CAR_Public/170130.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Monday, January 30, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 21



                            Headlines

ADVANTAGE COLLECTION: Sievert Moves for Certification of Class
ALLPRO STAFFNET: "Hodge" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
APPLE INC: Should be Forced to Install Safety Features, Suit Says
AUSTRALIA: May Face Class Action Over Flinders Embryo Destruction
AXA EQUITABLE: Faces "Wenokur" Insurance Suit in Arizona

BANK OF AMERICA: Morgan Stanley, UBS Must Provide ISDAFix Docs
BELLAMY'S: IMF Bentham to Finance Investors' Class Action
BB LOCKSMITH: Faces "Losey" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
BLD SERVICES: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Unpaid Wages and OT Pay
BRAZILIAN WAX: Faces "Miller" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA

CALTEX AUSTRALIA: Investigates Franchisees Amid Wage Fraud Claims
CAJUN CONSTRUCTORS: Faces "Valderde" Suit Over Unpaid OT Pay
CANADA: Ontario Court Certifies Prisoners' Mental Health Suit
CANADA: City of Westmont Settles John Garland Sex Abuse Case
CENTRELINK: Slater and Gordon Probing Debt Recovery System

CONGREGATION YETEV: Faces "Abreu" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
CORIZON HEALTH: "Richardson" Suit Seeks Back Wages Under FLSA
D.B.A. DIANE'S: Rosenberg Seeks Monetary Damages Under Labor Code
DOLLAR GENERAL: Workers Union Files Securities Lawsuit in Tenn.
DR. REDDY'S: Pension Fund Sues Over Divalproex ER Price-Fixing

DREAMWORKS: May 18 Non-Poaching Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
ENERGY TRANSFER: Faces "Duany" Securities Class Action in Del.
ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS: Roberts Seeks Payment of Wages
ENTERTAINMENT ONE: Time for Three Files Class Suit Over Contract
FACEBOOK INC: Quirky Sues Over Video Advertising

FAJAS DEPOT: Faces "Bravo" Suit Seeking to Recoup "Unpaid" OT
FCA US: Faces "Sebastian" Suit Over RICO Act Violations
FENIX PARTS: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Suit
FIAT CHRYSLER: Investors Sue Over Emissions Recall Missteps
FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Union Sues Over Overpriced Econazole

FOURTH STREET: 6th Cir. Declines to Dissolve Wage Case Settlement
FRATELLI MANAGEMENT: Faces "Ponce" Suit in Southern Dist. of Fla.
FTS INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Thompson" Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
GEICO INDEMNITY: Starks Seeks to Certify EFTA and UCL Classes
GENERAL CABLE: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Suit

GOLDEN CORRAL: Faces "Schriver" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
GOLDEN CORRAL: Faces "Hinterleiter" Suit Seeking to Recoup OT Pay
INOTEK PHARMACEUTICALS: Johnson & Weaver Probing Securities Claims
JIMMY CHOO: Agreed to Pay $2.5MM to Settle Privacy Suit
JOHNSON & BELL: Files Motion to Dismiss Security Breach Case

JP MORGAN CHASE: Turner Alleges Violation of Consumer Fraud
KALVISTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Johnson & Weaver Probing Claims
KAUFMAN ENGLETT: Suit Over Bankruptcy Retainer Fees Dismissed
KENT COUNTY: Faces Potential Lawsuit Over Fire Hydrants
LAND SOURCE: Waterford Estate Residents Mull Class Action

LIBERTY MUTUAL: Fails to Pay Employee's OT Work, "Rego" Suit Says
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Face US Life Suit Over Insurance Rate Hike
LOUISVILLE SLUGGER: Faces Class Action Over Baseball Bats
MALLINCKRODT PLC: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
MICHAELS STORES: Newark Judge Dismisses FCRA Class Action

MIDLAND FUNDING: Dunbar Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces "Fuchs" Suit in Eastern Dist. of N.Y.
NATIONAL DEBT: Fuggetta Seeks Payment of Wages and OT Pay
NCAA: Faces Lawsuit for Sacrificing Player Safety
NELNET INC: Faces "Metallo" TCPA Class Suit in NY

NIGERIA: Retired Military Officers Sue Over Debarment Allowance
NOVOCURE LIMITED: Johnson & Weaver Probing Securities Claims
O.C. COMMUNICATIONS: Soto Alleges Calif. Labor Law Violations
ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Paddock Alleges Securities Laws Violation
PENSKE LOGISTICS: Settles Truckers' Wage-and-Hour Class Action

PPI INC: Faces "Slack" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
PRESIDIO BRANDS: Shank Sues over All-Natural Label in Products
QUALCOMM INC: Stromberg Sues Over Modem Chipset Prices
RENT-A-CENTER: Johnson & Weaver Investigates Potential Claims
REWALK ROBOTICS: Lifshitz & Miller Files Securities Class Action

RITE OF PASSAGE: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
SA FAMILY HELP: "Elizondo" Suit To Recover Overtime Pay
SAMSUNG: Warranty Book Won't Avert Class Action
SAMSUNG: Irregularly-Sized Batteries Cause of Note 7 Overheating
SCOTT MELLINGER: Faces Suit for Illegally Detaining Arrestees

SEATTLE, WA: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Homeless Camp Sweeps
SEATTLE GENETICS: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Suit
SPIN MASTER: Faces "Hejduk" Suit Over Defective Products
SPOKEO INC: Sued in Illinois Over Displays Paid Advertisements
STANLEY BLACK & DECKER: Sobrinho Seeks Payment of Overtime Pay

STARKIST: Settlement Vouchers Delayed Due to Appeals
STEEL & TUBE: Law Firm Attempts to Increase Homeowner Nervousness
SPIN MASTER: Faces "Hejduk" Suit Over Defective Products
TASK FORCE: Faces "Higar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
THOMAS ARNOLD: "Ramirez" Claims FLSA, Ariz. Wage Law Violations

TIME WARNER: Faces "Collura" Suit Over Proposed AT&T's Merger
TOYOTA MOTOR: Has Prelim. Settlement in Defective Frames Suit
TRADEWINDS BEVERAGE: Sues Over Iced Tea Product False Ad
SUNDAY RILEY: Faces Class Action Over Bionic Anti-Aging Cream
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Samfiru Tumarkin Files Class Action in Ontario

UNITED COLLECTION: Class Certification Sought in "Merkovich" Suit
UNITED KINGDOM: Hindraf to Take Rights Class Action to ECHR
V.C. LAUDERDALE: Faces "Onyenecho" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
VIRGINIA: Arguments in DMV Class Action Scheduled for Feb. 2
VOLKSWAGEN: Car Owners Dissatisfied with Buy Back Delay

WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Neal" Suit Over TCPA Violation
WECTEC GLOBAL: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Pay
WELCH FOODS: "Iglesias" Misbranding Suit Removed to N. D. Calif.
WILCOX & WILCOX: Sued in Super Ct. Over Labor Code Violations
WISCONSIN: Officials Face Class Action Over Solitary Confinement

YAHOO! INC: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
YRBL CORPORATION: Faces "De La Cruz" Suit Over Unpaid Wage and OT
YS REALTY: "Chaca" Seeks Payment of Wages and Overtime Pay
ZENITH EDUCATION: Faces "Covington" Suit Over Unpaid Wages and OT

* Class Action Money & Ethics Conference - May 1, 2017 - NYC
* Class Members Actively Participates in Litigation
* Monetary Value of Employment-Related Settlements Down in 2016
* Ohio Drivers Ineligible for Auto Parts Price-Fixing Settlement
* Workplace Lawsuits May Spike Under Trump Administration


                            *********


ADVANTAGE COLLECTION: Sievert Moves for Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned JUDITH SIEVERT,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
ADVANTAGE COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-00059
(E.D. Wisc.), moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint, and further asks that the Court both stay the
motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the
Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing
schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed
with the Motion.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative
and further asks the Court to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as
class counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLPRO STAFFNET: "Hodge" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH HODGE and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
ALLPRO STAFFNET LIMITED-LIABILITY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-00065 (M.D. Tenn., January 18, 2017), seeks to recover
compensation for worked hours in excess of 40 hours under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Allpro Staffnet, LLC -- http://www.allprostaffnet.com/-- offers
medical staffing services to the residents of Nashville,
Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gilbert Russell Mcwherter, Esq.
     Michael L. Russell, Esq.
     Emily S. Emmons, Esq.
     SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
     341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
     Franklin, TN 37067
     Phone: 615-354-1144
     Email: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com
            eemmons@gilbertfirm.com


APPLE INC: Should be Forced to Install Safety Features, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jef Cozza at Top Tech News reports a new class-action lawsuit
filed in California aims to hold Apple accountable for a number of
automobile accidents caused by drivers getting distracted by their
iPhones. The folks behind lawsuit are hoping to force the company
to install a new safety feature on its devices to prevent users
from texting while they are driving.

According to the suit, Apple has possessed the technology required
to implement such a feature since 2008, and was granted a patent
for it in 2014. The suit alleges that the company has refused to
employ the technology out of fear that doing so would cost it
market share.

The complaint is seeking an injunction that would halt the sale of
all iPhones in the state of California that do not come with such
a lock-out feature, as well as a court order forcing Apple to
immediately update all iPhones currently on the market to install
the feature.

The suit was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court,
January 17, by MLG Automotive Law, on behalf of Julio Ceja, a
California resident whose car was struck from behind while stopped
at a stoplight, by a driver who was distracted while using her
iPhone.

"It has migrated from a menacing problem to a full-blown epidemic
of national importance: texting and driving is the single most
deadly thing one can do behind the wheel of an automobile," the
lawsuit noted. According to the complaint, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has said that texting and
driving is six times more dangerous than drinking and driving.

"In a recent study conducted by the NHTSA, it was concluded that
drivers take their eyes off the road for an average of 4.6 seconds
when sending or receiving a text." The suit added that when
driving at 80 miles per hour, that is the equivalent of driving
539 feet, almost the length of two football fields, while wearing
a blindfold. The complaint also cited the National Safety
Counsel's 2014 injury and fatality report, which found that cell
phone use caused 26 percent of all car accidents in the U.S.

As many as 1.5 million people may be texting while driving at any
given time, according to information from the U.S. Department of
Transportation. Meanwhile, the Federal Highway Administration has
estimated that California drivers suffer around 500,000 automobile
accidents every year. Given Apple's approximate 40 percent market
share of the cell phone market, that corresponds to roughly 52,000
accidents a year that are caused by drivers distracted by iPhones
in California alone.

Additionally, with approximately 3,000 traffic fatalities in the
state annually, the same statistics would imply that every year
around 312 fatalities are caused by drivers who are distracted by
their iPhones at the time of their accidents.

This lawsuit isn't the only one Apple is facing at the moment. A
similar suit against the company was filed a month ago in
California's Santa Clara County Superior Court by a family blaming
Apple's FaceTime feature for the death of their five-year-old
daughter who was riding in the back seat of a car that was rear-
ended by a 20-year-old driver. That driver admitted to using
FaceTime on his iPhone 6 Plus while driving.

According to that lawsuit, Apple is responsible for the girl's
death because of its "failure to install and implement the safer,
alternative design for which it sought a patent in December 2008
(later issued by the United States Patent Office in April 2014) to
'lock out' the ability of drivers to utilize the 'FaceTime'
application on the Apple iPhone when driving a motor vehicle,
which resulted in the injuries sustained by plaintiffs," the
girl's family said in the complaint. The family is seeking medical
costs and punitive damages.


AUSTRALIA: May Face Class Action Over Flinders Embryo Destruction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wills, writing for The Advertiser, reports that families
who lost 50 frozen embryos when a backup generator at Flinders
Medical Centre failed because of human error during the statewide
blackout could sue the State Government for negligence in a class
action, leading law firms have warned.

Former police commissioner Gary Burns on Jan. 23 released his
report into the emergency services' response to the statewide
blackout, saying people had "unrealistic expectations" about how
quickly help would get to them and should make their own plans to
ride out disasters.  A key recommendation among the 62 handed down
was for development of an Adelaide CBD evacuation plan, which
would be deployed in the event of any future disasters.

Health Minister Jack Snelling on Jan. 23 expressed concern for
families affected by the embryo tragedy.  He said he would look at
compensation and be a model litigant.

"It's disturbing such a straightforward mistake could have such
catastrophic results," he said.  "I am incredibly sorry for the
families that lost embryos.  It is extremely distressing."

Flinders Fertility, a clinic in the FMC that was caring for the
destroyed embryos, on Jan. 23 said it was considering its position
in the wake of Mr Burns's report.

Tindall Gask Bentley partner Mal Byrne told The Advertiser
"nothing will heal the pain these families have experienced", but
the state could be liable in a negligence case.

Seventeen ICU patients were also moved to the adjacent private
hospital in the blackout.  The embarrassing report into the FMC
failure found a control switch on one of the generators was turned
off and there were no alarms set to alert maintenance staff.

It was handed to the Government on November 1, almost three months
ago.  A spokesman for Mr Snelling said release was delayed as it
was part of the wider review.

The report finds one of five FMC generators failed after an hour
and 45 minutes, cutting power to parts of the major hospital for
an hour and a half until mains supply returned.

"The direct cause of this loss of standby power was related to the
failure of the diesel fuel system of one generator, most likely
caused by human error in wrongly leaving a control switch off,"
the report found.

It adds that a "contributing cause" to the failure was "the lack
of alarms to notify maintenance staff of an impending shutdown".

To restart the generator, fuel needed to be added into a main
tank.  But the report found the absence of power meant it was not
possible to pump diesel into the machine.  "Although maintenance
staff attempted to improvise solutions during the event, this was
hampered by overall conditions and lack of equipment for such a
situation," it found.

Mr Snelling said a contractor that carried out maintenance at the
FMC in the days before the blackout asserted its staff had not
left the control switch in the off position.

"Very few other people in the hospital have access into the room
where the generator is," he said.  "It is a locked room and only a
small number of individuals have keys.

"For the person, and they would only know themselves . . . this
will be a matter that will have to sit on their conscience."

Mr Byrne said families that lost embryos could be eligible for
compensation, potentially from a class action together, or by
proceeding with multiple individual actions.

"It would not surprise me if some of the family members involved
have or will suffer psychiatric injury as infertile couples can
have a powerful emotional investment and attachment to their
embryos," he said.  "Given the individual and systemic failures
identified in the report, the families may be able to sue the
state in negligence if they can also show they have suffered
psychiatric injury, over and above normal grief, arising out of
the circumstances."

Duncan Basheer Hannon has also said there was a good case against
the Government.

Flinders Fertility said it was examining the reports and its
"paramount focus" had been working with affected families to help
them achieve the goal of parenthood.  The clinic said it had also
moved to a more reliable laboratory since the blackout.

A separate report was similarly scathing of an outage at Port
Augusta Hospital.

Power there was lost for about 5 1/2 hours and another generator
called in.  Systems Solutions found the hospital's 44-year-old
generator had a range of defects, including split hoses and pipes
as well a poor record of adequate maintenance.

It reports the generator went down after overheating because it
was too weak to meet the hospital's power demand as well as being
old and poorly tested. There was also an oil leak in metal pipes
and break in a rubber hose carrying fuel.

Mr Snelling said there was a lack of clarity over who was
responsible for maintenance of the system because the hospital was
run as a public-private partnership.  He said a new generator
would be bought to replace the old model.

Emergency Services Minister Peter Malinauskas said he did not
believe another statewide blackout in SA was probable, and they
were "incredibly rare" occurrences.  "But you have to be prepared
for all eventualities," he said.

Opposition Leader Steven Marshall said the Government was "caught
short" in the blackout and had no credible plan to boost system
reliability and bring down prices.

"We have a report from Gary Burns that doesn't address the
elephant in the room," he said.

"It doesn't address power.  This is completely and utterly
unacceptable."


AXA EQUITABLE: Faces "Wenokur" Insurance Suit in Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Wenokur, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00165-BSB (D. Ariz., January 18,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for unlawful cost of
insurance "COI" increases which violate the terms of the
Plaintiff's insurance policy.

AXA Equitable offers a variety of insurance products and variable
and fixed interest annuity products principally to individuals,
small and medium-size businesses and professional and trade
associations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
   Kamber Law LLC
   142 West 57th Street
   New York, NY 10019
   Tel: (212) 920-3072
   Email: skamber@kamberlaw.com

         - and -

   Deborah Kravitz
   Kamber Law LLP
   401 Center Street,Suite 111
   Healdsburg, CA 95448
   Tel: (707) 820-4247
   Email: dkravitz@kamberlaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Morgan Stanley, UBS Must Provide ISDAFix Docs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dani Kass at Law360 reports a New York federal judge on January 20
ordered BNP Paribas, ICAP, Morgan Stanley and UBS to hand over
documents they provided to government investigators regarding
fixing the ISDAfix benchmark rate, which is used to set terms for
swaps transactions, to a pension fund bringing a potential class
action over the alleged manipulation.

The banks must give Alaska Electrical Pension Fund the white
papers, presentations, written memoranda and briefs that they had
given to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the U.S.
Department of Justice, U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman said.

The court had denied an initial motion to compel in November,
finding the request was "overbroad and encompassed materials that
were plainly irrelevant." The pension fund then submitted the
instant narrowed request, which the judge said meets "relevance
and proportionality standards" outlined by the court.

The banks had argued that they're protected under the work-product
doctrine, which Judge Furman shot down. First, the documents were
made during an investigation with the hope of stopping the
government from bringing suit, and were voluntarily provided to
the government.

"The court need not decide categorically whether confidentiality
agreements can ever protect work product that is shared
voluntarily with a government agency because, at most, they are
'just one of several factors to be considered,' and they are not
enough to carry the day here," the order states.

Among those other factors, were that there were no explicit
agreements of confidentiality between most of the banks and the
government, he said. ICAP said it understood its materials
wouldn't be shared, Morgan Stanley said it had provided an
"explicit request" for confidentiality and UBS said it "worked
hard to protect confidentially."

"It goes without saying that an 'explicit agreement' requires a
meeting of two or more minds; a unilateral 'understanding' or
reservation of rights does not suffice," Judge Furman said.

BNP Paribas said it had an oral agreement with the CFTC that the
government would keep the information confidential and not waive
work product protection, but has not provided proof of that
agreement, the order states.

The September 2014 suit alleges the banks worked closely with
interdealer broker ICAP PLC, which until January 2014 was tasked
by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association with
managing the daily setting of the U.S. dollar-rate version of
ISDAfix.

The banks were responsible for submitting rate quotes, which ICAP
essentially compiled. But the suit says the parties worked
together to set the rate at the point where it was most profitable
for them, including engaging in a process known in the industry as
"banging the close" where they bought and sold derivative products
just before the fix was closed in order to get the price they
wanted.

Eight financial institutions have already settled the allegations,
handing over more than $380 million combined. Goldman Sachs in
December agreed to pay $56.5 million, and in May, JPMorgan Chase &
Co. agreed to pay $52 million while Bank of America Corp., Credit
Suisse AG, Deutsche Bank AG and The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC
each agreed to pay $50 million.

UBS and Morgan Stanley declined to comment. Representatives for
the plaintiffs, BNP Paribas and ICAP didn't immediately respond to
request for comment on January 20.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Scott & Scott
LLP, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, Grant & Eisenhofer PA, Bernstein Liebhard LLP, Carella
Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello PC, Labaton Sucharow LLP,
Trief & Olk, Berger & Montague PC, McCulley McCluer PLLC and Fine
Kaplan & Black RPC.

BNP Paribas is represented by Joshua A. Goldberg and William F.
Cavanaugh Jr. of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP. ICAP is
represented by Brian S. Fraser. Shari A. Brandt and H. Rowan
Gaither IV of Richards Kibbe & Orbe LLP. Morgan Stanley is
represented by Jon R. Roellke and Anthony R. Van Vuren of Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP. UBS is represented by Joel S. Sanders, Marc
J. Fagel, Peter Sullivan, Eric J. Stock and Nathaniel L. Bach of
Gibson Dunn.

The case is Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. Bank of America
Corp. et al., case number 1:14-cv-07126, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.


BELLAMY'S: IMF Bentham to Finance Investors' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Brian Robins, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that the
woes confronting troubled infant milk formula group Bellamy's
Australia have deepened with the confirmation of a second class
action from disgruntled investors in the wake of the company's
recent upheavals.

The news put the company's shares under renewed pressure, closing
down another 4 per cent at $3.85.

Litigation funder IMF Bentham announced on Jan. 23 it would
finance an action planned by Slater and Gordon Lawyers, while
later in the day, ICP said it was funding a separate action
planned by Maurice Blackburn.

"The claims relate to alleged misleading or deceptive conduct and
an alleged breach by Bellamy's of its continuous disclosure
requirements in connection with its trading prospects and future
earnings performance during the period between 14 April 2016 to 9
December 2016," IMF Bentham said.

Maurice Blackburn is targeting investors who acquired their shares
in Bellamy during the same time frame, until December 9, but a cap
has been introduced on how much the litigation funder, in its case
ICP, may receive.  Although participating investors will not
receive less than 50 per cent of the payout, after costs.

"After consultation with some of the largest institutional
shareholders on the ASX, [ICP] offers benchmark funding
commissions of between eight and 25 per cent, meaning more net
returns to investors upon success," ICP chief executive, Mr John
Walker said.

"ICP has also included a safety-net provision that offers
additional investor protection by ensuring that they won't receive
any less than 50 per cent of a net recovery [after costs are
accounted for] on success."

Under this approach, if the intended legal action is settled
quickly, then the commission flowing to ICP is closer to 8 per
cent, while it will rise the longer the action proceeds.

"If any settlement is not large, clients would receive at least
half of the proceeds, after legal costs," Mr Walker said.  "That
cap has come from institutions letting the market know what they
want in litigation funding."

A spokesman for Bellamy's said it was not aware of any legal
action being taken.

IMF Bentham said it was to fund the class action "on a conditional
basis" ahead of a decision to proceed with the action, or not,
while Maurice Blackburn's decision to pursue Bellamy's marks a
step up in competition between class action litigants.

"Greater competition in the litigation funding arena would
ultimately see better products offered for clients to drive down
costs and see more money returned to those seeking justice -- this
offering does just that," Maurice Blackburn principal
Ben Slade said of his group's tie-up with ICP in taking on
Bellamy's.

"The class action will be hugely disturbing for the current
directors," Jan Cameron, a co-founder of Bellamy's said.  "For the
individual directors to be in this position is truly awful -- it
is sleepless nights stuff."

Ms Cameron, who also co-founded the clothing retailer Kathmandu,
said she would be seeking to force Bellamy's to re-issue a letter
it sent to shareholders, since she claims the letter contains
"material inaccuracies".

"There are material inaccuracies which will require a new
statement to shareholders," she said.

In its criticism of the slate of new independent directors put
forward by Ms Cameron and her associates, Bellamy's has pointed to
their limited experience on the boards of public companies.

But given the limited assets of Bellamy's, some say the sole asset
of Bellamy's is the brand, she said.

"Without inflating my abilities, I get brands.  The brand is the
only thing that is going to pull Bellamy's out" of its present
difficulties, Ms Cameron said.  "[The brand] is a huge thing for
Bellamy's.  I get brands.  I'd prefer a good brand than material
assets."


BB LOCKSMITH: Faces "Losey" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Losey, et al., Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BB Locksmith, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-CV-29-FtM-99CM (M.D.N.Y., January 17, 2017) is brought
against the Defendants for unpaid overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Marcus W. Viles, Esq.
   VILES & BECKMAN, LLC
   6350 Presidential Court, Suite A
   Fort Myers, FL 33919
   Tel: 239-334-3933
   Fax: 239-334-7105
   Email: Marcus@vilesandbeckman.com
          Joanne@vilesandbeckman.com


BLD SERVICES: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Unpaid Wages and OT Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Smith, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated employees v. BLD Services, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00167-JFM (N.D. Md., January 18, 2017), is brought
against the Defendant for unpaid wages and overtime compensation
in violation Fair Labor Standard Act and Maryland Wage and Hour
Law.

The Defendant is a full-service construction, general contracting
and construction management firm, based in Kenner Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   George E. Swegman, Esq.
   Benjamin L. Davis, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl
   36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
   Baltimore, MD 21201
   Tel: (410) 244-7005
   Fax: (410) 244-8454
   Email: gswegman@nicholllaw.com
          bdavis@nicholllaw.com


BRAZILIAN WAX: Faces "Miller" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
SEBRE MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BRAZILIAN WAX, INC., and ANDREIA GUILMET,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00201-RWS (N.D. Ga., January 18,
2017), alleges that Defendants have misclassified Plaintiff and
other similarly situated individuals as independent contractors in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

BRAZILIAN WAX, INC. owns and operates 17 boutiques located in
Georgia and Tennessee under the trade name "Brazilian Wax by
Andreia" through numerous wholly-owned subsidiaries and/or
affiliates.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bricker S. Daughtry, Esq.
     Adam B. Land, Esq.
     FORTSON, BENTLEY AND GRIFFIN, P.A.
     2500 Daniell's Bridge Road Georgia
     Building 200, Suite 3A
     Athens, GA 30606
     Phone: 706-548-1151
     E-mail: bsd@fbglaw.com
             abl@fbglaw.com


CALTEX AUSTRALIA: Investigates Franchisees Amid Wage Fraud Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adele Ferguson, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that oil refiner and petrol giant Caltex Australia is heading for
a legal battle with its franchisees after ramping up an
investigation and audit into hundreds of stores amid allegations
of rampant worker exploitation.

