CAR_Public/170116.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, January 16, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 11



                            Headlines

AARON'S INC: "Aguirre" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages and Damages
ADEPTUS HEALTH: "Adkinson" Suit to Recover Facilities Fees
ADVIA CREDIT UNION: Must Defend Against "Pinkston-Poling" Case
AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Buttaro Due Process, State Law Claims Nixed
ALDI INC: Griffin's Unjust Enrichment Claim Tossed as Duplicative

ALL HOMECARING: "Allen" Labor Case to Recover Overtime Pay
ANAVEX LIFE: Judge Tosses "Cortina" Securities Fraud Complaint
AP ACCOUNT: "Ramirez" FDCPA Suit Survives Dismissal Bid
APPLIED MICRO: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
AQUA TRANSFER: "Carr" Labor Suit to Recover Overtime Pay, Damages

ARCHON INC: "Saiyed" Class Suit Transferred to D.N.J.
ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Gans" Suit in S.D. of New York
ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Shirley" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
BAYER CORP: "Jones" Action Remanded to Missouri State Court
BB&T CORPORATION: Sheffield Seeks Certification of CSRs Class

BENCHMARK SENIOR: Sued in Mass. Over Inception of Lease Fees
BENMOUSSA ENTERPRISES: "Montoya" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla.
BEST BUY: Faces "Harris" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BMW NA: Must Defend Against "Bang" Suit Over Engine Defects
BRIGHT HOUSE: Fails in Bid to Stay "Bowden" Suit

BUREAUS INC.: Faces "Cimmino" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
CHEMTURA CORPORATION: Patterson Seeks to Block Lanxess Merger
CMG DEVELOPMENT: "Cabrera" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Zapata" Suit in S.D. of Florida
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: W.Va. Judge Trims Claims in "Adkins" Suit

CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Rincon-Marin" Suit in Connecticut
DENTAL EQUITIES: Suit by Scoma Chiropractic et al. Stayed
DR. REDDY'S: Cesar Castillo Sues Over Overpriced Divalproex
EKF DIAGNOSTICS: Must Face "Sartin" Junk Fax Class Action
ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT: Faces "Diaz" Suit in California Super. Ct.

ENCORE RECEIVABLE: Faces "Innace" Suit in Eastern Dist. of N.Y.
EPIC SECURITY: "Batiste" Suit to Recover Overtime, Minimum Pay
EVERCORE TRUST: D.C. Appeals Court Won't Revive "Coburn" Suit
FAMILY DOLLARS: Gunn's PAGA Claims Dismissed
FEMALE HEALTH CO: "Schartz" Suit Remanded, Sanctions Bid Denied

FIELDTURF USA: Newark School District Suit Moved to D.N.J.
FIRST NIAGARA BANK: Deal Has Final OK, Fee Bid Partially Granted
FLORIDA BIRTH-RELATED NICA: Lamperts Entitled to Fees & Costs
FORSTER GARBUS: Final Hearing on "Feliciano" Suit Deal on Mar. 30
FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Castillo Sues Over Overpriced Clobetasol

GARDEN DEPT.: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
GARFIELD BEACH: Faces "Morales" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GENERAL CABLE: Shareholders Sue Over Share Price Drop
GRACEKENNEDY FOODS: "Saiz" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
GUARDIAN LIVING: "Williams" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

HAILEY DEVELOPMENT: Faces Windham Contracting Suit in N.Y. Ct.
HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Lomas Seeks Certification of Arrestees Class
HERTZ CORP: "Lee" FCRA Class Suit Goes Back to State Court
HILTON WORLDWIDE: "Solomon" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
HUMANA INC: Faces "Mazzarella" Suit in Western Dist. of Kentucky

ICELL HOLDINGS: "Castillo" Sues Over Unpaid Min. and OT Wages
IDEAL TAX: Class Certification Under TCPA Sought in "Meyer" Suit
IDENTIV INC: "Cunningham" Amended Securities Class Suit Dismissed
INTERCOAST CAREER: Misrepresented Accreditation Status, Suit Says
JENNINGS ROAD: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Cerulo" Suit Says

JM HOLM: Class of Painters/Laborers Certified in "Arredondo" Suit
JS LOVEMOTORS: Sued in California Over Misleading Advertisement
KEYNETICS INC: "Silverstein" Second Amended Suit Dismissed
KMART CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Roselan" Suit Says
L'OREAL USA: "Manier" False Advertising Action Goes to S.D.N.Y.

LAS VEGAS SANDS: Court Dismisses Claims Against Adelson
LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Shareholders Challenge Canyon Merger
LCC INT'L: Kansas Court Won't Reconsider Arbitration Order
LLOYDS TSB: Offer of Compromise in "Willcox" Suit Approved
LYFT INC: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Credit Reporting Violations

LYTX INC: "Levy" Suit Seeks Back Pay & Damages Under FLSA
MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Fails Bid to Disqualify Finerman as Class Rep
MASTER SERVICES: "McClary" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
MCDONALD'S CORP: Court Denies Class Cert. in "Salazar" Suit
MEDTRONIC INC: Securities Fraud Suit Not Barred, 8th Cir. Says

MINACS GROUP: CSRs Class Certification Sought in "Anderson" Suit
MITCHELL RUBENSTEIN: Court Awards $35,000 in Attorneys' Fees
NECA/IBEW FAMILY: Refuses to Cover Autism Therapy, Suit Says
NEW CENTURY: Cohn Seeks Prelim. Approval of $50,445 Settlement
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Sunroofs Spontaneously Shatter, Suit Says

NORTH CAROLINA: Faces "Smith" Suit in E.D.N.C.
NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Yablonsky" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
NYC WHEELS: "Nazarov" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
OTTER PRODUCTS: Sued Over Illegal Shipping and Handling Fees
OVERFLOW ENERGY: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Sober" Suit Claims

PARK UNIVERSITY: "Champagne" Suit Removed to W.D. Mo. Ct.
PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION: Teachers Sue over Federal Grants
PEP BOYS-MANNY: "Silver" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to D.N.J.
PINNACLE FOODS: Court Stays "Clardy" Product Mislabeling Action
POULSEN PIZZA: "Hoffman" Class Action Settlement, Fees Okayed

PRESSLER AND PRESSLER: "Zambrana" Class Suit Goes to Arbitration
PRONAI THERAPEUTICS: "Book" Securities Case Removed to N.D. Cal.
ROYAL CARE: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Rakhimova" Suit Says
ROYAL OAK: Certification of Class Sought in "Bystry" Suit
ROYAL WINDOWS: $290,000 Damages Award Flipped in Ketch Inc. Suit

SHELBY COUNTY, TN: Arrestees File Suit over Court Software
SOLARCITY CORP: Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable, Court Says
SOLAZYME INC: Securities Action Dismissed with Leave to Amend
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Faces "Jalbuena" Suit Over Gas Leak
SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL: Rule Moves for Certification of FLSA Class

STAFFWORKS LLC: "Armenta" Labor Suit Seeks OT Pay Recovery
STERICYCLE INC: Faces "Martinez" Suit in California Super. Ct.
SZECHUAN RESTAURANT: "Galeana" Labor Case to Recover Overtime Pay
TCC WIRELESS: Faces "Wolfe" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TERRAVIA HOLDINGS: Faces "Daniil" Securities Suit in N.D. Cal.

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Leone Securities Class Action in Cal.
TILE SHOP: Excessive Deduction Class Certified in "Osorio" Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGY: Riders' Attorneys to Appeal Ruling
US BANK: Snyder Seeks Certification of Four Classes Under TCPA
US LIMO: "O'Sullivan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

UTILITY TREE: Removal of "Torres" Suit Untimely, Court Says
VEOLIA WATER: Village Shores Suit Removed to East. Dist. Michigan
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Securities Class Action Stays in US Court
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Court Lifts Stay as to State Remand Motions
WALDEN UNIVERSITY: Faces "Bleess" Class Suit in Minn.

WELLS FARGO: Slaughter Seeks Prelim. OK of $35.5-Mil. Settlement
WELLS FARGO: Faces "Hogan" Suit in Northern Dist. of California
WESTERN REFINING: Shareholders Challenge Tesoro Merger Deal
WESTPORT LINEN: Cavin Moves to Certify FLSA Collective Class
WHOLE FOODS MARKET: Brand Has Active Ingredient, Suit Says

WILMINGTON TRUST: Faces "Shore" Suit in Southern Dist. of Florida
ZALE CORP: Court Stays Emcon Associates Suit Pending Arbitration


                            *********


AARON'S INC: "Aguirre" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages and Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Aguirre, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Aaron's, Inc. a Georgia corporation and
Does 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-07384 (N.D.
Cal., December 29, 2016), seeks unpaid wages, actual damages,
liquidated damages, restitution, declaratory relief, pre-judgment
interest, statutory penalties, civil penalties, costs of suit,
reasonable attorneys' fees and such other relief pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, California Labor Code and the California
Business and Professional Code.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to provide them with
meal and rest periods and/or premium wages and overtime wages,
unlawfully forfeited vested vacation pay, failed to provide
accurate written wage statements and failed to timely pay final
wages following separation of employment.

Aaron's, Inc. operates Aaron's Sales & Lease Ownership where
Plaintiff worked as a store manager.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shaun Setareh, Esq.
      Thomas Segal, Esq.
      SETAREH LAW GROUP
      9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (310) 888-7771
      Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
      Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com
             thomas@setarehlaw.com


ADEPTUS HEALTH: "Adkinson" Suit to Recover Facilities Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
David Adkinson, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Adeptus Health Inc., Adeptus Health LLC,
Adeptus Health Colorado Holdings LLC and Adeptus Health Management
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00006, (E.D. Tex., January 3,
2017), seeks (i) recovery of all facilities fees, compensatory
damages, (ii) disgorgement of its ill-gotten gains, (iii) an
injunction preventing Defendants from continuing their fraudulent
and deceptive practices, (iv) an award of pre- and post-judgment
interest, reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees and costs,
punitive damages and all such other and further relief resulting
from fraud.

Defendants are freestanding emergency medical care facilities
staffed by emergency physicians and have laboratory and radiology
equipment and are equipped to handle most types of medical
emergencies. Adeptus owns and operates emergency rooms in Texas
and Colorado. They often do not accept Medicaid and are most often
located in or adjacent to affluent neighborhoods where the
potential patient pool has quality insurance. Because of their
similar appearance to traditional urgent care centers, including
their signage and retail positioning and their mass marketing via
radio, billboards and direct mail, consumers have become confused
as to what, exactly, is the facility they are visiting, and which
is appropriate for what kind of care.

Plaintiffs allege that Adeptus's business model is to trick
patients into believing that its centers are appropriate for non-
emergent care for the purpose of extracting extravagant fees.
Then, after the patients are treated, they are sent a bill that
includes a Facilities Fee, which can be as much as $6,000 or more.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stuart L. Cochran, Esq.
      L. Kirstine Rogers, Esq.
      Bruce W. Steckler, Esq.
      R. Dean Gresham, Esq.
      STECKLER GRESHAM COCHRAN PLLC
      12720 Hillcrest Rd., Ste. 1045
      Dallas, TX 75230
      Tel: (972) 387-4040
      Fax: (972) 387-4041
      Email: dean@stecklerlaw.com
             stuart@stecklerlaw.com
             krogers@stecklerlaw.com
             bruce@stecklerlaw.com


ADVIA CREDIT UNION: Must Defend Against "Pinkston-Poling" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gordon J. Quist of the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan denied Advia's motion to
dismiss and allowed Plaintiff's breach of contract and EFTA claims
to proceed in the case captioned, BECKY PINKSTON-POLING,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ADVIA CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 1:15-CV-1208
(W.D. Mich.).

Plaintiff, Becky Pinkston-Poling, filed an amended class-action
complaint against Defendant, Advia Credit Union (Advia), alleging
claims of breach of contract and violation of the Electronic Fund
Transfer Act (EFTA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1693. Both claims are based
on Pinkston-Poling's allegation that Advia applies its overdraft
fee program in a different manner than Advia describes in its
agreements with, and disclosures to, its members.

Pinkston-Poling alleges that Advia's use of the available balance
to assess overdraft fees breaches both the Member Account
Agreement and the Opt-in Agreement and violates the EFTA because
the Opt-in Agreement fails to accurately describe Advia's
overdraft program for ATM and non-recurring debit card
transactions. Pinkston-Poling claims that she was harmed by this
practice on June 27, 2015, when she had an actual balance of
$30.48 in her account before a $7.00 debit card transaction was
posted, leaving her with an actual balance of $23.48.

Advia has filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss Pinkston-Poling's amended complaint
for failure to state a claim. Advia argues that the Opt-in
Agreement is substantially similar to Model Form A-9, and thus, it
cannot be liable for violating the EFTA.

In his Opinion dated December 29, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/mg1hc2 from Leagle.com, Judge Quist concluded that
Advia failed to show that Pinkston-Poling's claim is refuted by an
express provision of the Member Account Agreement; and allowed the
breach of contract and EFTA claims to proceed because Pinkston-
Poling states a claim for violation of the EFTA and the language
of the Opt-in Agreement is at least ambiguous.

Becky Pinkston-Poling is represented by  Richard Dale McCune, Jr.,
Esq. -- rdm@mccunewright.com -- MCCUNE WRIGHT LLP -- Eric B.
Abramson, Esq. -- eabramson@serlinglaw.com -- MICHAEL B. SERLING,
P.C.

Advia Credit Union is represented by Brandon John Wilson, Esq. --
BWilson@howardandhoward.com -- HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC


AFFILIATED COMPUTER: Buttaro Due Process, State Law Claims Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, THOMAS A. BUTTARO, SEYMOUR ROSENBERG, and
ALICIA FERRARO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. AFFILIATED COMPUTER SERVICES, INC. and
SUFFOLK COUNTY TRAFFIC AND PARKING VIOLATIONS AGENCY, Defendants,
Case No. CV 14-353 (LDW) (SIL) (E.D.N.Y.), District Judge Leonard
D. Wexler of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs'
substantive due process claim and state law claims for violation
of New York Civil Rights Law Section 11 and for unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs Thomas A. Buttaro, Seymour Rosenberg, and Alicia
Ferraro, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, bring the action against defendants Affiliated Computer
Services, Inc. (ACS) and Suffolk County Traffic and Parking
Violations Agency (TPVA), an agency of Suffolk County, New York
(Suffolk County). Plaintiffs claim that defendants, motivated to
increase revenue, shortened yellow-light times below legally
required levels resulting in an increase in the number of tickets
and rear-end collisions.

By their Amended Class Action Complaint, plaintiffs assert a
federal claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violation of
substantive due process under the United States Constitution, as
well as supplemental state law claims for violation of New York
Civil Rights Law Section 11 and for unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs
also assert federal subject matter jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). Plaintiffs
seek monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief.

Both defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs
opposed the motions. After the motions were submitted, the Court
stayed the action pending resolution of an appeal in Leder v.
American Traffic Solutions, Inc., 81. F. Supp. 3d 211 (E.D.N.Y.),
a case involving a red-light camera program in Nassau County, New
York. Upon determination of that appeal, defendants renewed their
motions to dismiss.

In the motion, Defendants argue that plaintiffs fail to state a
claim for violation of substantive due process.

In his Memorandum and Order dated December 2, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/uN8IJq from Leagle.com, Judge Wexler held that
plaintiffs' claim of shorter yellow-light times than required by
state law does not assert conduct so "arbitrary, conscience-
shocking, or oppressive" as to support a viable substantive due
process claim. As for the Court's jurisdiction under CAFA, the
Court found that CAFA's mandatory "local controversy" exception to
this Court's exercise of subject matter jurisdiction is
applicable.

In light of the dismissal of the substantive due process claim and
the Court's lack of jurisdiction under CAFA, the Court declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims for
violation of New York Civil Rights Law Section 11 and for unjust
enrichment.

Seymour Rosenberg, et al. are represented by Joseph Ralph Santoli,
Esq. -- joseph@sfclasslaw.com -- and Lee Squitieri, Esq. --
lee@sfclasslaw.com -- SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP

Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. is represented by Jessica
Mastrogiovanni, Esq. -- jmastrogiovanni@meltzerlippe.com -- and
Thomas J. McGowan, Esq. -- tmcgowan@meltzerlippe.com -- MELTZER,
LIPPE, GOLDSTEIN & BREITSTONE LLP -- Chris Bator, Esq. --
cbator@bakerlaw.com -- Daniel M. McClain, Esq. --
dmcclain@bakerlaw.com -- and Gregory Valentin Mersol, Esq. --
gmersol@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER HOSTETLER LLP

Suffolk County Traffic and Parking Violations Agency is
represented by:

      Leonard G. Kapsalis, Esq.
      Richard H. Weinschenk, Esq.
      SUFFOLK COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
      100 Veterans Memorial Hwy #6
      Hauppauge, NY 11788
      Tel: (631)853-4049


ALDI INC: Griffin's Unjust Enrichment Claim Tossed as Duplicative
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted Defendant's
motion to dismiss an unjust enrichment claim in the case
captioned, ANTHONY GRIFFIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALDI, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 5:16-CV-00354 (LEK/ATB)(S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs Anthony Griffin, Mark McIndoo, and Susan DeTomaso
commenced the class and collective action against defendant Aldi,
Inc. and Doe Defendants 1-10 pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-19, and New York state law.
Plaintiffs are all former store managers at various Aldi locations
in upstate New York.  Aldi is a worldwide discount supermarket
chain. The gravamen of Plaintiffs' Complaint is that Aldi has been
mistakenly classifying store managers as "exempt" employees under
the FLSA, thereby depriving them of overtime pay to which they are
entitled under that statute and New York state law.

On March 29, 2016, Plaintiffs initiated the lawsuit against
Defendants.  Plaintiffs bring this case as a nationwide collective
action under the FLSA, and as a statewide class action under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. On behalf of the nationwide
class, Plaintiffs assert that Defendants have been violating the
FLSA by "misclassifying Plaintiffs and similarly situated Store
Managers as 'exempt' in order to avoid paying them for all hours
worked or appropriate overtime compensation for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per workweek.  On behalf of the state-wide
class, Plaintiffs similarly claim that Defendants have been
violating the New York Labor Law (NYLL) by failing to pay overtime
compensation to Plaintiffs and similarly situated store managers.
Also on behalf of the state-wide class, Plaintiffs argue that
Defendants have been violating the NYLL by refusing to pay
Plaintiffs and similarly situated store managers "spread of hours
compensation for each day they worked in excess of 10 hours."
Finally, on behalf of the state-wide class, Plaintiffs plead, in
the alternative to the NYLL claims, an unjust enrichment claim
against Defendants, who "required Plaintiffs  to work for hours
for which they were not compensated."

Aldi moved to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim on June 24,
2016. Aldi argues that the unjust enrichment claim must be
dismissed because it is preempted by Plaintiff's FLSA overtime
claim. Plaintiffs counter that dismissal is inappropriate because
they are entitled to plead causes of action in the alternative,
and in any event the unjust enrichment claim is separate from the
FLSA claim since it is premised on Aldi's failure to pay
"straight-time compensation rather than overtime compensation."

In his Memorandum-Decision and Order dated December 14, 2016
available at https://is.gd/lrvgNF from Leagle.com, Judge Kahn held
that Plaintiffs' claim that they are entitled to a retroactive
raise when they assert their unjust enrichment claim has no
viability independent of the alleged FLSA violations relating to
overtime compensation.

Mark McIndoo, et al. are represented by Adam R. Gonnelli, Esq. --
gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com -- THE SULTZER LAW GROUP --
Dennis G. O'Hara, Esq. -- DGO@OHARALAW.COM -- and Frank S.
Gattuso, Esq. -- FSG@OHARALAW.COM -- O'HARA, O'CONNELL LAW FIRM --
Innessa S. Melamed, Esq. -- imelamed@faruqilaw.com -- FARUQI,
FARUQI LAW FIRM

Aldi, Inc. is represented by Cheryl A. Luce, Esq. --
cluce@seyfarth.com -- Howard M. Wexler, Esq. --
hwexler@seyfarth.com -- Louisa J. Johnson, Esq. --
ljohnson@seyfarth.com -- Lucas E. Deloach, Esq. --
ldeloach@seyfarth.com -- and Noah Finkel, Esq. --
nfinkel@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH, SHAW LAW FIRM


ALL HOMECARING: "Allen" Labor Case to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Allen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. All Homecaring and At Home With Care,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-04409, (D. Minn., December 30,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, damages and
other relief relating to violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants are home health care agencies that provides in home
health care services including personal care, nursing care,
physical therapy, homemaking, companionship and respite care
services and operates out of Minneapolis, Minnesota. Plaintiff has
been employed as a Personal Care Assistant since 2014.

Plaintiff is represented by:

       Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
       Jason D. Friedman, Esq.
       NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
       4600 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th Street
       Minneapolis, MN 55402
       Telephone: (612) 256-3200
       Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
       Email: fisher@nka.com
              jfriedman@nka.com

              - and -

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


ANAVEX LIFE: Judge Tosses "Cortina" Securities Fraud Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jesse M. Furman of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted Defendants' motion
Plaintiffs' claims in the case captioned, KEVIN CORTINA, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. ANAVEX LIFE SCIENCES CORP., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 15-CV-10162 (JMF)(S.D.N.Y.).

In the putative class action, Plaintiffs bring securities fraud
claims against Anavex Life Sciences Corp., Inc. and three of its
executives, Christopher Missling, Sandra Boenisch, and Athanasios
Skarpelos.  Plaintiffs allege that, by orchestrating a paid
promotional scheme, Defendants committed securities fraud in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78(b), 78(t)(a), and Securities
Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.

In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that, between May 17,
2013, and December 30, 2015 (the Class Period), Defendants engaged
in "an extreme stock promotion and market manipulation scheme" to
inflate the price of Anavex's stock. Specifically, Defendants
"caused, directed, and authorized" a paid-promotional campaign to
increase the price of the company's stock and thus enable the
company to receive equity financing.

In the motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' market
manipulation claims fail because Plaintiffs do not adequately
plead a manipulative act and that their material misrepresentation
or omission claim fails because they do not adequately plead a
material misrepresentation or omission. In the alternative,
Defendants contend that all claims should be dismissed because
Plaintiffs do not adequately allege scienter under the PSLRA's
heightened pleading standards.

In his Opinion and Order dated December 29, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/V4Lasl from Leagle.com, Judge Furman found that
Plaintiffs provided only bare assertions and conclusory statements
and failed to plausibly allege that Defendants perpetrated a
fraudulent stock promotion scheme and Plaintiffs failed to allege
that Defendants received a "concrete and personal" benefit from
the alleged scheme, and certainly do not alleged that each
Defendant received such a benefit, they failed to demonstrate a
motive to commit fraud.

Kevin Cortina is represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP

Arina Davliatshina, et al. are represented by Adam M. Apton, Esq.
-- aapton@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP

Anavex Life Sciences Corp, et al. are represented by David H.
Kistenbroker, Esq. -- david.kistenbroker@dechert.com -- Carl E.
Volz, Esq. -- carl.volz@dechert.com -- and Melanie C. MacKay, Esq.
-- melanie.mackay@dechert.com -- DECHERT LLP


AP ACCOUNT: "Ramirez" FDCPA Suit Survives Dismissal Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Defendants'
motion to dismiss and set a status hearing for January 24, 2017,
at 9:00 a.m. in the case captioned, JEREMY RAMIREZ, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AP
ACCOUNT SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-2772 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff Jeremy Ramirez filed a putative class action lawsuit
against Defendant AP Account Services, LLC on March 2, 2016,
alleging violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. On
June 30, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint (SAC),
which is the operative complaint before the Court. Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. (FDCPA) by attempting to
collect a debt that was barred by a five-year statute of
limitations pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/13-205. According to Plaintiff,
the debt is a balance owed on a checking account. Plaintiff
contends that Defendant sent him a letter on January 7, 2016
attempting to collect the debt, despite the fact that more than
five years had elapsed since the last payment or activity on the
account.

Plaintiff also filed a motion for class certification, arguing
that it is Defendant's policy and practice to send letters seeking
to collect time-barred debts that do not disclose that the debt is
time-barred and that this creates a common factual link and gives
rise to the common legal question of whether Defendant's letters
violate the FDCPA.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the SAC pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). According to Defendant,
Plaintiff applied the incorrect statute of limitations and under
the correct statute of limitations the debt in question was not
time-barred. Plaintiff submits that the five-year statute of
limitations set forth in 735 ILCS 5/13-205 applies.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 3, 2017
available at https://is.gd/rs5QDq from Leagle.com, Judge Dow, Jr.
held that Defendant has not demonstrated that there is a written
contract or other written evidence of indebtedness sufficient to
invoke section 13-206 and since the essential terms are not set
forth in the Member Handbook, Plaintiff has stated a plausible
claim that the contract is an oral contract to which the five-year
statute of limitations in Section 13-205 applies.

Jeremy Ramirez is represented by:

      Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
      Emiliya Gumin Farbstein, Esq.
      James O. Latturner, Esq.
      Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
      EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC
      20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
      Chicago, IL 60603

AP Account Services, LLC is represented by Michael R. Grimm, Esq.
-- mgrimm@clausen.com -- and Harvey R. Herman, Esq. --
hherman@clausen.com -- CLAUSEN MILLER P.C.


APPLIED MICRO: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Nygren, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Applied Micro Circuits Corporation, Cesar Cesaratto,
Paul R. Gray, Fred Shlapak, Robert F. Sproull, Duston Williams,
Paramesh Gopi, and Christopher Zepf, Case No. 3:16-cv-07400-VC
(N.D. Cal., December 29, 2016), alleges that the Defendants made
false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects.

