CAR_Public/170124.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Tuesday, January 24, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 17



                            Headlines

AEROTEK INC: Faces Suit For Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AEROTEK INC: Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable, Judge Says
ALP LIQUIDATING: Disbursements of Settlement Proceeds Ongoing
APPLE INC: Judge Kills Warranty Class Action
ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICAL: Unz Sues Over Misleading Fin'l. Reports

ATAMI ON 2ND: Zhu Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum and OT Wages
BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Smith" Suit Says
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over SSA Bonds Bid-Ask Spreads Fixing
BOIRON INC: Court Dismisses UCL Claims in "Lewert" Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS: Could Face Suit Over Mislabled Pills

CHICAGO: Faces Suit Over Police Use of Phone Tracking Technology
CHICKBEE NY: Faces "Sicajau" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Faces "Sparks" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CLINTON DELICATESSEN: Faces "Canales" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CONAGRA FOODS: Class Certification in "Briseno" Suit Affirmed

DAVISON DESIGN: Atty's Fee Award in "Dungee" Suit Vacated
EMANUEL SERVICES: "Haric" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
EXEL INC: Appeal in "Rodriguez" Suit Dismissed
FENIX PARTS: March 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
FIAT CHRYSLER: Sued Over Black Non-Union Workers Discrimination

FIAT CHRYSLER: Heninger Garrison Files Suit Over Emission Cheating
FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces "Warren" Suit Over Illegal Defeat Devices
FIFTH STREET: Class Asks Judge to Approve $14-Mil. Settlement
FORD SA: Could Face Class Action Over Combustion of Ford Kuga SUV
GOLDEN GATE AMERICA: Not Transportation Employer, Judge Says

GOOGLE: Judge Questions Counsel Fees on $4.75-Mil. Wage Deal
GC SERVICES: Faces "Gavrielova" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
HALL COUNTY, GA: Faces Suit Over Frozen Pension Benefits
H.J. HEINZ: "Lopez" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to S.D. of Cal.
IKEA: 9th Cir. Returnes Shopper's Suit to State Court

INOTEK PHARMACEUTICALS: March 7 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
JACKSON HEWITT: Faces "Scoma" Suit in Middle Dist. of Florida
JMFF LLC: Faces "Uliu-Personius" Suit in S.D.N.Y
KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces "Roy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
KPMG LLP: 4th Cir. Upholds Order Denying Arbitration Bid

KUNG FU LITTLE: "Weng" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Wins Summary Judgment in "Fosbre" Suit
LEHMAN BROTHERS: High Court Agrees to Consider CalPERs Suit
LIBERTY MUTUAL: 9th Cir. Tosses Bid to Appeal Remand Order
LIFE PARTNERS: Plaintiffs Seek to Disqualify Goodman & Nekvasil

MDL 2670: Court Rules on Federal Issues in Antitrust Suit
MODERNHEALTH HOLDINGS: Sued Ove Failure to Provide Meal Breaks
MRS BPO: Faces "Nelson" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
NATIONAL MILK: Missouri Residents May Be Entitled For Some Cash
NEW ORLEANS, LA: Deal Not 'Reachable' In 'Debtor Prison' Case

NEW YORK: Class Status Granted in Illegal Detention Suit
NIGERIA DEPOSIT: Former Bankers Sue Over Nonpayment of Gratuities
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces "Gavrialov" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
NOVO NORDISK: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
OREGON: Benton County May Opt Out From Suit Against DoF

PALOS VERDES, CA: Lunada Bay Boys Could Face Suit for Harrassment
PARTY CITY HOLDCO: IPO Class Action Remains Pending in S.D.N.Y.
PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Feb. 27 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
PERRIGO COMPANY: Roofers' Pension Fund Suit in Early Stage
PERRIGO COMPANY: "Wilson" Suit Consolidated with Roofers Action

PERRIGO COMPANY: Israel Class Suit Remains Stayed
PETCO ANIMAL: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Wagner" Suit Says
PFIZER INC: Updates on Celebrex and Bextra Litigation
PFIZER INC: Effexor-Related Suits in Pennsylvania Remain Stayed
PFIZER INC: Bids to Dismiss Effexor XR End-Payors' Claims Pending

PFIZER INC: Appeal in Zoloft Products Liability Case Pending
PFIZER INC: Suit Over Intravenous Saline Solution Underway
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Barred From Using Current Liening Procedures
PROG LEASING: Faces "Rumpf" Suit in District of Arizona
QUALITY INN: "Strickland" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

QUICKEN LOANS: Faces Suit Over Unsolicted Text Messages
RAIDER PRESSUE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Stovall" Suit Claims
RESONANT INC: September 2017 Trial Date Set in Securities Suit
ROSS STORES: No Arbitration for "Hernandez" Dispute, Court Says
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued Over Defective Home Washing Machines

SANTANDER CONSUMER: Debt Collection Suit Reviewed After Dismissal
SEQWATER: Flood Victims Still Wait for Settlement
SHAKE SHACK: Class Action Settlement Granted Preliminary Approval
SMARTHEALTH INC: Faces Scoma Chiropractic Suit in M.D. Fla.
SPARK ENERGY: Status Conference in "Melville" Suit on May 16

SUBWAY: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Driver Plaintiffs are Employees, Judge Rules
TAKATA CORP: Settlement with Gov't Won't Hinder Class Action
TALEN ENERGY: Neufeld Files Suit Over Riverstone Merger Deal
TG THERAPEUTICS: Lundin Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit

TOP FLITE: 6th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of TCPA Suit
TRI-STATE WATER: 7th Cir. Upholds Remand of Consumer Dispute
UNITED CONTINENTAL: Must Defend "Neft" Suit Over Discount Program
US AIRWAYS: Counsel Asks Court to Dismiss Service Agent Claims
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Airport Guards File Class Action

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Court to Examine Choice of Law Agreement
VOLKSWAGEN: UK Drivers in Line for Up to GBP3,000 Compensation
WELLS FARGO: Lieff Cabraser, Saxena White Selected as Lead Counsel
WOODBRIDGE BARIC: Order to Pay $20K to Deepwater Horizon Reversed
WORLEYPARSONS: Federal Court Orders $50MM Class Suit to Continue

ZIMMER BIOMET: Jan.31 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
ZOMICK'S FOOD: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ZOOMER INC: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages

* Supreme Court to Examine Workers' Rights to File Lawsuit


                            *********


AEROTEK INC: Faces Suit For Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
The Riverside labor law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit against Aerotek, Inc. for
allegedly failing to pay their Recruiters and Account Managers
overtime wages. The Aerotek, Inc. lawsuit, Case No. CIVDS1621258
is currently pending in the San Bernardino County Superior Court
for the State of California.

The class action lawsuit alleges that under the California Labor
Code, Aerotek, Inc. is required to pay all persons employed
Recruiters and/or Account Managers overtime wages for their time
worked in excess of eight hours in a workday and hours worked in
excess of forty hours in any workweek. The class action complaint
further asserts that the Recruiters and Account Managers employed
by Aerotek, Inc. were allegedly misclassified because these
employees failed to meet all the criteria under any of the
exemptions to overtime pay in California. As a result, the
Complaint seeks back payment for an unspecified amount for all the
alleged overtime hours these employees worked for Aerotek, Inc.

The Riverside employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik represent employees in the State of California in various
lawsuits including class actions for unpaid overtime, unpaid
business expenses, and missed meal and rest breaks. The firm has
offices located in San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles,
Riverside, San Diego and Chicago. If you would like free
California labor law advice, call Attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw
today at (800) 568-8020.


AEROTEK INC: Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable, Judge Says
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the Northern District of
California denied defendant's motion to compel arbitration, in the
case JAIME ECHEVARRIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AEROTEK, INC., a Maryland
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-04041-BLF (N.D. Cal.)

Aerotek, Inc. is a temporary staffing company which provides a
full range of recruitment and staffing solutions to meet the needs
of Aerotek's clients by hiring temporary employees sometimes
referred to as contract employees, for work on temporary
assignments at client sites. When Aerotek extends a job offer of
temporary employment to an individual, Aerotek sends the
individual a welcome email containing a link to a software system
known as Onboarding Automation which is used for the online
completion of new-hire paperwork.

Jaime Echevarria interviewed with Aerotek on April 22, 2016 for a
temporary position as a metal detailer. Aerotek decided to hire
Echevarria and sent him a welcome email on April 26, 2016 with
directions to complete online onboarding paperwork and a link to
the Onboarding Automation system.

Among the documents that Echevarria completed as part of the
onboarding process was a Mutual Arbitration Agreement, which
provides that all claims between Echevarria and Aerotek will be
resolved by arbitration, and all claims must be brought in a
party's individual capacity and may not be maintained on a class
action, collective action, or representative basis. Just above the
signature line, the Mutual Arbitration Agreement states as
follows: "My affirmative signature and/or acknowledgement of
this Agreement is not required for the Agreement to be enforced.
If I begin working for Aerotek, Inc. without signing this
Agreement, this Agreement will be effective, and I will be deemed
to have consented to, ratified and accepted this Agreement through
my acceptance of and continued employment with Aerotek, Inc."

Echevarria electronically signed the Mutual Arbitration Agreement
on April 27, 2016, and an Aerotek representative electronically
counter-signed it on April 29, 2016.

Echevarria was assigned to work at one of Aerotek's clients,
Flextronics America, LLC. He worked for approximately one week and
then failed to show up on May 10, 2016.  When an Aerotek
representative called Echevarria about his absence, Echevarria
resigned.  Echevarria filed an action in the Santa Clara County
Superior Court on June 17, 2016, asserting class and PAGA claims
based on Aerotek's failure to pay temporary service employees for
time spent attending mandatory orientation meetings. Aerotek
removed the case to federal district court on July 18, 2016 and
seeks to compel arbitration of Echevarria's individual claims,
dismiss his class claims, and stay his PAGA claim.

Judge Freeman denied defendant's motion and held that Aerotek's
online application process not only failed to inform Echevarria
that he could opt out of the Mutual Arbitration Agreement, but the
Mutual Arbitration Agreement stated expressly that it would be
enforced whether or not Echevarria signed it. On this record, it
does not appear that Echevarria had a meaningful opportunity to
opt out of the Mutual Arbitration Agreement. Consequently, the
court concludes that the class action waiver contained in that
agreement is unenforceable.

Aerotek argues that even if the class action waiver is
unenforceable, Echevarria must be compelled in arbitrate his
individual claims. Judge Freeman held that such argument is
without merit because compelling Echevarria to arbitrate his
individual claims effectively would preclude him from pursuing
class claims. Given the court's disposition of Aerotek's motion to
dismiss Echevarria's class claims and compel arbitration of his
individual claims, Aerotek's motion to stay the PAGA claim is
moot.

A copy of Judge Freeman's order dated January 3, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/eoklrx from Leagle.com.

Jaime Echevarria, Plaintiff, represented by Kristen Michelle Agnew
-- kagnew@diversitylaw.com -- Larry W. Lee --
lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- at Diversity Law Group, P.C.

Aerotek, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kevin Dennis Sullivan --
ksullivan@ebglaw.com -- Michael Stuart Kun -- mkun@ebglaw.com --
at Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

Dang Lam, Interested Party, represented by Brett Donald Szmanda --
Brett@szmandalaw.com -- at Szmanda Law Group, P.C.


ALP LIQUIDATING: Disbursements of Settlement Proceeds Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALP Liquidating Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that disbursements of
the settlement proceeds in the Rothal class action lawsuit is
taking place.

The Partnership, the General Partner and certain related parties
as well as other unrelated parties were named defendants in an
action entitled Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al., Case
No. 03-10709 CACE 12, filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. In this suit
that was originally filed on or about June 20, 2003, plaintiffs
purported to bring a class action allegedly arising out of
construction defects occurring during the development of Camellia
Island in Weston, which has approximately 150 homes.

On May 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a nine count second amended
complaint seeking unspecified general damages, special damages,
statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court may deem just
and proper. Plaintiffs complained, among other things, that the
homes were not adequately built, that the homes were not built in
conformity with the South Florida Building Code and plans on file
with Broward County, Florida, that the roofs were not properly
attached or were inadequate, that the truss systems and
installation thereof were improper, and that the homes suffer from
improper shutter storm protection systems.

The case went to mediation on March 11, 2010. The case did not
settle then.

The Arvida defendants have filed their answer to the amended
complaint. The court concluded its hearings on the motion to
certify the class covering the homes in Camellia Island and
certified the class by order dated September 16, 2010.

On October 15, 2010, the Partnership filed its notice of appeal
challenging the certification order. On June 1, 2011, the
appellate court affirmed the trial court's order certifying the
class.

The case was returned to the trial court for further proceedings
including trial. The parties and their insurers entered into
various agreements in principle to settle this case and the
related cases discussed hereafter, some of which agreements have
been finalized.

On June 22, 2016, the court gave final approval of the settlement
of the Rothal class action. No appeal has been taken from the
court's order approving the settlement and it is now final.
Disbursements of Rothal settlement proceeds is taking place.

The related agreements that Arvida has with various other parties
and their insurers related to the funding of the settlement have
been executed. Administration of the settlement is ongoing.


APPLE INC: Judge Kills Warranty Class Action
--------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino at Courthouse News reports a federal judge January
11 rejected last-ditch efforts to save a putative class action
accusing Apple of lying to consumers about its iPhone warranties,
and using refurbished rather than new parts to fix them.

Former lead plaintiff Patricia Adkins sued Apple in November 2013,
claiming it falsely represented that its AppleCare warranty plans
guaranteed new parts and products for repairs and replacements.

Adkins was replaced in January 2015 by lead plaintiff Fabrienne
English, who says Apple gave her two replacement phones that
immediately froze and shut down without warning, though none of
the packaging indicated the devices were anything but new.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick III denied English's motion for
class certification in January 2016, finding problems with her
theories of liability and adequacy of counsel.

During a December hearing on a motion for summary judgment,
English's attorney Renee Kennedy asked Orrick to open up her
client's iPhone to verify whether Apple records correctly indicate
whether its replacement phones were new and not refurbished.

Orrick rejected the request, saying inspecting the phone could not
reliably prove whether it was new when English received it four
years ago.

Kennedy said an expert could inspect the phone's inner components
for fingerprints, but Orrick said no evidence was offered to show
that a refurbished phone's interior parts would contain
fingerprints.

Orrick added that declarations that English, her family members
and third parties never opened the phone "hardly sufficient to
establish a reliable chain of custody" or prove the phone had not
been tampered with.

In a sealed motion filed on Jan. 5, Kennedy asked Orrick to recuse
himself, claiming U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte
improperly shared "allegations against" her and/or her client from
a confidential settlement conference letter with the judge.

Orrick refused that request also on Wednesday, calling recusal
"unnecessary and inappropriate" and denying allegations of "taint
or judicial bias."

"Despite plaintiff's unfounded contentions to the contrary,
Magistrate Judge Laporte did not share with me, verbally or in
writing, any disparaging remarks about plaintiff or her counsel,
or any information regarding the settlement negotiations at all,"
Orrick wrote.

Orrick found that English failed to present evidence upon which
she relied, or any verbal or oral misrepresentations from Apple on
the newness of replacements or the number of replacements she was
entitled to receive.

He granted Apple's motion for summary judgment and denied
English's request for further discovery, ending the case.

Neither attorney Kennedy, of Friendswood, Texas, nor Apple's press
team returned phone calls seeking comment on January 12.


ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICAL: Unz Sues Over Misleading Fin'l. Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richardson B. Unz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Christopher
R. Anzalone, and Kenneth A. Myszkowski, Case No. 2:17-cv-00310
(C.D. Cal., January 13, 2017), alleges that the Defendants made
false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects.

Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
that develops novel drugs to treat intractable diseases in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      468 North Camden Drive
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (818) 532-6499
      E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


ATAMI ON 2ND: Zhu Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum and OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Letian Zhu, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated v.
Atami on 2nd Avenue Inc. d/b/a Atami Japanese Fusion, Jing Liang
Dong a/k/a Michael Dong, Li Dong a/k/a Jenny Dong, Qiu Ru Dong
a/k/a Judy Dong and a/k/a Wendy Dong, JIAN ZENG LIN a/k/a Joe Lin,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00275 (S.D.N.Y., January 13, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage for each
hour worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40
each workweek.

The Defendants own and operate Atami Japanese Fusion located at
1167 2nd Avenue, New York, NY 10065.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Telephone: (718) 762-1324
      E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Smith" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Smith, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Bank of America, N.A., Bank of America Corporation,
and Adecco USA, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00286 (N.D. Ill., January
13, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
employees for work in excess of 40 hours per week without properly
compensating them at an overtime rate for those additional hours.

The Defendants provide banking and corporate account services to
customers throughout this District and nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
      James B. Zouras, Esq.
      Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 233-1550
      E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
              jzouras@stephanzouras.com
              cmitchell@stephanzouras.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over SSA Bonds Bid-Ask Spreads Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Police Retirement System of St. Louis, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated v. Bank Of America Corporation, Bank
Of America, N.A., Bank Of America Merrill Lynch International
Limited, Citigroup Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Citigroup
Global Markets Limited, Citibank N.A., Credit Agricole Corporate
And Investment Bank,  Credit Agricole S.A., Credit Agricole
Securities (USA) Inc., Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC, Credit Suisse Group AG, Deutsche Bank AG, Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Inc.,
Nomura Holdings Inc., Nomura Securities International, Inc., Hiren
Gudka, Amandeep Singh Manku, Shailen Pau and Bhardeep Singh Heer
and John Does NO. 1-100, Case No. 1:17-cv-00298 (S.D.N.Y., January
13, 2017), arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged
unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix the bid-ask
spreads for supranational, sub-sovereign, and agency bonds ("SSA
bonds') sold to their customers in the secondary market.

The Defendants are the largest dealers in the secondary market of
supranational, sub-sovereign, and agency bonds ("SSA bonds")
denominated in various currencies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell M. Z. Twersky, Esq.
      Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
      Atara Hirsch, Esq.
      Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq.
      ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER AND TWERSKY, LLP
      One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
      New York, NY 10119
      Telephone: (212) 279-2050
      Facsimile: (212) 279-3655
      E-mail: JAbraham@aftlaw.com
              AHirsch@aftlaw.com
              MTwersky@aftlaw.com
              MGuarnero@aftlaw.com


BOIRON INC: Court Dismisses UCL Claims in "Lewert" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Andre Birotte, Jr. found in favor of the defendants on the
plaintiff's claim under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) in the
case captioned Christopher Lewert, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Boiron,
Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. CV 11-10803-AB (JPRx) (C.D.
Cal.).

Christopher Lewert, individually and on behalf of a certified
class, brought an action against Boiron, Inc. and Boiron, USA,
Inc., alleging violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act
(CLRA), California Civil Code section 1750, et seq., and the UCL,
California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.

Lewert's legal claim under the CLRA came before a jury during a
seven-day trial that began on June 7, 2016.  The jury returned a
verdict in favor of the defendants, finding the defendants'
representations that its product, Oscillococcinum ("Oscillo"),
relieves flu-like symptoms were not false.

For Lewert's UCL claim, Judge Birotte adopted the jury's implicit
factual determination that Lewert failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the defendants' products cannot
relieve the symptoms represented on Oscillo's packaging.  Judge
Birotte also found that Lewert failed to prove by a preponderance
of the evidence that the defendants' representations on its
packaging or advertisements were untrue, misleading, or likely to
deceive the reasonable consumer.  Without evidence independent of
the jury's implicit rejection of Lewert's dilution argument to
show the defendants' representations were still somehow misleading
or deceptive, Judge Birotte held that the Court has no basis to
find otherwise.

Considering the jury's findings, in addition his own finding that
Lewert failed to prove the defendants' representations were
untrue, misleading, or likely to deceive the reasonable customer,
the Judge Birotte concluded that Lewert's UCL claim fails.

A full-text copy of Judge Birotte's January 3, 2017 findings of
fact and conclusions of law is available at https://is.gd/74ID5a
from Leagle.com.

Christopher Lewert, Plaintiff, represented by Elaine A. Ryan --
eryan@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint PC, pro
hac vice, Jeff S. Westerman, Westerman Law Corp, Kenneth A.
Remson, Westerman Law Corp., Manfred Patrick Muecke --
mmueck@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint PC, Max
A. Stein -- mstein@boodlaw.com -- Boodell and Domanskis LLC, pro
hac vice, Nada Djordjevic -- ndjordjevic@boodlaw.com -- Boodell
and Domanskis LLC, pro hac vice & Patricia N. Syverson --
psyverson@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint PC.

Boiron Inc, Boiron USA Inc, Defendants, represented by Amy
Waterman Byrd -- abyrd@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and
Sutcliffe, Christina Guerola Sarchio -- csarchio@orrick.com --
Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP, pro hac vice, Elliott S.
Henry -- ehenry@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe
LLP, Raija J. Horstman -- rhorstman@orrick.com -- Orrick
Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP, Thomas S. McConville --
tmcconville@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP &
Valerie M. Goo -- vgoo@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and
Sutcliffe LLP.

Walgreen Co., Objector, represented by Christine Marie Neuharth --
cneuharth@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Could Face Suit Over Mislabled Pills
---------------------------------------------------
Allie Norton at ABC 3 Wear TV reports a federal lawsuit is about
to be front and center in Pensacola. The makers of the drug
Abilify will answer to dozens of lawsuits about mislabeling their
pills.

"All they needed to do was properly warn and tell the physicians
prescribing this that this could happen and we wouldn't be here,"
Bryan Aylstock of Alystock, Witkin, Kreis and Overholtz said.
"They didn't do that and that's why we're here."

Abilify treats schizophrenia disorder. However, many people with
other disorders ended up on it when they did not need it.

In a separate lawsuit, Bristol-Myers Squibb was forced to pay
millions of dollars recently for marketing the drug to treat
disorders without approval from the Federal Drug Administration.
Now they are getting hit again.

This time because of the labeling on the packaging.

According to the lawsuit, Bristol-Myers Squibb and the Japan-based
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., did not warn that the drug could cause
compulsive behaviors, like gambling. The lawsuit alleges the
companies were aware of it, because they put the warning on labels
in other countries.

The warning was not found on Abilify in the United States until
January 2016. In some cases, the results were devastating.
"A large number of those folks ended up with this compulsive
behavior that they really had little control over and they ended
up gambling their life savings, their retirement away and really
ended up in dire straits because of it," Aylstock said.

Aylstock's firm, as well as Levin Papantonio, will be joining 11
other firms in the country to represent the plaintiffs. It will
all play out in Pensacola in front of Judge Casey Rodgers of the
Northern District of Florida. While there are only about 75 cases
right now, Alystock expects that number to be in the thousands
when it is all said and done.

"A lot of folks who have had this compulsive gambling problem or
other compulsive behaviors are just now becoming aware that
Abilify played a role in those behaviors," Alystock said.
So far, there has been a status conference and another is expected
at the end of the month. However, this could take years to
complete because unlike a class action lawsuit, every case will be
considered individually.


CHICAGO: Faces Suit Over Police Use of Phone Tracking Technology
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Novak Jones at Law 360 reports the city of Chicago and
several of its top police officials are the subject of a putative
class action filed in Illinois federal court on January 12
claiming that the city violated its residents' constitutional
rights through police use of cell site simulators to search, track
and eavesdrop on private cellphones. The suit was filed by Jerry
Boyle, a Chicago attorney who serves as a volunteer legal observer
with the National Lawyers' Guild at protests around the city, who
claims that the Chicago Police Department unlawfully searched his
phone using one of those devices while he attended a protest
against police shootings in January 2015.

Boyle, who alleges violations of both the U.S. Constitution and
the Illinois state Constitution, brings the suit on behalf of
anyone whose phone was searched using a cell site simulator
without a warrant between January 12, 2015, and the present day.
The suit also names a separate subclass consisting of people who
were targeted for searches based on their attendance at a protest.

The suit accuses the city and several members of the police
department's current and former top brass of wilfully ignoring
Chicagoans' rights by allowing the devices, typically known as
"stingrays," to be deployed without any policies on the books
governing how, why or when they are used.

"The city's decision not to promulgate any written policies,
procedures or guidelines governing the use of cell site simulators
to protect the constitutional rights of plaintiff Boyle and the
class reflects deliberate indifference," Boyle wrote in the suit.

Bill McCaffrey, a spokesman for the city of Chicago's Law
Department, said that the city hadn't received the suit yet so it
could not comment.

Boyle said he was at a "Reclaim Martin Luther King Jr. Day"
protest in 2015 when his phone was searched using one of those
devices, which pose as cell towers to access a phone's subscriber
or serial number, according to the suit. There was no warrant or
probable cause for the search, Boyle claims.

Through stingrays, police can identify a cellphone user and his or
her location, listen in on calls, view call logs, read text
messages and see what websites the phone's browser has visited,
the suit claims. But they can't be used to target a specific
phone, instead impacting all of the phones in the geographic area
in which they are used.

The department's use of the technology is "secretive and
widespread," the suit claims, citing the city's efforts to fight
Freedom of Information Act requests related to cell site simulator
purchases and use in court. Following rulings in some of those
cases, the city released documents revealing it spent more than
$500,000 on the devices and related software between 2005 and
2010, according to the suit.

The city has no written policies restricting the use of the
devices, training officers on the constitutional issues they bring
up or informing the officers what they can do with the information
they receive from them, the suit claims.

The city routinely allows officers to deploy the stingrays without
obtaining a warrant specific to each phone that is searched, or
often even for the phone targeted, the suit adds. When officers do
ask a judge to approve the stingray's use, they seek "pen
register" or "trap and trace" orders, which cover the initiation
or receipt of electronic signals but not their contents.

The current use of the simulators violates the First, Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendment rights of the class, as well as the state
constitution's privacy protections, the suit claims. It levels
claims of conspiracy and failure to intervene against the police
officials.

The eight-count suit seeks a permanent injunction barring the
illegal use of cell site simulators, as well as punitive damages.

Boyle is represented by Michael Kanovitz -- mike@loevy.com --
Matthew Topic -- matt@loevy.com -- Ruth Brown -- ruth@loevy.com --
and Josh Burday -- josh@loevy.com --  of Loevy & Loevy, and Craig
B. Futterman -- futterman@uchicago.edu -- of the Edwin F. Mandel
Legal Aid Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School.

Counsel information for the city was not immediately available on
January 13.

The case is Jerry Boyle et al v. City of Chicago et al, case
number 1:17-cv-00244 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.


CHICKBEE NY: Faces "Sicajau" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chickbee NY Inc. The
case is captioned as Juan Chiyal Sicajau, individually, the
Plaintiff, v. Chickbee NY Inc., the Defendant, doing business as
The Coop Restaurant & Bar, and Hyelee Choi, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00220 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2017).

