representative of the
       Classes; and

   (3) the appointment of the Plaintiff's attorneys and firms as
       Class Counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EAXIh2bj

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
          Jeremy Nash, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
          E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
                  jnash@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Judith L. Spanier, Esq.
          Nancy Kaboolian, Esq.
          ABBEY SPANIER, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 889-3700
          Facsimile: (212) 684-5191
          E-mail: jspanier@abbeyspanier.com
                  nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com


BASHAM LUMBER: Milkes Insurance's Claims Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jorge L. Alonso entered an order in the lawsuit entitled
M Milkes Insurance Agency, Inc., the Plaintiff, v. Basham Lumber
Co., Inc., et al., the Defendants,  Case No. 1:16-cv-06855 (N.D.
Ill.), striking status hearing date of December 22, 2016.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on December
21, 2016, a stipulation of dismissal has been filed.  Plaintiff's
claims are voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, with each
party bearing its own costs and fees, as stated in the
stipulation.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jVY68AUK


BELLMAWR, NJ: Settles Class Action Over Rental Unit C/O
-------------------------------------------------------
Anne Forline, writing for South Jersey Observer, reports that the
Boroughs of Bellmawr and Brooklawn have entered into respective
Settlement Agreements regarding a class action lawsuit where both
Boroughs were named defendants.  The lawsuit relates to the annual
Certificate of Occupancy (C/O) for rental properties.

The case is captioned William Brody & Kathleen O'Hara vs. Borough
of Brooklawn & Borough of Bellmawr.  The Complaint was venued in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County, under Docket # L-
3104-15.  The plaintiffs' attorneys are Lewis Adler, Esquire and
Roger Mattson, Esquire, of Woodbury, and also Paul DePetris,
Esquire, of Medford.

Bellmawr Settlement

The Borough of Bellmawr settled their portion of the lawsuit for
$55,000 when Council passed a Resolution authorizing the
settlement at its August 29, 2016 meeting.

As for the basis of the lawsuit, Bellmawr Borough Administrator,
Josh Tregear, explained via email that it relates to the annual
annual C/O inspection required for all rental property units. "The
annual inspection on most rental units is $100 and is conducted to
ensure the safety of renters by requiring landlords to maintain
the dwelling up to Code.  The issue revolved around the use of
certain terminology and language in the Ordinance (Borough Code).
The Ordinance has since been revised to address this issue, and
should mitigate any future liability."

Brooklawn Settlement

As for the Borough of Brooklawn, Borough Administrator,
Ryan Giles provided specifics for the settlement pertaining to
Brooklawn.  "The settlement was to discount the property owners
$100 for the next three years ($300 total for each property owner)
of their rental registration (not commercial).  Lawyer fees [are]
around $10,000.  Total settlement is approximately $33,000 with
everything included," Mr. Giles wrote via email.

The Settlement Agreement notes that as class representatives,
William Brody and Kathleen O'Hara will receive a single payment of
$1,000 and those class members who sold their properties prior to
the effective date of the settlement will receive a $300 payment.

SJO filed Open Public Records Act (OPRA) Requests with both
Boroughs for the settlement and other related documents.  The
information was provided and can be viewed below.

Both Settlement Agreements indicate both Boroughs specifically
deny any liability or wrongdoing of any kind associated with the
claims.

According to the Settlement Agreement for the Borough of Bellmawr,
the settlement class consisted of 371 landlords for the period of
November 1, 2010 to July 28, 2016, which is the date when Bellmawr
began accepting only the new registration under the revised
Ordinance.

The settlement class for the Borough of Brooklawn consisted of 71
landlords until about November 16, 2015.  That is the approximate
date noted in the Settlement Agreement when Brooklawn began
accepting only the new registration under the revised Ordinance.


BERTUCCI'S GROUP: Feb. 9 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Final Approval Hearing on the proposed settlement in the class
action styled, MICHAEL SCOTT KAPPOTIS, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. BERTUCCI'S, INC.,
BERTUCCI'S RESTAURANT CORPORATION, BERTUCCI'S CORPORATION,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 1584CV03821-BLS1, pending before the
Commonwealth Of Massachusetts Suffolk, SS. Superior Court, will be
held on February 9, 2017.

For purposes of the Settlement, the Settlement Class will be
composed of all individuals who, between November 22, 2015 and
December 31, 2015, either (1) purchased gift card(s) from any of
the Defendants' locations in Massachusetts and received a thank
you card ("TYC") or (2) otherwise lawfully received a TYC issued
by any of the Defendants' locations in Massachusetts as part of
the promotion that the Defendants ran during the class period
which offered a $5.00 TYC for every purchase of $25.00.

The Defendants agreed to pay a Settlement Amount equal to $2.50
for each TYC that was issued in Massachusetts during the Class
Period and remained unredeemed as of April 30, 2016, as well as an
additional single payment in the amount of $.01 for every TYC
issued during the Class Period and redeemed on or before April 30,
2016. The total Settlement Amount to be distributed to the cy pres
on behalf of the Class shall be in the amount of $15,285.15 on
behalf of 25,800 Class Members. In addition to the Class benefit,
the Defendants have agreed to pay the Plaintiff's incentive award,
costs and attorneys' fees, as ultimately awarded by the court, in
an amount not to exceed $80,000.00.

The parties will ask the Court, at the final approval hearing, to
(i) certify the Settlement Class; (ii) appoint the Plaintiff as
class representative and his attorneys as Class Counsel; (iii)
grant final approval of the Parties' Settlement Agreement as fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interest of the Class;
(iv) enter judgment dismissing the litigation with prejudice; and
(v) award the Plaintiff's counsel reasonable counsel fees and
expenses. Any objections are requested to be mailed or faxed by
February 1, 2017 by the objector or a legally authorized
representative on an individual basis only and not as part of a
group, class or subclass.

Bertucci's Inc. is a domestic business corporation organized under
the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, maintaining a
principal place of business in Northborough, Worcester County.

Bertucci's Restaurant Corporation is a domestic business
corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, maintaining a principal place of business in
Northborough, Worcester County, Massachusetts.

Bertucci's Corporation is a foreign corporation formed under the
laws of the state of Delaware, with a principal office located at
155 Otis Street, Northborough, Massachusetts and a registered
agent located at 44 School Street, Suite 325, Boston
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth D. Quat, Esq.
      QUAT LAW OFFICES
      929 Worcester Rd.
      Framingham, MA 01701
      Tel: (508) 872-1261
      Email: ken@quatlaw.com


BRIDGEVIEW BANK: Loan Officers Class Certified in "Pieksma" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jorge L. Alonso granted the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional class certification and denied the Defendants' motion
to strike in the lawsuit entitled LYNN JEAN PIEKSMA, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. BRIDGEVIEW BANK
MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC, and BRIDGEVIEW BANCORP, INC., Case No.
1:15-cv-07312 (N.D. Ill.).

Lynn Jean Pieksma worked as a Mortgage Banker ("LO") at Bridgeview
Bancorp, Inc.'s Irvine, California office from March 2013 through
September 2013.  LO refers to Mortgage Bankers and other loan
officers with similar titles.  She alleges that Bridgeview and its
subsidiary, Bridgeview Bank Mortgage Company, LLC, violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to properly pay LOs minimum
wage and/or overtime compensation for time worked off the clock
and unlawfully deducting any minimum wages and overtime
compensation from LOs' paid commissions.

Ms. Pieksma brings her claims as a collective action on behalf of
all non-exempt LOs, who worked for the Defendants in the last
three years. Ms. Peiksma asked the Court to (1) grant conditional
class certification for all current and former LOs and other like
loan officers who worked for the Defendants for the last three
years to the present; (2) allow her to act as class representative
and appoint Rowdy Meeks Legal Group, LLC as class counsel; and (3)
approve the provided notice and consent to class members, order
the Defendants to post the notice at each of their branches, and
to provide a list containing all class members' contact
information within fourteen days of conditional certification.

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


CANADA: Mothers Wants EI Sickness Benefits Litigation Resolved
--------------------------------------------------------------
Metronews.ca reports that for Jennifer McCrea, 2016 was a
milestone year.

The Calgary mother of two celebrated five years cancer-free.  She
saw her favourite band The Tragically Hip five times.  And she ran
five marathons in 12 months to mark her good health.

But as the New Year dawns, there is a gnawing sense of unfinished
business for the breast cancer survivor who launched a class
action lawsuit in 2012 on behalf of more than 3,000 mothers who
say they were wrongfully denied EI sickness benefits while on
maternity leave.

"During the election, the Liberals promised to 'immediately end'
this legal battle," says Ms. McCrea, 39.

"They've been in office now for a year and we are still waiting."
McCrea, who has contacted about 20 MPs of all political stripes
about holding the Liberals to account, is growing impatient.
"It's been very frustrating," she says in a phone interview.
"Nobody seems to be able to tell me anything."

A spokesman for Families, Children and Social Development Minister
Jean-Yves Duclos says the government is "working on the file."

"Because it is in court right now, I cannot comment more at this
time," Mathieu Filion told Torstar in an email.

In July 2011, when her second son Ethan was just eight-and-a-half
months old, Ms. McCrea was diagnosed with breast cancer and had a
double mastectomy.

But when she applied for EI sickness benefits so she didn't have
to use the rest of her parental leave to recover from the surgery,
she was turned down.

EI legislation was changed in 2002 to extend sickness benefits to
working women who become ill during pregnancy or while on
maternity and parental leave.

It meant new mothers, such as McCrea, who were diagnosed with a
serious illness could take up to 15 weeks of sickness benefits to
recuperate and then resume their maternity or parental benefits.
But EI officials didn't interpret the changes that way; they
argued that since an ill woman on maternity or parental leave
wasn't available for work, she wasn't eligible for EI sickness
benefits.

It wasn't until a Toronto woman successfully appealed her case in
2011 that the federal government took notice.

The previous Harper government eventually changed the law in 2013
to ensure new mothers with serious illnesses are not denied EI
sickness benefits.

And it quietly paid about 350 women who had their applications
denied in 2012 and 2013.

But it refused to pay Ms. McCrea and others who were denied
sickness benefits between 2002 and 2013.

In May 2015, a judge certified McCrea's class action suit, which
if successful, could give her and other women deemed class members
up to $7,515 each, plus damages, according to her lawyer Stephen
Moreau of Cavalluzo Shilton McIntyre Cornish LLP.

Government documents released in March 2016, show the previous
government spent $2.2 million fighting the class action, but it is
not clear how much the Liberals have spent.

Mr. Moreau says the mothers have been "more than patient."
He hopes a court decision last fall in Ms. McCrea's favour will
bring the government to the table.

The decision, based on the former Harper government's appeal of
what the judge can rule on in the class action suit, has
strengthened Ms. McCrea's hand, Mr. Moreau says.

"This decision allows me to argue that the government breached its
duty of care to these women," he says.  "This is the most serious
and costly element of any successful class action case, if proven

"One would think the government would want to avoid that risk."


CAPITAL ACCOUNTS: Faces "Tiernan" Suit in M.D. of Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Accounts.
The case is captioned as Shawnda Tiernan, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Capital
Accounts and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-
03291 (M.D. Tenn., Dec. 22, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon.
District Judge Aleta A. Trauger.

Capital Accounts specializes in collection of overdue balances.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William M. Kaludis, Esq.
          SHIELD LAW GROUP
          1230 Second Avenue S
          Nashville, TN 37210-4110
          Telephone: (615) 742 8020
          Facsimile: (615) 255 6037
          E-mail: bill@shieldlawgroup.com


CATALINA HOTEL: "Pierre" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Beverly Pierre and other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Catalina Hotel, LLC, doing
business as Catalina Hotel, a Florida profit limited liability
company, individually, the Defendant, Case No. 16-029467 CA 01,
was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-25300-JAL to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Joan A. Lenard.

Catalina Hotel is a European set vibe and beach club offering
restaurants and pools.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          Rainier Regueiro, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com
                  rregueiro@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joshua Michael Entin, Esq.
          ENTIN & DELLA FERA, P.A.
          633 S. Andrews Avenue, Suite 500
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 761 7201
          Facsimile: (954) 764 2443
          E-mail: joshentin@comcast.net


CENTRAL CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Arufe" Suit in S.D. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Construction
Management, LLC. The case is titled as Fernando Arufe, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Central Construction Management, LLC and Galiza Enterprises Corp.,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09889 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2016).

Central Construction was founded in 2005. The Company's line of
business includes providing masonry and other stonework.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CHARLES J. THOMAS JR: Junk Fax Suit Wins Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled COMPRESSOR ENGINEERING CORPORATION, the
Plaintiff, v. CHARLES J. THOMAS, JR., the Defendant, Case No.
2:10-cv-10059-PDB-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Paul D. Borman
entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification of:

      "all persons who were sent one or more faxes on November 6,
      2005 advertising 'Chicken Shack' restaurant as offering
      'Michigan's Best Chicken and Ribs'"

   2. appointing Class Counsel, Jason Sommers, Philip Bock, and
      Tod Lewis;

   3. granting Plaintiff's unopposed motion for leave to file
      recent Sixth Circuit Authority;

   4. denying Defendant Thomas' motion for leave to file
      supplemental memorandum;

   5. granting Plaintiff's motion for leave to file supplemental
      authority; and

   6. granting Plaintiff's motion for leave to file supplemental
      authority.

The Court said, "Defendant argues in his Response that a class
action is not the superior method for adjudicating the claims in
this case because Congress intended these claims to be adjudicated
in small claims court. This argument is unpersuasive. While it may
be true that plaintiffs' firms received a boon in pursuing these
class actions on behalf of plaintiffs who
do not remember the injury (and never would have pursued the
action but for a solicitation letter); it is unrebutted that there
are some 6,000 potential class members in this action. It is not
logical to believe that having 6,000 individual lawsuits (whether
in state court or federal court) would be more efficient or a
better use of judicial resources. See Chapman v. Wagener Equities,
(finding that the superiority requirement was satisfied where
there were more than 10,000 potential class members, "[w]ith that
large number in mind, it is impossible to imagine individual
lawsuits; disposition by class action is certainly, in this case,
an efficient use of judicial resources."); (finding class action a
superior method in an analogous TCPA case). For all these reasons,
the Court finds that a class action is a superior method for
litigating these 6,000 potential claims".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jkZ3P1o3


CHARLOTTE SCHOOL: Legal Battle Over Student Loans Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Brittney Johnson, writing for WSOCTV, reports that Jan. 3 was the
deadline for Charlotte School of Law to file an appeal against the
Department of Education's decision to deny federal loans for its
students.

The school is facing a growing legal battle as the school looks
for ways to assist students concerned about an uncertain future.

Attorney Gary Jackson is part of a team with the law offices of
James Scott Farrin that is representing 45 Charlotte School of Law
students who are outraged they invested thousands in their
education, not knowing CSL was falling out of compliance with the
American Bar Association.

"They cannot believe this institution has duped them,"
Mr. Jackson said.  He added that the students are holding off on
filing a lawsuit, hoping the school will address concerns and even
possibly waive tuition.

"We hope the administration at this school, faculty at this
school, can change course, straighten out its act," Mr. Jackson
said.

WSOCTV talked to an attorney representing third-year students who
already filed an additional class-action suit.  In addition to
CSL, this one names the federal government, asking it to discharge
the student's loans.

"If you are tricked into taking out a loan that does you no good,
the idea is it is unfair to require you to take on that debt, and
have to pay it back when you've gotten no value from it," Majestro
said by phone.

CSL wouldn't comment on pending lawsuits.

Eyewitness News learned that in 2015, Majestro's team won an $11
million settlement for former students of Mountain State
University in West Virginia.  They argued the school failed to
provide an adequate education before it closed.

Majestro thinks it's telling that the Department of Education
pulled funding from CSL, even though the school is still
accredited.  But for some students, the fact that the school still
has its accreditation is reason to hope things can turn around.

"We would really like the DOE to come in and at least reinstate
loans for this semester," Mr. Jackson said.

There is no word on when the DOE will respond.


CHASE BANK: Class Cert. Bid Filed in Suit Over Amazon Credit Card
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned HOWARD LASKY and MEIRA LASKY, on behalf
of plaintiffs and a class, the Plaintiffs, v. CHASE BANK USA,
NATIONAL, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-07169-SJF-AKT
(E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of:

   "(a) all persons and entities in New York (b) who, on or after
   a date one year prior to the filing of the action, (c) were
   issued an Amazon credit card and, (d) which they did not apply
   for and, (e) which is not a replacement for an existing credit
   card."

The Plaintiffs further ask that Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin, LLC and Kleinman, LLC be appointed as counsel for the
class.

The Plaintiffs allege violation of the Truth in Lending Act by
issuing unsolicited credit cards against the Defendant.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=e4MZe2YX

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379
          Email: courtecl@edcombs.com

               - and -

          Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
          KLEINMAN, LLC
          626 RXR Plaza
          Uniondale, New York 11556-0626
          Telephone: (516) 522 2621
          Facsimile: (888) 522 1692


CLICKSPARK LLC: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Northern California Record,
reports that a San Diego resident claims a New York business
invaded his privacy with its calls.

Sam Atherton Jr. filed a complaint individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated on Dec. 10 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California against Clickspark LLC
alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that before
February 2015, he started receiving calls from the defendant that
were made using an automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or pre-recorded voice without plaintiff's express prior
consent.  The plaintiff holds Clickspark LLC responsible because
the defendant allegedly invaded plaintiff's right to privacy.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seek judgment against
defendant, certify as a class action, appoint named plaintiff and
counsel as class representative/counsel, statutory damages of $500
and $1,500 for every violation, injunctive relief, and other
relief that the court deems just.

He is represented by Joshua B. Swigart and Yana A. Hart of Hyde &
Swigart in San Diego, Abbas Kazerounian of Kazerouni Law Group APC
in Costa Mesa and Daniel G. Shay of Law Office of Daniel G. Shay
in San Diego.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California Case
number 3:16-cv-03000


COLLIER COUNTY, FL: Immigrant Teens Barred from Public Schools
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Murphy, writing for NewsPress.com, reports that about 370
immigrant teenagers in Collier County won't be returning to public
high school classrooms after the holiday break.

The Collier County School Board and Superintendent Kamela Patton
redirected the students to language programs at Immokalee and
Lorenzo Walker technical colleges earlier this year.  Six of the
students are suing the district for the whole group's right to
attend classes at public high schools.

But as the legal battle rolls on in federal court, the teens, ages
15 to 18, remain barred from attending normal classes.

"These students should be in school," said Michelle Lapointe, a
senior staff lawyer at the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law
Center.  The civil rights group filed the original lawsuit, now a
class action, in May.  "We're ready to enter second semester, and
they're still sitting in language (education) programs."

The school board is making the case it placed the teenagers in the
language programs -- which don't offer other normal curricula --
to help them first learn English and to better prepare them for
the classroom.

In a court filing submitted in mid-December, the school board said
the teenagers "are not academically qualified to attend high
school, have aged out, or both under state law and local policy."

School district lawyers Jon Fishbane and James Fox argued against
federal jurisdiction in the case.  Their filing came in response
to a statement from the Department of Justice in September, urging
the court to proceed with the case after the school board had
previously motioned to dismiss it.

"Local autonomy of school districts is a vital national
tradition," the school board argued in the filing.  "The
Administration seeks not to honor local control, but to usurp it."

But the Department of Justice said the case in Collier shouldn't
be thrown out because of the possible precedent that could set
across the country.

"This litigation implicates a matter of critical national
importance -- the right of English Learner students to equal
access to a high-quality education," according to the filing
submitted in September by U.S. Attorney A. Lee Bentley III, of the
U.S. District Court in Fort Myers, and other Justice Department
lawyers.

Echoing the national significance of the case in Collier,
Ms. Lapointe cited a handful of other districts that have seen
similar cases since a surge of child immigrants fleeing violence
and economic turmoil in Central and South America began arriving
in the United States in 2013.  Tens of thousands of unaccompanied
minors came to the front doors of public schools across the
country, several of which weren't prepared for the influx,
according to advocates.

In April a federal judge in Utica, New York, granted the state's
attorney general authority to proceed in a case against the local
school district.

U.S. District Judge David Hurd said the complaint "sufficiently
alleges" that Utica officials had implemented a similar policy of
diverting immigrants away from public school classrooms and into
"educational dead-ends in violation of various federal and state
laws."

Ms. Lapointe said the situation is "eerily similar" in Collier.

"Our plaintiffs have received no access to any curricular
programming, only adult ESL," she said, "no classes for the high
school credits, no chance for a diploma.

"It's completely contrary to what the law requires.  There's no
way the district could be fulfilling its obligation under law by
giving them a few hours a day in adult English language classes."

A spokesman for the Collier school district declined to discuss
the current motion to dismiss the suit.

Ariel Pechokas, an adult education program director for Collier
public schools, which operates Immokalee and Lorenzo Walker
technical colleges, also declined to comment about the case.  He
said everyone who registers in the program he oversees attends
English classes, GED classes and a citizenship program.

"We have over 2,000 students here," Ms. Pechokas said when asked
if he was aware of the teenagers currently enrolled.

The school district has maintained throughout the case that
programs like Ms. Pechokas' will ultimately best serve the
immigrant teens.  Moreover, the district argues, it's solely the
school board's right to make that decision in the first place.

The school board's language-program-first approach "is far wiser
than setting them up for failure in a regular high school
program," defense lawyers wrote in their most recent filing.


COMMUNITY PHYSICAL: Girolamo Class Cert. Bid Tossed, Deal Reached
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Mary M. Rowland entered an order in the lawsuit captioned
Nancy Girolamo, the Plaintiff, v. Community Physical Therapy &
Associates, LTD, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-02361
(N.D. Ill.), denying without prejudice as moot Plaintiff's motion
for class certification pursuant to Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act Claim.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on December 21,
2016, the Parties have reached a settlement agreement in
principle. Another status hearing is set for January 15, 2017 at
9:30 a.m. The status hearing will be stricken if a stipulation to
dismiss is filed prior to that date.

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


CONAGRA FOODS: 9th Cir. Widens Split on Ascertainability Issue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The Recorder, reports that throwing
its weight on one side of a widening circuit split, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Jan. 3 refused to adopt
stricter standards for class certification in cases where there is
no readily apparent way to identify class members.

The case, which involved the labels on Wesson cooking oils,
addressed the question of ascertainability, a term coined by the
class action bar, which has received increased attention as more
cases get filed over cheap goods.

Defense lawyers for ConAgra Foods Inc. argued that class
certification should be reversed because class members couldn't be
identified.  As is the case with many low-priced goods, its
lawyers wrote, consumers generally don't save grocery receipts and
might not even remember the purchase of a particular cooking oil.

In the Jan. 3 opinion, the Ninth Circuit disagreed, finding that
the rule governing class actions doesn't require plaintiffs
attorneys to lay out an administratively feasible plan to identify
class members at the certification stage.  The Ninth Circuit joins
the Sixth, Seventh and Eighth circuits in rejecting a higher
hurdle for ascertainability.

"Class actions involving inexpensive consumer goods in particular
would likely fail at the outset if administrative feasibility were
a freestanding prerequisite to certification," Circuit Judge
Michelle Friedland wrote in Briseno v. ConAgra.  "The authors of
Rule 23 opted not to make the potential administrative burdens of
a class action dispositive and instead directed courts to balance
the benefits of class adjudication against its costs."

Plaintiffs attorney Adam Levitt -- alevitt@gelaw.com -- director
in the Chicago office of Grant & Eisenhofer, had warned at oral
arguments in September that raising the standard on
ascertainability would mean the death of several consumer class
actions.  "We believe that by its ConAgra opinion, the Ninth
Circuit is establishing a beachhead on the right side of the law
on this very important issue, ensuring access to justice for
consumers and others," Mr. Levitt said on Jan. 3.

ConAgra was represented by Angela Spivey --
aspivey@mcguirewoods.com -- Atlanta managing partner at
McGuireWoods.  ConAgra spokesman Mike Cummins said in an email:
"While we are disappointed by the Ninth Circuit's order, ConAgra
is confident it will ultimately prevail on the merits."

The case alleged that Wesson bottles labeled as "100% Natural"
were false and misleading because the cooking oils contained
genetically modified organisms.  ConAgra was challenging
certification of classes in 11 states.

In arguing for ascertainability to be considered before class
certification, ConAgra's lawyers seized on a string of 2013
rulings from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that
required plaintiffs to provide a "reliable and administratively
feasible" method to identify class members.  Several circuits have
followed by adopting some ascertainability requirement, while
others have taken a more liberal view that consumer affidavits are
enough to establish eligibility for the class.
The issue is particularly relevant in cases involving food labels,
since most consumers don't have receipts, leaving plaintiffs
attorneys to rely on retailer records and affidavits. So far, the
U.S. Supreme Court has rejected petitions on the issue.

In the Jan. 3 opinion, the Ninth Circuit brushed off concerns
raised by the Third Circuit that an administratively feasible plan
is necessary to ensure that class members get adequate notices and
to prevent fraudulent claims.  The Ninth Circuit also brushed off
due process concerns, particularly given the numerous
opportunities defendants have to challenge plaintiffs' claims
after certification.

Judge Friedland was joined by U.S. Circuit Judges William Fletcher
and Morgan Christen.


CONAGRA FOODS: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Backus" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William Alsup denies the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification filed in the lawsuit entitled TROY BACKUS v. CONAGRA
FOODS, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-00454-WHA (N.D. Cal.).

ConAgra's motion to strike the declarations of Drs. Robert Bowen
and Nathan Wong is denied as moot.

"In short, whether the issue is cast in terms of typicality or
adequacy, Backus's claim fails to satisfy the prerequisites for
class certification under Rule 23(a).  His motion must therefore
be denied.  This order does not reach arguments as to the
additional class certification requirements of Rule 23(b) or
ascertainability, nor does it rely on the declarations of Drs.
Robert Bowen and Nathan Wong offered in support of said
arguments," Judge Alsup opined.

Mr. Backus has sought to certify a nationwide class defined as:

     All persons who purchased in the United States, on or after
     January 1, 2008, for household or personal use,
     Fleischmann's sticks containing artificial trans fat and the
     phrase "maintaining your healthy lifestyle."

Or, in the alternative, the California class, defined as:

     All persons who purchased in California, on or after
     January 1, 2008, for household or personal use,
     Fleischmann's sticks containing artificial trans fat and the
     phrase "maintaining your healthy lifestyle."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=naAJhZM8


CONCENTRIX CORP: Armstrong's Bid to Certify Class Partly Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William H. Orrick grants in part the Plaintiffs' motion
for conditional certification filed under the Fair Labor Standards
Act in the lawsuit titled ASHLEY ARMSTRONG v. CONCENTRIX
CORPORATION, Case No. 3:16-cv-05363-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

The Court also directs the parties to submit an agreed-to notice
on or before January 12, 2017.

In their Motion, the Plaintiffs seek conditional FLSA
certification for a collective of At-Home Customer Service
Representatives ("AHCSRs") who worked for Concentrix Corporation
at any time from September 19, 2013 through the present.  The
Plaintiffs allege that these workers were subjected to a general
policy and practice whereby they were instructed and required to
perform certain work tasks pre-, mid- and post-shift for which
they were not compensated and have submitted declarations from
three AHCSRs in support.

"I conclude plaintiffs have provided adequate evidence that they
are 'similarly situated' to the proposed collective members and
have made substantial allegations to support the claims they aim
to bring on behalf of AHCSRs. I GRANT plaintiffs' request for
conditional FLSA certification for a collective of employees that
have worked for Concentrix from December 14, 2015 through
judgment," Judge Orrick wrote in the order.

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


CREDIT CONTROL: March 29 Fairness Hearing Set in "Wood" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LISA A. WOOD, an individual; on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
CREDIT CONTROL, LLC, a Missouri Limited Liability Company; and
JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 10, the Defendants, Case No.
6:16-cv-01098-KGG (D. Kan.), the Hon. Kenneth G. Gale entered an
order:

   1. certifying a Settlement Class of:

      "all individuals with addresses in the State of Kansas to
      whom Credit Control, LLC mailed a collection letter,
      between April 12, 2015, and May 3, 2016, which sought to
      collect a debt on which the last payment or activity on the
      individual's account had occurred more than five years
      prior to the date of the letter";

   2. defining the "Class Claims" as those claims arising from
      Credit Control's collection letters, which sought to
      collect debts on which the last payment or activity had
      occurred more than five years prior to the date of the
      letter, but which failed to disclose that: (i) the debt was
      barred by the applicable statute of limitations and, a
      lawsuit would not be filed to collect the debt; and (ii) a
      partial payment would revive the statute of limitations;

   3. appointing Plaintiff as the Class Representative;

   4. appointing Plaintiff's counsel, Stern Thomasson LLP,
      Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, and Waddell Law
      Firm LLC; and

   5. appointing Heffler Claims Group as the Settlement
      Administrator to administer notice to the class and the
      settlement.

