CAR_Public/170120.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, January 20, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 15



                            Headlines

317 RESTAURANT: Faces "Reyes" Lawsuit Under NY Labor Law, FLSA
A&S BREAKFAST: "Arevalo" Sues Over Missed Rest Periods, Overtime
ACTAVIS HOLDCO: NY Assoc. Alleges Conspiracy to Fix Drug Price
AFFYMETRIX INC: Settlement in "Douglas" Case Has Final Approval
ALEXION PHARMA: Boston Retirement Case Hits Share Price Drop

ALJEN ENTERPRISES: "Mariano" Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
ALL NATION: "Saunders" Suit Invokes Cal. Labor, Competition Laws
AMERICAN SPECIALTY: "Cole" Sues Over Patient Visits, Denied Claims
BAC HOME LOANS: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Higgins" Case
BACKER ABOUD: Parties in "Greig" Suit to Attend Early Mediation

BARRETT BUSINESS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on Feb. 22
BAYER CORP: "McPeters" Suit over Essure Remanded to State Court
BETTY'S CATERING: Faces "Romero" Lawsuit Under N.Y. Labor Law
BJ'S WHOLESALE: Hearing in Sales Tax Case Scheduled for February
BLOUNT INT'L: Chester Cty. Retirement Appeals to Del. Sup. Ct.

BOOKOTRIP LLC: "Ahamed" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
BORDER TRANSFER: Court Trims Claims in DaSilva & Ferreira Suit
BRINK'S INC: "Cruz" Labor Suit Returns to State Court
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: "Chuakay" Suit Hits Onerous Merger Deal
CAFE ENTERPRISES: Faces "English" Lawsuit Over Unpaid Wages

CALIFORNIA: Court Dismisses "Wickliffe" Suit v. Swarthout
CANADA: Mentally Ill Solitary Confinement Class Action Ongoing
CANADA: Quebec Radiologists May Face Class Action
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Court Dismisses Suit, Rejects Remand Bid
CINEMARK USA: Appeal in "Amey" Lawsuit Still Pending

CITIGROUP INC: IT Workers' NY FLSA Suit Settled for $325,000
CK AT PLANTATION: Faces "Aponte" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Deadlines Continued in "Ambrosio" Case
COGNOSANTE LLC: Gullage Seeks to Certify Class of Case Analysts
COLORADO: COGA Mulls Class Action Over Anti-Fracking Ordinance

COOPERATIVES WORKING: Settles Class Action Over Herd Retirements
DETROIT, MI: Status Conference in "Davis" Suit on Jan. 20
DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: Not Liable for UAL Delay, Court Says
DNTW CHARTERED: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit
DOLLAR GENERAL CORP: "Carroll" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

DOME CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Livingood" Suit Under Calif. Labor Code
DYNAMEX INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for April 6
EL DORADO CORRECTIONAL: 10th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Krebs"
FACEBOOK INC: 2nd Cir. Affirms Settlement in Nasdaq Action
FARMERS INSURANCE: Faces "Deluca" Suit Under FLSA, Cal. Wage Law

FIAT CHRYSLER: Siskinds Files Suit Over Emissions Software
FORD MOTOR: Court Won't Stay Briefing Pending "Burcham" Appeal
FORD MOTOR: Consumer Commission Receives 46 Kugas Complaints
FORD MOTOR: NCC Urged to Order Recall of 1.6-Liter Kuga Vehicles
GC SERVICES: Kausar May Re-file Bid for Certification of Class

GENERAL CABLE: Faces "Doshi" Securities Suit Over Alleged Bribery
GOLDMAN SACHS: "Karoon" Securities Suit Removed to New Jersey
GREAT-WEST LIFE: John Teets May Send Long-Form Notice to Class
GREGG APPLIANCES: E.D. Wis. Judge Declines to Amend Order
HEALTH NET: Faces "Pellegrino" Suit Over Claims Investigation

HEALTH RESOURCE: Status Hearing in "Brown" Suit Reset to March 14
HISCALL INC: "Brown" Claims Overtime Pay in Labor Suit
HYUNDAI MOTOR: March 21 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Motion to Dismiss "McCloskey" Suit Pending
INFINITY AUGMENTED: Faces "Kutas" Lawsuit Over Cash Out Merger

INTER-CON SECURITY: "Breda" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
INTERSTATE SAFETY: Faces "Owens" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Securities Suits Consolidated
ITAL PIZZA: Trial in "Hernandez" Suit to Commence May 11
IXIA: Faces "Ly" Suit Over Violations Under Calif. Labor Code

JACK RABBIT: Court Approves Settlement and Awards in "Ross" Case
JG GENERAL: "Carrera" Suit Seeks to Recover Alleged Unpaid Wages
JUNG SIK DANG: Minimum Wage, Tips Sought in "Bobb" Labor Suit
LAND'S END: Gorss Motels Complains of "Unsolicited" Facsimiles
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Earthquake Endorsement Subclass Decertified

LINEAGE LOGISTICS: "Bailes" Class Certified, Injunction Bid Nixed
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Thomas Seeks to Certify Second Class
MAINE: Court Dismisses "Johnson" Class Action Lawsuit
MANHATTAN FOOD: Faces "Roman" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
MANNKIND CORPORATION: 9th Cir. Appeal Remains Pending

MANNKIND CORPORATION: Defending Against Class Action in Israel
MASTERCARD INT'L: Judge Dismisses "Doyle" Claims
MCADAM LANDSCAPING: Seeks Approval of "Martinez" Suit Settlement
MD 2196: UFP Technologies Records $1.7MM Settlement Gain in Q3
MEDICREDIT INC: Faces "Mayer" Lawsuit Under Debt Collection Laws

METROPOLITAN LIFE: "Owens" Class Suit Remains Pending
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeal in "Robainas" Suit Remains Pending
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeal in "Intoccia" Suit Remains Pending
METROPOLITAN LIFE: "Voshall" Class Suit Remains Pending
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeal in "Martin" Class Suit Remains Pending

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Class Cert. Bids Due June 16 in "Lau" Suit
METROPOLITAN LIFE: "Newman" Class Suit Remains Pending
NATIONAL MILK: Jan. 31 Deadline to Claim Cash
NEW ORLEANS: No Settlement Reached in Debtor Prison Case
NEW YORK COMMUNITY: Settlement of Merger Suit Still Pending

ODOSAY INC: Faces "Zucco" Suit Seeking to Recoup Wages Under FLSA
OMNI INSURANCE: Dismissal Does Not Manifest Injustice, Court Says
ORACLE: Dept. of Labor Files Hiring Discrimination Suit
OREGON: Taxing Districts Have Yet to Decide to Join Timber Case
PAREXEL INT'L: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

PARKATLANTA: Faces Class Action Over Invalid Tickets
PERFORMANCE FOOD: Venue of "Perez" Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
PERFUMANIA HOLDINGS: May 30 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
PERSOLVE LLC: Settlement in "Jacobson" Suit Has Final Approval
PETRA HEALTH: "Cruz" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under Mass. Law

PINNACLE FOODS: "Biffar" Class Suit Over Muffin Mix to Proceed
PROMED & ASSOCIATED: "Awwad" Labor Case to Recover Overtime Pay
PUDA COAL: Company, Chairman Must Pay $228MM in Damages
QUAKER OATS: "Aliano" Suit Stayed Pending Resolution of Eisenford
RANDSTAD NORTH: Settlement in "Ortiz" Suit Gets Final Approval

RAYMOND JAMES: "Gamez" Sues Over Illegally Recorded Calls
RENT-A-CENTER: "De Palma" Sues Over Share Price Drop
SAM'S SOUTHERN: Faces "Walker" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Some Operators to Challenge $8MM Settlement
SAN JOSE MEXICAN: Court Approves Class Notice in "Galvan" Case

SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Amend "Kader" Complaint Denied
SEAGATE TECH: Case Management Conference Continued to Jan. 26
SCHAEFFLER GROUP: "Boring" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
SILVERITE CONSTRUCTION: Whitestone Sues Over PS 314 Contract
SIRTEX MEDICAL: Breach of Disclosure Obligations May Spark Suit

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Faces "Johnson" Suit Under Cal. Labor Code
ST. LOUIS RAMS: Joint Scheduling Plan Filed in "McAllister" Suit
STAAR SURGICAL: Class of Investors Certified in "Todd" Suit
SUNSHINE TRANSPORTATION: "Bombino" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
TAKATA CORP: Pleads Guilty, To Pay $1BB for Hiding Air Bag Defect

TAKATA CORP: 3 Employees Accused of Concealing Air Bag Defects
TD BANK: "Dorsey" Sues Over Excessive Overdraft Charges
TEKTON CONSTRUCTION: "Pena" Lawsuit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
TENNESSEE, USA: Thomas Wants Certification of Tenn. Drivers Class
TEXAS: Court Won't Reconsider Orders in "Daniels" Suit v. TxDOT

TEXAS: Court Wants Plans to Improve Foster Care System
TEXAS: Faith Partners Called to Support Child Welfare System
TIME WARNER: Court Appoints Interim Class Counsel in "Mejia" Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued in Florida Over Soy-Based Insulation
UNION JACK: Faces "Anderson" Suit Under FLSA, Md. Labor Laws

UNITED STATES: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Polsky" Case
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: INC: "Fedor" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: INC: "Fedor" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
UNITED SERVICES: Goodson Set to Argue Case at Feb. 7 Hearing
US BANCORP: Court Grants Final OK to "Waggoner" Suit Settlement

USA TECHNOLOGIES: 3rd Circuit Appeals Underway
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: To Oppose Certification in Allergan Case
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal in Salix Shareholder Suit Ongoing
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Salix Securities Litigation in Discovery
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Underway

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Kowalyshyn & O'Brien Suits Consolidated
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: April 24 Hearing in Catucci Action
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: To Defend Against 3 RICO Class Actions
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Solodyn(R) Antitrust Suits in Discovery
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Contact Lens Actions in Discovery

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Shower to Shower Suits Pending in Canada
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion to Certify Afexa Action Pending
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: To Defend Against Sprout Litigation
VIRGIN AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in Flight Attendants' Suit
VIVUS INC: Appeal in "Jasin" Suit Underway

WESTERN REFINING: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Tesoro Corp. Merger
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Defective Dishwasher Component Hit in "Burch" Suit
WISCONSIN: Judge Dismisses "Mitchell" Suit v. Rhodes

* Exorbitant Prison Phone Rates in Louisiana Hit Poor Families
* Supreme Court to Decide on Employment Arbitration Agreements


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Refuses to Review Ruling in Travelers Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Dropped as Defendant in "Sumner"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6th Cir. Affirms Causation Ruling in "Stallings"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Inmate Loses Bid for Default Judgment
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Summary Judgment in "Mitchell"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in MDL No. 875 Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Cir. OKs Dismissal Order in Employees Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.C. Court Allows Victim's Family to Amend Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Grimes"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals in Wrongful Death Suit Junked as Moot

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Inks A&E Reinsurance Deal with NICO
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Queensland Gov't Reveals Asbestos-Ridden Schools
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sonoma State Univ Asbestos Suit Trial Begins
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family in Legal Fight Over Asbestos Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Says Final Inspections Needed for Libby

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nottingham Schools Still Contain Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos is Ticking Time Bomb in Bedford Schools
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Waterloo Region Fined for Exposing Workers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Defense Ministry Sued After Army Base Blaze
ASBESTOS UPDATE: President's House Staff Undergo Exposure Tests

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Son Could Have Breathed Asbestos as a Child
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mont. Running Out of Time for Superfund Cleanup
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Testing Confirms Asbestos in Coolbellup Site
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $850K Clean-up Bill for Dumped Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: East Lansing Wants Mercury, Asbestos Suit Junked


                            *********


317 RESTAURANT: Faces "Reyes" Lawsuit Under NY Labor Law, FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hector Reyes, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. 317 Restaurant LLC d/b/a Bistecca
Florentina and Luciano Marchignoli, Defendants, was filed to
recover compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New
York Labor Law and the Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Defendants owned and operated a restaurant in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Samuel, Esq.
     SAMUEL & STEIN
     38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
     New York, NY 10001
     Phone: (212) 563-9884
     E-mail: michael@samuelandstein.com


A&S BREAKFAST: "Arevalo" Sues Over Missed Rest Periods, Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julio Arevalo, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. A & S Breakfast, Inc. d/b/a Annie's
Pancake House and Argyro Varvouletos, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00114, (N.D. Ill., January 6, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees owed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

A & S Breakfast, owned by Varvouletos, operates Annie's Pancake
House located at 4900 Oakton Street in Skokie, Illinois where
Arevalo worked as a dishwasher. He claims to have been denied meal
and rest periods.

Plaintiff is represented by:

       Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq.
       CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
       6232 North Pulaski Road, Suite 200
       Chicago, IL 60646
       Tel: (312) 878-1302
       Email: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


ACTAVIS HOLDCO: NY Assoc. Alleges Conspiracy to Fix Drug Price
--------------------------------------------------------------
DETECTIVES ENDOWMENT ASSOCIATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ACTAVIS HOLDCO U.S., INC., APOTEX CORP., DR. REDDY'S
LABORATORIES, INC., GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS INC., USA, LUPIN
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., MYLAN INC., MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., and ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS (USA)
INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00013-TON (E.D. Pa., January 3,
2017), arises from an alleged broad conspiracy among manufacturers
of generic drugs to fix the prices charged for pravastatin sodium
in recent years.

Pravastatin sodium is a commonly prescribed drug used to lower
cholesterol and triglycerides in the blood.

The Defendants are pharmaceutical companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
     Gerald J. Rodos, Esq.
     Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq.
     Chad A. Carder, Esq.
     BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
     3300 Two Commerce Square
     2001 Market Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 963-0600
     Fax: (215) 963-0838
     E-mail: grodos@barrack.com
             jbarrack@barrack.com
             jgittleman@barrack.com
             ccarder@barrack.com


AFFYMETRIX INC: Settlement in "Douglas" Case Has Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GERALD DOUGLAS, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FRANK WITNEY, NELSON
CHAN, GARY GUTHART, JAMI NACHTSHEIM, RICCARDO PIGLIUCCI, MERILEE
RAINES, ROBERT TRICE, and AFFYMETRIX, INC., Defendants. STEVEN
MEROLA, Individually and On Related Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. FRANK WITNEY, NELSON CHAN, GARY GUTHART,
JAMI NACHTSHEIM, RICCARDO PIGLIUCCI, MERILEE RAINES, ROBERT TRICE,
and AFFYMETRIX, INC., Defendants. JEFFREY S.L. CHEAH, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
AFFYMETRIX, INC., JAMI DOVER NACHTSHEIM, FRANK WITNEY, NELSON C.
CHAN, GARY S. GUTHART, RICCARDO PIGLIUCCI, MERILEE RAINES, ROBERT
H. TRICE, THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC, INC. and WHITE BIRCH MERGER
CO., Defendants, Defendants, Case Nos. 3:16-cv-00921-WHO, 4:16-cv-
01237-WHO, Related Case No. 3:16-cv-1253-WHO (N.D. Cal.), District
Judge William H. Orrick approved the parties' Settlement set in
the July 29, 2016 Stipulation of Settlement.

For purposes of the Settlement, the Court finally certifies a non-
opt-out Settlement Class consisting of all record holders and
beneficial owners of Affymetrix common stock at any time during
the period beginning on and including August 12, 2015 through and
including March 31, 2016, the date of the consummation of the
Merger, including any and all of their respective successors in
interest, predecessors, representatives, trustees, executors,
administrators, heirs, assigns or transferees, immediate and
remote, and any person or entity acting for or on behalf of, or
claiming under, any of them, and each of them.

The Court approved the Stipulation and the terms of the Settlement
as described in the Stipulation in their entirety. Upon the
effective date, (i) the releases in the Stipulation shall extend
to all Unknown Claims; (ii) the Releasing Parties and Released
Parties shall be deemed to relinquish as to the claims released by
any party to the agreement, to the extent applicable, and to the
full extent permitted by law, the provisions, rights, and benefits
of Sec. 1542 of the California Civil Code; and (iii) the Releasing
Parties and Released Parties shall be deemed to waive as to the
claims released by any party to the agreement any and all
provisions, rights, and benefits conferred by any law of any state
or territory of the United States, or principle of common law,
which is similar, comparable, or equivalent to California Civil
Code Sec. 1542.

Moreover, the Court finds that the fees and expenses for the
Plaintiff's counsel are fair and reasonable. The Court noted that
the Parties may agree to reasonable extensions of time to carry
out any provisions of the Stipulation.

A copy of the Court's Final Order and Judgment is available at
https://goo.gl/EE9kQF from Leagle.com.

Gerald Douglas, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Ann Rohr --
brohr@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Faruqi, LLP.

Gerald Douglas, Plaintiff, represented by David Eldridge Bower --
dbower@bowerlawgroup.com -- Monteverde & Associates PC, James M.
Wilson, Jr. -- jwilson@faruqilaw.com -- FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP, pro
hac vice & Juan E. Monteverde -- jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com --
Monteverde & Associates PC, pro hac vice.

Frank Witney, et al., Defendants, represented by Neal Alan
Potischman -- neal.potischman@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk &
Wardwell, Andrew David Yaphe -- andrew.yaphe@davispolk.com --
Davis Polk, Jayeeta Kundu, Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP & Micah
Galvin Block -- micah.block@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk and
Wardwell LLP.


ALEXION PHARMA: Boston Retirement Case Hits Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Retirement System, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
Leonard Bell, David L. Hallal and Vikas Sinha, Defendants, Case
No. 3:16-cv-02127, (D. Conn., December 29, 2016), seeks
compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in
this action, including attorneys' and expert fees and such
equitable/injunctive or other further relief under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Alexion is a biopharmaceutical company headquartered in New Haven,
Connecticut. It develops and commercializes therapeutic products
for rare diseases including Soliris, a monoclonal antibody for the
treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, a genetic blood
disorder and atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome, a genetic
disease.

Defendants inflated their reported earnings by engaging commercial
organizations and sales force that were not sufficient to
effectively market the said drug while its inventory levels for
Soliris were distorted by improper sales of the drug.

Alexion had also failed to file its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
with the SEC within two days of its earnings announcement on
October 27, 2016. On December 12, 2016, before the market opened,
Alexion announced that their CEO David Hallal and CFO Vikas Sinha
resigned.

This news caused the price of Alexion stock to decline
substantially.

Boston Retirement System is a defined-benefit governmental pension
plan headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. Plaintiff manages
assets on behalf of beneficiaries associated with the City of
Boston. It purchased shares of Alexion stock on the NASDAQ stock
market and lost substantially.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Slossberg, Esq.
      HURWITZ, SAGARIN, SLOSSBERG & KNUFF, LLC
      147 North Broad Street
      P.O. Box 112
      Milford, CT 06460
      Telephone: 203-877-8000
      Facsimile: 203-878-9800
      Email: DSlossberg@hssklaw.com

             - and -

      Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
      Hannah Ross, Esq.
      Avi Josefson, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      1251 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10020
      Telephone: (212) 554-1400
      Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
      Email: jerry@blbglaw.com
             hannah@blbglaw.com
             avi@blbglaw.com


ALJEN ENTERPRISES: "Mariano" Seeks to Recover Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
VIRGILIO MARIANO, and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216 (b), Plaintiff, v. ALJEN ENTERPRISES, LLC d/b/a
AAMCO OF DALLAS and RAHIM NATHOO, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
00025-C (N.D. Tex., January 4, 2017), requests double damages and
reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, to be proven at the time of trial for all
overtime wages allegedly still owing from Plaintiff's employment
with Defendants, or as much as allowed by the Fair Labor Standards
Act along with court costs, interest, and any other relief.

Aljen Enterprises LLC is a small organization in the business
consulting services industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert Manteuffel, Esq.
     J.H. Zidell, Esq., Esq.
     Joshua A. Petersen, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
     6310 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 112
     Dallas, TX 75240
     Phone: (972) 233-2264
     Fax: (972) 386-7610
     Email: zabogado@aol.com
            josh.a.petersen@gmail.com
            rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net


ALL NATION: "Saunders" Suit Invokes Cal. Labor, Competition Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
RODRICK SAUNDERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. ALL NATION SECURITY SERVICES, INC., a
California Corporation and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-at-00006 (E.D. Cal., January 5, 2017),
seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages, improper deductions, and
penalties for Defendant's violations of the California Labor Code
and the California Unfair Competition Law.

All Nation Security Services, Inc. provides security services to
businesses through multiple California locations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christina A. Humphrey, Esq.
     Thomas A. Rist, Esq.
     HUMPHREY & RIST LLP
     351 Paseo Nuevo, 2nd Floor
     Santa Barbara, CA 93101
     Phone: (805) 618-2924
     Fax: (805) 618-2939
     E-mail: christina@humphreyrist.com
             tom@humphreyrist.com

        - and -

     James Clark, Esq.
     TOWER LEGAL GROUP, APC
     1510 J Street, Suite 125
     Sacramento, CA 95814
     Phone: (916) 361-6009
     Fax: (916) 361-6019
     E-mail: james.clark@towerlegalgroup.com


AMERICAN SPECIALTY: "Cole" Sues Over Patient Visits, Denied Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Cole, Bradford Cole, Cary Justice, Michael Massey and Don
Wegener, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. American Specialty Health Network, Inc.,
American Specialty Health, Inc., Cigna Corporation, Inc., John
Does A, B, & C and Jane Does A, B, and C, Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-00013, (M.D. Tenn., January 6, 2017), requests that the
original coverage be reinstated, seeks to recover damages, costs,
interest, attorneys' fees, punitive damages, declaratory and
injunctive relief and any other relief resulting from breach of
contract.

Richard Cole, Bradford Cole, Cary Justice, Michael Massey and Don
Wegener are chiropractic doctors designated as in-network
providers for CIGNA and had treated CIGNA patients. They received
a co-pay amount from the patient and an additional amount from
CIGNA at a rate paid to in-network providers and were paid more
than a provider that was classified as out-of-network.

CIGNA and American Specialty Health (ASH) entered into an
agreement whereby ASH would undertake to perform the claims
payment, utilization review and network management of chiropractic
services for CIGNA. ASH holds itself out as the administrator for
CIGNA chiropractic services. ASH allegedly was routinely limiting
the number of patient visits requiring chiropractic treatment and
was denying claims over five, costing time and money for each
Plaintiff for every denied claim that was a valid claim.

CIGNA Corporation is an insurance company headquartered in
Bloomfield, Connecticut.

American Specialty Health Networks, Inc. and/or American Specialty
Health, Inc. is a utilization management company headquartered at
and with its principal place of business at 10221 Waterridge
Circle, San Diego, California, 92121.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Houston Gordon, Esq.
      Lyle Reid, Esq.
      Amber Griffin Shaw, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF J. HOUSTON GORDON
      Suite 300, Hotel Lindo Building
      114 West Liberty Avenue
      P.O. Box 846
      Covington, TN 38019-0846
      Tel: (901) 476-7100
      Fax: (901) 476-3537
      Email: lawjhg@comcast.net


BAC HOME LOANS: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Higgins" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, affirmed the
District Court's dismissal of the case styled, LARRY HIGGINS,
Plaintiff, W. GLENN PERRY; JUANITA BUCKHALTER CLARKE; SHEILA H.
BAKER; RHONDA A. DAY; DAVID NADEAU; and MARTHA MEGREDY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, fka
Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, L.P.; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.;
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; U.S. BANK, N.A., as Trustee for the
Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage Securities Corp., CSMC
Mortgage-backed Pass-through Certificates, Series 2006-6, and, on
behalf of the class, as Trustee of other similarly-situated
trusts; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION; FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, as conservator for,
Federal National Mortgage Association; and COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS
SERVICING, L.P., Defendants-Appellees, No. 16-5995 (6th Cir.).

In the case, the Plaintiff-landowners contended that the
Defendant-assignees, in using the Mortgage Electronic Registration
System (MERS), violated the Kentucky recording statutes which
require the assignee to record the assignment of a mortgage within
30 days. The Defendants then filed a motion to dismiss.

The District Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to set aside the
Defendants' motion to dismiss because the Plaintiffs have long
past waived any argument based on the Defendants' failure to
record mortgage-deed transfers. Three years passed from the time
the Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint to when they
filed their motion to set aside. Numerous filings during that time
gave the Plaintiffs an opportunity to present the argument, and
despite the opportunities, the Plaintiffs did not argue until the
motion to set aside that the case should not be dismissed,
regardless of what the court decides about note transfers, because
they also have claims based on mortgage-deed transfers.

Moreover, the Appellate Court noted that the federal District
Court did not lack jurisdiction in deciding the case. Whatever
that case held, however, it cannot have held that the failure of a
Plaintiff to meet the causation or damage element of any statutory
tort deprives a federal court of jurisdiction.

A copy of the Appellate Court's Order dated December 27, 2016 is
available at https://goo.gl/QH5gWk from Leagle.com.


BACKER ABOUD: Parties in "Greig" Suit to Attend Early Mediation
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg of the United States District
Court for the District of Southern District of Florida granted
motion to dismiss Count I and II of Second Amended Class Action
Complaint in the case captioned, CYNTHIA A. GREIG, Plaintiff, v.
BACKER ABOUD POLIAKOFF & FOELSTER, LLP, and KEITH F. BACKER,
Defendants, Case No. 9:16-CV-81316-ROSENBERG/BRANNON (S.D. Fla.).

The Court directed the parties to attend an early mediation by no
later than Monday, February 6, 2017, unless a settlement has been
reached and a notice of settlement has been filed with the Court
prior to that date.

Plaintiff's Second Amended Class Action Complaint contains three
counts for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. With respect to Counts I and II,
Plaintiff alleges that on May 27, 2016, Defendants --  who,
according to Plaintiff, were "debt collectors" as defined in the
FDCPA -- sent a demand letter to Plaintiff seeking to collect a
debt owed to Plaintiff's homeowners' association. Count I of
Plaintiff's Second Amended Class Action Complaint alleges that
Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g(a)(3) and (4), which
require a debt collector to notify the consumer that she must
dispute the validity of the debt within thirty days after receipt
of notice. Count II of Plaintiff's Second Amended Class Action
Complaint alleges that Defendants violated 15 U.S.C.  1692e, which
prohibits the use of "any false, deceptive, or misleading
representation or means by a debt collector in connection with the
collection of any debt."

With respect to Count III (which Defendants have not sought to
dismiss) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692e(10). In addition, Plaintiff alleges that the claim
of lien filed against Plaintiff's property did not reflect the
$880.00 payment made by Plaintiff on July 22, 2016.

The primary arguments raised in Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Counts I and II are:

     (1) multiple courts have determined that correspondence
providing additional time for a consumer to dispute the validity
of a debt does not violate the FDCPA;

     (2) Plaintiff's position requires an absurd interpretation of
the FDCPA that would penalize debt collectors for granting
consumers additional time to assert their statutory rights;

     (3) nothing in Defendants' letter could be read by even the
least sophisticated consumer to allow Plaintiff less than thirty
days to dispute the validity of the debt;

     (4) their demand letter comports with Florida Statutes
section 720.3085(4)(a), which requires a homeowners' association
to provide the owner with at least 45 days after the date notice
is deposited in the mail to make payment for all amounts due; and

     (5) there was no allegation that Defendants would not have
honored the extended deadline for Plaintiff to dispute the
validity of the debt.

Plaintiff counters that:

     (1) under the plain language of the FDCPA, Defendants cannot
give Plaintiff more time to exercise her statutory rights;

     (2) the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has found an FDCPA
violation where the statement from the debt collectors omitted
Section 1692g(a)(4)'s requirement that the consumer notify the
debt collector "in writing" that the debt is disputed, despite the
debt collectors' argument on appeal that they had simply waived
that requirement;

     (3) in Clark v. Butler & Hosch, P.A., case no. 2:14-cv-14183,
the undersigned denied the debt collector's motion to dismiss
where the consumer alleged that the debt collector's statement had
omitted Sec. 1692g(a)(5)'s requirement that the consumer submit a
"written" request for the name and address of the original
creditor;

     (4) the cases cited by Defendants are distinguishable from
the Greig case because those cases involved successive letters,
each of which included the statement that the consumer was
required to dispute the debt within thirty days, while the instant
case involves a single letter stating that the consumer could
dispute the debt within 45 days;

     (5) the lone case cited by Defendants that also involved a
single letter stating that the consumer could dispute the debt
within 45 days is not binding on the Court and should not be
followed; and

     (6) Defendants cannot rewrite the FDCPA just to comport with
Florida Statutes section 720.3085(4)(a).

In their Reply, Defendants argue that (1) Bishop and Clark are
distinguishable from the instant case because, in the instant
case, Defendants' demand letter did not omit necessary information
or curtail Plaintiff's rights; (2) Plaintiff asserts that
consumers are stripped of statutory protections if they do not
dispute the debt within thirty days, even if the debt collector
has provided additional time; and (3) even the least sophisticated
consumer would not have been misled as to her statutory rights by
Defendants' extension of the deadline to dispute the debt.

In the Order dated January 5, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/uyUrYy from Leagle.com, Judge Rosenberg concluded
that Counts I and II should be dismissed for failure to state a
claim and any further amendment would be futile so that these
claims are dismissed with prejudice.

Cynthia A Greig is represented by Leo Wassner Desmond, Esq. --
LWD@VeroBeachLegal.Com -- DESMOND LAWFIRM PC

Backer Aboud Poliakoff & Foelster, LLP is represented by Lewis
Wilson Murphy, Jr., Esq. -- wmurphy@murphywalker.com -- MURPHY &
WALKER, P.L.


BARRETT BUSINESS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on Feb. 22
--------------------------------------------------------------
The court has scheduled a hearing for February 22, 2017, to
consider final approval of the Settlement in the case, In re
Barrett Business Services Securities Litigation, Barrett Business
Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016.

On November 6, 2014, plaintiffs in Michael Arciaga, et al. v.
Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al., filed an action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington against BBSI, Michael L. Elich, BBSI's Chief Executive
Officer, and James D. Miller, BBSI's then Chief Financial Officer.
The action purported to be a class action brought on behalf of all
BBSI shareholders alleging violations of the federal securities
laws. The claims arose from the decline in the market price for
BBSI common stock following announcement of a charge for increased
workers' compensation reserves expense. The lawsuit sought
compensatory damages, plus interest, and costs and expenses
(including attorney fees and expert fees).

On November 13, 2014, a second purported shareholder class action
was filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington, entitled Christopher P. Carnes, et al. v.
Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al. The Carnes complaint named
the same defendants as the Arciaga case and asserted similar
claims for relief.

Similarly, on November 17, 2014, a third purported shareholder
class action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, entitled Shiva Stein, et al. v.
Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al. The Stein complaint named
the same defendants as the Arciaga and Carnes cases and asserted
similar claims for relief.

On February 25, 2015, the court ordered consolidation of the three
cases, and any new or other cases involving the same subject
matter, into a single action for pretrial purposes. The
consolidated cases were recaptioned as In re Barrett Business
Services Securities Litigation. The court also appointed the
Painters & Allied Trades District Council No. 35 Pension and
Annuity Funds as the lead plaintiff.

On March 21, 2016, before the court had ruled on the defendants'
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' first amended consolidated
complaint, the plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated
complaint, naming the same defendants. The second amended
consolidated complaint dropped certain allegations from the first
amended complaint and added new allegations relating to
disclosures in BBSI's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 9,
2016. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
consolidated complaint on May 23, 2016.

On October 26, 2016, before the court ruled on the motion to
dismiss, the parties entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement dated as of October 26, 2016 (the "Settlement"), to
settle the litigation. The settlement class includes all persons
and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired BBSI common stock
in the period beginning February 12, 2013, through March 9, 2016,
and were damaged thereby, with certain exclusions.

The Settlement is intended to fully, finally and forever
compromise, settle, release, resolve, and dismiss with prejudice
the purported class action and all claims asserted therein against
the named defendants. In the Settlement, the defendants have
denied all allegations of wrongdoing and the plaintiffs have not
conceded any infirmities in their positions.

The Settlement calls for the payment in cash of $12.0 million (the
"Settlement Fund") into escrow by November 29, 2016, which is 15
business days after the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the Settlement. Of this amount, approximately $8.7
million will be paid by BBSI's insurance carriers and
approximately $3.3 million will be paid by BBSI. The amount to be
paid by BBSI has been accrued at September 30, 2016 and is
included in other accrued liabilities in our condensed
consolidated balance sheet. The fees of counsel for the plaintiffs
will be paid out of the Settlement Fund following approval by the
court.

The Settlement is subject to approval by the court and to other
customary terms and conditions, including the right of BBSI to
terminate the Settlement under specified circumstances. All
potential class members were notified of the Settlement in
November 2016. The court has scheduled a hearing for February 22,
2017, to consider final approval of the Settlement. If the
Settlement is not approved by the court, or is otherwise
terminated before it is finalized, BBSI is unable to predict the
final outcome of the litigation or to estimate its effect on BBSI,
which may be material and adverse.

Additional information on the case is available at:

            http://www.barrettsecuritiessettlement.com/

Barrett Business Services, Inc. developed a management platform
that integrates a knowledge-based approach from the management
consulting industry with tools from the human resource outsourcing
industry.


BAYER CORP: "McPeters" Suit over Essure Remanded to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Shirley Padmore Mensah of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted
Plaintiffs' motion to remand to state court the case captioned,
ROSALIND McPETERS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BAYER, CORP., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:16-CV-1680-SPM (E.D. Mo.).

Plaintiffs filed the action in the Circuit Court for the Twenty-
Second Judicial Circuit, City of St. Louis, Missouri. Plaintiffs
are 94 individual women, each of whom alleges that she suffered
injuries resulting from the use of Essure, a permanent birth
control system manufactured by Defendants. Plaintiffs assert
claims of negligence, negligence per se, strict liability for
failure to warn, strict liability based on a manufacturing defect,
common law fraud, constructive fraud, fraudulent concealment,
breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, violations
of consumer protection laws, Missouri products liability,
violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, and gross
negligence/punitive damages. Plaintiffs include citizens of a
number of different states, including Missouri, Indiana,
Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

On October 28, 2016, Defendants removed the case to this Court on
the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(a), federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section
1331, and Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d). Defendant Bayer Corporation is a citizen
of Indiana and Pennsylvania. Defendant Bayer HealthCare LLC is a
citizen of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Germany, and the Netherlands.
Defendant Bayer Essure, Inc., and Defendant Bayer Healthcare
Pharmaceuticals are citizens of Delaware and New Jersey. With
respect to diversity jurisdiction, Defendants argued that although
there is a lack of complete diversity on the face of the Petition,
the Court should dismiss the claims of the non-Missouri plaintiffs
for lack of personal jurisdiction, at which point complete
diversity would exist. Defendants also argued that diversity
jurisdiction exists because Plaintiffs' claims have been
fraudulently misjoined.

On November 3, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the motion to remand the
case, arguing that the Court should address subject matter
jurisdiction before personal jurisdiction and that the Court
should remand the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
because there is no complete diversity, no federal question
jurisdiction, and no jurisdiction under CAFA.

In her Memorandum and Order dated January 5, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/CGejlb from Leagle.com, Judge Mensah hold that the
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case and that
CAFA cannot form a basis for subject matter jurisdiction.  The
case is remanded to the Circuit Court for the Twenty-Second
Judicial Circuit, City of St. Louis, Missouri.

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

Bayer Corp., et al. are represented by Gerard T. Noce, Esq. --
gnoce@heplerbroom.com -- and W. Jason Rankin, Esq. --
jrankin@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM; Rebecca K. Wood, Esq. --
rwood@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP


BETTY'S CATERING: Faces "Romero" Lawsuit Under N.Y. Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA ROMERO, MARTIN GARCIA, and REMMY LARA, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs,
against BETTY'S CATERING CORP.; ISABELITA CRUZ; and any other
related entities, Defendants, INDEX NO. 600106/2017 (N.Y. Sup.,
County of Nassau, January 5, 2017), was brought pursuant to the
New York Labor Law to recover alleged unlawfully retained
gratuities owed to Plaintiffs.

Defendants operate a catering business.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
     Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
     Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
     LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
     One Old Country Road, Suite 347
     Carle Place, NY 11514
     Phone: (516) 873-9550


BJ'S WHOLESALE: Hearing in Sales Tax Case Scheduled for February
----------------------------------------------------------------
WFTV.com reports that a Kissimmee, Florida, woman said she bought
a discounted television at a local BJ's Wholesale Club on
Dec. 18, but was charged tax on the full price.

WFTV's 9 Investigates uncovered this isn't the first time a BJ's
customer complained about the way the store charges sales tax.

A complaint from a court in Miami-Dade County said the store also
charged a customer sales tax on the full price of a discounted
television.

The customer's lawyers said that practice is illegal.

Donna Maddox went to a Kissimmee BJ's to buy a $1,400 TV for $700.

She said she thought she got a great discount until she looked
closely at her receipt.

"I really thought it was a mistake," she said.

The receipt shows the store charged the state's 7 percent sales
tax on the original price, not the sale price.

"It just seems shady," said Ms. Maddox.

And Ms. Maddox isn't the first Florida BJ's customer to accuse the
wholesale chain of illegally charging sales tax on discounted
televisions.

9 Investigates found a class action suit against BJ's that said
the company, "Unlawfully charged its Florida customers on the
discounted price of items." WFTV.com

It's something the lawsuit says is a "Violation of Florida's
deceptive and unfair trade practices act."

The lawsuit said that's because state law only allows a store to
charge sales tax on the original price if the discount or rebate
is "issued directly by the manufacturer."

9 Investigates reached out to BJ's for a comment, and a corporate
spokeswoman sent an email saying the company can't comment on
pending litigation.

"I just think it's a deceitful practice," said Ms. Maddox.

She said she wants to make sure other BJ's customers know about
the issue before they go shopping.

BJ's tried to get the judge to toss the lawsuit in July, but the
judge denied that request and allowed the lawsuit to move forward.

The next hearing in the case is scheduled for February.


BLOUNT INT'L: Chester Cty. Retirement Appeals to Del. Sup. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court of Delaware.
The case is captioned Chester County Retirement System,
individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Appellant, v. Joshua L. Collins, David A. Willmott, Robert E.
Beasley, Jr., Ronald Cami, Andrew C. Clarke, Nelda J. Connors, E.
Daniel James, Harold E. Layman, Max L. Lukens, Daniel J. Obringer,
Blount International, Inc, American Securities LLC, P2 Capital
Partners, LLC, P2 Capital Master Fund I, L.P., ASP Blade
Interniediate Holdings, Inc., ASP Blade Merger Sub, Inc. and
Goldman Sachs & Co., Appellees, Case No. 603, 2016.

The Appellant appeals to the Supreme Court from the order granting
motions to dismiss entered by Honorable J. Travis Laster of the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on December 6, 2016, in
CA No. 12072-VCL.
Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

      Pamela S. Tikellis, Esq.
      Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq.
      A. Zachary Naylor, Esq.
      Tiffany J. Cramer, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      222 Delaware Avenue
      P.O. Box 1035
      Wilmington, DE 19899
      Tel: (302) 656-2500

Defendant-Apellees are represented by:

      Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Esq.
      Frank R. Martin, Esq.
      POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
      Hercules Plaza
      1313 North Market Street, 6th Floor
      PO. Box 951
      Wilmington, Delaware 19801

            - and -

      William M. Lafferty, Esq.
      John P. DiTomo, Esq.
      MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
      1201 N. Market Street
      P.O. Box 1347
      Wilmington, DE 19899-1347

           - and -

     Gregory P. Williams, Esq.
     Susan M. Hannigan, Esq.
     RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
     920 North King Street
     Wilmington DE 19801

        - and -

     Kevin G. Abrams, Esq.
     J. Peter Shindel, Jr., Esq.
     Matthew L. Miller, Esq.
     ABRAMS & BAYLISS LLP
     20 Montchanin Road, Suite 200
     Wilmington, DE 19807

        - and -

     David E. Ross, Esq.
     S. Michael Sirkin, Esq.
     ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP
     100 S. West Street, Suite 400
     Wilmington, DE 19801


BOOKOTRIP LLC: "Ahamed" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Imthiyas Ahamed, and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v.
Riya Travel & Tours, Inc., Bookotrip LLC, Trip Brands LLC, Samuel
Benson and Ani Benson, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00018, (S.D.
Tex., January 5, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other
wages, equitable relief, compensatory and liquidated damages,
attorney's fees, all costs of the action and post-judgment
interest as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants employed Mr. Ahamed as a travel agent at their travel
agency located in Sugar Land, Texas. He claims to be denied
overtime pay and that his pay was subjected to illegal deductions.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
      ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
      One Arena Place
      7322 Southwest Frwy., Suite 1920
      Houston, TX 77074
      Telephone: (713) 223-1300
      Facsimile: (713) 255-0013
      Email: aahmedlaw@gmail.com


BORDER TRANSFER: Court Trims Claims in DaSilva & Ferreira Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Patti B. Saris of the United States District
for the District of Massachusetts denied as to Count I and allowed
as to Count II the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case
captioned, MARCOS DaSILVA and MATTEUS FERREIRA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
BORDER TRANSFER OF MA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-11205-PBS (D.
Mass.).