Chickbee serves Korean dishes including fried and grilled chicken.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Faces "Sparks" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Sparks and Amirah Pasha, on behalf of themselves and
similarly situated employees v. The Children's Place, Inc., Case
No. 170101923 (Phil. Cmm. Pl., January 13, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

The Children's Place, Inc. operates more than 959 specialty retail
stores nationwide, selling children's clothing and related goods
and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
      Neel Bhuta, Esq.
      LOCKS LAW FIRM
      801 N. Kings Highway
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Telephone: (856) 663-8200
      E-mail: mgalpem@lockslaw.com
              nbhuta@lockslaw.com


CLINTON DELICATESSEN: Faces "Canales" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonia Canales, Sabina Molina, and Melida Urrutia, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Clinton Delicatessen
Inc. d/b/a Clinton Deli and Grocery, Clinton Deli II Inc. d/b/a
Clinton Deli II, and Jose Ricardo Diaz and Blanca Rivera Diaz,
Case No. cv-17-00203 (E.D.N.Y., January 13, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Clinton Deli II store located at
159 Baldwin Road, Hempstead, New York 11550.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Telephone: (718) 263-9591
      Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
      E-mail HFDalton6912@Gmail.com


CONAGRA FOODS: Class Certification in "Briseno" Suit Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed class
certification in the case captioned ROBERT BRISENO, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. CONAGRA FOODS, INC., Defendant-Appellant, No. 15-
55727 (9th Cir.).

Robert Briseno and the other named class representatives are
consumers who purchased Wesson-brand cooking oil products labeled
"100% Natural."  The "100% Natural" label appeared on every bottle
of Wesson-brand oil throughout the putative class periods (and
continues to appear on those products).  The plaintiffs argued
that the "100% Natural" label is false or misleading because
Wesson oils are made from bioengineered ingredients (genetically
modified organisms, or GMOs) that the plaintiffs contend are "not
natural."  The defendant, ConAgra Foods, Inc., manufactures,
markets, distributes, and sells Wesson products.

The plaintiffs filed putative class actions asserting state-law
claims against ConAgra in 11 states, and those cases were
consolidated in this action.  The plaintiffs moved to certify 11
classes.

ConAgra opposed class certification on the ground that there would
be no administratively feasible way to identify members of the
proposed classes because consumers would not be able to reliably
identify themselves as class members.  As a result, ConAgra argued
that the class was not eligible for certification.

The district court acknowledged that the Third Circuit and some
district courts have refused certification in similar
circumstances, but it declined to join in their reasoning.
Instead, the district court held that, at the certification stage,
it was sufficient that the class was defined by an objective
criterion: whether class members purchased Wesson oil during the
class period.

The district court ultimately granted the plaintiffs' motion in
part and certified 11 statewide classes to pursue certain claims
for damages under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).

ConAgra timely sought and obtained permission to appeal pursuant
to Rule 23(f).  ConAgra argued that, in addition to satisfying the
enumerated criteria, class proponents must also demonstrate that
there is an administratively feasible way to determine who is in
the class.  ConAgra claimed that the plaintiffs did not propose
any way to identify class members and cannot prove that an
administratively feasible method exists because consumers do not
generally save grocery receipts and are unlikely to remember
details about individual purchases of a low-cost product like
cooking oil.

The Ninth Circuit stated that it has never interpreted Rule 23 to
require such a showing, and, like the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth
Circuits, the appellate court also declined to do so in this case.
"A separate administrative feasibility prerequisite to class
certification is not compatible with the language of Rule 23.
Further, Rule 23's enumerated criteria already address the policy
concerns that have motivated some courts to adopt a separate
administrative feasibility requirement, and do so without
undermining the balance of interests struck by the Supreme Court,
Congress, and the other contributors to the Rule," the Ninth
Circuit explained.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's January 3, 2017 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/0lyq8t from Leagle.com.

Angela Spivey -- aspivey@mcquirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP,
Atlanta, Georgia; R. Trent Taylor -- rtaylor@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP, Richmond, Virginia; E. Rebecca Gantt --
rgantt@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Norfolk, Virginia; A.
Brooks Gresham -- bgresham@mcguirewoods.com -- and Laura E. Coombe
-- lcoombe@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Los Angeles,
California; for Defendant-Appellant.

Adam Levitt -- alevitt@gelaw.com -- and Edmund S. Aronowitz, Grant
& Eisenhofer P.A., Chicago, Illinois; Mary S. Thomas --
mthomas@gelaw.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Wilmington,
Delaware; Ariana J. Tadler -- atadler@milberg.com -- Henry J.
Kelston -- hkelston@milberg.com -- Meagan Keenan, and Carey
Alexander, Milberg LLP, New York, New York; David E. Azar --
dazar@milberg.com -- Milberg LLP, Los Angeles, California; for
Plaintiff-Appellee.


DAVISON DESIGN: Atty's Fee Award in "Dungee" Suit Vacated
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit vacated the
district court's award of over $1 million in fees to class counsel
in the case captioned DEBORAH DUNGEE, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, v. DAVISON DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT INC,
f/k/a Davison & Associates Inc., Davison Design & Development,
Inc., Appellant, No. 16-1486 (3rd Cir.).

Deborah Dungee filed a class action on behalf of herself and
certain other individuals who had entered into contracts with
Davison Design & Development, Inc. for invention promotion
services.  Dungee's suit included class claims against Davison for
violations of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA)
and for breach of contract.  A fee-shifting provision within the
AIPA allows customers who are deemed injured under the statute to
recover "reasonable costs and attorneys' fees."

After the District Court denied Davison's motion to dismiss
Dungee's original complaint, the parties mediated the case and
reached a settlement agreement.  Although the parties agreed that
Davison would pay class counsel's fees, they could not agree on
the proper amount, so Dungee submitted a motion for attorneys'
fees to the District Court.  Dungee sought $2 million in fees
under a percentage-of-recovery calculation.  Davison argued in
response that the lodestar calculation method was more appropriate
under the circumstances; the parties agreed that the base lodestar
calculation amounted to $257,226.76.  The District Court held a
class action settlement fairness hearing on July 30, 2015, during
which the parties argued the attorneys' fees issues.

On February 16, 2016, the District Court issued an order granting
$1,118,936.40 in attorneys' fees to Dungee's counsel.  The
District Court reached this figure by applying a 4.35 multiplier
to enhance the base lodestar calculation.

On February 24, 2016, the District Court entered an order
approving the final settlement between the parties, which included
the $1.1 million attorneys' fees award.  Davison timely appealed
the District Court's attorneys' fees decision.

The Third Circuit found that the District Court offered no
explanation for why the simple lodestar calculation would not
adequately compensate class counsel, or why the case presented
"rare" and "exceptional" circumstances needed to enhance the
lodestar.  The appellate court saw nothing in the record to
suggest that class counsel provided the District Court the
"specific evidence" required to justify the enhancement.  Rather,
it appeared to the appellate court that the District Court simply
adopted Dungee's recommended 4.35 multiplier, understanding it to
be the "average" multiplier used in the Third Circuit.  In the
absence of specific evidence from class counsel and detailed
findings by the District Court justifying the use of any lodestar
multiplier, let alone a multiplier of 4.35, the Third Circuit held
that it must vacate the $1,118,936.40 award and remand the case to
the District Court.

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's January 6, 2017 decision
is available at https://is.gd/O8YLkL from Leagle.com.

Appellees are represented by:

          Richard H. Cross, Jr., Esq.
          CROSS & SIMON
          1105 North Market Street, Suite 901
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1380
          Tel: (302)777-4200
          Fax: (302)777-4224
          Email: rcross@crosslaw.com

               - and -

          J. Nicholas Ranjan, Esq.
          H. Woodruff Turner, Esq.
          David M. Aceto, Esq.
          James P. Angelo, Esq.
          K&L GATES LLP
          K&L Gates Center, 210 Sixth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2613
          Tel: (412)355-6500
          Fax: (412)355-6501
          Email: nicholas.ranjan@klgates.com
                 woodruff.turner@klgates.com
                 david.aceto@klgates.com
                 james.angelo@klgates.com

Appellant is represented by:

          Kathleen F. McDonough, Esq.
          John A. Sensing, Esq.
          POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON
          1313 North Market Street, 6th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Email: kmcdonough@potteranderson.com
                 jsensing@potteranderson.com


EMANUEL SERVICES: "Haric" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anatolie Haric, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Emanuel Services, Inc. d/b/a Emanuel Home
Care Services Inc., Case No. 150434/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., January
13, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to New York Labor Law.

Emanuel Services, Inc. is primarily engaged in providing nursing
and home health aide services at the residences of its clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
      LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
      Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
              llusher@vandallp.com
              mdostanitch@vandallp.com


EXEL INC: Appeal in "Rodriguez" Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Two,
dismissed the appeal filed in the case captioned VIRGINIA
RODRIGUEZ et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. EXEL, INC.,
Defendant and Respondent; RUBIN CHAPPELL et al., Objectors and
Appellants, No. E062678 (Cal. Ct. App.).

On November 13, 2014, the trial court entered a judgment approving
the settlement of a class action against Exel, Inc. by its present
and former employees, who sought damages and penalties for
allegedly unpaid minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, and other Labor Code violations and unfair
business practices, from April 11, 2011 through the date of the
preliminary approval of the settlement.

Rubin Chappell and Gabriel M. Garcia, class members who objected
to the settlement, appealed, contending the trial court abused its
discretion in concluding that:

     (1) the plaintiff and respondent Virginia Rodriguez
         qualified as a class representative;

     (2) the parties provided the class members with sufficient
         notice of the terms of the settlement;

     (3) it was proper for the parties to release time-barred and
         stricken class claims; and

     (4) the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.

After the case was fully briefed, the tentative opinion had been
drafted and mailed to the parties, and the case was set for oral
argument, counsel for both Chappell and Garcia contacted the
appellate court stating their intent to request that the appeal be
dismissed.  Subsequently, both Chappell and Garcia filed their
request for dismissal on December 15, 2016.

Because the resolution of the case is fact specific, the Court of
Appeals of California granted the request and dismissed the appeal
with prejudice.  The respondents were awarded their costs on
appeal.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's January 4, 2017 opinion
is available at https://is.gd/LhQVdf from Leagle.com.

The Spivak Law Firm and David Spivak -- david@spivaklaw.com -- Law
Offices of Louis Benowitz and Louis Benowitz for Objector and
Appellant Rubin Chappell.

The Nourmand Law Firm, Michael Nourmand -- mnourmand@nourmand.com
-- and James A. De Sario; Bibiyan & Bokhour, David D. Bibiyan --
david@tomorrowlaw.com -- and Mehrdad Bokhour --
mehrdad@tomorrowlaw.com -- for Objector and Appellant Gabriel M.
Garcia.

Ice Miller and John P. Gilligan -- john.gilligan@icemiller.com --
Esner, Chang & Boyer and Holly N. Boyer -- hboyer@ecbappeal.com --
for Defendant and Respondent Exel, Inc.

James Hawkins, James R. Hawkins and Alvin B. Lindsay --
alvin.lindsay@hoganlovells.com -- Gupta Wessler, Deepak Gupta --
deepak@guptawessler.com -- and Neil K. Sawhney for Plaintiff and
Respondent Virginia Rodriguez.


FENIX PARTS: March 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Fenix Parts, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of
purchasers of common stock of Fenix Parts between May 14, 2015 and
October 12, 2016, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the Complaint, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that its inventory
valuation methods were inadequate; that its tools to calculate
goodwill impairment were inadequate; that it was participating
and/or had participated in activity that would lead to an SEC
investigation; and that as a result, Fenix's statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
When this information was released to the public, the value of
Fenix stock fell severely, causing investors harm.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 13, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of
Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at --
tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- or -- gegleston@gme-law.com

             Federman & Sherwood Files Separate Suit

On January 12, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
against Fenix Parts, Inc. The complaint alleges violations of
federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including
allegations of issuing a series of material or false
misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is May 14, 2015 through October 12, 2016.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact: Robin Hester,
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD, 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue, Oklahoma
City, OK 73120, Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com Or, visit the firm's
website at www.federmanlaw.com

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Fenix Parts,
Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class
Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above.
You may move the Court no later than Monday, March 13, 2017 to
serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order
to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Sued Over Black Non-Union Workers Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Salisbury at M Live reports a lawsuit filed by a former
Fiat Chrysler diversity manager alleges the Auburn Hills automaker
disparately treats black non-union employees, giving them lower
ratings through a process that determines bonuses and advancement
opportunities.

"As a result of (Fiat Chrysler's) practice and policy of
discriminating against African American employees, (these
employees) have been denied employment benefits and opportunities
afforded to white employees," states the class action lawsuit,
filed as the company's vehicles are on grand display at the
Detroit auto show.

Among hundreds of company-wide directors, there are only two black
women and about five to seven black men, the lawsuit states, and
contends employees were evaluated through a two-step process that
relied heavily on subjective input rather than objective data
"effectuated by decision makers" who are not black.

As a result, black employees were given lower compensation and
benefits, and were disproportionately subjected to termination or
demotion, contends the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in
Detroit.

Fiat Chrysler released a response in a statement on Friday,
according to the Detroit Free Press.

"The allegations contained in this lawsuit are without merit," it
said. "FCA US does not tolerate harassment or discrimination of
any kind in the workplace based on a person's race, color, sex,
sexual orientation, age, etc.

"All claims of harassment and discrimination are investigated
thoroughly and in a timely manner and all violations are
punishable up to and including termination," it stated, according
to the Free Press, noting the company would pursue a "vigorous
defense of this challenge to its record and reputation."

The lawsuit was filed by Marlin Williams on behalf of all current
and past salaried, non-union black employees of a "senior manager"
job category or given a medium to low rating in 2014 and 2015.

The number of people affected are not specified in the lawsuit.

Williams, with 25 years of experience in promoting diversity
programs and initiatives, began working for Fiat Chrysler in
January 2015 as talent management consultant and was promoted to
diversity manager in September 2015.

She had to assume many of the duties of her white predecessor, the
director of talent acquisition and diversity, but was never given
a similar title, actually promoted or provided perks such as
additional compensation and generous vehicle allowances.

Of seven compensation categories, Williams was hired at the
"senior professional" level, No. 4 on the list, and remained there
despite being promised otherwise.

Her duties included identifying performance and leadership gaps of
diverse population. She was tasked with implementing initiatives
that address inequities in compensation, promotion opportunities
and other benefits.

While doing this work, she detected and observed, on a company-
wide basis, that salaried, non-union employees who were not black
of a No. 3 compensation category or less were given lower overall
ratings and evaluations at an "alarmingly disproportionate rate."

Of her own rating, given first by a direct supervisor and then
discussed among management during a "calibration" process, she
learned it was downgraded in the review even as she achieved all
the company goals.

She reported her findings to leaders, saying black employees were
being treated less favorably.

As a result, she alleges she faced retaliation. She was accused of
failing to perform certain duties, investigated for reporting
discriminatory acts and "ostracized and essentially excommunicated
from her colleagues and upper management."

She submitted her 2-week notice on Jan. 2 and was terminated and
escorted from the building the next day, the lawsuit states.

Williams seeks a declaration that her rights were violated and a
judgment awarding her "liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and
costs" and to help ensure Fiat Chrysler will not subject future
workers to the same "illegal conduct."

The company's violation of the state civil rights act caused
Williams and others loss of reputation, embarrassment,
humiliation, outrage, mental distress and economic loss of large,
but undetermined proportions, according to the lawsuit.

Her contentions describe a workplace in conflict with what has
long been Williams' work.

She was inclusion officer and global diversity chief at Compuware,
a Detroit software company, and founded Knowledge Brokers in
Detroit, a diversity and inclusion consulting and professional
search firm. She also served as deputy chief information officer
for the city of Detroit, according to the lawsuit.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Heninger Garrison Files Suit Over Emission Cheating
------------------------------------------------------------------
Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC, has filed the first nationwide class
action complaint against Fiat Chrysler for illegal diesel
emissions. The US Justice Department accused Fiat Chrysler on
January 12 of intentionally failing to disclose software in some
of its diesel engine vehicles that allows them to emit more
pollution than allowed under the Clean Air Act. The Environmental
Protection Agency also issued a "notice of violation" to Chrysler
citing more than 104,000 vehicles with 3-liter diesel engines
including the 2014 through 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Ram
pickups.

This nationwide class action concerns the intentional installation
of so-called defeat devices on an estimated 104,000 diesel Dodge
and Jeep vehicles sold in the United States since 2014. Fiat
Chrysler marketed those vehicles as environmentally friendly with
enhanced fuel efficiency, better performance, and lower emissions.
Although the diesel vehicles were successfully marketed as
"clean," their environmentally-friendly representations were
deceptive to consumers.

The EPA said it found at least eight undisclosed pieces of
software that can alter how a vehicle emits air pollution. EPA
assistant administrator for enforcement and compliance, Cynthia
Giles, said, "Failing to disclose software that affects emissions
in a vehicle's engine is a serious violation of the law, which can
result in harmful pollution in the air we breathe."

Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC is investigating other claims of
Chrysler Fiat's illegal diesel emissions. If you have one of the
vehicles that has been cited in violation, please contact us to
discuss the possibility of bringing a claim. There is absolutely
no cost to you unless we are able to recover for you.

Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC, is a national law firm recognized as
one of the nation's leading civil litigators.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces "Warren" Suit Over Illegal Defeat Devices
--------------------------------------------------------------
R.D. Warren, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. and FCA US LLC, Case
No. 7:17-cv-00059-LSC (N.D. Ala., January 13, 2017), arises out of
the Defendants' alleged intentional installation of so-called
defeat devices on an estimated 104,000 diesel Dodge and Jeep
vehicles sold in the United States since 2014.

The Defendants are engaged in designing, engineering,
manufacturing, distributing, and selling vehicles, components, and
production systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. lewis garrison, Jr., Esq.
      Christopher Hood, Esq.
      Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq.
      HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
      2224 First Avenue North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 326-3336
      Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
      E-mail: lewis@hgdlawfirm.com
              chood@hgdlawfirm.com
              taylor@hgdlawfirm.com

         - and -

      James F. McDonough III, Esq.
      Travis E. Lynch, Esq.
      HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
      3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320
      Atlanta, GA 30339
      Telephone: (404) 996-0869
      Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
      E-mail: jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com
              tlynch@hgdlawfirm.com

         - and -

       K. Stephen Jackson, Esq.
      JACKSON & TUCKER, P.C.
      Black Diamond Building
      2229 1st Avenue
      North Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 252-3535
      Facsimile: (205) 252-3536


FIFTH STREET: Class Asks Judge to Approve $14-Mil. Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cara Bayles at Law360.com reports that a class of investors asked
a New York federal judge on January 12 to approve their $14
million settlement with Fifth Street Finance Corp., ending claims
that the investment group made false representations to its
shareholders.

In a settlement plan filed on January 12, lead plaintiff Oklahoma
Police Pension and Retirement System said the deal was "the
product of a unique and rigorous settlement process." The $14
million figure, proposed by a mediator and agreed to by both
sides, has not garnered any objections, though more than 43,000
class members have been notified, the filing said. A separate
motion also filed on January 12  seeks $2.4 million in attorneys'
fees for class counsel.

The case, which dates back to 2015, alleges the investors lost
money because they relied on registration statements in which
Fifth Street knowingly misrepresented the fair market value and
financial health of its investment portfolio, lied about whether
it would be able to cover its dividend projection and gave
incorrect numbers for several financial metrics related to
interest and assets, all in violation of the Securities Exchange
Act. The class said Fifth Street inflated its revenue statements
by waiting until after the initial public offering to enact write-
downs of its four companies' investments and to place them in
nonaccrual status, delaying the announcement of a $1.1 million
decline in net assets.

Fifth Street contended its misstatements "reflected subjective,
good faith judgments, opinions and estimates that were
fundamentally incapable of being false or misleading."

January 12's filing said the settlement -- which offers 15 percent
to 20 percent of the estimated damages without going to trial,
where some of the allegations could have been defeated -- was
beneficial to both sides. It would have been difficult to present
the extremely complicated case to a jury, especially without a
"roadmap" from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which
investigated but never filed claims against Fifth Street, the
proposal said.

"The class' claims here raise numerous factual issues concerning
the complex practice of fair value determinations for illiquid,
non-investment grade assets; interest income recognition for such
assets; the appropriate application of accounting guidelines
relevant to fair value and income recognition determinations; the
appropriateness of granting, and the sustainability of, dividends;
valuation and income recognition policies and procedures; as well
as complicated legal issues concerning falsity, scienter, and loss
causation, among other things, each of which would require
extensive percipient and expert testimony at trial," the
settlement plan said.

The filing also said the deal was spurred by the fact that Fifth
Street might not able to meet the total payout required by a
judgment against it, particularly as other suits are pending
against it and the damages estimate of $95 million was nearly all
of the money the company has on hand.

The case also could have been hotly contested thanks to the U.S.
Supreme Court's 2015 Omnicare decision, which ruled opinions in
registration statements should not be treated as facts, and that
plaintiffs needed proof those predictions were lies.

Attorneys for Fifth Street declined to comment on the deal.
Attorneys for the class and representatives for Fifth Street were
not immediately available for comment on January 12.

The class is represented by Joel H. Bernstein,
jberstein@labaton.com,  Ira A. Schochet, ischochet@labaton.com
Nicole M. Zeiss, nzeiss@labaton.com and Eric D. Gottlieb,
egottlieb@labaton.com of Labaton Sucharow LLP.

The Fifth Street is represented by Allen W. Burton aburton@omm.com
and Ross B. Galin -- rgalin@omm.com --  of O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Ralph Ferrara -- rferrara@proskauer.com --  Ann Ashton --
aashton@proskauer.com --  Jonathan Richman, --
jrichman@proskauer.com --  Tanya Dmitronow, --
tdmitronow@proskauer.com -- and Julia D. Alonzo --
jalonzo@proskauer.com --  of Proskauer Rose LLP.

The case is In Re Fifth Street Finance Corp. Securities
Litigation, case number 1:15-cv-07759, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.


FORD SA: Could Face Class Action Over Combustion of Ford Kuga SUV
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Olalde at IOL reports "I think the reality is that I could
have actually died," Warren Krog said.

On January 12, Krog was driving in Alberton when his Ford Kuga SUV
began smoking. He was only a few kilometres from the nearest
dealership, so he tried to make it there.

However, he was forced to pull over at the side of the road. "When
I opened the hood, I could see fire at the back of the engine," he
said.

By the time the fire department arrived to put out the fire, the
front of his car was engulfed in flames.

Krog is the most recent victim of Kugas catching fire. Ford SA has
yet to issue a recall, instead asking customers to take their
vehicles to dealerships for safety checks.

Kaveen Jimmy's brother, Reshall, died in December 2015 when his
Kuga burst into flames. Jimmy and his sister have been running a
campaign to gather the victims of Kuga fires. So far, they have
found about 45 cases, nine this year alone.

Jimmy said they took about 30 of these cases to the Motor Industry
Ombudsman on January 13, although representatives of the ombudsman
were unavailable to immediately verify whether they had received
the complaints.

According to Jimmy, the majority of those affected had agreed to
bring a class-action lawsuit against Ford SA.

"We wanted closure, and we wanted to know Ford was taking the
steps to make sure this doesn't happen to another family," Jimmy
said.

Ford SA recently launched legal action of its own to obtain
evidence from the SAPS related to the Jimmy investigation.

On December 30, Ford SA submitted its intention to bring an urgent
application to the High Court in Cape Town to force the SAPS to
hand over copies of "all the information, documentation and
evidence in their possession, including any video recordings"
related to the Jimmy investigation. The application was to be
officially filed on January 10.

The court documents included an affidavit from Shibishi Maruatona,
a director and the general counsel of Ford SA. "The passing of the
deceased, as well as the social media campaign by the family of
the deceased, has led to 'a panic'," he said in the affidavit.

Maruatona claimed that Ford SA needed the evidence to assist with
its own investigation. He went on to insinuate that "the
circumstances surrounding the death of the deceased are
mysterious" and the company was attempting to determine "whether
there may have been outside forces and factors which caused or
contributed towards the fire".

"They made some statements in that report, which are grossly
incorrect. And if anything, the best word for it is 'perjury',"
Jimmy said.

Multiple sources said Ford SA was able to complete a full
inspection of the burned vehicle on several occasions. The
National Consumer Commission gave Ford SA until the end of
February to finalise its report before the government will make a
decision over whether to step in and force a recall.

Ford SA says the problem is contained to "Kugas equipped with the
1.6-litre EcoBoost engine in South Africa", potentially to the
2013 model.

Krog said he hoped that his story would convince other owners to
take their vehicles in for inspection and to protect themselves
while driving. "If they see smoke, they should not even wait," he
said, adding that drivers should keep a fire extinguisher with
them and something to break a window in case they needed to
escape.

Representatives of Ford SA were not available for comment.


GOLDEN GATE AMERICA: Not Transportation Employer, Judge Says
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the Western District of
Washington, Seattle, granted the defendant's motion for summary
judgment in the case ABDIKHADAR JAMA, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
GOLDEN GATE AMERICA LLC, Defendant, Case No. C16-0611RSL (W.D.
Wash.)

Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint alleging that their
employer failed to pay an hourly rate of $15.00 after January 1,
2014, when Chapter 7.45 of the City of SeaTac Municipal Code went
into effect. Plaintiffs were, at all relevant times, employees of
Golden Gate America LLC.

Chapter 7.45 of the City of SeaTac Municipal Code was passed by
voter initiative in 2013. It requires certain hospitality and
transportation employers in the City of SeaTac to pay their
employees $15.00 per hour, adjusted annually for inflation, and to
guarantee certain other benefits.

At the time the ordinance went into effect, Golden Gate had a
contract with EAN Holdings LLC (d/b/a Enterprise Rent-A-Car) to
move vehicles to the car washing area of the rental facility, to
clean, wash, vacuum, fuel, and otherwise prepare the vehicle for
the next customer, and to return the vehicle to the rental area.

Plaintiffs argue that Golden Gate is a Transportation employer for
purposes of the ordinance because it provides janitorial services
and customer service at the airport. Plaintiffs also argue that,
because Golden Gate' employees respond to questions posed by
Enterprise customers, Golden Gate provides customer service within
the Sea-Tacoma International Airport and is therefore a
Transportation employer.

Golden Gate argues that it does not fall within the definition of
Transportation employer and is therefore not subject to the
ordinance. It seeks summary dismissal of plaintiffs' claims.

Judge Lasnik finds that customer service under SeaTac Municipal
Code 7.45.010(M)(1) includes employers who provide customer
service as a business venture, generally for a fee or other
compensation, not as a one-off activity wholly collateral to the
employer's primary operation. Golden Gate operates and provides
rental car fleet services, it does not provide customer service
for purposes of the ordinance. Golden Gate's motion for summary
judgment is granted. All claims against Golden Gate are dismissed.
Plaintiffs' claims for relief against Golden Gate fail as a matter
of law and cannot be saved by amendment. Plaintiffs nevertheless
seek leave to amend their complaint to add claims against a
different entity, EAN Holdings, on the ground that EAN Holdings is
their employer under the economic realities test. Plaintiffs shall
have fourteen days from the date of the order to file an amended
complaint adding EAN Holdings as the employer-defendant. If an
amended complaint is not timely filed, judgment shall be entered
in favor of defendant and against plaintiffs.

