CAR_Public/170118.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, January 18, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 13



                            Headlines

ADEPTUS HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Excessive ER Fees
AFNI INC: Wins Summary Judgment; Court Closes "Benali" Class Suit
AMERICOLLECT INC: Certification of Class Sought in "Johnson" Suit
ANTHEM HEALTH: Court Certifies Class of Insureds in "Wilson" Suit
APPLE: Settles California Labor Suit Over Rest Meals for $2MM

AUSTRALIA: NT Faces Class Action Over Abuse of Juvenile Detainees
AVEDA TRANSPORTATION: Court Certifies FLSA Class in "Waltz" Suit
BAYER CORP: Fidelma Fitzpatrick Named Essure Case Lead Counsel
BELLAMY'S: Maurice Blackburn, Slater & Gordon Mull Class Actions
BLUE SHIELD: Judge Dismisses Harvoni Hep C Drug Class Action

BRISTOL HARBOUR: 160 Workers to Share $412,500 Settlement Fund
BROWNLINK MEDIA: College Senior Mulls Internship Class Action
CANADA: Judge Set to Rule on RCMP Sexual Harassment Class Action
CANADA: Order to Produce Young Offender Records Appealed
CARING FOR MONTANANS: Bid to Certify Class in "Budd" Suit Denied

CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Court Denies Pressman's Bid to Certify Class
CHICKEN SHACK: Court Certifies TCPA Class in Compressor Suit
CHIPOTLE: May Face Suit for Using Photo Without Permission
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: "Nyby" Suit Settlement Gets Prelim. Nod
CRAVE RESTAURANT: Class of Servers Certified in "Ullett" Suit

DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Averts Class Action Over Unpaid Vacation Time
DARK STAR: Rosas Moves for Certification of Field Workers Class
DEUTSCHE BANK: German Banks Face Suit for Collusion
DEVON ENERGY: Sued for Underpaying Natural Gas Royalties
DL BUILDERS: Valdovinos Moves for Class Certification Under FLSA

DOLE FOODS: 9th Cir. Revives "All Natural" Label Class Action
DONALD J. TRUMP: Plaintiff's Firm to Withdraw Spam Text Case
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: June 9 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
EXCEL STAFFING: Ferebee Moves for Certification of Nurses Class
FALLS FESTIVAL: Law Firm Receives Response From Crush Victims

FIELDTURF: Faces Third Duraspine Fraud Class Action in N.J.
FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Court Tosses NJWPL Claims in "Atis" Class Suit
GC SERVICES: Dains Seeks Certification of Classes and Subclasses
HARTWOOD RESERVE: Appeals Court Reverses "Allen" Subclass Cert.
HARMLESS HARVEST: Settles Coconut Water Labeling Class Action

HEALTH RESOURCE: Brown Wins Bid for Conditional Certification
HOME DEPOT: Can't Remove Tri-State Class Action to Federal Court
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective "Smart Trunks"
INOTEK PHARMA: March 7 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
INSEEGO CORP: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Critics Condemn Talcum-Powder Lawsuits
KRAFT FOODS: Judge Denies Motion to Stay Labeling Class Action
LAND'S END: Certification of Class Sought in Gorss Motels Suit
LOUSIANA: Denham Springs to Pursue Class Action Against DOTD
MARCHESE HOSPITAL: Diluted Chemo Drug Victims Oppose Settlement

MARLBORO: Lawyers Seek Up to $30-Mil. in Compensation
MEDICREDIT INC: Privacy Breach Class Certified in "Raffin" Suit
MEZENTCO SOLUTIONS: No Ruling Yet on Diluted Chemotherapy Case
MGM: Settles Case Over Unpaid Internships, Jan. 17 Hearing Set
MILLENNIUM PARTNERS: Faces Suit Over Leaning and Sinking Tower

MULTI CABLE: Class of Technicians Certified in "Luviano" Suit
MULTI-STATE LOTTERY: Rigged Games Suit Seeks Class Action Status
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Ex-Football Players File Concussion Class Suit
NATIONAL CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in "Hoffman" Suit
NATIONWIDE EVICTION: Class Certification Sought in "Russell" Suit

NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Carlson Seeks Class Certification Under ERISA
NOVO NORDISK: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
PACIFIC FINANCIAL: Class Action Lawsuit Goes Forward
PATCO ELECTRICAL: Roberts Seeks to Certify Class of Electricians
PULASKI COUNTY, IN: Hizer Seeks to Certify Disabled Persons Class

RALEIGH HEART: Clinic Doctor Reprimanded Amid Class Action
RESOURCE ENERGY: Class of Welders Certified in "Moresi" Suit
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Anderson Seeks Certification of Class
SCHWARTZ LEVITSKY: Appeal Court Rules in Favor of ESO Investors
SCRAP INC: Status Hearing in Chicago Car Suit Reset for March 7

SEATTLE GENETICS: March 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
SEDGWICK: Female Partner Files Amended Gender Bias Class Action
SERVIS ONE: McCamis Seeks Class Certification Under FCCPA & FDCPA
SOLERA HOLDINGS: Chancellor Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action
SQUIP INC: Certification of Rule 23 Class Sought in Freed Suit

STAPLES: Settles Class Action Over Deceptive Rewards Program
STARBUCKS CORP: Sued Over Failure to Provide Proper Meal Periods
STONEMOR PARTNERS: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for Jan. 20
SYNUTRA INTERNATIONAL: TheGrantLawFirm Files Class Action
TD BANK: $20 Overdraft Charge Sparks Class Action

TENNESSEE: Groups Challenge Driver's License Law
TIBET PHARMACEUTICALS: June 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
TILE SHOP: Excessive Deduction Class Certified in "Osorio" Suit
TIMBERCORP GROUP: High Court Rules on Anshun Estoppel Issue
TRUEVISIONS: FongDi to Launch Class Action on Behalf of Customers

UNITED RECOVERY: Class Certification Sought in "Merkovich" Suit
UNITED RESOURCE: Wins Final Approval of "Kopchak" Suit Settlement
UNITED STATES: Files Motion to Dismiss H-2b Visa Case in Guam
US BANK: Status Hearing in "Snyder" Class Suit Set for March 8
VOLKSWAGEN: Faces Suit From British Motorists Over Dieselgate

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Harcus Sinclair Applies for Group Litigation Order
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Jan. 30 Hearing Set on UK-Based Motorists' GLO
WALDMAN & KAPLAN: Files Joint Bid to Certify Class in O'Brien Suit
WASHINGTON, DC: Developmental Disabilities Class Action Settled
WINFIELD MURDOCK: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

YAHOO! INC: Illinois Court Certifies TCPA Class Action
YOUR WIRELESS: Jackson Moves for Certification of TCPA Class

* Enforceability of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements Challenged
* France Adopts Class Action Regime for Data Protection Violation
* IoT Security Vulnerabilities May Spark Legal Risks
* TCPA-Related Class Actions Dominate Filings During Fall 2016
* Ticket-Fighter to Launch Suit Challenging Photo Radar Ticketing


                            *********


ADEPTUS HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Excessive ER Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Sabriya Rice, writing for Dallas News, reports that more trouble
is ahead for Lewisville-based Adeptus Health, the nation's largest
operator of free-standing emergency rooms.

A Colorado man has filed a $5 million lawsuit and is seeking class
action status, in perhaps the first case to question the facility
fees charged to patients.  It claims that Adeptus takes advantage
of confusion in the marketplace, fraudulently preying on consumers
by failing to disclose excessive costs.
Much like hospital-based emergency rooms, the stand-alone centers
charge a facility fee to cover the overhead costs associated with
staffing teams of emergency specialists around the clock.

However, the lawsuit says that Adeptus "tricks patients into
believing its centers are appropriate," even when the consumer
might be better off at urgent care, or lower-cost facilities that
can handle non-emergency situations and where no such fee is
charged.

Moreover, they do not disclose the amount of the charge before the
patient undergoes care.

The "widespread and deceptive business practice" leaves patients
with up to $6,000 in unexpected fees each visit, said the
complaint filed Jan.3 in the Texas Eastern District Court in
Sherman.

Adeptus Health said it could not comment on the lawsuit at this
time.

The case was filed on behalf of at least 100 others with similar
claims in Colorado and Texas, said filing attorney Stuart Cochran,
of the Dallas firm Steckler Gresham Cochran.

The plaintiff, a psychiatrist named David Adkinson, said he went
to an Adeptus facility in Colorado Springs in 2014 after he fell.
The appointment lasted a few minutes and he was diagnosed with "a
bruise."  The bill totaled more than $2,000, including a $1,200
facility fee.

Model challenged

The sustainability of the free-standing emergency room model has
been criticized by health policy researchers, economists, consumer
groups and others in recent months.

Clever and innovative businessmen may have found a way to take
advantage, particularly of confusion in the medical billing
system, said Britt Berrett, who directs the undergraduate program
in Healthcare Management at the Naveen Jindal School of Management
at University of Texas at Dallas.

"I'm not surprised this kind of litigation would emerge," he said.
"It's a reflection of how chaotic this portion of the industry is
right now. It's the billing and economics that are often suspect."

Adeptus experienced rapid growth with its model after going public
in 2014.  It now operates more than 90 in several states,
including Texas, Colorado, Arizona and Ohio.  The company
generated nearly $103 million in revenue in 2013.  Revenues more
than tripled by 2015, jumping to $365 million.  But things
arguably took a turn last year.

Following an $11 million dollar earnings loss in third quarter,
stocks plummeted and have not recuperated.  On Jan. 10 Adeptus
stock traded below $9 a share, compared to more than $40 per share
at the start of 2016.

The loss was attributed to high costs that resulted in low volumes
at facilities that were not hospital-affiliated.  Patients
preferred facilities that were part of a hospital.  Adeptus
leadership said it had established plans to correct the poor
performance, to include forging partnerships with hospitals, as
they have done with Texas Health Resources.

Even when there are partnerships, however, patients may still be
charged hefty out-of-network fees due to confusing billing
practices, found an investigative report from Colorado's KUSA.

Adeptus has also had sudden leadership changes.  In November CEO
Thomas Hall, who had been with Adeptus since 2012 and was credited
with more than quadrupling the number of facilities it operates,
accelerated his retirement.

About one month later, the chief operating officer Graham
Cherrington was fired.

Spiraling costs

In an age of reform where health policy has been focused on
improving quality and driving down costs, researchers have
questioned the financial motivations of the for-profit facilities.
They tend to burgeon in wealthier communities where patients are
privately insured and pay high deductibles.
Operators of the facilities argue that the location choices make
sense from a business perspective.

Federal regulations protect patients from being denied care for
emergency services, even if they cannot afford it.  Medicare and
Medicaid do not reimburse for services provided to patients by
free-standing emergency departments.

Treating people without compensation is not financially
sustainable, so independent operators of free-standing facilities
avoid areas with high concentrations of low-income patients,
according to the Texas Association of Freestanding Emergency
Centers.

Individuals with injuries that are not life-threatening should
avoid locations that say "emergency" and "ER" on the signage as
rates will be comparable to hospitals and a facility fee will be
charged, TAFEC says.

But information about the existence and amount of the facility fee
needs to be more transparent, argued the lawsuit filed this month.

Freestanding urgent care and emergency centers still appear to be
synonymous to the public, "and it is this perception upon which
Adeptus preys," the complaint said.

Adeptus has until Jan 25 to respond to the court.


AFNI INC: Wins Summary Judgment; Court Closes "Benali" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Brian R. Martinotti denied the Plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment in the lawsuit styled DAVID BENALI, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. AFNI, INC. and JOHN
DOES 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-03605-BRM-DEA (D.N.J.).

Judge Martinotti granted the Defendant's cross-motion for summary
judgment.  Judge Martinotti also ordered the Clerk of the Court to
administratively terminate the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification and mark the case closed.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TQ7Rykhj


AMERICOLLECT INC: Certification of Class Sought in "Johnson" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled ENEIDA JOHNSON, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AMERICOLLECT,
INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-00001 (E.D. Wisc.), moves the Court to
certify the class described in the complaint, and further requests
that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to
grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local
Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs
and supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence, the
Plaintiff states.  The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is
obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests
of the putative class.

The Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016
U.S. LEXIS 846 *14-15 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016) (internal citations
omitted) and Chapman should have put a stop to this practice.
Unfortunately, they have not, the Plaintiff notes.  In dicta, the
Supreme Court left open the possibility that a defendant facing a
class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's claim with the court and having the court enter
judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to a class certification
motion.  Campbell-Ewald Co., 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 *19 ("We need
not, and do not, now decide whether the result would be different
if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's
individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the
court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount.").

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

The Plaintiff also wants to be appointed as class representative,
and the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CJRKgh1T

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ANTHEM HEALTH: Court Certifies Class of Insureds in "Wilson" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Thomas B. Russell granted the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification filed in the lawsuit entitled MARGARET WILSON,
individually and on behalf of a Class of persons similarly
situated v. ANTHEM HEALTH PLANS OF KENTUCKY, INC., Case No. 3:14-
cv-00743-TBR (W.D. Ky.).

The certified class is defined as:

     All persons who are or have been insureds, participants in,
     or beneficiaries of a health insurance policy issued or
     administered by Anthem Health Plans of Kentucky, Inc., which
     contains dollar or hour limits on the provision of treatment
     for Autism Spectrum Disorders and who have made a claim for,
     and have been denied coverage or reimbursement for Applied
     Behavior Analysis treatment for Autism Spectrum Disorders on
     the grounds that the policy's dollar or hour limits had been
     exceeded.

Margaret Wilson is the mother of M.W., a minor child with Autism
Spectrum Disorder.  Both Ms. Wilson and M.W. are beneficiaries
under a health benefit plan provided by Anthem under ERISA.  Ms.
Wilson alleges that the Anthem Plan does not impose limitations on
medical and surgical benefits as it does for ASD and, therefore,
the limitations that the Anthem Plan places on ASD treatment
violate the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act.

Judge Russell appoints the Plaintiff's counsel, Robert R. Sparks,
Esq., and Strauss Troy Co., L.P.A., as class counsel.  Judge
Russell denied as moot the Plaintiff's motion to strike
undisclosed evidence and testimony.

The Plaintiff must submit for the Court's approval, within 14 days
of the issuance of the Order, a proposed notice for notifying
class members of the action.  The Defendant will have seven days
after the filing of the Plaintiff's proposed notice to file
objections thereto.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eMYMn0Pb

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert R. Sparks, Esq.
          STRAUSS TROY CO., L.P.A.
          150 East Fourth Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone No.: (513) 621-2120
          Facsimile No.: (513) 241-8259
          E-mail: rrsparks@strausstroy.com


APPLE: Settles California Labor Suit Over Rest Meals for $2MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers and Settlements reports that a California labor lawsuit
that alleged Apple did not properly provide meal and rest breaks
and did not pay employees in a timely manner has resulted in a $2
million award to employees. The lawsuit was originally filed in
2011 by employees who worked at Apple retail stores in San Diego
and was later changed to a class action lawsuit including
California employees who worked at Apple retail stores from 2007
and 2012.

The lawsuit alleged that Apple's meal period policy did not comply
with California labor law, and caused employees to work more than
five hours straight without the opportunity to take their meal
period and with no additional pay when they missed their meal
break. The plaintiffs claimed they did not waive their right to a
meal period, nor did they waive their right to a rest break.

The jury agreed with Apple employees, finding that they should
have received proper meal breaks and awarding them $2 million.

Additionally, plaintiffs alleged they were not paid in a timely
manner when their employment with Apple was terminated. One
employee, Ryan Goldman, was reportedly terminated from his
position on January 11, 2011, but did not receive a final paycheck
until almost a month later, on February 7, 2011.

Finally, the lawsuit alleged Apple restricted its employees from
discussing working conditions.

"The majority, if not all, of Apple's employment policies, make it
clear that Plaintiffs are not allowed to discuss Apple's working
conditions," the suit claimed. By prohibiting employees from
discussing Apple or it's policies, Apple was able to "invoke fear
into the class members that if they so much as discuss the various
labor policies, they run the risk of being fired, sued, or
disciplined."

According to reports, around 21,000 workers were included in the
lawsuit, meaning the amount per worker would be small. But a bench
trial could determine whether people who worked at Apple's
corporate offices and were not exempt from breaks are similarly
eligible for an award.

Under California labor law, employees are entitled to a thirty-
minute unpaid meal period when they work more than five hours in a
shift and a 10-minute paid rest period for every four hours worked
or major portion of four hours.

The lawsuit is Felczer et al v. Apple Inc, case number 37-2011-
00102593, in Superior Court of the State of California, San Diego.


AUSTRALIA: NT Faces Class Action Over Abuse of Juvenile Detainees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Davidson, writing for The Guardian, reports that current and
former detainees of the Northern Territory's juvenile detention
centre have launched a class action against the NT government over
their treatment, including fresh allegations of teargassing in
April last year.

The social justice class action will allege the then children were
subject to abuse, battery, and/or false imprisonment while being
held in NT correctional facilities, as recently as July last year.

The class action announced on Jan. 11 is brought on behalf of
detainees who were abused while in detention between 1 August 2006
and 23 December 2016.

"We do not suggest the members of this class action did not
deserve to be deprived of their liberty but we do claim that when
children are routinely subject to human rights abuses . . . that
they should be compensated and those who do it should be
accountable," Maurice Blackburn class action principal lawyer, Ben
Slade, said on Jan. 11.

The lead applicants are Dylan Jenkings and Aaron Hyde, two men now
aged 18 and 20, who will claim compensation for alleged abuse they
suffered as teenage detainees.  At the date of application at
least seven group members of the class action had claims against
the NT government, but the lawyer representing the group believes
there could be hundreds of potential claimants.

The case is expected to bring into question the legality of
detaining children in isolated cells, as well as past laws around
restraints.  The application noted legislative changes made last
year to the use of restraints on children, but said Hyde and
Jenkings were still wrongfully imprisoned and detained even under
the previous laws.

According to a statement of claim filed in the federal court,
Jenkings alleged in April last year staff members entered his cell
at Don Dale, teargassed him and another detainee, and handcuffed
them.

Jenkings accused guards of pushing him to the ground and punching
him twice in the back of the head, before dragging him to another
cell without CCTV and beating him with batons and shields.  He
also claimed he was handcuffed and kicked during another incident
in July.

In mid-2012 Hyde, then 15, was allegedly removed from his cell at
Don Dale by guards who used "more force than was reasonably
necessary" and who struck him in the ribs and carried him out,
slamming his head against two doorways.  The statement claimed
Hyde had been compliant when guards arrived.

He was allegedly left handcuffed to a fence with his arms above
his head for an hour, and then placed in the isolation cell of the
behavioural management unit.  He also alleged his clothing was
confiscated and he was left with only his underpants in the cell
for two to three weeks.

It was also alleged when Hyde asked for a blanket because there
was no mattress and he was cold, a female guard told him to
masturbate to keep warm.  The statement of claim alleged Hyde was
kept in isolation for longer than the allowable 72 hour maximum on
numerous occasions.

Both applicants are currently incarcerated in Darwin's adult
prison.  Hyde is serving an 11-year sentence with six years non-
parole after he pleaded guilty to offences related to a crime
spree which ended in a high-speed car crash and the death of his
friend.

His mother, Tracey Hyde, told Guardian Australia when she read the
statement of claim she questioned whether she had done the right
thing by acting with "tough love" and putting faith in the justice
system when he had told her he was being mistreated.

Aaron Hyde kept most of the detail from his mother out of concern
he would worry her, she said, and many of the allegations shocked
her.  "Reading that in detail . . . especially being handcuffed to
the fence and having to soil yourself in front of other people,
and up to three weeks in solitary with nothing and then a female
guard telling him to pull himself to keep warm, that's just
unacceptable.

"I know he was in there because he was doing the wrong thing, and
I have no issues with that, but that treatment is not conducive to
rehabilitation."

She questioned if his criminal behaviour would have escalated if
he had not been allegedly mistreated while in detention as a
teenager.  "Some of these kids have done some pretty horrendous
stuff but that doesn't give guards the right to treat them the way
they have. It's obvious now that whatever they're doing hasn't
worked," she said.

"As a community I think we need to sit together and find out
exactly what worked and what hasn't worked and what options we
have before us."

Nicole Manison, acting chief minister of the NT, said the
government was seeking legal advice and it would be "inappropriate
to comment further" on a court matter.

Ms. Manison said the alleged incidents occurred prior to the
Michael Gunner-led government taking office, and noted the changes
already made to the Youth Justice Act.  She said the NT government
had committed to putting children "at the centre of government,
for the benefit of all Territorians".

"By working across all sectors of government we can tackle these
complex and difficult issues at an early age to get these kids
away from crime -- and keep them out of the criminal justice
system in the first place," she said.

A royal commission into the protection and detention of children
in the NT is under way, investigating a decade of policy direction
and allegations of abuse and mismanagement.

It was called by the prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, following
the broadcast of vision of several young detainees inside the
Darwin and Alice Springs youth and adult detention facilities
being teargassed, beaten and restrained.

"The Territory's juvenile justice system has been shown over and
over again to not only have failed to rehabilitate those in its
care, but have allowed many children to be abused by some of its
own employees," said Mr. Slade, who urged others to come forward.

Mr. Slade told media in Sydney, Maurice Blackburn had been
approached by Darwin-based legal workers to look into some cases.

"We concluded that the evidence of assaults, battery and excessive
use of isolation beyond the powers permitted by the Northern
Territory's Youth Justice Act was overwhelming," he said.

They also determined alleged victims had a right to compensation,
and because of an "extraordinary" six-month limitation period they
commenced action immediately.

In a separate case, four other current and former detainees also
sued the NT government last year, over their treatment inside Don
Dale.  The civil trial heard evidence from the detainees as well
as a number of guards and senior staff members, and former
corrections commissioner Ken Middlebrook.

The NT Labor government, which came to power in August last year,
has pledged to completely rewrite the Youth Justice Act, based on
recommendations from the royal commission, expected to be
delivered at the end of this year.


AVEDA TRANSPORTATION: Court Certifies FLSA Class in "Waltz" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Matthew W. Brann grants the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification filed pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act in the lawsuit styled RANDY WALTZ, on behalf of
himself and similarly situated employees v. AVEDA TRANSPORTATION
AND ENERGY SERVICES INC., and RODAN TRANSPORT USA LTD., Case No.
4:16-CV-00469 (M.D. Pa.).

On March 17, 2016, Plaintiff Randy Waltz filed a complaint against
the Defendants Aveda Transportation and Energy Services Inc. and
Rodan Transport USA Ltd asserting (1) a collective action under
the FLSA for failure to pay an overtime premium, and (2) a class
action for violations of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.  The
Motion seeks conditional certification of a class of 36
individuals pursuant to the FLSA.

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

Plaintiffs Randy Waltz and Gary Solinger are represented by:

          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
          E-mail: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com
                  pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com

Plaintiff Randy Waltz is represented by:

          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491
          Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
          E-mail: asantillo@winebrakelaw.com

Defendants Aveda Transportation and Energy Services, Inc., and
Rodan Transport USA Ltd. are represented by:

          Mark A. Fontana, Esq.
          ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC
          213 Market St., 8th Floor
          Harrisburg, PA 17101
          Telephone: (717) 237-7183
          Facsimile: (717) 237-6019
          E-mail: mfontana@eckertseamans.com

               - and -

          Clayton M. Davis, Esq.
          Robert E. Sheeder, Esq.
          BRACEWELL LLP
          1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 3800
          Dallas, TX 75202-2724
          Telephone: (214) 758-1023
          Facsimile: (800) 404-3970
          E-mail: clayton.davis@bracewelllaw.com
                  robert.sheeder@bracewelllaw.com


BAYER CORP: Fidelma Fitzpatrick Named Essure Case Lead Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that Fidelma Fitzpatrick -- ffitzpatrick@motleyrice.com -- has
been named lead counsel of the California litigation over Bayer
Corp.'s Essure birth control device, the latest woman to spearhead
a mass tort.

Ms. Fitzpatrick, a partner in the Providence, Rhode Island, office
of Motley Rice, was appointed last month to head a five-member
plaintiffs executive committee in the Essure litigation before
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Winifred Smith. Smith's order
was made public on Jan. 6.  About 50 lawsuits filed in California
on behalf of more than 800 women allege Bayer failed to disclose
that its Essure device could cause chronic pain, bleeding and
unintended pregnancies.

Ms. Fitzpatrick is the latest female attorney to be appointed to
head a mass tort.  Last month, a federal judge in New Jersey
appointed two women to lead the federal multidistrict litigation
against Johnson & Johnson over its talcum powder products and, in
November, a federal judge in Pennsylvania named two women to lead
an antitrust case.  "We're seeing a new trend toward women looking
for leadership positions and women being selected for leadership
positions by courts," Ms. Fitzpatrick said.  "It's important to
have both men and women represented, but in a case like this where
we're talking about birth control devices and women's health
issues it's particularly important to have women represented."

Joining Ms. Fitzpatrick on the committee are three women --
Erin Copeland of Houston's Fibich Leebron Copeland Briggs &
Josephson; Kim Dougherty in the Boston office of Baltimore's
Janet, Jenner & Suggs; Elizabeth Graham -- egraham@gelaw.com -- of
Grant & Eisenhofer in Wilmington, Delaware -- and Edward Wallace -
- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- of Chicago's Wexler Wallace.  Lead
defense counsel is Alycia Degen -- adegen@sidley.com -- a partner
at Sidley Austin's Los Angeles office.

The litigation could test the bounds of an Aug. 29 decision by the
California Supreme Court in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior
Court, which found that plaintiffs outside California could sue in
California state courts.  Bristol-Myers, backed by amicus groups
like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has petitioned the U.S. Supreme
Court to reverse that ruling.

Ms. Fitzpatrick said she expected a battle early on over the
Bristol-Myers decision's impact on the Essure cases.  "We are
optimistic and we do belief the BMS decision squarely holds these
women are able to bring their claims in California state courts,"
she said.


BELLAMY'S: Maurice Blackburn, Slater & Gordon Mull Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Palmer, writing for The Australian, reports that
beleaguered infant milk group Bellamy's has again lowered its
trading outlook, with chief executive Laura McBain falling on her
sword after a tumultuous period for the former market darling.

The update, which came a month after entering a trading halt and
showed the group holding just $1 million in the bank, paved the
way for the resumption of trade on Jan. 11, with investors rushing
for the exit.

As revealed by The Australian, Bellamy's has agreed a restructure
of its take-or-pay organic powder contract with New Zealand dairy
giant Fonterra.

The under-pressure ASX-listed company conceded its inventory
levels had gotten out of hand given the shortfall in actual sales
against expectations, forcing the renegotiation of its key
manufacturing contract.

Among the changes to the deal is an extension of the initial five-
year agreement by three years, which crucially relies on Fonterra
receiving greater security over Bellamy's assets, providing the NZ
group protection should the under-pressure Bellamy's collapse.

"Fonterra has a strong relationship with Bellamy's, and together
we have agreed to amend the five-year strategic manufacturing
agreement by a further three years to ensure the sustainability
and growth of the supply arrangement," the NZ group said in a
statement.

"The fundamentals for nutritional powders in China and the Asian
market remain strong, and we look forward to continuing our
strategic manufacturing arrangement with Bellamy's for the long-
term."

Bellamy's said it was seeking the support of its key lender to
grant Fonterra second-ranking security over its assets.

Fonterra and Bellamy's already had change of control provisions
written into their contract, but the NZ group has also looked to
expand those through the revised deal.

Two additional grounds for termination have been added, with the
first surfacing if a person or group acquires at least 50 per cent
of Bellamy's shares.

The second applies if a person or group claims over 30 per cent
and Fonterra perceives them to have "effective control" of
Bellamy's.

It serves as a warning shot to the consortium led by Jan Cameron
and Hugh Robertson, which claims support from 35 per cent of
Bellamy's holders for a broader board shake-up.

The development came amid another warning on weaker-than-expected
sales and a new cost-cutting program.

Bellamy's first stunned investors by detailing a surprise sales
downgrade on December 2.

The group then further confounded traders by entering a trading
halt on December 12 as it looked to provide further clarity on its
forecasts.

After a torturous month for disheartened shareholders, the group
has said it likely fell slightly short of the first-half sales
forecast of $120 million detailed on December 2 as it detailed a
range of $115m to $120m.