A final hearing on the fairness and reasonableness of the
Agreement and whether final approval shall be given to it and the
requests for fees and expenses by Class Counsel will be held on
March 29, 2017, at 1:30 p.m. at 406 U.S. Courthouse, 401 N.
Market, Wichita, Kansas.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pnLoTj5Z

The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), which alleges Credit Control
violated the FDCPA by mailing consumers collection letters
attempted to collect a time-barred debt from her by sending her a
letter, which failed to disclose that: (1) the debt was barred by
the applicable statute of limitations and, no lawsuit would be
filed to collect the debt; and (2) a partial payment would revive
the debt's statute of limitations.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TO3qdSnK

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          A. Scott Waddell, Esq.
          WADDELL LAW FIRM LLC
          2600 Grand, Suite 580
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 914 5365
          E-Mail: scott@aswlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1315
          Telephone: (973) 379 7500
          E-Mail: philip@sternthomasson.com
                  andrew@sternthomasson.com

               - and -

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER
          & GOODWIN LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  fgreene@edcombs.com


CREDIT PROCESS: Innovative Suit Seeks Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned INNOVATIVE ACCOUNTING SOLUTIONS, INC., a
Michigan corporation, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. CREDIT
PROCESS ADVISORS, INC., ACCOUNT ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC., VELO
LEGAL SERVICES, PLC d/b/a VELO LAW or VELO LAW OFFICE, SCOTT
RENNER, and JOHN DOES 1-12, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00793-PLM-PJG (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
certify a class of:

   "all persons sent one or more telephone facsimile messages on
   April 23 or April 24, 2015 about a "Know Your Customer"
   seminar by Credit Process Advisors to be held on April 29,
   2015, at Hawthorne Suites of Troy, Michigan".

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint Plaintiff as the
class representative, and appoint Plaintiff's attorneys as class
counsel.

According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in standardized
conduct involving a common nucleus of operative facts by engaging
FaxPlus to fax its seminar promotion advertisement to businesses
in Michigan.

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

Attorneys for Innovative Accounting Solutions, Inc.:

          Kimberly M. Watt, Esq.
          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          James M. Smith, Esq.
          Kimberly M. Watt, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS
          & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658 5500

               - and -

          Mark K. Wasvary, Esq.
          MARK K. WASVARY, P.C.
          2401 W. Big Beaver Rd., Ste. 100
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (248) 649 5667


CVB FINANCIAL: March 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION,
CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III)
MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND
REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:  All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
the common stock of CVB Financial Corp. ("CVB") between March 4,
2010, and August 9, 2010, inclusive (the "Settlement Class
Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"):

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, that the above-
captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class
action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain
persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by
definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency
of Class Action, Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed
Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for
an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation
Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action has
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $6,200,000 in cash
(the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve claims in the
Action as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
(the "Stipulation"), available at www.CVBSecuritiesSettlement.com.

A hearing will be held on March 13, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Christina A. Snyder at the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, 350 W. First Street,
Courtroom 8D, 8th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012, or such other
location as may be reported on the Court website,
http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/judges-schedules-procedures,to
determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved
as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether claims in the
Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and
the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in
the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv)
whether Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Barry R. Lloyd
v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., c/o JND Class Action
Administration, P.O. Box 6847, Broomfield, CO 80021, 1-844-620-
9987, www.CVBSecuritiesSettlement.com, or email
CVBSettlement@classactionadmin.com.  Copies of the Notice and
Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by
the Claims Administrator, www.CVBSecuritiesSettlement.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
potentially eligible to receive a payment under the proposed
Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than
April 18, 2017.  If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not
submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in
the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you
will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by
the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than February 21,
2017, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.
If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you
will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court
in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the
proceeds of the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than February 21, 2017, in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, CVB, or its
counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about this notice,
the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          Timothy DeLange, Esq.
          Niki L. Mendoza, Esq.
          12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92130
          (866) 648-2524
          blbg@blbglaw.com

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

          Barry R. Lloyd v. CVB Financial Corp., et al.
          c/o JND Class Action Administration
          P.O. Box 6847
          Broomfield, CO 80021
          1 (844) 620-9987
          www.CVBSecuritiesSettlement.com
          CVBSettlement@classactionadmin.com

By Order of the Court


DIMORA RISTORANTE: Court Denies Class Certification in "Shala"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William J. Martini entered an order in the lawsuit styled
DUKAGJIN SHALA, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DIMORA RISTORANTE, INC. et
al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-03064-WJM-MF (D.N.J.),
denying without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act collective action.

Defendants' motion to strike is granted without prejudice to
Plaintiff's right to refile for conditional certification.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gPJRVo84


DJNG INC: "Castaneda" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to S.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Erica Crystal Castaneda, on behalf
of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public,
the Plaintiff, v. Djng, Inc., formerly known as European Wax
Center, Inc., a Florida corporation; EWC Holdings, Inc., A Florida
corporation; Franklin EWC, Inc., a California corporation and Does
1 through 20, inclusive , the Defendants, Case No. 37-02016-
00039903-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California (San Diego). The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge Marilyn L. Huff. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-03083-H-MDD to the proceeding.

European Wax Center is a major chain of hair removal salons in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beatrice Skye Resendes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON APLC
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696 9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564 6665
          E-mail: skye@consumersadvocates.com

The Defendant Franklin EWC, Inc. is represented by:

          Douglas G.A Johnston
          Jackson Lewis PC
          50 California Street
          9th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 394 9400
          Facsimile: (415) 394 9401
          E-mail: douglas.johnston@jacksonlewis.com


DRILL GREEN: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Williams and Daemain Williams, on behalf of themselves
individually and all others similarly situated v. Drill Green
Petroleum Products Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-03725 (S.D. Tex.,
December 23, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Drill Green Petroleum Products Inc. is engaged in the manufacture
and distribution of drilling lubricants and soaps, drilling
products, and production chemicals used to assist in the process
of oil and gas drilling.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Taft L. Foley II, Esq.
      THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
      3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
      Houston, TX 77054
      Telephone: (832) 778-8182
      Facsimile: (832) 778-8353
      E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


DURHAM PSBE: Joint Bid to Certify Classes Filed in "Cerrato" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit styled Liliam Bustillo Cerrato, Maria
Juarez Regino, Yolanda Pavon Gonzalez, Guadalupe Rodriguez Luna,
and Blanca Vasquez, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Durham Public Schools Board of Education and
SSC Service Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-01431-LCB-JLW
(M.D.N.C.), jointly move the Court for an order certifying a
plaintiff class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.  The Class is defined as:

     Any and all non-managerial employees employed by Integrity
     Facilities Management, Inc. ("Integrity") to work in Durham
     Public Schools pursuant to a contract between Durham Public
     Schools and SSC Service Solutions, Inc. ("Service
     Solutions") who do not expressly opt-out of the Rule 23
     Class and: (1) worked fulltime between September 16, 2013,
     and November 5, 2014; or (2) worked part-time between
     October 16, 2014, through November 5, 2014.

The Parties also jointly move the Court for an order certifying a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. That
Collective Action is defined as:

     Any and all non-managerial employees employed by Integrity
     to work in Durham Public Schools pursuant to a contract
     between Durham Public Schools and SSC Service Solutions,
     Inc. ("Service Solutions") who worked overtime between
     September 16, 2012, and November 5, 2014, and who sign or
     negotiate the settlement checks distributed pursuant to the
     Settlement Agreement.

The Parties inform the Court that they have negotiated a
settlement agreement in the action, which includes relief on a
class-wide basis for Plaintiffs' claims under the North Carolina
Wage and Hour Act and common law of contracts and on an opt-in
basis for the Plaintiffs' claims under the FLSA.  The Parties
submit the Joint Motion pursuant to that settlement agreement. The
Parties have submitted a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Collective Action and Class Action Settlement prior to the filing
of this Joint Motion.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carol Brooke, Esq.
          Clermont Fraser Ripley, Esq.
          NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER
          PO Box 28068
          Raleigh, NC 27611-8068
          E-mail: carol@ncjustice.org
                  clermont@ncjustice.org

Defendant Durham Public Schools Board of Education is represented
by:

          Eva Dubuisson, Esq.
          THARRINGTON SMITH LLP
          150 Fayetteville St.
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 821-4711
          Facsimile: (919) 829-1583
          E-mail: edubuisson@tharringtonsmith.com

Defendant SSC Service Solutions, Inc., is represented by:

          Kevin J. Dalton, Esq.
          FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
          227 West Trade Street, Suite 2020
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 334-4565
          Facsimile: (704) 334-9774
          E-mail: kdalton@fisherphillips.com


EHT PHARMACY: Court Terminates Centerville Clinics Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on December 22, 2016, in the case
titled Centerville Clinics, Inc. v. EHT Pharmacy, LLC, d/b/a
Curexa, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-10536 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a
hearing held before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Pursuant to FRCvP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff voluntarily
      dismisses its individual claims without prejudice and
      without costs against Defendants EHT Pharmacy, LLC and
      Specialty Care RX Limited Liability Company;

   -- Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses its class claims against
      Defendants EHT Pharmacy, LLC and Specialty Care RX Limited
      Liability Company without prejudice and without costs;

   -- Plaintiff Centerville Clinics, Inc. voluntarily dismisses
      its claims against John Does 1-10 without prejudice and
      without costs;

   -- Status hearing set to January 20, 2017, is stricken;

   -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class is stricken as moot;
      and

   -- Civil case terminated.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=t8ByVe3P


ELECTCHESTER MANAGEMENT: "Belvin" Suit Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MICHAEL BELVIN, NERY DUQUEGARCIA, DANIEL
MACHADO, MICHAEL MAYERS, JORGE RESTREPO, MARCELINO REYES, ADRIANO
TURBIGARCIA, and MANUEL VERA, individually and in behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ELECTCHESTER
MANAGEMENT LLC; FIRST HOUSING COMPANY, INC.; FOURTH HOUSING
COMPANY, INC.; SECOND HOUSING COMPANY, INC.; THIRD HOUSING
COMPANY, INC.; CHRISTOPHER ERICKSON; and GERALD FINKEL; jointly
and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-04924-KAM-VMS
(E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court, before the Hon.
Kiyo A. Matsumoto, United States District Judge, for an order
certifying a class action and approving and authorizing
distribution of a notice of class action lawsuit to the putative
class.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3HZ1gCmt

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
          Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, NY 10007-2036
          Telephone: (212) 229 2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229 2246
          E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
                  bsherr@zellerlegal.com
                  jazeller@zellerlegal.com


ELIZABETH GRADY: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Beauregard, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Elizabeth Grady Face First, Inc. and John P. Walsh,
Case No. 16-3679 (Mass. Cmmw., December 23, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a skin care facility in Medford,
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David B. Summer, Esq.
      CUTLER ASSOCIATES
      100 State Street, Suite 900
      Boston, MA 02109
      Telephone: (617)695-0050
      Facsimile: (617)695-0055


EMERGENCY SERVICES: Brantingham Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JENNIFER BRANTINGHAM, for herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EMERGENCY SERVICES,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01169-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio),
Jennifer Brantingham move the Court for entry of an order pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):

   1. conditionally certifying Plaintiff's proposed collective
      FLSA classes defined as:

      "all current and former Extenders employed by Defendant
      between December 13, 2013 and the present, who were paid on
      an hourly basis and who did not receive overtime payment at
      a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay
      for all hours worked in a workweek in excess of 40";

   2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
      Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail)
      to Plaintiff's proposed class as set forth above; and

   3. requiring Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's
      order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by
      providing a list in electronic and importable format, of
      the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all potential
      opt-in plaintiffs who worked for Defendant in the time
      frames specified by Plaintiffs.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
          Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
          Mansell Law, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 610 4134
          Facsimile: (513) 826 9311
          E-mail: Greg.Mansell@Ohio-EmploymentLawyer.com
                  Carrie.Dyer@Ohio-EmploymentLawyer.com

               - and -

          Rachel A. Sabo, Esq.
          Peter G. Friedmann, Esq.
          THE FRIEDMANN FIRM LLC
          1457 S. High Street
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 610 9757
          Facsimile: (614) 737 9812
          E-mail: Rachel@TFFLegal.com
                  Pete@TFFLegal.com


ERIC GARCETTI: Class Cert. in "Yagman" Denied as Premature
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Stephen Yagman, the Plaintiff v. Eric
Garcetti, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-05944-GHK-E
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. George H. King entered an order denying
without prejudice Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Court said, "On October 3, 2016, we issued an order denying
Plaintiff's first class certification motion as premature. We
ordered Plaintiff to refrain from filing a class certification
motion until the deadline set at the scheduling conference, which
will take place after all Defendants have been properly served and
have answered the Complaint or their defaults have been entered. A
scheduling conference has been set for January 23, 2017. Plaintiff
was prohibited from filing a class certification motion at least
until after a deadline is set at the scheduling conference."

"On December 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion in
direct contravention of our October 3, 2016 Order. One of the
central purposes of the scheduling conference is for the Court to
have a rational conversation with the parties about the matters to
be briefed and decided such that the case can proceed in an
orderly and economical fashion. The seemingly haphazard manner in
which Plaintiff has filed both of his class certification motions
disrupts this purpose and needlessly distracts from the merits of
the case, ultimately prejudicing the parties and draining the
Court's resources. Because the Motion is premature and violates
our October 3, 2016 Order, Plaintiff shall not file a motion for
class certification prior to the scheduling conference in this
case. Once the parties have attended the scheduling conference,
the parties shall file motions as set forth in the schedule
approved by the Court."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fj8w1TY2


ET & K FOODS: Faces "Santos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gustavo Santos, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated employees v. ET & K Foods Inc. d/b/a Met Foods and Bet-Er
By Far Meats Inc. d/b/a Met Foods and Thomas Kaller, Case No.
1:16-cv-07107 (E.D.N.Y., December 23, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate grocery stores in Brooklyn, New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
      225 Broadway, Suite 307
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 323-6980
      E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Biometric Data
----------------------------------------------------
Charline Nash, writing for Breitbart Tech, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Facebook claiming that the
social network violates Illinois state law by holding biometric
data of its users and keeping faces on file for recognition
purposes.

"Facebook is the largest social network in the United States and
likely the world.  Facebook has previously been alleged to abuse
consumers' privacy rights," claimed the class-action complaint
against Facebook.  "Plaintiff brings this class action to put an
end to Facebook's latest privacy abuse -- its collection, storage,
and subsequent use of its users' biometric identifiers and
biometric information without informed consent, in direct
contravention of the BIPA."

"In direct violation of all three prongs of Sec.15(b) of the BIPA
[Biometric Information Privacy Act], Facebook is actively
collecting, storing, and using the biometric information of its
reportedly more than one billion users without any written notice
or informed written consent, including millions of Illinois
residents," continued the document.  "Specifically, sometime in
late 2010, Facebook began implementing its 'tag suggestion'
feature ('Tag Suggestions'), which utilizes sophisticated facial
recognition software to automatically match pictures with names."

Facebook's software collects, analyzes and compares the facial
features in user-uploaded photographs and saves what is known as a
"face template" in Facebook's database.  When a user uploads a
photograph, Facebook's Tag Suggestions compares the faces of any
individual in that photograph to the face templates in the
Facebook database.  If there is a match, Facebook suggests that
the user "tag" the person in the photograph with the appropriate
name. Facebook's facial template database is so large that it
dwarfs the FBI's

Indeed, at a hearing before the U.S. Senate on Capitol Hill in
2012, Senator Al Franken described Facebook as the "world's
largest privately held database of face prints -- without the
explicit consent of its users."

In a report by IEEE Spectrum, the magazine explained, "The
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) sets limits on how
companies can store and use people's biometric identifiers, which
the law defines as fingerprints, voiceprints, retina or iris
scans, and scans of hand or face geometry."

"The case is scheduled for trial this October, and similar
Illinois-based lawsuits are proceeding against Google and
Snapchat," they continued.  "In the upcoming year, the courts will
host a debate over who can keep our faces on file."


FALONI & ASSOCIATES: "Maldonado" Case Settlement Approval Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ALFREDO MALDONADO and BORIS CONTRERAS, on
behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. LAW OFFICES OF FALONI & ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-02859-CLW (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court for an order certifying the case to proceed as a
class action, and granting preliminary approval of the settlement,
on behalf of the following class:

   "all Consumers who reside in the State of New Jersey to whom
   Law Offices of Faloni & Associates, LLC mailed a written
   communication during the period beginning April 23, 2014, and
   ending April 23, 2015, in an attempt to collect a debt on
   behalf of LVNV Funding LLC and arising out of a HSBC Bank
   Nevada, N.A. account, which were mailed in a windowed envelope
   such that the file/reference number, registration code, or
   identification 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=VCiBK0em

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 200
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273 7117

               - 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


FORD MOTOR: Court Refuses to Certify 3 Classes in "Philips" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lucy H. Koh denies the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification filed in the lawsuit captioned WILLIAM PHILIPS, et
al. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Case No. 5:14-cv-02989-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

The Court finds that although the Plaintiffs have satisfied all of
the requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Plaintiffs have not satisfied the requirements of
Rule 23(b)(2) with respect to the proposed Current Owner/Lessee
Class and have not satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3)
with respect to the proposed New Vehicle Class or the proposed
Out-of-Pocket Class.

In their complaint, Plaintiffs William Philips, Jaime Goodman, and
Alison Colburn allege that certain of the Defendants' Ford Fusion
and Ford Focus vehicles are equipped with a defective electronic
power assisted steering system.  In their motion for class
certification, the Plaintiffs move to certify three classes:

   (1) New Vehicle Class: All residents of California who, at any
       time, purchased or leased a new 2010-2012 Ford Fusion or
       2012-2014 Ford Focus vehicle from Ford Motor Company or
       through a Ford Motor Company dealership;

   (2) Out-of-Pocket Class: All residents of California who
       incurred expenses in connection with the diagnosis,
       repair, or replacement of the Electronic Power Assisted
       Steering system in a 2010-2012 Ford Fusion or 2012-2014
       Ford Focus vehicle; and

   (3) Current Owner/Lessee Class: All residents of California
       who currently own or lease a 2010-2012 Ford Fusion or
       2012- 2014 Ford Focus vehicle.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Q738Zwiy


FREEDOM MORTGAGE: "Atis" Suit Trimmed, FLSA Class Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled David ATIS, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, the Defendant(s), Case No. 1:15-cv-03424-RBK-JS
(D.N.J.), the Hon. Robert B. Kugler entered an order:

   1. granting Defendant's motion to dismiss claims under the New
      Jersey Wage and Payment Act (NJWPL);

   2. dismissing NJWPL claims with prejudice;

   3. grating Plaintiff's motion for conditional class
      certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act only as to
      the following national class of:

      "all persons who are or were employed by Freedom Mortgage
      Corporation as an Assistant Vice President of Sales in New
      Jersey on or after May 15, 2013, classified as exempt, and
      not paid overtime compensation for each hour worked beyond
      40 hours in a workweek";

   4. directing parties to file a joint, proposed notice for the
      Court's approval within 21 days of entry of the order;

   5. granting in part Plaintiff's motion for class certification
      under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and
      23(b)(2) only as to the following of New Jersey class of:

      "all persons who are or were employed by Freedom Mortgage
      Corporation as an Assistant Vice President of Sales in any
      of its offices during the three years prior to the date of
      notice, classified as exempt, and not paid overtime
      compensation for each hour worked beyond 40 hours in a
      workweek.

   6. defining class claims or issues as whether Defendant
      violated the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law by misclassifying
      the Assistant Vice President of Sales (AVP) position as
      exempt and failing to pay AVPs overtime compensation;

   7. appointing Swartz Swidler, LLC as class counsel;

   8. directing parties to file a joint, proposed notice in
      accordance with Rule 23(c)(2) for the Court's approval
      within 21 days of entry of the Order; and

   9. denying without prejudice Plaintiff's motion to seal and
      directing Plaintiff to file the exhibits to its motion for
      class certification.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BSZWogw6


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Leifer, et al. Sue to Keep Insurance Reserves
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIKA LEIFER, SAUL JACOBS, and HELENE WENZEL, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GENWORTH
FINANCIAL, INC., GENWORTH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, GENWORTH LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, MICHAEL D. FRAZIER, THOMAS J.
MCINERNEY, PATRICK B. KELLEHER, and MARTIN P. KLEIN,
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01008-JAG (E.D. Va., December 28,
2016), arises out of the Defendants' alleged deliberate misconduct
in wrongfully depleting needed policy reserves -- which is the
portion of an insurer's revenue held aside to pay future claims.

GENWORTH FINANCIAL, INC.'s business is divided into two divisions:
Global Mortgage and U.S. Life Insurance. The Company's U.S. Life
Insurance Division includes its LTC insurance business unit.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
     KELLY & CRANDALL, PLC
     4084 University Drive, Suite 202a
     Fairfax, VA 22030
     Phone: (703) 424-7570
     Fax: (703) 591-0167
     E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

     Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
     Glen L. Abramson, Esq.
     Peter R. Kahana, Esq.
     Lane L. Vines, Esq.
     Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
     Y. Michael Twersky, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 875-3000
     Fax: (215) 875-4604
     E-mail: scarson@bm.net
             gabramson@bm.net
             pkhana@bm.net
             lvines@bm.net
             pmadden@bm.net
             mitwersky@bm.net


GOOGLE INC: CEI Objects to $5.5MM Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
public-interest law firm that represents class members against
unfair class action procedures and settlements has filed an
objection to a $5.5 million settlement with Google Inc. over
allegations that the search engine giant circumvented web browser
privacy settings.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Class Action
Fairness filed its objection in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware late last month.

The center argues in its filing that class members "will see not
one penny."

"This settlement exemplifies the problem of class action attorneys
behaving as if they have no clients other than the general
public," CEI Attorney Adam Schulman said in a statement. "It is
unacceptable to propose a settlement that waives class members'
rights yet provides them absolutely nothing in return."

Plaintiffs in the class action sued Google for alleged federal
privacy violations over the company's circumvention of Apple's
Safari browser users' privacy settings -- in particular, that
Google circumvented the web browser's default privacy settings
without consumers' knowledge and consent to allow advertisers to
set third-party cookies on their browsers.

According to the center's filing, class counsel negotiated a
settlement that provided zero dollars to class members and $5.5
million to be divided between class counsel and third-party
charities.

One of those charities, the center argues, is a nonprofit with
direct ties to class counsel.  Several others are charities to
which Google routinely donates, the center points out.

"The entire net settlement fund will go third-party 'cy pres'
recipients, even though it would be possible to allow class
members to recover through a claims-made process and/or a sampling
lottery method," attorneys for the center wrote in the motion,
filed Dec. 20.  "Under Third Circuit law, this arrangement is
unacceptable."

Under terms of the proposed settlement, Google will make cy pres
payments to the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, the
Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, the
Center for Democracy and Technology, Public Counsel, Privacy
Rights Clearinghouse and the Stanford Center for Internet and
Society.

According to a motion filed by class counsel Dec. 7, counsel is
seeking $2,497,000 in fees and expenses, paid from the settlement
fund. It also asked the court to award $1,000 per class
representative as an incentive award for their efforts on behalf
of the class.

The plaintiffs are represented by Stephen G. Grygiel --
sgrygiel@mdattorney.com -- of Silverman Thompson Slutkin White,
Brian R. Strange -- bstrange@strangeandbutler.com -- of Strange &
Butler and James P. Frickleton -- jimf@bflawfirm.com -- Mary D.
Winter -- mwinter@bflawfirm.com -- and Edward D. Robertson Jr. --
crobertson@bflawfirm.com -- of Bartimus Frickleton & Robertson PC,
among others.

"Preexisting relationships with the defendant undermine the value
of the settlement to the class, because the cy pres then is merely
a change in accounting entries rather than a change in conduct,"
the center argues in its objection.

"Preexisting relationships with class counsel qualify as improper
conflicts of interest. These defects render the settlement
substantively unfair."

But class counsel, in a memorandum filed Dec. 7 along with the
plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement, argue the
proposed deal is the result of "extensive, arm's-length
negotiations between experienced counsel."

"The Settlement confers substantial benefits upon Class Members,
particularly in light of the potential recovery provable at trial
and given the costs, uncertainties, delays, and other risks
associated with continued litigation, trial, and/or appeal," class
counsel wrote.

According to its memorandum, class counsel would respond to any
objections by Jan. 4.  A fairness hearing is set for Jan. 11.

Numerous lawsuits were filed in various federal courts against
Google in early 2012, after the company's alleged actions were
made public.

The lawsuits were centralized and transferred to the District of
Delaware in June 2012.

In January 2013, Google filed a motion to dismiss all claims
against it.  In October 2013, the Delaware federal court granted
the motion in its entirety.

Plaintiffs appealed the order and in November 2015, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the dismissal of two of
the plaintiffs' state law claims, affirmed the dismissal of the
plaintiffs' other claims, and remanded the case to District of
Delaware for further consideration.

Plaintiffs also filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the
U.S. Supreme Court in March 2016, seeking review of the Third
Circuit's affirmed dismissal of some of the plaintiffs' claims.
Google and the other defendants waived their right to respond to
the petition.

In May, the Supreme Court requested that Google and the other
defendants respond to the petition -- a rare order from the
nation's highest court.

Google notified the Supreme Court of its settlement with the
plaintiffs and of its intent not to respond to the petition unless
specifically requested to do so despite its settlement. The other
defendants responded to the petition in August.

Ultimately, in October, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs'
petition.

Meanwhile, class counsel and counsel for Google participated in
mediation before retired Judge Layn R. Phillips.

The plaintiffs and Google agreed to the basic terms of the
settlement agreement in June. Judge Sue L. Robinson preliminarily
approved the deal in August.

Google, which continues to deny all allegations of wrongdoing,
reached a $17 million multi-state settlement over similar
allegations in November 2013.


GORDO TAQUERIA: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
an overtime pay lawsuit in California that seeks class action
status was filed just before Christmas by a plaintiff who alleges
his employer stiffed him on wages as well as tips.

According to The San Francisco Chronicle, plaintiff Jose Martinez
is a former kitchen worker at the Gordo Taqueria chain, a Mexican
fast food enterprise with locations throughout the East Bay and
San Francisco.  In an interview with The San Francisco Chronicle,
the Spanish-speaking Martinez claimed that the restaurant at which
he worked from 2013 through 2015 distributed tip monies to its
tipped employees as infrequently as once per year.

California law dictates that tipped employees are to receive tips
collected on their behalf no later than the next regular payday. A
lump-sum at the end of the year is against the law, noted
Mana Barari, a senior staff attorney with the wage protection
program at the Legal Aid Society, which is representing Martinez
in the dispute.

Mr. Martinez speaks little English.  His wife attended the
interview with The San Francisco Chronicle to interpret for him.
"I was counting on the tips -- that would have helped me put gas
in my car, get something to eat daily and for daily necessities,"
Martinez said in Spanish.  "When I paid my rent, I was very, very
limited after that."

Mr. Martinez also asserts in his unpaid overtime lawsuit that
hourly workers were paid regular hourly wages -- with no provision
for overtime pay -- regardless of the number of hours worked in
any given work day, or work week.  Overtime pay laws afford strict
guidance on when an hourly employee is to receive overtime.
Working off the clock, either before or after a shift, or missed
meal periods and rest breaks can all be translated into unpaid
overtime according to the tenets of California overtime law.

"We hope this case raises awareness around how tips should be
handled and paid, both for the many low-wage workers in the
service industry who rely on them, but also for customers who
assume their tips will end up in the right hands," Barari said.

Mr. Martinez, who worked as a prep cook at a Gordo Taqueria for a
period of two years, filed his unpaid overtime class action
December 26 at Alameda County Superior Court.  Case information
was not available.

Earlier in the month, in an unrelated unpaid overtime case, a
class action lawsuit against Costco Wholesale Corp. was settled
when the defendant agreed to a $2 million settlement.  Class
members were comprised of current or former fleet drivers who
alleged, through lead plaintiff Douglas Thompson that Costco
failed to pay their drivers overtime wages, as well as meal break
and other wages.

Mr. Thompson urged the judge in the case, US District Judge Cathy
Ann Bencivengo, to approve the settlement, which will see some 882
proposed class members awarded just under $1,500 each. Drivers
were, or are employed with Costco business centers or depots in
the Golden State.

"Plaintiff and his counsel have determined that the settlement set
forth in the agreement is a fair, adequate and reasonable
settlement, and is in the best interests of plaintiff and the
settlement class," the proposed class said.

The case is Douglas Thompson et al. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
Case No. 14-cv-2778, in the US District Court for the Southern
District of California.


GREENSKY LLC: Class Certification Sought in "Alfortish" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Todd Alfortish and Sylvia Alfortish,
Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. GREENSKY, LLC and SUNTRUST BANK, INC, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-15084-ILRL-JVM (E.D. La.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of:

   "all Louisiana residents who entered into finance agreements
   (bridge loans) with GreenSky as a result of purchasing solar
   energy systems from Solar Companies and who  were denied the
   solar energy state income tax credit."

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to:

   a. appoint Lawrence J. Centolla III, and Jason Z. Landry from
      Martzell, Bickford & Centola, APC; Joshua Rubenstein from
      Scheueman & Jones LLC; Calvin Fayard, Jr. and D. Blayne
      Honeycutt from Fayard & Honeycutt; and Heidi Mabile Gould
      as class counsel; and

   b. appoint Todd Alfortish, Sylvia Alfortish, and James Fincher
      as class representative.