Applied Micro Circuits Corporation develops and produces computing
and connectivity solutions for cloud infrastructure and data
centers, including an array of connectivity and embedded computing
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
      One California Street, Suite 900
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 398-8700
      Facsimile: (415) 398-8704
      E-mail: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com

         - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290
      Facsimile: (202) 337-1567
      E-mail: denright@zlk.com


AQUA TRANSFER: "Carr" Labor Suit to Recover Overtime Pay, Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trevor Carr, Dustin Sanders, Jeramee Strain, Jerome Tennison and
Tyler Young, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Aqua Transfer & Energy Services, LLC,
Premier Flow Control, LLC, K&S Services, LLC, and Chadwick Kindle,
individually and in his official capacity, Defendants, Case No.
5:16-cv-01319, (W.D. Tex., December 30, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
punitive damages, pre and post-judgment interest, civil penalties
and costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Aqua Transfer & Energy Services, LLC, Premier Flow Control, LLC,
K&S Services, LLC are oilfield service companies that are owned
and operated by Kindle. They provide equipment, rentals, and
service repairs to various oil and gas companies throughout the
South Texas Area. Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as a W-2
laborers, performing anchor services and service repairs on
equipment that Aqua would rent out to different oil and gas
companies. They all claim to have been denied overtime pay.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Glenn D. Levy, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF GLENN D. LEVY
      906 Basse Road, Suite 100
      San Antonio, TX 78212
      Telephone: (210) 822-5666
      Facsimile: (210) 822-5650
      Email: Glenn@GlennLevyLaw.com


ARCHON INC: "Saiyed" Class Suit Transferred to D.N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Amjad Saiyed, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Archon, Inc., Archon
Distribution, Inc., Rashid Patel, Mohammed Ashif "Mike" Gajra, and
John/Jane Does 1-10, Case No. 2:14-cv-06862, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-09530 to the
proceeding.

The case asserts labor-related claims.

The Defendants offer engineering, commercial construction, and
residential building services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Micheal J. Romano, Esq.
      ROMANO & ASSOCIATES
      220 Old County Road
      Mineola, NY 11501
      Telephone: (516) 248-8880

Rashid Patel and Mohammed Ashif Gajra are pro se defendants.


ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Gans" Suit in S.D. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is captioned as Carolyn Gans,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, and Steven Fishbein,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00015 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 03, 2017,
2016).

Asset Recovery is a full service asset recovery management
company.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ASSET RECOVERY: Faces "Shirley" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Asset Recovery
Solutions, LLC. The case is captioned as Edward Shirley, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-
07154-SJF-AKT (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 29, 2016). The case is assigned to
Hon. Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein.

Asset Recovery offers full service asset recovery management.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Mauro, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF
          JOSEPH MAURO, LLC
          306 McCall Avenue
          West Islip, NY 11795
          Telephone: (631) 669 0921
          Facsimile: (631) 669 5071
          E-mail: JoeMauroesq@hotmail.com


BAYER CORP: "Jones" Action Remanded to Missouri State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jean C. Hamilton of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted Plaintiffs'
Motion to Remand in the case captioned, TRACI JONES, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. BAYER CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No.
4:16CV1192 JCH (E.D. Mo.).

On June 20, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their Petition for Damages in
the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. In total,
there are 99 Plaintiffs joined to the action. Each Plaintiff
claims that she was prescribed and implanted with the Essure
system of permanent birth control manufactured by Defendants, and
that as a result she "suffered and will continue to suffer from
severe injuries and damages, including but not limited to
irregular heavy menstrual cycle bleeding, organ perforation, and
severe chronic pain which required surgical intervention to remove
the Essure coils or will require surgical intervention to remove
the Essure coils in the future."

Based on these allegations, Plaintiffs bring claims for
negligence, negligence per se, negligence-misrepresentation,
strict liability-failure to warn, manufacturing defect, common law
fraud, constructive fraud, fraudulent concealment, breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranty, violation of
consumer protection laws, Missouri Products liability, violation
of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Acts, and gross
negligence/punitive damages.

These claims are alleged to be the result of Defendants' illegal
conduct, including their "failure to warn of the risks, dangers,
and adverse events associated with Essure as manufactured,
promoted, sold and supplied by both companies, and as a result of
the negligence, callousness, and other wrongdoing and misconduct
of Defendants as described herein."

Defendants removed the action to the Court on July 20, 2016, on
the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(a), federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section
1331, and diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness
Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).

In the motion, Plaintiffs claim that their joinder in one action
was proper, thus destroying diversity jurisdiction, and no federal
question arises from their Complaint.

In her Memorandum and Order dated December 14, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/gFWGGK from Leagle.com, Judge Hamilton found that
removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction was inappropriate,
as complete diversity between the parties does not exist and that
the Court lacks CAFA jurisdiction as a basis for removal.  The
matter is remanded to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis,
State of Missouri.

Dinora Vargas, et al. are represented by Eric D. Holland, Esq. --
eholland@allfela.com -- and Randall S. Crompton, Esq. --
scrompton@allfela.com -- HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC

Bayer Corporation, et al. are represented by Gerard T. Noce, Esq.
-- gnoce@heplerbroom.com -- and W. Jason Rankin, Esq. --
jrankin@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM


BB&T CORPORATION: Sheffield Seeks Certification of CSRs Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned RUBY SHEFFIELD,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
BB&T Corporation, Branch Banking and Trust Company, BB&T
Financial, FSB, and DOES 1-10, Case No. 7:16-cv-00332-BO
(E.D.N.C.), pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, moves the
Court of an order:

   (1) conditionally certifying the proposed collective FLSA
       class;

   (2) authorizing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
       Plaintiff's FLSA claim is sent (via US Mail and e-mail)
       to:

       All call center Customer Service Representatives,
       Collection Clerks or similar job titles, employed by BB&T
       Corporation, Branch Banking and Trust Company, BB&T
       Financial, its subsidiaries, or other related entities at
       its Lumberton, Ohio call center, who worked off-the-clock
       and were not paid for the overtime hours they worked from
       September 27, 2013, through the completion of its
       litigation.

   (3) requiring Defendants to provide Plaintiff with name, job
       titles, last know addresses, e-mail addresses, and dates
       of employment in an electronic and importable format
       within 14 days of the entry of the order; and

   (4) approving a 60-day opt-in period for collective class
       member to opt into this litigation.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David H. Grounds, Esq.
          Molly E. Nephew, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436-1800
          Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
          E-mail: dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com
                  mnephew@johnsonbecker.com

               - and -

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


BENCHMARK SENIOR: Sued in Mass. Over Inception of Lease Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Adrienne Gowen, through her legal guardian Scott Gowen and on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Benchmark
Senior Living, LLC, Case No. 16-3972 (Mass. Cmmw., December 28,
2016), seeks to put an end to the Defendant's practice of charging
for, and collecting, impermissible amounts of monies at the
inception of leases for Benchmark's senior living residence units.

Benchmark Senior Living, LLC owns, operates and manages assisted
living facilities throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John R. Yasi, Esq.
      Michael C. Forrest, Esq.
      FORREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOW, MCCULLOUGH, YASI & YASI, P.C.
      Salem Green, Suite 2
      Salem, MA 01970
      Telephone: (617)231-7829
      Facsimile: (877) 599-8890
      E-mail: jyasi@forrestlamothe.com
              mforrest@forrestlamothe.com

         - and -

      Jason Carter, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JASON CARTER
      21 McGrath Flighway, Suite 501
      Quincy, MA 02169
      Telephone: (617)942-0892
      E-mail: jason@jasoncarterlaw.com


BENMOUSSA ENTERPRISES: "Montoya" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Carlos Montoya, and other
similarly-situated Non-exempt cook, the Plaintiff, v. Benmoussa
Enterprises, Inc., doing business as PICCOLO PIZZA, a Florida
Profit corporation, and HUBERT R. MUSSAT, individually, Case No.
16-030647 CA (01), was removed from the Eleventh Judicial Circuit,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Miami). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Darrin P. Gayles. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-25332-DPG to the
proceeding.

Benmoussa is in the hotel and restaurant business.

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:

          Michael David Nicoleau, Esq.
          COHEN NICOLEAU PLLC
          11900 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 806
          North Miami, FL 33181
          Telephone: (305) 722 5698
          Facsimile: (305) 770 6411
          E-mail: mnicoleau@cohen-nicoleau.com


BEST BUY: Faces "Harris" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starvona Harris and Jonathan Strickland, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Best Buy Stores, L.P.,
Case No. 16-556206 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 29, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.

Best Buy Stores, L.P. sells merchandise to consumers throughout
California and the United States, such as televisions, appliances,
computers, and other items.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin F. Woodall, Esq.
      WOODALL LAW OFFICES
      100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 413-4629
      Facsimile: (866) 937-4109
      E-mail: kevin@kwoodalllaw.com


BMW NA: Must Defend Against "Bang" Suit Over Engine Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey denied Defendant BMW of North
America, LLC's (BMW NA) motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Joon Bang, et
al.'s (Plaintiffs) Second Amended Complaint in the case captioned,
JOON BANG, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC and
BAVARIAN MOTOR WORKS, Defendants, Case No. 15-6945 (D.N.J.).

Plaintiffs seek damages against BMW NA and Bavarian Motor Works
(BMW-GER) for fraudulently concealing defects in the engines of
certain BMW motor vehicle models that shorten the vehicle's
battery life and cause increased oil consumption. Upon consent,
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in December 2015, and a
consolidated Second Amended Complaint in March 2016. The SAC
alleges 14 causes of action, including: consumer fraud under the
anti-fraud statutes of six states; false advertising under
California and New York law; breach of express warranty; breach of
implied warranty; and violations of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty
Act.

Defendants are engaged in the business of importing, assembling,
marketing, distributing, and warranting BMW automobiles in the
United States. Plaintiffs are individuals who purchased new or
used BMW vehicles containing an "N63" engine (Class Vehicles)
between September 2011 and February 2015.  The eight named
Plaintiffs include two residents of California who purchased their
vehicles in the state.

Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class of all persons and
entities who have purchased or leased a Class Vehicle in the
United States. Alternatively, they seek to certify seven different
state classes.

In the motion, Defendant argues that (1) all claims should be
dismissed because Plaintiffs lack Article III standing; (2)
Plaintiffs "cannot pursue claims on behalf of a nationwide class"
under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act because the suit's sole
connection to the forum is that BMW NA is located in New Jersey;
(3) Plaintiffs statutory consumer fraud allegations are deficient
on the merits because they fail to allege loss; (4) Plaintiffs'
breach of warranty claims must be "dismissed" because they "cannot
pursue be a nationwide breach of warranty class action under New
Jersey law or, indeed, the law of any one particular state" since
"the UCC is not uniform"; (5) Plaintiffs' breach of express
warranty claims must be dismissed because Defendant fulfilled its
obligations under the warranty program "by replacing batteries and
putting oil in Plaintiffs vehicles;" and (6) the implied warranty
claims must be dismissed because the Class Vehicles were still
merchantable despite the alleged defects because they continued to
perform "their ordinary function of providing transportation."

In her Opinion dated December 1, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/ZSLNcV from Leagle.com, Judge Arleo concluded that
(1) Plaintiffs have alleged injuries that have already occurred,
as well as imminent future injury; (2)dismissal of the nationwide
class allegations is premature; (3) Plaintiffs have adequately
alleged damages; (4) dismissal of the nationwide class allegations
is premature at the stage; (5) dismissal of breach of express
warranty is still premature; and (6) as to breach of implied
warranty, Plaintiffs have stated a claim for breach of implied
warranty.

Joon Bang, et al. are represented by Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq. --
mds@mccunewright.com -- MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP

BMW of North America, LLC is represented by Christopher J. Dalton,
Esq. -- christopher.dalton@bipc.com -- Daniel Zev Rivlin, Esq. --
daniel.rivlin@bipc.com -- and Rosemary Joan Bruno, Esq. --
rosemary.bruno@bipc.com -- BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC


BRIGHT HOUSE: Fails in Bid to Stay "Bowden" Suit
------------------------------------------------
District Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama denied
Defendant's Opposed Motion to Stay Proceedings in the case
captioned, REBECCA BOWDEN, Plaintiff, v. BRIGHT HOUSE NETWORKS,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-CV-1237-VEH (N.D. Ala.).

Defendant premised its Stay Motion on the D.C. Circuit's
anticipated decision in ACA International v. FCC, No. 15-1211 and
suggested that it "is likely to be outcome-determinative of this
dispute and therefore merits a stay of all pending proceedings,
including discovery, until it has been issued." Defendant states
that the "requested stay will be brief as ACA International is
fully briefed and has already been argued before the D.C.
Circuit." Defendant initially argued that the traditional stay
factors weighed in its favor: (1) A Stay Poses No Risk of Harm to
Plaintiff; (2) [Defendant] BHN Will Suffer Hardship and Inequity
if this Action Proceeds Before ACA is Decided; (3) A Stay Will
Promote Judicial Efficiency by Simplifying this Case; and (4) A
Stay Will Further the Public Interest and the Interests of Persons
Not Parties to the Action.

Plaintiff disputed the significance of what the ACA International
opinion will mean to the merits of its action.

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 5, 2017
available at https://is.gd/UQNQ7E from Leagle.com, Judge Hopkins
concluded that Defendant has failed to meet its burden to show
that the harm to it from the litigation's proceeding outweighs the
Plaintiff's (and the public's) right to a prompt resolution of the
matter.

Rebecca Bowden is represented by Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. --
aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com -- and Gina DeRosier Greenwald, Esq. --
mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com -- GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC

Bright House Networks LLC is represented by Abigail S. Romero,
Esq. -- aromero@kcozlaw.com -- and Ryan D. Watstein, Esq. --
rwatstein@kcozlaw.com -- KABAT CHAPMAN & OZMER LLP -- Andrew
Phillip Campbell, Esq. -- andy.campbell@campbellguin.com --
CAMPBELL GUIN WILLIAMS GUY AND GIDIERE LLC


BUREAUS INC.: Faces "Cimmino" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Bureaus Inc. The
case is styled as Robert Cimmino, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Bureaus Inc.,
Bureaus Investment Group Portfolio No. 15, LLC, Bureaus Investment
Group, III, LLC, Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, and Sentry Credit,
Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-07153-SJF-GRB (E.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 29, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Sandra J.
Feuerstein.

Bureaus, Inc. is a master servicer for delinquent charged off
receivables, providing clients with the analytical tools and
resources to recover debt.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Mauro, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF
          JOSEPH MAURO, LLC
          306 McCall Avenue
          West Islip, NY 11795
          Telephone: (631) 669 0921
          Facsimile: (631) 669 5071
          E-mail: JoeMauroesq@hotmail.com


CHEMTURA CORPORATION: Patterson Seeks to Block Lanxess Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
DARCY J. PATERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHEMTURA CORPORATION, INC,
CRAIG A. ROGERSON, JEFFREY D. BENJAMIN, TIMOTHY J. BERNLOHR, ANNA
C. CATALANO, JAMES W. CROWNOVER, ROBERT A. DOVER, JONATHAN F.
FOSTER, and JOHN K. WULFF, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-06626-
ER (E.D. Pa, Dec. 27, 2016), seeks to enjoin Defendants from
conducting a stockholder vote on a proposed sale transaction
unless and until material information is disclosed to stockholders
or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to
recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the
Securities and Exchange Act.

The Plaintiff brought the case against the members of Chemtura
Corporation's Board of Directors as a result of their violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of their
attempt to sell the Company to Lanxess Deutschland GmbH for an
inadequate consideration.

On September 25, 2016, Lanxess and the Company announced they have
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated September 16,
2016 by which Lanxess, through its wholly owned, indirect
subsidiary Lanxess Additives Inc., will acquire all of the
outstanding shares of Chemtura in an all-cash transaction for
$35.50 per share in cash (Proposed Transaction). The Proposed
Transaction is valued at approximately $2.1 billion and is
expected to close in mid-2017. On December 23, 2016, Chemtura
filed a definitive proxy statement on a Schedule 14A with the SEC,
which set the stockholder vote date on the Proposed Transaction
for February 1, 2017. The Proxy is materially deficient and
misleading because it fails to disclose material information
regarding (i) the background of the Proposed Transaction; (ii) the
financial analyses performed by Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, the
Company's financial advisor; and (iii) the projections prepared by
Company management and relied upon by Morgan Stanley. Without
additional information, the Proxy is materially misleading in
violation of federal securities law, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth I. Trujillo, Esq.
          Matthew S. Olesh, Esq.
          300 Conshocken State Road, Suite 570
          West Conshocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 772 2300
          Facsimile: (610) 772 2305

               - and -

          Donald E. Enright, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINKY LLP
          1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524 4290
          Facsimile: (202) 337 1567
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com


CMG DEVELOPMENT: "Cabrera" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Rogelio Aroldo Cabrera and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, vs. CMG Development LLC, Carlos M. Gonzalez, Alex
Granados, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-20017, (S.D. Fla., January
3, 2017), requests overtime wages, double damages and reasonable
attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

CMG Development is a general contractor owned/managed by Carlos M.
Gonzalez and Alex Granados, based out of North Fort Lauderdale,
Floridam where Plaintiff worked. Cabrera claims to have been
denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Zapata" Suit in S.D. of Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. The case is titled as Damian Zapata,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-25367-JEM (S.D. Fla., Dec. 29, 2016). The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge Jose E. Martinez.

Convergent Outsourcing offers business process outsourcing,
revenue cycle, and receivables management services. It also
provides receivables collection services to credit grantors in
retail, telecommunications, and utilities industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695 3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298 6256
          E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com

               - and -

          Michael Paul Bennett, Esq.
          Jeremy Robert Kreines, Esq.
          Bennett Aiello
          25 SE 2nd Avenue
          Eighth Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358 9011
          Facsimile: (305) 358 9012
          E-mail: mbennett@bennettaiello.com
                  jkreines@bennettaiello.com


CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: W.Va. Judge Trims Claims in "Adkins" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas E. Johnston of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia granted a partial
motion to dismiss in the case captioned, COURTNEY ADKINS,
Plaintiff, v. CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
2:16-CV-03343 (S.D. W.Va.).

Plaintiff Courtney Adkins alleges that around May 2013, Defendant
Credit Acceptance Corporation began making debt collection calls
to her personal cellular telephone number. Plaintiff claims that
she did not owe a debt to Credit Acceptance, nor had she provided
her cell phone number "during a transaction that created a debt."
Nevertheless, Credit Acceptance allegedly used an automatic
telephone dialing system to make hundreds of calls to Plaintiff's
cell phone under the pretense that Plaintiff was obligated to make
payment on a debt owed to it.

Plaintiff brings the civil action on her own behalf and on behalf
of a putative class of individuals who received harassing debt
collection calls in similar circumstances. The Court has
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1332(d)(2). The three-count First Amended Complaint alleges
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"),
(Count I), and the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection
Act (WVCCPA), (Counts II and III). With regard to the WVCCPA
claims, Count II alleges misrepresentation of the amount of a
claim in violation of West Virginia Code Section 46A-2-127 and is
brought as an individual claim and on behalf of the putative
class. Count III, an individual claim only, alleges oppressive and
abusive debt collection in violation of West Virginia Code Section
46A-2-125.

Credit Acceptance moves to dismiss both WVCCPA claims. Simply put,
Credit Acceptance alleges that Plaintiff is not a "consumer" under
the WVCCPA and the relief afforded under that statute is thus out
of reach. Credit Acceptance next argues that even if Plaintiff has
standing on Counts II and III, she fails to allege that any debt
she allegedly owed was incurred primarily for "personal, family,
or household purposes," a necessary element of both causes of
action.

Credit Acceptance argues that Counts II and III must be dismissed
because Plaintiff fails to allege that the debt at issue was
incurred "primarily for personal, family or household purposes.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated December 28, 2016
available at https://is.gd/8YLpXT from Leagle.com, Judge Johnston
found sufficient allegations that Credit Acceptance represented to
Plaintiff that she was personally liable on a debt and that
Plaintiff has plausibly pled the existence of an alleged
obligation to pay a debt.

The Court also finds that because discovery proceedings in this
action are temporarily stayed at Credit Acceptance's request, any
prejudice caused by an amendment will be minimal. Plaintiff may
file an amended pleading within fourteen days of the issuance of
this opinion clarifying whether the debt "allegedly owed" was
primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.

Courtney Adkins is represented by Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. --
jmarshall@baileyglasser.com -- Maigreade Bridget Burrus, Esq. --
mburrus@baileyglasser.com -- and Sandra Henson Kinney, Esq. --
skinney@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER

Credit Acceptance Corporation, et al. are represented by Carrie
Goodwin Fenwick, Esq. -- cgf@goodwingoodwin.com -- GOODWIN &
GOODWIN -- Jason E. Manning, Esq. --
jason.manning@troutmansanders.com -- John C. Lynch, Esq. --
john.lynch@troutmansanders.com -- and Jonathan M. Kenney, Esq. --
jonathan.kenney@troutmansanders.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS -- Stephen
W. King, Esq. -- sking@kingandmurray.com -- KING & MURRAY


CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Rincon-Marin" Suit in Connecticut
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control LLC.
The case is styled as Pablo Rincon-Marin, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Credit
Control LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00007 (D. Conn., Jan.
03, 2017, 2016).

Credit Control is a St. Louis credit collection service that
offers debt collections and accounts receivables management.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter M. Van Dyke, Esq.
          EAGAN, DONOHUE, VAN DYKE & FALSEY, LLP
          24 Arapahoe Road
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 232 7200
          Facsimile: (860) 232 0214
          E-mail: pvd@eddf-law.com


DENTAL EQUITIES: Suit by Scoma Chiropractic et al. Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John E. Steele of the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida granted First Arkansas Bank &
Trust's motion to stay proceedings in the case captioned, SCOMA
CHIROPRACTIC, P.A., a Florida corporation, WILLIAM P. GRESS, an
Illinois resident, and FLORENCE MUSSAT, M.D., S.C., an Illinois
service corporation, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. DENTAL
EQUITIES, LLC, JOHN DOES (1-10), FIRST ARKANSAS BANK & TRUST, and
MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-CV-41-FTM-99MRM (M.D. Fla.).

On September 26, 2016, plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Class
Action Complaint against Dental Equities, First Arkansas,
MasterCard International Inc., and John Does 1-10.  The one-count
Complaint alleges that defendants violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), as amended by the Junk Fax
Protection Act of 2005, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, by sending
plaintiffs (and others) unsolicited commercial advertisements by
facsimile machine. The junk fax plaintiffs received invites
recipients to apply for a DoctorsClub MasterCard, and did not
include certain opt-out language that plaintiffs argue is required
by the TCPA. Plaintiffs allege that, by sending these junk faxes,
defendants: i) caused plaintiffs and others to lose paper and
toner; ii) occupied their telephone lines and fax machines; iii)
wasted their time; and iv) violated their privacy interests.

The court in the Davis action preliminarily approved the proposed
class settlement and conditionally certified a class for
settlement purposes on November 18, 2016. In that order, the court
set a final approval hearing for April 3, 2017, and set the
objection and opt-out/exclusion deadline for February 1, 2017. The
order stated that persons in the settlement class may not both
object and opt-out/exclude themselves from the proposed
settlement. First Arkansas and Dental Equities are Released
Parties to the Settlement Agreement. MasterCard is not a
defendant, nor a released party in a parallel action pending in
the Eastern District of Arkansas, Davis Neurology, P.A. v. Dental
Equities, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:16-CV-371-BSM (E.D. Ark.).

Defendant First Arkansas seeks a stay of the proceedings in the
case pending the final approval of a class action settlement
reached between First Arkansas and Dental Equities in the Davis
action. Both this case and the Davis action arise out of and
concern the same fax transmissions alleged to have been sent by or
on behalf of defendants in violation of the TCPA in this case, and
plaintiffs in this case are within the settlement class
definition.

In opposition to the Motion to Stay, plaintiffs argue that they
would be unfairly prejudiced if a stay is entered because the
proposed underlying settlement is grossly unfair, the release is
overbroad, the Settlement Agreement is a "reverse auction" and
First Arkansas has failed to establish a clear case of hardship or
inequity if this case went forward.

In his Opinion and Order dated December 28, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/l2Z1mG from Leagle.com, Judge Steele found that a
stay as to First Arkansas and Dental Equities is not unduly
prejudicial for plaintiffs as the case will proceed against
defendant MasterCard who is not a released party to the underlying
settlement.

The stay shall remain in effect until February 1, 2017, or such
time as plaintiffs opt-out of the underlying settlement. If
plaintiffs opt-out of the underlying settlement, they are directed
to file a notice with the Court, requesting that the stay be
lifted.

Scoma Chiropractic, P.A., et al. are represented by Brian J.
Wanca, Esq. -- BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- and Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
-- RKelly@andersonwanca.com -- ANDERSON & WANCA

First Arkansas Bank & Trust is represented by Patricia A. Gorham,
Esq. -- patricia.gorham@sutherland.com -- and Lewis S. Wiener,
Esq. -- lewis.wiener@sutherland.com -- SUTHERLAND, ASBILL &
BRENNAN, LLP

Mastercard International Incorporated is represented by Carla M.
Barrow, Esq. -- carla.barrow@qpwblaw.com -- Lissette Eusebio, Esq.
-- lissette.eusebio@qpwblaw.com -- and Reginald John Clyne, Esq.
-- reginald.clyne@qpwblaw.com -- QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD & BOYER,
PA


DR. REDDY'S: Cesar Castillo Sues Over Overpriced Divalproex
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Castillo, Inc., individually and on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc.,
Impax Laboratories, Inc., Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. and
Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
06685, (E.D. Pa., December 29, 2016), brings this class action for
claims under federal and state antitrust laws to recover damages
and obtain injunctive and equitable relief for the substantial
injuries it and others similarly situated have sustained against
Defendants, arising from the Defendants' conspiracy to raise the
prices of Divalproex sodium extended-release tablets and to
allocate markets and customers for this product in the United
States, in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act.

Cesar Castillo, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, with its principal place of
business and headquarters located at Bo. Quebradas Arena, Rd. #1
Km. 26.0, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico, 00926. Plaintiff purchased
overpriced Divalproex ER directly from one or more Defendants.

Divalproex ER is a commonly prescribed anticonvulsant indicated
for the treatment of seizures and migraines.