Its full-year sales expectations were trimmed from $240m to a
range of $220m to $240m, with the news arguably not as bad as
traders had feared.

However, just six weeks ago analysts had forecast full-year
revenue of $368m.

The group also detailed declining margins, with its gross profit
margin seen sliding from 45.7 per cent in fiscal 2017 to a range
of 39-40 per cent in the first half and 32-34 per cent in the
second half of fiscal 2017.

Bellamy's also said it anticipated booking pre-tax earnings of
$22m to $26m for the full-year, less than half the $54.3m recorded
last year in a sign of the extent of the once high-flying
company's fall from grace.

Bellamy's shares were smashed upon reopening, plunging 20 per cent
to $5.35 by the close.

In the initial flurry of selling, Bellamy's shares dived as low as
$3.73, off 44 per cent.

The lowpoint was its weakest mark since June 2015.

The selling wiped $130m from the group's value, with its current
market cap of $515m around a third of the record $1.5 billion
valuation seen a year ago.

Investors were also nervous about Bellamy's cash position as the
company said its cash holdings at December 31 came to just $1m.

This represents a significant reduction from levels of $32.3m as
at June 30.

Despite the struggles, Bellamy's said it had not breached debt
covenants and would likely remain in compliance with its
obligations under its debt facility through fiscal 2017.

"The company's revenue and profitability have been impacted by
lower than expected demand for Bellamy's infant milk formula,
which has also led to increased inventory levels, excess
ingredients and shortfall payments to suppliers," Bellamy's said
in a statement.

"The company has responded by amending a key manufacturing
contract with Fonterra and implementing measures to reduce
production and better manage inventory levels.

"The board has also initiated a cost management program to reduce
expenses throughout the business."

Investors were also analysing the departure of former lauded
leader Ms McBain, who will be immediately replaced by chief
strategy and chief operations officer Andrew Cohen.

Mr Cohen joined Bellamy's in June after holding a role as partner
at consultancy Bain & Co.

He will take the role in an interim capacity, with a search
underway for a full-time replacement.

Ms McBain will remain at the company until March 31 to assist the
transition.

"Laura has overseen the growth of the company over the past decade
since she joined Bellamy's as general manager in 2006, including
the expansion of Bellamy's markets and its brand," chairman Rob
Woolley said.

"I would like to thank Laura for her contributions to Bellamy's
over the last 10 years."

As part of an executive shake-up, chief financial officer Shona
Ollington has been demoted and will now serve in an unspecified
position within the finance team.

Her position as CFO has been supplanted by Nigel Underwood, who
recently held the same role at transport group Keolis Downer.

The company has also brought in Dimitri Kiriacoulacos to serve as
chief corporate development and legal officer.

"The board and management are focused on rebuilding confidence
with key stakeholders -- customers, suppliers and investors,"
Bellamy's said.

The company's troubles have recently triggered a push for a board
spill by a group of shareholders including Kathmandu founder Jan
Cameron, who responded by criticising Bellamy's decision to sack
its CEO.

A special meeting of shareholders is expected to be called next
month to vote on the spill.

It comes as both Maurice Blackburn and Slater & Gordon assess
potential class actions against the company.

Bellamy's said it had not yet been served with any class action
claims.


BLUE SHIELD: Judge Dismisses Harvoni Hep C Drug Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
JoAnn Seltzer, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that more patients will have access to a life-saving medicine
after a decision was made recently by a large insurer.

According to Modern Healthcare, Blue Shield Life and Health and
Blue Shield of California was facing a class-action suit in
Northern California after it initially denied a costly
Hepatitis C medicine to some patients.  The lawsuit was dismissed
by a federal judge after Blue Shield decided to expand coverage on
the drug Harvoni.  Previously, the company only covered the
medicine for the sickest patients.

Ryan Clary, executive director of The National Viral Hepatitis
Roundtable, told The Northern California Record he believes
everyone who has Hepatitis C who wants to be cured and has
insurance and a provider willing to treat them should have access
to the medicine.

"Most people would like to be cured of an infection, that's a
chronic, often life-threatening disease, before severe health
complications arise," he said.  "Being able to get rid of the
anxiety of having a very severe virus that attacks the liver is,
for us, reason enough."

Hepatitis C can lead to a lot of complications from fatigue and
muscle pain to liver disease.  It's also the leading cause of
liver cancer, Mr. Clary said.  The effects of the disease vary
from person to person.

In addition to healing the sick, providing access to this class of
medicine can prevent the spread of it, he said.

Mr. Clary added that a person living with Hepatitis C may not be
suffering from liver disease, but may continue engaging in risky
behavior putting other people at risk, he said.  If the person is
cured they will no longer be infecting others.

Hepatitis C currently kills more people than any other infectious
disease in the United States including HIV, Mr. Clary said.

"We have the opportunity to actually eliminate Hepatitis C in the
United States.  The tools are out there," he said.  "It's a
serious public-health threat."

Prior to Harvoni and other drugs in its class, patients had to use
a drug that needed to be injected by the patient for 48 weeks.
Severe side effects, similar to chemotherapy, prevented many from
even finishing the treatment, he said.

Reservations about making it available to all insured patients is
probably a combination of two factors, Mr. Clary said.  The course
of treatment needed can cost $100,000.  Plus, there is a stigma
attached to Hepatitis C in some cases.

Mr. Clary said one way it can be spread is by the sharing of
needles and the current opioid epidemic in California and the
nation has helped to spread the disease.

It's unfortunate that patients have to sue to get access to
treatment, Mr. Clary said, but he is hopeful that cases like this
will mean insurance companies will be less inclined to put such
strict restrictions on life-saving medicine in the future.

"I can't think of any other health condition where you would tell
somebody we're going to wait until you get really sick before we
treat you or in this case cure you.  It just doesn't make any
sense," he said.


BRISTOL HARBOUR: 160 Workers to Share $412,500 Settlement Fund
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Sherwood at Victor Post reports that about 160 workers in a
class-action lawsuit alleging Bristol Harbour Resort violated
labor laws will share in funds agreed to in a settlement amount
totaling $412,500.

"The parties reached an amicable resolution," said attorney Justin
Cordello, Justin@CordelloLaw.com at Cordello Law PLLC who
represented the workers. Eric Dolan, edolan@trevettcristo.com
with Trevett Cristo Salzer & Andolina P.C. represented the resort
most recently in the case.

The decision signed by state Supreme Court Justice Matthew A.
Rosenbaum outlines the settlement, which is subject to final court
approval expected this March.

The lawsuit claimed the resort in South Bristol for six years
pocketed tips that should have gone to its banquet service staff,
which includes bussers, wait staff and bartenders who worked at
the resort between May 2008 and May 2014. The suit was filed on
behalf of former Bristol Harbour employee Allison Plante and all
other employees in a similar situation.

According to the negotiated agreement, each member of the class
action will receive a distribution from the settlement fund. The
formula will determine what each individual member should receive
based on their length of employment and other factors. The amount
distributed will come from a fund balance after fees are paid. A
settlement claim administrator will be paid about $16,250.
Attorneys' fees will be no more than $165,000 and litigation costs
no more than $5,000.

Another local resort remains at the center of a lawsuit alleging
violations of state and federal labor laws.

A complaint filed in U.S. District Court was brought on behalf of
Martin Hinckley Jr., a former employee of The Inn on the Lake in
Canandaigua. The complaint seeks to recover damages for Hinckley
and others in his situation through a class action.


BROWNLINK MEDIA: College Senior Mulls Internship Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Onion reports that aiming to transition seamlessly from her
current position, college senior Molly Black is holding out hope
that her current internship with BrownLink Media will lead to a
class-action lawsuit, sources confirmed on Jan. 9. "I spend 12-
hour days here, six days a week, so I think I have a decent shot
of leveraging this experience directly into a legal battle against
the company," said Ms. Black, 21, adding that working through her
legally mandated lunch hour would likely further increase her
chances of staying on long-term as a plaintiff in a multiyear
trial.  "I think if I keep my nose to the grindstone like this,
there's a pretty good chance I'll get a slice of a huge
settlement.  Hopefully I'll impress attorneys enough to make all
this hard work worthwhile."  Ms. Black added that if the class-
action lawsuit didn't pan out, there was still an outside chance
she'd be a good candidate for sexual harassment litigation.


CANADA: Judge Set to Rule on RCMP Sexual Harassment Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Perkel, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that women
who were sexually harassed as RCMP employees will soon receive
letters letting them know they are eligible for compensation if,
as expected, a judge certifies a class action against the police
force.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs and government told Federal Court on
Jan. 10 that certification will allow a publicity blitz to reach
the affected women and set the stage for final settlement of the
lawsuit.

Many victims are fragile and would find it difficult to pursue
individual claims, lawyer Won Kim told Judge Ann Marie McDonald.

"This is the only real way for the women to come forward,"
Mr. Kim said.

Judge McDonald said she would rule "very shortly" on granting the
requested order certifying the class.

Among other things, the order would appoint former RCMP officers
Janet Merlo and Linda Davidson as representative plaintiffs, and
set a 60-day clock ticking on opting out of the class action.

The estimated 14,000 to 17,000 victims would also have an
opportunity to comment on the proposed settlement before it is put
to the courts for final approval, likely in the spring. Claimants
would then have six months to make a claim.

Ms. Merlo, now of St. John's, N.L., was an RCMP constable from
1991 to 2010.  She suffered many negative health affects,
including depression and panic attacks, due to her mistreatment,
court heard.  She began her claim in British Columbia in 2012.

Ms. Davidson, 58, now of Bracebridge, Ont., filed her suit in 2015
in Ontario.  Starting in 1985, she became one of the few females
to reach a commissioned officer's rank.  She was an inspector when
she took medical leave in 2009, suffering from anxiety, depression
and other health issues as a result of the sexual and gender-
orientation harassment she had faced from colleagues and
superiors.  Ms. Davidson retired in 2012, more than a decade
earlier than she had planned, court heard.

The proposed class action combines the two women's separate
lawsuits.

"The representative plaintiffs allege, on behalf of the class,
that the defendant was negligent and violated their (charter)
rights," the draft order put to Judge McDonald states.

In May last year, the two sides reached a tentative agreement to
compensate women who experienced workplace sexual harassment or
gender-based discrimination while working for the RCMP as police
officers or civilians from 1974 on.  Details were announced in
October, when Commissioner Bob Paulson apologized for having
failed the women.

The high profile announcement prompted a flurry of interest from
RCMP members, many of them long retired, Mr. Kim told McDonald.

"We have received hundreds of calls from women across the
country," said Mr. Kim, who represents Ms. Davidson.

The proposed settlement, which would be administered by retired
Supreme Court of Canada justice Michel Bastarache, creates six
categories of claimants.  Those who suffered the most egregious
abuse would be eligible for up to $220,000. I n some cases, family
members of the RCMP employees would also be eligible for cash.

The lawyers also asked Judge McDonald to approve their cut -- 15
per cent -- of the payout.  The government has already agreed to
pay them $12 million.

A lawyer for the federal government, which is not opposing the
certification, said on Jan. 9 that Ottawa has "conceded that there
is prima facie a cause of action" but was otherwise making no
admissions.

In addition to providing compensation, the RCMP has also agreed to
address systemic issues of gender-based harassment and
discrimination.


CANADA: Order to Produce Young Offender Records Appealed
--------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky LLP and Sutts, Strosberg LLP are bringing a motion
to stay the order of Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice, in which the plaintiff, J.K., was ordered to produce
his young offender records to the Crown.

On December 22, 2016, Justice Perell of the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice ordered J.K. to produce his young offender records to
the Crown.  Justice Perell ruled that records relating to J.K.'s
crimes and incarceration, which took place while he was a minor,
are relevant to his motion to certify the matter as a class
proceeding.

J.K.'s counsel, Koskie Minsky LLP and Sutts, Strosberg LLP, are
appealing Justice Perell's decision and have brought a motion to
stay Justice Perell's order pending the appeal.

Kirk Baert, counsel for J.K., has said "J.K.'s records are
protected by the Youth Criminal Justice Act for a reason: when
children commit crimes, the punishment is not meant to last a
lifetime. They are given a second chance, which includes
maintaining the confidentiality surrounding their crimes and
punishments".

The J.K. v. HMQ class action involves allegations of Ontario's
systemic over-reliance on the use of solitary confinement on
minors in Ontario's Youth Justice Facilities.

The Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth
released a report in 2015 entitled "It's a Matter of Time" in
which the details on the use of solitary confinement on children
in Ontario are provided.  The report advocates for greater
safeguards and/or the complete eradication of the use of solitary
confinement on children in Ontario.


CARING FOR MONTANANS: Bid to Certify Class in "Budd" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Sam E. Haddon entered an opinion and order in the
lawsuits titled KEVIN BUDD, RAY LEE, MARTIN MANGAN, SHIRLEY MANGAN
and KENNETH WALSH on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. CARING FOR MONTANANS, INC., BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD of
MONTANA, INC., HEALTH CARE SERVICES CORPORATION, INC., and JOHN
DOES 3 through 20; and TYSON S. PALLISTER v. CARING FOR MONTANANS,
INC., BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD of MONTANA, INC., HEALTH CARE
SERVICES CORPORATION, INC., and JOHN DOES 3 through 20, Case Nos.
CV-09-25-BU-SEH and CV-09-62-H-SEH (D. Mont.), denying the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The two settlement agreement definitions of "Class" cover any and
all claims that were or could have been denied due to the contract
exclusionary language, Judge Haddon said.

"Under the Settlement Agreement affirmed by the Montana Supreme
Court, all members of those classes have released all of their
benefits due claims against CFM.  Plaintiffs' proposed Class (b)
cannot possibly contain anything other than previously released
claims.  Numerosity is thus zero.  The requirement is clearly not
met," Judge Haddon opined.

The seven-year old action arises from CFM's (formerly known as
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana, Inc.) denial of medical
benefits to Plaintiffs on the basis of policy exclusionary
language subsequently deemed invalid by the Montana Supreme Court
in BCBSMT v. Montana State Auditor and Commissioner of Insurance.
The exclusionary language essentially denied coverage if the
insured was injured and the responsible party's automobile or
premise liability insurance would apply.  In an opinion entered on
September 24, 2009, the State Auditor court found the exclusion to
be invalid and did not comport with Montana law.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/V48KS7 from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff Kevin Budd is represented by:

          J. Breting Engel, Esq.
          Jory C. Ruggiero, Esq.
          WESTERN JUSTICE ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          303 West Mendenhall Street, Suite 1
          Bozeman, MT 59715
          Telephone: (406) 587-1900
          Facsimile: (406) 587-1901
          E-mail: jory@westernjusticelaw.com

               - and -

          James G. Hunt, Esq.
          DIX, HUNT & McDONALD
          310 Broadway
          Helena, MT 59601
          Telephone: (406) 442-8552
          Facsimile: (406) 495-1660

Defendant Caring for Montanans is represented by:

          Michael F. McMahon, Esq.
          Stefan T. Wall, Esq.
          MCMAHON, WALL & HUBLEY, PLLC
          P.O. Box 1713
          Helena, MT 59624
          Telephone: (406) 442-1054
          E-mail: mike@mlfpllc.com
                  stefan@mlfpllc.com


CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Court Denies Pressman's Bid to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William J. Zloch denied the Plaintiff's first amended
motion for class certification filed in the lawsuit captioned
PRESSMAN, INC. v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Case
No. 0:16-cv-62472-WJZ (S.D. Fla.).

The Motion is also denied without prejudice with leave to refile
at such time as the Plaintiff can substantiate such a motion with
specific legal and factual support.

In its Motion, the Plaintiff moved for entry of an order
certifying a class comprised of "Each person that was sent one or
more telephone facsimile messages (faxes) promoting an 'MFG Co-pay
Card,' identifying 'BIN: 004682,' and indicating that fax opt-out
requests could be submitted by fax to 888-261-0360 or by live call
to 888-261-0361."

The Motion does not contain any facts that would support
certification of such a class, Judge Zloch stated.  Rather, Judge
Zloch opined, the Motion requests that the Court defer ruling
until after Plaintiff "obtain[s] discovery regarding the class
elements," at which time Plaintiff will "submit a brief and other
evidence in support of this motion."

"Plaintiff filed this Motion (DE l2) 'in order to avoid an attempt
by Defendant(s) to moot Plaintiff's individual claims in this
class action,'" Judge Zloch noted.  "In other words, the Motion
(DE 12) serves only as a 'placeholder' to placate concerns that
Plaintiff's claims might be 'picked off,'" Judge Zloch said.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2y180xBQ


CHICKEN SHACK: Court Certifies TCPA Class in Compressor Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Paul D. Borman entered an opinion and order in the
lawsuit entitled COMPRESSOR ENGINEERING CORPORATION v. CHARLES J.
THOMAS, JR., Case No. 10-10059 (E.D. Mich.):

   (1) granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class defined
       as "All persons who were sent one or more faxes on
       November 6, 2005 advertising 'Chicken Shack' restaurant as
       offering 'Michigan's Best Chicken and Ribs,'" and
       appointing Jason Sommers, Esq., Philip Bock, Esq., and Tod
       Lewis, Esq., as class counsel;

   (2) granting the Plaintiff's motions for leave to file
       supplemental case authority; and

   (3) denying the Defendant's motion for leave to file a
       supplemental legal memorandum.

On January 6, 2010, the Plaintiff filed the class action complaint
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the
Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 against Defendants Chicken Shack,
Inc., Chicken Shack Depot, Inc., and Charles Thomas, Jr.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/tv7tE8 from Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com

               - and -

          Christopher Phillip Taylor Tourek, Esq.
          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: Christopher@classlawyers.com
                  phil@classlawyers.com
                  tod@classlawyers.com

               - and -

          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com

Defendant Charles J. Thomas, Jr., is represented by:

          Denise L. Mitcham, Esq.
          CONKLIN, BENHAM, P.C.
          30700 Telegraph Rd., Suite 2580
          Bingham Farms, MI 48025
          Telephone: (248) 593-2450
          E-mail: dmitcham@conklinbenham.com

               - and -

          Eric L. Samore, Esq.
          SMITHAMUNDSEN LLC
          150 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 894-3200
          Facsimile: (312) 894-3210
          E-mail: esamore@salawus.com


CHIPOTLE: May Face Suit for Using Photo Without Permission
----------------------------------------------------------
Brenna Houck at Eater reports that burrito behemoth Chipotle is
the target of yet another massive lawsuit. ABC 10 reports that a
woman in Sacramento, California, has filed a lawsuit against the
chain, alleging that the company used her image in its interior
decorations and marketing without her permission.

Leah Caldwell, who is representing herself, claims in the
complaint that in 2006 she was dining at a Chipotle when a
photographer Steve Adams was taking shots of the restaurant,
according to Denver 7. Caldwell says she was asked to sign a
release but declined.

Then in December 2014, she noticed her photo inside a Chipotle in
Orlando, Florida and at two restaurants around Sacramento in March
2015. In addition to using her image without her approval,
Caldwell claims that Chipotle edited the photo to include an
alcoholic beverage.

She's now seeking $2,237,633,000  --  a number she bases on the
company's presumed profits from the photo over a nine year period
from 2006 to 2015  --  and has requested that additional profits
from 2016 be added to that amount. Chipotle's policy is not to
comment on pending legal action.

Chipotle has become a big target for lawsuits. Chipotle settled
out of court in September 2016 for an undisclosed amount with 100
people sickened during a series of massive foodborne illness
outbreaks in 2015. Last year, the chain was also slapped with a
racial discrimination lawsuit and at 10,000-person class action
lawsuit alleging wage theft.


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: "Nyby" Suit Settlement Gets Prelim. Nod
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Esther Salas grants the Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement and directs
dissemination of class notice in the lawsuit captioned Erik Nyby,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00886-ES-MAH
(D.N.J.).

The Court conditionally certifies the action as a class action for
settlement purposes.  The "Settlement Class" is defined as:

     All persons sent a collections notice from Convergent
     between February 5, 2014 through the date of entry of this
     Preliminary Approval Order that sought to collect on a
     time-barred debt that was handled by Convergent for Galaxy
     Asset Purchasing, LLC.

Judge Salas appoints (i) the Plaintiff as the Class
Representative, (ii) the Plaintiff's counsel as Class Counsel and
(iii) Heffler Claims Group as the Claims Administrator.

A final fairness hearing will be held on April 6, 2017, at 1:00
p.m., to review and consider final approval of the settlement
agreement, any applications for attorneys' fees or costs, any
applications for incentive awards and any objections to the
settlement and the validity of requests for exclusion.

To receive a portion of the cash payment under the settlement, the
Settlement Class members must complete, return to the settlement
administrator, and postmark a claim form by March 17, 2017.  The
Settlement Class members will have until March 17, 2017, to
exclude themselves from the proposed settlement.  To be effective,
an objection must be filed with the Court and served on counsel
for the parties by March 17, 2017.

The Court also directs the Parties to abide by these scheduled
dates:

   -- The parties will file and serve papers in support of final
      approval of the settlement, including any responses to
      proper and timely objections filed thereto, by March 23,
      2017; and

   -- The Plaintiffs' counsel will file any applications for
      attorneys' fees, costs and litigation expenses, or
      incentive awards to the Plaintiff as provided for in the
      Settlement Agreement, by March 3, 2017.

The Court enters a Preliminary Injunction barring and enjoining
the Plaintiff and all Settlement Class Members, to the extent
permissible by existing law, from bringing, filing, commencing,
prosecuting (or further prosecuting), maintaining, intervening in,
participating in, or receiving any benefits from any other
lawsuit, arbitration or administrative, regulatory or other
proceeding in law or equity that asserts, arises from, concerns,
or is in any way related to the Released Claims identified in the
Settlement Agreement, until such time as the Court has ruled on
the fairness of the settlement terms following the Fairness
Hearing.

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


CRAVE RESTAURANT: Class of Servers Certified in "Ullett" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Michael R. Barrett denied the Defendant's motion for
partial judgment on the pleadings in the lawsuit titled JULIE
ULLETT, et al. v. CRAVE RESTAURANT OHIO, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00272-MRB (S.D. Ohio).

Judge Barrett granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification and court supervised notice to potential
opt-in plaintiffs.  This class, as revised, is conditionally
certified:

     All individuals employed by Defendant or their predecessors
     or successors in the state of Ohio as servers, waiters,
     waitresses, bartenders and other tipped employees in other
     similar job positions at anytime from January 28, 2013
     through and including the present and until the final
     resolution of the case, and who have not been paid the
     statutory minimum wage for all regular hours worked.

Julie Ullett and Sarah Russell have filed a complaint on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated against Crave, seeking
unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio
Constitution, the Ohio Minimum Wage Standards Act and the Ohio
Prompt Pay Act.  The Plaintiffs are current or former employees of
CRAVE -- American Kitchen & Sushi Bar, a restaurant located in
downtown Cincinnati, in Hamilton County, Ohio.  The Plaintiffs
worked as servers or bartenders at Crave.

Upon review and approval of the proposed notice, the Court orders
Crave to provide the Plaintiffs' counsel with the names, last
known addresses, e-mail addresses and telephone numbers of the
putative class.  The Court also rules that a text message may be
sent via cell phone to any putative class member whose notice
through the U.S. Mail comes back undeliverable.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XEHV6029


DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Averts Class Action Over Unpaid Vacation Time
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that the
parent company of Olive Garden and Red Lobster and other chain
restaurant brands has won a legal victory after a federal appeals
panel refused to certify a class action over unpaid vacation time,
saying the restaurant group's change to its "anniversary pay"
policies shouldn't subject it to a class action lawsuit.

Illinois residents Demiko McCaster and Jennifer Clark worked for
Darden Restaurants intermittently from 2004 to 2012.  After
quitting, they filed a class action complaint in federal court in
Chicago.

The lawsuit centered on Darden's practice of awarding "anniversary
payments" to employees on the anniversary of their initial hire
date. According to court documents, Darden made the payments to
all employees until 2008, when it shifted its policy to include
only full-time employees working at least 30 hours a week.

Eligibility decisions rested with individual restaurant managers.
Mr. McCaster alleged Darden owed him 12 hours of vacation pay when
he left his job at Red Lobster.  Ms. Clark said she got everything
she was owed under the pre-2008 terms, but got no vacation pay
when she left the company under the revised policy.

While the company didn't officially classify the anniversary pay
as vacation pay, court documents indicated the company used the
anniversary payments to satisfy obligations imposed by Illinois
state law, and would pay out prorated "anniversary pay" on the
final paycheck of employee's who left the company, similar to paid
vacation time.

Chicago federal Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan declined to certify the
class action, and then granted summary judgment in favor of Darden
on Ms. Clark's individual complaint, prompting the plaintiffs to
appeal to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.  Mr. McCaster
has settled his claim with Darden, but in his deal reserved the
right to appeal denial of class certification.

Seventh Circuit Judge Diane Wood and Circuit Judges Michael Kanne
and Diane Sykes heard arguments in the case Feb. 18 and issued a
decision Jan. 5.

The Seventh Circuit judges said Judge Der-Yeghiayan was right to
reject Ms. Clark's argument that an employer must offer prorated
vacation benefits to part-time employees if it does so for full-
time workers.  They said the law prevents only mandatory
forfeiture of accrued vacation pay; it does not guarantee such
benefits to part-time workers.

Ms. Clark cited a 1986 Illinois Appellate Court opinion in Golden
Bear Family Restaurants v. Murray, but the Seventh Circuit judges
said that case differed from this one, as the Golden Bear case
dealt with a restaurant chain which had instituted a policy
linking the payment of prorated earned vacation time to being
employed on an "arbitrary date."  In this case, the judges said,
Darden has not failed to pay anyone benefits owed under its
employee contract.

The judges said Judge Der-Yeghiayan was right to refuse to certify
the classes, agreeing with the lower court judge that the proposed
class of employees -- including anyone who worked at Darden
restaurants since 2003 and "who did not receive all earned
vacation pay benefits" -- fit the definition of a so-called
"failsafe class."  In such a legal maneuver, plaintiffs can be
included in classes only if they have a valid claim.  This
essentially would leave defendants unable to win, as plaintiffs
removed from the class cannot be precluded.

In response, the plaintiffs had argued the court could have
adjusted the putative class description to exclude the problematic
clause and allowed certification.

But the judges noted Judge Der-Yeghiayan also deemed the claim
failed to actually identify "any unlawful conduct on Darden's part
that spans the entire class and caused all class members to suffer
the same injury."

Ultimately, the judges noted, there is no allegation Darden has
corporate policies that violate state law. If some employees' pay
was not handled properly, that conduct would constitute a
violation, but it would not jeopardize the entire company policy.

Mr. McCaster and Ms. Clark were represented in the action by
attorneys with the firms of Werman Salas P.C. and the Law Office
of Jamie Golden Sypulski, of Chicago.

Darden Restaurants was represented by the firm of Seyfarth Shaw,
of Chicago.


DARK STAR: Rosas Moves for Certification of Field Workers Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned MATTHEW ROSAS, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DARK STAR
PRODUCTION TESTING, INC. D/B/A LIBERTY PRODUCTION TESTING, INC.
AND SHELDON KASPER, Case No. 2:16-cv-00140 (S.D. Tex.), asks the
Court to conditionally certify a class of:

    "All Current and Former Field Employees Who Worked for Dark
     Star Production Testing, Inc. d/b/a Liberty Production
     Testing, Inc. and Sheldon Kasper, At Any Time During the
     Past Three Years and Were Paid a Day Rate and No Overtime."

Matthew Rosas, individually and on behalf of all opt-in plaintiffs
and other similarly situated current and former employees of the
Defendants filed the proposed collective action lawsuit pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover alleged unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs owed to
current and former Day Rate Workers, who worked for the Defendants
over the past three years.

Mr. Rosas also asks the Court to: (1) order that a judicially
approved notice be sent to all Putative Class Members by mail and
e-mail; (2) approve the form and content of the Plaintiff's
proposed judicial notice and reminder notice; (3) order the
Defendants to produce to the Plaintiffs' counsel the name, last
known address, phone number, e-mail address and dates of
employment for each of the Putative Class Members in a usable
electronic format; and (4) authorize a 60-day notice period for
the Putative Class Members to join this case.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TOYSmQ7K

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          ANDERSON2X, PLLC
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com


DEUTSCHE BANK: German Banks Face Suit for Collusion
---------------------------------------------------
Handelsblatt Global reports that the law firm that represented
diesel owners in the Volkswagen emissions scandal is now going
after Germany's banking sector.