According to the lawsuit, the Solar Companies, acting as
Greensky's agent, induced Plaintiffs into purchasing solar systems
by offering financing agreements which were represented as
"interest free" bridge loans for a period of 18 months,
purportedly designed to act like gap financing in order to allow
Plaintiffs enough time to file their tax returns and receive their
state income tax credits to satisfy the loans in full before they
would ever have to pay any interest.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Heidi Mabile Gould, Esq.
          146 W. Livingstone Place
          Metairie, LA 70005
          Telephone: (985) 413 8829
          Facsimile: (504) 835 7458
          E-mail: heidigould@me.com

               - and -

          Joshua L. Rubenstein, Esq.
          SCEUERMANN & JONES, LLC
          701 Poydras Street, Suite 4100
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Telephone: (504) 525 4361
          E-mail: jrubenstein@nola-law.com

               - and -

          Calvin Fayard Jr., Esq.
          D. Blayne Honeycutt, Esq.
          FAYARD & HONEYCUTT
          519 Florida St., SW
          Denham Springs, LA 70726
          E-mail: dbhoneycutt@fayardlaw.com


HARALAMBOS BEVERAGE: Sued Over Failure to Provide Meal Break
------------------------------------------------------------
Pierre Atme, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated employees v. Haralambos Beverage Co. and Does 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. BC645032 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 23,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
compensation for missed statutory meal and rest periods.

Haralambos Beverage Co. owns and operates a pick-up and delivery
service company in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Isam C. Khoury, Esq.
      Michael D. Singer, Esq.
      Jeff Geraci, Esq.
      COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
      1605 C Street, Suite 200
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 595-3001
      Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
      E-mail: ikhoury@ckslaw.com
              msinger@ckslaw.com
              jgeraci@ckslaw.com

         - and -

      Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN
      18250 Ventura Blvd.
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Telephone: (818) 609-0807
      Facsimile: (818) 609


HEALTH RESOURCE: "Brown" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled MONIQUE BROWN, on behalf of herself,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. HEALTH RESOURCE SOLUTIONS, INC., GLENN STEIGBIGEL,
and ROBERT MIKULAK, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-10667 (N.D.
Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for conditional class
certification pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of:

     "all Clinicians who were classified as exempt, were paid
     on a hybrid "per visit" and hourly basis, were not paid
     overtime compensation for time worked in excess of 40 hours
     in given workweeks, and who worked for Defendants dating
     back three years from the date of notice until the present
     (FLSA Class)."

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to:

   a. order court-facilitated notice of the collective action to
      the FLSA Class;

   b. order Defendants to produce a computer-readable data file
      containing the names, addresses, email addresses, telephone
      numbers, dates of employment, social security numbers, and
      dates of birth of the FLSA Class;

   c. order the posting of the Notice at a location in
      Defendants' office where members of the FLSA Class are
      likely to view it; and

   d. authorize Plaintiffs to send a notice, at their expense, by
      U.S. First Class mail and email to all members of the FLSA
      Class to inform them of their right to opt-in to the
      lawsuit and a reminder notice 15 days before the end of the
      opt-in period.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UjeQoTM9

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
          Haley R. Jenkins, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233 1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233 1560
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  tbecvar@stephanzouras.com
                  hjenkins@stephanzouras.com


HERSHEY'S: Seeks Dismissal of Kisses Packaging Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shanice Harris, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that
Hershey's plans to seek dismissal of a class action lawsuit filed
against it complaining about the number of Kisses in its
packaging.

The lawsuit was filed in New York federal court on Sept. 20.
Plaintiff Christopher Huppert claims Hershey's falsely advertises
the amount of certain flavors of Hershey Kisses contained in
allegedly 12-ounce bags.  His argument is that some bags --
particularly the almond-filled Kisses -- contain less than 12
ounces, even though they are sold at the same price.

He alleges that this is in violation of New York's Consumer
Protection Act and that the company has reduced the number of
Kisses in their "Classic Bags"

Hershey's is claiming there is no merit to Mr. Huppert's claims
and that it is in full compliance with all state and federal laws.

Presiding Judge Cathy Seibel granted Hershey's an extension to
respond to the lawsuit, which it did on Nov. 22 in a letter in
anticipation of a pre-motion conference that has been postponed to
Jan. 11.

According to the letter Hershey filed with the court, it will seek
dismissal of the complaint on three principal grounds.

First, the claims are allegedly preempted by the federal Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act.

The complaint does not, and cannot, allege that Hershey has not
complied with the federal Food and Drug Administration's net-
weight requirement, the company says.  Mr. Huppert wants to impose
an additional requirement -- that similarly sized bags must always
contain the same weight -- but currently, there is no existing
requirement under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the company
says.

Second, the claims are barred by New York's General Business Law,
which provide a safe harbor in situations in which the alleged
behavior complies with federal law, the company says.

Third, Hershey's claims the plaintiff's claims are null and void
because the complaint does not allege a materially misleading
practice, as is required to state a claim.  To qualify, an act or
advertisement must be likely to mislead a reasonable consumer
acting reasonably under the circumstance, the company says.

"In any event, no reasonable consumer would be misled to think
that the three' Classic Bags" -- each of which bears its own color
scheme and style of candy wrappers, and each of which includes a
conspicuous statement of the package's net weight -- contain the
exact same amount of chocolate," wrote Steven Zalesin, of
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler.

"No reasonable consumer would draw a conclusion about the
packages' net weight based solely on the 'Classic Bag' insignia
without looking at other elements, including the prominent net-
weight disclosures."

The complaint alleged the company engaged in a deceptive business
practice that has the "capacity, tendency and effect" of deceiving
reasonable consumers.

"Defendant has engaged in a systematic course of misrepresenting
the products to consumers," the complaint says.

The plaintiff claims the packaging violates section 349 of the New
York General Business Law.

Mr. Huppert also claims that Hershey's violates New York's section
350 of General Business Law, which defines false advertising as
"advertising, including labeling, of a commodity, or of the kind,
character, terms or conditions of any employment opportunity if
such advertising is misleading in a material respect."

Mr. Huppert's lawsuit includes prospective class members who are
seeking to recover their actual damages, or $50 for each alleged
violation.  Mr. Huppert is also seeking triple damages and
attorneys fees.

Mr. Huppert is represented by Jeffery I. Carton --
jcarton@denleacarton.com  -- and Robert J. Berg --
rberg@denleacarton.com -- of Denlea & Carton LLP in New York.


HOANG AN: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a cook
has filed a class-action lawsuit against his former Metairie-based
employer over allegations he was not paid overtime wages.

Edgar Colorado filed a complaint on behalf of individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated on Dec. 9 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against the
Hoang An Inc., doing business as Broad & Banks Seafood, and Phuoc
Van Nguyen alleging that they willfully violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that while he
was working for the defendants between March 2006 and September
2016, he did not receive overtime wages.  The plaintiff holds
Hoang An Inc., doing business as Broad & Banks Seafood, and Nguyen
responsible because the defendants allegedly treated him as exempt
from the FLSA's overtime requirements and never paid him overtime
compensation at the rate of one-and-a-half times his hourly rate
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours a workweek.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks an order
certifying this case as a collective action, award for unpaid
wages, plus interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and cost
and such other just and equitable relief.  He is represented by
Roberto Luis Costales and Emily A. Westermeier of The Costales Law
Office in New Orleans and William H. Beaumont of Law Office of
William H. Beaumont in New Orleans.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Case
number 2:16-cv-17017


HYLAND'S INC: Faces Class Action Over Teething Tablets in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP on Jan. 3 disclosed that a teething tablets
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of consumers who purchased
homeopathic remedies that were recently the subject of a U.S. Food
& Drug Administration (FDA) safety warning.  The class action
complaint, which is currently pending in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York, accuses Hyland's Inc., and other
defendants of marketing useless and unsafe teething pills and
gels.  While the FDA's alert resulted in the voluntary withdrawal
of the products from store shelves, plaintiffs say they were never
offered refunds for their purchases. (Case No. 7:16-cv-08687-KMK)

"Our Firm has heard from a number of consumers who believe their
children may have been harmed by homeopathic teething remedies, so
this filing is not surprising.  Our attorneys are investigating
potential legal claims involving injuries that may be associated
with these products, including teething tablets-related seizures
and deaths," says Sandy A. Liebhard, a partner at Bernstein
Liebhard LLP, a nationwide law firm representing victims of
defective drugs and medical devices.  The Firm is now offering
free, no-obligation legal reviews to families who are interested
in pursuing a teething tablets lawsuit on behalf of an injured
child.

FDA Teething Tablets Warnings
In September 2016, the FDA warned parents and caregivers not to
use homeopathic tablets or gels to treat teething pain in infants
and children.  It was subsequently revealed that these products,
which include medications marketed by Hyland's, Baby Orajel
Naturals and others, could be linked to more than 400 adverse
events reported to the agency since 2010, including 10 infant
deaths.  The FDA also noted that the health benefits purportedly
associated with homeopathic teething remedies remain unproven.
Consumers who have purchased these products should seek medical
attention for their child if they experience any of the following
reactions after use:

   -- Difficulty breathing
   -- Lethargy
   -- Excessive sleepiness
   -- Muscle weakness
   -- Skin flushing
   -- Constipation
   -- Difficulty urinating
   -- Agitation

The FDA warning prompted CVS to remove all homeopathic teething
tablets and gels from its store shelves.  Hyland's subsequently
announced that it would stop marketing its teething remedies in
the U.S.  In 2010, the same company announced a teething tablets
recall, after its products were linked to a number of adverse
events typical of belladonna toxicity.  Testing suggested that the
pills contained inconsistent amounts of this ingredient, which can
be poisonous if ingested in large amounts.

On November 24, 2016, Raritan Pharmaceuticals announced a recall
of its homeopathic teething tablets and ear pain liquids after
tests suggested they might also contain varying amounts of
belladonna.  To date, the Raritan medications have not been linked
to any reported injuries.

Children who suffered complications allegedly related to
homeopathic teething medications may be entitled to compensation
for injury-related damages.  To contact a teething tablets lawyer
today, please visit Bernstein Liebhard LLP's website, or call 800-
511-5092 to arrange for a free, no obligation review of your
potential case.

                   About Bernstein Liebhard LLP

Bernstein Liebhard LLP is a New York-based law firm exclusively
representing injured persons in complex individual and class
action lawsuits nationwide since 1993.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Panoramic Sunroof Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Hyundai panoramic sunroof lawsuit will continue after a federal
judge shot down a motion by Hyundai to toss claims made by the
plaintiffs.  The lawsuit alleges the automaker has known about
exploding panoramic sunroofs for years but concealed the defects
from consumers.

Plaintiff Billy Glenn filed the Hyundai exploding sunroof lawsuit
in 2015 after the glass in his 2014 Santa Fe Sport allegedly
exploded and had to be replaced, just for the replacement sunroof
to also shatter.

The plaintiffs include owners from six states who claim Hyundai
ignored consumer complaints so the automaker could make money from
selling the vehicles.  Those models include the 2011-2015 Tucson,
Sonata and Veloster, and the 2013-2015 Santa Fe, Santa Fe Sport
and Elantra GT.

The owners say if they would have known about the exploding
sunroofs, they would not have bought the vehicles, at least not
for the price they paid.

The judge previously threw out some claims concerning unfair
profit but allowed fraud claims to continue.  Hyundai then asked
the judge to whittle down the lawsuit even more by throwing out
claims based on unjust enrichment, a request denied by the court.

Hyundai also argued claims of an owner who said the vehicle was
unmerchantable within the warranty period should be tossed, but
the judge denied the request.

Hyundai, like other automakers, has suffered from the problem of
exploding sunroofs in the past, including in October 2012 when the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration opened an
investigation into exploding sunroofs in the Hyundai Veloster.

In December 2012, Hyundai recalled the Velosters to replace the
sunroofs, blaming the problem on glass that may have been damaged
during mechanical installation at the factory.  Then in February
2013, the recall was expanded to include additional Veloster cars.

The Hyundai panoramic sunroof lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California -- Billy
Glenn v. Hyundai Motor America et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by the Gibbs Law Group LLP, and
Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC.

CarComplaints.com has owner-reported complaints about the Hyundai
vehicles named in the panoramic sunroof lawsuit:

   -- Hyundai Sonata
   -- Hyundai Tucson
   -- Hyundai Veloster
   -- Hyundai Elantra GT
   -- Hyundai Santa Fe


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Judge to Approve Sonata Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Hyundai Sonata class-action lawsuit will receive final approval
after U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman said she sees no
problem with the settlement terms and believes the agreement is
excellent for Sonata owners.

The Hyundai Sonata class-action lawsuit was filed by Elizabeth
Mendoza, who purchased a 2011 Hyundai Sonata in 2012 and by
October 2014, she started hearing a loud knocking noise coming
from the engine.

A dealer told Mendoza the Sonata had a blown piston and the
repairs wouldn't be covered under warranty, leaving her holding
the bill of $4,500.  The plaintiff says she finally had the Theta
II engine replaced by an independent mechanic for $3,000.

The class-action lawsuit alleges Hyundai knew the engines were
failing due to metal debris in the oil damaging the connecting rod
bearings but refused to acknowledge the defects.  The plaintiff
claims a big reason the automaker ignores the problems is because
the engines typically fail after the warranties expire, leaving
owners with the repair costs.

Mentioned in the Sonata class-action lawsuit is a 2015 recall
Hyundai ordered for 2011-2012 Sonata cars to repair engines
problems that could cause engine fires and failures.

The recall included Sonatas with 2-liter and 2.4-liter engines
that were affected by metal debris ruining the connecting rods.
Hyundai said the engine crankshaft is cleaned to remove metallic
debris, but if the debris is not completely removed from the
crankshaft's oil passages, it can be forced into the connecting
rod oiling passages and restrict oil flow to the bearings.

Those bearings are cooled by oil flow and a reduction in the flow
of oil may raise bearing temperatures, increasing the potential of
premature bearing wear.

A worn connecting rod bearing will make a metallic knocking noise
from the engine which increases as the engine rpm increases and
may also result in illumination of the oil pressure light, letting
Sonata owners know there are problems somewhere.  The end result
will be an engine catching on fire or stalling on the road.

The 2011 Hyundai Sonata was the first Hyundai vehicle to use an
engine manufactured in Hyundai's Alabama engine factory.  Hyundai
first used a mechanical deburring process to remove machining
debris from the crankshaft but changed to a high pressure "wet
blast" process to remove metallic debris.

It wasn't long before Hyundai became aware of engine-related
warranty claims after owners complained about loud noises coming
from the engines or about seeing the vehicle's check engine light.

The Sonata class-action lawsuit notes Hyundai initially refused to
recall the cars and finally issued a recall only after pressure
from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The Hyundai Sonata class-action engine lawsuit settlement will
help owners in a few ways.  First, the cars included in the
settlement are 2011-2014 Sonatas equipped with 2-liter or 2.4-
liter Theta II engines.  Second, Hyundai will pay the costs for
repairs or replacements of the Theta II engines and reimburse
owners for rental cars and towing expenses.

Hyundai is also expanding the warranties on the cars from 5
years/60,000 miles to 10 years/120,000 miles, and if the Sonata
has more than 120,000 miles on it, Hyundai will give owners 90
days to get the cars to dealerships for repairs.

Hyundai says it has already spent more than $8.5 million fixing
cars as part of the class-action settlement and expects to pay
much more by the end.

Not everyone is happy with the settlement terms as more than 200
Sonata owners opted out of the agreement so far, leaving those
owners the right to proceed with their own legal options.

The Hyundai Sonata class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California -- Mendoza
v. Hyundai Motor Co. Ltd., et al.

The plaintiffs are represented by the Gibbs Law Group LLP, and
McCuneWright LLP.


ILLINOIS: Class Action Over Autism Medicaid Coverage Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Olsen, writing for The Courier, reports that Kristen Abbott
credited an expensive treatment known as "applied behavior
analysis" therapy for helping keep her daughter's emotional and
intellectual development on a relatively even keel.  And
Ms. Abbott is thankful the therapy has been provided at no out-of-
pocket cost to her the past two years from The Autism Clinic at
Hope Institute for Children and Families.

"She is doing absolutely tremendous," said Ms. Abbott, 27, a
single parent who works full time as a radiologic technologist.
"You can't even tell she has autism."

But because of changes to the state's Medicaid program in central
Illinois that took effect Jan. 1, Schroeder and about a dozen
other Springfield-area children could face more financial barriers
to receiving life-changing ABA therapy, advocates for people with
autism say.

The loss of the state's only Medicaid managed-care plan willing to
pay for ABA therapy is just the latest financial hit for the
Springfield-based Autism Program of Illinois, the parent
organization of the Autism Clinic.

Facing uncertain funding and an ongoing state budget crisis that
cut off services for dozens of Springfield-area children and
hundreds statewide in 2015 and 2016, The Autism Program now is
worried that the recent cutoff of certain Medicaid managed-care
funding will stretch its resources even thinner.

The not-for-profit program will try to continue ABA services for
the dozen or so families that had benefited from the payments
provided by Health Alliance Connect after the Medicaid managed-
care plan stopped operating Jan. 1, according to Leigh Grannan,
Autism Clinic director.

But the Autism Clinic had to stop serving all other Medicaid-
covered clients from August 2015 until October 2016 because of a
lack of state funding related to the budget crisis.  Mr. Grannan
worries that the clinic may be setting up these dozen families for
more disappointment if The Autism Program's state funding isn't
renewed in summer 2017 and the program is forced to make a similar
decision.

Won't pay for it

About half of states require their Medicaid programs to cover ABA
therapy; Illinois does not, though Medicaid managed-care
organizations contracting with the state of Illinois to serve
certain parts of the Medicaid population are free to do so.

Advocates say the General Assembly or Gov. Bruce Rauner should
change state rules or enact a law to require ABA coverage,
regardless of whether payments flow through a managed-care
organization or the traditional Medicaid fee-for-service system.

Advocates add, however, that they know lawmakers and the governor
have been preoccupied with political battles that have prevented
the state from having a permanent overall budget since July 1,
2015.

They point out that Illinois law, similar to laws in more than 40
other states, requires private insurance plans to cover ABA and
other autism-related services. Coverage through self-insured
employers is exempt from the requirement.

"I think Medicaid needs to fund these services," Mr. Grannan said.
"For families who don't have the money to get their own insurance
policies or have insurance coverage, they don't get the No. 1-
recommended treatment."

Urbana-based Health Alliance Connect dropped out of the state's
Medicaid managed-care program effective Jan. 1, citing "financial
losses" from serving Medicaid patients that "are not sustainable."

The other two managed-care companies serving central Illinois
patients, Meridian Health Plan and Molina Healthcare, aren't
paying for ABA therapy, though their state contracts allow them
to.  Officials from The Autism Program (TAP) are working to
persuade Medicaid managed-care groups to cover ABA but aren't
holding out much hope in the near term.

Traditional fee-for-service Medicaid in Illinois also doesn't
cover ABA and many other autism-related services.

Trying to rebuild

TAP's statewide network is trying to rebuild after going 15 months
without the approximately $4.2 million annual state funding that
provided the core of its support, TAP director Russell Bonanno
said.

The network had provided educational, diagnostic and treatment
services in Chicago, Rockford, Springfield, Charleston, Champaign,
Peoria, Mattoon, Maryville and other locations.

"Few centers have been able to return to fiscal 2015 levels of
service due to issues with recruiting replacement staff and
concerns about continued services after June 2017," Mr. Bonanno
said.

More than a dozen people lost their jobs at various TAP sites amid
the cutoff of funding during parts of 2015 and 2016, he said.

A center in Chicago closed and never reopened. Programs funded by
TAP that were offered by other not-for-profit agencies downsized.

TAP recently took over a site in Maryville that a partner agency
closed, and demand for services for children on the "autism
spectrum" through the Maryville clinic has been strong, officials
said.

"The need doesn't go away just because these facilities downsize,
change their hours or close completely," TAP spokesman Christopher
McCloud said.  "People are begging for this type of service."

Indeed, the number of people diagnosed with autism, a
neurodevelopmental disability that can result in communication and
behavior problems, continues to increase.  In the 1970s and '80s,
one out of every 2,000 children in the United States had autism.
One out of every 68 8-year-olds now has an autism-spectrum
disorder, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.

Experts say the increase may be related to better or earlier
testing to diagnose people, as well as an expansion in the
clinical definition of autism.  Environmental factors are being
investigated but haven't been proven to play a role.

Funding uncertainty

State funding for autism began Illinois in 2003, but the money
initially was intended to set up the infrastructure for training
and educational services to assist people with autism and their
families, Mr. Bonanno said.

Funding wasn't used for actual treatment -- which can include ABA
and group therapy -- until 2007, he said.

Advocates hoped state funding would increase to $10 million per
year, in part to make up for the treatment that wasn't being
funded by Medicaid, but that goal never has been reached,
Mr. Bonanno said.

The stopgap spending plan for state government approved in late
June by the Democratic-controlled General Assembly and Gov.
Rauner, a Republican, sent TAP a full year's worth of funding.
That money will carry the organization through June 30, 2017, Mr.
Bonanno said.

But it's been hard to hire staff when long-term funding is
uncertain, he said. Partner agencies have been similarly cautious
in reinstating services.

TAP's Autism Clinic in Springfield has increased its number of
privately insured clients so the clinic isn't so dependent on
state money and can have steady funding to retain the highly
trained staff members who provide ABA and other therapy,
Ms. Grannan said.

Building up the number of clients from low-income families to
previous levels will take a steady stream of revenue through
Medicaid, Ms. Grannan and Mr. Bonanno said.

Several states are taking steps to cover ABA through Medicaid in
response to lawsuits or potential lawsuits, said Michael Wasmer,
director of state government affairs for the advocacy group Autism
Speaks.

A proposed settlement of a class-action lawsuit against the state
by nine Illinois children with mental-health and behavioral
disorders likely would have expanded Medicaid coverage for autism
services, Mr. Wasmer said.

But federal Judge Jorge Alonso of the Northern District of
Illinois rejected the settlement Dec. 20 and ordered both sides to
work out a new agreement or prepare for trial.  Lawyers for both
sides are scheduled to check in with the judge in mid-January.

Asked whether the Rauner administration is interested in requiring
that Illinois Medicaid cover ABA therapy, John Hoffman, spokesman
for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services,
said: "In order to provide more opportunities for other care
options and to more timely make payments on current options,
Democrats in the legislature need to pass a balanced budget with
structural reforms that will protect our most vulnerable for the
long term."

More Medicaid cuts?

State Rep. Greg Harris, D-Chicago, chairman of the House
Appropriations-Human Services Committee, said there would be
interest in the legislature to improve Medicaid coverage for
autism, especially as the number of people affected by the
disorder increases.

He noted, however, that a push in Congress by Republicans to
control Medicaid costs by issuing capped block grants to states
could result in states having to chip in more money to maintain
existing services.

Such a scenario, Mr. Harris said, could lead to more cuts in
Medicaid spending in Illinois and more restrictions on what
services are covered -- making it more difficult for ABA therapy
to be added.

Abbott, the Springfield mother, said state and federal laws should
be changed to ensure all Medicaid plans and all private insurance
plans -- even those that are self-funded -- cover ABA therapy.

Even with subsidies from Springfield's Autism Clinic, Ms. Abbott
would have to start paying $360 per month to continue her
daughter's ABA therapy at two to three hours per day, four days a
week.  The unsubsidized rate is $50 to $125 per hour.

Ms. Abbott can't afford even $360 per month, so she plans to cut
the amount of Finley's therapy in half in 2017 and hope that her
daughter doesn't regress while attending Springfield's Early
Learning Center and preparing for kindergarten in fall 2017.

M.s Abbott has hopes for her child to attend college someday.  The
girl will require ABA therapy for years to come, she said.

"I just want her to be as independent as possible," Ms. Abbott
said.

State and federal support of therapy for children with autism can
help them avoid the need for even more expensive support in
schools and the public aid system as they grow up, she said.

"These kids are very smart and very talented, if they can just get
a little bit of help," she said.


INNOVATION VENTURES: Cert. of Classes Sought in 5-Hour Energy MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cody Soto, William Forrest, Michael Casey, David Ellis, Ilya
Podobedov, Donna Thompson, and Marc Adler, plaintiffs in the
multidistrict litigation against Innovation Ventures LLC, et al.,
and captioned IN RE: 5-HOUR ENERGY MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES
LITIGATION, Case No. 2:13-ml-02438-PSG-PLA (C.D. Cal.), move the
Court for an order certifying these six classes defined as:

   1. All persons who purchased 5-hour ENERGY products, which
      include 5-hour ENERGY(R), 5-hour ENERGY(R) Decaf, and
      5-hour ENERGY Extra Strength, on or after March 1, 2008 in
      California;

   2. All persons who purchased 5-hour ENERGY products, which
      include 5-hour ENERGY(R), 5-hour ENERGY(R) Decaf, and
      5-hour ENERGY(R) Extra Strength, on or after March 1, 2008
      in Missouri;

   3. All persons who purchased 5-hour ENERGY products, which
      include 5-hour ENERGY(R), 5-hour ENERGY(R) Decaf, and
      5-hour ENERGY(R) Extra Strength, on or after March 1, 2008
      in New Mexico;

   4. All persons who purchased 5-hour ENERGY products, which
      include 5-hour ENERGY(R), 5-hour ENERGY(R) Decaf, and
      5-hour ENERGY(R) Extra Strength, on or after March 1, 2008
      in New Jersey;

   5. All persons who purchased 5-hour ENERGY products, which
      include 5-hour ENERGY(R), 5-hour ENERGY(R) Decaf, and
      5-hour ENERGY(R) Extra Strength, on or after March 1, 2008
      in New York; and

   6. All persons who purchased 5-hour ENERGY products, which
      include 5-hour ENERGY(R), 5-hour ENERGY(R) Decaf, and
      5-hour ENERGY(R) Extra Strength, on or after March 1, 2008
      in Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives, and appoint Bursor & Fisher, P.A. and Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on March 27, 2017, at 1:30 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Notice of Motion and Motion is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7U8JRiyX

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
          Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  jsmith@bursor.com
                  apersinger@bursor.com
                  ykrivoshey@bursor.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Bursor, 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

               - and -

          Barbara A. Rohr, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256-2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256-4885
          E-mail: brohr@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy J. Peter, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 277-5770
          Facsimile: (215) 277-5771
          E-mail: tpeter@faruqilaw.com


INT'L BANK: Can File Motion to Compel Arbitration, Court Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ezra L. Finkle, Esq., of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, in
an article for Mondaq, reports that companies and other business
entities often use arbitration agreements to protect themselves
from class action liability.  The Fifth Circuit allows employers
to file Motions to Compel Arbitration as to individual plaintiffs
early on in the class formation process.  In Reyna v.
International Bank of Commerce, the Fifth Circuit held that an
employer could file a Motion to Compel Arbitration before a class
is conditionally certified.

In Reyna, the plaintiff, Carlos Reyna, brought an action on his
behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals
against his former employer, International Bank of Commerce
("IBC"), contending that his employer violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") by failing to pay proper overtime rates.
IBC moved to compel arbitration of Reyna's claims.  The district
court denied the motion concluding it could not consider the
applicability of any arbitration agreement until later in the
certification process for an FLSA collective action.  IBC filed an
interlocutory appeal, arguing that the district court erred in
denying its motion to compel arbitration.  The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's denial
of IBC's motion to compel arbitration.

IBC employed Reyna as a bank teller from July 2012 through August
2013. Reyna alleged, in his FLSA claim, that IBC paid him only "a
rate of one-half time his regular rate," rather than the "premium
overtime pay at a rate of not less than one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay.  He brought his claim as a collective action
under the FLSA.  Such collective actions usually proceed in two
stages, a conditional certification stage and a final
certification stage.  IBC moved to dismiss Reyna's complaint or,
in the alternative, compel arbitration, strike claims, and stay or
dismiss the proceeding.  IBC argued that Reyna agreed to be bound
by IBC's dispute resolution policy which provided the exclusive
remedy for challenging employment actions and was a four step
grievance process.  The policy did not mention FLSA collective
actions but did provide that an employee could bring class actions
only upon the agreement of all parties.  The policy contained a
designation clause giving the arbitrator "the exclusive authority"
to both "determine the arbitrability of any dispute" and "resolve
any dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability,
enforceability or formation" of the policy.

IBC filed its motion to compel arbitration based on the policy's
language. IBC further argued that arbitration should be done on an
individual basis because both parties did not consent to bringing
the claim as a collective action.  Reyna opposed the motion
arguing that "in collective action suits brought under the FLSA,
courts rule on first-stage conditional certification and notice
before ruling on the validity and enforceability of any purported
arbitration agreement."  The district court denied IBC's motion,
agreeing with Reyna that "at this stage [of the litigation] the
only issue is whether the plaintiff is similarly situated to
potential class members so that notice should be authorized."  The
district court declined to address whether Reyna should be
compelled to arbitrate his claim because the question of whether
IBC's policy required arbitration is a "merits-based argument'
that should not be addressed until "the second stage" of the FLSA
collective action litigation.

The Fifth Circuit reversed, rejecting Reyna's argument that courts
typically delay consideration of the arbitrability of a claim
until after conditional certification is granted.  The Fifth
Circuit reasoned that to hold otherwise would present a
justiciability issue -- a court could conditionally certify a
collective action solely on the basis of a claim that the
plaintiff was bound to arbitrate and was therefore barred from
bringing it to court in the first place.

Additionally, the Fifth Circuit cited the "national policy
favoring arbitration" embodied by the Federal Arbitration Act in
reversing the district court.  The Fifth Circuit held that, upon a
motion to compel arbitration, a district court should address the
arbitrability of a plaintiffs' claim at the outset of litigation.
Compelling arbitration before conditional certification of a class
more closely aligns with the national policy favoring arbitration.

Case:   Reyna v. International Bank of Commerce
United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal
No. 16-40057 (5th Cir. Oct. 20, 2016).