A copy of Judge Lasnik's order dated January 4, 2017, is available
at https://goo.gl/domvJ3 from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Daniel R. Whitmore, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL R. WHITMORE
2626 15th Ave W #200
Seattle, WA 98119
Telephone: 206-329-8400

     - and -

Duncan Calvert Turner, Esq.
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC
19929 Ballinger Way NE, Suite 200
Seattle, WA 98155
Telephone: 206-621-6566
Facsimile: 206-621-9686

Golden Gate America LLC, Defendant, represented by Harry James
Franklyn Korrell, III -- harrykorrell@dwt.com -- Laura Turczanski
-- lauraturczanski@dwt.com -- Taylor S. Ball -- taylorball@dwt.com
-- at DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE


GOOGLE: Judge Questions Counsel Fees on $4.75-Mil. Wage Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Atkins at Law 360 reports that a California judge on
January 13 pressed attorneys representing about 5,100 current and
former hourly Google workers on their fee request in a $4.75
million class action deal resolving wage-and-hour claims
stretching back to 2011, ordering the attorneys to file briefs
explaining why their work merits a third of that total.

Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Brian C. Walsh issued an order
adopting his tentative ruling that required the attorneys to file
additional briefs during a final fairness hearing Friday, after
neither party showed up to object to the ruling. The tentative
ruling said that although the proportion of the settlement class
counsel proposed for fees is "generally considered reasonable,"
the attorneys have not submitted billing records or lodestar
information that Judge Walsh can compare to the requested fees to
ensure the amount is reasonable.

"This court finds such a cross-check to be helpful," the tentative
ruling said.

If approved, the deal would settle a class action that former
Google employee Rosa Gutierrez filed in February 2015. The suit
alleges that the tech giant failed to pay its hourly workers for
overtime, failed to provide workers with meal and rest breaks,
failed to provide accurate wage statements and failed to keep
track of hours worked. The suit also alleged Google failed to pay
all wages owed to employees who were discharged or quit and failed
to compensate workers for necessary business expenses.

The suit also asserted claims under the state's unfair business
practice statutes and sought penalties under the California Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act. Gutierrez estimated that
Google owed more than $34.7 million for the violations, excluding
interest.

Google denied the allegations and the parties entered into
settlement negotiations. Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Peter
Kirwan preliminarily approved the deal in September and
provisionally certified a class of nonexempt employees, who worked
for Google in California between Feb. 23, 2011, and Aug. 18, 2016.

The following month, notice packets were mailed to 5,132 class
members, of which 232 were returned. As of Dec. 20, 129 class
members had opted out of the settlement and no one objected to it,
according to court documents.

Under the deal, the class attorneys would receive approximately
$1.58 million for fees and up to $50,000 for litigation expenses.
Gutierrez would receive $15,000 for approximately 80 hours she
spent representing the class in the case, according to court
documents.

On January 13, Judge Walsh continued the motion for final approval
of the settlement to Feb. 2, to give class counsel time to file
the supplemental briefing, and noted that no one showed up for
Friday's fairness hearing to object to the deal.

"If there are no objectors here, I presume we will see no
objectors then," Judge Walsh said.

The class is represented by Matthew J. Matern, Dalia Khalili and
Daniel J. Bass, info@maternlawgroup.com, of Matern Law Group PC.

Google is represented by Zachary P. Hutton,
zachhutton@paulhastings.com,   of Paul Hastings LLP.

The case is Rosa Gutierrez v. Google Inc., case number 2015-1-CV-
277104, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Santa Clara.


GC SERVICES: Faces "Gavrielova" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Services Limited
Partnership. The case is styled as Frida Gavrielova, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. GC Services Limited Partnership, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-00224 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 14, 2017).

GC Services is an outsourcing provider of call center management
and collection agency services in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Igor B Litvak, Esq.
          The Law Office of Igor Litvak
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (646) 796 4905
          Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
          E-mail: igorblitvak@gmail.com


HALL COUNTY, GA: Faces Suit Over Frozen Pension Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------
Nick Watson at Forsyth County News reports five current and former
Hall County employees filed an estimated $75 million class-action
lawsuit January 9 against the county regarding frozen pension
benefits.

The expected class is more than 100 Hall County employees, the
overwhelming majority being first responders.

"We cannot comment on pending litigation," Hall County spokeswoman
Katie Crumley said.

The Times also reached out to commissioners Jeff Stowe and Scott
Gibbs. Neither had been briefed on details of the lawsuit.

Attorney Ed Buckley of the Atlanta-based firm Buckley | Beal said
the lawsuit is regarding retired employees and employees reaching
retirement that "are being denied and will be denied pension fund
benefits unless we are able to resolve this."

The lawsuit filed in Fulton County Superior Court is challenging a
1998 freeze in retirement pension benefits. The lawsuit claims the
county "made no additional employer contributions for plaintiffs
to the 'trust fund.'"

One example listed in the lawsuit was 1st Lt. Bradford Rounds, who
was hired in Hall County in 1988.

According to the lawsuit, Rounds' monthly pension benefit would be
$2,567 under the plan's formula.

"Under defendants' 'freeze' of his accrued pension benefits as of
July 1, 1998, his 'frozen' monthly pension benefit is only $389
per month," according to the lawsuit.

The county commissioners will be served with the lawsuit at their
regular 6 p.m. meeting on Janaury 12.


H.J. HEINZ: "Lopez" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to S.D. of Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sergio Alfonzo Lopez, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. H.J. Heinz Company, L.P. a Delaware Limited
Parnership; H.J. Heinz Operation Partnership, an unknown entity;
and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 37-02016-00038060-CU-
OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County
of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:17-cv-00077-GPC-MDD to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to Hon. Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel.

H. J. Heinz Company is an American food processing company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2274 E. Maple Avenue, Suite A
          Los Angeles, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daniel B. Chammas, Esq.
          FORD & HARRISON LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 237 2400
          Facsimile: (213) 237 2401
          E-mail: dchammas@fordharrison.com


IKEA: 9th Cir. Returnes Shopper's Suit to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------
Law 360 reports that the Ninth Circuit on January 13 granted an
Ikea shopper's request to ship her decertified class action back
to district court for dismissal, opening the possibility for her
to raise the issue in state court after the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision in Spokeo, which set a higher bar for claims of harm.
Lead plaintiff Rita Medellin had been appealing a lower court's
decision to decertify a class of shoppers who accused the company
of illegally collecting customer ZIP code data, but switched gears
after the high court's May ruling in Spokeo v. Robins, court
records show.

Instead of fighting to reinstall the class, Medellin argued that
under Spokeo's decree that mere statutory harms aren't enough to
bring a federal suit, her case belonged in state court, asking the
Ninth Circuit to vacate the decertification decision and recommend
that the dispute be sent out of the federal system, according to
her brief.

The Ninth Circuit in a short order seemingly granted Medellin's
wish, finding that she didn't plead the concrete harm necessary
under Spokeo to give her standing to bring a suit.

"Because Medellin lacks standing, we vacate the district court's
judgment and remand with instructions that the district court
dismiss this action without prejudice for lack of standing," the
panel wrote in a short order Friday.

Medellin had initially alleged Ikea was violating the Song-Beverly
Credit Card Act by improperly collecting customer ZIP code data.
The dispute between the parties has its origin in state court,
where Medellin filed her complaint in 2011. The suit was
immediately removed to federal district court based on diversity
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, a move that
Medellin didn't contest, Ikea noted in later filings.

In May 2012, U.S. District Judge William Q. Hayes certified a
class of Ikea customers, though he narrowed it down in February
2013 after determining that no reasonable person could have
thought the request for a ZIP code at the company's self-checkout
kiosk was mandatory for completing a credit card transaction. He
stopped short of decertifying the class entirely, overruling
Ikea's argument that its records wouldn't demonstrate whether
cashiers actually requested customers' ZIP code.

However, U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant did take that step in
December 2014 when she decertified the class after concluding that
the evidence indicated there were inconsistencies as to whether
individual cashiers actually asked customers for their ZIP codes
and if, when they were asked, customers knew providing the
information was voluntary.

Medellin initially appealed that decision, saying in a brief
before the Ninth Circuit that the lower court wrongly decertified
the class because all customers who had their ZIP codes collected
were subjected to the same illegal conduct as she was. However,
she shifted gears in June after Spokeo came down, filing a new
brief urging the appeals court to vacate the decertification
decision and recommend that the dispute be sent to state court in
light of Spokeo.

Ikea found itself in the strange position of arguing that its
opponent had in fact alleged concrete harm strong enough to give
her standing in federal court, saying Medellin had easily met that
standard by continuously asserting both in filings and through
expert testimony that by unlawfully collecting customers' ZIP
codes, the retailer had subjected consumers to concrete harm such
as the increased risk of identity theft, fraud and invasions of
privacy.

Because the Song-Beverly statute was specifically designed to
remedy concrete and particularized harm, the Spokeo decision
cannot negate Medellin's claims of injury-in-fact, which the
retailer noted the plaintiff has been pursuing for the past five
years and should be judicially estopped from changing course on
now, Ikea said in its opposition.

Representatives for the parties didn't immediately respond to
requests for comment late January 13.

Medellin is represented by Timothy G. Blood, tblood@bholaw.com,
and Paula M. Roach proach@bholaw.com, of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon
LLP, and Gene J. Stonebarger, gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com,
and Richard D. Lambert, rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com,   of
Stonebarger Law.

Ikea is represented by Michael A. Geibelson, --
MGeibelson@RobinsKaplan.com --  Jill S. Casselman --
jcasselman@RobinsKaplan.com --  and Nicole S. Frank --
nfrank@RobinsKaplan.com -- of Robins Kaplan LLP, and Kenneth S.
Kawabat -- ksk@manningllp.com -- of Manning & Kass Ellrod Ramirez
Trester LLP.

The case is Medellin v. Ikea U.S. West Inc., case number 15-55174,
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


INOTEK PHARMACEUTICALS: March 7 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Inotek Pharmaceuticals
Corporation in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased Inotek securities between July 23, 2015 and
December 30, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Investors who have incurred losses in shares of Inotek
Pharmaceuticals Corporation are urged to contact the firm
immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212)
545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the
action on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have purchased shares of Inotek Pharmaceuticals Corporation
within the class period and would like to assist with the
litigation process, you may, no later than March 7, 2017, request
that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.

The filed Complaint alleges that on July 23, 2015, Inotek
announced its positive End of Phase 2 meeting with the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA") and said that Inotek is in the
"final preparation stages to commence its first Phase 3 trial in
4Q and look forward to data in 2016." Inotek also announced a
confident forecast of the Phase 3 trabodenoson trial, which caused
its stock price to surge to $15.37 per share on July 23, 2015.

Despite these positive announcements, it is alleged that Inotek
officials were aware that part of the clinical trial of
trabodenoson would not achieve its intended goal of reducing
intraocular pressure compared to the placebo.

On January 3, 2017, Inotek exposed this information and stated
that the first pivotal Phase 3 trial of trabodenoson to treat
open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension failed, compared to the
placebo, in its endpoint of superiority in the reduction of
intraocular pressure.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.


JACKSON HEWITT: Faces "Scoma" Suit in Middle Dist. of Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jackson Hewitt Inc.
The case is entitled as Scoma Chiropractic, P.A., a Florida
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Jackson Hewitt Inc.,
a Virginia corporation; Jackson Hewitt Technology Services LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; Astro Tax Services LLC, a
Florida limited liability company; and John Does 1-5, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00024-SPC-CM (M.D. Fla., Jan. 13,
2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Sheri Polster Chappell.

Jackson Hewitt offers tax-preparation services in the United
States; responsible for preparing over 2 million federal, state,
and local income-tax returns each year.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          Anderson & Wanca
          3701 Algonquin Rd., Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368 1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


JMFF LLC: Faces "Uliu-Personius" Suit in S.D.N.Y
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JMFF LLC. The case
is captioned as Antoneta Uliu-Personius, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JMFF LLC, doing
business as Dorlan's Tavern & Oyster Bar; Fernando Dallorso;
Jeremy Dahm; Matthew Andrews; and Frank Casano, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00287 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2017).

JMFF operates a seafood restaurant in New York.


KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces "Roy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Roy, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated v.
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
17845538 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 13, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the California Labor Code.

Kaiser Foundation Hospitals provides healthcare services
throughout the State of California.

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
      Telephone: (415) 580-2574
      Facsimile: (415)735-3454
      E-mail: silg@ilglegal.com
              tscanlan@ilglegal.com
              fzeccola@ilglegal.com


KPMG LLP: 4th Cir. Upholds Order Denying Arbitration Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones of the United States Court of
Appeals, Fifth Circuit, affirmed the district court's order
denying defendant-appellant's motion to compel arbitration, in the
case, THOMAS JONES, etc.; ET AL, Plaintiffs, v. SINGING RIVER
HEALTH SERVICES FOUNDATION, ET AL, Defendants. MARTHA EZELL LOWE,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KPMG, L.L.P., Defendant-
Appellant, No. 16-60263 (5th Cir.)

KPMG, L.L.P. audited the annual financial statements of Singing
River Health System (SRHS) from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 and
of the pension plan (the plan) sponsored by SRHS from fiscal years
2008 through 2011.

Martha Ezell Lowe is a former employee of SRHS and was a vested
participant in the Plan. KPMG performed its work for SRHS and the
plan pursuant to Engagement Letters which required that disputes
or claims arising out of or relating to the contract must be
submitted to arbitration. The letters also defined the scope of
KPMG's audits and KPMG's role as auditor. The plan allegedly
became underfunded, precipitating a host of litigation.

Lowe filed a class action against KPMG, SRHS, the plan trustees,
and others in February 2015, alleging that KPMG was aware of or
recklessly disregarded the underfunding and was therefore
complicit in the breaches of fiduciary duty by the plan's
trustees. Lowe's suit against KPMG was consolidated procedurally
with two other class actions, the Jones and Cobb cases, all of
which arose out of the alleged underfunding of the plan. Neither
Jones nor Lowe was a party to the contracts between SRHS or the
Plan and KPMG. Both accused KPMG of wrongdoing in its role as
auditor of the Plan. KPMG moved to compel arbitration in the Jones
and Lowe actions. After reviewing allegations in both suits, the
district court granted the motion in Jones but denied it in the
Lowe action.

The district court held that the Jones class, whose pleading
specifically invoked the Engagement Letters, must submit to
arbitration under the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The district
court observed that the factual allegations pled by the Jones
plaintiffs relied upon the professional standards required by the
Engagement Letters.  The Lowe class, in contrast, pled solely
common law claims and made no factual allegation invoking the
Engagement Letters.

KPMG argued that the Lowe claims actually relied on the Engagement
Letters, because the letters defined the scope of KPMG's
contractual role with SRHS and the Plan, and therefore equitable
estoppel compels submission of Lowe's claims to arbitration.

The district court disagreed with KPMG.

KPMG appeals the denial of its motion to compel arbitration of the
Lowe action on two primary grounds, (1) gateway questions, such as
the scope and enforceability of the arbitration requirements,
should be referred to an arbitrator for determination, and (2) the
Lowe plaintiffs are bound by the doctrine of equitable estoppel to
the arbitration clause in the Engagement Letters.

Circuit Judge Jones held that KPMG waived the first issue and
failed to show how Lowe must necessarily rely on the contract to
which she wasn't a party in order to make her case and based on
Lowe's pleadings and the arguments proffered by KPMG, Lowe's
claims are not directly dependent on the Engagement Letters. The
district court correctly denied the motion to compel arbitration.
Circuit Judge Jones affirmed the order of the district court
denying the motion to compel arbitration.

A copy of Judge Jones order dated January 5, 2017, is available at
https://goo.gl/RG3hNw from Leagle.com.

For Plaintiff-Appellee:

Roger K. Doolittle, Esq.
ROGER K DOOLITTLE ATTORNEY AT LAW
143 Reserve Crossing
Madison, MS 39110
Telephone: 601-957-9777

     - and -

Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC
2001 Park Place North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: 205-488-1200
Facsimile: 800-922-4851
Email: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com

     - and -

Richard Paul Rouco, Esq.
QCWDR LLP
Two North 20th Street, Suite 930
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: 205-870-9989
Facsimile: 205-803-4143

Robert David Kaufman -- bob@robertdklausner.com -- at Klausner,
Kaufman, Jensen & Levinson; Amelia Toy Rudolph --
amelia.rudolph@sutherland.com -- Patricia A. Gorham --
patricia.gorham@sutherland.com -- at Sutherlan Asbill & Brennan
LLP; Taylor B. McNeel -- tmcneel@brunini.com -- at Brunini
Attorneys at Law, for Defendant-Appellant

The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, panel consists
of Circuit Judges Edith H. Jones, Rhesa H. Barksdale and Gregg J.
Costa.


KUNG FU LITTLE: "Weng" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Lianhua Weng, Haihua Zhai, and Shimin Yuan, on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated v. Kung Fu Little
Steamed Buns Ramen Inc. d/b/a Kung Fu Little Steamed Buns Ramen;
Kung Fu Delicacy Inc. d/b/a Kung Fu Little Steamed Buns Ramen;
Kung Fu Kitchen Inc. d/b/a Kung Fu Little Steamed Buns Ramen and
ZHE SONG a/k/a Peter Song, "John" Liu a/k/a Andy Liu, and Zhimin
Chen, Case No. 1:17-cv-00273 (S.D.N.Y., January 13, 2017), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wage compensation, unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Kung Fu Little Steamed Buns Ramen
restaurant located at 811 8th Avenue, New York, NY 10019.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Telephone: (718) 762-1324
      E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Wins Summary Judgment in "Fosbre" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned FRANK J. FOSBRE, JR., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LAS VEGAS
SANDS CORPORATION, SHELDON G. ADELSON, and WILLIAM P. WEIDNER,
Defendants, Case No. 2:10-cv-00765-APG-GWF  (D. Nev.), Judge
Andrew P. Gordon issued an order:

     (1) granting the defendants' motions for summary judgment,

     (2) denying as moot the defendants' motion to exclude
         testimony,

     (3) denying the plaintiffs' motion to strike reply, and

     (4) granting the plaintiffs' motion to file supplement.

Las Vegas Sands Corporation (LVS) operates resorts and gaming
properties in Las Vegas, Macao, and Singapore.  The plaintiffs
contended they purchased LVS stock at artificially high prices
between August 2, 2007 and November 5, 2008 because during that
period LVS allegedly made various false and misleading public
statements about its development plans and liquidity.  The
plaintiffs brought claims under section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against defendants LVS,
Sheldon Adelson, and William Weidner, and under section 20(a) of
the Act against Adelson and Weidner for "control person"
liability.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they did not
make any misrepresentations, they did not act with scienter, and
the plaintiffs cannot show loss causation.  They also contended
some statements are not actionable as forward-looking or puffery.
Finally, Weidner disputed that he is a control person.

The plaintiffs responded that the defendants made false and
misleading statements throughout the class period and acted with
scienter.  The plaintiffs argued they can show loss causation
through their expert.  Finally, they contended Weidner is a
control person because he was LVS's chief operating officer and a
member of the board, managed LVS's executives, and oversaw major
LVS operations.

Judge Gordon found that the plaintiffs have failed to raise an
issue of fact as to each alleged misrepresentation.  Because there
are no remaining claims, the judge held that Weidner's argument
that he is not a control person is moot.  The judge also held that
the defendants' motion to exclude the plaintiffs' expert, Dr.
Steven Feinstein, is also moot.  Judge Gordon denied the
plaintiffs' motion to strike appendix B to the defendants' reply
and granted the plaintiffs' motion to supplement.

A full-text copy of Judge Gordon's January 3, 2017 order is
available at https://is.gd/CT1FFE from Leagle.com.

Frank J. Fosbre, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher D.
Stewart -- cstewart@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP.

Frank J. Fosbre, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by David C. OMara --
david@omaralaw.net -- The OMara Law Firm, P.C. & Spencer A.
Burkholz -- spenceb@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, pro hac vice.

Pompano Beach Police & Firefighters' Retriement System, Plaintiff,
represented by Andrew W. Hutton, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
pro hac vice, David C. OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C.

Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew
W. Hutton, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, David
C. OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C., & Steven Pepich --
stevep@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Alvaro Elizondo, Movant, represented by Mark D. Wray, Law Offices
of Mark Wray.

Pension and Retirement Group, Movant, represented by Eric I.
Niehaus -- ericn@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Steven Pepich, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Brian O. O'Mara
-- bomara@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Christopher D. Stewart, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Spencer
A. Burkholz, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Las Vegas Sands Corporation, Defendant, represented by James W.
Ducayet -- jducayet@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin, pro hac vice,
Lawrence P. Fogel -- lawrence.fogel@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin
LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew M. Fogelberg -- mfogelberg@sidley.com -
- Sidley Austin, pro hac vice, Steve L. Morris --
sm@morrislawgroup.com -- Morris Law Group, Akke Levin --
al@morrislawgroup.com -- Morris Peterson, Courtney A. Hoffmann --
choffmann@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Raleigh C. Thompson --
rct@morrislawgroup.com -- Morris Law Group & Walter C. Carlson --
wcarlson@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP.

Sheldon G. Adelson, Defendant, represented by Steve L. Morris,
Morris Law Group, Akke Levin, Morris Peterson, Courtney A.
Hoffmann, Sidley Austin LLP, Lawrence P. Fogel, Sidley Austin LLP,
Raleigh C. Thompson, Morris Law Group & Walter C. Carlson, Sidley
Austin LLP.

William P. Weidner, Defendant, represented by Daniel Scott
Carlton, Paul Hastings LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah Kelly-Kilgore,
Paul Hastings LLP, pro hac vice, Tamara Beatty Peterson, Peterson
Baker, PLLC, William F. Sullivan, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker,
pro hac vice & Courtney A. Hoffmann, Sidley Austin LLP.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: High Court Agrees to Consider CalPERs Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Hurley at Reuters reports the U.S. Supreme Court on
January 13 agreed to resolve a legal dispute over whether certain
securities class action lawsuits can be barred because they were
filed too late.

The justices agreed to hear an appeal filed by the California
Public Employees' Retirement System seeking to revive a lawsuit
against various financial institutions over their alleged role in
the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

The retirement system, known as Calpers, was part of extensive
litigation against Lehman and its former directors following the
bank's 2008 collapse, which contributed to that year's global
financial crisis.

Investors said underwriters helped perpetuate misstatements about
Lehman's finances leading up to its historic downfall. Calpers
opted out of a $417 million settlement reached in 2011 between
investors and multiple defendants, including Bank of America Corp
and Morgan Stanley, preferring to pursue its own case separately.

In a July 2016 ruling, the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals upheld a district judge's decision to dismiss the
lawsuit.

The legal fight is over whether Calpers waited too long after the
bank's collapse to sue or whether the three-year window for suing
was put on hold because of the other related lawsuits that had
been filed prior to the settlement.

Lower courts are split on the question of whether the window for
filing certain securities claims is suspended if investors can
show they would have been parties in a previously filed class
action lawsuit had it not been dismissed

The legal issue was presented to the court in a 2014 case it
agreed to hear concerning claims against underwriters of
securities issued by a unit of the now-defunct IndyMac Bancorp Inc
under the Securities Act. The court never decided the case because
the parties settled, meaning it was dismissed before a ruling was
issued.


LIBERTY MUTUAL: 9th Cir. Tosses Bid to Appeal Remand Order
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit dismissed a
petition for permission to appeal the district court's remand
order and vacated the district court's fee award in the case
captioned CHAN HEALTHCARE GROUP, PS, a Washington professional
services corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee/Respondent, v. LIBERTY
MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE CO.; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
foreign insurance companies, Defendants-Appellants/Petitioners,
Nos. 16-35210, 16-80019 (9th Cir.).

Attorney David Breskin filed two offensive class action lawsuits
in Washington state court.  The first, filed in August 2015, was
filed on behalf of Chan Healthcare Group, PS against Safeco
Insurance Company of Illinois, Inc. and Safeco Insurance Company
of America (collectively "Safeco").

In early September 2015, Attorney David Breskin filed an offensive
class action lawsuit in Washington state court on behalf of Chan
Healthcare Group, PS against Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company
and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (collectively, "Liberty").
The complaint alleged that Liberty's use of the FAIR Health
database to set reimbursement amounts to medical providers
violates various Washington statutes.  All parties agreed that, on
the face of the complaint, there was no basis for federal
jurisdiction.

Liberty asserted that things changed when Chan filed its reply
brief on its motion for declaratory relief.  In the initial
motion, filed on October 2, 2015, Chan sought a declaratory
judgment that the settlement reached in a separate class action
lawsuit filed by Lebanon Chiropractic Clinic, P.C. in Illinois
state court was unenforceable in Washington.  After Liberty
responded that it "might elect simply to forego raising Lebanon as
a defense in this case," Chan argued in its October 26, 2015 reply
that "the Lebanon agreement could not be applied to bar Chan's
Washington [state law] claim against [Liberty] consistent with
Chan's due process rights."

On the basis of Chan's reply brief, Liberty removed the case to
federal court two days later, on October 28, 2015.  Liberty
explained that Chan's reply brief revealed that Chan was raising a
standalone federal due process claim, thus creating federal
question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1331.  Because
Liberty contended that Chan first raised the federal question in
the litigation in its reply brief, Liberty argued that its removal
fell "within 30 days after receipt by the defendant, through
service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion,
order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that
the case is one which is or has become removable."

Based on various papers received and filings made in the case and
other cases more than 30 days before Liberty removed, Chan
challenged the timeliness of Liberty's removal.  Chan also argued
that there was no federal question jurisdiction because its
federal due process claim was not raised as an affirmative claim,
but instead in response to Liberty's assertion of the Illinois
settlement as a defense.

The district court granted Chan's motion to remand the case to
state court based solely on the ground that removal was untimely.
The court explicitly declined to reach whether federal question
jurisdiction was present.  The court also awarded fees to Chan, in
the amount of $18,330.00, after finding that Liberty "had no
objectively reasonable basis for removal, particularly given
defense counsel's involvement with the related cases and their
acknowledgments about the Chan motions made to the court in the
Illinois appeal."

Liberty petitioned for review of the district court's remand order
and appealed the fee award.

The Ninth Circuit dismissed Liberty's petition for permission to
appeal.  The appellate court concluded that the review provisions
of 28 U.S.C. section 1453(c) are limited to class actions brought
under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).  Thus, the Ninth
Circuit concluded that it lacks jurisdiction to review the
district court's remand order in the class action predicated on
federal question jurisdiction.

Tbe Ninth Circuit, however, had jurisdiction to review the
district court's award of fees to Chan.  The appellate court noted
that Liberty filed its notice of removal just two days after
receiving Chan's reply brief, falling well within the 30-day time
limit established by section 1446(b)(3).  Because Liberty's notice
of removal was not untimely, the appellate court found that
Liberty's arguments on that score were objectively reasonable.
Untimeliness was the sole basis for the district court's fee
award.  The Ninth Circuit thus vacated the district court's fee
award and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with its
opinion.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's January 3, 2017 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/EK2k0b from Leagle.com.