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation, with
its principal place of business at 107 College Road East,
Princeton, New Jersey, 08540. Dr. Reddy's is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd., an Indian
corporation, with its principal place of business at 7-1-27,
Ameerpet, Hyderabad 500 016, Andhra Pradesh, India. During the
Class Period, Dr. Reddy's sold Divalproex ER to customers in
this District and throughout the United States.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with its
principal place of business located at 30831 Huntwood Avenue,
Hayward, California.

Mylan Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place
of business at 1000 Mylan Blvd., Canonsburg, Pennsylvania 15317.
Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a West Virginia corporation with its
principal place of business at TSl Chestnut Ridge Road,
Morgantown, West Virginia 26505.

Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business at One Ram Ridge Road, Chestnut Ridge,
New York, 10977. Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business at One Ram Ridge
Road, Chestnut Ridge, New York 10977.

Wockhardt Ltd. an international pharmaceutical and biotechnology
company headquartered in Mumbai, India. Wockhardt maintains
manufacturing plants and substantial operations in the United
States, including its wholly-owned subsidiary Morton Grove
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business located at 6 Wheeling Road, Dayton,
New Jersey 08810. Aurobindo is a subsidiary of Aurobindo Pharma
Limited, a corporation based in Hyderbad, India.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
      NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
      570 Lexington Avenue, 19 Fl.
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 722-7053
      Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

             - and -

      Juan R. Rivera Font, Esq.
      JUAN R. RIVERA FONT LLC
      Ave. Gonzalez Giusti #27, Suite 602
      Guaynabo, PR 00968
      Tel: (787) 751-5290
      Email: juan@riverafont.com


EKF DIAGNOSTICS: Must Face "Sartin" Junk Fax Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sarah S. Vance of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied defendants' motion to
dismiss for lack of Article III standing, as well as defendants'
motion to strike plaintiff's class allegations in the case
captioned, DR. BARRY SARTIN, v. EKF DIAGNOSTICS, INC. & STANBIO
LABORATORY, L.P. SECTION "R"(2), Case No. 16-1816 (E.D. La.).

Dr. Sartin alleges that defendants Stanbio Laboratory and its
parent company, EKF Diagnostics, violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) by sending unsolicited faxes
advertising their products and services. Dr. Sartin alleges that
he "was the recipient of a fax advertisement sent by Defendants on
September 24, 2014." The fax, which Dr. Sartin submits as an
exhibit to his complaint, discusses a "Glycated Serum Protein
LiquiColor Assay," which the fax describes as "a 2-3 week glycemic
marker that could benefit patients" with certain medical
conditions.

On March 3, 2016, Dr. Sartin filed the lawsuit against defendants,
seeking statutory damages and injunctive relief. Dr. Sartin brings
his TCPA claims on behalf of himself and a proposed class
consisting of similarly situated fax recipients. On May 3, 2016,
defendants filed their first motion to dismiss Dr. Sartin's
complaint for lack of Article III standing. Because Dr. Sartin's
complaint failed to allege any facts indicating that the
defendants' fax caused Dr. Sartin a concrete injury in fact, the
Court granted defendants' motion on July 5, 2016. The dismissal
was without prejudice, and Dr. Sartin was granted leave to file an
amended complaint.

Dr. Sartin filed an amended complaint alleging that the
unsolicited fax caused Dr. Sartin and the class members to suffer
statutory damages, and caused Dr. Sartin to "waste valuable time
reviewing the fax, time that was taken away from his medical
practice, and time that he could have otherwise spent performing
billable medical procedures." Additionally, Dr. Sartin alleges
that the fax tied up his fax line that he relies on for his
business.

Plaintiffs move to dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of
Article III standing, or, in the alternative, to strike the
complaint's class action allegations as insufficient to establish
an ascertainable class.

In her Order and Reasons dated December 28, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/yyX0ZE from Leagle.com, Judge Vance held that Dr.
Sartin's amended complaint plausibly alleges a judicially
cognizable injury, and membership in the proposed class can be
feasibly determined by using objective data in defendants' fax
logs.

Barry Sartin is represented by:

      Barry William Sartin, Jr., Esq.
      Matthew Arthur Sherman, Esq.
      Patrick R. Follette, Esq.
      Preston Lee Hayes, Esq.
      Ryan Paul Monsour, Esq.
      CHEHARDY, SHERMAN, ELLIS, MURRAY, RECILE, STAKELUM&HAYES
      One Galleria Blvd., Suite 1100
      Metairie, LA 70001
      Tel: (504) 217-2006

EKF Diagnostics, Inc., et al. are represented by Isaac H. Ryan,
Esq. -- iryan@deutschkerrigan.com -- and Robert Emmett Kerrigan,
Jr., Esq. -- rkerrigan@deutschkerrigan.com -- DEUTSCH KERRIGAN LLP
-- Lewis S. Wiener, Esq. -- lewis.wiener@sutherland.com --
SUTHERLAND, ASBILL & BRENNAN, LLP


ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT: Faces "Diaz" Suit in California Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Electronic Document
Processing Inc. The case is entitled as Diego Diaz an individual
for himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. EDP and Electronic Document Processing Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 56-2016-00490620-CU-OE-VTA (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Dec. 29, 2016).

Electronic Document Processing is a small data processing &
preparation company in La Mirada, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis H. Kreuzer, II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF
          LOUIS H. KREUZER II
          601 Daily Drive, Suite 221
          Camarillo, CA 930101
          Telephone: (805) 383 4131
          Facsimile: (805) 383 4135
          E-mail: lou@louiskreuzerlaw.com


ENCORE RECEIVABLE: Faces "Innace" Suit in Eastern Dist. of N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Encore Receivable
Management, Inc. The case is captioned as Anthony Innace and
Joseph Morreale, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Encore Receivable
Management, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-07168 (E.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 29, 2016).

Encore Receivable Management, Inc. provides collections management
solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


EPIC SECURITY: "Batiste" Suit to Recover Overtime, Minimum Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Batiste, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Epic Security Corp., Mark Lerner, in his
individual capacity, Henry Cullen, in his individual capacity, and
Hector Hernandez, in his individual capacity, all jointly and
severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00029, (S.D. N.Y.,
December 30, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Epic Security Corp. is a corporation that provides security
services with principal executive office located at 2067 Broadway,
New York, New York, 10023, where Batiste worked as a security
officer.

Defendants failed to provide Batiste with wage statements that
accurately listed the hours he worked, failed to pay the minimum
wage rate and failed to pay Batiste any wages for the time he
spent travelling between Epic Security's main office and his
respective job sites. During Plaintiff's employment, Batiste
worked for Defendants in excess of forty hours some weeks without
overtime.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Nathaniel K. Charny, Esq.
      CHARNY & ASSOCIATES
      9 West Market Street
      Rhinebeck, NY 12572
      Tel. (845) 876-7500
      Fax. (845) 876-7501

            - and -

      Thomas Lamadrid, Esq.
      EISNER & DICTOR, PC
      39 Broadway, Suite 1540
      New York, NY 10006
      Tel. (212) 473-8700
      Fax. (212) 473-8705


EVERCORE TRUST: D.C. Appeals Court Won't Revive "Coburn" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson of the District of Columbia
Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing
complaint in the case captioned, DONNA MARIE COBURN, ON BEHALF OF
HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellant, v. EVERCORE
TRUST COMPANY, N.A., Appellee, Case No. 16-7029 (D.C. App.).

Donna M. Coburn, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, sued Evercore Trust Company, N.A. pursuant to the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) Sections
409, 502(a)(2)-(3), 29 U.S.C. Sections 1109(a), 1132(a)(2)-(3).
Coburn, a former J.C. Penney employee and investor in a J.C.
Penney employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) managed by Evercore,
claims that Evercore breached its fiduciary duties of prudence and
loyalty when it failed to take preventative action as the value of
J.C. Penney common stock tumbled between 2012 and 2013, thereby
causing significant losses.

In her complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Evercore was liable for
$300 million in losses to the Plan for having breached its
fiduciary duty.

On February 17, 2016, the district court granted Evercore's motion
to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Because
Coburn failed to plead special circumstances -- indeed, Coburn
expressly disclaimed any need to plead them -- the district court
held that Coburn's complaint could not survive Evercore's Rule
12(b)(6) challenge.

On appeal, Coburn argues that the pleading requirements outlined
in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, U.S., 134 S.Ct. 2459
(2014), are inapplicable to her allegations because she challenges
Evercore's failure to appreciate the riskiness of J.C. Penney
stock rather than Evercore's valuation of its price.

In Dudenhoeffer, the Supreme Court further refined pleading
requirements regarding "allegations that a fiduciary should have
recognized from publicly available information alone that the
market was over- or undervaluing the stock."

In her Opinion dated December 29, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/RNtxS7 from Leagle.com, Judge Henderson held that
Coburn's complaint was properly dismissed because Coburn's claim
falls far short -- she did not allege the market on which J.C.
Penney stock traded was inefficient.

Donna Marie Coburn is represented by Peter W. Overs, Jr., Esq. --
povers@hfesq.com -- and Robert I. Harwood, Esq. --
rharwood@hfesq.com -- HARWOOD FEFFER LLP

Evercore Trust Company, N.A. is represented by Jonathan D. Hacker,
Esq. -- jhacker@omm.com -- Meaghan VerGow, Esq. -- mvergow@omm.com
-- Jeffrey W. Kilduff, Esq. -- jkilduff@omm.com -- O'MELVENY &
MYERS


FAMILY DOLLARS: Gunn's PAGA Claims Dismissed
--------------------------------------------
District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California granted Defendant's
motion to dismiss Plaintiff's PAGA claim and denied leave to amend
in the case captioned, KEVIN GUNN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FAMILY DOLLAR
STORES, INC. et al, Defendant, Case No. 3:14-CV-1916-GPC-BGS (S.D.
Cal.).

The class action complaint, filed on May 21, 2014, asserts that
Defendant violated California Labor Code Section 1198 and Wage
Order 7-2001 Section 14 by failing to provide suitable seats to
Plaintiff and other current and former employees of Family Dollar.

On September 30, 2016, Defendant filed a motion for judgment on
the pleadings to dismiss Plaintiff Kevin Gunn's class action suit
brought under the California Labor Code and the Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004, Cal. Lab. Code Section 2699(a) (PAGA or the
Act).

Defendant now seeks to dismiss Plaintiff's PAGA claim for failure
to exhaust, arguing that Plaintiff failed to provide adequate
notice of his cause of action to the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency (LWDA). Defendant contends that it is
entitled to judgment because Plaintiff's April 7, 2014 notice
letter failed to include "facts and theories to support the
alleged violation." In other words, Defendant is arguing that the
notice provided to the LWDA was deficient.

In opposition, Plaintiff's main contention is that the facts
included in the notice letter were sufficient because they implied
other details and requests "leave to amend to provide the LWDA
with a more detailed letter to be attached to an amended
complaint."

In his Order dated December 2, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/4Ds61D from Leagle.com, Judge Curiel said Plaintiff
failed to  meet the minimal notice threshold required under PAGA
because he included no factual detail whatsoever in his notice
letter. As to leave to amend, Plaintiff fails to cite to any legal
authority in support of his contention that amendment is
appropriate under Rule 15(a)(2).

Kevin Gunn is represented by Geniene B. Stillwell, Esq. --
gstillwell@stillwelllawoffice.com -- STILLWELL LAW OFFICE, P.C. --
Marc Phelps, Esq. -- marc@phelpslawgroup.com -- PHELPS LAW GROUP
-- Roger R. Carter, Esq. -- rcarter@carterlawfirm.net --
THE CARTER LAW FIRM; Samantha Alane Smith, Esq. --
samantha@cooper-firm.com -- and Scott B. Cooper, Esq. --
scott@cooper-firm.com -- THE COOPER LAW FIRM, P.C.

Family Dollar Stores, Inc. is represented by Betsey A. Boutelle,
Esq. -- betseyboutelle@paulhastings.com -- Blake Bertagna, Esq. --
blakebertagna@paulhastings.com -- Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq. --
jeffwohl@paulhastings.com -- and Taylor H. Wemmer, Esq. --
taylorwemmer@paulhastings.com -- PAUL HASTINGS LLP


FEMALE HEALTH CO: "Schartz" Suit Remanded, Sanctions Bid Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted Plaintiff
Brian Schartz's motion to remand and denied a motion for sanctions
in the case captioned, BRIAN C. SCHARTZ, Plaintiff, v. O.B.
PARRISH, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16 C 10736 (N.D. Ill.).

Schartz alleges that on November 4, 2016, he filed a stockholder
class action and derivative complaint in State court against
Defendants O.B. Parrish, William R. Gargiulo, Jr., Donna Felch,
David R. Bethune, Andrew S. Love, Mary Margaret Frank, Sharon
Meckes, Elgar Peerschke, Mitchell S. Steiner (Steiner), Harry
Fisch (Fisch), Georges Makhoul, Mario Eisenberger, and Lucy Lu and
Defendant Female Health Company, a Wisconsin corporation that is
headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.  Schartz alleges that the
Board and Female Health violated Wisconsin Business and
Corporation Law (WBCL), Sections 180.1101 et seq, by merging Aspen
Park Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware corporation, (Aspen Park)
into Female Health without the affirmative vote of at least two
thirds of the shareholders.

Schartz filed the case in State court and included in his
complaint breach of fiduciary duty claims brought against Female
Health's pre-merger directors, aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty claims brought against Female Health's post-merger
directors, and unjust enrichment claims brought against Steiner
and Fisch. On November 7, 2016, Schartz filed a motion for
preliminary injunction and a hearing was scheduled in State court
for November 22, 2016.

On November 18, 2016, Defendants filed their notice of removal to
the court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d). Defendants contend that they have met the
threshold elements for removal under CAFA. The court finds that
Defendants have satisfied their burden of establishing the general
requirements of CAFA for federal jurisdiction.

In the motion, Schartz argues that the case should be remanded to
State court because Schartz's claims are expressly excluded from
CAFA jurisdiction. He argues that he solely asserts claims
relating to the internal affairs of Female Health because the
violations arose under Wisconsin law, which is where Female Health
is incorporated.

Schartz also moves for sanctions against Defendants contending
that they intended to interfere with Schartz's ability to obtain a
preliminary injunction in a timely fashion by filing this
frivolous removal.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated December 14, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/usvZTE from Leagle.com, Judge Der-Yeghiayan held
that Wisconsin law and the exception under the the Class Action
Fairness Act apply to Plaintiff's claims, saying (1) the breach of
fiduciary duty claim is governed solely by Female Health's state
of incorporation; (2) the aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary
duty claim falls within the internal affairs doctrine; (3)
Schartz's allegations fall within the scope of the internal
affairs doctrine.

As to sanctions, the Court found that Plaintiff has not provided
sufficient evidence to show that Defendants engaged in any
intentional delay, harassment, or frivolous argument by exercising
their right to remove the matter to federal court.

Brian C. Schartz is represented by Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
-- tom@attorneyzim.com -- and Amelia Susan Newton, Esq. --
amy@attorneyzim.com -- ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. -- Eric L.
Zagar, Esq. -- ezagar@ktmc.com -- and Michael C. Wagner, Esq. --
mwagner@ktmc.com -- KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP

O.B. Parrish,  et al. are represented by Daniel G. Hildebrand,
Esq. -- hildrebrabdd@gtlaw.com -- David Stephen Repking, Esq. --
repkingd@gtlaw.com -- and Steven Marc Malina, Esq. --
malinas@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP


FIELDTURF USA: Newark School District Suit Moved to D.N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled STATE-OPERATED SCHOOL DISTRICT OF
THE CITY OF NEWARK on behalf of itself and all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FIELDTURF USA, INC., f/k/a FIELDTURF
INTERNATIONAL, INC.; FIELDTURF TARKETT, INC.; FIELDTURF, INC.; and
ABC CORP. I-X, the Defendants, Case No. ESX L 8386 16, was removed
from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv -09578 to the
proceeding.

Fieldturf USA engages in manufacturing and installation of infield
artificial turf systems.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Theodore V. Wells, Jr.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND,
          WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP
          1285 Avenue of The Americas
          New York, NY 10019-6064
          Telephone: (212) 373 3000
          E-mail: twells@paulweiss.com


FIRST NIAGARA BANK: Deal Has Final OK, Fee Bid Partially Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy of the United States
District Court for the Western District of New York granted
Plaintiff's motion for final approval of a class action settlement
and granted in part motion attorneys' fees, expenses and service
award payment in the case captioned, JEFFREY ZINK, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FIRST
NIAGARA BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-01076-JJM
(W.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Jeffrey Zink commenced the action on July 19, 2013,
seeking to recover class remedies from defendant First Niagara
Bank, N.A. pursuant to New York's Real Property Law (RPL) Section
275(1) and Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL)
Section 1921(1), for its allegedly "systematic failure to timely
present to the county clerks of New York State proof that
mortgages have been satisfied".

On July 15, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Magistrate Judge Puglisi issued his Findings and Recommendation to
Grant in Part and Deny in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification (F&R) on November 12, 2015 recommending that (1)
certifying the instant case as a class action; (2) appointing Dr.
Willcox (but not the Dominicks) as class representative; (3)
appointing Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing and Steptoe & Johnson LLP as
class counsel; (4) directing the parties to meet and confer
regarding notice to class members; (5) denying any remaining
relief requested in Plaintiffs' class certification motion; and
(6) defining the certified class as "All persons and entities who
entered prior to August 2009 into an IMS loan with Lloyds that
contained a Hong Kong choice-of-law provision and an interest rate
provision based upon Cost of Funds and who are, or were at any
time during entering into such an IMS loan, residents or citizens
of the State of Hawaii, or owners of property in Hawaii that was
mortgaged to secure any such IMS loan."

District Judge Richard J. Arcara on January 12, 2016 adopted the
court's October 20, 2015 Report and Recommendation recommending
denial of plaintiff's previous motion for class certification and
settlement approval and July 1, 2016 Decision and Order
preliminarily certifying the class and approving the pending
proposed settlement.

Before the Court is plaintiff's Uncontested Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement pursuant to Rule 23, and his
Uncontested Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Service
Award Payment. Under the proposed settlement, First Niagara has
made available the sum of $2.2 million to pay class claims
(Settlement Agreement and Release representing approximately 50%
of the full value of those claims. In addition, it has agreed not
to contest an application for court approval for payment of a
service award to plaintiff in an amount not to exceed to $5,000,
and payment of attorney's fees and expenses to counsel in an
amount not to exceed one-third of the $2.2 million made available
to claimants, both amounts to be paid by First Niagara in addition
to the $2.2 million made available to claimants.

In his Decision and Order dated December 29, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/JcQ25V from Leagle.com, Judge McCarthy found that
the class action settlement is procedurally fair. The Court
granted the fee motion but reduced the amount by 5%.
Specifically, plaintiff requested a $733,000 award for fees and
expenses, but the Court approved $696,350.00 as fees and expenses,
and reduced the requested $5,000 service award to $2,500 because
the plaintiffs did not incur significant personal risk in the way
a plaintiff bringing employment-related claims does.

Jeffrey Zink is represented by:

      Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
      Todd S. Garber, Esq.
      Shin Young Hahn, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP
      445 Hamilton Ave #605,
      White Plains, NY 10601
      Tel: (844)431-0695

First Niagara Bank N.A. is represented by Cynthia Giganti Ludwig,
Esq. -- cludwig@hodgsonruss.com -- and Jodyann Galvin, Esq. --
jgalvin@hodgsonruss.com -- HODGSON RUSS LLP


FLORIDA BIRTH-RELATED NICA: Lamperts Entitled to Fees & Costs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judges James R. Wolf, Joseph Lewis and Timothy D. Osterhaus of the
Florida Court of Appeals reversed an opinion filed on November 14,
2016, and remanded the action for the entry of an order granting
fees and costs in the case captioned, CELIA LAMPERT AND CURT
LAMPERT, AS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS OF T.L., Appellants, v.
FLORIDA BIRTH-RELATED NEUROLOGICAL INJURY COMPENSATION
ASSOCIATION, Appellee, Case No. 1D15-4815 (Fla. App.).

Appellants Celia Lampert and Curt Lampert are the parents of a son
born with a birth-related neurological injury as defined by
Section 766.302(2), Florida Statutes, who was admitted into the
Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association
(NICA) program on November 10, 1997. In 2006, over 100 families
(including Appellants) filed a class action law suit against NICA,
alleging that NICA was unlawfully underpaying or refusing to pay
parents and guardians for custodial care.

The lawsuit resulted in a settlement agreement and release,
approved in 2012, that established a process for class members to
file claims with NICA to receive payment for providing medically
necessary and reasonable custodial care benefits.

On January 4, 2013, Appellants submitted a claim to NICA for
residential and custodial care benefits. NICA agreed to pay
Appellants for future custodial benefits in the amount of 12 hours
per day, whereas Appellants sought pay for 16 hours per day and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and such other relief that
the Administrative Law Judge deems just and proper. Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) issued a final order in 2015 awarding custodial
care benefits of 12 hours per day from December 17, 2012, forward,
which was what NICA initially agreed to pay but denied Appellants'
motion for attorneys' fees and costs.

NICA argues that the Court should affirm the ALJ's denial of
Appellants' fees and costs because Appellants "were clearly not
the prevailing party and NICA prevailed by any measure."

Pending before the Court is the issue de novo involving the
interpretation of the NICA-related attorneys' fee statute Section
766.31(1)(c) of the Florida Statute as the means of resolving
claims for custodial care benefits which provides that "Should
there be a final determination of compensability, and the
claimants accept an award under the section, the claimants shall
not be liable for any expenses, including attorney's fees,
incurred in connection with the filing of a claim under ss.
766.301-766.316 other than those expenses awarded under the
section."

In the Per Curiam dated December 30, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/KA9xs5 from Leagle.com, Judges Wolf, Lewis and
Osterhaus concluded that Appellants are entitled to their expenses
as required by the settlement agreement because the ALJ made the
final determination and award under the statute that "Petitioners
are awarded custodial care benefits of 12 hours per day, seven
days per week, for the time period since December 17, 2012, and
forward."

The action is remanded with instructions to grant Appellants'
attorneys' fees and costs.

Celia Lampert and Curt Lampert are represented by David M.
Caldevilla, Esq. -- dcaldevilla@dgfirm.com -- DE LA PARTE &
GILBERT, P.A.

Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation is
represented by David W. Black, Esq. -- dblack@fwblaw.net -- and
Marc A. Silverman, Esq. -- msilverman@fwblaw.net -- WEINBERG &
BLACK, P.L.


FORSTER GARBUS: Final Hearing on "Feliciano" Suit Deal on Mar. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Cathy L. Waldor entered an order in the lawsuit entitled
GINGER I. FELICIANO, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, and LYNN ANTISTA, Consolidated Plaintiff Case No. 2:15-
cv-04338-CLW v. FORSTER, GARBUS & GARBUS, Case No. 2:15-cv-02496-
CLW (D.N.J.), granting preliminary approval to the class
settlement agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant.

The "Settlement Class" is defined as:

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

Judge Waldor appoints the Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives,
their counsel as Class Counsel and Heffler Claims Group as the
Settlement Administrator to administer notice to the Class and the
Settlement.

The Court also approves the Parties' proposed Class Notice and
directs that it be mailed to the last known address of each member
of the Settlement Class by January 29, 2017.

Class Members will have until March 15, 2017, to exclude
themselves from, or object to, the proposed settlement.  Any
lawyer, who intends to appear at the Final Fairness Hearing also,
must enter a written Notice of Appearance with the Clerk of the
Court no later than March 15, 2017.

A final hearing on the fairness and reasonableness of the
Agreement and whether final approval will be given to it and the
requests for fees and expenses by Class Counsel will be held on
March 30, 2017, at 1:00 p.m.

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


FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Castillo Sues Over Overpriced Clobetasol
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Castillo, Inc., individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Fougera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA
Inc., Sandoz, Inc.,  Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., Taro
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Novartis AG, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-10063, (S.D. N.Y., December 31, 2016), was filed against
the Defendants for overcharging clobetasol propionate topical
ointment in violation of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act.  The
suit seeks to recover treble damages, costs of suit and reasonable
attorneys' fees.

Clobetasol is a high-potency prescription corticosteroid used in
the treatment of various skin disorders including eczema,
psoriasis, dermatitis and vitiligo. It is reportedly one of the
most prescribed dermatological drugs in the United States.

Cesar Castillo, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, with its principal place of
business and headquarters located at Bo. Quebradas Arena, Rd. #1
Km. 26.0, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico, 00926. Plaintiff purchased
clobetasol propionate topical ointment directly from one or more
Defendants at excessive prices.

Fougera Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business in Melville, New York. Fougera is a
specialty dermatology generic pharmaceutical company that markets
and sells generic fluocinonide throughout the United States.
Fougera is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Sandoz, Inc., a
Colorado corporation with its principal place of business in
Princeton, New Jersey. It deals in generic pharmaceuticals and
bio-similars and is a subsidiary of Defendant Novartis AG.

Teva Pharmaceuticals Curacao N.V. develops, manufactures and
distribute generic pharmaceutical products.

Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business in Hawthorne, New York. It is an owned
subsidiary of Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
      NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
      570 Lexington Avenue, 19 Fl.
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 722-7053
      Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

             - and -

      Juan R. Rivera Font, Esq.
      JUAN R. RIVERA FONT LLC
      Ave. Gonzalez Giusti #27, Suite 602
      Guaynabo, PR 00968
      Tel: (787) 751-5290
      Email: juan@riverafont.com


GARDEN DEPT.: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Garden Dept.
Corp. The case is titled as Walter Gomez, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Garden Dept.
Corp., Victor Caroleo, and Domenic Caroleo, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00017 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 03, 2017, 2016).