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Court Certifies Class in Securities Case
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit re: Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation, Case
No. 5:13-cv-01920-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Edward J. Davila
entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of:

      "all persons or entities who purchased or acquired the
      publicly traded common stock of Intuitive Surgical, Inc.
      during the period from February 6, 2012 through July 18,
      2013, inclusive, and who were damaged,"

   2. appointing Lead plaintiffs Employees' Retirement System of
      the State of Hawaii and Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters'
      Pension Fund as Class Representatives; and

   3. appointing law firm of Labaton Sucharow LLP as class
      counsel.

Excluded from the class are (i) all Defendants; (ii) members of
the immediate families of individual defendants Guthart, Mohr, and
Smith; (iii) any subsidiaries and affiliates of Defendants; (iv)
any person who is or was an officer or director of Intuitive or
any of Intuitive's subsidiaries of affiliates; (v) Defendants'
directors' and officers' liability insurance carriers, and any
affiliates or subsidiaries thereof; (vi) Intuitive's employee
retirement and benefit plan(s); and (vii) the legal
representatives, heirs, successors and assigns of any such
excluded person or entity.

Intuitive is a biomedical corporation that designs, manufactures,
and sells da Vinci Surgical Systems (da Vinci), a robotic surgical
system that uses computer technology to allow
surgeons to remotely operate through a small tube inside the
patient.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=B3XHbxxP


IOWA: Student Funding Formula Class Action Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Jim Niedelman, writing for OurQuadCities.com, reports that one
thing you shouldn't expect to see in the next Iowa legislative
session is gridlock.

That's an Illinois issue.

The big reason is Republicans will control both the State House
and State Senate along with the governor's mansion.  There's
virtually no threat of a veto from the governor.

Expect the Republican agenda to include proposals for tax cuts,
legalizing retail fireworks, funding water quality projects and
banning traffic cameras to name a few.

Governor Terry Branstad will present his final budget on January
tenth.

Of course, no issue is more important or divisive every year than
the state's spending plan and, within that, the money allocated
for education.  Any tax cuts could certainly impact spending on
schools.

All of these proposals are bound to generate some interesting and
perhaps heated debate at times.

In the end, Republicans have the path to get their way if they
stay united.  All of this points to an interesting and important
legislative session.

The first day for lawmakers is coming soon on January ninth.

Two people who will be in the mix in Des Moines are Democratic
State Representative Phyllis Thede of Scott County and Republican
State Senator-elect Mark Lofgren representing Muscatine County.

Both of them shared their expectations for the upcoming
legislative session during an appearance on 4 the Record.

Iowa's legislature has not lived up to its duty in recent years.

Lawmakers are supposed to adopt two-year education budgets.

Both Ms. Thede and Mr. Lofgren say they expect the spending on
education number to be reached early in the session.  Mr. Lofgren
went so far to say the first few days.

Republicans and Democrats from Iowa have told 4 the Record with
over the last two years they agree that the student funding
formula needs to be modernized.  Yet, time has passed and we
haven't had agreement.

This is a very sensitive issue in Davenport specifically.

Both admit being concerned about the imbalance that difference
districts deal with when it comes to state funding from the
formula.  However, neither is certain much will change this
legislative session.

A couple of Davenport High School graduates are the named
plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit filed by a local law firm to
fight the student formula.

They're suing the state legislature, the state department of
education's director and the governor.

Ms. Thede and Mr. Lofgren discussed what kind of pressure this
puts on lawmakers to get something done.


J.M. HOLM: "Arredendo" Suit Seeks Certification of Painters Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Jose Arrendo, the Plaintiff, v. J.M. Holm
& Co., Inc., and Todd Nelms, individually, the Defendants, Case
No. 4:16-cv-01317 (S.D. Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to
conditionally certify a conditional class of:

   "all current and former painters and laborers employed by
   Defendant J.M. Holm & Co., Inc., who worked more than 40 hours
   per week from May 10, 2013 to present."

The Parties ask the Court to approve the notice to be sent to all
members of the Class and that putative class members be given 45
days from the receipt of notice to opt-in to the collective
action.

The Plaintiff filed the case to recover unpaid overtime ages,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees allegedly owed to them and
other similarly situated employees under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WnxhSw7S

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patricia Haylon, Esq.
          Mark Siurek, Esq.
          WARREN & STUREK, L.L.P.
          3334 Richmond, Suite 100
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713) 522 0066
          Facsimile: (713) 522 9977
          E-mail: thaylon@warrensiurek.com
                  msiurek@warrensiurek.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark D. Temple, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          811 Main Street, Suite 1700
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 469 3800
          Facsimile: (713) 469 3899
          E-mail: mtemple@reedsmith.com


JAY PEAK: Daccache Seeks Certification of Investors Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled ALEXANDRE DACCACHE, CARLOS ENRIQUE HILLER
SANCHEZ, PHILIP CALDERWOOD, JOSE ANTONIO PIETRI, JOSE R. CASSERES-
PINTO, TONGYI WANG, JAMES B. SHAW, JOHANNES EIJMBERTS, and LORNE
MORRIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., PEOPLE'S
UNITED FINANCIAL, INC., as successor-in-interest to Chittenden
Trust Company, PEOPLE'S UNITED BANK, ARIEL QUIROS, WILLIAM
STENGER, and JOEL BURSTEIN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
21575-FAM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs move to certify a class of:

   "837 foreign investors, each of whom invested $500,000 in one
   of eight Jay Peak Limited Partnerships through the federal EB-
   5 Immigrant Investor Program".

The Plaintiffs seek to recover the Jay Peak investors' losses
through this class action lawsuit, and to certify a class of all
investors under Rule 23. The proposed Class comprises investors
who reside in Europe, Asia, India, the Middle East, Australia, and
the Americas, including the United States, where investors reside
in more than forty different states. The number of class members
well exceeds the Eleventh Circuit's minimum requirement, and
joinder of such a large group of investors dispersed worldwide
would be impracticable.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul Aiello, Esq.
          Michael P. Bennett, Esq.
          Jeremy R. Kreines, Esq.
          BENNETT AIELLO
          The Ingraham Building, Eighth Floor
          25 Southeast Second Avenue
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358 9011
          Facsimile: (305) 358 9012
          E-mail: paiello@bennettaiello.com
                  mbennett@bennettaiello.com
                  jkreines@bennettaiello.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Esq.
          Harley S. Tropin, Esq.
          Dyanne E. Feinberg
          Rachel Sullivan, Esq.
          Maia Aron, Esq.
          Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN &
          THROCKMORTON LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 372 1800
          Facsimile: (305) 372 3508
          E-mail: tr@kttlaw.com
                  hst@kttlaw.com
                  def@kttlaw.com
                  rs@kttlaw.com
                  ma@kttlaw.com
                  tjl@kttlaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981 4800
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
                  aep@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Kathleen M. Donovan-Maher, Esq.
          Steven Buttacavoli, Esq.
          Mark A. Delaney, Esq.
          Nathaniel L. Orenstein, Esq.
          BERMAN DEVALERIO
          One Liberty Square
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 542 8300
          Facsimile: (617) 542 1194
          E-mail: kdonovanmaher@bermandevalerio.com
                  sbuttacavoli@bermandevalerio.com
                  mdelaney@bermandevalerio.com
                  norenstein@bermandevalerio.com


JENNINGS LINDSAY: July 7 Hearing on Franco Class Cert. Bid Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled NICHOLAS FRANCO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
JENNINGS LINDSAY & LUCKMAN, LLC dba JENNINGS LAW FIRM, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-01944-R-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
will move the Court on July 7, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., before the
Hon. Manuel L. Real of the United States District Court, Central
District of California, for an order to certify the following
classes:

   "all persons within the United States, outside the state of
   California, who received collection letters from Defendant
   falsely implying that said persons would be subject to legal
   action, where Defendant had no intention of taking such
   action"; and

   "all persons in the state of California, who received
   collection letters from Defendant falsely implying that said
   persons would be subject to legal action, where Defendant had
   no intention of taking such action".

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

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uDyCe9Ob

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JET'S AMERICA: Placeholder Motion for Class Certification Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled APB ASSOCIATES, INC., a Michigan
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. JET'S AMERICA, INC.,
a Michigan corporation, DJ HILL, JENNIFER HILL, STEVEN WEISBERG
and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 2:17-cv-10001-DML-RSW (E.D. Mich.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to grant its placeholder motion for
class certification and brief in support.

The Plaintiff files the "placeholder" motion for class
certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a
tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent
a case from proceeding to a decision on class certification by
attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the
plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.

The Plaintiff further asks to appoint Plaintiff as the class
representative, and appoint Plaintiff's attorneys as class
counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JOHN D. BRADSHAW: May 31 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Phillip J. Green entered an order in the lawsuit styled
LISA J. COLLISON, the Plaintiff, v. JOHN D. BRADSHAW, P.C., et
al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00270-PJG (W.D. Mich.),
granting plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
a class action settlement; and conditionally certifying for
settlement purposes only, this Settlement Class:

     "all persons with addresses in the State of Michigan to
     whom the defendants sent collection letters, during the
     period March 1, 2015, through March 1, 2016, seeking to
     charge a $4.00 convenience fee for the processing of
     electronic transactions made to the defendants in
     defendants' attempt to collect a debt purportedly incurred
     for personal, family, or household purposes".

For settlement purposes only, the Plaintiff Lisa Collison is
appointed as Class Representative, and Brian Parker, Esq. and
Nicholas A. Reyna, Esq. are appointed as Class Counsel.

A final approval hearing shall be held before the Court on May 31,
2017, at 2:00 p.m., at the United States Courthouse, U.S. District
for the Western District of Michigan.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1HJSCLrj

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Parker, Esq.
          2000 Town Center, Suite 1900
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: (248) 642 6268

               - and -

          Nicholas A. Reyna, Esq.
          528 Bridge Street, NW
          Grand Rapids, MI 49504
          Telephone: (616) 235 4444

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kathleen H. Klaus, Esq.
          MADDIN, HAUSER,
          ROTH & HELLER, P.C.
          28400 Northwestern Highway, 2nd Floor
          Southfield, Michigan 48034
          Telephone: (248) 359 7520

JP SPORTS: Settlement in "Davis" Suit Wins Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MEGAN DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JP SPORTS
COLLECTIBLES INC., JOHN E. PEERY and JOLEAN PEERY, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00154-CM (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Carol Mirando
entered an order:

   1. granting joint motion for approval of Settlement;

   2. approving Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release between
      Plaintiff, Opt-In Plaintiffs, and Defendants as a fair and
      reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute under the Fair
      Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

   3. denying as moot Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify
      FLSA collective action and facilitate notice to potential
      class members and incorporated memorandum of Law;

   4. denying as moot Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment;

   5. directing Plaintiff to pay the filing fee, out of the
      recovery of her costs, within 10 days from the date of the
      Order, because Plaintiff was granted permission to proceed
      in forma pauperis in this matter; and

   6. dismissing the action with prejudice, and directing the
      Clerk to close the file.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Vi6TMA4O

The Court said, "As part of their settlement, Ms. Davis will
receive $2,000.00 for her FLSA claims as back wages and liquidated
damages; Ms. Schofield will receive $800.00 for her FLSA claims as
back wages and liquidated damages; Mr. Brandt will receive
$1,000.00 for his FLSA claims as back wages and liquidated
damages. The Plaintiffs' counsel will receive $7,650.00, which
represents attorneys' fees in the amount of $6,828.16 and costs in
the amount of $821.84 in this matter. Each Plaintiff will receive
an additional $100 as consideration for the individual general
releases. Because this compensation is separate and apart from the
benefits to which each Plaintiff is entitled under the FLSA, the
Court finds that this provision does not render the agreement
unfair or unreasonable."


LA TAN: Class Action Over Customer Fingerprints Settled
-------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Knoll, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that
attorneys are calling a settlement with L.A. Tan Enterprises
a-first-of-its-kind regarding the collection and storage of the
fingerprints of its customers.

In the case Sekura v. L.A. Tan Enterprises Inc., Klaudia Sekura,
on behalf of nearly 37,000 class members, alleged that for a
three-year period stretching from 2013 to the summer of 2016, L.A.
Tan salons stored customer fingerprints that were gathered for
membership ID purposes and released them to SunLync, a third-party
vendor from New York that designs and operates tanning salon
management software.

All of this occurred, the suit claimed, without members receiving
any data retention policy statement from the individual franchises
as allegedly required by the state's Biometric Information Privacy
Act (BIPA).

According to Edelson PC, the firm representing the plaintiff, this
is the first court settlement involving Illinois' BIPA law. The
settlement was reached in Cook County Circuit Court.

International Biometrics & Identity Association Vice Chairman
Walter Hamilton explains that biometric data is much more
inherently protected than personally identifiable information.

"Biometric data is typically derived from the original image (or
raw data) that is collected from a sensor (such as the image of a
fingerprint pattern) and is then converted into a 'template'
through a process called feature extraction," Mr. Hamilton said.

This template consists of turning the image into a series of
numbers, which do not reveal any "identifying information about a
person."  The numbers are applied to an algorithm that varies from
vendor to vendor, thus making the broad use of stolen data
increasingly hard to access outside the proprietary source vendor.

Any attempt to reverse-engineer the biometric data is all but
impossible.

"Since a significant majority of the raw data is discarded during
the feature extraction process," Mr. Hamilton said.

Most litigation involving stolen identification data involves
personally identifiable information, such as Social Security cards
and PIN numbers.

In fact, he states that the only example he can recall of
biometric data being swiped was "the hacking of government
personnel files at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) where
fingerprint images were stolen (in addition to other personal
data) on millions of government workers and contractors."

In that case, the data could have been used because no template
was used to cipher the primary image.

In April, Ms. Sekura filed another class action suit, this time
targeting Krishna Schaumburg Tan, one of L.A. Tan's franchisees in
Chicago, for similar reasons as the L.A. Tan case.

While the L.A. Tan suit did not allege that L.A. Tan Enterprises
or its franchises improperly used the biometric data, it did claim
that the company failed to fully comply with BIPA statutes, which
state that customers be told in writing that their biometric data
was being gathered for a specific reason and for a stated period
of time it would be stored and shared amongst the franchises.

In addition to this "legal first," Mr. Hamilton told Legal
Newsline that BIPA's focus on biometric data was quite unique
throughout the 50 states.

For Ms. Sekura, who had been a member of the salon since 2006, her
main concern was her privacy and the protection of her private
biometric data.  As an example, Ms. Sekura expressed alarm at what
might have happened to her data if the company went bankrupt.

Her concern was noted in the L.A. Tan suit which referenced the
2007 bankruptcy of a biometric information firm that had worked
with Illinois businesses and resulted in the BIPA law.

Ms. Sekura stated that nearly 65 percent of L.A. Tan salons were
in foreclosure, causing her "mental anguish and injury when
thinking about what would happen to her biometric data if Krishna
Tan goes bankrupt" and refused to erase the data.

Hamilton agreed with Ms. Sekura that a disclosure statement and
informed consent was lacking and should have been addressed by
L.A. Tan Enterprises.  Any company using biometric data is best
advised, Hamilton said, to encrypt the data "when stored or when
transmitted and accessed" and follow personally identifiable
information procedures at a minimum.

Judge Rodolfo Garcia approved a settlement between the plaintiffs
and the corporate parent of the franchises and awarded the
plaintiffs $1.5 million -- $600,000 of which will go to the
attorneys for the plaintiffs and $5,000 to suit representative Ms.
Sekura.

In a press release issued by L.A. Tan Enterprises, the company
said it "denies any wrongdoing and maintains that it has not
violated any laws.  The settlement does not establish who is
correct, but rather is a compromise to end the lawsuit and avoid
the uncertainties and expenses associated with ongoing
litigation."

Paul Karlsgodt -- pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com -- a lawyer for the
defendant and from the Baker Hostetler law firm in Chicago, was
contacted by Legal Newsline but declined to comment on the
settlement or the case.


LANNETT CO: Rochester Drug Alleges Levothyroxine Price-Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROCHESTER DRUG CO-OPERATIVE, INC., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LANNETT COMPANY, INC.,
MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., SANDOZ, INC., and NOVARTIS AG,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-06671-CMR (E.D. Pa., December 28,
2016), concerns an alleged anticompetitive conspiracy among
Defendants to raise, fix, and maintain prices, allocate markets,
and/or rig bids for generic levothyroxine.

The Defendants are pharmaceutical companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
     Eric C. Burns, Esq.
     NASTLAW LLC
     1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     Phone: 215-923-9300
     Fax: 215-923-9302
     E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com
             eburns@nastlaw.com

        - and -

     David F. Sorensen, Esq.
     Nick Urban, Esq.
     Zachary D. Caplan, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, PC
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 875-3000
     Fax: (215) 875-4604
     E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net
             nurban@bm.net
             zcaplan@bm.net

        - and -

     Peter Kohn, Esq.
     Joseph T. Lukens, Esq.
     101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600
     Jenkintown, PA 19046
     Phone: (215) 277-5770
     Fax: (215) 277-5771
     E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com
             jlukens@faruqilaw.com

        - and -

     Barry S Taus, Esq.
     Kevin Landau, Esq.
     Archana Tamoshunas, Esq.
     TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
     80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
     New York, NY 10038
     Phone: (212) 931-0704
     E-mail: btaus@tcllaw.com
             atamoshunas@tcllaw.com


LEASE FINANCE: Le May Refile Bid to Certify Class, Court Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lance M. Africk dismissed without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' motion to certify class filed in the lawsuit captioned
HA THI LE, ET AL. v. LEASE FINANCE GROUP, LLC, ET AL., Case No.
2:16-cv-14867-LMA-KWR (E.D. La.).

Judge Africk ruled that the Plaintiffs may re-file the Motion no
later than 10 days after all the Defendants have filed an answer
in the matter.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mdMZ75F1


LIFE INSURANCE: Seamen File Class Action Over Disability Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that two
seamen allege that a plan administrator improperly reduced their
disability benefits and have filed a class-action suit.

Rusty Norman and Weyman Maxon, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a complaint on Dec. 13 in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against
Life Insurance Co. of North America citing the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs worked for employers
that issued policies through the defendant.  They allege the
defendant improperly reduced the benefits they were owed.  The
plaintiffs allege that due to defendant's unlawful actions, they
suffered monetary losses for not receiving the full amount of
benefits due under the long-term disability plan.  The plaintiffs
hold Life Insurance Co. of North America responsible because the
defendant allegedly improperly reduced plaintiffs' disability
benefits by offsetting maintenance paid under the general maritime
law.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek an order
certifying this as class action, appointing plaintiffs as class
representative and their counsel as class counsel, award for
monetary damages, attorney's fees and costs and such other
equitable relief.  They are represented by Philip Bohrer and Scott
Brady of Bohrer Brady LLC in Baton Rouge and Dennis M. O'Bryan of
O'Bryan Baun Karamanian in Birmingham, Michigan.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Case
number 2:16-cv-17271


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Faces "Mukamal" Suit in S.D. of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lincoln National
Life Insurance Company. The case is captioned as Barry Mukamal, as
Trustee of the Mutual Benefits Keep Policy Trust, and Milgram
Investments, LP, a New Jersey limited partnership, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, an Indiana corporation,
and Lincoln National Corporation, an Indiana corporation, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-25302-JEM (S.D. Fla., Dec. 22, 2016).
The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Jose E. Martinez.

Lincoln National provides insurance services. The Company focuses
on life insurance, annuities, accident, health, dental, accident,
critical illness, group benefits, individual and group retirement
plans. The Company serves customers in the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Gail Ann McQuilkin, Esq.
          Robert J Neary, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON
          2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 900
          Coral Gables, FL 33134-6036
          Telephone: (305) 372 1800
          Facsimile: (305) 372 3508
          E-mail: AMM@kttlaw.com
                  gam@kttlaw.com
                  rn@kttlaw.com

               - and -

          Howard Mitchell Bushman, Esq.
          Lance August Harke, Esq.
          Sarah Clasby Engel, Esq.
          HARKE CLASBY & BUSHMAN LLP
          9699 NE Second Avenue
          Miami Shores, FL 33138
          Telephone: (305) 536 8220
          Facsimile: (305) 536 8229
          E-mail: hbushman@harkeclasby.com
                  lharke@harkeclasby.com
                  sengel@harkeclasby.com

               - and -

          William F. Merlin, Jr., Esq.
          MERLIN LAW GROUP PA
          777 S Harbor Island Boulevard, Suite 950
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 229 1000
          Facsimile: (813) 229 3692
          E-mail: cmerlin@merlinlawgroup.com


LUNADA BAY BOYS: Certification of Surfers Class Sought
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CORY SPENCER, an individual; DIANA MILENA
REED, an individual; and COASTAL PROTECTION RANGERS, INC., a
California non-profit public benefit corporation, the Plaintiffs,
v. LUNADA BAY BOYS; THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE LUNADA BAY BOYS,
including but not limited to SANG LEE, BRANT BLAKEMAN, ALAN
JOHNSTON AKA JALIAN JOHNSTON, MICHAEL RAE PAPAYANS,
ANGELO FERRARA, FRANK FERRARA, CHARLIE FERRARA, and N. F.; CITY OF
PALOS VERDES ESTATES; CHIEF OF POLICE JEFF KEPLEY, in his
representative capacity; and DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-02129-SJO-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the
Court on February 17, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. before the Hon. Judge S.
James Otero, United States District Court, for an order to certify
a class of:

   "thousands of people who have been, and continue to be denied,
   access to Lunada Bay".

There are over 3,000,000 surfers in the United States, an
estimated 1,000,000 surfers in Southern California, and an
estimated 238,000,000 visitor days to California's beaches each
year. But due to localism, fewer than 100 surfers regularly use
Lunada Bay without being harassed.

Lunada Bay is a City-owned beach purportedly open to the public.
In addition to its striking views, Lunada Bay is known around the
world for good surf. Lunada Bay's waves often reach as high as
15 to 20 feet during prime season. Lunada Bay can host a barreling
right-breaking, rock-reef point-break type wave and hold a large
swell.

Each of the Individual Defendants is a member of the Lunada Bay
Boys gang. Like other gangs, they protect their "turf" from
outsiders. And, they use secrecy as they conspire to guard their
territory. To protect "their" beach they use fear, violence, and
intimidation. Supported by neighbors and police with whom they
grew up, they use behavior learned from the "older boys" who "made
up the rules [and] term[s] of engagement" decades ago. Because it
has the likeminded intent on keeping the City of Palos Verdes
Estates ("City") exclusive "to protect this utopian landscape and
future property values" consistent with the local
Palos Verdes Homes Association, for more than 40 years the City
has not taken action against the Bay Boys. But for visiting
beachgoers, Lunada Bay is far from "utopia."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1mdKlnfV

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kurt A. Franklin, Esq.
          Samantha Wolff, Esq.
          Jennifer Aniko Foldvary, Esq.
          HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
          425 Market Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 777 3200
          Facsimile: (415) 541 9366
          E-mail: kfranklin@hansonbridgett.com
                  swolff@hansonbridgett.com
                  jfoldvary@hansonbridgett.com

               - and -

          Tyson M. Shower, Esq.
          Landon D. Bailey, Esq.
          HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
          500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1500
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 442-3333
          Facsimile: (916) 442-2348
          E-mail: tshower@hansonbridgett.com
                  lbailey@hansonbridgett.com

               - and -

          Victor Otten, Esq.
          Kavita Tekchandani, Esq.
          OTTEN LAW, PC
          3620 Pacific Coast Highway, #100
          Torrance, CA 90505
          Telephone: (310) 378-8533
          Facsimile: (310) 347-4225
          E-mail: vic@ottenlawpc.com
                  kavita@ottenlawpc.com


MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Court Certifies Class in "Hayes" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jon S. Tigar certifies the class proposed in the lawsuit
titled RICHARD HAYES, et al., v. MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR CORP., et
al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01160-JST (N.D. Cal.), but imposes a March
11, 2014 end date for the Class Period.

The Court appoints Keith Thomas and Herb Smith as class
representatives, and Pomerantz, LLP and the Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
as class counsel.

In their motion, the Plaintiffs seek to certify this class:

     all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired MagnaChip
     Semiconductor Corporation ("MagnaChip" or the "Company")
     common stock between February 1, 2012 and February 12, 2015
     (the "Class Period"), inclusive. Excluded from the Class are
     any parties who are or have been Defendants in this
     litigation, the present and former officers and directors of
     MagnaChip and any subsidiary thereof, members of their
     immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs,
     successors or assigns and any entity in which any current or
     former Defendant has or had a controlling interest.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Cdnfb4qz


MCKEE FOOD: Judge Denies Bid to Certify Distributors Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned BRIAN MARTIN, the Plaintiff v. MCKEE FOOD
CORPORATION ET AL., the Defendant, Case No. 8:15-cv-00732-AG-JCG
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Andrew J. Guilford entered an order:

   1. denying McKee's motion for judgment on the pleadings;

   2. denying Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of

      "all current and former distributors of McKee Products in
      the state of California within the applicable statute of
      limitations"; and

   3. vacating Defendant's two motions to deny class
      certification.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=L3yiDgsI

The Plaintiffs allege that around 250 McKee Distributors
were misclassified as "independent contractors," and that they
were actually employees because of the level of control McKee had
over them.

The Court said, "Plaintiffs point to a policy, training materials,
and declarations to establish commonality. Although there is an
agreement policy that all Distributors have signed with McKee, the
policy does not provide common evidence of potential
misclassification. The policy states that the parties intend to
create an independent contractor relationship between them and
that nothing in the contract should be construed to be
inconsistent with that relationship. The remaining clauses of the
contract discuss topics such as any insurance that the Distributor
must carry, whether Distributors are entitled to return products
they cannot sell, and how Distributors must pay McKee for product
shipments."

According to Guilford, the Plaintiffs' argument that Distributors
were trained and were thus controlled and employed by McKee is
also insufficient for establishing commonality. Many Distributors
have stated that they increased profits by exercising their
freedom to conduct business different from McKee's suggestions.
Martin has also testified that he never received employment-
related training. Plaintiffs also ask the Court to consider the
fact that McKee created a Power Point Presentation to train its
District Sales Representatives (DSRs) on handling Distributor
relationships. But this Power Point is not evidence that DSRs were
trained to control Distributors. It instead instructs DSRs on how
to define and recognize issues, gather information, and find
solutions.

"Dissimilarities within the proposed class are what have the
potential to impede the generation of common answers," and there
are many dissimilarities within the proposed class here, Judge
Guilford said.

Judge Guilford noted that the Supreme Court stated in Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 348 (2011), that "[w]ithout
some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those [employment]
decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination
of all the class members' claims for relief will produce a common
answer to [class members'] crucial question why was I disfavored."
Similarity, there is no glue holding the allegations here together
to answer the crucial question were the Distributors
misclassified, he said.


METLIFE INC: March 9 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Scott+Scott, Attorneys
at Law, LLP regarding the MetLife, Inc. CEU Securities Litigation:

TO:  ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED COMMON EQUITY
UNITS ISSUED BY METLIFE INC. ("METLIFE"), $75.00 STATED VALUE
("CEUs") (ticker symbol "MLU"),  IN OR TRACEABLE TO METLIFE'S
PUBLIC OFFERING OF CEUs BETWEEN MARCH 3, 2011 AND JULY 5, 2012,
BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), AND WHO WERE DAMAGED
THEREBY (THE "CLASS").

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT.  IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION.  PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on March 9,
2017, at 9:30 a.m., before the Honorable Elisabeth French, Circuit
Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, at the Jefferson County
Courthouse, Room 610, 716 Richard Arrington Jr. Blvd. North,
Birmingham, Alabama 35203, to determine whether: (1) the proposed
settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned action
("Action") for $9,750,000 in cash should be approved by the Court
as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) the Final Judgment as
provided under the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
("Stipulation") should be entered, dismissing the Amended Class
Action Complaint filed in the Action on the merits and with
prejudice; (3) the release by the Class of the Released Claims, as
set forth in the Stipulation, should be provided to the Released
Defendants' Parties; (4) this Action satisfies the applicable
prerequisites for class action treatment, solely for purposes of
the Settlement, under Rule 23 of the Alabama Rules of Civil
Procedure and Alabama Code 1975 Secs. 6-5-540 through 542; (5) to
award Plaintiff's Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the
Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Proposed Settlement
of Class Action ("Notice"), referenced below); (6) to grant
Plaintiff's requests for an incentive or service award in
connection with its role in prosecuting this action on behalf of
the Class out of the Settlement Fund; and (7) the Plan of
Allocation should be approved by the Court.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED METLIFE CEUs DURING THE PERIOD MARCH
3, 2011 AND JULY 5, 2012, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS
PERIOD"), YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS
ACTION.

To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim to the
address below, postmarked on or before April 6, 2017.  Your
failure to submit your Proof of Claim by April 6, 2017 will
subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of
the recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Action.  If
you are a Member of the Class and do not request exclusion
therefrom, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment
and release entered in the Action, including, but not limited to,
the Final Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim.

If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement), or a Proof of
Claim form, you may obtain these documents (as well as a copy of
the Stipulation, which contains the complete terms of the
Settlement and the definitions of all capitalized defined terms
used in this Summary Notice) online at
www.metlifeCEUsecuritieslitigation.com, or by writing to:

          MetLife, Inc. CEU Securities Litigation Settlement
          c/o KCC Class Action Services
          P.O. Box 30248
          College Station, TX 77842-3248
          Telephone:  (877) 368-9232

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.  Inquiries, other than requests for a copy of
the Notice or Proof of Claim form, may be made to Plaintiff's
Counsel:

          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          William C. Fredericks
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169-1820
          Telephone: (212) 223-6444
          Facsimile: (212) 223-6334

          SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
          Geoffrey M. Johnson
          12434 Cedar Road, Suite 12
          Cleveland Heights, OH  44106
          Telephone:  (216) 229-6088
          Facsimile:  (216) 229-6092

IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION BY FEBRUARY 16, 2017 IN THE MANNER AND FORM
EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.  ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS WHO HAVE NOT
REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT
ENTERED IN THE ACTION EVEN IF THEY DO NOT FILE A TIMELY PROOF OF
CLAIM.