Heightening tensions among its network of 650 franchise sites come
weeks after Caltex was outbid by arch-rival BP for the purchase of
527 Woolworths-owned fuel and convenience store sites.

The sale is subject to regulatory approval but if it proceeds it
will strip Caltex of an exclusive supplier arrangement to supply
up to 3.5 billion litres of petrol and diesel to Woolworths.

Caltex has made some headway with a few smaller acquisitions but
it means the pressure is on to find new revenue streams and
bolster its share price, which, in the past year has
underperformed the S&P/ASX200 by a whopping 30 per cent.

Having to deal with a wage fraud scandal that has the potential to
damage its brand if it isn't handled properly is something the
company can ill afford.

It is understood that Caltex wrote to at least 150 franchisees two
days before Christmas warning them they were being investigated
and that "Caltex is taking allegations of breaches of workplace
obligations within the Caltex franchise network very seriously".
(It said the entire network will be subject to a similar audit
over the next 18 months).

The letter said franchisees had until January 25 to supply
specific documents to Ernst & Young.  It said "you should treat
any requests for information and assistance as though they are
requests being made by Caltex".

Caltex is the latest franchise network to become embroiled in
allegations of wage fraud and a flawed business model.

Reviewing the model

In November the Fair Work Ombudsman, which enforces minimum pay
rates across Australia, conducted a series of raids on Caltex
service stations across the country.

Some workers, mostly students from Pakistan and India on student
visas, are being paid as little as $12 an hour, which is less than
half the award rate.

Since the scandal broke Caltex has tried to go on the front foot
by instigating a holistic review of its franchise model and
governance processes.  It has made a significant number of key
management changes and hired a string of consultants, accountants
and lawyers.

The letter sent to franchisees and obtained by The Financial
Review is understood to have sent chills downs the spines of
franchisees, particularly the sentence warning them they could be
terminated.

"Caltex reserves its right in respect of any default identified
during the investigation and audit . . . to take immediate steps
to terminate the franchise agreement [both in accordance with the
Franchise Code and Oil Code] or to conduct follow-up
investigations and audits," the letter says.

Under the Caltex franchise agreement, if a franchisee is
terminated due to a breach of the franchise agreement (which can
occur for wage underpayment as well as other reasons) the value of
the business is returned to Caltex with the franchisee receiving
only the value of any stock or other owned assets.

This allows Caltex to punt the franchisee immediately without
compensation.

Future of franchisees

In one case a franchisee from South Australia was terminated and
lost seven stores, which he says were valued at $5 million.
Another in NSW was terminated, losing four stores, with $1.5
million of his money blowing up.

It has created a lot of uncertainty, particularly when the newly
appointed general manager of retail operations outlined in a
newsletter that any franchise agreements due to expire will most
likely be held over rather than renewed.

It said it expected more Calstores (corporate stores) "in the
event that serious breaches lead to the termination of any
agreements, or screening checks lead us to not proceed with
proposed agreements, or there are new sites brought in to Caltex
Australia for example".

Importantly, it said any new franchise arrangements would only be
offered on a short-term basis, heightening speculation that Caltex
is preparing to ditch the franchise model and make a land grab for
the stores.  "All of these measures will give Caltex time to
confirm the sustainability of our business model and to ensure we
have the right business model and arrangements for both parties
before we enter long term arrangements," the letter said.

More than 100 franchisees are so concerned they are believed to
have sought legal advice from three different law firms in the
past few weeks.  Some are considering joining a class action,
while others want to challenge the legality of the audit and
investigation.

The AFR can reveal that the Ernst and Young audit requires
franchisees to hand over details of employees, residency status,
nature of the visa held, all employee files including super
records, all rosters from July 1, 2015 to June 2016, employee
timesheets and console user records, a summary of how the payment
of payroll takes place, ATO integrated client accounts, PAYG
payment summary lodged with the ATO for June 2014, 2015 and 2016
and Business Activity Statements for all quarters from June 2015
to June 2016.

Caltex chief executive Julian Segal said in a statement the
company was investigating every allegation received, cooperating
with the Fair Work Ombudsman and other authorities and
"implementing a forensic audit program to detect and sanction
wrong-doing, including the termination of franchise agreements
where that is reasonable and appropriate".

'I wanted to be able to sleep at night'

In the past year Caltex audited eight franchisees and terminated
five of them for misconduct.  It is a high strike rate.  It
increased that to 50 in November and is now stretching it out
across the entire network.

A number of former and current franchisees, including
Kevin Crossey who operated a number of sites in NSW between 1998
and 2014, have come forward alleging the Caltex franchise model is
flawed, forcing underpayment of wages.

Mr. Crossey said he repeatedly told head office there was a
problem with wage fraud but he was ignored.

Mr. Crossey sold out in 2014 because it was getting increasingly
difficult to make a living.  "It got to a point where we couldn't
be compliant and so I decided I wanted to be able to sleep at
night so we sold out."

The franchisee who bought one of Mr. Crossey's stores is
understood to have struggled and applied for financial assistance.

On January 11 a large group of franchisees gathered in Sydney to
discuss the audit and payroll compliance issues.  It is understood
that some franchisees openly admitted to paying $14 an hour for
wages.  They blamed it on a franchise model that left them with
little option but to cut corners.

Caltex has demonstrated it has a zero tolerance of wage fraud but
unlike 7-Eleven, which has set up a compensation scheme and has so
far paid $70 million to underpaid workers, Caltex is playing
hardball, blaming it on the franchisees.

The best Caltex can do is offer counselling to workers, a hotline
to report misconduct and a guarantee they will be paid properly in
the future.

It is seizing stores and striking fear into the hearts of the
franchise network.

Some may applaud such a hardline approach and argue it is a
powerful weapon against worker exploitation.

It certainly is but in the US there have been examples were
franchisors have been accused of deliberately churning franchisees
to make money.

It has prompted speculation that Caltex's end game is to use the
audit to repossess most of the sites, turn them into corporate
stores, then rack up the goodwill, which on the secondary market
is valued at hundreds of millions of dollars.

Time will tell, but after a series of scandals in the $170 billion
franchise industry and allegations of unsustainable business
models the clock is ticking for some tough government action to
get to the bottom of the mess.


CAJUN CONSTRUCTORS: Faces "Valderde" Suit Over Unpaid OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Arturo Valderde, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and on behalf all
others similarly situated v. Cajun Constructors, LLC and Cajun
Industries LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00021 (S.D. Tex.,
January 20, 2017), seeks overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 each workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Defendants provide construction services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
   John Neuman, Esq.
   Sosa-Morris Neuman Attorneys at Law
   5612 Chaucer Drive
   Houston, TX 77005
   Tel: (281) 885-8844; (281) 885-8630
   Fax: (281) 885-8813
   Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com
          JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com


CANADA: Ontario Court Certifies Prisoners' Mental Health Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crawford Garden City Group on Jan. 21 disclosed that the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice has certified a class action alleging
that the Government of Canada failed to provide mentally ill
offenders incarcerated in the Federal penitentiary system with
adequate medical care, improperly subjected them to solitary
confinement, and failed to protect people who suffer from mental
illness.  The action was certified with the consent of Canada, the
defendant, on December 12, 2016.

The claim alleges breaches of sections 7, 9, and/or 12 of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  The allegations have not
been proven in court.  Now that a class action has been given the
approval to go ahead by the Court, the next step will be for the
parties to litigate the case on its merits.

The class action covers all offenders in federal custody who were
diagnosed by a medical doctor with an Axis I Disorder (excluding
substance use disorders), or Borderline Personality Disorder, who
suffered from their disorder, in a manner described in Appendix A,
and reported such during their incarceration, where the diagnosis
by a medical doctor occurred either before or during incarceration
in a federal institution and the offenders were incarcerated
between November 1, 1992 and the present, and were alive as of
July 20, 2013.

Appendix A:

Significant impairment in judgment (including inability to make
decisions; confusion; disorientation);
Significant impairment in thinking (including constant
preoccupation with thoughts, paranoia; delusions that make the
offender a danger to self or others);
Significant impairment in mood (including constant depressed mood
plus helplessness and hopelessness; agitation; manic mood that
interferes with ability to effectively interact with other
offenders, staffs or follow correctional plan);
Significant impairment in communications that interferes with
ability to effectively interact with other offenders, staff or
follow correctional plan;
Significant impairment due to anxiety (panic attacks; overwhelming
anxiety) that interferes with ability to effectively interact with
other offenders, staff or follow correctional plan;
Other symptoms: hallucinations; delusions; severe obsessional
rituals that interferes with ability to effectively interact with
other offenders, staff or follow correctional plan;
Chronic and severe suicidal ideation resulting in increased risk
for suicide attempts;
Chronic and severe self-injury; or,
A GAF score of 50 or less.

The Toronto law firm of Koskie Minsky LLP has been appointed as
class counsel.


CANADA: City of Westmont Settles John Garland Sex Abuse Case
------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that the City of Westmount says it has reached a
tentative out-of-court settlement with those who were sexually
abused by John Garland, a longtime hockey coach and employee in
the parks and recreation department.

Five victims have come forward so far but others may still join
the class-action suit.  The settlement is for $100,000 per person,
for a maximum total of $2.5 million.

The agreement still requires the approval of a Quebec Superior
Court judge.

"We hope that the settlement can in some small way help with the
healing process," Mayor Peter Trent told a news conference on Jan.
24.

The lead plaintiff, former Westmount resident Matthew Bissonnette,
said he was satisfied with the settlement.

"There are answers, there is hope and there is justice," he said,
adding that he's hopeful the result encourages other victims of
abuse to come forward.

3 decades with the city

M.r Garland, who died in 2012, worked in the City of Westmount's
parks and recreation department between 1953 and 1987, and was
also peewee hockey coach.

"Mr. Garland misused his position of power and trust to abuse
sexually some of the children and teenagers in his care," the City
of Westmount said in a statement released late on Jan. 23.

"The City acknowledges that the effects of sexual abuse can last a
lifetime and be devastating for victims, their families, and a
community.  This is particularly true when the abuse is directed
at the most vulnerable among us, our children."

Mr. Bissonnette, now a film director, filed the class-action
lawsuit in 2015, prompting several others to come forward.

In its statement, Westmount said that rather "than fighting a
lengthy legal battle with the survivors, the city chose early on
to conduct an investigation, to work with Mr. Bissonnette, to find
a way to provide meaningful compensation to class members and to
design a simple and discreet process for victims to come forward
while maintaining strict confidentiality."


CENTRELINK: Slater and Gordon Probing Debt Recovery System
----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Knaus at The Guardian reports the law firm Slater and
Gordon says it is investigating whether Centrelink's controversial
debt recovery system is in breach of the law. But the firm has
stopped short of committing to legal action, saying it is only in
preliminary stages.

"Slater and Gordon is currently reviewing Centrelink's conduct for
the purpose of confirming whether it has engaged in any
contraventions of applicable laws," Slater and Gordon's practice
group leader, Tim Finney told Guardian Australia. "This
investigation is still in its formative stages and it is too early
to say what form any possible legal action against Centrelink
would take."

The Australian Lawyers Association has said it believes those
wrongly targeted with debts could sue the government but said
those billed for lesser amounts would need to mount a class action
for a civil case to be viable.

Maurice Blackburn, a firm known for high-profile class actions,
previously said it has no plans to act on the Centrelink debt
cases.

The human services minister, Alan Tudge, continued to defend the
automated debt recovery system on January 20. The system, which
has been the subject of repeated complaints, relies on a messy
data-matching process to identify discrepancies between Centrelink
and Australian taxation office records.

Where humans would previously have weeded out errors, the system
now automatically sends letters demanding an explanation of years-
old income discrepancies within 21 days. More than 170,000 letters
have been sent since July.

If the letter is not received, or a person is unable to respond
with sufficient evidence, the debt is imposed and individuals are
forced to begin paying the money back.

Several whistleblowers have now come forward, alleging the system
is generating inaccurate debts, that staff are being told to
ignore errors and that customers are being put in an unfair
position.

Tudge on January 20 dismissed the most recent claims of a
whistleblower, telling 2GB radio that they were simply not true.
He said he was also "annoyed" at Labor's insinuation that the
first letter generated by the automated system is a "debt letter."


CONGREGATION YETEV: Faces "Abreu" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON ABREU, on behalf of himself, and the Class, v. CONGREGATION
YETEV LEV D'SATMAR MEATS & POULTRY, INC. d/b/a SATMAR MEATS,
SATMAR MEAT OF CONG. YETEV LEV, INC. d/b/a SATMAR MEATS, JOHN DOE
CORP. 1 d/b/a SATMAR MEATS, JOHN DOE CORP. 2 d/b/a SATMAR MEATS,
JOHN DOE CORP. 3 d/b/a SATMAR MEATS, MOSHE BROWN, BERL FRIEDMAN
and MOSES RETEK, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00272 (E.D.N.Y.,
January 18, 2017), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime, and
unpaid spread-of-hours premium under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

Defendants operate five meat distributors under the common trade
name "Satmar Meats."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Anne Seelig, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212-465-1188
     Fax: 212-465-1181


CORIZON HEALTH: "Richardson" Suit Seeks Back Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE RICHARDSON, for herself and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CORIZON HEALTH, INC., a
foreign profit corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00228-
ELR (N.D. Ga., Jan. 19, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid back wages,
equal amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant, from June 5, 2012 to June 25,
2016, as a non-exempt hourly paid "Staff Nurse" working for
Defendant's healthcare corporation at Fulton County Jail. The
Plaintiff's duties included, but were not limited to, dispensing
medication, performing routine mental health assessments, and
patient education. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant in excess of
40 hours within a workweek. From at least December 2012 to
December 2015, Defendant allegedly failed to compensate Plaintiff
and other similarly situated staff nurses at a rate of one and
one-half times each staff nurse's regular rate for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in on or more workweeks.

Corizon Health, formed by a 2011 merger of Correctional Medical
Services, Inc. and Prison Health Services, Inc., is the largest
privately held prison healthcare contractor in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200
          Post Office Box 57007
          Atlanta, GA 30343-1007
          Direct: (404) 496 7295
          Main: (404) 965 8811
          Facsimile: (404) 965 8812
          E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


D.B.A. DIANE'S: Rosenberg Seeks Monetary Damages Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA ROSENBERG, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. D.B.A. DIANE'S,
INCORPORATED, a California corporation; and DOES 1-250, the
Defendant, Case No. BC647402 (Cal. Super. Ct., Jan. 19, 2017),
seeks to recover monetary damages, restitution, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Class members were
not authorized or permitted lawful meal periods, and were not
provided with one hour's wages in lieu. The Defendants allegedly
failed to schedule or provide meal periods, and required Plaintiff
and Class members to work through their meal periods to meet
Defendants' demanding directives and schedules. The Defendants
further failed to provide Plaintiff and Class members with
accurate, itemized wage statements in accordance with Labor Code,
because, among other things, Defendants did not keep accurate
records of the hours Plaintiff and Class members worked and
Plaintiff and Class Members were denied their rightful overtime
and double time wages and commission payments, which were not
reflected or that were incorrect on their wage statements. The
Plaintiff and Class members' wage statements also failed to
identify the name and address of the correct legal entity that is
the employer in violation of Labor Code.

D. B. A. Diane's is a miscellaneous apparel and accessories store
located in Torrance, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christian J. Petronelli, Esq.
          Julia Damron, Esq.
          Dean S. Ho, Esq.
          PETRONELLI & HO LLP
          295 Redondo Avenue, Suite 201
          Long Beach, CA 90803
          Telephone: (888) 855 3670
          Facsimile: (888) 449 9675
          E-mail: christian@employees-lawyer.com
                  dean@employees-lawyer.com
                  julia@,employees-lawyer.com


DOLLAR GENERAL: Workers Union Files Securities Lawsuit in Tenn.
---------------------------------------------------------------
IRON WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 405 ANNUITY FUND, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. DOLLAR
GENERAL CORPORATION and TODD VASOS, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-
00063 (M.D. Tenn., January 18, 2017), is a securities suit that
alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose material facts regarding the
Company's exposure to changes in the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.

DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION is one of the largest discount
retailers in the United States by number of stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ronald J. Berke, Esq.
     A. Emma Flynn, Esq.
     Charles A. Flynn, Esq.
     BERKE, BERKE & BERKE
     420 Frazier Avenue
     P.O. Box 4747
     Chattanooga, TN 37405
     Phone: (423) 266-5171
     Fax: (423) 265-5307
     E-mail: ronnie@berkeattys.com
             emma@berkeattys.com
             chuck@berkeattys.com

        - and -

     Darren J. Check, Esq.
     Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
     Jonathan R. Davidson, Esq.
     KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
     280 King of Prussia Road
     Radnor, PA 19087
     Phone: (610) 667-7706
     Fax: (610) 667-7056
     E-mail: dcheck@ktmc.com
              namjed@ktmc.com
              jrdavidson@ktmc.com


DR. REDDY'S: Pension Fund Sues Over Divalproex ER Price-Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Twin Cities Pipe Trades Welfare Fund, Plaintiff, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dr. Reddy's
Laboratories, Inc., Impax Laboratories, Inc., Mylan Inc., Mylan
Pharmaceuticals inc., PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc., PAR Pharmaceutical
Companies, Inc. and Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA), Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00302-GEKP (E.D. Pa., January 20, 2017), seeks
damages arises from Defendants' unlawful conduct by engaging in a
conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize the prices of
divalproex ER and to allocate markets and customers for this
product in the United States.

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company that manufactures,
markets, and sells generic drug products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
   Chad A. Carder, Esq.
   Barrack, Rodos & Bacine
   Two Commerce Square
   2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: (215) 963-0600
   Fax: (215) 963-0838
   Email: jgittleman@barrack.com
          ccarder@barrack.com

        - and -

   Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
   Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
   Anna M. Horning Nygren, Esq.
   Kristen G. Marttila, Esq.
   Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.
   100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
   Minneapolis, MN 55401
   Tel: 612-339-6900
   Fax: 612-339-0981
   Email: khriebel@locklaw.com
          hmsilton@locklaw.com
          amhorningnygren@locklaw.com
          kgmarttila@licklaw.com


DREAMWORKS: May 18 Non-Poaching Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mercedes Milligan, writing for Animation Magazine, reports that US
District Judge Lucy Koh has given her preliminary approval to the
$50 million payment proposed by DreamWorks Animation back in
October as settlement for the ongoing animators' class action suit
against major studios.  Judge Koh stated in her approval that the
settlement was "fair and reasonable".

Further, DWA has agreed to cooperate with the plaintiffs in
authenticating documents and in "not voluntarily producing any
employee to testify at trial for any non-settling defendant,"
Judge Koh said.

The first suit was filed in 2014 and contends that the named
studios -- Sony Pictures Animation & Imageworks, Blue Sky Studios,
Disney, Pixar, Lucasfilm, ImageMovers and DreamWorks -- violated
antitrust laws by conspiring to set wages for animation artist and
technical employees with non-poaching agreements. Separate suits
by plaintiffs Robert Nitsch and David Wentworth and Georgia Cano
were combined in December 2014 under Judge Koh.

The $50 million cash settlement, which would go into a class-
action fund, is just under 40% of the damages the plaintiffs'
expert asserts DreamWorks Animation is responsible for.  The
plaintiffs' attorneys are allowed to ask for up to 25% of the
settlement for their fees, and each named plaintiff would receive
up to $10,000.  Exact payments for each affected employee will be
based on a formula (available on the suit's website).

A final fairness hearing is set for May 18.

Provided the DWA settlement is finalized, that will leave just the
Disney-owned studios and ImageMovers still contending with the
suit.  Blue Sky was the first to settle in March 2016 for about $6
million, followed by Sony Pictures Animation and Imageworks in May
with a $13 million proposal.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Faces "Duany" Securities Class Action in Del.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael G. Duany, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.,
Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P., Transfer Partners, L.L.C.,
Transfer Equity, L.P., Kelcy L. Warren, Ted Collins, Jr., Michael
K. Grimm, Marshall S. McCrea, III, James R. Perry, Matthew S.
Ramsey and David K. Skidmore, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00058
(D. Del., January 19, 2017), seeks damages for the proposed
transaction in which Sunoco will acquire each outstanding share of
ETP common stock through a flawed process and inadequate
consideration.

On Nov. 21, 2016, Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P. (NYSE: SXL) and
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (NYSE: ETP) announced that they
have entered into a merger agreement providing for the acquisition
of ETP by SXL in a unit-for-unit transaction. The transaction was
approved by the boards of directors and conflicts committees of
both partnerships and is expected to close in the first quarter of
2017, subject to receipt of ETP unitholder approval and other
customary closing conditions.

Under the terms of the transaction, ETP unitholders will receive
1.5 common units of SXL for each common unit of ETP they own. This
equates to a 10% premium to the volume weighted average pricing of
ETP's common units for the last 30 trading days immediately prior
to the announcement of the transaction.

Energy Transfer Partners is a U.S. Fortune 500 natural gas and
propane company, founded in 1995 and headquartered in Dallas,
Texas.

Sunoco is an American petroleum and petrochemical manufacturer
headquartered in Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, United States,
formerly known as Sun Company Inc. and Sun Oil Co.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Brian D. Long, Esq.
   Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
   Gina M. Serra, Esq.
   RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
   2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
   Wilmington, DE 19803
   Tel: (302) 295-5310
   Fax: (302) 654-7530
   Email: sdr@rl-legal.com
          bdl@rl-legal.com
          gms@rl-legal.com

        - and -

   Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
   Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
   Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
   Weisslaw LLP
   1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
   New York, NY 10036
   Tel: (212) 682-3025
   Fax: (212) 682-3010


ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS: Roberts Seeks Payment of Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Roberts, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. Engineers and Constructors
International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00148 (S.D. Tex.,
January 17, 2017), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay minimum wages and overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Melissa Moore, Esq.
   Curt Hesse, Esq.
   Moore & Associates
   Lyric Center
   440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
   Houston, TX 77002
   Tel: (713) 222-6775
   Fax: (713) 222-6739


ENTERTAINMENT ONE: Time for Three Files Class Suit Over Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
Time For Three, LLC, a Pennsylvania limited liability corporation,
et al., Plaintiffs  v. Entertainment One GP LLC, dba E1
Entertainment, a New York limited partnership, Entertainment One
U.S. LP, dba E1 Entertainment and/or Koch Entertainment, a New
York limited partnership, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00329
(S.D.N.Y., January 17, 2017), seeks damages for unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have wrongfully refused to
abide by the terms of the parties' contracts because they have
unilaterally decide to keep a portion of DEMD revenue to which
they are not entitled and failed to distribute any revenue to
Plaintiffs and the Class Members.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Michael R. Reese, Esq.
   George V. Granade, Esq.
   Reese LLP
   100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
   New York, NY 10025
   Tel: (212) 643-0500
   Fax: (212) 253-4272
   Email: mreese@reesellp.com
          ggranade@reesellp.com

         - and -

   Neville L. Johnson, Esq.
   Douglas L. Johnson, Esq.
   Jordanna G. Thigpen, Esq.
   Johnson & Johnson LLP
   439 N. Canon Dr. Suite 200
   Beverly Hills, CA 90210
   Tel: (310) 975-1080
   Fax: (310) 975-1095
   Email: njohnson@jjllplaw.com
          djohnson@jjllplaw.com
          jthigpen@jjllplaw.com

         - and -

   Clifford H. Pearson, Esq.
   Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
   Bobby Pouya, Esq.
   Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP
   15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
   Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
   Tel: (818) 788-8300
   Fax: (818) 788-8104
   Email: cpearson@pswlaw.com
          dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
          bpouya@pswlaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: Quirky Sues Over Video Advertising
------------------------------------------------
Quirky, Inc. and Wink, Inc. n/k/a Wink Dissolution Corp.,
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. Facebook, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00233-EDL
(N.D. Cal., January 17, 2017), seeks damages for misrepresentation
and misleading statements pursuant to California's Unfair
Competition Law (UCL).