The Defendant is engaged in the nurseries & gardening business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ariadne Anna Panagopoulou Alexandrou, Esq.
          PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP
          3510 Broadway, Suite 201
          Astoria, NY 11106
          Telephone: (718) 777 0400
          Facsimile: (718) 777 0599
          E-mail: ari@pnlawyers.com


GARFIELD BEACH: Faces "Morales" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Morales and Eric Morales, individually and on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Garfield Beach
CVS, L.L.C., Longs Drug Stores California, L.L.C., and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC645205 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
December 28, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a medical retail store in Los
Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mike Arias, Esq.
      Mikael H. Stahle, Esq.
      ARIAS SANGUINETTI STAHLE & TORRIJOS LLP
      6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400
      Los Angeles, CA 90045
      Telephone: (310) 844-9696
      Facsimile: (310) 861-0168
      E-mail: mike@asstlawyers.com
              mikael@asstlawyers.com


GENERAL CABLE: Shareholders Sue Over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that investors claim in federal class action in Manhattan that
General Cable shares dropped 31 percent overnight on Feb. 11,
2016, after reaching a $33 million settlement with the Justice
Department for bribing foreign government officials.

The case is captioned, SATISH DOSHI, Individually and on Behalf of
All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL CABLE
CORPORATION, GREGORY B. KENNY, and BRIAN J. ROBINSON, Defendants.,
Case 1:17-cv-00092 (S.D.N.Y., January 5, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
     Hui M. Chang, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, New York 10016
     Telephone: (212) 661-1100
     Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
     E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com
             hchang@pomlaw.com

          - and -

     Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Telephone: (312) 377-1181
     Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
     E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


GRACEKENNEDY FOODS: "Saiz" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Daniel Saiz, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
GRACEKENNEDY FOODS (USA) LLC, doing business as La Fe a Delaware
limited liability corporation, and Alfonso Garcia Lopez, S.A.,
doing business as Conservas Pescamar a Foreign Corporation, Case
No. 16-030142-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-
cv-20022-JAL to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge
Joan A. Lenard.

GraceKennedy Foods is a full service distributor of a range of
over 1,400 products in the categories of grocery, frozen, and
dairy products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Paul Gitkin, Esq.
          Salpeter Gitkin, LLP
          One East Broward Blvd., Suite 1500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 467 8622
          Facsimile: (954) 467 8623
          E-mail: jim@salpetergitkin.com

Gracekennedy Foods (USA) LLC is represented by:

          Jeffrey B Goldberg, Esq.
          Aviva L. Wernick, Esq.
          HUGHES HUBBARD AND REED
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 25th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 379 5573
          E-mail: aviva.wernick@hugheshubbard.com


GUARDIAN LIVING: "Williams" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffery Williams, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals v. Guardian Living Services, Inc. and Christina E.
Kizzee, Case No. 4:16-cv-03758 (S.D. Tex., December 29, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing individuals or
patients, assistance with their daily living, including but not
limited to, bathing, dressing, grooming, and eating.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
      TRAN LAW FIRM
      2537 South Gessner Road, Suite 104
      Houston, TX 77063
      Telephone: (713) 223-8855
      Facsimile: (713) 623-6399
      E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com


HAILEY DEVELOPMENT: Faces Windham Contracting Suit in N.Y. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Windham Contracting Corp., on behalf of itself and on behalf of
all others entitled to share in the funds received by Hailey
Development Group, LLC, as Trustee, in connection with the
improvement of the real property known as 800 Union Street,
Brooklyn, New York Block: 957; Lot: 29 v. Hailey Development
Group, LLC, Richard Petrosa, Mary Filocamo, 222 Union Associates
II, L.P., State Farm Realty Mortgage, L.L.C., and "John Doe No. 1"
through "John Doe No., 100," Case No. 523180/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct,
December 29, 2016), arises from the failure and refusal of Hailey
to pay for certain labor and materials provided, as well as other
construction materials, equipment and labor supplied by the Trust
Fund Beneficiaries in connection with the improvement of the real
property known as 800 Union Street, Brooklyn, New York, Block:
957; Lot: 29, and the unlawful diversion of said trust fund monies
for non-trust purposes.

Hailey Development Group, LLC operates a construction company
located at 236 Fifth Avenue, 11th Floor, New York, New York 10001.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Constantine T. Tzifas, Esq.
      ARTHUR J. SEMETIS, P.C.
      286 Madison Avenue - Suite 1801
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 557-5055


HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Lomas Seeks Certification of Arrestees Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned LUCAS LOMAS, CARLOS
EAGLIN, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, Case No. 4:16-cv-03745 (S.D. Tex.), ask
the Court to certify this Class and Subclass:

     A Class seeking injunctive and declaratory relief:

     All warrantless arrestees who are currently detained, or
     will be detained, by Harris County and who have not been
     provided, or will not be provided, a prompt, neutral
     determination of probable cause supported by oath or
     affirmation.

     A Subclass seeking injunctive and declaratory relief:

     All warrantless misdemeanor arrestees who are currently
     detained, or will be detained, by Harris County and who have
     not been provided, or will not be provided, a neutral
     determination of probable cause supported by oath or
     affirmation within 24 hours of arrest.

The case is about Harris County jailing some of its poorest people
without a finding of probable cause "supported by oath or
affirmation," the Plaintiffs allege.  The Plaintiffs contend that
they are arrestees currently imprisoned by the County without a
warrant and without a finding of probable cause supported by oath
or affirmation. On behalf of the many other individuals subjected
to the Defendant's illegal post-arrest practices, the Plaintiffs
ask that the Court certify the case as a class action.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Rebecca Bernhardt, Esq.
          Susanne Pringle, Esq.
          Texas Fair Defense Project
          314 E Highland Mall Blvd., Suite 108
          Austin, TX 78752
          Telephone: (512) 637-5220
          E-mail: rbernhardt@fairdefense.org
                  springle@fairdefense.org

               - and -

          Elizabeth Rossi, Esq.
          Charlie Gerstein, Esq.
          Alec Karakatsanis, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          910 17th Street NW, Fifth Floor
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 681-2409
          E-mail: elizabeth@civilrightscorps.org
                  charlie@civilrightscorps.org
                  alec@civilrightscorps.org


HERTZ CORP: "Lee" FCRA Class Suit Goes Back to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California granted Defendant's
motion to dismiss the case in its entirety for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and remanded the case to the San Francisco
County Superior Court in the case captioned, PETER LEE, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No.
15-CV-04562-BLF (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Peter Lee and Latonya Campbell initially filed the
putative class action in California Superior Court, County of San
Francisco, which Defendants then removed. Thereafter, Hertz filed
a motion to stay the action pending the Supreme Court's issuance
of its decision in Spokeo. The Court granted Hertz's motion to
stay over Plaintiffs' objections.

Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated persons against Defendants The
Hertz Corporation and Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc.,
alleging that Hertz violated two procedural requirements of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) with respect to their
applications for employment. First, Plaintiffs allege that the
employment application forms Hertz used in the course of its
hiring process violated the "stand-alone requirement" of the FCRA,
15 U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i). Second, Plaintiffs allege
that by withdrawing their conditional offers of employment without
first providing them with a copy of their consumer reports and a
summary of their rights to contest its accuracy, Hertz failed to
comply with sections 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i) and (ii) of the FCRA.

In the motion, Hertz moves under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and
12(h)(3) to dismiss the case in its entirety for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, based on the U.S. Supreme Court's recent
decision in Spokeo v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016) affirming that
to have Article III standing, a plaintiff must have "(1) suffered
an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged
conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed
by a favorable judicial decision."

In her Order dated December 2, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/EvdXXm from Leagle.com, Judge Freeman concluded that
under Spokeo and the facts of the case, Plaintiffs have failed to
establish that they meet Article III's injury-in-fact requirement.

The case is remanded to the San Francisco Superior Court.

Latonya Campbell, et al. are represented by Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.,
and Katrina Leigh Eiland, Esq., at OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP; E.
Michelle Drake, Esq. -- emdrake@bm.net -- and Joseph C. Hashmall,
Esq. -- jhashmall@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.

The Hertz Corporation, et al. are represented by Robert A.
Dolinko, Esq. -- rdolinko@nixonpeabody.com -- Charles M. Dyke,
Esq. -- cdyke@nixonpeabody.com -- and Matthew J. Frankel, Esq. --
mfrankel@nixonpeabody.com -- NIXON PEABODY LLP


HILTON WORLDWIDE: "Solomon" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Alex Solomon, on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Hilton Worldwide, Inc. and Does 1100,
inclusive, Case No. RG16839453, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-
07378 to the proceeding.

The suit asserts labor-related claims.

Hilton Worldwide, Inc. operates a hospitality company that manages
and franchises a broad portfolio of hotels and resorts.

The Defendant is represented by:

      Fraser A. McAlpine, Esq.
      Scott P. Jang, Esq.
      JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
      50 California Street, 9th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 394-9400
      Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
      E-mail: fraser.mcalpine@jacksonlewis.com
              scott.janga@jacksonlewis.com


HUMANA INC: Faces "Mazzarella" Suit in Western Dist. of Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Humana, Inc. The
case is captioned as Louis Mazzarella, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Humana, Inc.,
Humana Insurance Company, and Humana Pharmacy Solutions, Inc.,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00837-DJH (W.D. Ken., Dec. 29, 2016). The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge David J. Hale.

Humana Inc. is a for-profit American health insurance company
based in Louisville, Kentucky.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher M. Barrett, Esq.
          Craig A. Raabe, Esq.
          IZARD KINDALL & RAABE, LLP
          29 S. Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493 6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493 6290

               - and -

          Jacob E. Levy, Esq.
          Mark K. Gray, Esq.
          GRAY & WHITE
          713 E. Market Street, Suite 200
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 805 1800
          Facsimile: (502) 618 4059
          E-mail: jlevy@grayandwhitelaw.com
                  mgray@grayandwhitelaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Gentile, Esq.
          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          Ronen Sarraf, Esq.
          SARRAF GENTILE LLP
          14 Bond Street, Suite 212
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 699 8890
          Facsimile: (516) 699 8968

               - and -

          Matthew Jasinski, Esq.
          William H. Narwold, Esq.
          Motley Rice, LLC - Hartford
          One Corporate Center
          20 Church Street, 17th Floor
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 882 1676
          Facsimile: (860) 882 1682


ICELL HOLDINGS: "Castillo" Sues Over Unpaid Min. and OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Castillo, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Arpreet Sahni a/k/a Sunny
Singh, individually and Icell Holdings Inc. d/b/a Cricket Wireless
and/or any other related or affiliated entities, Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-07187, (N.D. Cal., December 30, 2016), seeks unpaid
minimum wages, overtime compensation, spread of hours
compensation, plus liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Laws.

Defendants operate 77 Cricket Wireless stores throughout the
United States, including but not limited to stores in New York,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland. Castillo performed customer
service work for Defendants from approximately May 2016 through
November 2016 at Defendants' store located at 5658 Myrtle Ave,
Ridgewood, New York 11385. He claims to be denied overtime pay as
well as accurate wage statements.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Phone: (212) 943-9080
      Fax: (212) 943-9082
      Email: llambinder@vandallp.com


IDEAL TAX: Class Certification Under TCPA Sought in "Meyer" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled MELISSA MEYER v. IDEAL TAX
SOLUTIONS, Case No. 8:16-cv-01617-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), asks the
Court for an order granting her motion for class certification,
for her appointment as Class Representative and the appointment of
her counsel as class counsel.

The proposed class consists of:

     All persons within the United States who received any
     unsolicited text messages and/or any other unsolicited text
     messages from Defendant without prior express consent.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Motion is filed to procedurally
preserve her rights pursuant to the decision in Genesis Healthcare
Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (U.S. 2013), although the
Plaintiff disagrees that the Genesis decision applies to class
actions pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The Court will commence a hearing on July 14, 2017, at 2:30 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SRQ2ck5h

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


IDENTIV INC: "Cunningham" Amended Securities Class Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California granted Defendants'
motions in the case captioned, LIKAR ROK, Plaintiff, v. IDENTIV,
INC., JASON HART, and BRIAN NELSON Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-
5775-CRB (N.D. Cal.).

The case is a putative securities fraud class action based on
alleged corporate excess at Identiv, Inc. pursuant to Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Court
appointed Thomas Cunningham as lead plaintiff. See Order of
3/8/16. In May 2016, Cunningham filed the FAC on behalf of
"himself and all other similarly situated purchasers" of Identiv
securities during the Class Period.

Defendants Identiv, Hart, and Nelson separately moved to dismiss
the FAC.  The Court dismissed with leave to amend, finding that
Cunningham failed to adequately plead a material misrepresentation
as to internal controls statements, failed to plead a strong
inference of scienter as to all misrepresentations, and failed to
plead loss causation.

Cunningham's Second Amended Complaint brings claims for (A)
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule
10b-5, i.e., securities fraud, against all defendants; and (B)
violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, i.e., controlling
person liability for securities fraud, against Hart and Nelson.

In their motion to dismiss, Defendants contest three of these
elements: (1) material misrepresentations; (2) scienter; and (3)
loss causation.

In his Order and Reasons dated January 4, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/G1gqZ5 from Leagle.com, Judge Breyer held that the
SAC fails to adequately allege a material misrepresentation,
scienter, or loss causation, and therefore fails to state a claim
under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5.
Cunningham failed to correct the deficiencies identified in the
FAC suggests that he has "no additional facts to plead."

Likar Rok is represented by Charles Henry Linehan, Esq. --
clinehan@glancylaw.com -- Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- and Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq. --
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP -- Phong L. Tran, Esq. --
PhongT@johnsonandweaver.com -- JOHNSON & WEAVER LLP --  Mark
Punzalan, Esq. -- markp@punzalanlaw.com -- PUNZALAN LAW, P.C.

Identiv, Inc. is represented by Christopher Harold McGrath, Esq.
-- haroldmcgrath@paulhastings.com -- Edward Han, Esq. --
edwardhan@paulhastings.com -- Ryan Matthew Fawaz, Esq. --
ryanfawaz@paulhastings.com -- PAUL HASTINGS LLP -- James M.
Lindfelt, Esq. -- james.lindfelt@gmail.com -- PILLSBURY WINTHROP
SHAW PITTMAN LLP


INTERCOAST CAREER: Misrepresented Accreditation Status, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zack Huffman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
four women claim in a federal class action in Portland, Maine,
that the for-profit college Intercoast Career Institute
misrepresented the accreditation status of its nursing school in
Kittery, Maine.

Bringing their suit on Dec. 30 in U.S. District Court for the
District of Maine, lead plaintiffs Stephanie Kourembanas, Caridad
Jean Baptiste, Cathy Mande and Catherine Valley say the school's
false promises that its program would prepare them to become
professional nurses left them saddled with huge student loans.

"The InterCoast LPN program was a sham," the complaint states,
abbreviating licensed practical nursing. "It existed to make money
without regard for the quality of education its students received
in exchange. InterCoast provided little, if any, educational value
to its students and failed to enhance their occupational
qualifications or career prospects."

Though it primarily operates campuses in California, the for-
profit vocational school Intercoast Colleges also runs the
Intercoast Career Institute in Maine. Intercoast opened its LPN
program in Kittery in 2010.

The former students allege that InterCoast's nursing program
failed to provide adequate faculty, adequate clinical experience
and adequate preparation for the National Council Licensing
Examination for Practical Nurses, passage of which is required to
work as a nurse.

Students could expect to pay about $36,000 for the full program,
which was most often financed through federal student loans.

The Maine Board of Nursing originally licensed the school,
according to the complaint, but opened an investigation of it in
July 2012 amid claims that the school's clinical sites were of
poor quality. What the investigation uncovered, the complaint
continues, is a "naãve faculty" that would change students' grades
without notification while blocking students' access to their own
exam results.

As part of a March 2013 consent agreement between the school and
the state, the students note that the school was supposed to
improve its program to the point where it was eligible to receive
accreditation through the National League for Nursing Accrediting
Commission. The school allegedly had to obtain accreditation
within 18 months of the agreement.

After the school failed to meets that accreditation deadline, and
missed its extension as well, the complaint says InterCoast agreed
to surrender its state certificate of approval and to cease
operations in Maine by April 2016.

All four plaintiffs say they were students of the school and were
made to take out massive student loans that they were are still
repaying. Only two of them completed their LPN programs, but were
unable to continue their education in pursuit of a RN degree
because no other schools would accept credits earned from
InterCoast. Another plaintiff says she was forced out of the
program by a false plagiarism accusation after a semester of
harassment for speaking English as a second language. The final
plaintiff left the school after one semester, saying the school
refused to let her know whether she passed her final exam.

A representative for InterCoast has not returned an email seeking
comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Andrew Cotter and James Clifford
of Clifford & Clifford in Kennebunk and Richard O'Meara from
Murray Plumb & Murray in Portland.

The case is captioned, STEPHANIE KOUREMBANAS, CARIDAD JEAN
BAPTISTE, CATHY MANDE, and CATHARINE VALLEY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
INTERCOAST COLLEGES, d/b/a INTERCOAST CAREER INSTITUTE,
Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-00639-JAW (D. Maine, December 30, 2016).

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

     James Clifford, Esq.
     Andrew P. Cotter, Esq.
     CLIFFORD & CLIFFORD
     Post Road Center
     62 Portland Rd. Suite 37
     Kennebunk, ME 04043
     Tel: (207) 985-3200
     E-mail: james@cliffordclifford.com
             andrew@cliffordclifford.com

          - and -

     Richard L. O'Meara, Esq.
     MURRAY, PLUMB & MURRAY
     75 Pearl Street, P.O. Box 9785
     Portland, ME 04104-5085
     Tel: (207) 773-5651
     E-mail: romeara@mpmlaw.com


JENNINGS ROAD: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Cerulo" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Cerulo and Jordon Tetreault, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Herbert G.Chambers, James
Duchesneau, Alan McLaren, Jennings Road Management Corp, d/b/a
"The Herb Chambers Companies," Herb Chambers of Natick, Inc., and
Herb Chambers of Auburn, Inc., Case No. 16-3749 (Mass. Cmmw.,
December 29, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay employees an hourly rate equal to one and one half times
their regular hourly rate for all of the hours that they worked in
excess of 40 during a pay period.

The Defendants manage, control, and operate a chain of over 50 car
dealerships in Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brook S. Lane, Esq.
      John P. Regan Jr., Esq.
      REGAN LANE LLP
      43 Bowdoin Street, Ste. A
      Boston, MA 02114
      Telephone: (857) 277-0902
      E-mail: blane@reganlane.com
              jregan@reganlane.com


JM HOLM: Class of Painters/Laborers Certified in "Arredondo" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Alfred H. Bennett granted the agreed motion for
conditional certification of representative class and approval of
notice filed in the lawsuit captioned JOSE ARREDONDO v. J.M. HOLM
& CO., INC., and TODD NELMS, INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 4:16-cv-01317
(S.D. Tex.).

The Court certifies this as a conditional class:

     All current and former painters and laborers employed by
     Defendant J.M. Holm & CO., Inc. who worked more than forty
     (40) hours per week from May 10, 2013 to present.

Judge Bennett also ordered the Defendants to produce the names,
physical addresses, e-mail addresses and telephone numbers of all
putative class members to the Plaintiffs within 30 days of the
date of the Order.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZjFZYL0X


JS LOVEMOTORS: Sued in California Over Misleading Advertisement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Hernandez, individually and, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. JS Lovemotors, Inc., d/b/a Santander
Consumer USA, Inc., d/b/a Chrysler Credit, and Does 1 through 500,
inclusive, Case No. BC645260 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 29, 2016),
arises out of the Defendant's illegal pattern and practice of
advertising vehicles and failing to include disclosure of frame
damage and bank fees in the advertisement.

JS Lovemotors, Inc. is engaged in the business of buying and
selling automobiles to the general public.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Olsen, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF OLSEN
      3013 Wolsey Place
      Fremont, CA 94555
      Telephone: (510) 371-9648
      Facsimile: (510) 404-5302
      E-mail: lawofficeofolsen@gmail.com


KEYNETICS INC: "Silverstein" Second Amended Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California dismissed Plaintiff's
Second Amended Complaint (SAC) in the case captioned, WILLIAM
SILVERSTEIN, Plaintiff, v. KEYNETICS INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 16-CV-00684-DMR (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff William Silverstein brings the putative class action
alleging violations of California's restrictions on unsolicited
commercial email.  Plaintiff is a member of the group "C, Linux
and Networking Group" on LinkedIn, a professional networking
website. Through his membership in that group, he received
unlawful commercial emails (spam emails) that came from
fictitiously named senders through the LinkedIn group email
system. The emails originated from the domain "linkedin.com," even
though non-party LinkedIn did not authorize the use of its domain
and was not the actual initiator of the emails.

The court previously dismissed Plaintiff's first amended complaint
(FAC) on the ground that Plaintiff's claims were preempted by
federal law.

In its Seconds Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserts one claim for
relief for violation of California Business and Professions Code
section 17529.5, which prohibits certain unlawful activities
related to commercial email advertisements.

Defendants again argue that Plaintiff's claims are preempted by
the federal Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography
and Marketing Act of 2003 (CAN-SPAM Act), 15 U.S.C. Sections 7701-
7713. Additionally, Defendants 418 Media and Howes move pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Seconds Amended Complaint on the
grounds that it is not pled with the requisite specificity and
Plaintiff does not plead specific facts regarding Howes's
liability. Defendants Keynetics and Click Sales move pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim against Keynetics, and
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint
for lack of personal jurisdiction.

In her Order dated December 29, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/h6MU5B from Leagle.com, Judge Ryu held that
Plaintiff's new allegations in the Seconds Amended Complaint do
not amount to material falsity or deception that is sufficient to
avoid preemption. Plaintiff's claims "relate to, at most, non-
deceptive statements or omissions and a heightened content or
labeling requirement" are accordingly preempted by the CAN-SPAM
Act.

William Silverstein is represented by Jimmie Chin Twu, Esq. --
twu@waltontwu.com -- and Timothy James Walton, Esq. --
walton@waltontwu.com -- WALTON TWU LLP

Silverstein is also represented by:

      Mark Etheredge Burton, Jr., Esq.
      William M. Audet, Esq.
      Adel A. Nadji, Esq.
      AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
      711 Van Ness Ave #500,
      San Francisco, CA 94102
      Tel: (415)568-2555

Keynetics Inc., et al. are represented by Rodger R. Cole, Esq. --
rcole@fenwick.com -- Sapna S. Mehta, Esq. --
smehta@fenwick.com -- and Tyler Griffin Newby, Esq. --
tnewby@fenwick.com -- FENWICK & WEST LLP


KMART CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Roselan" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelliann M. Roselan, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Kmart Corporation, Kmart Corporation
of Illinois, Inc., Kmart Holding Corporation, and Sears Holdings
Corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-11667 (N.D. Ill., December 28,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked above 40 in a workweek.

The Defendants own and operate retail stores throughout Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
      E-mail dwerman@flsalaw.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq.
      Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
      Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
      Michael H. Reed, Esq.
      KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER, LLP
      Two International Drive, Suite 350
      Rye Brook, NY 10573
      Telephone: (914) 934-9200
      Facsimile: (914) 934-9220

         - and -

      Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
      David A. Roth, Esq.
      Charlie Gershbaum, Esq.
      Rebecca S. Predovan,Esq.
      HEPWORTH GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
      192 Lexington Avenue Suite 802
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212)545-1199
      Facsimile: (212)532-3801

         - and -

      Gary E. Mason, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
      1625 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Suite 605
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 429-2294
      Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
      E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com

         - and -

      Peter Winebrake, Esq.
      R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      715 Twining Road, Suite 211
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Telephone: (215) 884-2491
      Facsimile: (215) 884-2492


L'OREAL USA: "Manier" False Advertising Action Goes to S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Otis D. Wright, II of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California granted proposed
Intervenors' motion to intervene and to transfer the action in the
case captioned, SHARON MANIER; DOROTHY RILES; Plaintiffs, v.
L'OREAL USA, INC; SOFT SHEEN-CARSON, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:16-CV-06886-ODW-KS (C.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Sharon Manier and Dorothy Riles filed the action on
September 14, 2016, bringing claims pursuant to California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law,
California's Unfair Competition Law, Illinois's Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, Breach of Express Warranty,
Breach of Implied Warranty and Merchantability, Unjust Enrichment,
Fraud, and Negligence. Plaintiffs Manier and Riles's case (the
Manier action) is a putative class action alleging that
Defendants' product, the SoftSheen Carson Optimum Amla Legend No-
Mix, No-Lye Relaxer (the Amla product), is defective and causes
injuries including hair loss, scalp irritation, blisters, and
burns.

Proposed Intervenors Raines, Turnipseed, and Oravillo are named
plaintiffs in a Southern District of New York putative class
action styled as Jacobs, Raines and Turnipseed v. L'Oreal USA,
Inc. and Soft Sheen-Carson, LLC, Case No. 1:16-6593 (S.D.N.Y.
2016) (the Jacobs action). The proposed Intervenors filed the
Jacobs action on August 19, 2016. In their complaint, they allege
that the Amla product is defective and causes significant hair
loss and scalp irritation. The Jacobs action asserts several of
the same causes of action as the Manier action in addition to
causes of action under New York, Florida, and Kentucky law.

Based on the fact that their action is highly similar to the
Manier action and was first filed, the proposed Intervenors ask
the Court to dismiss, stay, or transfer the case pursuant to the
first-to-file rule.

In his Order dated January 4, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/t5CpVr from Leagle.com, Judge Wright, II found that
the Rule 24(b) requirements are met and permits intervention for
the limited purpose of filing the motion to dismiss, stay, or
transfer the action pursuant to the first-to-file rule.

The Court concludes that transfer to the Southern District of New
York is most appropriate and will serve the purpose of the first-
to-file rule in promoting judicial efficiency.

Dorothy Riles, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Jared Meiselas,
Esq. -- ben@geragos.com -- and Mark John Geragos, Esq. --
mark@geragos.com -- GERAGOS AND GERAGOS APC -- Andrea Clisura,
Esq. -- aclisura@zlk.com -- Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq. --
cmaccarone@zlk.com -- and Lori G. Feldman, Esq. --
lfeldman@zlk.com -- LEVI AND KORSINSKY LLP

L Oreal USA Inc, et al. are represented by Justin D. Lewis, Esq.
-- jlewis@gordonrees.com -- GORDON AND REES


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Court Dismisses Claims Against Adelson
-------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
there is no evidence Las Vegas Sands owner Sheldon Adelson misled
investors about the casinos' fiscal health during the Great
Recession, a federal judge in Las Vegas ruled in a securities
class action.