Joshua S. Lipshutz -- jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com -- and Joseph C.
Hansen -- jhansen@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
San Francisco, California; Russell R. Yager -- ryager@velaw.com --
Vinson & Elkins LLP, Dallas, Texas; John M. Silk -- silk@wscd.com
-- Wilson Smith Cochran Dickerson, Seattle, Washington; for
Defendants-Appellants/Petitioners.

David Elliott Breskin -- dbreskin@bjtlegal.com -- and Cynthia J.
Heidelberg -- cheidelberg@bjtlegal.com -- Breskin Johnson &
Townsend PLLC, Seattle, Washington, for Plaintiff-
Appellee/Respondent.


LIFE PARTNERS: Plaintiffs Seek to Disqualify Goodman & Nekvasil
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Casady at Law 360 reports the investors who are class-
action plaintiffs in an adversary case in the Life Partners
Holdings Chapter 11 told a Texas bankruptcy judge on January 12 to
disqualify and sanction Goodman & Nekvasil PA because the firm
sent out solicitation letters to Life Partners investors and lied
to the court about it.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Russell F. Nelms in May approved a $1
billion settlement to resolve class-action litigation alleging
that thousands of investors were duped into purchasing life
insurance investments. The class-action plaintiffs told the court
that the rules of professional conduct are clear, and that when
the firm in the summer of 2015 sent solicitation letters to Life
Partner investors - including at least two of the named plaintiffs
in the adversary proceedings - it "engaged in improper and
unethical" behavior in a "transparent attempt to flout long-
standing ethical rules."

The court should not be fooled by the firm's attempts to
characterize the letter as investigatory in nature, the class told
the court, because the premise that the firm would need to
investigate before filing a Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority arbitration proceeding against brokers "is a farce."

"Compounding the above ethical violation, one of the law firm's
named partners also violated the rules of professional conduct by
failing to be honest and forthcoming in his representations to the
court," the motion reads. "In responding to the court's direct
question about whether the law firm did any kind of solicitation
in connection with Life Partners, the law firm's partner (who,
only a few months earlier, had authored and signed the letter),
alternated between skirting the truth, feigned memory loss, and an
attempt to gloss over the law firm's solicitation effort by
characterizing the letter as 'investigatory.'"

Name partner Kalju Nekvasil told Law360 on January 13 that he
believes this motion was filed after his firm successfully had the
court lower the class-action lawyers' attorney fees by more than
$5 million, decreased from an initial request from the attorneys
that exceeded $30 million.

"Other similar motions have been filed in the past by the same law
firm and denied by the court," he said. "And we believe that this
motion will be similarly denied."

The class-action plaintiffs said that during an August hearing on
an objection to the settlement, the court asked Nekvasil whether
he had conducted any solicitation in the case.

According to the motion, which quotes from the proceeding,
Nekvasil told the court that he "may have" but wasn't sure and
that he could have "sent out an investigatory letter or a
solicitation letter" but "did send out a letter at some point in
time." He also told the court that he couldn't say whether the
letters led to him representing any of the clients.

The plaintiffs said they have learned that the firm sent letters
in June and July 2015 to Life Partner investors that when read by
"any reasonable person" would indicate the firm was available for
hire in the underlying litigation.

Disqualifying the firm will not affect its ability to represent
investors in individual FINRA arbitration against third parties
and will not negatively affect its clients, the class-action
plaintiffs argued in seeking the "narrowly tailored sanction" it
said is appropriate for the ethical violations described.

According to online court records, firm attorneys Nekvasil and
Stephen Krosschell are listed as counsel for 21 creditors.

Counsel for the class-action plaintiffs did not return a phone
call seeking comment on January 13.

The class-action plaintiffs are represented by Keith L. Langston,
-- klangston@langston-lawfirm.com -- of Langston Law Firm

Counsel information for Goodman & Nekvasil PC wasn't available
January 13.

The case is In Re Life Partners Holdings Inc et al., case number
15-40289, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District
of Texas, Fort Worth Division.


MDL 2670: Court Rules on Federal Issues in Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Janis L. Sammartino granted in part and denied, in part, the
defendants' motion to dismiss filed in the case captioned IN RE:
PACKAGED SEAFOOD PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 15-MD-
2670 JLS (MDD) (S.D. Cal.).

In 2015, dozens of actions were instituted in federal district
courts across the nation seeking various forms of relief relying
on the same factual predicate: an alleged antitrust conspiracy, in
violation of the Sherman Act and state antitrust laws, regarding
packaged seafood products.  On December 9, 2015, the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized pretrial
proceedings to the district court in the Southern District of
California.  Several weeks later, the United States Government
intervened in the action.

The Court subsequently divided the plaintiffs into four groups:

     -- Direct Action Plaintiffs (DAPs), who are direct
        purchasers proceeding against the defendants
        individually;

     -- Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs), who are direct
        purchasers proceeding on behalf of a putative class;

     -- Indirect Purchaser Commercial Food Preparer Plaintiffs
        (CFPs), who are indirect purchasers proceeding on behalf
        of a putative class; and

     -- Indirect Purchaser End Payer Plaintiffs (EPPs), who are
        indirect purchasers proceeding on behalf of a putative
        class.

The Court and the parties conferred at a November 29, 2016 Status
Conference, and decided to bifurcate oral argument on the Motions
to Dismiss according to the classification of "federal" versus
"state" issues.

The federal issues encompass:

     (1) the sufficiency of all relevant plaintiffs' allegations
         under the Sherman Act for monetary damages;

     (2) the sufficiency of all relevant plaintiffs' allegations
         under the Sherman Act for injunctive relief;

     (3) all relevant plaintiffs' standing to prosecute non-tuna
         claims; and

     (4) all statue-of-limitations issues related to the Sherman
         Act claims.

The state-law issues will be the subject of a subsequent oral
argument and corresponding order.

The defendants effectively asserted three overarching arguments
relevant to the federal issues:

     (1) all plaintiffs fail to state a plausible conspiracy
         claim under relevant Sherman Act provisions, as to:

         (a) packaged seafoods generally;
         (b) tuna specifically; and
         (c) an entitlement to injunctive relief;

     (2) CFPs, DPPs, EPPs, and various DAPs all fail to
         adequately establish Article III standing regarding
         their "packaged seafood" (i.e., non-tuna-based) claims;
         and

     (3) all plaintiffs' claims that accrued prior to 2011 are
         time barred because:

         (a) in the Ninth Circuit the injury, rather than
             discovery, rule applies to Sherman Act claims, and
         (b) no plaintiffs' allegations are saved by the tolling
             doctrine of fraudulent concealment.

Judge Sammartino:

     (1) granted the defendants' Motion to Dismiss all relevant
         plaintiffs' allegations of a packaged-seafood conspiracy
         as to all but defendants Thai Union Group Public
         Company, Ltd. and Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC, pending
         resolution of the remaining motions to dismiss;

     (2) denied the defendants' Motion to Dismiss all plaintiffs'
         allegations of a tuna-specific conspiracy as to all but
         the W. Lee Flowers & Co.'s complaint, which remaining
         allegations concerning the defendants Thai Union Group
         and Tri-Union Seafood survive Twombly analysis, pending
         resolution of the remaining motions to dismiss;

     (3) granted the defendants' Motion to Dismiss all relevant
         plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief;

     (4) denied as moot all the defendants' Motion to Dismiss all
         relevant plaintiffs for lack of standing to prosecute
         non-tuna claims against all defendants except Thai Union
         Group and Tri-Union Seafoods;

     (5) granted all the defendants' Motion to Dismiss all
         relevant plaintiffs for lack of standing to prosecute
         non-tuna claims against Thai Union Group and Tri-Union
         Seafoods; and

     (6) granted the defendants' Motion to Dismiss all pre-2011
         conspiracy allegations as time-barred for purposes of
         any Sherman Act claims.

All denials and dismissals were without prejudice.

A full-text copy of Judge Sammartino's January 3, 2017 order is
available at https://is.gd/T14Dpq from Leagle.com.

Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc., Plaintiff, represented
by Bonny E. Sweeney -- bsweeney@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP &
Lesley E. Weaver -- lweaver@bfalaw.com -- Bleichmar Fonti & Auld
LLP, Christopher L. Lebsock -- clebsock@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld
LLP, Irving Scher -- ischer@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, pro hac
vice, Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP & Michael Lehmann --
mlehmann@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP.

Beverly Youngblood, Plaintiff, represented by Susan Rogers
Schwaiger -- sschwaiger@nussbaumpc.com -- Nussbaum Law Group, P.C.
& Whitney E. Street -- whitney@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton
LLP.

Pacific Groservice Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Barbara J. Hart
-- bhart@lowey.com -- Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C., Mark I.
Labaton, Motley Rice LLP & Sung-Min Lee -- slee@lowey.com -- Lowey
Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C..

Capitol Hill Supermarket, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Davidow
-- joel@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, pro hac vice,
Jonathan W. Cuneo -- jonc@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca,
LLP, pro hac vice, Maxwell M. Blecher --
mblecher@blechercollins.com -- Blecher and Collins, Michael James
Flannery -- mflannery@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca LLP &
Peter Gil-Montllor -- pgil-montllor@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert
& LaDuca LLP.

Louise Ann Davis Matthews, Plaintiff, represented by Kimberly A.
Kralowec, The Kralowec Law Group.

James Walnum, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T. Micheletti,
Zelle LLP, Jiangxiao Athena Hou, Zelle LLP & Judith A. Zahid,
Zelle LLP.

Colin Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Chad Saunders, The Kralowec
Law Group, Kathleen Styles Rogers, The Kralowec Law Group &
Kimberly A. Kralowec, The Kralowec Law Group.

Jennifer A. Nelson, Elizabeth Davis-Berg, Jessica Decker, Laura
Childs, Nancy Stiller, Bonnie Vanderlaan, Kristin Millican,
Plaintiffs, represented by Betsy Carol Manifold, Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman and Herz, Brittany Nicole DeJong, Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz, Carl Malmstrom, Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLC, Fred T. Isquith, Jr., Lovell Stewart Halebian
Jacobson LLP, Michell L. Kranz, ZOLL KRANZ & BORGESS LLC, Nancy A.
Kulesa, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, Theodore Bell, One South
Dearborn St. & Thomas H. Burt, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and
Herz.

Trepco Imports and Distribution LTD, Plaintiff, represented by
Abbas Kazerounian, Kazerounian Law Group, APC, Jason S. Hartley,
Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP, Robert G. Eisler, Grant & Eisenhofer
P.A., pro hac vice & Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson,
P.L.C., pro hac vice.

Jinkyoung Moon, Clarissa Simon, Plaintiffs, represented by Robert
J. Gralewski, Jr., Kirby McInerney LLP.

Corey Norris, Nigel Warren, Plaintiffs, represented by Robert J.
Gralewski, Jr., Kirby McInerney LLP & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz.

Amy Joseph, Plaintiff, represented by Gayle M. Blatt, Casey,
Gerry, Schenk, Francavilla, Blatt & Penfield LLP, Thomas A.
Zimmerman, Jr., Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C., Rachele R. Rickert,
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz & Sharon A. Harris,
Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C..

Steven M. Colberg, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Micheletti, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Dennis James
Stewart, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP, Jiangxiao Athena Hou, Zelle
LLP & Judith A. Zahid, Zelle LLP.

Michael Juetten, Carla Lown, Plaintiffs, represented by
Christopher T. Micheletti, Zelle LLP, Dennis James Stewart, Hulett
Harper Stewart LLP, Jiangxiao Athena Hou, Zelle LLP, Judith A.
Zahid, Zelle LLP & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman and Herz.

Truyen Ton-Vuong, Plaintiff, represented by Craig McKenzie
Nicholas, Nicholas and Tomasevic.

A-1 Diner, Plaintiff, represented by Frederick William Kosmo, Jr.,
Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Jalaine Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour
Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice, Joel Davidow, Cuneo
Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo
Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, pro hac vice, Maxwell M. Blecher, Blecher
and Collins, Michael

James Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca LLP & Peter Gil-Montllor,
Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP.

Dwayne Kennedy, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis James Stewart,
Hulett Harper Stewart LLP, Shpetim Ademi, Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP &
Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz.

Rick Musgrave, Plaintiff, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas,
Finkelstein Thompson, LLP & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman and Herz.

Dutch Village Restaurant, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Davidow,
Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo
Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, pro hac vice, Maxwell M. Blecher, Blecher
and Collins, Michael James Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca LLP &
Peter Gil-Montllor, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP.

Lisa Burr, Plaintiff, represented by Alex M. Tomasevic, Nicholas
and Tomasevic LLP, Craig McKenzie Nicholas, Nicholas and
Tomasevic, Dennis James Stewart, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP,
Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Jalaine
Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro
hac vice & Kirk B. Hulett, Hulett Harper Stewart.

Larry Demonaco, Ellen Pinto, Robby Reed, Blair Hysni, Dennis
Yelvington, Plaintiffs, represented by Alex M. Tomasevic, Nicholas
and Tomasevic LLP, Craig McKenzie Nicholas, Nicholas and
Tomasevic, Dennis James Stewart, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP & Kirk
B. Hulett, Hulett Harper Stewart.

Michael Buff, Plaintiff, represented by Alex M. Tomasevic,
Nicholas and Tomasevic LLP, Craig McKenzie Nicholas, Nicholas and
Tomasevic, Dennis James Stewart, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP,
Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Jalaine
Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro
hac vice, Kirk B. Hulett, Hulett Harper Stewart & Rachele R.
Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz.

Kathy Durand Gore, Plaintiff, represented by Kimberly A. Kralowec,
The Kralowec Law Group & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman and Herz.

Thomas E. Willoughby III, Plaintiff, represented by Carl
Malmstrom, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Rachele R.
Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, Theodore Bell,
One South Dearborn St. & Thomas James McKenna, Gainey McKenna &
Egleston.

Robert Fragoso, Samuel Seidenburg, Michael Coffey, Jason Wilson,
Plaintiffs, represented by Timothy Gordon Blood, Blood Hurst &
O'Reardon LLP.

Janelle Albarello, Plaintiff, represented by Frederick William
Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Jalaine Garcia, Kenny
Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice &
Timothy Gordon Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP.

Jade Canterbury, Plaintiff, represented by Alyson Louise Oliver,
Oliver Law Group P.C., pro hac vice, Carl Malmstrom, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz & Theodore Bell, One South
Dearborn St..

Nay Alidad, Barbara Buenning, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel E.
Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice, Daniel C. Hedlund,
Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice, Dennis James Stewart, Hulett
Harper Stewart LLP, Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Turner
Kosmo LLP, Jalaine Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold
Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz.

Galyna Andrusyshyn, Robert Benjamin, Plaintiffs, represented by
Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice, Daniel C.
Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice, Dennis James Stewart,
Hulett Harper Stewart LLP, Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson
Turner Kosmo LLP & Jalaine Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold
Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice.

Danielle Greenberg, Sheryl Haley, Gabrielle Kurdt, Erica Pruess,
Seth Salenger, Harold Stafford, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel
E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice, Daniel C.
Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice & Dennis James
Stewart, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP.

Lisa Hall, Tya Hughes, Marissa Jacobus, Plaintiffs, represented by
Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice, Daniel C.
Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice, Dennis James Stewart,
Hulett Harper Stewart LLP & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman and Herz.

Carl Lesher, Sarah Metivier Schadt, Karren Fabian, Plaintiffs,
represented by Stuart George Gross, Gross & Klein, LLP.

Greg Stearns, Plaintiff, represented by Stuart George Gross, Gross
& Klein, LLP & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
and Herz.

Melissa Bowman, Plaintiff, represented by Carl Malmstrom, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Francis A. Bottini, Bottini
& Bottini, Inc., Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Turner Kosmo
LLP, Jalaine Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and
Spector, pro hac vice, Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman and Herz & Theodore Bell, One South Dearborn St..

Vivek Dravid, Jody Cooper, Danielle Johnson, Joseph A. Langston,
Liza Milliner, Jody Cooper, Vivek Dravid, Plaintiffs, represented
by Carl Malmstrom, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC,
Francis A. Bottini, Bottini & Bottini, Inc., Rachele R. Rickert,
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz & Theodore Bell, One South
Dearborn St..

Herbert H. Kliegerman, Beth Milliner, Joseph A. Langston,
Plaintiffs, represented by Betsy Carol Manifold, Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman and Herz, Carl Malmstrom, Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLC, Francis A. Bottini, Bottini & Bottini, Inc.,
Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz &
Theodore Bell, One South Dearborn St..

Jeffrey Potvin, Plaintiff, represented by Paula R. Brown, Blood
Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP, Peter G. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, pro
hac vice, Roger Sachar, Morgan & Morgan, P.C., Thomas Joseph
O'Reardon, II, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP & Timothy Gordon Blood,
Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP.

Stephanie Gipson, Plaintiff, represented by Paula R. Brown, Blood
Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP, Peter G. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, pro
hac vice, Roger Sachar, Morgan & Morgan, P.C., Thomas Joseph
O'Reardon, II, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP, Timothy Gordon Blood,
Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman and Herz.

Barbara Lybarger, Plaintiff, represented by Betsy Carol Manifold,
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, Brittany Nicole DeJong,
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, Carl Malmstrom, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Elizabeth C. Pritzker,
Pritzker Levine LLP, Fred Taylor Isquith, Sr., Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, pro hac vice, Marisa C. Livesay, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, Shiho Yamamoto, Pritzker
Levine LLP, Theodore Bell, One South Dearborn St. & Thomas H.
Burt, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz.

Scott Caldwell, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T.
Micheletti, Zelle LLP, Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Turner
Kosmo LLP, Jalaine Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold
Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice, Jiangxiao Athena Hou, Zelle
LLP, Judith A. Zahid, Zelle LLP & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz.

Ramon Ruiz, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis James Stewart, Hulett
Harper Stewart LLP.

Thyme Cafe & Market, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by John H.
Donboli, Del Mar Law Group, LLP & Peter Gil-Montllor, Cuneo
Gilbert & LaDuca LLP.

Harvesters Enterprises, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by David
Malcolm McMullan, Jr., BARRETT LAW GROUP, PA, Don Barrett, Barrett
Law Office, PA, Katherine Barrett Riley, BARRETT LAW GROUP, PA &
Peter Gil-Montllor, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP.

Affiliated Foods, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Elana Katcher,
Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer, Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Turner
Kosmo LLP, Gregory K. Arenson, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP,
Jalaine Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and
Spector, pro hac vice, Johnny K. Merritt, Mullin Hoard and Brown,
Laurence D. King, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer, Mario Man-Lung Choi,
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman
Law Firm, pro hac vice, Richard J. Kilsheimer, Law Offices of
Richard J. Kilsheimer, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Kilsheimer and
Fox, pro hac vice & Timothy Clark Williams, Sprouse Shrader Smith
PLLC.

Piggly Wiggly Alabama Distributing Co., Inc., on Behalf of Itself
and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Louis
Kessler, Kaplan Fox and Kilsteimer, Solomon B. Cera, Gold Bennett
and Cera & Thomas C. Bright, Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP.

Elizabeth Twitchell, Tina Grant, John Trent, Brian Levy, Sterling
King, Evelyn Olive, Sunde Daniels, Sally Crnkovich, Plaintiffs,
represented by Betsy Carol Manifold, Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman and Herz, Brittany Nicole DeJong, Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz, Carl Malmstrom, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLC, Fred Taylor Isquith, Sr., Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
& Herz LLP, pro hac vice, Marisa C. Livesay, Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman and Herz, Theodore Bell, One South Dearborn St. &
Thomas H. Burt, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz.

Louise Adams, Marc Blumstein, Jessica Breitbach, Paul Berger,
Plaintiffs, represented by Betsy Carol Manifold, Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman and Herz, Brittany Nicole DeJong, Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz, Carl Malmstrom, Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLC, Fred Taylor Isquith, Sr., Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, pro hac vice, Frederick William Kosmo,
Jr., Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Jalaine Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter
Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice, Marisa C.
Livesay, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Rachele R.
Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, Theodore Bell,
One South Dearborn St. & Thomas H. Burt, Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman and Herz.

Barbara Blumstein, Plaintiff, represented by Carl Malmstrom, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Frederick William Kosmo,
Jr., Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Jalaine Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter
Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice, Rachele R.
Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz & Theodore Bell,
One South Dearborn St..

Mary Hudson, Plaintiff, represented by Betsy Carol Manifold, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, Brittany Nicole DeJong, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, Heidi Silton, Lockridge Grindal
Nauen P.L.L.P., pro hac vice, Marisa C. Livesay, Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz LLP & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman and Herz.

Diana Mey, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T. Micheletti,
Zelle LLP, Eric B. Snyder, BAILEY GLASSER LLP, Jiangxiao Athena
Hou, ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP, Judith Zahid, ZELLE
HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP, Katherine E. Charonk, BAILEY GLASSER
LLP, Michael S. Christian, ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP &
Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz.

Associated Grocers of New England, Inc., Associated Food Stores,
Inc., Associated Grocers, Inc., Plaintiffs, represented by
Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Jalaine
Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro
hac vice, Laurence D. King, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer & Mario Man-
Lung Choi, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP.

North Central Distributors, LLC, Cash-Wa Distributing Co. of
Kearney, Inc., URM Stores, Inc., Western Family Foods, Inc.,
McLane Company, Inc., Meadowbrook Meat Company, Inc., Plaintiffs,
represented by Laurence D. King, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer & Mario
Man-Lung Choi, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP.

Giant Eagle, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Bernard Marcus,
Marcus & Shapira LLP, Brian Hill, Marcus & Shapira LLP, Erin
Gibson Allen, Marcus & Shapira LLP, Johnny K. Merritt, Mullin
Hoard and Brown, Laurence D. King, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer,
Mario Man-Lung Choi, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, Matthew P.
McCahill, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Moira Cain-Mannix, Marcus
& Shapira LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law
Firm, pro hac vice & Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Kilsheimer and Fox,
pro hac vice.

Bi-Lo Holding, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Frederick William
Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Harold Timothy Gillis, Gillis
Way & Campbell, LLP, Jalaine Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour
Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice, Nancy A. Johnson,
Gillis Way & Campbell, LLP & Patrick J. Ahern, Ahern and
Associates, P.C..

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Harold Timothy
Gillis, Gillis Way & Campbell, LLP, Nancy A. Johnson, Gillis Way &
Campbell, LLP & Patrick J. Ahern, Ahern and Associates, P.C..

Janet Machin, Plaintiff, represented by Marcus Neil Bozeman,
Thrash Law Firm, Peter Gil-Montllor, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP &
Thomas P. Thrash, Thrash Law Firm.

Debra L. Damske, John Peychal, Virginia Rakipi, Scott Dennis,
Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew Szot, Miller Law LLC, pro hac
vice, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law LLC, Matthew E. Van Tine,
Miller Law LLC & Shpetim Ademi, Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP.

Ken Dunlap, Barbara E. Olson, Casey Christensen, Brian
Depperschmidt, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew Szot, Miller Law
LLC, pro hac vice, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law LLC, Matthew E.
Van Tine, Miller Law LLC, Shpetim Ademi, Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP &
Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz.

Adam Buehrens, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Szot, Miller Law
LLC, pro hac vice, Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Turner
Kosmo LLP, Jalaine Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold
Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller
Law LLC, Matthew E. Van Tine, Miller Law LLC & Shpetim Ademi,
Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP.

Amy E Waterman, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Szot, Miller Law
LLC, pro hac vice, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law LLC & Matthew E.
Van Tine, Miller Law LLC.

Central Grocers, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Michael
Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, pro hac vice, Joseph Richard
Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Louis Kessler, Kaplan Fox
and Kilsteimer, Matthew Sinclair Weiler, Dewey Ballantine, Solomon
B. Cera, Gold Bennett and Cera & Thomas C. Bright, Gold Bennett
Cera & Sidener LLP.

Associated Grocers of Florida, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Jalaine
Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro
hac vice & Solomon B. Cera, Gold Bennett and Cera.

Benjamin Foods LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Dana Statsky Smith,
Bernstein Liebhard LLP, Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson
Turner Kosmo LLP, Jalaine Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold
Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice, Joseph N. Kiefer, Quinn
Emanuel Urqhart Sullivan LLP, Sami H. Rashid, Quinn Emanuel
Urqhart Sullivan LLP & Stephen Randall Neuwirth, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart Sullivan LLP.

Albertsons Companies, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Alan Arnold,
Law Offices of Alan Arnold, Douglas H. Patton, Kenny Nachwalter
Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice, Frederick
William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Jalaine Garcia, Kenny
Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice,
Kevin Murray, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and
Spector, Samuel J. Randall, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold
Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice & William Jay Blechman, Kenny
Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice.

H.E. Butt Grocery Company, Hy-Vee, Inc., The Kroger Co.,
Plaintiffs, represented by Douglas H. Patton, Kenny Nachwalter
Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice, Jalaine
Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro
hac vice, Kevin Murray, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow
and Spector, Richard Alan Arnold, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold
Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice, Samuel J. Randall, Kenny
Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice &
William Jay Blechman, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow
and Spector, pro hac vice.

Lesgo Personal Chef LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Dewitt M.
Lovelace, Lovelace Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice & Peter Gil-
Montllor, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP.

Kathy Vangemert, Plaintiff, represented by Francis Onofrei
Scarpulla, Law Offices of Francis O. Scarpulla, Amelia F.
Burroughs, Janssen Malloy LLP, Patrick Bradford Clayton, Law
Offices of Francis O. Scarpulla & W Timothy Needham, Janssen
Malloy Needham Morrison and Koshkin.

Edy Yee, Plaintiff, represented by Gerald Maltz, Haralson, Miller,
Pitt, Feldman & McAnally, P.L.C., Patrick Bradford Clayton, Law
Offices of Francis O. Scarpulla & Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Law
Offices of Francis O. Scarpulla.

Christopher Todd, Plaintiff, represented by Betsy Carol Manifold,
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, Brittany Nicole DeJong,
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, Carl Malmstrom, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Fred Taylor Isquith, Sr.,
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, pro hac vice, Marisa C.
Livesay, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Rachele R.
Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, Theodore Bell,
One South Dearborn St. & Thomas C. Bright, Gold Bennett Cera &
Sidener LLP.

Publix Super Markets, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Alberto
Rodriguez, Vanek, Vickers & Masini, P.C., David Germaine, Vanek,
Vickers & Masini, P.C., Joseph Michael Vanek, Vanek, Vickers &
Masini, P.C. & Paul Ethan Slater, Sperling & Slater, P.C..

Wakefern Food Corp., Meijer Distribution, Inc., Meijer, Inc.,
Plaintiffs, represented by Alberto Rodriguez, Vanek, Vickers &
Masini, P.C., David Germaine, Vanek, Vickers & Masini, P.C. &
Joseph Michael Vanek, Vanek, Vickers & Masini, P.C..