The U.S. law firm Hausfeld is threatening to sue Germany's
community-run savings banks as well as industry giants such as
Deutsche Bank for allegedly colluding to hike the charges that
merchants pay for debit card transactions.

"Well-known customers have come to us," Christopher Rother,
Hausfeld's representative in Germany, told Handelsblatt. "Our
clients are seeking a solution outside of court."

Hausfeld declined to provide specific names. According to the
weekly Bild am Sonntag, which first reported the story, Hausfeld's
clients include major retailers and gas companies.

Until 2014, German banks charged merchants a uniform fee of 0.3
percent or at least 8 cents for every debit card transaction. Gas
stations paid a reduced a fee.

The banking sector abandoned the uniform fee after Germany's
Federal Cartel Office criticized the practice as anti-competitive.
Since 2014, banks and merchants have negotiated transaction fees
on an individual basis. This has led to a 40 percent drop in fees,
according to the Federal Cartel Office.

The National Association of Cooperative Banks has dismissed
Hausfeld's allegations of collusion. The association, which
represents Germany's community-run banks, claims the uniform fee
was approved by the Federal Cartel Office, which never found a
violation of competition rules.

Hausfeld was at the forefront of the class-action lawsuits in the
United States against Volkswagen for deceiving customers about
emissions values. Volkswagen agreed to a $14.7-billion (EUR14-
billion) settlement over the summer.

The U.S. law firm is now trying to force Volkswagen to reach a
similar settlement with customers in Europe.


DEVON ENERGY: Sued for Underpaying Natural Gas Royalties
--------------------------------------------------------
Max B. Baker, writing for Star-Telegram, reports that Devon Energy
is being sued for allegedly using sham transactions to underpay
thousands of property owners in North Texas millions of dollars in
royalties from natural gas processed through a Bridgeport plant.

The Devon case echoes accusations brought against Chesapeake
Energy in Texas courts that it sold natural gas from its Barnett
Shale wells to an affiliate and pocketed the profits when it was
sold on the open market.  Chesapeake eventually agreed to a $51
million settlement last year.

U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade in Dallas on Jan. 5 granted class-
action certification to a lawsuit brought by four individuals with
leases in Denton County.  By certifying the class, Judge Kinkeade
decided that they can represent the interests of thousands of
landowners because of the common legal issues.

"The court recognized that Devon owed a common duty to each of the
several thousand members of the class and there is a formula to
effectively determine damages for each class member," said David
Drez -- david.drez@wickphillips.com -- a Fort Worth attorney.

Devon, located in Oklahoma City, has denied the allegations in
court documents.  John Porretto, a spokesman for the company, said
that Devon plans to appeal Judge Kinkeade's decision to the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals.

Devon is a major player in the Barnett Shale, having acquired
Mitchell Energy, which was credited with launching the drilling
boom in the Barnett.  Since 2002, Devon says it has drilled more
than 5,000 wells in the Barnett Shale.

In their lawsuit, the landowners allege Devon Energy's production
arm sold the natural gas at a low well head price to an affiliate,
Devon Gas Services, which then processed the gas through its
Bridgeport processing plant and deducted an "unreasonable and
lucrative 17.5 percent processing fee" from the royalty checks.

"Devon calculates the royalties it pays to Plaintiffs and Class
members based on the artificial 'price' it manufactured as part of
its sham transactions with (Devon Gas Services) rather than the
(higher price)" it receives from unaffiliated third parties, which
includes a profit, a court document filed in 2014 states.

Further, the lawsuit states, once the gas left the plant, Devon
and its affiliates sold the residue gas to third parties for a
profit but didn't pass those profits on to the royalty owners,
court records show.

The lawsuit covers the sale of raw natural gas from Jan. 1, 2008,
to Feb. 28, 2014.  This is the time period that Devon owned the
Bridgeport plant, which is now owned by Enlink Midstream
Operating.

The parties tried to settle their differences in March before a
federal magistrate, but were unable to reach an agreement, court
records show.

Judge Kinkeade granted the case class-action status on Jan. 6
after denying it almost a year ago, and was persuaded to reverse
his earlier ruling after hearing additional evidence.  Devon does
not contest that the class potentially contains more then several
thousand plaintiffs.

Devon argued against the class action, saying that individual
leases cannot generate common answers.  It also has contended that
some of the lease forms contain language which allows it to modify
how the natural gas is sent to market, court records show.

But Judge Kinkeade ruled that the class was limited to the use of
nine standard lease forms, and that the plaintiffs "provided
classwide evidence" to support their allegations that Devon
"failed to diligently market the gas and obtain a reasonable
price" for the class.

"Texas law implies a duty to market gas in good faith as a
reasonably prudent operator would under the same or similar
circumstances in every proceeds lease," the judge wrote.  "The
existence of the implied duty to market in all nine class lease
forms is essential to the common questions" on which the claims
are based.

Judge Kinkeade wrote that the court "concludes that resolution of
these claims on a classwide basis is not only manageable, but is
also the most efficient method" for deciding the dispute.

Unlike the Devon class-action lawsuit, the cases against
Chesapeake Energy, mostly filed by Fort Worth attorney
Dan McDonald, were handled individually but granted multi-district
litigation status for pretrial issues like evidence and testimony.
Mr. McDonald's 400 lawsuits covered about 13,000 plaintiffs.

In his lawsuits, Mr. McDonald alleged Chesapeake deducted higher-
than-necessary post-production costs from royalty checks.  He
contended that the company used sham sales to affiliates to
transport and market the natural gas to increase what it earned.

In its defense, Chesapeake said it did what was allowed within the
terms of the leases.  It argued that the weighted average sale
price paid to landowners was fair and it denied using "fraudulent
transactions."

Besides Mr. Drez, who works at Wick Phillips Gould & Martin, the
other law firms involved in the Devon case include the Seidel Law
Firm in Austin, Mattingly & Roselius in Oklahoma City and Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check near Philadelphia.


DL BUILDERS: Valdovinos Moves for Class Certification Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move the Court for an order certifying the first
cause of action of the complaint for damages on file in the matter
entitled SEBASTIAN VALDOVINOS; JOSE CARRILLO; ABELINO SOLARIO, and
on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated individuals
v. DL BUILDERS, INC.; DAVID HALVORSEN, Case No. 5:15-cv-04256-NC
(N.D. Cal.), as a collective class action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and for an order providing production of class
information and notice to the potential class members.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to conditionally certify a proposed
class of non-exempt non-office hourly workers at DL Builders,
Inc., and approve the Opt-In Notice to the potential class
members, set a date of 75 days from service of the Opt-In Notice
for potential class members to opt-in, and order that the
Defendants provide to the Plaintiffs' counsel a computer-readable
data file containing the names, addresses, e-mail addresses and
telephone numbers of potential opt-in members.

The case before the court involves laborers working for the
private employer, DL Builders, in the home and apartment
remodeling industry.  The Plaintiffs are non-exempt employees
under the FLSA.  The First Cause of Action alleges overtime
violations of the FLSA for alleged failure to pay the Plaintiffs
for overtime work performed in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Court will commence a hearing on February 15, 2017, at 1:00
p.m., to consider the Motion.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert David Baker, Esq.
          ROBERT DAVID BAKER, INC.
          80 South White Road
          San Jose, CA 95127
          Telephone: (408) 251-3400
          Facsimile: (408) 251-3401
          E-mail: rbaker@rdblaw.net


DOLE FOODS: 9th Cir. Revives "All Natural" Label Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, in an article for JDSupra,
reports that in an unpublished decision that is significant for
both shoppers and consumer food companies, the Ninth Circuit
recently reversed a district court's ruling that the label "All
Natural Fruit" is not likely to deceive customers.

The court found that a trier of fact could conclude that Dole
Foods Co. Inc.'s "description of its products as 'All Natural
Fruit' is misleading to a reasonable consumer." Brazil v. Dole
Packaged Foods, Inc., Case No. 14-17480, Dkt. No. 51 (9th Cir.
Sept. 30, 2016) ("Memorandum") at 4. The Court also affirmed the
district court's limit on recovery to the premium paid under the
misunderstanding that the fruit was actually "all natural" and
decertification of the class pursuing damages because the
plaintiff did not show how the premium could be calculated with
proof common to the class. Id. at 6-8.  The case was remanded to
allow the plaintiff to move forward on behalf of an injunctive
relief class and his remaining individual claims. Id. at 8.

Other courts have watched the Dole case closely and several
lawsuits regarding "natural" label claims were stayed pending the
Ninth Circuit's decision.  In the Dole case, the plaintiff and
class representative Chad Brazil alleges that Dole's "All Natural
Fruit" labels are deceptive because the packaged fruits they
describe contain synthetic citric and ascorbic acid.  Dole moved
for summary judgment on the merits of Brazil's claims under
California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Secs 17200-17210), the California False Advertising Law (FAL)
(Bus. & Prof. Code Secs. 17500-17509), and the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Cal. Civ. Code Secs. 1750-1784) on the
grounds that there was no evidence that reasonable consumers
likely would have been misled by Dole's "All Natural Fruit" label.

The claims under each of these statutes are evaluated from the
perspective of a reasonable consumer, meaning "the ordinary
consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances." Colgan v.
Leatherman Tool Grp., 38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 36, 48 (Cal. Ct. App.
2006). To succeed on his claims, Brazil needs to show that Dole's
"All Natural Fruit" labels would probably have misled "a
significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted
consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances." Lavie v.
Proctor & Gamble Co., 129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 486, 495 (Cal. Ct. App.
2003).  The FDA has not promulgated a formal definition of the
word "natural" in relation to packaged food, but it has stated its
policy that the use of the term "natural" means "that nothing
artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless
of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that
would not normally be expected to be in the food." Food & Drug
Admin., Food Labeling: Nutrient Content Claims, General
Principles, Petitions, Definition of Terms; Definitions of
Nutrient Content Claims for the Fat, Fatty Acid, and Cholesterol
Content of Food ("FDA Policy Statement"), 58 Fed. Reg. 2303, 2407
(Jan. 6, 1993); see also Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, Inc., Case
No. 5:12-cv-01831-LHK, Dkt. No. 240 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014)
("Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment") at 7-8.

To prove his claim that a reasonable consumer would be misled by
the label, Brazil relied on his own testimony that he was deceived
by the label.  U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh found this evidence
insufficient as a matter of "binding Ninth Circuit precedent"
under Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir.
2008), to demonstrate that it is probable that a significant
portion of the consuming public could be mislead by the label and
granted summary judgment in Dole's favor. Order Granting
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment at 8-9. In Clemens, the
Ninth Circuit held that "a few isolated examples of actual
deception are insufficient" to survive summary judgment. 534 F.3d
at 1026.

The district court also found unavailing the FDA's informal
definition of "natural" because Brazil offered no evidence besides
a "conclusory statement" that citric acid and ascorbic acid "would
not normally be expected to be in" the products at issue. FDA
Policy Statement, 58 Fed. Reg. at 2407; see also Order Granting
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment at 9. Brazil appealed this
dismissal.

A Ninth Circuit panel found Brazil's evidence--the label itself,
his own testimony, Dole's consumer surveys prepared for
litigation, and the FDA's informal definition of "natural"
including recent FDA warning letters--when taken together, "could
allow a trier of fact to conclude that Dole's description of its
products as 'All Natural Fruit' is misleading to a reasonable
consumer" and that a trier of fact could also "find that the
synthetic citric acid and ascorbic acids in Dole's products were
not 'natural.'" Memorandum at 3-4.  The Ninth Circuit did not
discuss the Clemens case on which the district court relied.

Two cases similar to Dole are also currently pending before the
Ninth Circuit.  In Jones v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., the Ninth Circuit
is considering whether self-identified class members who do not
have a receipt or other objective proof of their membership in the
class are sufficient to fulfill the ascertainability requirement
of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Case No. 14-16327, Dkt. No.
21 (9th Cir. Nov. 21, 2014, filed July 14, 2014) (Opening Brief).
In Jones, plaintiffs filed a class action alleging certain ConAgra
products were falsely advertised as "100% Natural" or "Free from
artificial ingredients & preservatives." Id. at 5-7.
Acknowledging a split in California authority, the district court
denied certification of the proposed classes, in part on the
grounds that they were not ascertainable based only on class
member affidavits. Id. at 16-17. One of the plaintiffs appealed
the district court's denial of one of the classes. Id. at 4-5.

In Kosta v. Del Monte Foods Inc., the plaintiffs allege that Del
Monte's labels misled them to falsely believe Del Monte's tomato
products contained certain nutrients and that certain fruit
products were fresh. Case No. 15-16974, Dkt. No. 8 (9th Cir. Feb.
10, 2016, filed Oct. 2, 2015) (Opening Brief). Plaintiffs appealed
the district court's denial of class certification on the grounds
that variations in the labels meant the class members were not
determinable. See id. at 15-18.

Several significant cases in California have been stayed pending
the outcome of Dole, Jones, and Kosta.  These include a proposed
class action by shoppers against Costco Wholesale Corp. over
allegedly mislabeled "Kirkland Signature" brand foods. See Thomas
v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. 5:12-cv-02908 (N.D. Cal. filed
June 5, 2012).  In its order granting the stay in Thomas, the
district court explained that the Ninth Circuit's decisions would
provide "substantial guidance on issues material to the class
certification issues in the instant case," and the "summary
judgment issue from Brazil -- about whether label statements such
as 'all natural' can mislead a reasonable consumer -- will provide
guidance on arguments in this case." Id., Dkt. No. 115 at 5. In
Park v. Welch Foods, Inc., a class action alleging deception by
"no sugar added" labels on juices and jams, the district court
stayed a decision on class certification to avoid "wasted effort
if the Ninth Circuit's rulings change the requirements for class
certification, standing, and damages in food labeling class
actions." Case No. 3:12-cv-06449, Dkt. No. 77 at 3 (N.D. Cal. Oct.
22, 2015, filed Dec. 20, 2012).

These suits highlight the tension between the increased demand for
products perceived to be healthier and transparency in food
production, on the one hand, and the lack of standard definitions
or presence of inconsistent definitions for the "healthier"
characteristics, on the other hand.  While Dole's somewhat relaxed
evidentiary standard for proving a reasonable consumer would
probably be misled may encourage consumers to bring lawsuits over
food labels, the Ninth Circuit's decisions regarding class
certification in the two cases still pending before it, Jones and
Kosta, will likely have a greater effect on plaintiffs' and their
counsels' willingness to bring more lawsuits like Dole.


DONALD J. TRUMP: Plaintiff's Firm to Withdraw Spam Text Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that one of the lead plaintiffs firms that sued President-elect
Donald Trump's campaign over unsolicited text messages has asked
to withdraw from the class action, saying a client "has broken off
all communication" and "is refusing to participate in the further
prosecution of this case."

Joseph Siprut -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- managing partner of
Chicago's Siprut PC, said his firm could not reach his client,
Joshua Thorne, despite "multiple and repeated" emails and phone
calls, according to a motion filed on Jan. 9.  Mr. Thorne is one
of two named plaintiffs in the class action, which alleges that
Donald J. Trump for President Inc. sent unsolicited text messages
to thousands of cellphone numbers using an automatic telephone
dialing system in violation of the U.S. Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).

Mr. Siprut has asked U.S. District Judge John Zee of the Northern
District of Illinois to take up his motion on Jan. 17.

Mr. Siprut, who brought the motion on behalf of himself and two
other lawyers at his firm, partner Richard Miller and attorney Ke
Liu, did not respond to a request for comment.

The campaign's lawyer, Martin Jaszczuk, has sought dismissal on
the ground that the TCPA claims violate free speech under the
First Amendment and the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.
In November, the U.S. Department of Justice declined the
campaign's request to intervene in the case.  Judge Zee sought
additional briefing on the campaign's defense arguments, the first
of which was due on Jan. 10.

Phillip Bock -- phil@classlawyers.com -- of Chicago's Bock, Hatch,
Lewis & Oppenheim, the other co-lead counsel who represents the
remaining lead plaintiff, David Roberts, did not respond to a
request for comment.


ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: June 9 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
If You Purchased and/or Paid for Multi-Vitamin with Fluoride
Chewable Tablets

You Could Get Money from a Proposed Class Action Settlement

A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit involving
Multi-Vitamin with Fluoride Chewable Tablets made by Endo
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and its subsidiaries (the "Chewable
Tablets").  The lawsuit claims that the labels and packaging for
the Chewable Tablets misrepresented the amount of fluoride
contained in them on and after October 31, 2007.  Defendants deny
these allegations.

WHO IS INCLUDED?

All persons and entities who paid for Multi-Vitamin with Fluoride
Tablets between October 31, 2007, and December 31, 2015, excluding
(a) government entities who were parties to the settlement in
United States v. Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC, et al., Case No. 13
civ. 1506 (DLC), (b) Defendants and their officers, directors,
agents and employees, and (c) all persons and entities that
acquired Multi-Vitamin with Fluoride Tablets for sale to others
(the "Class").

WHAT ARE THE SETTLEMENT TERMS?

The Defendants agree to establish a Settlement Fund of $15.5
million.  Payments to eligible Class members will be based on the
amount each paid for the Chewable Tablets and the total dollar
amount of valid claims submitted.  Each Class member will receive
their pro rata share of the Settlement Fund not to exceed 100% of
their individual expenditures.  More details are available at
www.fluoridetabletssettlement.com or by calling 1-800-983-6133.

HOW TO GET A PAYMENT?

You should submit a Claim Form to ensure that the Claims
Administrator is aware of your purchases. The Claim Form is
available at www.fluoridetabletssettlement.com or by calling 1-
800-983-6133.  The deadline to submit a Claim Form is April 17,
2017.  Nonetheless, if the Claims Administrator is able to obtain
proof of your purchases of the Chewable Tablets by other means and
you are a natural person, you will receive a payment even if you
do not submit a Claim Form.

WHO REPRESENTS THE SETTLEMENT CLASS?

Class counsel are the law firms of Buckner + Miles, 3350 Mary
Street, Miami, Florida 33133 and McCabe Rabin PA, Centurion Tower,
1601 Forum Pl. #505, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401.  These
attorneys will represent you as part of the Class unless you
choose to hire your own attorney.  You have the right to hire your
own attorney at your own expense.  Class counsel represent the
Class on a contingency basis and will only receive attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of their expenses if the Settlement is approved
by the Court, at which time the Court may approve Settlement Class
counsel's request for reimbursement of costs and expenses and an
attorneys' fee award of up to 30%.

YOUR OTHER RIGHTS?

Members of the Class may request exclusion from the Class no later
than April 17, 2017.  You may also object to the Settlement by
April 17, 2017.  If you request exclusion, you may not object.
Please refer to www.fluoridetabletssettlement.com.  The Court will
hold a hearing on June 9, 2017, to consider whether to approve the
Settlement and a request for attorneys' fees up to 30% of the
Settlement Fund, reimbursement of costs, and a service award for
the Class Representative of up to $10,000.  You can appear at the
hearing, but you do not have to.  You can hire your own attorney,
at your own expense, to appear or speak for you at the hearing.
Please check www.fluoridetabletssettlement.com to confirm the
hearing date as it approaches as that date may change.

FOR MORE INFORMATION AND A CLAIM FORM
Visit: www.fluoridetabletssettlement.com or Call 1-800-983-6133


EXCEL STAFFING: Ferebee Moves for Certification of Nurses Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled TYRONN FEREBEE on Behalf of
Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. EXCEL
STAFFING SERVICE, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-00008-BO (E.D.N.C.), asks
the Court to grant his motion for conditional certification and
facilitate a Court-approved notice of the lawsuit to all nurses.

Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, Mr. Ferebee moves to
facilitate Court approved notice of the lawsuit to all current and
former nurses of Defendants Excel Staffing Service, Inc.,
Contractors & Consultants, Inc., Excel Staffing Professional
Nursing, Inc., David Tolin, and Frederick Tolin, who were
misclassified as independent contractors in the United States
between February 12, 2013 and the present.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don J. Foty, Esq.
          John Neuman, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
          4409 Montrose Blvd, Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523-0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
          E-mail: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com
                  JNeuman@kennedyhodges.com

               - and -

          Todd Ellis, Esq.
          LAWOFFICE OF TODD ELLIS, P.A.
          7911Broad River Road, Suite 100
          Irmo, SC 29063
          Telephone: (803) 732-0123
          Facsimile: (803) 732-0124
          E-mail: todd@toddellislaw.com


FALLS FESTIVAL: Law Firm Receives Response From Crush Victims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Woods, writing for The Age, reports that the law firm
leading a class action law suit against the Falls Festival says it
has had a "significant" response from victims of the Lorne crowd
stampede on December 30.

The claim comes as graphic photos have emerged of a 22-year-old
woman who suffered two black eyes, and fractured her sacrum -- a
bone at the base of the spine -- after she ended up "at the very
bottom" of the pile during the crowd crush.

"Maddy" told Triple J's Hack program "I just remember going, 'this
is it, this is death.  This is you dying.'  And then I blacked
out."

"There still aren't any whites in my eyes -- it's just blood,"
Maddy said, almost two weeks after the stampede.

Maddy was one of dozens of people caught in the crush in the Grand
Theatre tent shortly after the band DMA's wrapped up its act.

Festivalgoers were rushing from the tent to see London Grammar at
a different stage shortly before 10pm, when some people lost their
footing on the gravel floor.

Nineteen people were hospitalised and 60 treated by paramedics in
the wake of the stampede.

Narrow exit points and poor scheduling between bands have been
blamed for the incident.

"I remember letting go of my friends hand when I fell," Maddy
said.

"I fell over the girls who had fallen down, and I kind of flipped
and went on my back and started getting dragged along the ground.

"People just started piling on top of me.  I was still moving
until it wasn't possible for me to move myself.

"I don't know how many people were on top of me but I was at the
very bottom.

"I remember telling myself, 'go up for air, go up for air', but I
couldn't move at all. It wasn't painful being crushed, it was more
painful not being able to breathe.

"I couldn't move any limbs and my head was to the side facing
down.  There were legs next to me and I remember biting someone to
try and get them to pull me up."

Maddy said her recovery could take up to three months, and she is
using crutches to move around.  She is unable to work at her
casual retail job.

Maddens Lawyers urged people affected by the incident to come
forward and help form a potential class action lawsuit against the
festival.

On Jan. 11 class action principal Brendan Pendergast said at least
40 people had come forward, which meant the law firm was likely to
pursue a class action.

"There's been a significant response," Mr Pendergast said.

"Approximately 40 people have registered with us."

He said those who had been in contact had suffered broken bones,
lost or damaged property, or suffered psychological trauma after
witnessing the incident.

"Almost every person reports that they were terrified . . . some
are really struggling with it," he said.

"The law requires there to be at least seven people to be
affected.  We're presently seeking conference and advice with
senior council, and we'll have that advice within the next few
days.

"Our present view is that there is a cause of action and that
we're likely to proceed with it."

Early investigations had pointed to site design being at the heart
of the late-night catastrophe, Mr Pendergast said.

"Entrances and exits to the venue in question, barricades
surrounding walkways, even the material on the walkways themselves
. . . these were all conditions that were well outside the control
of festival patrons," he said.

Eleven days after the crush, Maddy told Triple J Hack, the
festival was yet to offer her any compensation.  But she said she
was unsure if she would join any class action.

"I still don't know what I'm going to do.  I don't want to blame
one thing, one person . . . But [the festival] does have duty of
care.  At the end of the day they do have a responsibility," she
said.

"I'm not angry.  I'm just here, in my room, waiting.  And I'll be
here in my room for another three months."

In response, the festival's organisers posted a statement on
Facebook about 12am on Jan. 11 saying they were still trying to
contact everyone involved in the stampede.

"There is a process in place whereby we have been directly
contacting patrons," the post said.

"This process has been underway for some time and there have been
a large number of people who have been contacted to date,
including Maddy's mother.

"We are still working through this process and are still
contacting people.

"We have asked those who we have contacted for information
relating to their experience and involvement in the incident, so
we can consider everything thoroughly and fairly."

The festival organisers said investigations into the incident were
ongoing, and "we are endeavouring to do this as quickly and as
thoroughly as possible to be able to deal with all enquiries".

"We want to ensure the correct protocol is being followed so that
all involved are given the depth of consideration they need to
give them the chance to get the best possible outcome.

"We want to get this right, for the long term, so it is imperative
that the correct procedures are followed."


FIELDTURF: Faces Third Duraspine Fraud Class Action in N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Baxter and Matthew Stanmyre, writing for NJ.com,
report that the owner of a New Jersey soccer facility claims in a
new class-action lawsuit the leading U.S. maker of artificial
sports fields, FieldTurf, repeatedly brushed off complaints about
his failing field and told him conditions would improve over time.

The complaint, filed on Jan. 10 in U.S. District Court for
New Jersey, is the third proposed class-action to be brought by
customers in the state against FieldTurf in response to an NJ
Advance Media investigation that detailed potential fraud.

The investigation found FieldTurf and its executives for years
earned ballooning profits as sales of its popular turf, Duraspine,
skyrocketed, all the while knowing fields were falling apart and
would not live up to marketing and advertising claims.

Despite warnings and candid internal discussions, FieldTurf
officials kept selling Duraspine to cities, towns, school
districts and private entities across the country, and never
changed their sales pitches.  The turf was phased out in 2012.

In a statement, a FieldTurf spokesman said the company strongly
disputed the allegations in the latest lawsuit and that its
records show Duraspine was not installed at the facility, but
rather another product, known as slit-film, was used.  A company
directory, however, does list the facility as having received
Duraspine.

"Additionally, this field was installed in 2010, is still in use,
and had a five-year warranty -- which included a limitation on
hours of usage," the statement said.  "We are fully confident that
when considered in full, the facts will show that customers in New
Jersey were well-served by FieldTurf."

Michael Critchley, an attorney for the soccer club's owner, said
he believed the field was Duraspine, but said, regardless of the
product, the field has fallen apart and the company has failed to
make good on the promises it made.

The latest lawsuit is the first to raise concerns about indoor
fields.

Richard Gentile, owner of New Jersey Stallions Soccer in Clifton,
alleges in the lawsuit his 2010 field began to deteriorate soon
after installation, but FieldTurf officials told him to groom the
surface and that some fraying was normal.

Mr. Gentile claims company officials told him to be patient and
that conditions would improve over time.  But, according to the
lawsuit, the field continued to fall apart, and is now slated to
be replaced this summer, after about six years of use.

"It is time for FieldTurf to be held accountable for its
intentional and egregious conduct," the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit, based largely on NJ Advance Media's reporting,
accuses FieldTurf of fraud, breach of warranty and unjust
enrichment.

In court testimony in 2014, Ken Gilman, FieldTurf's former
executive director, said failures of indoor Duraspine fields were
"common" and became such a big problem that sales of the product
to indoor facilities were banned.

Mr. Gilman said indoor Duraspine replacements included the field
at 422 SportsPlex in Pottstown, Pa. The facility did not return a
request for comment.

Mr. Gilman did not testify on what caused the problem or when the
ban was issued.  After the ban, he said, FieldTurf sold a
different type of turf, slit film, indoors.

In the other two pending class-action lawsuits, filed by the
borough of Carteret, N.J., and the Newark school system, FieldTurf
officials have hired renowned attorney Theodore Wells Jr. to
defend the company.

Wells has represented Bank of America, Johnson & Johnson and
Philip Morris, among other large corporations, in major class-
action lawsuits.

In sports circles, Wells is known for recent investigations on
behalf of the National Football League, including his probe of the
New England Patriots and quarterback Tom Brady over deflated
footballs, which came to be known as Deflategate.

In addition to the lawsuits, U.S. Sens. Cory Booker and Robert
Menendez (both D-N.J.) have written to the Federal Trade
Commission requesting a formal, national investigation into
FieldTurf's sales practices.


FREEDOM MORTGAGE: Court Tosses NJWPL Claims in "Atis" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert B. Kugler entered an opinion in the lawsuit
captioned David ATIS, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated v. FREEDOM MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Case No. 15-3424
(RBK/JS) (D.N.J.):

   -- granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the claims
      asserted under the New Jersey Wage and Payment Act;

   -- granting in part the Plaintiff's motion for class
      certification; and

   -- denying the Plaintiff's motion to seal.

The matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's complaint against
the Defendant asserting violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and New Jersey Wage and Payment
Act.  David Atis brings the action on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, alleging that the Defendant, an originator and
servicer of mortgage loans, improperly denied overtime pay to
employees in the position of Assistant Vice President of Sales.