U.S. District Judge Andrew P. Gordon on January 3, dismissed class
claims against Adelson, Las Vegas Sands and former Sands COO
William P. Wiedener, and the court closed the case on
January 4.

Filed in 2010 by lead plaintiff Frank J. Fosbre Jr., the class
cited an Aug. 29, 2008, Bloomberg article that reported "Adelson
and other Las Vegas Sands executives dismissed concerns that a
slowing economy or restrictions on visitors to Macau would impact
Macau's result" on Las Vegas Sands share prices.

Fosbre said the article showed Adelson misled investors so that
Las Vegas Sands would not have to file for bankruptcy during the
Great Recession.

He said Adelson and other Sands executives made investors think
the company was in better financial shape from Aug. 2, 2007,
through Nov. 5, 2008, when Las Vegas Sands was developing its
Macau gaming operations.

The article, however, does not say what Fosbre claims, Gordon
wrote in his ruling.

Gordon said "it is unclear" why Fosbre cited the Bloomberg article
"when simply reading it would show it did not contain the alleged
misrepresentation."

Fosbre filed an amended class action in 2010, and only cited the
Bloomberg article as evidence of Adelson misleading investors,
Gordon wrote.

Adelson filed a motion for summary judgment and to dismiss all
claims based on the Bloomberg article.

In Fosbre's reply to the motion, he referenced a Las Vegas Review
Journal article in which Adelson is quoted saying "our entire
strategy avoids the possibility of an economic slowdown,
recession," Gordon wrote.

Gordon said discovery in the matter closed long ago, and it's too
late for Fosbre to try to enter new evidence into the case through
motions.

Fosbre "led both this court and defendants to believe the alleged
misrepresentation was in the Bloomberg article," Gordon wrote.  He
said if he let Fosbre suddenly enter new evidence, Adelson would
be prejudiced because discovery closed years ago.

Fosbre "was not diligent" in amending the complaint when he had
"ample opportunity" to do so, Gordon wrote, and said there are no
remaining claims in the matter.

The Bloomberg article cited by Fosbre does not contain the alleged
misrepresentation, and Adelson and the others are entitled to
summary judgment, Gordon wrote.

Gordon notified both parties of the rules for appeal, and closed
the case on January 4.

The case is captioned, FRANK J. FOSBRE, JR., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LAS VEGAS
SANDS CORPORATION, SHELDON G. ADELSON, and WILLIAM P. WEIDNER,
Defendants, Case 2:10-cv-00765-APG-GWF (D. Nevada, January 3,
2017).


LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Shareholders Challenge Canyon Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Khan, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
directors are selling Lattice Semiconductor too cheaply through an
unfair process to Canyon Bridge Capital Partners, for $8.30 a
share or $1 billion, shareholders say in a federal class action in
Portland, Ore.

The case is captioned, PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. LATTICE
SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION; DARIN G. BILLERBECK; JOHN BOURGOIN;
ROBIN ABRAMS; BRIAN BEATTIE; ROBERT HERB; MARK JENSEN; JEFF
RICHARDSON; FRED WEBER; CANYON BRIDGE CAPITAL PARTNERS, INC.;
CANYON BRIDGE ACQUISITION COMPANY, INC.; and CANYON BRIDGE MERGER
SUB, INC., Defendants. Case 3:17-cv-00035-SI (D. Or., January 9,
2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff Paul Parshall:

     Timothy S. DeJong, Esq.
     STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.
     209 S.W. Oak Street, Suite 500
     Portland, Oregon 97204
     Telephone: (503) 227-1600
     Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
     Email: tdejong@stollberne.com

          - and -

     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
     Wilmington, DE 19803
     Telephone: (302) 295-5310
     Email: bdl@rl-legal.com
            gms@rl-legal.com

          - and -

     Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
     RM LAW, P.C.
     995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311
     Wayne, PA 19087
     Tel: (484) 588-5516


LCC INT'L: Kansas Court Won't Reconsider Arbitration Order
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree of the United States District
Court for the District of Kansas denied Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration in the case captioned, RICHARD TORGERSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. LCC INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 16-CV-2495-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan.).

Plaintiffs bring the action alleging that defendants LCC
International, Inc. (LCC), Kenny Young, Brian Dunn, Rebecca Stahl,
and Dan Moss violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29
U.S.C. Section 201 et seq.  Specifically, plaintiffs claim that
defendants improperly classified all LCC employees working in a
Migration Analyst position as employees exempt from the FLSA's
overtime requirements. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and
other, similarly situated Migration Analysts, seek to recover
unpaid overtime compensation under the FLSA.

On August 10, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' Cross Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to
Stay Proceedings and Compel Arbitration.  The court concluded that
each plaintiff signed an employment agreement that requires them
to arbitrate their FLSA claims.  The court granted defendants'
request to stay the case and compelled the parties to proceed to
arbitration.  Also, the court denied the portion of defendants'
motion asking the court to decide whether the employment agreement
permits class arbitration because it determined that the
arbitrator must decide that issue.  And, for the same reasons, the
court declined to decide plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional
Certification of Class Claims Under Section 216(b) of the FLSA
without prejudice to their right to present the request to an
arbitrator.

Plaintiffs seek reconsideration on two bases. First, plaintiffs
ask the court to reconsider its decision to compel arbitration
because, plaintiffs contend, a recent Tenth Circuit case presents
a change in the controlling law that renders the parties'
arbitration agreement unenforceable. Second, even if the court
declines to reconsider its decision to compel arbitration,
plaintiffs ask the court to grant conditional certification of a
collective action because, plaintiffs contend, the court must
decide the issue -- not the arbitrator -- and, if the court
refrains from deciding the issue, plaintiffs and the putative
plaintiffs will suffer manifest injustice.

In his Memorandum and Order dated January 3, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/wjd69p from Leagle.com, Judge Crabtree found that
plaintiffs have failed altogether to satisfy their burden to show
that the effective vindication exception applies here and the
parties must submit their dispute to arbitration. Plaintiffs also
provide no basis for the court to reconsider its decision denying
without prejudice plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class
Certification.

Robert Hall, et al. are represented by Gregory P. Goheen, Esq. --
ggoheen@mvplaw.com -- and Robert L. Turner, IV, Esq. --
rturner@mvplaw.com -- MCANANY, VAN CLEAVE & PHILLIPS, PAK

LCC International, Inc. is represented by Adam R. Roseman, Esq. --
rosemana@gtlaw.com -- James N. Boudreau, Esq. --
boudreauj@gtlaw.com -- and Robert H. Bernstein, Esq. --
bernsteinr@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP


LLOYDS TSB: Offer of Compromise in "Willcox" Suit Approved
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, BRADLEY WILLCOX, FRANK DOMINICK, and
MICHELE SHERIE DOMINICK, Plaintiffs, v. LLOYDS TSB BANK, PLC and
DOES 1-15, Defendants, Case No. 13-00508 ACK-RLP (D. Haw.),
District Judge Alan C. Kay of the United States District Court for
the District of Hawaii granted preliminary approval to Defendant's
Offer of Compromise, Plaintiffs' Motion to Approve and Enter
Judgment and request for award of attorneys' fees and costs and
award for Dr. Bradley Willcox for his role as class representative
in the action.

The case involves the issuance by Defendant Lloyds TSB Bank PLC,
now known as Lloyds Bank PLC (Lloyds), of certain dual currency
loans, also referred to as International Mortgage System (IMS)
loans. On March 27, 2015, Plaintiffs filed the operative Third
Amended Complaint (TAC). The TAC names Frank Dominick, Michele
Sherie Dominick, and Bradley Willcox (collectively, Plaintiffs) as
class representatives and brings claims against Lloyds for Breach
of Contract (Count I) and Breach of an Implied Term Limiting
Lloyds' Discretion to Change the Interest Rate (Count II).

On July 15, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
Magistrate Judge Puglisi issued his Findings and Recommendation to
Grant in Part and Deny in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification (F&R) on November 12, 2015 recommending that (1)
certifying the case as a class action; (2) appointing Dr. Willcox
(but not the Dominicks) as class representative; (3) appointing
Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing and Steptoe & Johnson LLP as class
counsel; (4) directing the parties to meet and confer regarding
notice to class members; (5) denying any remaining relief
requested in Plaintiffs' class certification motion; and (6)
defining the certified class as "All persons and entities who
entered prior to August 2009 into an IMS loan with Lloyds that
contained a Hong Kong choice-of-law provision and an interest rate
provision based upon Cost of Funds and who are, or were at any
time during entering into such an IMS loan, residents or citizens
of the State of Hawaii, or owners of property in Hawaii that was
mortgaged to secure any such IMS loan."

On October 16, 2015, Plaintiffs and Lloyds filed cross-motions for
summary judgment. Lloyds moved for summary judgment as to both of
Plaintiffs' Counts I and II. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment
only as to their Count I and requested "immediate declaratory
relief" as to that claim.

On February 11, 2016, the Court issued an Order Denying
Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Their and the
Putative Class's Claim for Breach of Contract on Count I, Denying
Plaintiffs' Request for Declaratory Relief, Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, and Sua
Sponte Granting Partial Summary Judgment to Plaintiffs on Count
II.

Lloyds filed Objections to the F&R on November 25, 2015 to which
Plaintiffs filed a Response on December 9, 2015 and on January 8,
2016, the Court issued an Order Adopting in Part, Rejecting in
Part, and Modifying in Part the Findings and Recommendations to
Grant in Part and Deny in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification.

On September 11, 2016, Lloyds signed and delivered to Plaintiffs'
counsel the Offer of Judgment. Plaintiffs' counsel signed the
Offer of Judgment and delivered it upon the Court on September 22,
2016. Pursuant to the Offer of Judgment, Plaintiffs and Lloyds
agree as follows: (1) judgment shall be entered in favor of
Plaintiffs and each borrower that has not opted out of the
certified class as of September 25, 2016; (2) Lloyds shall pay
$2,000,000.00 in full and final satisfaction of all relief sought
in the TAC; (3) Plaintiffs submitted a Petition in Support of
Distribution of Fees and Expenses (Petition), requesting that
$800,000.00 of the Judgment amount be apportioned to class counsel
as an award for attorneys' fees and costs; and (4) Plaintiffs
filed a Supplemental Brief in Support of a Compensation Award for
Class Representative (Supplemental Brief), requesting that Dr.
Willcox be granted a compensation award of $10,000.00 for his role
as class representative.

In his Order dated December 14, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/d9WOFf from Leagle.com, Judge Kay found that the
Notice of the Offer of Judgment was proper and complied with Rule
23(c)(2) and Rule 23(e)(1) and that the terms of the Offer of
Judgment provide Plaintiffs with a fair and meaningful resolution
of their claims, and the factor therefore weighs in favor of
approving the Offer of Judgment. As to the Offer of Judgment the
Court found that it provides certainty to class members that they
will recover some amount of money, a benefit that cannot be
overstated in such a complex case.

Lloyds shall then have two weeks from the entry of the final order
and judgment to issue payments to class members, Plaintiffs'
counsel, and the class representative in accordance with
Plaintiffs' proposed distribution, after which Lloyds must file
with the Court a notice certifying that such payments have been
made and a final class list setting forth (by name and city) the
class members bound by the Judgment.

Michele Sherie Dominick, et al. are  represented by Gary Lombardo,
Esq. -- glombardo@steptoe.com -- Morgan Hector, Esq. --
mhector@steptoe.com -- and Steven J. Barber, Esq. --
sbarber@steptoe.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP -- Glenn T.
Melchinger, Esq. -- GMelchinger@ahfi.com -- and Paul Alston, Esq.
-- PAlston@ahfi.com -- ALSTON HUNT FLOYD & ING

Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC is represented by Martha S. Sullivan, Esq. --
Martha.sullivan@squirepb.com -- Rebecca W. Haverstick, Esq. --
Rebecca.haverstick@squirepb.com -- and Sean L. McGrane, Esq. --
sean.mcgrane@squirepb.com -- SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS LLP


LYFT INC: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Credit Reporting Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
PETE PETERSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. LYFT, INC., the Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-07343-LB (N.D. Cal., Dec. 27, 2016), seeks monetary relief
from Defendant for failing to comply with the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA).

The case is about a consumer class action under the (FCRA),
brought on behalf of applicants for employment with Defendant
Lyft, a transportation network company. The Plaintiff contends
that Lyft systematically violates section 1681b(b)(3) of the FCRA
by using consumer reports to make adverse employment decisions
without, beforehand, providing the person who is the subject of
the report sufficient and timely notification and a copy of the
report and a summary of rights under the FCRA, effectively leaving
the person who is the subject of the report without any
opportunity to correct any errors on the report or to even know in
a timely manner who prepared the background report about him or
her which formed a basis for the adverse action.

Lyft is an American transportation network company based in San
Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
          100 South Broad Street, Suite 1902
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735 8600
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.som
                  jsoumilas@#consumerlawfirm.com


LYTX INC: "Levy" Suit Seeks Back Pay & Damages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL LEVY, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. LYTX, INC, a Delaware Corporation, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-03090-BAS-BGS (S.D. Cal., Dec. 27,
2016), seeks to recover back pay, actual damages, and
consequential damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the California Labor Code.

The complaint says Defendant Lytx failed to compensate its non-
exempt employees as required by federal and California law. To cut
down on administrative burdens, Lytx, in 2015, required Plaintiff
and his colleagues to enter their timekeeping in advance of
actually having worked the hours. That is, Lytx instructed
employees to input the estimated hours that they believed they
would work during the pay period. Lytx then paid Plaintiff and the
Class based on these pre-entered hours, rather than for the hours
actually worked. Lytx would then, in the following pay period,
reconcile by either adding money to employees' checks (to catch up
for hours worked in the prior period but never paid) or by
subtracting money from what was earned in the next period (to
credit Lytx if it had previously over-paid). By these practices,
Lytx allegedly violated a whole host of federal and California
labor laws that require, for example, the full and timely payment
of wages when rightfully earned, the keeping and distribution of
accurate payroll and timekeeping records, and laws that prohibit
shifting the costs of overhead or doing business over to
employees.

Lytx, formerly DriveCam, Inc., is a global driver risk management
company located in San Diego, California. It specializes in
designing, manufacturing and selling video driver safety programs
used by commercial fleets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
          Alex M. Tomasevic, Esq.
          David G. Greco, Esq.
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325 0492
          Facsimile: (619) 325 0496
          E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
                  atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
                  dgreco@nicholaslaw.org


MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP: Fails Bid to Disqualify Finerman as Class Rep
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DANIEL FINERMAN, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, v.
MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC., etc., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 3:14-cv-1154-J-32MCR (M.D. Fla.), District Judge Timothy J.
Corrigan ruled that:

     1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended
Class Action Complaint is granted.  No later than January 19, 2017
plaintiffs shall file their Second Amended Class Action Complaint.
Defendants shall respond no later than February 10, 2017.

     2. Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment or, in the
alternative, to Disqualify Daniel Finerman as Class
Representative, and Motion to Dismiss Unjust Enrichment Claim of
Plaintiff Donna Devino is denied.

     3. Plaintiffs' Motion to Defer Consideration of Defendants'
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, etc. is moot.

     4. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiffs'
Request for Admissions is granted.  MORI shall serve answers to
Plaintiffs' Requests for Admission no later than February 13,
2017.

     5. Although MORI has not yet had an opportunity to respond to
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Document Discovery, the Court will
terminate the motion and direct the parties to confer one more
time to try to resolve the outstanding discovery.  Documents that
MORI has agreed to produce should be produced no later than
January 23, 2017; by that same date MORI shall state whether it is
withholding any responsive materials. If the parties cannot work
this out, plaintiffs may renew their motion by February 6, 2017
and MORI shall respond by February 21, 2017.

     6. In light of the new deadlines, and to put this case on a
realistic schedule, the Court sets the remaining case deadlines
and settings as follows:

        February 15, 2017 -- Disclosure of expert reports

        March 15, 2017    -- Responses to expert reports

        April 28, 2017    -- Close of discovery

        April 28, 2017    -- Parties to file joint notice advising
                             whether they wish to re-engage with
                             their Mediator

        May 31, 2017      -- Filing of dispositive, Daubert and
                             motions for class certification

        June 21, 2017     -- Responses to dispositive, Daubert,
                             and class certification motions

        July 10, 2017     -- Replies on dispositive, Daubert, and
                             class certification motions (limited
                             to 12 pages each)

        October 17, 2017  -- Argument on dispositive, Daubert,
        2:00 p.m.            and class certification motions
        (Courtroom 10D)

The Court will set the final pretrial and trial settings as
necessary once it rules on the pending motions. In all other
respects, the parties shall continue to be governed by the May 5,
2016 Case Management and Scheduling Order.  Plaintiffs' Motion to
Stay Unexpired Deadlines is moot.

In seeking to disqualify Finerman, defendants argue that Finerman
could have avoided any damages by cancelling his cruise.  The
Court, however, held that Finerman has presented evidence that his
other vacation options (including not taking one at all) would not
have served to mitigate his damages, thus creating at least a
genuine issue of disputed fact on this point. The Court also
rejects the argument that Finerman's alleged knowledge of any
overcharge vitiates his claims, especially where he has presented
evidence that his other options left him in a worse position.
Defendants also contend that neither Finerman nor Donna Devino can
prevail on a claim for unjust enrichment because they do not have
evidence to show that either defendant kept any portion of the
disputed fee. But discovery is not yet over and, in any event, if
plaintiffs paid an amount the defendants should have paid instead,
then the defendants might have been unjustly enriched even if they
did not themselves retain the sums plaintiffs paid, the Court
said, citing Aceto Corp. v. TherapeuticsMD, Inc., 953 F.Supp.2d
1269, 1288-89 (S.D. Fla. 2013).  The Court also held that N.G.L.
Travel Associates v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 764 So.2d 672 (Fla.
3d DCA 2000) does not hold otherwise.  Whether Finerman is an
appropriate class representative should await a determination on
plaintiffs' forthcoming motion for class certification.

The Court also called out plaintiffs' practice of using footnotes
for citations to legal authorities that should be in the text.
"The small font is too hard to read and it results in evading the
Court's page limitations. See, for example, Doc. 96. Future
filings that follow this practice will be stricken. Last, the
Court is concerned about the sniping going on in the parties'
papers. It is not helpful to the Court and reflects poorly on
counsel," Judge Corrigan said.

A copy of the Court's order is available at https://goo.gl/F70t2H
from Leagle.com.

Finerman and Devino are represented by Joel R. Rhine, at Rhine Law
Firm, P.C.; John Allen Yanchunis, Sr., Marcio William Valladares,
and Patrick A. Barthle, at Morgan & Morgan, PA; and Steven William
Teppler, and Brittany R. Ford, at Abbott Law Group, PA.


Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc., a foreign corporation, is
represented by David E. Sellinger, Dawn Ivy Giebler-Millner, and
Philip R. Sellinger, at Greenberg Traurig LLP.

International Cruise & Excursion Gallery, Inc., a foreign
corporation, is represented by Brian R. Cummings, Dawn Ivy
Giebler-Millner, Jeffrey Aaron Backman, and Richard W. Epstein,
Greenspoon Marder, PA.

Movants NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., and Oceania Cruises, Inc., are
represented by Alex M. Gonzalez, and Eleni S. Kastrenakes, Holland
& Knight, LLP.


MASTER SERVICES: "McClary" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MCCLARY, on behalf of himself and others similarly-
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MASTER SERVICES, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 3:16-cv-03501-B (N.D. Tex., Dec. 27, 2016), seeks to
recover legal and equitable relief, liquidated damages, and other
fees and expenses including, without limitation, costs of court,
expenses, and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA).

Plaintiff McClary is one of a number of service technicians and
manufacturers who are or were formerly employed by Defendant and
whose compensation was improper under the FLSA because Defendant
failed and refused to compensate Plaintiffs for their overtime
hours worked. As their employer, the Defendant required and/or
permitted Plaintiff and the other service technicians and
manufacturers to routinely work in excess of 40 hours per week,
but failed or refused to compensate them for such overtime hours
worked in accordance with the FLSA. Specifically, Plaintiff and
other service technicians and manufacturers were misclassified as
exempt employees although they did not meet the duties test for
any FLSA exemption and further did not meet the salary basis test
for FLSA exemption, as evidenced by Defendant's payroll
deductions, but Defendant failed to compensate them at a rate of
at least one-and-one-half times their regular hourly rate for
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Such conduct by
Defendant was a violation of the FLSA which requires non-exempt
employees to be compensated for their overtime work at a rate of
at least one-and-one-half times their regular hourly rate.

Master Services is a residential heating, cooling and plumbing
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Corinna Chandler, Esq.
          CHANDLER LAW, P.C.
          3419 Westminster Ave No. 343G
          Dallas, TX 75205
          Telephone: (972) 342 8793
          Facsimile: (972) 692-5220
          E-mail: chandler@chandlerlawpc.com


MCDONALD'S CORP: Court Denies Class Cert. in "Salazar" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Denzio, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in San Francisco, on January 5, ruled workers at
eight McDonald's franchises cannot prove enough of them knew they
were working for the fast-food corporation rather than franchisees
to proceed with a wage theft class action.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg denied the 1,200 workers class
certification under the theory of ostensible agency, where a
franchisor can be believed to be acting on behalf of the parent
company.

Cashiers Guadalupe Salazar, Genoveva Lopez and Judith Zarate, sued
McDonald's and franchise owner Bobby Haynes in March 2014,
claiming they were denied meal and rest breaks and that McDonald's
miscalculated their wages.

The Haynes Partnership has owned eight franchises in Oakland and
San Leandro since 2010.

Ruling on McDonald's motion for summary judgment back in August,
Seeborg observed that Haynes controlled hiring, firing,
discipline, wage-setting and the employees' general working
conditions. Seeborg dismissed the workers' claims against
McDonald's based on actual agency because McDonald's didn't make
direct personnel decisions.

The Haynes Partnership settled with the workers in 2015, allowing
the class to go forward on the ostensible agency claim against
McDonald's, but Seeborg ruled there isn't enough evidence to show
a common set of circumstances classwide.

"Even interpreting broadly the rule that ostensible agency may be
inferred from circumstances, plaintiffs' factual showing falls
short," he said.

Though their attorneys argued that the workers wore McDonald's
branded uniforms, received paychecks bearing the McDonald's logo,
received McDonald's orientation packets and watched McDonald's
training videos, Seeborg said some workers received different
information that led them to believe Haynes was their employer.

"These differences preclude an inference of common belief among
class members. Indeed, the record shows that some class members
understand that McDonald's does not employ them, while others do
not," Seeborg wrote.

"Here, the information that any crew member knew or should have
known varies. For example, some crew members are told at or near
the time of their hire that they were employees of Haynes and/or
that they were not employees of McDonald's," he added. "Some of
Haynes' family members tell new hires that Haynes is their
employer during new-hire orientation conducted at Haynes' offices.
Likewise, some shift managers and general managers tell crew
members that the Haynes family owns their restaurant."

Attorney Michael Rubin with Altshuler Berzon, who represents the
workers, said Seeborg's ruling may have a silver lining, as the
workers will be able to present their joint-employer theory to the
Ninth Circuit.

"We're disappointed, but in the long run it may be for the best,"
Rubin said in an interview on January 5. "The key issue in this
case has always been McDonald's liability as a joint employer.
Ostensible agency was never our principal legal theory, but it
gave us two bites at the liability apple. The consequence of
Seeborg's ruling is undoubtedly that we will get the principal
joint-employer issue adjudicated much more quickly with far less
expenditure of time and money than if we first went through a
classwide ostensible agency trial."

McDonald's attorney, Lawrence Di Nardo with Jones Day, did not
respond to a phone request for comment.

The case is captioned, GUADALUPE SALAZAR, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. MCDONALD'S CORP., et al., Defendants, Case 3:14-cv-02096-RS
(N.D. Cal., January 5, 2017).


MEDTRONIC INC: Securities Fraud Suit Not Barred, 8th Cir. Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Raymond W. Gruender of the Court of Appeals, Eighth
Circuit, vacated a summary judgment order and remanded for further
proceedings the action captioned, West Virginia Pipe Trades Health
& Welfare Fund; Employees' Retirement System of the State of
Hawaii; Union Asset Management Holding AG, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. Medtronic, Inc.; William A. Hawkins; Gary L. Ellis; Richard E,
Kuntz; Julie Bearcroft; Richard W. Treharne; Martin Yahiro,
Defendants-Appellees, Thomas A. Zdeblick; J. Kenneth Burkus; Scott
D. Boden, Defendants, Case No. 15-3468 (8th Cir.).

West Virginia Pipe Trades Health and Welfare Fund, Employees'
Retirement System of the State of Hawaii, and Union Asset
Management Holding AG are retirement and investment funds who
brought a consolidated class action for securities fraud against
Medtronic, Inc. and several of its officers and senior managers
for actions related to Medtronic's INFUSE product. INFUSE is the
trade name of rhBMP-2, a bone morphogenetic protein that causes
the body to develop new bone tissue.

Appellants filed suit on June 27, 2013 against Medtronic, its
officers and senior managers, and the doctors who authored the
Medtronic-sponsored clinical studies. Appellants alleged a number
of securities laws violations, including making false statements
and employing a scheme to defraud the market. The district court
initially dismissed Appellants' scheme liability claims against
the physician-authors and dismissed some of the false statement
claims against Medtronic. However, the district court did not
dismiss one false statement claim, the scheme liability claim, or
the control liability claim against Medtronic.

The litigation proceeded, and Medtronic eventually moved for
summary judgment on all claims. The district court granted the
motion, holding that the two-year statute of limitations barred
all claims.

Appellants appeal in their securities fraud class action alleging
that conduct beyond mere misrepresentations or omissions
actionable under Rule 10b-5(b). Appellants' scheme liability claim
alleges that Medtronic shaped the content of medical journals by
"paying physicians to induce their complicity in concealing
adverse events and side effects associated with the use of INFUSE
and overstating the disadvantages of alternative bone graft
procedures."