This Notice has been authorized by Order dated December 7, 2016 of
the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama (the Hon. Elisabeth
French, J.).


METROPOLITAN MUSEUM: March 14 Hearing on Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
By virtue of an Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, a
hearing to consider approval of the admission claims class action
settlement will be held before the Supreme Court, New York County,
on March 14, 2017 in Courtroom 228, 60 Centre Street, New York, NY
10007.

The parties have agreed to a proposed settlement under which the
Museum -- without any concession, finding of wrongdoing, or
agreement regarding the adequacy or inadequacy of the current
disclosures -- will revise its signs, website, and other
disclosures of its "pay what you wish" admission fee policy. No
money will be paid to class members, and no adjudication of any
claims for money damages they may have will occur.

Any class member may present objections to the Settlement. The
Settlement and procedures for objecting is available at
http://www.metfees.com/or by calling the Class Counsel at (212)
763-5068.

The case is, FILIP SASKA, TOMAS NADRCHAL, and STEPHEN MICHELMAN,
Plaintiffs, v. THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART, Defendant, Civil
Action No. 650775/2013

Counsel for Class Plaintiffs:

     Andrew G. Celli, Jr., Esq.
     Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP
     600 Fifth Avenue at Rockefeller Center
     New York, NY 10019
     E-mail: acelli@ecbalaw.com

Counsel for the Museum:

     Bruce R. Kelly, Esq.
     Arnold & Porter LLP
     399 Park Avenue
     New York, NY 10022
     E-mail: Bruce_Kelly@aporter.com


MICHAEL MATTEUCCI: Bid for Class Certification in "Rouse" Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ARTHUR JOSEPH ROUSE, the Plaintiff, v.
MICHAEL MATTEUCCI et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01358-
GJQ-RSK (W.D. Mich.), the Hon. Gordon J. Quist entered an order on
December 21, 2016:

   1. denying Plaintiff's request for class certification;

   2. denying Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunction;

   3. denying Plaintiff's request for the appointment of counsel;
      and

   4. denying Plaintiff's request for release on bond.

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

Plaintiff Arthur Joseph Rouse is incarcerated with the Michigan
Department of Corrections (MDOC) at the Cooper Street Correctional
Facility in Jackson, Michigan. Plaintiff is serving a sentence of
5 to 7-1/2 years following his conditional plea of guilty, in
Grand Traverse County Circuit Court, to a charge of maintaining a
house for purposes of prostitution in violation of MICH. COMP.
LAWS Sec. 750.452. Plaintiff was sentenced as a prior felony
offender, MICH. COMP. LAWS Sec. 769.10. Plaintiff's status as a
prior felony offender served to enhance his sentence under the
Michigan Sentencing Guidelines; nonetheless, the trial court still
departed upward when it imposed Plaintiff's minimum 5 year
sentence.

The case is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.  According to Judge Quist, under
the Prison Litigation Reform Act, PUB. L. NO. 104-134, 110 STAT.
1321 (1996), the Court is required to dismiss any prisoner action
brought under federal law if the complaint is frivolous,
malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915A; 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(c). The
Court must read Plaintiff's pro se complaint indulgently, see
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept Plaintiff's
allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly
incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Applying
these standards, Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Bensley and
Washington will be dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Matteucci will be dismissed
because they are barred by the doctrine of Heck v. Humphrey, 512
U.S. 477 (1994). Plaintiff's requests for preliminary injunctive
relief relating to the Grand Traverse County jail, for release on
bond, and for the appointment of counsel are denied.


MICHIGAN: Salem's Bid to Certify Lady Prisoners Class Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Paul D. Borman denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's
motion for class certification filed in the lawsuit entitled AMIRA
SALEM AND KESHUNA ABCUMBY v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
ET AL., Case No. 2:13-CV-14567-PDB-RSW (E.D. Mich.).

The Court also dismisses the official capacity claims against
Defendants Daniel Heyns, Thomas Finco, Randy Treacher, Dennis
Straub as duplicative.

On November 1, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed the putative class
action on behalf of all female prisoners who "since October 2010,
have been, are now, or will be hereafter incarcerated by [the
Women's] Huron Valley Correctional Facility and who have been
subject to sexual harassment and degrading and unhygienic
treatment by MDOC custodial staff."  The Plaintiffs allege
violations of their Fourth, Fourteenth and Eighth Amendment rights
and named six defendants in their action: Michigan Department of
Corrections, Daniel Heyns, Thomas Finco, Randy Treacher, Dennis
Straub, and Millicent Warren.

In his opinion and order, Judge Borman wrote that after a
"rigorous analysis," the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not
carried their burden and shown that they satisfied the
requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  Specifically, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs have
not shown that the potential class is sufficiently numerous to
meet the standard of Rule 23(a)(1).

Further, Judge Borman opined, class certification at this time
would be improper based on the fact that the named Plaintiffs do
not appear to be adequate representatives and either fall outside
the proposed class definition or may not have claims typical to
the class based on a failure to exhaust their administrative
remedies.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wh9nK3D8


MICROSOFT INC: Supreme Court Set to Hear Xbox 360 Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
National Constitution Center reports that the Supreme Court will
return to the bench on January 9, 2017 as it starts a new calendar
year.  Here are cases to watch that the Justices will hear, or
likely hear, before the end of April.

Normally, the Justices wrap up arguments in cases in April, with
the final decisions for a term announced in late June. However,
with a vacancy on the bench to be filled in early 2017, it remains
to be seen when some cases will be scheduled and heard in
Washington.

Here is a list of 10 cases being followed by court watchers as
potentially significant:

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (scheduled for
arguments, January 11)

The case addresses the following question: "What is the level of
educational benefit that school districts must confer on children
with disabilities to provide them with the free appropriate public
education guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act?"

A 15-year-old Littleton, Colo., student, identified only as Endrew
F. (his parents call him "Drew"), is challenging a federal appeals
court ruling.  The youth is autistic and has attention deficit
disorder, compromising his verbal and non-verbal communications
skills.

When his parents and school officials couldn't agree on a plan for
him in public schools, he was placed in a private school that
specializes in teaching autistic students.  The family then sued
to recover the private school tuition, contending that the school
district was obliged to pay because it failed to provide Drew with
an adequate educational opportunity.  A trial judge and the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied the challenge,
finding that the law only required a benefit just above the
trivial, and that Drew had done a bit better than that in public
school.

Lee v. Tam (scheduled for arguments, January 18)

Lee v. Tam involves an appeal by the federal Patent and Trademark
Office, seeking to have the Supreme Court revive a disparagement
law.  It has been struck down by a federal appeals court, in a
case involving a rock music band that wanted to register its name,
the SLANTS, for protection as a trademark. The denial of that
registration, the appeals court said, stifled the band's free
speech rights.

The law against disparaging trademarks has existed since 1946, but
the Supreme Court has never interpreted its meaning or scope. That
has meant that the Patent and Trademark Office had wide discretion
about what is banned under the law.

Lawyers for the Washington Redskins football team had tried to
link an appeal about a trademark ban on the team's name to the Lee
v. Tam case, but the appeal was denied by the Court in October and
a related federal court case is on hold, pending the outcome of
the Lee v. Tam case.

Gloucester County School Board v. G.G.  (to be scheduled)

The Court for the first time takes on the question of transgender
rights in the case of Gloucester County School Board v. G.G.

The Justices will consider the appeal of a county school board in
Virginia, challenging a federal appeals court ruling that gave a
17-year-old transgender boy a right to use the school restroom
that conforms to his gender identity.

Specifically, the order grants review of two questions.  One of
those is the legality of the federal government's view that the
federal law banning sex bias in federally funded education
programs also forbids discrimination based on gender identity. If
the final decision does settle that issue, it could be the court's
first major ruling on the transgender rights controversy -- the
latest dispute over civil rights.

But the second question to be reviewed, if the decision goes
against the government position, could make it unlikely the
question about transgender rights will be decided.  That other
question tests whether the government announced its policy on
transgender rights in the procedurally proper way.  A ruling
against the policy declaration would send this case back to the
federal appeals court, which had relied on the declaration in
ruling in favor of the transgender boy's rights.

Los Angeles County v. Mendez (to be scheduled)

The case centers on a legal rule that one federal appeals court
has adopted, but others refuse to follow.  It takes away the legal
immunity of policeofficers for the use of "excessive force" --
here, shooting two homeless people in the shed they occupied
-- if the officers' actions provoked a violent response.  The
response at issue in this case was that one of the individuals who
was shot and wounded raised a BB gun and pointed it at officers
after they had broken into the shed without a search warrant.

In general, police have legal immunity for their actions in the
line of duty, unless they violate someone's clearly established
constitutional rights.  Over the years, courts have taken
differing approaches on when such rights have been spelled out
clearly. Police shootings in recent years have been involved more
often in such cases.

Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Pauley (to be scheduled)

The Supreme Court seeks to answer the question of whether
religiously affiliated schools can be constitutionally denied
equal access to a government benefit, even if the benefit has
nothing to do with matters of faith.

At issue is a program in Missouri that provides rubberized
material for school playgrounds, made out of old tires. Missouri's
constitution bars parochial schools from such public benefits,
explicitly because of the Missouri constitution's "Blaine
Amendment," first adopted in 1875. The amendment still reads in
part: "No money shall ever be taken from the public treasury,
directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, or
denomination or religion"

The church appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that "no public
benefit could be further removed from the state's anti-
establishment concerns than a grant for safe rubber playground
surfaces that serve no religious function or purpose."

Murr v. Wisconsin (to be scheduled)

The Supreme Court will look back at one of its big decisions from
the 1970s when it hears a dispute involving four family members
and the state of Wisconsin.  In 1978, Justice William Brennan
wrote for a 6-3 majority in the Penn Central v. New York City case
that redefined property rights under the Fifth Amendment's Takings
Clause.

In Murr v. Wisconsin, the Murr family has owned two riverfront
lots since the 1960s; one of the lots contained a vacation
cottage; the other lot wasn't developed. The parents bought the
two lots originally, and they were conveyed to four of their
children in 1994 and 1995.

In 2004, when the children began to explore selling the empty lot
to pay for improvements in the cottage, they found out that a
zoning law established in 1975 barred the children from selling
the empty lot separate from the cottage. The zoning law also
prohibited the development of the empty lot because it didn't meet
minimum size requirements for an independent lot.

The family's lawyers cited another Supreme Court decision, Lucas
v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992), which said that the
denial of all economic use of a property by a government
regulation was a taking under the Fifth Amendment and required
just compensation. The state government argued that the properties
should be considered as a "whole" in the takings analysis, citing
the Penn Central decision

Hernandez v. Mesa (scheduled for February 21)

The United States Supreme Court said in October it would accept an
appeal from the family of a boy from Mexico who was fatally shot
by a U.S. Border Patrol officer.  Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca,
15, died in 2010 as he stood on Mexican soil by a border officer
who fired his gun while on United States soil in Texas. The agent
claimed Hernandez and others were throwing rocks at him.

Mr. Hernandez's family sued the agent for damages, but in 2015 the
Fifth Circuit appeals court said the family had no standing to sue
because the teen was a Mexican citizen and not protected by the
Fifth Amendment under its Due Process clause or by the Fourth
Amendment.  The full appeals court had unanimously ruled in favor
of the agent.

The Supreme Court took the appeal and also added a question about
determining if the parents had a constitutional right to sue a
Border Patrol officer.

TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods (to be scheduled)

In a highly significant case involving patent law, the Court
agreed to decide where lawsuits claiming infringement of a patent
can be filed.  In recent years, so-called "patent trolls," who buy
patents just to try to turn them into money-makers by suing others
for infringement damages, have been concentrating the filling of
their cases in just a few federal courts where they believe their
claim will get a friendly reception. A surprising proportion of
those cases is being filed in just one federal court in Texas.

The issue of the proper location for infringement lawsuits arose
in a patent dispute between an Indiana food company -- Heartland
Food Group -- that produces water products that are sweetened or
flavored.  It has been sued in Delaware for infringement by the
giant Kraft Foods Group because Kraft is incorporated there, but
Heartland has no place of business in that state -- for decades,
the basis for court jurisdiction over a patent infringement case.
This case is not about "patent trolling," as such, but that kind
of legal maneuvering was a main part of Heartland's appeal, and
apparently was a major factor in the Justices' willingness to rule
on the venue issue.

Turner v. United States and Overton v. United States (to be
scheduled)

These two cases are related to a gruesome murder in the nation's
capital more than three decades ago, when all but one of those
found guilty were teenagers.  Their two appeals, combined in a
single ruling, could clarify the constitutional duty of
prosecutors to hand over to defense lawyers items of evidence that
could help gain a not-guilty verdict.

At issue is the constitutional duty that the Supreme Court imposed
on prosecutors in a 1963 decision, Brady v. Maryland. Although
that duty has been binding now for more than a half-century, the
new appeals argued that lower courts remain uncertain about how to
weigh the significance of evidence that prosecutors had withheld.

In order to prove a violation of the Brady decision, a suspect's
defense lawyer must show that the withheld evidence was likely to
have altered the outcome of the trial if it had been brought out
there. In technical terms, the evidence must be shown to be
"material" to the outcome.

In their appeals, one by six of those convicted and another by a
seventh, their lawyers protested that a series of findings that
turned up in the years after the 1985 trial was over had been
withheld by prosecutors.  Rather than limiting review to those
specific claims, the Court said it would look at their cases as a
whole, to see if their convictions should be overturned.

Microsoft v. Baker (to be scheduled)

This case addresses an issue involving class-action lawsuits that
the late Justice Antonin Scalia had complained about in other
decisions.

In Microsoft v. Baker, a group of consumers in Washington State
sued Microsoft, complaining that its Xbox 360 device had a defect
that caused an optical disc to spin out of control, making the
machine unplayable.

The group sued as a class, since their individual claims would
have been for small amounts, and pursuing them individually wasn't
feasible.  The group then lost the lawsuit in a trial court but
they also used a legal option called a voluntary dismissal of a
claim with prejudice to keep the case alive.

The court accepted the Microsoft appeal to clear up a conflict
among lower courts on the legality of the dismiss-then-appeal
question.


MINNESOTA: Appeals Court Says Sex Offender Program Constitutional
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Karnowski, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Minnesota's program for keeping sex offenders confined after they
complete their prison sentences is constitutional, a federal
appeals court ruled on Jan. 3, reversing a lower-court judge who
said it violates offenders' rights because hardly anyone is ever
released.

A three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided
with the state, which argued that the program is both
constitutional and necessary to protect citizens from dangerous
sexual predators who would otherwise go free.  The appeals court
sent the case back to the lower court.

Seven offenders are currently free on provisional releases from
the Minnesota Sex Offender Program, and only one has been
permanently discharged, even though the program is more than 20
years old.  That led U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank in 2015 to
declare the program unconstitutional and order changes to make it
easier for people to get on a pathway for release.  As of Jan. 3,
721 people were being held under the program.

The appeals court ruled that Judge Frank erred in finding the
program unconstitutional, saying he held the state to an overly
high standard when he declared the program shocked the conscience.
The panel concluded that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that
any of the state's actions or shortcomings in the program "were
egregious, malicious, or sadistic as is necessary to meet the
conscience-shocking standard."

Dan Gustafson, lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the class-
action lawsuit, said they're "really disappointed" and are
considering an appeal to either the full 8th Circuit or to the
U.S. Supreme Court.  He said Judge Frank's ruling had given them
some hope that they weren't just being "warehoused."

The Minnesota case has been closely watched by lawyers, government
officials and activists in the 20 states with similar programs.
While civilly committed offenders in California, Wisconsin, New
Jersey and other states are allowed to re-enter society after
completing treatment, Minnesota has the highest per capita lockup
rate, and its courts didn't order the unconditional release of
anyone from its program until August.

Eric Janus, a professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law in St.
Paul and an expert on the program, said it appears the 8th Circuit
used the lower "rational basis" standard, which gives the state
more leeway in designing and implementing the program, when it
decided that the program is constitutional.  He said he doesn't
think that leaves Frank any room to still find the program
unconstitutional.

"I would say it's not a complete death-knell" for the critics of
the program, Mr. Janus said, noting the possibility of further
appeals.  "But this is a very serious setback."

Gov. Mark Dayton welcomed the decision while insisting it wouldn't
stop his efforts to improve the program, including seeking funding
for less-restrictive facilities.

"That means we can continue to make the reforms that we have
started and at affordable costs to our state budget," Gov. Dayton
said.

The program is run by the Minnesota Department of Human Services.
The agency's commissioner, Emily Piper, also welcomed the court's
decision that the program was constitutional, but she said the
Legislature needs to provide more money to keep it that way.

She said the program faces "significant challenges" in complying
with other court orders to move people in advanced treatment
stages into less-restrictive settings.  Among other things, Piper
said, the courts have ordered provisional discharges for six
people but there's no place to send them.

Minnesota's offenders are confined by court order for treatment at
secure facilities in Moose Lake and St. Peter that are ringed by
razor wire, though there's a section outside the wire at St. Peter
for people in the later stages of treatment who have limited
freedoms.  They're officially considered patients or residents,
not prisoners.  But the lawsuit argued that the program amounts to
a life sentence.

Judge Frank stopped short of shutting the program down in 2015,
instead ordering changes including risk assessments for all
patients to determine which could be put on a faster path toward
release into less restrictive settings.  The 8th Circuit stayed
his rulings while it considered the appeal.

Minnesota has struggled for years with the rising costs of the
program.  It costs more than $120,000 a year to house just one
resident, triple the cost of prison.

But lawmakers -- many fearful of appearing soft on crime -- have
resisted major changes.  The constitutionality has been in dispute
from the start, but state and federal courts consistently affirmed
it until Judge Frank ruled in 2015.


MODANI HOUSTON: Class Cert. Sought in Muhire & Trent Case
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled IVAN MUHIRE and CASSANDRA TRENT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. MODANI HOUSTON LLC and MODANI HOLDINGS LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-02178 (S.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs
move the Court for conditional certification of:

   "all Sales Associate / Design Specialists employed by
   Modani Holdings LLC at all Modani furniture stores
   within the past three years".

Ivan Muhire and Cassandra Trent filed the lawsuit to recover
unpaid overtime wages owed to current and former Sales
Associate/Design Specialists employed by the Defendants, during
the past three years. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
misclassified them and all other Sales Associates/Design
Specialists as exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
          THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
          3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
          Houston, TX 77054
          Telephone: (832) 778 8182
          Facsimile: (832) 778 8353
          E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


MYER HOLDINGS: Former Shareholder Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
David Chau, writing for Finance News Network, reports that
Australia's largest department store, Myer Holdings has been sued
in a Federal Court class action, launched by a former shareholder,
TFT Patrol Pty Ltd.

TFT alleges it suffered loss and damage from statements made by
Myer regarding its 2014 full-year results.  And TFT has brought
these proceedings on behalf of itself, and a group of defined, but
unnamed shareholders.

Just weeks ago, Myer was also the subject of a different class
action from another aggrieved shareholder, Melbourne City
Investments Pty Ltd.  However, the Supreme Court of Victoria
permanently stayed those proceedings because it found the MCI
class action to be an abuse of the legal process.

Myer says it denies liability and will vigorously defend the new
proceedings.

Myer posted a net profit of $60.5 million at July 31, 2016.


MYLAN: Class Action Over EpiPen Pricing Pending in Cincinnati
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brianna Smith, writing for Legal Reader, reports that Mylan, a
company that came under fire last year for drastically raising
their prices of the EpiPen, a lifesaving device used by many
across the country, is now back in the news.  Despite introducing
a generic version of their allergy medication in response to the
backlash they received, lawsuits against the company have begun to
spring up in the federal court system from Kansas and Cincinnati
to California.

One such lawsuit was filed by an attorney in Cincinnati,
Carl Lewis, back on September 6, 2016.  According to the lawsuit,
Mylan "violated the state's consumer protection law" and claims
Mylan "has a legal duty and obligation to set a fair, affordable,
and reasonable price and not hold consumers hostage by forcing
them to pay exorbitant prices for its medically necessary
product."

Since filing, an estimated 100 people have signed on to join the
case.  Even today, more and more people are seeking to join, and
all Mr. Lewis is waiting on to proceed is for a "judge to formally
certify it as a class-action case."

Why are so many people angry towards Mylan, though? Well, let's
recap.  Since 2009, the company has raised the cost for the EpiPen
injectors by 500%.  Before the price hike, the lifesaving device
that helps quell sometimes fatal allergic reactions to things like
bee stings and peanut allergies, was affordably priced at $50.
Now, people across the nation are having to shell out up to $600
for the injector.

We're not talking about some device that few people use, not at
all.  Just last year, Mylan's EpiPen was the "number one dispensed
epinephrine auto-injector," and accounted for an estimated $1
billion in sales during 2015.  In fact, the reason why so many
people are angry at Mylan is because so many people depend on the
EpiPen's lifesaving abilities, and feel that Mylan cares more
about profits rather than saving lives.

The lawsuit filed by Mr. Lewis actually describes the plight of
many of the angry people Mylan is having to contend with,
including Linda Bates, a resident of Cincinnati.  She's one of the
very people who is now expected to cough up $600 to ensure her
teenage son has an EpiPen on him at all times.  Why? Because her
son has a peanut allergy.  Her son depends on the EpiPen because
if he ever experiences an allergic reaction to peanuts, the
epinephrine in the injector will stop the reaction.

Unfortunately, an injector is only good for about a year, forcing
parents like Linda into continuously purchasing the injectors year
after year.  To make matters worse, the devices are only sold with
two injectors per pack.  That's up to $600 for only two injectors!
In fact, the United States is the only country in the world where
customers are required to purchase a two-pack of the injectors. In
places like Canada, where EpiPen's sell for about $100, customers
can purchase single injectors, and the more affordable price
ensures that families who might need more than two per year can
actually afford it.

It's no wonder people are outraged and it's no surprise that many
are alleging that Mylan has a monopoly on the market.  In fact,
Mr. Lewis' lawsuit accuses Mylan of being motivated by profits and
greed, "not medicine or the welfare of its customers."  With so
many people who depend on the EpiPen in case of accidents, it's
absurd that a company would raise their prices so high, making the
injector virtually unaffordable for many.  Hopefully, lawsuits
like the one filed by Mr. Lewis will bring about some change in
the future.


NATIONAL RECOVERY: FDCPA Class Certified in "Zirogiannis" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Denis R. Hurley entered a memorandum and order in the
lawsuit entitled JEANNETTE ZIROGIANNIS, an individual, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL RECOVERY
AGENCY, INC., Case No. 2:14-cv-03954-DRH-AYS (E.D.N.Y.), granting
the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class consisting of;

     "(1) all natural person[s] in the State of New York; (2) to
      whom Defendant sent a written communication containing
      language materially similar to Exhibit C of the Complaint;
      (3) subsequent to a request for a validation pursuant to
      the FDCPA; (4)which was not returned as undelivered by the
      United States Postal Service; [and] (5) during the one year
      immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint and
      ending 21 days thereafter."

Jeanette Zirogiannis commenced the action against the Defendant
alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Ms. Zirogiannis is appointed as class representative and Abraham
Kleinman, Esq., is appointed as class counsel.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Vy8wn8Jc

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
          KLEINMAN LLC
          626 RXR Plaza
          Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
          Telephone: (516) 522-2621
          Facsimile: (888) 522-1692
          E-mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Cindy D. Salvo, Esq.
          THE SALVO LAW FIRM, P.C.
          185 Fairfield Avenue, Suite 3C/3D
          West Caldwell, NJ 07006
          Telephone: (973) 988-1707
          E-mail: csalvo@salvolawfirm.com


NCB MANAGEMENT: Class Cert. Bid in "Williams" Denied as Moot
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Milton I. Shadur entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned Pamela Williams, the Plaintiff, v. NCB Management
Services Incorporated, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09322 (N.D.
Ill.), denying as moot Plaintiff's motion to certify class
according to the docket entry made by the Clerk on December 27,
2016.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yp4s6LWH


NEW JERSEY: "Holmes" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled WILFRED LEE HOLMES, the Plaintiff-Movant;
v. CHRIS CHRISTIE, ET. AL., the Defendants-Respondents, Case No.
2:16-cv-01434-ES-MAH (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order granting class certification or alternative of denial
without prejudice pending completion of limited bifurcated
discovery pertaining to ascertainability of numerousity
superiority.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vpuq4HNX

On Dec. 29, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Certify Class.  The Motion
is set for hearing on Feb. 6, 2017, before Judge Esther Salas.
Unless otherwise directed by the Court, this motion will be
decided on the papers and no appearances are required.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.  The case alleges claims for
prisoner civil rights.


NEW YORK: Police Dep't Allows Sikh Officers to Wear Full Turbans
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNN Wire reports that Sikh officers can now wear full turbans in
the New York Police Department.

NYPD Commissioner James O'Neill announced the policy change on
Dec. 28, flanked by officers in navy blue turbans fastened with
police brass.

"We want to make the NYPD as diverse as possible, and I think this
is going to go a long way to help us with that," Mr. O'Neill said.

"It's a major change in our uniform policy, so we had to go about
it carefully.  And now I have the opportunity to make the change,
and I thought it was about time that we did that."

While the NYPD patrol guide maintains a strict policy regarding
head coverings, officers will now be able to wear turbans with a
religious exemption signed by top department officials,
Mr. O'Neill said.

There are about 160 Sikh officers in the NYPD, the commissioner
said.

Before the policy change, Sikh officers could wear a smaller wrap,
known as a patka, beneath their official police cap, said
Gurvinder Singh, an NYPD officer and president of the national
Sikh Officers Association.

"Now I'll be able to serve with my full turban on.  It's a great
feeling," he said.

"There will be a lot more Sikh officers now taking the next exam."

Facial hair still an issue

The NYPD also announced on Dec. 28 a religious accommodation
allowing for officers to, with approval, grow a beard up to half
an inch long.  The previous policy had allowed for beards of up to
a millimeter in length.

Some leaders in the Sikh community applauded the policy change on
turbans, but said the NYPD needed to go further with the policy on
facial hair.

"While it's definitely a great step, we look forward to reviewing
the policy in depth and ensuring that Sikhs can serve with their
turban and beards intact and with no limitations or restrictions
to either," said Kavneet Singh, a board member of the Sikh
American Legal Defense and Education Fund.

The turban and the practice of keeping a beard or unshorn hair,
known as kesh, are among the articles of faith maintained by
Sikhs.

Over the summer, the NYPD was sued by a Muslim officer, Masood
Syed, who said he was suspended, stripped of his badge and gun for
wearing a beard longer than protocol.

Mr. Syed, who lives in Queens, was later reinstated after
receiving a temporary restraining order from a Manhattan federal
judge, though his case remains open.  The class-action suit calls
the limitation unconstitutional and Syed is seeking a policy
allowing for a 2-inch beard -- long enough to comply with
religious doctrine.

In an interview, Mr. Syed called the Dec. 28 announcement
"arbitrary" and a "disappointment."

"I'm still disappointed. If they're saying now that the policy is
half an inch and I'm walking around in police headquarters with
the top brass, walking around with a beard that's 1 1/2 to 2
inches, where does that leave me? Am I going to be suspended
again? Am I going to be walked out of the building again?" Mr.
Syed said.

Mr. Syed, a lawyer and 10-year veteran of the NYPD, added: "It's
not just for Muslims.  We have Sikh officers, we have Jewish
officers, we have Israelite officers, who all believe that the
beard length should be longer than half an inch, who have all
approached me and asked me to represent them and submitted their
name in support of this policy.  For me, it's important because of
my faith and my religion, but it's also important for me to
represent those other officers."

The NYPD would not comment on Dec. 28 on the ongoing lawsuit.

Similar police policies rare

Only about a half dozen police forces across the country have
explicit accommodations to allow for Sikhs to serve with a turban
and beard, according to SALDEF.

Washington DC's Metropolitan Police Department became the first
major force in the country to enact such a policy in 2012, though
no Sikhs currently serve there, Singh said.

The NYPD's new policy follows similar ones in Harris County, Texas
-- which includes the city of Houston -- and Riverside,
California.  Singh said both those forces' policies go further
than the NYPD's to allow for full beards.

The NYPD had previously prohibited beards because they interfere
with certain gas masks.

Huge and diverse police department

As the largest police force in the country, the NYPD has long
prided itself on being one of the most diverse.

About 900 Muslim Americans serve in the NYPD, city officials have
said.  Female Muslim officers have for years been able to receive
a religious exemption allowing them to wear head scarves,
according to Lt. Adeel Rana, president of the NYPD's Muslim
Officers Society.

The policy announcement on Dec. 28 followed a graduation ceremony
held at Madison Square Garden that saw over 550 men and women
sworn in as New York City police officers.

Of the graduating class, 48% of the officers are white, 26%
Hispanic, 12% black, and more than 13% Asian, police said.