The Plaintiff's Motion to Seal does not address the factors in
Rule 5.3(c)(3) with particularity, nor contain proposed findings
of fact and conclusions of law, Judge Kugler said in his Opinion.
Furthermore, Judge Kugler notes, the Plaintiff never even filed
the materials to be sealed -- exhibits attached to its Motion for
Class Certification.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
          Daniel Ari Horowitz, Esq.
          Richard Steven Swartz, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC
          1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
          E-mail: jboyette@swartz-legal.com
                  dhorowitz@swartz-legal.com
                  rswartz@swartz-legal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel H. Aiken, Esq.
          David J. Woolf, Esq.
          Dennis Michael Mulgrew, Jr., Esq.
          DRINKER, BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
          One Logan Square
          18th & Cherry Sts.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 988-2942
          E-mail: daniel.aiken@dbr.com
                  david.woolf@dbr.com
                  dennis.mulgrew@dbr.com


GC SERVICES: Dains Seeks Certification of Classes and Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allen L. Dains asks the Court to enter an order determining that
the lawsuit captioned ALLEN L. DAINS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. GC SERVICES, L.P., a Texas Limited
Partnership; and, JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 25, Case
No. 1:16-cv-01641-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), may proceed as a class action
against GC Services, L.P.

The Plaintiff seeks certification of two classes and two
subclasses pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and
the Texas Debt Collection Practices Act.  The first class is
defined as:

     (a) all persons with addresses in the State of Wisconsin (b)
     to whom GC Services mailed an initial written communication
     materially similar to the form attached as Exhibit A [to the
     Complaint]; (c) in an attempt to collect a debt; (d) which
     was not returned as undelivered by the United States Postal
     Service; (e) which stated, "because of interest, late
     charges and other charges that may be assessed by your
     creditor that vary from day to day, the amount due on the
     day you pay, may be greater" and the amount did not increase
     in the next collection letter; (f) and which was sent on or
     after December 12, 2014 and on or before January 2, 2017.

The first subclass is defined as all persons meeting the
definition of the first class except that they received Exhibit A
on or after December 12, 2015 and on or before January 2, 2017.

The second class is defined as:

     (a) all persons with addresses in the State of Wisconsin (b)
     to whom GC Services mailed a written collection letter
     materially similar to the form attached as Exhibits A, B,
     and C [to the Complaint]; (c) in an attempt to collect a
     debt; (d) which was not returned as undelivered by the
     United States Postal Service; (e) which letter stated,
     "because of interest, late charges and other charges that
     may be assessed by your creditor that vary from day to day,
     the amount due on the day you pay, may be greater" and the
     amount did not increase in the next collection letter; (f)
     and which letter was sent on or after December 12, 2014 and
     on or before January 2, 2017.

The second subclass is defined as all persons meeting the
definition of the first class except that they received Exhibits
A, B, and C on or after December 12, 2015 and on or before January
2, 2017.

The Plaintiff further asks that Stern Thomasson LLP and the Law
Office of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed
counsel for the classes.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=f9MmwpHq

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 917-4500
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  fgreene@edcombs.com

               - and -

          Heather B. Jones, Esq.
          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1329
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          Facsimile: (973) 532-5868
          E-mail: heather@sternthomasson.com
                  philip@sternthomasson.com
                  andrew@sternthomasson.com


HARTWOOD RESERVE: Appeals Court Reverses "Allen" Subclass Cert.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, issued a
per curiam opinion in the lawsuit titled HARTWOOD RESERVE
HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant v. GLENWORTH ALLEN,
MICHELLE McKESEY-ALLEN, SENTRY MANAGEMENT, INC. AND LARSEN &
ASSOCIATES, P.L., Appellees, Case No. 5D16-1193.

"In sum, we affirm the order certifying the main or primary class,
and we reverse that part of the order certifying the subclass.  We
remand with directions that the trial court enter an order
decertifying the subclass," according to the Appellate Court's
opinion.  Palmer, Lambert, and Edwards, JJ., concur.

Unlike for the main class, the Appellees failed to present
evidence of the number of members in the subclass, the Judges
stated.

Appellant Hartwood Reserve Homeowners' Association, Inc., appeals
a nonfinal order certifying a class action brought against it for
violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
and for charging excessive interest and unauthorized fees against
present and former owners of real property in the Hartwood Reserve
subdivision.

In its order, the trial court certified both a main class and a
subclass, defining the former, in pertinent part, as:

     All Persons who are current owners of real property in
     Hartwood Reserve as well as all former owners of real
     property in Hartwood Reserve who sold, otherwise conveyed or
     suffered foreclosure of such real property within four years
     next preceding February 3, 2015, where such real property
     owners were signatories to the [Association] declaration and
     thus obtained membership in the [Association].  The proposed
     class is further defined as those persons who were served
     notice(s) of delinquency in paying the assessed monthly fee
     to the [Association] or permitting deviations from or
     violations of provisions in the rules and declarations
     governing Hartwood Reserve home owners through membership in
     the [Association].  The persons so noticed were further
     assessed interest charges exceeding 18% per annum, fees,
     penalties or other costs assessed purportedly due to the
     alleged delinquencies in making payments to the
     [Association] or its agents.

The trial court defined the subclass, in pertinent part, as:

     All persons who were members of the [Association] who were
     alleged to be late or delinquent in the payment of their
     monthly assessments, and were charged interest of more than
     18% per annum, fees and costs and/or attorney's fees and
     costs.

A copy of the Opinion is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/qeZ48L from Leagle.com.

Appellant HARTWOOD RESERVE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., is
represented by:

          David C. Borucke, Esq.
          Christine Bredahl Gierke, Esq.
          COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, P.A.
          4301 West Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 400
          Tampa, FL 33607
          Telephone: (813) 864-9351
          Facsimile: (813) 286-2900
          E-mail: david.borucke@csklegal.com
                  christina.gierke@csklegal.com

Appellees Glenworth Allen and Michelle McKesey-Allen are
represented by:

          Samuel A. Walker, Esq.
          Tee Persad, Esq.
          Herbert T. Schwartz, Esq.
          Alberto E. Lugo-Janer, Esq.
          CPLS, P.A.
          201 East Pine Street, Suite 445
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 647-7887
          Facsimile: (407) 647-5396
          E-mail: swalker@cplspa.com
                  attorneypersad@cplspa.com
                  hschwartz@cplspa.com
                  alugo-janer@cplspa.com


HARMLESS HARVEST: Settles Coconut Water Labeling Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that
Harmless Harvest Inc. has agreed to pay nearly $1 million and
change the labels on its coconut water products under a proposed
class action lawsuit settlement.

The plaintiffs in the class action filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary settlement approval in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York Dec. 27.

They said they believe the settlement is "fair, reasonable and
adequate," and should be preliminarily approved by Judge Joan M.
Azrack.

The proposed settlement provides labeling changes and ongoing
third-party monitoring of the accuracy of Harmless Harvest's
product labels.

In particular, the company has agreed to remove allegedly false
and misleading statements of "100 percent Organic" and "Raw" from
its products' packaging, and will engage an independent third-
party consultant for a period of two years from the effective date
of the settlement.  The consultant will review the product labels
for ongoing accuracy and provide reports to class counsel.

The cost of the consulting fees will be borne by Harmless Harvest,
according the proposed settlement's terms.

Also, under the proposed settlement, the company has agreed to pay
attorneys' fees in the amount of $575,000.  That amount includes
incentive awards to the named plaintiffs of $20,000 total.

Harmless Harvest also has agreed to pay up to $350,000 in claims
administration fees and notice costs.


HEALTH RESOURCE: Brown Wins Bid for Conditional Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on January 4, 2017, in the case
captioned Monique Brown v. Health Resource Solutions, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:16-cv-10667 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing
held before the Honorable Charles P. Kocoras.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiffs' motion for leave to exceed page limit in the
      Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification is
      granted;

   -- Plaintiffs' motion and memorandum in support of conditional
      certification as collective action and issuance of notice
      pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) is granted; and

   -- Motion hearings set for January 5, 2017, is stricken, no
      appearance is required.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6xYFITpk


HOME DEPOT: Can't Remove Tri-State Class Action to Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison County Record reports that retailer Home Depot can't
remove a Madison County class action to federal court because it
entered the action as a counterclaim defendant, the Seventh
Circuit ruled on Jan. 5.

The federal appeals court held that under the national Class
Action Fairness Act, only original defendants can remove actions
to federal court.

Justices affirmed Southern Illinois district Chief Judge Michael
Reagan, who signed an order remanding the action to Madison County
last September.

Counterclaim plaintiffs Michael Bauer and Stacey Bauer claim the
retailer tricked them into buying useless water treatment systems.

Local lawyers Troy Walton, Micah Summers, Brian Kreisler and Sean
Cronin represent the Bauers, along with George Granade of New York
City.

When the action began, it involved the Bauers as defendants and it
didn't involve Home Depot at all.

Tri-State Water Treatment sued the Bauers in Madison County small
claims court in 2015, claiming they failed to pay for a system
Tri-State installed at their house.

The Bauers responded with a counterclaim against Tri-State,
asserting a multi state class action for fraud.

They amended the counterclaim last February, to add Home Depot as
defendant.  They also added Aquion Inc., doing business as
Rainsoft.

The class is defined as everyone who bought a system after
defendants conducted a water test in their homes.

Plaintiffs say the tests identified mineral content rather than
contaminants.

Home Depot removed the action to federal court last April, arguing
that it deserved special status as an additional counterclaim
defendant.

In May, the Bauers moved to remand the action to Madison County.

Reagan held a hearing in September, and ruled for the Bauers later
that month.

The Seventh Circuit accepted an appeal petition and heard argument
on Dec. 1.

They reached a decision quickly, finding the Class Action Fairness
Act doesn't extend a right of removal to a party that wasn't an
original defendant.

Chief Judge Diane Wood wrote, "Home Depot argues that absurd
results would arise if we were to hold that additional
counterclaim defendants cannot remove actions under the Class
Action Fairness Act.

"It fears that doing so would reward gamesmanship, because lawyers
would be able to use small claims litigation as springboards for
counterclaim class actions that would be stuck in state court.

"This, it predicts, would reintroduce the forum shopping the Class
Act Fairness Act was designed to eliminate.

"We are not convinced that this will come to pass."

Judge Wood wrote that state courts have all the tools they need to
manage abusive amendments to pleadings.

She wrote that the Act selectively increased federal jurisdiction
but "did not roll out the welcome mat for all multi state class
actions."

On Jan. 9, Reagan declared his previous order effective
immediately.

Stewart Haskins of Atlanta represents Home Depot, and Russell
Scott of the Greensfelder firm in Belleville acts as local
counsel.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective "Smart Trunks"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Smart Trunk ("Smart Trunk"), which Hyundai first made
available on its model-year 2015 vehicles, is a proximity-
activated trunk lid which can be opened by standing directly
behind the vehicle with the vehicle's key fob in one's hand,
pocket, or purse.  The key fob automatically sends a radio signal
to the vehicle that tells it to open the trunk -- no buttons on
the key fob need to be pressed.  Hyundai promoted the Smart Trunk
as a "hands-free" feature that automatically opens the trunk
fully, or at least wide enough for a person to deposit bulky items
into the trunk -- such as shopping bags, duffle bags, and sports
equipment -- without having to put the items down or manually open
the trunk lid.

However, the class action lawsuit filed by a Pennsylvania resident
alleges that Hyundai has sold and leased countless vehicles,
including the plaintiff's 2015 Hyundai Sonata, equipped with
defective Smart Trunks that never open more than a crack. Instead
of automatically opening as advertised, the plaintiff alleges that
they simply unlatch, requiring consumers to manually push open the
trunk lid, thereby failing to provide the "hands-free" convenience
the Smart Trunk is advertised to deliver.  The complaint further
states that Hyundai failed to inform plaintiff and class members
that the Smart Trunk does not open as wide as depicted in
advertisements and that it possesses a defect that, in many cases,
prevents the trunk from opening to any appreciable or useful
degree.

The class action asserts that the Smart Trunk comes as a standard
feature on the "2015 Sonata (Sport, Limited, and Sport 2.0T);1
2015 Azera (all trims); 2015 Genesis (all trims); 2016 Sonata
(Limited, Sport 2.0T, and Limited 2.0T); 2016 Azera (all trims);
2016 Genesis (all trims); 2017 Elantra (Eco and Limited); and the
2017 Sonata (Limited and Limited 2.0T)."  In addition, the Smart
Trunk was an extra option costing between $950 and $1,900 on the
Hyundai 2015 Sonata (Eco), 2016 Sonata (Sport), 2017 Sonata
(Sport), and the 2017 Elantra (SE).

The Hyundai class action suit, brought by the plaintiff on behalf
of himself and all other purchasers and lessees of Hyundai
vehicles equipped with Smart Trunks, charges the car company with
breaching its express and implied warranty obligations because it
allegedly failed to deliver conforming, non-defective Smart Trunks
to consumers despite, in many cases, multiple repair attempts.  In
addition to breaching its express and implied warranties, Hyundai
is alleged to have made misrepresentations and knowingly failed to
disclose material facts about the Smart Trunks to consumers in
violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California
False Advertising Law, the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and as a result was unjustly
enriched by its conduct.

The plaintiff is represented by Noah Axler and Marc Goldich of
Axler Goldich LLC, Natalie Finkelman Bennett and James C. Shah of
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah LLP, and Robert P. Cocco of
Robert P. Cocco, P.C.  The Hyundai Smart Trunk Class Action
Lawsuit is Riaubia v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 2:16-cv-
05150-CDJ, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

WHAT SHOULD OWNERS KNOW ABOUT THE OPERATION OF THE AFFECTED
HYUNDAI VEHICLES?

Owners of the affected vehicles will have Smart Trunks which do
not automatically open or do not open all the way without the use
of hands or otherwise having to manually open the trunk.

HOW CAN HYUNDAI OWNERS FIND MORE INFORMATION?

Owners who have experienced any issues with their Smart Trunks or
who have had to have their vehicles repeatedly serviced in an
attempt to get the Smart Trunk to work properly should contact the
attorneys at Axler Goldich to learn their legal rights by calling
866-207-2920, emailing Hyundai(at)axgolaw(dot)com, or filling out
an intake form at http://www.axlergoldich.com.
If you own a Hyundai vehicle, model year 2015 or newer, equipped
with a "Smart Trunk," you may be eligible to join the class
action.  Call 866-207-2920 for more information.


INOTEK PHARMA: March 7 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC on Jan. 10 notified investors
that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Inotek
Pharmaceuticals Corporation ("Inotek" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
ITEK) and certain of its officers, and is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Inotek
securities July 23, 2015 and December 30, 2016, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period").  Such investors are advised to
join this case by visiting the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/itek.

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

The Complaint alleges that on July 23, 2015, Inotek announced its
positive End of Phase 2 meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration and said that Inotek is in the "final preparation
stages to commence its first Phase 3 trial in 4Q and look forward
to data in 2016."  Inotek also announced a confident forecast of
the Phase 3 trabodenoson trial, which caused its stock price to
surge to $15.37 per share on July 23, 2015.  Inotek's Form 10-K
filing also implied that trabodenoson would be successful, stating
that it upholds an impressive safety record compared to similar
glaucoma treatments.

Despite the positive announcements, per the Complaint, Inotek
officials were aware that part of the clinical trial of
trabodenoson would not achieve its intended goal of reducing
intraocular pressure compared to the placebo.  Later on
January 3, 2017, Inotek exposed this information and stated that
the first pivotal Phase 3 trial of trabodenoson to treat open-
angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension failed, in comparison to the
placebo, in its endpoint of superiority in the reduction of
intraocular pressure. Following this news, Inotek's stock dropped
about 70%.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/itekor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484.  If you suffered a loss
in Inotek you have until March 7, 2017 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC -- http://www.bgandg.com-- is
a corporate litigation boutique.  In addition to representing
institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action
security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.


INSEEGO CORP: Monteverde & Associates Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC on Jan. 10 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, case no. 3:16-cv-03068-JAH-HLS,
on behalf of shareholders of Inseego Corp. ("Inseego" or the
"Company")(NASDQ: INSG) who held Inseego securities and have been
harmed by Inseego's and its board of directors' (the "Board")
alleged violations of Sections 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the
sale sale to T.C.L. Industries Holdings (H.K.) Limited ("Purchaser
Parent") and Jade Ocean Global Limited ("Purchaser," and together
with Purchaser Parent, "Purchasers"), of all the shares Inseego
owns in Novatel Wireless, Inc. ("NWI").

Under the terms of the agreement, Purchasers will acquire all of
the issued and outstanding shares of common stock of NWI from
Inseego for $50.0 million.  The complaint alleges that this offer
is inadequate and alleges that the definitive proxy statement (the
"Proxy") provides materially incomplete and misleading information
about the Company's financials and the transaction, in violation
of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from January 10, 2017.  Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this
action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact:

Click here for more information:
www.monteverdelaw.com/investigations.  It is free and there is no
cost or obligation to you.

Monteverde & Associates PC -- http://www.monteverdelaw.com-- is a
boutique class action securities and consumer litigation law firm
committed to protecting shareholders and consumers from corporate
wrongdoing.  Monteverde & Associates PC lawyers have significant
experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions and Securities Class
Actions, whereby they protect investors by recovering money and
remedying corporate misconduct.

If you own common stock in Inseego and wish to obtain additional
information and protect your investments free of charge, please
visit us at www.monteverdelaw.com/investigations or Juan E.
Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Critics Condemn Talcum-Powder Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
Christina Suttles at Northern California Record reports that
despite an outcry of legal watchdogs over the spread of
questionable talcum-powder lawsuits, TheLawFirm.com is training a
number of new paralegals, gearing up for what could be hundreds of
lawsuits alleging a link between Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder
and ovarian cancer in longtime users of the product.

Johnson & Johnson has been named a defendant in more than 1,000
recent lawsuits nationwide, according to news.law.fordham.edu,
alleging it deceived consumers by refusing to warn of the
potentially carcinogenic properties of its Baby Powder and shower
products, which millions of women use for personal-hygiene
purposes.

This spike in talc lawsuits is just one of many since 2009, when a
South Dakota woman first sued the company alleging negligence and
fraud after being diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Johnson & Johnson
offered the plaintiff a $1.3 million settlement, but after she
refused to sign a confidentiality agreement, no monetary damages
were awarded, according to a March 2, 2016 article in the New York
Post. Last February, a St. Louis jury did award $72 million in
damages to the family of a woman who died from ovarian cancer
following three decades of Johnson & Johnson talc-based powder
use, according to www.stltoday.com.

California tort-reform advocates consider this attempt at a class-
action lawsuit acquisitive and unnecessary.

"There's always a better way than the lawsuit route," Julie
Griffiths, northern and central California's representative for
Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, told the Northern California
Record. "I'd be curious to know if they even bothered to take
other method research to see if there really was a link to ovarian
cancer."

Maryann Marino, CALA's Southern California representative said she
believes the lawsuit to be another means of lining lawyers'
pockets, using online, radio and television advertisement to amass
plaintiffs.

"It's not surprising to see another personal injury firm jump on
the talc class-action bandwagon and aggressively market these
lawsuits to recruit more plaintiffs," Marino told the Northern
California Record. "Personal-injury lawyers and lawsuit lead-
generation firms are spending millions of dollars to scare people
into lawsuits in hopes of a big payday for lawyers. Unfortunately,
consumers are likely only seeing these ads and internet sites,
which are intended to stir fear. What they aren't telling
consumers is that the science is far from settled and high-profile
talc cases have been dismissed for failing to provide enough
evidence."

Research is ongoing in producing a substantial link between the
powder and ovarian cancer, but in its natural form, the mineral
contains asbestos, a substance known to cause lung cancer when
inhaled, although all talcum products used in homes have been
asbestos-free since the 1970s, www.stltoday.com reported.

The American Cancer Society suggests a small, but slight increased
risk of cancer if the powder particles were to travel to the
ovary. The powder is often used in a number of feminine-hygiene
products and contraceptives.

"These cases are clogging our court systems around the state and
were trying to use the court system for means by which it was
meant to be used  --  for people who have actual grievances that
need to be aired," Griffiths said.


KRAFT FOODS: Judge Denies Motion to Stay Labeling Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey Stricker, Esq. -- kstricker@mofo.com -- of Morrison &
Foerster LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on December
6, 2016, United States District Judge John A. Kronstadt for the
Central District of California denied a motion to stay a class
action alleging violations of the UCL, FAL, and CLRA against Kraft
Foods Group, Inc. based on the term "natural cheese" on the
packaging of its shredded cheddar cheese product, which allegedly
contain artificial coloring. Morales, et al. v. Kraft Foods Group,
Inc., et al., No. 2:14-cv-04387-JAK-PJW, Dkt. No. 273.  The court
declined to stay the case under the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction pending the FDA's rulemaking because any FDA
regulation on the term "natural" would not be determinative of
whether consumers were misled by the term "natural cheese."

Consumers Challenge "Natural" Kraft Packaging. In May 2014,
plaintiffs Claudia Morales and Mocha Gunaratna filed a class
action lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court, seeking injunctive
relief and damages under California's UCL, FAL, and CLRA against
Kraft Foods Group, Inc.  Plaintiffs alleged that they were misled
by the term "natural cheese" on the label of Kraft's "Natural
Cheese -- Shredded Cheese -- Cheddar Fat Free" and would not have
purchased the product if they had known it contained artificial
coloring.  Kraft removed the action to the Central District of
California on June 6, 2014.

FDA Considers "Natural" Rulemaking and Kraft Seeks Stay.  In 1993,
the FDA declined to adopt a formal definition of the term
"natural" in food labeling.  On November 12, 2015, the FDA
announced a regulatory review of the use of the term "natural" on
food product labels. 80 FR 69905-01.  The FDA requested public
comment on the use of the term "natural" in food labeling,
"including when, if ever, the use of the term is false or
misleading." Id. at *68808.  The deadline for comments was May 10,
2016, and the FDA received over 7,000 submissions, including ones
from the dairy industry noting that "natural cheese" is a term of
art.

Court Denies Stay Under Primary Jurisdiction Doctrine. On December
18, 2015, Kraft filed a motion to stay pending a decision by the
FDA and/or the Ninth Circuit as to the definition of "natural" in
food labeling.  The court denied the motion without prejudice to
renewal based on new developments.  On October 27, 2016, Kraft
renewed the motion to stay in light of anticipated rulemaking by
the FDA.  Again, the court denied the motion without prejudice to
renewal based on new developments in the FDA rulemaking process.

Despite the trend toward stays, the court rejected Kraft's
argument that it should align with other district courts that have
issued stays pending completion of the FDA's rulemaking.  The
court distinguished those cases as involving the question of
whether FDA regulations were violated.  Here, "the question is
whether the 'natural cheese' label is deceptive to the reasonable
consumer" under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA, and the court reasoned
that FDA standards are not determinative of that question.

The court also rejected Kraft's argument that the FDA's
rulemaking, if any, will have a direct bearing on the case.  The
court noted that Kraft's compliance with FDA regulations would not
automatically shield Kraft from a claim under the UCL, FAL, or
CLRA, and that the plaintiffs have already presented evidence that
the term "natural cheese" is material to, and deceives, a
reasonable consumer.  Finally, the court noted that it is unclear
whether and how the FDA will act on the term "natural."  The court
believed it was more efficient to proceed given that the case is
currently teed up for Kraft's motion to decertify the class and
challenge plaintiffs' expert, neither of which would be affected
by the FDA's rulemaking.

Kraft Takeaway. Despite the trend toward stays pending the FDA's
"natural" rulemaking, this case highlights that courts have
discretion to deny a stay, such as where a case has proceeded past
class certification or the merits.  This case was also uniquely
positioned, as the plaintiffs challenged a distinct use of the
term "natural" that modifies cheese, a term of art in the dairy
industry, and that was based on the allegation that the product
included artificial colors, which are separately regulated by the
FDA.  Based on these unique procedural and factual circumstances,
it is far from clear whether other courts will deny stays on the
same bases in other "natural" cases.


LAND'S END: Certification of Class Sought in Gorss Motels Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled GORSS MOTELS, INC., a
Connecticut corporation, individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly-situated persons v. LAND'S END, INC., a
Wisconsin corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 3:17-cv-00010-
WWE (D. Conn.), moves the Court for an order:

   A. taking the motion under submission and deferring further
      activity on it until after the discovery cutoff date to be
      set in the Court's upcoming scheduling order under Rule 23
      of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or alternatively;

   B. granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
      pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
      Procedure.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          85 Miles Avenue
          White Plaines, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358-5345
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
          E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com

               - and -

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


LOUSIANA: Denham Springs to Pursue Class Action Against DOTD
------------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Kinchen, writing for The Advocate, reports that the Denham
Springs City Council on Jan. 10 agreed to hire the attorneys who
filed a lawsuit against the state Department of Transportation and
Development over an Interstate 12 median wall that may have
worsened the August flood for many residents in Livingston and
East Baton Rouge parishes.

Denham Springs already was a named plaintiff in the class-action
lawsuit, filed on Jan. 5 in Baton Rouge state court by the
deGravelles Palmintier law firm.  The contingency fee agreement
approved on Jan. 10 means the city will pay the lawyers a third of
any award received from the state or 20 of its contractors who
designed and built the wall as part of the state's Geaux Wider
project.

Joshua Palmintier said the lawsuit is focused primarily on
convincing the state to make changes in the median wall and to use
a different design for future segments of the interstate
expansion.  Any money for damages would have to come from the
state's contractors or their insurance companies, he said.

Councilman Robert Poole questioned the need for a 33 percent fee
for the lawyers.  If the case settles for any significant sum,
that could mean a huge windfall for the attorneys at the expense
of those whose homes and businesses were damaged, he said.

Mr. Poole urged the council to table the matter until they could
research other firms, but his motion failed on a 2-3 vote.
Councilman Jeff Wesley, who had supported Mr. Poole's push to
delay a decision, voted with the majority in approving the
contract, 4-1.

Mr. Palmintier said the industry standard for contingency fee
cases is 40 percent, but the city would pay nothing unless there
is a judgment or settlement in their favor.  Meanwhile, upfront
costs paid by the law firm could be substantial.

The firm already hired a hydrologist whose preliminary report
determined the I-12 median wall was a "substantial factor" in the
amount of flooding residents north of the interstate received, he
said.  The experts are now working on a computer model that will
allow them to pinpoint any house in the affected region and
determine how much of its flooding was due to the wall.

"This is a very, very high-risk investment of time and money, and
no one else -- no clients -- will have to do anything until such
time as we get a recovery," Mr. Palmintier said.  "But I truly
believe we'll get at least some form of injunctive relief. . . .
If we lose the class-action, we would still get that, and that's
free."

Mr. Poole said there will almost certainly be changes made to the
wall -- in one way or another.

"If biblical rains started to fall again, I guarantee you the same
Cajun Navy that was out there rescuing people would be out there
tearing down the wall," Mr. Poole said.  "There will be injunctive
relief, I can tell you."

Mr. Poole stressed that his concern is not with pushing forward
with the lawsuit, but with the law firm's fee.

City Attorney Stephanie Hulett, who previously worked for
deGravelles Palmintier, said the city could wind up paying more if
it hired another legal team.  Then, Denham Springs would have to
pay 100 percent of its lawyers' costs, rather than splitting the
costs of Mr. Palmintier's firm with other groups like the city of
Walker.

Ms. Hulett said she could vouch for the firm's integrity and would
not push blindly for them simply because she had worked with them.


MARCHESE HOSPITAL: Diluted Chemo Drug Victims Oppose Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Cross, writing for Windsor Star, reports that emotional,
embittered and raw were the pleas made in a packed Windsor
courtroom on Jan. 10, as victims of the diluted chemo scandal
asked a judge to reject a $2.4-million class-action settlement
that works out to $1,500 each.

They called the settlement a pittance and a slap in the face.

"These people should be held accountable, and I only wish your
honour had the power to say '$5 million for each person,'" cancer
survivor Keith Salmons told Superior Court Justice Gregory
Verbeem, after accusing lawyers of scrolling through their phones
and smirking while weeping objectors from London and Windsor
addressed the court.

The firms that provided and purchased the diluted chemotherapy
drugs for 1,202 cancer patients in Windsor, London, Peterborough,
Oshawa and New Brunswick knew that they "screwed up," Salmons
said.