The Plaintiff claims that Defendant Facebook's misrepresentations
thereby distorted the market price for its video advertising by
artificially increasing the price of Facebook video advertising,
causing video advertising purchasers, including Quirky, to pay
more than they otherwise would have paid.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
   Dylan Hughes, Esq.
   Aaron Blumenthal, Esq.
   504 14th Street, Suite 1110
   Oakland, CA 94612
   Tel: (510) 350-9700
   Fax: (510) 350-9701
   Email: ehg@classlaw.group.com
          dsh@classlawgroup.com
          ab@classlawgroup.com

       - and -

   Geoffrey Graber, Esq.
   Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
   Eric Kafka, Esq.
   Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
   1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
   Washington, DC 20005
   Tel: (202) 408-4600
   Fax: (202) 408-4699
   Email: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com
          ggraber@cohenmilstein.com
          ekafka@cohenmilstein.com

        - and -

   Michael Eisenkraft, Esq.
   Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
   88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
   New York, NY 10005
   Tel: (212) 838-7797
   Fax: (212) 838-7745
   Email: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com

       - and -

   Aisha Christian, Esq.
   129 West 27th Street, 11th Floor
   New York, NY 10001
   Tel: (646) 285-2029

      - and -

   Charles Reichmann, Esq.
   Law Offices of Charles Reichmann
   16 Yale Circle
   Kensington, CA 94708-1015
   Tel: (415) 373-8849
   Email: charles.reichmann@gmail.com


FAJAS DEPOT: Faces "Bravo" Suit Seeking to Recoup "Unpaid" OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDIA MORINA BRAVO, on her own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FAJAS DEPOT, LLC a Florida for
Profit Limited Liability Corporation, and MARGARITA ECHEMENDIA, an
individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-20210-FAM (S.D. Fla.,
January 18, 2017), seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum wage
compensation, unpaid overtime wage compensation, liquidated
damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

FAJAS DEPOT, LLC owns and operates several "Faja Depot" stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lowell J. Kuvin, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN, LLC
     17 East Flagler St., Suite 223
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: 305.358.6800
     Fax: 305.358.6808
     E-mail: lowell@kuvinlaw.com


FCA US: Faces "Sebastian" Suit Over RICO Act Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Albert Sebastian, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., a corporation
organized under the laws of the Netherlands, Robert Bosch GmbH, a
corporation organized under the laws of Germany and Robert Bosch
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-00085-WQH-JLB (S.D. Cal., January 17, 2017), is brought
against Defendants for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organization Act (RICO).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
   Casey, Gerry, Schenk, Francavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP
   110 Laurel Street
   San Diego, CA 92101-1406
   Tel: (619) 238-1811
   Fax: (619) 544-5932
   Email: gmb@cglaw.com


FENIX PARTS: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP disclosed that a
class action complaint was filed against Fenix Parts, Inc. in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint
is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Fenix securities between
May 14, 2015 and October 12, 2016, for alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Fenix's officers and directors.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Investors Sue Over Emissions Recall Missteps
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sheila Ross, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Sergio
Marchionne, Richard K. Palmer and Scott Kunselman, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00418 (S.D.N.Y., January 19, 2017), seeks damages
for misleading and materially false statement pursuant to
Securities Laws.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants were personally
motivated to make false statements and omit material information
necessary to make the statements not misleading in order to
personally benefit from the sale of Chrysler securities from their
personal portfolios.

Defendant Chrysler is an automotive group that designs, engineers,
manufactures, distributes and sells vehicles and components.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Todd H. Henderson, Esq.
   J. Brandon Walker, Esq.
   BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE P.C.
   885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
   New York, NY 10022
   Tel: 212-308-5858
   Fax: 212-214-0506

                         *     *     *

Matthew Guarnaccia, writing for Law360, reported that Fiat
Chrysler investors on January 19 launched a proposed class action
lawsuit in New York federal court accusing the automaker of
inflating its stock price by making false statements related to
the use of emissions software and failing to implement recalls and
mandated safety compliance protocols.

Investors in Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV and FCA US LLC said
recent regulatory actions taken against the company have led to
significant drops in the value of its stock, including an
announcement by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that it
installed software in 100,000 U.S. vehicles that produced
excessive levels of nitrogen oxide. The investors also pointed to
more than $175 million in fines handed out by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration in 2015 related to subpar recall
responses and the under-reporting of key safety information,
including deaths and injuries related to its vehicles.

"As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and omissions and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the company's
securities, plaintiff and other class members have suffered
significant losses and damages," the complaint said.

According to the complaint, brought by investor Sheila Ross, at
the outset of Fiat's merger with Chrysler in late 2014 and beyond,
the newly formed company maintained in filings with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that its vehicles and their
engines complied with state and federal laws and regulations,
including emissions standards.

These assertions continued with SEC filings in 2015, the investors
said, but in July of that year, NHTSA imposed a record-setting
$105 million fine on the automaker for its failure to complete 23
recalls covering more than 11 million vehicles. The day after the
announcement, FCA's stock closed at $14.41 after falling 74 cents,
or approximately 4.9 percent, the complaint said.

As a result, the company announced in its third-quarter earnings
report from October 2015 that it recorded a EUR761 million charge
for recall-related activities, causing its stock to drop once
more. While it had recovered slightly from the post-NHTSA
announcement loss, the price per share went down 69 cents to
$14.72, according to the complaint.

The investors also pointed to an additional $70 million fine in
December 2015 by NHTSA against FCA for failing to report vehicle
deaths and injuries to the agency. The complaint did not specify
if this led to any stock losses.

The investors said the most significant drop took place after the
EPA's Jan 11. announcement that FCA used engine software in more
than 100,000 model year 2014 to 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokees and
Dodge Ram 1500 trucks with 3.0-liter diesel engines sold in the
U.S. that helped produce excessive emissions levels. The complaint
said FCA failed to disclose these devices and violated the Clean
Air Act in the process.

The investors said FCA's stock price fell $1.35 to close at $9.95
on Jan. 12, a loss in value of more than 10 percent per share.

Ross seeks to certify a class of investors who purchased stock at
any point between the creation of the company on Oct. 13, 2014,
and the EPA's latest announcement, on Jan. 11. The complaint
brings two counts for violating the Securities Exchange Act,
saying the investors believed the stock to be worth more than it
is based on FCA's assertions.

The investors contend they would not have purchased the stock had
FCA's missteps been disclosed previously.

Representatives for FCA declined to comment on January 20.

Counsel for the investors did not respond on January 20 to a
request for comment.

The investors are represented by J. Brandon Walker and Todd H.
Henderson of Bragar Eagel & Squire PC.

Counsel information for FCA was not immediately available.

The case is Ross v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV et. al., case
number 1:17-cv-00418, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Union Sues Over Overpriced Econazole
-------------------------------------------------------------
International Union of Operating Engineers, et al., Plaintiffs, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Fougera
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sandoz, Inc. Perrigo New York Inc., Taro
Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and Teligent, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-00292-CMR (E.D. Pa., January 19, 2017), is brought
against the Defendants for unlawfully raise the prices of more
than a dozen generic drugs including Econazole.

Defendants are engaged in pharmaceutical industry.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
   Paul Costa, Esq.
   Adam J. Pessin, Esq.
   FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
   One South Broad Street, Suite 2300
   Philadelphia, PA 19107
   Tel: (215) 567-6565
   Fax: (215) 568-5872
   Email: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
          pcosta@finekaplan.com
          apessin@finekaplan.com

          - and -

   Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
   Jay L. Himes, Esq.
   Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
   Lara Goldstone, Esq.
   Robin A. Van Der Meulen, Esq.
   Matthew J. Perez, Esq.
   Rudi Julius, Esq.
   LABATON SUCHAROW
   140 Broadway
   Tel: (212) 907-0700
   Fax: (212) 818-0477
   Email: jhimes@labaton.com
          lgoldstone@labaton.com
          mperez@labaton.com
          rjulius@labaton.com


FOURTH STREET: 6th Cir. Declines to Dissolve Wage Case Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erianne Leatherman, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has declined to
dissolve a class action settlement regarding alleged violations of
the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act.

Plaintiffs William Whitlock, David Skyrm, James Middleton and
Kristin Moore, who were former employees of Fourth Street Live, an
entertainment area located in downtown Louisville, filed a suit in
Kentucky state court in 2010 against the defendants FSL Management
LLC, Entertainment Concepts Investors LLC and Cordish Operating
Ventures, LLC alleging "violations of the Kentucky Wage and Hour
Act, KRS Sec. 337.385 for their policies regarding
off-the-clock work and mandatory tip-pooling," court documents
said.

The plaintiffs' class certification motion was granted by the
court, then the defendants requested interlocutory appellate
review.  This review was denied, along with their motion to
reconsider.  After that, settlement discussions took place and the
parties eventually reached agreement on the financial terms.

About a year later, the parties finally agreed on the non-monetary
terms and the parties filed a joint status report informing the
court that they settled and that formal settlement documents would
soon follow, Jeremy Gilman -- jgilman@beneschlaw.com -- partner at
Benesch Law, said in a blog post.

Mr. Gilman said the defendants then moved the district court to
decertify the class centered on the intervening Kentucky appellate
decision, which was then subject to a request for discretionary
review at the Kentucky Supreme Court.  The district court then
ruled to not decertify the lawsuit.

The Sixth Circuit said in court documents that the lower court
found that "regardless of the present meaning of" the Kentucky
Wage and Hour Act, it was "bound to maintain class certification
and enforce the settlement agreement as a binding contract under
Kentucky law."  The defendants then appealed to the Sixth Circuit.

"The appellants have failed to make any argument explaining why
the prohibition against class-action litigation in KRS
Sec. 337.385(2) disturbs any of the class-certification
requirements set forth in Rule 23(a) or (b)," court documents
said.  "In fact, the appellants seem to hope that this court will
fill in the gaps on their behalf."

"Essentially, the court declined to undo a settlement to which
defendants had voluntarily agreed," Mr. Gilman told Legal
Newsline.

The court of appeals affirmed and "conclude[d] that a post-
settlement change in the law does not alter the binding nature of
the parties' settlement agreement, nor does it violate Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Rules Enabling Act,"
court documents said.

"Defendants may [now] seek panel hearing and en banc review of the
decision at the 6th Circuit and, if unsuccessful, review by the
United States Supreme Court," Mr. Gilman said.

"The Sixth Circuit's decision seems to have been impacted by
timing factors: the intervening Kentucky appellate decision upon
which defendants based their decertification motion was rendered
three weeks before the parties informed the trial court that they
had agreed to settle the case," Mr. Gilman said.

"It remains for speculation whether the outcome would have
differed had the Kentucky court issued its ruling three weeks
after they had agreed to settle."


FRATELLI MANAGEMENT: Faces "Ponce" Suit in Southern Dist. of Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FRATELLI MANAGEMENT,
LLC. The case is captioned as Paula Ponce, and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FRATELLI MANAGEMENT, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company; FINTETRA, LLC, a Florida
limited liability company; P16, LLC, doing business as Piola
Restaurants Famosi per la Pizza, a Florida limited liability
company; GLOBAL ITALIAN FOOD, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company; Marco Galvan, individually; and Stefano Carniato,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-60140-DPG (S.D.
Fla., Jan. 19, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Darrin P.
Gayles.

Fratelli Management is a management service located in Ridgewood,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Michael Hoogerwoerd, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          44 West Flager Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: pmh@rgpattorneys.com


FTS INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Thompson" Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Thompson, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FTS International Services, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 6:17-cv-00043 (E.D. Tex., January 20, 2017), is brought
against the Defendant for unpaid overtime wage in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Defendant had failed to maintain accurate time and pay records for
Plaintiff and other similarly situated nonexempt employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Melissa Moore, Esq.
   Curt Hesse, Esq.
   Moore & Associates
   Lyric Center
   440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
   Houston, TX 77002
   Tel: (713) 222-6775
   Fax: (713) 222-6739


GEICO INDEMNITY: Starks Seeks to Certify EFTA and UCL Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled GEOFFREY STARKS AND TEELA
STARKS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 2:15-cv-05771-MWF-PJW (C.D.
Cal.), ask the Court to certify two classes pursuant to Rules
23(B)(2) and (B)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
concerning alleged violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act
and the California Business and Professions Code.

The Classes are defined as:

   (1) EFTA Class:

       All persons in the United States whose bank accounts,
       between July 30, 2014 and present, were debited on a
       reoccurring basis by Defendant, after their automobile
       insurance policy was subject to an unauthorized addition,
       or "Force Add" of a Resident Relative Age 15-19 to their
       policy, resulting in an increase to the person's policy
       premiums, and automatic withdrawals of these additional
       sums from their bank accounts, without Defendant obtaining
       a written authorization signed or similarly authenticated
       for these additional electronic fund transfers.

   (2) UCL Class:

       All persons in the state of California whose bank
       accounts, between July 30, 2011 and present, were debited
       on a reoccurring basis by Defendant, after their
       automobile insurance policy was subject to an unauthorized
       addition, or "Force Add" of a Resident Relative Age 15-19
       to their policy, resulting in an increase to the person's
       policy premiums, and automatic withdrawals of these
       additional sums from their bank accounts, without
       Defendant obtaining a written authorization signed or
       similarly authenticated for these additional electronic
       fund transfers.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives, and to appoint their attorneys as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=u2F5ZLez

The Court will commence a hearing on March 27, 2017, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brian M. Jazaeri, Esq.
          Esther K. Ro, Esq.
          Emily L. Calmeyer, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue, Twenty-Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-2500
          Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
          E-mail: bjazaeri@morganlewis.com
                  ero@morganlewis.com
                  emily.calmeyer@morganlewis.com


GENERAL CABLE: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against General Cable Corporation and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, and docketed under 17-cv-00092, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired General Cable securities between February 23,
2012 and February 10, 2016, both dates inclusive (the Class
Period), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
defendants violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased General Cable securities
during the Class Period, you have until March 6, 2017 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

General Cable is a global leader in the development, design,
manufacture, marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and
fiber optic wire and cable products for use in the energy,
industrial, construction, specialty and communications markets.
The Company additionally engages in the design, integration, and
installation on a turn-key basis for products such as high and
extra-high voltage terrestrial and submarine systems.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Companys
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) General Cable paid millions of dollars in bribes to government
officials in foreign countries, including Angola, Bangladesh,
China, Egypt, Indonesia, India, and Thailand, in order to secure
business; (ii) the foregoing conduct was in violation of the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1997 (the FCPA); (iii) General
Cables revenues were therefore in part the product of illegal
conduct, and, as such, subject to disgorgement and unlikely to be
sustainable; (iv) the foregoing conduct, when it became known,
would subject the Company to significant regulatory scrutiny and
financial penalties; and (v) as a result of the foregoing, the
Companys statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On September 22, 2014, General Cable disclosed that the Company
was reviewing payment practices, the use of agents, and the manner
in which the payments were reflected on our books and records in
connection with General Cables operations in Portugal, Angola,
Thailand, and India. General Cable advised investors that these
issues may have implications under the Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act.

On this news, General Cable stock fell $0.93, or 4.68%, to close
at $18.96 on September 22, 2014.

On February 26, 2015, General Cable announced that in connection
with a possible settlement of FCPA offenses, the Company expected
to disgorge $24 million in profits from bribe-tainted sales in
Angola.

On February 10, 2016, post-market, General Cable reported that the
Company had increased its disgorgement accrual for the potential
FCPA settlement by $9 million to $33 million, after identifying
certain other transactions that may raise concerns.

On this news, General Cables share price fell $3.05, or 31.61%, to
close at $6.60 on February 11, 2016.

On December 29, 2016, The Wall Street Journal reported that
General Cable had entered into a non-prosecution agreement with
the U.S. Department of Justice, in which the Company agreed to pay
$75.8 million to settle allegations it paid bribes across Africa
and Asia and . . . agreed to an additional $6.5 million penalty to
settle accounting-related violations. The article further stated
that the Companys subsidiaries, over a period of a dozen years,
paid about $13 million to third-party agents and distributors, who
in turn paid bribes to government officials in Angola, Bangladesh,
China, Indonesia and Thailand to get business in violation of the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.


GOLDEN CORRAL: Faces "Schriver" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Schriver, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Golden Corral Corporation, Defendant, Case
No. 4:14-cv-00136 (N.D. Ohio, January 18, 2017), seeks overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

The Defendant Golden Corral is a buffet-style restaurant chain.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Drew Legando, Esq.
   Jack Landskroner, Esq.
   LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
   1360 West Ninth Street, Suite 200
   Cleveland, OH 44107
   Tel: (216) 522-9000
   Fax: (216) 522-9007
   Email: drew@lgmlegal.com
          jack@lgmlegal.com

        - and -

   Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
   Melissa L. Stewart, Esq.
   Christopher M. McNerney, Esq.
   Outten & Golden LLP
   685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: (212) 245-1000

       - and -

   Gregg I Shavitz, Esq.
   Shavitz Law Group, P.A.
   1515 S. Federal Highway
   Boca Raton, FL 33432
   Tel: (561) 447-8888

       - and -

   Michael Palitz, Esq.
   830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor
   New York, NY 10022
   Tel: (800) 616-4000


GOLDEN CORRAL: Faces "Hinterleiter" Suit Seeking to Recoup OT Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Hinterleiter and Shawn Click, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Golden Corral
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00014-BR (W.D. Pa.,
January 18, 2017), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act, and the Kentucky Wage Laws.

Golden Corral Corp. is a buffet-style restaurant chain.

     Peter Winebrake, Esq.
     R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
     Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
     WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
     Twinning Office Center, Suite 211
     715 Twining Road
     Dresher, PA 19025
     Phone: (215) 884-2491

        - and -

     Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
     Melissa L. Stewart, Esq.
     Christopher M. McNerney, Esq.
     685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 245-1000

        - and -

     Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
     SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
     1515 S. Federal Highway
     Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Phone: (561) 447 8888

        - and -

     Michael Palitz, Esq.
     830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (800) 616 4000


INOTEK PHARMACEUTICALS: Johnson & Weaver Probing Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP is investigating
potential violations of the federal securities laws by Inotek
Pharmaceuticals Corp. (ITEK). A class action lawsuit against the
Company has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased
Inotek stock between July 23, 2015 and December 30, 2016,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Inotek
misrepresented the efficacy of its drug candidate trabodenoson -
the only drug Inotek currently has in its clinical development
pipeline and its attendant capacity to receive New Drug Approval
by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In particular, it is
alleged that the Company made positive statements about the drug
despite knowledge that the MATrX-1 phase 3 clinical trial of
trabodenoson would fail to meet its primary endpoint of
statistical relevance in the reduction of intraocular pressure
compared with placebo.

On January 3, 2017, Inotek announced that the Phase 3 trial of
trabodenoson had failed to achieve this primary endpoint.
Following this news, shares of Inotek fell from a closing price of
$6.10 on December 30, 2016, to a $1.75 closing price per share on
January 3, 2017.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than March 7, 2017.  If you wish to discuss this action,
have any questions concerning this notice, or your rights or
interests, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker --
jimb@johnsonandweaver.com -- by email or by phone at 619-814-4471.
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff.


JIMMY CHOO: Agreed to Pay $2.5MM to Settle Privacy Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Allison Grande at Law360 reports luxury shoe brand Jimmy Choo has
agreed to fork over $2.5 million to settle a proposed class action
accusing it of putting consumers at risk of identity theft by
printing sensitive data on credit card receipts, according to
documents filed in Florida federal court Friday.

Plaintiff Kerri C. Wood detailed the terms of the pact in an
unopposed motion asking the court for preliminary approval of the
proposed class action settlement, which comes fewer than six
months after the district court found that Wood had Article III
standing to continue to press her claims under the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

The proposed settlement would require Jimmy Choo to establish a
$2.5 million fund to compensate shoppers who received point-of-
sale credit or debit card receipts from a Jimmy Choo store
containing a card expiration date between Oct. 27, 2013, and Nov.
2, 2013.

The members of the opt-in settlement class -- which the parties
estimate includes 135,588 Jimmy Choo customers -- will receive a
pro rata share of the fund, with the parties anticipating that
individuals who submit timely claims will receive between $75 and
$175.

"The proposed settlement is a significant FACTA class action
settlement," Wood wrote in her preliminary approval motion. "The
total recovery compares favorably to recent common fund FACTA
settlements."

In a footnote, Wood in support of her contention pointed to
several other recent FACTA settlements that handed plaintiffs
awards ranging from a $15 credit on their next purchase of $125 or
more at Retail Concepts Inc., and to a choice between $9.60 in
cash or a coupon for $15 off of future purchases at ABP Corp.

Jimmy Choo's ability to survive a judgment in favor of the
settlement class is also a relevant consideration that should
factor into the court's determination of whether the proposed
settlement is fair and reasonable, according to the plaintiff's
motion.

"Absent a settlement, the final resolution of this action through
the trial process may require several more months or years of
protracted adversary litigation and appeals, which may delay
relief or entirely eliminate any obtainable relief to settlement
class members," the plaintiff wrote. "The settlement imposes a
significant financial burden on defendant for the benefit of
settlement class members but does not annihilate defendant."

Besides compensating proposed class members who submit a timely
claim, the settlement fund will also be used to pay the costs of
notice and settlement administration, any awards of attorneys'
fees and costs awarded by the court, and any incentive awards to
the plaintiffs approved by the court, according to the motion. The
settlement proposes an attorneys' fee award of just over $833,000
and an incentive award of $5,000 to the plaintiff.

Any unclaimed funds will be paid to the Legal Aid Service of
Broward County, Coast to Coast Legal Aid of South Florida and the
National Consumer Law Center as cy pres awards and will not revert
to Jimmy Choo, the plaintiff added.

Wood filed her complaint against Jimmy Choo in October 2015,
alleging that the retailer had ran afoul of FACTA by printing
credit and debit card expiration dates and other sensitive
information such as home addresses, phone numbers and cashiers'
names on its store receipts.

The plaintiff claimed that the company had years to comply with
the FACTA amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act but willfully
or knowingly chose not to do so despite being hit with similar
allegations in 2008.

Jimmy Choo then moved to dismiss the suit for lack of standing,
but U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom ruled in August that the suit
had met the standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court's May ruling in
Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, which held that a consumer must assert a
concrete and particularized injury in order to satisfy Article III
standing.

"Spokeo recognized that 'Congress may "elevate to the status of
legally cognizable injuries," concrete, de facto injuries that
were previously inadequate in law,'" the judge wrote in her 12-
page ruling at the time. "In some circumstances, therefore, 'the
violation of a procedural right granted by statute can be
sufficient . . . . to constitute injury in fact.' This is one such
case."

Shortly after that ruling, the court referred the case to
mediation, where the parties reached the settlement disclosed
Friday. Despite their "significant differences," the parties
agreed to the resolution for several reasons, including the time
and expense of resolving the "rigorously contested issue" of
whether Jimmy Choo willfully violated FACTA, according to the
plaintiff's motion.

While Wood contended that the violation was intentional, Jimmy
Choo countered that if there were any violation of the statute, it
would have been negligent, not willful, because the retailer had
previously complied with FACTA and had only allegedly fallen out
of compliance after it implemented a new point-of-sale system.

"Although plaintiff was confident that there was a substantial
basis to prove willfulness, there was a substantial risk that at
trial a jury could find that defendant's alleged violations were
not willful," the plaintiff wrote in her preliminary approval
motion. "The proposed settlement agreement is the most realistic
and the best current outcome as could be expected in the
particular circumstances of this action."

Wood is represented by Steven R. Jaffe -- steve@pathtojustice.com
-- Seth M. Lehrman -- seth@pathtojustice.com -- and Mark S. Fistos
--mark@pathtojustice.com --  of Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards
Fistos & Lehrman PL, Scott D. Owens of Scott D. Owens PA and Bret
L. Lusskin Jr. of Bret Lusskin PA.

Jimmy Choo is represented by Mark R. Cheskin --
mark.cheskin@hoganlovells.com -- Carol A. Licko --
carol.licko@hoganlovells.com -- and James L. VanLandingham --
james.vanlandingham@hoganlovells.com -- of Hogan Lovells US LLP.

The case is Kerri C. Wood v. J Choo USA Inc., case number 9:15-cv-
81487, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.


JOHNSON & BELL: Files Motion to Dismiss Security Breach Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel A. Cotter, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reports that
law firms are rich targets for cybersecurity breaches and attacks
from hackers.  In April 2016, Chicago-based law firm Edelson P.C.
filed a putative class-action lawsuit against Johnson & Bell Ltd.
alleging the firm implemented inadequate information security
measures.

In late November, reports emerged identifying a large number of
law firm e-mails that were found on the dark web.  Earlier this
year, Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP and Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP
were announced to have been breached by Chinese hackers.

This column addresses some of the considerations law firms should
make and steps they should take to assess their vulnerabilities
and address them.

The complaint filed by Edelson alleges the existence of a "number
of significant data security vulnerabilities" that would permit
hackers to gain access to Johnson & Bell's clients' data, although
it does not allege the existence of any actual data breach.