In her Opinion dated December 1, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/ZSLNcV from Leagle.com, Judge Gruender concluded
that Appellants' scheme liability claim is not barred because
Medtronic's alleged deceptive conduct goes beyond mere
misrepresentations or omissions and that the causal connection
between the suppliers and the falsified financial statements was
too attenuated to support a finding of market reliance where the
suppliers' conduct did not satisfy any presumption of reliance and
the investing public did not have knowledge of the suppliers'
deceptive acts.

Medtronic, et al. are represented by James Kevin Langdon, II, Esq.
-- langdon.jim@dorsey.com -- Peter William Carter, Esq. --
carter.pete@dorsey.com -- Theresa Marie Bevilacqua, Esq. --
bevilacqua.theresa@dorsey.com -- DORSEY

West Virginia Pipe Trades Health & Welfare Fund, et al. are
represented by Andrew Love, Esq. -- love@wrightclose.com -- WRIGHT
& CLOSE LLP -- Carolyn Glass Anderson, Esq. --
carolyn.anderson@zimmreed.com -- ZIMMERMAN REED


MINACS GROUP: CSRs Class Certification Sought in "Anderson" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled BRENDA ANDERSON, individually,
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. THE MINACS GROUP
(USA) INC., A Delaware Corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-13942-NGE-SDD
(E.D. Mich.), pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, moves for
entry of an order:

   (1) conditionally certifying the proposed FLSA collective;

   (2) approving the Plaintiff's proposed "Notice of Right to
       Join Lawsuit" and "Consent to Join Lawsuit" forms and
       authorizing Plaintiff's counsel to circulate the Proposed
       Notice via first-class mail and e-mail to the proposed
       FLSA collective, defined as:

       All current and former hourly customer service
       representatives who worked for Defendant in its Farmington
       Hills, Michigan call center at any time during the last
       three years;

       In addition, Plaintiff's counsel requests permission to
       send each member of the proposed FLSA collective a text
       message notifying them of their right to opt in to the
       case;

   (3) requiring the Defendant to identify all potential opt-in
       plaintiffs by providing their names, last known addresses,
       dates of employment, job titles, phone numbers, and e-mail
       addresses in an electronic and importable format within 10
       days of the entry of the order; and

   (4) allowing putative FLSA collective members 60 days from
       circulation of the notice to file written consent forms.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          155 2nd Street, Suite 4
          Jersey City, NJ 07302
          Telephone: (201) 630-0000
          E-mail: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
                  jtb@jtblawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
                  crash@sommerspc.com


MITCHELL RUBENSTEIN: Court Awards $35,000 in Attorneys' Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge George J. Hazel of the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland granted the request of Christopher
Garza and George Easton Jr. for attorneys' fees, arising out of
their successful class action lawsuit against Mitchell Rubenstein
& Associates, P.C. for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practice Act.  The case is, CHRISTOPHER GARZA et al., Plaintiffs,
v. MITCHELL RUBENSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Defendant, Case No.
GJH-15-1572 (D. Md.).

The case began as a class action lawsuit against Defendant for
violating Section 1692g(a)(4) of the Fair Debt Collection Practice
Act (FDCPA), by failing to provide proper disclosures for how
consumers could verify and dispute the legitimacy of the debts
they owed. Plaintiffs filed a Consent Motion for Settlement.
Following a settlement hearing on April 25, 2016, the Court
entered an Order of Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

The settlement agreement included, in relevant part, that
Defendant would pay the two named Plaintiffs, Garza and Easton,
$1,000.00 each, and that it would create a common fund in the
amount of $12,425.00 to be distributed on a pro rata basis to each
of the 884 class members. In addition, as highlighted in
Plaintiffs' Consent Motion for Settlement, Defendant agreed to
change the language in its debt collection letters going forward,
to address Plaintiffs' concerns.

Plaintiffs also moved for an award of attorneys' fees and costs.
In their motion, Plaintiffs noted that, pursuant to the settlement
agreement. Defendant would not oppose the first $20,000.00 in
requested fees and expenses, and that Plaintiffs would not seek
more than $35,000.00 in fees and expenses. Defendant submitted a
Response to Plaintiff's Motion on April 25, 2016, amended on April
26, 2016, arguing that the Court should award Plaintiff only
$20,000.00 in fees and expenses.

Plaintiffs filed a Reply in support of their Motion on May 12,
2016, reiterating their request for $35,000.00 in fees and
expenses. They noted that GDR attorneys had dedicated an
additional 32.2 hours on the case, bringing the total compensable
hours to 131.4 hours, and submitted a final bill of expenses
totaling $1,166.52, a slight downward departure from their
previous estimate.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated December 27, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/0Ho3yW from Leagle.com, Judge Hazel held that the
record justifies a total award of $35,098.75 in attorney's fees;
and costs totaling $1,166.52.  The Defendant does not challenge
those amounts.  The parties, however, have agreed to limit the
total award for attorney's fees and costs to $35,000 and the
Court, therefore, awards that amount.

George E. Eason, Jr., et al. are represented by Jesse S. Johnson,
Esq. -- jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com -- GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
-- Eric N. Stravitz, Esq. -- eric@stravitzlawfirm.com -- STRAVITZ
LAW FIRM, PC

Mitchell Rubenstein & Associates, P.C. is represented by Ronald S.
Canter, Esq. -- rcanter@roncanterllc.com -- THE LAW OFFICES OF
RONALD S CANTER LLC


NECA/IBEW FAMILY: Refuses to Cover Autism Therapy, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Khan, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the 82,000-member NECA/IBEW Family Medical Plan unfairly refuses
to cover medically necessary applied behavior analysis and
neurodevelopmental therapies for autism spectrum disorders,
parents claim in a federal class action in Seattle.

The case is captioned, D.T., by and through his parents and
guardians, K.T. and W.T., individually, on behalf of similarly
situated individuals, and on behalf of the NECA/IBEW Family
Medical Care Plan, Plaintiff, v. NECA/IBEW FAMILY MEDICAL CARE
PLAN, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE NECA/IBEW FAMILY MEDICAL CARE
PLAN, SALVATORE J. CHILIA, ROBERT P. KLEIN, DARRELL L. MCCUBBINS,
GEARY HIGGINS, LAWRENCE J. MOTER, JR., KEVIN TIGHE, JERRY SIMMS,
AND ANY OTHER INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
NECA/IBEW FAMILY MEDICAL CARE PLAN, Defendants. Case 2:17-cv-00004
(W.D. Wash., January 4, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

      Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
      Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
      SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER
      701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2560
      Seattle, WA  98104
      Tel: (206) 223-0303
      Fax: (206) 223-0246
      E-mail: rspoonemore@sylaw.com
              ehamburger@sylaw.com


NEW CENTURY: Cohn Seeks Prelim. Approval of $50,445 Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled HENDY COHN, on behalf of
herself and the class defined herein v. NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL
SERVICES, INC., and PRESSLER & PRESSLER, LLP, Case No. 1:14-cv-
02855-RER (E.D.N.Y.), asks the Court to enter an order which:

      (i) preliminarily approves the proposed class settlement
          agreement;

     (ii) certifies for settlement purposes the Settlement Class
          as defined in Paragraph 8 of the Agreement;

    (iii) appoints Shimshon Wexler, Esq., and Jacob Scheiner,
          Esq., as Class Counsel;

     (iv) appoints the Plaintiff as representative of the
          Settlement Class;

      (v) sets dates for Settlement Class members to return a
          claim form, opt-out of, or object to, the Agreement;

     (vi) schedules a hearing for final approval of the
          Agreement;

    (vii) approves the mailing of proposed notice to Settlement
          Class members; and

   (viii) finds that the mailing of such notice satisfies the
          requirements of due process.

In her memorandum of law in support of the Motion, Ms. Cohn
alleges that the Defendant engaged in false and misleading
collection practices and, thereby, violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act by sending consumers collection letters,
which allegedly seek unauthorized, unwarranted, excessive, and
unlawful charges to the alleged debts of the Plaintiff and the
Class members.

The Parties have stipulated to certification of this class for
settlement purposes only:

     All persons to whom Defendant, Pressler & Pressler, LLP,
     from May 6, 2013 through July 15, 2016, sent to a New York
     address a collection letter with respect to a consumer debt
     where the collection letter included language stating that
     there was an "Amount Sought: $[amount] which includes filing
     and service costs of $[amount]" and the letter was not
     returned undeliverable to Pressler & Pressler, LLP.

The Defendants have produced business records which indicate that
there are 13,452 people in the Settlement Class.

The Defendants will create a class settlement fund of $50,445,
which the Plaintiff's counsel will distribute pro rata among those
Settlement Class Members, who do not exclude themselves and who
timely return a claim form.  Claimants will receive a pro rata
share of the Class Recovery by check.

The Defendants will pay $1,000 to Ms. Cohn for her statutory
damages, plus an additional $1,000 in recognition for her services
to the Settlement Class.  The Defendants agree that she is the
successful party and further agrees to pay reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs as the Court may award for prosecution of a
"successful action."

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shimshon Wexler, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF SHIMSHON WEXLER, P.C.
          216 W 104th St., Suite #129
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 760-2400
          Facsimile: (917) 512-6132
          E-mail: shimshonwexler@yahooo.com

               - and -

          Jacob Scheiner, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JACOB J. SCHEINER, PC
          568 Church Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Telephone: (516) 284-6282
          E-mail: Jacob@scheineresq.com


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Sunroofs Spontaneously Shatter, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Khan, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Nissan/Infiniti panoramic sunroofs spontaneously shatter, and
Nissan has not recalled them, as other automakers have, a class
action claims in Fairfield, Calif., Solano County Court.

The case is captioned Janelle Horne, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Nissan North America,
Inc., a Delaware corporation and Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., a
Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. FCS048206 (Cal. Super.
Ct., January 4, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class:

     Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
     A. Trent Ruark, Esq.
     FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP
     550 West C. St., Suite 1760
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: 619-238-1333
     Fax: 619-238-5425
     E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com
             atr@classactionlaw.com


NORTH CAROLINA: Faces "Smith" Suit in E.D.N.C.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the US District
Court in North Carolina. The case is captioned as David L. Smith
and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. US District
Court, Bryan K. Wells Superintendent, Officer Pridgen, and Officer
Murphy, and the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-ct-03345-FL (E.D.N.C.,
Dec. 27, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. District Judge Louise
Wood Flanagan.

The US District Courts are the general trial courts of the United
States federal court system.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


NORTHLAND GROUP: Faces "Yablonsky" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northland Group Inc.
The case is styled as Judah Yablonsky on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Northland
Group Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-07123 (E.D.N.Y., Dec.
27, 2016).

Northland Group provides business process outsourcing services
focused on accounts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395 3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


NYC WHEELS: "Nazarov" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
BATIR NAZAROV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NYC Wheels Car Service, INC., and
Arsen Avakyan, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07117 (E.D.N.Y.,
Dec. 27, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the New
York Labor Law (NYLL) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Defendants paid Plaintiff $14 per hour for some but not all
hours worked, which is far below the overtime rate of one and one-
half times the regular hourly rate as required by law for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

NYC Wheels Car Service, Inc., based in Brooklyn, New York, offers
limousine services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
          1517 Voorhies Ave., 2nd Fl.
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (718) 808 2224
          E-mail: naydenskilaw@gmail.com


OTTER PRODUCTS: Sued Over Illegal Shipping and Handling Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Williams, on her own behalf and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons v. Otter Products, LLC and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC645165 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
December 29, 2016), seeks to end Otter's unlawful business
practice of charging a shipping and handling fee in connection
with warranty repairs.

Otter Products, LLC designs and manufactures protective solutions
for handheld manufacturers, wireless carriers, and distributors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eugene E. Siegel, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE E. SIEGEL
      P.O. Box 363
      Littlerock, CA, 93543
      Telephone: (661) 944-3676
      Facsimile: (661) 944-2201
      E-mail: siegel@qnet.com

         - and -

      James S. Kostas, Esq.
      KOSTAS LAW FIRM
      1008 West Avenue M-14, Suite A
      Palmdale, CA, 93551
      Telephone: (661) 202-2444
      Facsimile: (661) 267-6066
      E-mail: jkostas@kostaslaw.com


OVERFLOW ENERGY: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Sober" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Sober, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Overflow Energy, LLC, and Duwane Skipper, Case No.
2:16-cv-00277-J (N.D. Tex., December 29, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a single week.

Overflow Energy, LLC provides products and services in the oil and
gas industry, throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


PARK UNIVERSITY: "Champagne" Suit Removed to W.D. Mo. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled D.J. Champagne, Joy Piazza, and
Matthew LaRose, Individually & on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Park University, Jerry Jorgensen, and
Roger Dusing, Case No. 16-AE-CV03542, was removed from the Circuit
Court of Platte County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for
Western District of Missouri (St. Joseph). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-06172-BCW to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to Hon. District Judge Brian C. Wimes.

Park University is a private institution that was founded in 1875.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Anthony Williams, Esq.
          WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
          1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 876 2600
          Facsimile: (816) 221 8763
          E-mail: mwilliams@williamsdirks.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Adam Jameson Hoskins, Esq.
          Hayley Elizabeth Hanson, Esq.
          Sean Tassi, Esq.
          HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP - KCMO
          4801 Main Street, Suite 1000
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 983 8349
          Facsimile: (816) 983 8080
          E-mail: adam.hoskins@huschblackwell.com
                  hayley.hanson@huschblackwell.com
                  sean.tassi@huschblackwell.com


PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION: Teachers Sue over Federal Grants
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Grosh, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
two teachers filed a class-action lawsuit in Akron, Ohio accusing
the student-aid organization that services their federal grants of
converting the grants into interest-bearing loans based on a
technicality.

According to the complaint filed on January 6, in Akron federal
court, Ashley Ford and David West were awarded thousands of
dollars in federal grants through a student-aid program known as
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education, or
TEACH. Ford is a special education teacher at Stanton Middle
School in Kent, Ohio, while West teaches art at White Knoll High
School in Lexington, S.C.

Those who receive grants under the TEACH program agree to complete
specific service obligations to receive up to $4,000 per year
toward the cost of college courses necessary to begin a career in
teaching.

The service obligations, which are laid out on the Federal Student
Aid website, require that grant recipients teach at least four
years in a high-need field at an elementary school, secondary
school, or educational service agency that serves students from
low-income families.

The government's website explains that TEACH grants do not need to
be repaid unless a recipient fails to complete their service
obligation, at which point the grant is converted into a direct
unsubsidized loan that accrues interest from the date the grant
was disbursed.

Grant recipients are also required to submit annual paperwork
certified by the chief administrative officer of their school to
prove they are fulfilling their service obligations.

Ford and West claim defendant Pennsylvania Higher Education
Assistance Agency, or PHEAA, and its subsidiary, FedLoan
Servicing, hastily converted their grants into interest-bearing
loans after they submitted annual certification paperwork that
contained minor mistakes or omissions.

The teachers say they quickly corrected their respective mistakes
and informed PHEAA they were in fact fulfilling their obligations,
but the organization refused to convert the loans back to grants
and saddled them with debt based on a technicality.

"This action seeks to protect teachers," the class-action lawsuit
states. "Teachers are a vital centerpiece to the success and
growth of this country. The strength of every profession grows out
of the knowledge and skills that teachers instill in our country's
youth. Yet, teachers are too often underappreciated,
undercompensated, and undervalued. Worse, teachers are being taken
advantage of and cheated by PHEAA."

Attorney Troy Doucet of Dublin, Ohio represents Ford and West in
their lawsuit. He claims PHEAA, which was hired by the federal
government to be the exclusive servicer of TEACH grants in 2013,
is knowingly converting grants to unsubsidized, interest-bearing
loans without justification as part of a scheme to defraud grant
recipients and increase its profits.

Doucet cites a 2015 report prepared by the U.S. Government
Accountability Office, which found that at least 2,252 grants were
erroneously converted to loans in 2014.  The same report also
found that the U.S. Department of Education and loan servicers do
not give grant recipients enough information about disputing
grant-to-loan conversions.

Ford and West's lawsuit accuses PHEAA of violating the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, Act.  They also
seek damages for claims of breach of contract and unjust
enrichment.

Keith New, director of public and media relations for PHEAA, said
the agency declines to comment on pending litigation, but that it
administers the TEACH grant program according to the rules and
procedures established by the U.S. Department of Education, which
owns all of the assets in the program.

The case is captioned, Ashley Ford 137 Lincoln Ave. Cuyahoga
Falls, OH 44221. and David West 1001 Elm Avenue Columbia, SC
29205. On behalf of Themselves and all Others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency
d/b/a FedLoan Servicing C/O CT Corporation System Dauphin 116 Pine
Street, Suite 320 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Defendant, Case: 5:17-cv-
00049-SL (N.D. Ohio, January 6, 2017).

Attorney for Plaintiff:

     Troy J. Doucet, Esq.
     DOUCET & ASSOCIATES CO., LPA
     700 Stonehenge
     Parkway, 2B
     Dublin, OH 43017
     Tel: (614) 944-5219
     Fax: (818) 638-5548
     E-mail: Troy@TroyDoucet.com


PEP BOYS-MANNY: "Silver" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to D.N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled DEBRA A. SILVER, on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PEP BOYS-
MANNY, MOE, & JACK OF DELAWARE, INC., JANE AND JOHN DOES 1-10,
individually and as owners, officers, directors, founders,
managers, agents, employees and/or representatives of PEP BOYS-
MANNY, MOE & JACK OF DELAWARE, INC., and XYZ CORPORATIONS 1-10,
Case No. MER-L2305-16, was removed from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Mercer County, to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey (Trenton). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:17-cv-00018-FLW-LHG to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to Hon. Judge Freda L. Wolfson.

Pep Boys-Manny offers automobile repair services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sean F. Forlenza, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF SEAN F. FORLENZA
          1043 Hughes Drive
          Hamilton, NJ 08690

Pep Boys-Manny, Moe, & Jack of Delaware, Inc. is represented by:

          DAVID R. KOTT, Esq.
          MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
          Four Gateway Center
          100 Mulberry Street
          PO Box 652
          Newark, NJ 07101-0652
          Telephone: (973) 622 4444
          E-mail: dkott@mccarter.com


PINNACLE FOODS: Court Stays "Clardy" Product Mislabeling Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted Defendant Pinnacle
Foods Group, LLC's Motion to Transfer the Action or, in the
Alternative, to Stay Proceedings as well as Pinnacle's Motion to
Dismiss in the case captioned, GAIL CLARDY, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
PINNACLE FOODS GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-04385-JST
(N.D. Cal.).

In his Order dated January 5, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/66Lehh from Leagle.com, Judge Tigar found that
transfer is not appropriate on these facts, a stay is. Plaintiffs
will not be prejudiced by a stay, but Defendant will suffer
hardship and inequity if the action is not stayed.

On August 2, 2016, Diane Biffar filed a class action against
Defendant in the Southern District of Illinois.  The Biffar action
alleges that Defendant engaged in "deceptive, unfair, and false
practices regarding its Duncan Hines Simple Mornings Blueberry
Streusel Premium Muffin Mix." Specifically, Biffar alleges
"Defendant prominently represents that the Product contains
'Nothing Artificial,'" when, in fact, the product "contains
synthetic, artificial, and/or genetically modified ingredients."
Consequently, Biffar argues "Defendant is able to entice consumers
like Biffar to pay a premium for the Product" because "neither
Biffar nor any reasonable consumer would expect to find
artificial, synthetic, and/or GMO ingredients in a product labeled
as containing 'Nothing Artificial.'"  The Biffar action is brought
on behalf of two classes: (1) the Illinois Class and (2) the
Nationwide Class.  The Nationwide Class consists of "all citizens
of all states other than Missouri who purchased the Product for
personal, household, or family purposes and not for resale in the
five years preceding the filing of the Petition."

Plaintiffs Gail Clardy and Jennifer Rose filed their lawsuit on
August 3, 2016, one day after the Biffar action was filed. The
Clardy action alleges "Defendant has unlawfully, negligently,
unfairly, misleadingly, and deceptively represented that its
Duncan Hines Simple Mornings Blueberry Streusel Premium Muffin Mix
and other products contain 'Real Ingredients' and 'Nothing
Artificial,' despite containing unnatural ingredients that are
synthetic, artificial, and/or genetically modified." The Clardy
action is brought on behalf of three classes: (1) a California
Class; (2) a Florida Class; and (3) a Nationwide Class. The
Nationwide Class consists of "all United States residents who
purchased the Product, for personal use and not resale, during the
four-year period preceding to the date of the filing of the
Complaint, through and to the date Notice is provided to the
Class."

Defendant moves to transfer the action under the first-to-file
rule or, in the alternative, to stay the action under either the
first-to-file rule or the primary jurisdiction doctrine.
Defendant has also filed a separate Motion to Dismiss.

Within 10 court days of any of the foregoing events, the parties
are ordered to file an Updated Joint Case Management Statement and
a written request that the Court set a Case Management Conference.

Jennifer Rose, et al. are represented by Benjamin Michael Lopatin,
Esq. -- BLopatin@ELPLawyers.com -- and Maximillian D. Casillas,
Esq. -- Mcasillas@ELPLawyers.com -- EGGNATZ LOPATIN & PASCUCCI,
LLP

Pinnacle Foods Group, LLC is represented by Paul B. LaScala, Esq.
-- plascala@shb.com -- and Mayela C. Montenegro, Esq. --
mmontenegro@shb.com -- SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P


POULSEN PIZZA: "Hoffman" Class Action Settlement, Fees Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree of the United States District
Court for the District of Kansas granted a renewed motion to
approve collective action settlement and amended application for
fees and costs in the case captioned, KENNETH HOFFMAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. POULSEN PIZZA LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-
2640-DDC-KGG (D. Kan.).

Plaintiff Kenneth Hoffman, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, filed this lawsuit under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq.  Plaintiff
alleges that defendants -- who operate some 33 Domino's franchise
restaurants -- use a flawed method to reimburse pizza delivery
drivers for the "reasonably approximate costs" of using their
personal vehicles for business purposes.  Plaintiff asserts that
this flawed method causes delivery drivers to incur unreimbursed
expenses and reduces their wages below the federal minimum wage
during some or all workweeks. Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages under the FLSA that defendants allegedly owe
plaintiff and similarly situated delivery drivers who have worked
at defendants' Domino's restaurants.

On June 9, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Approve
Stipulated Form of Notice of Collective Action.  The parties
reported that they had agreed on an proposed order conditionally
certifying the case as an FLSA collective action.  They also asked
the court to approve a Notice of Collective Action and order the
parties to send the Notice to a putative class consisting of all
current and former delivery drivers employed by defendants since
they purchased their Domino's restaurants to the present.

On June 17, 2015, the court granted the parties' Joint Motion. The
court conditionally certified the putative class and approved all
stipulations contained in the parties' joint motion, including the
agreed-upon Notice of Collective Action.

On November 10, 2015, the parties advised the court that they had
reached a settlement and were finalizing a settlement agreement.
The parties eventually signed a "Confidential Settlement and
Release Agreement."

The parties have agreed to allocate the $132,000 common fund as
follows: (1) $2,000 service award to the named plaintiff; (2)
$44,000 (representing one-third of the common fund) to plaintiff's
counsel as payment for all attorney's fees, costs, and expenses;
(3) An amount not to exceed $3,000 to plaintiff's counsel for out-
of-pocket costs incurred in the litigation; and (4) The amount
remaining (after the deductions recited above) to the 137
collective action members distributed on a pro rata basis using an
equitable formula based on the number of delivery miles driven by
each opt-in plaintiff

On December 18, 2015, plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion to
Approve Collective Action Settlement and Application for Fees and
Costs. Plaintiff asked the court to approve the "Confidential
Settlement and Release Agreement" and award plaintiff's counsel
their attorney's fees and costs.

The court denied those motions without prejudice. The court
explained that it could not approve the settlement for three
reasons: (1) plaintiff had not sought final collective action
certification; (2) the settlement agreement was not fair and
reasonable because it included a confidentiality provision; and
(3) the court could not approve the proposed service award because
plaintiff had not submitted information sufficient for the court
to assess the award's reasonableness. The court also denied
plaintiff's request for attorney's fees and costs. It concluded
that the request was premature because the court could not approve
the settlement agreement.

Plaintiff filed a Renewed Motion to Approve Collective Action
Settlement and an Amended Application for Fees and Costs. In his
two Motions, plaintiff asks the court to certify a final
collective action, approve the settlement as fair and reasonable,
and award the proposed attorney's fees and costs in an amount
equal to one-third of the settlement plus recovery of out-of-
pocket expenses.

In his Memorandum and Order dated January 3, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/mpldfF from Leagle.com, Judge Crabtree concluded
that final collective action certification is appropriate and
certified a final collective action consisting of employees who
worked as pizza delivery drivers for defendants' Domino's
restaurants since defendants purchased their stores to the
present. The court approved the proposed FLSA collective action
settlement finding the Amended Agreement is fair and reasonable.

Victoria Plunkett, et al. are represented by Jack D. McInnes, V,
Esq. -- mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com -- and Richard M. Paul, III, Esq.
-- paul@paulmcinnes.com -- PAUL MCINNES, LLP -- Mark A.
Potashnick, Esq. -- markp@wp-attorneys.com -- WEINHAUS &
POTASHNICK

Poulsen Pizza LLC, et al. are represented by Gregory D. Ballew,
Esq. -- gballew@fisherphillips.com -- John Hagood Tighe, Esq. --
htighe@fisherphillips.com -- and Karen Luchka Wingo, Esq. --
lwingo@fisherphillips.com -- FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP


PRESSLER AND PRESSLER: "Zambrana" Class Suit Goes to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, ALICIA ZAMBRANA, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PRESSLER AND PRESSLER,
LLP; SHELDON H. PRESSLER, GERARD J. FELT; LAWRENCE J. MCDERMOTT,
JR.; DAVID B. WARSHAW; ARISTOTLE SANGALANG; ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS
VI, LLC; BUREAUS INVESTMENT GROUP PORTFOLIO NO. 15 LLC; THE
BUREAUS, INC.; and BUREAUS INVESTMENT GROUP III, LLC; Defendants,
Case No. 16-CV-2907 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y.), District Judge Valerie
Caproni of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration based on the arbitration provision in Plaintiff's
cardholder agreement.

