CAR_Public/170131.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Tuesday, January 31, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 22



                            Headlines

A.C. CUSTOM: Faces "Hernandez" Lawsuit Under Calif. Labor Code
ACADIANA COMMUNITY: Istre et al. Sue to Recoup Pay Under FLSA
ADF MIDATLANTIC: Keim Seeks to Certify Friend-Forwarder Class
ADVANCE STORES: Whitehead's Motion to Certify Class Terminated
AETNA INC: Faces Class Action, March 27 Lead Plaintiff Deadline

AIR MILES: Expiry Cancellation Won't Halt Rewards Program Case
ALICO INC: Settlement in Shareholder Lawsuit Has Final Approval
AMERICAN HEALTH: "Thompson" Wants Overtime Pay for Phlebotomists
ANZ SECURITIES: Supreme Court to Hear Appeal in CalPERs Suit
APPLE INC: Calif. Judge Rejects "Adkins" Warranty Class Suit

ARKANSAS, USA: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Suit v. Helder
ARS NAT'L: 9th Cir. Slams Class Action Settlement Approval
BANKRATE INC: Saxena's Fee Request in Securities Case Pending
BIG LOTS: Class Certification Bid in "Willis" Action Underway
BRAND ENERGY: "Gutierrez" Alleges Violations of Cal. Labor Laws

BT GROUP: Faces Class Action, March 27 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Stolinski Seeks to Certify Class Under FDCPA
CHARLES SCHWAB: "Severson" Lawsuit Alleges ERISA Violations
CHRYSLER GROUP: Wants Auto Defect Class Action Documents Unsealed
CHW GROUP: Reynolds Moves for Certification of Eight TCPA Classes

CLIENT SERVICES: Certification of Class Sought in "Suxstorf" Suit
COLONY CAPITAL: Reached MOU in "Carter" Class Action
CONCORD AUTOMOBILE: Dealership Settles Suit, Terms Confidential
CONN'S INC: Opposition to Class Certification Due February 13
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Green Moves for Certification of Class

D & J QUALITY: "White" Suit Seeks to Recoup Pay for Health Aides
DARLING INGREDIENTS: Faces "Franco" Suit Seeking to Recoup Pay
DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Action in Discovery
DOLLAR TREE: Accord in Ex-Assistant Store Manager's Suits Pending
DOLLAR TREE: Worker's Suit Moved to Cal. Federal Court

DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Suit by Ex-Store Manager in California
DOLLAR TREE: Ex-Assistant Store Managers' Suit Underway in Cal.
DOLLAR TREE: Ex-Store Employee's Suit Pending in Florida
DOLLAR TREE: Former Sales Associates' Case Goes to Arbitration
DOLLAR TREE: Ex-Employee Files Suit in California Over Sick Leave

DOLLAR TREE: Says Virginia and Florida Labor Suits Resolved
DOLLAR TREE: Suit by Female Family Dollar Store Managers Pending
DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Employee's PAGA Claims May Proceed
DOLLAR TREE: Discovery Underway in Family Dollar Employee's Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Appeal in Family Dollar Suit Pending in 2nd Cir.

EMCORE CORP: "Mirasol" Class Action Remains Pending
ENERGY TRANSFER: Brower Piven Commences Securities Class Action
ENERGY TRANSFER: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action in Delaware
FACEBOOK INC: NJ Judge Dismisses "Palomino" Suit
FAMILY DOLLAR: Certification of Class Sought in "Parrot" Suit

FEMALE HEALTH: "Glotzer" Merger Class Action Pending
FEMALE HEALTH: "Schartz" Merger Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Direct Customer Plaintiffs' Appeal Pending
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Named as Defend in Securities Class Actions
FINISAR CORPORATION: Motion to Dismiss Case under Submission

FIRST NATIONAL: Certification of Class Sought in "Stolinski" Suit
FISHER HOMES: Laborers Class Certification Sought in "Ayala" Suit
FOOT LOCKER: Class Action Judgment Remains Stayed Pending Appeal
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Settles TCPA Class Action for $11 Mil.
GC SERVICES: Kausar Seeks Certification of Class Under FDCPA