In particular, Edelson alleges Johnson & Bell had vulnerabilities
in its e-mail system, time-entry system and virtual private
network.  According to the Dec. 13 report in InsideCounsel,
Edelson managing partner Jay Edelson claimed it was "the first
class-action against a law firm alleging inadequate data security
measures," but makes it clear that this suit will not be the last.

Johnson & Bell filed a motion to dismiss in which it stated all of
the alleged vulnerabilities identified in the complaint had been
addressed.  The motion further stated that the complaint should be
dismissed because it failed to identify an actual judiciable
controversy since it did "not allege that confidential information
was ever compromised."  The matter is now in arbitration.

The dark web and law firm e-mails

A Nov. 30 report from InsideCounsel analyzed the potential
exposure that lawyers and other employees at law firms create
every time they use their law firm e-mails to sign up for
activities such as fantasy football leagues or services such as
Dropbox.

Those e-mails are used by hackers to attempt to penetrate the law
firm's systems through phishing attacks and other methods.  The
article raises the question of whether law firms' policies on data
security and privacy adequately address the risks of these
behaviors.

Protorion Systems used its software and searched the dark web for
law firms' e-mail addresses and found that, as of Oct. 27 of last
year for the top 10 law firms by number of compromises, more than
27,000 hits were found where a law firm e-mail and password were
located on the dark web.

The firm with the largest number of compromises, more than 5,000,
was DLA Piper.  These results do not reflect actual breaches and
may be overstated because it includes data relating to individuals
no longer employed at those firms, but it nonetheless demonstrates
the vulnerabilities in the law firms' systems and their policies
and procedures.

Last March, the Wall Street Journal reported on a number of
New York law firms, including Cravath and Weil Gotshal who had
been hacked.  It was later reported China was behind the attacks.
One possible motive behind the breaches was to obtain insider
information on pending deals that the law firms were handling. The
March report stated:

"Law firms are attractive targets because they hold trade secrets
and other sensitive information about corporate clients, including
details about undisclosed mergers and acquisitions that could be
stolen for insider trading."

In late December, the Justice Department announced the unsealing
of an indictment against three individuals in Macau for trading on
insider information gathered from the earlier breaches of the Wall
Street law firms.

As noted in previous columns, lawyers have obligations under the
Rules of Professional Conduct to take steps to guard against
inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure, with Rule 1.6(e)
providing:

"(e) A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the
inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access
to, information relating to the representation of a client."

Comment 18 to the same rule now provides in pertinent part (the
changes made to the comment in 2015 are underlined):

"[186] Paragraph (e) requires a lawyer must to act competently to
safeguard information relating to the representation of a client
against unauthorized access by third parties and against
inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure by the lawyer or other
persons who are participating in the representation of the client
or who are subject to the lawyer's supervision. See Rules 1.1, 5.1
and 5.3.

"The unauthorized access to, or the inadvertent or unauthorized
disclosure of, information relating to the representation of a
client does not constitute a violation of [P]aragraph (e) if the
lawyer has made reasonable efforts to prevent the access or
disclosure.  Factors to be considered in determining the
reasonableness of the lawyer's efforts include, but are not
limited to, the sensitivity of the information, the likelihood of
disclosure if additional safeguards are not employed, the cost of
employing additional safeguards, the difficulty of implementing
the safeguards and the extent to which the safeguards adversely
affect the lawyer's ability to represent clients (e.g., by making
a device or important piece of software excessively difficult to
use).

"A client may require the lawyer to implement special security
measures not required by this [r]ule or may give informed consent
to forgo security measures that would otherwise be required by
this [r]ule.  Whether a lawyer may be required to take additional
steps to safeguard a client's information in order to comply with
other law, such as state and federal laws that govern data privacy
or that impose notification requirements upon the loss of, or
unauthorized access to, electronic information, is beyond the
scope of these [r]ules."

What is reasonable will depend on the facts and circumstances of a
particular lawyer or law firm, including the types of information
collected and the cost of employing such additional safeguards.

Nonetheless, every law firm should take affirmative steps to
address its privacy and security policies and procedures. Some of
these steps include:

Reviewing IT infrastructure and systems

How old is the firewall (and its virtual private network), e-mail
exchange server and time entry systems you are using?

Who within the firm and outside it has access to those systems?

Have you updated those systems to include the latest versions and
installed any vendor patches that have been delivered?

What version of exchange server are you using?

How are you monitoring those systems?

Are you using a hosted or internal system monitoring procedure
(such as Solarwinds)?

Are you working with a third party to do security event and
incident management for your firewall and other outward facing
devices?

Reviewing your firm's privacy and data security policies and
procedures

Do you have a formal password protocol?

How often must lawyers and employees change system passwords?

Have you considered multi-factor authentication?

Do you do periodic internal and external penetration testing?

Lawyers should understand the technologies they use and the risks
presented by practices such as cloud computing, credit card
acceptance and Payment Card Industry compliance, and "bring your
own device" policies.

A lawyer must also comply with other rules of professional conduct
in connection with client sensitive or confidential information.
For example, an attorney has an obligation to supervise third-
party vendors providing technology services.

In addition, a lawyer has an obligation to warn clients about the
risk of using electronic communications where there is a
significant risk that a third party may gain access.

As technology changes, lawyers' obligations to protect client
information continue to evolve.

Lawyers must review their firm's policies, procedures and
practices and stay abreast of evolving technology to ensure that
they are making reasonable efforts in their information security
practices.

Illinois' and other states' rules of professional conduct impose
affirmative duties on lawyers to do so.

Daniel A. Cotter is a partner at Butler Rubin Saltarelli & Boyd
LLP and an adjunct professor at The John Marshall Law School,
where he teaches SCOTUS Judicial Biographies.


JP MORGAN CHASE: Turner Alleges Violation of Consumer Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Turner, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class of
persons similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00474 (N.D. Ill., January 20, 2017), seeks
damages for violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act.

The Complaint says that Defendant has improperly assessing
customers' overdraft charges for insufficient funds on debt/check
card purchases and ATM withdrawals through the re-sequencing of
transactions in order to maximize the overdraft charges Chase
could collect.

JP Morgan Chase & Co. provides a range of banking and other
financial services to the corporate, institutional, and
governmental clients in the United States and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq.
   Jeffrey Grant Brown, P.C.
   221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
   Chicago, IL 60601
   Tel: 312-789-9700

      - and -

   Glen J. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
   Glen J. Dunn & Associates, Ltd.
   221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
   Chicago, IL 60601
   Tel: 312-546-5056


KALVISTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Johnson & Weaver Probing Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP is investigating
potential violations of the federal securities laws by KalVista
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (KALV), formerly named Carbylan
Therapeutics, Inc.

On February 1, 2016, KalVista stock plunged nearly 50 percent
after the company disclosed top-line results from a Phase 3 trial,
COR1.1. Then, in April 2016, KalVista announced that it was
suspending further clinical development of its pain relief
product, Hydros-TA, and it is actively pursuing a merger or
acquisition of the company. In concurrence, KalVista also
announced an immediate reduction in its workforce of 14 of its
current 17 employees to preserve capital. Specifically, Johnson &
Weaver's investigation seeks to determine whether certain
statements regarding the Company's business metrics and financial
prospects were not as strong as represented in the Company's
offering documents filed in connection with its April 9, 2015
initial public offering.

If you have information that could assist in this investigation,
including past employees and others, or if you are a KalVista
shareholder and are interested in learning more about the
investigation or your legal rights and remedies, please contact
Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonandweaver.com) by email or phone at 619-
814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number where you can
be reached.


KAUFMAN ENGLETT: Suit Over Bankruptcy Retainer Fees Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Wolf, writing for Bankruptcy Law360, reported that U.S.
Magistrate Judge Paul G. Byron dismissed a putative class action
accusing Florida-based Kaufman Englett & Lynd PLLC of violating
federal law by causing a cash-strapped client to incur more debt
while he explored filing for bankruptcy, saying the case can't
survive without an alleged improper motive for the firm's billing.

Judge Byron, who oversees Loyd P. Cadwell's suit in Florida
federal court, said Mr. Cadwell's claims that KEL violated the
Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act by billing
him $1,700 in retainer fees while he explored filing for
bankruptcy could not survive the firm's motion to dismiss.

As reported by the Class Action Reporter on July 4, 2016, the
Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled LOYD P. CADWELL, Individually and
on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. KAUFMAN, ENGLETT &
LYND, PLLC, Case No. 6:16-cv-00662-PGB-KRS (M.D. Fla.), sought
certification of these class of consumers:

     (a) The Class Member retained KEL using the "Bankruptcy
         Chapter 7 Retainer Agreement" or a substantially similar
         document with the intent of filing of a Chapter 7 case
         in the Middle District of Florida;

     (b) KEL collected Chapter 7 retainer fees from the
         prospective assisted person or assisted person through
         the charging of a credit/charge card which caused the
         prospective assisted person or assisted person to incur
         more debt prior to the potential filing of the
         Chapter 7; and

     (c) The Class would include any prospective assisted person
         or assisted person who signed a "Bankruptcy Chapter 7
         Retainer Agreement" within four (4) years preceding the
         filing of the original Complaint in this proceeding
         through the date this Court issues an Order Approving
         Class Notice.

According to the Law360 report, Mr. Cadwell had consulted with KEL
on filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in early January 2016 and
entered into a retainer agreement with the firm that contained a
provision requiring $1,700 in attorneys' fees, due prior to the
bankruptcy filing.  As part of the payment schedule, KEL demanded
an initial retainer of $250, a subsequent $250 payment 10 days
later, then four monthly payments of $300 due in the months that
followed, according to the complaint.  Mr. Cadwell alleges that he
made the payments to KEL using two credit cards, and that the firm
violated the applicable U.S. Code provision by causing him to pay
attorneys' fees by incurring more debt.

In its motion to dismiss, KEL said Cadwell had failed to show the
firm advised him to rack up debt to discharge it as part of a
Chapter 7 petition, and that the firm did not violate the
Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan K. Mickler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICKLER & MICKLER, LLP
          5452 Arlington Expressway
          Jacksonville, FL 32211
          Telephone: (904) 725-0822
          Facsimile: (904) 725-0855
          E-mail: bkmickler@planlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Adam C. Herman, Esq.
          MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN, P.A.
          Landmark Center One
          315 E. Robinson Street, Suite 550
          Orlando, FL 32801-2719
          E-mail: acherman@mdwcg.com


KENT COUNTY: Faces Potential Lawsuit Over Fire Hydrants
-------------------------------------------------------
Kendra Lolio at The Coventry Courier reports that the West Warwick
Town Council discussed several matters involving the Kent County
Water Authority on January 17 evening, including a potential
class-action lawsuit against the company by local municipalities
and fire districts regarding ownership of fire hydrants as well as
the 2017 rate increase from the KCWA.

Councilman Angelo Padula sponsored the item on the evening's
agenda indicating that he heard rumors of a possible class action
suit and wanted to find out more information about how it would
affect West Warwick.

Town Solicitor Timothy Williamson said that he had spoken with
Frank Palin, heading the Board of Directors for the Coventry Fire
District, who indicated that a group of municipalities and fire
districts were exploring the possibility of some type of class
action matter against the KCWA for ownership of the hydrants.
Williamson said he had reached out to KCWA attorney Patrick
Sullivan, Esq. -- fett@adamsandsullivan.com -- with Adams and
Sullivan who informed him that a similar issue was brought before
the Superior Court in 2015 in a collection matter where it was
determined that there was nothing memorializing ownership of the
hydrants to any of the parties.

Williamson said he would look over the previous case and determine
whether there was anything to be gained for West Warwick.

"I don't know if there is any money to be had or gained," said
Williamson. "It could be a wild goose chase, but it's worth
looking at."

Sullivan said that he could not comment specifically on the matter
until he is able to review the actual litigation which has yet to
be filed. He also said that it is within the purview of the Public
Utilities Commission (PUC) to regulate hydrant rentals and to set
the charges for private and public hydrants.

Town Manager Fred Presley said that the town currently pays over
$400,000 a year to the KCWA for the hydrants. Councilman Padula
took issue with the payment, particularly noting that the West
Warwick Fire Department handles shoveling the hydrants out in snow
storms and generally maintains them with the exception of re-
painting.

President David Gosselin Jr. said that the KCWA had recently come
to the council requesting control of the hydrants but the council
denied the request.

"At least right now if they come to us we have some say in what
they charge us because we can resist a little more," Gosselin
said. "If they say we want $1 million for these fire hydrants
they'll just put it on another bill and that's why we resisted the
last time. It's one of those things where you're dammed if you do
and damned if you don't because if we push it off they'll get the
money from somewhere else."

Coventry Town Solicitor Nick Gorham said on January 18 that he did
not know anything about the plan.

The PUC recently approved an 11 percent rate increase for the KCWA
who was originally seeking just under a 17 percent increase as
part of a method to collect additional revenues. The KCWA filed
the rate change paperwork for the case with the PUC in April of
2016. The rate increase affects the 26,600 customers being
serviced in the West Warwick, Warwick, Coventry, Cranston,
Scituate, East Greenwich, West Greenwich, and North Kingstown
areas as well as three fire districts in Coventry. The towns of
Coventry and Warwick as well as the Central Coventry Fire District
filed motions to intervene during public hearings with the PUC.
The average water bill prior to the increase according to the KCWA
was $519.80, with the 11 percent increase the bill would rise by
about $37.81.


LAND SOURCE: Waterford Estate Residents Mull Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Sumeyya Ilanbey, writing for Star Weekly, reports that when Rick
bought land in the "exclusive" Waterford Estate six years ago, he
was promised schools, parks, shopping centres and sports ovals
would be built.

Of all the promises, only a park has been built, Rick (not his
real name) says.  To make matters worse, developers Land Source
Australia was declared bankrupt in November last year.

Waterford Estate residents are now in limbo, unsure whether
promises will be delivered -- they're now considering class action
to have those promised amenities built.

"When we bought this land here, we knew Melton South wasn't a
poshy area," Rick says.

"But the way it was represented to us at the time of the sale, it
would become a prime residential area, reason being, there was
meant to be a swimming pool, tennis courts, gymnasium, and so on.

"But none of that has been delivered."

Rick says he bought his block of land in 2011 for $175,000, but he
would be lucky to sell it at a profit, taking into account
consumer price index levels, depreciation and house prices.

"Six months ago, I bought a block of land in Thornhill Park for
$150,000.  I recently asked again, and was told 'you're lucky to
get anything under $200,000'.

"So within six months, my Thornhill Park land has gone up $50,000.
In six years, my Waterford house price hasn't gone up. People are
selling their houses for $50,000 less than what the value should
be."

He says residents are frustrated, and many have taken to social
media to vent their anger and concerns.  The resident commented on
Facebook that she built her house two years ago under the
impression the estate was going to be "great".

"Still waiting for schools, shopping centres, parklands, residents
centres and much, much more to be built," the resident said.

A community meeting has been organised for 2pm, Saturday, January
28, at Waterford Park, Melton South.  Rick says Waterford Estate
residents will have a chance to talk about their options,
including the possibility of finding another developer willing to
deliver those promised amenities.

Star Weekly tried to contact Korda Mentha, an advisory and
investment firm appointed as receiver by the courts to sell Land
Source Australia's assets, several times.  The company did not
return repeated requests to call.


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Fails to Pay Employee's OT Work, "Rego" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Rego, individually and on behalf all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Liberty Mutual Managed Care LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00066 (E.D. Wis., January 17, 2017), seeks
payment of minimum wage, and overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 each workweek.

The Defendant Liberty Mutual Managed Care LLC is in the insurance
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Rachhanna Srey, Esq.
   Alexander M. Baggio, Esq.
   Nichols Kaster, PLLP
   4600 IDS Center
   80 South Eighth Street
   Minneapolis, MN 55402
   Tel: (612) 256-3200
   Fax: (612) 338-4878
   Email: srey@nka.com
          abaggio@nka.com


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Face US Life Suit Over Insurance Rate Hike
------------------------------------------------------------
US Life 1 Renditefonds GMBH & Co. KG, et al, Plaintiffs, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. The Lincoln
National Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00307-MAK (E.D. Pa., January 20, 2017), is brought against the
Defendant for unlawful cost of insurance (COI) increases.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Douglas E. Roberts, Esq.
   Gaetan J. Alfano, Esq.
   Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP
   1818 Market Street, Suite 3402
   Philadelphia, PA 19103
   Tel: 215-998-1441
   Fax: 215-754-5181
   Email: gja@pietraallo.com

        - and -

   Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
   Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
   1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
   Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
   Tel: 310-789-3100
   Fax: 310-789-3150
   Email: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

        - and -

   Seth Ard, Esq.
   Lucas Issacharoff, Esq.
   Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
   1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
   New York, NY 10019
   Tel: 212-336-8330
   Fax: 212-336-8340
   Email: sard@susmangodfrey.com
          lissacharoff@susmangodfrey.com


LOUISVILLE SLUGGER: Faces Class Action Over Baseball Bats
---------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
Louisville Slugger and Wilson Sporting Goods are defendants in a
federal class action complaint over the quality of $400 baseball
bats.

George Alea, of Miami, filed his complaint Jan. 23 in Chicago,
alleging an inherent flaw in Lousiville Slugger's Prime BBCOR bats
that causes the handle to rotate independent of the barrel. He
said the companies are aware of the design flaw, but rather than
honor warranty terms and issue replacements, opted instead to
pursue "the unorthodox approach of creating a post-hoc marketing
regime focusing on (and, indeed, promoting) the defect, as if it
were deliberate."

Mr. Alea said he bought a 2016 Louisville Slugger Prime 916
BBP9163 BBCOR on Feb. 17 for $425, for his son, Rod, to use during
high school games.  They noticed the flaw soon after, and in the
complaint stated, "There is no benefit or increased performance as
a result of this movement.  Rather, the independent rotation of
the handle and the barrel decrease the power and detract from the
performance of the bats."

As part of his complaint, Mr. Alea cited promotional material
Louisville Slugger used from June 2015 through April 2016, noting
no mention of the independent barrel rotation.  He also cited more
than two dozen online customer reviews containing complaints about
how quickly the bats break, as well as concerns about corporate
return and replacement policies.

"The bats . . . are not fit for the ordinary purpose of hitting
baseballs and do not conform to the promises and affirmations made
on their labels and packaging," the complaint alleged.

Mr. Alea said new marketing material appeared by May 3, 2016,
touting a "Dynamic Socket Connection" that "allows for slight
movement between the . . . barrel and handle to further maximize
barrel trampoline effect and eliminate negative vibration."
However, he alleged there had been "no changes to the design or
manufacturing process" from what was originally advertised.

That change in marketing language, he argued, is evidence the
manufacturer "hatched a scheme to deny warranty claims and act as
if the defect was instead a noteworthy feature of the bats."

The complaint includes one count of violating consumer protection
statutes in Florida, California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey
and New York, and the class would include anyone who bought a bat
after April 1, 2015, while living in those states. Class
membership would be open nationwide for the alleged violation of
the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Mr. Alea argued Lousiville Slugger's "marketing and advertising
constitute express warranties," and failure to deliver a bat
meeting those claims qualifies as a break of those warranties.  He
further detailed the company's failure to replace the bats, and
also included a count of unjust enrichment.

In addition to class certification and a jury trial, Mr. Alea
seeks damages and restitution, as well as a court order forcing
Louisville Slugger to remove misleading claims on its products.

Wilson, based in Chicago, bought Louisville Slugger from Hillerich
& Bradsby in March 2015 for $70 million.  As part of that
transaction, Hillerich & Bradsby retained rights to wooden bats
and the Louisville Slugger museum.

Representing Mr. Alea in the matter, and seeking to serve as class
counsel, are attorneys from the St. Louis and Washington, D.C.,
offices of Cueno Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, as well as the firm of
Baron & Herkowitz, of Miami.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Jan. 24 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Mallinckrodt plc ("Mallinckrodt" or
the "Company") (MNK) in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia on behalf of purchasers of common stock of
Mallinckrodt between November 25, 2014 and January 18, 2017 (the
"Class Period"), 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 Acthar's
monopoly status as the only FDA-approved ACTH preparation was the
product of unlawful anticompetitive practices and failed to
disclose that its increasing reliance on Medicare and Medicaid
meant that the Company's monopolistic Acthar revenue would be
threatened if the government took action to limit the price paid
for this drug by taxpayers.  The truth about the Company's
dependence on Medicare and Medicaid for Acthar revenue began to
surface on November 9, 2015, when Citron Research ("Citron")
issued a statement on Twitter comparing Mallinckrodt to Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.  In the wake of the Citron
comment, Mallinckrodt's stock price fell 17% from a close of
$69.89 per share on November 6, 2015, to close at $58.01 per share
on November 9, 2015.

On November 16, 2016, Citron published a report (the "Citron
Report") accusing the Company of securities fraud in connection
with the Company's statements downplaying its reliance on Medicare
and Medicaid for Acthar revenue.  Among other things, the Citron
Report reported that payments from Medicare and Medicaid comprised
a substantially larger percentage of Acthar sales than the Company
previously represented.  In the wake of the Citron Report,
Mallinckrodt's stock price fell 18.4% from a close of $67.80 per
share on November 15, 2016, to close at $55.32 per share on
November 17, 2016.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 27, 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.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm.


MICHAELS STORES: Newark Judge Dismisses FCRA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a federal judge in Newark has dismissed a proposed class action in
multidistrict litigation against Michaels Stores Inc. for failure
to plead subject matter jurisdiction under the U.S. Supreme
Court's recent decision in Spokeo v. Robins.

The plaintiffs are job applicants who say Michaels violated the
Fair Credit Reporting Act because the company's disclosure of its
intent to conduct background checks on them was insufficient.  But
U.S. District Judge Kevin McNulty said the plaintiffs, who were
all hired by Michaels, lacked standing because they did not make
the required showing that they suffered an injury-in-fact.
But because the complaints in the consolidated suit in In Re:
Michaels Stores Inc. Fair Credit Reporting Act Litigation was
filed before the decision in Spokeo, McNulty dismissed the case
without prejudice and gave the plaintiffs 30 days to file a new
complaint.

The injury-in-fact component of standing was at issue in Spokeo,
as it is in the present case, Judge McNulty said.

In Spokeo, Thomas Robins claimed an online "people search engine"
violated the FCRA when it inaccurately reported his personal
information.  The Ninth Circuit found that Robins had adequately
alleged an injury-in-fact, but the Supreme Court reversed, finding
the plaintiff suffered no concrete harm in a "bare procedural
violation."

In the Michaels case, the plaintiffs claim the company violated
the requirement that disclosure of an employer's intent to obtain
a background check be disclosed conspicuously, in a stand-alone
document.  The disclosure was made in the middle of the Michaels'
application, not in a stand-alone document, and it contains
extraneous language.  Judge McNulty found, in light of Spokeo,
that bare procedural violations of the FCRA, such as the one
alleged here, do not constitute an injury-in-fact.

"Plaintiffs allege a violation of what I have called the purely
formal requirements of FCRA.  They do not factually allege any
harm aside from the statutory violation itself.  A decision in
Spokeo that a bare violation of a federal statute fails to confer
standing would therefore dispose of the pending motions, because
this court would lack jurisdiction to continue," Judge McNulty
said.

The case was stayed pending outcome of the Supreme Court ruling in
Spokeo, which was decided on May 16, 2016.  On the following day,
Judge McNulty ordered the parties to resubmit their papers in
light of the ruling.  Plaintiffs claimed they suffered two types
of concrete harm -- informational injury and invasion of privacy -
- in what Judge McNulty described as "an attempt to salvage
standing post-Spokeo," but the judge said he disagreed with the
reasoning of the cases that were cited to support that position.

Courts have recognized information injuries in cases where
plaintiffs did not receive the information at issue, but in the
present case, the plaintiffs concede that they received the
disclosure but merely object to the form, according to Judge
McNulty.

The judge also rejected the plaintiffs' invasion of privacy count,
which he said amounts to a contention that a violation of the
stand-alone requirement "automatically implies that the credit
report is unauthorized." Such a notion would "raise every
technical violation of [the FCRA] to the realm of a major
substantive harm.  This is a leap too far, and is directly
contradicted by Spokeo, which made clear some subset of violations
are too small to implicate," Judge McNulty said.

The first complaint in the MDL was filed in the District of
New Jersey in December 2014.  A similar complaint was filed in the
Northern District of Texas in January 2015.  The Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation consolidated those cases in
New Jersey in April 2015.  Another case was filed in the Superior
Court of California in June 2015, then removed by Michaels to the
Northern District of California before being consolidated with the
MDL.

The three cases were dismissed without prejudice.  The California
case was remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of
Sonoma.

Patricia Barasch of Schall & Barasch in Moorestown, representing
the plaintiffs, did not return a call.  Robert Szyba of Seyfarth
Shaw in New York, representing Michaels, declined to comment.