After their agreements with Border Transfer expired, the
plaintiffs DaSilva and Ferreira filed the putative class action
complaint asserting two counts: (1) violation of the Massachusetts
Wage Law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, Section 148, and (2) unjust
enrichment. Both causes of action claimed that Border Transfer
improperly treated the plaintiffs as independent contractors
rather than as employees, and as a result unlawfully deducted
certain expenses from their pay.

The plaintiffs worked as delivery drivers for Border Transfer
delivering Sears merchandise. Their relationship with Border
Transfer was governed by Contract Carrier Agreements which
provides that the plaintiffs were independent contractors.
However, the plaintiffs allege that they should have been
classified as employees because Border Transfer exercised
substantial control over their drivers and the drivers did not
have the ability to maintain an independently established
business. The drivers were required to report to a Border
Transfer/Sears facility five mornings a week, where they were
instructed on how to assemble equipment and how to interact with
customers.

Border Transfer moves to dismiss on the basis that the plaintiffs'
claims are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration
Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA), 49 U.S.C. Section 14501(c)(1).
In response, the plaintiffs argue for a categorical rule that the
FAAAA does not preempt generally applicable state employment laws.

In her Memorandum and Order dated January 5, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/QeAJ1n from Leagle.com, Judge Saris denied the
Motion as to the FAAAA preemption claims because the Court does
not find the Massachusetts Wage Act or Prongs 1 or 3 of the
Massachusetts Independent Contractor Statute preempted by the
FAAAA and allowed as to unjust enrichment claim because the
Massachusetts Wage Act is available as a statutory remedy, and
that is sufficient to bar unjust enrichment.

Matteus Ferreira, et al. are represented by Benjamin Weber, Esq.
-- and Harold L. Lichten, Esq. -- hlichten@llrlaw.com -- LICHTEN &
LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

Border Transfer of MA, Inc. is represented by Judith A. Leggett,
Esq. -- judith@leggettlawfirm.com -- LEGGETT LAW FIRM, LLC; Adam
C. Smedstad, Esq. -- asmedstad@scopelitis.com -- and Andrew J.
Butcher, Esq. -- abutcher@scopelitis.com -- SCOPELITIS, GARVIN
LIGHT HANSON & FEARY


BRINK'S INC: "Cruz" Labor Suit Returns to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Carlos Cruz, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Brink's, Incorporated,
Jeffrey Hill and any other related entities, Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-05215, Judge Joseph F. Bianco of the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York granted on December 13, 2016,
a motion to remand the case to state court.

The case was originally filed by Mr. Cruz in the Supreme Court of
New York, Nassau County, with Case Number Index No.: 604448/201.
The case was then removed to the New York Eastern District Court
in September 2016.

On October 19, 2016, Mr. Cruz filed a motion to remand.

The Defendants provide armored car transport, money processing,
long-distance transport of valuables, vaulting and other value-
added solutions where Mr. Cruz worked as a driver. Plaintiff
claims unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Laws.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
      Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Tel: (516) 873-9550

Defendant is represented by:

      OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH
      1745 Broadway-22nd Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel: (212) 492-2500


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: "Chuakay" Suit Hits Onerous Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Chuakay, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc.,
Lloyd A. Carney, Judy Bruner, Renato A. Dipentima, Alan L.
Earhart, John W. Gerdelman, Kim C. Goodman, David L. House, L.
William Krause, David E. Roberson and Sanjay Vaswani, Defendants,
Case No. 4:17-cv-00058, (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2017), seeks to
enjoin a merger, and to recover damages resulting from violations
of fiduciary duties and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

Brocade is a supplier of networking hardware, software, and
services, including Storage Area Networking solutions and Internet
Protocol Networking solutions, for businesses and organizations of
various types and sizes.

Brocade's Board of Directors entered into an agreement and plan of
merger with Broadcom where shareholders of Brocade will receive
$12.75 in cash for each share of Brocade common stock owned. The
deal allegedly was one-sided in favor of Broadcom and eliminated
all other possibilities of better offers.

Plaintiff is a stockholder of Brocade.

Lloyd A. Carney, Judy Bruner, Renato A. Dipentima, Alan L.
Earhart, John W. Gerdelman, Kim C. Goodman, David L. House, L.
William Krause, David E. Roberson and Sanjay Vaswani are members
of the board of directors of Brocade.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Donald E. Enright, Esq.
      Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Tel: (202) 524-4290
      Fax: (202) 337-1567
      Email: denright@zlk.com


CAFE ENTERPRISES: Faces "English" Lawsuit Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica English and Jessica Breeland, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated Plaintiffs, vs. Cafe Enterprises,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00038-TLW (D.S.C., January 5,
2017), was brought individually and as a collective action for
alleged unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, and other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant Cafe Enterprises, Inc. is a South Carolina corporation
that owns, operates, manages and is responsible for setting policy
for the Fatz Cafe restaurants throughout the southeast, including
in the County of Richland, State of South Carolina.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Todd Ellis, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF TODD ELLIS, P.A.
     7911 Broad River Road, Suite 100
     Irmo, SC 29063
     Phone: 803-732-0123
     Fax: 803-732-0124
     E-mail: todd@toddellislaw.com

        - and -

     James M. Griffin, Esq.
     Margaret N. Fox, Esq.
     GRIFFIN DAVIS, LLC
     1116 Blanding Street,
     Columbia, SC 29201
     PO Box 999 (29202)
     Phone: 803 744 0800
     Fax: 803 744 0805
     E-mail: jgriffin@griffindavislaw.com
             mfox@griffindavislaw.com


CALIFORNIA: Court Dismisses "Wickliffe" Suit v. Swarthout
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIC WICKLIFFE, Petitioner, v. GARY SWARTHOUT, et
al., Respondents, No. 2:11-cv-2172 MCE DB P. (E.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes dismissed the Plaintiff's petition
for a writ of habeas corpus, without prejudice, for failure to
comply with any prior order of the Court.

On October 11, 2016, the Court dismissed the petition and gave the
Petitioner 30 days to present his claim in a civil rights action.
The Petitioner was warned that his failure to file a civil rights
action or otherwise respond to the Court's order would result in a
recommendation that his action will be dismissed pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 110. In this
case, the Petitioner has not responded in any way to the Court's
October 11 order.

The Court further noted that the petitioner may file written
objections with the Court within 14 days after being served with
the findings and recommendations. The document should be captioned
"Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations."
The Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within
the specified time may result in waiver of the right to appeal the
district court's order.

A copy of the Court's Findings and Recommendations dated December
14, 2016 is available at https://goo.gl/MgQm9C from Leagle.com.

Eric Wickliffe, Petitioner, Pro Se.


CANADA: Mentally Ill Solitary Confinement Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Mathers, writing for Argus, reports that the controversy
surrounding solitary confinement -- or as it is referred to in
corrections, disciplinary and administrative segregation -- has
long been making headlines in Canada.  Just a few months ago, we
heard of Adam Capay, a 24-year-old man who spent four years in
solitary confinement in the Thunder Bay District Jail.  Now, a
$600 million class action lawsuit (the first ever in Canada on
behalf of federal inmates) has been certified, potentially
allowing tens of thousands of people to seek compensation.  The
lawsuit alleges a violation of the rights of mentally ill inmates,
regarding solitary confinement and inadequate access to
medication.  Represented by James Sayce, the class includes
inmates who have been in a federal prison between November of 1992
to now, and who were diagnosed with a mental illness before or
during their time in jail.

The lawsuit was launched in 2015, under a Conservative government
that defended the practice of solitary confinement as a means for
safety and security.  The statement of claim, filed in July of
2015, states that "in all circumstances, the use of Solitary
Confinement for extended periods of time has a severely
detrimental impact on the psychological well-being of a Mentally
Ill Prisoner.  Canada relies on this practice to contain and
manage the Class rather than to treat their underlying illnesses.
The use of Solitary Confinement on Mentally Ill Prisoners for
extended periods constitutes cruel and unusual punishment."

Just a few months later, the change in government also resulted in
a change in attitude toward solitary confinement.
Justin Trudeau called for prison reform, and ordered the Justice
Minister to implement a set of recommendations from the inquest
into the death of Ashley Smith, a 19-year-old who died by self-
inflicted strangulation while in solitary confinement and on
suicide watch at the Grand Valley Institution for Women.  These
recommendations would ban long-term solitary confinement in
federal prisons and not allow vulnerable prisoners, such as those
with a mental illness, to be placed in solitary confinement as a
means of managing them.

Since then, it has been stated that the number of inmates in
administrative segregation in federal prisons has been reduced by
half.  But that does not account for the inmates in provincial
facilities, like Adam Capay.  The provincial numbers are not well
known, because provinces are not required to report detailed
figures.

In their most recent review, the Ontario Human Rights Commission
reported 6,067 segregation placements with 1,383 of them exceeding
15 days -- the benchmark set by the United Nations for what
constitutes torture.  The OHRC stated that "segregation is not
being used as a last resort, but rather a routine management
strategy across Ontario's correctional facilities."

While disciplinary segregation can only occur when a prisoner is
found to have committed a serious misconduct, administrative
segregation is a major grey area in corrections -- a kind of
loophole.  An inmate can be placed in administrative segregation
for their own safety, to maintain the safety of the institution,
to ensure there is no interference with an ongoing investigation,
if an inmate is alleged to have committed a serious misconduct, or
if an inmate requests to be in solitary confinement. Oftentimes,
it is the mentally ill inmate that is put in administrative
segregation "for their own safety."  This is largely due to a lack
of training around mental illness, leaving corrections officers
not knowing what else to do.

Regulation 778, under the Ministry of Correctional Services Act,
requires prisoners being placed in disciplinary segregation must
be given notice of misconduct allegations, an opportunity to
dispute those allegations, reasoning for the misconduct decision
and disciplinary measures imposed, and the right to have the
misconduct decision reviewed by the Minister. Furthermore, an
inmate cannot be placed in disciplinary segregation for more than
30 days.  Administrative segregation, on the other hand, has no
equivalent due process requirements, and most importantly, no time
limit.  Of the 6,067 inmates placed in solitary confinement last
year, only 4.3% were placed in disciplinary segregation. Most
troubling, of the inmates placed in administrative segregation,
the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services cited
"multiple placement reasons" with no further information for 1,311
inmates, and simply "unknown placement reasons" for 370 inmates.

Just as troubling, Adam Capay's 4-year stay in solitary
confinement was not reflected in the statistics.  The OHRC report
stated that "this may be because the prisoner was transferred
during this time period, resulting in the continuous segregation
actually being counted as multiple placements, with the 'clock'
starting over upon each transfer.  Alternatively, it may indicate
that this prisoner's segregation placement information was omitted
from the statistical information provided to the OHRC."

As stated by the OHRC, it is critical "for the government to
collect and publicly release human rights based disaggregated data
that sheds light on what is occurring behind the closed doors of
Ontario's correctional facilities."  This statement is true for
the rest of Canada.  Hopefully the country's first class action
lawsuit on behalf of federal inmates will not only bring about
compensation, but real change for one of society's most overlooked
groups of individuals.


CANADA: Quebec Radiologists May Face Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a patients' rights group in Quebec is
seeking to launch a class-action lawsuit against radiologists in
the province who are refusing to take on patients at their private
clinics.

The potential lawsuit is part of the fallout from the Quebec
government's decision last year to cover the cost of private-
sector ultrasounds.

Since late December, radiologists have been required to forward
the costs of ultrasounds to the public health insurance agency,
RAMQ, instead of having patients pick up the bill.

The initiative was meant to cut lengthy wait-times for public-
sector ultrasounds. But many patients say securing appointments at
private imaging clinics has been difficult since the policy change
took effect.

The Quebec government still hasn't reached a deal with the
province's radiologists, establishing how much they will be
reimbursed for the ultrasounds.

That has prompted some clinics to balk at taking on new patients.

"We are entrepreneurs, and we have to know how much we are going
to receive" said Martin Lacasse, owner of a private imaging clinic
in Gatineau who acknowledged having cancelled about 50
ultrasounds.

But the Council for the Protection of Patients said that is an
unacceptable response.

"Medical specialists can't refuse or neglect to offer care to
patients for whom they will nevertheless be compensated following
a ministerial decision," said Paul Brunet, who chairs the
patients' right group.

Mr. Brunet wants patients who have had faced difficulties making
appointments for private-sector ultrasounds to contact his group.

Despite no deal being in place with Quebec's radiologists, Health
Minister Gaetan Barrette has promised the province will pay the
clinics' costs plus professional fees.

Earlier this month, Barrette accused radiologists of "taking
patients hostage" with their tactics.


CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Court Dismisses Suit, Rejects Remand Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Corma J. Carney of the United States District Court
for the Central District of California denied Plaintiffs' motion
to remand and granted Defendant's motion to dismiss in the case
captioned, CANDICE RITENOUR, individually and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, and CHERYL
WEISER, individually and on behalf of other members of the general
public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE
SERVICES LLC and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. SACV 16-02011-CJC(DFMx) (C.D. Cal.).

On September 30, 2016, Plaintiffs Candice Ritenour and Cheryl
Weiser filed this putative class action in California Superior
Court, County of Orange, against Defendant Carrington Mortgage
Services LLC and Does 1 through 100, inclusive. Plaintiffs assert
ten causes of action: (1) Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; (2)
Failure to Provide Meal Periods; (3) Failure to Provide Rest
Periods; (4) Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; (5) Failure to Pay
Final Wages Timely; (6) Failure to Pay Wages Timely During
Employment; (7) Failure to Provide Accurate Written Wage
Statements; (8) Failure to Keep Accurate Payroll Records; (9)
Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; and (10) Unfair
Competition.

On November 4, 2016, Defendant removed the action to the federal
district court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA),
28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d), 1453, 1711-15.

Plaintiffs contend that the case must be remanded because
Defendants have not met their burden of establishing the amount-
in-controversy under CAFA. They argue that the Notice of Removal
"is based exclusively on the sort of conjecture disapproved of by
the Ninth Circuit."

Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint or, in the alternative,
to strike the class action allegations. Defendant's primary
argument is that the Complaint fails to meet the minimum pleading
requirements for each claim because it is almost entirely devoid
of factual allegations.

In the Order dated January 5, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/0Ao99U from Leagle.com, Judge Carney hold that
Plaintiffs offer no alternative amount-in-controversy or rebuttal
evidence and that Defendant's detailed, reasonable calculations,
supported by the declaration of Ginger Crawford, Defendant's
Senior Vice President of Human Resources, are sufficient to meet
the burden.

In the Notice of Removal, Defendant explains that "just three of
Plaintiffs' ten causes of action establish that the amount in
controversy exceeds $6 million prior to any calculation of damages
sought for the other causes of action, the costs of the requested
injunctive relief, or attorneys' fees."

The Court granted the motion to dismiss because the Complaint does
not provide fair notice of the claims.  Plaintiffs have been given
14 days' leave to amend the Complaint.

Cheryl Weiser is represented by Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. --
edwin@lfjpc.com -- and Jill Jessica Parker, Esq. -- jill@lfjpc.com
-- LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE PC

Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC is represented by Katherine
Melanie Forster, Esq. -- Katherine.Forster@mto.com -- Terry E.
Sanchez, Esq. -- Terry.Sanchez@mto.com -- and Margaret G.
Maraschino, Esq. -- Margaret.Maraschino@mto.com -- MUNGER TOLLES
AND OLSON LLP


CINEMARK USA: Appeal in "Amey" Lawsuit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------
The appeal related to the case, Joseph Amey, et al. v. Cinemark
USA, Inc., Case No. 3:13cv05669, In the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco
Division, remains pending, Cinemark USA, Inc. said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016.

The case presents putative class action claims for damages and
attorney's fees arising from employee wage and hour claims under
California law for alleged meal period, rest break, reporting time
pay, unpaid wages, pay upon termination, and wage statements
violations. The claims are also asserted as a representative
action under the California Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").

The Company denies the claims, denies that class certification is
appropriate and denies that a PAGA representative action is
appropriate, and is vigorously defending against the claims. The
Company denies any violation of law and plans to vigorously defend
against all claims.

The Court recently determined that class certification is not
appropriate and determined that a PAGA representative action is
not appropriate. The plaintiff has appealed these rulings. The
Company is unable to predict the outcome of the litigation or the
range of potential loss.


CITIGROUP INC: IT Workers' NY FLSA Suit Settled for $325,000
------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that a
New York overtime lawsuit that did not succeed as a class action
nonetheless will culminate in a settlement $325,000, making it a
happy new year for 18 plaintiffs in the New York employer lawsuit
against Citigroup Inc.

According to court records the dispute began in April, 2015 when
the plaintiffs, IT workers, initiated litigation they hoped would
be approved as a class action on behalf of potential class members
having been hired by Citigroup but procured through staffing
agencies.  Court records suggest the IT workers were hired
directly by a staffing agency, but plaintiffs argued that
Citigroup served as a joint employer due to the fact Citigroup
controlled their employment function, and was duly responsible for
payment.

The plaintiffs in the New York employment law litigation put
forward allegations that Citigroup violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by misclassifying the workers as exempt from
overtime pay.  The plaintiffs also alleged they were not paid for
some hours worked.

The plaintiffs attempted to move the New York labor lawsuit
forward as a class action on behalf of similarly situated current,
and former IT workers hired by Citigroup through staffing
agencies, going back about three years.

However the plaintiff's bid for conditional certification for a
collective class action was denied in July.  The case then went
into mediation with the participation of a mediator together with
a US magistrate in the Southern District of New York. A memorandum
released in tandem with the settlement announcement noted that
settlement talks continued even after formal mediation concluded.

"The settlement is the result of hotly contested litigation,
reached after significant motion practice," the memorandum said.

The New York overtime settlement represented about 40 percent of
what the plaintiffs believed they were entitled to at the outset
of proceedings.  And yet the settlement was deemed fair given the
uncertainty of continuing with litigation and court costs and
legal fees that would continue to rise in kind. T he settlement
included legal fees.

The plaintiffs petitioned the Court to approve the settlement in a
filing submitted January 5.  Court records show the 18 plaintiffs
would receive prorated settlement payouts ranging from $2,879 to
$17,817 each, dependent upon the number of hours they might have
worked for less, or no pay according to the alleged
misclassification and each employee's unique situation.

The New York state labor law case is Korenblum et al. v. Citigroup
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03383, in the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York.


CK AT PLANTATION: Faces "Aponte" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTIAN E. APONTE and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff(s), v. CK AT PLANTATION, LLC d/b/a CHICKEN KITCHEN
and NINA LOPEZ, individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-60021-
WPD (S.D. Fla., January 4, 2017), seeks to recover money damages
for alleged unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Corporate Defendant CHICKEN KITCHEN is a grilled chicken
restaurant chain.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Deadlines Continued in "Ambrosio" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Seeborg approved the parties' stipulation
to continue all dates and deadlines pending final settlement
approval, in the case styled, JOAN AMBROSIO et al., on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COGENT
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:14-cv-02182-RS (N.D.
Cal.).

Judge Seeborg ordered that:

     (a) all the dates and deadlines, including all motion filing
         deadlines, all non-expert and expert discovery
         deadlines, the pretrial conference date, all pretrial
         filing deadlines, and the trial date will be continued
         until the Court has made a decision on final settlement
         approval; and,

     (b) if the Court does not issue final approval of the
         Parties' settlement, the Parties shall, within 14 days
         of the final settlement approval hearing, file a joint
         statement setting the status of the litigation and any
         dates and deadlines that will need to be reinstated.

A copy of the Court's Order dated December 27, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/RRt4m7 from Leagle.com.

Keith Swick, et al., Plaintiff, represented by Thomas E.
Duckworth, Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier LLP, Mark Christopher
Peters, Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier LLP, Michael Todd
Slobin, Shellist Lazarz Slobin LLP, pro hac vice & Monique
Olivier, Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier LLP.

Cogent Communications, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tamara
Irene Devitt -- tamara.devitt@haynesboone.com -- Haynes and Boone,
LLP, Mary-Christine Sungaila -- mc.sungaila@haynesboone.com --
Haynes and Boone, LLP, Matthew E. Costello --
matthew.costello@haynesboone.com -- Haynes and Boone, LLP &
Meghaan Cecilia McElroy -- meghaan.madriz@haynesboone.com --
Haynes and Boone, LLP, pro hac vice.

The International Association of Defense Counsel, Amicus,
represented by Andrew Kopon, Jr. -- akopon@koponairdo.com -- Kopon
Airdo, pro hac vice, Robert A. Brundage --
robert.brundage@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP &
Eleonora Paloma Khazanova, Kopon Airdo, LLC.


COGNOSANTE LLC: Gullage Seeks to Certify Class of Case Analysts
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned DANIYA GULLAGE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
COGNOSANTE, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-02816 (M.D. Tenn.), asks the
Court to enter an order:

   (1) conditionally certifying the case as a collective action
       for unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
       for a conditional class defined as:

       All current and former Case Analysts or other job titles
       performing similar job duties employed by Cognosante, LLC,
       at the Tennessee location at any time since October 31,
       2013 through completion of this lawsuit, who worked
       off-the-clock work during their preliminary 'boot up' time
       and/or postliminary 'case list completion' time and were
       not paid overtime premiums;

   (2) approving the Court-Authorized Notice and Consent to Sue
       form;

   (3) compelling the Defendant to produce within 14 days of the
       Order granting this Motion, the full name, last known
       address, personal and work e-mail addresses, and telephone
       numbers of the potential class members;

   (4) permitting the Plaintiff's Counsel to send, within 14 days
       of receipt of the Class list from the Defendant, the
       Court-authorized Notice and Consent to Sue form via U.S.
       Mail and Electronic Mail to putative Class members;

   (5) requiring the Defendant to post a copy of the
       Court-authorized Notice in its facilities;

   (6) allowing 90 days for putative Class members to return
       their Consent to Sue form to Plaintiff's Counsel for
       filing with the Court; and

   (7) appointing Johnson Becker, PLLC, and Sommers Schwartz,
       P.C., as interim class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RF1bZk6m

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
          Jesse Young, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
                  jyoung@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
          Lisa A. White, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  mark@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com


COLORADO: COGA Mulls Class Action Over Anti-Fracking Ordinance
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Hahn, writing for Daily Camera, reports that an anti-
fracking ordinance aimed at hobbling oil and gas development
within Lafayette through sanctioning acts of civil disobedience
and non-violent protest was scheduled to go in front of city
leaders on Jan. 17.

The vote comes just two years after a Boulder District Court judge
tossed out the town's voter-approved fracking ban and marks a
return to form for the truculent community.

At the center of the measure is Cliff Willmeng, the organizer of
East Boulder County United, the anti-fracking group that drafted
the "Climate Bill of Rights and Protections" ordinance and who
heralded Lafayette's fracking ban initiative on the 2013 ballot.

"Our position is anything that interferes with our right to a
healthy climate and any attempt to forcefully compel drilling on
Lafayette citizens would be open to acts of civil disobedience,"
Mr. Willmeng said on Jan. 13.  "No different than other acts in
U.S. history where the governing few risk the health and rights of
the many."

The provision to legalize non-violent direct action protests --
such acts can include sit-ins, strikes, workplace occupations or
blockades -- would target drilling activity and allow protesters
unprecedented immunity from arrest or detainment.

The measure has not come without its share of detractors.

Skeptics of the ordinance have pointed to its far-reaching
implications and defiance of the state's rule over oil and gas
development.  Most notably, Lafayette City Attorney David
Williamson, who indicated earlier this month that most of the
bill's language was "unenforceable" and perhaps even
unconstitutional.

"The question that arises is whether it's of local concern or of
statewide concern," Mr. Williamson said earlier this month when
asked of the measure's conflicts.  "Matters of oil and gas
development are of statewide concern.  I think there's a lot of
vagueness in those terms and that gives rise to problems."

Despite the measure's irregularities, its most ardent supporters
have maintained their right to resist the spread of fracking
regardless of the vote's outcome.

"What other option is there for people when their state government
is in the pocket of the oil and gas industry?" council member
Merrily Mazza, who has championed the ordinance with her son,
Cliff Willmeng, said on Jan. 13.  "The only way to change the law
is to disobey it.  It's happened throughout U.S. history; this is
how our country operates."

Mr. Willmeng and his organization's resistance to the encroaching
oil wells along Boulder County's far reaches have sharpened with
experience over the last several years.  Their efforts have
managed to thwart, albeit briefly, the oil and gas industry's
growth within Lafayette.

In 2013, Mr. Willmeng and East Boulder County United gathered
enough signatures to put a fracking ban in front of voters on the
November ballot.

Sixty percent of Lafayette voters would vote yes for a home-rule
charter amendment to establish a Community Bill of Rights that,
among others things, banned fracking and other underground
extraction.

The Colorado Oil and Gas Association, or COGA, sued the town to
overturn the measure a month later, prompting a class-action suit
seven months later by Mr. Willmeng and Anna Griffen, also of East
Boulder County United.

"We've exhausted all other means to address this problem,"
Mr. Willmeng, who organized the grassroots group in 2012, said on
Jan. 13.  "At every stage, we have learned that the system is not
engineered to honor the will or the intentions of community
members who are protecting their environment or health of the
citizenry."

The ordinance's potential approval could spur another suit from
COGA, though Mr. Willmeng says a law firm specializing in
environmental issues has offered the town pro-bono representation
if that day comes.


COOPERATIVES WORKING: Settles Class Action Over Herd Retirements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lynne LaMaster, writing for Prescott News, reports that a
California lawsuit granted class action status in 2014 alleges
that a dairy farm trade group called Cooperatives Working Together
(CWT) encouraged a "herd retirement program" between 2003 and
2010, in order to drive the price of milk, yogurt, cream and
cottage cheese higher.

According to the lawsuit, "Cooperatives Working Together ("CWT")
and its members have engaged in a continuing contract, combination
and conspiracy over the past eight years to limit the production
of raw farm milk through premature "herd retirements." These herd
retirements required participating dairy farmers to destroy all of
the dairy cows in all of their herds and, beginning on April 1,
2009, agree not to reenter the dairy farming business for at least
one year.  The principle purpose and effect of this contract,
combination and conspiracy has been to reduce the supply of milk,
eliminate competition, and significantly reduce the number of
dairy farmers competing in the market in order to increase the
price of raw farm milk.  This then artificially inflated, and
continues to artificially inflate, the price of milk and other
fresh milk products, including cream, half & half, yogurt, cottage
cheese, cream cheese, and sour cream, purchased by consumers."

All in all, it is estimated that 500,000 dairy cows were
slaughtered.  Participating dairy farmers were required to
prematurely sell for slaughter their, ". . .'entire dairy herd
which means all of the producer's milking and dry cows and all of
Producer's heifers that calve prior to CWT's farm audit' even
those too young to produce milk.  To further satisfy the
participants in the conspiracy that the competing producer fully
exited the business, the 'entire herd' explicitly included 'all of
The Cows in which Producer holds an interest at any location.'"

Although CWT "vigorously denied" any wrongdoing, they entered into
a $52,000,000 settlement agreement with the plaintiffs -- which
could consumers in Arizona and 14 other states.

Here is the "Settlement Class" as described in the lawsuit:
"All consumers who, from 2003 to the present, as residents of
Arizona, California, the District of Columbia, Kansas,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West
Virginia, and/or Wisconsin, indirectly purchased milk and/or other
fresh milk products (including cream, half & half, yogurt, cottage
cheese, cream cheese, and/or sour cream) for their own use and not
for resale."

Further information about qualifications is on the boughtmilk.com
website.

The claim period ends on January 31, 2017.  After that, claimants
will be sent an email explaining how to claim their settlement via
electronic payment, which should be somewhere between
$40-$70.


DETROIT, MI: Status Conference in "Davis" Suit on Jan. 20
---------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the case, TIMOTHY DAVIS and HATEMA DAVIS, Plaintiffs,
v. CITY OF DETROIT, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-10547 (E.D.
Mich.), are directed to attend a status conference on January 20,
2017 at 2:30 p.m. The hearing on Defendant Arthur Leavells' Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment, also scheduled for January 20 at
2:30 p.m., will not occur at that date and time. The hearing on
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class Action is cancelled. The
hearing on Defendant Leavells' motion is also cancelled.

A copy of the Court's order is available at https://is.gd/8CIpA1
from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs are represented by Michael R. Dezsi, Law Office of
Michael R. Dezsi, PLLC; Dennis A. Dettmer, Dettmer and Dezsi.

The City of Detroit, et al. are represented by Calvert A. Bailey,
of the Detroit City Law Department.

Defendant Arthur Leavells is represented by Lawrence T. Garcia and
Stephani J. LaBelle, at Garcia Law Group, PLLC.


DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA: Not Liable for UAL Delay, Court Says
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LILIJA PUMPUTIENA, on behalf of her minor
child NERINGA PUMPUTYTE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA, AG, a
foreign corporation, and UNITED AIRLINES, INC., a domestic
corporation, Defendants, No. 16 C 4868 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Gary
Feinerman granted Deutsche Lufthansa, AG's motion to dismiss all
claims against it, and granted in part and denied, in part, United
Airline's motion to dismiss or strike some of the claims against
it.

Lilija Pumputiena brought this suit on behalf of herself, her
minor child Neringa Pumputyte, and four putative classes against
Lufthansa and United, alleging breach of contract and violation of
the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for
International Carriage by Air ("Montreal Convention") in
connection with a June 2015 flight from Chicago, Illinois to
Brussels, Belgium, and ensuing travel from Brussels to Vilnius,
Lithuania.

On or about June 7, 2015, Pumputyte held tickets on United flight
UA 8804 from Chicago to Brussels and then on a flight from
Brussels to Vilnius.  The Chicago-to-Brussels flight was delayed,
causing Pumputyte to arrive late in Brussels.  Although the
Brussels-to-Vilnius flight had also been delayed, making it
possible for Pumputyte to make that flight despite arriving late
in Brussels, she was not allowed to board due to United's amending
her travel itinerary.  She instead was scheduled on a different
itinerary to Vilnius, consisting of Lufthansa flights from
Brussels to Frankfurt and then from Frankfurt to Vilnius.  The
Brussels-to-Frankfurt flight was Lufthansa flight LH 1015, which
was cancelled.  Pumputyte was rescheduled again, and she landed in
Vilnius ten hours after her originally scheduled arrival time.
During the delay, she spent approximately EUR200 on necessities.

Lufthansa moved to dismiss all claims against it, while United
moved to dismiss or strike some of the claims against it.

Lufthansa's motion to dismiss Count I was granted.  Pumputiena's
sole claim against Lufthansa lies under Article 19 of the Montreal
Convention.  Judge Feinerman found that the complaint does not
allege facts allowing for a reasonable inference that the
cancellation of LH 1015 caused Pumputyte to suffer any harm beyond
that already caused by the UA 8804 delay.  The judge thus
concluded that the complaint does not plausibly allege, in the
words of Article 19, that any damages incurred by Pumputyte were
"occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers, baggage
or cargo" in connection with the LH 1015 cancellation.  The judge
further stated that it follows that Pumputiena has no viable
Article 19 claim against Lufthansa due to that cancellation and
that Lufthansa could not be held liable for the delay of UA 8804,
which only United performed.  Because Pumputiena has no claim
against Lufthansa, Judge Feinerman held that she cannot serve as a
class representative, and because no class has been certified,
dismissing the class claims against Lufthansa is appropriate.

United moved to dismiss the Article 19 voluntary assumption claim
(Count III) as duplicative of Pumputiena's straight-up Article 19
claim (Count II), moved to strike any damage claim seeking
reimbursement of the cost of airfare, and moved to strike the
putative class claims.

Judge Feinerman granted United's motion to dismiss Count III for
being duplicative of Count II.  Count II was styled as "Class
Action Claim for Damages Caused by Delay or Cancellation of
International Airfare Pursuant to Article 19 of the Montreal
Convention."  Count III was styled as "Class Action Claim for
Damages Caused by Delay or Cancellation of International Airfare
Pursuant to Article 19 of the Montreal Convention as Self-Imposed
Voluntarily Assumed Contractual Duty Incorporated into par. 14 of
Defendant's 'General Conditions of Carriage' Dated May 2014."
Judge Feinerman found no merit in the theory behind Count III that
United, in addition to being liable under Article 19, has, by
virtue of its contract of carriage with Pumputyte, voluntarily
imposed on itself an additional layer of liability.

United's motion to strike Pumputiena's damage claim insofar as it
seeks to recover the cost of airfare was also granted.  Judge
Feinerman held that, because Pumputiena disclaims seeking her
airfare, the complaint's request for such damages is stricken.

United's motion to strike class allegations was granted as to the
General United Class and denied as to the 8804 Class.  Pumputiena
sought to certify two classes against United.  The 8804 Class
consisted of passengers booked on UA 8804 (the delayed Chicago-to-
Brussels flight on which Pumputyte flew).  The General United
Class consists of passengers on any international United flight
since June 8, 2015, who suffered delays under certain conditions.

A full-text copy of Judge Feinerman's January 6, 2017 memorandum
opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/XpthyS from
Leagle.com.

Lilija Pumputiena, Plaintiff, represented by Vladimir M.
Gorokhovsky, Law Offices of Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky.

United Airlines, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony U.
Battista -- abattista@condonlaw.com -- Condon & Forsyth Llp, Brian
T. Maye -- bmaye@amm-law.com -- Adler, Murphy, & McQuillen LLP,
Michael Gerard McQuillen -- mmcquillen@amm-law.com -- Adler,
Murphy & McQuillen, Paula LoMonaco Wegman -- pwegman@amm-law.com -
- Adler, Murphy & McQuillen LLP & Matthew Steven Dowling --
mdowling@amm-law.com -- Adler, Murphy & McQuillen, LLP.

Deutsche Lufthansa, A.G., Defendant, represented by Anthony U.
Battista, Condon & Forsyth Llp, Brent R. Austin --
baustin@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP & Jacob Michael Hamann
-- jhamann@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP.


DNTW CHARTERED: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit affirmed an
order dismissing a putative class action against the DNTW
Chartered Accountants, LLP and two of its partners, Spence and
Bryce Walker, in the case, IN RE: DNTW CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT
SECURITIES LITIGATION. PAUL STEMBOROWSKI, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, GEORGE PILNEY, JEFF
SOMERS Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SPENCE WALKER, BRYCE WALKER, DNTW
CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, LLP, Defendants-Appellees, JOHN AND JANE
DOES, 1-5, DNTW TORONTO LLP, Defendants, No. 16-1168 (2nd Cir.).

DNTW Chartered Accountants, LLP, a Canadian accounting firm, is
the auditor of a fake, but publicly traded, company, Subaye, Inc.
Plaintiffs brought one claim for violations of Sec. 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule
10b-5 and another claim for violations of Sec. 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against the Defendants.

The Court opined that the Plaintiffs do not clear high bar for
pleading an auditor Defendant's scienter. The Court found that
DNTW tried, albeit inadequately, to compensate for Subaye's
deficient internal controls and did not intend to aid in Subaye's
fraud.

Moreover, the Court found that the Plaintiffs' allegations against
the Defendant undermine any inference of scienter by demonstrating
that DNTW, through its audit, actively opposed Subaye's efforts to
misrepresent its financial position.

Therefore, the Appellate Court noted that the District Court
properly dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim for violations of
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

A copy of the Appellate Court's Order dated December 15, 2016 is
available at https://goo.gl/tW29y0 from Leagle.com.

PHILLIP C. KIM -- pkim@rosenlegal.com (Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com on the brief), The Rosen Law Firm, New York,
NY., For Plaintiffs-Appellants.

JOHN H. EICKEMEYER -- jeickemeyer@vedderprice.com (Charles J.
Nerko -- cnerko@vedderprice.com -- on the brief), Vedder Price
P.C., New York, NY., For Defendants-Appellees.


DOLLAR GENERAL CORP: "Carroll" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tikki Carroll, on behalf of herself and others similarly-situated,
Plaintiff, v. Dollar General Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
6:17-cv-00009, (Ed. Tex., January 5, 2017), seeks overtime pay,
damages, and legal and equitable relief for breach of contract and
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Dollar General is a Tennessee corporation which owns and operates
discount retail stores nationwide. Plaintiff worked for Defendant
from about September 2015 through September 2016 as an assistant
manager and acting store manager at their store in Tyler, Texas.
Carrol claims to have been denied overtime pay for hours rendered
in excess of 40 per work week.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles W. Branham, III, Esq.
      Corinna Chandler, Esq.
      DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP
      3900 Elm Street
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Tel: (214) 722-5990
      Fax: (214) 722-5991
      Email: tbranham@dobllp.com
             cchandler@dobllp.com


DOME CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Livingood" Suit Under Calif. Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Livingood, on behalf of herself, Plaintiff, vs. Dome
Construction Corporation, a California corporation, and DOES 1
through 100 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 17GIV00055 (Cal.
Super., County of San Mateo, January 5, 2017), seeks among others,
compensation for all hours worked but allegedly not paid under
California Labor Code.

Defendant Dome Construction provides construction services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq.
     Tracy T. Scanlan, Esq.
     Frank J. Zeccola, Esq.
     ILG LEGAL OFFICE, P.C.
     1001 Bayhill Drive, 2nd Floor
     San Bruno, CA 94066
     Phone: (415)580-2574
     Fax: (415)735-3454
     Email: silg@ilglegal.com
            tscanlan@ilglegal.com
            fzeccola@ilglegal.com


DYNAMEX INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for April 6
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUAN SARAVIA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DYNAMEX, INC., DYNAMEX
FLEET SERVICES, INC., DYNAMEX OPERATIONS EAST, INC. and DYNAMEX
OPERATIONS WEST, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:14-CV-05003-WHA
(N.D. Cal.), District Judge William Alsup set the hearing for
final approval of the parties' settlement for April 6, 2017.

Judge Alsup also set these deadlines:

     (a) Filing of the Final proposed Notice of Class Action
         Settlement and Settlement Agreement on December 29,
         2016;

     (b) Mailing of the Notice of Class Action Settlement on
         January 11, 2017;

     (c) Filing of Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of the
         Settlement Agreement, Attorneys' Fees, and Service Award
         on January 26, 2017;

     (d) Filing of Defendant's Opposition to the Plaintiffs'
         Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement,
         Attorneys' Fees, and Service Award on February 9, 2017;

     (e) Filing of Plaintiffs' Reply in support of their Motion
         for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement, Attorneys'
         Fees, and Service Award on February 16, 2017;

     (f) Filing of Challenge, Objection to, or Opt-Out of the
         Settlement for Class Members whose Notice of Class Action
         Settlement mailed on January 11, 2017 is not returned
         undeliverable, on  March 2, 2017; and,

     (g) Filing of affidavit regarding the challenges,
         objections, and requests to opt out and arguments from
         the Parties regarding same Hearing for Final Approval of
         Class Action Settlement on April 6, 2017.

A copy of the Court's Order dated December 27, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/BssIQj from Leagle.com.

Juan Saravia, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Geoffrey Konecky --
jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP.

Juan Saravia, Plaintiff, represented by Nathan Bunnell Piller --
npiller@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
Wotkyns LLP & Todd Michael Schneider --
tschneider@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP.

Dynamex, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by Perry Kim Miska,
Jr. -- pmiska@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Robert G.
Hulteng -- rhulteng@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
Aurelio Jose Perez -- aperez@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson,
P.C. & Lauren Elizabeth Meyerholz -- lmeyerholz@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, PC.


EL DORADO CORRECTIONAL: 10th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Krebs"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, affirmed the
District Court's dismissal of a class action complaint, in the
case styled, BRADLEY KREBS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EL DORADO
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, et al., Defendants-Appellees (10th Cir.).

The case involves the Plaintiff, incarcerated at the Defendant's
facility, alleging the security lapses of the Facility and other
facilities that had placed him and other prisoners at risk. He
also claimed that the understaffing at the Defendant's facility
had led to safety and security practices less than what they
should be. The District Court then dismissed his amended
complaint, without prejudice, because the Plaintiff broadly
construed his amended complaint and for his failure to state a
claim.

The Appellate Court affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the
Plaintiff's amended complaint. Moreover, the Plaintiff's motion
for leave to proceed without prepayment of costs and fees is
denied. The Plaintiff is ordered to immediately pay any unpaid
balances.