GENESCO INC: Feb. 16 Discovery Conference in "Stewart" Action
GENESCO INC: Settles Lawsuits in Pennsylvania and New York
GOLDMAN SACHS: Says HP Ruling Supports Class Decertification Bid
H&R BLOCK: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Remains Pending
H&R BLOCK: "Perras" Appeal in Eighth Circuit Court Pending

HILL LONG: Faces "Jones" Lawsuit Alleging Violations of FLSA
HOME CITY: July 11 Packaged Ice Settlement Approval Hearing Set
HORIZON HEALTHCARE: 3rd Cir. Revives Customers' Data Breach Suit
INDEPENDENT PHARMACEUTICAL: Glen Ellyn Seeks to Certify 3 Classes
INFUSYSTEM HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action in California

INTEGRITY HOME: Cooper Moves to Certify Healthcare Workers Class
JPMORGAN CHASE: "Thornley" Lawsuit Alleges Violations of FLSA
KIIP INC: Insurer Refuses to Cover App Class Action Defense
LANNETT CO: Engineers Union Alleges Levothyroxine Price-Fixing
LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Response to Amended Complaint Due March 13

LOS ANGELES, CA: 9th Cir. Heard Appeal in Suit v. LAPD
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Still Defends "Gathmann-Landini" Suit
MARKSMEN LANDSCAPING: Jennings Wants to Notify FLSA Class Members
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Jury Trial in "Luna" Suit Set for March 2018
MCADAM LANDSCAPING: Fairness Hearing in "Martinez" Suit on June 1

MEDICREDIT INC: Hopkins' Class Cert. Bid Denied as Premature
MENTOR GRAPHICS: Plaintiff Fights Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
MICHAELS COMPANIES: Store Managers' Suit in California Underway
MICHAELS COMPANIES: Bercut's FCRA Suit Remanded to Sonoma County
MICHAELS COMPANIES: Appeal in Data Breach Case Still Pending

MIDDLE MAN: Loses Bid to Certify Class in Sprint Nextel Suit
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Ex-Claims Adjuster Files Class Suit
NAVIENT CORPORATION: CFPB Files Consumer Class Action
NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA: Faces "Bosco" Suit Seeking to Recoup Wages
NCR CORPORATION: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Meadows" Suit

NEIMAN MARCUS: Oral Argument in "Rubenstein" Appeal on Feb. 17
NEIMAN MARCUS: Settlement Reached in "Zaslav" Lawsuit
NEIMAN MARCUS: Feb. 2018 Trial Date in "Attia" Class Action
NEIMAN MARCUS: "Nguyen" Class Suit Remains Stayed
NEIMAN MARCUS: "Connolly" Class Action Remains Stayed

NEIMAN MARCUS: Awaits Decision in "Ohle" Case
NEIMAN MARCUS: Cyber-Attack Class Actions Remain Pending
NETJETS SERVICES: Faces "Jeffers" Suit Under FLSA, Ohio Wage Laws
NIMBLE STORAGE: Ark. Teacher Ret. Sys. Files 2nd Amended Suit
NONGSHIM CO: Judge Certifies Two Classes in Ramen Suit

NORTHSTAR ASSET: Reached MOU in "Kessler" Class Action
NORTHSTAR REALTY: Reached MOU in "Boothe" Class Action
OOMA INC: June 2 Class Certification Hearing in "Barnett" Suit
PATTERSON COMPANIES: Burkhart Added as Defendant
PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: "Michaeli" Action Remains Pending

PREMIER CONSTRUCTION: Loses Bid for Approval of "Patterson" Deal
PURE STORAGE: Files Demurrer to Consolidated Complaint
QUALCOMM INC: Hagens Berman Files Antitrust Class Action
RAM-T CORP: Faces "Wilson" Suit Under FLSA, Penn. Wage Laws
REMINGTON ARMS: Supreme Court to Hear Appeal in Sandy Hook Case