MIDLAND FUNDING: Dunbar Sues Over Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amy Dunbar, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Kohn Law Firm S.C., Midland Funding, LLC,
Midland Credit Management, Inc. and Encore Capital Group, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00088-PP (E.D. Wis., January 19,
2017), seeks compensation from unlawful debt collection practices
committed by Defendants in violation of Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA).

The Plaintiff asserts that Defendants' misrepresentation of a
debtor's rights or liabilities under the Internal Revenue Code in
connection with the collection of a debt in an FDCPA violation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
   Francis R. Greene, Esq.
   Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC
   20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
   Chicago, IL 60603-1824
   Tel: (312) 739-4200
   Fax: (312) 419-0379
   Email: courtecl@edcombs.com

        - and -

   Heather B. Jones, Esq.
   Philip D. Stern, Esq.
   Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
   Stern Thomasson LLP
   150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
   Springfield, NJ 07081-1329
   Tel: (973) 379-7500
   Fax: (973) 532-5868
   Email: heather@sternthomasson.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Faces "Fuchs" Suit in Eastern Dist. of N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Collegiate
Student Loan Trust 2006-1. The case is captioned as Christopher R
Fuchs, a/k/a Christophe Fuchs, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. National Collegiate Student
Loan Trust 2006-1; The National Collegiate Funding, LLC;
Transworld Systems Inc.; EGS Financial Care, Inc. f/k/a NCO
Financial Systems, Inc.; Turnstile Capital Management, LLC;
Forster & Garbus, LLP; Mark A. Garbus; Ronald Forster; and John
Doe 1-10, Being The Servicer(S) Of The Loans, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-00304 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2017).

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Aaron R Easley, Esq.
          SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL LLC
          3 Cross Creek Drive
          Flemington, NJ 08822
          Telephone: (908) 237 1660
          Facsimile: (908) 237 1663
          E-mail: aeasley@sessions.legal


NATIONAL DEBT: Fuggetta Seeks Payment of Wages and OT Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Frank Fuggetta, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. National Debt Relief LLC, Daniel Tilipman
and Alex Kleyner, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00378 (S.D.N.Y.,
January 19, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
nonpayment of minimum wage and overtime compensation pursuant to
Fair Labor Standard Act and New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Alyson C. Bruns, Esq.
   Law Office of Andrea Paparella, P.L.L.C.
   150 W. 28th Street, Suite 1603
   New York, NY 10001
   Tel: (212) 675-2523
   Email: alysonbruns@gmail.com


NCAA: Faces Lawsuit for Sacrificing Player Safety
-------------------------------------------------
Max B. Baker and Jeff Caplan at Start Telegram report
five former football players including one from TCU are accusing
the NCAA and the Big 12 conference of not protecting and informing
thousands of football players about the debilitating health risks
stemming from concussions and head injuries they suffered while
playing the sport.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court in Indiana this month, the
players, including Jarrod Blake Roberts, who played linebacker and
defensive end at TCU from 2010 to 2014, say they suffer from
symptoms indicative of long-term brain and neurocognitive
injuries.

Painting college football as a billion-dollar enterprise that
continues to grow in popularity and riches, the lawsuit accuses
the NCAA and Big 12 of sacrificing player safety -- and the long-
term health and well-being of the individual players -- in favor
of profits and self-promotion.

"I think the incentives are misplaced for the NCAA and some of the
conferences to put big hits, big-money games over player safety,"
said Vincent Circelli, a Fort Worth attorney who filed the
lawsuit, the latest in a rash of litigation attacking concussion
dangers faced by football players from Pop Warner to the NFL.
"These kids relied on the NCAA to supervise, to make rules to
protect these players."

The NCAA, which has settled one lawsuit involving concussions and
players for $75 million that allows for medical monitoring, said
the suit filed by Circelli, Walter & Young offers "nothing new or
unique" from similar cases pending in an Illinois federal court.

"The theories in this case, like the others, simply are not
supported by the law," Donald Remy, NCAA chief legal officer, said
in a prepared statement.

A Big 12 spokesman said the conference had no comment about the
lawsuit.

The other players named in the suit are two University of Oklahoma
players, tackle Cory Brandon, who played from 2006 to 2011; and
offensive lineman Kelvin Chaisson, who was on the roster from 2001
too 2005; Derrick Cherry, a tailback at Texas Tech University from
1994 to 1996; and Joseph Walker, who played cornerback and safety
at the University of Texas from 1997 to 2000. The attorneys are
seeking class action status.

"We love football. We want football to stick around. We're not
advocating the end of football," Circelli said. "All we are
advocating for is taking care of the players who are now suffering
the results of some bad acts by the NCAA and others.
"We want to help make it safer. We want to help former athletes be
taken care of if they've got these traumatic brain injuries."

Circelli's law firm is expected to file another class action
lawsuit in California against the Riddell helmet company.
Circelli's firm is teaming up with the Edelson law firm out of
Chicago, which is representing other athletes suing over
concussion-related injuries.

                           NCAA Making Changes

The suit against the NCAA seeks compensation for injuries suffered
and for ongoing medical care. It accuses the NCAA and the Big 12
of repeatedly failing to warn and educate players about the long-
term risks associated with repeated concussive and subconcussive
hits despite the availability of mounting evidence from multiple
studies that were published, particularly in the last two decades.

It also alleges that the NCAA, until recently, failed to implement
rules of play that would limit head injuries and also failed to
cover the cost of postcollegiate medical care.

Players who suffered concussions while playing an NCAA sport, the
lawsuit alleges, "are then left to cope with the necessary costs
and care resulting from their injuries."

While the players were being injured, both the NCAA and the Big 12
were raking in big money. The Big 12 has collected and distributed
over $2.6 billion in revenues since it was formed in 1994, and the
NCAA brings in $1 billion a year, the lawsuit alleges.

Within the past few years, the NCAA and the Big 12 have been
openly addressing the dangers related to concussions.

On January 17, the NCAA, out of concern over concussions,
announced updated football practice guidelines that recommend only
one live contact tackling practice a week, one live contact "thud"
practice (in which a player is hit but not brought to the ground)
and three or more noncontact or minimal practices per week.

Two years ago, the NCAA also joined forces with the Defense
Department to fund a $30 million clinical study of concussion and
head impact exposure. As of December 2016, about 28,000 athletes
and 1,600 military academy cadets had been enrolled in the study,
which will perform baseline assessments on individuals who have
suffered a concussion.

                     Firm Has About 150 Clients

In 2015, the Big 12 announced a policy for concussion diagnosis
and management for all student-athletes. The protocol states that
schools should have a doctor-led team to handle concussion
incidents, report them to the league, and develop an educational
program. It also says a student-athlete exhibiting symptoms
consistent with suffering a concussion should be removed from
practice and competition until cleared medically.

After collecting data from the medical staffs of all 10 Big 12
schools in the 2013-15 football seasons, the conference enacted a
policy limiting contact to two live opportunities per week,
including games, according to an email from John Bianco, an
athletics department spokesman for the University of Texas at
Austin.

Circelli said his firm has acquired roughly 150 clients -- about
100 former college players and the remainder former high school
players -- through ads that have aired on local TV and radio
stations. Circelli said about 250 former players have filled out a
survey that can be accessed on his law firm's website. The survey
is designed to determine the symptoms of former players and their
eligibility to join the class action.

Circelli said only former players who are manifesting symptoms are
included in the lawsuit.

"The NCAA promised this is what you get for your sweat and hard
work: You get an education and you get to come to one of these
great schools," Circelli said. "The sad thing is that these
football concussion injuries rob some of these athletes of that
very thing.

"You are going to get this education, but for certain athletes,
they're not able to finish school, or they are not able to keep a
job. That kind of trade-off is particularly sad."


NELNET INC: Faces "Metallo" TCPA Class Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------
Michelle Metallo, for herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Nelnet, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 6:17-cv-06038 (W.D. NY, January 17, 2017), seeks damages for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant used, controlled and/or
operated an "automatic telephone dialing system".

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Alexander J. Douglas, Esq.
   Gesund & Pailet, LLC
   2510 Chili Ave.
   Rochester, NY 14624
   Tel: (585) 703-9783
   Fax: (504) 265-9492
   Email: alex@gp-nola.com


NIGERIA: Retired Military Officers Sue Over Debarment Allowance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mustapha Suleiman, writing for Daily Trust, reports that retired
military officers on Jan. 17 dragged the Army, Navy and Air Force
to court over non-payment of debarment allowance instituted in
2012.

The retirees instituted a class action against the forces at the
National Industrial Court Abuja, claiming they were yet to access
the funds since 2012.

The debarment allowance is a lump sum to be paid to all retirees,
made up of 10 per cent of their total emolument per annum,
multiplied by the number of years served.

The essence of the allowance is to equip the retired officers for
other endeavours to foreclose them from taking on their wealth of
military training on the society.

Joined as co-defendants in the suit are the Chief of Defence
Staff; Director, Military Pension Board; Attorney-General; and
Accountant-General of the Federation.

The retirees, among other reliefs sought, want the Harmonised
Armed Forces Terms of Conditions of Service and Financial
Regulation of the Armed Forces effected as instituted by law.

They claimed that effecting these two programmes was ample to the
payment of debarment allowance to all retirees of the armed
forces, dead or alive; irrespective of rank.  However the
defendants and their counsels were conspicuously absent in court
but letters from the Chief of Defence Staff and Director, Military
Pension Board explaining their absence were admitted in court.


NOVOCURE LIMITED: Johnson & Weaver Probing Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP is investigating
potential violations of the federal securities laws by NovoCure
Limited (NVCR).

On July 28, 2016, NovoCure made known that its new Optune
prescriptions fell to 657 in 2Q from 755 in 1Q. Asaf Danziger,
Chief Executive Officer of NovoCure stated that "[w]hile barriers
to full adoption remain, I am optimistic we will overcome the
challenges inherent in bringing a completely new therapy into
widespread clinical use." On this news, NovoCure's stock fell
nearly 30% on July 28, 2016.

Specifically, Johnson & Weaver's investigation seeks to determine
whether certain statements regarding the Company's business
metrics and financial prospects were not as strong as represented
in the Company's offering documents filed in connection with its
October 2, 2015 initial public offering.

If you are a NovoCure shareholder and are interested in learning
more about the investigation or your legal rights and remedies,
please contact lead analyst Jim Baker -- jimb@johnsonandweaver.com
-- at 619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone
number.


O.C. COMMUNICATIONS: Soto Alleges Calif. Labor Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Desidero Soto and Steven Stricklen, Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. O.C.
Communications, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00251-KAW (N.D.
Cal., January 18, 2017), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay all hours worked and overtime, failure to provide
meal and rest period meal and rest period in violation of Fair
Labor Standard Act and California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Nicole N. Coon, Esq.
   Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
   SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY COTTRELL
      KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
   2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
   Emeryville, CA 94608
   Tel: (415) 421-7100
   Fax: (415) 421-7105
   Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
          ncoon@schneiderwallace.com


ONEMAIN HOLDINGS: Paddock Alleges Securities Laws Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Paddock, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Onemain Holdings, Inc., Jay
N. Levine, Scott T. Parker, Fortress Investment Group LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00007-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind., January 17,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for damages on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons other than defendants who
purchased the common stock of OneMain ("Class") between March 3,
2015 and November 7, 2016 (the "Class Period") for violation of
the Federal Securities Law.

The Complaint claims that the Defendants issue materially
misleading financial statements and/or omit material information.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael L. Schultz, Esq.
   Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP
   251 N. Illinois Street, Suite 1800
   Indianapolis, IN 46204-1904
   Tel: (317) 269-2500
   Fax: (317) 269-2514
   Email mschultz@parrlaw.com

       - and -

   Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
   Edward W. Miller, Esq.
   Lifshitz & Miller
   821 Franklin Avenue, Suite 209
   Garden City, NY 11530
   Tel: (516) 493-9780
   Fax: (516) 280-7376


PENSKE LOGISTICS: Settles Truckers' Wage-and-Hour Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem, Cara Salvatore and Bryan Koenig, writing for Law360,
report that a long-running California wage-and-hour class action
alleging Penske Logistics LLC failed to provide truck drivers with
meal breaks will be settled for $750,000, a deal that will cancel
a scheduled February trial and distribute $332,500 to drivers
after attorneys' fees and other costs are deducted, according to a
court filing on Jan. 23.

The plaintiffs asked U.S. District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo for
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, which seeks to
end nearly nine years of litigation.  The lawsuit alleged the
company didn't offer required breaks and then deducted pay for
rest periods that were never taken by delivery drivers and
Whirlpool appliances installers who worked long shifts in the
field. The case was slated to go to trial Feb. 6.

The request comes nearly six months after the drivers' case was
slashed when Judge Bencivengo decertified three out of five
subclasses that Penske took issue with, ruling in July 2016 that
there wasn't proof that Penske had a blanket policy of denying
workers their rest breaks.

"While plaintiffs believe in the merits of their case, they also
recognize the inherent risks and uncertainty of litigation and
understand the benefit of providing a significant settlement sum
now as opposed to risking decertification of their remaining
certified claims; and/or an unfavorable result on the merits
and/or on an appeal, a process that can take several more years to
litigate," they said in their motion.

"Plaintiffs' claims involve complex and disputed legal issues and
fact-specific arguments which the parties have litigated fiercely
since inception of the action," they added.  "Plaintiffs firmly
believe in the strength of their claims, but Penske also has
strong defenses to class liability and damage determinations, some
of which may have had a bearing on potential decertification
hearings."

The remaining drivers in the class action asked the judge on
Jan. 24 to sign off on a non-reversionary $750,000 settlement to
resolve their claims for meal periods under the California Labor
Code and Unfair Competition Law and derivative claims for wage
statement and waiting time penalties, according to the motion.

But that $750,000 will be trimmed after deducting $225,000, or 30
percent, in requested attorneys' fees, $135,000 in costs, $15,000
each in incentive awards for the three class representatives and
approximately $12,500 in settlement administration costs, the
motion says.

That would leave $332,500 to be distributed to the 344 class
members based proportionately on the number of weeks worked during
the class period -- coming out to an average payment of $965.11
per class member, the plaintiffs said in the motion.

Penske said in a statement to Law360 on Jan. 24 that the company
was pleased to have reached an agreement with the plaintiffs'
counsel to settle the dispute.

"We did not admit any wrongdoing and believe that Penske would
have prevailed on the merits of the claims, but we look forward to
the court approving the settlement and putting an end to this
protracted litigation," Penske said.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to a
request for comment on Jan. 24.

Judge Bencivengo said last July that many of the issues
surrounding whether employees actually took a timely first meal
break and whether Penske managers actually discouraged their
workers from taking breaks were not subject to classwide
resolution.  The judge said many of the alleged violations were on
an individualized basis and there was no evidence of a uniform
company policy barring workers from taking meal breaks afforded
them by law.

"That some supervisors at some locations on some shifts may not
have complied with the law regarding provision of meal breaks does
not constitute a uniform policy for all class members," the judge
said in the ruling.  "That defendants did not schedule the
employees' meal breaks into their delivery schedules does not
establish that defendants did not provide the opportunity to take
a timely meal break. Leaving the decision of when to break to the
employee in the field is not the same as prohibiting or
discouraging timely meal breaks."

The plaintiffs haven't demonstrated that Penske had uniform
policies and practices that denied employees a reasonable
opportunity to take an uninterrupted 30-minute duty-free meal
break at the end of five hours of work, or that Penske on a
classwide basis impeded or discouraged them from doing so, Judge
Bencivengo concluded.

However, the judge kept in place the certification for two
subclasses of workers who claimed they were denied a second meal
break as required by law, saying there was enough evidence to
support a uniform company policy not to provide that second break
at the end of the 10th hour of work.

Penske didn't offer any evidence showing that it obtained waivers
for second meal breaks.

"Plaintiffs contend there was no provision on the driver's log to
record a second meal period and the records do not reflect any
drivers working in excess of 10 hours claiming a second meal
break," the judge said.  "This evidence corroborates that
defendants had a uniform policy not to provide a second 30-minute
duty-free meal break, as required by California law, at least from
the start of the class period, January 2004, until the first
quarter of 2006."

That decertification order came a couple of months after Judge
Bencivengo denied the truck drivers' partial motion for summary
judgment on their claim that Penske did not have a meal break
policy that was compliant with California law and was liable for
untimely meal breaks for delivery drivers and Whirlpool appliances
installers who worked long shifts.

The drivers didn't prove that Penske had or uniformly enforced a
break policy that violated California law, so they were not
entitled to a quick summary judgment win on that claim, the judge
said.  There still was a question of fact as to whether Penske
violated the labor laws with its meal break practices, the judge
said then, so that was to be fleshed out further in litigation.
The case was initially headed toward a trial that the plaintiffs
were hoping to split into two parts, one for liability and one for
damages.

The wage-and-hour battle involving a 350-strong class of workers
led by named plaintiffs Ray Rios, Donny Dushaj and Mickey Lee
Dilts has been winding through the courts since 2008.

Penske and the trucking industry as a whole were dealt a
particularly damaging blow by the Ninth Circuit in 2014 when it
held that federal law, specifically the Federal Aviation
Administration Authorization Act of 1994, does not preempt
California's meal and rest break requirements for truck drivers
because the requirements don't have a significant enough effect on
prices or services offered by the motor carrier industry.  That
precedential appellate decision revived the drivers' claims after
they had been previously dismissed in 2011 by a California federal
judge on preemption grounds.

Penske petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court in early 2015 to review
the case, arguing that the Ninth Circuit's refusal to find that
federal preemption barred California's meal and rest break
mandates for truckers ignored high court precedent by rendering a
"rogue" ruling that was "out of whack" with other circuits.  But
the high court denied Penske's petition in May 2015, leaving the
Ninth Circuit's holding intact.

The plaintiffs are represented by James Jason Hill --
jhill@ckslaw.com -- and Michael Singer of Cohelan Khoury & Singer.

Penske Logistics LLC and Penske Truck Leasing Co. LP are
represented by Robert Browning, Adam Smedstad --
asmedstad@scopelitis.com -- James Hanson --
jhanson@scopelitis.com -- Christopher McNatt Jr. --
cmcnatt@scopelitis.com -- and R. Jay Taylor Jr. --
jtaylor@scopelitis.com -- of Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson &
Feary PC.

The case is Dilts et al. v. Penske Logistics LLC. et al., case
number 3:08-cv-00318, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.


PPI INC: Faces "Slack" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Paul Slack, Plaintiff v. PPI, Inc., a Florida Corporation d/b/a
Isle Casino Racing Pompano Park, Fictitiously a/k/a The Isle
Casino and Racing at Pompano Park, Fictitiously, Defendants, Case
No. 0:17-cv-60143-WJZ (S.D. Fla., January 20, 2017), seeks wages
compensation for all hours pursuant to Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants had failed to comply
with the tip-credit requirements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Christopher J. Whitelock, Esq.
   Whitelock & Associates, P.A.
   300 Southeast Thirteenth Street
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
   Tel: (954) 463-2001
   Fax: (954) 463-0410


PRESIDIO BRANDS: Shank Sues over All-Natural Label in Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Garret Shank, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Presidio Brands, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
4:17-cv-00232 (N.D. Cal., January 17, 2017), is brought against
the Defendant for violation of Unfair Competition Law.

The Plaintiff's claim that Defendant's representation that its EMJ
Products contain only natural and naturally derived ingredients
are false, misleading and deceptive because the EMJ Products
contain multiple ingredients that are synthetic and artificial.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Lee A. Cirsch, Esq.
   Robert K. Friedl, Esq.
   Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
   Capstone Law APC
   1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
   Los Angeles, CA 90067
   Tel: (310) 556-4811
   Fax: (310) 943-0396
   Email: Lee.Cirsch@capstonelawyers.com
          Robert.Friedl@capstonelawyers.com
          Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com


QUALCOMM INC: Stromberg Sues Over Modem Chipset Prices
------------------------------------------------------
Karen Stromberg and Samuel Roecker, Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Qualcomm
Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-
00304 (N.D. Cal., January 20, 2017), seeks damages for Violations
of Federal and State Antitrust Laws, Unfair Competition Laws and
Unjust Enrichment.

The Plaintiff claims that Defendant has a monopoly on modem
chipset technology that resulted in inflated retail prices for
cell phones and Tablets.

Defendant Qualcomm develops, designs, licenses and markets
worldwide its digital communications products and services,
primarily through its two main business segments: Qualcomm CDMA
Technologies (QCT) and Qualcomm Technology Licensing (QTL).

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Jeffrey Lewis, Esq.
   Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
   300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
   Oakland, CA 94612
   Tel: (510) 463-3900
   Fax: (510) 463-3901
   Email: jlewis@kellerrohrback.com

                         *     *     *

Melissa Daniels, writing for Law360, reports that Qualcomm Inc.
was hit with a proposed class action in California federal court
on Jan. 23 alleging the company and its top officials misled
investors and inflated share prices in the wake of Federal Trade
Commission and Apple lawsuits alleging the company engaged in
anti-competitive behavior with cellphone makers over its baseband
processors.

The FTC said Qualcomm used its dominance over the sale of
semiconductor chips used in cellular handsets -- so-called
baseband processors -- to wrangle higher royalties and anti-
competitive licensing terms from cellphone makers.


RENT-A-CENTER: Johnson & Weaver Investigates Potential Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP, is
investigating potential claims against Rent-A-Center, Inc.,
KalVista Pharmaceuticals, Inc., NovoCure Limited, and Inotek
Pharmaceuticals Corp., as detailed below:

Rent-A-Center, Inc.

Johnson & Weaver, LLP is investigating potential violations of
federal and state laws by Rent-A-Center, Inc. (RCII). A class
action lawsuit against the Company has been filed on behalf of
shareholders who purchased Rent-A-Center stock between July 27,
2015, through October 10, 2016, (the "Class Period").
According to the complaint, Defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (1) Rent-A-Center could
not properly implement its new point of sale system ("POS"); (2)
the POS was performing extremely poorly, including several
complete outages; (3) as a result, Rent-A-Center's Acceptance Now
credit system could not be implemented properly; (4) Rent-A-Center
could not meet revenue and profitability guidance provided to
investors; (5) as such, Rent-A-Center would need to revise its
prior guidance; and (6) as a result, Defendants' statements about
Rent-A-Center's business, operations and prospects, were false and
misleading and lacked a reasonable basis.
If you have held Rent-A-Center shares continuously prior to July
27, 2015, you may have standing to hold Rent-A-Center harmless
from the damage the officers and directors caused by making them
personally responsible. You may also be able to assist in
reforming the Company's corporate governance to prevent future
wrongdoing.

If you are a Rent-A-Center shareholder and are interested in
learning more about the investigation or your legal rights and
remedies, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker
--jimb@johnsonandweaver.com  -- at 619-814-4471. If you email,
please include your phone number.


REWALK ROBOTICS: Lifshitz & Miller Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lifshitz & Miller, a securities class action law firm focused on
representing shareholders nationwide, on Jan. 24 disclosed that on
January 24, 2017, Lifshitz & Miller filed a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of
ReWalk Robotics Ltd. (RWLK) ("ReWalk" or the "Company") in
connection with ReWalk's initial public offering conducted on or
about September 12, 2014 (the "IPO").  The lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California and alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from
Lifshitz & Miller.  If you are a ReWalk investor, and would like
additional information about our investigation, please complete
the Information Request Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by
telephone at (516)493-9780 or e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com.

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

The Complaint alleges that defendants caused ReWalk to issue its
Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with the IPO
that contained materially misleading statements and/or omitted
material information in violation of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933.  The Complaint alleges that the
Registration Statement and Prospectus failed to disclose that
ReWalk was unprepared and/or unable to comply with applicable
"special controls" requirements or to provide the FDA with a
postmarket surveillance study as required by the FDA for the
Company to maintain ongoing sales of its products.  The Complaint
also names as defendants certain of the Company's officers and
directors, the underwriters of the IPO and certain venture capital
firms with significant holdings in the Company for violations of
Sections 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

Investors have 60 days from January 24, 2017, to file a motion,
with the court, for appointment as a lead plaintiff in this
lawsuit.

Lifshitz & Miller has extensive experience representing investors
in the prosecution of securities class actions and shareholder
derivative litigation in state and federal courts across the
country.


RITE OF PASSAGE: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Jo Thomas, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated v. Rite of Passage, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
4:17-cv-00251-KAW (N.D. Cal., January 18, 2017), seeks payment of
overtime wage.