A copy of the Court's Order and Judgment is available at
https://goo.gl/hyjE8L from Leagle.com.


FACEBOOK INC: 2nd Cir. Affirms Settlement in Nasdaq Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, affirmed the
final settlement in the litigation, the "Nasdaq" Action, in the
case, In re Facebook, Inc., IPO Securities and Derivative
Litigation, No. 15-3983 (L), Nos. 15-3986, 15-3987 and 15-3990
(con), (2nd Cir.).

Facebook, Inc., et al. appeal as intervenors from the final
judgment of the United States District Court (Sweet, J.) approving
a class action settlement in this securities case stemming from
the initial public offering ("IPO") of Facebook stock.  The
appellants intervene to vindicate their interests as defendants in
separate but related litigation. The Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred two groups of actions
relating to the Facebook IPO to the same judge in the Southern
District of New York, who consolidated them into two class
actions: a "Nasdaq action" (pleading claims against various Nasdaq
defendants arising from investor losses allegedly caused by
technical malfunctions on the exchange on the day of the IPO) and
a "Facebook action" (pleading claims against various Facebook and
underwriter defendants arising from investor losses allegedly
caused by misrepresentations and omissions in the IPO prospectus).

This appeal arises from the settlement of the Nasdaq action. The
parties in this action are satisfied with the settlement. The
appellants are the defendants in the Facebook action, which is
ongoing.

Appellants asserted a violation on the principles of finality,
arguing that the District Court of New York lacked the authority
to enter final judgment in "Nasdaq" action without first deciding
whether the damages in the two actions, the "Nasdaq" action and
the "Facebook" action, are indeed common damages.

The Appellate Court ruled that the open question of whether and to
what extent damages are common with the "Facebook" action will
have no effect whatsoever on the "Nasdaq" action, and can be
litigated just as well in the "Facebook" action. Moreover, the
Appellate Court affirmed that the "Nasdaq" action is done, and the
judgment is final. In the case, all parties in the "Nasdaq" action
action are satisfied, and the judgment can be executed.

A copy of the Appellate Court's Order is available at
https://goo.gl/4wWQyD from Leagle.com.

RICHARD D. BERNSTEIN -- rbernstein@willkie.com -- Willkie Farr &
Gallagher LLP, Washington, DC, Andrew Brian Clubock, Susan E.
Engel -- susan.engel@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New
York, NY and Washington, DC, James P. Rouhandeh, Charles Duggan,
Andrew Ditchfield -- andrew.ditchfield@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk
& Wardwell LLP, New York, NY., for Intervenors-Appellants.

JOHN J. RIZIO-HAMILTON -- johnr@blbglaw.com -- Salvatore J.
Graziano, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY,
Thomas A. Dubbs, James W. Johnson, Thomas G. Hoffman Jr., Labaton
Sucharow LLP, New York, NY, Steven E. Fineman, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein LLP, New York, NY, Frank R. Schirripa --
fschirripa@hrsclaw.com -- Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP, New
York, NY., for Intervenors-Appellees.

PAUL LANTIERI, III, William A. Slaughter, Stephen J. Kastenberg --
kastenberg@ballardspahr.com -- Ballard Spahr LLP, Philadelphia,
PA., for Defendants-Appellees.

Vincent R. Cappucci -- vcappucci@entwistle-law.com -- Jordan
Abraham Cortez, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, New York, NY, Douglas G.
Thompson -- dthompson@finkelsteinthompson.com -- Michael G.
Mclellan, Finkelstein Thompson LLP, Washington, DC, Christopher
Lovell -- CLovell@lshllp.com -- Victor E. Stewart, Lovell Stewart
Halebian Jacobson LLP, New York, NY., for Plaintiffs-Appellees.


FARMERS INSURANCE: Faces "Deluca" Suit Under FLSA, Cal. Wage Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID DELUCA AND BARRY FRANCIS individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public,
Plaintiffs, v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, FARMERS GROUP, INC.,
FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., and FARMERS SPECIALITY INSURANCE
COMPANY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00034-EDL (N.D. Cal.,
January 4, 2017), was filed for damages and other relief relating
to alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
California wage and hour law.

Defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange is an inter-insurance
exchange that, through its subsidiaries (including Defendants
Farmers Group, Inc., Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., and Farmers
Specialty Insurance, Inc.), offers homeowners insurance, auto
insurance, commercial insurance, and financial services throughout
the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
     NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
     One Embarcadero Center, Suite 720
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 277-7235
     Fax: (415) 277-7238
     E-mail: Helland@nka.com

        - and -

     Matthew H. Morgan, Esq.
     Reena I. Desai, Esq.
     NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
     4600 IDS Center
     80 South 8th Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     E-mail: Morgan@nka.com
             Rdesai@nka.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: Siskinds Files Suit Over Emissions Software
----------------------------------------------------------
Randy Richmond, writing for The London Free Press, reports that a
London law firm is launching a class-action suit against Fiat
Chrysler in another move the legal world calls "behaviour
modification" for corporations in their dealings with consumers.

Siskinds has filed a notice of motion and expects to follow with
the statement of claim soon, Daniel Bach, a partner in the Toronto
office, said on Jan. 15.

The proposed class action alleges Fiat Chrysler equipped about
10,000 diesel Dodge RAM 1500 pickup trucks and Jeep Grand
Cherokees in Canada with software to defeat emissions testing. The
vehicles emitted higher than advertised and higher than legal
levels of pollutants, the claim alleges.

The allegations have yet to be proven or disproved in court.

Siskinds is seeking drivers who bought or leased a Dodge RAM 1500
or Jeep Grand Cherokee containing the three-litre diesel engine.
About 10,000 drivers in Canada could be affected, Bach said.

The action alleges the value of the vehicles and the ability to
resell them have been diminished, he said.

"We have a series of laws to ensure consumers get fair deals,"
Bach said.

"Litigation is a way of keeping companies honest," or what the
legal world calls "behaviour modification," he said.

Siskinds was co-lead counsel in the class-action suit against
Volkswagen Canada over the emissions software in about 105,000
vehicles.

A proposed settlement in that class-action suit was reached in
December, with the total value of benefits to drivers about $2.1
billion.

The proposed settlement provides for cash payments to eligible
owners and lessees and, in many cases, the choice of selling their
vehicle back to Volkswagen, terminating their leases, or trading
their vehicles.

There's no way to predict how long the class-action suit against
Fiat Chrysler will take to complete, Bach said, noting the action
is in early stages.

"At this point we don't have any information other than what we
have heard from clients and what is available in public," he said.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency accused Fiat Chrysler of
avoiding the emissions standards in more than 100,000 of the
diesel vehicles. Canadians buy about one tenth the number of
vehicles sold in the U.S., providing Siskinds with their estimate
of affected consumers here.

Fiat Chrysler denied any wrongdoing.  A spokesperson could not be
reached to comment specifically on the Siskinds action.


FORD MOTOR: Court Won't Stay Briefing Pending "Burcham" Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David R. Herndon denied the Plaintiff's motion to
stay briefing on arbitration pending appeal of the order denying
his motion to remand the putative class action styled, JEFFREY P.
BURCHAM, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:16-CV-00943-DRH-SCW (S.D. Ill.).

Judge Herndon noted that the Plaintiff's assertions, whether true
or not, are irrelevant as to satisfying the burden of a party
seeking a stay pending appeal. In order to obtain a stay of
briefing under the present context, Judge Herndon reminded that
there must be a demonstration of the following: (1) the
significant probability of success on the merits, (2) irreparable
harm absent a stay, and (3) a showing that grant of a stay will
not injure the opposing party and will also be in public interest.

In the case, the Plaintiff's motion is devoid of the applicable
factors under the law that the Court would utilize in determining
whether a stay pending appeal is warranted.

A copy of the Court's Order dated December 30, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/xZ38HA from Leagle.com.

Jeffrey P Burcham, Plaintiff, represented by Shari L. Murphy, Law
Office Of Shari L. Murphy.

Ford Motor Credit Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Thomas
M. Byrne -- tom.byrne@sutherland.com -- Sutherland, Asbill &
Brennan LLP, Valerie S. Sanders -- valerie.sanders@sutherland.com
-- Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan LLP & Patrick D. Cloud --
pcloud@heylroyster.com -- Heyl, Royster et al.


FORD MOTOR: Consumer Commission Receives 46 Kugas Complaints
------------------------------------------------------------
Graeme Hosken, writing for Times LIVE, reports that in a move to
start a class action against embattled motor manufacturer Ford,
dozens of complaints from owners whose Kugas have spontaneously
ignited were handed over to the National Consumer Commission on
Jan. 16.

For months, Ford has been fighting a battle with irate Kuga owners
whose cars have burnt across the country.

To date, 48 Kugas have caught fire.  Reshall Jimmy was killed when
his 2014 Kuga caught alight while he was holiday in December 2015
in the Wilderness, in the Western Cape.

The Times on Jan. 16 revealed that Ford knew from January 2015
that there was a potentially deadly flaw with their top-selling
family SUV, yet the manufacturer only issued an alert in December
last year to its customers.

The newspaper learnt that, last year, several insurance companies
alerted Ford to the problem after reports from fire investigators
conducting inspections for the insurance claims showed that there
were potential safety issues with the car.

On Jan. 16, after initially being refused entry into the
commission's head office in Pretoria, a lawyer for the Jimmy
family, Rod Montano, and sister, Renisha Jimmy, were received by
lawyers for the commission.

The two handed over 46 complaints from Kuga owners across the
country.  Some of these complaints stretch back to 2013, which
Ford, according to the fire victims, has refused to address.

Mr. Montano said the meeting was the first step in the right
direction for a resolution to this issue.

"Action is being taken.  This is what is needed to protect the
public from further danger and the horror of what the Jimmy family
has endured through the loss of their brother."

Mr. Montano said that while the meeting with the commission would
bring hope to other South Africans, it would offer little solace
or resolution to the Jimmy family.

"That's because of Ford's persistence that no link has been
established between factually and scientific-based reports which
indicate that they [Ford] are indeed responsible for Reshall's
death."

Ford and the commission were set to hold a press conference on
Jan. 16 in Pretoria, where it is believed that they will announce
a safety recall of the Kuga.

He urged the watchdog to force Ford to recall the 1.6-litre Kuga
as a precursor to lodging a civil claim against the company as a
class action.


FORD MOTOR: NCC Urged to Order Recall of 1.6-Liter Kuga Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Knowler, writing for Times LIVE, reports that as Ford Kugas
continue to burst into flames at an alarming rate in the country,
the National Consumer Commission (NCC) and Ford South Africa were
preparing to make "a major announcement" on Jan. 16.

Rumour has it that this could be the long-called-for recall.

Dino Metaxas's Kuga was the latest to catch fire on Jan. 14,
bringing the tally to 47.

He was heading for the Mall of Africa in Midrand with his parents
and daughter when he saw smoke coming from the engine, followed by
flames.

"It was incredible. I thought: 'Seriously? Me too?'"

Despite growing demands for Ford South Africa to recall the
affected model, the company has so far only urged owners of 1.6-
litre Ford Kugas to have their coolant systems checked.

But the "safety check" process has been flawed.

Thembalethu Dladla, from Bethlehem, took his Kuga to Fedauto, a
Ford dealership, on Jan. 12.  He was told his car was "fine", but
30 minutes after collecting it an engine overheating alarm
sounded, and he and his wife were shocked to see smoke coming from
the engine.

"I pulled over and we jumped out, totally shocked," he said.  "And
we haven't heard a thing from [the] Ford dealership about the
vehicle since."

Warren Krog's Kuga caught alight exactly a week later on a highway
in Alberton, south of Johannesburg.

He'd tried to book it for a safety check on January 4 but was told
the earliest that it could be done was on January 18.

"I wasn't happy to keep driving it all that time given how many
Kugas caught fire, but the service adviser at the Kempton Park
dealership said I must just check the coolant -- and, if it looks
OK, I mustn't worry."

Renisha Jimmy, sister of Reshall Jimmy, who died when his Kuga
ignited in December 2015, said she had documented all 47 Kuga
fires.

Attorney Rod Montano, who represents the owners of 35 Kugas which
caught fire, said he intended to submit complaints on their behalf
at the NCC this week.

He urged the watchdog to force Ford to recall the 1.6-litre Kuga
as a precursor to lodging a civil claim against the company as a
class action.

"A recall would be an admission on Ford's part, for the first
time, that there is a manufacturing fault with the vehicle,"
Mr. Montano said.

Ford was in the High Court in Cape Town to access police dockets
on Jimmy's death.  The case has been postponed to February 9, with
Judge Elize Steyn giving the police until January 23 to respond to
claims made by Ford.

If anyone driving one of the affected Kugas is unhappy, they must
please contact Ford on 0860-011-022 and we will arrange a courtesy
vehicle for them immediately.

Despite that incident, and many others since, having been reported
to Ford, it issued no warnings until sister newspaper The Times
broke the story.

Ford SA's "urgent" safety check failed Port Elizabeth's Maria
Daniels. Just before the New Year, she took her Kuga to a local
dealer to have its coolant system checked, but the car caught fire
a few days later.

Ford said the dealership didn't do the check.

When Pieter van der Westhuizen took his Kuga to Fury Ford Sandton
on Jan. 16 for a coolant system check, he was told he'd have to
wait at least two weeks for the replacement parts the vehicle
needed.

Mr. Van der Westhuizen e-mailed the dealership and asked for a
courtesy car, pointing out Ford had promised this to affected Kuga
customers if there was a delay in getting parts.

He was ignored for three days, until he re-sent the e-mail,
copying this reporter.

"Within 20 minutes I got a response, telling me they had a
courtesy car for me," he said.

Reshall Jimmy died after his Kuga caught alight.

Ford spokeswoman Rella Bernardes said the company was devastated
to hear about Krog and Van Der Westhuizen's experiences.  "That's
not the way it is supposed to happen.

"If anyone driving one of the affected Kugas is unhappy, they must
please contact Ford on 0860-011-022 and we will arrange a courtesy
vehicle for them immediately," said Ms. Bernardes.

Attorney Janusz Luterek, who specialises in product liability
cases, said the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) was clear there was
"strict liability for any damage or harm caused by a product which
is unsafe when supplied or which has an inherent hazard or a
defect".

He added: "This liability extends beyond replacement of the
vehicle to any harm or damage caused and economic loss suffered by
the owner, passengers, family or potentially even other members of
the public or rescue services who are affected.  These claims
could be very large indeed and include loss of income in the case
of injury and loss of support in the case of a death."

The CPA provides for class action lawsuits, Mr. Luterek said, "and
it would be surprising if one or more such lawsuits were not in
the pipeline on behalf of the affected group of Kuga owners who
have suffered harm as a result of a fire or even due to loss of
value of used Kugas.

"The failure of the [NCC] to order a recall is not an excuse for
[Ford] not taking action."


GC SERVICES: Kausar May Re-file Bid for Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Esther Salas entered an order in the lawsuit titled
RUKHSANA KAUSAR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 2:15-cv-
06027-ES-JAD (D.N.J.), terminating the Defendant's pending motion
to dismiss with leave to re-file and the Plaintiff's pending
motion for class certification with leave to re-file.

The parties may re-file their motions addressing any and all
issues and arguments -- including those raised in the parties'
recently filed supplemental submissions -- in single briefs that
comport with the District's Local Civil Rules, Judge Salas rules.
Judge Salas adds that the parties may not submit any supplemental
submissions in support of or in opposition to a motion without
leave of Court.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CMU2hwny


GENERAL CABLE: Faces "Doshi" Securities Suit Over Alleged Bribery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SATISH DOSHI, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION,
GREGORY B. KENNY, and BRIAN J. ROBINSON, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-00092 (S.D.N.Y., January 5, 2017), alleges that Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) General Cable paid millions of dollars in bribes to
government officials in foreign countries, including Angola,
Bangladesh, China, Egypt, Indonesia, India, and
Thailand, in order to secure business; (ii) the foregoing conduct
was in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1997;
(iii) General Cable's revenues were therefore in part the product
of illegal conduct, and, as such, subject to disgorgement and
unlikely to be sustainable; (iv) the foregoing conduct, when it
became known, would subject the Company to significant regulatory
scrutiny and financial penalties; and (v) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

GENERAL CABLE CORPORATION is in the development, design,
manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and
fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy,
industrial, construction, specialty and communications markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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


GOLDMAN SACHS: "Karoon" Securities Suit Removed to New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned LISA KAROON AND MANICKAM GANESH, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS COMPRISED OF COMMON STOCK SHAREHOLDERS OF
VIRNETX, Plaintiffs, against THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC.,
MERRILL LYNCH PIERCE FENNER & SMITH, INC., CREDIT SUISSE (USA),
INC., TD AMERITRADE, INC., CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC., BANK
OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP., AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-00034-MCA-MAH (D.N.J., December 14, 2016) was removed
from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen
County, to the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

The case alleges a misrepresentation or omission of a material
fact or use of a manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance
in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security
under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 199, or,
alternatively, that diversity of citizenship jurisdiction exists
under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC. -- http://www.goldmansachs.com/--
is a global investment banking, securities and investment
management firm.

The Defendants are represented by:

     A. Ross Pearlson, Esq.
     CHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI PC
     One Boland Drive
     West Orange, NJ 07052

        - and -

     B. John Pendleton, Jr., Esq.
     DLA PIPER LLP (US)
     51 John F. Kennedy Parkway, Suite 120
     Short Hills, NJ 07078


GREAT-WEST LIFE: John Teets May Send Long-Form Notice to Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOHN TEETS, Plaintiff, v. GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 14-cv-2330-WJM-NYW
(D. Colo.), District Judge William J. Martinez approved the
Plaintiff's "long-form" notice to the class members.  Plaintiff
bears the costs of such notice.

The Court held that the Plaintiff's "long-form" notice is subject
to:

     (a) inserting the Court's edits, as evident in the attachment
the order;

     (b) filling in the required e-mail address(es), mailing
address(es), and table of contents page numbers; and

     (c) filling in the website address and/or telephone number,
if Class Counsel elects to maintain a website and/or toll-free
hotline.

The Court further establishes these deadlines:

     (1) January 6, 2017 for the Class Counsel and Defendant's
         counsel to confer and agree upon the appropriate
         electronic format in which Defendant's counsel will
         provide a list of class members' names and last known
         mailing addresses;

     (2) January 16, 2017 for the Defendant's counsel to transmit
         To the Class Counsel the electronic list of class
         members' names and last known mailing addresses;

     (3) February 28, 2017 for the Class Counsel to complete the
         mailing of the long-form notice to all class members'
         last known mailing addresses. Such mailing may be by
         the United States Postal Service first-class mail or a
         lesser class of United States Postal Service mail, in
         Class Counsel's discretion, so long as the United States
         Postal Service represents that the mailing will arrive
         at least 60 days before the Opt-Out Date; and,

     (4) May 31, 2017 for the Class members' opt-out
         communications, if any, must be postmarked by the date.

A copy of the Court's Order dated December 29, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/WjRcNr from Leagle.com.

John Teets, Plaintiff, represented by Erin M. Riley --
eriley@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP.

John Teets, Plaintiff, represented by Garrett W. Wotkyns --
gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Brayton Konecky, James Alton Bloom, Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Jeffrey Lewis -- jlewis@kellerrohrback.com --
Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Mark T. Johnson --
MJohnson@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Matthew M. Gerend --
mgerend@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP, Michael Craig
McKay, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky, Nina Rachel
Wasow, Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow, LLP, Scot David
Bernstein, Law Offices of Scot D. Bernstein, P.C., Todd Franklin
Jackson, Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow, LLP & Todd Michael
Schneider -- tschneider@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP.

Great-West Life & Annuity Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by Daniel Robert Thies -- dthies@sidley.com -- Sidley
Austin LLP, Edward Craig Stewart -- stewart@wtotrial.com --
Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP, Joel Stephen Feldman --
jfeldman@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Joshua Eugene Anderson -
- janderson@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin, LLP, Mark B. Blocker --
mblocker@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Robert Michael Little,
Great-West Life and Annuity Insurance Company & Tara A. Amin --
tamin@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP.


GREGG APPLIANCES: E.D. Wis. Judge Declines to Amend Order
---------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph of the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, denied plaintiff's motion to amend order, in the case
JOHN KISTING, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. GREGG APPLIANCES, INC. d/b/a hhgregg,
Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-141 (E.D. Wis.)

John Kisting filed a class action complaint alleging breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 2301, et seq.), Wisconsin's
Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) (Wis. Stat. Section 100.18),
and Wis. Stat. Sections 895.446 and 943.20(1)(d) against Gregg
Appliances, Inc. d/b/a hhgregg arising out of injuries sustained
as a result of Gregg's alleged false advertising relating to the
sale of Samsung 4K televisions to consumers in the State of
Wisconsin.

Gregg moved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) to dismiss those
putative class members who purchased different televisions and
viewed different advertisements than Kisting on the ground that
Kisting lacks standing to represent them.

Magistrate Judge Joseph previously granted Gregg's motion and
limited Kisting's putative class to those who purchased the same
television model he did.

Kisting asks the court to amend the decision to include a
certification that it satisfies the criteria set forth in 28
U.S.C. Section 1292(b) for an interlocutory appeal to the Seventh
Circuit. Kisting notes that Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f) does not control
his motion, but urges the court to utilize the standard and all
but ignores the criteria set forth in Section 1292(b). As Kisting
acknowledges, Rule 23(f) addresses appeals from an order granting
or denying class action certification.  Gregg opposes the motion.

Magistrate Judge Joseph denied plaintiff's motion to amend order
to provide an interlocutory appeal, such that although the
question presented in the proposed interlocutory appeal is
contestable, it does not present a pure question of law, is not
controlling, and will not materially advance the litigation. As
such, the proposed interlocutory appeal does not fulfill all of
the requisite criteria under Section 1292(b).

A copy of Judge Joseph's decision and order dated January 4, 2017,
is available at https://goo.gl/YL2Qlw from Leagle.com.

John Kisting, Plaintiff, represented by:

Jennifer G. Baumann, Esq.
Lora L. LoCoco, Esq.
Douglas W. Rose, Esq.
ROSE & DE JONG SC
161 South First Street, Suite 400
Milwaukee, WI 53204
Telephone: 414-274-1400
Facsimile: 414-274-1401

     - and -

Luke P. Hudock, Esq.
HUDOCK LAW GROUP SC
PO Box 83
Muskego, WI 53150
Telephone: 414-526-4906

Gregg Appliances Inc, Defendant, represented by Alice M. Morical
-- amorical@hooverhullturner.com -- Michael J. Blinn --
mblinn@hooverhullturner.com -- Wayne C. Turner --
wturner@hooverhullturner.com -- at Hoover Hull Turner LLP


HEALTH NET: Faces "Pellegrino" Suit Over Claims Investigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Pellegrino, an individual; Plaintiff, vs. Health Net of
California, Inc., a California corporation; Health Net Life
Insurance Company, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through
100 inclusive; Defendants, Case No. BC 645837 (Cal. Super., County
of Los Angeles, January 5, 2017), alleges that Health Net is
engaged in an unremediated pattern and practice of unreasonable
and egregious claims investigation procedures, particularly
regarding Hepatitis C patients in stages FO, FI, or F2 such as
Plaintiff, Denise Pellegrino.  The act allegedly is in breach of
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of
contract, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and
intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (class action)
violations of Business and Professions Code Section 17299, et seq.
unlawful, unfair and fraudulent conduct.

Health Net of California, Inc. and Health Net Life Insurance
Company sell insurance products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael J. Bidart, Esq.
     Ricardo Echeverria, Esq.
     Danica Crittenden, Esq.
     SHERNOFF BIDART ECHEVERRIA LLP
     600 South Indian Hill Boulevard
     Claremont CA 91711
     Phone: (909) 621-4935
     Fax: (909) 625-6915


HEALTH RESOURCE: Status Hearing in "Brown" Suit Reset to March 14
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on January 5, 2017, in the case
styled 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 and memorandum in support of conditional
      certification as collective action and issuance of notice
      pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) is entered and
      continued; and

   -- Status hearing set for January 19, 2017, is reset to
      March 14, 2017, at 9:30 a.m.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gd0CNXcl


HISCALL INC: "Brown" Claims Overtime Pay in Labor Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Hiscall, Inc., Hiscall Telecommunications,
Inc. and Hiscall Technologies, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
00011, (M.D. Tenn., January 5, 2017), seeks compensation for all
unpaid and underpaid wages, prejudgment interest, liquidated
damages, litigation costs, expenses and attorneys' fees and such
other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Hiscall, Inc., Hiscall Telecommunications, Inc. and Hiscall
Technologies, Inc. are Tennessee corporations headquartered at
1001 Gentry Circle, Dickson, Tennessee, 37055. They jointly own
and operate a telecommunications company that, among other things,
installs, manages, and repairs telephone, data networking, audio
visual, and cable systems.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants from 2009 until in or around May
2016 as a system technician, installing, maintaining and
troubleshooting telecommunications equipment.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David W. Garrison, Esq.
      Timothy L. Miles, Esq.
      Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
      BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN &GARRISON, LLC
      Bank of America Plaza
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Telephone: (615) 244-2202
      Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
      Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
             tmiles@barrettjohnston.com
             jfrank@barrettjohnston.com


HYUNDAI MOTOR: March 21 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JULIA RENIGER, GREG BATTAGLIA, LUCIA SAITTA and ANN
MANCUSO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a California
corporation, and HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, a foreign corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 4:14-cv-03612-CW (N.D. Cal.), plaintiffs on
Jan. 12, 2017, filed a motion for final approval of a class action
settlement, and a separate motion for award of attorney fees and
costs.

A hearing on both motions is set for March 21, 2017, at 2:30 p.m.
in Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, Oakland before Hon. Claudia Wilken.
Responses are due by Jan. 26, and replies due by Feb. 2.

District Judge Claudia Ann Wilken had granted the parties'
stipulation to extend the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file
their motion in support of final approval of the Settlement and
Class Counsel's fee application from January 9, 2017 to January
12, 2017,

The parties agreed that the extension is necessary due to the
scheduling issues caused by the press of the holidays and that one
of Plaintiffs' counsel with shared responsibility for drafting the
necessary papers, Marc L. Godino, was out of state through January
6, 2017.

A copy of the Court's Order dated December 30, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/iS8g49 from Leagle.com.

Greg Battaglia, Plaintiffs, et al., represented by Mark Samuel
Greenstone -- mgreenstone@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray
LLP & Lionel Z. Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay
& Murray LLP.

Hyundai Motor America, Defendant, represented by Eric Y. Kizirian
-- Eric.Kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and
Smith, Kimberly Thanh Chung, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP
& Michael K. Grimaldi -- Michael.Grimaldi@lewisbrisbois.com --
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.


IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Motion to Dismiss "McCloskey" Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
IAC/Interactivecorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the defendants'
motions to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint in the case
captioned Mary McCloskey et ano. v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No.
3:16-CV-549-L, remains pending.

On Dec. 23, 2016, Craig Kneller and Mary McCloskey filed a
response to the Underwriter Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.

On February 26, 2016, a putative nationwide class action was filed
in federal court in Texas against Match Group, five of its
officers and directors, and twelve underwriters of Match Group's
Company's initial public offering in November 2015.  See David M.
Stein v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-549 (U.S. District
Court, Northern District of Texas).  The complaint alleges that
Match Group's registration statement and prospectus issued in
connection with its initial public offering were materially false
and misleading given their failure to state that: (i) Match
Group's Non-dating business would miss its revenue projection for
the quarter ended December 31, 2015, and (ii) ARPPU would decline
substantially in the quarter ended December 31, 2015.  The
complaint asserts that these alleged failures to timely disclose
material information caused Match Group's stock price to drop
after the announcement of its earnings for the quarter ended
December 31, 2015.  The complaint pleads claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 for untrue statements of material fact in,
or omissions of material facts from, the registration statement,
the prospectus, and related communications in violation of
Sections 11 and 12 and, as to the officer/director defendants
only, control-person liability under Section 15 for the Company's
alleged violations.  The complaint seeks class certification,
damages in an unspecified amount and attorneys' fees.

On March 9, 2016, a virtually identical class action complaint was
filed in the same court against the same defendants by a different
named plaintiff.  See Stephany Kam-Wan Chan v. Match Group, Inc.
et al., No. 3:16-cv-668 (U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Texas).

On April 25, 2016, Judge Boyle in the Chan case issued an order
granting the parties' joint motion to transfer that case to Judge
Lindsay, who is presiding over the earlier-filed Stein case.

On April 27, 2016, various current or former shareholders in Match
Group and their respective law firms filed motions seeking
appointment as lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaison counsel for
the putative class.

On April 28, 2016, the Court issued orders: (i) consolidating the
Chan case into the Stein case, (ii) approving the parties'
stipulation to extend the defendants' time to respond to the
complaint until after the Court has appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel for the putative class and has set a schedule for the
plaintiff's filing of a consolidated complaint and the defendants'
response to that pleading, and (iii) referring the various motions
for appointment of lead plaintiff(s) and lead or liaison counsel
for the putative class to a United States Magistrate Judge for
determination.

On June 9, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued an order appointing
two lead plaintiffs, two law firms as co-lead plaintiffs' counsel,
and a third law firm as plaintiffs' liaison counsel.  In
accordance with this order, the consolidated case is now captioned
Mary McCloskey et ano. v. Match Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:16-CV-
549-L.

On July 27, 2016, the parties submitted to the Court a joint
status report proposing a schedule for the plaintiffs' filing of a
consolidated amended complaint and the parties' briefing of the
defendants' contemplated motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.

On August 17, 2016, the Court issued an order approving the
parties' proposed schedule.  On September 9, 2016, in accordance
with the schedule, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint.  The new pleading focuses solely on allegedly
misleading statements or omissions concerning the Match Group's
Non-dating business.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint on November 8, 2016.

"We and Match Group believe that the allegations in these lawsuits
are without merit and will defend vigorously against them," the
Company said.

IAC is a media and Internet company comprised of widely known
consumer brands such as HomeAdvisor, Vimeo, About.com,
Dictionary.com, The Daily Beast, Investopedia, and Match Group's
online dating portfolio, which includes Match, OkCupid, Tinder and
PlentyOfFish.


INFINITY AUGMENTED: Faces "Kutas" Lawsuit Over Cash Out Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
RON KUTAS, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs against INFINITY AUGMENTED REALITY, INC.,
MOSHE HOGEG, MOTTI KUSHNIR, MATAN PROTTER, and ORTAL ZANZURI,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00032 (S.D.N.Y., January 4, 2017),
alleges that Defendants forced a cash out merger to their benefit
and to the detriment of the shareholders.

On September 23, 2016, Infinity AR entered into a merger agreement
whereby its wholly owned subsidiary, IAR Merger Sub, Inc., merged
with and into Infinity AR.  Each shareholder received $0.063451
per share, valuating the company at roughly $7 million. However,
according to the complaint, the company was worth much more than
that. It stated that "Only one month after the merger, Alibaba
invested in Infinity AR at a valuation of about $70 million, 10
times the valuation that shareholders received."

Infinity Augmented Reality, Inc. focuses on the development of an
augmented reality software platform in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
     Shimon Yiftach, Esq.
     BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 697-6484
     E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
             shimony@bgandg.com


INTER-CON SECURITY: "Breda" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
A. Breda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc. and Does
1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC645920, (Cal. Super.,
January 6, 2017), seeks relief in the form of payment of earned
and unpaid wages, liquidated damages, penalties and other relief
including premium wages on account of Defendants' failure to
properly provide timely and uninterrupted meal and rest periods
under California Labor Code and California Business and
Professions Code.

Inter-Con is a security provider in Pasadena, California where
Plaintiff was employed as a security guard dispatcher. Defendant
allegedly failed to provide rest and meal breaks. Plaintiff's wage
statements never reflected accrued and unpaid premium wages owing
on account of untimely, tardy or truncated breaks, not even the
total hours worked. Defendant also failed to pay timely wages, and
overtime reimbursement for uniform cleaning expenses.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan Harris, Esq.
      David Garrett, Esq.
      Christina Nordsten, Esq.
      HARRIS & RUBLE
      655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (323) 962-3777
      Facsimile: (323) 962-3004

            - and -

      Daniel Forouzan, Esq.
      FOROUZAN LA
      9454 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 550
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (888) 551-0163
      Facsimile: (888) 710-0039


INTERSTATE SAFETY: Faces "Owens" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Owens, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Interstate Safety Service, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00017-ARC (M.D. Pa., January 4, 2017),
alleges that Defendant was intentionally short-changing employees
for travel and wait time that was integral and essential to
Defendants' workplace, and in fact directed by Defendant, and
failing to pay those employees for overtime hours worked in excess
of 40 hours per week a rate of one-and-one-half their regular rate
of pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a full service concrete manufacturer which makes
jersey barriers and similar products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephen H. Franko IV, Esq.
     FRANKO LAW OFFICES, PLLC
     120 Bridge Street
     Tunkhannock, PA 18657
     Phone: (570)731-3000


INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Securities Suits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------
Investment Technology Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that in
connection with the announcement of the SEC investigation, two
putative class action lawsuits were filed with respect to the
Company and certain of its current and former executives and have
since been consolidated into a single action captioned In re
Investment Technology Group, Inc. Securities Litigation before the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made
material misrepresentations or omitted to disclose material facts
concerning, among other subjects, the matters that were the
subject of the SEC settlement regarding AlterNet and the SEC
investigation that led to the SEC settlement. The complaint seeks
an unspecified amount of damages under the federal securities
laws.

ITG is a global financial technology company that helps leading
brokers and asset managers improve returns for investors.


ITAL PIZZA: Trial in "Hernandez" Suit to Commence May 11
--------------------------------------------------------
A preliminary conference was held Jan. 10, 2017, in the case
captioned OLMAN HERNANDEZ, HENRY JIMENEZ, and ELMER ORLANDO
CANALES, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, against ITAL PIZZA CORP. d/b/a LA PIAZZA;
ANTHONY BRANCHINELLI; LOUIS BRANCHINELLI; FORTUNATO NICOTRA; CAROL
ANN NICOTRA; MARCO NICOTRA; and any other related entities,
Defendants, INDEX NO. 605718/2016 (Sup. N.Y., Nassau County, July
27, 2016).

A trial before the New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, will
commence on May 11.

The case seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages, minimum
wage, spread of hours compensation, and unlawfully retained
gratuities owed to Named Plaintiffs and all similarly situated
persons under the New York Labor Law.

Defendants operate a restaurant.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


IXIA: Faces "Ly" Suit Over Violations Under Calif. Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
Huong Ly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. IXIA, a California corporation; and DOES
1 through 20 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 645827 (Cal.
Super., County of Los Angeles, January 5, 2017), alleges that
Defendants have engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour
violations under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders, all of which contribute to Defendants'
deliberate unfair competition.

Ixia provides testing, visibility, security solutions, network
testing tools and virtual network security solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
     Kashif Haque, Esq.
     Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
     Ali S. Carlsen, Esq.
     AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
     9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
     Irvine, CA 92618
     Phone: (949) 379-6250
     Fax: (949) 379-6251


JACK RABBIT: Court Approves Settlement and Awards in "Ross" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD ROSS, Plaintiff, v. JACK RABBIT SERVICES,
LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-44-DJH (W.D.
Pa.), District Judge David J. Hale granted the parties' Joint
Motion for Approval of Proposed Settlement, Incentive Award, and
an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs.

The basis of the Plaintiff's allegations is that the Defendants
required Plaintiffs to sign an "Independent Contractor Agreement"
that did not provide for the minimum wage, proper overtime
compensation, and subjected them to pay reductions through
"damage" deductions. The Plaintiffs assert that the alleged
misclassification as independent contractors was a means for the
Defendants "to coerce workers in the Class to waive their
statutory rights" under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Court granted the $15,000 incentive award that is to be paid
and distributed between the named plaintiffs, together with the
$58,500 attorneys' fee award and $42,000 for costs as reached in
the settlement.

The Court further ordered to dismiss the case, with prejudice,
pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)
and is stricken from the Court's active docket. The Court noted to
vacate all dates and deadlines set in the case.

A copy of the Court's Order dated December 15, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/kqZ0Hj from Leagle.com.

Richard Ross, Plaintiff, represented by Alex C. Davis, Jones Ward
PLC.

Richard Ross, Plaintiff, represented by Jason J. Thompson --
jthompson@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Jesse L. Young
-- jyoung@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Kevin J. Stoops
-- kstoops@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Lawrence L.
Jones, II, Jones Ward PLC & Timothy J. Becker, Johnson Becker,
PLLC.

Jack Rabbit Services, LLC, et al., Defendants, represented by
Amanda M. Herzog, Middleton Reutlinger, George R. Mead, II, Moore
Hill & Westmoreland, PA, Kenneth S. Handmaker --
khandmaker@middletonlaw.com -- Middleton Reutlinger & Loren T.
Prizant -- lprizant@middletonlaw.com -- Middleton Reutlinger.

Richard Ross, Counter Defendant, represented by Alex C. Davis,
Jones Ward PLC, Jason J. Thompson, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Jesse
L. Young, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Kevin J. Stoops, Sommers
Schwartz, P.C., Lawrence L. Jones, II, Jones Ward PLC & Timothy J.
Becker, Johnson Becker, PLLC.


JG GENERAL: "Carrera" Suit Seeks to Recover Alleged Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
TOMAS CARRERA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, against JG GENERAL WELDING, INC. and JORGE W.
GUERRERO, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00042-SJF-GRB (E.D.N.Y.,
January 4, 2017), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages that
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees of JG Welding
lawfully earned, including hundreds of hours of both regular and
overtime pay, together with statutory liquidated damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees.

Defendant JG Welding is a domestic corporation headquartered at 51
Wilson Avenue, Deer Park, New York 11729, routinely supervising
workers at numerous construction jobs throughout New York City and
Long Island.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mariann Meier Wang, Esq.
     Daniel Mullkoff, Esq.
     CUTI HECKER WANG LLP
     305 Broadway, Suite 607
     New York, NY 10007
     Phone: (212) 620-2603
     E-mail: mwang@chwllp.com
             dmullkoff@chwllp.com


JUNG SIK DANG: Minimum Wage, Tips Sought in "Bobb" Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Bobb, on behalf of himself and on behalf of other similarly-
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Jung Sik Dang, Corp., d/b/a
Jungsik and Jung Sik Yim, in his professional and individual
capacities, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00090, (S.D. N.Y.,
January 5, 2017), seeks recovery of minimum wages and withheld
tips, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs and disbursements in this action
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

Jung Sik Yim operates a Korean restaurant, Jungsik, located in
TriBeCa, New York City where Bobb worked as a waiter. He claims to
be paid below the minimum wage and had his tips withheld.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas H. Wigdor, Esq.
      Tanvir H. Rahman, Esq.
      WIGDOR LLP
      85 Fifth Avenue
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 257-6800
      Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
      Email: dwigdor@wigdorlaw.com
             trahman@wigdorlaw.com


LAND'S END: Gorss Motels Complains of "Unsolicited" Facsimiles
--------------------------------------------------------------
GORSS MOTELS, INC., a Connecticut corporation, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. LAND'S END, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, and JOHN
DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00010 (D. Conn., January 4,
2017), challenges Defendants' alleged practice of sending
unsolicited facsimiles in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

LAND'S END, INC. -- http://www.landsend.com/-- sells classic
clothes for the family featuring high-performance outerwear.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
     BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
     85 Miles Avenue
     White Plains, NY 10606
     Phone: 914-358-5345
     E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com

        - and -

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


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Earthquake Endorsement Subclass Decertified
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIC LAFOLLETTE and CAMILLE LAFOLLETTE, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarlysituated, Plaintiffs, v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, No. 2:14-cv-
04147-NKL (W.D. Mo.), District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey granted
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to decertify the Earthquake
Endorsement Subclass for lack of numerosity.  The Court approves
an amendment to the class definition to exclude claims arising
under the Earthquake Endorsement; and approves Plaintiffs' amended
notice documents.

On Dec. 15, Judge Laughrey granted the Plaintiffs' Supplemental
Motion for Order for Approval of Notice Plan and Notice Documents
for dissemination of class notice, and denied the Plaintiff's
initial Motion for Order for Approving Notice as moot.  The Court
further ordered the Plaintiffs to update their plan and forms to
include the deadlines ordered by the Court prior to mailing the
notice.  The Plaintiffs were required to send the class notices
through U.S. First Class Mail within 14 days of the Order on or
before December 29, 2016. The date upon which notice is mailed
will constitute the Notice Date.