NORTH CAROLINA: Lewis' Bid to Certify Prisoners Class Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Frank D. Whitney entered an order in the lawsuit titled
BRIAN K. LEWIS; JAMIE R. SPAKE v. NC DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY/DIVISION OF PRISONS, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00284-FDW
(W.D.N.C.):

   -- denying the Plaintiffs' supplement to motions for
      reconsideration;

   -- denying the Plaintiffs' motion to challenge multiple filing
      fees, as there is only one $350 filing fee associated with
      prisoner civil litigation in Section 1983 actions, although
      they are both charged with ensuring the full fee is
      satisfied to the extent they are financially able;

   -- denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for
      appointment of counsel; and

   -- denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Plaintiffs, who are prisoners of the State of North Carolina,
filed a complaint seeking to represent themselves and similarly
situated prisoners on claims which allege the North Carolina
Department of Public Safety (DPS), and other defendants in various
ways, have violated their right to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment by withholding critical medical treatment.

Judge Whitney further ordered that Plaintiff Lewis must file the
Step-Three response to his initial grievance or a sworn statement
explaining why he cannot file the response.  Failure to comply
with the order within 14-days from its entry will result in
dismissal of Plaintiff from this civil case and without further
notice, Judge Whitney stated.

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


NORTH SHORE: Faces "Otero" Suit in S.D. of New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against North Shore Agency,
LLC. The case is styled as Magalis Otero, on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. North Shore Agency, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09896 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2016).

North Shore provides accounts receivables outsourcing including
first part billing services, collection letters, mailing services,
and collection services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq.
          FAGENSON & PUGLISI
          450 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (212) 268 2128
          Facsimile: (212) 268 2127
          E-mail: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com


ONE INC: Judge Allows "After School" App Class Action to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
Chicago federal judge will allow a potential class action lawsuit
to proceed against the makers of "After School," a smartphone app
designed to allow students attending the same high school to
anonymously share messages, saying the app's use of allegedly
unauthorized invitational text messages to grow its user base
could violate federal law.

And this decision, plaintiffs in the class action now say, could
have implications for another class action lawsuit they have
pending in Chicago federal court against the makers of another
social networking smartphone app, which also sends allegedly
unauthorized invitational text messages to other potential app
users.

On Dec. 20, U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly denied a
motion from One Inc., maker of the After School app, to dismiss
the lawsuit brought by plaintiff Matthew Warciak.

Mr. Warciak is serving as the lead named plaintiff in the putative
class action filed against San Francisco-based One by attorneys
with the law firm of Edelson P.C., of Chicago.

Mr. Warciak and the Edelson attorneys are also working together on
lawsuits also pending in Chicago federal court against
Nikil Inc., maker of the Down To Lunch smartphone app, and against
Subway Restaurants.

In the class action against One, which was originally filed in
Cook County Circuit Court in June 2016, Mr. Warciak and his
attorneys have argued the After School app violates federal and
Illinois laws by sending text messages inviting other potential
users it finds in the contacts directory in After School app
users' phones.

The lawsuit was removed to federal court in July.

According to court documents, After School uses a multi-step
process to verify users are students at the high school they claim
to attend.  Without this verification, users cannot join one of
the virtual communities attached to actual high schools.

At some point in the verification process, the court documents
said, prospective users are asked to identify at least four other
students at a particular high school to prove they also attend the
school.  At this point, the app purportedly accesses users'
contacts directory, and then sends text messages to the other
selected students, inviting them to also download and use the
After School app.

Since the app never informs users it will send those invitational
text messages, or secures their permission to do so, Mr. Warciak
alleged the app's actions violated the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act.

In response, One Inc. argued the users' acts in the user
verification process, including selecting and identifying various
classmates, should thwart Mr. Warciak's legal claims.

Kennelly, however, said this case appears to be different from
others One had cited to support its position.

While there is some "involvement" from After School users in
selecting the recipients of the text messages, the judge said that
doesn't mean the users agreed to allow After School to send texted
invitations.

"After School App users are at least required to make certain
selections before the messages are sent," Judge Kennelly wrote.
"This is immaterial, however, if the users are unaware that their
selections will lead to invitational text messages."

Judge Kennelly, however, said Mr. Warciak's assertions under the
Illinois consumer fraud statute are on much shakier ground, as
economic harm from the app's use of users' phone battery life or
text message recipients' time "lost answering and deleting the
unwanted text messages . . . are so negligible from an economic
standpoint as to render any damages unquantifiable."

He dismissed Mr. Warciak's claims under the Illinois law, while
allowing his claims under the federal TCPA to proceed.

After securing the largely favorable ruling from Kennelly,
Mr. Warciak's attorneys moved Dec. 21 to leverage the decision in
their lawsuit against Nikil, the makers of Down to Lunch, asking
U.S. District Judge Thomas M. Durkin to apply Kennelly's reasoning
to this lawsuit, as well.

The app works by allowing friends -- particularly, high school and
college students -- to suggest activities to other friends. When
they agree on an activity, such as "lunch," "chill," or "study,"
among others, those wishing to participate click the button
labeled "I'm Down."

In the Down to Lunch lawsuit, also originally filed in Cook County
court in April 2016, Mr. Warciak also asserted the app accesses
users' contacts lists to send invitational text messages to other
potential users without the permission or knowledge of the user,
allegedly violating the federal TCPA law.

Just as did One Inc., Nikil also asked the court to dismiss
Mr. Warciak's class action lawsuit against them.  However, in this
case, Nikil said Down To Lunch specifically requires users to
"click a conspicuously labeled 'Invite' button for each and every
contact that the user wishes to invite to download the Down to
Lunch App."  Users also have the choice to skip the invitation
step altogether, Nikil said in court documents it has filed
responding to Mr. Warciak's lawsuit.

Because of such aspects, Nikil argued Judge Kennelly's decision in
Mr. Warciak's suit against One Inc. should not apply in the Down
to Lunch case.

"(Judge Kennelly) explained that so long as users are informed
that invitations will be sent and have a choice in whether they
decide to send messages or not, the user, and not the app, is
considered the sender of the text," Nikil's attorneys wrote in a
brief filed Jan. 3.

Nikil Inc. is represented by attorneys with the firms of Fenwick &
West LLP, of Seattle and Mountain View, Calif., and Mandell Menkes
LLC, of Chicago.

One Inc. is represented by the firm of Hinshaw & Culbertson, of
Chicago.


ORCHESTRATE HOSPITALITY: Edwards Seeks Final OK of $163,699 Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daryetta Edwards moves for certification of the lawsuit captioned
DARYETTA EDWARDS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ORCHESTRATE HOSPITALITY, GROUP, L.L.C., et al., Case
No. 4:16-cv-00063-JAJ-HCA (S.D. Iowa), as a class action for
settlement purposes and for final approval of the matter's
settlement.

Ms. Edwards seeks final approval of a proposed $163,699 settlement
of the matter as a class action.  If approved by the Court, the
Settlement would resolve all of the pending claims that the
Plaintiff has brought against Defendants in the proceeding.  The
$163,699 settlement includes any litigation expenses and
attorneys' fees to be awarded by the Court.  Class Counsel will
file a separate fee and expense application with the Court.  Ms.
Edwards also asks the Court to:

   a. dismiss with prejudice the pending action in its entirety;

   b. permanently enjoin Settlement Class members from filing,
      joining, or prosecuting any claims, suits, or
      administrative proceedings regarding claims released by the
      Settlement; and

   c. confirm that the parties remain bound by the terms of the
      settlement agreement and release, including without
      limitation the section on confidentiality, and that the
      Court retains jurisdiction to enforce its terms.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4BXfQxni

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harley C. Erbe, Esq.
          ERBE LAW FIRM
          2501 Grand Avenue
          Des Moines, IA 50312
          Telephone: (515) 281-1460
          Facsimile: (515) 281-1474
          E-mail: erbelawfirm@aol.com

               - and -

          Steven P. Wandro, Esq.
          Michael R. Keller, Esq.
          WANDRO & ASSOCIATES
          2501 Grand Avenue
          Des Moines, IA 50312
          Telephone: (515) 281-1475
          Facsimile: (515) 281-1474
          E-mail: swandro@2501grand.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael R. Reck, Esq.
          Kelsey J. Knowles, Esq.
          Espnola F. Cartmill, Esq.
          BELIN MCCORMICK, P.C.
          666 Walnut St., Ste. 2000
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Telephone: (515) 283-4645
          Facsimile: (515) 558-0645
          E-mail: mrreck@belinmccormick.com
                  kjknowles@belinmccormick.com
                  efcartmill@belinmccormick.com


OREGON: Post No. 122 Sued Over Failure to Pay Workers Properly
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Rodgers, both in her individual capacity and, in addition, as
a collective action on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Canby Post No. 122, The American Legion, Case No. 3:16-cv-02381-PK
(D. Ore. December 23, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages, liquidated damages and declaratory relief of former
employees of POST 122.

Canby Post No. 122, The American Legion is an Oregon public
benefit corporation that was registered with the Oregon Secretary
of State as doing business in Oregon.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jon M. Egan, Esq.
      JON M. EGAN, PC
      547 Fifth Street
      Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3009
      Telephone: (503) 697-3427
      Facsimile: (866) 311-5629
      E-mail: Jegan@eganlegalteam.com


PALOS VERDES, CA: More Details Unveiled in Lunada Bay Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chase Scheinbaum, writing for The Inertia, reports that ever
wonder if the allegations of violence and vandalism at Lunada Bay
are just a bunch of media hype? Don't take it from news stories.
Dig in to dozens of statements made in support of the class action
lawsuit against the Bay Boys, filed just before the new year and
made available by the plaintiff's attorneys online.

The declarations come from lawyers, retired correctional officers,
therapists, former sponsored bodyboarders -- in other words,
regular surfers who just wanted to snag a few of the quality
rights that peel through the cove on big winter swells. And who
say that the bullying, name-calling and physical assault they
faced often prevented them from returning.

That part is critical, because the plaintiffs are seeking damages
of "$50 to $80" for every time a surfer claims they were affected.
The amount could add up.  In their estimation given the number of
surfers and other people in Southern California who might want to
visit, the bay should see at least 20,000 annual visitors.  Yet,
Lunada Bay is surfed by a fraction of the surfers who, localism
notwithstanding, would want to paddle out there. The plaintiffs
claim just 100 surfers regularly surf the spot.

The documents were filed as part of the plaintiffs' bid to
convince a federal judge to recognize the class of affected people
so that the suit can proceed.  It's the most detailed look yet at
the wrongs surfers say they suffered.  It's also the most fine-
grained view of how the plaintiffs will try to prove their case,
if the lawsuit proceeds to trial, which is penciled in for next
October.  Aside from statements, the documents include excerpts of
emails and texts sent between Bay Boys that the plaintiffs allege
show how they organized their gang-like efforts.

Taken together, the statements paint a picture of localism that,
according to one declaration, is worse than the heaviest localized
spots on the North Shore of Oahu.  In terms of hospitality, that
would put it somewhere between V-Land and Ciudad Juarez.

For those who'd rather not sift through hundreds of pages of
legalese (it's a masochistic pleasure), we've pulled out a few of
the juiciest morsels for you:

1) The plaintiffs allege that the Bay Boys have existed as a gang
since the 1970s, when they codified a set of territorial rules
they "will die by."

"They haze those who seek to join, including making them 'drink
frickin' piss to see how bad you want to be in this fraternity,'"
according to the documents.

2) Palos Verdes Estates Police Chief Jeff Kepley agrees there "may
be some truth" to the fact that the Bay Boys are "like an
organized street gang."  Yet he's been stifled in his efforts to
police them.  The plaintiffs allege that when Kepley took over the
department, he brought the Bay Boys to the attention of the police
and city council, but was met with a barrage of criticism and
letters from alleged Bay Boys asking for his resignation. Not
surprisingly, according to the material "Many current and former
City police officers grew up with Bay Boys," one told Christopher
Taloa, the surfer who organized a trip to Lunada Bay via Facebook,
"We own the cops."

3) One plaintiff claims the Bay Boys rained rocks down on him from
the bluff top as he walked down to the water.  A rock struck his
head, causing him to bleed.  He says a Bay Boy told him: "Get your
fucking brown ass out of here.  You're going to attract sharks.
You're bleeding, man."

When he left the water he called the police to lodge a report.
When an officer arrived, "I saw him pull something off his chest
and put it into his pocket; I believe he was removing his name
tag," the plaintiff said.  When the officer learned that he lived
in Manhattan Beach, "the officer told him 'maybe you shouldn't be
surfing here.'"


PARIS MAINTENANCE: "Moncion" Alleges Violations of FLSA, NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------------
BETTY MONCION, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, against PARIS
MAINTENANCE & MANAGEMENT CO. INC., and CHARLES LOIODICE,
individually, and ARDO ALVAREZ, individually, Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-07142 (E.D.N.Y., December 28, 2016), seeks damages and
equitable relief based upon alleged violations that Defendants
committed of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to her by: (i) the Fair
Labor Standards Act's minimum wage provisions; (ii) the New York
Labor Law's minimum wage provisions; (iii) the NYLL's requirement
that employers provide on each payday wage statements to their
employees containing specific categories of accurate information;
(iv) the NYLL's requirement that employer furnish employees with a
wage notice at hire containing specific categories of accurate
information; and (v) any other claim(s) that can be inferred from
the facts set forth herein.

PARIS MAINTENANCE & MANAGEMENT CO. INC. is a general contractor.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq.
     Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
     Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
     BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
     655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 679-5000
     Fax: (212) 679-5005


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Faces "Cho" Suit Over Securities Act Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
SHECK KWAI CHO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, vs. PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC., DANIEL H.
SCHULMAN, JOHN D. RAINEY, PATRICK L.A. DUPUIS, EBAY INC., JOHN J.
DONAHOE, and ROBERT H. SWAN, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-07371
(N.D. Cal., December 28, 2016), alleges that Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that
PayPal's Venmo service was engaged in unfair trade practices, in
violation of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act.

PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC. operates as a technology platform company
that enables digital and mobile payments on behalf of consumers
and merchants worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     468 North Camden Drive
     Beverly Hills, CA 90210
     Phone: (818) 532-6449
     E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

        - and -

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 661-1100
     Fax: (212) 661-8665
     Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
            ahood@pomlaw.com


PEARLAND CAPITAL: Class Certification Sought in "Stewart" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled CHASTITY STEWART, Individually, and on
behalf of ALL OTHERS SIMILARY SITUATED, the Plaintiff(s), v.
PEARLAND CAPITAL GROUP, LP D/B/A HILTON GARDEN INN PEARLAND, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00948 (S.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs
seek conditional certification of a collective action consisting
of, and judicially approved notice to, the following individuals:

   "all front office operations / guest service agents employed
   by defendant within the past three years."

On April 7, 2016, Plaintiff Chastity Stewart filed a putative
collective action lawsuit to recover unpaid overtime wages owed to
current and former Front Office Operations / Guest Services Agents
employed by Defendants Pearland Capital Group, LP., Hilton Garden
Inn Pearland, during the past three years, Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants routinely refused or failed to pay overtime wages.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CP57oNV0

The Plaintiff(s) is represented by:

          Andre D. Evans, Esq.
          ANDRE EVANS & ASSOCIATES
          3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
          Houston, TX 77054
          Telephone: (832) 941 1282
          Facsimile: (832) 778 8353
          E-mail: andre@attorneyandreevans.com


PICK-A-PART: Faces "Torres" Suit in Eastern Dist. of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pick-A-Part Auto
Wrecking. The case is captioned as Cirena Torres, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pick-
A-Part Auto Wrecking, dba, Pick-A-Part, the Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-01915-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal., Dec. 22, 2016). The case is
assigned to Hon. District Judge Dale A. Drozd.

Pick-A-Part is a self-serve car wrecker, discount car wrecker and
AA Recycling scrap metal purchaser.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chant Yedalian, Esq.
          CHANT & COMPANY
          1010 N. Central Ave.
          Glendale, CA 91202
          Telephone: (877) 574 7100
          Facsimile: (877) 574 9411
          E-mail: chant@chant.mobi


PILOT CORP: 11th Circuit Clarifies Jurisdiction in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mia Sims, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that in a recent
racketeering class action case between an Alabama trucking company
and one of its counterparts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
11th Circuit clarified jurisdiction in relation to class claims.

"The practical effect is that the trucking company's individual
claims against Pilot have to be heard in federal court rather than
state court," Matthew Allen, attorney at Carlton Fields told Legal
Newsline.

Wright Transportation had filed a class action suit against Pilot
Corp. over allegations it did not receive the fuel discounts
promised in an arrangement.  The claims were dismissed because
Pilot had already reached settlement in a rival action, which
meant Wright Transportation could not pursue class claims,
Mr. Allen wrote in a blog post.

Passed by Congress and signed into law by former President George
W. Bush in 2005, the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) sought to
reform class action practices by making it easier for defendants
to remove cases from state court to federal court.  It loosened
the requirements for federal court jurisdiction over state law-
based claims.

Mr. Allen couldn't speak on the perceived advantages and
disadvantages of the two parties being in federal or state court,
but said as a general matter, defendants prefer to be in federal
court, and plaintiffs usually prefer to be in state court.

"There are a host of reasons for that, including perceptions about
how rigorous the proof will be in a given court and the ease of
settlement," Mr. Allen said.

According to Mr. Allen, several related suits filed by parties who
had opted out of the class settlement were consolidated into a
multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding in a Kentucky federal
court.

The MDL court remanded the case to a federal court in Alabama,
which dismissed the remaining racketeering and state law claims.

Wright had sought dismissal so it could refile its claims in state
court.  Pilot resisted this move, and the 11th Circuit ruled for
it.

Mr. Allen said the trial court in Alabama had "dismissed the idea
that claims that started out as a class action but didn't continue
in that form should still be litigated in state court. It reached
this conclusion by invoking the concept of supplemental
jurisdiction."

But supplemental jurisdiction is an entirely separate concept, as
the 11th Circuit pointed out in reversing, reinforcing its prior
decision in Vega v. T-Mobile USA Inc. (11th Circuit, 2009).

"Supplemental jurisdiction applies when federal court jurisdiction
is predicated on the existence of a federal claim (like RICO) and
the federal claim is dismissed," Mr. Allen said.

"The court can decline to continue to preside over 'ride-along'
state law claims.  That has nothing to do with jurisdiction
predicated upon CAFA, which is a type of 'diversity' jurisdiction
that applies only to state law claims."

Mr. Allen said the decision of the court isn't surprising to him.

"The court ruled as it did because the reasoning of its prior
precedent in the Vega case required it," Mr. Allen said.  "Beyond
that, as a policy matter, the court understood that Congress
wanted cases that started out as class actions to be litigated in
federal court as much as possible."

Mr. Allen said the case does still have its breach of contract and
unjust enrichment claims, but preferred not to speak on why the
plaintiff didn't accept being a part of the class settlement in
Arkansas.

"I can imagine that the plaintiff, as one of Pilot's larger
customers, thought it could get more money by litigating its
claims separately in Alabama state court than by participating as
a class member in the Arkansas class settlement," Mr. Allen said.


PREMIER NUTRITION: Faces False Advertising Class Action in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Northern California Record,
reports that a consumer alleges a joint health product's benefits
are falsely advertised.

Marilyn Spencer filed a complaint on behalf of individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated on Dec. 12 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
Premier Nutrition Corp., formerly known as Joint Juice Inc.,
alleging violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that she and
those similarly situated consumers were enticed to purchase
defendant's Joint Juice Products by its deceptive claim that the
dietary supplement will support and nourish cartilage, lubricate
joints, and improve joint comfort.  However, the products
allegedly do not perform as advertised because despite defendant's
claims, glucosamine, alone or in combination with other
ingredients, is not effective in providing the claimed joint
health benefits.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seek judgment in her
favor, declare case as a class action, designate plaintiff as
class representative and her counsel as class counsel, ordering
defendant to pay damages, punitive and statutory damages,
injunctive relief, corrective advertising, attorneys' fees, costs,
interest and further relief as may be just.  She is represented by
Timothy G. Blood, Leslie E. Hurst and Thomas J. O'Reardon II of
Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP in San Diego, Todd D. Carpenter of
Carson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter LLP in San Diego, Adam J.
Levitt and Edmund S. Aronowitz of Grant & Eisenhofer PA in Chicago
and Joseph J. Siprut of Siprut PC in Chicago.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case
number 4:16-cv-07090


PRESSLER & PRESSLER: Faces "Flores" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pressler & Pressler,
LLP. The case is titled as Arlene Flores, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pressler &
Pressler, LLP, Sheldon H. Pressler, Gerard J. Felt, Lawrence J
McDermott, Jr., and David B. Warshaw, the Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-07073 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 22, 2016).

Pressler and Pressler is a law firm located in East Hanover New
Jersey. The company collects debts for credit card companies and
cell phone companies.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


PROBALANCE INC: Class Certification Hearing Continued to Jan. 17
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jorge L. Alonso entered an order in the lawsuit captioned
John M Ulrich, the Plaintiff, v. Probalance, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-10488 (N.D. Ill.), continuing hearing on
Plaintiff's motion for class certification to January 17, 2017 at
9:30 a.m.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on December 21,
2016, the initial status hearing previously set for December 22,
2016 is stricken and reset to January 17, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RWsBn7rY


Q.S. SAN LUIS: Court Okays "Orduna" Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LILI ORDUNA, as an individual, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Q.S.
SAN LUIS OBISPO, a California limited partnership; WARMINGTON
HOTEL ASSOCIATES 7, L.P., a California limited partnership;
WINEGARDNER & HAMMONS, INC., an Ohio Corporation; and DOES 4
through 10, the Defendants, Case No. 8:15-cv-00593-JLS-DFM (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Josephine L. Staton entered an order on December
20, 2016 granting Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class
action settlement and Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees,
costs, and awards.

The Court said, "After weighing the services rendered, the risks
undertaken, and relative size of the incentive award compared to
the total settlement fund and class member's proceeds, the Court
finds a service award of $7,500 to be excessive under the
circumstances. The Court will award $3,000 to Plaintiff. The Court
awards Class Counsel $10,019.51 in costs and $121,500 in
attorneys' fees, based on an award of 27% of the gross settlement
fund. The Court also awards a service payment of $3,000 to Lili
Orduna. Distribution of the settlement fund to claimants shall be
made in accordance with the method outlined in the settlement.
Plaintiff shall submit a proposed judgment.

The claims administrator is CPT Group, Inc.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EkuZnkO4


RCI HOSPITALITY: Exotic Dancers File Suit Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Florida Record, reports that a Miami
adult entertainment club is accused of misclassifying its exotic
entertainers and dancers as independent contractors in a class
action filed by two former dancers.

Leeza Garvin, Jenell Farnsworth, individually and behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a complaint on behalf of all
others similarly situated on Dec. 16 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division against the
RCI Hospitality Holdings Inc.; Miami Gardens Square One Inc.,
doing business as Tootsie's Cabaret; and Eric Langan citing the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that their only
compensation while working for the defendants was tips from
patrons.  The plaintiffs holds RCI Hospitality Holdings Inc.;
Miami Gardens Square One Inc., doing business as Tootsie's
Cabaret; and Langan responsible because the defendants allegedly
failed to pay overtime premiums at a rate of time-and-one-half to
the plaintiffs or pay a minimum wage.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek unpaid minimum
wages, overtime compensation, unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
all legal fees and any other relief as the court deems just.  They
are represented by Andrew R. Frisch of Morgan & Morgan PA in
Plantation.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami
Division Case number 1:16-cv-25221-DPG


RCP AMERICA: Cert. of Detailers Class Sought in "Allen" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Allen asks for an order certifying class and permitting
Court-supervised notice to all putative class members affected by
the claims in the action titled KEVIN ALLEN, on behalf of himself
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RCP AMERICA,
INC. and MICHAEL D. LAMB, individually, Case No. 8:16-cv-22844-
VMC-AEP (M.D. Fla.).

The lawsuit is a collective action to enforce the overtime wage
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendants violated the FLSA by not paying employees an
overtime premium for hours worked over 40 hours.

The Plaintiff moves the Court to conditionally certify and
authorize the Plaintiff to mail and e-mail Notice of the lawsuit
and Consent to Become a Party Plaintiff Form to:

     All "detailers" who worked for Defendant within the last
     three years who believe they were not paid proper overtime
     wage compensation during any work week of their employment
     within the applicable statute of limitations period.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donna V. Smith, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 337-7992
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian F. Stayton, Esq.
          STAYTON LAW GROUP, P.A.
          River Hills Plaza
          4371 Lynx Paw Trail
          Valrico, FL 33596
          E-mail: brian@staytonlawgroup.com


ROADRUNNER INTERMODAL: "Rich" Suit Moved From C.D. to E.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Dolly M. Gee transferred the lawsuit entitled Nicholas E.
Rich, et al. v. Roadrunner Intermodal Services, LLC, et al., Case
No. 2:15-cv-07330-DMG-JPR, from the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California.

"Having reviewed the parties' responses to this Court's November
9, 2016 Order to Show Cause, the Court hereby TRANSFERS this
action to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California under the first-to-file rule. See Doc. # 49
(citing first-filed action, Singh v. Roadrunner, No. CV 15-1497,
currently pending in the Eastern District of California). None of
the exceptions to the first-to-file rule apply in this case,"
Judge Gee said in a civil minutes.

The Plaintiffs have contended that convenience to the parties
weighs in favor of maintaining the action with Central District
Court.

The Ninth Circuit has cautioned, however, that any argument in
favor of relaxing the first-to-file rule on grounds of convenience
"should be addressed to the court in the first-filed action,"
according to the Civil Minutes.

The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied without
prejudice to being re-filed in the Eastern District of California.
All scheduled dates and deadlines are vacated.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VPP2Lm58


ROADRUNNER TRANSPORATION: Court Certifies Class in "Spates" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SOL SPATES and WESLEY LEWIS Individually and
on Behalf Of a Class of Similarly Situated Individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. ROADRUNNER TRANSPORATION SYSTEMS, INC., and ADRIAN
CARRIERS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-08723 (N.D. Ill.),
the Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber certified a class of:

   "all persons who have worked for the Defendants as delivery
   drivers in Illinois at any time during the applicable
   limitations period and who have been classified as independent
   contractors rather than employees."

The Court declined to comment on the merits of the case.
According to Judge Leinenweber, it could be that the independent
contractor agreement proves that Plaintiffs expressly agreed in
writing to all relevant deductions, which would obviate IWCPA
protection. The Court merely holds that the proof relevant to
deductions will be common to all class members, such that Rule
23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement is satisfied.

Sol Spates and Wesley Lewis worked as truck drivers for the
Defendant delivery companies Roadrunner Transportation Systems,
Inc. and Adrian Carriers, LLC. The Plaintiffs allege they were
improperly classified as independent contractors rather than
employees of Defendants, and that Defendants consequently made
illegal deductions from their pay in violation of the Illinois
Wage Payment and Collection Act.

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


ROCKWATER ENERGY: Gomez Seeks Certification of Employee Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled RENE GOMEZ, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ROCKWATER ENERGY
SOLUTIONS, INCORPORATED and ROCKWATER MID-CON, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-02035 (S.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to certify a class of:

   "all current and former employees of Defendants Rockwater
   Energy Solutions, Inc., Rockwater Mid-Con, LLC and/or
   predecessor companies of said entities that held positions as
   well testers, or held similar job positions that included
   similar job duties, from July 11, 2013, through the present".

The Plaintiff claims that Defendants improperly classified him and
other similarly situated employees as exempt employees under the
FLSA and that they are entitled to overtime compensation.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John David Hart, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOHN DAVID HART
          Wells Fargo Tower
          201 Main Street, Suite 1260
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 870 2102
          Facsimile: (817) 332 5858


SALERNO'S & SONS: Parties in "Gonzalez" Suit to Confer on Jan. 13
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on December 22, 2016, in the case
styled Santiago Gonzalez v. Salerno's & Sons, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:16-cv-05120 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before
the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Status hearing and Motion hearing were held on December 22,
      2016;

   -- For the reasons stated on the record, Plaintiff's Motion
      for Sanctions is denied;

   -- Counsel shall meet and confer in person regarding their
      discovery disputes on January 13, 2017, at 1:30 p.m. at
      Plaintiff's counsel's office;

   -- By January 20, 2017, Plaintiff will send Defendants a
      letter memorializing in writing the agreements reached at
      that meeting and the disputes at which they are at impasse;

   -- Defendants will respond in writing to Plaintiff's letter by
      January 27, 2017.  The parties are not required to send the
      Court copies of their letters;

   -- If an impasse is reached that the parties cannot resolve
      themselves, Plaintiff will file a motion to compel by
      February 3, 2017;

   -- Defendants will respond by February 17, 2017;

   -- Plaintiff will reply by February 22, 2017;

   -- Plaintiff's motion to compel is set for ruling on March 8,
      2017, at 9:30 a.m.;

   -- The Court sets the following briefing schedule on
      Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and Approval of
      Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b):

      * Defendants will respond by January 19, 2017;

      * If Plaintiff wants to file a reply, he will do so by
        February 3, 2017;

      * Ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification and
        Approval of Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b)
        is set for March 8, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.;

      * By January 4, 2017, Defendants will produce all of the
        records it is going to produce without objection in
        response to Plaintiff's written discovery request; and

      * With respect to the time cards, they will either be
        produced or made available for inspection by Plaintiff's
        counsel before the January 13, 2017 meeting date.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5J3gH1XK


SANTA FE NATURAL: "Hebert" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2695
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jacques-Rene Hebert, Sara Benson,
Carol Murphy, Francisco Chavez, Joshua Horne, Albert Lopez, and
Abigail Emmons, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company
Inc., Reynolds American Inc., and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01390, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico (Albuquerque). The
New Mexico District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-01394-
JB-LF to the proceeding.