REMINGTON ARMS: Nine States, DC Urge Judge to Reject Settlement
ROYAL BANK: Shareholder Class Action Trial Delayed
SAMSUNG CORP: Faces "Wells" Class Suit Over Exploding Washers
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Kessler" Sues Over Defective Phone Cameras
SANTANDER BANK: U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Appeal

SHIPCOM WIRELESS: Novick Wants to Notify Potential Class Members
SPIN MASTER: Hatchimals Don't Always Hatch, "Hejduk" Suit Says
STAR GAS: Motion to Dismiss "Donnenfeld" Suit Underway
STRAIGHT PATH: Motion to Dismiss "Zacharia" Suit Underway
TAILORED BRANDS: March 2 Initial Conference in "Makhlouf" Suit

TIMBERCORP FINANCE: High Court Examines Anshun Principle
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Authorizes Quebec Drivers' Class Action
UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE: Faces "Allen" Insurance Coverage Suit
UNITED STATES: Judge Certifies Class Action Over PACER Fees
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces "Condry" Suit Over Breastfeeding

URANIUM ENERGY: 5th Circuit Dismissed Class Action Appeal
VISTA OUTDOOR: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
WARNER MUSIC: Still Faces Suit Over Digital Music Downloads
WASHINGTON, DC: 200 People Hit with Felony Charges After Protest
WESTERN REFINING: Faces "Solak" Suit Over Merger with Tesoro

WISCONSIN, USA: Austin Seeks to Certify Class of Oshkosh Inmates
YAHOO INC: Law Firms Compete for Data-Breach Class Lead Counsel
ZICO BEVERAGES: Faces "Reza" Suit Over "No Sugar Added" Label

* Litigation Funding Ruling May Spark More Class Actions
* Securities Class Action Settlement Dollars Hit Record High
* Uncertainty Remains on Department of Labor's Overtime Rule


                            *********


A.C. CUSTOM: Faces "Hernandez" Lawsuit Under Calif. Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
MA ELENA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. A.C. CUSTOM CATERING,
INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. BC 647403 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles,
January 19, 2017), is a complaint seeking damages and equitable
relief for alleged failure by Defendants to pay minimum wage and
overtime; reimburse employees for necessary expenditures; provide
mandated meal breaks and rest periods; and comply with itemized
Employee Wage Statement Provisions under the California Labor Code
and Wage Order.

Defendant is in the business of securing contracts for and
providing mobile industrial catering services through catering
trucks to business locations throughout the Los Angeles basin.
Defendant operates a facility with over 150 catering trucks in
Bell Gardens.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
     Atoy H. Wilson, Esq.
     MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
     249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
     Long Beach, CA 90802
     Phone: (562) 590-5550
     Fax: (562) 590-8400
     E-mail: kmahoney@mahoneY-law.net
             awilson@mahonev-law.net


ACADIANA COMMUNITY: Istre et al. Sue to Recoup Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHANTEL SHEREE ISTRE, JANE ARMSTEAD, ANNIE MAE LEWIS, LATONIA
ALFRED and VERGES ANDERSON, Individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, v. ACADIANA COMMUNITY BASED SERVICES, INC.,
ACADIANA ALTERNATIVES STAFFING, INC., TIMOTHY L. MANKIN and
CRYSTAL ALSANDOR, Case No. 6:17-cv-00085-RFD-CBW (W.D. La.,
January 19, 2017), was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, to recover alleged unpaid wages, including overtime and
minimum wage earnings, for work performed for the Defendants.

Acadiana Community Based Services provides support and training to
individuals with developmental disabilities.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Kenneth D. St. Pe, Esq.
     311 West University Avenue, Suite A
     Lafayette, LA 70506
     Phone: (337) 534-4043


ADF MIDATLANTIC: Keim Seeks to Certify Friend-Forwarder Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled BRIAN KEIM, an individual,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ADF
MIDATLANTIC, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, AMERICAN
HUTS INC., a foreign corporation, ADF PIZZA I, LLC, a foreign
limited liability company, ADF PA, LLC, a foreign limited
liability company, and PIZZA HUT, INC., a foreign corporation,
Case No. 9:12-cv-80577-KAM (S.D. Fla.), moves for certification of
the class with respect to the claims against the Defendants
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The proposed TCPA Friend-Forwarder Class consists of:

     All persons within the United States (1) who received a text
     message from Defendants (2) wherein their cellular telephone
     number was provided by a third-party (3) and said text
     messages were sent using using hardware and software owned
     or licensed to Songwhale or Cellit (4) during the four year
     period prior to the filing of the original complaint in this
     action through the date of certification (between November
     2010 and January 2013).