Moreover, the Opt-Out Deadline -- the deadline for exclusion from
the class -- shall be 60 days after the Notice Date. Any class
member who does not send a completed, signed request for exclusion
to the Notice Administrator postmarked on or before the Opt-Out
Deadline will be deemed a member of the class for all purposes and
shall be bound by all further orders and judgments of the Court.

The Plaintiffs were also requested to file their amended notice
documents in final form reflecting the Notice Date and the Opt-Out
Deadlines consistent with the Order dated December 22, 2016, prior
to mailing the notice.

A copy of the Court's Order dated December 15, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/MEfpf6 from Leagle.com.

William Turley, Special Master, Pro Se.

Eric Lafollette, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by David L.
Steelman, Steelman, Gaunt & Horsefield, Thomas H. Hearne, Hearne &
Pivac, Derrick L. Morton, Nelson Terry Morton DeWitt Paruolo &
Wood, pro hac vice & Douglas A. Terry, Nelson Terry Morton DeWitt
Paruolo & Wood, pro hac vice.

Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Michael L. Blumenthal -- mike@sbhlaw.com -- Seyferth Blumenthal &
Harris LLC & Bruce A. Moothart -- bruce@sbhlaw.com -- Seyferth
Blumenthal & Harris LLC.


LINEAGE LOGISTICS: "Bailes" Class Certified, Injunction Bid Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRYAN BAILES, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others, Plaintiff, v. LINEAGE LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
15-cv-02457-DDC-TJJ (D. Kans.), District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree
granted in part and denied, in part, the parties' Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.

Plaintiff seeks to represent himself as well as anyone who signed
the Defendant's disclosure form on or after February 5, 2013. He
contends that the form, entitled "Disclosure and Authorization
Regarding Obtaining Consumer and/or Investigative Reports for
Employment," contained extraneous information violating the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA's) requirement that any authorization
to use a consumer report for employment purposes stand alone.

The Court grants the parties' request to certify the proposed
settlement class and appoints C. Jason Brown and Jayson A. Watkins
of Brown & Watkins LLC as class counsels.

Nonetheless, the Court denies the parties' request for an
injunction and declines to issue a notice in the case until the
parties correct their errors concerning on the (1) disparity of
the number of the potential class members in the proposed notice
reports and the amount that each member receives under the
proposed settlement; (2) the omission of the settlement
administrator's name and address from the proposed notice, and (3)
incorrectness in the proposed notice's class definition.

The Court further noted that, upon receipt of a corrected proposed
notice addressing the Court's concerns, the Court will consider
the parties' request to issue notice in the case and set a date
and time for the final fairness hearing. If the parties do not
intend to submit a corrected notice, they must contact the Court
no later than 15 days after the date of the Order to advise of the
decision and proceed with litigating the case.

A copy of the Court's Order dated December 15, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/a3lO86 from Leagle.com.

Bryan Bailes, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Jason Brown, Brown
and Watkins LLC.

Bryan Bailes, Plaintiff, represented by Jayson A. Watkins, Brown
and Watkins LLC.

Lineage Logistics, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey M. Place
-- jplace@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC & Uzoamaka Nwonwu
-- unwonwu@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC.


MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Thomas Seeks to Certify Second Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Thomas and Herb Smith, Class Representatives in the lawsuit
titled KEITH THOMAS, RICHARD HAYES, HERB SMITH, and OKLAHOMA
POLICE PENSION & RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR
CORP. SANG PARK, TAE YOUNG HWANG, MARGARET SAKAI, R. DOUGLAS
NORBY, ILBOK LEE, NADER TAVAKOLI, RANDAL KLEIN, MICHAEL ELKINS,
AVENUE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT II, L.P., BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.,
DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., UBS
SECURITIES LLC and NEEDHAM & COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-01160-
JST (N.D. Cal.), move the Court for an order certifying a second
class with respect to the remaining claim under Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act of 1934 against Avenue Capital Management II,
L.P.:

     all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired MagnaChip
     Semiconductor Corporation ("MagnaChip" or the "Company")
     common stock between March 12, 2014 and February 12, 2015
     (the "Class Period"), inclusive.  Excluded from the Class
     are any parties who are or have been Defendants in this
     litigation, the present and former officers and directors of
     MagnaChip and any subsidiary thereof, members of their
     immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs,
     successors or assigns and any entity in which any current or
     former Defendant has or had a controlling interest.

The Class Representatives also seek the appointment of (i) Herb
Smith as representative for the Post-March 11, 2014 Class, and
(ii) Pomerantz LLP and the Rosen Law Firm, P.A., as Class Counsel
for the Post-March 11, 2014 Class.

The Court will commence a hearing on February 16, 2017, at 2:00
p.m., to consider the Motion.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          Joshua B. Silverman, Esq.
          Louis C. Ludwig, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          10 South LaSalle, Suite 3505
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 377-1181
          Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
          E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
                  jbsilverman@pomlaw.com
                  lcludwig@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

          Marc I. Gross, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Michael J. Wernke, Esq.
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: migross@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  mjwernke@pomlaw.com

               - and -

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


MAINE: Court Dismisses "Johnson" Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, KATHLEEN JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF MAINE, et
al., Defendants, No. 1:16-CV-00621-JAW (D. Maine), Magistrate
Judge John C. Nivison dismissed the Plaintiff's claims in
connection with her parental rights for failure to state a cause
of action and for independently pursuing an action on behalf of
other individuals as a pro se litigant.

The Plaintiff cites the Defendants' failure to ensure visitation
between her and her son, malpractice, child abuse, falsifying
information, cruelty to the disabled, and the discontinuation of
reunification programs. She further alleged that the Defendants
have misapplied or do not have the funds provided by the
government.

The Court ruled that the Plaintiff must first overcome the
jurisdictional obstacle imposed by the Eleventh Amendment, which
gives the State of Maine an immunity against suits, regardless of
the form of relief requested. Moreover, the Court noted that the
mere fact that a State participates in a program through which the
Federal Government provides assistance for the operation by the
State of a system of public aid is not sufficient to establish
consent on the part of the State to be sued in the federal courts.

The Court also noted that the Plaintiff failed to describe a
violation of a particular federal statute that provides her with a
cause of action against the Defendants. The Plaintiff has not
asserted any facts to support her contention that funds are
missing, and has not identified the programs for which the funds
were intended. Thus, the Plaintiff failed to assert sufficient
facts to state a cause of action.

Moreover, the Court ruled that the Plaintiff cannot maintain a
class action because, as a pro se litigant, the Plaintiff cannot
independently pursue an action on behalf of other individuals in
the Court.

A copy of the Court's Order dated December 27, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/lY5TDQ from Leagle.com.


MANHATTAN FOOD: Faces "Roman" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anaiz Roman, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Manhattan Food & Beverage, Ltd. d/b/a Reichenbach
Hall, Willy Reichenbach and Keith Reichenbach, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00095-AKH (S.D.N.Y., January 5, 2017), was filed to recover back
pay, front pay, punitive damages and liquidated damages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Manhattan Food & Beverage, Ltd. operates a restaurant called
Reichenbach Hall.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
     JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
     32 Broadway, Suite 601
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 688-5640
     Fax: 688-2548


MANNKIND CORPORATION: 9th Cir. Appeal Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
MannKind Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that following the
public announcement of Sanofi's election to terminate the Sanofi
License Agreement and the subsequent decline in the Company's
stock price, several complaints were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (the "District
Court") against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors on behalf of certain purchasers of its common stock,
which were consolidated into a single action. The amended
complaint alleged that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws by making materially
false and misleading statements regarding the prospects for
Afrezza, thereby artificially inflating the price of its common
stock. The Company and the named defendants brought a motion to
dismiss the class action that was pending against them, which the
District Court granted in August 2016 without leave to amend the
complaint. The lead plaintiff has appealed the decision to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company will vigorously oppose
the appeal.

Mannkind is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery,
development and commercialization of therapeutic products for
diseases such as diabetes.


MANNKIND CORPORATION: Defending Against Class Action in Israel
--------------------------------------------------------------
MannKind Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that following the
public announcement of Sanofi's election to terminate the Sanofi
License Agreement and the subsequent decline in the Company's
stock price, two motions were submitted to the district court at
Tel Aviv (Economic Department) for the certification of a class
action against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors. In general, the complaints allege that the Company and
certain of its officers and directors violated Israeli and U.S.
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements regarding the prospects for Afrezza, thereby
artificially inflating the price of its common stock. The
plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages. The Company will
vigorously defend against the claims advanced.

Mannkind is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery,
development and commercialization of therapeutic products for
diseases such as diabetes.


MASTERCARD INT'L: Judge Dismisses "Doyle" Claims
------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT DOYLE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL
INC., Defendant, No. 15 CV 9360-LTS (S.D. N.Y.), District Judge
Laura Taylor Swain granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss the
breach of contract claims and the Columbia Consumer Protection
Procedures Act (CCPPA) claim for failure to state a claim.

MasterCard offers credit and debit cards to consumers and has
conducted a marketing promotion relating to a "Stand Up to Cancer"
program. From 2012-2015, MasterCard announced via a press release
that the Marketing Promotion had reached the US$4 million maximum
donation amount prior to the scheduled end date of the promotion,
but continued advertising the Marketing Promotion despite the
Marketing Promotion having ended. The Plaintiff, a resident of New
Jersey, personally made a Qualifying Transaction during each year
of the Marketing Promotion covered by the amended complaint, and
alleges that he did so instead of using other forms of payment
because of the Marketing Promotion.

The Court noted that, the allegations in the amended complaint,
even construed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, do
not state a claim for breach of contract because they do not
identify any breach of the alleged contract by MasterCard. That
MasterCard may have continued to advertise the Marketing Promotion
after the maximum donation amount was reached does not alter this
conclusion because it does not establish the breach of any
contract term. The amended complaint also fails to allege that the
Plaintiff, or any cardholder, suffered cognizable damages, as
required by New York law.

Moreover, the Court dismissed the CPPA claim due to the
Plaintiff's admission that he does not personally have a claim
under the CPPA. Where the putative named Plaintiff concedes that
he does not state a claim, there is no possibility that the named
Plaintiff satisfies the requirements to represent a class.

A copy of the Court's Order dated December 15, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/5mYAy6 from Leagle.com.

Robert Doyle, Plaintiff, represented by Todd C. Bank --
tbank@toddbanklaw.com -- Law Office of Todd C. Bank.

Mastercard International Incorporated, Defendant, represented by
Christopher George Karagheuzoff --
karagheuzoff.christopher@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP,
Amanda Mary Prentice -- prentice.amanda@dorsey.com -- Dorsey &
Whitney LLP & Jonathan Richard Montcalm --
montcalm.jonathan@dorsey.com -- Dorsey & Whitney LLP.


MCADAM LANDSCAPING: Seeks Approval of "Martinez" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit captioned JUAN MARTINEZ, A/K/A ARTURO
BRITO, A/K/A ELIAS MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself, and all other
plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. MCADAM
LANDSCAPING, INC., AND W. SCOTT MCADAM AND ROBERT MCADAM,
INDIVIDUALLY, Case No. 1:15-cv-06461 (N.D. Ill.) move the Court
for an order preliminarily approving their stipulation of
settlement and agreement to settle class action claims.

The Parties also move the Court for an order approving class
certification for settlement purposes, the form and manner of
class notice, and scheduling a Fairness Hearing for final approval
of the settlement.

A copy of the Joint Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FhZAiQc8

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Meghan A. VanLeuwen, Esq.
          FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
          33 N. LaSalle, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 784-3541
          E-mail: mvanleuwen@flapillinois.org

               - and -

          John W. Billhorn, Esq.
          BILLHORN LAW FIRM
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
          Chicago, IL, 60604
          Telephone: (312) 853-1450
          E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


The Defendants are represented by:

          David L. Miller, Esq.
          ROCK FUSCO & CONNELLY LLC
          321 Clark St., Suite 2200
          Chicago, IL, 60654
          Telephone: (312) 251-2261
          E-mail: millerlaborlaw@att.net


MD 2196: UFP Technologies Records $1.7MM Settlement Gain in Q3
--------------------------------------------------------------
UFP Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company was a
participant in a class action lawsuit against a number of
polyurethane foam suppliers ("Defendants") that recently reached
settlement. The suit was filed to recover damages and obtain
injunctive relief for Defendants' alleged violations of the
federal antitrust laws with respect to the fixing of prices of
polyurethane foam sold from January 1, 1999 through August 2010.
The Company recorded gains of approximately $1.7 million and $2.1
million during the three- and nine-month periods ended September
30, 2016, respectively, which represents the full settlement
amount received. The settlement amount is recorded as "Material
overcharge settlement" in the operating income section of the
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income.

UFP Technologies is an innovative designer and custom converter of
foams, plastics, composites, and natural fiber products,
principally serving the medical, automotive, consumer,
electronics, industrial, and aerospace and defense markets.


MEDICREDIT INC: Faces "Mayer" Lawsuit Under Debt Collection Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY MAYER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MEDICREDIT, INC. and NPAS, INC.
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00007-ALM (E.D. Tex., January 4,
2017), seeks to remedy alleged violations by Defendants of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Texas Debt Collection Act,
and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant MediCredit, Inc. is a Missouri corporation which
operates as a collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Walt D. Roper, Esq.
     THE ROPER FIRM, P.C.
     3001 Knox Street, Suite 405
     Dallas, TX 75205
     Phone: 214-420-4520
     Fax: 1+214-856-8480
     Email: walt@roperfirm.com


METROPOLITAN LIFE: "Owens" Class Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend against the case, Owens v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17,
2014).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
all persons for whom Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
established a retained asset account, known as a total control
account ("TCA"), to pay death benefits under an ERISA plan. The
action alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's use of
the TCA as the settlement option for life insurance benefits under
some group life insurance policies violates Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's fiduciary duties under ERISA. As damages,
plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits that Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company realized on accounts owned by members of the
putative class.

On September 27, 2016 the court denied Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company's summary judgment motion in full and granted plaintiff's
partial summary judgment motion. The Company intends to defend
this action vigorously.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeal in "Robainas" Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that an
appeal related to the case, Robainas, et al. v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014), remains pending.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or
indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums on life insurance
policies issued by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company from 2009
through 2014 (the "Policies"). Two similar actions were
subsequently filed, Yale v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y.,
January 12, 2015) and International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers District Lodge 15 v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
(E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015). Both of these actions were
consolidated with the Robainas action. The consolidated complaint
alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company inadequately
disclosed in its statutory annual statements that certain
reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies
were collateralized using "contractual parental guarantees," and
thereby allegedly misrepresented its financial condition and the
adequacy of its reserves. The lawsuit sought recovery under
Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty
in the amount of the premiums paid for the Policies.

On October 9, 2015, the court granted Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, finding
that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because they did not
allege any concrete injury as a result of the alleged conduct.
Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeal in "Intoccia" Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that an
appeal related to the case, Intoccia v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2015), remains pending.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on behalf of
themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or
indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums for Guaranteed
Benefits Insurance Riders attached to variable annuity contracts
with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company from 2009 through 2015
(the "Annuities"). The court consolidated Weilert v. Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2015) with the Intoccia case,
and the consolidated, amended complaint alleges that Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company inadequately disclosed in its statutory
annual statements that certain reinsurance transactions with
affiliated reinsurance companies were collateralized using
"contractual parental guarantees," and thereby allegedly
misrepresented its financial condition and the adequacy of its
reserves. The lawsuits seek recovery under Section 4226 of the New
York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty in the amount of the
premiums paid for Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders attached to
the Annuities.

The Court granted Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motion to
dismiss, adopting the reasoning of the Robainas decision.
Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: "Voshall" Class Suit Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend against the case, Voshall v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles, April 8, 2015).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
himself and all persons covered under a long-term group disability
income insurance policy issued by Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company to public entities in California between April 8, 2011 and
April 8, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company improperly reduced benefits by including cost of living
adjustments and employee paid contributions in the employer
retirement benefits and other income that reduces the benefit
payable under such policies. Plaintiff asserts causes of action
for declaratory relief, violation of the California Business &
Professions Code, breach of contract and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeal in "Martin" Class Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that an
appeal related to the case, Martin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Contra Costa, filed December 17, 2015), remains pending.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all California persons who have been charged
compound interest by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company in life
insurance policy and/or premium loan balances within the last four
years. Plaintiffs allege that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
has engaged in a pattern and practice of charging compound
interest on life insurance policy and premium loans without the
borrower authorizing such compounding, and that this constitutes
an unlawful business practice under California law. Plaintiff
asserts causes of action for declaratory relief, violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law and Usury Law, and unjust
enrichment. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
restitution of interest, and damages in an unspecified amount.

On April 12, 2016, the court granted Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs have filed a notice
appealing this ruling.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Class Cert. Bids Due June 16 in "Lau" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend against the case, Lau v. Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company (S.D.N.Y. filed, December 3, 2015).

On Jan. 9, 2017, Judge P. Kevin Castel entered a Civil Case
Management Plan and Scheduling Order.  All parties do not consent
to conducting all further proceedings before a Magistrate Judge,
including motions and trial.  This case is not to be tried to a
jury.

The Scheduling Order provides that:

     Deposition due by 6/9/2017.

     Fact Discovery due by 6/9/2017.

     Expert Discovery due by 7/24/2017.

     Case Management Conference set for 6/30/2017 at 10:30 a.m.
     before Judge Castel.

     Counsel for the parties have conferred and their present best
     estimate of the length of trial is 6 to 10 days.

     Motions for class certification due by 6/16/2017.

     Responses due by 7/17/2017

     Replies due by 7/31/2017.

An Initial Pretrial Conference was held in the case on Jan. 9,
2017.  The next case management conference is scheduled for June
30 at 10:30 a.m.

This putative class action lawsuit was filed by a single defined
contribution plan participant on behalf of all ERISA plans whose
assets were invested in Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
"Group Annuity Contract Stable Value Funds" within the past six
years. The suit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA and
challenges the "spread" with respect to the stable value fund
group annuity products sold to retirement plans. The allegations
focus on the methodology Metropolitan Life Insurance Company uses
to establish and reset the crediting rate, the terms under which
plan participants are permitted to transfer funds from a stable
value option to another investment option, the procedures followed
if an employer terminates a contract, and the level of disclosure
provided. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as
well as damages in an unspecified amount.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: "Newman" Class Suit Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
Company continues to defend against the case, Newman v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (N.D. Ill., filed March 23,
2016).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action alleging causes of
action for breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
based on Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's class-wide increase
in premiums charged for long-term care insurance policies.
Plaintiff alleges a class consisting of herself and all persons
over age 65 who selected a Reduced Pay at Age 65 payment feature
and whose premium rates were increased after age 65. Plaintiff
asserts that premiums could not be increased for these class
members and/or that marketing material was misleading as to
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's right to increase premiums.
Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and punitive
damages as well as recessionary and injunctive relief.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.


NATIONAL MILK: Jan. 31 Deadline to Claim Cash
---------------------------------------------
Fox13Memphis.com reports that if you've bought milk in 15 states
or the District of Columbia, you may get money back for it.

The National Milk Producers Federation, Dairy Farmers of America
Inc., Land O'Lakes Inc., Dairylea Cooperative Inc., and Agri-Mark
Inc. have agreed to settle a $52 million lawsuit where they were
accused of conspiring to fix the prices of certain dairy products.

This includes milk, half & half, cream cheese, sour cream, cottage
cheese and yogurt.

Georgia, New York, California and Tennessee are among the states
listed with residents entitled to payment from the milk price-
fixing class action settlement.

To be eligible for benefits from the settlement, one must have
purchased the dairy products from a grocery store or other
retailer as far back as 2003.  The products must not have been
purchased for resale.

The evidence presented in the case accused dairy farmers of
participating in the alleged conspiracy with the dairy companies.

The defendants deny the allegations but have decided to settle to
avoid a trial.

According to the official website for the Fresh Milk Products
Price Class Action Lawsuit, individuals may receive between $45 to
$70.

The deadline to claim your cash is Jan. 31.  There does not have
to be proof of purchase.

The amount received is dependent on the number of products claimed
as well as the number of valid claims submitted.

These are the eligible states, including the District of
Columbia:

   -- Arizona
   -- California
   -- District of Columbia
   -- Kansas
   -- Massachusetts
   -- Michigan
   -- Missouri
   -- Nebraska
   -- Nevada
   -- New Hampshire
   -- Oregon
   -- South Dakota
   -- Tennessee
   -- Vermont
   -- West Virginia
   -- Wisconsin


NEW ORLEANS: No Settlement Reached in Debtor Prison Case
--------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that settlement discussions have
failed to bring about a resolution to a federal court case
accusing New Orleans criminal court judges of unconstitutionally
jailing poor people who cannot afford to pay court fees.

The suit was filed in 2015 by six people who said they were locked
up for owing court debts. Lawyers are seeking to make it a class
action case that could affect hundreds of others.

New Orleans criminal court judges are the defendants. U.S.
Magistrate Judge Joseph Wilkinson said in a filing that followed a
mid-week status conference on the case that "no settlement appears
reachable" in the case.

No trial date has been set.


NEW YORK COMMUNITY: Settlement of Merger Suit Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
New York Community Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9,
2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the
settlement in the case, In re Astoria Financial Corporation
Shareholders Litigation, remains pending.

Following the announcement on October 29, 2015 of the execution of
the Company's merger agreement with Astoria Financial, six
putative class action lawsuits filed in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of Nassau, challenging the proposed
merger between Astoria Financial Corporation ("Astoria Financial")
and New York Community Bancorp, Inc. ("NYCB"). These actions are
captioned: (1) Sandra E. Weiss IRA v. Chrin, et al., Index No.
607132/2015 (filed November 4, 2015); (2) Raul v. Palleschi, et
al., Index No. 607238/2015 (filed November 6, 2015); (3) Lowinger
v. Redman, et al., Index No. 607268/2015 (filed November 9, 2015);
(4) Minzer v. Astoria Fin. Corp., et al., Index No. 607358/2015
(filed November 12, 2015); (5) MSS 12-09 Trust v. Palleschi, et
al., Index No. 607472/2015 (filed November 13, 2015); and (6)
Firemen's Ret. Sys. of St. Louis v. Keegan, et al., Index No.
607612/2015 (filed November 23, 2015 ).

On January 15, 2016, the court consolidated the New York Actions
under the caption In re Astoria Financial Corporation Shareholders
Litigation, Index No. 607132/2015 (the "New York Action"), and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed on January 29, 2016.

In addition, a seventh lawsuit was filed challenging the proposed
transaction in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned O'Connell
v. Astoria Financial Corp., et al., Case No. 11928 (filed January
22, 2016) (the "Delaware Action").

Each of the lawsuits challenging the proposed transaction is a
putative class action filed on behalf of the stockholders of
Astoria Financial and names as defendants Astoria Financial, its
directors, and the Company. The complaint in the New York Action
and the Delaware Action are substantially identical. The
complaints allege, among other things, that the directors of
Astoria Financial breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with their approval of the merger agreement, including by:
agreeing to an allegedly unfair price for Astoria Financial;
approving the transaction notwithstanding alleged conflicts of
interest; agreeing to deal protection devices that plaintiffs
allege are unreasonable; and by failing to disclose certain facts
about the process that led to the merger and financial analyses
performed by Astoria Financial's financial advisors. The
complaints also allege that NYCB aided and abetted those alleged
fiduciary breaches. The actions seek, among other things, an order
enjoining completion of the proposed merger.

On April 6, 2016, the parties to the New York Action entered into
a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") setting out the terms of an
agreement in principle to settle all claims alleged on behalf of
the putative class relating to the merger, which were disclosed on
April 8, 2016. The MOU provides, among other things, that Astoria
Financial will make certain supplemental disclosures relating to
the merger. The settlement is subject to, among other things, the
execution of definitive documentation, the completion of the
merger, and the approval by the court of the proposed settlement.
There can be no assurance that the court will approve the
settlement contemplated by the MOU. If the court does not approve
the settlement, or if the settlement is otherwise disallowed, the
proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.

The Company believes that the factual allegations in the lawsuits
are without merit and, having reached agreement in principal on
the resolution of the In re Astoria Financial Corporation
Shareholders Litigation matter, would intend to defend vigorously
against the allegations made by the plaintiffs in such matter in
the event that the settlement is not concluded as currently
intended and also intends to defend vigorously against the
allegations made by the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action.

New York Community Bancorp, Inc. is the holding company for New
York Community Bank.


ODOSAY INC: Faces "Zucco" Suit Seeking to Recoup Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Zucco, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Odosay, Inc. d/b/a Injera Restaurant,
Pierre Casaux, and Bazy Keflay, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00080-AJN (S.D.N.Y., January 5, 2017), alleges that pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiffs are entitled to
unpaid wages for overtime work.

Defendants owned and operated a restaurant in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Samuel, Esq.
     SAMUEL & STEIN
     38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
     New York, NY 10001
     Phone: (212) 563-9884
     E-mail: michael@samuelandstein.com


OMNI INSURANCE: Dismissal Does Not Manifest Injustice, Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge J. Michelle Childs of the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina denied Plaintiff's Motion
to Alter or Amend Judgment in the case captioned, Allison Colter,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. Omni Insurance Company and Omni Indemnity Company, Defendants,
Case No. 3:15-CV-04171-JMC (D. S.C.).

Plaintiff Allison Colter, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, filed the putative class action seeking
damages from Defendants Omni Insurance Company and Omni Indemnity
Company for their alleged imposition of an illegal and
unauthorized "betterment" or depreciation charge on property
settlements for accidents.

Defendants are automobile insurers for Kayla McDaniels (the
Insured). On February 17, 2015, Plaintiff was involved in a motor
vehicle accident with Defendants' Insured. After determining that
their Insured was liable for the damage to Plaintiff's vehicle,
Defendants told Plaintiff that she would receive payment for her
damages equal to her repair estimate minus a betterment or
depreciation charge for certain damaged parts. Plaintiff filed an
action in the Richland County (South Carolina) Court of Common
Pleas on September 18, 2015, asserting causes of action against
Defendants for breach of contract, fraud, violation of the South
Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (SCUTPA), S.C. Code Ann.
Sections 39-5-10 to -560 (2014), negligent misrepresentation, and
negligence after Defendants deducted a betterment charge of
$313.87 from the total repair bill of $4,291.80 to account for
depreciation in the muffler.

On October 8, 2015, Defendants removed the matter to the federal
district court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 1332. After removing the matter, Defendants
filed their Motion to Dismiss on December 4, 2015. The court on
July 12, 2016, entered an Order granting Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss.

In her Motion, Plaintiff seeks to alter or amend the July Order on
the basis that it is either a clear error of law if the betterment
issue is not certified to the South Carolina Supreme Court or a
manifest injustice if the court fails to allow Plaintiff to amend
her Complaint.

As to Plaintiff's manifest injustice assertion, Defendants argue
that Plaintiff's request for relief on that basis is also
meritless and beseech the court to "consider sanctions against
Plaintiff and/or her counsel."

In the Order dated January 6, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/fdfFEV from Leagle.com, Judge Childs concluded that
its entry of the July Order did not result in the commission of
either clear error or manifest injustice.

However, after considering the entirety of the record, the court
denied Defendants' request for sanctions against Plaintiff
pursuant to Rule 11.

Allison Colter is represented by:

      Rachel G. Peavy, Esq.
      Jefferson Goodwyn, Jr., Esq.
      GOODWYN LAW FIRM
      2519 Devine St
      Columbia, SC 29205
      Tel: (803)251-4517

Omni Insurance Company, et al. are represented by Brett Harris
Bayne, Esq. -- brett.bayne@mgclaw.com -- and J. Andrew Delaney,
Esq. -- adelaney@mgclaw.com -- MCANGUS GOUDELOCK AND COURIE


ORACLE: Dept. of Labor Files Hiring Discrimination Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Ortutay, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
the U.S. Department of Labor has filed a lawsuit against Oracle,
claiming that the technology giant has a "systemic practice" of
paying white male workers more than their non-white and female
counterparts with the same job titles.

The suit also says that the company favors Asian workers in its
recruiting and hiring practices for product development and other
technical roles, which resulted in hiring discrimination against
non-Asian applicants.

In a statement, Oracle Corp. on Jan. 18 called the lawsuit
"politically motivated, based on false allegations and wholly
without merit."

The Labor Department said the lawsuit is the result of a review of
Oracle's equal employment opportunity practices at its
headquarters in Redwood Shores, California.  According the suit,
Oracle has refused to comply with the agency's "routine requests"
for employment data and records.

"As a federal contractor, Oracle is prohibited from engaging in
employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual
orientation or gender identity or national origin and is required
to take affirmative action to ensure that equal employment
opportunity is provided to applicants and employees in all aspects
of employment," the Labor Department said.

Earlier this month, the Labor Department also sued Google , saying
the company has refused to provide the department with employee
compensation records and other information as part of an audit
designed to ensure it isn't discriminating against workers based
on gender or race.

Oracle, Google and other technology companies have made public
commitments to improving gender and racial diversity in recent
years.  But change has been slow to come, and the companies
continue to be dominated by white (and sometimes Asian) men,
especially in technical and leadership positions.


OREGON: Taxing Districts Have Yet to Decide to Join Timber Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Stratton, writing for The Daily Astorian, reports that the
Port of Astoria was set to decide on Jan. 17 whether to take part
in the Linn County timber lawsuit after meeting with a lawyer for
the plaintiffs.

The Port is one of about 130 taxing districts in Oregon -- 30 in
Clatsop County -- named as plaintiffs in the $1.4 billion class-
action lawsuit brought by Linn County against the state last year.

Linn County was named the representative in the lawsuit for all of
the involved counties and taxing districts.  Representatives from
the county and its legal team have been visiting multiple taxing
districts in advance of the Jan. 25 deadline for the agencies to
decide whether to remain involved.

Clatsop County voted to opt out of the suit.

The lawsuit, partially funded by timber companies, claims the
state breached a contract to maximize timber revenues on more than
700,000 acres of land deeded by 15 counties.  Linn County claimed
the state has cost the counties $35 million a year in revenue
since 1998, when the Board of Forestry adopted a rule focusing
more on salmon and wildlife habitat.

The counties and taxing districts involved could receive a sizable
settlement if the lawsuit goes the plaintiffs' way.  Some fear the
lawsuit could lead to a change in rules allowing more logging on
state land and potentially higher taxes to finance a settlement.

Making the rounds

Linn County Commissioner Roger Nyquist confirmed that he and
John DiLorenzo, a lawyer for the county in the lawsuit, met with
the Clatsop Community College Board on Jan. 10 to talk about the
suit.  The college's board will decide Jan. 24 whether to remain
involved.

The Port scheduled a closed executive session before its Jan. 17
meeting to discuss "litigation filed or likely to be filed."
Jim Knight, the Port's executive director, confirmed that
Mr. DiLorenzo was scheduled to meet with the Port Commission on
Jan. 17. Afterwards, the commission will meet in public and decide
whether to remain a plaintiff.

Many parties

In his motion for class-action certification, Mr. DiLorenzo
identified 15 counties and at least 130 taxing districts statewide
receiving revenues from state timberlands. In Clatsop County, they
included agencies overseeing schools, firefighting, police, health
care, transportation and water supplies.

County Manager Cameron Moore said that of the 30 districts
identified in the county, five were automatically opted out by the
county's decision.  The other 25 will make their own decisions.
By doing nothing, they remain in the lawsuit.

Mr. Moore said some of the bigger players, in terms of revenue,
are the county, Seaside School District, Jewell School District,
the college and the Port.

Jewell Superintendent Alice Hunsaker said she has talked with
Mr. DiLorenzo, and that the school district has yet to decide what
to do.  Seaside Superintendent Sheila Roley could not be reached
for comment, nor could lawyers for the state on whether they have
planned any visits with the counties and taxing districts.


PAREXEL INT'L: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Northern California Record,
reports that a former senior clinical research associate for a San
Diego office alleges she was not paid overtime compensation.

Schoulee Cones filed a complaint on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated on Dec. 22 in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California against Parexel
International Corp. alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and state labor codes.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she worked
more than eight hours in any given day, and would regularly miss
meal and rest periods prescribed by law because of workload.  She
alleges the defendant would adjust employees' time cards to reduce
hours worked.

The plaintiffs hold Parexel International Corp. responsible
because the defendant allegedly failed to provide overtime wages,
failed to provide meal and rest periods, failed to pay for all
hours worked, failed to pay for all wages owed upon termination,
and failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against
defendant, certify case as a class action, appoint class
representative and counsel, injunctive relief, account salary
owed, general, compensatory, punitive and consequential damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, expenses, costs of action, statutory
penalties, and further relief as the court deems just.  She is
represented by Patrick N. Keegan -- pkeegan@keeganbaker.com -- and
James M. Treglio of Keegan & Baker LLP in Carlsbad and Walter
Haines of The United Employees Law Group in Huntington Beach.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California Case
number 3:16-cv-03084


PARKATLANTA: Faces Class Action Over Invalid Tickets
----------------------------------------------------
CBS46 reports that a man currently working for PARKatlanta is
coming forward, claiming the company knowingly issued tickets to
people even though no infraction was committed.

CBS46 News has verified his identity, but he's asked us not show
his face or say his name, hoping he doesn't get fired for speaking
out.

His claim is part of a class action lawsuit alleging PARKatlanta,
its parent company Duncan Solutions and subsidiaries.  The lawsuit
alleges that PARKatlanta "knowingly and illegally cited drivers
for non-existent parking violations."

The man says in an ordinary week, he would write as many as five
bogus tickets.

Attorney Eddie Key showed us an example of how PARKatlanta
employees claim malfunctions like time and date inaccuracies on
their work tablets forced them to write bad tickets.

He points to an undercover cell phone video apparently showing
employees notifying their superiors about the problem, then being
told to write tickets anyway.

"We have evidence that shows that they had knowledge that their
system was not working properly," said Mr. Key.  "I think
PARKatlanta and its affiliates should have to pay back the
citizens of Atlanta the money that they took from them."

CBS46 reached out to representatives at PARKatlanta, Duncan
Solutions and the other defendants in the case but were told that
they were unable to comment.

PARKatlanta is still in charge of parking enforcement in the city
through March.


PERFORMANCE FOOD: Venue of "Perez" Suit Transferred to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted
Defendants' motion to transfer venue to the Central District of
California in the case captioned, JORGE PEREZ, Plaintiff, v.
PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-
CV-313-FtM-99CM (N.D. Cal.).

On April 20, 2015, Plaintiff Jorge Perez filed a complaint in the
Alameda Superior Court against Defendants Performance Food Group,
Inc. (PFG), Vistar Transportation, LLC (VT), and Roma Food
Enterprises (RFE). Defendants removed the action to the Court on
May 29, 2015.

Following partial dismissal with leave to amend, Plaintiff filed
the operative Second Amended Complaint (SAC) on April 13, 2016.
Plaintiff asserts claims not only individually but also as the
named plaintiff in a putative class action on behalf of California
employees. Specifically, the SAC alleges eight claims on behalf of
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees: failure to provide
meal periods; failure to pay hourly wages; failure to provide
accurate written wage statements; failure to timely pay all final
wages; unfair competition; civil penalties; and failure to pay
employees for all hours worked.

PFG and VT filed a motion to transfer the action from the Northern
District of California to the Central District of California.

In his Order dated January 6, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/2CjH8U from Leagle.com, Judge Gilliam, Jr. held that
transfer is appropriate because the convenience of the witnesses,
the local interest in the controversy and the cost of litigation
weigh for transfer.

The case is transferred to the Central District of California.

Jorge Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq.
-- shaun@setarehlaw.com -- and Thomas Alistair Segal, Esq. --
thomas@setarehlaw.com -- SETAREH LAW GROUP

Performance Food Group, Inc., et al. are represented by Sabrina
Alexis Beldner, Esq. -- sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com -- Sylvia Jihae
Kim, Esq. -- skim@mcguirewoods.com -- and Matthew C. Kane, Esq. --
mkane@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP


PERFUMANIA HOLDINGS: May 30 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FAMILY MEDICINE PHARMACY, LLC, Plaintiff, v.
PERFUMANIA HOLDINGS, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-0563-
WS-C (S.D. Ala.) Chief District Judge William H. Steele will hold
a Final Approval Hearing on May 30, 2017, following on the
approval of the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification of
Settlement Class.

For purposes of the Settlement, the Settlement Class is composed
of all Persons with fax numbers who, between January 1, 2011
through and including the date of entry of the Preliminary
Approval Order, received any successful transmission of an
unsolicited fax from Defendants advertising Defendants' products
and/or services.

The Court preliminarily appoints the Plaintiff, Family Medicine
Pharmacy LLC, as class representative of the settlement class. The
Court also appoints James H. McFerrin, Esq. of McFerrin Law Firm
LLC in Birmingham, Alabama, and Diandra S. Debrosse Zimmerman,
Esq. of Zarzaur Mujumdar & Debrosse in Birmingham, Alabama as
settlement class counsels, and RG/2 Claims Administration LLC as
settlement administrator.

The Court further ordered the appointed settlement administrator
to establish an escrow account in the name of Family Medicine
Pharmacy LLC v. Perfumania Holdings, Inc., et al., Settlement
Account at Huntingdon Bank, which account shall be held in
custodia legis and remain subject to the Court's jurisdiction.
Likewise, the Defendants are ordered to deposit into said escrow
account the sum of $24,691 (estimated notice and claims
administration costs) on December 28, 2016, which funds (less
$10,000) shall be deemed to have been paid toward the settlement
amount.

The Court also ordered the Defendants' counsel to provide the
settlement administrator with a list of persons and entities who
were potential recipients of unsolicited fax advertisements
transmitted by the Defendants during the class period, as
indicated by Defendants' fax software records last December 28,
2016.

To effectuate the settlement, the Court establishes these
deadlines:

     (a) Claim forms shall be returned by settlement class
         members to the settlement administrator online, by fax,
         by electronic mail, or by mail with a postmark on or
         before March 31, 2017. Claims not submitted by this
         deadline shall be barred;

     (b) Objections of settlement class members or any appearance
         of an attorney on behalf of a settlement class member
         shall be filed with the Clerk of Court and served by
         mail on plaintiff's counsel and defendants' counsel on
         or before March 31, 2017, or shall be barred;

     (c) All memoranda filed by any settlement class member in
         connection with objections must be filed with the Clerk
         of Court and served by mail on plaintiff's counsel and
         defendants' counsel on or before March 31, 2017, or
         shall be barred;

     (d) Requests by any settlement class member for exclusion
         from the class and to opt out of the settlement must be
         mailed to plaintiff's counsel and the settlement
         administrator on or before March 31, 2017, or shall be
         barred. A notice of intent to opt out of the settlement
         must include the following information, at a minimum:
         (i) the settlement class member's name, address, and the
         fax number at which it received one or more
         advertisements from defendants; and (ii) a statement to
         the effect that the class member does not wish to
         participate in the settlement.

A copy of the Court's Order dated December 14, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/ZaW2yz from Leagle.com.

Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Diandra
S. Debrosse.

Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by James H.
McFerrin, The McFerrin Law Firm.

Perfumania Holdings, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by
Clyde Whitaker Steineker -- wsteineker@bradley.com -- Fred M.
Haston, III, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP, Andre K. Cizmarik
-- AKCizmarik@mintz.com -- Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky &
Popep, P.C., pro hac vice, Anthony Joseph Viola, Mintz Levin Cohen
Ferris Glovsky & Popeo PC & Kevin M. McGinty -- KMcGinty@mintz.com
-- Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popep, P.C..

Quality Fragrance Group, Defendant, represented by Fred M. Haston,
III, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP & Clyde Whitaker Steineker.


PERSOLVE LLC: Settlement in "Jacobson" Suit Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SANDRA LEE JACOBSON, Plaintiff, v. PERSOLVE, LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-00735-LHK (N.D. Cal.), District
Judge Lucy H. Koh granted final approval of the parties' Fourth
Amended Settlement Agreement.

For purposes of the Settlement, the Settlement Class shall consist
of (i) all persons with addresses in California (ii) to whom
Persolve sent, or caused to be sent, a notice on behalf of the
Defendant Stride Card (iii) in an attempt to collect an alleged
debt originally owed to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (iv) which was
incurred primarily for personal, family, or household purposes,
(v) which were not returned as undeliverable by the U.S. Post
Office (vi) during the period one year prior to the date of filing
this action through the date of class certification.

The Court noted that the Class Members were provided with a full
and fair opportunity to object to the Agreement and Plaintiff's
Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs. No Class Members
communicated an objection to the Agreement to Class Counsel, and
no objecting Class Members appeared at the Final Approval hearing
held on December 1, 2016.