The Defendant Rite of Passage has intentionally failed to properly
classify and pay Group Leaders any overtime wages in direct
violation of the FLSA, the Complaint says.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Joshua W. Carden, Esq.
   JOSHUA CARDEN LAW FIRM, P.C.
   16427 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 410
   Scottsdale, AZ 85254
   Tel: (480) 454-1100
   Fax: (480) 454-1101
   Email: Joshua@cardenlawfirm.com


SA FAMILY HELP: "Elizondo" Suit To Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Lupe Elizondo, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SA Family Help and Hope LLC, and
Shawn Sullivan, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00113, (W.D. Tex.,
January 9, 2017), seeks overtime compensation for all unpaid hours
worked in excess of forty hours in any workweek, unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees, expert fees, costs
and expenses of this action, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

SA Family Help is a home care agency with Sullivan as founder and
owner. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a caregiver, providing
caretaking services for Defendants' elderly and infirm clients.
Elizondo regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week but was not
paid at an overtime rate for any of the hours.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAMSUNG: Warranty Book Won't Avert Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Menahem Zen, writing for Lawyer Herald, reports that the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that the
warranty booklet in the box of Samsung smartphone will not be used
to stop the class action lawsuit.  The court decided that two
class action lawsuits from the Samsung customer to proceed.

The Court of Appeals has rejected Samsung request to settle
lawsuits in the private arbitration.  Instead, the court decided
that the two lawsuits may proceed as reported by San Fransisco
Examiner.

The lawsuits were filed separately by two customer of the Korean
electronic giant Daniel Norcia from San Fransisco and Hoai Dang
from San Jose.  Mr. Norcia sued Samsung for false advertising in
the Galaxy S4 which he bought.  The false advertising covered
speed, performance, and memory capacity of the Galaxy S4.

Such false advertising is obtained by altering the benchmark test.
Samsung is accused to rig the testing which resulting the
benchmark result to be higher that it actually was.  While Dang
filed the lawsuits against the company over the value of its
Galaxy S3 which dramatically dropped after Samsung was sued by
Apple for copyright infringement.

Samsung argued that its customers are bound by forced arbitration
clause included in the warranty booklet upon purchasing the
company's products according to report from Engadget.  However the
panel of three judges disagreed with the company.

Timothy J. Seppala at Engadget reports the appeals board basically
pointed and laughed at the Korean tech juggernaut saying that
customers don't need to opt-in to a warranty because they aren't
the ones selling the device.  For every possible defense Samsung
had, the court hit back with a counter-argument.

The judges led by Chief Judge Sydney Thomas and Circuit Judge
Carlos Bea and Sandra Ikuta decided unanimously to allow class
action lawsuit against Samsung to proceed.  The court ruled said
that written warranty argument is contractual, but it does not
bind obligations to buyers.

"Language in a written warranty agreement is 'contractual' in the
sense that it creates binding, legal obligations on the seller,
but a warranty does not impose binding obligations on the buyer,"
the court ruling stated.

Prior to the ruling, the court heard the two cases in back-to-back
oral arguments in October last year.


SAMSUNG: Irregularly-Sized Batteries Cause of Note 7 Overheating
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lydia Lam, writing for The Straits Times, reports that Samsung
Electronics on Jan. 23 said irregularly-sized batteries in its
premium Galaxy Note7 phones caused the devices to catch fire.

This came more than three months after the leading smartphone
maker lost about US$5.3 billion (S$7.53 billion) from the recall
of the phones.

Reports of the phones exploding in countries including South
Korea, China and the United States had marred the electronics
giant's image as it struggled to retain customers.

Here is a look at what happened.

AUG 2, 2016

The Note7 is unveiled in the United States to rave reviews, with a
host of features including iris-scanning technology, a 64-bit
octa-core (2.3GHz quad-core and 1.6GHz quad-core) processor and
4GB of system memory.

AUG 20, 2016

Samsung launches the S$1,168 Note7 in Singapore.

SEPT 1, 2016

Samsung said shipments of Note7 smartphones are being delayed as
the firm conducts additional quality control tests for the device.

South Korean media reports had quoted users saying that the
batteries exploded.

SEPT 2, 2016

Samsung announces a global recall of the Note7 and said it will
replace the 2.5 million units of the 5.7-inch handsets sold so
far.

All three Singapore telcos -- M1, Singtel and StarHub -- suspended
sales of the Note7 following the announcement.

SEPT 9, 2016

Singapore Airlines banned the use of Note7 phones during flights,
after the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said
a day earlier that airline passengers should not turn on or charge
their Note7 smartphones during flights or stow them in checked
baggage, due to concerns over the phone's fire-prone batteries.

SEPT 12, 2016

Samsung shares plunged after it urged global customers to stop
using its Note7 smartphone following a spate of exploding
batteries.

Shares in the firm -- South Korea's largest by value -- dived 7.3
per cent on the Seoul stock market by early afternoon to 1.46
million won (S$1,800).

SEPT 16, 2016

A man from Florida sued Samsung, saying his Note7 exploded in his
front pants pocket, giving him second-degree burns.

By then, US safety regulators said Samsung had received 92 reports
of batteries overheating in the US, including 26 reports of burns
and 55 reports of property damage.

SEPT 29, 2016

Samsung said it would resume sales of new Galaxy Note7 smartphones
in South Korea.

OCT 11, 2016

Samsung reportedly stops production of its Note7 smartphones.

OCT 15, 2016

Japan's Transport Ministry announced that it was barring all Note7
smartphones from airplanes.

By then, Korean Air had banned the phones on flights to and from
the US, Canada and Hong Kong.

Australian and New Zealand airlines had also banned the device on
all planes, while almost all mainland Chinese airlines had
followed suit, along with a handful of carriers from other
countries including Malaysia and the Philippines.

OCT 20, 2016

Owners of the discontinued Note7 smartphones in South Korea and
the United States on Oct 20 were reportedly preparing to file a
class-action suit against Samsung, according to the Seoul-based
Harvest Law Office which represented the plaintiffs.

"Galaxy Note7 users had to visit the phone store four times -
purchasing the device, having the battery checked, replacing old
models with new models and again replacing the new model with a
different smartphone," said the complaint.

OCT 24, 2016

Samsung announced that it was offering an upgrade programme to
Galaxy Note7 customers in South Korea.

Customers could trade their Note7 devices for a Galaxy S7, and
later trade up for a Galaxy S8 or Note 8 at half the price of a
Galaxy S7 device.

JAN 23, 2017

Samsung said battery defects were the cause of fires in the
phones, not the device's software or hardware.

The initial batch of batteries were made by an affiliate, Samsung
SDI Co, Samsung said, but replacements after a recall were also
faulty.

Samsung acknowledged that it had provided the specifications for
the batteries, saying it was "taking responsibility for our
failure to ultimately identify and verify the issues arising out
of battery design and manufacturing" and had "taken several
corrective actions to ensure this never happens again".


SCOTT MELLINGER: Faces Suit for Illegally Detaining Arrestees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Hirsch at The Heral Bulletin reports Madison County Sheriff
Scott Mellinger has been named the defendant in a federal lawsuit
alleging he's detained arrestees without warrants or probable
cause affidavits for longer than 48-hours in violation of the U.S.
Constitution.

An attorney for Summitville resident Mark A. Long filed the
complaint in United States District Court, Southern District of
Indiana, Indianapolis Division on Jan. 13; Mellinger was notified
of the filing.

According to the compliant filed by Fort Wayne attorney
Christopher C. Myers, Esq. -- info@employmentlawindiana.net --
with

Christopher C. Myers &Associates, Long was arrested without a
warrant on July 2, 2016, and detained at the Madison County Jail
through July 5, which was the Fourth of July holiday weekend.

Myers argued that because Long was not give a judicial
determination of probable cause within the required time, or
released after 48-hours, Long and other members of the class were
"over-detained" in violation of "their rights to be free from
unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the United
States Constitution."

Long was arrested by Summitville police for alleged false
informing and criminal recklessness and booked into the jail at
2:09 a.m. July 3. He was released after posting $5,000 bond at
7:30 p.m. July 5, according to jail records.

The lawsuit contends Long and other unnamed members of the class
suffered "damages, harm and injuries, including, but not limited
to, loss of liberty, loss of freedom, inconvenience, mental
anguish, emotional distress, and other damages and injuries,
including loss of employment/income, psychological injuries, and
other injuries."

In an interview last week, Mellinger acknowledged he is
responsible for establishing jail procedures and training
correctional officers. He also said detaining pretrial detainees
for longer than 48-hours has been a problem in the past.

The Madison County judiciary established a procedure to address
that problem about 10 years ago, however.

"The practice in this county precludes our staff from having the
responsibility to schedule or arrange initial court hearings
because the courts take care of that," Mellinger said.

On weekends and holidays, magistrate judges go to the jail and
review arrests to make sure the law is followed, he added.

Myers is seeking compensatory damages and attorney fees. No
hearing dates have been set in the case.


SEATTLE, WA: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Homeless Camp Sweeps
----------------------------------------------------------
Kitsap Sun reports two homeless people in Seattle filed a federal
lawsuit on January 20 alleging the city and the state's cleanups
of unauthorized homeless camps are unlawful.

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, says the homeless
camp sweeps are "unnecessarily cruel" and violate the rights of
people living in them, The Seattle Times reported.

Brandie Osborne and Lisa Hooper are represented by the American
Civil Liberties Union of Washington.

They claim homeless residents have their property seized during
the sweeps without adequate and effective notice and their
belongings get destroyed.

"Imagine if government agents came to your home and carted away
everything you own, without any warning and without telling you
how to get back whatever they didn't throw out," Emily Chiang, the
ACLU of Washington's legal director, said in a statement. "For
people living outdoors in Seattle, this horrifying scenario is too
often a reality -- and has been so for years."

Hooper has lost family photos, legal paperwork, a mattress,
clothing and shoes in the camp sweeps, according to the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs are seeking a court order to stop the cleanups that
take place along Seattle streets and alongside state roads and
highways until officials implement different procedures for
conducting them.

Seattle Mayor Ed Murray has said city intervention at the camp
sites is sometimes necessary to address matters regarding trash
and public safety.

A spokeswoman for City Attorney Pete Holmes declined to comment
and said Holmes has yet to review the complaint.

Washington State Department of Transportation spokesman Travis
Phelps declined to comment on the lawsuit, but said safety is the
agency's top priority.

"We understand that homelessness is a major issue affecting many
across the state," Phelps said. "However, those camping on WSDOT
property are putting both themselves and others at risk. In
addition, many of these areas are typically inaccessible to
service providers."

If a judge grants the lawsuit class-action status, an estimated
2,000 homeless people who keep belongings on public property in
Seattle could potentially be added as plaintiffs, said Breanne
Schuster, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Washington.

The lawsuit comes months after a federal judge in Tacoma ruled
that Clark County violated the constitutional rights of homeless
people by throwing out their belongings.

The case is captioned as Lisa Hooper, The Episcopal Diocese of
Olympia, Real Change, and Brandie Osborne, the Plaintiffs, v. City
of Seattle, Washington, Washington State Department of
Transportation, and Roger Millar, Secretary of Transportation for
WSDOT, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00077 (W.D. Wash., Jan.
19, 2017).

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Breanne Mary Schuster, Esq.
          Emily Chiang, Esq.
          Nancy Lynn Talner, Esq.
          ACLU OF WASHINGTON
          901 5th Avenue, Suite 630
          Seattle, WA 98164
          Telephone: (206) 624 2184
          E-mail: bschuster@aclu-wa.org
                  echiang@aclu-wa.org

               - and -

          Todd T Williams
          CORR CRONIN MICHELSON
          BAUMGARDNER FOGG & MOORE LLP
          1001 4th Ave., Ste 3900
          Seattle, WA 98154-1051
          Telephone: (206) 625 8600
          E-mail: twilliams@corrcronin.com


SEATTLE GENETICS: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Weaver, LLP disclosed that a class action complaint was
filed on behalf of purchasers of Seattle Genetics, Inc., (NASDAQ:
SGEN) securities during the period between October 27, 2016, and
December 23, 2016, inclusive. Seattle Genetics, a biotechnology
company, develops and commercializes targeted therapies for the
treatment of cancer worldwide.

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

On December 27, 2016, Seattle Genetics issued a press release
announcing that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had placed a
clinical hold or partial clinical hold on several early stage
trials of the Company's experimental cancer drug, vadastuximab
talirine, to evaluate the potential risk of hepatotoxicity. On
this news, Seattle Genetics' share price fell $9.50, or 15% on
December 27, 2016.

If you purchased Seattle Genetics securities during the Class
Period, you have until March 13, 2017, to ask the Court to appoint
you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. Any member of the putative
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of their choice or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member.

If you have suffered a loss, or if you have any questions
concerning this notice, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker --
jimb@johnsonandweaver.com -- at 619-814-4471. If you email, please
include your phone number.

                    About Johnson & Weaver

Johnson & Weaver, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia.
The firm represents individual and institutional investors in
shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For
more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonandweaver.com.Attorney advertising. Past
results do not guarantee future outcomes.


SPIN MASTER: Faces "Hejduk" Suit Over Defective Products
--------------------------------------------------------
Jodie Hejduk, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Spin Master Corp. and Spin Master Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-at-00052 (E.D. Cal., January 19, 2017),
is brought against the Defendants for defective toy hatchimals.

The Complaint says that the Defendants have failed to take proper
action to address its malfunctioning product.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mark Geragos, Esq.
   Ben J. Meiselas, Esq.
   Eric Y. Hahn, Esq.
   Geragos & Geragos
   644 South Figueroa Street
   Los Angeles, CA 90017
   Tel: (213) 625-3900
   Fax: (213) 232-3255
   Email: mark@geragos.com
          meiselas@geragos.com
          eric@geragos.com

         - and -

   Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
   Andrea Clisura, Esq.
   Courtney E. MacCarone,Esq.
   Justin G. Sherman, Esq.
   Levi & Korsinsky LLP
   30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
   New York, NY 10004
   Tel: (212) 363-7500
   Fax: (212) 363-7171
   Email: lfeldman@zlk.com
          aclisura@zkl.com
          jsherman@zkl.com


SPOKEO INC: Sued in Illinois Over Displays Paid Advertisements
--------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE VINCI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SPOKEO, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
the Defendant, Case No. 2017-CH-00845 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Jan. 19,
2017), seeks relief for Spokeo's violation of the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), including (1) an injunction
requiring Spokeo to cease using Illinois residents' names in
advertisements, (2) the greater of an award of actual damages,
including profits derived from an unauthorized use of individuals'
names, or statutory damages to Plaintiff and the Class members,
(3) award of putative damages, and (4) award of costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees.

According to the complaint, to sell more reports, Spokeo displays
paid advertisements to every consumer that searches a person's
name on Google or Bing. These advertisements all feature the same
alluring headline "We Found [the person's name]" -- and are
designed to give the appearance that the reports contain valuable
information about the person including, his or her address, phone
number and pictures. In reality, however, these advertisements are
auto-generated using a tactic called Dynamic Keyword Insertion,
which Spokeo uses to automatically trigger the display of the "We
Found [ ]" ads and to replace the "[ ]" with the first and last
name that was typed into the search bar. Thus, although Spokeo
creates the impression that it "Found" somebody, all it did was
plug the name of the person searched on Google or Bing into its
otherwise generic advertisement. Most importantly, Spokeo never
obtained written consent from Plaintiff and Class members to use
their names for any reason, let alone for commercial purposes.
Defendant never notified Plaintiff and Class members that their
names would appear in its paid search engine advertisements.
Moreover, Plaintiff and the Class members have no relationship
with Spokeo.

Spokeo is an online service that sells profile reports about
people to anybody willing to pay for them. These reports are based
upon information compiled from databases and public repositories,
as well as other data points gathered through Spokeo's proprietary
deep web technology.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
          Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 N. LaSalle St. 13th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589 6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589 6378
          E-mail: brichman@edelson.com
                  ascharg@edelson.com


STANLEY BLACK & DECKER: Sobrinho Seeks Payment of Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Sobrinho, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. and
CRC-Evans Pipeline International, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-
cv-00196 (S.D. Tex., January 20, 2017), seeks overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
   John Neuman, Esq.
   Sosa-Morris Neuman Attorneys at Law
   5612 Chaucer Drive
   Houston, TX 77005
   Tel: (281) 885-884
        (281) 885-8630
   Fax: (281) 885-8813
   Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com
          JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com


STARKIST: Settlement Vouchers Delayed Due to Appeals
----------------------------------------------------
David P. Willis at App.com reports it's unlikely that Manchester
resident John Lagrosa will get his free StarKist tuna anytime
soon.

In mid-2015, Lagrosa sent in a claim as part of a big settlement
in a class-action lawsuit involving StarKist, which gave consumers
who purchased cans of StarKist from early 2009 through late 2014
the option to get $50 vouchers for free tuna or $25 cash. He opted
for the tuna. "I buy StarKist all the time," he said.

A customer in California sued StarKist in 2013 after he purchased
a 5-ounce can of StarKist chunk light tuna in water and discovered
the can was underfilled and underweight, according to court
papers. A test found that the cans of tuna only contained an
average of 2.35 ounces of tuna, 17.3 percent below the federal-
mandated minimum of 2.84 ounces for the can. The lawsuit accused
the company of "cheating customers."

Both sides settled to avoid the cost of a trial. StarKist denied
it did anything wrong.

Lagrosa was among those who have called Press on Your Side
recently about the settlement. There are many people out there
waiting for their tuna.

Initially, the case was delayed after a federal judge denied the
settlement's final approval over legal issues involving the notice
to consumers, or class members, He approved it in September,
closing the case. But later in the fall, the case was appealed to
the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by several parties,
including lawyers for the consumer who initiated the lawsuit.

Class-action lawsuits can take some time to resolve themselves.
And it's been over a year since people put in their claims. Get
ready to wait even longer.

Generally, "that's not an extraordinarily long period of time,
particularly if you have an appeal," said Middletown lawyer
Michael Canning, co-chairman of the litigation practice area at
Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, which is not involved in the case.
"The appeal is going to extend the time period for at least a year
or more."

So, StarKist fans, you are going to have to wait.

"There is nothing I can do but wait," Lagrosa said. "I hope I see
something from it."


STEEL & TUBE: Law Firm Attempts to Increase Homeowner Nervousness
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Truebridge, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that Steel &
Tube has taken a swipe at Adina Thorn Lawyers, accusing it of
attempting to "increase homeowner nervousness".

But the Auckland law firm has hit back saying its possible court
action is justified.

Adina Thorn's mail drop of about 2000 letters in Christchurch
invited homeowners to express interest in the firm's potential
class action against three steel manufacturers.

The letters warn thousands of Canterbury homeowners their
properties may have been built with non-compliant steel mesh.

The Commerce Commission told three companies, including Steel &
Tube, that it would prosecute them over allegedly sub-standard
mesh, but the law firm said a guilty verdict was unlikely to mean
financial compensation for homeowners.

A Steel & Tube spokeswoman said the company expected Adina Thorn's
"promotional activities to continue as it attempts to increase
homeowner nervousness, and gather sufficient registrations to
satisfy the litigation funder's return on investment".

"The potential action is based on unsubstantiated claims of the
impact on insurance, the safety of homes, and potential resale
values," she said.

Harbour Litigation Funding -- one of the biggest litigation
funders in the world -- had agreed to pay for a class action
against suppliers of non-compliant steel.

The Steel & Tube spokeswoman said the Commerce Commission's
prosecution did not relate to the company's mesh not meeting
standards.

Instead, it related to the mistaken use of a testing laboratories
logo on test certificates and the application of its testing
methodologies.

"We again affirm that we believe our seismic mesh is and has been
produced consistently with the performance requirements in the
standard and ensures building safety," she said.

Thorn defended her firm's potential court action, saying it was
"not on the back of nothing".

"The Commerce Commission had carried out a whole lot of testing
and we've had access to that testing . . . quite a bit of that
testing did not pass."

Her firm also had its own expert evidence.

"Obviously we wouldn't and funders wouldn't be looking at even
spending money . . . unless they thought there was a good case Ms.
here," Thorn said.


SPIN MASTER: Faces "Hejduk" Suit Over Defective Products
--------------------------------------------------------
Jodie Hejduk, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Spin Master Corp. and Spin Master Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-at-00052 (E.D. Cal., January 19, 2017),
is brought against the Defendants for defective toy hatchimals.

The Complaint says that the Defendants have failed to take proper
action to address its malfunctioning product.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mark Geragos, Esq.
   Ben J. Meiselas, Esq.
   Eric Y. Hahn, Esq.
   Geragos & Geragos
   644 South Figueroa Street
   Los Angeles, CA 90017
   Tel: (213) 625-3900
   Fax: (213) 232-3255
   Email: mark@geragos.com
          meiselas@geragos.com
          eric@geragos.com

         - and -

   Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
   Andrea Clisura, Esq.
   Courtney E. MacCarone,Esq.
   Justin G. Sherman, Esq.
   Levi & Korsinsky LLP
   30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
   New York, NY 10004
   Tel: (212) 363-7500
   Fax: (212) 363-7171
   Email: lfeldman@zlk.com
          aclisura@zkl.com
          jsherman@zkl.com


TASK FORCE: Faces "Higar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------
Nathaniel Higar and Shaelyn Bobbitt, Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Task Force of
Texas, L.L.C. and Albert Anderson, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00060 (E.D. Tex., January 19, 2017), seeks overtime compensation
for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
   J. Forester, Esq.
   Travis Gasper, Esq.
   Lee & Braziel. L.L.P.
   1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
   Dallas, TX 75202
   Tel: (214) 749-1400
   Fax: (214) 749-1010
   Email: www.overtimelawyer.com


THOMAS ARNOLD: "Ramirez" Claims FLSA, Ariz. Wage Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Ramirez, Laurin Godson, and Victoria Lisak, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Thomas Arnold Inc., an Arizona Corporation, Thomas Brodie Inc., an
Arizona Corporation, D & D Pasty Co., LLC, and Arizona Limited
Liability, Pasty Smashers, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability
Company, Pastyhuggers, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company,
Dean L. Thomas and Jane Doe Thomas, a married couple, Michael A.
Pappas and Jane Doe Pappas, a married couple, and James P. Downey
and Jane Doe Downey, a married couple, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-
cv-00150-SMM (D. Ariz., January 18, 2017), alleges an unlawful
failure by Defendant to pay minimum wage in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Arizona Wage Act, Arizona Revised
Statutes.

Defendant Thomas Brodie Inc. owned and operated Cornish Pasty Co.,
a restaurant with multiple locations in Arizona.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
     Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
     THE BENDAU LAW FIRM PLLC
     P.O. Box 97066
     Phoenix, AZ 85018
     Phone: (480) 382-5176
     Fax: (602) 956-1409
     Email: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com
            chris@bendaulaw.com


TIME WARNER: Faces "Collura" Suit Over Proposed AT&T's Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard G. Collura, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. Time Warner, Inc., Jeffrey L. Bewkes, James
L. Barksdale, William P. Barr, Robert C. Clark, Mathias Dopfner,
Jessica P. Einhorn, Carlos M. Gutierrez, Fred Hassan, Paul D.
Wachter and Deborah C. Wright, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00399
(S.D.N.Y., January 19, 2017) is brought on behalf of all public
stockholders of Time Warner, Inc., to enjoin the proposed
transaction in which AT&T will acquire each outstanding share of
Time Warner common stock through a flawed process and inadequate
consideration.

The Defendants' failure to provide Time Warner's stockholders with
the material information is a violation of Securities Law.

Defendant Time Warner, Inc. is an American multinational media and
entertainment conglomerate headquartered in New York City.

AT&T Inc. is an American multinational telecommunications
conglomerate, headquartered at Whitacre Tower in downtown Dallas,
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael B. Ershowsky, Esq.
   Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
   30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
   New York, NY 10004
   Tel: (212) 363-7500
   Fax: (212) 363-7171
   Email: mershowsky@zlk.com

        - and -

   Donald J. Enright, Esq.
   Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
   Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
   1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
   Washington, DC 20007
   Tel: (202) 524-4290
   Fax: (202) 337-1567
   Email: denright@zlk.com
          etripodi@zlk.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Has Prelim. Settlement in Defective Frames Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Office of the Attorney General on Jan. 23 disclosed that a
preliminary class action settlement agreement has been entered
into by Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., concerning 2005-2010 Toyota
Tacoma, 2007-2008 Tundra, and 2005-2008 Sequoia vehicles.

Attorney General Edward Manibusan said his office "receives
information regularly on class action lawsuits filed in U.S.
jurisdictions.  The Toyota case caught my attention because we
have a large number of Toyota vehicles in the Commonwealth. I
wanted to make sure that Toyota vehicle owners are aware of the
agreement."

According to Consumer Counsel Michael J. Cyganek, "the proposed
settlement provides for a free Frame Inspection and Replacement
Program to determine whether a Subject Vehicle's frame should be
replaced.  If the frame needs to be replaced to meet the Rust
Perforation Standard, replacement will be at no cost." He added,
"The settlement also reimburses Class Members who previously paid
for a frame replacement due to rust perforation that satisfies the
Rust Perforation Standard and that were incurred prior to January
3, 2017."