The Hebert case is consolidated with MDL 2695 in re: Santa Fe
Natural Tobacco Company Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation.
The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation on April 11, 2016. These actions share
factual questions arising out of the allegation that defendants
label and advertise Natural American Spirit cigarettes as
"natural" and "100% additive free" in a false and misleading
manner in violation of state consumer protection and false
advertising laws. Additionally, all actions stem from an FDA
warning letter to Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company on August 27,
2015, concerning the allegedly unauthorized use of "natural" and
"additive free" on Natural American Spirits cigarette labeling. In
its April 1, 2016, order, the MDL persuaded that the District of
New Mexico is an appropriate transferee district for this
litigation. Defendant Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company has its
headquarters in this district, and it represents that key
witnesses reside there, including employees and decision makers
tasked with the development and execution of product labeling,
marketing and advertising. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon.
James O. Browning. The lead case is 1:16-md-02695-JB-LF.

Santa Fe Natural is an American tobacco manufacturer based in
Santa Fe, New Mexico, known for its production of the premier
Natural American Spirit cigarette brand.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


SAVERS LLC: Assistant Managers Class Certified in "Godhigh" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William H. Orrick granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act in
the lawsuit styled EARL GODHIGH, et al. v. SAVERS, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 3:16-cv-02874-WHO (N.D. Cal.).  The "FLSA Collective"
consists of:

     All persons who have worked for Savers in any location
     nationwide as [Assistant Managers], including PMs or RSMs
     and similarly situated current and former employees holding
     comparable positions but different titles, at any time
     during the applicable limitations period prior to filing of
     this Complaint through the date of the final disposition of
     this action.

Judge Orrick also directed the parties to submit an agreed-to
notice by January 12, 2017.

In their Motion, Plaintiffs Earl Godhigh and Angela Osgood seek to
conditionally certify a nationwide collective of similarly
situated employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  They have
accused the Defendants of misclassifying Retail Sales Managers
("RSMs") and Production Managers ("PMs") as exempt employees, and
denied overtime pay.

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


SILVER BELL: "Ortiz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Ortiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Silver Bell Baking Company, Inc. and Albert Radziunas,
Case No. 1:16-cv-07098 (E.D.N.Y., December 23, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's
fees and costs, and all other appropriate legal and equitable
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a bakery in Middle Village, New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SMSSI OF CALIFORNIA: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Grigor Melikyan, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. SMSSI of California, Inc. and Does 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. BC644667 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 23,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide
off-duty meal periods, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, and failure to compensate proper regular and overtime
wages.

SMSSI of California, Inc. owns and operates a security guard
service company in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward W. Choi, Esq.
      Paul M. Yi, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213)381-1515
      Facsimile: (213) 465-4885
      E-mail: edward.choi@choiandassociates.com
              paul.yi@choiandassociates.com


SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL: Certification of Class Sought in "Rule" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned SHANNON RULE and KARINA
ESQUIVEL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL MECHANICAL MAINTENANCE COMPANY,
LLC, Case No. 5:16-cv-01408-EEF-KLH (W.D. La.), move for
conditional certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b)
(Fair Labor Standards Act).

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher L. Williams, Esq.
          WILLIAMS LITIGATION, L.L.C.
          639 Loyola Ave., Suite 1850
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 308-1438
          Facsimile: (504) 308-1446
          E-mail: chris@williamslitigation.com

               - and -

          Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
          Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
          JACKSON+JACKSON
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 599-5953
          Facsimile: (888) 988-6499
          E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net
                  mjackson@jackson-law.net


SOVRAN SELF STORAGE: June 5 Hearing on Castro Class Cert. Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JUAN CASTRO, JR., on behalf of himself
and other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SOVRAN
SELF STORAGE, INC. t/a UNCLE BOB'S SELF STORAGE, SOVRAN
ACQUISITION LP; and UNCLE BOB'S MANAGEMENT LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:14-cv-06446-RBK-JS (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff will move
the Court on June 5, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. before the Hon. Robert B.
Kugler, U.S.D.J. of the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, for an order to certifying two classes:

TCCWNA Class:

   all natural persons who entered into lease agreements with
   Defendants in the State of New Jersey between January 1, 2011
   and March 9, 2016; and

CFA Class:

   "all natural persons who since January 1, 2011 purchased
   insurance coverage from Bader through Defendants in New
   Jersey.

The Plaintiff will also move the Court to appoint Plaintiff Juan
Castro, Jr. as class Representative; appoint Michael A.
Galpern, Andrew P. Bell, James A. Barry and Charles N. Riley as
class counsel; grant Plaintiff leave to amend and file the Third
Amended Complaint; and direct Defendant to provide Plaintiff with
a list of members of the Classes together with the most updated
addresses and contact information in Defendant's possession and
directing that Notice be sent to Classes in a form and within time
limits set by the Court.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nn2mTBsJ

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew P. Bell, Esq.
          Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
          Andrew P. Bell, Esq.
          James A. Barry, Esq.
          800 N. Kings Highway
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 663 8200

               - and -

          Charles N. Riley, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES N. RILEY, LLC
          900 N. Kings Highway, Suite 308
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034

The Defendants are represented by:

          Steven P. Benenson, Esq.
          Eliyahu S. Scheiman, Esq.
          PORZIO, BROMBERG & NEWMAN, P.C.
          100 Southgate Pkwy., PO Box 1997
          Morristown, NJ 07962 1997

               - and -

          Kenneth A. Manning, Esq.
          Joanna J. Chen, Esq.
          Phillips Lytle LLP
          One Canalside, 125 Main Street
          Buffalo, NY 14203-2887


SWEET BLESSINGS: "White" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elijah White, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
employees and other aggrieved employees v. Sweet Blessings Corp.
and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC644981 (Cal. Super.
Ct., December 23, 2016), seeks to recover, unpaid wages, benefits,
expenses, interest, attorney's fees, damages, liquidated damages,
penalties, and costs pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Sweet Blessings Corp. owns and operates three franchise Baskin
Robbins locations in the state of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Graham S.P. Hollis, Esq.
      Marta Manus, Esq.
      Paloma Acosta, Esq.
      GRAHAMHOLLIS APC
      3555 Fifth Avenue
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 692-0800
      Facsimile: (619) 692-0822
      E-mail: ghollis@grahamhollis.com
              mmanus@grahamhollis.com
              pacosta@grahamhollis.com


TCI CONTRACTING: "Moya" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Luis Moya, and other similarly
situated employees non-exempt installers, the Plaintiff, v. TCI
Contracting, LLC, doing business as Installed Building Products of
Miami, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, and Pamela A. Henson,
Case No. 13-02016CA02963-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial
Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-
cv-25303-DPG to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge
Darrin P. Gayles.

TCI Contracting provides construction services. The company offers
plastering, drywall, and insulation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher Patrick Hammon, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART PC
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 455 3711
          Facsimile: (305) 374 0456
          E-mail: chris.hammon@ogletreedeakins.com


TEMPLE TERRACE, FL: Class Certification Sought in Lea Family Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LEA FAMILY PARTNERSHIP Ltd., a Florida
Limited Partnership, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CITY OF TEMPLE TERRACE, FLORIDA, and
LEN VALENTI, in his official capacity as "Housing Compliance
Officer" and individually, Case No. 8:16-cv-03463-JSM-AAS (Fla.
Cir. Ct.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of:

   "all property owners who, since the inception of the City of
   Temple Terrace's Rental Housing Program in 2012 and pursuant
   to the City of Temple Terrace's "Program Ordinances", (1) have
   paid any inspection fee to the City of Temple Terrace, (2)
   have had one or more properties inspected by the City of
   Temple Terrace or(3) have received a notice of violation for
   refusing to pay an inspection fee or for failing to allow an
   inspection."

To be excluded from the Class are the Judge to whom the case is
assigned and her staff, and the lawyers and staff of the law firms
representing Plaintiff in the case.

The City of Temple Terrace enacted its Rental Housing Code in
2001, which at that time was codified in sections 27.725 of the
City Code of Ordinances. In 2012, the City recodified its Code of
Ordinances and renumbered the provisions of the Rental Housing
Program as Division 2, Sections 8-133 through 8-137 ("Program
Ordinances"), which have at all times material to the action
contained the operative provisions of the Rental Housing Program.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christa L. Collins, Esq.
          HARMON, WOODS, PARKER & ABRUNZO, P.A.
          110 North 11th Street, 2nd Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 864 1762
          Facsimile: (813) 222 3616
          E-mail: service.cic@harmonwoodslaw.com
                  cic@hannonwoodslaw.com


TESLA MOTORS: Law Firms Call for NHTSA Probe Into Model X Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On December 30, 2016, McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, and Stradling
Yocca Carlson & Rauth, P.C., filed a federal individual and class
action lawsuit against Tesla Motors, Inc., on behalf of Ji Chang
Son in the Central District of California, alleging the Tesla's
Model X is defective resulting in an extraordinarily high rate of
Sudden Unintended Acceleration ("SUA") events.

McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, is a Southern California auto product
liability and class action law firm that in 2009 filed the first
class action lawsuit against Toyota alleging that defects in the
Toyota vehicles were resulting in SUA events.  As a result of the
SUA issues, and failure to promptly acknowledge those issues,
following several years of litigation Toyota settled over 300
private injury and wrongful death lawsuits, settled the class
claims valued at up to $1.6 billion, and payed the federal
government over $1.2 billion in fines.

According to Richard McCune of McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, there
are some similarities between the Toyota problem and the Tesla
problem.  "What we saw in Toyota was that the number of SUA events
occurring with Toyota vehicles was significantly higher than other
manufacturers, meaning that something was going on other than
'driver error.'  What the complaint alleges is that the ratio of
SUA events for Tesla versus the rate found in the literature on
other vehicles is staggering -- far higher than what was reported
for Toyota vehicles."

The similarities do not end with the higher number of reported SUA
events.  Like Toyota, Tesla's response to an obvious serious
safety problem is to blame the driver.  Here, Tesla claims that as
Mr. Son was pulling into the garage, he decided to press the
accelerator pedal all the way to the floor.  One of the features
of the Tesla is that it records such events -- including taking
and recording pictures from a forward facing camera.

In response to the lawsuit, rather than defending its engineering,
Tesla blamed Mr. Son and falsely impugned his motives.  In an
official statement, Tesla claimed that "before filing his class
action lawsuit against Tesla, Mr. Son had threatened to use his
celebrity status in Korea to hurt Tesla unless we agreed to make a
financial payment and acknowledge that the vehicle accelerated on
its own."  In an email sent by Benedict Kwon of Stradling Yocca
Carlson & Rauth, P.C., "unless Tesla comes to an amicable
conclusion with Mr. Son by the close of business this Friday,
September 23rd, Mr. Son has decided to file a lawsuit.  In
addition, he will hold a press conference both in the United
States and in South Korea to discuss the incident of September 10,
2016."  These statements cannot be construed as a threat to force
a financial payment by Tesla.  In fact, as the personal lawyer of
Mr. Son, Benedict Kwon confirmed that Mr. Son has never made any
demand for financial payment from Tesla.  In addition, Benedict
Kwon confirmed that Mr. Son's intentions of making a public
disclosure was for the purpose of making people aware of his
experience with his Tesla X in the hopes that he could prevent
similar occurrences from happening in the future.  To date, Mr.
Son has not held any press conferences, and his only action was to
file a legal action against Tesla only after Tesla refused to
admit any fault.

Mr. Son has only been responding to media inquiries in relation to
his filing of a legal action.

On September 23, 2016, Mr. Son received a letter from Tesla citing
its conclusions regarding Mr. Son's incident with his Tesla Model
X.  In the Tesla letter, there seemed to be some factual
discrepancies.  On October 13, 2016, Mr. Son's attorney, Richard
McCune, sent a follow up letter requesting additional information
from Tesla regarding these factual discrepancies.  Only after
several months, on December 12, 2016, did Tesla respond, refusing
to answer important questions regarding the software and sensors
used to measure accelerator pedal position on the basis that this
is "proprietary information."  Accordingly, Mr. Son had no choice
but to file a legal action against Tesla on December 30, 2016.
Mr. Son's desire has always been to expose the truth about the
dangers with this vehicle, and he intends to pursue the truth in
his legal action against Tesla.

In its rush to blame the driver in this and each of the other
accidents, Tesla does not explain why the engineers at Tesla
designed the vehicle to accept an instruction to accelerate full
speed into a wall in the vehicle owner's home.  According to
Richard McCune, "Tesla has marketed and sold these very expensive
vehicles to consumers claiming that they are far and away the
smartest and safest vehicles on the road.  A vehicle that has been
engineered to know it is at home, open the garage door, and even
pull in or out of the garage without a driver, but then blindly
accepts an instruction (whether the result of driver error or
electronic malfunction) to go full speed into the garage wall is
neither smart nor safe and is defective.  It was just very
fortunate that no one was in the garage or in the family room on
the other side of the wall.  I believe that unless Tesla
acknowledges and fixes this problem, it is only a matter of time
before the picture captured by the camera in a Tesla SUA event is
going to show an unspeakable tragedy."

McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, and Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth,
P.C., are submitting a letter to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration ("NHTSA") requesting that an investigation
be opened into the Tesla Model X for defects resulting in sudden
unintended acceleration.

Richard McCune of McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, and Benedict Kwon of
Stradling Yocca Carlson and Rauth, P.C., are available for
comment.  A copy of the filed complaint is available at
https://mccunewright.com/tesla-sudden-acceleration-class-action/


TESLA MOTOR: More Details Emerge in Model X SUA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
According to Teslarati's Steve Hanley, following the report that a
Model X owner has filed a class action law suit against Tesla,
claiming a widespread defect in the vehicle's onboard software
causes sudden unattended acceleration (SUA), new details behind
the suit have been obtained by Teslarati that shows a legal team
aggressively targeting the core component to the Silicon Valley-
based electric car maker's fleet of vehicles.

The class action filed in federal district court claims Ji Chang
Son -- Korean star residing in Orange County, Calif. -- crashed
through his garage and into the living room of his home after his
Tesla Model X accelerated suddenly and without warning on
September 10, 2016, approximately one month after Mr. Son took
delivery of the electric SUV.  The suit claims that "Tesla has
failed to properly disclose, explain, fix, or program safeguards
to correct the underlying problem of unintended acceleration",
adding that "over sixteen thousand Model X owners with vehicles
that could potentially accelerate out of control.

Mr. Son's attorneys gave the court a full account of the
development of the Model X, focusing on the company's claim that
the Model X is "the safest, fastest and most capable sport utility
vehicle in history."  On the contrary, according to
Mr. Son's attorneys.  They allege the Model X has a safety defect
that permits the car to accelerate at full speed directly into
solid objects, such as the exterior wall of Mr. Son's home.  In
particular, they point out that 8 written complaints have already
been filed with the National Highway Transportation Safety
Administration from other Model X owners who report similar
occurrences while driving their cars.

The lawsuit reads,

"Irrespective of whether the SUA events in the Model X are caused
by mechanical issues with the accelerator pedal, an unknown
failure in the electronic motor control system, a failure in other
aspects of the electrical, mechanical, or computer systems, or
some instances of pedal misapplication, the Model X is defective
and unsafe.  Tesla's lack of response to this phenomenon is even
more confounding when the vehicle is already equipped with the
hardware necessary for the vehicle's computer to be able to
intercede to prevent unintended acceleration into fixed objects
such as walls, fences, and buildings.

Despite repeated instances of Model X drivers reporting
uncommanded full power acceleration while parking, Tesla has
failed to develop and implement computer algorithms that would
eliminate the danger of full power acceleration into fixed
objects.  This failure to provide a programming fix is especially
confounding for a vehicle that knows when it is located at the
driver's home and is being parked in the garage, yet carries out
an instruction, regardless of whether through an error by the
vehicle control systems or by driver pedal misapplication, to
accelerate at full power into the garage wall.

Further, not only has Tesla failed to fix the problems, it has
chosen instead to follow in the footsteps of other automobile
manufacturers and simply blame the driver."

One problem, according to Mr. Son's attorneys, is the software
that controls the Automatic Emergency Braking system.  Tesla has
programmed that feature to disengage in order to allow drivers to
make emergency maneuvers, "in situations where you are taking
action to avoid a potential collision.  For example:

You turn the steering wheel sharply.
You press the accelerator pedal.
You press and release the brake pedal.
A vehicle, motorcycle, bicycle, or pedestrian, is no longer
detected ahead."

In other words, say the attorneys, a Model X will drive straight
into a solid wall if that is what the system thinks the driver
wants it to do.  "Apparently, this includes situations where the
computer believes, rightly or wrongly, that the driver is
commanding full power acceleration directly into fixed objects
immediately in front of the vehicle."

Class action lawsuits are complex and highly specialized legal
actions.  Federal law requires that the damages alleged for the
entire class exceed $5 million.  The plaintiff's attorney have
done so by claiming that Tesla is aware of at least two other
instances in which drivers allege sudden unintended acceleration
occurred while driving their Model X at low speeds.  They then
extrapolate those numbers to suggest that the rate of SUA
incidents attributable to the Model X is 64 per 100,000 vehicles -
- substantially higher than for any other vehicle in history.


They point out that the incidence rate of SUA incidents for Toyota
vehicles -- which grabbed national headlines in 2010 -- was far
lower.  They then go on to remind the court that Toyota paid
several hundred million dollars to SUA victims as well as a $1.2
billion federal fine.  Notice that the chart included in the
pleadings shows an exaggerated and disproportionate projected SUA
incidence rate for the Model X highlighted in bright red.

Tesla says its data retrieved from the vehicle's blackbox shows
the accelerator in Mr. Son's Model X was fully depressed when the
accident occurred.  The question for the court will be whether the
driver pressed the wrong pedal or whether the vehicle accelerated
on its own. It is unclear whether a software failure would
register the pedal as fully depressed even if it was not
physically operated by the driver.

Plaintiffs always have the burden of proving their allegations.
Attorneys for injured parties often rely on a legal doctrine known
as res ipsa loquitur, which is Latin for "the thing speaks for
itself."  Loosely translated, it means "we don't know what is
wrong with your product that you designed and built, but you know
or should know."  Res ipsa loquitur shifts the burden of proof
onto the defendant, which makes it much easier for a plaintiff to
prevail in court.

One advantage the plaintiff gains from filing suit is the ability
to discover what information Tesla has that is not yet public.
Does Tesla know something it isn't telling its customers? We may
find out as this litigation goes forward.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Tacoma Owners Set to Get Settlement Notices
---------------------------------------------------------
On January 3, 2017, notice was set to start being sent to
consumers about a settlement reached between Toyota Motor Sales
and the owners of Toyota Tacoma vehicles, model years 2005 to
2010; Toyota Tundra vehicles, model years 2007 to 2008; and Toyota
Sequoia vehicles, model years 2005 to2008.  The notice is sent
pursuant to the December 2, 2016, order from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California granting preliminary
approval of a settlement.  The Court also appointed Timothy G.
Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com -- of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP and
Ben Barnow -- b.barnow@barnowlaw.com -- of Barnow and Associates,
P.C. as Class Counsel.

The settlement involves about 1.5 million vehicles and covers all
50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the other
United States territories and possessions.

Under the settlement, each class member is entitled to have their
vehicle's frame inspected for rust corrosion.  If excessive
corrosion is found, the frame and associated parts will be
replaced. The inspection and frame replacement is at no cost to
class members.

A class member may have their vehicle's frame inspected for free
for up to 12 years from the time the vehicle was first sold or
leased, or one year from final settlement approval, whichever is
longer.  Class members also may have their frames inspected
multiple times during this period.

"The frame plays a central role in the crashworthiness and
stability of the vehicle.  Inspections will cost the class member
nothing and are important to ensure the vehicle's safety and
structural integrity," said Timothy Blood of Blood Hurst &
O'Reardon.

"Tim and I are very pleased to deliver this proposed remedy for
consumers for the Court's review and, ultimately, for the benefit
of every class member.  Authorized Toyota dealerships will be
available to provide inspections and required repairs.  This is
important to ensure the proper and prompt delivery of the
settlement benefits to consumers," said Ben Barnow of Barnow and
Associates.

The lawsuit is entitled Warner v. Toyota Motor Company, Case No.
CV 15-2171 (C.D. Cal.).  The final approval hearing is scheduled
for April 27, 2017.

             About Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP

Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP -- http://www.bholaw.com--
specializes in consumer protection law.  It represents consumers,
insurance policy holders, investors and small businesses in class
action lawsuits nationwide.

                About Barnow and Associates, P.C.

Barnow and Associates, P.C. -- http://www.barnowlaw.com-- has a
multi-decade practice dedicated to advancing consumers causes.
Its cases, and settlements, have included some of the largest
certified classes against a Who's Who of corporate America.


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Attorney Challenges Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wyandotte Daily reports Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt has
joined a bi-partisan coalition of 14 state attorneys general in
filing a brief in federal court to protect Kansas consumers from
abuse in the class action settlement process.

In the friend-of-the-court brief filed in December, Mr. Schmidt
asked the court to reject a proposed class action settlement
because the vast majority of the class members receive nothing of
particular value from the deal, even as the class action attorneys
collect almost $3 million.

"Consumers should come first in the class action settlement
process," Mr. Schmidt said.  "In this case, the proposed
settlement is not fair or reasonable and bargains away the claims
of the class members.  As part of our consumer protection role,
our office maintains a watchful eye on proposed class action
settlements that do not actually benefit the consumers they
purport to protect."

The class action lawsuit alleged that United Healthcare improperly
denied class members coverage for the ground-breaking hepatitis C
treatment Harvoni.  Under the settlement, consumers lose not just
the claims against United Healthcare made in the class action, but
any claims relating in any way to any hepatitis C drug or the
hepatitis C virus more generally.  In exchange for this sweeping
release of their claims, the vast majority of the class members
receive nothing of particular value.  Instead, these consumers
receive only the continued opportunity to benefit from changes to
the approval standards for Harvoni that United Healthcare already
implemented in 2016.

In filing the brief objecting to the settlement agreement in Jones
v. United Healthcare, which is pending in federal court in Florida
but would have nationwide effect, Mr. Schmidt emphasized the role
state attorneys general and courts should play in advocating for
consumers within class action settlements.

The states filing the amicus brief are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,
Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas and Wyoming.


UNITED STATES: Insurers' Suit Over Risk Corridor Program Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert King, writing for Washington Examiner, reports that
Donald Trump ran a campaign that pledged to get rid of Obamacare.

But his administration will have to either defend the
controversial law in federal court or fork over tens of millions
of dollars to angry insurers.

Several insurers took the Obama administration to court in the
fall to force the administration to pay out money they say was
promised to them.  Those lawsuits won't likely be resolved by the
time Trump takes office on Jan. 20, meaning he will have to settle
them or fight for a law he wants to repeal.

"It's awkward," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former head of the
Congressional Budget Office and president of the center-right
think tank American Action Forum.  "This is why maybe there will
be some attempts to solve this legislatively in the repeal
process."

Congress is hoping to begin work on repealing Obamacare.  A repeal
bill could bypass a filibuster through a procedural move called
reconciliation in the Senate and would pass easily in the House.

Two lawsuits are seeking nearly $30 million from the federal
government.  Both of the lawsuits are from taxpayer-funded
consumer oriented and operated plans: New Mexico Health
Connections and Minuteman Health, which serves Massachusetts and
New Hampshire.

Minuteman Health wants $5.5 million, and New Mexico Health
Connections demanded $23 million to cover the 2014 and 2015
payments made under Obamacare's risk corridor program.

In addition, eight insurers including New Mexico Health
Connections filed claims against the federal government seeking
money for the risk corridor program in the Court of Federal
Claims.  A decision is pending on whether the insurers can file a
class-action claim.

The risk corridors program was supposed to work like this:
insurers with low profits would receive money from the government,
which would get the money from insurers with more profits.

The idea was promoted by the Obama administration as a way to
ensure predictability for insurers that had no idea who was going
to sign up for Obamacare in 2014.  However, it didn't work out
like that.

Too many insurers requested payments from the federal government
and not enough paid in to the program to cover the payments in
2014.  The result was a major shortfall, with $2.87 billion in
requested payments for 2014 but insurers receiving $362 million.

The money collected for 2015 was expected to help pay down the
balance from 2014.

Now Trump must decide how he wants to handle the two lawsuits.

The Obama administration has considered settling the claims and
lawsuits, but that met stiff resistance from Republicans who
believe a settlement was a way to bail out insurers.

"I would assume that the Trump administration's position is that
we are not going to pay out any more than we have to," said
Timothy Jost, an Obamacare supporter and law professor at
Washington & Lee University.  "There's no sign they would have any
interest in settling them."

Minuteman Health is expected to file an amended complaint to its
lawsuit in January to reflect new payment rules released by the
Obama administration last month.

New Mexico asked for a delay until March 1 to see what happens
with the federal claims.

Mr. Jost and Mr. Holtz-Eakin said they doubted that repealing
Obamacare, which likely won't go into effect for a few years until
a GOP replacement is approved, would affect the lawsuits.

"I think the suits are relative to the law at the time," Mr.
Holtz-Eakin said.

He added that any repeal bill could include language that would
retroactively affect the lawsuits, but it is also possible that
Congress would appropriate the risk corridor funding the insurers
requested.

Prior spending bills included riders that made the risk corridor
program budget neutral, meaning the administration could only pay
out what it took in.  It is not clear if future spending bills
will include a similar rider, as collections for 2016 risk
corridor payments will start next year.

Critics have called the co-op program one of the biggest failures
of the healthcare law, as the administration created 23 co-ops to
spur competition on Obamacare's marketplaces.  However, a lack of
federal funding and higher-than-expected costs caused all but six
to collapse.

The collapses parallel other insurer issues with Obamacare, as
Aetna and UnitedHealth bolted from most of the states in which
they offer plans due to mounting losses.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services did release new
federal regulations that outlined payments for the risk corridor
program.

It also laid out ways to help insurers become more stable, such as
eliminating some special enrollment periods that let people sign
up for Obamacare year-round.


UNITED STATES: Class Certification in FICA Tax Refund Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned WICHITA CENTER FOR GRADUATE MEDICAL
EDUCATION, the Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the
Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-01054-JTM-KGG (D. Kas.), the Hon. J.
Thomas Marten entered an order on Dec. 21, denying class
certification of:

   "nonprofit corporations which have received Federal Insurance
   Contributions Act (FICA) tax refunds with interest at the
   lower, corporate rate."

The Court said, "The proposed class does not distinguish between
employers, like WCGME, which have received interest income at the
higher, noncorporate rate only to have to return the difference to
the IRS, and other employers, like CAMC and CHERI, which have only
received interest at the lower, corporate rate. In addition, the
proposed class is not restricted to employers who have previously
filed an administrative claim with the IRS or otherwise explicitly
asserted a claim to the higher, noncorporate interest rate. The
court denies the motion for certification. This court has
jurisdiction to entertain claims for unpaid interest under section
1346, but such claims are subject to the jurisdictional
prerequisite of an administrative claim under Internal Revenue
Code section 7422. Such claims must also be filed within the
limitations period established by Internal Revenue Code."

In addition to its jurisdictional argument, the government also
contends that the proposed class does not meet the standard for
certification under Fed.R.Civ.Pr. 23, and that in any event the
specific venue provisions noted in the earlier decision of the
court would preclude certification. The court finds that it need
not resolve these arguments. Because the court does not have
jurisdiction to entertain the claims of the requested class, the
plaintiff's motion is denied.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GmL9Q9p8


U.S. XPRESS: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Ayala" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Anthony Ayala v. U.S XPRESS ENTERPRISES,
INC., et al., the Case No. 5:16-cv-00137-GW-KK (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. George H. Wu entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for
class certification, in light of the oral argument at the December
22, 2016 hearing.

In this putative class action against U.S. Xpress Enterprises,
Inc. and U.S. Xpress, Inc., the Plaintiff seeks certification of a
class pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.  In the complaint, the Plaintiff asserts claims
for violations of the California Labor Code and California
Industrial Commission Wage Orders, including failure to provide
meal and rest periods in violation of the Labor Code.  The
proposed Class consists of:

     [A]ll truck drivers who worked or work in California for
     U.S. Express after the completion of training at any time
     since four years from the filing of this legal action until
     such time as there is a final disposition of this lawsuit.

Judge Wu has concluded that the Court would agree that the
significant individualized inquiries it would have to conduct with
respect to each putative Class Member establish that the
predominance requirement of Rule 23(b) is not satisfied.  As such,
class certification under Rule 23(b) is not warranted, Judge Wu
added.

A status conference was set for January 9, 2017 at 8:30 a.m.  The
Parties filed a joint status report on January 5, 2017.