Pursuant to the Agreement, the Court ordered the Defendants to pay
US$5,000 to the Class to be distributed pro rata to each
participating Class Member. Any funds which remain unclaimed 90
days after the pro rata settlement payments are disbursed to the
Class shall be paid to the Pro Bono Project Silicon Valley as a cy
pres fund for consumer education and representation.

Moreover, the Court ordered the Defendants to pay $1,500 as a
statutory award to the Class Representative as provided in the
Agreement. The Court also noted that the request for an incentive
award of $1,500 for the Class Representative is reasonable given
the time she spent in conjunction with prosecuting the case and
the presumptively reasonable incentive award in the district of
$5,000.

The Court ordered the Defendants, pursuant to the Agreement, to
pay ILYM Group Inc. $11,000 in fees and costs for its service as
Settlement Administrator.

A copy of the Court's Order dated December 14, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/jGfn7P from Leagle.com.

Sandra Lee Jacobson, Plaintiff, represented by Fred W. Schwinn,
Consumer Law Center, Inc..

Sandra Lee Jacobson, Plaintiff, represented by O. Randolph Bragg,
Horwitz,Horwitz & Associates, pro hac vice & Raeon Rodrigo
Roulston, Consumer Law Center, Inc..

Persolve, LLC, et al., Defendants, represented by Charles Robert
Messer -- messerc@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer LLP, David J.
Kaminski -- kaminskid@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer LLP & Stephen
Albert Watkins -- WatkinsS@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson and Messer LLP.


PETRA HEALTH: "Cruz" Suit Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under Mass. Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Cruz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Petra Health Care, LLC, John Wachira and
Joanne Wachira, Defendants (Mass. Super., January 5, 2017), Case
No. 17-39, alleges that Defendants failed to pay employees for
overtime wages and wages for required meetings, in violation of
Massachusetts law.

The Defendants operate a home health care company that employs
numerous hourly-paid home health care aides who provide in-home
care to elderly and infirm clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
     Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, PC
     99 High Street, Suite 304
     Boston, MA 02110
     Phone: (617)338-9400
     E-mail: rm@mass-legal.com


PINNACLE FOODS: "Biffar" Class Suit Over Muffin Mix to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DIANE BIFFAR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated Plaintiff, v. PINNACLE FOODS GROUP, LLC,
Defendant, No. 16-0873-DRH (S.D. Ill.), District Judge David R.
Herndon denied the Defendant's Motion to Stay, proceeding to
decide the case about whether it is misleading to a reasonable
consumer to label a product containing "Nothing Artificial" when
the Defendant's muffin mix contains artificial, synthetic
ingredients.

Based on the case, the Defendant moved to stay the lawsuit pending
action by the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") on the meaning
of the term "natural" in the food labeling of its muffin mix
product. However, the Court opined that the case is about whether
Pinnacle's muffin mix label deceives the consumers and not how
about the FDA defines "natural" or "artificial."

Moreover, the Court decided that a stay is not warranted as the
benefits of a stay are speculative and granting the stay would
unduly prejudice plaintiff. Therefore, the Court finds that it is
well-suited to entertain the consumer fraud case.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated December 15, 2016
is available at https://goo.gl/LMWceY from Leagle.com.

Diane F Biffar, Plaintiff, represented by Stuart L. Cochran,
Cochran Law PLLC.

Diane F Biffar, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew H. Armstrong,
Armstrong Law Firm LLC.

Pinnacle Foods Group LLC, Defendant, represented by Douglas B.
Maddock, Jr. -- dmaddock@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy et al., James P.
Muehlberger -- jmuehlberger@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy et al. & Lynn
Hagman Murray -- lhmurray@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP.


PROMED & ASSOCIATED: "Awwad" Labor Case to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Feras Awwad, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiffs, v. Promed & Associated, Inc. d/b/a United
Ambulance and Mega Care EMS, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-
00015, (S.D. Tex., January 5, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees
owed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Feras Awwad was employed by the Defendants from January of 2016
until December of 2016 as a paramedic, previously as an emergency
medical technician. He regularly worked more than 40 hours a week
throughout his employment but was not paid premium pay for hours
worked over 40.

Plaintiff is represented by:

       Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
       Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
       THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
       2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
       Houston, TX 77018
       Tel: (713) 868-3388
       Fax: 713-683-9940 Facsimile
       Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
              vijay@buenkerlaw.com


PUDA COAL: Company, Chairman Must Pay $228MM in Damages
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Henry Pitman entered judgment against Puda Coal, Inc. and
its former Chairman of the Board of Directors, Ming Zhao, in the
case captioned IN RE PUDA COAL SECURITIES INC. et al. LITIGATION,
11 Civ. 2598 (DLC)(HBP)(S.D.N.Y.).

Class representatives Salomon Querub, Howard Pritchard, Hotel
Ventures LLC and Steven Weissmann and intervenor Trellus
Management Company LLC commenced a class action alleging various
violations of the securities laws, stemming from actions taken by
Puda's former Chairman of the Board of Directors, Zhao.  The
plaintiffs alleged that the defendants Puda, Zhao, Liping Zhu,
Qiong Laby Wu, Jianfei Ni, C. Mark Tang, Lawrence S. Wizel, Moore
Stephens Hong Kong, Moore Stephens, P.C., Macquarie Capital (USA)
Inc. and Brean Murray, Carret & Co. violated various provisions of
the securities law by falsely representing that Puda owned 90% of
an operating subsidiary, Shanxi Coal, and that Puda was a
profitable company.

The claims against all of the defendants have been resolved except
for the claims against Puda and Zhao.  The plaintiffs alleged that
Puda violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of
1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The plaintiffs also alleged
that Zhao violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and
Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Separate default orders were entered against Puda and Zhao.

The matter was referred to Judge Pitman to conduct an inquest
concerning the plaintiffs' entitlement to damages from the
defaulting defendants.

Judge Pitman found that:

     -- Puda and Zhao are liable to plaintiffs for violating
        Section 11 of the Securities Act.

     -- Puda is liable to plaintiffs for violating Section 12(a)
        (2) of the Securities Act.

     -- Zhao was a control person and is liable pursuant to
        Section 15 of the Securities Act.

     -- Puda and Zhao are liable to plaintiffs for violating
        Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.

     -- Zhao was a control person and is liable pursuant to
        Section 15 of the Exchange Act.

Judge Pitman recommended that judgment be entered for the
plaintiffs against Puda and Zhao, jointly and severally, in the
amount of $228 million, plus post-judgment interest, with costs to
be taxed by the Clerk of the Court.

A full-text copy of Judge Pitman's January 6, 2017 report and
recommendation is available at https://is.gd/aiAFD1 from
Leagle.com.

Salomon Querub, Hotel Ventures, Howard Pritchard, Lead Plaintiffs,
represented by Kevin F. Ruf -- kruf@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow
& Goldberg LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Jonathan Wernke --
mjwernke@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, David E. Kovel --
dkovel@kmllp.com -- Kirby McInerney LLP, John Brandon Walker,
Kirby McInerney LLP, Joshua Lon Crowell -- jcrowell@glancylaw.com
-- Labaton Sucharow, LLP, Laurence Matthew Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Lionel Z.
Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy & Binkow Goldberg LLP,
pro hac vice, Louis Carey Ludwig -- lcludwig@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael Goldberg, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael Marc Goldberg, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Robert
Vincent Prongay -- rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Sara Esther Fuks -- sfuks@rosenlegal.com
-- Milberg LLP & Yu Shi -- yshi@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law
Firm. P.A..

Harriet Goldstein, Plaintiff, represented by Curtis Victor Trinko
-- ctrinko@trinko.com -- Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP,
Adriene O. Bell -- abell@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, pro hac vice, D. Seamus Kaskela -- skaskela@ktmc.com -
- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, David M. Promisloff, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jennifer Elizabeth Traystman, Law
Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz
Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP, pro hac vice & Myron
Harris, pro hac vice.

Thomas Rosenberger, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Philip
Campisi, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Laurence Matthew Rosen, The
Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy & Binkow Goldberg
LLP & Louis Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom &
Gross LLP, pro hac vice.

Steven Weissmann, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Lon Crowell,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Laurence Matthew Rosen, The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A., Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy & Binkow Goldberg LLP, Louis
Carey Ludwig, Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP,
pro hac vice, Michael Jonathan Wernke, Pomerantz LLP & Sara Esther
Fuks, Milberg LLP.

Trellus Management Company LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence
Matthew Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Joshua Lon Crowell,
Labaton Sucharow, LLP, Sara Esther Fuks, Milberg LLP & Lionel Z.
Glancy, Glancy & Binkow Goldberg LLP.

Connie L. Douglass 1996 Revocable Trust, Trinity Global Growth &
Income Fund, LP, Greg and Jana Womack Living Trust, Movants,
represented by William Bernard Federman, Federman & Sherwood.

Donald Wilkinson, Robert Thumith, Movants, represented by Andrei
V. Rado, Milberg LLP.

Puda Coal Investors Group, Movant, represented by Frederic Scott
Fox, Sr., Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP.

Puda Coal Shareholder Group, Movant, represented by David Avi
Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Cesare Crognale, Movant, represented by Albert Yong Chang, Johnson
Bottini, LLP.

Ming Zhao, Defendant, represented by Juan P. Morillo, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Lauren Dickie, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Michael Barry Carlinsky, Quinn Emanuel &
Minyao Wang, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.

Morrison & Foerster LLP, Objector, represented by John Sievert
Williams, Williams & Connolly LLP, pro hac vice.


QUAKER OATS: "Aliano" Suit Stayed Pending Resolution of Eisenford
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
entitled Mario Aliano v. The Quaker Oats Company, Case No. 1:16-
cv-03087 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Defendant Quaker Oats Company's motion to transfer or stay
      is granted;

   -- Aliano's remaining pending motions are terminated; and

   -- The case is stayed pending the resolution of Eisenford v.
      Quaker Oats Co., Case No. 16 C 1442 (C.D. Cal.) (filed
      March 1, 2016).

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1mwV7Bkw


RANDSTAD NORTH: Settlement in "Ortiz" Suit Gets Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ADAN ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RANDSTAD NORTH AMERICA, L.P., a
Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 13-cv-05050-MMC (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Maxine M. Chesney
granted final approval to the class action settlement,
administrator cost, attorney fees and costs and incentive award.

Pursuant to the Settlement, Plaintiff and all Class Members who
did not timely submit valid Requests for Exclusion, are
permanently barred from prosecuting against Randstad, Nike Inc. or
any of the Released Parties any of the claims released by them
under the Settlement.

The Court finds that the Plaintiff's request for $1,600,000 in
fees (25% of the settlement fund) and $19,917.23 in costs is
reasonable. The Settlement Administrator is awarded $82,000 and
$5000 for the Plaintiff's service award.

A copy of the Court's Order dated December 29, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/YtIf7u from Leagle.com.

Adan Ortiz, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh --
shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

Adan Ortiz, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas Alistair Segal --
thomas@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

Yuliana Serna Munoz, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Nourmand,
The Nourmand Law Firm, APC.

Randstad North America, L.P., Defendant, represented by John L.
Barber -- John.Barber@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis, D'Amato,
Brisbois & Bisgaard, Alison Marie Miceli --
Alison.Miceli@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brsibois Bisgaard & Smith
LLP, Derek Stanley Sachs -- sachs@lbbslaw.com -- Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard Smith & Rachel Juyoung Lee --
Rachel.Lee@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith
LLP.


RAYMOND JAMES: "Gamez" Sues Over Illegally Recorded Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Gamez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Raymond James Financial, Inc. and Does 1-
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-CV-00141, (C.D. Cal.,
January 6, 2017), seeks damages and other monetary relief under
California Penal Code Sec. 632.7 prohibiting the intentional, non-
consensual recording of any telephone communication without the
consent of all parties where at least one party to the
conversation is either using a cordless or cellular telephone.

Plaintiff called Defendant from a wireless telephone and spoke to
an employee/customer service representative of Defendant.
Defendant did not, at any point during the telephone conversation,
advise Plaintiff that the call was being recorded. Plaintiff did
not give express consent to have the conversation recorded.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
      Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
      PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
      4100 Newport Place, Suite 800
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Tel: (949) 706-6464
      Fax: (949) 706-6469


RENT-A-CENTER: "De Palma" Sues Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
James DePalma, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., Robert D. Davis and
Guy J. Constant, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00981, (E.D. Tex.,
December 28, 2016), seeks compensatory damages including interest,
counsel and expert fees and such other and further relief under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Rent-A-Center operates a network of stores that provides consumer
electronics, appliances, computers, tablets, smartphones and
furniture under rental purchase agreements. Defendants failed to
disclose that it could not properly implement its new point-of-
sale system that was performing extremely poorly and, in several
instances, had suffered complete outages, affecting its credit
system. As a result, the company could not meet revenue and
profitability guidance provided to investors. On this news, Rent-
A-Center's share price fell $3.70 per share, or nearly 30%, to
close at $9.18 on October 11, 2016, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

Plaintiff purchased Rent-A-Center common stock and lost
substantially.

Rent-A-Center, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Plano, Texas. Robert D. Davis has served as Chief Executive
Officer while Guy J. Constant served as Chief Financial Officer.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
      THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
      8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1575
      Dallas, TX 75206
      Telephone: (214) 239-4568
      Fax: (281) 254-7789 (fax)
      Email: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

             - and -

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

             - and -

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

             - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile (212) 697-7296
      Email: peretz@bgandg.com


SAM'S SOUTHERN: Faces "Walker" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Walker, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sam's Southern Eatery and Hay Tham,
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00011-ALM-CAN (E.D. Tex., January 5,
2017), alleges that Sam's did not pay Plaintiff the required
minimum wage and/or overtime in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Sam's Southern Eatery is a restaurant in Paris, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
     1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100
     Southlake, TX 76092-4322
     Phone: 817-416-5060
     Fax: 817-416-5062
     E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Some Operators to Challenge $8MM Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez, writing for San Francisco Examiner,
reports that some Muni operators plan to dispute an $8 million
settlement in a class action suit against their employers, the San
Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency.

The amount isn't enough, said plaintiffs Michael J. Benardo,
Dorian Maxwell and Anthony Parker in a joint letter, to account
for their unpaid overtime which amounts to $395 million, the
amount operators initially sought when they sued the SFMTA.

The SFMTA Board of Directors voted to approve the $8 million
settlement Jan. 3, in anticipation of a settlement hearing on Jan.
24 with U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.

It's at that hearing the Muni operators in opposition to the
settlement plan to make themselves heard.

"The SFMTA over the years has been taking advantage of its
employees and the San Francisco taxpayers by violating wage and
hour standards, leaving it vulnerable to fines and lawsuits," the
operators wrote in a letter to Judge Gonzalez Rogers on Jan. 10.

"Enforcing the $395,000,000.00 judgment will send a clear message
that will strongly discourage them from committing further Labor
Code violations," they wrote.

The suit, filed in United States District Court in San Francisco,
may be nearing its end as an attorney representing the original
plaintiffs, the Tidrick Law Firm, and the SFMTA reached a
settlement agreement over the winter.

Muni operators weren't paid for travel time between the bus yards
they clocked into and the bus yards they needed to pull buses out
of, or for certain post-driving inspections and other periods,
alleged Darryl Stitt, the suit's plaintiff.


SAN JOSE MEXICAN: Court Approves Class Notice in "Galvan" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case LUIS ANTONIA ARELLANO GALVAN, JOSE ALFREDO AVILA
TORRES and RAFAEL AARON BRITO MARTINEZ, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SAN JOSE MEXICAN
RESTAURANT OF NC, INC., SAN JOSE MEXICAN RESTAURANT #2 OF
LUMBERTON, INC., SAN JOSE MEXICAN RESTAURANT OF PRMBROKE, NC,
INC., ALBERTO FLORES TOLEDANO and EDGARDO FLORES PEREZ,
Defendants, No. 7:16-CV-39-FL (E.D. N.C.), District Judge Louise
W. Flanagan granted in part the Plaintiffs' motion for approval of
class notice and disclosure of contact information.

The Court noted that the Plaintiffs may distribute immediately the
approved notice to the potential opt-in Plaintiffs by U.S. mail
and through radio announcements.

The Defendants are likewise directed to post the notice in Spanish
and English at each of the restaurant locations named in the
complaint in a location that is visible and easily accessible to
employees. The Defendants are also directed to provide the
Plaintiffs with the full names, dates of employment, job titles,
address, telephone number, location of employment, and date of
birth of all putative class members who worked for any Defendant
during any pay period including or after December 15, 2013. The
Defendants were ordered to produce the required information by
December 29, 2016.

Moreover, the Court approves the "consent to sue" form for
distribution to the putative members of the collective actions.
The deadline for a preliminary joinder of opt-in plaintiffs filing
consent to sue forms is June 29, 2017.

A copy of the Court's Order dated December 15, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/9Z7puD from Leagle.com.

Jose Alfredo Avila Torres, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by
Carol L. Brooke -- carol@ncjustice.org -- North Carolina Justice
Center & Clermont Fraser Ripley -- clermont@ncjustice.org -- North
Carolina Justice Center.

San Jose Mexican Restaurant of NC, Inc., et al., Defendants,
represented by Albert J. Bolet, Goico & Bolet, P.C., James Larry
Stine, Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider & Stine, P.C., Henry
W. Jones, Jr., Jordan Price Wall Gray Jones & Carlton, PLLC & Lori
Peoples Jones, Jordan Price Wall Gray Jones & Carlton, PLLC.


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Amend "Kader" Complaint Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Allison D. Burroughs denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave
to amend the complaint in the case captioned WILLIAM KADER,
Individually and On Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS, INC., CHRISTOPHER
GARABEDIAN, and SANDESH MAHATME, Defendants, Civil Action No.
1:14-cv-14318-ADB (D. Mass.).

In the securities fraud putative class action, William Kader,
Morad Ghodooshim, Roger Lam, and Laxmikant Chudasama sought to
represent a class of all purchasers of securities issued by
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. during the period from March 4, 2014 to
October 27, 2014.  The named defendants were Sarepta, along with
its former CEO, Christopher Garabedian, and Sarepta's Chief
Medical Officer, Edward Kaye, M.D.

The action was commenced on December 3, 2014.  The plaintiffs
filed a two-count Amended Complaint on March 20, 2015, which
alleged that by making misrepresentations and material omissions
in connection with the purchase or sale of Sarepta's securities,
all defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 (Count I), and that the individual
defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act (Count II).

On April 5, 2016, the Court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to plausibly
allege facts showing that the defendants made materially
misleading statements or failed to disclose information that was
necessary to make their statements not misleading.  The Court also
concluded that the plaintiffs' Amended Complaint failed to allege
facts that gave rise to a sufficiently strong inference of
scienter to survive a motion to dismiss.

Three days later, on April 8, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Motion
for Leave to Amend the Complaint, along with a supporting
Memorandum and Proposed Second Amended Complaint.

Judge Burroughs denied the plaintiffs' motion, finding that
granting leave to amend would be futile because the plaintiffs
have unduly delayed in seeking leave to amend and because the
plaintiffs' Proposed Second Amended Complaint failed to address
the shortcomings in the Amended Complaint.

A full-text copy of Judge Burroughs's January 6, 2017 memorandum
and order is available at https://is.gd/MBuhNa from Leagle.com.

William Kader, Morad Ghodooshim, Roger Lam, Laxmikant Chudasama,
Plaintiffs, represented by Jason M. Leviton -- jason@blockesq.com
-- Block & Leviton LLP, Kara Wolke -- kwolke@glancylaw.com --
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Robert V. Prongay --
rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac
vice.

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., Christopher Garabedian, Sandesh
Mahatme, Defendants, represented by Christopher G. Green --
christopher.green@ropesgray.com -- Ropes & Gray, Alexia R. De
Vincentis -- alexia.devincentis@ropesgray.com -- Ropes & Gray,
Justin Florence -- justin.florence@ropesgray.com -- Ropes & Gray &
Mark D. Vaughn -- mark.vaughn@ropesgray.com -- Ropes & Gray.

Edward M. Kaye, M.D., Defendant, represented by Christopher G.
Green, Ropes & Gray.


SEAGATE TECH: Case Management Conference Continued to Jan. 26
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Seeborg granted the parties' stipulation to
continue the Case Management Conference until January 26, 2017
from January 5, in the case styled, EVERETT CASTILLO, LINDA
CASTILLO, NICHOLAS DATTOMA, FREDA LANG, WENDY TRAN, and STEVEN
WILK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC, Defendant (N.D. Cal.).

According to the Stipulation, the parties, with the assistance of
Judge Carl West, agreed to continue to work toward a resolution of
the litigation. The parties then believed that a brief, three-week
extension of the current stay would conserve the resources of the
parties and the Court.

The Court approved the (a) additional 21 days' extension on the
current stay of the case, and (b) the continuance of the Case
Management Conference until January 26, 2017.

A copy of the Court's Order dated December 27, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/NTUeiH from Leagle.com.

Everett Castillo, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Marc Lawrence
Godino -- mgodino@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
Mark Samuel Greenstone -- mgreenstone@glancylaw.com -- Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, David Jay Stone -- stone@bespc.com -- Bragar
Eagel & Squire, P.C., pro hac vice, Jeffrey H. Squire --
squire@bespc.com -- Bragar Wexler & Eagel P.C., pro hac vice &
Lawrence Paul Eagel -- eagel@bespc.com -- Bragar Eagel and Squire,
P.C., pro hac vice.

Seagate Technology, LLC, Defendant, represented by David Frank
McDowell -- dmcdowell@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP,
Alexandra Eve Laks -- alaks@mofo.com -- Morrison and Foerster LLP
& Tiffany Cheung -- tcheung@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP.


SCHAEFFLER GROUP: "Boring" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Creg Boring, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Schaeffler Group USA, Inc. and Luk USA
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00038, (N.D. Ohio, January 5,
2017), seeks actual damages for unpaid wages, liquidated damages
equal in amount to the unpaid wages found due, pre- and post-
judgment interest, attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements and
additional relief for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

Defendants are Delaware corporations that manufacture products for
the automotive, industrial and aerospace industry. LuK USA LLC is
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant Schaeffler Group. Plaintiff
was employed by Defendants as a CNC operator at Defendants'
manufacturing facility in Wooster, Ohio between approximately
September 2013 and October 2016. Boring claims to have his hours
shaved, paid only during actual operation and not pre-shift and
post-shift work which constitute overtime.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
      Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
      THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
      920 Rockefeller Building
      614 W. Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Phone: (216) 696-5000
      Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
      Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
             chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
             lori@lazzarolawfirm.com


SILVERITE CONSTRUCTION: Whitestone Sues Over PS 314 Contract
------------------------------------------------------------
WHITESTONE CONSTRUCTION CORP., on behalf of itself and all
similarly situated Plaintiffs, against SILVERITE CONSTRUCTION CO.,
INC., ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and ANGELO SILVERI, Defendants, INDEX NO.
700130/2017 (N.Y. Sup., County of Queens, January 4, 2017),
alleges that Silverite materially breached the PS 314 Contract --
which is the construction of a 5-story school in the County of
Queens -- by failing to pay Whitestone in full despite accepting
and approving all work performed by Whitestone on the PS 314
Project.  As a result of Silverite's conduct, Whitestone has
allegedly been damaged.

Under the Contract, Silverite was to provide work, labor,
materials and services for the construction of the PS 314 Project.
Whitestone, as Subcontractor, was to furnish and install aluminum
curtainwalls, interior miscellaneous glass/glazing of HM doors and
frames, interior glass partition walls, SS vestibule and stair
walk-off mates, and window guards.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Donald J. Carbone, Esq.
     Maxwell J. Rubin, Esq.
     GOETZ FITZPATRICK LLP
     One Penn Plaza, 31st Floor
     New York, NY 10119
     Phone: (212) 695-8100


SIRTEX MEDICAL: Breach of Disclosure Obligations May Spark Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Richardson, writing for The Motley Fool, reports that on
Jan. 13 the board of liver cancer treatment specialist Sirtex
Medical Limited revealed that it has fired its chief executive
after receiving legal advice over his selling of more than $2
million of shares at the end of October 2016.

The shares were sold at prices inflated by guidance given to
expect "double digit" sales growth in FY2017, although on December
9 2016 that guidance was revised down by the now ex-CEO to expect
growth of 5%-11% based partly on hopes for a stronger H2 FY2017.

The share price collapsed in half on the back of the updated
guidance and a scandal is now brewing that threatens to engulf the
company with regulatory investigations from both ASIC and the ASX
likely if the company has perhaps received legal advice that it
has breached the financial services laws around its continuous
disclosure and / or multiple other obligations.

The ASX as the market operator was already questioning the company
about its disclosure obligations prior to the December 9 downgrade
following what has been described as a "tip off".  It also seems
possible (as suggested by Fairfax news reports) that this "tip
off" was from a whistleblower within the company given that it
must have contained sufficient credibility to warrant an
investigation, rather than being a dismissible rant from an
ordinary shareholder.

Given that the regulators may be armed with plenty of evidence
from a potential whistleblower and the legal report Sirtex
commissioned itself, it's not hard to see more trouble ahead.

Adding to the potential problems is the possibility of fee-hungry
class action lawyers salivating over the prospect of launching an
action against the company for breaching (or worse) its continuous
disclosure obligations over the period from when the "double
digit" guidance was first given on August 24 to December 9, when
it was revised.

This is a long period of time over which the shares were bought
from prices above $34 to above $25 prior to the price crash below
$13 on the updated guidance.  If any theoretical legal action were
successful it could result in a huge bill for losses incurred on
share purchases at inflated prices over this extended period.

It's important to note much of the above is speculation on my
part, although I think it worth taking into consideration when
assessing the immediate outlook for the company.

Are dose sales now falling?

However, if the potential legal problems ahead for the company are
not worrying enough, its actual operational performance should
probably be concerning investors more.

On January 9 Sirtex confirmed H1 2017 dose sales actually came in
5.6% up over H1 2016 (5,728) which suggests dose sales for the
latest half were around 6,049 using the latest guidance.

This compares to dose sales of 6,203 for H2 2016 according to my
calculations when using the 2016 full year total of 11,931, which
suggests dose sales are now falling (6,203 to 6,049) on the most
important half-on-half measure.

This fact should put into focus some of the hopelessly optimistic
share price targets and dose sales growth forecasts given by
brokers and analysts at the likes of UBS, where I expect
Dr Pangloss may be providing the Sirtex coverage.

There's also the problem of rising costs being set to slaughter
earnings and competitive headwinds facing a company with just one
product.

All of this may also partly explain why the CEO was seemingly
prepared to throw his career away in order to sell so many shares
at prices above $28 that may never be seen again.


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Faces "Johnson" Suit Under Cal. Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyrone Johnson, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Southern
California Healthcare System, Inc., a California corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 645818
(Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, January 5, 2017), was filed
for alleged unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid
rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, and final wages not
timely paid in violation of the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code.

Southern California Healthcare System, Inc. operates a hospital
that provides healthcare services to patients and their families.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
     LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
     410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
     Glendale, CA 91203
     Phone: (818) 265-1020
     Fax: (818) 265-1021


ST. LOUIS RAMS: Joint Scheduling Plan Filed in "McAllister" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RONALD McALLISTER, Plaintiff, v. THE ST. LOUIS RAMS,
LLC, Defendants, Nos. 4:16-CV-172 SNLJ, 4:16-CV-262, 4:16-CV-297,
4:16-CV-189 (E.D. Mo.), Plaintiff delivered to the Court a Joint
Scheduling Plan on Jan. 17, 2017.

In December, District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr. ordered the
parties to file no later than Jan. 13 a joint proposal for
proceeding with the limited discovery.  The Court further ordered
that a limited discovery shall be permitted in a related case of
Pudlowski, for the purpose of determining whether the local
controversy exception to Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)
jurisdiction applies.

Under the local-controversy exception, a District Court must
decline to exercise jurisdiction over a class action (1) in which
more than two-thirds of the class members in the aggregate are
citizens of the state in which the action was originally filed,
(2) at least one significant defendant is a citizen of the state
in which the class action was originally filed, (3) the principal
injuries were incurred in the state in which the action was filed,
and (4) no other class action alleging similar facts was filed in
the three years prior to the commencement of the current class
action. The parties' dispute pertains to the first factor, whether
more than two-thirds of the class members are Missouri citizens.

Even though it appears to the Court that there is a great
likelihood that more than two-thirds of the Plaintiffs' class
consists of Missouri citizens, out of an abundance of caution, the
Court will allow limited discovery for the purpose of obtaining a
more statistically significant sample than the ad-hoc analysis
performed by Plaintiff's counsel. Thus, the parties are ordered to
submit a proposal for obtaining such a statistically significant
sample to the Court.

A copy of the Court's Order dated December 15, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/Joi02O from Leagle.com.

Ronald McAllister, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony S.
Bruning, Jr., THE BRUNING LAW FIRM, LLC, Richard S. Cornfeld, LAW
OFFICE RICHARD S. CORNFELD, Ryan L. Bruning, THE BRUNING LAW FIRM,
LLC, Kevin Paul Green, GOLDENBERG HELLER, PC, Mark C. Goldenberg
-- mark@ghalaw.com -- GOLDENBERG HELLER, PC & Thomas P. Rosenfeld
-- tom@ghalaw.com -- GOLDENBERG HELLER, PC.

Envision, LLC, et al., Consolidated Filer Plaintiffs, represented
by David R. Bohm -- dbohm@dmfirm.com -- DANNA MCKITRICK, P.C..

Richard Arnold, Consolidated Filer Plaintiff, represented by
Fernando Bermudez, LAW OFFICES OF MARTIN GREEN P.C. & Martin M.
Green, LAW OFFICES OF MARTIN GREEN P.C..

James Pudlowski, Consolidated Filer Plaintiff, represented by
Steven J. Stolze -- sstolze@allfela.com -- HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC.

The St. Louis Rams, LLC, et al., Defendants, represented by Amy
Elizabeth Sestric, DENTONS US LLP, Anders C. Wick, DENTONS US LLP,
pro hac vice, Elizabeth T. Ferrick, DENTONS US LLP, James A.
Klenk, DENTONS US LLP & Roger K. Heidenreich, DENTONS US LLP.


STAAR SURGICAL: Class of Investors Certified in "Todd" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Michael W. Fitzgerald grants the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification in the lawsuit styled Edward Todd v. STAAR
Surgical Company, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-05263-MWF-GJS (C.D.
Cal.).  The class consists of:

    "all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired [STAAR]
     securities between November 1, 2013 and June 30, 2014,
     inclusive . . . and were injured by virtue of the misconduct
     alleged" in the SAC.

According to the Court's civil minutes, Mr. Todd filed the
security class action on behalf of investors, who acquired STAAR
securities between November 1, 2013, and June 30, 2014.  The
Second Amended Complaint asserts violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Defendants' alleged
statements that STAAR was in compliance with the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration regulations when, in fact, the FDA had
observed serious compliance violations.  He contends that the
misleading statements artificially inflated the value of STAAR
securities, which declined sharply once the results of the FDA
investigation became public.

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


SUNSHINE TRANSPORTATION: "Bombino" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK BOMBINO and other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiff
(s), v. SUNSHINE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE INC. and YASIEL CABRE,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-20032-JAL (S.D. Fla.,
January 4, 2017), seeks to recover money damages for alleged
unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Corporate Defendant SUNSHINE TRANSPORTATION provides patient
transportation services to different medical centers within the
area of Miami-Dade County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TAKATA CORP: Pleads Guilty, To Pay $1BB for Hiding Air Bag Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Krisher, Dee-Ann Durbin and Ed White, writing for The
Associated Press, report that Takata Corp. has agreed to plead
guilty to a single criminal charge and will pay $1 billion in
fines and restitution for a years-long scheme to conceal a deadly
defect in its automotive air bag inflators.

The U.S. Attorney's Office in Detroit announced the plea deal on
Jan. 13, the same day it unsealed a six-count grand jury
indictment against three former Takata executives who are accused
of executing the scheme by falsifying and altering test reports
that showed the inflators could rupture.

Takata inflators can explode with too much force, spewing shrapnel
into automobiles.  At least 11 people have been killed by the
inflators in the U.S. and 16 worldwide.  More than 180 have been
injured.

Under the plea deal, Takata will pay a $25 million criminal fine,
$125 million to individuals injured by the air bags and $850
million to automakers that purchased the inflators.

A U.S. District Court judge in Detroit has appointed attorney
Kenneth Feinberg to distribute restitution payments.

Payments to individuals must be made soon.  Money due to
automakers must be paid within five days of Takata's anticipated
sale or merger. Takata is expected to be sold to another auto
supplier or investor sometime this year.

"Automotive suppliers who sell products that are supposed to
protect consumers from injury or death must put safety ahead of
profits," said Barbara McQuade, the U.S. Attorney in Detroit,
whose office worked on a two-year investigation into the company.
"If they choose instead to engage in fraud, we will hold
accountable the individuals and business entities who are
responsible."

Takata, based in Japan, has its U.S. headquarters in the Detroit
suburb of Auburn Hills, Michigan.

As of 2015, Takata was the second-largest supplier of air bags in
the world, accounting for 20 percent of the air bags sold.

The government said Takata had minimal internal controls and
failed to notice its executives' misconduct for years.  It alleged
that Takata falsified test data to deceive automakers that used
its inflators in their vehicles.  Once senior Takata executives
did learn that employees had falsified air bag reports, in 2009,
they failed to take disciplinary action against those employees
until 2015.

"Cheaters will not be allowed to gain an advantage over the good
corporate citizens who play by the rules," Ms. McQuade said.

All three executives who were charged are now in Japan and were
suspended by Takata last year.

Ms. McQuade said her office will work with Japanese authorities
and do everything in its power to extradite them to the U.S. to
face trial.


TAKATA CORP: 3 Employees Accused of Concealing Air Bag Defects
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Krisher, Dee-Ann Durbin and E.J. White, writing for The
Associated Press, report that three former employees of Takata
Corp. have been indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of
concealing defects in the company's air bag inflators.

The indictments on six counts of conspiracy and wire fraud were
unsealed on Jan. 13, just hours ahead of a Justice Department news
conference to announce a corporate penalty against the Japanese
company.

Takata air bag inflators can explode with too much force, spewing
metal shrapnel into drivers and passengers.  At least 16 people
have been killed worldwide and more than 180 injured.  The faulty
inflators have touched off the largest automotive recall in U.S.
history involving 42 million vehicles and 69 million inflators.

Multiple news outlets have reported that Takata will pay around a
$1 billion penalty.  The FBI has been investigating allegations
that the company deceived federal regulators and tried to cover up
the air bag problems.


TD BANK: "Dorsey" Sues Over Excessive Overdraft Charges
-------------------------------------------------------
Shaina Dorsey, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TD Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00714 (D.N.J., January 5, 2017), seeks damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and relief for violation of the National
Bank Act.

Dorsey maintains a checking account with TD Bank in New Haven,
Connecticut. She claims that TD Bank charges her account with a
"Sustained Fee for Overdrawn Accounts," which allegedly exceeds
the permissible limit under the National Bank Act.

TD Bank, N.A. is a national banking association chartered by the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency with principal place of
business in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeff M. Ostrow, Esq.
      Robert C. Gilbert, Esq.
      KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WElSELBERG GILBERT
      One W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Tel: (954) 525-4100
      Fax: (954) 525-4300
      Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
             gilbert@kolawyers.com

             - and -

      Stephen DeNittis, Esq.
      DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE P.C.
      525 Route 73 North Suite 410
      Marlton, NJ 08053
      Tel: (856) 797-9951
      Fax: (856) 797-9978
      Email: sdenittis@denittislaw.com


TEKTON CONSTRUCTION: "Pena" Lawsuit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN PENA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. TEKTON CONSTRUCTION, CORP., Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-20037-FAM (S.D. Fla., January 4, 2017), seeks to
recover money damages for alleged unpaid overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Tekton Construction -- http://www.tektonconstructioncorp.com/--
specializes in structural shell contracting.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jonathan S. Minick, Esq.
     JONATHAN S. MINICK, P.A.
     1850 SW 8th Street, Suite 307
     Miami, FL 33135
     Phone: (786) 441-8909
     Fax: (786) 523-0610
     E-mail: jminick@jsmlawpa.com


TENNESSEE, USA: Thomas Wants Certification of Tenn. Drivers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned JAMES THOMAS and DAVID
HIXSON, for themselves and those similarly situated v. BILL
HASLAM, Governor of Tennessee, in his official capacity; DAVID W.
PURKEY, Commissioner for the Department of Safety and Homeland
Security, in his official capacity; and HERBERT SLATERY III,
Attorney General and Reporter, in his official capacity, Case No.
3:17-cv-00005 (M.D. Tenn.), ask the Court to certify this class:

     All persons whose Tennessee driver's licenses have been or
     will be revoked pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. Section
     40-24-105(b), and who, at the time of the revocation, cannot
     or could not pay Court Debt due to their financial
     circumstances.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6GqoB2KI

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lori H. Patterson, Esq.
          Matthew G. White, Esq.
          BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC
          First Tennessee Bank Building
          165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 577-8182
          E-mail: lpatterson@bakerdonelson.com
                  mwhite@bakerdonelson.com

               - and -

          Claudia Wilner, Esq.
          Petra T. Tasheff, Esq.
          Francisca D. Fajana, Esq.
          NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE
          275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1506
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 633-6967
          E-mail: wilner@nclej.org
                  tasheff@nclej.org
                  fajana@nclej.org

               - and -

          Charles Gerstein, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          910 17th Street NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 670-4809
          E-mail: charlie@civilrightscorps.org

               - and -

          Josh Spickler, Esq.
          JUST CITY
          902 South Cooper Street
          Memphis, TN 38104
          Telephone: (901) 206-2226
          E-mail: josh@justcity.org


TEXAS: Court Won't Reconsider Orders in "Daniels" Suit v. TxDOT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Christine A. Nowak denied each of the plaintiff's and the
defendant's motions for reconsideration in the case captioned
EFFERY B. DANIELS, Plaintiff, v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, Defendant, Civil Action No. 4:15-CV-00702-CAN
(E.D. Tex.).

Effery B. Daniels filed the suit on October 13, 2015, alleging
that the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) -- itself and
by and through its Executive Director James M. Bass -- had engaged
in racial and disability discrimination and retaliation through
its "disciplinary actions, harassment, work assignments, and work
crew segregation."

TxDOT subsequently filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion for
Summary Judgment seeking dismissal of each of Daniels' claims.  On
December 2, 2016, the Court granted, in part, TxDOT's Motion to
Dismiss, finding that Daniels' claims related to incidents
occurring before July 19, 2014 were time-barred.  The Court
further, on December 10, 2016, granted in part and denied in part
TxDOT's Motion for Summary Judgment.  The Motion for Summary
Judgment was granted as to Daniels' disability discrimination
claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and denied as to Daniels' Title VII
race discrimination and retaliation claims.

On December 12, 2016, Daniels filed his Motion for
Reconsideration, seeking reconsideration of numerous factual
findings related to Daniels' Title VII race discrimination claims
(and seemingly also as to Daniels' ADA and Section 504 claims).
TxDOT filed its Motion for Reconsideration on December 19, 2016,
seeking reconsideration of the Court's finding that Steve Hughes
is a valid comparator in Daniels' Title VII claims.

Judge Nowak began by reiterating that the claims (but not
evidence) of discriminatory and/or retaliatory discipline
occurring before July 19, 2014, are time-barred.  The judge found
that, separate and apart from Daniels' termination, only certain
of Daniels' "claims" fall within the timely filing period.
However, the judge pointed out that so far as Daniels'
discrimination claims go, neither an employer's collection and use
of documented disciplinary actions against an employee (even for
use in the decision to terminate) nor a supervisor's decision to
report alleged misbehavior constitute an adverse employment action
because their effect, if any, on an ultimate employment decision
is tangential.  Accordingly, Judge Nowak concluded that only
Daniels' termination may serve as an adverse employment action
upon which Daniels may rely in satisfying his prima facie case
burden and stating a claim of discrimination.  This accords with
the Court's findings and holdings in its December 10, 2016
Memorandum Opinion and Order, which, as a result, suffers from no
"manifest errors of law or fact."  Judge Nowak therefore denied
Daniels' Motion for Reconsideration, and ordered that Daniels'
claims of race discrimination and of retaliation should proceed to
trial as indicated in the December 10, 2016 Memorandum Opinion and
Order.

Judge Nowak also found that the Court committed no manifest error
of fact or law in requiring Daniels to demonstrate that he and his
proffered comparators had essentially comparable violation
histories.