Plaintiff Alicia Zambrana brings the putative class action against
various assignee creditors of a credit card account originated by
Household Bank N.A. and the assignee creditors' agents, alleging
violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), 15
U.S.C. Sec. 1692, and New York General Business Law Section 349.

Plaintiff applied for and received a Best Buy-branded credit card
from Household Bank N.A.  The account's activation date is
unclear, but Plaintiff entered into a cardholder agreement as of
at least 2003.  The 2003 Agreement includes an arbitration
provision. In May 2010, HSBC allegedly sent an amended cardholder
agreement (2010 Agreement) in response, at least in part, to new
requirements imposed by the Credit Card Accountability
Responsibility Disclosure Act (CARD Act). The 2010 Agreement has a
revised arbitration provision that includes the ability to opt out
of arbitration if notice was given within thirty days of receipt
of the new agreement. Plaintiff did not opt out of arbitration and
continued to use the credit card until 2011.

In mid-2012, Plaintiff defaulted on her credit card debt, and
Capital One charged off the account. Id. After various
assignments, Defendant assignee Absolute filed suit in New York
State court through its attorneys, Pressler & Pressler, LLP, in
order to collect Plaintiff's debt; that suit is currently pending.

In response to that state court action, Plaintiff filed a suit
against Pressler & Pressler, individual lawyers at Pressler &
Pressler, the Bureaus Inc., Aristotle Sangalang, who is president
of the Bureaus Inc. and various creditor assignees alleging
violation of the FDCPA and New York General Business Law Section
349. Plaintiff claims that the state court action is an abusive
debt collection practice in violation of the FDCPA because there
are false and misleading statements and omissions in Absolute's
complaint against Plaintiff.

Defendants move to stay the action and to compel arbitration.
Plaintiff opposes asserting that because Defendants have not
proven that HSBC sent the 2010 Agreement to her specifically,
although they did send it to other cardholders, not only is the
2003 Agreement superseded and of no effect, but the 2010 Agreement
is also inoperative. Further, because Defendants have not shown
that she was sent the 2010 Agreement, her failure to opt out of
arbitration, she asserts, is of no moment.

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated December 2, 2016
available at https://is.gd/keWsKX from Leagle.com, the Court found
that a valid arbitration agreement exists, it covers the dispute,
and Defendants have standing to compel arbitration pursuant to the
agreement.

Alicia Zambrana is represented by:

      Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
      MITCHELL L. PASHKIN
      775 Park Ave, Ste 555
      Huntington, NY 11743
      Tel: (631)388-6466

            - and -

      David Michael Barshay, Esq.
      BAKER SANDERS, LLC
      100 Garden City Plaza
      Suite 500 (5th Floor)
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel: (516)741-4799

Absolute Resolutions VI, LLC, et al. are represented by Dara
Chevlin Tarkowski, Esq. -- dara.tarkowski@akerman.com -- Alyx
Siobhan Pattison, Esq. -- alyx.pattison@akerman.com -- Julian
Dayal, Esq. -- julian.dayal@akerman.com -- and Mark Stuart
Lafayette, Esq. -- mark.lafayette@akerman.com -- AKERMAN LLP

Pressler and Pressler, LLP, et al. are represented by:

      Michael Jon Peters, Esq.
      PRESSLER AND PRESSLER
      Counsellors at Law
      7 Entin Rd.
      Parsippany, NJ 07054-9944
      Tel: (973)753-5100


PRONAI THERAPEUTICS: "Book" Securities Case Removed to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Book, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ProNAi Therapeutics, Inc., Nick
Glover, Sukhi Jagpal, Donald Parfet, Albert Cha, Nicole Onetto,
Robert Pelzer, Peter Thompson, James Topper, Alvin Vitangcol,
Jefferies LLC, Meryll Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Inc.,
Wedbush Securities, Inc. and Suntrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-07408, (Cal. Super., November 18,
2016), has been removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on December 30. 2016.

ProNAi Therapeutics is a drug development company focused on
advancing targeted therapeutics for the treatment of patients with
cancer.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
      Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160

Defendants are represented by

      Joshua D. Lichtman, Esq.
      John C. Gray, Esq.
      NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
      555 South Flower Street, Forty-First Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 892-9200
      Facsimile: (213) 892-9494
      Email: Joshua.Lichtman@nortonrosefuIbright.com
             John.Gra1@nortonrosefulbright.com

             - and -

      Robin D. Adelstein, Esq.
      NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
      1301 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10019-6022
      Telephone: (212) 3] 8-3000
      Facsimile: (212) 31 8-3400
      Email: robin.adelsteinfalnortonrosefulbrightcom

             - and -

      Peter A. Stokes, Esq.
      NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
      98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100
      Austin, TX 78701-4255
      Telephone: (512) 474-5201
      Facsimile: (512) 536-4598
      Email: peter.stokes@nortonrosefulbright.com


ROYAL CARE: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Rakhimova" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Feruza Rakhimova, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Royal Care Inc., and Royal Care
Certified Home Health Care, LLC, Case No. 523060/2016 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., December 28, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay time and one half the minimum wage rate for hours
worked in excess of 40 in a work week and to provide pay stubs and
other wage notices that conform with the requirements of the New
York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a home health care facility located
at 6323 14th Avenue, Brooklyn, NY, 11219.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
      NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
      1517 Voorhies Ave, 2nd Fl.
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718)808-2224
      Facsimile: (866) 261-5478
      E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


ROYAL OAK: Certification of Class Sought in "Bystry" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned DUSTY A. BYSTRY, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. ROYAL OAK
INDUSTRIES, INC., d/b/a ROYAL OAK BORING, INC. and BRONSON
PRECISION PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-00210-JTN-ESC (W.D.
Mich.), moves for class certification under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=I0IxzKAt

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
          Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (212) 977-4005
          E-mail: jar@outtengolden.com
                  rsr@outtengolden.com


ROYAL WINDOWS: $290,000 Damages Award Flipped in Ketch Inc. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Jerry L. Goodman of the Oklahoma Court of Civil
Appeals affirmed an order granting summary judgment on liability
and reversed the grant of $290,000 in damages in the case
captioned, KETCH, INC., an Oklahoma Corporation on Behalf of
Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff/Appellee, v.
ROYAL WINDOWS, INC., a Texas Corporation, Defendant/Appellant,
Case No. 113986 (Okla. Civ. App.).

Ketch, Inc., et al. was a customer of Royal Windows, Inc. from
2001. On March 20, 2008, Ketch requested a 2008 catalogue from
Royal. On March 26, 2008, Royal sent Ketch a facsimile
advertisement. The advertisement included Royal's contact
information, address, and facsimile number. On July 17, 2008,
Ketch filed a class action petition against Royal under the TCPA,
47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq., asserting the facsimile did not
include required opt-out language, i.e., if you had received the
facsimile in error, please call to be removed. On December 18,
2009, the trial court granted Ketch's motion for class
certification.

On April 12, 2013, Ketch filed its first amended motion for
summary judgment, asserting it was entitled to relief under the
TCPA. Ketch asserted, inter alia, that all facsimile
advertisements, whether solicited or unsolicited, must contain the
opt-out language or liability attached. Ketch maintained Royal's
facsimiles did not contain the required opt-out notice and were
therefore in violation of the TCPA. Royal responded, disputing
Ketch's assertions. Although Royal acknowledged its facsimile
advertisements did not contain any opt-out notice, it asserted the
TCPA only requires the opt-out language for unsolicited facsimile
advertisements. The trial court, by order entered on October 4,
2013, granted Ketch's motion for summary judgment, finding "all
faxes, including faxes sent where the advertiser and recipient
have an established business relationship, must contain a notice
allowing the recipient to 'opt-out' of receiving additional
faxes."

Ketch subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment on damages,
asserting Royal sent a facsimile to the 103 Class Members between
three and seven times from August 1, 2006, to July 17, 2008, for
total damages in the amount of $303,500.00. Ketch further
requested treble damages, asserting Royal willfully and knowingly
violated the TCPA.

Royal disagreed, asserting material disputed factual questions
existed regarding the number of TCPA violations allegedly
committed and the entities that comprise the class.

By order entered on May 1, 2015, the trial court granted Ketch's
motion for summary judgment, finding 580 facsimile advertisement
violations. The court awarded $290,000.00 in damages. The court
denied Ketch's request for treble damages.

On appeal, (1) Royal asserts a question of fact exists as to
whether the facsimile advertisements sent to Ketch and other Class
Members were solicited or unsolicited, precluding summary
judgment. Royal contends only unsolicited facsimile advertisements
are subject to the TCPA, i.e., must contain opt-out language; (2)
Royal contends there are material disputed factual questions
regarding the number of TCPA violations it allegedly committed as
well as the entities that comprise the actual class.

In his Order dated December 14, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/UmrwCB from Leagle.com, Judge Goodman affirmed the
trial court's October 4, 2013 order granting Ketch summary
judgment because Royal has violated the TCPA, as amended by the
JFPA; but reversed the trial court's May 1, 2015, order granting
Ketch damages in the amount of $290,000.00 finding that summary
judgment was erroneously granted on the issue of damages.

"The evidentiary material offered by Ketch in support of its
motion reveals material questions of fact as to the number of TCPA
violations. Thus, we conclude summary judgment was erroneously
granted on the issue of damages. The trial court's May 1, 2015,
order granting Ketch damages in the amount of $290,000.00 is
therefore reversed and the matter is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion," the Court said.

Ketch, Inc. is represented by Matthew J.G. McDevitt, Esq. --
mcdevitt@lytlesoule.com -- and Shawn E. Arnold, Esq. --
arnold@lytlesoule.com -- LYTLE, SOULE & CURLEE

Royal Windows, Inc. is represented by:

      Jeffrey J. Box, Esq.
      JEFFREY J. BOX, P.C.
      2621 S Western Ave
      Oklahoma City, OK 73109
      Tel: (405)600-9918


SHELBY COUNTY, TN: Arrestees File Suit over Court Software
----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Lessmiller, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a class of arrestees claims a new computer system implemented
in Memphis kept them detained longer than they should have been,
echoing complaints in Texas and California about the same
software.

Cortez D. Brown, Deontae Tate and Jeremy S. Melton say they were
jailed in Shelby County, Tenn., in November 2016 and were detained
for days after they should have been released because of an
October 2016 software switch.

The trio sued Shelby County, Tyler Technologies Inc., Sheriff Bill
Oldham and three other county employees in Memphis federal court
on January 9, claiming the county ignored "dire warnings" about
its new Odyssey computer software, a platform developed by Tyler.

"The county's unreasonably inefficient implementation of the
Odyssey system constituted deliberate indifference with respect to
plaintiffs and the class members thereafter by causing inmates to
linger for days and weeks in the jail in direct violation of their
constitutional rights," the complaint states.

According to the class-action lawsuit, Brown was arrested on Nov.
6 on a petition for revocation of his suspended sentence and was
taken into custody. A judge dismissed the charges the next day,
but Brown says he was not released until a week later.

Tate claims he was jailed the same day as Brown for failure to
appear for a court date for a suspended license charge.

"At the time of his arrest, plaintiff possessed $255 in cash and,
therefore, plaintiff Tate instructed officers at the jail to
deducted $100 from his property so as to post bond and secure his
release," the lawsuit states. "Plaintiff Tate was repeatedly told
that he was not in the computer system and thus that he could not
post bond. Plaintiff Tate lingered in the jail until November 11,
2016, at which time defendants finally allowed him to post bond
and released him."

Melton was arrested Nov. 10 on a misdemeanor charge of possession
of a controlled substance, according to the complaint. He says his
charges were dismissed four days later but he was held another
four days because his dismissal order was not in the computer
system.

Brown, Tate and Melton say Shelby County's use of Odyssey has
deprived hundreds of arrestees of their constitutional rights.

"Defendants, with deliberate indifference, failed and refused to
process and arraign arrestees so that their bonds could even be
set, causing them to be detained for days and even weeks without a
bond setting. The county further failed to release prisoners whose
cases had been dismissed, detaining them for days and weeks before
determining that there were court orders dismissing the charges
against them," the complaint states. "The county's deliberate
inaction caused many persons who had been arrested and released to
be re-arrested on the same warrant, again in violation of their
constitutional rights."

The proposed class seeks at least $5.4 million in compensatory
damages for each class members for claims of negligence and civil
rights violations. The arrestees are represented by Frank Watson
III of Watson Burns, Joseph Ozment and Lorna McClusky of Massey
McClusky, all based in Memphis.

The Shelby County Sheriff's Office did not immediately respond on
January 10, to an emailed request for comment.

The Odyssey system has reportedly caused problems in other states
as well. Robert Oyung, director of information technology for the
California Judicial Council Technology Committee, said in November
that courts already have reported 52 major issues with the new
platform.

The issues lie mostly with general functionality, interfacing with
the Department of Motor Vehicles or implementing specific case
types.  For example, Alameda County Superior Court has reported
problems with clerks trying to enter data into the new system,
which it attributes to an unwieldy interface.

On January 9, Tennessee lawsuit also notes alleged problems with
Odyssey in Ector County and Cameron County, Texas.

In 2011, Ector County experienced data loss and other problems so
significant that it refused to pay Tyler Technologies, according
to the complaint. Three years later, Cameron County reportedly had
problems tracking its inmates because of Odyssey.

Despite the reported issues, San Diego announced a $6.8 million
deal in 2014 to implement Tyler's Odyssey software. The contract
breaks down to a one-time license fee of just over $3 million plus
$3.7 million for data conversion and training, according to a
court spokesperson. The agreement also calls for a yearly
maintenance fee of $640,000.

The case is captioned, CORTEZ D. BROWN, DEONTAE TATE, and JEREMY
S. MELTON on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
persons, PLAINTIFFS, v. BILL OLDHAM, in his individual capacity
and in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Shelby County,
Tennessee; ROBERT MOORE, in his individual capacity and in his
official capacity as the Jail Director of the Shelby County,
Tennessee; CHARLENE McGHEE, in her individual capacity and in her
official capacity as the of Assistant Chief Jail Security of
Shelby County, Tennessee; DEBRA HAMMONS, in her individual
capacity and in her official capacity as the Assistant Chief of
Jail Programs of Shelby County, Tennessee; SHELBY COUNTY,
TENNESSEE, a Tennessee municipality; and TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
a foreign corporation  DEFENDANTS. Case 2:17-cv-02015 (W.D. Tenn.,
January 9, 2017).

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the putative Class Members:

     Frank L. Watson, III, Esq.
     William F. Burns, Esq.
     WATSON BURNS, PLLC
     253 Adams Avenue
     Memphis, TN 38104
     Tel; (901) 529-7996
     Fax: (901) 529-7998
     E-mail: fwatson@watsonburns.com
             bburns@watsonburns.com

          - and -

     Joseph S. Ozment, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH S. OZMENT, PLLC
     1448 Madison Ave.
     Memphis, TN 38104
     Tel: (901) 525-4357
     Email: jozment@oz-law.net

          - and -

     Lorna S. McClusky, Esq.
     MASSEY, MCCLUSKY, MCCLUSKY & FUCHS
     3074 East Road
     Memphis, TN 38128
     Tel: (901) 384-4004
     E-mail: lsmcclusky@gmail.com


SOLARCITY CORP: Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable, Court Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian of the California Court of
Appeals affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion to compel
arbitration in the case captioned, WAYNE JENN-WEI WAN, Plaintiff
and Respondent, v. SOLARCITY CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant,
Case No. H042103 (Cal. App.).

Plaintiff Wayne Jenn-Wei Wan filed a civil action against his
former employer, defendant SolarCity Corporation, alleging a
representative claim under the Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004 (PAGA). Plaintiff alleges, among other
matters, that defendant failed to pay all wages owed, and he seeks
to recover civil penalties on behalf of himself and other current
and former employees.

Defendant moved to compel arbitration of whether plaintiff was an
"aggrieved employee" under PAGA (Section 2699, subd. (a)),
pursuant to an arbitration agreement that the parties had entered
when plaintiff was hired. Defendant also initially sought to
dismiss plaintiff's PAGA claim on behalf of others based on the
contention that the parties' arbitration agreement contained a
waiver of such a claim, but it later requested that arbitration of
the "aggrieved employee" issue proceed first and that judicial
proceedings be stayed.

The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration. The court
determined that a waiver of plaintiff's right to bring a PAGA
claim was unenforceable, and that defendant could not compel
plaintiff to arbitrate the aggrieved employee issue before
pursuing his PAGA claim in court.

On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred by
refusing to order arbitration of the issue of plaintiff's
"aggrieved employee status" and by failing to stay judicial
proceedings pending arbitration of that issue.

In her Order dated January 3, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/e0Xdlg from Leagle.com, Judge Bamattre-Manoukian
held that the trial court therefore properly denied defendant's
motion to compel arbitration because the provision in the parties'
arbitration agreement requiring arbitration of the "aggrieved
person" issue is not enforceable and the court erroneously failed
to stay judicial proceedings pending arbitration.


SOLAZYME INC: Securities Action Dismissed with Leave to Amend
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted
both motions to dismiss with leave to amend in the case captioned,
NORFOLK COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SOLAZYME,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-02938-HSG (N.D. Cal.).

The case is a consolidated putative securities class action
brought against Defendant Solazyme, Inc. and other defendants
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78t(a), and
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
(Securities Act), 15 U.S.C. Sections 77k, 77o.

Before the Court are two motions to dismiss brought by two sets of
defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6):
Goldman, Sachs & Company and Morgan Stanley & Company, LLC, and
Solazyme. Additionally, the Underwriter Defendants join Solazyme's
motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs argue that the heightened pleading requirement does not
apply to Counts III-V, arguing these claims sound in negligence,
not fraud, and thus are subject only to Rule 8's pleading
standards.

In his Order dated December 29, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/YRpTrb from Leagle.com, Judge Gilliam, Jr. held that
Plaintiffs have failed to plead with particularity the requisite
false or misleading statement.  The Court directed the plaintiffs
to file any amended complaint within 28 days of the date of the
order.

Norfolk County Retirement System is represented by Joel H.
Bernstein, Esq. -- jbernstein@labaton.com -- Mark S. Arisohn, Esq.
-- marisohn@labaton.com -- Michael Walter Stocker, Esq. --
mstocker@labaton.com -- and Corban S. Rhodes, Esq. --
crhodes@labaton.com -- LABATON SUCHAROW LLP -- Matthew Seth
Melamed, Esq. -- mmelamed@rgrdlaw.com -- Willow E. Radcliffe, Esq.
-- willowr@rgrdlaw.com -- and Shawn A. Williams, Esq. --
shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP

James Ackels, et al. are represented by Joel H. Bernstein, Esq. --
jbernstein@labaton.com -- LABATON SUCHAROW LLP

Solazyme, Inc., et al. are represented by Mark R.S. Foster, Esq.
-- mfoster@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

Goldman, Sachs & Co., et al. are represented by Simona Gurevich
Strauss, Esq. -- gstrauss@stblaw.com -- SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT
LLP


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Faces "Jalbuena" Suit Over Gas Leak
------------------------------------------------------------
Amel B. Jalbuena, Mildred A. Jalbuena, Arnica A. Jalbuena, Amel A.
Jalbuena II, Alexander A. Jalbuena, Aaron A. Jalbuena, Alyanna A.
Jalbuena, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem Amel B.
Jalbuena, Cleofe B. Jalbuena, Angelo Jalbuena, a minor by and
through his guardian ad litem Cleofe B. Jalbuena, Peter B.
Jalbuena, Antonette D. Jalbuena, Jakob D. Jalbuena a minor by and
through his guardian ad litem Antonette B. Jalbuena, Isabel D.
Jalbuena, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem Antonette
B. Jalbuena, Corazon Albano, Gilbert Albano, Marc Guico Albano,
Marco Gil Albano, Marian Albano Eulalia Badar, and Philipp
Fresolone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Southern California Gas Company ("SoCal Gas"), Sempra
Energy ("Sempra"), State of California, Division of Oil, Gas &
Geothermal Resources ("Doggr") and Does 1-100, Case No. BC645099
(Cal. Super. Ct., December 29, 2016), is an action for damages
arising from ongoing uncontrolled natural gas leak at the
Defendants' Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, causing the
release of dangerous gases, chemicals, and noxious odors into the
environment and, specifically, into the community of Porter Ranch
immediately adjacent to the Aliso Canyon facility, wherein
Plaintiffs and the putative Class members reside.

Southern California Gas Company and Sempra Energy operate a gas
distribution utility, providing natural gas to consumers
throughout Central and Southern California.

The State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of
Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources is the state agency that oversees
the drilling, operation, maintenance of SoCal Gas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amel B. Jalbuena, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ARNEL B. JALBUENA
      3250 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2003
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 487-8600
      Facsimile: (213) 487-8608
      E-mail: jalbuenalaw@gmail.com


SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL: Rule Moves for Certification of FLSA Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled 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.), ask the Court to
conditionally certify and authorize the issuance of notices to
this proposed class of persons:

     All individuals employed within the last three years by the
     Defendant, who were paid a regular hourly rate and per diem
     without receiving overtime compensation at one-and-a-half
     times their regular rate, including per diems, for hours
     worked in excess of forty during a workweek.

According to the memorandum filed in support of the motion for
conditional certification, the Plaintiffs have brought the lawsuit
as a representative action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly-situated
current and former employees of the Defendant for, inter alia,
unpaid wages and overtime, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees
and costs.

A copy of the Memorandum is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Cq9Lxdl3

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


STAFFWORKS LLC: "Armenta" Labor Suit Seeks OT Pay Recovery
----------------------------------------------------------
Flora Armenta, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Staffworks, LLC, a California limited
liability company, Defendants, Wedbush Securities, Inc. and
Suntrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
00011, (S.D. Cal., January 3, 2017), seeks minimum wages,
overtime, expense reimbursement, restitution of all funds
unlawfully acquired, injunction to prohibit StaffWorks to engage
in its unfair business practices, actual damages or statutory
penalties according to proof as set forth in California Labor
Code, pre-judgment interest as allowed by California Labor Code
and California Industrial Wage Commission Wage Orders, reasonable
attorneys' fees, expenses and costs as provided by California
Labor Code and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

StaffWorks owns an employment or staffing agency where it
recruited, solicited, hired and employed temporary service
employees performing services for its clients in numerous
different industries.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
      Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
      David G. Greco, Esq.
      NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
      225 Broadway, 19th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 325-0492
      Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
      Email: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
             atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
             dgreco@nicholaslaw.org

             - and -

      Noam Glick, Esq.
      GLICK LAW GROUP, P.C.
      225 Broadway, Suite 2100
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 382-3400
      Facsimile: (619) 615-2193
      Email: noam@glicklawgroup.com


STERICYCLE INC: Faces "Martinez" Suit in California Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stericycle Inc. The
case is captioned as Jose Martinez, individually and on behalf of
the general public, the Plaintiff, v. Does 1-100 and Stericycle
Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 34-2016-00205563-CU-OE-GDS (Cal.
Super. Ct., Dec. 29, 2016).

Stericycle is a compliance company that specializes in collecting
and disposing regulated substances, such as medical waste and
sharps, pharmaceuticals, hazardous waste, and providing services
for recalled and expired goods.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Turley, Esq.
          THE TURLEY LAW FIRM
          7428 Trade St. San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234 2833


SZECHUAN RESTAURANT: "Galeana" Labor Case to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Alberto Galeana, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Szechuan Restaurant of Columbus,
Inc., Ah-Fong Chang and Mary Doe, Case No. 1:17-cv-00008,
(S.D.N.Y., January 1, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and for
violations of New York Labor Laws for denying spread of hours and
overtime wages, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

Empire Szechuan is a restaurant owned by Ah-Fong Chang and Mary
Doe located at 193 Columbus Avenue, New York, New York 10023 where
Galeana has worked as a dishwasher and cook in excess of 40 hours
per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime
compensation as well as the required "spread of hours" pay for any
day in which he has had to work over 10 hours a day.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TCC WIRELESS: Faces "Wolfe" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Wolfe, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees v. TCC Wireless, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-11663 (N.D. Ill.,
December 28, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

TCC Wireless, LLC operates over 30 stores in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL  60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
              msalas@flsalaw.com

         - and -

      Peter Winebrake, Esq.
      R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      715 Twining Road, Suite 211
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Telephone: (215) 884-2491
      E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
              asantillo@winebrakelaw.com


TERRAVIA HOLDINGS: Faces "Daniil" Securities Suit in N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dimitrios Daniil, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Terravia Holdings, Inc.,
Jonathan S. Wolfson, Apurva S. Mody and Tyler W. Painter,
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-07388, (N.D. Cal., December 29,
2016), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

TerraVia creates and sells food, nutrition, and specialty
ingredients from algae. Its platform uses microalgae to produce
high-value triglyceride oils, proteins, fibers, micronutrients,
and other ingredients, including algal flour.

Defendants failed to disclose that the ingestion of its algal
flour caused gastrointestinal distress, including nausea and
vomiting and that algal flour is not a likely competitive product
in the market for nutrition foods. On this news, TerraVia's share
price fell $0.15, or 8.11%, to close at $1.70 on November 7, 2016,
damaging investors, such as the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ, LLP
      468 North Camden Drive
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (818) 532-6499
      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
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              ahood@pomlaw.com

              - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Leone Securities Class Action in Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY LEONE, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES
LIMITED, EREZ VIGODMAN, EYAL DESHEH, and KOBI ALTMAN, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-09545 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 27, 2016),
seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act).

On August 4, 2016, Teva filed a report on Form 6-K with the SEC,
reporting the Company's financial and operating results for the
quarter ended June 30, 2016. For the quarter, Teva reported net
income of $254 million, or $0.20 per diluted share, on revenue of
$5.04 billion, compared to net income of $539 million, or $0.63
per diluted share, on revenue of $4.97 billion for the same period
in the prior year. During the Class Period, the Company and the
Individual Defendants, individually and in concert, directly or
indirectly, disseminated or approved the false statements
specified above, which they knew or deliberately disregarded were
misleading in that they contained misrepresentations and failed to
disclose material facts necessary in order to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made,
not misleading.