A copy of the Civil Minutes of the Dec. 22 hearing is available at
no charge at

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


A copy of the Dec. 27 Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ejuakcwo


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Borgen, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 835-1417
          E-mail: dborgen@gbdhlegal.com

               - and -

          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC
          1878 Marlton Pike East, Suite 10
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
          E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com

               - and -

          James M. Sitkin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES M. SITKIN
          1 Kaiser Plaza, Suite 505
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 318-1048
          Facsimile: (415) 362-3268
          E-mail: jsitkin@sitkinlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James H. Hanson, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON AND FEARY PC
          10 West Market Street, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN  46204
          Telephone: (317) 492-9205
          Facsimile: (317) 687-2414
          E-mail: jhanson@scopelitis.com


US SECURITY: Decertification Bid Denied in Light of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. George H. King entered an order in the lawsuit captioned
Muhammed Abdullah, et al. v. U.S. Security Associates, Inc., Case
No. 2:09-cv-09554-GHK-E (C.D. Cal.), denying without prejudice the
cross-motions for summary judgment and motion for decertification
in light of the parties' settlement.

The Parties shall file a motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement by no later than February 13, 2017.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YjfkkC57


UTJOK ZAIDAN: Faces "Hardjowirogo" Suit in N.Y. Supreme Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zaidan, Utjok Amry
Ano Muhammed Husni. The case is styled as HARDJOWIROGO, RINA ETAL
AJI JUMENA, ELVI AGUSTA, MOHAMMAD DJADJA ZAKARIA TOHA, PRIJONO
HARDJOWIROGO, SUMARMI SUMARMI & OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED AGGRIEVED
CONGREGANTS OF THE INDONESIAN MUSLIM COMMUNITY, INC., A NOT-FOR-
PROFIT CORPORATION, the Plaintiff, v. ZAIDAN, UTJOK AMRY ANO
MUHAMMED HUSNI A/K/A DENY PURBA, the Defendant, Case No.
14588/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Dec. 22, 2016). The case is assigned to
Hon. Diccia T. Pineda-Kirwan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          THOMAS WEISS & ASSOCIATES
          1305 Franklin Avenue
          Garden City, NY 11530


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Diesel Car Emissions Scandal Costs to Spike
----------------------------------------------------------
Jon LeSage, writing for Hybrid Cars, reports that Volkswagen may
see its recovery costs from the diesel car emissions scandal climb
higher from a potential class-action lawsuit filed in Germany.

German lawyers for U.S. law firm Hausfeld have filed the suit for
one car owner that's been designed to follow what's worked in U.S.
courtrooms, according to Jan-Eike Andresen of legal-tech website
My-Right.de.  The legal portal is supporting these efforts.

The My-Right.de site allows VW car owners to sign up online
without taking on the financial risks plaintiffs usually fall
under Germany's legal structure.  The law firm has also been
working with litigation fund Burford Capital.

The website promises car owners "up to 5,000 euros" ($5,200) in
damages or to make VW buy back the vehicle.

The Hausfeld firm and My-right.de declined to say how many people
signed up, or to reveal the total value of potential claims.

The new lawsuit is unfounded, said VW spokesman Nicolai Laude in
an emailed statement.  Owners won't have any problems once the
diesel car is fixed, he said.

VW agreed in June to a recall with Germany's KBA motor vehicle
authority of 800,000 diesel cars fitted with emissions cheat
software.

European consumer groups have been upset to see VW make its $10
billion settlement in the U.S. where American car owners can
receive up to $10,000 in reimbursement.  The German automaker
claims the rules are different in Europe, and repairing the engine
takes care of the problem.

That's certainly not the case for Mr. Andresen.

"VW has defrauded car owners for years," Mr. Andresen said.  "VW
delivered nothing on what they promised to do to mend the issue."

There have been about a thousand owners of VW group diesel
vehicles that have sued the automaker or car dealers, out of 2.5
million German buyers of these affected vehicles.  Only about a
quarter of the suits have been successful, and VW and its dealers
have been making settlements.

The consumer case isn't the only trouble facing VW, which is the
target of 1,400 investor lawsuits filed in Braunschweig over the
issue seeking a combined 8 billion euros ($8.3 billion).

My-Right is hoping to see a settlement for the whole group, or
potentially for all European consumers.  The case is based on
European Union laws, and the law firms is seeking a ruling that
would have jurisdiction across the region and not just Germany.


VOLT MANAGEMENT: Fails to Provide Proper Rest Breaks, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Northern California Record,
reports that a man alleges his former employer violated labor code
laws.

Adan Ortiz filed a complaint on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated on Dec. 13 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against Volt Management Corp.,
Genco I Inc. and Does 1-50 alleging violations of labor code,
unfair competition and other counts.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he and
other similarly situated employees/former employees were employed
by the defendants at different times as non-exempt employees in an
hourly position.  However, he alleges that the defendants have
maintained malpractices of rounding plaintiffs' clock-in and
clock-out times or number of hours worked to result in
underpayment of wages, not providing proper rest and meal periods,
and failing to timely pay plaintiffs all of their final wages.  As
a result, he alleges he and class members have lost money or
property.  The plaintiffs holds Volt Management Corp., Genco I
Inc. and Does 1-50 responsible because the defendants allegedly
failed to adequately compensate plaintiff for all hours worked,
and failed to provide mandatory rest and meal break periods, and
failed to provide accurate wage statements.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against
defendants, certify as a class action, appoint class
representative and class counsel, unpaid wages, actual damages,
restitution, declaratory relief, interest, statutory and civil
penalties, costs of suit, attorneys' fees and other relief as the
court deems just.  He is represented by Shaun Setareh --
shaun@setarehlaw.com -- and Thomas Segal of Setareh Law Group in
Beverly Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case
number 3:16-cv-07096


WELLS FARGO: Summary Judgment Dismissal of FLSA Claims Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ezra L. Finkle, Esq., of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, in
an article for Mondaq, reports that on October 14, 2016, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment
dismissal of FLSA claims.  The Fifth Circuit held that a class
action settlement using an opt-out procedure, even if based on
state-law claims, may bar later-filed FLSA claims.  The Fifth
Circuit further held that applying res judicata to bar the later-
filed FLSA claims based on the settlement from an opt-out class
action was not inconsistent with the FLSA's opt-in requirement.

Wells Fargo Bank N.A., et al, allegedly violated the FLSA by
misclassifying home mortgage consultants ("HMCs") as exempt
workers and failing to make appropriate overtime payments.  The
purported class filed suit in the U.S. District Court, Southern
District of Texas.  After the district court conditionally
certified two collective actions, the majority of those who opted
in to this class action settled their claims in a court-approved
agreement.  The settlement, however, excluded 1,516 plaintiffs who
opted into the instant action but were members of a previously
settled opt-out class action in the Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco: Lofton et al. v. Wells Fargo, San
Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-11-509502 ("Lofton").  The
Fifth Circuit referred to these plaintiffs as the "California
Plaintiffs."

The Lofton plaintiffs alleged that Wells Fargo misclassified HMCs
as exempt employees and failed to pay appropriate overtime. Lofton
involved alleged violations of the FLSA as grounds for California
state law wage claims.  On April 27, 2011, the Lofton court
granted preliminary approval of a settlement for $19 million.  To
receive a portion of the settlement, class members had to fill out
and return the exclusion form.  The Lofton settlement contained a
release of certain claims whereby class members would "fully and
finally release and discharge Wells from any and all applicable
state and federal law wage-and-hour claims . . . including any
existing under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938."

The Lofton court granted final approval of the settlement on
July 27, 2011.  Then, on September 2, 2014, in the Texas FLSA
action, Wells Fargo moved for summary judgment arguing that res
judicata barred the California Plaintiffs' FLSA claims in Texas
because none of the California Plaintiffs opted out of the Lofton
case and the Lofton release's language included FLSA claims.  Of
the 1,516 California Plaintiffs, 1,283 filed claim forms in Lofton
while 233 did not file claim forms (and therefore did not receive
any settlement payment).

On November 4, 2015, the district court granted Wells Fargo's
motion for summary judgment on res judicata grounds.  First, the
district court held that waiver of FLSA claims as part of the
Lofton settlement had res judicata effect even though it was
accomplished through an opt-out class action.  Second, the
district court held there was no due process violation that would
preclude the application of res judicata because the interests of
the Lofton class representative and class counsel were always
aligned with the interests of the California Plaintiffs.  The
district court further found no issues with the notice used in the
Lofton settlement.  Finally, the district court held that the
Lofton settlement was a final judgment for res judicata purposes.
While appellate issues did remain in Lofton, the Fifth Circuit
held that these issues did not make the judgment any less final.
The district court applied California law in deciding whether the
Lofton settlement precluded the California Plaintiffs' Texas
claims.  The California Plaintiffs appealed.

On appeal, the California Plaintiffs argued that FLSA claims
released as part of an opt-out class action settlement could never
be given preclusive effect against absent class members (unless
they opt in) because they are not parties, or in privity with a
party, with respect to the release of FLSA claims.  The California
Plaintiffs' reasoned that, because an FLSA collective action
requires that a party opt in under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) in order
to be bound by the collective action, they never became parties to
the release of their FLSA claims because they never opted in to
the Lofton claims.  The California Plaintiffs argued that FLSA
claims, due to their opt-in requirement, present an exception to
the preclusive effect of a state claim's opt-out class action.  In
other words, California's opt-out procedure was inconsistent with
the FLSA's opt-in rule.

The Fifth Circuit disagreed, holding that the FLSA does not create
a special limitation to the extent California law applied its
preclusion rules in opt-out class actions, such as Lofton. While
FLSA claims cannot be asserted using an opt-out class action
procedure, the Fifth Circuit noted that this case was different
because a state court already supervised and approved an opt-out
class action settlement that expressly released FLSA claims.  The
Fifth Circuit recognized the FLSA did not create a special
exception to the enforceability of judicially approved settlement
agreements, such as the Lofton settlement.  The Fifth Circuit
further held that the FLSA did not create an exception to the Full
Faith and Credit Act.  The judicially approved settlement in
California carried a preclusive effect in Texas federal court.

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

Case:    Richardson, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
             United States Fifth Circuit
             No. 15-20711, (5th Cir. Oct. 28, 2016)


* Class Action Waiver Enforceability in Arbitration Reaffirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katharine I. Rand, Esq. -- krand@pierceatwood.com -- of Pierce
Atwood LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that employers
commonly use arbitration agreements to minimize the expense and
exposure of employment-related claims.  By mandating arbitration
of employment disputes, they hope to ensure that these matters are
resolved in a cost-effective and confidential manner.  Many
arbitration agreements go a step further, requiring employees to
pursue their claims individually, and to waive their right to
proceed on a class or collective basis.  Unfortunately, the
certainty employers have striven to achieve with such agreements
has proven elusive in recent years, as the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) and several courts have found that class
action waivers violate employees' rights.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court's 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility
LLC v. Concepcion upheld the enforceability of class action
waivers in the consumer context, in the years since, the NLRB has
repeatedly rejected the use of class action waivers in the
employment context.  In In re D.R. Horton, the NLRB held that
class action waivers inherently infringe on employees' rights to
engage in protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act (Section 7 rights).  Since In re D.R.
Horton, a split has emerged among the U.S. Courts of Appeal, with
the Second, Fifth and Eighth Circuits rejecting the NLRB's
position, the Seventh and Ninth Circuits embracing it, and the
Third Circuit expected to weigh in very soon.

Notwithstanding the pronouncements of the Second, Fifth, and
Eighth Circuit Courts of Appeal, the NLRB has continued to apply
its own view, defiantly issuing rulings it knows cannot withstand
appellate scrutiny in these jurisdictions.  Last month, in
Citigroup Technology, Inc. v. NLRB, the Fifth Circuit reversed an
NLRB decision ordering Citigroup to remove class action waivers
from its employment arbitration agreements.  The matter originated
with an unfair labor practice charge filed by former Citigroup
employee, Andrea Smith, after the American Arbitration Association
rejected one of her coworkers' requests to arbitrate unpaid
overtime claims on a collective basis.  Ms. Smith's charge alleged
that class action waivers contained in arbitration agreements
between Citigroup and its anti-money-laundering operations
analysts were unlawful.  In 2015, the NLRB agreed with Smith and
found the employees had the right to pursue their claims on a
collective basis, notwithstanding the terms of their agreements
with Citigroup.

Citigroup appealed, relying on well settled Fifth Circuit
precedent holding that the Federal Arbitration Act mandates
enforcement of the arbitration agreement, including the class
action waiver.  In its appellate briefs, the NLRB conceded that
the Fifth Circuit's earlier rulings were dispositive of the issue
on appeal and effectively precluded enforcement of the agency's
order. Relying on what it described as the NLRB's "candid -- and
greatly appreciated -- concession," the Fifth Circuit reversed the
NLRB's decision in a three-page opinion consisting primarily of
quotes from the parties' briefs.

Petitions for writs of certiorari have been filed in multiple
cases, requesting that the United States Supreme Court take a
stance on the currently unsettled issue of whether class action
waivers in the employment context infringe employees' Section 7
rights.  It seems reasonably likely, moreover, that the pro-
employee agenda advanced by the NLRB under the Obama
Administration will come to an end when President-elect Trump
fills NLRB vacancies with more conservative appointees.  While
conditions are perfect for U.S. Supreme Court intervention, and
the change in administration portends substantial policy revisions
at the NLRB, what will happen first, and when, remains unclear.


* Five New Jersey Lawyers Named in Racketeering Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
five New Jersey lawyers who represent consumers have been named in
a racketeering class action suit accusing them of bringing
meritless suits against collection law firms in hopes that the
firms will agree to quick settlements.

The alleged racketeering pattern was described in the suit as
consisting of locating collection letters and securing cooperation
of their recipients, constructing unsubstantiated scenarios
alleging classwide statutory damages, filing class action suits
against the issuers of the letters, and settling the suit for a
mid five- or low six-figure attorney fee, according to the suit.
The plan's success has been driven by a structure in which
plaintiffs settle early in the litigation for as much as they can
get but for less than the case would cost to defend at trial, the
suit said.

Defendants in the suit are attorneys Joseph Jones and Benjamin
Wolf and their firm, Jones, Wolf & Kapasi in Fairfield; Laura
Mann, a solo in Riverdale; and Ari Marcus and Yitzchak Zelman and
their firm, Marcus & Zelman in Ocean Township.

In Winters v. Jones, the class representatives are Jeffrey Winters
and his company, Collection Solutions Inc. also known as CSI, of
Hackensack, which the suit describes as a victim of the New Jersey
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act enterprise.  In
2015, CSI and its general counsel, Charles Turner, were named in a
class action suit brought by Messrs. Jones and Wolf on behalf of a
creditor, Juliette Chapa.

Mr. Winters and CSI settled the Chapa case for $12,000, payable in
monthly installments, without filing a counterclaim and before
completion of discovery on Sept. 21, 2016.

David Hoffman, a solo in Basking Ridge, represents the plaintiff
and the class.

"An analysis of the PACER record shows these guys are making a
claim and cloaking it in a class action overcoat to obtain legal
fees.  You don't get legal fees normally unless it's a class
action.  The point of the whole scheme is to get legal fees,"
Mr. Hoffman said.

Elements of the RICO plan, and its use to violate the federal and
New Jersey RICO statutes, include:

   -- Avoiding small claims court or unprofitable, immediate
payment of nominal claims without attorney fees, by filing
spurious class actions in federal court.  "Plaintiffs have found
no Federal class actions filed by Defendants where a class has
been certified other than as part of or as related to a
settlement.  Notable is the inordinate proportion of cases opened,
settled and closed within several months," the suit said.

   -- Seeking and developing "professional plaintiffs," including
one cited in the complaint who appears as the sole class
representative in six cases for either Jones, Wolf & Kapasi or
Marcus & Zelman.

   -- Ignoring the absence of actual damages and lack of
typicality, while falsely alleging the existence of certifiable
plaintiff classes, even while knowing that the alleged classes had
little or no chance of being certified if there were any
examination by the court or opposing counsel of the propriety of
certification.

   -- Settling the class actions based solely on attorney fees,
and without any concern for the quality of the settlement's
benefits to the alleged class.

In addition to state and federal RICO counts, the suit includes
counts for fraud, legal malpractice and negligence, and seeks
relief on behalf of parties who were defendants in class actions
in New Jersey and New York.

In a continuing legal education lecture on the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act on Oct. 8, 2013, Ms. Mann said that
actual damages "rarely" occur in such cases, and Jones
acknowledged "you've got to prove actual damages."  Their lecture
can be downloaded for $99 at lawline.com.  Their statements prove
the defendants possess the mens rea to find that their filing a
class action where no actual damages exist is a criminal predicate
act, the suit claims.

The RICO plan's operation was explained in a 2015 ruling from the
Southern District of New York, Gallego v. Northland Group,
dismissing a suit filed by Jones and Wolf against a collection
agency, according to the complaint.  The suit claimed that a
collection letter received by class representative
Jeffrey Gallego violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
because it did not list the name of a person he could call in
response to the letter.


* Queensland Introduces Class Action Regime
-------------------------------------------
Michael Kimmins, Esq., and Danielle Tay, Esq., of Corrs Chambers
Westgarth, in an article for Mondaq, report that the Limitation of
Actions (Child Sexual Abuse) and Other Legislation Amendment Act
2016 (Qld) recently received royal assent.  Among other things,
this piece of legislation has introduced a regime for
representative proceedings, otherwise known as class actions, into
Queensland.

Queensland is only the third State to introduce a class action
regime.  The Federal Court's class action regime came into
operation in the early nineties. Victoria was the first State to
bring in the regime back in 2000 and New South Wales followed suit
in 2011.  The portion of the legislation introducing the class
action regime in Queensland has yet to be proclaimed and its
commencement date is unknown.

WHY IS A CLASS ACTION REGIME IMPORTANT FOR QUEENSLAND?

The introduction of a class action regime into Queensland will
enable Queenslanders to seek redress more cheaply and efficiently
in their home jurisdiction.

Previously, Queenslanders who wished to bring class actions had to
do so either through the Queensland registry of the Federal Court,
or in New South Wales and Victoria.  There are obvious limitations
to both approaches.  The Federal Court is limited in its
jurisdiction to dealing with federal subject matter, potentially
giving the respondent an opportunity to attack the Court's
jurisdiction to hear the matter.  Similarly, although the State
Supreme Courts may have jurisdiction over disputes that have
minimal connection with the home State, running disputes in
another State is more costly for all parties and can add several
layers of complication both legally and logistically.

This means that there is likely to be an increase in the number of
law firms conducting investigations into potential class actions
in Queensland, and a likely increase in the number of
Queenslanders willing to consider taking part in class actions.

Queensland-based respondents could save significant legal costs
and logistical challenges in having the matter heard locally,
rather than in the more expensive southern States.  In addition,
while the class action regime shifts the balance of power in
favour of the plaintiff, the aggregation of claims into a class
action may still benefit a respondent in allowing it to avoid
defending multiple potential proceedings over the same set of
factual circumstances, which inevitably leads to higher costs.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

Number of class actions

A total of 19 class actions were filed in the first five years of
operation of the NSW regime, and 18 class actions in the first
five years of the Victorian regime.

Historically, there have been class actions arising out of
Queensland that have commenced in other jurisdictions.  The
Queensland floods class action is being run in the Supreme Court
of New South Wales, and since 2013, five class actions have also
been filed in the Queensland registry of the Federal Court of
Australia.  Two of these have been filed since July 2016.

Based on the statistics from Victoria and New South Wales, and the
number of class actions arising out of Queensland filed in other
jurisdictions, it is reasonable to assume that, on average, four
or five class actions will be commenced in Queensland each year.

Types of class actions

From 1992 to 2016, the most commonly litigated class actions have
been product liability matters (18.3%).  The landscape is,
however, changing. From 2004 to 2016, 27.6% of class actions were
claims by investors other than shareholders, and 24.8% were claims
by shareholders.  Product liability claims came in fourth at
11.6%.6

Because the Federal Court has a corporations jurisdiction, its
likely investor and shareholder class actions will continue to be
litigated in the Federal jurisdiction.  The class actions
currently being run in New South Wales and Victoria cover a broad
spectrum of matters, such as bush fires, payday loans, navy
training (failure to obtain certain qualifications), personal
injury in detention and product liability, and it is likely that
matters such as these will also be run in Queensland.

HOW WILL THIS CHANGE THE LANDSCAPE?

There's no reason to suggest that the Queensland experience will
be different from that in Victoria and New South Wales, or in the
Federal court.  Plaintiffs or law firms who were previously
reticent to commence class actions because of the issues arising
out of litigating interstate may now decide to conduct an action
in Queensland and the major class action plaintiff firms already
have operations in Queensland.

Over the last 12 years, a dozen class action proceedings were
commenced in the Federal Court in Western Australia, South
Australia, and the Australian Capital Territory.  It's possible
that causes of action arising in these remaining jurisdictions
without a class action regime may be litigated in Queensland, as a
cheaper alternative.

Victoria and New South Wales may have led the way.  Queensland,
however, will learn valuable lessons from both States while
charting its own course over the next few years.


* Scandals Marred Automotive Industry in 2016
---------------------------------------------
Shipra Bihani, writing for TNN, reports that the year 2016 saw
many scandals in the automotive industry.  Here are the top five
incidents that marred the industry.

Takata's faulty airbag scandal
Takata Corp "is a specialized supplier of automotive safety
systems", but its reputation has been under a cloud.

Due to a variety of factors, Takata's airbag inflators can inflate
with excessive force, causing them to explode and even spray metal
shrapnel on the passengers.

Globally, the inflators have caused 16 fatalities and injuries
numbering atleast in the hundreds.

While the airbag manufacturer's woes had already begun in 2013,
they worsened immensely in the year 2016.  What started out as an
issue with some vehicles, transformed into recalls in atleast
three countries and by as many as 19 automakers.

The number of vehicles recalled in the US, by a conservative
estimate, stood at 42 million.  South Korea began by recalling
50,000 vehicles and then widened it by 110,000 more automobiles.
However, that number is nowhere near the final count as some
automakers were yet to announce their plans for recall.

The faulty airbags forced Japanese auto major Honda to issue
atleast two rounds of recall in India, numbering a few lakh cars
in all.

Volkswagen group's emission cheating scandal
Volkswagen was hit by an enormous scandal of global proportions in
late 2015 and in the next year, the humiliation only increased
manifold.

American authorities found 'defeat devices' installed in some of
its diesel vehicles, aimed at cheating on emission tests.  Under
laboratory conditions, the defeat device would ensure the
vehicle's engine ran below normal power and performance.
That way, the software would manipulate emissions data to ensure
the vehicle would be cleared for sale in the US.  In fact, it was
found that the cars' emissions were 30 times the limit set by the
US.

Volkswagen admitted that 11 million of its diesel vehicles
worldwide were fitted with the software.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined the automaker a
massive $18 billion.

After the scandal hit, other countries opened investigations into
Volkswagen -- including South Korea, India, Australia and the
European Union.

Globally, the automaker recalled 2.4 million cars, including
324,000 cars from its Volkswagen, Audi and Skoda brands in India.
Recently, worries have emerged over excessive toxic emissions by
one of Audi's top-selling models, the Euro 6 diesel generation A3.
If found to hold water, the results could lead to full-scale
investigations into the VW group company.

This does not bode well for its reputation as its parent brand is
already under massive scrutiny all over the world.

Mitsubishi''s fuel economy scandal
In 2016, Japanese automaker Mitsubishi admitted to manipulating
mileage in a scandal that sent its market value tumbling.
According to the automaker, it overstated mileage on four mini-
vehicles, including two models it produced for Nissan Motor Co.

Mitsubishi admitted to using unapproved methods to calculate
mileage for 25 years.  It accepted that it used estimates --
rather than actual data from tests -- to calculate the fuel
economy of its mini-vehicles.

Following this, the company decided to stop production and sales
of the affected models and probe the cars sold overseas.  However,
in June 2016, the Japanese authorities allowed Mitsubishi to
resume sales of the automobiles, after it was observed that the
vehicles' fuel economy was around 11 per cent lower than
publicised.  Thus, the results of the test conducted by the
government would not change the way the vehicles were classified
in the country.

Tesla's autopilot mode
Tesla unveiled its much-awaited 'autopilot' system in 2015.  The
system was touted to allow the vehicle to automatically change
lanes, manage speed and even brake in certain conditions.  The
system is a semi-autonomous driving system, activated and
overridden by the driver.

However, in July 2016, the company announced that a person in
Florida had died while using the 'autopilot' self-drive mechanism
on its Model S electric car.  However, it was at pains to
emphasize that "this is the first known fatality in just over 209
million kilometres where autopilot was activated."

In August 2016 in Beijing, one of Tesla's cars crashed while on
'autopilot' mode.  Though there were no casualties, the driver
blamed the carmaker's sales staff for exaggerating the vehicle's
actual 'self-driving' features.

While Tesla launched its own investigation into the incident, it
clarified that it was the driver's responsibility to maintain
control of the vehicle.  In this particular case, the driver's
hands were not detected on the steering wheel.

In September 2016, the company announced update on the
'autopilot', with alterations that may have prevented the fatality
in Florida.

Fiat Chrysler's rollaway accidents
In April of 2016, the world's seventh-largest automaker, Fiat
Chrysler recalled over 1.1 million vehicles after it was found
that the automobiles might roll away after the driver's exit.
The issue was seen to be linked to 41 injuries, 212 crashes and
308 reports of property damage.

Fiat Chrysler wrote to vehicle owners after announcing the recall,
asking them to ensure that their vehicles were in park.

While the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) alleged that the vehicles' transmission gear selector
posed a safety issue, the company did not acknowledge any design
flaws.

Instead, Fiat Chrysler claimed rollaways occurred because drivers
mistakenly believed they placed the vehicle in park before getting
out.

In June 2016, Star Trek actor Anton Yelchin died after being
crushed when his recalled 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee rolled backward
and pinned him against a wall and fence.  If the accident is
proven to have been caused by the recall issue, he would become
its first fatality.

The same month, owners of the Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles filed a
class-action complaint against the automaker, alleging that it
concealed a shifter design defect associated with the rollaway
accidents.


* Stroock Names Five New Partners, Special Counsel for 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stroock has started 2017 with the elevation of five attorneys to
its partner and special counsel ranks, representing the firm's
practice strengths in corporate transactions, investment
management, financial services litigation and financial
restructurings.  The two new partners and three special counsel,
based in Stroock's New York and Los Angeles offices, serve
national clients in all of the firm's markets.

"Stroock has new energy and these exceptionally talented attorneys
reflect that energy.  As we watch our clients evolve in their
demand for legal talent, we are focused on delivering strong
resources and creative solutions to support their legal and
business needs," said Jeff Keitelman, Stroock's new co-managing
partner.  "While we remain active buyers of lateral talent, we're
pleased to promote worthy homegrown lawyers.  These superior
attorneys are a product of our training and a very big part of
Stroock's exciting future."

The new partners and special counsel are:

Lucas T. Charleston (partner -- Corporate/ Financial
Restructuring, New York) Mr. Charleston has represented leading
banking firms, hedge funds, alternative capital providers, private
equity funds and companies in complex financing transactions,
including leveraged buyouts, restructurings, rescue financings and
other special situation transactions.  He has significant
experience with a wide array of transaction structures, including
both syndicated and bilateral loans, high yield bonds, club deals,
debtor-in-possession and exit financings, first lien/second lien
structures, split collateral structures and unitranche financings.
Mr. Charleston received his J.D., magna cum laude, from New York
Law School and his B.A., magna cum laude, from Monmouth
University.

Bradford A. Green (partner -- Corporate/Investment Management,
New York) Mr. Green frequently counsels investment management
clients in connection with the structuring, establishment and
operation of closed-end and mutual fund products, and general
compliance matters arising under the U.S. federal securities laws.
He also provides regulatory advice to U.S. investment advisers,
and serves as fund counsel to closed-end investment companies,
including both registered and private alternative investment
products, and as counsel to fund independent board members.
Mr. Green received his J.D. from Fordham University School of Law
and his B.A., magna cum laude, from the University of
Pennsylvania.

Shannon E. Dudic (special counsel -- Financial Services/Class
Action, Los Angeles) Ms. Dudic practices complex litigation with a
focus on representing financial services institutions and
companies, including national banks, credit card issuers, mortgage
lenders and student lenders, in individual and class actions.  She
also provides compliance and regulatory advice to clients,
including with respect to regulatory exams.  Ms. Dudic has
extensive knowledge of state and federal laws relating to privacy,
debt collection, unfair business practices and other consumer
protection statutes.  She received her J.D. from the University of
California, Davis, School of Law and her B.S. from California
Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.

Sherry J. Millman (special counsel -- Financial Restructuring,
New York) Ms. Millman has extensive experience serving clients in
the restructuring and insolvency field.  She regularly represents
debtors and creditors' committees as well as secured and unsecured
creditors in large, complex bankruptcy proceedings and out-of-
court restructurings.  Ms. Millman received her J.D. from New York
University School of Law and her B.A. from Hofstra University.

Benjamin T. Potter (special counsel -- Corporate, Los Angeles)
Mr. Potter provides general corporate counseling services to
public and private businesses and their owners.  His experience
encompasses a wide range of corporate matters, including advising
clients on a full spectrum of business objectives, such as
analyzing, structuring and documenting mergers, acquisitions,
dispositions, joint ventures and restructurings.  Mr. Potter also
works with private equity investors to structure and negotiate
investments and serves as counsel to their portfolio companies.
He earned his J.D. from USC Gould School of Law and his B.A. from
the University of California, Los Angeles.

Stroock -- http://www.stroock.com-- is a law firm providing
transactional, regulatory and litigation guidance to leading
financial institutions, multinational corporations, investment
funds and entrepreneurs in the U.S. and abroad.  With a rich
history dating back 140 years, the firm has offices in New York,
Washington, DC, Los Angeles and Miami.



                            *********

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. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2017. 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  * * *