The Plaintiff states that the proposed class is comprised of
13,046 people, each with the same claim for statutory damages
arising from the unsolicited marketing text messages advertising
the Defendants' food products ("PH Texts").  The Plaintiff asserts
that there is no problem identifying the class members because
Pizza Hut's records detail each illegal text that was sent, and
identify the recipient by their cellular phone number.

Mr. Keim further moves the Court to appoint him to be Class
representative, and appoint his counsel to be counsel for the
Class.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott D. Owens, Esq.
          Patrick C. Crotty, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, PA.
          3800 S. Ocean Dr., Suite 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019
          Telephone: (954) 589-0588
          Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
          E-mail: Scott@ScottDOwens.com

               - and -

          Amy L. Wells, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-1902
          Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
          E-mail: AWells@KeoghLaw.com


ADVANCE STORES: Whitehead's Motion to Certify Class Terminated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Roy B. Dalton, Jr., directed the Clerk of Court to
terminate the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification
filed in the lawsuit captioned JORDAN WHITEHEAD v. ADVANCE STORES
COMPANY INC., Case No. 5:16-cv-00250-RBD-PRL (M.D. Fla.).

On August 3, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for class
certification, which the Court had previously denied as premature.
Instead of responding to the Class Motion, the parties filed a
notice of settlement and a joint motion for preliminary approval
of a proposed settlement agreement.

On January 9, 2017, the Court preliminarily approved the proposed
settlement agreement and certified the settlement class, rendering
the Class Ceetification Motion moot.

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


AETNA INC: Faces Class Action, March 27 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Jan. 26
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Aetna Inc. securities (AET) from August 15, 2016
through January 20, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Aetna investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Aetna class action, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases-
1039.html or call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free
at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Aetna and its senior executives attempted to leverage
Aetna's participation in the Public Exchanges for favorable
treatment from regulators regarding the Humana acquisition; (2)
Aetna threatened to limit its participation in public health
insurance exchanges if the Department of Justice ("DOJ") attempted
to block the merger; (3) Aetna did not withdraw from certain
public health insurance exchanges for business reasons as
Defendants claimed, but to follow through on its threat of leaving
the marketplace once the DOJ filed suit and to improve its
litigation position; (4) Aetna withdrew from public health
insurance exchanges that were profitable for Aetna; and (5) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Aetna's
business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
March 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, go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1039.htmlor to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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


AIR MILES: Expiry Cancellation Won't Halt Rewards Program Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sophia Harris, writing for CBC News, reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit targeting Air Miles will continue even though the
rewards program has cancelled its controversial expiry policy.

"Too little too late," says David Helm, the lead plaintiff in the
suit and a longtime Air Miles collector.

While cancelling the expiry policy eliminated one major concern,
other beefs about Air Miles continue, such as fair access to
rewards, says Mr. Helm, who lives in Red Deer, Alta.

There's also a new complaint: disgruntled members who spent
thousands of miles on rewards they didn't really want just to beat
a now-withdrawn expiry date.

"Air Miles has not provided adequate compensation to those who
have suffered," says Mr. Helm.  "Until such time as we're
satisfied, we're going forward."

In order to proceed, the suit must first be certified in court.

Air Miles program still 'unfair'

The proposed class action was filed in September by Calgary law
firm JSS Barristers on behalf of Air Miles members.

The suit alleged the program "engaged in unfair practices"
including introducing a five-year expiry policy for miles without
adequate notice.  It also claimed Air Miles made it difficult for
collectors to use up their points before they expired on Jan. 1.