Jade Canterbury, Plaintiff, represented by Alyson Louise Oliver,
Oliver Law Group P.C., pro hac vice, Carl Malmstrom, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz & Theodore Bell, One South
Dearborn St..

Laura Childs, Elizabeth Davis-Berg, Jessica Decker, Bonnie
Vanderlaan, Amy Jackson, Katherine McMahon, Jonathan Rizzo,
Joelyna A. San Agustin, Rebecca Lee Simoens, David Ton,
Plaintiffs, represented by Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman and Herz.

Sunde Daniels, Christopher Todd, Plaintiffs, represented by Carl
Malmstrom, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Rachele R.
Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz & Theodore Bell,
One South Dearborn St..

Mary Hudson, Plaintiff, represented by Betsy Carol Manifold, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, Carl Malmstrom, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz & Theodore Bell, One South
Dearborn St..

Nancy Stiller, Plaintiff, represented by Betsy Carol Manifold,
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz.

Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Linda
Phyllis Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C. & Susan Rogers
Schwaiger, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C..

John Gross & Company, Plaintiff, represented by Allan Steyer,
Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Donald Scott
Macrae, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP & Jill M.
Manning, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP.

W Lee Flowers & Co Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth
Halligan Black, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, Manton McCutchen Grier,
Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd & Robert Y. Knowlton, Haynsworth Sinkler
Boyd.

Affiliated Foods Midwest Cooperative, Inc., Brookshire Brothers,
Inc., Brookshire Grocery Company, Certco, Inc., Unified Grocers,
Inc., WOODMAN'S FOOD MARKET, INC., Affiliated Foods Plaintiffs,
Consol Plaintiffs, represented by Laurence D. King, Kaplan Fox and
Kilsheimer.

SIMON-HINDI, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by John H. Donboli, Del
Mar Law Group, LLP & Peter Gil-Montllor, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca
LLP.

FAREWAY STORES, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Laurence D. King,
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer, Thomas D. Mauriello, Mauriello Law Firm
APC, Bernard Marcus, Marcus & Shapira LLP, Elana Katcher, Kaplan
Fox Kilsheimer, Erin Gibson Allen, Marcus & Shapira LLP, Gregory
K. Arenson, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Johnny K. Merritt,
Mullin Hoard and Brown, Mario Man-Lung Choi, Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer, LLP, Matthew P. McCahill, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer
LLP, Moira Cain-Mannix, Marcus & Shapira LLP, pro hac vice,
Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm, pro hac vice, Richard
J. Kilsheimer, Law Offices of Richard J. Kilsheimer & Robert N.
Kaplan, Kaplan Kilsheimer and Fox, pro hac vice.

WOODMAN'S FOOD MARKET, INC., Plaintiff, Pro se, Laurence D. King,
Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer, Mario Man-Lung Choi, Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer, LLP, Thomas D. Mauriello, Mauriello Law Firm APC,
Bernard Marcus, Marcus & Shapira LLP, Elana Katcher, Kaplan Fox
Kilsheimer, Erin Gibson Allen, Marcus & Shapira LLP, Gregory K.
Arenson, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Johnny K. Merritt, Mullin
Hoard and Brown, Matthew P. McCahill, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer
LLP, Moira Cain-Mannix, Marcus & Shapira LLP, pro hac vice,
Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm, pro hac vice, Richard
J. Kilsheimer, Law Offices of Richard J. Kilsheimer & Robert N.
Kaplan, Kaplan Kilsheimer and Fox, pro hac vice.

Sam's East, Inc., Sam's West, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores East, LLC,
Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC, Plaintiffs,
represented by Andrew King, Kutak Rock LLP, Jess L. Askew, III,
KUTAK ROCK LLP & Marc M. Seltzer, Susman Godfrey.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Andrew King,
Kutak Rock LLP, Jess L. Askew, III, KUTAK ROCK LLP, Marc M.
Seltzer, Susman Godfrey, Ryan Caughey, Susman Godfrey LLP, pro hac
vice & Vineet Bhatia, Susman Godfrey LLP, pro hac vice.

United States Department of Justice, Plaintiff, represented by
Leslie A. Wulff, U.S. Deparment of Justice, Antitrust Division,
Manish Kumar, U.S. Department of Justice & Tai Milder, Antitrust
Division US Department of Justice.

Bumble Bee Foods LLC, Defendant, represented by Courtney Byrd,
O'Melveny & Meyers LLP, Edward David Hassi, O'Melveny & Meyers
LLP, pro hac vice & Julia A. Schiller, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro
hac vice.

Tri-Union Seafoods LLC, King Oscar, Inc., Defendants, represented
by Erik Raven-Hansen, Allen & Overy LLP, pro hac vice, John
Roberti, Allen & Overy LLP, pro hac vice, John Terzaken, Allen &
Overy LLP, pro hac vice, Keith R. Solar, Buchanan Ingersoll &
Rooney LLP, William E. White, Allen & Overy LLP & Robert J. Parks,
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney LLP.

Starkist Company, Defendant, represented by Ashley M. Bauer,
Latham & Watkins, Belinda S. Lee, Latham and Watkins, Daniel M.
Wall, Latham & Watkins & Niall E. Lynch, Latham & Watkins.

Tri Marine International, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Catherine Susan Simonsen, Perkins Coie LLP & Shylah Renee Alfonso,
Perkins Coie LLP, pro hac vice.

Del Monte Foods Company, Defendant, represented by Barak Bassman,
pro hac vice, Barbara Sicalides, Pepper Hamilton LLP, pro hac
vice, Jeffrey Michael Goldman, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Barak Bassman,
pro hac vice, Barbara Sicalides, Pepper Hamilton LLP, pro hac
vice, Jeffrey Michael Goldman, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Barak Bassman,
pro hac vice, Barbara Sicalides, Pepper Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice
& Jeffrey Michael Goldman, Pepper Hamilton LLP.

Thai Union Group Public Company, Defendant, represented by Robert
J. Parks, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney LLP.

Thai Union Group Public Company, Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Robert J. Parks, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney LLP & Robert J.
Parks, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney LLP.


MODERNHEALTH HOLDINGS: Sued Ove Failure to Provide Meal Breaks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Najarian and Eric Flores, individually, on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Modernhealth Holdings, Inc., Kroger
Specialty Pharmacy, Inc., Kroger Specialty Pharmacy Holdings 2,
Inc., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC646727 (Cal.
Super. Ct., January 13, 2017), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to provide an uninterrupted and duty-free 30-minute
meal period.

The Defendants own and operate multiple specialty pharmacies
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Micheile Iarusso, Esq.
      Nicholas Dagher, Esq.
      Allison Loevner, Esq.
      IARUSSO & DAGHER
      64 N. Fair Oaks Ave.
      Pasadena, CA 91103
      Telephone: (626)415-4422
      Facsimile: (866)780-3984


MRS BPO: Faces "Nelson" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, LLC. The
case is styled as Natalie Nelson, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MRS BPO, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00205 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2017).

The Defendant is a debt collection agency.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


NATIONAL MILK: Missouri Residents May Be Entitled For Some Cash
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fox2 News reports Missouri is one of 15 states named in a class
action lawsuit against the milk industry about price-fixing.
Customers who purchased milk or other dairy products including
cream, half & half, yogurt, cottage cheese, cream cheese, or sour
cream from 2003 to the present could be entitled to a refund of
$45 -- $70. The lawsuit accuses milk producers of killing off
cows, to lower the supply of milk and keep costs high.

An expert witness for the milk producers tells WITI-TV that while
the program was used to stabilize prices, the reason was less
cruel. More than 500,000 cows were slaughtered over 7 years as a
way for the milk producers to sell off their farm.

Other states in this class action lawsuit include Arizona,
California, District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

People in eligible states have through the end of the month to
make a claim at BoughtMilk.com.

Claims must be submitted online or by mail by January 31st.

         Fresh Milk Products Antitrust Litigation
         PO Box 43430
         Providence, RI 02940-3430

The class action lawsuit resulted in a $52 million settlement with
National Milk Producers Federation, aka Cooperatives Working
Together (CWT), Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Land O'Lakes,
Inc., Dairylea Cooperative Inc., and Agri-Mark, Inc.

This antitrust lawsuit alleges a nationwide conspiracy by CWT and
its members to limit the production of raw farm milk by
prematurely slaughtering cows, in order to illegally increase the
price of milk and other fresh milk products.

Defendants deny any wrongdoing or liability for the claims
alleged.


NEW ORLEANS, LA: Deal Not 'Reachable' In 'Debtor Prison' Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
KALB.com reported 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: Class Status Granted in Illegal Detention Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Joel Stashenko at New York Law Journal reports qjudge has granted
class-action status to potential plaintiffs whom New York City may
have improperly jailed from 2009 to 2012, based on detention
requests by federal immigration authorities.

Bronx Supreme Court Justice Mitchell Danziger said evidence
presented by the plaintiffs so far in Onadia v. City of New York,
0300340/2010, indicates that as many as 9,100 individuals may have
been falsely incarcerated by the city's Department of Correction.
All those individuals were jailed on civil detainers issued by
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which authorizes
holding arrestees for 48 hours after their scheduled release times
in order to give immigration officials time to investigate the
individual's immigration status.

Attorneys for plaintiff Oscar Onadia estimate that the 9,100
individuals in the class were held for at least one day past the
deadline set under the ICE civil detainer rules in effect from
2009 through December 2012. The average time spent by individuals
in unauthorized detention was 14.4 days. More than 1,000 may have
been held improperly for a month or more under ICE civil
detainers, the plaintiffs said, citing estimates from an expert
witness.

On Jan. 9, Danzinger ruled that because of the numbers of
potential plaintiffs involved, a class-action designation is the
best way to sort out the plaintiff's contentions. He held that
"common questions of law predominate the putative class,"
primarily, whether their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights
were violated by the detention.

Matthew Brinkerhoff -- mbrinkerfhoff@ecbalaw.com -- and Debra
Greenberger -- dgreenberger@ecbalaw.com --   partners at Emery
Celli Brinkerhoff & Abady, are representing the plaintiffs along
with Ameer Benno, the attorney who originally filed the case as an
individual action on Onadia's behalf in 2010.

In an interview, Brinkerhoff said it's extremely rare for a state
judge to certify a class action against New York City in state
court. He said the large number of individuals who "got held for
days or weeks at a time with no probable cause or justification"
is likely to expose the city to significant exposure to liability
if the allegations of constitutional violations are ultimately
upheld.

According to Brinkerhoff, some of the alleged abuses may also date
back to 2007 and 2008. Danzinger conceded that it will take some
work to determine which plaintiffs can claim membership in the
class, based on how ICE personnel filled out the civil detainer
forms and how individuals were notified that the ICE investigation
could result in their deportation. But the judge said that should
not prevent the case from proceeding.

"Defendant's complaint that it will be difficult to cull through
thousands of inmate files to determine what detainer forms were
used and what boxes were checked on such detainers does not create
a basis for denying certifications," he wrote. He scheduled a
March 1 status conference in the case.

Onadia was arrested on Dec. 10, 2008, for unlicensed driving.
During processing and arraignment, authorities discovered that he
had a prior charge of unlicensed driving in April 2008, for which
he served five days at Rikers Island. ICE filed a civil detainer,
which notified the Department of Correction that it was checking
on Onadia's immigration status.

Despite language in the detainer saying he could be held only for
48 hours, excepting Saturdays, Sundays or holidays, Onadia said he
was held illegally at Rikers Island until Jan. 23, 2009, or 42
days after expiration of the 48-hour period.
The civil detainer rules are spelled out in Federal Regulations 8
DFR 287.2.

Brinkerhoff said the wording of the ICE detainers has been
modified several times, most recently in 2015. In addition, he
said the New York City Council enacted the city's administrative
code in 2011 to prohibit the continued holding of people under
civil immigration detainers unless they can show that the
individuals have been convicted of serious or violent crimes, or
their names match those in a terrorist database.

Assistant Corporation Counsel Chlarens Orsland represented the
city. A statement from the city's Law Department on January 13
said that while it was continuing to review class certification
and other issues in the Onadia ruling, the potential for
"overbroad" federal immigration detainer requests has been removed
by restrictions on the detainer program since the early 2010s and
safeguards insisted on by the city.


NIGERIA DEPOSIT: Former Bankers Sue Over Nonpayment of Gratuities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ibrahim Apekhade Yusuf at The Nation reports that over 10,000 ex-
staff of banks have sued the One of those convinced that Nigerians
should adopt bitcoins is the Managing Director of the Nigeria
Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) and the Central Bank of
Nigeria (CBN) over nonpayment of their N9.8billion gratuities 1
years after they were retrenched.

The former bankers filed a class action suit through the
Registered Trustees of the Association of Ex-Staff of Non-
Consolidated Banks of Nigeria and all ex-staff of eight banks not
consolidated in the banks consolidation exercise at the National
Industrial Court, Lagos Judicial Division.

Also joined in the suit are Ecobank Nigeria Plc, UBA Plc, Skye
Bank Plc and Zenith Bank Plc.

The claimants had instituted the cation on behalf of the ex-staff
of eight banks including: Allstates Trust Bank, Assurance Bank,
Eagle Bank, Gulf Bank, Hallmark Bank, Liberty Bank, Metrolpolitan
Bank and Trade Bank respectively.

A breakdown of the claimants' gratuities showed that Allstates and
Hallmark Bank both acquired by Ecobank were owed over N7billion.

Besides, UBA which acquired Gulf Bank, Liberty Bank, Metropolitan
Bank and Trade Bank was owing ex-staff of the respective banks
over N1.3bn just as Skye Bank and Zenith Banks were owing over
N600m and N22million.

At the inaugural hearing of the suit held at Court 2, presided
over by Justice Benedict Kanyip over the weekend, the claimants'
counsel recalled that following the N25billion recapitalisation
benchmark set by the apex for banks under the 'Guidelines and
Incentives on Consolidation in the Banking Industry,' the CBN had
assured that those whose employment would be jeopardised as a
consequence of the exercise will be paid their due entitlements in
line with industry standards and even provided with soft loans to
set up their small and medium scale enterprises (SMEs).

The claimants' lawyer further averred that even the Act had
imposed a duty upon the NDIC to ensure that acquiring banks take
up the deposits and other liabilities of the acquired banks,
including the terminal benefits of ex-staff.

Regrettably, the acquiring banks implemented the act in breach by
"cherry picking" and left out both the liabilities and staff
benefits unattended to.

Consequently, the claimants according to Omotilewa have had to
suffer lots of privations including loss of lives, source of
income to mention just a few as a result of the refusal of the
defendants to redeem their promise to pay compensation due to
them.

"We're asking for the terminal benefits of the claimants simply
because it is part of their fundamental human rights which should
be enforced," he said.

Justifying the need for the class action, Magnus Maduka, the
chairman of the group, while addressing journalists said it was
disheartening to note that over 100 members of the group have
faced their untimely death as a result of the inhuman conditions
they had been subjected to these past years.

"We were trying to explore the possibility of not going to court
at all these past years believing that the CBN and NDIC and the
banks concerned would do the needful. But it does appear that we
may have to wait forever and that is why we decided to take the
matter before the court to get justice for all the affected
parties," Maduka stressed.

Justice Kanyip while taking the claimants pleas however observed
that the court was not properly served.

Specifically, Justice Kanyip said the court had no jurisdiction to
decide the case because the umbrella body under which they were
filing the class action was strictly within the purview of the
Corporate and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), which is clearly at
variance with the act setting up the NIS Act.

Meanwhile, the four banks represented by Messrs Olusola Oyebowale,
Jenifer Aburime, C.M Omeke and Adekola Isaac Olawoye had raised
preliminary objections over irregularity of the suit filed by the
claimants just as they argued that it was statute-barred.

Speaking further, Justice Kanyip said the court could only take
the claimants' pleas on a case-by-case basis and not as a group.

He therefore moved for the adjournment to April 26th, 2017, since
according to him, the face was just for mention.


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces "Gavrialov" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location.
The case is captioned as Robin Gavrialov, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v.
Northstar Location Services LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00222 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 14, 2017),

The Defendant provides full-service receivables debt collection
solution.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Igor B Litvak, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF IGOR LITVAK
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (646) 796 4905
          Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
          E-mail: igorblitvak@gmail.com


NOVO NORDISK: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Novo
Nordisk A/S securities (NVO) from April 30, 2015 through October
27, 2016, inclusive. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Novo
Nordisk investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Novo Nordisk class action, go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1029.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or -- kchan@rosenlegal.com -- for
information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Novo Nordisk
reported materially false and misleading earnings and forecasts in
that they were inflated through the collusive price fixing of Novo
Nordisk's insulin drugs. The lawsuit also alleges that Novo
Nordisk misrepresented and concealed the true extent of the
pricing pressures it was experiencing from pharmacy benefit
managers. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
March 13, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1029.htmlor to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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


OREGON: Benton County May Opt Out From Suit Against DoF
-------------------------------------------------------
Bennett Hall at Corvallis Gazette-Times reports a town hall
meeting will give local residents a chance to weigh in on whether
Benton County should opt out of a $1.4 billion class action suit
against the Oregon Department of Forestry for failing to maximize
logging revenues.

The town hall was organized by the Benton County Board of
Commissioners to gauge public sentiment on the lawsuit, which was
filed by Linn County in March on behalf of 15 Oregon counties and
dozens of smaller taxing districts that receive revenues from
timber harvests on state forest trust lands.

"They really wanted to hear from the public and not make it simply
a financial decision," said Lili'a Neville, public information
officer for Benton County.

Jan 17's meeting will begin with an overview of the lawsuit from
Benton County Counsel Vance Croney. Mark Gourley of Starker
Forests and Chris Smith of the North Coast State Forest Coalition
will address the pros and cons of staying in or pulling out of the
suit, with David Bernell, an associate professor of political
science at Oregon State University, moderating the discussion.

Two hours will be reserved for public comment, with individual
speakers limited to three minutes apiece.

The Linn County lawsuit revolves around a dispute over the
management of about 650,000 acres of land that was transferred
from county to state ownership starting in the 1930s. For the most
part, the property was logged-over or fire-damaged timberland that
counties had acquired through tax foreclosures.

Under state law, the property is supposed to be managed for "the
greatest permanent value to the state." The lawsuit argues that
counties have lost out on hundreds of millions of dollars in
revenue sharing in recent years as the Department of Forestry has
shifted its management emphasis away from timber production in
favor of environmental protection, recreation and other values.


PALOS VERDES, CA: Lunada Bay Boys Could Face Suit for Harrassment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Papenfuss at Huffington Post reports a band of entitled surf
bullies in Southern California have been placed on notice that
their exclusive territorial attitude will be challenged on Martin
Luther King Jr. Day.

The Lunada Bay Boys have a long history of harassing out-of-town
surfers who head for the waves from "their" beach in Palos Verdes
Estates, a wealthy Los Angeles suburb 16 miles south of Santa
Monica.

They have been the target of police crackdowns and two lawsuits by
area residents who say the mostly white and wealthy "trust fund"
surfriders have hijacked a Pacific Ocean beach that belongs to
everyone.

Hawaiian actor and former champion body boarder Christopher Taloa
said he was subjected to "gang-style intimidation" and kicked
twice in the face when he tried to ride the waves with friends at
Palos Verdes Estates three years ago on Martin Luther King Jr.
Day.

"It's over. What's going on was way out of hand and I don't want
to see it going on anymore," Taloa told the Daily Breeze.

So Taloa is heading back to the beach again, this time with
supporters to protest the intimidating Bay Boys.

He's aiming for a fun day in the sun, with some people paddling
out to the waves and others just enjoying the beach. "We're going
to go out with the intention of enjoying the success of being able
to get down there," said the 43-year-old Los Angeles actor, who
has appeared in "Blue Crush," "Into the Blue" and "Knots." "We
want that to be the main thing. We want to make sure that public
access is safe for everyone - not just me, not just those guys,
but everyone."

The nonprofit Coastal Protection Rangers, dedicated to protecting
public beach access, has been contacting families, community
organizations and surfing groups about the event.

"The response has been tremendous," board member Alicia Apostol
told the Los Angeles Times.

The Rangers and supporters sued Palos Verdes Estates last year and
10 alleged members of the Bay Boys in both state and federal
court. The suit characterizes the Bay Boys as a criminal gang and
accuses members of threats, vandalism, and assault. It charges
that the city has done little to stop it.

A court hearing set for Feb. 21 will determine whether the federal
case will became a class-action lawsuit, which would allow more
people to join the action.

After months of pressure from the California Coastal Commission,
the city finally demolished a stone-fort clubhouse in early
December, which the Bay Boys had illegally constructed on the
beach. During the work, unidentified vandals damaged workers'
trucks at night and set fire to an air compressor.

The city also recently began to negotiate with park rangers from
the Santa Monica Mountain Conservancy for extra patrols.


PARTY CITY HOLDCO: IPO Class Action Remains Pending in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Party City Holdco Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend against the class action lawsuit related to
the Company's IPO.

The Company said, "On November 18, 2015, a putative class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, naming Party City Holdco Inc. and certain
executives as defendants. An Amended Complaint was filed on April
25, 2016, which named additional defendants. The Amended Complaint
alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 in connection with public filings related
to the Company's April 2015 initial public offering ("IPO"). The
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who purchased
stock in the initial public offering or who can trace their shares
to that offering. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and
costs."

"The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against this
action. The Company is unable, at this time, to determine whether
the outcome of the litigation would have a material impact on its
results of operations, financial condition or cash flows."

Party City Holdco is a party goods retailer.


PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Feb. 27 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, announces a class action
lawsuit against PayPal Holdings, Inc., eBay Inc., and certain of
its officers concerning possible violations of federal securities
laws.

Investors who (1) purchased or otherwise acquired eBay securities
on the open market on or after December 19, 2013 ("eBay Class
Period") and then received PayPal securities pursuant to eBay's
spin-off of PayPal, effective as of July 17, 2015; and/or (2)
purchased or otherwise acquired PayPal securities on the open
market between July 20, 2015 and April 28, 2016, both dates
inclusive (the "PayPal Class Period" and, together with the eBay
Class Period, the "Class Period"), are advised to contact the firm
prior to the February 27, 2017 lead plaintiff deadline.

To participate in this class action lawsuit, call Brian Lundin,
Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail him at
brian@lundinlawpc.com.

No class has been certified in the above action yet. Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member.

PayPal is a technology company that offers digital and mobile
payment transactions between merchants and customers. Between 2002
and 2015, PayPal was a subsidiary of eBay. eBay is an e-commerce
company that offers consumer-to-consumer and business-to-consumer
purchases and payments. Venmo is a mobile payment tool that allows
users the opportunity to exchange payments from their bank
accounts through their mobile phones.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about its business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
PayPal's Venmo service was allegedly participating in unfair trade
practices; the announcement of the above allegations was likely to
affect PayPal's profit on its Venmo service and/or thus, PayPal's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On April 28, 2016, PayPal Holdings Inc. announced that federal
regulators are investigating its Venmo service regarding possible
unfair trade practices after receiving a civil investigative
demand on March 28 from the Federal Trade Commission (the "FTC")
for Venmo documents. The FTC inquiry focuses on whether PayPal,
through Venmo, participated in unfair or deceptive trade
practices. The investigation "may result in substantial costs,
including legal fees, fines, penalties and remediation expenses
and actions and require us to change aspects of the manner in
which we operate Venmo."

When this information was revealed to the investing public, the
value of PayPal stock dropped $0.89 per share and closed at $39.18
on April 29, 2016, causing investors harm.

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

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.


PERRIGO COMPANY: Roofers' Pension Fund Suit in Early Stage
----------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 1, 2016, that the case, Roofers'
Pension Fund v. Papa, et al., is in an early stage.

The Company said, "On May 18, 2016, a shareholder filed a
securities case against the Company and our former CEO, Joseph
Papa, in the District of New Jersey (Roofers' Pension Fund v.
Papa, et al.). The plaintiff purports to represent a class of
shareholders for the period from April 21, 2015 through May 11,
2016, inclusive. The complaint alleges violations of Securities
Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5) and 14(e) against
both defendants and 20(a) control person liability against Mr.
Papa. In general, the allegations concern the actions taken by the
Company and the former executive to defend against the hostile
takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through
November 13, 2015. The plaintiff also alleges that we provided
inadequate disclosure concerning alleged integration problems
related to the Omega acquisition in the period from April 21, 2015
through May 11, 2016."

"The case is in an early stage. Four different plaintiff groups
have sought appointment as lead plaintiff/lead counsel. The court
will decide who will represent the purported class. Once the court
has chosen a lead plaintiff, the plaintiff will likely file an
amended complaint and the defendants will then have an opportunity
to make a motion to dismiss the case."

Perrigo Company plc is a global over-the-counter ("OTC") consumer
goods and specialty pharmaceutical company, offering patients and
customers high quality products at affordable prices.


PERRIGO COMPANY: "Wilson" Suit Consolidated with Roofers Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, Wilson v. Pata et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-04358 (D.N.J.),
has been consolidated with a similar case, Roofers' Pension Fund,
v. Papa et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-02805 (D.N.J.), according to an
order dated December 7, 2016.  Following consolidation, the
proceedings in the Wilson matter are dismissed.

Judge Madeline C. Arleo, who presides over the Roofers' suit,
issued the order.

Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 1, 2016, that, "On July 19, 2016, a
shareholder filed a securities class action against the Company
and our former CEO, Joseph Papa, in the District of New Jersey.
(Wilson v. Papa, et al.) The plaintiff purports to represent a
class of persons who sold put options on the Company shares
between April 21, 2015 and May 11, 2016. In general, the
allegations and the claims are the same as those made in the
Roofers' Pension Fund case."

"Subsequently, this shareholder filed papers in the Roofers'
Pension Fund case as one of four candidates seeking to be named
lead plaintiff or co-lead plaintiff in that case. The Wilson
plaintiff also filed a motion to have the Wilson case consolidated
with the Roofers' Pension Fund case. The court has not yet acted
on the motion to consolidate or the motion for appointment as lead
plaintiff."

Perrigo Company plc is a global over-the-counter ("OTC") consumer
goods and specialty pharmaceutical company, offering patients and
customers high quality products at affordable prices.


PERRIGO COMPANY: Israel Class Suit Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 1, 2016, that a class action
lawsuit in Israel remains stayed.

The Company said, "On May 22, 2016, shareholders filed a
securities class action against the Company and five individual
defendants: former CEO, Joseph Papa, our former Executive Vice
President and General Manager of the BCH segment Marc Coucke, our
Chief Executive Officer John Hendrickson, and our Board members
Gary Kunkle, Jr. and Laurie Brlas alleging violations of Israeli
law in the District Court of Tel Aviv-Jaffa (Schwieger et al. v.
Perrigo Company plc, et al.)."

"On June 15, 2016, Perrigo filed a motion to stay the case pending
the outcome of the securities class action pending in the New
Jersey federal court. The plaintiffs did not oppose the motion.
The Israeli court granted the motion on the same day, and the
action is stayed.