Judge Nowak also held that both Daniels' and TxDOT's argument that
the Court erred in its similarly situated analysis must fail.  The
judge found that neither party proffered new evidence in support
of their respective Motions for Reconsideration.  Additionally,
the judge found that neither party asserted that the Court made a
manifest legal or factual error in finding Hughes is similarly
situated while Langford, Shearin, Ward, and Faulks are not.  The
judge pointed out that a Rule 59(e) motion is "not the proper
vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments"
raised or that could have been raised prior to judgment.
Accordingly, Judge Nowak denied the Motions for Reconsideration.

A full-text copy of Judge Nowak's January 6, 2017 memorandum
opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/f0TSb8 from
Leagle.com.

Jeffery B Daniels, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Stephen Notzon
-- robert@notzonlaw.com -- Law Office of Robert S. Notzon.

Texas Department of Transportation, Defendant, represented by
Anthony G. Brocato, Jr., Attorney General's Office & Cristina
Vudhiwat, Office of The Attorney General.


TEXAS: Court Wants Plans to Improve Foster Care System
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned M.D.; bnf STUKENBERG, et al, Plaintiffs, v.
GREG ABBOTT, et al, Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:11-CV-84 (S.D.
Tex.), Judge Janis Graham Jack entered an interim order regarding
the Special Masters' recommendations related to a lawsuit over
Texas' foster care system.

The plaintiffs are minor children in the Permanent Management
Conservatorship (PMC) of the Texas Department of Family and
Protective Services (DFPS).  The plaintiffs filed suit through
their next friends on March 29, 2011, seeking injunctive relief
against Rick Perry, Governor of Texas; Thomas Suehs, Executive
Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission;
and Anne Heiligenstein, Commissioner of DFPS, in their official
capacities.

On March 21, 2016, the Court held a hearing to appoint a Special
Master.  On that same date the Court entered its Appointment Order
naming co-Special Masters Francis McGovern and Kevin Ryan pursuant
to Rule 53, F.R.Civ.P.  On November 4, 2016, the Special Masters
filed their Report and Recommendations

Despite the State's recognition of the problems in the foster care
system, the State objected to every recommendation proposed by the
Special Masters.  In the State's Objections to the
Recommendations, it reiterated prior arguments previously raised.
For instance, the State objects that many of the Recommendations
are already in place as policies. However, Judge Jack held that
policies not practiced are insufficient to address the
constitutional deficiencies found in the Court's Memorandum
Opinion and Verdict entered December 17, 2015.  The State
generally objected to the Recommendations that DFPS create plans
to address constitutional deficiencies as shifting the burden to
the State.  This objection was overruled.

To achieve the results required to correct the constitutional
deficiencies in the foster care system and protect foster care
children from unreasonable risk of harm, the Special Masters
developed a detailed set of recommendations which track the
Court's 2015 Order.  However, Judge Jack found that to accomplish
these goals, further work is necessary.  Therefore, the judge
ordered the Special Masters to continue to work with DFPS to help
DFPS create and implement plans to do the following:

     a) create policies for monthly in-person visits between
        Conservatorship (CVS) caseworkers and PMC children

     b) create and submit to the Court a plan for a comprehensive
        central databank for PMC children

     c) create a plan for a statewide reporting system for PMC
        children to report allegations of child abuse and neglect
        to be operated 24 hours per day, 7 days a week

     d) establish a plan beginning at age 14 to prepare PMC
        children with necessary life skills to survive when
        released from State care

     e) evaluate the efficacy of these options and propose a
        procedure for the appointment of an attorney ad litem for
        each PMC child within 3 months

     f) develop a healthcare plan to address missing or
        nonexistent healthcare records

     g) develop a plan with specific time frames to ensure that
        PMC caseloads will be reduced to between 14-17 children
        statewide

     h) create a plan with specific time frames to reduce
        caseworker turnover

     i) develop a contact guide for "I See You Workers" to
        complete during monthly, private face-to-face contact
        visits and formulate a plan that, when a child is
        assigned an "I See You Worker" or other secondary worker,
        that person conducts monthly in-person private visits

     j) identify a discrete cohort of staff, for example a
        selection of Residential Child Care Licensing (RCCL)
        staff, who will be exclusively assigned to the work of
        maltreatment investigations except for remote, rural or
        substantially less populated areas of the State where
        exclusive assignment is impractical

     k) for DFPS to create a public website of all licensing
        inspections conducted by RCCL and/or its successive
        entities, redacting child identifying information and
        other information deemed confidential under law and
        regulation

     l) provide the Court with specific time frames to document
        and track available single child homes

     m) immediately require all incidents of sexual abuse
        committed by a child against another child be reported
        instanter by all foster caregivers, Child Placement
        Agenciess, General Residential Operations, and
        Residential Treatment Centers

     n) develop a plan with specific time frames to strengthen
        its monitoring and oversight of PMC children's placements
        using its full array of contractual tools

     o) insure that unrelated PMC children with different service
        levels not be placed in the same room unless a thorough
        and documented assessment is conducted by DFPS staff
        certifying that such placement is safe and appropriate
        for each PMC child

     p) create a solution to the lack of appropriate placement
        arrays

A full-text copy of Judge Jack's January 9, 2017 interim order is
available at https://is.gd/lKCSJn from Leagle.com.

Kevin Ryan, Special Master, represented by Kevin M. Ryan --
kevinmryan@aol.com -- Public Catalyst.

M.D., Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Finch, Children's Rights,
Joshua Rosenthal, Children's Rights, R. Paul Yetter --
pyetter@yettercoleman.com -- Yetter Coleman LLP, Barry F. McNeil -
- barry.mcneil@haynesboone.com -- Haynes Boone LLP, Christina
Wilson, Children's Rights, Christopher D. Porter --
cporter@yettercoleman.com -- Yetter Coleman LLP, Dori Kornfeld
Goldman -- dgoldman@yettercoleman.com -- Yetter Coleman, Elizabeth
Pitman, Children's Rights, Ira Lustbader, Children's Rights,
Marcia Robinson Lowry, A Better Childhood, Inc., Michael Kenneth
Bartosz, Children's Rights, Richard Thaddeus Behrens --
thad.behrens@haynesboone.com -- Haynes And Boone LLP & Stephen
Dixon, Children's Rights.

D.I., Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Rosenthal, Children's
Rights & R. Paul Yetter, Yetter Coleman LLP, Barry F. McNeil,
Haynes Boone LLP, Christina Wilson, Children's Rights, Christopher
D. Porter, Yetter Coleman LLP, Dori Kornfeld Goldman, Yetter
Coleman, Elizabeth Pitman, Children's Rights, Marcia Robinson
Lowry, A Better Childhood, Inc., Richard Thaddeus Behrens, Haynes
And Boone LLP & Stephen Dixon, Children's Rights.

Z.H., S.A., A.M., J.S., K. E., Plaintiffs, represented by Joshua
Rosenthal, Children's Rights, R. Paul Yetter, Yetter Coleman LLP,
Barry F. McNeil, Haynes Boone LLP, Christina Wilson, Children's
Rights, Christopher D. Porter, Yetter Coleman LLP, Dori Kornfeld
Goldman, Yetter Coleman, Elizabeth Pitman, Children's Rights,
Marcia Robinson Lowry, A Better Childhood, Inc., Richard Thaddeus
Behrens, Haynes And Boone LLP & Stephen Dixon, Children's Rights.

M.R., J.R., P.O., Plaintiffs, represented by Joshua Rosenthal,
Children's Rights, Christina Wilson, Children's Rights, Elizabeth
Pitman, Children's Rights, Marcia Robinson Lowry, A Better
Childhood, Inc., R. Paul Yetter, Yetter Coleman LLP & Rachel
Brodin Nili, Children's Rights.

H.V., Plaintiff, represented by Joshua Rosenthal, Children's
Rights, R. Paul Yetter, Yetter Coleman LLP, Adriana Teresa
Luciano, Children's Rights, Christina Wilson, Children's Rights,
Elizabeth Pitman, Children's Rights, Marcia Robinson Lowry, A
Better Childhood, Inc. & Rachel Brodin Nili, Children's Rights.

L.H., C.H., A.R., Plaintiffs, represented by Joshua Rosenthal,
Children's Rights, R. Paul Yetter, Yetter Coleman LLP, Christina
Wilson, Children's Rights, Elizabeth Pitman, Children's Rights,
Marcia Robinson Lowry, A Better Childhood, Inc. & Rachel Brodin
Nili, Children's Rights.

S.R., S.S., Plaintiffs, represented by Joshua Rosenthal,
Children's Rights, Christina Wilson, Children's Rights, Elizabeth
Pitman, Children's Rights, R. Paul Yetter, Yetter Coleman LLP &
Rachel Brodin Nili, Children's Rights.

Greg Abbott, Chris Traylor, John J Specia, Jr, Defendants,
represented by Andrew Bowman Stephens, Office of the Attorney
General, James Patrick Sullivan -- jsullivan@kslaw.com -- King
Spalding LLP & Thomas A. Albright, Office of the Attorney General.


TEXAS: Faith Partners Called to Support Child Welfare System
------------------------------------------------------------
Lana Shadwick, writing for Breitbart, reports that the First Lady
of Texas, Cecilia Abbott, and the commissioner over the state's
child welfare system, asked faith partners in Texas to help the
youth and their families in the system.

The First Lady and the commissioner over the Department of Family
and Protective Services (DFPS), Hank Whitman, announced the
"Network of Nurture Initiative," by sending a letter on Jan. 13 to
the faith leaders.  They asked them to join in a partnership with
the state agency to help find loving homes for these children and
to lend support for youth in the system.

"The new year brings new hope for health, happiness and
prosperity, and resolutions to spend more time enjoying friends
and most importantly, family," the letter reads.  "While not
everyone feels called to foster or adopt a child in need, we are
all called to do something for this vulnerable population. As you
start planning your programs for the new year, please consider
becoming a part of a 'network of nurture' that provides support to
youth and families in the child welfare system."

The letter tells the faith partners exactly how they and their
congregations can help these children and their families.

A statement from Governor Abbott's office provided that faith
partners and their members can help by:

Surveying members to see how many foster and adoptive families are
a part of their congregation that may need support.
Encouraging members to provide support services to foster and
adoptive parents, such as babysitting or providing meals.
Mentoring an older youth transitioning out of the foster care
system through ministries such as The Open Table, a faith-based
model that congregations use to create community and
transformation.

Donating diapers, clothing, school supplies, car seats, cribs and
beds, or volunteering to help sort items at a CPS Rainbow Room.
Considering joining the CarePortal or Orphan Care Solutions,
online portals that allow congregants to fulfill requests for
goods and services requested by a CPS caseworker or family member.

Participating in Blue Sunday, a national day of prayer for abused
and neglected children that is typically held on the last Sunday
in April.

"If you feel called to help serve Texas children in foster care
and those families fostering children, please contact Felicia
Mason-Edwards, Division Administrator for Faith-based programs at
DFPS."  She can be emailed at faithpartners@dfps.state.tx.us.

The letter also attached a list of DFPS faith-based specialists
that included information on the areas of how they were serving
these children.  This way those who wish to help can locate the
specialist nearest them.

Prior to Commissioner Whitman taking office, the advisory panel
for TDFPS approved new agency rules aimed at preventing deaths of
children in CPS foster care. As reported by Breitbart Texas, the
Council's action came after the deaths of two-year-old Alexandria
Hill and eleven-month-old Orien Hamilton.  Both died of blunt-
force head injuries suffered in foster and kinship homes. The
homes were approved by child-placing agencies (CPAs) which were
licensed by TDFPS.  The Department licenses the 220 foster child-
placing agencies that recruit, investigate, and train potential
foster and kinship parents and monitor the placements once they
become caregivers.

The department and the state was also sued in December 2014 in a
class-action lawsuit filed by a New York advocacy group called
Children's Rights. About 12,000 children are included in the
class-action suit.  These children are in long-term care in Texas.
In December 2015, U.S. District Judge Janis Graham Jack ordered
the State of Texas to enact reforms for its children's services.
The judge noted that the department was underfunded and called the
long-term foster care system "broken."  She also noted the
frequency of sexual and other abuse, as well as the use of
psychotropic medications. The judge appointed two special masters
in the spring of 2016 and the case is ongoing.

In April 2016, Texas Governor Greg Abbott appointed Henry "Hank"
Whitman as DFPS commissioner saying the "status quo at CPS is
unacceptable."  Mr. Whitman is a former chief of the Texas
Rangers. In early December, the Office of the Governor's Criminal
Justice Division announced that it will be partnering with TDFPS
to start a new conservatorship pilot project that is hoped to help
improve emergency and long-term placements for foster children who
have high needs.  The project will be financially supported
through funds from the federal Victims of Crime Act (VOCA).


TIME WARNER: Court Appoints Interim Class Counsel in "Mejia" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAQUEL S. MEJIA, LEONA HUNTER, and ANNE MARIE VILLA,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. TIME WARNER CABLE INC., Defendant, No. 15-CV-6445
(JPO), (S.D. N.Y.), District Judge J. Paul Oetken granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for appointment of interim class counsel, while
denying the Plaintiffs' letter motion for class-wide discovery,
without prejudice.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs' counsel, Bursor & Fisher,
will fairly and adequately represent the interest of the class.
However, the Court opined that the Plaintiffs' letter motion
seeking class-wide discovery is premature, given the pendency of a
related case of ACA International, at the D.C. Circuit, King at
the Second Circuit, and the dispositive motions before the Court.
The Court believed that there is a possibility that a part or the
whole of the case can be resolved through the pending dispositive
motions.

A copy of the Court's Order dated December 15, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/96TxRl from Leagle.com.

Raquel S. Mejia, Plaintiff, represented by Jarrett Lee Ellzey,
Hughes Ellzey, LLP, pro hac vice.

Raquel S. Mejia, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua David Arisohn,
Bursor & Fisher P.A. & Aaron Siri, Siri & Glimstad LLP.

Leona Hunter, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron Siri --
aaron@sirillp.com -- Siri & Glimstad LLP, Deola Taofik-Adekanmb
Ali, Deola T.A. Ali, Esq., Joshua David Arisohn --
jarisohn@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher P.A. & Jarrett Lee Ellzey,
Hughes Ellzey, LLP.

John Fontes, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Jessica R. K.
Dorman, Hyde & Swigart, Sergei Lemberg, Lemberg Law, LLC & Stephen
F. Taylor, Lemberg Law, LLC.

Time Warner Cable Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew A. Brill
-- matthew.brill@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Peter Lee Winik
-- peter.winik@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice &
Andrew D. Prins -- andrew.prins@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP,
pro hac vice.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued in Florida Over Soy-Based Insulation
-------------------------------------------------------
WFTV.com reports that a Florida woman is suing Toyota, claiming
that soy-based insulation made the wires in her car an attractive
edible for rats, squirrels and other rodents, who caused major
damage to her RAV4.

Janice Toler filed a class-action lawsuit against Toyota on
Dec. 19 in federal court.

The car company changed from petroleum-based wire insulation "in
the name of profit and cost-cutting," the lawsuit says.

Rodents caused $5,500 in damage to Ms. Toler's 2015 RAV4, which
the dealership refused to fix under her warranty, Toler said in
the suit.

She took her vehicle to a Toyota dealership on Oct. 13 and a
service consultant told her that rodents had done extensive
damage, the lawsuit says.

He showed her where the rodents had chewed through the wires and
left behind urine and feces, Ms. Toler said.

The Toyota employee told her that "the car would require a total
rewiring because rodents had chewed up almost every wire in the
engine compartment," the lawsuit says.

When she called the company's regional office to complain, Toler
claims that the person she spoke with on the phone said rodent
damage is "not Toyota's problem."

In the lawsuit, Ms. Toler said she considers the soy-based
insulation a defect, which should be covered under the warranty.

Toyota considers rodent damage "an environmental condition that is
not covered under the warranty," the suit says.

Toler points to numerous other Toyota owners who have filed
complaints with the National Highway Transportation Safety
Administration over rodent damage connected to soy-based wire
insulation.

One person told the NTHSA that a 2015 RAV4 that had been owned for
10 days stopped working because of rodent damage.

As of Dec. 20, Toyota had not responded to the lawsuit.


UNION JACK: Faces "Anderson" Suit Under FLSA, Md. Labor Laws
------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM ANDERSON, 7891 Covington Avenue, Glen Burnie, Maryland 21061,
Resident of Anne Arundel County, Individually and On Behalf of
Other Similarly Situated Employees, Plaintiff, v. UNION JACK OF
COLUMBIA, LLC, 10400 Little Patuxent Parkway, Columbia, Maryland
21044, Serve On: Resident Agent, Gary Ouellette, 9705 Briarcliffe
Lane, Ellicott City, Maryland 21042 And GARY OUELLETTE, 9705
Briarcliffe Lane, Ellicott City, Maryland 21042, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00020-JFM (D. Md., January 4, 2017), seeks to recover
among other things, alleged unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Maryland Code
Annotated, Labor and Employment Article, and the Maryland Wage
Payment and Collection Law.

Union Jack of Columbia, LLC is a restaurant and bar located in
Columbia, Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     George E. Swegman, Esq.
     Benjamin L. Davis, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
     36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Phone: (410) 244-7005
     Fax: (410) 244-8454
     E-mail: gswegman@nicholllaw.com
             bdavis@nicholllaw.com


UNITED STATES: 3rd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Polsky" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit affirmed an
order disallowing the tax credit claim of the parents with a
permanently disabled daughter in the case styled, ROBERT POLSKY;
LISA POLSKY, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 15-2232
(3rd Cir.).

Based on the case, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) disallowed
the credit because the Plaintiffs' daughter was too old to qualify
for it.

In granting the IRS's motion to dismiss, the District Court held
that the plain language of the Code supported the IRS's position
in which the age cap of the child tax credit section of the Code
is the controlling provision, and the credit was therefore
properly denied.

In particular, the District Court held that the tax credit is
unavailable when the child has attained age 17 and that the
Plaintiffs failed to state a constitutional due process claim.

Having reviewed the interplay between the two sections of the
Code, the Appellate Court agreed with the District Court, and
thus, affirmed its judgment.

A copy of the Appellate Court's Opinion dated December 15, 2016 is
available at https://goo.gl/6Y1mWS from Leagle.com.

Robert Polsky, Lisa Polsky, 9 Jody Drive, Plymouth Meeting, PA
19462, Pro Se.

Karen G. Gregory, Esq., John A. Nolet, Esq., Joan I. Oppenheimer,
Esq., United States Department of Justice, Tax Division, 950
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., P.O. Box 502, Washington, DC 20044.

Beatriz T. Saiz, Esq., E. Christopher Lambert, Esq., United States
Department of Justice, Tax Division, P.O. Box 227, Ben Franklin
Station, Washington, DC 20044, Counsel for Appellee United States
of America.


UNITEDHEALTHCARE: INC: "Fedor" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dana Fedor, and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v.
UnitedHealthCare, Inc. Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00013, (D.N.M.,
January 7, 2017), seeks overtime pay, pre- and post-judgment
interest for attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements and
additional relief in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New Mexico Wage Law.

Defendant is a healthcare provider where Plaintiff was employed as
a case manager, collecting answers to standardized medical
questionnaires and inputting answers from those questionnaires
into Defendant's automated system.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      Jay Forester. Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 749-1400
      Fax: (214) 749-1010


UNITEDHEALTHCARE: INC: "Fedor" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dana Fedor, and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v.
UnitedHealthCare, Inc. Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00013, (D.N.M.,
January 7, 2017), seeks overtime pay, pre- and post-judgment
interest for attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements and
additional relief in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the New Mexico Wage Law.

Defendant is a healthcare provider where Plaintiff was employed as
a case manager, collecting answers to standardized medical
questionnaires and inputting answers from those questionnaires
into Defendant's automated system.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      Jay Forester. Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 749-1400
      Fax: (214) 749-1010


UNITED SERVICES: Goodson Set to Argue Case at Feb. 7 Hearing
------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas Business reports that Texarkana class-action attorney
John Goodson will get his day before the 8th Circuit Court of
Appeals on Feb. 7.

On that day, Mr. Goodson and four other attorneys who were found
to have abused the court system by manipulating a controversial
class-action case will argue that they shouldn't have been
punished.

The members of the three-judge panel who will hear the case are
Lavenski R. Smith, Duane Benton and Bobby E. Shepherd.  All three
were nominated by Republican President George W. Bush.

Mr. Goodson, who is the husband of a state Supreme Court justice,
is challenging the August ruling in which Chief U.S. District
Court Judge P.K. Holmes III found the five attorneys had acted in
bad faith.

Judge Holmes also found that seven other plaintiffs' attorneys and
three defense attorneys involved in the class-action case had
abused the court system, but their misconduct didn't rise to the
level of bad faith.  They were not sanctioned.

All the attorneys maintain that they have done nothing wrong and
are part of the appeal at the 8th Circuit.

Ted Frank, director of a Washington nonprofit that represents
class members opposing unfair class-action cases, has filed a
friend of the court brief in the case and wants Judge Holmes'
order to stand.  He is scheduled to be at the Feb. 7 hearing to
argue his position.


US BANCORP: Court Grants Final OK to "Waggoner" Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KELLY WAGGONER and DARBEY SCHULTZ, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. U.S.
BANCORP, a foreign corporation, and U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, a foreign corporation, Defendants, Case No. 5:14-cv-
1626 (N.D. Ohio), District Judge Sara Lioi granted the Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for approval of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) Settlement Agreement and Release.

The Plaintiffs alleged unpaid overtime wages and sued the
Defendants on behalf of themselves and other co-managers.

The Agreement provides for a maximum settlement fund of $1,150,000
to settle Plaintiffs' FLSA claims, and the claims of all named and
opt-in Plaintiffs, as well as all eligible class members who did
not timely opt into the case.

The Court:

     (1) approves the Settlement Agreement and all of its terms;

     (2) approves the Notices and Claim Form and the proposed
         plan for their distribution, and orders the payment to
         the collective to take place in accordance with the
         Settlement Agreement;

     (3) approves and orders the payment of an additional
         $10,000.00 to each of the following plaintiffs: Kelly
         Waggoner, Darbey Schultz, Debthy Brown, Richard
         DeGregorio, and Rachel Nieves;

     (4) orders the payment of $383,333.33 in attorney's fees,
         plus $34,010.92 in costs and expenses, to plaintiffs'
         counsel; and,

     (5) approves and orders the payment of $26,000.00 to Rust
         Consulting, Inc. as the administrator. Pursuant to the
         terms of the Settlement Agreement, the amount may
         increase slightly in the event that additional
         collective members are identified.

The Court further ordered that, within 30 days of the entry of the
Order, unless there is an appeal, in which case, two days after
the final appeal is resolved, the litigation will be dismissed
with prejudice, and without costs, expenses, or attorney's fees to
any party except as provided in the Settlement Agreement and the
Order.

The Court will retain jurisdiction over the action for the
purposes of supervising the implementation, enforcement,
construction, administration, and interpretation of the Settlement
Agreement, including oversight as to the distribution of
settlement funds.

A copy of the Court's Order dated December 29, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/5DQZqR from Leagle.com.

Darbey Schultz, Plaintiff, represented by Alan L. Quiles --
aquiles@shavitzlaw.com -- Shavitz Law Group, Gregg I. Shavitz --
gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com -- Shavitz Law Group, Justin M. Swartz,
Outten & Golden, Michael N. Litrownik, Outten & Golden, Paolo C.
Meireles -- pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com -- Shavitz Law Group, Peter
D. Winebrake, Winebrake & Santillo, Robi J. Baishnab --
rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com -- Barkan Meizlish Handelman Goodin
DeRose Wentz, Susan H. Ster -- sstern@shavitzlaw.com -- Shavitz
Law Group & Robert E. DeRose, II, Barkan Meizlish Handelman Goodin
DeRose Wentz.

U.S. Bancorp, Defendant, represented by Emilie C. Woodhead --
ewoodhead@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn, Emily C. Schuman,
Winston & Strawn, Joan Tucker Fife -- jfife@winston.com -- Winston
& Strawn, pro hac vice, Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr. --
mzbiegien@taftlaw.com -- Taft, Stettinius & Hollister & David H.
Wallace -- dwallace@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister.


USA TECHNOLOGIES: 3rd Circuit Appeals Underway
----------------------------------------------
USA Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit has consolidated the two appeals of
plaintiff in a class action lawsuit.

On October 1, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against the Company and its executive officers
alleging violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On
April 14, 2016, the Court issued an order granting the Company's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint without leave to amend and
the plaintiff filed an appeal of this order with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

On August 16, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for relief from
final judgment with the District Court seeking an order modifying
the District Court's previous order dismissing the complaint, and
permitting the plaintiff to file another amended complaint.

On September 19, 2016, the District Court issued an order denying
the plaintiff's motion for relief from final judgment, and on
October 4, 2016, the plaintiff filed an appeal of this order with
the Court of Appeals.

On October 6, 2016, the Court of Appeals consolidated the two
appeals of plaintiff for all purposes, and issued a briefing and
scheduling order.

USA Technologies, Inc. is a provider of technology-enabled
solutions and value-added services that facilitate electronic
payment transactions primarily within the unattended Point of Sale
market.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: To Oppose Certification in Allergan Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that the Company will oppose certification of the putative
class in the Allergan shareholder class action.

On December 16, 2014, Anthony Basile, an alleged shareholder of
Allergan filed a lawsuit on behalf of a putative class of Allergan
shareholders against the Company, Valeant, AGMS, Pershing Square,
PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Basile
v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., Case No.
14-cv-02004-DOC).

On June 26, 2015, lead plaintiffs the State Teachers Retirement
System of Ohio, the Iowa Public Employees Retirement System and
Patrick T. Johnson filed an amended complaint against the Company,
Valeant, J. Michael Pearson, Pershing Square, PS Management, GP,
LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman. The amended complaint
alleges claims on behalf of a putative class of sellers of
Allergan securities between February 25, 2014 and April 21, 2014,
against all defendants contending that various purchases of
Allergan securities by PS Fund were made while in possession of
material, non-public information concerning a potential tender
offer by the Company for Allergan stock, and asserting violations
of Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the
SEC thereunder and Section 20A of the Exchange Act. The amended
complaint also alleges violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act against Pershing Square, various Pershing Square affiliates,
William A. Ackman and J. Michael Pearson. The amended complaint
seeks, among other relief, money damages, equitable relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 7, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint in its entirety, and, on November 9, 2015, the Court
denied that motion.

On October 11, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to
certify a plaintiff class comprised of persons who sold Allergan
common stock contemporaneously with purchases of Allergan common
stock made or caused by defendants during the period February 25,
2014 through April 21, 2014.

The Company intends to oppose certification of this putative class
and to vigorously defend these matters.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeal in Salix Shareholder Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that the Plaintiffs' appeal related to the Salix shareholder
class action remains pending in Delaware.

Following the announcement of the execution of the Salix Merger
Agreement with Salix, between February 25, 2015 and March 12,
2015, six purported stockholder class actions were filed
challenging the Salix Acquisition. All of the actions were filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery, and alleged claims against some
or all of the board of directors of Salix (the "Salix Board"), the
Company, Salix, Valeant and Sun Merger Sub.

On March 17, 2015, the Court consolidated the actions under the
caption Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. Shareholder Litigation,
Consolidated C.A. No.10721-CB. On September 25, 2015, Plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint. The operative complaint alleges
generally that the members of the Salix Board breached their
fiduciary duties to stockholders, and that the other defendants
aided and abetted such breaches, by seeking to sell Salix through
an allegedly inadequate sales process and for allegedly inadequate
consideration and by agreeing to allegedly preclusive deal
protections. The complaint also alleges that the Schedule 14D-9
filed by Salix in connection with the Salix Acquisition contained
inaccurate or materially misleading information about, among other
things, the Salix Acquisition and the sales process leading up to
the Salix Merger Agreement. The complaint seeks, among other
things, money damages and unspecified attorneys' and other fees
and costs.

Defendants' Motions to Dismiss were fully briefed as of February
19, 2016.  In an oral ruling given on May 19, 2016, the Court
dismissed the consolidated action against all defendants.

On June 17, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the
Delaware Supreme Court appealing the decision to dismiss the
consolidated action against all defendants. The appeal was fully
briefed as of October 7, 2016 and remains pending.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this
appeal.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Salix Securities Litigation in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that the parties in the case, In re Salix Pharmaceuticals,
Ltd. (Case No. 14-CV-8925 (KMW)), are engaged in ongoing
discovery.

Beginning on November 7, 2014, three putative class action
lawsuits were filed by shareholders of Salix, each of which
generally alleges that Salix and certain of its former officers
and directors violated federal securities laws in connection with
Salix's disclosures regarding certain products, including with
respect to disclosures concerning historic wholesaler inventory
levels, business prospects and demand, reserves and internal
controls.

Two of these actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, and are captioned: Woburn
Retirement System v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., et al. (Case No:
1:14-CV-08925 (KMW)), and Bruyn v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., et
al. (Case No. 1:14-CV-09226 (KMW)). These two actions have been
consolidated under the caption In re Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd.
(Case No. 14-CV-8925 (KMW)). Defendants' Motions to Dismiss were
fully briefed as of August 3, 2015. The Court denied the Motions
to Dismiss in an order dated March 31, 2016 for the reasons stated
in an opinion dated April 22, 2016. Defendants' Answers to the
operative Complaint were filed on May 31, 2016.

On October 10, 2016, Plaintiffs' filed a motion for class
certification.  The parties also are engaged in ongoing discovery.
Salix and the Company are vigorously defending this consolidated
matter.

A third action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina under the caption Grignon v.
Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. (Case No. 5:14-cv-00804-D), but
was subsequently voluntarily dismissed.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------

Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that the motion of the Company and the other defendants to
dismiss the consolidated complaint in the U.S. Securities
Litigation remains pending.

From October 22, 2015 to October 30, 2015, four putative
securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain current
or former officers and directors. Those four actions, captioned
Potter v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case
No. 15-cv-7658), Chen v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International,
Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7679), Yang v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7746), and Fein v.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-
cv-7809), all asserted securities fraud claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") on behalf of putative classes of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during various
time periods between February 28, 2014 and October 21, 2015. The
allegations relate to, among other things, allegedly false and
misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information
about the Company's business and prospects, including relating to
drug pricing, the Company's use of specialty pharmacies, and the
Company's relationship with Philidor.

On May 31, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the four
actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-07658,
and appointing a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel. On
June 24, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
naming additional defendants and asserting additional claims based
on allegations of false and misleading statements and/or omissions
similar to those in the initial complaints. Specifically, the
consolidated complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, and certain current
or former officers and directors, as well as claims under Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act") against the Company, certain current or former officers and
directors, and certain other parties. The lead plaintiff seeks to
bring these claims on behalf of a putative class of persons who
purchased the Company's equity securities and senior notes in the
United States between January 4, 2013 and March 15, 2016,
including all those who purchased the Company's securities in the
United States in the Company's debt and stock offerings between
July 2013 to March 2015.

On September 13, 2016, the Company and the other defendants moved
to dismiss the consolidated complaint. That motion is currently
being briefed by the parties.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Kowalyshyn & O'Brien Suits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that the Kowalyshyn and the O'Brien securities class actions
in Canada have been consolidated.

In 2015, six putative class actions were filed and served against
the Company in Canada in the provinces of British Columbia,
Ontario and Quebec. These actions are captioned: (a) Alladina v.
Valeant, et al. (Case No. S-1594B6) (Supreme Court of British
Columbia) (filed November 17, 2015); (b) Kowalyshyn v. Valeant, et
al. (CV-15-540593-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November
16, 2015); (c) Kowalyshyn et al. v. Valeant, et al. (CV-15-541082-
00CP (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 23, 2015); (d)
O'Brien v. Valeant et al. (CV-15-543678-00CP) (Ontario Superior
Court) (filed December 30, 2015); (e) Catucci v. Valeant, et al.
(Court File No. 540-17-011743159) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed
October 26, 2015); and (f) Rousseau-Godbout v. Valeant, et al.
(Court File No. 500-06-000770-152) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed
October 27, 2015). The Alladina, Kowalyshyn, O'Brien, Catucci and
Rousseau-Godbout actions also name, among others, certain current
or former directors and officers of the Company. The Rosseau-
Godbout action was subsequently stayed by the Quebec Superior
Court by consent order.

Each of the five remaining actions alleges violations of Canadian
provincial securities legislation on behalf of putative classes of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the
Company for periods commencing as early as January 1, 2013 and
ending as late as November 16, 2015. The alleged violations relate
to, among other things, alleged misrepresentations and/or failures
to disclose material information about the Company's business and
prospects, relating to drug pricing, the Company's policies and
accounting practices, the Company's use of specialty pharmacies
and, in particular, the Company's relationship with Philidor. The
Alladina, Kowalyshyn and O'Brien actions also assert common law
claims for negligent misrepresentation, and the Alladina claim
additionally asserts common law negligence, conspiracy, and claims
under the British Columbia Business Corporations Act, including
the statutory oppression remedies in that legislation. The Catucci
action asserts claims under the Quebec Civil Code, alleging the
Company breached its duty of care under the civil standard of
liability contemplated by the Code.

The Company is aware of two additional putative class actions that
have been filed with the applicable court but which have not yet
been served on the Company. These actions are captioned: (i)
Okeley v. Valeant, et al. (Case No. S-159991) (Supreme Court of
British Columbia) (filed December 2, 2015); and (ii) Sukenaga v
Valeant et al. (CV-15-540567-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed
November 16, 2015), and the factual allegations made in these
actions are substantially similar to those outlined above. The
Company has been advised that the plaintiffs in these actions do
not intend to pursue the actions.

The Company expects that certain of these actions will be
consolidated or stayed prior to proceeding to motions for leave
and certification and that no more than one action will proceed in
any jurisdiction. In particular, on June 10, 2016, the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice rendered its decision on carriage
motions (motions held to determine who will have carriage of the
class action) heard on April 8, 2016, provisionally staying the
O'Brien action, in favor of the Kowalyshyn action.

On September 15, 2016, in response to an arrangement between the
plaintiffs in the Kowalyshyn action and the O'Brien action, the
court ordered both that the Kowalyshyn action be consolidated with
the O'Brien action and that the consolidated action be stayed in
favour of the Catucci action pending either the further order of
the Ontario court or the determination of the motion for leave in
the Catucci action.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: April 24 Hearing in Catucci Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that in the case, Catucci v. Valeant, et al. (Court File No.
540-17-011743159) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed October 26,
2015), a schedule has been set for the week of April 24, 2017 for
the hearing of motions for leave under the Quebec Securities Act
and for authorization as a class proceeding.

The Catucci action asserts claims under the Quebec Civil Code,
alleging the Company breached its duty of care under the civil
standard of liability contemplated by the Code.

The Company believes that it has viable defenses to each of the
actions. In each case, the Company intends to defend itself
vigorously.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: To Defend Against 3 RICO Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that between May 27, 2016 and September 16, 2016, three
virtually identical actions were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey against the Company and  various
third parties, alleging claims under the federal Racketeer
Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") on behalf of a
putative class of certain third party payors that paid claims
submitted by Philidor for certain Valeant branded drugs between
January 2, 2013 and November 9, 2015 (Airconditioning and
Refrigeration Industry Health and Welfare Trust Fund et al. v.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International. Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-
03087, Plumbers Local Union No. 1 Welfare Fund v. Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-3885 and
N.Y. Hotel Trades Council et al v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International. Inc. et al., No. 3:16-cv-05663).

The complaints allege, among other things, that the Defendants
committed predicate acts of mail and wire fraud by submitting or
causing to be submitted prescription reimbursement requests that
misstated or omitted facts regarding (1) the identity and
licensing status of the dispensing pharmacy; (2) the resubmission
of previously denied claims; (3) patient co-pay waivers; (4) the
availability of generic alternatives; and (5) the insured's
consent to renew the prescription.

The complaints further allege that these acts constitute a pattern
of racketeering or a racketeering conspiracy in violation of the
RICO statute and caused plaintiffs and the putative class
unspecified damages, which may be trebled under the RICO statute.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to
defend itself vigorously.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Solodyn(R) Antitrust Suits in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that the parties in the Solodyn(R) Antitrust Class Actions
are currently in discovery.

Beginning in July 2013, a number of civil antitrust class action
suits were filed against Medicis, Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International, Inc. ("VPII") and various manufacturers of generic
forms of Solodyn, alleging that the defendants engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme to exclude competition from the market for
minocycline hydrochloride extended release tablets, a prescription
drug for the treatment of acne marketed by Medicis under the brand
name, Solodyn. The plaintiffs in such suits alleged violations of
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2, and
of various state antitrust and consumer protection laws, and
further alleged that the defendants have been unjustly enriched
through their alleged conduct. The plaintiffs sought declaratory
and injunctive relief and, where applicable, treble, multiple,
punitive and/or other damages, including attorneys' fees.

By order dated February 25, 2014, the Judicial Panel for
Multidistrict Litigation (''JPML'') centralized the suits in the
District of Massachusetts, under the caption In re Solodyn
(Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:14-
md-02503-DJC, before U.S. District Judge Denise Casper.

After the Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs and the End-Payor
Class Plaintiffs each filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on September 12, 2014, the defendants jointly moved to
dismiss those complaints.

On August 14, 2015, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss with respect to claims brought under Sherman Act, Section
2 and various state laws but denied the motion to dismiss with
respect to claims brought under Sherman Act, Section 1 and other
state laws. VPII was dismissed from the case, but the litigation
continues against Medicis and the generic manufacturers as to the
remaining claims.

A subsequent effort to re-plead claims under Sherman Act, Section
2 was denied on September 20, 2016. The actions are currently in
discovery.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Contact Lens Actions in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that the parties in the Contact Lens Antitrust Class Actions
are in discovery.

Beginning in March 2015, a number of civil antitrust class action
suits were filed by purchasers of contact lenses against Bausch &
Lomb Holdings Incorporated, three other contact lens
manufacturers, and a contact lens distributor, alleging that the
defendants engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to eliminate price
competition on certain contact lens lines through the use of
unilateral pricing policies. The plaintiffs in such suits alleged
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1, and
of various state antitrust and consumer protection laws, and
further alleged that the defendants have been unjustly enriched
through their alleged conduct. The plaintiffs sought declaratory
and injunctive relief and, where applicable, treble, punitive
and/or other damages, including attorneys' fees.

By order dated June 8, 2015, the JPML centralized the suits in the
Middle District of Florida, under the caption In re Disposable
Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:15-md-02626-HES-JRK,
before U.S. District Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger.

After the Class Plaintiffs filed a corrected consolidated class
action complaint on December 16, 2015, the defendants jointly
moved to dismiss those complaints.

On June 16, 2016, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss with respect to claims brought under the Maryland Consumer
Protection Act, but denied the motion to dismiss with respect to
claims brought under Sherman Act, Section 1 and other state laws.
The actions are currently in discovery. The Company intends to
vigorously defend all of these actions.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Shower to Shower Suits Pending in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that the Company is defending against the Shower to Shower
Class Actions in Canada.

On or about October 3, 2016, the Company was served with a claim
in a proceeding filed before the Supreme Court of British Columbia
(Williamson v. Johnson & Johnson et al., Case No: 179011), in
which the Company is named as a defendant, along with various
Johnson & Johnson entities. In this claim, the plaintiff is
seeking to certify a proposed class action on behalf of persons in
British Columbia and Canada who have purchased or used Johnson's
Baby Powder or Shower to Shower, including their estates,
executors and personal representatives.

The Company acquired the rights to the Shower to Shower product in
Canada from Johnson & Johnson in September 2012.

The Company is also named as a defendant along with various
Johnson & Johnson entities in a similar application filed in the
Superior Court of Quebec, on or about April 12, 2016, in which the
plaintiff is requesting leave to institute a proposed class action
on behalf of persons in Quebec who have used Johnson's Baby Powder
or Shower to Shower, as well as their family members, assigns and
heirs (Kramar v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 500-06-
000787-164).

The plaintiff in the British Columbia action is alleging that the
use of the products increases certain health risks. The plaintiff
in the Quebec action is alleging negligence in failing to properly
test, failing to warn of health risks, and failing to remove the
products from the market in a timely manner. The plaintiffs in
these actions are seeking, among other things, awards of general,
special, compensatory and punitive damages. The likelihood of the
authorization or certification of these claims as class actions
cannot be assessed at this time.

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in each of these
actions.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion to Certify Afexa Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that a decision is pending on the motion to certify the
class in the Afexa Class Action.