Teva primarily develops, manufactures, markets, and
distributes generic medicines and a portfolio of specialty
medicines.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201 9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201 9160
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com


TILE SHOP: Excessive Deduction Class Certified in "Osorio" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly grants the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification in part and denies it in part in the lawsuit
styled ADRIEL OSORIO, on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated persons v. THE TILE SHOP, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00015
(N.D. Ill.).

In his memorandum opinion and order, Judge Kennelly declines to
certify the proposed unpaid overtime class proposed by the
Plaintiff but certifies the proposed excessive deduction class
under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
defined as:

    All persons employed in a Tile Shop retail store in the State
    of Illinois, except store managers, who had a deduction made
    to a paycheck received at any time from January 2, 2005 up to
    and including the date of trial, in order to recoup a cash
    advance where the deduction was in excess of 15% of the gross
    pay received in that paycheck.

Judge Kennelly appoints Mark Bulgarelli, Esq., and Ilan Chorowsky,
Esq., as counsel for the plaintiff class.

Adriel Osorio, who worked as a sales associate in the Company's
Skokie, Illinois retail store, alleges that Tile Shop failed to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.  He also alleges that Tile Shop
made excessive deductions from its employees' wages in violation
of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.  In his Motion,
the Plaintiff seeks to certify two classes -- one for each of his
state law claims -- pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3).

Judge Kennelly, however, opined that certification of the proposed
unpaid overtime class under Rule 23(b)(3) would be inappropriate.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EjhXz3zt


UBER TECHNOLOGY: Riders' Attorneys to Appeal Ruling
---------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that attorneys for a proposed class of Uber riders on January 5,
vowed to fight to stop Uber from forcing claims over bogus
cancellation fees into arbitration and denying their clients the
right to a jury trial.

The attorneys said they would appeal a ruling U.S. District Judge
Richard Seeborg issued shortly after a hearing on January 5,
granting Uber's motion to compel arbitration. Seeborg found Uber's
process for getting users to waive their right to sue is
sufficient.

Class attorney Kristopher Badame disagreed.

"It would be a historic case for California if by simply
downloading an app you've agreed to terms and conditions whether
you acknowledge them or not," Badame said shortly after the
hearing.

Seeborg rejected arguments that lead plaintiff Michael Cordas
never saw a link to the terms and conditions when he signed up for
Uber, or that the sign-up process did not adequately warn users
they were agreeing to waive their right to seek justice through
the courts.

Class co-counsel Joseph Hunter said his client and other Uber
users were unlikely to see "tiny little words" in gray type at the
bottom of the final sign-up page that link to Uber's terms and
conditions.

Hunter called Uber's sign-up process, which required users to
click "Done" as the last step to consent to terms and conditions,
a "browsewrap" agreement, which is unenforceable under California
law. He said it does not meet the requirements of a legal
"clickwrap" agreement, which must unambiguously inform a user of
the terms to which he or she is consenting.

But Seeborg disagreed, saying browsewrap agreements are deemed
unenforceable because they lack interactive components, which is
not the case here.

"They're interacting with the process," Seeborg said. "That's
fundamentally different. You're clicking a button. That's a big
deal."

Hunter pushed back, saying the only thing the user agreed to in
this case was that he or she had completed filling out the payment
information.  He cited Uber's decision to revamp its sign-up
process as evidence that its prior method was inadequate. But
Seeborg didn't buy it.

"The question is not whether they could have done it a better
way," Seeborg said. "The fact that they found a better way to do
it now is irrelevant."

The judge said his job is to decide whether the old sign-up
process was adequate, "not to be a business consultant on whether
Uber could do things better."

Seeborg's statements differed sharply from opinions expressed by a
federal judge in the Southern District of New York, who issued a
scathing opinion last August deeming Uber's arbitration provisions
for users unenforceable.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff wrote: "In this brave new world,
consumers are routinely forced to waive their constitutional right
to a jury and their very access to courts, and to submit instead
to arbitration, on the theory that they have voluntarily agreed to
do so in response to endless, turgid, often impenetrable sets of
terms and conditions, to which, by pressing a button, they have
indicated their agreement."

Notwithstanding the debate over the ubiquitous use of arbitration
clauses to force consumers to waive their rights to sue, Seeborg
identified the lead plaintiff's failure to state precisely what he
saw when signing with Uber as a major problem with the case.

Hunter told Seeborg that Cordas never saw a link to terms and
conditions because his iPhone 6 was turned horizontally when he
signed up.

But in reviewing the lead plaintiff's deposition, Seeborg said
Cordas failed to articulate exactly what he saw or how his phone
was oriented when he moved through the sign-up steps.

"The plaintiff is the plaintiff," Seeborg said. "He has to say
what he saw or didn't see."

Cordas sued Uber in July 2016, claiming that he and other users
had their rides automatically canceled and were charged phony
cancellation fees.

After the hearing, Hunter said a ruling for Uber would force
riders to pursue their claims through individual arbitration,
effectively denying them the ability to recover those losses.

"No one's going to litigate $5 or $10 claims, so Uber will win,"
Hunter said.

After the hearing, Seeborg issued a 9-page ruling granting Uber's
motion to compel arbitration.

Badame and Hunter, both of Badame & Associates in Lake Forest,
vowed to appeal.

The case is captioned, MICHAEL CORDAS, Plaintiff, v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant., Case 3:16-cv-04065-RS (N.D. Cal.).


US BANK: Snyder Seeks Certification of Four Classes Under TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act case titled KEITH SNYDER, SUSAN MANSANAREZ, and
TRACEE A. BEECROFT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. U.S. BANK N.A., WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A.,
CITIBANK, N.A., and DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,
individually and in their Capacities as Trustees, Case No. 1:16-
cv-11675 (N.D. Ill.), as a class action for these classes of
similarly-situated persons:

   * U.S. Bank Class (Snyder is the proposed class
     representative):

     All persons whose cellular telephones Ocwen called using its
     Aspect dialer in relation to a loan for which U.S. Bank was
     serving as trustee.


   * Wilmington Class (Mansanarez is the proposed class
     representative):

     All persons whose cellular telephones Ocwen called using its
     Aspect dialer in relation to a loan for which Wilmington was
     serving as trustee.

   * Citibank Class (Mansanarez is the proposed class
     representative):

     All persons whose cellular telephones Ocwen called using its
     Aspect dialer in relation to a loan for which Citibank was
     serving as trustee.

   * Deutsche Class (Beecroft is the proposed class
     representative):

     All persons whose cellular telephones Ocwen called using its
     Aspect dialer in relation to a loan for which Deutsche Bank
     was serving as trustee.

The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court appoint them as class
representatives, and their attorneys as class counsel.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Mark Ankcorn, Esq.
          ANKCORN LAW FIRM, PC
          11622 El Camino Real, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (619) 870-0600
          Facsimile: (619) 684-3541
          E-mail: mark@ankcorn.com

               - and -

          Guillermo Cabrera, Esq.
          Jared Quient, Esq.
          THE CABRERA FIRM, APC
          600 West Broadway, Suite 700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 500-4880
          Facsimile: (619) 785-3380
          E-mail: gil@cabrerafirm.com
                  jared@cabrerafirm.com

               - and -

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 N. 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                  amcentee@terrellmarshall.com


US LIMO: "O'Sullivan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Sullivan, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. US Limo System, Inc., Imran Haider, Narisha Alli, and
any other related entities, Case No. 610258/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
December 29, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
illegally retained gratuities pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a limousine service company located
at 35 N. Tyson Ave. Suite #103, Floral Park, New York
11001.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UTILITY TREE: Removal of "Torres" Suit Untimely, Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California granted Plaintiffs'
motion to remand in the case captioned, ENRIQUE TORRES, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. UTILITY TREE SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-
CV-03424-BLF (N.D. Cal.).

On September 30, 2015, Plaintiffs Enrique Torres and Ruben
Hermosillo filed a complaint on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated in the Superior Court of the State of
California, alleging that Defendant, Utility Tree Service, Inc.
violated California wage and hour laws, among other claims.
Plaintiffs later filed an amended complaint on November 12, 2015.

On January 26, 2016, the state trial court continued a case
management conference to allow Defendant to conduct limited
discovery regarding removability. Defendant then served Plaintiffs
Torres and Hermosillo various discovery requests on February 3,
2016.  On March 23, 2016, Plaintiffs requested an extension of
time to respond to the discovery requests but having received no
agreement from Defendant, they served unverified responses on the
same day. Later, on two separate occasions, Defendant demanded
Plaintiffs produce verified responses. On May 18, 2016, Plaintiff
Torres provided his verifications but to date, Plaintiff
Hermosillo has not provided verifications for his responses.

On June 17, 2016, Defendant filed its notice of removal, within 30
days of receiving Plaintiff Torres' verification on May 18, 2016.
According to Defendant, the notice of removal was filed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. sections 1332(d) (the Class Action Fairness Act
(CAFA)), 1441, 1446, and 1453 on the grounds that: (1) Plaintiffs
Enrique Torres and Ruben S. Hermosillo are "citizen[s] of a State
different from any defendant," (2) "the number of members of all
proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate is" more than 100
members and (3) "the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs."  In the
notice of removal, Defendant also states that "Plaintiff Torres'
Verified Responses to Defendant's Special Interrogatory Request
Set One provides sufficient information to determine the amount in
controversy."

Plaintiffs move to remand, arguing that Defendant's removal was
untimely. In opposing the motion, Defendant argues that
Plaintiffs' unverified responses cannot trigger the clock for time
to file a notice of removal. Specifically, Defendant contends that
the time limit "is triggered only when the information supporting
removal is unequivocally clear and certain."

In her Order dated December 3, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/F6bFrh from Leagle.com, Judge Freeman found that the
30-day time limit started when Plaintiff Torres' unverified
responses were served on March 23, 2016, and that Defendant did
not timely remove the case.

Ruben S. Hermosillo, et al. are represented by Jordan Domingo
Bello, Esq. -- jbello@lelawfirm.com -- and Joseph Lavi, Esq. --
jlavi@lelawfirm.com -- LAVI AND EBRAHIMIAN LLP

Plaintiffs are also represented by:

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

Utility Tree Service, Inc. is represented by Michael D. Thomas,
Esq. -- michael.thomas@ogletreedeakins.com -- Jared Lee Palmer,
Esq. -- jared.palmer@ogletreedeakins.com -- and Kevin Durrell
Reese, Esq. -- kevin.reese@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE,
DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.


VEOLIA WATER: Village Shores Suit Removed to East. Dist. Michigan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Village Shores LLC, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Veolia Water
North America Operating Services, LLC, Veolia North America, LLC,
and Veolia North America, Inc., Case No. 16-107731-CZ, was removed
from the Genesee County Circuit Court, State of Michigan, to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-14498-JEL-APP
to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings a putative class action seeking damages for
harms allegedly stemming from lead in the drinking water supply of
the City of Flint, Michigan.

The Defendants are engaged in designing, building, and operating
water and wastewater treatment facilities for municipalities and
industries in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew P. Abood, Esq.
      David Wolkinson, Esq.
      Jeffrey Lance Abood, Esq.
      Erica A. DeAngelis, Esq.
      THE ABOOD LAW FIRM
      470 N. Old Woodward Ave., Ste. 250
      Birmingham, MI 48009
      Telephone: (248) 549-0000
      E-mail: Andrew@AboodLaw.com
              jeff@aboodlaw.com
              erica@aboodlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Securities Class Action Stays in US Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Volkswagen must fight class action claims it defrauded
American investors due to its emissions cheating scandal in a U.S.
court rather than in Germany, a federal judge in San Francisco,
ruled.

The German automaker had asked U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer
to dismiss a shareholder class action seeking hundreds of millions
of dollars for damage to its stock price following the emissions
cheating scandal.

In a ruling issued on January 4, Breyer rejected Volkswagen's
claims that because it sold a certain type of stock to American
investors, it was exempt from U.S. securities laws.

The U.S. investors say Volkswagen's failure to disclose its use of
defeat devices and billions of dollars it faced in liability over
the scandal artificially inflated its stock price from November
2010 to January 2016.

The company has lost an estimated $63 billion in market value
since its use of emissions test-cheating software in some 11
million vehicles worldwide was revealed in September 2015.

In fending off the class action, Volkswagen argued the type of
shares it sold in the United States -- level 1 American Depository
Receipts, or ADRs -- are exempt from U.S. securities reporting
requirements and subject only to German laws and standards.

But Breyer found the shares are subject to U.S. jurisdiction
because they were sold through domestic transactions, and
Volkswagen was required to make disclosures in English available
on its website for American investors.

"Regardless of the level of the ADRs, Volkswagen took affirmative
steps to make its securities available to investors here in the
United States," Breyer wrote in his 41-page ruling.

Breyer weighed a host of factors to test Volkswagen's theory that
the United States is an inconvenient forum and should be dismissed
for forum non conveniens. Breyer found that although Germany would
be an adequate alternative forum to litigate the claims, other
factors did not weigh in favor of dismissal.

The judge also refused to dismiss claims against Volkswagen's
former top executives, including former Volkswagen CEO and board
chairman Martin Winterkorn.

Breyer found allegations that Winterkorn knew of and concealed the
scandal were sufficient to pursue claims that he defrauded
American investors. The plaintiffs said Winterkorn was a
micromanager heavily involved in details of the company's
operations, that he helped create the "Strategy 2018" which
emphasized clean diesel vehicles, and that he was warned about the
automaker's illegal use of defeat devices as early as 2011.

The judge also denied a motion to dismiss claims that former
Volkswagen board member and brand strategist Herbert Diess made
false statements in a third-quarter report in 2015. The plaintiffs
claimed Diess understated Volkswagen's total liabilities and
overstated its operating profits, assets and shareholder equity.

Michael Horn, former president and CEO of Volkswagen Group of
America, must also face claims that he hid the scandal from
American investors, Breyer ruled.

Horn reportedly received an email on May 15, 2014, warning him
that clean-diesel vehicles did not meet U.S. emission standards
and that the company could face fines from U.S. regulators.

Horn told Congress on Oct. 8, 2015, that he was informed of
"possible emissions noncompliance" in May 2014.

Breyer tossed claims against Horn's predecessor, former Volkswagen
Group of America CEO Jonathan Browning, finding allegations that
he was merely involved in the U.S. regulatory approval process
were not strong enough to survive a motion to dismiss.

The judge also dismissed claims under Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act against Diess and Horn, finding the
plaintiffs failed to adequately show the two executives were
"control persons" that wielded power over the firms in the same
manner as Winterkorn.

Statements touting the company's environmental friendliness and
car stickers certifying vehicles as compliant with emission
standards are fair game as evidence in the suit, Breyer said.

"The court cannot declare as a matter of law that a reasonable
investor would not have considered the emissions stickers on
Volkswagen vehicles to be material investing information," Breyer
wrote.

Court-appointed lead plaintiff Arkansas State Highway Employees'
Retirement System filed a 155-page securities class action against
Volkswagen, its subsidiaries and chief executives in May last
year.

The plaintiffs say the automaker's deceit caused them to lose
money when the price of Volkswagen ADRs dropped from $38.03 on
Sept. 17, 2015, before the scandal was revealed, to $26.16 on Jan.
5, 2016.

Volkswagen struck two settlements last year totaling $15 billion
over its use of defeat devices in some 580,000 diesel-engine
vehicles sold in the United States.

In an emailed statement, Volkswagen spokeswoman Jeannine Ginivan
called the claims of U.S. ADR purchasers "without merit" and said
the company plans to demonstrate that as the case moves forward.

The case is captioned, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION Case 3:15-md-
02672-CRB (N.D. Cal.).


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Court Lifts Stay as to State Remand Motions
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING, SALES
PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION Case 3:15-md-02672-
CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Court, in its Pretrial Order No. 22, ordered
a stay of all remand motions pending further order of the Court.
Prior to the issuance of that order, one State, New Mexico, by and
through its Attorney General, had filed a motion to remand. After
the order, various States -- New York, Pennsylvania,
Massachusetts, Maryland, Vermont, Oklahoma, Tennessee, New
Hampshire, Alabama, Ohio, and Missouri -- by and through their
respective Attorneys General filed notices and motions indicating
that they also intend to move to remand their cases back to their
respective State courts.

As to these and any other State remand motions brought by the
Attorney General of their respective State, District Judge Charles
R. Breyer held that the stay is lifted as to any State remand
motions brought by State Attorneys General, including those
identified.  The opening briefs shall be filed on or before
January 31, 2017.  Absent further order from the Court, the
briefing and hearing schedule shall be set in accordance with
Civil Local Rules 7-2 and 7-3. This order does not affect the stay
as to any other remand motions as set forth in Pretrial Order No.
22.

A copy of the Court's January 5 Order is available at
https://goo.gl/FSk60O from Leagle.com.


WALDEN UNIVERSITY: Faces "Bleess" Class Suit in Minn.
-----------------------------------------------------
Aaron Bleess, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Walden University, LLC and Laureate
International Universities, d/b/a Laureate Education Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-04402, (D. Minn., December 29, 2016),
seeks damages and all other relief, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, costs and expenses in this litigation, including
reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs of litigation, trebling
of damages, disgorgement of all the revenue earned through the
excessive doctoral-dissertation coursework, restitution and such
other relief resulting from unjust enrichment, fraudulent
inducement, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing and for violation of the Minnesota Consumer
Fraud Act, and Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Walden is an online university that enabled working adults to
obtain graduate-level degrees in school administration. Walden
currently offers bachelor's, master's and doctoral degrees to
online students. Bleess attended Walden as a PhD student
continuously from 2009 until the present.

Walden's marketing materials, recruiters, and admissions officers
misled prospective and new students by promising that their
doctoral degrees -- mostly financed by student loans -- would cost
less and take a shorter time to complete than its doctoral
programs were actually designed to take.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
      Eric N. Linsk, Esq.
      Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981

            - and -

      Bill Sieben, Esq.
      Alicia N. Sieben, Esq.
      SCHWEBEL GOETZ & SIEBEN
      80 South Eighth Street, Suite 5120
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 377-7777
      Facsimile: (612) 333-6311


WELLS FARGO: Slaughter Seeks Prelim. OK of $35.5-Mil. Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled LANCE W. SLAUGHTER, MICHAEL
SMITH, ERIKA WILLIAMS, LUCIEN PHILIPPE, KATRINA EVERETT, and KEITH
SPELMON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. WELLS FARGO ADVISORS, LLC, Case No. 1:13-cv-06368 (N.D. Ill.),
submit to the Court the parties' proposed class settlement, which
provides meaningful programmatic relief to increase opportunities
for African American Financial Advisors ("FAs") and FA Trainees at
Wells Fargo and a $35.5 million common fund for claims of monetary
losses.

The parties ask that the Court issue an order: (1) certifying the
Settlement Class; (2) preliminarily approving the proposed class
action settlement; (3) appointing Class Counsel and the Class
Representatives; (4) approving and directing distribution to the
class of notices of settlement; and (5) setting a schedule for the
final approval process.

In addition to the comprehensive programmatic relief, Wells Fargo
will establish a Settlement Fund of $35.5 million, plus interest
from the date of Preliminary Approval.  The Settlement Fund will
compensate Settlement Class Members, including the class
representatives; provide for all attorneys' fees, costs, and
service awards to class representatives awarded by the Court; and
provide for all costs of administering the Settlement.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=h8I4HxCU

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Linda D. Friedman, Esq.
          Suzanne E. Bish, Esq.
          George S. Robot, Esq.
          STOWELL & FRIEDMAN, LTD.
          303 W. Madison, 26th floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 431-0888
          Facsimile: (312) 431-0228
          E-mail: lfriedman@sfltd.com
                  sbish@sfltd.com
                  Grobot@sfltd.com


WELLS FARGO: Faces "Hogan" Suit in Northern Dist. of California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo &
Company. The case is entitled as Kevin Hogan, Shannon Currell,
Dennis Russell, Ngoc Ly, Justin Harris, Alexander Polonsky, Brian
Zaghi Cheryl Stratemeyer, Jeremy Kahn, Mark Huddleston, and Brent
Levinson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Wells Fargo & Company, Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, the Defendants, Case
No. 3:16-cv-07360 (N.D. Cal., Dec. 27, 2016).

Wells Fargo is an American international banking and financial
services holding company headquartered in San Francisco,
California, with "hubquarters" throughout the country.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


WESTERN REFINING: Shareholders Challenge Tesoro Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Khan, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
shareholders sued directors of Western Refining to stop the $6.4
billion merger with Tesoro Corp., in a complicated cash and stock-
swap deal, in a class action in El Paso, Texas Federal Court.

The case is captioned, BRIAN MILLER, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
PAUL L. FOSTER, SIGMUND L. CORNELIUS, L. FREDERICK FRANCIS, ROBERT
J. HASSLER, BRIAN J. HOGAN, JEFF A. STEVENS, SCOTT D. EAVER, and
WESTERN REFINING, INC., Defendants, Case 3:17-cv-00004-DB (W.D.
Tex., January 5, 2017).

Counsel for Plaintiff:

     Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
     THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
     700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
     Houston, TX  77002
     Tel: (713) 227-7720
     E-mail: tbilek@bileklaw.com

Of Counsel:

     Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 26th Fl.
     New York, NY 10017
     Tel: (212) 983-9330


WESTPORT LINEN: Cavin Moves to Certify FLSA Collective Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled BRANDON CAVIN v. WESTPORT
LINEN SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-00705-JWD-EWD (M.D. La.),
submits his motion to conditionally certify a collective action
and facilitate notice under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Cavin has asserted claims on behalf of a collective class for
overtime wages wrongfully not paid to them by the Defendant.  He
now specifically asks that the Court enter an order conditionally
certifying this class of similarly situated individuals:

     All persons employed by Defendant as an hourly employee
     operating and maintaining the large commercial laundry
     machines since October 2013 who worked more than 40 hours
     per week in any work week, but who did not get paid all
     overtime they were owed due to Defendant's practices of
     shaving time off of their clocked-in and out hours and
     automatically deducting a meal break from each shift they
     worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
     U.S.C. 201, et seq.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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


WHOLE FOODS MARKET: Brand Has Active Ingredient, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class claims in Chicago
federal court that Whole Foods says its brand of St. John's Wort
has more of the active ingredient than it actually contains.

The case is captioned, KATIE KLINGBERG, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WHOLE FOODS
MARKET, INC., a Texas corporation, Defendant, Case: 1:17-cv-00138
(N.D. Ill. Filed: 01/09/17).

Counsel For Plaintiff And The Proposed Putative Classes:

     Klint L. Bruno, Esq.
     Michael L. Silverman, Esq.
     THE BRUNO FIRM
     900 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 4E
     Chicago, IL 60607
     Tel: 773-969-6160
     E-mail: kb@brunolawus.com
             msilverman@brunolawus.com

          - and -

     Nick Suciu III, Esq.
     BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
     1644 Bracken Road
     Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302
     Tel: 313-303-3472
     E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com


WILMINGTON TRUST: Faces "Shore" Suit in Southern Dist. of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wilmington Trust,
N.A. The case is entitled as Michael Shore, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Wilmington
Trust, N.A., as trustee for MFRA TRUST 2015-1, and Fay Servicing
LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-25373-PCH (S.D. Fla., Dec.
29, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Senior Judge Paul C. Huck.

Wilmington Trust offers personal and commercial banking services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher W. Legg, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER LEGG, P.A.
          3837 Hollywood Blvd., Ste. B
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 962 2333
          Facsimile: (954) 927 2451
          E-mail: chris@theconsumerlawyers.com

               - and -

          Jack Dennis Card, Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
          721 US Highway 1
          North Palm Beach, FL 33408, Suite 201
          Telephone: (561) 822 3446
          Facsimile: (305) 574 0132
          E-mail: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com

               - and -

          James Lawrence Kauffman, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463 2101
          Facsimile: (202) 463 2103
          E-mail: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com


ZALE CORP: Court Stays Emcon Associates Suit Pending Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey granted Defendants' motion to
stay the proceedings and compel arbitration in the case captioned,
EMCON ASSOCIATES, INC., Plaintiff, v. ZALE CORPORATION, STERLING
JEWELERS INC., and JOSEPH ALBANESE, Defendants, Case No. Action
No. 16-1985 (FLW) (D.N.J.).

Emcon filed the action against Defendants Sterling Jewelers, Inc.
(Sterling), Zale Corporation (Zales), and Joseph Albanese
(Albanese) for breach of a written contract (the Vendor
Agreement), as well as violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act (CFA) and the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organization Act (RICO).  The first four counts of the Complaint
are claims for payment with regard to services that Emcon provided
to Sterling and while the final two counts of the Complaint assert
statutory and tort claims against Defendants, averring that "Zale
and Sterling, through and/or including Albanese, engaged in
unconscionable commercial practices, deceptions, fraud and
misrepresentations in violation of common law, and statutory law
including, but not limited to N.J.S.A. 56:8-1, et seq. (NJ CFA)and
N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1, et seq. (NJ RICO)."

During the relevant period of time to the dispute, Joseph Albanese
was the Director of Facility Maintenance for Sterling and Zales.
His job duties included directing and managing the repair and
maintenance activity for the Sterling and Zales' facilities
located throughout the United States.

Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration,
arguing that Plaintiff's claims arise under the Vendor Agreement.
However, in an attempt to circumvent the Vendor Agreement's
arbitration clause, Plaintiff argues that the arbitration clause
is unenforceable, would result in an impermissible waiver of
Plaintiff's right to litigate its statutory and common law claims,
and that neither Zales nor Albanese can compel arbitration because
they are not signatories to the Vendor Agreement.

In his Opinion dated December 14, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/HXCXH2 from Leagle.com, Judge Wolfson found that a
valid arbitration agreement between the parties exists.


Emcon Associates, Inc. is represented by Bruce Meller, Esq. --
bmeller@pecklaw.com -- PECKAR & ABRAMSON PC

Zale Corporation, et al. are represented by John J. Sullivan, Esq.
-- jsullivan@cozen.com -- COZEN O'CONNOR


                            *********

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  * * *