Perrigo Company plc is a global over-the-counter ("OTC") consumer
goods and specialty pharmaceutical company, offering patients and
customers high quality products at affordable prices.


PETCO ANIMAL: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Wagner" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wagner, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. Petco Animal Supplies, Inc., Petco Animal Supplies
Stores, Inc., and Petco Holdings, Inc. LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-00133
(D. Colo., January 13, 2017), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate more than 1,150 specialty retail stores
nationwide -- selling pet food, live animals, pet supplies and
related goods and services -- including numerous stores within the
State of Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
      242 Linden Street
      Fort Collins, CO 80524
      Telephone: (970) 214-0562
      E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
      David A. Roth, Esq.
      Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
      Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
      HEPWORTH GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
      192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-1199
      Facsimile: (212) 532-3801
      E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com
              droth@rothandrothlaw.com
              cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
              rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com


PFIZER INC: Updates on Celebrex and Bextra Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended October 2, 2016, provided updates on lawsuits related to
Celebrex and Bextra.

Beginning in late 2004, several purported class actions were filed
in federal and state courts alleging that Pfizer and certain of
our current and former officers violated federal securities laws
by misrepresenting the safety of Celebrex and Bextra. In June
2005, the federal actions were transferred for consolidated pre-
trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Pfizer
Inc. Securities, Derivative and "ERISA" Litigation MDL-1688) in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In March 2012, the court in the Multi-District Litigation
certified a class consisting of all persons who purchased or
acquired Pfizer stock between October 31, 2000 and October 19,
2005. In May 2014, the court in the Multi-District Litigation
granted Pfizer's motion to exclude the testimony of the
plaintiffs' loss causation and damages expert.

The Company said, "We subsequently filed a motion for summary
judgment seeking dismissal of the litigation, and the plaintiffs
filed a motion for leave to submit an amended report by their
expert."

In July 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to
submit an amended report and granted our motion for summary
judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims in their entirety.

In August 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the District Court's
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In
April 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
reversed the District Court's decision and remanded the case to
the District Court for further proceedings.

In July 2016, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
resolve this matter for all defendants for $486 million, which was
recorded in Other (income)/deductions -- net for the nine months
ended October 2, 2016. The agreement is subject to final court
approval, and the payment will be made in accordance with the
terms of the settlement agreement.

The Company also said that beginning in July 2014, purported class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia against Pfizer and certain subsidiaries of
Pfizer relating to Celebrex. The plaintiffs seek to represent U.S.
nationwide or multi-state classes consisting of persons or
entities who directly purchased from the defendants, or indirectly
purchased or reimbursed patients for some or all of the purchase
price of, Celebrex or generic Celebrex from May 31, 2014 until the
cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct. The
plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Celebrex in
violation of federal antitrust laws or certain state antitrust,
consumer protection and various other laws as a result of Pfizer
fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing a patent on
Celebrex, engaging in sham litigation and prolonging the impact of
sham litigation through settlement activity that further delayed
generic entry. Each of the actions seeks treble damages on behalf
of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for Celebrex
since May 31, 2014.

In December 2014, the District Court granted the parties' joint
motions to consolidate the direct purchaser and end-payer cases,
and all such cases were consolidated as of March 2015.

The Company said, "In October 2014 and March 2015, we filed
motions to dismiss the direct purchasers' and end-payers' amended
complaints, respectively. In November 2015, the District Court
denied in part and granted in part our motion to dismiss the
direct purchasers' amended complaint."

"In February 2016, the District Court denied in part and granted
in part our motion to dismiss the end-payers' amended complaint,
and in August 2016, the District Court dismissed substantially all
of the end-payer's remaining claims."


PFIZER INC: Effexor-Related Suits in Pennsylvania Remain Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 2, 2016, that the multi-district
litigation, as well as the coordinated state court proceedings in
California, related to Effexor have been administratively stayed.

A number of individual lawsuits and multi-plaintiff lawsuits have
been filed against us and/or our subsidiaries in various federal
and state courts alleging personal injury as a result of the
purported ingestion of Effexor. Among other types of actions, the
Effexor personal injury litigation includes actions alleging a
variety of birth defects as a result of the purported ingestion of
Effexor by women during pregnancy. Plaintiffs in these birth-
defect actions seek compensatory and punitive damages.

In August 2013, the federal birth-defect cases were transferred
for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District
Litigation (In re Effexor (Venlafaxine Hydrochloride) Products
Liability Litigation MDL-2458) in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Almost all plaintiffs have
voluntarily dismissed their actions. The Multi-District
Litigation, as well as the coordinated state court proceedings in
California, have been administratively stayed.


PFIZER INC: Bids to Dismiss Effexor XR End-Payors' Claims Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 2, 2016, that motions to dismiss
remain pending as to the end-payer plaintiffs' remaining claims in
the New Jersey action related to Effexor XR.

Beginning in May 2011, actions, including purported class actions,
were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth and, in certain
of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain other defendants
relating to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation
of Effexor. The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to
represent a class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its
territories who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or
reimbursed patients for the purchase of Effexor XR or generic
Effexor XR from any of the defendants from June 14, 2008 until the
time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceased. The
plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of
generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation
of federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the
antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain
states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and
improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR in the Orange
Book, enforcing certain patents for Effexor XR and entering into a
litigation settlement agreement with a generic drug manufacturer
with respect to Effexor XR. Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble
damages (for itself in the individual actions or on behalf of the
putative class in the purported class actions) for alleged price
overcharges for Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and
its territories since June 14, 2008. All of these actions have
been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey.

In October 2014, the District Court dismissed the direct purchaser
plaintiffs' claims based on the litigation settlement agreement,
but declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser plaintiff
claims.

In January 2015, the District Court entered partial final
judgments as to all settlement agreement claims, including those
asserted by direct purchasers and end-payer plaintiffs, which
plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit. Motions to dismiss remain pending as to the end-
payer plaintiffs' remaining claims.


PFIZER INC: Appeal in Zoloft Products Liability Case Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 2, 2016, that an appeal in the
case, In re Zoloft Products Liability Litigation MDL-2342, remains
pending.

A number of individual lawsuits and multi-plaintiff lawsuits have
been filed against us and/or our subsidiaries in various federal
and state courts alleging personal injury as a result of the
purported ingestion of Zoloft. Among other types of actions, the
Zoloft personal injury litigation includes actions alleging a
variety of birth defects as a result of the purported ingestion of
Zoloft by women during pregnancy. Plaintiffs in these birth-defect
actions seek compensatory and punitive damages and the
disgorgement of profits resulting from the sale of Zoloft.

In April 2012, the federal birth-defect cases were transferred for
consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation
(In re Zoloft Products Liability Litigation MDL-2342) in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. A number
of plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their actions.

In April 2016, the District Court granted our motion for summary
judgment, dismissing the claims of almost all of the remaining
plaintiffs.

In May 2016, the plaintiffs appealed the District Court's decision
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

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


PFIZER INC: Suit Over Intravenous Saline Solution Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 2, 2016, that a purported class
action was filed in November 2016 in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois against Hospira, Hospira
Worldwide, Inc. and certain other defendants relating to
intravenous saline solution. The plaintiff seeks to represent a
class consisting of all persons and entities in the U.S. who
directly purchased intravenous saline solution sold by any of the
defendants from January 1, 2013 until the time the defendants'
allegedly unlawful conduct ceases. The plaintiff alleges that the
defendants' conduct restricts output and artificially fixes,
raises, maintains and/or stabilizes the prices of intravenous
saline solution sold throughout the U.S. in violation of federal
antitrust laws. The plaintiff seeks treble damages (for itself and
on behalf of the putative class) and an injunction against
defendants for alleged price overcharges for intravenous saline
solution in the U.S. since January 1, 2013.


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Barred From Using Current Liening Procedures
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LEA AUGUSTIN, GERARD AUGUSTIN, THOMAS
McSORLEY, DONNA McSORLEY RICHMOND WATERFRONT INDUSTRIAL PARK, LLC
Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Defendant, Civil Action No.
14-CV-4238 (E.D. Pa.), Judge J. Curtis Joyner granted the
plaintiffs' motion for entry of permanent injunctive relief
against the City of Philadelphia and its wholly-owned gas utility,
Philadelphia Gas Works (PGW).

Plaintiffs moved to forever enjoin the City from filing any liens
on real property where those liens are for unpaid gas services
provided to PGW customers who do not own the property being liened
using PGW's current methods for doing so.

Judge Curtis found that the methods and procedures currently being
followed by the City and PGW, for placing municipal liens on
realty for its customers' unpaid gas bills constitute a taking of
property without due process of law in violation of the 14th
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when the real estate being
liened belongs to someone or some entity other than the holder of
the delinquent gas account.

The judge also found that the plaintiffs are suffering irreparable
harm in that the City's current liening practices do not afford
them any opportunity to address tenant delinquencies or mitigate
accumulating arrearages in a meaningful time and in a meaningful
manner and so as to prevent arrearages from causing their
properties to be "lien eligible."  The judge found that the
plaintiffs also stand to suffer irreparable harm in the event that
the City should elect to begin taking affirmative steps to collect
on its liens by, inter alia, forcing liened properties to be sold.

Further, in the absence of a court order, the City will continue
to violate the plaintiffs' constitutional rights by continuing to
utilize its current liening practices.

Judge Curtis also found that although the City and all of its gas
service customers would suffer harm in the event it is permanently
enjoined from employing its current liening procedures, that harm
would be temporary and is not irreparable, because the City is
free to develop new methods and procedures for placing gas liens
on real estate pursuant to the Pennsylvania Municipal Claim and
Tax Lien Law, which satisfy the constraints of Constitutional due
process and may thereafter resume liening.

In addition, the judge found that the balance of harms weigh in
favor of the plaintiffs in that the granting of a permanent
injunction would result in significantly less harm to the City as
the non-moving party than the plaintiffs would suffer by its
denial.

Lastly, Judge Curtis held that the public interest is always
served when the dictates of the United States Constitution are
followed and constitutional rights are vindicated.  The judge
therefore found that public interest is thus served by permanently
enjoining the City from continuing to violate the rights of a
large number of its property owners.

Judge Curtis thus concluded that the extreme remedy of a permanent
injunction is warranted in this case.

A full-text copy of Judge Joyner's January 4, 2017 decision is
available at https://is.gd/QWqnc3 from Leagle.com.

LEA AUGUSTIN, GERARD AUGUSTIN, THOMAS MCSORLEY, DONNA MCSORLEY,
RICHMOND WATERFRONT INDUSTRIAL PARK, LLC, Plaintiffs, represented
by IRV ACKELSBERG, LANGER GROGAN & DIVER PC, EDWARD A. DIVER,
LANGER GROGAN & DIVER PC, JOHN J. GROGAN, LANGER GROGAN & DIVER PC
& SETH KREIMER.

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Defendant, represented by JEFFREY M. SCOTT
-- jscott@archerlaw.com -- ARCHER & GREINER, JOHN C. CONNELL --
jconnell@archerlaw.com -- ARCHER & GREINER, P.C. & REBECCA LYNNE
RAKOSKI -- rrakoski@archerlaw.com -- ARCHER & GREINER, PC.


PROG LEASING: Faces "Rumpf" Suit in District of Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prog Leasing LLC.
The case is titled as Jay Rumpf, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Prog Leasing LLC,
doing business as Progressive Leasing, and Unknown Parties named
as DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00111-GMS
(D. Ariz., Jan. 13, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge G
Murray Snow.

Prog Leasing p specializes in no credit needed lease purchase
options.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trinette G Kent, Esq.
          KENT LAW OFFICES
          10645 N Tatum Blvd., Ste. 200-192
          Phoenix, AZ 85028
          Telephone: (480) 247 9644
          Facsimile: (480) 717 4781
          E-mail: tkent@kentlawpc.com


QUALITY INN: "Strickland" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Strickland, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. Quality Inn at the Mall, Case No. 7:17-cv-00010-WLS (M.D. Ga.,
January 13, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
unpaid wages, declaratory relief, and other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Quality Inn at the Mall operates a hotel located at 1705 Gornto
Rd, Valdosta, GA 31601.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adian Miller, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      191 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 4200
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Telephone: (404) 496-7332
      Facsimile: (404) 496-7428
      E-mail: ARMiller@forthepeople.com


QUICKEN LOANS: Faces Suit Over Unsolicted Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Joseph at Daily Business Review reports Quicken Loans
Inc. reportedly doesn't know when to quit--at least according to a
lawsuit by a man claiming he asked the company 264 times to stop
texting him.

And in a separate suit, a second plaintiff filed a class action
claiming representatives of the Michigan-based mortgage lender
repeatedly called his cellphone looking for another man.

"It's frustrating, to say the least," said South Florida attorney
Marc Wites, of Wites & Kapetan in Lighthouse Point, who represents
both plaintiffs in cases pending in federal court.

In one case, litigant Roberto L. Cruz signed up for rate alerts
before closing on a mortgage with Quicken Loans in July 2015. When
he continued to receive alerts a month after closing, Cruz
followed the messages' instructions for unsubscribing and texted
back, "STOP."

But the messages continued, flooding in despite calls and texts to
terminate the service during a roughly 15-month period between
August 2015 and November 2016.

"What does 'stop' mean?" asked Wites, who said his firm extracted
319 Quicken text messages from Cruz's phone. "It said to send
'stop' to unsubscribe. Well he did, over and over and over again."
Quicken Loans electronically sends mortgage rate updates on a
daily or weekly basis to subscribers who request the service.
Since its launch in 1985, the company has grown into the largest
online retail mortgage lender in the U.S. and a leading lender
through the Federal Housing Administration and Department of
Veteran Affairs. It closed more than $200 billion in mortgage
loans since 2013, according to marketing materials.

"We take a very principled approach to how we litigate here at
Quicken Loans, as we do with all client issues," Quicken Loans'
associate corporate counsel Shawn Solon said. "Every [Telephone
Consumer Protection Act] class action that has been filed against
us, that is not pending, has been dismissed with prejudice. We
don't settle cases on a class-wide basis."

The company has not seen the new complaints but Solon said it
intends to fight the suits.

TCPA cases have become a cottage industry in the U.S., where
telemarketing efforts have quadrupled since 1984 and more than
300,000 solicitors contact prospective clients on a daily basis-
data that prompted Congress to pass the consumer protection
legislation in 1991.

But while times have changed and most consumers are no longer
subject to pay-per-minute cellphone rates, plaintiffs attorneys
continue to bring suits without proof of harm, Solon said. "They
plan these lawsuits against major companies and the name of the
game is settling on a class-wide basis," he said. "We are going to
stand up for what's right."

Meanwhile, recent lawsuits claim the firm's marketing and debt
collection practices contravene the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act's requirement of express written consent for
autodialed calls or those using recorded messages.

A class action pending before U.S. District Judge James S. Moody
Jr. in the Middle District of Florida alleges Quicken Loans placed
multiple wrong-number robocalls to plaintiff Richard Toney's
cellphone, beginning in October. It claims the callers used an
automated dialer to initiate phone calls meant to track down a man
named Charles.

"Beep, beep, beep," went the recording in a voicemail left on
Toney's phone and quoted in the Jan. 3 complaint. "Hi Richard.
This (is) Barney calling from Quicken Loans. This message is for
Charles. I have a very important update about his mortgage
inquiry. Please have him give me a call back on my direct line at
480.305.9811 or toll-free at 866.349.8543. I look forward to your
call today. Thank you."

Toney and Cruz's lawyers are Wites and Lighthouse Point attorney
Steven C. Holzman -- info@wklawyers.com


RAIDER PRESSUE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Stovall" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Stovall, Kyle Benton, Angel Garza, Jarred Kinney, Robert
Perdue, Jr. and Ladon Titus, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Raider Pressure Pumping, LLC and Kyle
Lewis, Case No. 7:17-cv-00007 (W.D. Tex., January 13, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for all hours worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek.

Raider Pressure Pumping, LLC maintains multiple district
houses/yards in Texas from which it offers pressure pumping
services to the oilfield industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John M. Rogers, Esq.
      Alyssa S. Turner, Esq.
      ROGERS, LLP
      409 West 4th Street, Ste. 102
      Post Office Box 2530
      Weatherford, TX 76086
      Telephone: (817) 341-9300
      Facsimile: (817) 341-9301
      E-mail: john.rogers@rogersllp.com
              alyssa.turner@rogersllp.com


RESONANT INC: September 2017 Trial Date Set in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Resonant, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the parties in a
securities class action lawsuit are engaged in discovery, and the
court has set a trial date of September 19, 2017.

An docket entry dated October 24, 2016 in one of the cases, John
Devouassoux v. Resonant Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-02054 (C.D.
Cal.), states that jury trial will be held September 19, 2017, at
9:00 a.m. and a pre-trial conference will be held September 11 at
9:00 a.m.

The Company said, "Beginning on March 17, 2015, three putative
class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, naming us, Terry
Lingren and John Philpott as defendants. The three lawsuits were
consolidated into a single putative class action, In re Resonant
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-01970 SJO (MRWx), and
the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs."

"On September 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint purporting to assert claims under the federal
securities laws against us, Terry Lingren, John Philpott, and the
underwriter of our May 29, 2014 IPO. On February 8, 2016, the
court granted our motion to dismiss with leave to amend.

"On February 23, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated second
amended complaint. In the consolidated second amended complaint,
the plaintiffs purport to be acting on behalf of a class
consisting of purchasers or acquirers of our common stock between
November 6, 2014 and April 2, 2015, as well as a class of persons
or entities who purchased or acquired our shares in (or traceable
to) our IPO. The plaintiffs alleged that, as a result of the
defendants' allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or
omissions concerning our business, operations, prospects and
performance, our common stock traded at artificially inflated
prices between November 6, 2014 and April 2, 2015. The plaintiffs
seek compensatory damages and fees and costs, among other relief,
but have not specified the amount of damages being sought in the
action.

"On March 22, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
second amended complaint. On July 11, 2016, the court entered an
order granting in part and denying in part our motion to dismiss.
The court granted our motion to dismiss with respect to
plaintiffs' claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
court also granted our motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-
5 thereunder to the extent those claims are premised on alleged
misstatements made on February 26, 2015.

"The court denied our motion to dismiss with respect to
plaintiffs' claims under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
and with respect to plaintiffs' claims under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder to the
extent those claims are premised on alleged misstatements made in
November and December of 2014 and January of 2015. As a result of
the court's order, there are no remaining claims pending against
the underwriter of our May 29, 2014 IPO.

"On October 26, 2016, the court issued an order clarifying its
July 11, 2016 order on our motion to dismiss, making clear that
the court's actual intent was to grant the motion to dismiss with
respect to the claims under Section 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, while denying the motion to dismiss with respect to the
claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

"On August 8, 2016, we filed a motion asking the court to certify
for immediate appeal its order denying our motion to dismiss, and
to stay the proceedings pending any such appeal. The court denied
that motion on September 6, 2016.

"We filed our answer to plaintiffs' second consolidated amended
complaint on August 12, 2016. The parties are currently engaged in
discovery, and the court has set a trial date of September 19,
2017."

Resonant is a late-stage development company that is creating an
innovative software , intellectual property, or IP, and services
platform that has the ability to increase designer efficiency,
reduce the time to market and lower unit costs in the designs of
filters for radio frequency, or RF, front-ends for the mobile
device industry.


ROSS STORES: No Arbitration for "Hernandez" Dispute, Court Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARTINA HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. ROSS STORES, INC., Defendant and Appellant, No. E064026 (Cal.
Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District,
Division Two upheld the trial court's denial of Ross Stores,
Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration.

Martina Hernandez was employed at a Ross warehouse in Moreno
Valley.  She filed a single-count representative action under the
California Private Attorney General Act, Labor Code section 2698
et seq. (PAGA) alleging Ross had violated numerous Labor Code
laws, and sought to recover PAGA civil penalties for the
violations.

Ross insisted that Hernandez must first arbitrate her individual
disputes showing she was an "aggrieved party" under PAGA and then
the PAGA action could proceed in court. The trial court found,
relying on Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC (2014)
59 Cal.4th 348, 387 that the PAGA claim was a representative
action brought on behalf of the state and did not include
individual claims.  As such, it denied the motion to compel
arbitration because there were no individual claims or disputes
between Ross and Hernandez that could be separately arbitrated.

On appeal, Ross raised the issue of whether under the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA) an employer and employee have the preemptive
right to agree to individually arbitrate discreet disputes
underlying a PAGA claim while leaving the PAGA claim and PAGA
remedies to be collectively litigated under Iskanian.

The Court of Appeals of California found that the dispute between
Ross and Hernandez is not a dispute between the employer and
employee.  Rather, the appellate court found that it is a
representative action and Hernandez is acting on behalf of the
state.  The appellate court found that the dispute does not
involve an individual claim by Hernandez regarding the Labor Code
violations but rather an action brought for civil penalties under
PAGA for violating the Labor Code, and that there are no
"disputes" between the employer and employee as stated in the
arbitration policy.  The appellate court thus held that the trial
court properly determined it had no authority to order arbitration
of the PAGA claim.

Moreover, the Court of Appeals of California held that there is no
authority supporting Ross's argument that an employer may legally
compel an employee to arbitrate the individual aspects of his PAGA
claim while maintaining the representative claim in court.  The
appellate court further held that requiring an employee to
litigate a PAGA claim in multiple forums would thwart the public
policy of PAGA to "empower employees to enforce the Labor Code" on
behalf of the state.  The appellate court thus concluded that the
trial court properly denied the motion.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's January 3, 2017 order is
available at https://is.gd/XYRgbL from Leagle.com.

Wolflick & Simpson, David B. Simpson -- dave@wolfsim.com -- and
Gregory D. Wolflick -- greg@wolfsim.com -- for Defendant and
Appellant.

Law Offices of Neal J. Fialkow, Neal J. Fialkow and James S.
Cahill for Plaintiff and Respondent.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued Over Defective Home Washing Machines
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Wells, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 5:17-cv-00046-D (W.D. Ok., January
13, 2017), is brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
Samsung home washing machines, which have an inherently dangerous
defect -- they "explode' or suffer catastrophic failure during a
given machine's normal usage because of a design defect and
manufacturing flaw.

The Defendants supply consumer electronics and digital products in
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William B. Federman, Esq.
      FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
      10205 North Pennsylvania
      Oklahoma City, OK 73120
      Telephone: (405) 235-1560
      Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
      E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Debt Collection Suit Reviewed After Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Chung at Reuters reports the U.S. Supreme Court on January
13 agreed to decide whether firms collecting on debt they bought
for pennies on the dollar can be held liable in lawsuits brought
by debtors they targeted under a federal law cracking down on debt
collectors' abusive practices. The justices agreed to review a
lower court's decision to dismiss a consumer class action lawsuit
against Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc (SC.N) over
allegations it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Companies that buy delinquent debt from the original lenders and
then go out and collect it from the borrowers are becoming a fast-
growing segment of the multibillion-dollar debt collection
industry. The case taken by the high court could have a major
impact on these debt buyers.

The U.S. Congress enacted the debt collection law in 1977 to
prohibit collectors from using abusive, unfair or deceptive
practices to recoup money.

The current case hinges on the definition of "creditor" and "debt
collector" and whether a company that buys debt should be treated
as a creditor and therefore not subject to the law.

Four Maryland residents who defaulted on car loans filed a
proposed class action lawsuit against Santander in 2012 in federal
court alleging violations of the debt collection law, such as
misrepresenting debt loads and bypassing debtors' lawyers.

The debts had been sold to Santander, a Dallas-based vehicle-
financing and lending company owned in part by a subsidiary of
Banco Santander (SAN.MC), the euro zone's second-largest bank by
market value. Santander then tried to collect on the loans.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia threw
out the lawsuit last March, saying the law applied only to debt
collectors, and Santander became a creditor when it purchased the
loans.

The Maryland residents told the Supreme Court the 4th Circuit's
reasoning would "hamper both government and private efforts to
combat abusive debt-collection practices." They also noted that
appeals courts are divided nationwide on the issue, with some
calling debt buyers creditors and others calling them debt
collectors.

Santander told the high court that the 4th Circuit correctly
interpreted the law and that full-service consumer banks are less
likely to commit abuses than debt collection companies because of
their standing in the community.

The appeal to the Supreme Court comes as the U.S. watchdog for
consumer finances, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is
considering proposals to toughen regulation of the industry.

The case is Ricky Henson et al v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc et
al, in the Supreme Court of the United States, No. 16-349.


SEQWATER: Flood Victims Still Wait for Settlement
-------------------------------------------------
Joel Gould at Sunshine Coast Daily reports six years on from the
2011 floods and victims are still waiting for compensation from a
multi-billion dollar class action.

Maurice Blackburn lawyers filed a class action in the Supreme
Court of New South Wales on July 8, 2014 seeking compensation for
financial loss and damage caused by the negligent operation of
Wivenhoe and Somerset dams during the January 2011 flood in south-
east Queensland.

The hearing had been set down for the Supreme Court of NSW in
Sydney on July 18 of last year, but was delayed.

The class action has been launched by law firm Maurice Blackburn
against Seqwater, Sun Water and the State of Queensland on behalf
of 4500 Ipswich and Brisbane plaintiffs who lost homes and
businesses in the 2011 floods.

Cr Paul Tully, who lost his Goodna home in the floods, has
reiterated his call for the action to be settled out of court by
the Queensland Government before it gets to trial.

"Last year the judge ordered the exchange of more material on both
sides," Cr Tully said.

"What it is leading to is a long, drawn out trial which could go
for many months later this year or next year.

"The only winners will be the lawyers, which is why I am urging
the State Government again to consider settling the action."

Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk told the QT last year that any
decision about a settlement would be made by Crown Law and that
she was not able to comment.

Maurice Blackburn's website states that the class action is "being
brought in negligence, against Seqwater, Sunwater and the State of
Queensland. As the operators of Wivenhoe and Somerset Dams, they
had a duty to operate the dams competently in order to minimise
the impact of dam releases downstream."

"The class action alleges that the negligent operation of the
Wivenhoe and Somerset dams in the lead up to and during the 2011
flood significantly contributed to the extent and the level of
flooding downstream of the dams and created a flood that was much
worse than it would have been if the dams had been operated
competently."

The class action is being run on a no win, no fee basis. Many
people in the Ipswich area are claimants and it is expected that a
hearing could be heard later this year.

There were 600 properties flooded in 2011 in Goodna, the highest
number of any suburb in south-east Queensland. Cr Tully said there
were just six flood damaged houses in Goodna that had no repairs
done to them since the flood.

"The community has come forward and regrown," he said.

"It is a testament to the good will in the community how people
have worked together. Six short years later most people have
pretty well recovered from the flood."

There is one home, in Woogaroo St, where there have been reports
of squatters moving in.

Squatting is not a criminal offence, unless a person breaks and
enters with the intent of committing an indictable offence.
Squatting is however a civil matter and a landlord can ask police
to assist in evicting the squatters.

Cr Tully said that the houses that remained in rack and ruin were
generally owned by those who were not insured and hadn't been able
to afford to restore them.