Specifically, this class action settlement agreement relates to
the following Subject Vehicles distributed for sale or lease in
the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and all
other United States territories and/or possessions:

  -- Tacoma, model years 2005-2010
  -- Tundra, 2007-2008
  -- Sequoia, 2005-2008

Cyganek explains "those affected by the settlement are persons,
entities or organizations who at the time as of or before Dec. 2,
2016, owned, purchased or leased the Subject Vehicles distributed
for sale" in those jurisdictions.

Cyganek also noted the following deadlines:

   -- March 27, 2017: Deadline to Object to the Settlement

   -- March 27, 2017: Deadline to Exclude Yourself from the
Settlement

   -- March 27, 2017: Deadline to Ask the Court for Permission to
Speak at the Fairness Hearing

   -- April 27, 2017: Fairness Hearing

   -- June 26, 2017: File a Claim to Seek Reimbursement Deadline

For more information or to file a claim, visit the class action
settlement agreement website
(http://www.toyotaframesettlement.com/home/faqs/#q3)which
summarizes this action and also provides the option to submit a
claim for relief.  Any questions may be directed to the Settlement
Notice Administrator by phone at 1-800-481-7948.

Attorney General Edward Manibusan states, "My office will continue
its review of consumer protection litigation and inform consumers
here in the Commonwealth of matters that may affect their rights
and interests."


TRADEWINDS BEVERAGE: Sues Over Iced Tea Product False Ad
--------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Rhinesmith, an individual on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated and the general public, Plaintiff v.
Tradewinds Beverage Company; Sweet Leaf Tea Company; Nestle Waters
North America, Inc. and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00408 (C.D. Cal., January 18, 2017), alleges
violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the
California False Advertising Law, the California Unfair
Competition Law, breach of express warranty, breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability and for fraud and negligent
misrepresentation in Defendants' sale of Tradewinds Iced Tea
products.

Defendants manufacture and produce a variety of sweetened and
unsweetened iced teas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
     NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
     2901 West Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 350
     Newport Beach, CA 92663
     Phone: (949) 263-5992
     Fax: (949) 209-1948
     E-mail: Email: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com

        - and -

     Ross Cornell, Esq.
     111 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 400
     Long Beach, CA 90802
     Phone: (562) 612-1708
     Fax: (562) 394-9556
     Email: ross.law@me.com


SUNDAY RILEY: Faces Class Action Over Bionic Anti-Aging Cream
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Wischhover, writing for Racked, reports that Skincare
diehards swear by Sunday Riley.  Under her eponymous brand, the
Houston-based entrepreneur offers one of the best-selling products
at Sephora, Good Genes, a lactic acid-based exfoliator that
garners rave reviews.  And every time she launches a new product,
there's internet buzz.

But one of Sunday Riley's older products, Bionic, is the subject
of a recent class action lawsuit.  Two women filed the suit in
early December after purchasing the product, which sold for $125
for 1.7 ounces, according to Top Class Actions.  Bionic does not
appear to be currently available at any of the brand's retailers.

"Like a modern-day snake oil salesman, Sunday Riley . . . preys on
consumers' fundamental fear of aging by marketing the [cream] as
if it were an FDA-approved drug that could change the physical
structure and function of skin itself," the plaintiffs,
Helena Armstrong and Lynn Moore, allege in the suit.

The suit goes on to provide examples of claims taken from the
brand's product descriptions and label, which stated benefits like
". . . loaded with active ingredients that activate your body's
ability to extend the lifespan of your skin" and "repair and
restore collagen."

The brand's website has been shut down for several months and
Bionic removed from stores, prompting fans in a thread in
Sephora's community forum to wonder if Bionic had been
discontinued and whether the brand might be going out of business
(it's been quiet on some social media channels as well).  Letters
had been going back and forth between the two parties at least
since June 2016, according to the filing.  Sunday Riley declined
to comment at this time.

It's unclear why the plaintiffs chose Sunday Riley's brand to
target with this suit, since any number of higher-end (and higher-
profile) skincare brands make similar claims.  It's not unusual to
find vague claims of skin regenerative powers and allusions to
"studies" by many brands.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Samfiru Tumarkin Files Class Action in Ontario
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lewis, writing for Toronto Star, reports that Uber drivers
are employees not independent contractors and are owed standard
employee compensation including a minimum wage and vacation pay,
says a proposed class-action lawsuit launched on behalf of an Uber
delivery driver in Toronto.

Filed with the Ontario Superior Court by Toronto employment law
firm Samfiru Tumarkin LLP on January 19, the action against Uber
Technologies Inc. also demands $200 million in punitive damages.
It names occasional Uber driver David Heller as representative
plaintiff for the class to be drawn from the approximately 20,000
Uber drivers in the province.

The suit seeks class-action certification and a court ruling that
members of the class are employees of Uber and are entitled to the
same benefits and protections enjoyed by other Ontario employees.

The lawsuit's claims haven't been tested in court.

Uber spokeswoman Susie Heath said the company is proud to offer
drivers "the flexibility and control that comes with being their
own boss.  Thousands of Ontarians have already partnered with Uber
in large part because of the independence and flexibility our
service provides," she said in an email.

The proposed class-action lawsuit argues that drivers who have
worked for Uber in Ontario since 2012 have been misclassified and
should be recognized as employees under the Employment Standards
Act.

The lawsuit seeks a declaration that Uber violated the act through
misclassification and by not advising drivers of their entitlement
to wages at least equal to Ontario's minimum, overtime after 44
hours and vacation pay at 4 per cent of pay.

The claim argues that the duties performed by class members create
an employment relationship with Uber since a hallmark of a typical
contractor is being able to freely negotiate the terms of
engagement.  The claim says the service, for example, trains
workers, sets pay rates, methods and work volume.

Lior Samfiru, head of the labour and employment law practice group
at Samfiru Tumarkin, said U.S. class actions over Uber workers'
employment classification are unresolved except for one where a
settlement was reached but the court has ordered the parties to
renegotiate because it said the settlement was too low.

Mr. Samfiru said there have been successful cases of Uber drivers
applying to tribunals to be reclassified as employees, including a
recent case in California.  He said he expects a decision to be
made on certification of the Ontario suit in the second half of
the year.


UNITED COLLECTION: Class Certification Sought in "Merkovich" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Merkovich moves the Court to certify the class described
in the complaint of the lawsuit titled JEFFREY MERKOVICH,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-00058 (E.D.
Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for
class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Merkovich also asks to be appointed as class representative
and further asks the Court to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as
class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2g7WfIHn

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED KINGDOM: Hindraf to Take Rights Class Action to ECHR
-----------------------------------------------------------
Free Malaysia Today reports that Hindraf Makkal Sakthi will take
its rights suit against the United Kingdom to the European Court
of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, France, after having
exhausted its legal avenue in the UK.

The French city along the border with Germany is the next stage
after the Court of Appeal in London had on Jan. 19 dismissed
Hindraf's application for leave to appeal the High Court decision
delivered on Apr 1, 2015 striking out the class action suit filed
by Hindraf on behalf of Malaysian Indian descendants of indentured
labourers.

"The case will be filed in Strasbourg within the next six months,"
Hindraf chairman P Waythamoorthy said in the statement issued on
Jan. 20.

"We have exhausted all local avenues in the United Kingdom, and
that is the pre-requisite for us to now take the case to the
ECHR," he said.

Mr. Waytha clarified in a WhatsApp message that Brexit (Britain
leaving the European Union) will not affect Hindraf's suit in
Strasbourg.

"The suit will be filed under the European Convention on Human
Rights.  The UK remains under the Convention despite its imminent
exit from the EU," he said.

Meanwhile, on the case presented to the Court of Appeal in London,
Mr. Waytha said the presiding judge, Lord Justice Henderson, saw
no reason to interfere with High Court Judge Blake's decision.

Judge Henderson added there was no proximity between the claimant
(Waytha), his ancestors and the UK government.

On Apr 1, 2015, the High Court in London denied Hindraf leave to
initiate a suit against the Queen and her government.
"Our case is novel and unprecedented, hence the high legal
standard imposed on us, as seen in the striking out proceedings,
was truly unfair," Mr. Waytha said.

On a brighter note, Mr. Waytha agreed that Judge Henderson
sympathised with the plight of Indians in Malaya (peninsula).
"The judge described the manipulation of the original Reid
Commission's constitutional proposals as 'glaring', and added that
the 'manipulation' may be infringing the European Convention on
Human Rights.

"Hindraf has volumes of evidence to be heard and tested and old
historical documents to be presented to the court for its
evaluation," he said.

Mr. Waytha reckons the injustices suffered by the community needs
to be highlighted to the world at large.

"Hindraf will not be hindered in its journey and we will continue
to take up the cause of the marginalised Indian community."

Representing Hindraf, British lawyer Stuart Steven argued that the
amended Malayan Constitution did not comply with the United
Nations and European Convention on human rights legislation, he
said.

Hence, the claim is that there was an act of negligence on the
part of Her Majesty's Government, Mr. Steven added.


V.C. LAUDERDALE: Faces "Onyenecho" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
LYNDA ONYENECHO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. V.C. LAUDERDALE, INC. d/b/a VEGAS CABARET,
Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-60121-BB (S.D. Fla., January 18,
2017), is filed over an attempt by the employer to evade the
mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

V.C. LAUDERDALE, INC. is an adult entertainment club.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chad E. Levy, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES LEVY & LEVY, P.A.
     1000 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, #588
     Sunrise, FL 33323
     Phone: (954) 763-5722
     Fax: (954) 763-5723
     E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com


VIRGINIA: Arguments in DMV Class Action Scheduled for Feb. 2
------------------------------------------------------------
WVIR reports that a court date is set in a federal lawsuit
challenging a Virginia law that automatically suspends driver's
licenses from people who can't pay court costs and fines.

In July 2016, the Legal Aid Justice Center, a Charlottesville-
based, nonprofit organization, filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of four central Virginia plaintiffs as a systemic solution
to a problem that plagues hundreds of thousands of Virginians.

Legal Aid Justice Center is asserting that Virginia is crippling
hundreds of thousands of low-income residents by suspending their
driver's licenses for failure to pay court costs and fines.

They want the state to strike the statute down as unconstitutional
and to reinstate licenses that have suspended without basic due
process protections.

A federal judge in Charlottesville is set to hear arguments on
motions in the case on February 2.

The state of Virginia has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the
case should not be tried in federal court and its constitutional
claims are not valid.  The Department of Motor Vehicles is hoping
to have the lawsuit dismissed.

A trial is scheduled for December 11 through December 15.


VOLKSWAGEN: Car Owners Dissatisfied with Buy Back Delay
-------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Pender at San Francisco Chronicle reports some owners of
Volkswagen diesels equipped with emissions-cheating software feel
they were duped twice, once by the company about how "green" the
cars were and more recently about how quickly VW would buy them
back under a class-action suit settlement.

Owners were originally told that within 10 business days of
submitting the documents needed for a claim, VW would tell them
whether their application was complete. Once the documentation was
complete, VW would send an offer letter within another 10 business
days, according to a Federal Trade Commission website. Once they
have an offer, owners can schedule an appointment at a dealership
to sell back the car. Many owners say they have been waiting far
longer than originally outlined.

Lindsay Soriano of San Diego said she submitted documents for a
buyback of her 2013 Audi A3 -- including registration, government-
issued ID and a financial consent form for her lender -- on Nov.
27. "They initially rejected my ID, so I resubmitted and received
an email on Dec. 1 that my documents had been approved and my
eligibility was being determined," she said in an email. The Dec.
1 email is the last she received. Soriano called the claims
hotline four times, each one resulting in conflicting information.
"I've been very frustrated by the process," she said.

Volkswagen said in an email, "This program is unprecedented in
terms of its size and scope, and we have hired approximately 900
contract employees to help accommodate demand. We know that there
have been some issues along the way and our teams have been
working tirelessly to make necessary adjustments and continually
improve the process."

On the settlement website, the company now warns people that
getting an offer could take longer than 10 days "due to current
high claims volumes and response times from lenders."

The cheating scandal broke in September 2015, when federal and
California environmental regulators alleged that Volkswagen had
installed software known as a defeat device in about 482,000
diesel-powered VW and Audi models sold in the United States. The
cars, from model years 2009 through 2015, were marketed as "clean
diesels" because they got great gas mileage and zippy performance.
In reality, they spew up to 40 times the legal limit of nitrogen
oxide pollutants when driven, but the software allowed them to
pass emissions testing.

Last October, a federal judge in San Francisco approved a consumer
class-action suit settlement that requires VW to buy back or
terminate leases on about 475,000 two-liter VWs and Audis equipped
with the cheating device. That part of the settlement could cost
VW up to $10 billion.

It also requires VW to pay $2.7 billion to fund projects that
reduce nitrogen oxides and $2 billion on zero-emission-vehicle
infrastructure and promotion. On Jan. 11, VW agreed to plead
guilty and pay $4.3 billion to settle criminal and other civil
charges. (A separate class-action settlement, which is awaiting
approval, covers about 83,000 3-liter cars.)

The 2-liter settlement requires VW to buy back vehicles at their
September 2015 trade-in value plus a cash restitution payment
ranging from $5,100 to $9,852.

Owners have the option of keeping their cars and getting them
fixed at VW's expense, if an emissions repair is approved by
regulators. Regulators just approved a remedy for about 70,000
model year 2015 cars. No repair has been approved for the
remaining 2-liter vehicles. Owners who choose the fix won't get
the trade-in value but will get the same restitution payment.

Drivers who leased the 2-liter diesels can return them without
penalty or get them fixed. Either way, they also will get a cash
restitution payment, about half what owners get.

Before and apart from the settlement, VW offered owners a $500
Visa gift card and a $500 gift card valid only at VW dealerships.

Gabriel Bocanegra of Portland, Ore., was satisfied with the
settlement offer. He got about $24,200 including restitution for
his 2013 Golf diesel. "I drove the vehicle for 3« years for free,
more or less," he said. But the claims process was "nerve-
racking," he said. "I understand it was done in an expedited way,
but they didn't train the people on the phones properly."

Frank McPherson of San Jose was also happy with the $22,900 he got
for his 2011 Golf TDI with 40,000 miles. "I drove it for almost
six years and got back a large percentage of what I paid," he
said. McPherson says he was the first person to complete a
buyback, on Nov. 26, at Stevens Creek Volkswagen. "All my other
friends are waiting for an appointment. I think they have a huge
backlog of people waiting to do it."

Pete Rogers, a sales manager at the dealership, said, "Everything
from the Stevens Creek location is going as smooth as possible. I
hear that people want an appointment sooner than what they have.
We have hundreds of cars coming back to this dealer. We are doing
7 to 9 appointments per day."

Josh Gosliner of San Anselmo is still waiting for an offer for his
2015 Jetta TDI. He said he submitted his documents to the online
claims portal on Oct. 21. Five days later, he got an email saying
his submission was complete and VW was reviewing his documents to
see if he was eligible. That was the last email he got.

"The process as originally outlined -- and what it is -- is
significantly different," he said. "Every time you talk to them
they say, 'We are just really overwhelmed by claims,' which is
ridiculous. They knew how many cars they sold."

Thinking he would need another car soon, Gosliner bought a
gasoline-powered BMW after concluding "that there is no such thing
as clean diesel," he said. "Now I'm with two cars and still don't
have an offer letter. I'm sitting on a car we quite frankly want
out of our lives. Being duped is not something I have enjoyed
about this."

Drivers covered by the settlement have until September 2018 to
return their cars and get a payment, no matter when they apply or
get an offer. Their payment will not change, unless they drive
more or less than about 1,000 miles per month, in which case there
will be a slight adjustment down or up. That means they can drive
the car essentially for free for up to two years. The only caveat:
They must be able to drive the car to the dealer, so if it gets
totaled, they won't get the payment.

Frank Landry said he stopped driving his 2010 Jetta TDI three
months ago, because "I didn't want to take any chances of
something happening with the car." He got $14,850 for the Jetta
with 92,000 miles. Even so, "I feel like I was robbed, in a way.
It was a total inconvenience. Now I have a small car payment" on a
replacement car. His old one was paid off.

At a hearing last week, attorneys for VW and plaintiffs updated
U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco, who
approved the settlement, on its status.

They said about 383,000 had claims submitted. Of those, about
267,000 had received offers totaling more than $4.7 billion. Of
those, almost 67,000 had completed a buyback or lease termination
totaling $1.2 billion.

Elizabeth Cabraser, whose San Francisco firm is the lead attorney
for plaintiffs, said she thinks Volkswagen "is now doing
everything they can" to process buybacks. "We had a satisfaction
gap. They are closing that gap."

The main holdup, she said, is for owners who have loans through
banks, credit unions and other third-party lenders. For owners who
owe less than their settlement payment, VW will pay off their loan
and pay them the difference. To do that, VW needs to get the
customer's loan balance. Some lenders "have been slow to respond"
to VW's request for information.

Ian Malec of Richmond uploaded documentation to the claims portal
on Nov. 8. On Nov. 19, he got an email saying his application
contained all the information needed to determine his eligibility.
Two months later, on Thursday, he got an email saying VW still
needed his loan balance before it could extend an offer. Malec
called his lender and was told it had not received anything
regarding his claim, but gave him instructions for VW to fax its
request. "The frustrating part is that the documents I submitted
in November included a financial consent form," he said.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Neal" Suit Over TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Neal, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., d/b/a Walmart, Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00022-GCM (W.D. N.C., January 17, 2017), seeks
damages for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant violates the TCPA by using an automatic telephone
dialing system to place non-emergency calls to numbers assigned to
a cellular telephone service, without prior express consent, in
that it places autodialed calls to wrong or reassigned phone
numbers, the Complaint says.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., doing business as Walmart, is an American
multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of
hypermarkets, discount department stores and grocery stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Wesley S. White, Esq.
   Law Offices of Wesley S. White
   2300 E. 7th Street, Suite 101
   Charlotte, NC 28204
   Tel: (702) 824-1695
   Email: wes@weswhitelaw.com

        - and -

   Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
   Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC
   106 East Sixth Street, Suite 913
   Austin, TX 78701
   Tel: (512) 322-3912
   Fax: (516) 961-5684
   Email: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com


WECTEC GLOBAL: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie R. Jones, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Wectec Global Project Services,
Inc. f/k/a CB&I Stone & Webster, Inc. and Stone & Webster SVCS,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00031 (W.D. N.C., January 20,
2017), seeks overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40
each workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act and
North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Philip J. Gibbons, Jr.
   Phil Gibbons Law, P.C.
   15720 Brixham Hill Ave, Ste 331
   Charlotte, NC 28277
   Tel: (704) 612-0038
   Email: phil@philgibbonslaw.com


WELCH FOODS: "Iglesias" Misbranding Suit Removed to N. D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the case captioned THOMAS IGLESIAS, Plaintiff, v.
WELCH FOODS, INC. and PROMOTION IN MOTION, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 17-cv-00219, removed the case from the Superior Court of the
State of California, in and for the County of San Francisco, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The case alleges individually for Plaintiff and on behalf of
others similarly situated in California, that Defendants sell
misbranded fruit snacks in violation of the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.

Welch Foods Inc. -- https://www.welchs.com/ -- processes and
produces grape-based products that include juices, jams, jellies,
and spreads.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Daniel S. Silverman, Esq.
     Matthew M. Gurvitz, Esq.
     VENABLE LLP
     2049 Century Park East, Suite 2300
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 229-9900
     Fax: (310) 229-9901
     E-mail: dsilverman@venable.com
             mgurvitz@venable.com

        - and -

     Kimberly Culp, Esq.
     VENABLE LLP
     505 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 653-3750
     Fax: (415) 653-3755
     E-mail: kculp@venable.com


WILCOX & WILCOX: Sued in Super Ct. Over Labor Code Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL ESPENSHADE, an individual, and MOES 1 through 1,000,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. WILCOX & WILCOX, a business entity of unknown form
doing business as Wilcox & Wilcox and Wilcox & Wilcox Sewer Corp.;
U.S.A. CORP, a California corporation doing business as Wilcox &
Wilcox and Wilcox & Wilcox Sewer Corp.; EVENHAIM INDUSTRIES CORP.,
a California corporation doing business as Wilcox & Wilcox and
Wilcox & Wilcox Sewer Corp.; WILCOX & WILCOX SEWER CORP, a
dissolved California corporation doing business as Wilcox & Wilcox
and Wilcox & Wilcox Sewer Corp; SHAWN EVENHAIM, an individual; and
DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC647489 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Jan. 19, 2017), seeks to recover
damages, including loss of compensation for straight time worked,
under the California Labor Code.

The case is brought by Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees
which include, without limitation, all current and former non-
exempt employees who worked for Defendants at their business
location at 21510 Roscoe Boulevard, Canoga Park, California 91304,
within the four years prior to the commencement of the action, who
were: (1) not paid all earned straight time wages; (2) not paid
all earned overtime wages; (3) were not timely paid all straight
time wages and overtime wages
earned as of the time of the termination of their employment
relationship with Defendants; and (4) not provide lawful wage
statements in compliance with California Labor Code.

Wilcox & Wilcox is an underground utilities contractor in Southern
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David G. Jones, Esq.
          Alex V. Vo, Esq.
          21300 Victory Blvd., Suite 810
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 657 5600
          Facsimile: (818) 657 5605
          E-mail: Diones@santiagoioneslaw.com
                  Avo@santiagoioneslaw.com


WISCONSIN: Officials Face Class Action Over Solitary Confinement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The ACLU of Wisconsin and Juvenile Law Center, with pro-bono
assistance from Quarles & Brady, filed a class action lawsuit on
Jan. 23 in federal court against four Wisconsin state officials,
including Wisconsin Secretary of Corrections Jon E. Litscher,
citing the unconstitutional use of solitary confinement and
inhumane conditions for youth in state-run correctional
facilities.  The suit was filed on behalf of youth confined in the
Lincoln Hills School for Boys and the Copper Lake School for
Girls.

"Federal and state officials raided Lincoln Hills School for Boys
(LHS) and the Copper Lake School for Girls (CLS) in December 2015
after numerous reports of mistreatment of young people," said ACLU
of Wisconsin Attorney Timothy Muth.  "Many staff were fired and
new leadership was put in place.  Despite these changes, Lincoln
Hills and Copper Lake continue to use such barbaric practices as
solitary confinement, mechanical restraints, and pepper sprays,
which only damage children and make them more -- not less --
likely to reoffend.  The State of Wisconsin is far outside the
constitutional boundaries and far outside the practices
recommended by juvenile justice experts across the country."

Children are routinely placed in solitary confinement, put in
mechanical restraints or pepper-sprayed at Lincoln Hills and
Copper Lake.  These facilities incarcerate approximately 150-200
youth as young as 14 years old.  Prior to state and federal raids
on the facility in December 2015, staff also regularly physically
abused youth in the facility, even breaking their arms and legs in
some cases.  While those practices may no longer be in place,
horrific conditions persist.  Approximately 15 to 20% percent the
young residents are confined in seven by ten foot solitary
confinement cells for 22 or 23 hours per day.  These children are
often forced to spend their only free hour of time each day
outside the cell in handcuffs, chained to tables.  Officers also
regularly use Bear Mace and other pepper sprays against the youth,
which causes them excruciating pain and impairs their breathing.

As the complaint asserts, these practices violate children's
constitutional rights, including their rights to substantive due
process, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, and their right to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment, as guaranteed by the Eighth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.

"If a parent locked a child in a room even for a day or sprayed
them with Bear Mace or pepper spray, we would all recognize it as
child abuse," said Jessica Feierman, Juvenile Law Center's
Associate Director.  "Research confirms that solitary confinement
causes lasting and devastating psychological harm.  Pepper spray
causes excruciating pain and temporary blindness.  The children of
Wisconsin deserve better."

For parents of the youth, knowing their children are experiencing
this abuse is excruciating. "It is painful enough to be separated
from your child," said Meranda Davis, whose daughter is at Copper
Lake and a plaintiff in the lawsuit.  "The detention centers are
very far from home which itself is a challenge -- but to know they
are also experiencing this kind of ongoing abuse and mistreatment
at the hands of adults in positions of authority is unbearable.
These are children -- this should not be happening in this
country."

The plaintiffs are seeking a court order to put an end to these
practices.