"How these people, all of them, go to bed at night with a clear
conscience is beyond me."

More than half the patients who received the diluted drugs were
treated at London Health Sciences Centre.

The diluted chemo drugs were distributed to five hospitals by
Medbuy Corp., a London-based bulk buying agency for hospitals.

Marchese Hospital Solutions of Hamilton supplied the drugs.

Lawyers for both the class-action victims and the defendants
called on the judge to endorse the settlement, arguing it was the
best victims could hope for in the absence of any proof that
taking diluted cancer drugs harmed anyone.

Scores of patients who were given the drugs in 2012 and 2013 have
died since.

Jen Rumble held up a photo of her sister Christine and her two
young daughters as she ended her address.  Christine died at 31,
and there's no way of knowing if she'd still be alive had she
received proper strength chemo, Ms. Rumble said.  "She needed the
best medicine, the toughest medicine . . . She never got that."

She called the $1,500 a disgusting insult: "I work as a nurse in
emergency and I understand that mistakes happen, but this is a
disgrace."

Justice Verbeem told the dozen objectors who spoke and about 70
more who supported them: "I listened very carefully to what you
said and it commands a great deal of deliberation." He reserved
his decision.

If the settlement is rejected, "there is no more money, I will not
be able to get more money," to sweeten the offer, warned
Eric Hoaken, the lawyer for Medbuy.

Medbuy, Marchese Hospital Solutions and five hospitals are named
in the class action.

"The settlement," said Mr. Hoaken, "is an elegant solution that
provides a dignified and responsible closure on a circumstance
that everyone agrees is regrettable."

London lawyer Mike Peerless -- peerless@mckenzielake.com -- one of
the class-action lawyers along with the Winbdsor firm Sutts,
Strosberg, said though he was moved by the victims' "heartfelt"
and "heartbreaking" statements, he has to look at the case
rationally.

He said the class-action lawyers found no evidence of a single
patient who suffered any significant damage from taking the
diluted drugs.  They also couldn't find a single expert -- no
doctor, psychiatrist, oncologist or clinical pharmacologist -- who
would say the underdosing caused patients' cancer to worsen. He
warned if the settlement is rejected, the class-action lawsuit
would be doomed.

"The terms of the settlement are rational, they're reasonable and
they're found in the facts of the case," Mr. Peerless said,
asserting that though 49 people filed objections, "the vast
majority of the class members do favour the settlement."

The victims, such as breast cancer survivor Colleen Marentette,
said they were tired of being told the damage they suffered --
including psychological damage -- doesn't count.

"I live with the fear of cancer returning," because she didn't
receive the right dose, she said.

Another speaker, Jeanne Omstead-Mullins, said she wakes up every
morning wondering: "Is this going to be the day?" the cancer comes
back.  "It's a mistake that never should have happened, it was
negligence by everyone involved," said Ms. Omstead-Mullins, a Ford
worker who criticized the lack of quality control in health care.

"There are now children who are motherless, orphaned," she said.
"Could this have been prevented with the proper inspections?"

One of the vocal opponents of the settlement, mother of three
Sarah Johnson, 41, was unable to attend the Jan. 10 court date
because she was in hospital, coping with terminal metastatic
breast cancer.

"That's how close to home this strikes all of us,"
Louise Martens, a leader among the diluted chemo victims, told the
court.  She said she's been told the $1,500 is "go away money."

"Why are we unworthy?" she asked.  "Why are we not being treated
like priceless lives?"

Diluted chemo lawsuit by the numbers

1,200 Southwestern Ontario patients were treated with diluted
drugs

665 were treated at London Health Sciences Centre

$2.4M settlement was reached with the drug supplier and purchaser

$1.8M left after legal, other fees paid

About $1,500 left for each patient


MARLBORO: Lawyers Seek Up to $30-Mil. in Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------
KATV reports that the lawyers who secured a $45 million settlement
for smokers of Marlboro Lights in Arkansas have asked a judge to
decide how much they should be paid.

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports the lawyers didn't ask for a
specific amount in their payment petition last month. But they say
there is court precedent in Arkansas that would allow them between
$12.4 million and $30 million, based on the value a judge places
on their representation.

The lawyers say they worked more than 15,000 hours, valued at
$10.2 million, and spent $2.2 million of their own money to pursue
the litigation over 13 years.

The attorneys say the class-action lawsuit won compensation for
smokers who may have turned to the Lights brand in hopes of
getting a healthier product.


MEDICREDIT INC: Privacy Breach Class Certified in "Raffin" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. George H. King granted the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification submitted in the lawsuit captioned Sheena Raffin v.
Medicredit, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-04912-GHK-PJW (C.D.
Cal.).

The class is defined as:

     All individuals who, from June 29, 2014 to February 26,
     2015, while physically present in California and using a
     cellular device with a California area code, participated
     for the first time in a telephone conversation with a
     representative of Defendants or their agents who were
     recording the conversation without first informing the
     individual that the conversation was being recorded.

Sheena Raffin, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, alleges that Defendants Medicredit, Inc. and The
Outsource Group, Inc., violated California wiretapping laws in
recording telephone conversations of her and the putative class.
She alleges that Medicredit, a debt collector, contacted her
"multiple times regarding an alleged debt."  Based on these
allegations, she sued Medicredit under California's Invasion of
Privacy Act.

The Court certifies the injunctive relief portion of the action
under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
the monetary damages portion of the action under Rule 23(b)(3).
The Court appoints the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C., as
class counsel and Sheena Raffin as class representative.

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


MEZENTCO SOLUTIONS: No Ruling Yet on Diluted Chemotherapy Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Vlasveld, writing for Blackburn News, reports that a ruling
has yet to be made regarding a class-action lawsuit involving
patients who received diluted chemotherapy treatment in 2012.

Twenty members of the lawsuit were in the Superior Court of
Justice in downtown Windsor on Jan. 10, objecting to the
settlement, which would end up paying about $1,500 to each member.

A decision on the settlement was expected to be made in court on
Jan. 10.  However, as of Jan. 10, no ruling had been announced.

A lawyer on the defendant's side has warned that the plaintiff's
case is not strong enough to warrant more compensation. The lawyer
stated that the dilution of the chemo drug was within a range
found to be medically acceptable, and there were no adverse health
effects as a result.

The plaintiffs are pointing to past, similar cases in Ontario, in
which very few members of two separate classes received
compensation after taking their cases to litigation.

About 290 patients at Windsor Regional Hospital and 691 in London
received the less than optimum chemotherapy dose in 2012. They
were among 1,200 patients in Ontario and New Brunswick who were
affected.


MGM: Settles Case Over Unpaid Internships, Jan. 17 Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that
MGM has agreed to put up as much as $232,500 to settle a proposed
class action over unpaid internships at the studio.  The deal was
submitted to a judge for approval.

Kimi Gupta, who spent less than three weeks interning at MGM in
2012, filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated in April 2015 -- around the time that Viacom, NBCU, Conde
Nast and ICM were hammering their own settlement agreements to
resolve legal disputes over internships.

Perhaps the feature that set Ms. Gupta's lawsuit apart from the
others was its location.  She brought her case in Los Angeles
Superior Court over alleged violations of California labor law
including failure to pay minimum wage, whereas many of the other
internship lawsuits proceeded in New York federal court.  As such,
had Ms. Gupta's case proceeded further, a judge wouldn't have been
beholden to the big ruling from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
in the case over unpaid internships at Fox.

During her short stint at MGM, Ms. Gupta alleged she was assigned
entry-level work including maintaining records of television
programs at the company's cable unit.

The proposed settlement covers others who participated in unpaid
internships since April 30, 2011.  In a memorandum in support of
the settlement, the plaintiff's attorney Jahan Sagafi at Outten &
Golden estimates 258 class members. That makes the $232,500
settlement about on par by the standards of prior litigation on
the topic.  The deal allows the plaintiff's counsel to seek up to
one-third of the settlement fund as attorney's fees, plus $10,000
in litigation costs, meaning that each class member would
theoretically receive about $500 to resolve claims.

A judge is scheduled to consider the settlement at a hearing on
Jan. 17.


MILLENNIUM PARTNERS: Faces Suit Over Leaning and Sinking Tower
--------------------------------------------------------------
San Franciso News reports the leaning and sinking Millennium Tower
in San Francisco is being sued by homeowners who filed for class-
action status and are seeking compensation from Millennium
Partners, the developer of the building.

Millennium Tower was completed in 2010 and reportedly cost
residents of SF millions of dollars. Homeowners were notified of
the building's issues last year, but based on documents, tenants
believe that the building's developers were aware of it's
questionable stature as early as 2009.

Dennis Herrera, San Francisco City Attorney, sued Millennium Tower
last summer for knowingly selling property within the sinking 58-
story building. According to Herrera's spokesperson, John Cote,
the city was not made aware of the sinking building, despite
suspicions of community members.

"It has been reported that the building was expected to settle
evenly to the depth of approximately 6 inches over its lifetime,
but has now settled 12 -- 16 inches and is leaning 15 inches at
its top to the northwest. We are informed that some owners are
reporting problems with uneven floors, difficulty opening and
closing doors, windows, and cabinets, and that some interior wall
cracks have been observed," stated the Millennium Litigation
Group.

The building's foundation, which is not secured to the steady
bedrock underneath the soils, has raised concerns of earthquake
and emergency safety.


MULTI CABLE: Class of Technicians Certified in "Luviano" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Beverly Reid O'Connell:

   -- grants in part the Plaintiff's motion for certification of
      a class action filed in the lawsuit styled L. LUVIANO V.
      MULTI CABLE, INC., ET AL., Case No. 2:15-cv-05592-BRO-FFM
     (C.D. Cal.);

   -- grants the Plaintiff's motion for order granting
      certification of a collective action; and

   -- grants in part Defendants Time Warner Cable Inc., Time
      Warner Cable Pacific West LLC, and Time Warner Cable
      Enterprises LLC's motion to strike the declaration of
      Evelyn Carlson.

According to the civil minutes, the Plaintiff proffers the
Declaration of Evelyn Carlson and relies on her as an expert
witness to testify to matters such as ascertainability,
numerosity, and existence of common questions in relation to
Plaintiff's Motions.

The action arises from a compensation dispute between Plaintiff
Luis Luviano, Defendant Multi Cable, Inc., and the TWC Defendants.
The Plaintiff worked as an Installation Technician ("IT") for
Defendant MCI.

In his Class Action Motion, the Plaintiff specifies one class and
one subclass for which he seeks certification:

   Class 1: All ITs paid as faux "independent contractors" during
            the period from four years prior to the filing of the
            original Complaint herein (June 23, 2011) until
            June 13, 2015, the last date on which the ITs were
            paid as independent contractors rather than
            employees.

   Subclass 1: All ITs who are no longer working as such.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rqrvgPs7


MULTI-STATE LOTTERY: Rigged Games Suit Seeks Class Action Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Berg at KCHA News reports that two Des Moines law firms have
joined forces and filed the first class action lawsuit against the
Multi-State Lottery Association (MUSL) over the alleged rigging of
lottery games in Iowa and other states.  The lottery association
helps run multi-state lottery games and its information technology
security director, Eddie Tipton, was found guilty of rigging a Hot
Lotto drawing in Iowa and is accused of rigging the software of
several games in other states. Nick Mauro, --
mauro@crawfordlawfirm.com -- at Crawford Mauro Law Firm is one of
the attorneys in the case.

Dale Culler of Burlington purchased 45 dollars worth of tickets
for the Iowa Hot Lotto game which was ultimately determined to be
rigged. Mauro is representing Culler and says they hope to find
others who also bought tickets and lost out.

Many people throw out their tickets after learning they haven't
won, but he says there are other ways to determine if you played
in the rigged games.

Getting that information could be a key part of the case.

Mauro says while Tipton was acting on his own, the organization
should have been able to catch him before he rigged the lotteries.

The lawsuit cites rigged drawings in Colorado beginning in 2005,
three drawings in Wisconsin, one in Kansas and Oklahoma and others
that Tipton is believed to be involved in, as well "additional
rigged contests as yet to be determined." Tipton was convicted on
July 20th, 2015 of tampering with lottery equipment related to the
December 29, 2010, Hot Lotto drawing and faces criminal charges
for the other drawings.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Ex-Football Players File Concussion Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fatima Hussein, writing for IndyStar, reports that a group of
former college football players is suing the NCAA and the Big 12
Conference for what they allege is inadequate concussion treatment
and return-to-play rules.

In the class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court, the
former athletes seek damages from the National Collegiate Athletic
Association and the Big 12 Conference for brain injuries sustained
on the field.

The plaintiffs -- Cory Brandon, Kelvin Chaisson, Derrick Cherry,
Jarrod Blake Roberts and Joseph Walker -- played football for
colleges in Texas and Oklahoma, and filed the suit in U.S.
District Court in the Southern District of Indiana.

"The NCAA and Big 12 specifically intended to induce a false
belief in its student-athletes that they should continue to play
and should not be prevented from playing their respective sports
even after a concussion or several concussions that should have
required time to heal," the 60-page complaint states.

The lawsuit is one of more than 43 filed against NCAA alleging it
mishandled concussion treatment, according to The Associated
Press.

The latest lawsuit alleges that "defendants sacrificed player
safety -- including the plaintiffs' and the class' long-term
health and well-being -- in favor of profits and self-promotion."

As the governing body of college football, the NCAA held and holds
itself out as the guardian of, and ultimate authority on, player
safety, wrote attorney Vincent Circelli, with Fort Worth, Texas,
law firm, Circelli, Walter & Young.

"It (NCAA) unilaterally acknowledged a duty to provide all
players' safety.  Player safety is supposed to be safeguarded with
rules, information and best practices that protect the athletes as
much as possible from short-term and long-term health risks," Mr.
Circelli states.

"But they did not, because for the past several decades the NCAA
and its member conferences placed profits far ahead of player
safety."

All the plaintiffs state that they have sustained brain damage
from concussions they suffered from playing football.  Brandon
played football at the University of Oklahoma from 2006 to 2011;
Roberts played at Texas Christian University from 2010 to 2014;
Cherry played at Texas Tech University from 1994 to 1996; Chaisson
played at the University of Oklahoma from 2001 to 2005; and Walker
played at the University of Texas from 1997 to 2000.

The complaint's allegations include: breach of express contract,
breach of implied contract, fraudulent concealment, negligence and
unjust enrichment.

Donald Remy, the NCAA's chief legal officer, responded to the
former football players' complaint in an emailed statement.

"This complaint against the NCAA presents nothing new or unique to
the many cases consolidated to federal court in Illinois," Remy
wrote to IndyStar.  "The theories in this case, like the others,
simply are not supported by the law."

The players are seeking class certification, a monetary judgment
for all actual damages, both past and future, attorney's fees,
costs of the suit and other damages.


NATIONAL CREDIT: Certification of Class Sought in "Hoffman" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Hoffman moves the Court to certify the class described in
the lawsuit entitled ROBERT HOFFMAN, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. NATIONAL CREDIT ADJUSTERS, LLC,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00011 (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the
Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant
the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules
setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and
supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence, Mr.
Hoffman states.  He asserts that he is obligated to move for class
certification to protect the interests of the putative class.

The Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016
U.S. LEXIS 846 *14-15 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016) (internal citations
omitted) and Chapman should have put a stop to this practice.
Unfortunately, they have not, the Plaintiff notes.  In dicta, the
Supreme Court left open the possibility that a defendant facing a
class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's claim with the court and having the court enter
judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to a class certification
motion.  Campbell-Ewald Co., 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 *19 ("We need
not, and do not, now decide whether the result would be different
if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's
individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the
court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount.").

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

Mr. Hoffman also asks to be appointed as class representative, and
for the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as class counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONWIDE EVICTION: Class Certification Sought in "Russell" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled DAN RUSSELL, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NATIONWIDE
EVICTION, LLC, Case No. 4:17-cv-00008 (S.D. Tex.), moves the Court
for conditional certification of claims pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff asserts that the action is filed, concurrently with
the Motion, to correct the Defendant's unlawful employment
practices and to seek damages and other relief not only for
themselves, but on behalf of other similarly situated current and
former employees.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant
employed and misclassified the Plaintiff, and others similarly
situated, as independent contractors and failed to pay them
overtime or minimum wage, in violation of the FLSA.  The Plaintiff
and others similar situated worked as "professional court
representatives" -- non-attorney agents for its client-customers
to prepare for and attended eviction hearings.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alfonso Kennard Jr., Esq.
          Ronald E. Dupree, Jr., Esq.
          2603 Augusta Dr., Suite 1450
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 742-0900
          Facsimile: (713) 742-0951
          E-mail: alfonso.kennard@kennardlaw.com
                  ronald.dupree@kennardlaw.com


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Carlson Seeks Class Certification Under ERISA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled ALAN CARLSON & PETER DeLUCA,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION and the NORTHROP
GRUMMAN SEVERANCE PLAN, Case No. 1:13-cv-02635 (N.D. Ill.), ask
the Court to certify claims they brought in their amended
complaint under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.  The Plaintiffs ask for an order certifying Counts I-III on
behalf of the Class, defined as:

     All persons who worked for Northrop Grumman in the United
     States, were regularly scheduled to work over 20 hours per
     week, were laid off from Northrop Grumman from January 1,
     2012 and after, and who did not receive written notification
     from management or from a Vice President of Human Resources
     (or his/her designee) notifying them of their eligibility
     for severance benefits under the Plan and who did not
     receive the "Cash Portion" of the severance benefits (a.k.a.
     the Salary Continuation Benefits) under the terms of the
     Plan (regardless of whether they received Medical, Dental or
     Vision Benefits under the Plan), as well as the
     beneficiaries of such persons.

Excluded from the Class are (1) employees specifically excluded
from participation in the Plan as follows: (a) Employees of the
Electronic Systems Sector who work at BWI, Annapolis, Sykesville
(including FE&S employees and FE&S offsite offices and
facilities), Troy Hill, Sunnyvale or Kings Bay, (b) Employees of
the Technical Services Sector who are classified by Northrop
Grumman as being in the following employment categories (i)
Service Contract Act (SCA) employees, (ii) Union Represented
employees, (iii) Employees covered by a Memorandum of
Understanding between the Technical Services Sector and Electronic
Services Sector providing for the temporary assignment of the
employee to the Technical Services Sector and retention of
participation in the Electronic Services Sector employee benefit
programs, (c) employees excluded from coverage as a result of
participation in another Northrop Grumman severance benefit
program, and (d) employees represented by a union whose collective
bargaining agreement does not provide for participation in the
Plan; and (2) any fiduciaries or other persons who had any
decision making or administrative authority with respect to the
Plan and the members of the immediate family of any such person.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives and appoint Michael Bartolic, Esq., of Roberts
Bartolic, LLP and R. Joseph Barton, Esq., of Block and Leviton LLP
as Co-Lead Class Counsel.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          R. Joseph Barton, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          1735 20th St NW,
          Washington DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 734-7046
          E-mail: jbarton@blockesq.com

               - and -

          Michael Bartolic, Esq.
          ROBERTS BARTOLIC LLP
          208 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1420
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 635-1600
          Facsimile: (312) 635-1601
          E-mail: mbartolic@michaelbartolic.com


NOVO NORDISK: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") on Jan. 11
disclosed that it has filed a securities class action lawsuit on
behalf of Lehigh County Employees' Retirement System against Novo
Nordisk A/S ("Novo Nordisk" or the "Company") (NYSE: NVO) and
certain of its senior executives.  The action, which is captioned
Lehigh County Employees' Retirement System v. Novo Nordisk A/S,
No. 17-cv-00209 (D.N.J.), asserts claims under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in Novo Nordisk
American Depositary Receipts ("ADR") during the time period of
April 30, 2015 to October 27, 2016, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Novo Nordisk
reported materially false and misleading earnings and forecasts in
that they were inflated through the collusive price fixing of the
Company's insulin drugs.  The Complaint also alleges that Novo
Nordisk misrepresented and concealed the true extent of the
pricing pressures it was experiencing from pharmacy benefit
managers.

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than 60 days from January
11, 2017.  Accordingly, the deadline for filing a motion for
appointment as Lead Plaintiff is March 13, 2017.  Any member of
the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain a member of the proposed Class.

If you wish to discuss this Action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Avi Josefson of BLB&G at 212-554-1493, or via e-mail at
avi@blbglaw.com.

Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G -- http://www.blbglaw.com--
specializes in securities fraud, corporate governance,
shareholders' rights, employment discrimination, and civil rights
litigation, among other practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and
private actions on behalf of institutional and individual clients
worldwide.


PACIFIC FINANCIAL: Class Action Lawsuit Goes Forward
----------------------------------------------------
Go by Truck reports the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association said its class action lawsuit against Pacific
Financial Association was given the go ahead by the Arizona Court
of Appeals to move forward.

The court issued an important precedent-setting ruling that
OOIDA's lawsuit for breach of fiduciary duty under a BMC -- 85
Trust could proceed. The lawsuit was filed in 2013 alleging that
Pacific Financial breached its fiduciary duties under the BMC-85
Trust by failing to pay claims promptly, failing to terminate the
trust upon the aggregation of claims as required under the Trust,
favoring certain beneficiaries to the detriment of others, and
engaging in conflicts of interest.

The Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that the
lawsuit could not proceed under either Arizona statute or common
law, concluding that such claims were perfectly entitled to
proceed under common law.

The Court of Appeals also reversed and vacated the lower court's
award of $85,000 for attorneys' fees against OOIDA. The ruling
paves the way for OOIDA to obtain discovery from Pacific Financial
and for the case to be tried on the merits.

"The court's ruling sets an extremely important precedent in
holding trustees like Pacific Financial accountable for losses
incurred by small-business truckers at the hands of brokers who
have failed to pay their claims," said OOIDA President and CEO Jim
Johnston. "The case also sends a clear message to other BMC-85
trustees throughout the country and carries out the objective of
protecting truckers against 'dishonest and financially unstable
middlemen in the transportation industry.'"

Johnston said that OOIDA will ensure that those interests are
"fully vindicated in its suit against Pacific Financial" and other
cases involving similar conduct.


PATCO ELECTRICAL: Roberts Seeks to Certify Class of Electricians
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled KYLE R. ROBERTS AND JOHNY L.
SMITH, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
PATCO Electrical Services, Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-00720-M (W.D.
Okla.) file with the Court their motion for conditional class
certification and request for discovery.

The proposed class consists of:

    "All current and former electricians, including journeymen
     and apprentices, who were employed by PATCO at any time from
     June 24, 2013 to the present."

Because PATCO refuses to pay its employees the rightful
compensation to which they are entitled, the Plaintiffs contend
that they have been forced to file the lawsuit to recover unpaid
compensation from PATCO on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege, PATCO requires its employees
to work a substantial amount of overtime without properly paying
all compensation due, thus, depriving them of rightful
compensation for their work that PATCO is legally obligated to
pay.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
          BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 425-7100
          Facsimile: (713) 425-7101
          E-mail: rcowan@bpblaw.com


PULASKI COUNTY, IN: Hizer Seeks to Certify Disabled Persons Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Hizer asks the Court to certify the case captioned EMILY
HIZER, on her own behalf and on behalf of a class of those
similarly situated v. PULASKI COUNTY, INDIANA, Case No. 3:16-cv-
00885-TLS-MGG (N.D. Ind.), as a class action.  She seeks
certification of a class defined as:

     all persons with mobility impairments or other physical
     disabilities who access or attempt to access, or who will
     access or will attempt to access, the Pulaski County
     Courthouse.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=M3HIl4UQ

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth J. Falk, Esq.
          ACLU OF INDIANA
          1031 E. Washington St.
          Indianapolis, IN 46202
          Telephone: (317) 635-4059
          Facsimile: (317) 635-4105
          E-mail: kfalk@aclu-in.org


RALEIGH HEART: Clinic Doctor Reprimanded Amid Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Lori Kersey, writing for Charleston Gazette-Mail, reports that a
health care provider at a Beckley heart clinic linked to several
cases of hepatitis B and C allowed a person with no medical
license to perform parts of patients' stress tests, according to a
consent order filed by the West Virginia Board of Medicine.

Dr. Thair Ali Barghouthi, president of the Raleigh Heart Clinic,
admitted to the board that he delegated some of the
responsibilities of stress tests to his brother, Ahmad Barghouthi,
whose Nuclear Medicine Apprenticeship License had lapsed,
according to the order.

"Dr. Barghouthi was aware that his brother's Nuclear Medicine
Apprenticeship License expired in July 2012," the consent order's
findings of fact state.  "Dr. Barghouthi admits that, during the
performance of nuclear medicine stress test procedures, he has
delegated tasks to Mr. Barghouthi, including the positioning of
patients, operating nuclear scan equipment, and monitoring the
patient and equipment."

A patient of the clinic complained to the medical board that
Dr. Barghouthi delegated responsibilities of the patient's nuclear
medicine stress tests to his brother in 2012, 2013 and 2014,
according to the consent order.

A lawyer representing Dr. Barghouthi in a class-action lawsuit
filed by patients said what the doctor's brother did had nothing
to do with the lawsuit.  The brother positioned patients but
didn't inject them, attorney Don Sensabaugh said.

In its filing, the Board of Medicine publicly reprimanded Dr.
Barghouthi and prohibited him from delegating professional
responsibilities related to the tests to anyone who doesn't have
the required certifications or credentials to do the tests,
including Mr. Barghouthi.

In March 2016, the West Virginia Department of Health and Human
Resources sent letters to 2,300 of the clinic's patients who
underwent a stress test with injectable medicine between March 1,
2012, and March 27, 2015.  The letters told patients they might
have been exposed to HIV and hepatitis A and B, and encouraged
them to be tested.

At the time, 12 cases of patients with hepatitis B or hepatitis C
were documented.  Four more hepatitis cases were detected later,
although they couldn't be "conclusively linked to the clinic," a
DHHR news release at the time said.

The state recommended that patients at the clinic before March 1,
2012, be tested for hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV. No cases of
HIV related to the clinic have been reported.

State health officials last year said they were not sure what
caused the hepatitis cases.  Health Commissioner Dr. Rahul Gupta
said an investigation turned up no "smoking gun" as a reason for
the viruses being transmitted, but that there are a number of
factors that could have caused it.

"It's not just [not reusing] the needle, but there are a host of
other precautions that one must take when you're doing the
procedure, and that's part of the infection control," Dr. Gupta
told reporters during a news conference at the time.

At least two patients filed lawsuits against the clinic last year
in Raleigh County Circuit Court.  A lawsuit filed by Raleigh
County resident Pamela Vines was granted class-action status in
December, her attorney, Stephen New, said on Jan. 11.  The case
has about 100 class members and is moving through the litigation
process, New said.

A clerk at Raleigh County Circuit Court said the filing is under
seal and cannot be released.


RESOURCE ENERGY: Class of Welders Certified in "Moresi" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Carol B. Whitehurst granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification
filed in the lawsuit styled Moresi, et al. v. Resource Energy
Ventures and Construction Company LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-02224-RFD-
CBW (W.D. La.).

On August 21, 2015, Plaintiff Dylan John Moresi filed the action
against REVCO on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated.  On January 14, 2016, Mr. Moresi amended the complaint
to add Gulf Coast Services, Inc. as Defendant, alleging that
"REVCO was merely a front or sham company" and GSSI was Moresi's
"true employer," or alternatively that GSSI was a "joint employer
within the meaning of the FLSA."  The Amended Complaint alleged
Fair Labor Standards Act claims identical to those originally
alleged against REVCO.

In the Motion, the Plaintiffs seek to certify a collective action
on behalf of those similarly situated employees who were not paid
overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week.
They ask that the Court to collectively certify the action to
include:

     All "welders, fitters and helpers" rendering services to or
     for the benefit of REVCO and/or Gulf South [GSSI] whether
     directly employed by REVCO and/or GSSI or referred through a
     third party in the past 3 years and who were classified by
     GSSI or the third party as independent contractors or who,
     regardless of how classified, were not paid overtime
     compensation by GSSI or the third party for any hours worked
     in excess of forty (40) hours in the workweek.

Judge Whitehurst granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' Motion, including Court-approved notice to be issued
to potential class participants, certifying the proposed class as
defined but limiting the Defendants to Resource Energy Ventures
and Construction Company LLC and Gulf South Services, Inc., and
approving the proposed notice form, subject to the joint
submission filed by the parties.