SHAKE SHACK: Class Action Settlement Granted Preliminary Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shake Shack Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 28, 2016, that the Court has
granted preliminary approval of a class action settlement.

The Company said, "In November 2015, we met with a law firm
representing two former Shake Shack managers who alleged that we
improperly classified our restaurant managers as exempt.  Although
we have always believed that our managers are properly classified
as exempt under both federal and state laws, and have always
intended to defend any allegations to the contrary vigorously, we
agreed to mediate the matter. At the conclusion of the meeting,
the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, and we
agreed to create a fund of $750,000 to settle the matter. In
exchange, all managers who choose to participate (former and
current), including the two former managers, will release Shake
Shack from all federal and/or state wage and hour claims that may
exist through the settlement date."

"As part of the settlement process, the parties entered into a
Settlement Agreement on March 11, 2016, and the law firm filed a
Complaint on March 17, 2016 with the Supreme Court of the State of
New York (the "Court"), a request for judicial intervention on
March 19, 2016 and a motion seeking the Court's preliminary
approval of the class action settlement on May 20, 2016.

"On October 25, 2016, the Court issued its order granting the law
firm's motion for preliminary approval of the class action
settlement. As of September 28, 2016, an accrual in the amount of
$770,000 was recorded for this matter and the related expenses.

Shake Shack is a modern day "roadside" burger stand serving a
classic American menu of premium burgers, hot dogs, crinkle cut
fries, shakes, frozen custard, beer and wine. As of September 28,
2016, there were 105 Shacks in operation, system-wide, of which 58
were domestic company-operated Shacks, six were domestic licensed
Shacks and 41 were international licensed Shacks.


SMARTHEALTH INC: Faces Scoma Chiropractic Suit in M.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smarthealth, Inc.
The case is captioned as Scoma Chiropractic, P.A., a Florida
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Smarthealth, Inc.,
Smarthealth Distribution Company, and John Does 1-5, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00023-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., Jan. 13,
2017).

SmartHealth distributes healthcare products and supplies for
health care professionals in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SPARK ENERGY: Status Conference in "Melville" Suit on May 16
------------------------------------------------------------
A status conference is scheduled for May 16, 2017, in the case,
Melville v. Spark Energy, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08706
(D.N.J.).

On November 15, 2016, Judge Robert B. Kugler entered an order
granting the motion to dismiss, in part.

On November 21, 2016, Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider rescheduled
the Initial Scheduling Conference previously set for December 14,
to January 19, 2017 at 11:00 a.m.

Spark Energy filed an answer to the Complaint on December 14,
2016.

A Stipulated Discovery Confidentiality Order was entered by
Magistrate Judge Schneider on January 19, 2017.

On January 20, 2017, Magistrate Judge Schneider entered the
Scheduling Order setting the Status Conference for May 16, 2017,
at 11:00 a.m. before Judge Schneider.

Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that John Melville et
al v. Spark Energy Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC is a purported
class action filed on December 17, 2015 in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging, among
other things, that (i) sales representatives engaged as
independent contractors for Spark Energy Gas, LLC engaged in
deceptive acts in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
and (ii) Spark Energy Gas, LLC  breached its contract with
plaintiff, including a breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages for himself and the purported class, injunctive
relief and/or declaratory relief, disgorgement of revenues and/or
profits and attorneys' fees.

On March 14, 2016, Spark Energy Gas, LLC and Spark Energy, Inc.
filed a Motion to Dismiss this case. On April 18, 2016, Plaintiff
filed his Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss.

On April 25, 2016, Spark Energy, Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC
filed a Reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss. The Motion to
Dismiss was set on the Court's submission docket for May 2, 2016.

"We cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case," the
Company said.

Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy services
company founded in 1999 that provides residential and commercial
customers in competitive markets across the United States with an
alternative choice for their natural gas and electricity.


SUBWAY: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Dlatt and Jason Gordon at JD Supra Business Advisor
reports Subway scored a recent victory when a federal court
dismissed a putative class action brought by two customers over a
free sandwich promotion alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act after allegedly receiving a text message
offering a free 6" Oven Roasted Chicken sub.

Subway moved to compel arbitration, seeking to enforce the
arbitration provision in the plaintiffs' contracts with their
mobile phone carrier. The clause mandated arbitration for "any and
all claims or disputes in any way related to or concerning this
[agreement]."  The plaintiffs could have opted out from the clause
within 30 days of activating their phones.  They did not.

In granting Subway's motion, the court found that the text message
was within the scope of the arbitration agreement, the agreement
was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable, and that --
under California law -- equitable estoppel applied to allow
Subway, a non-signatory of the arbitration agreement, to enforce
the agreement. Because the court decided that all of the
plaintiffs' claims must be sent to arbitration, the court
exercised its discretion and dismissed the case.

Takeaway: Companies who engage in direct marketing through
consumer technology products should be mindful that a consumer's
user agreement may offer them protection from suits arising out of
such marketing.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Driver Plaintiffs are Employees, Judge Rules
------------------------------------------------------------------
William B. Cassidy at JOC reports that trucking companies that
lease equipment to owner-operators will want to review those
agreements closely after a US judge decided some drivers that
leased equipment from Swift Transportation as independent
contractors should be considered employees.

US District Court Senior Judge John Sedwick ruled five driver
plaintiffs that launched a class action lawsuit against Swift in
2009 should be considered employees, not contractors, for the
purposes of deciding an eight-year old lawsuit over their status.

The case isn't likely to prove a threat to the owner-operator
model prevalent in the truckload business, but it could cause some
carriers to rethink how they contract with owner-operators,
especially if they're also involved in arranging equipment leases.

Sedwick's decision would have the case tried through litigation,
rather than by an arbitrator. The decision isn't the last word in
the case, as attorneys for Swift pointed out. The company will
challenge the Jan. 6 decision in an appellate court.

If Sedwick's decision is upheld, Swift eventually could be hit
with millions of dollars in damages, including back wages, for an
as yet undetermined number of drivers who have leased equipment
from the company as contractors since 2009.

On a broader level, the decision may have a ripple effect on
truckload carriers that contract with owner-operators and
specifically, those that lease equipment to drivers and then
contract them. The devil may be in the details of those leasing
agreements.

"When done correctly, this does a lot to put people in business
that deserve an opportunity to run their own business," said
Charles Clowdis Jr., managing director of transportation at IHS
Economics and Country Risk, a sister product of JOC.com within IHS
Markit.

"For the carrier, when done correctly and crafted fairly, it gives
them the opportunity to have a piece of equipment and a driver for
which they don't have to expend investment capital," Clowdis said.
"But the agreement can't be exclusive, it can't be restrictive."

There are approximately 350,000 owner-operators in the United
States, according to the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association, and many carriers contract with them to gain the
ability to scale the capacity they offer to shippers.

Trucking companies that lease equipment to those contractors may
have to change the way they do so, or at least reexamine those
agreements to ensure they don't create working conditions that can
be interpreted as employment. Others might not be affected at all.

Swift has been battling this lawsuit and others for several years.
Last October, an arbitrator in a separate dispute found truck
drivers working for Swift division Central Refrigerated Services
under lease agreements were employees, not contractors.

In a Nov. 1 letter to investors, Swift said it would put aside $22
million in legal reserves as a result of the arbitration.

Swift is the largest US truckload carrier and second-largest
publicly owned user of owner-operators, according to SJ Consulting
Group. The largest is Landstar System, which had 9,510 tractors
owned by contractors or "business capacity owners" in the third
quarter.

In the same period, Swift had 4,447 owner-operators, and 3,348 of
them financed their equipment through the motor carrier, company
documents show. Altogether, Swift operated 19,157 tractors. That
number dropped year-over-year, as Swift reduced excess capacity.

The degree of control a company exercises over an individual
typically decides whether that person is a contractor or an
employee. In trucking, that often translates to whether a driver
is free to decline loads, is dispatched by the company, or can
haul for other carriers.

In its court filings, Swift maintained the contracting agreement
between the company and the drivers should be the basis of any
decision, not the leasing agreement or the relationship that
evolved between the parties. The court disagreed and took a
broader view.

Judge Sedwick came to a conclusion similar to the arbitrator
reviewing the central refrigerated case: the terms of the
equipment lease, offered by Swift subsidiary Interstate Equipment
Leasing, negated autonomy granted in the driver's contract.

"Swift effectively had full control of the terms of the
relationship," Sedwick wrote. "Contract drivers with accompanying
IEL leases, as a practical matter, had to drive for Swift." The
leases "essentially restricted the purported autonomy allowed in
the contractor agreements."

Sedwick's ruling nixes arbitration between Swift and the
plaintiffs, which the trucking company initially sought and
Sedwick approved in 2010. That decision was overturned by the
Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals, and an appeal by Swift to the
US Supreme Court failed.

If Sedwick's ruling is upheld, the case will proceed in US
District Court.


TAKATA CORP: Settlement with Gov't Won't Hinder Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel at Daily Business Review reports Takata Corp.'s $1
billion settlement with the U.S. government over its defective air
bags will not hinder the nationwide class action against the
company and several automakers, lead plaintiffs counsel in the
Miami-based civil case said.

As part of the settlement announced Friday, Takata agreed to plead
guilty to wire fraud in Detroit federal court and to pay $850
million to automakers affected by air bag recalls, $125 million to
injured victims and a $25 million fine. The company will retain a
compliance monitor for three years, said U.S. Attorney Barbara
McQuade of the Eastern District of Michigan.

The court has appointed Washington attorney Kenneth Feinberg as
special master to oversee the restitution. Feinberg, with the Law
Offices of Kenneth R. Feinberg, has administered compensation
funds for victims of Agent Orange, 9/11 and the BP oil spill.

An indictment was also unsealed against three former executives of
the Japanese company on wire fraud and conspiracy charges for
allegedly concealing the air bags' defect from automakers.
"For more than a decade, Takata repeatedly and systematically
falsified critical test data related to the safety of its
products, putting profits and production schedules ahead of
safety," said Andrew Weissmann, chief of the U.S. Department of
Justice's criminal fraud section.

A faulty inflator found in some Takata air bags caused the safety
devices to explode when they deployed, expelling shrapnel into the
car. The defect was linked to 16 deaths and more than 180
injuries, bringing about the largest automotive recall in U.S.
history.

Takata admitted as part of the criminal settlement that it knew in
2000, a few years after it began developing the air bag inflators,
that some of them had ruptured during testing and did not meet
automakers' specifications. The company submitted false reports
that concealed the problem from Takata customers, according to the
admissions.

The executives and other employees involved in falsifying the data
were not disciplined until 2015, years after senior executives
knew about the fraud, according to the Department of Justice.
"Reaching this agreement is a major step towards resolving the
airbag inflator issue and a key milestone in the ongoing process
to secure investment in Takata," Takata Chairman and CEO Shigehisa
Takada said. "Takata deeply regrets the circumstances that have
led to this situation and remains fully committed to being part of
the solution. We have taken aggressive actions to address past
reporting lapses and will continue to work closely with regulators
and our automotive customers to address the ongoing recalls and
implement new technologies that advance vehicle safety, prevent
injuries and save lives."

U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno presides over the civil
litigation in Miami federal court and could decide to admit the
guilty plea as evidence in the civil proceeding, bolstering the
plaintiffs' case against Takata.

Peter Prieto -- pprieto@podhurst.com -- a Podhurst Orseck partner
in Miami, leads the plaintiffs' legal team in the multidistrict
litigation against Takata and automakers BMW, Honda, Mazda,
Mitsubishi, Nissan, Subaru and Toyota. The case includes personal
injury claims and a separate set of economic loss claims on behalf
of owners of cars subject to the recall.

"Takata's criminal guilty plea comes as no surprise and was
expected," Prieto said. "The guilty plea also will have no adverse
impact on the civil cases against the automakers in the MDL
because the automakers have separate and independent civil
liability to their consumers who bought their cars not from Takata
but from the automakers, all of whom represented that their cars
were safe."

Prieto also claims that no matter what Takata told the automakers,
they knew the air bags were dangerous because the inflators used a
volatile compound, ammonium nitrate, as a propellant. The defense
has argued humidity and a press used in the manufacturing process
were more to blame for air bag ruptures than the chemical.
Reports that Takata is considering filing for bankruptcy in the
U.S. concern the plaintiffs, since the claims against Takata could
be stayed in the event of a bankruptcy proceeding.

"Everyone wants Takata to survive and not file for bankruptcy, but
it's something beyond our control," Prieto said.

The government's investigation of Takata had not impeded discovery
in the case, although January 13's news could mean some Takata
employees invoke their Fifth Amendment right during future
depositions, he said.

The multidistrict litigation plaintiffs are in the midst of
discovery related to all eight defendants, and no trial date has
yet been set.


TALEN ENERGY: Neufeld Files Suit Over Riverstone Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Neufeld, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Paul A. Farr, Ralph Alexander, Michael B.
Hoffman, Edward J. Casey, Philip G. Cox, Louise K. Goeser,
Frederick M. Bernthal, Stuart E. Graham, RPH Parent LLC, SPH
Parent LLC, CRJ Parent LLC, Talen Energy Corporation and
Riverstone Holdings LLC, Defendants, Case No. 12996 (Del. Ch.,
December 23, 2016), seeks rescissory damages, costs of this
action, including a reasonable allowance for the fees and expenses
of attorneys and experts and such further relief resulting from
breach of fiduciary duties.

Riverstone acquired Talen at $14.00 per share in a merger
transaction valued at approximately $5.2 billion on December 6,
2016. There was no bidding process and no other offers were
entertained. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants exacerbated
their breaches of fiduciary duties when they locked up the
transaction with unreasonable deal protection devices that served
to prevent other bidders from making a successful competing offer.

Talen is an energy generation and marketing company in North
America with power plants in the northeast, mid-Atlantic, and
southwestern United States, with principal executive offices at
835 Hamilton Street, Suite 150, Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101-
1179. Paul A. Farr, Ralph Alexander, Michael B. Hoffman, Edward J.
Casey, Philip G. Cox, Louise K. Goeser, Frederick M. Bernthal and
Stuart E. Graham served in its board of directors.

Riverstone is a private equity firm based in New York, New York.
It was founded in 2000 and focuses on leveraged buyout and growth
capital investments in the energy industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
      Jessica Zeldin, Esq.
      ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
      919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
      P.O. Box 1070
      Wilmington, DE 19800
      Tel: (302) 656-4433

             - and -

      Jeffrey H. Squire, Esq.
      Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
      J. Brandon Walker, Esq.
      BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
      885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 308-5858


TG THERAPEUTICS: Lundin Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, announces a class action
lawsuit against TG Therapeutics, Inc. Investors, who purchased or
otherwise acquired TG Therapeutics shares between September 15,
2014 and October 12, 2016 inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm 60 days within this notice, also
known as the lead plaintiff motion deadline.

To participate in this class action lawsuit, call Brian Lundin,
Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail him at --
brian@lundinlawpc.com --

No class has been certified in the above action yet. Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member.

TG Therapeutics is a biopharmaceutical company that manufactures,
develops, and markets new treatments for B-cell, malignancies, and
autoimmune diseases within the United Stated. The Company produces
two treatments against hematological malignancies and autoimmune
diseases, TG-1101 and TGR-1202. The Complaint suggests that on
September 17, 2015, TG Therapeutics announced that the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) had contacted them due to a Special
Protocol Assessment on the make of a Phase 3 clinical trial for
TG-1101 and TGR-1202.

This Phase 3 trial, the GENUINE trial, was to demonstrate that TG-
1101 could demonstrate a surge in the overall response rate and
progression-free survival ("PFS") in 330 existing patients with
certain cancer cell mutations. As per the Complaint, TG
Therapeutics officials failed to disclose important information
regarding the Phase 3 trial, instead informing shareholders that
it is the "best-in-class" treatment, "successful", and "a novel
chemo-free treatment option." Furthermore, TG Therapeutics did not
put forth an adequate screening mechanism in the GENUINE enrolling
sites and did not enroll patients at the required rate for the
study to be successful. Lastly, the trial did not attract 330
patients, contrary to the Company's statements.

On October 13, 2016, TG Therapeutics put out a statement revealing
that it had put out an amended GENUINE Phase 3 trial protocol with
the FDA. The same day, TheStreet released an article suggesting
that TG Therapeutics has a long history of poor management. The
article also showed that the Company halted enrollment for the
GENUINE trial by a third, removed important efficacy endpoints,
and generally exposed the company to more risk. When this
information was revealed to the investing public, TG Therapeutics'
stock declined almost 27%, causing investors severe harm.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.


TOP FLITE: 6th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of TCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Katrina L. Miller at Mondaq reports in its latest "junk fax" case,
the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's
denial of class certification and dismissal of a lawsuit alleging
that Top Flite Financial, Inc., a mortgage company, violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by hiring a third party to send
unsolicited fax advertisements on its behalf. See Bridging
Communities, Inc. v. Top Flite Financial Incorporated, Case No.
15-1572, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 22297 (6th Cir. Dec. 15, 2016).

According to the complaint, Top Flite allegedly hired Business to
Business Solutions ("B2B"), a well-known fax-broadcasting company,
to send unsolicited fax advertisements to the plaintiffs and a
class of similarly-situated parties without their consent or an
established business relationship. The district court first denied
class certification because individual questions of consent (a
defense to the claims) precluded a finding of predominance under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Then, after the plaintiffs failed to
accept a Rule 68 offer of judgment from Top Flite, the district
court dismissed the lawsuit as moot. The plaintiffs appealed both
rulings.

Regarding predominance, the Sixth Circuit noted that "Rule 23(b)
requires a showing that questions common to the class predominate,
not that those questions will be answered, on the merits, in favor
of the class." Id. at *6 (quoting Amgen, Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans
& Tr. Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184, 1191 (2013) (emphasis added). In
other words, even though individual proof may be involved, if the
issues which are subject to generalized proof predominate, Rule
23(b)(3) will be satisfied. In the Court's view, Top Flite's
speculation that some claimants might have given consent was
insufficient to overcome the plaintiffs' evidence that B2B had not
contacted any of the claimants to verify consent before sending
faxes.

The Sixth Circuit also reversed the district court's mootness
dismissal because the plaintiffs had failed to accept Top Flite's
offers of judgment. Before the district court, Top Flite relied on
the Sixth Circuit's opinion in O'Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enterprises,
575 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2009), for the proposition that unaccepted
offers of judgment can moot a case and deprive a district court of
subject matter jurisdiction. However, in between the time of the
district court's ruling and the Sixth Circuit's review of the
case, the Supreme Court ruled in Campell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136
S. Ct. 663 (2016) that unaccepted offers of judgment do not moot a
case. In light of Campbell-Ewald, the Sixth Circuit held that Top
Flite's rejected offer of judgment did not moot the lawsuit.

The case is remanded to the district court.


TRI-STATE WATER: 7th Cir. Upholds Remand of Consumer Dispute
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit affirmed the
district court's order remanding to state court the case captioned
TRI-STATE WATER TREATMENT, INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
v. MICHAEL BAUER and STACEY BAUER, Defendants/Counterclaim-
Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Counterclaim-
Defendant, Appellant, No. 16-3938 (7th Cir.).

The case began as a simple collection action brought in the Small
Claims Court of Madison County, Illinois, by Tri-State Water
Treatment, Inc., against Stacey and Michael Bauer.  Tri-State
alleged that the Bauers failed to pay for a water treatment system
it had installed at their house following a free, in-home
assessment of their water.

The Bauers responded on June 5, 2015, by answering the complaint
and filing a counterclaim against Tri-State.  The counterclaim
asserted a multi-state class action against Tri-State for fraud in
connection with the sale of its water-treatment system.  For
purposes of the counterclaim, the Bauers were counterclaim-
plaintiffs and Tri-State was the sole counterclaim-defendant.

Matters became more complicated when, on February 26, 2016, the
Bauers filed an amended class-action counterclaim in which they
added Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Aquion, Inc., as counterclaim-
defendants.  The Bauers served the amended counterclaim on Home
Depot on March 15, 2016.

The amended counterclaim defined the class as consumers who
purchased a water treatment system from Tri-State, Rainsoft, and
Home Depot, following an in-home water test.  It asserted that the
counterclaim-defendants conducted in-home water tests that did
nothing but identify mineral content, rather than contaminants,
and thereby misled consumers into buying their water treatment
systems.

Home Depot filed a timely notice of removal on April 14, 2016.  It
argued that even though it was not an original "defendant" in the
underlying case, its status as an additional counterclaim-
defendant in an action meeting CAFA's criteria entitled it to take
this step.  The Bauers filed a motion to remand pursuant to 28
U.S.C. section 1447(c).  They argued that the general removal
statute, as modified by CAFA, does not permit any kind of
counterclaim-defendant (original or additional) to remove, and
thus that the case had to be returned to the state court.

In an order issued on September 29, 2016, the district court
agreed with the Bauers' position.  It concluded that CAFA did not
disturb the longstanding rule that only original defendants can
remove cases to federal court.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit adhered to its own ruling in the
case captioned In First Bank v. DJL Properties, LLC, 598 F.3d 915
(7th Cir. 2010), where it held that a counterclaim-defendant is
not entitled to remove a case from state court to federal court
under the provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28
U.S.C. section 1453(b).  The appellate court concluded that the
statute does not support treating an original counterclaim-
defendant differently from a new one, and so the Seventh Circuit
affirmed the district court's order remanding the case to state
court.

A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's January 5, 2017 decision
is available at https://is.gd/aUYOA2 from Leagle.com.

Russell Kenneth Scott, for Defendant-Appellant.

Troy A. Bozarth -- tbozarth@heplerbroom.com -- for Defendant.

Sean K. Cronin, for Defendant-Appellee.

Michael R. Reese -- mreese@reesellp.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Sidney Stewart Haskins -- shaskins@kslaw.com -- for Defendant-
Appellant.

Mark S. Johnson, for Plaintiff.

Troy E. Walton, for Defendant-Appellee.


UNITED CONTINENTAL: Must Defend "Neft" Suit Over Discount Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. denied both the defendants' motion to
dismiss and the plaintiff's motion to convert the defendants'
motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment in the case
captioned HOWARD S. NEFT, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS,
INC., and UNITED AIRLINES, INC. and DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants, No. 16-cv-765 (N.D. Ill.).

Howard Neft brought a proposed class action on behalf of himself
and similarly situated plaintiffs against the defendants United
Continental Holdings, Inc. and United Airlines, Inc., and unnamed
Doe defendants, for the defendants' alleged breach of contract
arising out of their failure to provide bargained-for benefits to
their "Silver Wings" discount program lifelong members.  Neft, on
behalf of himself and other lifetime members of the Program,
sought to recover the one-time $225 fee that he paid to join the
Program, plus attorneys' fees and costs.

The defendants moved to dismiss the Neft's complaint under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).  The defendants argued that the
complaint should be dismissed because Neft's theory of breach of
contract is directly contradicted by the contract on which Neft's
breach of contract claim is based.  According to the defendants,
the relevant contract is United's Silver Wings Plus Membership
Policies, which they attached as an exhibit to their motion to
dismiss.

In response, Neft moved to convert the defendants' motion to
dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and requested that he
be allowed to conduct discovery.  Neft challenged the defendants'
assertion that the Policies constitute the governing contract and
submitted his own affidavit stating that he never received a copy
of or agreed to the Policies.  Instead, Neft argued, the governing
contract consists of the documentation that United sent him to
solicit his participation in the Program, which he signed and sent
back to United, and which is in the defendants' exclusive custody.
Neft sought discovery aimed at determining what contract governs
the parties' relationship, followed by a summary judgment ruling
from the Court.

Judge Dow concluded that it would not be appropriate for the Court
to either to consider the Policies as part of the pleadings or to
take judicial notice of them in ruling on the defendants' motion
to dismiss.  The judge explained that although Neft's complaint
does "refer[] to" a contract, and that contract is "central to
[Plaintiff's] claim,"  the defendants have not demonstrated to the
Court's satisfaction that the Policies, in fact, constitute the
governing contract referred to in Neft's complaint.  The motion to
dismiss was therefore denied.

Judge Dow also denied the plaintiff's motion to convert the motion
to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.  The judge
explained that the Court is excluding the Policies from its
consideration of the defendants' motion to dismiss, and therefore
is not required by Rule 12(d) to convert the motion to dismiss
into a motion for summary judgment.  The judge, however, allowed
Neft to proceed with discovery to ascertain which contract or
contracts govern his breach of contract claim.

A full-text copy of Judge Dow's January 3, 2017 memorandum opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/6acUVw from Leagle.com.

Howard Neft, Plaintiff, represented by Mayte Santacruz,
AlvaradoSmith APC, pro hac vice.

Howard Neft, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. Stein, III,
DiVincenzo Schoenfield Swartzman & Anthony S. DiVincenzo.

United Continental Holdings, Inc., United Airlines Inc,
Defendants, represented by Sondra A. Hemeryck -- shemeryck@rshc-
law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, Patricia Brown Holmes
-- pholmes@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP & Tal
Cohen Chaiken -- tchaiken@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes &
Cancila LLP.


US AIRWAYS: Counsel Asks Court to Dismiss Service Agent Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cara Bayles at Law 360 reports that counsel for US Airways asked a
California federal judge at a hearing on January 13 to nix
overtime claims brought by a certified class of fleet service
agents, arguing that the Railway Labor Act, the unionized workers'
collective bargaining agreement and their standing as airline
employees all trigger exemptions to state labor laws.

Adam P. KohSweeney of O'Melveny & Myers LLP told U.S. District
Judge Charles Breyer that several California court decisions made
clear that such exemptions exist. He cited the Court of Appeals'
2014 decision in Vranish v. Exxon Mobil Corp, which upheld union
exemptions by finding that when considering whether premium wage
rates have been paid for "all overtime hours worked," a union
contract's definition of "overtime" trumps those of California's
labor law. He also quoted from the California Court of Appeals'
2003 Collins v. Overnite Transportation Company decision, which
found that a 1999 law instituting daily, rather than weekly,
overtime quotas "expressed a legislative intent" not to change old
exemptions for union contracts.

"The Legislature was very careful to say, 'That's all we're doing.
Other exemptions that existed at that time still apply.' To find
otherwise would completely undercut the entire principle of
Collins," he said. "It's not uncommon for state legislatures to
carve out [Railway Labor Act] CBAs because of interstate commerce
concerns when you have flight crews."

But class counsel Brent A. Robinson of Liberation Law Group PC
said the service agents' collective bargaining agreement didn't
meet the standards for an exemption, which require that a CBA
provide premium wage rates for all overtime hours worked and a
regular hourly rate at least 30 percent more than the state
minimum wage. The US Airways CBA allows workers to trade shifts,
which can result in extra hours not being compensated with
overtime, Robinson argued. He said the CBAs didn't define overtime
differently than California labor laws -- which would trigger
Vranish under US Airways' theory -- but simply violated them.

"Vranish says, 'All overtime hours worked,' not, 'Some overtime
hours worked.' Vranish is suggesting that further freedom of
contract is not implied," he said. "The defendant wants to carve
out exemptions but also punch out holes in the law."