YAHOO! INC: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 24 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Yahoo Inc. ("Yahoo" or the "Company") (YHOO)
and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United
States District Court, Northern District of California, and
docketed under 17-cv-00373, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Yahoo
securities between November 12, 2013 and
December 14, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants'
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Yahoo securities during the
Class Period, you have until March 27, 2017 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Yahoo, together with its subsidiaries, is a multinational
technology company that provides a variety of internet services,
including, inter alia, a web portal, search engine, Yahoo! Mail,
Yahoo! News, Yahoo! Finance, advertising, and fantasy sports. As
of February 2016, Yahoo had an estimated 1 billion monthly active
users, roughly 280 million Yahoo! Mail users, and 205 million
monthly unique visitors to its sites and services.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Yahoo failed to encrypt its users' personal information
and/or failed to encrypt its users' personal data with an up-to-
date and secure encryption scheme; (ii) consequently, sensitive
personal account information from more than 1 billion users was
vulnerable to theft; (iii) a data breach resulting in the theft of
personal user data would foreseeably cause a significant drop in
user engagement with Yahoo's websites and services; and (iv) as a
result, Yahoo's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On September 22, 2016, Yahoo disclosed that hackers had stolen
information in late 2014 on more than 500 million accounts.
Following the breach, Yahoo executives advised investors that the
breach was not material, in part because the Company had not
required to reset their passwords.  On this news, Yahoo's share
price fell $1.35, or 3.06%, to close at $42.80 on September 23,
2016.

On December 14, 2016, post-market, Yahoo announced that it had
uncovered a data breach, stating that data from more than 1
billion user accounts was compromised in August 2013. Following
Yahoo's announcement, several news sources reported that Verizon
was considering ways to amend the terms of its deal with Yahoo to
reflect the impact of the data breach and would likely seek "major
concessions" from Yahoo.  On this news, Yahoo's share price fell
$2.50, or 6.11%, to close at $38.41 on December 15, 2016.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


YRBL CORPORATION: Faces "De La Cruz" Suit Over Unpaid Wage and OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Orlando Xocua De La Cruz, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. YRBL Corporation (d/b/a The Kitchen)
and Yoonhwan Chung, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00348 (E.D.N.Y.,
January 20, 2017), is brought against the Defendant for unpaid
minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard
Act and New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael Faillace, Esq.
   Michael Faillace & Associates, P.C.
   60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
   New York, NY 10165
   Tel: (212) 317-1200
   Fax: (212) 317-1620
   Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


YS REALTY: "Chaca" Seeks Payment of Wages and Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Edgar Geovany Yanqui Chaca, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. YS Realty II LLC d/b/a Re Sette and
Tal Sheinmann, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-00350 (S.D.N.Y., January 18, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for wrongful withholding of Plaintiff's overtime
compensation, late payment of wages and misappropriated tips.

Defendants own and operate Resette, an Italian restaurant located
at 7 West 45th Street, New York, NY.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Yesy Sanchez, Esq.
   Ariadne Panagopoulou, Esq.
   Pardalis & Nohavicka, LLP
   35-10 Broadway, Suite 201
   Astoria, NY 11106
   Tel: 718-777-0400
   Fax: 718-777-0599
   Email: yesy@pnlawyers.com


ZENITH EDUCATION: Faces "Covington" Suit Over Unpaid Wages and OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Latasha Covington, Plaintiff, on her own behalf and others
similarly situated v. Zenith Education Group, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 8:17-cv-00136 (M.D. Fla., January 19, 2017), seeks unpaid
wages and overtime compensation.

Defendant Zenith Education Group, Inc. is one of the largest
nonprofit career college systems in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Kyle J. Lee, Esq.
   Lee Law, PLLC
   P.O. Box 4476
   Brandon, FL 33509-4476
   Tel: (813) 343-2813
   Email: Kyle@KyleLeeLaw.com

        - and -

   W. John Gadd, Esq.
   Bank of America Buiding
   2727 Ulmerton Rd. Ste. 250
   Clearwater, FL 33762
   Tel: (727) 524-6300
   Email: wjg@mazgadd.com


* Class Action Money & Ethics Conference - May 1, 2017 - NYC
------------------------------------------------------------
Beard Group, Inc., is hosting the 1st Annual Class Action Money &
Ethics Conference on Mon., May 1, 2017, at The Harmonie Club in
Midtown Manhattan.

Sponsorship and speaking opportunities are available.  Contact
Joseph Cardillo at
joseph@beardgroup.com or (856) 381-
8268 for more information.

This event brings together class action and complex litigation
professionals from the legal, financial, economic, academic,
ethical, corporate, claims and judicial disciplines for a one-day
conference, to discuss economic and ethical considerations in
class actions, and to provide valuable networking opportunities
among top-tier professionals.

Special Guest: Kenneth Feinberg, who administered compensation
funds for victims of Agent Orange, 9/11, the BP oil spill, and who
was recently appointed as special master to oversee the
restitution in the Takata settlement, will be in attendance as
both a speaker and panelist.

Updates about the conference agenda and faculty are posted at
http://ClassActionConference.com/on a regular basis.


* Class Members Actively Participates in Litigation
---------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that
Volkswagen diesel owners call class counsel on their cellphones.
They barrage the court with e-mails.  They engage in Twitter
discussions.

They aren't content to wait passively while their claims are
settled through the "Clean Diesel" litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

This is the new normal for high-profile, big-dollar class
litigation, Samuel Issacharoff told Bloomberg BNA recently.  He's
a civil procedure professor at New York University Law School in
New York who is working on a law review article on the topic.

Mr. Issacharoff has seen this kind of increased class member
participation in several other recent cases such as the litigation
over the Deepwater Horizon spill and the National Football League
concussion suits.

He says the increased participation is good for the legitimacy of
the class action system, even if it causes a few headaches for
attorneys.

Mr. Issacharoff said the trend could spread to lower-profile,
smaller-dollar suits as well.

That possibility, according to one federal judge who's presided
over a number of class actions, could help counter arguments from
both defense counsel and prominent fellow jurists that too many
class suits are driven by attorneys seeking fees.

'Complete Revolution.'

Elizabeth Cabraser, lead counsel in the VW litigation, said she's
seeing a "complete revolution in the relationships between members
of the class, their counsel and the court" in high-profile class
suits like the diesel emissions cases.
Ms. Cabraser is a partner at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
LLP in San Francisco.

There used to be a clear dividing line between cases where one
lawyer represented one client, and class litigation, "where
someone famously, but inaccurately, boasted that the great thing
about class actions was there were no clients," she said recently
at a conference hosted by NYU Law.

She remembers a time when class counsel might communicate with
members of the class twice -- if they were lucky -- over the life
cycle of a case: once after the class was certified and once after
it was settled.  Communication "was an expensive proposition," she
said.

"We are in a completely different situation today and that process
has accelerated so quickly that many of us don't fully even
realize yet where we are," she said.

Easier Communication. More MDLs

Mr. Issacharoff attributes the trend to two changes.  First, the
means of communication have changed dramatically.  "There's not a
major event that doesn't prompt a Facebook gathering, Twitter
feeds, every kind of social media imaginable," he said.

Second, most of the significant class actions today are organized
around multidistrict litigation.

That means "that in the first instance you already have
aggregation even without the class action mechanism," he said.
"The class action is a way of resolving it but it's not the first
step taken to aggregate or collectivize the proceedings."

He used the NFL concussion litigation as an example.  It began
with hundreds of suits filed all over the country that were
consolidated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge
Anita B. Brody.  The class mechanism was introduced afterwards as
a way to resolve all the suits.

"We have this image of class actions as headless entities --
lawyers without clients and stuff like that," Mr. Issacharoff
said.  But, in the NFL litigation, hundreds of lawsuits were
already underway, which meant when the class action was organized,
the individuals in the class already had their own lawyers.

"By the time you get to the class settlement, the old image that
we have that these are anonymous, non-participating individuals,
gives way to a very active block of participation," he said.

No More Rational Indifference

Class members were traditionally thought of as "rationally
indifferent" to the ins and outs of litigation, Ms. Cabraser said.
They let it proceed without them, and collected their checks after
settlement.

"Nobody is rationally indifferent to anything anymore," she said.
"Or perhaps no one is rational about anything anymore."

She said she and other class attorneys are now "barraged with
communications" in the suits with big potential payouts for class
members.  VW class members e-mail class counsel constantly, even
call their cell phones.  "There is 24/7 real time participation."

Class members don't just bug class counsel, they even e-mail the
courts.

Judge John Koeltl of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York sheepishly asked Ms. Cabraser at the NYU
conference, "Should judges respond to those e-mails?"

Ms. Cabraser assured him they should not.  Class notice documents
tell class members not to contact the court directly.  Instead,
courts should forward communications from class members to the
attorneys involved in the case.

In the VW and NFL cases, the courts forward batches of e-mails to
the attorneys daily, Mr. Issacharoff said.

"You have to have new procedures in place," he said.

He noted that Ms. Cabraser makes a point of personally answering
every e-mail from a VW class member.  And Chris Seeger, lead
plaintiffs' lawyer in the NFL settlement, holds a weekly call with
class members to let players, or their wives, check in on progress
or raise concerns, Mr. Issarcharoff said.  Mr. Seeger is a partner
at Seeger Weiss LLP in New York.

Anomaly, or Harbinger?

Ms. Cabraser said at first she thought the level of class member
involvement in the VW litigation was an anomaly.  A car is one of
the most expensive purchases many Americans make, and VW diesel
buyers were informed buyers who thought they were making a eco-
conscious choice.  It's no surprise they followed the litigation
closely.

But Ms. Cabraser said, "I am not so sure now it's an anomaly, I am
more sure now that it's a harbinger of things to come."

The high participation rates reflect not just the specific
demographics of VW class members, but also reflect "the fact that
we all feel the right now to participate in what used to be more
formal affairs--elections, for example, and court proceedings,"
she said.

"We now all feel the right to participate far more directly, and
sometimes far less civilly than we ever did before," she said.

Mr. Issarcharoff expects that the trend will spread even to class
actions involving low-value consumer claims.  Even if the level of
participation isn't as high for a $3 per class member settlement
over misadvertised batteries, class members will be aware of the
case.

"You no longer get class actions that nobody has heard of,"
Mr. Issacharoff said.  "What you get is class actions that people
may not care about. That's a different set of issues."

Increased Efficiency, Legitimacy

This kind of increased participation is good for the class action
system, Mr. Issacharoff argues.  "It has the best of both worlds--
the efficiency of a collective resolution and the lower cost; and
the legitimacy of people actually feeling that they are
represented."

Judge Robert Dow of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois agreed.

This trend "should make people feel good about Rule 23 and the
class action process," he said at the NYU conference.

Judge Dow referred to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, which governs class
actions.  He serves on the subcommittee tasked with revising the
rule.

"If you read Judge Posner's decisions, a lot of what concerns him
is all these absent class members are led around by the nose by
lawyers that want to make a lot of money," Judge Dow said.

He referred to opinions by Judge Richard A. Posner of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  Judge Posner is often
skeptical of class settlements, which he warns can be lawyer-
driven.

For example, he skewered the attorneys in a settlement over leaky
windows, charging class counsel with "selling out the class" for
higher attorneys' fees, in Eubank v. Pella Corp., 753 F.3d 718
(7th Cir. 2014).

If class members are more involved, Judge Dow's line of reasoning
goes, there should be less room for abuse of the system.

Judge Dow also hopes that media coverage of efficient processes
like the VW litigation will help the public "understand the good
parts of Rule 23.".

"Too often what people see in the papers is the coupon settlement,
or the ridiculous sum of money paid for something that doesn't
look to the public like an important problem or the fact that the
average person gets a check for 18 cents," he said.

New Reality

More participation will also affect defendants' calculus in
settling cases, Mr. Issarcharoff said.

"It shines a light on the settlement process," he said. " It's an
ongoing process of review and that means that you can't craft a
settlement in the darkness and hope that with a little bit extra
in attorneys' fees or something like that you make the whole thing
go away."

Ms. Cabraser said the challenge for everyone involved in the class
action world is to accept that the system is forever changed.

"Anything we thought we knew or read in a case five years ago, two
years ago or even earlier this year may well no longer be true,"
she said.  "One thing I'm certain of is that class actions will be
increasingly characterized by incessant communication between
class counsel and class members, perhaps between the defendants
and class members, and like it or not, between courts and class
members."


* Monetary Value of Employment-Related Settlements Down in 2016
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Maatman, Jr., Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that the monetary value of the top employment-
related class action settlements declined significantly in 2016
after they reached all-time highs in 2014 and 2015.  The
plaintiffs' employment class action bar and governmental
enforcement litigators successfully translated their case filings
into large class-wide settlements, but they did so at lower values
than in the two previous years.  The top ten settlements in
various employment-related categories totaled $1.75 billion in
2016, which declined from $2.48 billion in 2015 and $1.87 billion
in 2014.  Whether this is the start of a trend or a short-term
aberration remains to be seen as 2017 unfolds.

Lower Class Action Settlement Numbers In 2016

As measured by the top ten largest case resolutions in various
workplace class action categories, overall settlement numbers
decreased in 2016 as compared to 2015.

This manifested a trend that began with the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision in 2011 in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes , 564 U.S. 338
(2011).  By tightening Rule 23 standards and raising the bar for
class certification, Wal-Mart made it more difficult for
plaintiffs to convert their class action filings into substantial
settlements.

The settlement statistics for 2016 underscore this trend and the
impediments to transforming case filings into settlements of cases
on a class-wide basis.  This also reflects a process whereby there
has been a maturing of case architecture considerations, as
plaintiffs' lawyers have "re-booted" their strategic approaches to
take account of Wal-Mart, and crafted  refined class certification
theories with better chances of success.

That phenomenon is still being played out, as well as manifesting
itself in settlement dynamics.

Considering all types of workplace class actions (employment
discrimination, wage & hour, ERISA, and statutory claims),
settlement numbers in 2016 totaled $1.75 billion, which decreased
significantly from 2015 when these settlements were at an all-time
high of $2.48 billion.

This also represented a significant decrease over 2014 levels,
when the aggregate settlement numbers totaled $1.87 billion.

The Story Behind The Numbers

In terms of the story behind the numbers, breakouts by types of
workplace class action are instructive.  There was an upward trend
for wage & hour class action settlements, and a significant
downward trend for resolutions of employment discrimination and
ERISA class actions, as well as governmental enforcement
litigation.

By type of case, settlements in private plaintiff statutory
workplace class actions experienced the most significant decrease.

The top ten settlements in this category decreased to $114.7
million, which was a significant decline from $713.85 million in
2015, but an increase from $74.03 million in 2014.

Top 10 Private Statutory

Most telling, however, the "Wal-Mart effect" is shown by the
pattern for employment discrimination class action settlements in
2016, as well as a comparison of the settlement figures with
previous settlement activity over the last decade.

Top 10 Employment Discrimination

In 2016, the value of the top ten largest employment
discrimination class action settlements of $79.81 million was the
second lowest figure since 2010, and followed the trend that
started in 2011 (after Wal-Mart was decided) that showed decreases
in settlement amounts over three years of that 4-year period.  On
a comparative basis, the settlement figure for 2016 was the second
lowest over the past six years.

This trend, however, did not hold for wage & hour class action
settlements.  In 2016, the value of the top ten wage & hour
settlements was $695.5 million, a significant increase over 2015.
This is most telling in examining the last four years, for 2016
represented almost a four-fold (after two years of declining
numbers in 2013 and 2014) in the value of the top wage & hour
settlements as compared to 2014.  This reflects that Wal-Mart has
had far less of an impact in this substantive legal area, as FLSA
settlements are not explicitly tied to the concepts on class
certification addressed in Wal-Mart (and instead, are based on the
standards under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b)).

Top 10 Wage & Hour

Relatedly, settlements in government enforcement litigation
experienced a significant downward trend.  The top ten settlements
in 2016 totaled $52.3 million, a substantial decrease even from
2015, when settlements hit one of their lowest points in the past
eight years.

Top 10 Government Enforcement

ERISA class action settlements also were down, as the top ten
settlements totaled $807.4 million in 2016.

This figure represented a decline from $926.5 million in 2015.

While the 2016 aggregate settlement number was nearly six times
greater than in 2013, it entailed a significant decrease from 2014
(when settlements were $1.31 billion).  Nonetheless, ERISA class
action settlements this past year were fueled by several mega-
settlements.

Top 10 ERISA

Implications For Employers

Settlement trends in workplace class action litigation have been
influenced by many factors.

In the coming year, settlement activity is apt to be influenced
developing case law interpreting the Supreme Court's decision in
Tyson Foods, the impact of the Trump Administration's labor and
employment enforcement policies, and case filing trends of the
plaintiffs' class action bar.


* Ohio Drivers Ineligible for Auto Parts Price-Fixing Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Gearino, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reports that
Ohio drivers are left stranded on the side of the road when it
comes to $604 million worth of settlements in price-fixing
lawsuits against auto-parts suppliers.

The reason: Ohio is one of about 20 states that do not allow
financial damages to be paid to indirect victims in price-fixing
cases.

"We don't even get a lousy coupon," said Kathy Fahey of Cleveland,
who has owned several vehicles covered by the settlements and was
upset to learn that she is ineligible for any of the proceeds.

The class-action settlements, $604 million and counting, are some
of the largest ever recorded for consumers in price-fixing cases.

Dozens of auto-parts suppliers have admitted in cases over the
past several years to holding secret meetings to set prices on
certain parts that they sold to auto manufacturers, leading to
higher costs for dealers and customers.  The consumer lawsuits are
among several large class actions against the suppliers.  The
process is running alongside criminal cases that have led to
nearly $3 billion in penalties, the most in U.S. history.

"Your cost was higher than it would have been," said
Steven Williams, a California-based attorney who has argued key
parts of the auto-parts cases on behalf of consumers.  "It's just
an added tax on your car, an added price on your car."

Auto owners can go to www.autopartsclass.com to check if a vehicle
is covered and which states are eligible for making a claim for a
share of the payout.  The size of each share will largely be
determined by how many people make claims.

In these cases, the direct victims are automakers such as Ford and
Honda.  Others in the process are indirect victims.

A 1977 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Illinois Brick v. Illinois, said
that indirect victims cannot receive financial awards in antitrust
cases.  However, the court also has said that state courts and
legislatures can allow such awards.

In the auto-parts cases, consumers are eligible in 30 states and
the District of Columbia, according to court documents.  Among
Ohio's neighbors, consumers are eligible in Michigan and West
Virginia, and ineligible in Indiana, Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

Ohio lawmakers and courts have tended to be assertive in
protecting the rights of companies and individuals being sued,
often at the expense of the people who are suing.  The treatment
of indirect victims of price-fixing is one part of this larger set
of issues.

"It's hard to imagine why you couldn't want consumers to have an
ability to recover," Mr. Williams said.  "Business interests
probably come in and say, 'Don't do this. It will lead to more
lawsuits.'"

There are good reasons for the state's approach, said Daniel Dew,
a legal fellow at the Buckeye Institute, a conservative research
group.  On price-fixing cases, allowing lawsuits from indirect
victims could lead to companies needing to pay out more than once
for the same conduct in a way that could outstrip the actual harm.

"I don't think the law is perfect," Mr. Dew said.  "If there was a
way to equitably distribute the damages between the direct buyers
and all the indirect buyers, then that would be a fair outcome."

However, the settlement documents do list benefits for people in
ineligible states such as Ohio.  Among them: Some of the parts
suppliers agree not to engage in illegal conduct for up to two
years.

That elicited a groan from Fahey, the Cleveland woman.

"I'm trying to laugh about this stuff even if it's not funny when
you get down to it," she said.


* Workplace Lawsuits May Spike Under Trump Administration
---------------------------------------------------------
Alexia Elejalde-Ruiz, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that
workplace lawsuits targeting employers' pay practices have been on
the rise for years, with some yielding massive settlements. But a
major Supreme Court decision expected this year could reverse that
trend if the justices allow companies to use arbitration
agreements that prohibit class actions.

The Supreme Court recently accepted for review three cases that
have diverged on the legality of workplace arbitration agreements,
which force employees to resolve grievances through an arbitrator
and waive their right to participate in class-action lawsuits.

Arbitration agreements -- which consumers commonly sign, often
without realizing it, when they start a credit card or cellphone
contract -- are becoming increasingly popular among employers who
want to avoid costly and lengthy battles with their workers in
court.

The court's review comes as private workplace lawsuits are
expected to rise under President Donald Trump.  Gerald Maatman, a
partner in the Chicago firm of Seyfarth Shaw who represents
management in workplace lawsuits, said that while workplace
agencies during the Obama years aggressively investigated and sued
employers for violations, Republican administrations historically
have backed off enforcement, and plaintiffs' attorneys usually end
up filing more lawsuits on behalf of workers to fill the void.

Curbing class actions -- a key tool workers have to fight
violations, because individual claims would fetch too paltry a sum
to be worth a lawyer's time -- could alter that landscape amid a
boom in litigation involving pay.

"Potentially, if arbitration agreements are valid for wage
disputes, that could very much drive down the number of lawsuits
filed," said James Bormes, a Chicago attorney who represents
employees in workplace lawsuits.  That's worrisome, he said,
because without the threat of class actions, he thinks ""it will
give a green light to some companies to commit wage violations."

But to David Ritter, a partner in the Chicago firm of Barnes &
Thornburg who represents management, arbitration is a preferred
alternative to lawsuits that are "adversarial from the start" and
hammer good employers who try to comply with laws but sometimes
make mistakes.

"If class-action waivers are allowed by the Supreme Court, it will
be a critical defense that employers can use to stop these wage-
and-hour cases that cost so much money and take so much time and
are very hard to defend against," Mr. Ritter said.

Last year was a banner year for pricey settlements for wage-and-
hour class actions, the hottest segment of workplace litigation,
in part because they are the easiest to bring as class actions.
Wage-and-hour cases involve overtime and minimum wage violations
and other laws covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The value of the top 10 wage-and-hour class-action settlements
surged to $695.5 million last year, from $436.6 million in 2015
and $215.3 million the year before, according to an annual report
from Seyfarth Shaw on workplace class-action litigation.  That's
in contrast to other categories of workplace litigation, such as
cases involving discrimination and pension plans, which saw
settlement values decline last year after reaching all-time highs
in 2014 and 2015.

Federal wage-and-hour lawsuit filings ticked down last year for
the first time after rising steadily for 15 years, but that
appears to be an aberration, said Mr. Maatman, who is lead author
of the Seyfarth Shaw report.  He expects filing numbers to rise
and hit records again in 2017.

"If you're an employer, the No. 1 risk is how you pay people," Mr.
Maatman said.

To Bormes, the prevalence of the suits suggests that many
companies make a business decision to not pay employees properly
and deal with consequences should they come.

"These are the people on the lowest economic rung of society," Mr.
Maatman said.  "If you're a huge employer and you're shaving just
a quarter a day per employee, that's a whole bunch of money at the
end of the year."

But to Ritter, the management-side lawyer, the thirst for wage-
and-hour litigation has more to do with lawyers eyeing a potential
payout.

"Plaintiffs' lawyers see dollar signs, and if they can find a
single plaintiff [to file a class action], it's like ready, shoot,
aim," he said. Employers rarely get a chance to resolve the issue
before they're hit with a lawsuit, he added.

The rise in wage-and-hour cases, which began to accelerate in the
late 1990s but surged in the past decade, can be attributed to a
number of factors.

Technology is one.  Smartphones and nonstop email access have
raised new questions about when the workday begins and ends,
Mr. Maatman said.

In addition, the cost and burden of proof for certifying a case as
a class action is lower in wage-and-hour claims than other types
of employment litigation, he said.

Mr. Maatman expects wage-and-hour class actions to continue their
ascent this year amid a "perfect storm" of conditions.

Part of it is awareness. The Obama administration's plan to make
millions more Americans eligible for overtime by raising the
salary threshold at which workers are exempt from collecting the
extra pay -- a move which is in limbo after a federal court
blocked its implementation -- garnered ample attention that may
prompt workers to take a closer look at their paychecks to make
sure they are being compensated properly, Mr. Maatman said.

Part of it is political. The new administration could drive more
lawsuits if the Department of Labor under Trump, predicted to be
less regulatory, eases up on enforcement and private plaintiffs
attorneys pick up the slack, he said.

Part of it is legal. Last year's Supreme Court ruling, which was
in favor of thousands of Iowa workers at a Tyson Foods factory who
wished to be paid for time spent donning and removing protective
gear, could make it easier to prove commonality for a class action
by softening prior precedent, Mr. Maatman said.

Whether the Supreme Court's decision on mandatory arbitration
agreements upends those trends remains to be seen.

It also remains to be seen if Trump's Supreme Court nominee to
replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia -- author of a major
opinion favoring arbitration agreements, and the jurist Trump has
said would be the model for his pick -- will be on the bench in
time for the decision.

At issue in the three cases the Supreme Court is reviewing is
whether arbitration agreements that preclude class actions are
illegal under the National Labor Relations Act, which protects
workers' rights to engage in "concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection."

The National Labor Relations Board has held that they are, and
rulings in two of the cases under review agreed.  But the decision
in the third case rejects that position, finding instead that such
agreements are valid under the Federal Arbitration Act. The
Supreme Court has repeatedly held that arbitration agreements are
enforceable under that act.





                            *********

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  * * *