The Defendants will have 10 days from the entry of the Order to
provide the Plaintiffs with an updated information necessary to
facilitate notice.

Judge Whitehurst also ordered the parties to jointly submit a
revised copy of the Proposed Notice for final Court review no
later than January 20, 2017.  Once the revised Proposed Notice is
approved, the Plaintiffs are authorized to disseminate the
approved Notice to prospective class members via first class mail
and e-mail.

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


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Anderson Seeks Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------
Erik W. Anderson moves the Court to certify the class described in
the lawsuit styled ERIK W. ANDERSON, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA,
PROFESSIONAL BUREAU OF COLLECTIONS OF MARYLAND, INC., and NCB
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-00012 (E.D. Wisc.),
and further asks the Court to both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence, Mr.
Anderson states.  He asserts that he is obligated to move for
class certification to protect the interests of the putative
class.

The Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016
U.S. LEXIS 846 *14-15 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016) (internal citations
omitted) and Chapman should have put a stop to this practice.
Unfortunately, they have not, the Plaintiff notes.  In dicta, the
Supreme Court left open the possibility that a defendant facing a
class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's claim with the court and having the court enter
judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to a class certification
motion.  Campbell-Ewald Co., 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 *19 ("We need
not, and do not, now decide whether the result would be different
if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's
individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the
court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount.").

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

Mr. Anderson also seeks his appointment as class representative,
and the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as class counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SCHWARTZ LEVITSKY: Appeal Court Rules in Favor of ESO Investors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Norm Emblem, Esq. -- norm.emblem@dentons.com -- Jessie Lamont,
Esq. -- jessie.lamont@dentons.com -- and Aoife Quinn, Esq. --
aoife.quinn@dentons.com -- of Dentons, in an article for
International Law Office, report that a divided Court of Appeal
for Ontario recently granted certification to a global class of
accredited investors in an auditor's liability claim, and held
that there is no independent principle of restraint to which a
court should adhere when certifying a global class.  In Excalibur
Special Opportunities LP v Schwartz Levitsky Feldman LLP, the
court of appeal held that Ontario's connection to a class action
was sufficient where one member of the class carried on business
in Ontario, the defendant was resident and carried on business in
Ontario, and the class was small and all members were known.

Excalibur creates a precedent for parties seeking to certify
global class actions in Ontario, but will also limit the comfort
that parties take in their certification decisions.  The court of
appeal reversed the first-instance decision, which had been upheld
by a majority of the Ontario Divisional Court.

Facts

Plaintiff Excalibur Special Opportunities LP (ESO) is organised
under the provincial laws of Manitoba, but operates in Ontario.
ESO was one of 57 'accredited investors' that invested in a
Chinese hog production company, incorporated in Nevada, that
planned a reverse takeover of a Delaware company and a private
placement under the US Securities Act of 1993.  The group of
investors comprised 50 Americans, five global investors and one
other Canadian investor from British Columbia.  The defendant --
SLF, a Toronto and Montreal-based accounting firm with stated
expertise in auditing Chinese companies -- prepared an audit
report certifying that the financial statements presented by the
hog producer were financially accurate.  The US promoters of the
private placement attached this clean audit report as an exhibit
to a private placement memorandum circulated to the accredited
investors.

Within a year, the accredited investors learned that the company
lacked financial controls over its all-cash business.  Within 22
months of that disclosure, ESO lost its US$400,000 investment and
the proposed class lost a total of US$7.5 million when the hog
producer went out of business.  The plaintiffs alleged that all of
the accredited investors relied on the clean audit report in their
decision to invest in the hog producer and sought to certify a
class action against SLF for the torts of negligent
misrepresentation and negligence.

Lower-court decisions

At first instance, Justice Perell held that Excalibur was not an
appropriate case to certify a global class.  In the judge's
opinion, Ontario did not have a real and substantial connection
with the claims of 56 of the 57 investors and Ontario's connection
with ESO, a Manitoba partnership, was "modest if not trivial".  It
would not be reasonable for the non-resident class members to
expect that their rights would be determined by a foreign court,
as they were "non-residents in Ontario making substantial
investments in American dollars in an American corporation in a
transaction that was governed by American corporate and securities
law".  Assuming jurisdiction in this case would not demonstrate
the "restraint required" of Ontario courts "under the principles
of order and fairness".

The judge also held that a class action was not a preferable
procedure.  He noted that Excalibur was far from the
"quintessential case of a class proceeding for a purely economic
loss", where there is an economic barrier to access to justice
because the individual cannot bring forward a claim because of the
high cost that litigation would entail in comparison to the modest
value of the claim.  Instead, Excalibur was a situation where
joinder of claims would provide effective redress for ESO and
other investors which could join as co-plaintiffs.

A majority of the Ontario Divisional Court upheld the decision
both on jurisdiction and on preferable procedure.  With respect to
the latter, the divisional court stated that "[j]oinder is not
simply an alternative, it is the default position in considering
whether a class proceeding is or is not the preferable procedure".

Appeal decision

Jurisdiction
The plaintiffs successfully appealed and the Court of Appeal of
Ontario held that the motion judge had erred in approaching the
question of whether there was a real and substantial connection
between Ontario and the cause of action with "restraint".  Rather,
the court of appeal found that the test for whether a court should
assert jurisdiction over foreign class members is the test for
asserting jurisdiction articulated in Club Resorts Ltd v Van
Breda.  Ontario had jurisdiction as the facts exhibited three of
the four presumptive Van Breda factors: it was an action for
negligence and negligent misrepresentation against a defendant
resident and carrying on business in Ontario, which had drafted
the impugned clean audit report in Ontario.

The majority took the view that the motion judge could not have
concluded that Ontario had a "modest" or "trivial" connection to
the claim had he properly characterised the nature of the proposed
action.  It was an error for the motion judge to re-characterise
the claim in the way that he did.  The action as pleaded in the
plaintiffs' claim was an action against an accounting firm
carrying on business in Ontario and Montreal, for audit work done
in Ontario by a partner in SLF's Toronto office, and ESO was a
Toronto-based company registered in Manitoba which had made the
ill-fated investment out of its Toronto office.

In his dissent, Justice Blair opined that there was never a
dispute as to whether the Ontario court had jurisdiction
simpliciter over the proposed class proceeding; rather, the
question was whether it was "appropriate" to certify a global
class in this situation.  As the motion judge had committed no
error of fact or mixed fact and law in this analysis, Blair found
that his decision should be accorded deference.

Preferable procedure
The court of appeal also addressed how the preferable procedure
criterion should be analysed, explaining that plaintiffs need not
show that a class action is necessary -- only that it is
preferable.  In particular, the court of appeal rejected the
divisional court's characterisation of joinder as the "default"
procedure and clearly stated that there is no "default" procedure
in the assessment of the merits of a class proceeding.

The court engaged in the analysis prescribed by the Supreme Court
in AIC Limited v Fisher, finding that a number of factors
militated against adopting joinder as the preferable procedure,
including:

   -- barriers to access to justice for proposed class members
with smaller claims;
   -- lack of evidence on the feasibility of joinder;
   -- the fact that successful plaintiffs would have an
enforceable Ontario judgment against an Ontario defendant; and

   -- the fact that class actions are more effective than
individual actions in terms of regulatory oversight.

In his dissent, Blair again emphasised that the court should be
deferential to the motion judge's decision, in recognition of his
role as "gatekeeper".  In his view, the motion judge had conducted
the preferable procedure analysis with a view to the goals of
judicial economy, behaviour modification and access to justice.
However, Blair agreed with the court of appeal that the divisional
court had erred in characterising joinder as the "default
position" in the preferable procedure analysis.

Comment

Class action counsel should take note of the court of appeal's
decision in Excalibur, which offers perspective on the preferable
procedure analysis and certification of a global class, as well as
the deference accorded to the certification judge.  Similarly,
counsel advising auditors should also be aware that, if litigated
on its merits (in this action or if followed in another case),
this decision has the potential to expand the liability of
auditors.  At first instance, the motion judge held that the novel
claim against the auditors for negligence in giving the clean
audit report could stand alongside the claim for negligent
misrepresentation relating to the false statements of the clean
audit report, as it was not "plain and obvious" that the novel
claim for negligence was legally untenable.  Despite the fact that
this was not a main issue on appeal by the time the case made it
way to the court of appeal, it remains a notable development.


SCRAP INC: Status Hearing in Chicago Car Suit Reset for March 7
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on January 4, 2017, in the case
titled Chicago Car Care Inc. v. S.C.R.A.P. Inc., et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-08088 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Andrea R. Wood.

The minute entry states that in light of the parties' notice of
settlement, the status hearing set for January 4, 2017, is
stricken and reset for March 7, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.  If the
Plaintiff files a notice of voluntary dismissal prior to the
status hearing, the date will be stricken.

In light of the parties' agreement to settle the case, the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied without
prejudice.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7iG1etNb


SEATTLE GENETICS: March 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Jan. 11
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Seattle Genetics Inc. securities (NASDAQ:SGEN) from
October 27, 2016 through December 23, 2016, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Seattle
Genetics investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Seattle Genetics class action, go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1020.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements to investors
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) vadastuximab talirine, one of
Seattle Genetics' products in development, presents a significant
risk of fatal hepatotoxicity; (2) as such, Seattle Genetics had
overstated the viability of vadastuximab talirine as a treatment
for acute myeloid leukemia; and (3) as a result, defendants'
public statements about Seattle Genetics' business, operations,
and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
March 13, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1020.htmlor to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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


SEDGWICK: Female Partner Files Amended Gender Bias Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sanford Heisler, LLP on Jan. 11 disclosed that it filed an Amended
Complaint in arbitration in the gender discrimination class and
collective action, Ribeiro v. Sedgwick, LLP (in arbitration as
Sedgwick, LLP v. Ribeiro).

On her own behalf and on behalf of female Sedgwick attorneys,
Ms. Ribeiro, a high-performing, non-equity Partner at Sedgwick,
alleges that Sedgwick engaged in systemic pay and promotion
discrimination and thereby violated Title VII, the Equal Pay Act,
and analogous state laws.  Ms. Ribeiro seeks to represent a class
of all female attorneys other than equity Partners and who are,
have been or will be employed by Sedgwick in the United States.

The Amended Complaint adds allegations of discrimination and
retaliation based on facts that occurred since the filing of the
original complaint, including the promotion of two men, both of
whom were objectively less-qualified than Ms. Ribeiro, to equity
Partner.  Sedgwick denied Ms. Ribeiro promotion to equity Partner
each year, from 2013 through the present.

The Amended Complaint also demands $200 Million in lost wages and
compensatory and punitive damages.

Procedural History of the Litigation

Ms. Ribeiro filed her claims in state court in San Francisco, but
the case was removed to the Northern District of California (3:16-
CV-04507).  On August 23, 2016, Sedgwick moved to enforce an
arbitration provision included in the Partnership agreement
Ribeiro was required to sign as a condition of becoming a non-
equity Partner.

Judge William Alsup found the agreement required the parties to
arbitrate whether the case itself should be arbitrated. Judge
Alsup expressed regret that Ms. Ribeiro's case was relegated to
arbitration, a forum with limited discovery and appellate review,
but concluded that he was bound by federal precedent.  Judge Alsup
ordered the case to arbitration, leaving to the arbitrator the
question of whether the case would remain there or proceed in
federal court.

In December, JAMS Arbitrator Honorable Robert A. Baines (Ret.)
heard and granted Sedgwick's motion to compel arbitration of the
claims.  Judge Baines found that Ms. Ribeiro had "established both
the requisite procedural unconscionability (based on the take-it-
or-leave-it presentation of the Partnership Agreement in a setting
of unequal bargaining power) and [. . .] shown that several
provisions in the arbitration agreement are substantively
unconscionable[. . .]"

As a condition of compelling arbitration, Judge Baines ordered the
removal of several of the terms contained in the mandatory
arbitration provision.  These unconscionable provisions included
"the use of the JAMS Comprehensive Arbitration Rules (which
includes a provision for cost-sharing of arbitration costs, as
does the arbitration agreement itself), the ninety-day 'statute of
limitations' for filing claims, and the requirement that the
hearing commence within ninety days of the appointment of the
arbitrator."  In essence, Judge Baines found these provisions so
one-sided and unfair that they could not be enforced, and struck
them from the agreement.  Judge Baines also ordered that the case
will be administered under the JAMS Employment Arbitration Rules
and Procedures.

The Amended Complaint

The Amended Complaint charges that Sedgwick's male-dominated
leadership and opaque compensation and promotion policies have
produced stark disparities for female attorneys throughout the
firm.  The Amended Complaint refines the original class to include
California and Illinois subclasses and adds a claim that
Sedgwick's systemic discrimination against the California Class
unjustly enriched the firm in violation of the California Unfair
Competition Law.

"Ms. Ribeiro is the perfect example of an outstanding employee who
-- because of her gender -- has been denied fair compensation,
equity status, and proper recognition" said David Sanford --
dsanford@sanfordheisler.com -- Chairman of Sanford Heisler, LLP,
the firm that has taken over the matter as lead counsel.

Ms. Ribeiro has been a non-equity Partner at Sedgwick for 5 years
and one of Sedgwick's top performers since joining the firm in
2011.  She has been passed over for promotion to equity Partner
repeatedly in favor of less-qualified men, each of whom generated
revenue that was a fraction of her own.  Ms. Ribeiro also claims
she has been paid substantially less as a percentage of her
revenues than male partners and less than she would earn were she
an equity Partner.  Significantly, Ms. Ribeiro has faced
retaliation for her efforts to obtain gender equity for herself
and other women at the firm.

According to the Amended Complaint, Sedgwick not only promotes men
at higher rates than women, but also maintains a lower bar for
male promotions, given that men are promoted with less experience
and less business.  At the same time, these men are given
substantial leadership positions throughout the Firm. "Arbitration
agreements, like Sedgwick's, are too often used by companies to
deter employees from seeking the justice they deserve," said
Xinying Valerian -- xvalerian@sanfordheisler.com
-- Senior Litigation Counsel at Sanford Heisler, LLP.  "The
Arbitrator's decision shows that despite her partner title, Ms.
Ribeiro should be able to avail herself of the fairness
protections in the arbitration process that all employees are
entitled to."

This case comes at a time when female attorneys continue to face
strong headwinds.  Despite the fact that almost 45% of big law
associates are women, female attorneys account for only 18 percent
of equity partner positions, according to a survey published in
2016 by the American Bar Association.  Furthermore, a 2016 study
of partner compensation from Major, Lindsey & Africa found that
the average compensation for male law partners is about 44% higher
than that of female partners: $949,000 vs. $659,000 -- a
differential largely due to male partners receiving more credit
for rainmaking than do female partners under an
old-boys'-club regime.  Ms. Ribeiro's Amended Complaint highlights
some of these issues.

"The facts in this case point to systemic gender inequality which,
unfortunately, is nothing new in the legal field," said Sanford
Heisler, LLP's San Francisco Managing Partner, Felicia Medina.
"It is up to firms like Sedgwick to address these problems head
on.  Until then, you can expect to hear from courageous women like
Ms. Ribeiro."

                  About Sanford Heisler, LLP

Sanford Heisler, LLP is a public interest class-action litigation
law firm with offices in New York, Washington, D.C, San Francisco
and San Diego.  The Firm specializes in civil rights and general
public interest cases, representing plaintiffs with employment
discrimination, labor and wage violations, predatory lending,
whistleblower, consumer fraud, and other claims.  Along with a
focus on class actions, the firm also represents individuals and
has achieved particular success in the representation of
executives in employment disputes.  For more information go to
http://www.sanfordheisler.com/or call 202 499-5200 or email
dsanford@sanfordheisler.com.


SERVIS ONE: McCamis Seeks Class Certification Under FCCPA & FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronnie J. McCamis moves for entry of an order certifying the case
titled RONNIE J. MCCAMIS v. SERVIS ONE, INC. d/b/a BSI FINANCIAL
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 8:16-cv-01130-JSM-AEP (M.D. Fla.), as a
class action.

The Plaintiff has sued Servis One, Inc., for violation of the
Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act and the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, based on the Defendant's alleged
practice of sending collections communications regarding mortgage
debts that were discharged in bankruptcy to numerous consumers.
The Plaintiff asks that the Court certify this class:

     All individuals who: (1) filed a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13
     bankruptcy in the Middle District of Florida, (2)
     surrendered their home in the bankruptcy proceedings, (3)
     obtained a discharge, and (4) after they received the
     discharge, received communications related to the discharged
     mortgage from or on behalf of Servis One, Inc., d/b/a BSI
     Financial Services, Inc., on or after May 6, 2014.

Mr. McCamis further asks that he be designated as representative
of the Class and his Counsel be named Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=l1ULogzN

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katherine Earle Yanes, Esq.
          KYNES, MARKMAN & FELMAN, P.A.
          Post Office Box 3396
          Tampa, FL 33601-3396
          Telephone: (813) 229-1118
          Facsimile: (813) 221-6750
          E-mail: kyanes@kmf-law.com

               - and -

          Gus M. Centrone, Esq.
          Brian L. Shrader, Esq.
          CENTRONE & SHRADER, LLC
          612 W. Bay Street
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Telephone: (813) 360-1529
          E-mail: gcentrone@centroneshrader.com
                  bshrader@centroneshrader.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          J. Kirby McDonough, Esq.
          S. Douglas Knox, Esq.
          Zachary S. Foster, Esq.
          QUARLES & BRADY LLP
          101 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 3400
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 384-6711
          Facsimile: (813) 384-6862
          E-mail: Kirby.McDonough@quarles.com
                  Doug.Knox@quarles.com
                  Zachary.Foster@quarles.com


SOLERA HOLDINGS: Chancellor Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joanna Diakos, Esq., and Max E. Kaplan, Esq., of K&L Gates, in an
article for The National Law Review, report that by memorandum-
opinion dated January 5, 2017, Chancellor Bouchard granted
defendants' motion to dismiss a putative class action complaint in
In re Solera Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litigation. Specifically,
the Court held that absent allegations specifically identifying
material deficiencies in the operative disclosure documents,
ratification by a majority of disinterested stockholders rendered
defendant-directors' approval of a merger subject to the business
judgment rule.

In Re Solera Holdings, Inc. Stockholder Litig., C.A. No. 10485-CB
(Del. Ch. Jan. 5, 2017).  Plaintiffs, former stockholders of
Solera Holdings, Inc. ("Solera") brought this action for breach of
fiduciary duty against the eight directors of Solera, seven of
whom were outside directors, alleging that the board improperly
favored the interests of the company's founder and upper
management in approving its merger with a private equity firm,
failed to establish an effective Special Committee or to obtain
the highest price possible for Solera, implemented preclusive deal
protection devices, and failed to disclose material information
about the value of Solera's stock.  Facing dismissal, plaintiffs
argued that the defendants' actions throughout the merger process-
-including while eliciting stockholder approval--called for
enhanced scrutiny under Revlon and its progeny.

Relying on the Supreme Court of Delaware's decision in Corwin v.
KKR, 125 A.3d 304 (Del. 2015), Chancellor Bouchard rejected
plaintiffs' broad application of Revlon.  Instead, the Court held
that, Revlon was "primarily designed to give stockholders and the
Court of Chancery the tool of injunctive relief to address
important M&A decisions in real time, before closing and was not a
tool designed with post-closing money damages in mind."  Absent
special circumstances subject to the "entire fairness" standard, a
completed merger approved by a "fully informed, uncoerced vote of
disinterested stockholders" is always subject to the business
judgment rule.  Further, while a board hoping to "secure the
cleansing effect" of a stockholder vote must eventually show the
vote was fully informed, "a plaintiff challenging the decision to
approve a transaction must first identify a deficiency in the
operative disclosure document."  In other words, to survive a
motion to dismiss, a stockholder-plaintiff must allege specific
and material omissions or misstatements tainting the stockholder
ratification.  Once the plaintiff has done so the burden falls on
the defendants to establish that the alleged deficiency fails as a
matter of law in order to secure the cleansing effect of the vote.

In this case, the Court rejected plaintiffs' alleged deficiencies
in the directors' disclosures.  Under Delaware law, information is
material only if a reasonable stockholder would conclude it
significantly alters the "total mix" of information made
available--alleged "troubling facts" regarding the directors'
behavior is wholly insufficient.  Applying this standard,
Chancellor Bouchard concluded that in each case the alleged
deficient information was either directly disclosed in the
pertinent proxy statement, incorporated therein by reference, or
otherwise wholly immaterial.

While the Chancery Court's decision reinforces the cleansing power
of stockholder ratification, a less comprehensive proxy statement
could have lost the Solera directors the protection of the
business judgment rule.  Above all else, In re Solera is a lesson
in how proper drafting of disclosure statements can lessen
litigation exposure following a merger.


SQUIP INC: Certification of Rule 23 Class Sought in Freed Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled DR. WILLIAM FREED d/b/a FREED
CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, a Connecticut individual, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v.
SQUIP, INC., a New Jersey corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No.
3:17-cv-00013-SRU (D. Conn.), moves the Court for an order:

   A. taking the motion under submission and deferring further
      activity on it until after the discovery cutoff date to be
      set in the Court's upcoming scheduling order under Rule 23
      of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or alternatively;

   B. granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
      pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
      Procedure.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PvuMZ94H

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          85 Miles Avenue
          White Plaines, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358-5345
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
          E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com

               - and -

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


STAPLES: Settles Class Action Over Deceptive Rewards Program
------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald R. Urbach, Esq. -- rurbach@dglaw.com -- and Paavana L.
Kumar, Esq. -- pkumar@dglaw.com -- of Davis & Gilbert, in an
article for Mondaq, report that Staples has agreed to pay $2
million to end a class action filed in California federal court
alleging that the company engaged in deceptive rewards program
practices.

In particular, the class action alleged that Staples misled
consumers with respect to how (and how many) rewards points will
be accrued when consumers apply coupons to their transactions. The
high value settlement for the retailer illustrates the importance
of having clear and transparent terms and conditions in place for
rewards programs, and the need to align actual rewards redemption
practices with both the terms as well as general advertising for
the program.

Rewards Programs

Rewards programs -- generally, programs that reward consumers with
incentives or other benefits for remaining a consumer and
continuing to make purchases or bookings -- are an increasingly
popular mechanism to earn and retain consumer loyalty.  The most
"traditional" types of loyalty programs, such as recurring
discount or point programs whereby consumers can earn credit
toward future purchases, are not expressly regulated by state or
federal laws.

Instead, these types of programs are largely governed by contract
law (the terms and conditions of the program typically serve as
the contract between the participant and the brand or sponsor) and
truth-in-advertising law (whereby the laws would require what is
being said about the program be fair and non-deceptive).  As such,
the best practices for such programs typically include taking
steps to make it clear and transparent to the consumer as to how
the rewards will be earned and further, how they can be redeemed.
The terms and conditions of such programs should generally outline
the terms of the program and the rights and obligations of the
company and consumer.

The Staples Settlement

The program at issue in this class action, Staples Rewards, is a
customer incentive program that allows customers to build credit
towards future purchases by buying certain qualifying items.
Credit is calculated as a percentage of the dollar amount of
qualifying purchases.  However, plaintiff Neil Torczyner alleged
on behalf of the class that when consumers used coupons for
purchases, Staples spread out the value of the coupon over the
entire transaction on a pro rata basis, rather than applying the
coupon only to the item the coupon was intended for.  This
therefore limited the number of points the consumer could collect
in Staples Rewards credit for qualifying items not impacted by the
coupon.  For example, when Mr. Torczyner used a coupon for a
package of water bottles, the coupon took $1.50 off the cost of
the water itself, making it a non-qualifying purchase for rewards
points purposes.  Those points, Mr. Torczyner alleged, should have
been eligible for future purchases at Staples stores, as implied
by the company's advertising for the rewards program and the terms
of the program.

As a result of the action, Staples has agreed to change its terms
and conditions for product-specific coupons to make it clear how
they impact the rewards program.  Further, under the terms of the
proposed preliminary settlement, Staples will make a payment of
$10 to each affected class member who filed a valid claim (a high
value per claimant, with actual damages estimated at $2 per class
member).

Best Practices

The case and ensuing settlement are a key illustration of the
importance of establishing clear, comprehensive and consistent
terms for rewards programs that effectively communicate to the
consumer any limits on how the rewards can be redeemed. Regulatory
guidance (such as guidance from the National Association of
Attorneys General on frequent flyer programs, which is often cited
as the reasonable model for rewards programs) emphasizes that the
terms for any such program must include conspicuous disclosures
for restrictions on use and redemption, and that the terms
themselves must be clearly and conspicuously disclosed prior to
consumer enrollment.  It is also important to have clear consumer-
facing terms and conditions in place, and to abide by those terms
and conditions, to avoid claims arising out of federal and state
false advertising and consumer protection laws.


STARBUCKS CORP: Sued Over Failure to Provide Proper Meal Periods
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Northern California Record,
reports that a former Starbucks employee claims she was denied
proper meal periods and has filed a class action.

Kileigh Carrington filed a complaint on behalf of individually and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated on Dec. 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against Starbucks Corp. and Does 1-10
alleging violation of state labor codes.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that she was
employed by the defendants and continuously worked beyond five
hours without being provided any meal and rest periods or an
additional hour of pay as meal period penalty.  As a result, the
plaintiff alleges she suffered injury, loss and harm.

The plaintiffs hold Starbucks Corp. and Does 1-10 responsible
because the defendants allegedly denied proper meal periods or
meal period penalties and denied wages earned and the right to
collect unemployment insurance benefits.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek enjoin defendants
from pursuing their fraudulent policies, acts and practices;
maintain "opt-out" class action; compensatory and statutory
damages; penalties and restitution; attorney's fees and costs;
interest and further relief as the court deems just.  She is
represented by William B. Sullivan, Erick K. Yaeckel --
Yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupapc.com -- and Clint S. Engleson of
Sullivan Law Group in San Diego.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California Case
number 3:16-cv-03074


STONEMOR PARTNERS: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for Jan. 20
--------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm,
reminds investors in StoneMor Partners L.P. of the January 20,
2017 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal
securities class action lawsuit filed against the Company and
certain officers.

The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all those who
purchased StoneMor stock or options between January 19, 2012 and
October 27, 2016.  The case, ANDERSON v. STONEMOR PARTNERS, L.P.
et al, No. 16-cv-06111 was filed on November 23, 2016, and has
been assigned to Judge Eduardo Robreno.

The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives
violated federal securities laws by making and providing financial
statements based on misleading non-GAAP financial presentations in
order to falsely mislead investors into purchasing the Company's
equity units.

First, on October 27, 2016, StoneMor was forced to materially cut
its distribution in half since no new capital had been infused
into the Company.  This came after an announcement on September 2,
2016, in which the Company stated that it would have to correct
various errors in its financial statements due to using
potentially financially misleading metrics.

After the announcement, StoneMor's share price fell from $24.82
per share on October 27, 2016 to a closing price of $13.74 on
October 28, 2016 -- a $11.08 or a 44.6% drop.

Then, on November 9, 2016, StoneMor filed a Form 8-K with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") announcing that it
would have to amend its "Form 10-K for [the] fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015, and its Forms 10-Q for the quarterly periods
ended June 30, 2016 and March 31, 2016."  As a reason for the
amendments, the Company cited the SEC's review which required the
Company to discontinue the use of non-GAAP measures, such as
Adjusted EBITDA, as performance metrics in its financial
statements.

After the announcement, StoneMor's share price fell from $9.03 per
share on November 8, 2016 to a closing price of $8.57 on November
9, 2016 -- a $0.46 or a 5.1% drop.

Request more information now by clicking here:
www.faruqilaw.com/STON. There is no cost or obligation to you.

                              Take Action

If you invested in StoneMor stock or options between January 19,
2012 and October 27, 2016 and would like to discuss your legal
rights, visit www.faruqilaw.com/STON. You can also contact us by
calling Richard Gonnello toll free at 877-247-4292 or at 212-983-
9330 or by sending an e-mail to rgonnello@faruqilaw.com.  Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding
StoneMor's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers,
former employees, shareholders and others.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the
largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class that
is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees
the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to
serve as a lead plaintiff.

Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner.

        FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
        685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
        New York, NY 10017
        Attn:  Richard Gonnello, Esq.
        E-mail: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
        Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330


SYNUTRA INTERNATIONAL: TheGrantLawFirm Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
TheGrantLawFirm, PLLC on Jan. 10 disclosed that it filed a class
action complaint ("Complaint") on behalf of all public
stockholders of Synutra International, Inc. ("Synutra" or the
"Company") who are or will be damaged by a vote approving a
proposed transaction (the "Proposed Transaction", the "Class")
pursuant to which Synutra will be acquired by Liang Zang ("Zang"),
its founder, the chairman of its board and its controlling
shareholder, through Beams Power Investment Limited ("Beams"), an
entity owned by his wife.  Excluded from the Class are defendants,
and any person, firm, trust, corporation or other entity related
or affiliated with any of the defendants.

The Complaint asserts claims pursuant to Section 14(a) of the 1934
Act and for breaches of fiduciary duty alleging that the
Preliminary Proxy Statement (the "Proxy") filed with the SEC on
December 9, 2016, a final version of which will be used to solicit
shareholder approval of the Proposed Transaction, contains
materially false and misleading statements and omissions of
material fact.

Specifically, the Complaint asserts that the Proxy omits material
information concerning the Company's projections, its operating
income, its unlevered free cash flow, its earnings per share, and
its free cash flow per share, and that the description of the
fairness analysis performed by the Company's investment advisor
fails to disclose certain material information and is based upon a
market multiples analysis of companies which purport to be peer
companies, but are not traded on a U.S. exchange, unlike the
Company which trades on the NASDAQ.  If you are a member of the
Class described above, you may, no later than March 13, 2017, move
the Court to serve as lead plaintiff.  In order to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must meet certain legal requirements.

A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be
appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class
member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members,
and that the class member will adequately represent the class.
Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain the TheGrantLawFirm,
PLLC, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.  Lynda J. Grant of TheGrantLawFirm, PLLC has been
actively representing shareholders for over 30 years.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Lynda J. Grant at 212-292-4441 or
via e-mail at lgrant@grantfirm.com.  You can also visit our
website at www.grantfirm.com


TD BANK: $20 Overdraft Charge Sparks Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Greg Adomaitis, writing for NJ.com, reports that a lawsuit filed
earlier this month is challenging the sustained overdraft charge
of $20 that's imposed on TD Bank customers after an initial $35
overdraft fine itself.

The class action lawsuit filed Jan. 4 on behalf of Shaina Dorsey
by Marlton-based lawyer Stephen DeNittis claims the fee exceeds
the limit permitted by the National Bank Act.  TD Bank, which has
its U.S. headquarters in Cherry Hill, declined to comment on
Jan. 10 on the pending litigation.


TENNESSEE: Groups Challenge Driver's License Law
------------------------------------------------
The Daily News reports that justice reform groups are challenging
a Tennessee law they say unfairly punishes the poor by revoking
driver's licenses due to unpaid court fines.

The National Center for Law and Economic Justice and other groups
filed a lawsuit in Nashville federal court against Gov. Bill
Haslam, Attorney General Herbert Slatery and other state
officials, The Tennessean reported.

The lawyers are seeking class-action status and name two Nashville
men, James Thomas and David Hixon, as lead plaintiffs.

Thomas, who is homeless and disabled, is barred from getting a
driver's license because he has been unable to pay $290 in court
fines, the lawsuit said. Davidson County court records show he
owes about $470 more for a dismissed theft charge and second
trespassing conviction.

"These are not people who are running out on their debts," said
Claudia Wilner -- info@nclej.org --  an attorney with the National
Center for Law and Economic Justice. "It's people who can't afford
to pay, and it's not their fault they can't."

Since the law went into effect in 2012, only 7 percent of people
who lost their licenses because of unpaid fines have been able to
get them back, the lawsuit said.

Republican Sen. Jack Johnson, of Franklin, said he sponsored the
bill at the request of court clerks who were struggling to collect
fines.

The issue has spawned similar lawsuits in other states, including
Virginia and California, according to Wilner. But she said
Tennessee's law is unique in that it requires no notice to an
individual whose license is being revoked.

The lawsuit asks U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger in Nashville to
declare the law unconstitutional, reinstate licenses that have
been revoked under the statute and waive reinstatement fees.

A spokesman for Slatery said the attorney general's office is
reviewing the lawsuit.


TIBET PHARMACEUTICALS: June 6 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Jan. 9 disclosed that the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey has approved
the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement
that would benefit purchasers of common stock of Tibet
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (TBET):

LEGAL NOTICE

If you bought Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc. stock between January
24, 2011 and April 3, 2012, you could get a payment from a class
action settlement.

A settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit about the
price of Tibet Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Tibet" or the "Company")
common stock.  The settlement will pay $2,075,000 to pay claims
from Tibet investors who bought the Company's common stock
pursuant or traceable to Tibet's Registration Statements and
Prospectus issued in connection with Tibet's Initial Public
Offering of Stock ("IPO") on or about January 24, 2011 or 2)
purchased or otherwise acquired Tibet common stock from January
24, 2011 to April 3, 2012, both dates inclusive.  If you qualify,
you may send in a claim form to get benefits, or you can exclude
yourself to the settlement, or object to it.   The United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey authorized this
notice.  Before any money is paid, the Court will have a hearing
to decide whether to approve the settlement.

If You submitted a valid and timely proof of claim form in the
Settlement with Anderson & Strudwick, You are automatically
eligible for recovery in this case without needing to submit
another proof of claim and release form.  To find out if you
previously submitted a valid proof of claim form in the Anderson &
Strudwick Settlement, Contact the Claims Administrator at (866)
274-4004.

WHO'S INCLUDED?

You are a class member and could get benefits if you bought shares
of Tibet stock from January 24, 2011 through April 3, 2012.  You
are a Class Member only if you bought shares of Tibet stock
individually not simply through a mutual fund.  Tibet's officers
and directors, as well as immediate family members of directors of
Tibet are not Class Members.  Contact your broker to see if you
had shares of Tibet stock.  If you're not sure you are included
you can get more information, including a detailed notice, at
www.strategicclaims.net or by calling toll free 866-274-4004.

WHAT'S THIS ABOUT?

The lawsuit claims that Tibet solicited investors for its IPO with
a registration statement and prospectus that contained false
financial information about Tibet, because, among other reasons,
Tibet was insolvent at the time of the IPO, the lawsuit alleges
that Tibet's auditor Acquavella, Chiarelli, Shuster & Berkower,
LLP ("ACSB") failed to conduct a proper audit of Tibet's financial
statements contained in the Registration Statement.  ACSB denies
that it did anything wrong.  The Court did not decide which side
was right.  But both ACSB and Plaintiffs agreed to the settlement
to resolve the case as to ACSB and get benefits to investors.
Plaintiffs and ACSB, disagree on how much money could have been
won if the investors had won at a trial.

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

ACSB agreed to create a fund of $2.075 million to be divided among
all Class Members who send in valid claim forms.  A Stipulation of
Settlement, available at www.strategicclaims.net, describes all of
the details about the proposed settlement.

Your share of the fund will depend on the number of valid claim
forms that Class Members send in, how many shares of Tibet stock
you bought, and when you bought and sold them.  Generally, if you
bought more shares and have more Recognized Losses (as explained
in the detailed notice), you will get more money.  If you bought
fewer shares and have fewer Recognized Losses, you will get less.
All of the $2.075 million will be paid out.

If every eligible Class Member sends in a valid claim form the
average payment will be $0.14 per share for each share of Tibet
stock outstanding as of April 3, 2012, before deduction of
attorneys' fees, and expenses and approximately $0.08 per share
after deduction of attorneys' fees and expenses.  The number of
claimants who send in claims varies widely from case to case.  If
less than 100% of the Class sends in a claim form, you could get
more money.

Read More

HOW DO YOU ASK FOR A PAYMENT?

A detailed notice and claim form package contains everything you
need.  Just call 866-274-4004 or visit www.strategicclaims.net to
get one.  To qualify for a payment, you must send in a claim form
unless you submitted one in the Anderson & Strudwick settlement.
Claim forms must be submitted to the Claims Administrator by
February 27, 2017.

WHAT ARE YOUR OTHER OPTIONS?

If you don't want to be legally bound by the settlement, you must
exclude yourself by May 16, 2017, or you won't be able to sue or
continue to sue ACSB about the legal claims in this case.  If you
exclude yourself, you can't get money from this settlement. If you
stay in the settlement, you may object to it by May 23, 2017.  The
detailed notice explains how to exclude yourself or object.

The Court will hold a hearing in this case (Dartell v. Tibet
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Case No. 14-cv-3620) on June 6, 2017
to consider whether the approve the settlement and a request by
the lawyers representing all Class Members (The Rosen Law Firm,
PA, of New York, NY) for attorneys' fees of not more than one
third of the Settlement Amount or $691,667, reimbursement of total
litigation expenses of no more than $150,000, and an award to the
Class Plaintiffs not to exceed $30,000 (or $5,000 for each of the
six Class Plaintiffs).  Collectively, the attorneys' fees and
expenses are estimated to average $0.058 per share of Tibet Stock.
You may ask to appear at the hearing but you don't have to.  For
more information, call toll free 866-274-4004, visit the website
at www.strategicclaims.net., or write to Dartell v. Tibet
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O.
Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 3, Media, PA 19063.


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

Adriel Osorio worked for The Tile Shop, LLC as a sales associate
in its Skokie, Illinois retail store.  He 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.

The Court 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.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no
charge at https://goo.gl/VII39Z from Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Anthony Bulgarelli, Esq.
          Ilan Chorowsky, Esq.
          PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP, LLC
          1 N. LaSalle St.
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 787-2717
          Facsimile: (888) 574-9038
          E-mail: markb@progressivelaw.com
                  ichorowsky@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jonathan Hale Claydon, Esq.
          Michael Dean Karpeles, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 456-8400
          Facsimile: (312) 456-8435
          E-mail: claydonj@gtlaw.com
                  karpelesm@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Michael Sokolowski, Esq.
          Krista A.P. Hatcher, Esq.
          FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A.
          200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 492-7714
          Facsimile: (612) 492-7077
          E-mail: jsokolowski@fredlaw.com
                  khatcher@fredlaw.com


TIMBERCORP GROUP: High Court Rules on Anshun Estoppel Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Emmerig, Esq. -- jemmerig@jonesday.com -- and Michael Legg,
Esq. -- mlegg@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day, in an article for
Lexology, report that the High Court of Australia in Timbercorp
Finance Pty Ltd (in liq) v Collins [2016] HCA 44 determined that a
class member in an unsuccessful class action, who later raised
individual defences against a claim from a defendant to the
original class action, was not precluded from raising them by
reason of Anshun estoppel, nor were the defences an abuse of
process.

The statutory class action regimes in Australia are structured so
that a representative party represents class members only with
respect to the claim that is the subject of the class action --
the common issues -- but not with respect to their individual
claims.

The decision highlights the importance of framing the common
questions in the class action, as they will determine the scope
and extent of any claims that may survive the determination of a
class action proceeding.
Background

A class action proceeding was brought against members of the
Timbercorp Group in the Supreme Court of Victoria under Part 4A of
the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), following the collapse of that
group in 2009.  The class action was brought on behalf of about
18,500 investors who had invested in horticultural and forestry
managed investment schemes ("MISs") operated by the Timbercorp
Group during the relevant period.  The claims in the class action
proceeding concerned allegations of false or misleading statements
and breaches of disclosure obligations under the Corporations Act
2001 (Cth).

A member of the Timbercorp Group, Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd
("Timbercorp Finance"), had made loans to some, but not all, of
the investors who later comprised members of the class action so
that they could invest in the MISs during the relevant period.
After being placed into liquidation, the liquidators of Timbercorp
Finance commenced proceedings against some borrowers to recover
the loan amounts.  Modest progress was made before the class
action was filed.  Timbercorp Finance then filed a counterclaim
against the representative party in the class action for the
recovery of loan amounts.  Before hearings began, that Court
directed that the counterclaim be tried separately and after the
determination of the issues the subject of the class action
proceeding.

The class action proceeding was unsuccessful at first instance and
on appeal.

In 2014, with the counterclaim still unresolved, Timbercorp
Finance commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria
against other borrowers, including Mr and Mrs Collins and Mr
Tomes, to recover alleged loan amounts and interest.  Mr and Mrs
Collins and Mr Tomes had been members of the class action
proceeding (but neither were the representative party or "lead
plaintiff").  In the proceedings brought by Timbercorp Finance, Mr
and Mrs Collins and Mr Tomes each sought to raise claims and
defences challenging the validity and enforceability of the loan
agreements that had not been raised in the class action
proceeding.

By order of the Court, the question whether Mr and Mrs Collins and
Mr Tomes were precluded from raising any, and if so which,
defences pleaded by them by reason of their participation as class
members in the class action proceeding, was heard as a separate
question.

At first instance, Robson J held that the defendants were not
precluded, by reason of Anshun estoppel, abuse of process or
otherwise, from raising those defences.  His Honour's decision was
confirmed on appeal, but for different reasons.

By grant of special leave, Timbercorp Finance appealed to the High
Court of Australia.

Reasoning

The primary question for the High Court was whether an Anshun
estoppel arose to prevent Mr and Mrs Collins and Mr Tomes from
raising their respective defences.  An Anshun estoppel
"preclude[s] the assertion of a claim or of an issue of law or
fact if the claim or issue was so connected to the subject matter
of the first proceeding as to make it unreasonable, in the context
of the first proceeding, for the claim or issue not to have been
made or raised in it".  It is an extension of "cause of action
estoppel" (which operates to preclude assertion in a subsequent
proceeding of a claim to a right or obligation which was asserted
in the proceeding and which was determined by the judgment) and
"issue estoppel" (which operates to preclude the raising in a
subsequent proceeding of an ultimate issue of fact or law which
was necessarily resolved as a step in reaching the determination
made in the judgment).  Neither cause of action estoppel nor issue
estoppels was raised.

Neither Mr and Mrs Collins nor Mr Tomes had been primary
participants in the class action proceeding. However, a "person
(the "second party") who seeks to make a claim in a later
proceeding may be bound by the actions of a party in earlier
proceedings if the party in those proceedings represented the
second party such that they could be described as the privy in
interest of the second party".

The High Court had previously observed, albeit obiter, that a
representative party and other members of a class in class action
proceedings may be privies in interest for the purposes of
estoppels.

Nonetheless, the Court held that it still remained to be
determined "the extent to which the plaintiff [representative
party] in [class action] proceedings may be taken to represent the
legal interest of the [class] members".

The Court looked to the legislative scheme for class actions
provided under Part 4A of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic).  In
general, the Court observed that the statutory regime for class
actions contemplated delineation of common and individual issues.
The Court noted that sections 33C(1) and 33H provide a process for
bringing class actions by which essential commonalities, including
questions of law and fact common to the claims of the class
members, needed to be specified.

The Court also referred to another of its decisions, in which the
Court held that "it was not necessary for a [class action]
proceeding to be likely to resolve wholly, or even to any
significant degree, the claims of all [class] members".

The Court further noted that Part 4A recognises that class members
may have other individual claims which do not form part of the
subject matter of the class action. In that regard, the Court
observed ss 33Q, 33R and other provisions provide for situations
where there are non-common issues.  The Court also remarked that
Part 4A "creates its own kind of statutory estoppel" by which
"[class] members are bound by the determination of the claims
giving rise to the common questions".

Accordingly, the Court held:

The provisions of Pt 4A therefore confirm that a plaintiff in
[class action] proceedings represents [class] members only with
respect to the claim the subject of that proceeding, but not with
respect to their individual claims.  The lead plaintiff is not a
privy in interest with respect to the respondents' [Mr and Mrs
Collins' and Mr Tomes'] claims.  This is so regardless of whether
they should have been raised in the [class action] proceeding.
That leaves for consideration the question whether the respondents
themselves are estopped from raising them in these proceedings.

Throughout the judgment, the Court was also minded by the relative
lack of control that could be exercised by class members over the
course of a class action proceeding.

The Court went on to conclude that there was not the required
connection between the common issues in the class action
proceeding and the loan agreements the subject of Timbercorp
Finance's recovery actions.  The fact that directions were made at
the beginning of the class action proceeding removing Timbercorp
Finance's cross-claim for later determination served to reinforce
the separateness of the issues the subject of each proceeding.

As such, Mr and Mrs Collins and Mr Tomes were not privies in
interest with the representative party in the class action
proceeding in respect of their defences and were therefore not
precluded from raising them by reason of Anshun estoppel.  There
was no need for them to have opted out of the class action or to
have raised them separately in the course of the class action
under s 33R at their own risk of cost.

Finally, the Court briefly addressed Timbercorp Finance's
submissions made in the alternative that the defences constituted
an abuse of process.

Consistently with the Court's reasoning regarding estoppel, the
Court held that the statutory scheme for class actions
contemplated the separation of common and individual issues and in
doing so, efficiency in the court's processes was achieved.
Accordingly, hearing of individual claims did not stand in the way
of achieving judicial economy so as to act as a "damage to the
administration of justice", and there was no abuse of process.

The High Court dismissed the appeals with costs.

Ramifications

The High Court's decision in Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd (in liq) v
Collins [2016] HCA 44 highlights the significance of the common
questions in a class action proceeding to both sides of the
dispute and the class members.

For the representative party, the common questions need to be
adequately framed in order for it to satisfy the requirements for
the commencement of a class action in ss 33C and 33H. The
importance of the common questions, at least to the representative
party, has been reiterated many times.  For class members, the
common issues will define the extent to which the representative
party is their privy and the extent to which they will be bound by
the judgment in the class action.  The significance for the class
members is mirrored by the significance for the defendant; the
common questions will define the claims or issues on which the
defendant loses or wins, which in turn informs liability.

Courts may play a role in defining the common questions and can
determine which issues are common.  However, it will be in the
interests of both sides of the dispute that the questions are
properly framed.


TRUEVISIONS: FongDi to Launch Class Action on Behalf of Customers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaewta Ketbungkan, writing for Khaosod English, reports that for
dropping a bomb on its customers by announcing they could no
longer get HBO and its affiliates on short notice, TrueVisions
could be the first company to face a class-action lawsuit brought
through recently launched legal startup FongDi.

Winter came ahead of season for Thailand's "Game of Thrones" fans
Jan. 1 when the satellite television operator replaced its 6 HBO
channels with Warner TV, Paramount Channel HD, Celestial Classic
Movies, Food Network, Fox Action Movies HD, Sony Channel and True
Film HD 2 after it failed to renegotiate its licensing deals.

The news was broken Dec. 26 by the National Broadcasting and
Telecommunications, which gave TrueVisions the green light despite
the fact it violated regulations by not giving 30 days notice.

"Unlike Office of the Consumer Protection Board or Change.org,
FongDi.com allows people to take concrete action," said Peerapat
Foithong, lawyer and co-founder.  "If people are affected from the
same case, they can sue as a group through our site."

Meant to increase consumer protections by providing a platform for
people to come together for class-action suits, FongDi has made
TrueVisions its first case.

There, subscribers unsatisfied with TrueVision's service can put
their names toward suing the company.  More than 1,000 people have
signed on so far.

Peerapat was to attend a meeting on Jan. 10 between TrueVisions
and the commission to request fee deductions of 200 baht to 500
baht per month for subscribers.  They want the company to
compensate those who canceled their subscriptions with money, not
"True rewards" points.

Depending on how that goes, a lawyer may be hired to take the case
to court.

"Class action lawsuits will save a lot of time and procedures in
court, in cases where there are many people affected, such as
this," Peerapat said.  "Plus, we provide the service free of
charge."

Although class action lawsuits were made possible in 2015, not a
single case has been taken to court so far.  Peerapat said he
wants the case to increase awareness of their legal rights.

FongDi.com is a startup began by two lawyers, a programmer and
marketing pro.

Inspired by Peerapat's master's thesis and his experience once
suing an auto company, FongDi is meant to help people fight for
their rights and increase their knowledge about the law.  On the
site users will find information and illustrations featuring
"Buddy" a dog in black suit.

FongDi said the TrueVisions case has generated a lot of interest,
and it is developing an English version of the page for all the
expats who have been visiting the site looking to participate.
Meanwhile, feel free to contact them via Facebook.


UNITED RECOVERY: Class Certification Sought in "Merkovich" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Merkovich moves the Court to certify the class described
in the lawsuit captioned PATRICIA MERKOVICH, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. UNITED RECOVERY
SYSTEMS, LP, Case No. 2:17-cv-00005-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further
asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification
and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the
Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring
briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir.
2011),zoverruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787
(7th Cir. 2015).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence, Ms.
Merkovich states.  She contends that she is obligated to move for
class certification to protect the interests of the putative
class.

The Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016
U.S. LEXIS 846 *14-15 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016) (internal citations
omitted) and Chapman should have put a stop to this practice.
Unfortunately, they have not, the Plaintiff notes.  In dicta, the
Supreme Court left open the possibility that a defendant facing a
class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's claim with the court and having the court enter
judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to a class certification
motion.  Campbell-Ewald Co., 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 *19 ("We need
not, and do not, now decide whether the result would be different
if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's
individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the
court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount.").

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

Ms. Merkovich also asks the Court to appoint her as class
representative and appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0mihXfU3

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED RESOURCE: Wins Final Approval of "Kopchak" Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Mitchell S. Goldberg entered a final approval order
granting the parties' joint motion for final approval of class
settlement agreement and release in the lawsuit captioned KIMBERLY
KOPCHAK, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v.
UNITED RESOURCE SYSTEMS, et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-05884-MSG (E.D.
Pa.).

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

     All consumers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to whom
     URS mailed an initial written communication in connection
     with its attempt to collect a debt, which failed to inform
     consumers they must dispute their debts in writing to be
     considered valid, during the period beginning October 4,
     2012, and ending May 8, 2015.

Judge Goldberg ordered the Clerk of Court to mark the case closed.

Upon the Effective Date of the Agreement, URS will, among other
things, make these payments:

   (a) URS will create a class settlement fund of $7,500 ("Class
       Recovery"), which the Settlement Administrator will
       distribute pro rata among those Class Members, who
       received the notice and did not exclude themselves;

   (b) URS will pay the Plaintiff $2,500; and

   (c) URS will pay Class Counsel $25,000 for their attorneys'
       fees and costs incurred in the action.

A copy of the Final Approval Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YxNMgn4U


UNITED STATES: Files Motion to Dismiss H-2b Visa Case in Guam
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Quintanilla at Kuam News reports that with just a week
remaining until a class action lawsuit over the denial of H-2b
visas is heard in the District Court of Guam, the federal
government has filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs amended
complaint entirely, essentially closing the case. The Guam
Contractors Association and about one dozen local companies are
taking the feds to court over the denial of foreign work visas.

The Guam Department of Labor has experienced a nearly-100% denial
rate over the past year. As of November, DOL reports a drop in H-
2b workers from 1,200 to about 470 workers.

The numbers are expected to drop even more one December figures
are finalized.

Meanwhile, the hearing on the case is set for January 17 at
12:30pm before Magistrate Judge Joaquin Manibusan.


US BANK: Status Hearing in "Snyder" Class Suit Set for March 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Thomas M. Durkin scheduled a status hearing for March 8,
2017, at 9:00 a.m., in the lawsuit entitled Keith Snyder, et al.
v. U.S. Bank, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-11675 (N.D. Ill.).

A joint status report is to be filed on or before March 2, 2017.

Judge Durkin urged counsel for the parties to undertake serious
settlement efforts before the scheduled Status Hearing when no
major investment in counsel's time (and client's money) has yet
taken place.  "If such efforts are unsuccessful, counsel should be
prepared to attend the scheduled Status Hearing to discuss briefly
their proposed discovery plan and other subjects appropriate for
inclusion in the scheduling order as referred to in Rule 16(b),"
Judge Durkin stated.

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


VOLKSWAGEN: Faces Suit From British Motorists Over Dieselgate
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Davies at The Guardian reports that thousands of British
motorists have launched a lawsuit against Volkswagen over the
"dieselgate" emissions scandal, in a claim that could end up
costing the carmaker billions of pounds.

The group of 10,000 VW owners has filed a class action lawsuit
against the German car firm, seeking GBP30 million, or GBP3,000
each.

The chair of a parliamentary committee on the environment and
consumer group Which? both welcomed the claim, which VW said it
would "robustly" contest.

If the company had to pay GBP3,000 to each of the 1.2 million
people who own affected cars, including its Skoda, Audi and Seat
marques, it would cost about GBP3.6bn.

The German firm has yet to reach a settlement with British and
European owners affected by the scandal, in which the company
admitted using "defeat devices" to cheat emissions tests, making
its cars appears greener than they were.

It has not compensated British owners despite reaching a GBP15bn
settlement with 500,000 US drivers, offering instead to fix
affected vehicles.

The class action suit, which is being led by law firm Harcus
Sinclair, is expected to claim that drivers should be compensated
because they paid extra for what they thought were clean diesel
cars.

In fact, Harcus Sinclair alleged in a statement on its website
that the cars emitted far higher levels of NOx -- a mixture of
pollutants nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide -- than stated.

According to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs, NOx emissions cause 23,000 premature deaths in the UK
each year.

The law firm's application for group litigation, which is free for
claimants to join, will be heard in the high court on 30 January.

Damon Parker, Esq. -- damon.parker@harcus-sinclair.co.uk --  the
head of litigation at Harcus Sinclair, told the Daily Mail
claimants were "angry and believe that VW might get away with it".

"They feel that they have been left with no choice but to take
legal action. We have paved the way for consumers who trusted but
were let down by VW, Audi, Seat and Skoda to seek redress through
our courts," he said.

"It it only right that UK car owners affected by the scandal have
the opportunity to seek compensation. We have secured funding so
that those affected can bring this claim against VW at no cost to
themselves.

"The group action aims to ensure that, if VW is found to have
misled consumers about the environmental damage caused by their
cars, they are penalised accordingly so as to discourage this sort
of behaviour from happening again."

Parker criticised VW's offer to fix cars affected by the scandal
without offering compensation. He said: "Consumers are doubtful
that the fixes will lower toxic emissions. But getting their cars
fixed is not enough. The damage to the environment has been done."

A VW spokesman said: "We have been notified that Harcus Sinclair
intends to bring proceedings against Volkswagen on behalf of 77
claimants in the English high court.We intend to defend such
claims robustly."

Vickie Sheriff, director of campaigns and communications at
Which?, said: "Which? agrees that VW must not be let off the hook.
Volkswagen customers in the UK will rightly question why US
consumers are getting compensation and there is still nothing on
the table for the 1.2 million owners affected in this country.

"The UK government also has a responsibility to ensure that UK
customers are treated fairly. It simply has not done enough to
hold VW to account throughout this scandal."

Harcus Sinclair is collaborating on the case with other law firms,
including Slater & Gordon.

Jacqueline Young, jyoung@slatergordon.co.uk, head of group
litigation at Slater and Gordon, said: "VW has shown utter
contempt, not just for the rights and health of their UK consumers
but also for the environment. This legal action is the best
opportunity that British customers will have for holding VW to
account over this scandal."

Mary Creagh MP, a Labour politician and chair of the House of
Commons environmental audit committee, said: "In the US Volkswagen
faces multibillion-dollar payouts to drivers in environmental
fines and in compensating motorists who purchased vehicles with
cheat devices.

"Last July the Commons environmental audit committee called on the
transport secretary to measure the contribution that Volkswagen's
cheat devices made to meeting UK emissions standards, and use the
results with a view to pursuing court action in the UK.

"In the absence of government action, it is inevitable that
motorists would take matters into their own hands and pursue
private action in the courts."

The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has previously called for the
capital's drivers to be compensated, including GBP2.5m for
Transport for London in lost congestion charge payments.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Harcus Sinclair Applies for Group Litigation Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fleet News reports that Harcus Sinclair UK has applied for a group
litigation order in claims against Volkswagen, Audi, Seat and
Skoda arising out of the emissions scandal.

It is the first group litigation order sought in relation to the
scandal on behalf of consumers in England and Wales.

Damon Parker, head of litigation at Harcus Sinclair, said: "We
have paved the way for consumers who trusted but were let down by
VW, Audi, Seat and Skoda to seek redress through our Courts.

"It is only right that UK car owners affected by the scandal have
the opportunity to seek compensation.

"We have secured funding so that those affected can bring this
claim against VW at no cost to themselves.

"The group action aims to ensure that, if VW is found to have
misled consumers about the environmental damage caused by their
cars, they are penalised accordingly so as to discourage this sort
of behaviour from happening again."