On March 9, 2012, a Notice of Civil Claim was filed in the Supreme
Court of British Columbia which seeks an order certifying a
proposed class proceeding against the Company and a predecessor,
Afexa Life Sciences Inc. ("Afexa") (Case No. NEW-S-S-140954). The
proposed claim asserts that Afexa and the Company made false
representations respecting Cold-FX(R) to residents of British
Columbia who purchased the product during the applicable period
and that the proposed class has suffered damages as a result.

On November 8, 2013, the Plaintiff served an amended notice of
civil claim which sought to re-characterize the representation
claims and broaden them from what was originally claimed.

On December 8, 2014, the Company filed a motion to strike certain
elements of the Plaintiff's claim for failure to state a cause of
action.  In response, the Plaintiff proposed further amendments to
its claim.

The hearing on the motion to strike and the Plaintiff's amended
claim was held on February 4, 2015. The Court allowed certain
amendments, while it struck others. The hearing to certify the
class was held on April 4-8, 2016 and a decision is pending.

The Company denies the allegations being made and is vigorously
defending this matter.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: To Defend Against Sprout Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 9, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2016, that on or about November 2, 2016, the Company and Valeant
were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed by the shareholder
representative of the former shareholders of Sprout
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (C.A. No. 12868). The plaintiff in this action is
alleging, among other things, breach of contract with respect to
certain terms of the merger agreement relating to the Sprout
Acquisition, including the obligations on Valeant to use certain
diligent efforts to develop and commercialize the Addyi(R) product
(including the obligation to spend no less than $200 million in
certain expenditures.

The plaintiff in this action is seeking unspecified compensatory
and other damages and attorneys' fees, as well as an order
requiring Valeant to perform its obligations under the merger
agreement. The Company is evaluating these claims and intends to
vigorously defend itself.


VIRGIN AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in Flight Attendants' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District for the
Northern District of California denied in part Defendant Virgin
America's motion for summary judgment in the case captioned, JULIA
BERNSTEIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VIRGIN AMERICA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 15-CV-02277-JST (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs are flight attendants who currently work or have
previously worked for Defendant Virgin America, Inc. (Virgin). In
the class action against Virgin, the Plaintiffs allege that Virgin
did not pay them for hours worked before, after, and between
flights; time spent in training; time on reserve; time spent
taking mandatory drug tests; and time spent completing incident
reports.  The Plaintiffs further allege that Virgin did not allow
flight attendants to take meal or rest breaks, failed to pay
overtime and minimum wages, and failed to provide accurate wage
statements.

Plaintiffs bring claims under the California Labor Code and
California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 9-2001 (Wage
Order) for failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to pay wages for all hours worked, failure to
provide required meal periods, failure to provide required rest
periods, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to
pay waiting time penalties to discharged employees, failure to
indemnify all necessary business expenditures, and derivative
claims under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and the
Private Attorney General Act (PAGA).

On November 7, 2016, the Court certified Class and Subclasses
under Rule 23(b)(3). The Class claims are limited to time worked
within California. However, both the California Resident Subclass
and the Waiting Time Penalties Subclass seek to recover wages for
time spent working within and outside California

In the motion for summary judgment, Virgin argues that applying
California labor law to the Plaintiffs' employment would violate
both the presumption against extraterritorial application and the
Dormant Commerce Clause. Virgin further argues that the
Plaintiffs' meal and rest break claims are preempted by the
Federal Aviation Act and the Airline Deregulation Act. Finally,
Virgin argues that, even if California law applies, Virgin's
policies and practices comply with California law and the
Plaintiffs have failed to present sufficient evidence to prevail
on their claims.

In his Order dated January 5, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/FoLPVy from Leagle.com, Judge Tigar granted Virgin's
motion as to (1) covered employees under the San Francisco Minimum
Wage because the Plaintiffs have failed to show that they are
covered under the SFMWO; and (2) Plaintiffs' claim for business
expenses under California Labor Code Section 2802 because
Plaintiffs have not produced any evidence that they incurred
related business expenses.

The motion is denied as to (1) claims based on the completion of
incident reports because Virgin's compensation formula completely
fails to account for time spent completing incident reports, and
the Plaintiffs have presented evidence that they were unable to
complete these mandatory incident reports during block time; (2)
Plaintiffs' wage statement claims due to the fact that Virgin's
wage statement deficiencies are part of a centralized policy that
fails to comply with Section 226 suggests that the violation is
knowing and intentional; (3) overtime and break claims because the
evidence is sufficient to create a triable issue of fact regarding
whether Plaintiffs were eligible for breaks when working in
California; and (4) derivative waiting time penalty, unfair
competition, and Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) claims
because the Court has not dismissed all of the Plaintiffs'
underlying claims for unpaid wages.

Esther Garcia, et al. are represented by Monique Olivier, Esq. --
monique@dplolaw.com -- DUCKWORTH PETERS LEBOWITZ OLIVIER LLP;
Alison L. Kosinski, Esq. -- ALISON@KTLAWSF.COM -- and Emily Ann
Thiagaraj, Esq. -- EMILY@KTLAWSF.COM -- KOSINSKI & THIAGARAJ, LLP

Virgin America, Inc. is represented by Jennifer Adkins Tomlin,
Esq. -- jtomlin@morganlewis.com -- Nancy Villarreal, Esq. --
nvillarreal@morganlewis.com -- and Robert Jon Hendricks, Esq. --
rhendricks@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP


VIVUS INC: Appeal in "Jasin" Suit Underway
------------------------------------------
Vivus Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 9, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that the appeal in the Jasin
lawsuit remains pending.

On March 27, 2014, Mary Jane and Thomas Jasin, who purport to be
purchasers of VIVUS common stock, filed an Amended Complaint in
Santa Clara County Superior Court alleging securities fraud
against the Company and three of its former officers and
directors. In that complaint, captioned Jasin v. VIVUS, Inc., Case
No. 114-cv-261427, plaintiffs asserted claims under California's
securities and consumer protection securities statutes. Plaintiffs
alleged generally that defendants misrepresented the prospects for
the Company's success, including with respect to the launch of
Qsymia, while purportedly selling VIVUS stock for personal profit.
Plaintiffs alleged losses of "at least" $2.8 million, and sought
damages and other relief.

On June 5, 2014, the Company and the other defendants filed a
demurrer to the Amended Complaint seeking its dismissal.

With the demurrer pending, on July 18, 2014, the same plaintiffs
filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, captioned Jasin v. VIVUS, Inc.,
Case No. 5:14-cv-03263. The Jasins' federal complaint alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, based on facts substantially similar to
those alleged in their state court action.

On September 15, 2014, pursuant to an agreement between the
parties, plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss, with prejudice,
the state court action. In the federal action, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on November 12, 2014.

On December 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint in
the federal action. On January 21, 2015, defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the First Amended Complaint.

The court ruled on that motion on June 18, 2015, dismissing the
seven California claims with prejudice and dismissing the two
federal claims with leave to amend.

Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on August 17, 2015.
Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on October 2, 2015. On
September 10, 2015, plaintiffs moved for entry of judgment on
their state claims.

Briefing on both defendants' motion to dismiss and plaintiffs'
motion for entry of judgment was completed on December 15, 2015.
On April 19, 2016, the court issued a ruling granting defendants'
motion to dismiss without leave to amend and denying as moot
plaintiffs' motion for entry of judgment.

On May 18, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, and on
September 23, 2016, plaintiffs filed their opening appellate
brief. Defendants' response was due on November 23, 2016.

The Company and the defendant former officers and directors cannot
predict the outcome of the lawsuit, but believe that the lawsuit
is without merit and intend to continue vigorously to defend
against the claims.

The Company maintains directors' and officers' liability insurance
that it believes affords coverage for much of the anticipated cost
of the remaining Jasin action, subject to the use of our financial
resources to pay for our self-insured retention and the policies'
terms and conditions.

VIVUS is a biopharmaceutical company.


WESTERN REFINING: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Tesoro Corp. Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN MILLER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. PAUL L. FOSTER, SIGMUND L. CORNELIUS, L.
FREDERICK FRANCIS, ROBERT J. HASSLER, BRIAN J. HOGAN, JEFF A.
STEVENS, SCOTT D. WEAVER, and WESTERN REFINING, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00004 (W.D. Tex., January 5, 2017), is a
securities suit in connection with the proposed merger between
Western Refining, Inc. and Tesoro Corporation, which allegedly is
inadequate and undervalues the Company.

Defendant Western Refining, Inc. is an independent refining and
marketing company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Defective Dishwasher Component Hit in "Burch" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren Burch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Whirlpool Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-00018, (W.D. Mich., January 5, 2017), seeks damages,
injunctive relief by requiring Whirlpool to issue corrective
actions for rack adjuster failures in their dishwashers,
declaratory, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses and
such further and other relief resulting from breach of express and
implied warranty, fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment.

Whirlpool manufactures and sells dishwashers under the KitchenAid,
Kenmore and Whirlpool-brand. Whirlpool dishwashers share similar
components and parts including the rack adjuster, the purpose of
which is to connect the top nylon rack that holds dishes to the
upper rail and wheel system in the dishwasher. The rack adjuster
thus allows the rack to slide in and out of the dishwasher. Their
rack adjusters are made out of brittle plastic that routinely
fail, causing the top nylon racks in the dishwasher to collapse or
become immovable within the first few months of purchase, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
      Amy E. Keller, Esq.
      WEXLER WALLACE LLP
      55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 346-2222
      Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
      Email: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
             aek@wexlerwallace.com

             - and -

      R. Brent Irby, Esq.
      S. Brett Holsombeck, Esq.
      McCallum, Hoaglund, Cook & Irby, LLP
      905 Montgomery Highway, Suite 201
      Vestavia Hills, AL 35216
      Telephone: (205) 824-7767
      Facsimile: (205) 824-7768
      Email: birby@mhcilaw.com
             bholsombeck@mhcilaw.com


WISCONSIN: Judge Dismisses "Mitchell" Suit v. Rhodes
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, GROUP FILE OF JOSEPH MITCHELL, et al., Petitioner, v.
KITTY RHODES, et al., Respondents, No. 16-cv-237-jdp (W.D. Wis.),
District Judge James D. Peterson dismissed the Petitioner's
petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denied the issuance of a
certificate of appealability, noting that the Petitioner may seek
a certificate from the Court of Appeals under Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 22.

The Court held that the Petitioner's petition have numerous
problems. The most significant problem is that his claims clearly
do not belong in a habeas corpus action.

The Court added that the dismissal of the petition will be without
prejudice to the Plaintiff pursuing his claim in a new civil
rights suit. The Court noted that any new suit would be governed
by the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Specifically, each patient listed as a plaintiff in the caption of
the complaint will owe a separate filing fee for the lawsuit, and
each plaintiff could be assessed a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1915(g) if the court determines that the suit is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.

Moreover, the Court reminded that if the Plaintiff chooses to file
a new Sec. 1983 action about treatment at Sand Ridge, any patient
seeking to join Mitchell as a plaintiff should be listed in the
caption as a plaintiff and must sign all documents submitted by
the plaintiffs. Also, the Court added that if the Plaintiff
chooses to file a new lawsuit, he should draft his complaint as if
he were telling a story to people who know nothing about his
situation. In particular, he should (1) name each person he wishes
to sue as a defendant in the caption of the complaint; (2) explain
what each defendant did to harm him or other patients; and (3)
explain how he was harmed.

A copy of the Court's Order dated December 14, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/qx3su4 from Leagle.com.

Joseph Mitchell, et al., Petitioner, Pro Se.

Kitty Rhodes, Respondent, represented by Charlotte Gibson,
Wisconsin Department of Justice.


* Exorbitant Prison Phone Rates in Louisiana Hit Poor Families
--------------------------------------------------------------
Times-Picayune reports that companies that provide phone service
for inmates in Louisiana jails give more of the money they collect
to sheriffs and wardens than they keep for themselves.  That tells
you how lucrative the business is.  Much of that money is paid in
the form of commissions that give jails a share of the phone
providers' revenue from calls.  Those payments are also commonly
called "kickbacks," which is exactly what they are.

The companies are so generous because the more they pay in
commissions, the more likely they are to get the service contract.
The result is exorbitantly high per-minute rates in Louisiana for
calls from prison, as Times-Picayune reporters Richard Webster and
Jonathan Bullington documented in a series on parental
incarceration.

The burden for paying these outrageous fees falls on families who
simply want to maintain some connection to their loved ones in
jail.  Sibil Richardson spends $260 to $450 per month so that her
six sons can talk to their father, who is serving a 60-year
sentence for attempted bank robbery.

"It's the only way I can maintain my family," Ms. Richardson said.

Some people say, so what? They argue that jails have extra
expenses because they have to monitor inmate phone calls. They say
that it's the inmates' fault if their families are suffering
because of their bad behavior.

Those arguments ignore that many people in jails across Louisiana
have yet to be convicted of anything.  They also ignore the good
that comes from prisoners being able to stay in touch with their
spouses, parents and children.  Phone calls and visits are an
incentive to inmates to behave in prison and motivation to stay
out of jail after they are released.  Inmates leaving prison who
have no family or community connections are more likely to be
drawn back into crime, experts say.

The connections also can help children deal with the absence of
their parent.

Charles Levesque, a Loyola University New Orleans law school
graduate and former Rhode Island state senator, helped write
legislation to make prison calls more affordable there.  "When you
send people to prison, obviously you're trying to punish someone
who did something wrong," he said.  "But the basic premise is
rehabilitation and entering them in the community. Otherwise it's
kind of barbaric if all you're doing is punishing somebody."

Louisiana is the most punitive state in the nation.  The state
moved in that direction when it passed draconian sentencing laws
that sent people to prison for long stretches for nonviolent
crimes.  Our state has begun to move away from those policies, but
it still locks up more people per capita than anyone in the world.

That means that thousands of children here are left to patch
together a relationship through phone calls and occasional prison
visits.  The fact that the state allows jails to profit off them
is abhorrent.

The rates vary across the state, depending on individual contracts
with jails, but a 15-minute call can cost as much as $4.50.  A
family calling the Orleans Justice Center for an hour conversation
each day would pay $126 per week.  For perspective, it would cost
$6 per week to call India via Skype.

The money going to overpriced phone calls could be better spent in
communities across the state on families' basic needs.  A mother
shouldn't have to choose between paying rent and allowing her
children to talk to their father.

The Louisiana Public Service Commission finally passed a new rate
cap last April: 30 cents a minute for collect calls and 25 cents a
minute for prepaid/debit or credit calls.  But commissioners did
nothing to rein in commissions, which also end up being paid by
inmates' families.

The commissions range in Louisiana from 34 percent to 87 percent
of phone revenue for jails. In 2015, commission payments totaled
almost $5 million for the state's Department of Corrections and $6
million-plus for sheriff's offices and parish governments across
Louisiana, the Times-Picayune review of billing records found.

Arguably, much of that money should have stayed with families to
spend on food, rent and other expenses.

"Predatory phone companies gouge already poor families, and it is
disgraceful," said Katie Schwartzmann, co-director of the Roderick
and Solange MacArthur Justice Center, the nonprofit law firm that
represented Orleans Parish inmates in a class-action lawsuit over
unconstitutional conditions.

"Families have to choose between filling prescriptions, keeping
the lights on, and being able to communicate with a loved one who
is behind bars.  In the end, we all lose because the person locked
up is deprived of the benefit of community and family support in
moving forward with his or her life."

The PSC and legislators have allowed that to happen.

Gov. John Bel Edwards, who is starting his second year in the
Governor's Office, has said he wants to reduce the state's prison
population by 5,000 inmates.  That is an important goal.  If he
succeeds, more families would be able to stay to together.

But there always will be inmates in state prisons and parish
jails. Gov. Edwards and other state leaders should ease the
financial burden on their families.  They ought to do away with
phone commissions.  Families are going to suffer for a loved one's
wrongdoing no matter what.  But the state shouldn't compound their
misery.


* Supreme Court to Decide on Employment Arbitration Agreements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Hananel, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
Supreme Court said on Jan. 13 it will decide whether employers can
require workers to sign arbitration agreements that prevent them
from pursuing group claims in court.

The justices agreed to consider an issue affecting millions of
workers who have signed forms waiving rights to bring class-action
lawsuits over unpaid overtime, wage disputes and other workplace
clashes.  Businesses have increasingly used the agreements to
limit exposure to large damage awards.

The National Labor Relations Board says such agreements conflict
with labor laws giving workers the right to band together to
complain about workplace conditions.

Lower courts have split over the issue.  The high court will
consider three cases -- two in which appeals courts ruled that
such agreements can't be enforced and a third in which the appeals
court said they are valid.

One case involves a form that retail gas station owner Murphy Oil
USA required its workers to sign, agreeing that any employment
disputes would be resolved individually through binding
arbitration.  The agreement prevents workers from bringing any
legal action as part of a group.

An Alabama employee, Sheila Hobson, signed the agreement when she
applied to work for Murphy Oil in 2008.  But Ms. Hobson and three
other workers later sued the company in federal court for failing
to pay overtime to them and other employees.

When Murphy Oil tried to enforce the arbitration agreement,
Ms. Hobson filed an unfair labor practice with the NLRB.  The
board ruled against the company, saying the agreement violated
worker's rights under the National Labor Relations Act.  Federal
law has long protected the right of workers to join together to
protest workplace conditions, including through litigation.

But a federal appeals court in New Orleans said the agreement was
enforceable under a different law, the Federal Arbitration Act.

In a second case, the federal appeals court in San Francisco sided
with two employees who filed a class action lawsuit against the
accounting firm Ernst & Young.  The court ruled that the lawsuit
seeking unpaid overtime wages could proceed even though the
workers had signed arbitration agreements as a condition of
employment.

The third case also involves an overtime pay dispute by an
employee at Epic Systems, a Wisconsin-based health care software
provider.  The federal appeals court in Chicago ruled that the
worker could file a class action lawsuit and declared an
arbitration agreement he signed unenforceable.

The Retail Litigation Center, a trade group representing
retailers, had urged the court to hear the cases. The group says
arbitration agreements "allow all parties to resolve disputes
quickly and efficiently while avoiding the costs associated with
traditional litigation."

Consumer advocacy groups have argued that such agreements
discourage workers from challenging illegal policies at large
companies.



                        Asbestos Litigation



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Refuses to Review Ruling in Travelers Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff, Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, formerly
known as Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, filed the action
styled TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, formerly known as
AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. CENTURY INDEMNITY
CO., successor to INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, Defendant,
Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-170 (JCH)(D. Conn.), for breach of two
reinsurance contracts and for declaratory judgment, against the
defendant, Century Indemnity Company, successor to Insurance
Company of North America.  Century filed a Motion for
Reconsideration concerning a discovery dispute.

Travelers seeks reimbursement for asbestos-related settlement
funds that Travelers paid on behalf of a policyholder.  Travelers'
declaratory judgment claims ask the court to declare, inter alia,
that (1) the parties' reinsurance agreements do not obligate
Travelers to provide Century with privileged documents, and (2)
Century's obligation to pay is not preconditioned on access to
Travelers' records.

On October 21, 2016, Century filed a Motion for Leave to File a
Motion to Compel Production.  Century sought leave to file a
motion out of time to compel Travelers to respond to a set of
requests for production, by producing, inter alia, documentation
concerning Travelers' settlement of the underlying claims.
Century stated that Travelers had "refused to produce the non-
privileged portion of its outside coverage counsel files, citing
baseless relevancy and burdensomeness grounds, and had also
improperly asserted privilege in connection with [certain]
business, not legal, communications."  Century also stated that
Travelers had "failed to live up to its contractual obligation to
provide proper billings and information concerning the underlying
settlement." Id. at 2. In support of its Motion, Century argued,
inter alia, that the parties' reinsurance contracts obligated
Travelers to provide certain information.

The court denied the Motion for Leave to File. Thereafter, Century
filed this Motion for Reconsideration.

Judge Janet C. Hall of the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut denied Century's Motion for
Reconsideration, finding that the motion presents no grounds which
would lead the court to reconsider its Order denying the Motion
for Leave to File.  For instance, Century presents no intervening
change of controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error,
manifest injustice, or anything that suggests to the court that
the court might reasonably be expected to alter its opinion, Judge
Hall pointed out.

A full-text copy of the Ruling dated January 10, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/740biI from Leagle.com.

Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Plaintiff, represented by
Daniel L. FitzMaurice, Day Pitney LLP.

Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Plaintiff, represented by
Elizabeth P. Retersdorf, Day Pitney LLP & Joseph Kevin Scully, Day
Pitney LLP.

Century Indemnity Co, Defendant, represented by Charles W.
Fortune, Cohn Baughman & Martin, Lloyd A. Gura, Mound, Cotton,
Wollan & Greengrss, Raymond S. Mastrangelo, Mound Cotton Wollan &
Greengrass & Shrina B. Faldu, Seiger Gfeller Laurie LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Dropped as Defendant in "Sumner"
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard F. Boulware, II, of the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada approved the stipulation agreeing that
all claims and counterclaims asserted in the action styled GERALD
SUMNER and SARAH SUMNER, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. BORGWARNER MORSE
TEC, INC., as successor-by-merger to BORG-WARNER CORPORATION, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00415-RFB-VCF, District court
Case No. A-15-716039-C (D. Nev.), or that could have been asserted
in this action, against Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company are dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear
their own attorneys' fees and costs.

A full-text copy of the Order dated January 11, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/sbaDEx from Leagle.com.

Gerald Sumner, Plaintiff, represented by Cliff W. Marcek, Cliff W.
Marcek, P.C..

Gerald Sumner, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan C. Roberts,
Sharder & Associates, pro hac vice.

Sarah Sumner, Plaintiff, represented by Cliff W. Marcek, Cliff W.
Marcek, P.C. & Jordan C. Roberts, Sharder & Associates, pro hac
vice.

Genuine Parts Company of Nevada, Defendant, represented by Matthew
Q. Callister, Callister & Associates & Mitchell S. Bisson,
Callister & Associates.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Jacqueline N. Walton, Reisman Sorokac & Joshua H. Reisman, Reisman
Sorokac.

Whirlpool Corporation, Defendant, represented by Curtis Busby,
Bowman and Brooke & Greg W. Marsh, Greg W. Marsh, Law Offices of.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6th Cir. Affirms Causation Ruling in "Stallings"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Lee Stallings brought a diversity action on behalf of
herself and the estate of her late husband, seeking damages from
the Georgia-Pacific Corporation for the asbestos-related illness
that ultimately took his life.  After enduring near-constant
exposure to asbestos for some four years in the U.S. Navy, Mr.
Stallings worked for several more years with a Georgia-Pacific
product containing asbestos at his job finishing drywall.  Neither
of the medical experts that Stallings consulted for this suit,
however, could quantify the extent of her husband's exposure
resulting from his contact with Georgia-Pacific's products, and
instead testified that any further exposure would have contributed
to the development of his disease.  Heeding the United States
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit's decisions rejecting
evidence of that kind as too insubstantial under Kentucky's
standard for causation, the district court accordingly granted
summary judgment for Georgia-Pacific, and Stallings now appeals.

Because the Sixth Circuit's precedents clearly foreclose the
theory of causation on which Stallings relies against Georgia-
Pacific, and the Kentucky Supreme Court has not clearly indicated
that it would rule otherwise, the district court's grant of
summary judgment was proper.  Accordingly, the Sixth Circuit
affirmed the judgment of the district court.

The appeals case is CAROL LEE STALLINGS, Individually and as
Executrix of the Estate of William Stallings, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, CBS
CORPORATION; CRANE COMPANY; JOHN CRANE, INC; and IMO INDUSTRIES,
INC., Defendants, No. 15-6387 (6th Cir.).

A full-text copy of the decision dated January 10, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/dL9ssu from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Inmate Loses Bid for Default Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
In NOU THAO, Plaintiff, v. JOE DOBIE, et al., Defendants, Case No.
16-cv-01098-PJH (N.D. Calif.), Plaintiff, a state prisoner,
proceeds with a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983.  In this action, plaintiff alleges that he was
required to clean and work in an area containing lead paint and
asbestos but defendant failed to provide proper protective
clothing and the correct mask.  He states that he was provided a
shower but was not given fresh clothing and he had to wear the
same clothing that was exposed to the lead paint and asbestos.
The Plaintiff does not describe any health effects but states
prison officials will not have him tested and he continues to be
exposed to asbestos.  The Plaintiff has filed a motion for default
judgment and a motion to compel defendants to answer the complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1997e(g)(2).  The Defendants oppose the
motion and seek an extension to file dispositive motions.

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California denied the Plaintiff's motion
for default judgment because the defendants timely filed a waiver
of reply to the complaint.  Moreover, good cause appearing, Judge
Hamilton ordered that the defendants' requests for extensions are
granted.  The Defendants have until February 15, 2017, to file
dispositive motions.

A full-text copy of Judge Hamilton's January 12, 2017, Order on
Motions is available at https://is.gd/TcpLhh from Leagle.com.

Nou Thao, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Joe Dobie, Defendant, represented by Matthew M. Grigg, Law Offices
of Nancy E. Hudgins.

Gary Loredo, Defendant, represented by Matthew M. Grigg, Law
Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins.

Brad Smith, Defendant, represented by Matthew M. Grigg, Law
Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins.

Jeremy Young, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Robert Williams,
Kenneth R. Williams, Attorney at Law.

Philip Early, Defendant, represented by Matthew M. Grigg, Law
Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Summary Judgment in "Mitchell"
------------------------------------------------------------
In JIMMY R. MITCHELL and CONNIE MITCHELL, Plaintiffs, v. ATWOOD &
MORILL CO., et al., Defendants, Civ. No. 15-958-SLR/SRF (D. Del.),
Judge Sue L. Robinson of the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware affirmed the Report and Recommendation issued
by Magistrate Judge Fallon on September 16, 2016, and overruled
the objections to the Report and Recommendation filed by the
plaintiffs.

According to Judge Robinson, no objection has been posed to the
application of maritime law to the asbestos claim filed by
plaintiffs Jimmy and Connie Mitchell asserting personal injury
claims proximately caused by Mr. Mitchell's alleged exposure to
asbestos from the boilers when he worked aboard the U.S.S.
Gridley.

Judge Robinson held that, as such, the plaintiffs have the burden
to demonstrate that: (1) Mr. Mitchell was exposed to Foster
Wheeler's product; (2) Foster Wheeler manufactured or distributed
the asbestos-containing product to which exposure is alleged; and
(3) the product was a substantial factor in causing the injury
plaintiffs claim.

The issue, therefore, is that of causation, and whether there is
sufficient evidence of such to warrant trial, Judge Robinson said.
There is no dispute that Mr. Mitchell was exposed to the Foster
Wheeler boilers.  Mr. Mitchell testified that he worked with the
boilers' burner box and steam and sludge drums.  The burner box
was lined with a brick and mortar mix that "had to" contain
asbestos because of the high heat application.  The steam and
sludge drums were covered with external insulation which, again,
"had to" contain asbestos "for the super heated steam that came
through with the super heat."  Finally, Mr. Mitchell testified
that there was a gasket on the door to the sludge drum that
contained asbestos.  Plaintiffs also provided an affidavit of a
former Foster Wheeler employee, who averred that in the 1950s,
asbestos-containing insulation was used extensively on Foster
Wheeler boilers.

Judge Robinson, however, held that although the plaintiff cited
older district court cases for the proposition that the defendants
should be held responsible for the intended and foreseeable use of
asbestos parts in their original products, the Third Circuit more
recently has indicated otherwise, finding that plaintiffs in In re
Asbestos Prods. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), 837 F.3d 231 (3d Cir. Sept.
13, 2016), failed to proffer evidence that answered the "crucial
question of whether the original, asbestos-containing [components
were] present in the [boiler] during maintenance. Nor does it
answer the question of whether, if replacement [components were]
present . . . [they] were manufactured by" Foster Wheeler.

Judge Robinson held that she saw no error in Magistrate Judge
Fallon's application of the relevant law to the facts of record,
nor in her conclusion that the plaintiffs have proferred
insufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact
so as to preclude entry of summary judgment.

Accordingly, Judge Robinson ordered that the summary judgment
motions filed by defendants Nash Engineering Co. and Foster
Wheeler LLC are granted.

A full-text copy of Judge Robinson's Memorandum Order dated
January 9, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/8mrM5g from
Leagle.com.

Jimmy R. Mitchell, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Balick, Balick &
Balick, LLC.

Jimmy R. Mitchell, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Collins
Smith, Balick & Balick, LLC.

Connie Mitchell, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Balick, Balick &
Balick, LLC & Michael Collins Smith, Balick & Balick, LLC.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kelly A. Costello,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Kelly A.
Costello, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kelly A. Costello, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kelly A. Costello, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Kelly A. Costello, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Kelly A.
Costello, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bid in MDL No. 875 Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In CREIGHTON E. MILLER (Administrator for Estate of Joseph F.
Braun), Plaintiffs, v. MANVILLE CORPORATION ASBESTOS DISEASE
COMPENSATION FUND, ET AL., Defendants, MDL No. 875, Civil Action
No. 2:11-33896-ER (E.D. Pa.), Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied the Thompson Hine Defendants' motion for
partial summary judgment, after finding that the Defendants have
failed to (1) show that there is no genuine dispute as to a
material fact as to whether there is a living statutory
beneficiary (e.g., that the Demetria Braun identified by Plaintiff
is not a "next of kin dependent" as provided for in the survival
statute), or (2) identify any authority that establishes that
Plaintiff's Jones Act claims (either wrongful death claims or
survival claims) abate even if there is an absence of a living
statutory beneficiary (i.e., because the beneficiary(ies) living
at the time of Decedent's death (specifically, his wife -- and
possibly also his son) have since passed away during the pendency
of this action).

A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's January 5, 2017, Memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/8X73nv and Order is avaiilable at
https://is.gd/HJqbxG from Leagle.com.

JOSEPH F. BRAUN, ESTATE OF, CREIGHTON E. MILLER, ADMINISTRATOR,
Plaintiff, represented by DONALD A. KRISPIN, THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY
LAW FIRM, P.C..

JOSEPH F. BRAUN, ESTATE OF, CREIGHTON E. MILLER, ADMINISTRATOR,
Plaintiff, represented by LEONARD C. JAQUES, THE MARITIME
ASBESTOSIS LEGAL CLINIC, ALAN KELLMAN, THE JAQUES ADMIRALTY LAW
FIRM, JOHN E. HERRICK, MOTLEY RICE LLC & JOHN DAVID HURST, MOTLEY
RICE LLC.

ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED, Defendant, represented
by KATHLEEN A. PETTINGILL, BAKER & HOSTETLER, RANDALL L. SOLOMON,
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, THOMAS H. SHUNK, BAKER & HOSTETLER & WADE
A. MITCHELL, BAKER HOSTETLER LLP.

FIBREBOARD CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by JAMES J. HAYES,
JR., GARAN LUCOW MILLER PC.

OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by J.
MARK TRIMBLE, ROHRBACHERS CORN MANAHAN TRIMBLE, ET AL, JEFFREY H.
CHILTON, JEFFREY H. CHILTON ATTORNEY & COUNSELOR PC, JOHN S.
WASUNG, KITCH, SAURBIEN, DRUTCHAS, WAGNER & KENNEY, P.C. & KENT D.
RIESEN, ANSPACH MEEKS ELLENBERGER LLP.

COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INCORPORATED, Defendant, represented by
HENRY E. BILLINGSLEY, II, TUCKER ELLIS & WEST LLP, JOAN M.
ENGLUND, CENTER FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN & STEWART D. ROLL,
CLIMACO, LEFKOWITZ, PECA, WILCOX AND GAR.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, represented by ERNEST W.
AUCIELLO, JR., TUCKER, ELLIS & WEST LLP, MICHAEL R. GALLAGHER,
GALLAGHER, SHARP, FULTON & NORMAN, THOMAS E. BETZ, BUCKLEY
BUILDING & TIMOTHY T. BRICK, GALLAGHER SHARP.

GATKE CORPORATION, Movant, represented by JOHN M. HERKE, SPYRIDON
PALERMO & DORNAN.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 4th Cir. OKs Dismissal Order in Employees Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed
the dismissal of some asbestos manufacturers as defendants in the
case arising out of several attorneys' legal representation of
several South Carolina employees regarding their personal-injury
claims against these asbestos manufacturers.

The employees' lawsuit alleges that the attorneys breached a duty
to instruct them as to how to protect their rights to receive
workers' compensation benefits, or at least to notify them that
they might need to seek further advice on the issue.  The
employees appeal district court orders dismissing some defendants
for lack of personal jurisdiction and granting summary judgment to
others on the merits of the claims.  Finding no error, the Fourth
Circuit affirmed.

The appeals case is LARRY SOUTHERN; ROY SOUTHERN; YVONNE HARRIS;
BARBARA PATTERSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated in the State of South Carolina, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
and LUCILLE SOUTHERN; ODELL PARKER; RUTH PARKER, Plaintiffs, v.
RICHARD H. BISHOFF, PC; RICHARD H. BISHOFF; JOHN M. DEAKLE; JOHN
W. BARRETT; BARRETT LAW GROUP, PA; A. JOEL BENTLEY; PAUL T.
BENTON; WILLIAM R. COUCH; DAVID O. MCCORMICK; CUMBEST CUMBEST
HUNTER & MCCORMICK; CRYMES G. PITTMAN; PITTMAN GERMANY ROBERTS &
WELSH, LLP; JOHN MICHAEL SIMMS; EUGENE C. TULLOS; TULLOS & TULLOS;
RANCE N. ULMER, Defendants-Appellees, and ASBESTOS PROCESSING LLC;
A. JOEL BENTLEY LAW OFFICE; CHARLES G. BLACKWELL, JR.; COUCH LAW
FIRM; PATRICK C. MALOUF; PORTER & MALOUF, PA; HAMMACK BARRY
THAGGARD & MAY, LLP; ANTHONY SAKALARIOS; MORRIS SAKALARIOS &
BLACKWELL, PLLC; LAWYER JOHN DOE; LAWYER JANE DOE, Defendants,
WILLIAM HOWELL MORRISON, Intervenor For Limited Purpose, No. 15-
2008 (4th Cir.).

A full-text copy of the decision dated January 12, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/chL8yL from Leagle.com.

ARGUED: James J. O'Keeffe, IV, JOHNSON, ROSEN & O'KEEFFE, LLC,
Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellants.

Kurt M. Rozelsky, SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP, Greenville, South
Carolina; Morris Dawes Cooke, Jr., BARNWELL WHALEY PATTERSON AND
HELMS, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Thomas A. Pendarvis, PENDARVIS LAW OFFICES, P.C.,
Beaufort, South Carolina; Susan F. Campbell, Georgetown, South
Carolina, Chad A. McGowen, Randall S. Hood, MCGOWAN, HOOD &
FELDER, LLC, Rock Hill, South Carolina; Brent P. Stewart, STEWART
LAW OFFICES, Rock Hill, South Carolina, for Appellants.

Jason D. Maertens, SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellees Richard H. Bishoff, PC, Richard H.
Bishoff, and John M. Deakle.

Susan P. McWilliams, William C. Lewis, NEXSEN PRUET, LLC,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee William R. Couch.

John William Fletcher, BARNWELL WHALEY PATTERSON AND HELMS, LLC,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees Crymes G. Pittman,
Pittman Germany Roberts & Walsh, LLP, Eugene C. Tullos, Tullos &
Tullos, and Rance Ulmer.

Elizabeth Van Doren Gray, Esq. -- egray@sowellgray.com -- J.
Calhoun Watson, Esq. -- cwatson@sowellgray.com -- Alexis Lindsay,
Esq. -- alindsay@sowellgray.com -- SOWELL GRAY STEPP & LAFFITTE,
L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee John Michael Simms.

Thomas C. Salane, Esq. -- tsalane@turnerpadget.com -- R. Hawthorne
Barrett, Esq. -- tbarrett@turnerpadget.com -- TURNER PADGET GRAHAM
& LANEY P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees David O.
McCormick, and Cumbest Cumbest Hunter & McCormick.

Leslie A. Cotter, Jr., Esq. -- lcotter@richardsonplowden.com --
RICHARDSON PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee A. Joel Bentley, Jr.

Larry D. Moffett, Shea S. Scott, DANIEL COKER HORTON & BELL, P.A.,
Oxford, Mississippi, John T. Lay, Jr., Lindsay A. Joyner,
GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees Barrett Law Group, PA and John W. Barrett.

Frank R. Ellerbe, III, ROBINSON, MCFADDEN & MOORE, P.C., Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee Paul T. Benton.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.C. Court Allows Victim's Family to Amend Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In LISA HANSON, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of
Delmont D. Hanson, TONY HANSON, Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants, No. 1:16cv328 (W.D.N.C.), Judge Dennis L. Holwell of
the United States District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina, Asheville Division, issued an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion to amend after none of the Defendants opposed
allowing Plaintiffs leave to amend.

Judge Holwell held, "Allowing Plaintiffs leave to amend is
appropriate under Rule 15 and the relevant case law. The proposed
amendment would not prejudice the opposing parties, Plaintiffs are
not acting in bad faith, and the amendments are not futile.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion.  Plaintiffs shall have
ten (10) days from the entry of this Order to file their Amended
Complaint. Because the filing of an amended pleading supersedes
the original pleading and renders it void of any legal function in
the case, Young v. City of Mount Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 572 (4th
Cir. 2001), the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to DENY as moot the
pending Motions to Dismiss upon the filing of the Amended
Complaint."

A full-text copy of the Order dated January 12, 2017, is available
at https://is.gd/EYJ4UV from Leagle.com.

Lisa Hanson, Plaintiff, represented by Sabrina G. Stone, Dean Omar
Branham, LLP, pro hac vice.

Lisa Hanson, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Graham, Wallace
& Graham.

Tony Hanson, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Graham, Wallace
& Graham.

3M Company, Defendant, represented by Michael Casin Griffin,
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP.

American Biltrite, Inc, Defendant, represented by Eric T. Hawkins,
Hawkins, Parnell, Thackston & Young.

Cyprus-Amax Minerals Co., Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck,
Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

Domco Products Texas, L.P, Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck,
Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M.
Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff.

H.B. Fuller Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher Barton
Major, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G. McDonald,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David Conner,
Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice.

Mannington Mills Inc., Defendant, represented by Joan Shreffler
Dinsmore, McGuireWoods LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Keith E. Coltrain, Wall, Templeton & Haldrup, PA.

Pfizer, Defendant, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin, Nelson,
Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante, Nelson
Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M. Starr, Nelson,
Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP.

Tile Council of North America, Defendant, represented by Timothy
Peck, Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua H. Bennett,
Bennett & Guthrie, P.L.L.C..

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman,
Evert Weathersby Houff.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Grimes"
--------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Grimes died of mesothelioma, a cancer caused by exposure to
asbestos, on July 30, 2015.  Asbestos Corporation Limited ("ACL")
and Bell Asbestos Mines, LTD, "mined, milled, manufactured, sold,
supplied, purchased, marketed, installed and/or removed" the
"asbestos or asbestos-containing products" to which the deceased
was exposed while serving in the United States Navy and working as
a cable twister for Western Electric, Inc.

On October 28, 2015, his widow, Estelle Grimes, brought suit
against ACL, Bell, and numerous other corporations who also mined,
sold, or distributed asbestos in New Jersey state court.  On
December 1, 2015, her case was removed from state to federal
court.  Grimes amended her complaint on August 1, 2016.  ACL and
Bell filed mirror-image motions to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction on August 4, 2016.

Judge Kevin McNulty of the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey ordered that the defendants' motions to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction are denied without
prejudice subject to renewal pending the completion of limited
jurisdictional discovery.

Judge McNulty held, "I will not grant the motion to dismiss based
on lack of personal jurisdiction, but will deny it, subject to
renewal after some limited discovery directed towards the
jurisdictional issues.  I note that most, if not all, of the
information pertinent to this issue presumably would be in ACL or
Bell's control, and Grimes should have a fair opportunity to test
defendants' oft-asserted claims of lack of personal jurisdiction.
Given the frequency with which ACL and Bell have litigated this
issue in this and other courts, discovery concerning defendants'
contacts with New Jersey should be easy to find.  Such discovery
in any case must be focused on the existence, or not, of ties to
New Jersey that would justify the exercise of personal
jurisdiction."

The case is ESTELLE GRIMES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AT&T Corp., et
al., Defendants, Civ. No. 15-8466 (KM) (MAH)(D.N.J.).  A full-text
copy of the memorandum and opinion dated January 9, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/3bki5p from Leagle.com.

ESTELLE GRIMES, Plaintiff, represented by DENNIS M. GEIER, Esq. --
dgeier@cprlaw.com -- COHEN PLACITELLA & ROTH.