Also before the judge was a motion to decertify the "grace period"
class of workers, which was certified in 2014. They claim they did
compensable work during the unpaid downtime between when they
clocked in and out  and when their scheduled, paid shift began.

That time was unpaid because workers were free to do what they
wanted, KohSweeney said, adding that during grace periods, workers
talked about union matters and watched TV, and that one agent in
San Diego grilled on the tarmac. He also said that when a shift
began at 9 a.m., the first plane wouldn't come in until 9:15 a.m.,
giving workers time to put on their gear while they were being
paid.

If an employee did work during that grace period, he could apply
for compensation, and KohSweeney said US Airways had provided the
class with more than 69,000 pages of such requests, which also
showed that the paperwork varied from station to station. He said
Judge Breyer should decertify this class just as he had in In Re
Autozone, when he found the lack of a uniform policy around rest
breaks meant the experiences of employees were too diverse to
merit a class.

Judge Breyer seemed concerned about maintaining commonality, since
he said discovery suggested staff at different airports handled
compensation requests differently. He said one employee might be
able to say, "I put on my uniform every day and didn't get paid
for it," but he wasn't convinced that every employee in California
could say the same, because some put on their gear after their
shift started and some did seek compensation for donning and
doffing.

"I'm trying to get a sense of what a trial looks like," he said.
"Even if the policy was not articulated, there's no damages to
that. The question is, is there a class of people who were not
compensated? It sounds like you cannot say that it's common to the
class."

Class counsel Alro Garcia Uriarte, info@liberationlawgroup.com  of
Liberation Law Group PC said that while the paperwork may have
varied, all California service agents were subject to the same
policy, but few of them knew it could apply to putting on their
safety gear.

"All service agents were subject to the same time-keeping
policies. With regard to the grace period, the policy was the same
for all of them as well. They had 55 minutes pre-shift and 30
minutes after," he said.

Uriarte added that US Airways' 69,000 pages of requests were
mostly for unusual circumstances, like a delayed flight, and not
for regular tasks. He said the company had only produced 350
compensation requests for activities under five minutes, which
suggested that very few workers knew they could be compensated for
donning and doffing.

But Judge Breyer also wondered if the amount of time it took to
put on safety gear was worth the trouble, asking if it really took
five minutes as the plaintiffs alleged, or "less than one minute,"
as KohSweeney said.

"Really? Five minutes? These are some slow dressers," the judge
said. "How long does it really take to put on knee pads?"

He did not issue a tentative from the bench.

Attorneys for the class and US Airways declined to comment.
Representatives for US Airways did not immediately respond to
comment on January 13.

The plaintiffs are represented by Arlo Garcia Uriarte, Un Kei Wu,
Ernesto Sanchez and Brent A. Robinson of Liberation Law Group.

U.S. Airways Inc. is represented by Robert A. Siegel, --
rsiegel@omm.com --  Susannah K. Howard -- showard@omm.com --  and
Adam P. KohSweeney -- akohsweeney@omm.com --  of O'Melveny & Myers
LLP.

The case is Angeles et al. v. US Airways Inc., case number 3:12-
cv-05860, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Airport Guards File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado at Northern California Record reports current and
former uniformed security guards at various airports allege that
their employers violated labor laws.

Fredrick Stemme, Mamadou H. Sy, William H. Davis Jr., Mohammed Q.
Mohiuddin and Rolain Alexis filed a complaint on behalf of all
others similarly situated on Jan. 2 in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Southern Division against
Universal Protection Service LP, Guardsmark LLC and Does 1 through
10 citing the Fair Labor Standards Act and state labor codes.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they
suffered damages as the result of performing their work without
being provided proper compensation such as overtime wages, minimum
wages, or adequate meal breaks. The plaintiffs hold Universal
Protection Service LP, Guardsmark LLC and Does 1 through 10
responsible because the defendants allegedly failed to provide an
itemized wage statement to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek unpaid minimum
wages totaling to at least $1 million, unpaid wages, all economic
damages, restitution, enjoin the defendants, compensatory damages,
interest, and any other relief as the court deems just. They are
represented by Joseph W. Rose -- rose@joeroselaw.com -- and Mehran
Tahoori -- mehran@joeroselaw.com --  of Rose Law in Gold River and
Michael E. Velarde -- info@michaelvelardelaw.com -- of Velarde &
Velarde  of Velarde & Velarde in Laguna Beach.


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Court to Examine Choice of Law Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, reversed the
district court's order granting the motion to compel arbitration
and remands the case, JASON KLEIN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VERIZON
COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; VERIZON ONLINE LLC; VERIZON ONLINE-MARYLAND
LLC, Defendants-Appellees, No. 14-1660 (4th Cir.)

On October 8, 2010, appellant Jason Klein contracted to receive
internet and telephone services from Verizon Communications, Inc.,
Verizon Online LLC, and Verizon Maryland (Appellees). To activate
appellees' services, appellant agreed to an initial terms of
service agreement (2010 Agreement), which contained a choice of
law provision dictating that Virginia law governed any contractual
disputes. Some relevant terms of the 2010 agreement states that:
(1) appellant and appellees consented to the exclusive personal
jurisdiction of and venue in a court in Fairfax County, Virginia;
(2) the substantive laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia governed
the agreement; and (3) appellees could only make revisions to the
agreement through notices on its website or by email.

The 2010 agreement further provided that after any revisions
became effective, continued use of appellees' services equated to
accepting and agreeing to abide by such revisions.

Appellant and appellees subsequently entered into a second terms
of service agreement in 2011, which contained the same choice of
law provision. Prior to entering into the 2011 agreement,
appellant terminated the 2010 agreement. Based on that
termination, appellees charged appellant a $135.00 early
termination fee.

In 2012, appellees sent appellant an email notifying him of
changes to the prior agreements, which, for the first time,
included a provision that required the parties to arbitrate
disputes.  The 2012 notification included the same modification
clause as the 2010 and 2011 agreements, that is, periodic
revisions noticed by website postings and/or email, but changed
the choice of law, venue, and method of dispute resolution
provisions. The choice of law became the Federal Arbitration Act
and the substantive laws of the state of the customer's billing
address. The 2012 notification further provided that the terms now
require that appellant and appellees resolve disputes only by
arbitration or in small claims court.

Appellant filed a class action on behalf of himself and similarly
situated persons in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia. He alleged the early termination fee
violated Virginia law. Per the 2012 notification, appellees moved
to compel arbitration, or alternatively, to dismiss the action.
Appellees argued appellant had agreed to the terms of the 2012
notification, and was therefore bound by them.

The district court granted appellees' motion to compel arbitration
and concluded that the terms of the 2012 notification control the
dispute. In other words, the parties effected a valid modification
to the 2010 agreement via the 2012 notification.

On appeal, appellant contends Virginia law applies based on the
choice of law provision in the 2010 and 2011 agreements.
Appellees, however, contend the district court properly applied
Maryland law. The issue, according to appellees, is whether or not
the parties validly entered into a 2012 contract modification that
contains the arbitration provision at issue Appellees believe that
the dispute is governed by the law where the last acts necessary
to enter the modifications occurred, which they argue is in
Maryland.

Appellees contend the district court properly determined Maryland
law applies, and correctly applied that law to the issues before
it.

The Fourth Circuit held that appellant is correct. The district
court erred by failing to apply the 2010 agreement's choice of law
provision, and alternatively, by not applying Virginia law in
determining whether the 2012 Notification was the last act
necessary.

Although, as noted, it is true that, pursuant to Virginia's choice
of law rules, lex loci contractus serves as the default rule, the
parties specifically contracted a valid and undisputed choice of
law provision in the 2010 agreement. Virginia law clearly
acknowledges that such provisions are exceptions to the default
rule, and more importantly, gives them effect. The parties
disputed whether the 2012 notification was an already effective
modification, or merely a proposed modification to which appellant
had not yet assented.

The analysis as to choice of law should have, at this stage,
focused on the 2010 agreement, from which appellant's cause of
action arose, according to the Fourth Circuit.  The district court
erred by failing to fully apply Virginia law as per the parties'
clear intent reflected in the contractual choice of law provision
in the 2010 agreement. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district
court's grant of arbitration and remanded the case for further
proceedings.

A copy of the Fourth Circuit's unpublished per curiam opinion
dated January 5, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/E1Z36X from
Leagle.com.

Raymond Charles Fay -- rfay@faylawdc.com -- Zlatomira Simeonova at
FAY LAW GROUP PLLC, for Appellant

Fred Anthony Rowley, Jr. -- Fred.Rowley@mto.com -- Hojoon Hwang --
Laura K. Lin -- Laura.Lin@mto.com -- at MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON
LLP; Sean F. Murphy -- sfmurphy@mcguirewoods.com -- Joshua D.
Davey -- jdavey@mcguirewoods.com -- at McGUIREWOODS LLP, for
Appellees


VOLKSWAGEN: UK Drivers in Line for Up to GBP3,000 Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Munbodh at Mirror reports the courtcase relates to 2015's VW
emissions saga in which the company said 11 million diesel
vehicles, including 1.2 million in the UK -- were fitted with
software to cheat emissions tests.

Motorists that have been caught up in the Volkswagen emissions
scandal could be in line for a huge compensation pay-out, as a
result of a lawsuit that could cost the German automaker millions.

The court case relates to the 2015 VW emissions scandal in which
the company said 11 million diesel vehicles, including 1.2 million
in the UK -- were fitted with software to cheat emissions tests.

This effectively meant customers were paying a fortune extra to
run their vehicles -- including those driving a number of Audi,
Skoda or Seat cars.

Volkswagen has agreed a GBP12.3billion settlement for motorists in
the US. It has also pleaded guilty to three criminal charges in
the US and will pay a GBP3.5billion penalty.

But it has now emerged that law firm Harcus Sinclair is taking the
case against VW to the High Court on behalf of 10,000 affected UK
consumers who have registered to be part of the "class action".

The law firm estimates that past and present owners are could
receive up to GBP3,000 in compensation if the case succeeds,
however, VW has vowed to "defend such claims robustly".

A VW spokesperson said: "We have been notified that Harcus
Sinclair intends to bring proceedings against Volkswagen on behalf
of 77 claimants in the English High Court in relation to the NOx
emissions issue.

"As we have previously said, we intend to defend such claims
robustly. We haven't received the claim yet, so we cannot comment
further."

In order to join the lawsuit -- which will be headed by legal
firms Harcus Sinclair or Slater and Gordon -- you'll need to meet
the following criteria:

Your car is/was a VW, Audi, Seat or Skoda. It's important to note
that not all cars manufactured by the VW Group are affected. The
exact cars affected are the Jetta, Beetle, Audi, A3 and Golf
models dating 2009-2015 and Passat models dating 2014-2015.

Your car has/had a 1.2, 1.6 or 2 litre diesel engine

It was made between 2009 and 2015

You purchased, leased or acquired it (new or secondhand) before 1
January 2016

While there is no cost to sign up, the firm will take 30% of the
compensation awarded if the case is won.

The case is due to be heard in the High Court at the end of
January. If it succeeds, it could take at least two years before
claimants receive any due money.

It's not just VW motorists affected

It has now emerged that car giant Renault has also been sucked
into the diesel emissions scandal. Reports say prosecutors in
France have launched an investigation into possible cheating on
exhaust emissions.

It comes two months after they were passed the findings of an
investigation by the French government's fraud agency.

Renault-made diesel engines that are also used in a number of
Nissan models. The two manufacturers have worked together since
1999.

It comes a day after claims that Fiat Chrysler vehicles in the US
had been fitted with software designed to cheat diesel emission
tests.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is investigating whether
the vehicles were fitted with so-called "defeat devices" that can
turn off pollution controls.

A Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) spokesperson said: " FCA US is
disappointed that the EPA has chosen to issue a notice of
violation with respect to the emissions control technology
employed in the company's 2014-16 model year light duty 3.0-liter
diesel engines.

"FCA US intends to work with the incoming administration to
present its case and resolve this matter fairly and equitably and
to assure the EPA and FCA US customers that the company's diesel-
powered vehicles meet all applicable regulatory requirements."

Jim Holder, editorial director at What Car? magazine, said: "When
the VW scandal broke a lot of people assumed that if the world's
biggest car manufacturer had to cheat to meet emissions targets,
then surely all manufacturers did.

"A lot of mud was slung -- a lot of manufacturers named and shamed
-- but until now none of that mud stuck long enough for the
regulators to take action.

"Even now they have -- with Fiat Chrysler and Renault -- it's
still not certain.

"A lot appears to hinge on the interpretation of the regulations,
which the VW scandal has already exposed as being thoroughly
inadequate in Europe. What's clear is that manufacturer."

The Department for Transport says it has issued a "notice of
violation" to Fiat Chrysler covering 104,000 vehicles, including
the 2014-16 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Ram pick-ups, which are not
widely available in the UK.


WELLS FARGO: Lieff Cabraser, Saxena White Selected as Lead Counsel
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock at The Recorder reports that Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein and Boca Raton, Florida-based Saxena White have been
selected to lead a shareholder derivative class action against
Wells Fargo & Co., winning out over competing firms that have
clients with hundreds of thousands of more shares in the bank.
The suits stem from revelations last September that Wells Fargo
employees had been pressured to open more than a million
unauthorized deposit and credit card accounts on behalf of bank
customers, and the subsequent blow to the company's stock and
finances.

On January 12, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar of the Northern
District of California ruled that Lieff Cabraser and Saxena White
were best positioned to lead the derivative litigation against the
company's board, in part because they moved quickly to coordinate
the various suits that had been filed.

The firms "played a key role in the effort to consolidate these
cases pursuant to stipulation, which made the outset of this
litigation more efficient for both the parties and this court,"
Tigar wrote in an order approving their motion to become co-lead
counsel.

He added that four other plaintiffs supported their bid to lead
the case, based on "their stated willingness to coordinate and
work with plaintiffs' counsel in the related actions."
Lieff Cabraser and Saxena White respectively represent the Fire
and Police Pension Association of Colorado and The City of
Birmingham Retirement and Relief System. Together, they hold
181,076 shares in Wells Fargo stock, according to Tigar's order.
That compares to the 925,169 shares held by the clients of
competing firms Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman and Bottini &
Bottini.

Having a bigger financial stake normally puts a firm on solid
footing to lead shareholder class action suits. But the judge
ruled that both pairs of clients still have a "significant"
financial interest and that "this factor will translate into a
marginal difference, if any, in the vigor of representation."
The development comes just two weeks after Tigar appointed Motley
Rice to lead a securities fraud class action against Wells Fargo,
with Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as liaison counsel. Their bid to
lead the suit was unopposed.

A separate shareholder derivative class action against Wells Fargo
is also pending in state court in San Francisco, headed by
Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy. Cotchett attorneys are due to report to
San Francisco Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow later this month
on whether the federal or state court action should take the lead.
Defending Wells Fargo in the derivative cases is Sullivan &
Cromwell, one of a broad network of law firms the bank has called
on to navigate the legal fallout from the fake accounts scandal.


WOODBRIDGE BARIC: Order to Pay $20K to Deepwater Horizon Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: DEEPWATER HORIZON. WOODBRIDGE BARIC
PRE-SETTLEMENT FUNDING, L.L.C., Appellant, v. LOUIS J. FREEH,
Special Master, Appellee, No. 15-30599 (5th Cir.), the United
States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit reversed the district
court's order for Woodbridge Baric Pre-Settlement Funding, L.L.C.
to pay $20,000 in restitution to the Deepwater Horizon Court-
Supervised Settlement Program.

In 2012, Woodbridge Baric loaned Jarrod Burrle $24,000.
Woodbridge Baric and Burrle agreed that Burrle would not be
required to repay the loan if his economic loss claims in
connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill fail unless he had
misrepresented his claim to Woodbridge Baric, in which case Burrle
agreed to indemnify Woodbridge Baric and hold it harmless.

In December 2012, the district court approved the Deepwater
Horizon Economic and Property Damages Settlement Agreement in a
class action concerning the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  In
accordance with the settlement agreement, the district court
established the Deepwater Horizon Court-Supervised Settlement
Program to implement and administer the settlement agreement,
including the processing of individual claims for compensation.
Shortly after the settlement program began operations, Burrle
refiled his claims for compensation with the program.

In 2013, the settlement program paid over $50,000 on one of
Burrle's claims, and Burrle's attorneys paid Woodbridge Baric
$20,000 of those funds in partial repayment of the loan.
Subsequently, Louis Freeh, appointed by the district court as a
special master to investigate misconduct in the administration of
the settlement program, determined that Burrle's claim was
fraudulent and moved the court to order Burrle and others,
including Woodbridge Baric, to make restitution for the funds paid
in connection with that claim.

The district court granted the motion as to Woodbridge Baric,
finding that Woodbridge Baric would be unjustly enriched if
allowed to retain the $20,000 from Burrle.  The district court
reasoned that Woodbridge Baric's right to Burrle's repayment of
the loan was contingent upon the success of Burrle's claims, which
ultimately failed.  Woodbridge Baric appealed.

The Fifth Circuit found that Woodbridge Baric's right to Burrle's
repayment of the principal amount of its loan did not depend
solely on the success of Burrle's claims: Woodbridge Baric's
contracts with Burrle expressly required Burrle to indemnify and
hold Woodbridge Baric harmless for the loss of the principal
amount of the loan if his representations to Woodbridge Baric
regarding his claims were not accurate and complete in all
respects.  The appellate court noted that although Woodbridge
Baric assumed some of the risks associated with non-recovery in
its contracts with Burrle, it specifically disclaimed the risk
that Burrle had asserted fraudulent claims and withheld that
information from it.

Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit held that Woodbridge Baric was
entitled to Burrle's full repayment of the principal under their
contracts.  The appellate court stated that where a "bona fide
creditor is entitled to payment regardless of the judgment's
validity, that creditor is not unjustly enriched by retention of
the payment after the judgment's reversal."  In other words, The
Fifth Circuit held that because Burrle's payment to Woodbridge
Baric discharged an unconditional, bona fide obligation,
Woodbridge Baric is not liable in restitution to the settlement
program.

A full-text copy of the Fifth Circuit's January 6, 2017 decision
is available at https://is.gd/J2Vyl0 from Leagle.com.

George Davidson Fagan, for Appellant.

Margaret Frohn Swetman, for Appellant.

Gregory A. Paw, for Appellee.

Anton L. Hasenkampf -- ahasenkampf@leakeandersson.com -- for
Appellant.


WORLEYPARSONS: Federal Court Orders $50MM Class Suit to Continue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Wiggins at Financial Review reports WorleyParsons' attempt
to stop a $50 million class action lawsuit alleging the
engineering group breached continuous disclosure obligations in
2013 has failed, with the Federal Court ordering the case to
continue.

Justice Foster dismissed WorleyParsons' interlocutory application
on January to halt the case brought by ACA Lawyers and ordered the
company to file its defence by February 16 before a further
hearing on February 23.

WorleyParsons said Justice Foster's judgement did not address "the
substantive proceedings" of the claim and that it would defend
them.

The class action claim, which is being funded by JustKapital,
alleges that WorleyParsons engaged in "misleading or deceptive
conduct" in 2013. The claim argues the company did not provide a
reasonable explanation for why its three main reasons for a
November profit downgrade -- a fall in professional services
revenue, a cost cutting program and the decline of its Australian
and Canadian businesses -- were "unexpected or unforseen
developments".

WorleyParsons' shares tumbled 26 per cent to $16 on November 20,
2013, slashing more than $1 billion off its market value, after
chief executive Andrew Wood cut the company's annual net profits
guidance to a new range of $260 million to $300 million.

Investors were shocked by the warning, because the engineering
group had told shareholders at its annual results in August and at
its annual general meeting in early October to expect net profit
of at least $322 million.

'Reasonable grounds' for earnings guidance

Investor Larry Crowley, who acquired 423 WorleyParsons shares on
October 4, 2013 when they were trading around $22 and still holds
them, is the plaintiff in the lawsuit. WorleyParsons' shares
closed at $10.08 on Friday.

Mr Crowley has alleged that one of more of WorleyParsons' officers
was "aware at the time the various forecasts were given that
WorleyParsons did not have reasonable grounds for giving those
forecasts".

Justice Foster said Mr Crowley's case for breaching continuous
disclosure laws and breaching the Corporations Act was "curious",
because it depended on the Court accepting that WorleyParsons had
"no reasonable grounds" for giving its August earnings guidance.

But the Justice also found that there was "sufficient material" in
the lawsuit to allow it to continue.

"The close proximity in time between the giving of the earnings
guidance and the November earnings downgrade, in and of itself, is
sufficient to require an explanation from WorleyParsons as to the
basis upon which the August 2013 and October 2013 earnings
guidance was given and the reasons for the change in
WorleyParsons' opinion as to future earnings between those dates
and the date when the November earnings downgrade was given,"
Justice Foster said.

WorleyParsons has claimed that it provided a satisfactory
explanation in its trading update on November 20, 2013.

Justice Foster also asked for an update on a competing class
action filed in the Supreme Court of Victoria by litigator
Melbourne City Investments, an investment company set up by former
Minter Ellison partner Mark Elliott.

JustKapital finalised a co-funding agreement with the US's
Longford Capital that will enable the Australian group to invest
in more class action claims.


ZIMMER BIOMET: Jan.31 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action lawsuit
has been commenced in the USDC for the Northern District of
Indiana on behalf of investors who purchased Zimmer Biomet
Holdings, Inc. securities between September 7, 2016 and October
31, 2016.


ZOMICK'S FOOD: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Santos Marver Reyes and Eduar Abraam Castro, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Zomick's Food Products,
Ltd. d/b/a Zomick's Bakery, Gittel Kaff and Moshe Kaff, Case No.
cv-17-00202 (E.D.N.Y., January 13, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Zomick's Bakery in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Telephone: (718) 263-9591
      Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
      E-mail HFDalton6912@Gmail.com


ZOOMER INC: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland at Cook County Record reports Zoomer, a company
which provides third-party "independent contractor" drivers to
pick up and deliver take-out meals on behalf of restaurants, is
facing a class action complaint over text messages the company
sent to restaurant customers to promote its delivery tracking
smartphone app.

Justin Hardesty, an Illinois resident represented by attorneys
with the firm of Edelson P.C., of Chicago, filed his complaint
Jan. 10 in Cook County Circuit Court against Philadelphia-based
Zoomer Inc.

According to the complaint, restaurant customers are unaware their
deliveries will come via Zoomer drivers, and each customer gets
"at least one automated and unauthorized text message" promoting
Zoomer's mobile app.  Hardesty contends this constitutes a
violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act and
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Hardesty's complaint said food delivery has grown into a $30
billion market. Zoomer, seeking its slice of the action, sends
agents to pick up the food from partner restaurants, which provide
the driver with the address and phone number of the customer who
ordered the food. Zoomer then gets a share of revenue from each
order from its restaurant partners.

Zoomer also offers an app allowing customers to track their
delivery, as well as order from a list of Zoomer partners in
proximity to the mobile device. Since Zoomer "has aspirations of
being a leader in the big business of food delivery," the
complaint states, it tries to get customers to download the app
via text advertisements. The intent, Hardesty alleged, is to drive
customers toward Zoomer clients.

The complaint included a text sent to Hardesty confirming a
delivery order he placed Nov. 10. It reads: "Thanks for ordering
from Johnny Brown Bag! Track your delivery by downloading the
Zoomer app at http://track.zoomerdelivery.com."

Hardesty said the restaurant never mentioned Zoomer while he
placed his order, nor did it inform him his contact information
would be provided to Zoomer, or that Zoomer would send him text
messages.

The class would include anyone in the U.S. who received at least
one text advertisement from Zoomer without providing a number
directly to Zoomer prior to receipt. There also would be a
subclass specifically for Illinois residents suing under the
Illinois law.

Hardesty said the unauthorized text messages and use of an
automated telephone dialing system violate federal
telecommunications law and could require Zoomer to pay $500 per
violation. Since "Zoomer's misconduct was willful and knowing," he
asked the court to triple those damages.

The Illinois subclass allegations also note "damages in the forms
of the diminished value and utility of their telephone equipment
and telephone subscription services," including a negative effect
on battery performance and the cost of electricity to charge
phones that would not have been used if the unsolicited
advertisements had not been received.

In addition to class certification and a jury trial, Hardesty
seeks an injunction requiring Zoomer to stop sending unauthorized
text advertisements and an order forcing it to "disgorge any ill-
gotten funds acquired as a result of its unlawful telephone
calling practices."


* Supreme Court to Examine Workers' Rights to File Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Barnes at The Washington Post reports the Supreme Court
accepted more than a dozen new cases on January 13, mostly
representing business concerns, that are likely to complete a
docket far less controversial than what the justices have faced in
recent years.

The justices will consider whether companies can protect
themselves against costly class-action suits by forcing employees
to settle differences through individual arbitration. And it will
decide how challengers to an important Obama administration
environmental regulation may proceed in court.

But the court did not announce action on a requested review of
Alabama's death-penalty process or Texas's challenge of a lower-
court ruling striking down the state's voter-identification law.
The court could still hear the cases, but it seems more likely
those challenges will be heard in the term that starts in October.

By then, the court is likely to be at full strength. It has been
shorthanded since Justice Antonin Scalia died last February, and
the Republican-controlled Senate refused to act on President
Obama's nominee, Judge Merrick Garland.

The eight-member court has appeared to put aside more
controversial cases where it might deadlock. President-elect
Donald Trump has said he will offer a nominee within two weeks of
taking office, but even with a speedy confirmation process that
person might not be on the court before it concludes oral
arguments in April.

The arbitration issue affects millions of workers who have signed
employment agreements in which they waive rights to bring class-
action lawsuits over workplace issues and wage disputes, in favor
of arbitration.

Businesses favor such resolution, saying it is quicker and less
costly than class-action litigation. The National Labor Relations
Board says such agreements conflict with laws that give workers
the right to band together.

Lower courts are split on the issue. The Supreme Court agreed to
consider three cases that raise the issue, two of them in which
judges said the arbitration agreements cannot be enforced and
another where a court agreed with the company.

The court also accepted a dispute over a 2015 environmental rule
from the Obama administration regarding what qualifies as "water
of the United States" under the Clean Water Act.

But the court will not be considering the rule's merits. It will
be settling a dispute about the proper court in which the
challenges must be filed.

"What should be a straightforward gatekeeping provision has in
this and other cases generated widespread judicial disagreement,
caused needless delay, and wasted valuable resources for no
substantive purpose," said a brief filed by the National
Association of Manufacturers.

In other cases accepted on January 13, the court will hear a
dispute about how quickly "biosimilars" -- copies of medicines
based on living organisms -- can get to market. And it will decide
whether venture capitalist Charles Kokesh has to return to the
Securities and Exchange Commission nearly $35 million he paid to
himself and other advisers.

Kokesh contends the penalty is not within a five-year statute of
limitations.


                            *********

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  * * *