A group litigation order is the Court's mechanism for handling
claims involving a large number of claimants who share the same
complaint.  The application for the group litigation order will be
heard in the High Court on January 30, 2017.

The key allegation is that the affected cars should not have been
certified as fit for sale because it is alleged that they produced
higher levels of NOx emissions than the rules allowed.

It is also alleged that the affected vehicles only passed official
emissions tests because their engines were fitted with a "defeat
device" which reduces NOx emissions under test conditions.

In the interest of securing the best outcome for as many car
owners in England and Wales who have been affected by the scandal,
Harcus Sinclair is collaborating with law firms including Slater
and Gordon.  Harcus Sinclair will be the lead solicitor on the
record at Court and responsible for instructing Counsel and
preparing and filing of court documents, directing overall
litigation strategy and reporting to claimants on the progress of
the claim.

Jacqueline Young, head of group litigation at Slater and Gordon,
said: "VW has shown utter contempt, not just for the rights and
health of their UK consumers but also for the environment. This
legal action is the best opportunity that British customers will
have for holding VW to account over this scandal."

Current or previous owners of cars affected by the scandal can
seek redress by joining the legal action at
www.vwemissionsaction.com.

Affected cars include VW, Audi, SEAT and Skoda vehicles with 1.2,
1.6 and 2.0 EA 189 diesel engines manufactured between 2009 and
2015.  The value of the compensation sought is estimated to be in
the region of several thousand pounds per car.  There is no cost
to joining the legal action.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Jan. 30 Hearing Set on UK-Based Motorists' GLO
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Higgins, writing for Global Legal Post, reports that a
group of 10,000 UK-based motorists are pursuing legal action
against VW over the company's use of 'defeat devices' to cheat
emissions tests.  The claimants are seeking GBP3,000 each,
bringing the total value of the claim to GBP30 million.  However,
should the action be extended to the 1.2 billion UK motorists who
own VW vehicles, it could end up costing VW upwards of $3 billion.

The carmaker has already reached a GBP15 billion settlement with
around 500,000 US drivers in relation to the scandal.  However, an
equivalent settlement has not been reached with drivers in the
United Kingdom and Europe, with the company instead offering to
fix affected vehicles.  However, the class action lawsuit will
argue that UK motorists are due financial compensation for the
extra money they paid for what they then believed were 'greener'
diesel cars.

Harcus Sinclair is leading the litigation effort with assistance
from Slater and Gordon, Irwin Mitchell and Leigh Day. The firm's
head of litigation Damon Parker said in a statement: 'The group
action aims to ensure that, if VW is found to have misled
consumers about the environmental damage caused by their cars,
they are penalised accordingly so as to discourage this sort of
behaviour from happening again.' He added: 'Getting their cars
fixed is not enough . . . the damage to the environment has been
done.'

Harcus Sinclair lodged an application for a group litigation order
(GLO) on January 9, with the application set to be heard by the
High Court on January 30.  Volkswagen has instructed a Freshfields
Bruckhaus Deringer team led by partner John Blain to contest the
GLO.


WALDMAN & KAPLAN: Files Joint Bid to Certify Class in O'Brien Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the case captioned CHRISTINE O'BRIEN and JOHN
O'BRIEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WALDMAN & KAPLAN, P.A. and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No.
3:15-cv-07429-BRM-LHG (D.N.J.) jointly move the Court for an order
certifying the case to proceed as a class action and granting
preliminary approval of the Parties' class settlement agreement.

The class is defined as:

     All New Jersey consumers who were sent an initial collection
     letter and/or notice from WKPA during the period of
     October 13, 2014 to present, that included the following
     language: "You may contact a representative at FCI Lender
     Services, Inc., with a mailing address P.O. Box 27370,
     Anaheim, CA 92809-0112 toll free at 1-800-931-2424 between
     the hours of 8:00am to 6:00pm PST if you disagree with the
     Lender's assertion that a default has occurred or the
     correctness of the mortgage lender's calculation of the
     amount required to cure the default within thirty (30) days
     of this Letter."

The Plaintiffs filed the class action lawsuit pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, alleging that WKPA violated the
FDCPA by sending consumers written collection communications that
overshadowed Plaintiffs' validation notice.

A copy of the Joint Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HUG1ySCI

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ari H. 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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Farha Ahmed, Esq.
          WALDMAN & KAPLAN, PA
          174 Nassau Street, Suite 313
          Princeton, NJ 08542
          Telephone: (844) 899-4162
          Facsimile: (844) 882-4703
          E-mail: farha@dwaldmanlaw.com


WASHINGTON, DC: Developmental Disabilities Class Action Settled
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Austermuhle, writing for WAMU, reports that a federal judge
on Jan. 10 dismissed a four-decade-old class-action lawsuit
against D.C. over its treatment of residents with intellectual and
developmental disabilities, freeing the city from court oversight
and ending one of the country's longest-running legal battles over
what services and opportunities residents with disabilities are
entitled to.

It is not necessary for this court to remain a supervisor any
longer.

"Though much is left to be done, it is not necessary for this
court to remain a supervisor any longer," said U.S. District Court
Judge Ellen Huvelle during a hearing in which attorneys and
advocates spoke of the progress -- albeit slow -- D.C. had made
since the days when it regularly sent residents with disabilities
to live at Forest Haven, an institution located 22 miles north of
the city outside Laurel, Maryland.

The Evans lawsuit -- named after Joy Evans, one of the children
who lived at Forest Haven -- was filed on Feb. 23, 1976.  In it, a
half-dozen families said that the institution offered "only the
most meager custodial care," violating a number of constitutional
rights of the more than 1,000 people institutionalized there. A
four-part WAMU series published last year tracked the 40-year
history of the lawsuit.

Two years after the lawsuit was filed, a federal judge ordered
Forest Haven closed and its residents sent to homes in the city.
But that victory was short-lived, as it took until 1991 to
actually shutter the sprawling institution.  And even after it was
closed, its former residents ended up in group homes that in some
cases were no better than the institution they had just left.  In
1999, The Washington Post reported that more than 100 people with
intellectual and developmental disabilities died while in group
homes paid for and overseen by the city.

The legal fight continued for another two decades, during which
the city slowly rebuilt the agency that provides services for
residents with disabilities and increased the amount of federal
funding it took in to pay for services.  In 2010, the court set
out 70 conditions that would have to be met to end the Evans
lawsuit; the city met the last of those late last year.

"I remember the days when there was Forest Haven, and people were
routinely institutionalized because parents had so few options.
But you look at where we are today, there are large numbers of
community services," says D.C. Council member Vincent Gray (D-Ward
7), who visited Forest Haven when it was open and later became an
advocate for people with disabilities.

During the Jan. 10 hearing, various attorneys and advocates spoke
of the improvements that have been made, notably in the last 15
years.  Judge Huvelle, who took over the case in 2001, noted that
in United Cerebral Palsy's annual report ranking how well states
serve residents with developmental disabilities, D.C. jumped 41
spots from 2007 to 2015, going from one of the worst states in the
country (49th place in 2007) to one of the best (8th in 2015).

It is critical that all that was gained is not lost when we leave
this courtroom.

But the air of optimism was tempered by caution, as attorneys for
the former residents of Forest Haven -- of the original 1,050, 479
remain alive today -- spoke of the need to protect and perpetuate
the progress they say has been made.

"It is critical that all that was gained is not lost when we leave
this courtroom," said Sandy Bernstein, an attorney with University
Legal Services who represents the former residents.

That's a point that's critical for Tina Campanella, who heads the
Quality Trust for Individuals With Disabilities, an organization
created by court order in 2001 with funding from the D.C.
government to advocate for residents with intellectual and
developmental disabilities.

"There's a lot of work to be done.  A lot of people coming into
the system now have hopes and dreams we're not very good at
meeting now, so we need new services, we need continued evolution
of the service system that it will continue to grow and continue
to set higher expectation and create new opportunities," she says.

Those opportunities include further community integration and
access to jobs, an issue Judge Huvelle herself cited before
adjourning the hearing.

"We need to increase employment opportunities," she said, noting
that of the 479 former residents of Forest Haven who remain alive,
58 are employed.  Around 12 percent of D.C. residents with
intellectual and developmental disabilities are either in a job or
working towards getting one, below the national average of 19
percent.

We cannot let 40 years of work be derailed by bureaucratic
inertia.

"These commitments will be sustained and improved upon," promised
Thomas Jared Morris, the deputy director of the D.C. Department on
Disability Services.  "We will continue to raise the bar a little
higher."

And though Judge Huvelle called the end of the Evans lawsuit a
"joyous occasion," she issued one last warning to a crowd that
included Mayor Muriel Bowser.

"We cannot let 40 years of work be derailed by bureaucratic
inertia," she said.

After that, she invited the audience to her chambers for cake, a
celebration of the end of the case.


WINFIELD MURDOCK: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Florida Record, reports that a
Brevard County man employed in sales and marketing alleges his
costume design services employer did not pay overtime or minimum
wages.  He has filed a class-action suit.

Edward Scott Blanford filed a complaint on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated on Dec. 22 in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division against
Winfield Murdock Creative Works LLC, Roger A. Agness and George J.
Pereira citing the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that during his
entire employment he has regularly worked well in excess of 40
hours per week, but was deprived of minimum wages and overtime
compensation.  The plaintiff holds Winfield Murdock Creative Works
LLC, Mr. Agness and Mr. Pereira responsible because the defendants
allegedly denied plaintiff of his rights to receive minimum wages
for every hour worked and overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against
defendants, damages for unpaid wages, expenses, liquidated
damages, attorney's fees, costs and further relief as the court
deems appropriate.  He is represented by N. James Turner of Law
Offices of N. James Turner in Orlando.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando
Division Case number 6:16-cv-02191


YAHOO! INC: Illinois Court Certifies TCPA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Keogh Law, LTD. on Jan. 11 disclosed that on January 4, 2016, the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
certified a class action against Yahoo, claiming that it violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by using an
automatic telephone dialing system to send "Welcome" text messages
regarding its Yahoo Messenger program without prior express
consent.  The lawsuit, Johnson v. Yahoo! Inc., Case No. 14-cv-
2028, is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.  On December 12, 2016, the court
approved Johnson's notice plan and ordered that notice be sent to
the class.

The lawsuit alleges that Yahoo used automated dialing systems to
send the following "Welcome" text message to the class members in
order to promote its Yahoo Messenger program:

"A Yahoo! user has sent you a message. Reply to that SMS to
respond. Reply INFO to this SMS for help or go to
y.ahoo.it/imsms."

The Plaintiff claims that this text message violates the TCPA,
which prohibits the use of an "automatic telephone dialing system"
to send text messages without the "prior express consent" of the
called party.  Yahoo denies violating the TCPA and the use of an
automatic telephone dialing system, and claims some class members
may have provided consent. The lawsuit seeks $500-$1500 per text
message for the class members.

The class includes all persons within the United States who used a
cellular telephone number to which Yahoo! sent the Welcome Message
from March 1, 2013 through March 31, 2013, while the cellular
number was assigned to Sprint and was not associated with a Yahoo!
user in Yahoo!'s records.

The Court has not yet ruled on the merits of the case.  Class
members may stay in the class or request to be excluded by
March 13, 2017.

For a detailed notice, instructions, and other documents about
this lawsuit and your rights, go to www.YahooTCPAClass.com, call
1-866-726-1092, email info@yahootcpaclass.com, or write to Yahoo
Text Message Class Action Notice Administrator c/o KCC Class
Action Services PO Box 30227 College Station, TX 77842-3227.


YOUR WIRELESS: Jackson Moves for Certification of TCPA Class
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Jackson and Melissa Kivo ask the Court to enter an order
determining that the action styled BRIAN JACKSON and MELISSA KIVO,
individually and on behalf of the classes defined herein v. YOUR
WIRELESS INC.; PLAINVIEW: CLASS CERTIFICATION WIRELESS INC., and
DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-07067-JMA-SIL (E.D.N.Y.), may proceed
as a class action against the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs bring Count I of the action, alleging violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, on behalf of a class
consisting of (a) all persons (b) who, on or after December 11,
2011, (c) were sent text message calls by or on behalf of
Defendants (d) with respect to whom defendants have no evidence of
express consent.

With respect to Count II, alleging violation of New York General
Business Law, the Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of (a)
all persons with telephone numbers in New York area codes (b) who,
on or after December 11, 2009, (c) were sent text message calls by
or on behalf of defendant Your Wireless Inc. (d) with respect to
whom defendants have no evidence of express consent.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-3593
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: thardy@edcombs.com

               - and -

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


* Enforceability of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements Challenged
---------------------------------------------------------------
A. Michael Weber, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
with the explosion of employment litigation -- in particular, wage
and hour lawsuits -- many employers are turning to arbitration
agreements as a strategy to keep defense costs down and avoid
class actions.  But as more and more companies make mandatory
arbitration a condition of employment, the controversy surrounding
the legality of such agreements escalates, with employee advocates
questioning the fairness of prohibiting employees from airing
their grievances to a jury or seeking class-wide relief.

And as employers seek to enforce arbitration agreements, the
debate over enforceability of such provisions, including the
class-action waivers that are often included in such agreements,
has moved to the National Labor Relations Board and the courts.
The surge in arbitration agreements is not surprising, as
arbitration presents some benefits over traditional litigation. As
the cost of defending employment claims has skyrocketed,
particularly given the length and formality of the litigation
process and the broad scope of permissible discovery and potential
class-wide relief, employers often agree to pay out settlements
for even the most meritless claims, simply to avoid the higher
cost of defending themselves and exposure, as well as the
significant costs associated with e-discovery.

Many employers view arbitration as a quicker and more cost-
efficient way of resolving employment disputes, especially
avoiding the significant cost burden and risk associated with
defending class actions, which allow a single employee to file
suit on behalf of many, causing an employer to consider settlement
even when the underlying claim is dubious.  Employers also are
attracted to arbitration's increased predictability; in
arbitration, the parties rely on a trained legal professional to
decide employment disputes rather than rolling the dice with a
jury.

In addition, because arbitrations are private, the proceedings and
ultimate outcome ordinarily are confidential, reducing both the
risk of copycat plaintiffs and damage to the company's brand and
reputation.

Arbitration also has its advantages for employees.  It provides a
cost-effective and accessible way for an employee to address a
dispute with his or her employer.  Generally, individual
arbitrations are likely to reach resolution more quickly than
litigation.  Further, while arbitration may not, in the eyes of
the plaintiffs' bar, as frequently produce windfall damage awards
that juries sometimes render, the expeditious and informal nature
of arbitration gives more employees an opportunity to effectively
resolve their workplace disputes.  In addition, individual
arbitration affords the employee the right to decide when and for
what amount the case may be settled instead of allowing
plaintiffs' class action attorneys to settle for pennies on the
dollar when the underlying claim for an individual plaintiff may
be valued at a greater amount.

Many judges also favor arbitration, as it helps relieve an already
overburdened court system.  Of course, the increased use of
arbitration agreements is not without controversy.  Detractors may
claim that damages awarded to successful employees at arbitration
are substantially lower than jury awards, but these claims cannot
be fully evaluated; given the privacy of most arbitration
proceedings, hard and comprehensive data are not readily
available.  Likewise, arbitrators may be less likely to grant
dispositive motions than their judicial counterparts and more
likely to present "split the baby" outcomes.

Opponents also allege there is an unequal bargaining power between
employers and employees, which can result in agreements containing
more employer-friendly provisions, such as class-action waivers.
Some employers also have been criticized for "burying" arbitration
clauses in lengthy, unrelated documents, arguably causing
employees to inadvertently sign away their right to litigate
claims in court.

Finally, because arbitration awards are entitled to great
deference from the courts, even erroneous arbitral awards (both
those awarding relief to a plaintiff, as well as those denying
relief) are nearly impervious to judicial oversight and review.

Court Decisions
For its part, the U.S. Supreme Court has long held that the
Federal Arbitration Act mandates enforcement of arbitration
agreements in all but the most unusual circumstances.
See Moses S. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction
Corporation , 460 U.S. 1, 22 (1983); Dean Witter Reynolds v. Byrd
, 470 U.S. 213, 218 (1985); Nitro-Lift Technologies v. Howard ,
133 S. Ct. 500, 503-04 (2012); DirecTV v. Imburgia , 136 S. Ct.
463, 471 (2015).

Those decisions have not stopped plaintiffs' attorneys from
working to stem the tide of arbitration, however.  One initially
successful approach was to attack the inclusion of class-action
waivers in arbitration agreements, which require employees to
individually arbitrate their employment claims rather than having
the option to bring them on a class-wide basis on behalf of all
similarly situated employees.

Nevertheless, in 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court in American Express
v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 133 S. Ct. 2304 (2013), held that
the FAA permits waiver of the class action procedure, so long as
the arbitral process would allow redress of an individual claim,
as the FAA's "command to enforce arbitration agreements trumps any
interest in ensuring the prosecution of low value claims."
Nonetheless, life remains in the fight against class action
waivers.  In In re D.R. Horton, 357 NLRB No. 184 (Jan. 3, 2012),
the National Labor Relations Board ruled that mandatory class
waivers violate an employee's right to engage in concerted
protected activity under the National Labor Relations Act.
Although D.R. Horton was ultimately overturned by the U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the NLRB maintains its
stance that class action waivers violate the NLRA, and continues
to rule that an employer who uses such waivers has committed an
unfair labor practice.

In the meantime, plaintiffs have relied on D.R. Horton to attack
mandatory arbitration provisions though the NLRB, hoping that a
favorable board ruling will open the door to class litigation.
While the U.S. Supreme Court has held that mandatory arbitration
agreements are generally enforceable, plaintiffs' attorneys
continue to creatively challenge enforceability, and some judges
find opportunities to chip away at the Supreme Court's rulings.


* France Adopts Class Action Regime for Data Protection Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Susnjar, Esq., and Liisa M. Thomas, Esq., of Winston & Strawn
LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that France recently
passed a "21st Century Modernization of the Judiciary Law,"
creating a new general framework for class actions in France to
include data protection violations, regardless of industry sector.
Class actions have previously only been limited to consumer
actions.  Pursuant to the new law, data protection class actions
may be brought by the following groups: (i) associations whose
purpose is the protection of personal data and privacy; (ii)
specific national consumer protection associations; and (iii)
trade unions.  These groups can file class actions before civil or
administrative courts.


* IoT Security Vulnerabilities May Spark Legal Risks
----------------------------------------------------
Bob Violino, writing for ZDNet, reports that as the Internet of
Things (IoT) becomes more of a fact of daily life for many people
and businesses, securing the data and devices involved has emerged
as the single biggest IoT challenge.  This isn't surprising, given
that security incidents related to connected devices will likely
rise -- as will legal action related to product and service
vulnerabilities.

A prime example came earlier this month, when the United States
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit against D-Link, a
maker of networked devices for business users and consumers,
claiming the company put thousands of customers at risk of
unauthorized access by failing to secure its IP cameras and
routers.  Security vulnerabilities in the products had been
discovered last year.

The lawsuit claims that D-Link failed to take reasonable software
testing and remediation measures to protect its routers and IP
cameras against well-known and easily preventable software
security flaws.

The case against D-Link is the latest of many recent FTC actions
brought against consumer-facing technology companies for allegedly
failing to implement reasonable data security, said Jeremy
Goldman, a data security law expert and a partner in the
litigation, privacy and data security groups at law firm Frankfurt
Kurnit Klein & Selz.

"D-Link has just been made the poster child for IoT security, and
similar actions are likely," Mr. Goldman said.  "However, the key
question is whether the incoming administration will continue to
prioritize data security and interpret the FTC's powers as broadly
as the current commission."

The legal action should grab the attention of any company that is
developing IoT and other Internet-enabled consumer or business
products.

"The FTC is sending a clear message to manufacturers of IoT and
other connected devices: you have to think seriously about the
technical controls built into your products," Mr. Goldman said.
"Innovation has to include reasonable security designed to protect
consumer data and privacy.  What does that mean? Among other
things, default passwords simply will not fly."

In the current political climate, Mr. Goldman thinks it is
unlikely the U.S. government will enact any new legislation
setting minimum security standards for IoT or other connected
devices.

"It is more likely that the FTC and other federal regulators will
continue to try and fill the gaps using their authority under
existing laws," Mr. Goldman said.  "States have become
increasingly active in the data security space, both in terms of
cyber-policing by state [prosecutors] as well as state
legislatures passing new cyber security laws."

In addition to the FTC, and depending on the functionality and
intended users of an IoT product, legal action might arise from
other federal regulators such as the FCC as well as state
attorneys general charged with protecting consumers, Goldman said.

"The other major source of legal action is class action lawyers,
who have been very aggressive and creative in the privacy and data
security space," Mr. Goldman said.  "Companies that market
products abroad also may face action from foreign data protection
regulators."

As technology evolves and new exploits are discovered, what
constitutes a reasonable level security is going to change over
time, Mr. Goldman noted.  "That said, there is helpful guidance
out there," he said.

For example, the FTC published a detailed report recommending a
series of concrete steps that IoT developers can take to enhance
the security of their products.  "While not binding, companies
that follow the FTC's recommendations would have a strong argument
that they acted reasonably in protecting the privacy and data
security of their consumers," he said.


* TCPA-Related Class Actions Dominate Filings During Fall 2016
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Byrd, Esq. -- abyrd@orrick.com -- and Elliott Henry, Esq. --
ehenry@orrick.com -- of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, in an
article for JDSupra, report that class action filings during the
fall of 2016 continued to be dominated by Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") cases.  As of October 1, 2016, nearly 150
cases have been filed; these filings are both daily in frequency
and nationwide in scope.  Whereas prior monthly trends have shown
a similarity of defendants, this fall's targeted companies run the
gambit from food service providers to commercial insurers.  Given
the mass proliferation of these cases at both a state and federal
level nationwide, it is clear that TCPA filings are not a short-
lived trend.

Despite the September 2016 decision in Brazil v. Dole, No. 14-
17480 (9th Cir. Sept. 30, 2016), "All Natural" litigation
continues to be prevalent throughout the United States.  While
there appears to have been a slight decline in the volume of cases
filed in the 9th Circuit, litigation elsewhere is on the rise,
particularly in New York -- where 9 cases were been last quarter.

"Slack-fill" litigation, which saw a rise beginning in roughly the
summer of 2015, has continued through the last quarter.  Although
these cases do not generally result in success for the plaintiffs
because of the number of valid justifications manufacturers can
rely on for the slack (see Bautista v. CytoSport Inc., Case No.
7:15-cv-09081 (S.D.N.Y.); 21 C.F.R. Sec 100.100), they continue to
drive up litigation costs for food, beverage, and cosmetics
manufacturers.

There has also been an uptick in false advertising litigation as
it pertains to products touted as being eco-friendly in some
fashion.  With the rise in environmental awareness and the
availability of these supposedly eco-friendly options, this ilk of
litigation may become a mainstay.  A high volume of these cases
target automobile manufacturers; representations pertaining both
to emissions compliance and to fuel efficiency are under fire.
Given California's notoriously stringent emissions standards, it
should come as no surprise that 13 out of the 18 cases filed in
the past 3 months were all filed in California. Similar allegedly
false energy efficiency claims are also being aimed at electronics
manufacturers who have represented that their products are
compliant with Energy Star standards or may otherwise reduce
energy use.  A total of 4 such cases were filed in the last
quarter.

Change on the Horizon?

Given the publicly reported mass data breaches against Yahoo! in
September of 2016, data breach class actions are also increasingly
a trend to watch.  Repeated lawsuits against Yahoo! based on the
2014 data breach continue to be filed.  Perhaps more
interestingly, similarly structured claims are being filed
elsewhere -- notably in Colorado, where allegedly relaxed security
measures caused hundreds of thousands of bank cards routed through
financial institutions to be compromised in a large scale security
hack.  In a similar vein, lawsuits against smart phone app
developers are cropping up based on allegations that the apps
misused, distributed, or transmitted personal data without
authorization.

While the relative percentage of these data breach class actions
may be low, such claims may become more prolific in 2017.  A
number of cases with important implications for the viability of
data breach class actions -- particularly focused on the issue of
standing requirements -- will come up for decision in the coming
months.  The Fourth Circuit heard oral argument in Beck v.
McDonald, Case No. 15-1395/15-1715 related to issues surrounding
standing in September 2016 in connection with a case concerning
the theft of a hospital laptop containing medical information
pertaining to the plaintiffs.  Alleruzzo v. Supervalu, Case No.
16-2378/16-2528, a case involving hacked payment card information,
has been fully briefed in the Eighth Circuit and will be argued in
2017.  Again, one of the primary issues on appeal is standing.
Lastly, Attias v. CareFirst, Case No.
16-7108, a class action involving a data breach in connection with
a health care insurer, is pending in the District of Columbia
Circuit and will be briefed in early 2017.   In the coming months,
Spokeo may become a smaller part of standing analysis it comes to
data breach class actions.

A Note on Data Compilation

As part of an ongoing effort to monitor, track, and anticipate
trends in class action litigation, Orrick has been tracking all
class action filings throughout the United States, including both
those cases filed at the state and the federal level.  Using
Courthouse News Service, Orrick receives daily notifications for
each case designated as a class action.  Orrick then individually
reviews and categorizes the information gleaned and the cases are
filtered down to a subset of cases of interest, specifically
excluding securities class actions, Fair Debt Collection and Fair
Credit Reporting Act class actions, Americans with Disabilities
Act and Employee Retirement Income Security Act class actions, low
value labor & employment cases filed against individual
restaurants, salons, or small entities, and TCPA lawsuits filed
specifically against collection agencies.  This quarterly update
is a high level summary of trends noted across those cases, and
the numbers of filings are only representative of such trends.


* Ticket-Fighter to Launch Suit Challenging Photo Radar Ticketing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a Winnipeg traffic ticket-fighter says he's
making moves to launch a class-action lawsuit by the spring on
behalf of all individuals who received tickets based on photo
radar evidence.

Todd Dube, founder of ticket-fighting group Wise Up Winnipeg, said
he hopes to file a statement of claim by the end of March, arguing
photo radar evidence used to support the tickets is hearsay.

Inconsistent radar testing casts doubt on validity of millions of
speeding tickets "We would make one claim, in that all photo
enforcement cases are not supported by proper evidence criteria,"
Dube said of the potential lawsuit.

"This program should have been challenged in this way years ago."

Last November, a Quebec judge ruled in favour of a driver who
challenged a $1,160 ticket on the grounds information from a fixed
photo radar machine is not enough to support a ticket.

Quebec court decision means thousands of photo radar tickets could
be tossed, lawyer says

Quebec Crown won't appeal rejection of photo radar evidence
In his ruling, Justice of the Peace Serge Cimon called photo radar
evidence "hearsay" because no officer directly witnessed the
violation.

A Montreal man is currently seeking permission to launch a class-
action lawsuit similar to the one Dube has planned.

Quebec photo radar tickets could be reimbursed under proposed
class-action lawsuit Legal action underway

Dube said he has already contacted legal counsel to prepare the
action. They are still in the process of naming parties but he
said the City of Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba will both
be listed as defendants.

Dube said Wise Up Winnipeg had previously considered a lawsuit
challenging photo radar technology, but the Quebec decision
"compelled us to put it at the top of our list of things to do."

Ticket-fighter to sue City of Winnipeg over Know Your Zone
School zone speeding tickets on holiday frustrate Winnipeg drivers
"We always thought it was most appropriate for this challenge to
happen in Manitoba," Dube said, citing the age and size of
Winnipeg's photo radar program, which was introduced in pilot form
in 2001 and formally rolled out in 2003.

Dube and Wise Up Winnipeg have also criticized the city's Know
Your Zone program and school zone speed limits.

                            Impact on Tickets

The Quebec case applies specifically to intersection cameras, but
Dube argues the logic can be applied to the mobile units, too.

He argues the operators in mobile units can't know for sure if
their equipment is working and he doesn't think they always see
the vehicles as they pass.

Dube said that if the lawsuit is successful, millions of dollars
worth of traffic tickets might be thrown into question.

The City of Winnipeg has safety cameras stationed at around 50
intersections across the city in addition to 10 mobile units armed
with photo radar equipment.

According to statistics on the Winnipeg Police Service website,
the city's 10 mobile units issued more than 108,000 tickets in
2015. In that same year, intersection cameras captured more than
38,000 offenses.




                            *********

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  * * *