AT&T, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER P. DEPHILLIPS, Esq. --
cpdephillips@pbnlaw.com -- Porzio, Bromberg & Newman, P.C. & AHMED
JOSEPH KASSIM, GIBBONS PC.

ASBESTOS CORPORATION LIMITED, Defendant, represented by MADHURIKA
JEREMIAH, Esq. -- mjeremiah@goldfeinlaw.com -- GOLDFEIN & JOSEPH,
P.C..

BELL ASBESTOS MINES LTD, Defendant, represented by MADHURIKA
JEREMIAH, GOLDFEIN & JOSEPH, P.C..

ALLIED BUILDING PRODUCTS CORP., Defendant, represented by MATTHEW
J. CONNAHAN, Esq. -- MConnahan@locklawyers.com -- LEBOWITZ,
OLESKE, CONNAHAN & KASSAR, LLC.

ALLIED GLOVE & SAFETY PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING CORP., Defendant,
represented by WILLIAM CLAWGES MORLOK, Esq. --
wmorlok@swartzcampbell.com -- SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC.

BAYONNE PLUMBING SUPPLY CO., INC., Defendant, represented by PAUL
JOSEPH SMYTH, Esq. -- psmyth@moodklaw.com -- MARKS O'NEILL O'BRIEN
DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C..

BERGEN INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO., INC., Defendant, represented by
POOJA R. PATEL, Esq. -- ppatel@mklaw.us.com -- MCGIVNEY & KLUGER.

BINSKEY & SNYDER, INC., Defendant, represented by KEVIN E.
HOFFMAN, Esq., KENT & MCBRIDE, PC.

BUFFALO PUMPS, INC., Defendant, represented by MICHAEL JOSEPH
BLOCK, WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA.

CBS CORP., Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE,
SEDGWICK LLP & DAVID SCHUYLER BLOW, SEDGWICK LLP.

CENTRAL JERSEY SUPPLY COMPANY, Defendant, represented by DAWN
DEZII, Esq. -- ddezii@margolisedelstein.com -- MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
& JEANINE D. CLARK, Esq. -- jclark@margolisedelstein.com --
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN.

CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by NICHOLAS
ALBANO, III, Esq. -- nalbano@carusosmith.com -- Caruso Pope Edell
Picini, P.C. & RICHARD DOMINICK PICINI, Esq. --
rpicini@carusosmith.com -- CARUSO SMITH EDELL PICINI, PC.

CRANE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JOSHUA ADAM GREELEY,
PASCARELLA DIVITA, PLLC & LISA PASCARELLA, PASCARELLA DIVITA,
PLLC.

FMC CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by ANGELA COLL CALIENDO,
Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli Hanna & Reber, LLP.

FLOWSERVE US INC., Defendant, represented by ALEXANDER CHARLES
SCHAFFEL, MCGIVNEY & KLUGER.

FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER
J. KEALE, SEDGWICK LLP & DAVID SCHUYLER BLOW, SEDGWICK LLP.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J.
KEALE, SEDGWICK LLP & DAVID SCHUYLER BLOW, SEDGWICK LLP.

IMO INDUSTRIES INC., Defendant, represented by JOSEPH IRA FONTAK,
Esq. -- jfontak@leaderberkon.com -- LEADER & BERKON LLP.

INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, Defendant, represented by LISA PASCARELLA,
PASCARELLA DIVITA, PLLC.

KOENIG INDUSTRIAL HARDWARE, Defendant, represented by KEVIN E.
HOFFMAN, KENT & MCBRIDE, PC.

MOONEY BROTHERS CORP., Defendant, represented by KEVIN E. HOFFMAN,
KENT & MCBRIDE, PC.

ONYX INDUSTRIAL, INC., Defendant, represented by MARC J. WISEL,
MCGIVNEY & KLUGER, P.C..

RARITAN SUPPLY COMPANY, Defendant, represented by POOJA R. PATEL,
MCGIVNEY & KLUGER.

RICO, INC., Defendant, represented by DAWN DEZII, MARGOLIS
EDELSTEIN & JEANINE D. CLARK, MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN.

SAFEGUARD INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT CO., Defendant, represented by
ALEXANDER CHARLES SCHAFFEL, MCGIVNEY & KLUGER & POOJA R. PATEL,
MCGIVNEY & KLUGER.

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by NICHOLAS
ALBANO, III, Caruso Pope Edell Picini, P.C. & RICHARD DOMINICK
PICINI, CARUSO SMITH EDELL PICINI, PC.

WARREN PUMPS INC, Defendant, represented by PAUL C. JOHNSON,
MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN, PA.

WEIR VALVES AND CONTROLS USA INC., Defendant, represented by POOJA
R. PATEL, MCGIVNEY & KLUGER & ALEXANDER CHARLES SCHAFFEL, MCGIVNEY
& KLUGER.

FLOWSERVE US INC., Cross Claimant, represented by ALEXANDER
CHARLES SCHAFFEL, MCGIVNEY & KLUGER.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals in Wrongful Death Suit Junked as Moot
--------------------------------------------------------------
In B.E. DEVELOPMENT CORP., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GLENN
WILLIAMS, et al., Defendants and Appellants, Nos. B265867, B267392
(Cal. App.), the surviving members of J.D. Williams' family filed
suit in San Francisco Superior Court against B.E. Development
Corporation for, among other claims, J.D.'s wrongful death.  The
family alleged that J.D. died of lung cancer caused by exposure to
asbestos in tiles he purchased from Builder's Emporium.  In 2015,
while the San Francisco action was still pending, Builder's
Emporium filed in Los Angeles Superior Court a petition under Code
of Civil Procedure2 section 2035.010, et seq., for an order to
preserve and inspect the tiles and the box containing them.
Builder's Emporium sought the order in anticipation of future
litigation the Williamses might bring against the company for any
injuries they may suffer from their exposure to asbestos in the
tiles.

The Williamses filed a motion to stay, strike, or dismiss
Builder's Emporium's petition on the ground that the San Francisco
trial court had exclusive concurrent jurisdiction over discovery
concerning the tiles.  Phyllis also filed a motion to quash the
petition, asserting Builder's Emporium did not properly serve her
with the petition.

In May 2015, the Los Angeles trial court granted Builder's
Emporium's petition and denied Phyllis' motion to quash and the
Williamses' motion to stay, strike, or dismiss.  Accordingly, the
Williamses were ordered to preserve the tiles and allow Builder's
Emporium to "inspect and document" them.  In September 2015, after
the Williamses did not comply with the court's May 2015 order, the
court granted Builder's Emporium's request to compel the family to
comply with that order, and the Williamses eventually produced the
evidence for the company to inspect and document.

The Williamses appeal from the court's May and September 2015
orders.  Because the family produced the tiles for Builder's
Emporium to inspect and document, the Court of Appeals of
California, Second District, Division Three, dismisses both
appeals as moot.

A full-text copy of the decision dated January 10, 2017, is
available at https://is.gd/KrAdqN from Leagle.com.

Farrise Law Firm, Simona A. Farrise and Alina Guzman; The Arkin
Law Firm and Sharon J. Arkin, for Defendants and Appellants.

Sedgwick, Robert D. Eassa and James L. Mink, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Inks A&E Reinsurance Deal with NICO
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hartford Fire Insurance Company entered into an Aggregate Excess
of Loss Reinsurance Agreement with National Indemnity Company
(NICO) under which Hartford will pay NICO a reinsurance premium of
$650 million in exchange for $1.5 billion of reinsurance for
adverse net loss reserve development above the Company's existing
net asbestos and environmental (A&E) reserves as of December 31,
2016, according to The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.'s
Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on December 30, 2016.

On December 30, 2016, Hartford Fire Insurance Company and certain
of its affiliates, which are wholly owned insurance company
subsidiaries of The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.,
entered into an Aggregate Excess of Loss Reinsurance Agreement
with NICO, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. The Company and
the Hartford Insurers concurrently entered into certain other
related agreements with NICO and certain of its affiliates to
effectuate the terms of the transaction.

The Agreements, which are effective as of December 31, 2016,
provide as follows: (i) the Hartford Insurers will pay NICO a
reinsurance premium of $650 million in exchange for $1.5 billion
of reinsurance for adverse net loss reserve development above the
Company's existing net asbestos and environmental (A&E) reserves
as of December 31, 2016; (ii) the Company will retain the risk of
collection on the Hartford Insurers' third-party reinsurance;
(iii) the Company will retain responsibility for claims handling
and other administrative services, subject to certain conditions;
(iv) the $650 million reinsurance premium paid to NICO will be
placed into a collateral trust account as security for NICO's
claim payment obligations to the Hartford Insurers, and (v)
Berkshire will provide a parental guarantee to secure the
obligations of NICO under the Agreements. The reinsurance will
cover adverse development on substantially all the Company's A&E
reserves, excluding those held by the Company's U.K. Property and
Casualty run-off subsidiaries (under contract to be sold with a
closing projected for the first quarter 2017), as well as other
non-U.S. operations with less than $3 million in A&E reserves.

The transaction will be accounted for as retroactive reinsurance
in the Company's GAAP financial statements and is expected to
result in a net loss of approximately $423 million, after-tax, in
the fourth quarter of 2016.

The Hartford Financial Services Group is an insurer with a range
of commercial and personal property/casualty insurance and
financial products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Queensland Gov't Reveals Asbestos-Ridden Schools
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Elder, writing for Gold Coast Bulletin, reported that
major Gold Coast schools are riddled with asbestos and there is no
set time frame or plan around removing the lethal substance.

An updated asbestos register was released this month naming
schools in the state with asbestos present, recently removed or
assumed, as of October 31.

Its lists several Gold Coast education facilities, detailing the
specific areas of concern including toilet block, outdoor awnings,
classrooms, staff offices and libraries.

Nerang MP Sid Cramp said he was frustrated at the lack of
information regarding the dangerous material.

"I have been calling for a comprehensive management plan to have
all asbestos removed from Gold Coast schools for more than a
year," he said.

"The government is back to their old line, that it is being
managed, but will not give any real information or plans.

"There is asbestos in many areas where kids are playing, if a ball
or a child goes through one of these walls, it will be a very big
concern."

Education Minister Kate Jones said the safety of students and
school staff was always a number one priority.

"We are delivering a record $780 million over four years on school
maintenances and proactively dealing with asbestos in schools,"
she said.

"Schools will always take immediate action to deal with any
asbestos containing material on school grounds."

But Shadow Education Minister Tracy Davis claimed the Palaszczuk
had actually reduced the budget.

She said the amount was larger, but it was over a longer period of
time.

"Safety of students should be paramount, parents need to be
assured that the schedule of work for the removal of asbestos
won't be impacted by the government's multi-million dollar cuts to
the school maintenance budget," she said.

"This state government budget is over four years, while ours was
over three.

"It's disappointing that maintenance funding has been cut by Labor
by up to $20-25 million a year compared to the year on year
spending by the previous LNP Government."

Meanwhile an Education Department spokesman said health, safety
and wellbeing of students and staff was a major priority.

"The Department has adopted and implemented strategies for the
identification and progressive removal of asbestos containing
material," he said.

"Asbestos-containing material that is assessed as being in poor
condition, or is regarded as high risk, is immediately made safe
and scheduled for removal."

"Typically most building and maintenance works in schools are
scheduled during holiday periods to minimise the disruption to
teaching and learning."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sonoma State Univ Asbestos Suit Trial Begins
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Payne, writing for The Press Democrat, reported that
testimony has began in the case of a former Sonoma State
University employee who claims he was forced to quit his job after
reporting the school's mishandling of asbestos and lead, including
one incident in which a custodian was ordered to remove
contaminants from a campus rooftop with a leaf blower.

Thomas R. Sargent, 48, of Santa Rosa, seeks $15 million in damages
in a whistleblower lawsuit alleging that retaliation from top-
ranking officials ended his 24-year career at the Rohnert Park
institution. The school denies his claims.

In opening statements, his lawyer said trouble started in 2012
when Sargent, the school's environmental health and safety
inspector, discovered a chalky substance atop the three-story
physical education building.

When he reported it to his boss, department director Craig Dawson,
a decision was made to apply a coating to the roof to seal it off.

But before that could happen, the roof had to be cleaned of the
substance, determined to be lead. Dawson balked at Sargent's
suggestion to hire a private contractor to do the work and instead
ordered a maintenance worker to disperse it with a leaf blower,
said attorney Dustin Collier.

"All while the children's day care center was operating nearby,"
Collier told the seven-man, five-woman jury.

After Sargent reported the incident to state and local officials,
he received his first negative employee evaluation in an otherwise
spotless tenure, his lawyer said.

Tensions grew a year later when he reported asbestos dust,
believed to be from decades-old ceiling and floor tiles,
collecting inside Stevenson Hall, the main faculty office
building. Sargent was further reprimanded after informing state
workplace safety regulators at Cal/OSHA and later received a
temporary suspension, Collier said.

By the time he felt he had to quit in July 2015, Sargent had
received a total of six written reprimands and two suspensions.
His lawyer alleged he was unable to find another job, in part
because of his whistle-blowing activities, his lawyer suggested.

He was forced to spend his retirement savings and suffered medical
and emotional damages, his lawyer  said.

"I'm going to ask you to make Tom Sargent whole," Collier told
jurors. "To place him back in the position he would have been if
he hadn't sacrificed his career."

In her opening, Sonoma State's lawyer denied any retaliation and
downplayed the significance of contaminants found on campus,
saying asbestos was "naturally occurring" in the environment.
Attorney Daralyn Durie said testing confirmed the scattered
existence of only low levels of the toxin.

She painted Sargent as a bitter employee who had been passed over
for promotion and was prone to firing off abusive emails to his
supervisor and other employees.

Durie said Sargent had been placed on a performance improvement
plan as early as 2002 and was disciplined in 2012-2013 for failing
to observe the chain of command, not following orders, not
accounting for his time and unprofessional communication.

Much of the problem stemmed from Sargent's interaction with
Dawson, she said.

"It is the case that these gentlemen had a very difficult working
relationship," Durie told the panel. "The question for you is what
came of that."

Sargent and Dawson, who met as students at the university in the
late 1980s, sat at opposite sides of Judge Nancy Shaffer's
courtroom as the lawyers talked.

A small group of onlookers watched the proceedings. Dawson's
attorney called a union official as his first witness. It was
unclear if top university officials would testify in a trial
expected to run through February.

Sargent is expected to take the stand next week.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family in Legal Fight Over Asbestos Death
----------------------------------------------------------
Shropshire Star reported that Susan Maughan, 63, lived near COD
Donnington at the time of the 1983 blaze when an old army storage
warehouse went up in flames.

An inquest held last year ruled she had died from mesothelioma, a
rare and terminal cancer caused by asbestos, which a coroner said
she had "almost certainly" been exposed to in the aftermath.

Daughters Lorraine, Sonia and Cath, who remember playing in the
"snow" as children, now fear they too could be harbouring the same
disease.

The deaths of Ellen Paddock, 31, and Paula Ann Nunn, 68, both from
mesothelioma, have also previously been linked to the fire.

Lorraine, 45, who was just 12 at the time, said: "I remember grey
snowflakes falling from the sky on to our street and our garden.

"My sisters and I played in it thinking it was Christmas.

"My mother always liked tidiness, even in her garden.

"I remember watching her picking up the debris off the floor and
putting it into our garden bin."

According to reports from the time, the fire scattered ash
containing asbestos across a 15 square mile area.

But the army initially denied that it was dangerous and it stayed
there for five days before being cleaned up.

The family's lawyers, who are also dealing with another two cases
in relation to the same fire, are now investigating whether more
should have been done to protect locals.

Susan, who went on to have son Allan, 27, was a grandmother of
eight and had just become a great grandmother when she died of
mesothelioma in October last year. The incurable cancer is caused
by inhaling or ingesting dust or fibres from asbestos, but can lie
dormant in the body for decades before sufferers realise something
is wrong.

Susan was living in Winsford, Cheshire, at the time of her death,
having retired from jobs including as a cleaner and a hairdresser.

But her family says she had no other memory of coming into contact
with asbestos.

They are now appealing for old friends and neighbours near their
then home on Millstream Way, Leegomery, to get in touch.

Mother-of-three Cath, 37, who now lives near Southport, added:
"What happened to our mum was devastating."

Madelene Holdsworth, an industrial disease specialist at law firm
Slater and Gordon, who is acting on the family's behalf, said:
"They have already lost their mum and now fear they too could be
victims of this devastating disease."

Anyone who remembers the incident and the aftermath, is asked to
contact Madelene Holdsworth on 0161 383 3308 or email
madelene.holdsworth@slatergordon.co.uk


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Says Final Inspections Needed for Libby
------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Bragg, writing for KPAX.com, reported that officials
managing the last cleanup of the Libby asbestos worry a handful of
owners could miss their chance to clean up their properties,
leaving them exposed to unknown costs and problems in the future.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is looking to wrap up the
final inspections and possible cleanup of roughly 600 properties
in Lincoln County which could have been contaminated from
operation at the WR Grace Mine.

But some people, likely worried about their privacy, aren't
cooperating.

"Ten percent or less would even go to a cleanup. But we do have
about 60-properties or so that we know need a cleanup of some
kind. And some of those folks are just refusing to do that,"
remedial project manager Mike Cirian said.

The EPA has spent the past 18-years cleaning up over 2,000
properties. Cirian says the agency respects people's concerns, but
worries they could face major problems and costs selling without
inspections and cleanup in the future.

"Of course if somebody's coming to look to buy a house and it
hasn't been cleaned up or inspected, I wouldn't want to purchase a
home that hasn't had that done," Cirian said. "And I know there's
probably a lot of people that are like that. And also right now,
there's no cost to the owners to have these cleanups or
inspections done."

EPA is encouraging Lincoln County property owners to contact the
Information Center in Libby with questions before the end of
March.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nottingham Schools Still Contain Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Barlow, writing for Notts TV, reported that a list of
Nottingham city schools which still contain potentially lethal
asbestos has been revealed.

Figures, released by Nottingham City Council last December, show
39 out of the 43 schools it still maintains still have asbestos-
containing materials.

And GBP177,000 has been paid in the last ten years to "less than
five" claimants who have developed asbestos-related diseases as a
result of exposure during their employment at unnamed Nottingham
City schools in the past.

The authority says its tight policies and procedures on managing
asbestos mean children and staff are not at risk.

Asbestos is often found in buildings made or refurbished before
the year 2000. It was banned from being used as a construction
material in 1999, but still kills around 5,000 workers each year.

The material is notoriously expensive and difficult to remove, as
it requires workers wearing comprehensive protective clothing.
Once identified is often protected, enclosed and left alone
provided it is not damaged.

But if its fibres are inhaled it can cause fatal lung conditions
and cancer, which often only develop years after exposure.

The Nottingham figures only cover around half the total of city
schools -- the rest of the schools in the city boundary are
academies and under the control of the Department for Education,
rather than the council, for which figures were not immediately
available.

Susi Artis, an assistant secretary for the Nottingham City branch
of the National Union of Teachers (NUT), said: "There's bound to
be asbestos in buildings that were built at a certain time.

"An awful lot of buildings have got asbestos in them, but as long
as you don't disturb it -- by doing any kind of alterations --
it's not an issue."

Nottingham City Council says parents and staff do not need to be
concerned about asbestos being present in schools -- and that
"tightly-managed" policies and procedures are in place to ensure
pupils and staff are not put risk.

A spokesman for the authority said: "Surveys are undertaken in
schools on a regular basis to ensure that asbestos-containing
materials are identified and action taken where necessary.

"Schools have to have very, very regular inspections where people
come in to each school and they'll know where the pockets of
asbestos are -- and that's where inspectors will concentrate their
time. And they will be right on top of anything.

"Any asbestos-containing materials that remain are in a condition
and/or location that do not present any health risks."

In November, Notts TV News revealed the list of 222
Nottinghamshire county schools on the asbestos register.

Around 88 per cent of schools, of the 252 on Nottinghamshire
County Council's books, contain asbestos and, since April 2010,
GBP196,907 has been paid to two out of a total of four claimants
who developed asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to
asbestos during their employment.

Joanne Gordon, co-ordinator of Derbyshire Asbestos Support, an
organisation which works to help people affected by asbestos-
related diseases in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, previously
said they are regularly seeing ex-teachers who are being diagnosed
with Mesothelioma.

Mesothelioma is a cancer and can result from low-level exposure to
asbestos -- it still has no cure.

A policy review published in March 2015 by the Department for
Education quotes the Health and Safety Executive view that schools
are a low-risk environment for asbestos.

It said schools should be given support and funding to remove
asbestos "where appropriate".

Full list of local authority-maintained schools, built before
2000, containing asbestos in Nottingham city is available
at https://is.gd/dCTTy9


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos is Ticking Time Bomb in Bedford Schools
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JJ Hutber, writing for Bedfordshire On Sunday, reported that
asbestos was a popular construction material before it was banned
in 1999.

But how many parents have considered whether their children,
learning in 1970s classrooms, are at risk of breathing the fibre
into their lungs?

A Freedom of Information (FOI) request has revealed just five out
of 76 Bedford Borough schools are 'fully compliant' with the
standard, while 14 have not been inspected. Another nine local
schools were given recommendations at the end of their last audit.

The data, which reveals the outcomes of the last round of health
and safety inspections, shows 35 schools had 'significant areas in
place' and an additional nine were categorised as 'some elements
implemented but significant areas not addressed.'

Lucie Stephens -- who submitted the FOI request -- is campaigning
for more transparency over asbestos and wants every school to
produce an annual asbestos report after her mother, Sue (inset),
who was a teacher for decades, died from mesothelioma (cancer of
mesothelial cells) last year.

"Headteachers have a responsibilty to protect staff and children
from asbestos exposure," she said. "It can be disturbed by
something as simple as knocking a ceiling panel or pressing a pin
into walls. Children are particularly vulnerable to developing
mesothelioma- it is something that tormented my mother in her last
months.

"The government must introduce and implement a policy for the
phased removal of all asbestos from schools to be completed by
2028.

"If people were dying en masse in classrooms, the Health and
Safety Executive (HSE) would have to so something. But they're
dying alone at home and HSE seems to think these deaths are
acceptable.

"Asbestos is a ticking time bomb in schools."

She added that although the FOI data shows no compensation claims
were made for exposure to asbestos, 'there are often
confidentiality agreements if compensation is paid out or people
may not realise they were exposed to asbestos in schools'.

Bedford building site manager Steven Little is calling for greater
legislation to protect residents. He said: "Nobody needs to panic
about asbestos but there is a high risk attached to exposure from
asbestos and it should be taken seriously.

"At the moment you only have to test for asbestos if you are
carrying out building or maintenance work.

"All pre-2000 buildings should be inspected for asbestos."

A Bedford Borough Council spokeswoman said: "Schools are
responsible for maintaining an asbestos register which the council
continually monitors and we are confident there are no safety
concerns and no children are at risk."

To sign Lucie's petition, which has already attracted more than
10,000 supporters, visit 38degrees.org.uk

FACTS

   * Asbestos is a mineral fibre commonly used by the construction
industry in the 20th century because of its fire-resistant
qualities
   * In 1999, it was discovered asbestos can cause serious
illnesses such as lung cancer, mesothelioma and scarring of the
lung
   * It can take 15-60 years for exposure-related symptoms to
emerge
   * It causes 5,000 deaths every year, compared to 1,780 people
who died in road accidents in 2015


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Waterloo Region Fined for Exposing Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Ponciano, writing for CBC News, reported that the Region of
Waterloo pleaded guilty and was fined $50,000 after an employer
failed to let his workers know that the building they were working
in contained asbestos.

Eight construction workers were exposed to asbestos in October
2015 while they were working on a construction project at the
region's water pumping station at 23 William Street in Waterloo.

According to the Ministry of Labour, the region conducted an
assessment in 2014 which identified that the pumping station did
contain asbestos material.

But the employer failed to let his workers and supervisors know
before construction work went underway.

As a result, the workers were not wearing personal protective
equipment when they were exposed.

However, the court was told that none of the worker's exposure to
asbestos was extensive, despite one worker having been in the
building for seven hours.

Proper clean-up of the hazardous material was done after one of
the workers notified their supervisor and the health and safety
advisor for the region that the material they encountered in the
building could have contained asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: UK Defense Ministry Sued After Army Base Blaze
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve White, writing for Mirror, reported that the Ministry of
Defence is being sued by lawyers for three victims who lived near
an Army base after a fire scattered toxic asbestos 'like snow'.

The inquest of mother-of-four Susan Maughan, 63, ruled she died in
2015 from mesothelioma, a terminal cancer caused by asbestos, yet
was never exposed to it at work.

Instead a coroner linked it to the fact that in 1983 she lived by
the Army's Central Ordnance Depot at Donnington, near Telford,
Shrops., when it was hit by a devastating blaze.

The fire scattered ash containing asbestos across a 15-square-mile
area, requiring Army teams in protective suits to clean up nearby
streets and villages.

Now lawyers for the family and two others are preparing to sue the
MoD after the coroner said she was "almost certainly" exposed to
the MoD's asbestos.

Her children even recalled playing in the "snow-like" asbestos-
laden ash and now fear they too could be harbouring the same
deadly disease.

Daughter Lorraine Laketic, 45, only 12 at the time of the blaze,
said: "I remember grey snowflakes falling from the sky onto our
street and our garden.

"We all played in it thinking it was Christmas. My mother always
liked tidiness, even in her garden.

"I remember watching her picking up the debris off the floor and
putting it into our garden bin."

The hearing in March 2016 was told by Mrs Maughan's GP, Dr Peter
Larmour, that she visited the surgery on two occasions in 2011 and
2012 with breathing difficulties.

Mrs Maughan, of Winsford, Cheshire, was diagnosed with
mesothelioma and began chemotherapy treatment, which lasted for
three years.

On one occasion she had to be treated for a collapsed lung as a
result of the disease, the inquest was told.

In March 2015 a CT scan showed the tumours were spreading and Ms
Maughan was deemed "not fit for further chemotherapy", the doctor
said.

Mrs Maughan, who also had a son Allan, 27, was a grandmother-of-
eight and had also just become a great-grandma when she passed
away in October 2015.

Her post mortem concluded there was "no definitive proof" of
asbestos in her body though it was possible the cancer was caused
by asbestos exposure.

John Pollard, Senior Coroner for Manchester South, who recorded
the death was an accident, said: "In my view there is no evidence
that she was exposed to asbestos where she worked.

"There is significant evidence she may, well almost certainly, was
exposed to asbestos in the aftermath of the Donnington explosion."

Now lawyers, also dealing with another two cases in relation to
the same fire, are investigating whether more should have been
done to protect them.

The deaths of Ellen Paddock, 31, and Paula Ann Nunn, 68, both from
mesothelioma, have also previously been linked to the fire.

In 2008, mother-of-three Ms Paddock died with Telford & Wrekin
coroner Michael Gwynne linking it to Donnington.

Then in 2015 Shropshire Coroner John Ellery made the same ruling
over Mrs Nunn's death, and linked the two cases together.

The incurable cancer is caused by inhaling or ingesting dust or
fibres from asbestos, but can lie dormant in the body for decades.

Madelene Holdsworth, an industrial disease specialist at law firm
Slater and Gordon, said of the Maughan family: "They've lost their
mum and now fear they too could be victims of this devastating
disease.

"That knowledge is a terrible thing to have to live with. They
understandably want answers about whether more could have been
done."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: President's House Staff Undergo Exposure Tests
---------------------------------------------------------------
Darlisa Ghouralal, writing for Looptt.com, reported that medical
evaluations are expected to be carried out on 30 employees at
President's House in Trinidad and Tobago following their exposure
to asbestos on the premises.

Affected employees who came into contact with the contaminated
area on regular basis will begin medical tests over a three-day
period at the Industrial Medical Unit at the Eric Williams Medical
Sciences Complex (EWMSC), Mt Hope from today.

The North-Central Regional Health Authority (NCRHA) was contacted
to have the affected staff medically evaluated. The OTP says the
NCRHA's response was swift and commendable and workers will be
evaluated in batches of eight to ten per day.

Apart from chest x-rays, workers will be tested in area of blood
count, renal function, liver function and possible spirometry if
available at EWMSC.

UDeCOTT recently advised the Office of the President (OTP) of the
presence of the hazardous material at President's House and its
environs.

The OTP, however, has expressed concern over indications that the
authorities responsible for renovation of President's House have
been aware of the asbestos contamination for some time but failed
to inform and alert the Office of this hazard.

The Office was only notified that vinyl floor tiles within the
laundry lining fabrics storage room contained asbestos, which was
discovered by the previous Ministry assigned with the Restoration
of President's House. It is feared that other areas of President's
House could also contain asbestos materials.

UDeCOTT outlined the requisite procedure OTP must follow before
the asbestos material could be removed, and further advised that
options for temporary relocation of affected staff are being
prepared to be sent to the relevant authority.

A specialist team from Caribbean Industrial Research Institute
(CARIRI) held discussions with personnel from the Office following
the asbestos discovery.

The CARIRI team promptly carried out a preliminary visit of the
facilities and committed to dispatch three technicians from the
Industrial Materials Unit -- Metallurgy, to carry out a detailed
inspection of compound. The three-member team will first carry out
a visual inspection of the different materials present in the
compound and determine which may be a suspect for future sampling.

CARIRI noted that the team will need to have access to all roofs
and ceilings, "since these materials are prime suspects of
containing asbestos fibres. Old visible water pipes are also of
concern."

While asbestos is historically known for its heat resistance and
insulating properties it has since been associated with lung
cancer and other ailments.

The OTP says ensuring the health and safety of all employees and
visitors to President's compound is paramount and the Office is
committed to working with the relevant agencies toward that goal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Son Could Have Breathed Asbestos as a Child
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ThisisLancashire.co.uk reported that a former scaffolder may have
died through exposure to asbestos on his father's clothing, an
inquest heard.

Alan Cooper, aged 52, died at Royal Bolton Hospital on September
28 last year from malignant mesothelioma, a rare type of cancer
that most people get after being exposed to asbestos particles.

Bolton Coroner's Court heard that Mr Cooper thought that he had
been exposed to small amounts of asbestos at times throughout his
working life and when he was a child his father, William, who was
also a scaffolder, may have exposed him to low level of asbestos
from dirty work clothes and equipment when he came home in the
evenings.

Pathologist Patrick Waugh said it was likely that Mr Cooper, of
Alberta Street, Deane, had been exposed at a younger age as, after
asbestos particles are inhaled, it can take decades for the
disease to form.

He said: "This is one of the youngest cases that I have seen.
People who commonly get this disease are people exposed in 1960's
and 1970's when we didn't know that asbestos was a problem."

Assistant coroner Rachael Griffin, who recorded a narrative
conclusion that Mr Cooper died from from malignant mesothelioma,
said: "This is very sad and a very unusual case."

A married Bolton Wanderers' fan, Mr Cooper remained in Bolton for
all of his life and the court heard was a very sociable and
popular person.

Health problems forced his retirement 11 years ago and, as
symptoms of malignant mesothelioma began to show up, he was
diagnosed with the disease in April last year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mont. Running Out of Time for Superfund Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Oppenheimer, writing for Mesothelioma.net, reported that the
residents of Lincoln County, Montana have been living under a
metaphoric asbestos cloud since 1963, when the W. R. Grace & Co.
vermiculite mine operated in Libby. The mine's vermiculite was so
heavily contaminated with the carcinogenic material that thousands
of residents of the county have been sickened or died from
asbestos-related diseases, and the area was subsequently
designated a Superfund site in the early 2000s. Millions have been
spent on an extensive cleanup since that time: today the area's
air asbestos concentrations have been measured at approximately
100,000 times lower than they had been decades earlier. But not
all of the area's residents have taken advantage of the government
services, leaving their homes and properties a continuing risk,
and now the cleanup efforts are winding down. The Environmental
Protection Agency has just released a statement saying that there
are just days left for those who have not had their property
inspected to sign up to have it done. March 31st is the last day
available for residents to contact them regarding the cleanup
program.

The "last call" that the EPA issued comes after having already
inspected over 7,500 properties over the years, and having cleaned
2,440 of them. Still, there are some 600 homes and properties
whose owners have not contacted the agency, leaving them at risk
for asbestos exposure. The EPA experts estimate that roughly ten
percent of them require asbestos cleanup. Asbestos is a material
that was long used in the United States for building and
insulating purposes, but in the mid-1970s it was determined to be
hazardous to human health, and exposure to the mineral has been
directly associated with mesothelioma, a rare and always fatal
form of cancer.

The Superfund cleanup process can include removing soil from
contaminated yards and replacing it with clean fill, as well as
inspecting the inside of a property and taking out any asbestos-
contaminated insulation or other materials that are accessible to
the residents. Those who do not have the process done not only
risk their own health, but also that of anybody who might purchase
their property in the future. As a result those properties that
are not inspected will be included in a report filed with the
Lincoln County Clerk and Recorder's office to ensure that future
residents are aware of the risk.

Exposure to asbestos is extremely damaging, and causes a lifetime
of heartache. If you are dealing with an asbestos-related illness
such as mesothelioma, asbestosis, or asbestos-related lung cancer,
the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net are here to offer
support, information and guidance. Call us today at 1-800-692-
8608.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Testing Confirms Asbestos in Coolbellup Site
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Foster, writing for WAToday.com, reported that residents
fears the plumes of dust from the Roe 8 clearing in bushland in
Coolbellup were covered with potentially deadly asbestos have been
confirmed, after testing found the toxic material on the site.

The Barnett government is currently clearing bushland along the
route for the contentious Roe highway extension, which is part of
the Perth Freight Link.

Residents had known for years part of the area has been a dumping
ground for asbestos and raised concerns to the WA government the
dangerous material was getting mulched and blown into nearby
homes.

Main Road workers, covered in protective gear, had been on the
site recently removing illegally-dumped asbestos.

Coolbellup Concerned Residents spokesperson Alison Wright said the
group had 43 samples tested by the environment laboratory
Envirolabs, which found more than 80 per cent contained asbestos.

She said dust clouds from the clearing and mulching work on the
site were blowing through houses in the area.

"Because of the strong community concern a survey of the area
proposed for the Roe 8 development, including some of the area
that has since been cleared was conducted," she said.

"Asbestos like product is evident in large numbers throughout the
project site and yet the Construction Management Plan only
identifies specific areas to be addressed.

"This raises significant concerns about the ability of the
contractor to properly mitigate against the risk of exposure to
the public of dangerous levels of asbestos exposure."

Ms Wright said the asbestos posed a serious risk to locals'
health.

"These samples were located throughout the area and found on the
surface, buried in the ground either singularly or in large
quantities," she said.

"Work should cease immediately until an adequate plan can
demonstrate that residents and community are not at risk."

Last week, the City of Cockburn called on the Barnett government
to halt work on Roe 8 because of fears the site was covered with
asbestos.

Cockburn mayor Logan Howlett said the Environment Protection
Authority and the Department of Environment Regulation should
enforce "pollution provisions" to prevent dust impacting on nearby
homes.

"The soil in these uncleared bush areas is extremely fine and
prone to lift off," Mr Howlett said.

"These works should not be carried out until the autumn/winter
when winds are seasonally lower velocity and the soil is more
likely to be wet with rain.

"The city is also extremely concerned about reports of the
presence of dumped asbestos material in the vegetation that is to
be mulched and also in the bush that is to be cleared.

"There is a likely risk of asbestos fibres being released if
asbestos is mulched or broken up."

Main Roads has been contacted for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $850K Clean-up Bill for Dumped Asbestos
--------------------------------------------------------
Emma Watson, writing for Mordialloc Chelsea Leader, reported that
ratepayers will fork out at least $850,000 following a Kingston
council blunder that led to asbestos-ridden soil dumped in a
public park.

As an independent investigation gets underway, Leader has been
told a council employee gave the green light to shift the soil
from a Glenola Rd, Chelsea site to the town's Bicentennial Park
despite being told by a sub contractor he feared it contained
asbestos.

Chief executive John Nevins wouldn't say whether council employees
were at fault, but told Leader the investigation would "identify
any breakdown of procedures".

Mr Nevins said that $90,000 of the $850,000 clean-up bill could
have been avoided if the soil had not been dumped at the Chelsea
park.

"It is estimated that transporting the soil to Bicentennial Park,
erecting fencing, watering the soil mounds, covering the soil and
planting new grass in the affected area comprised approximately
$90,000 of these costs and could have been avoided," Mr Nevins
said.

He said council would ask the Department of Education to
contribute to the costs because the Glenola Rd site was owned by
the department and leased to Kingston.

The extra cost of the current investigation by an independent
expert has not yet been established.

In November Leader revealed children had been playing in the
asbestos-contaminated soil at Bicentennial Park before council
realised its blunder and fenced off the area.

They then tested the soil at the Glenola Rd site, earmarked for
the new Chelsea Kindergarten, and found small amounts of asbestos
and heavy metals in the surface fill material.

Removal of that contaminated soil was scheduled for completion
this month during the school holidays.

Mr Nevins said it had been covered and watered in line with
stringent safety standards.

The contaminated soil was fully removed from Bicentennial Park by
December 16.

"Council notified EPA and WorkSafe regarding both sites and have
complied with asbestos removal guidelines," Mr Nevins said.

"This has included appointing independent hygienists to oversee
licenced asbestos removalists.

"Council also erected public signage to alert the community and
sent information bulletins to surrounding residents at both sites
to keep them informed."

A WorkSafe spokesman confirmed they had attended and were
satisfied appropriate action had been taken.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: East Lansing Wants Mercury, Asbestos Suit Junked
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Beth LeBlanc, writing for Lansing State Journal, reported that
nearly two years after nine East Lansing employees filed suit
against the city for asbestos and mercury exposure, the city is
asking the state Court of Appeals to throw the case out.

East Lansing appealed an Ingham County Circuit Court judge's
ruling in the case to the state Court of Appeals in November. A
stay on the trial, which was supposed to start Tuesday, was
entered into court records last week.

The lawsuit was filed in January 2015 after employees working in
the city's waste water treatment plant alleged the city knowingly
exposed them to asbestos and mercury.

In 2015 and again in 2016, the city asked Circuit Judge Clinton
Canady III to dismiss the case, claiming that the city had
governmental immunity; that the court lacked jurisdiction over the
claim because it is covered exclusively by the Michigan Workers'
Disability Compensation Act; and that the employees suing the city
had no physical injuries. Canady denied the city's request.

"We think that the state law should be followed and the case
should be dismissed," Thomas Fleury, the lawyer representing the
city, said. City Manager George Lahanas said in an email he is
unable to comment on the ongoing lawsuit.

Neal Wilensky, who is representing the employees, said he is
confident the case will proceed.

"We believe we have a good case and we believe the trial judge
decided the matter correctly," Wilensky said.

The suit alleges a 2007 study commissioned by the city identified
asbestos in the Waste Water Treatment Plant and recommended
notification of employees.

But, according the suit, the nine employees were never notified of
the study and at least a few of those employees claimed they were
told to "keep quiet" when they asked about the asbestos.

"It is clear that this plant was rife with asbestos, the brass
knew it, willfully disregarded worker safety, and deliberately
exposed employees for seven years," Wilensky's December response
reads.

An abatement of the asbestos started in spring 2014, shortly after
a summary of the 2007 asbestos study was released to workers.

Around that same time, an employee also contacted the Michigan
Occupational Safety and Health Administration regarding an
accidental spill of mercury in November 2013 that was neither
cleaned nor reported properly.

The spill and the resulting risk of exposure were investigated by
the Ingham County Health Department, the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality and MIOSHA in March and April of 2014,
according to the lawsuit.

East Lansing was fined twice by MIOSHA; once for safety violations
related to the asbestos and mercury issues, and a second time for
new violations and because the city did not correct previous
violations. The city paid a total of $21,000 to the DEQ and
$13,950 to MIOSHA.

The suit was filed on behalf of Troy Williams, Allesha Morris,
Jose Mireles, Kim Hopkins, Craig Walsh, Josh LaFave, Ryan
Ebbinghaus, Mamuda Cham, and Kyle Smith.

Wilensky said three of the employees who filed the suit still work
for the city.

Named in the suit are the city, Maintenance Supervisor Wayne
Beede, Public Works Director Todd Sneathen, and Superintendent
Cathryn Garnham.

In March 2015, Lahanas said Sneathen and Garnham departed for
other jobs in the fall of 2014. Beede took a $26,450 settlement in
November 2014 in exchange for resigning and not suing the city.

" . . . during all relevant time periods, Sneathen, Garnham and
Beede were acting within the scope of their authority as
governmental employees," Fleury's appeal reads. "There has never
been any evidence of bad faith on the part of Sneathen, Garnham or
Beede."


                            *********

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  * * *