Following increasing pressure from critics, the program's owner,
Toronto-based LoyaltyOne, cancelled its expiry rule last month.

But the suit was "actually about the fair treatment of program
members," says lawyer Andrew Wilson, who's with JSS Barristers.
"And that hasn't changed," he claims.

The suit's unresolved issues include the allegation that Air Miles
unfairly blocked some members from accessing various rewards.

CBC News ran stories in the summer about collector complaints that
when they finally had enough points to buy selected premium
merchandise, their chosen rewards suddenly disappeared.

At the time, the program said it tailored rewards based on each
member's personal preferences and engagement in the program.

In October, Air Miles stated it changed its policy due to member
feedback.  It would now base rewards access on how many miles
collectors rack up in a year.

Mr. Wilson claims that regardless of what set of rules it uses,
giving different collectors access to different rewards
contradicts Air Miles' promotional slogans such as "reward
yourself your way" and "the choice is yours."

"The position they're taking to members seems to be this is a
wonderful, open flexible program where you're in complete control,
and that's not the case," he says.

Air Miles would not comment on the lawsuit, telling CBC news it
doesn't discuss pending legal matters.

Cash rewards still hot topic

Mr. Wilson claims another outstanding issue is the fact that in
late 2011, the rewards program split miles into two different
categories -- dream and cash.

People who missed the news and didn't choose a category later
discovered that all miles earned during that time were defaulted
to the dream category -- which includes lots of pricey travel and
merchandise rewards.

Under the new rules, unspecified miles -- along with any miles
earned before 2012 -- can no longer be used to get popular gift
cards which are now locked in the cash category.

"It all comes back to the same issues regarding was the program
run properly and fairly to its members?" says Wilson.

He adds that complaints continue to pour in about Air Miles.  A
common one now is people who spent miles they thought would soon
expire on rewards they didn't particularly want.

Mr. Wilson says he may update the suit to include this latest
gripe in some form.

Helm says he was saving his points for a dream vacation to the
South Pacific.  But he ended up squandering thousands on a trip to
the Yukon only because of the looming expiry date.

"We could have bought the trip for next to nothing but we chose to
use Air Miles because we were trying to get rid of them," he says.

Air Miles states on its website that it's not accepting returns,
cancellations or exchanges due to the cancellation of the expiry
policy.

Trouble ahead?

The proposed lawsuit isn't the only battle Air Miles faces.

Many retailers partner with the program to offer customers
rewards, including Metro grocery stores in Ontario.  But Metro's
chief executive Eric La Fleche said that the negativity
surrounding Air Miles will be a factor when the program's contract
is up for renewal.

"It has been rocky this fall with Air Miles, no doubt about that,"
he said.

On Jan. 25, Metro sent an email to customers who use Air Miles,
informing them, "Metro will continue to offer this benefit for as
long as it continues to meet the needs of our customers."

Air Miles' Facebook site is also still riddled with nasty comments
from collectors -- some of whom say they've had enough.

"It's a new year -- one that is free of Air Miles Canada card in
my wallet," posted one person earlier this month.

I will "forever boycott Air Miles," wrote someone else.

Plaintiff Helm says he will still remain a member for now, in case
he receives some kind of compensation from the lawsuit. Damages
sought for class action members have not yet been specified.

Once that chapter is over, Mr. Helm also says he'll be done with
the program -- unless it finds a way to treat customers more
fairly.

"I don't plan on dealing with Air Miles again unless they come up
with something a whole lot better."

Mr. Wilson hopes to amend the suit's statement of claim this month
to reflect the expiry cancellation and include any new
allegations.


ALICO INC: Settlement in Shareholder Lawsuit Has Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
A court has entered a final order and judgment approving the
settlement in the shareholder class action lawsuit against Alico,
Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2016.

On March 11, 2015, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit
captioned Shiva Y. Stein v. Alico, Inc., et al., No. 15-CA-000645
(the "Stein lawsuit"), was filed in the Circuit Court of the
Twentieth Judicial District in and for Lee County, Florida,
against Alico, Inc. ("Alico"), its current and certain former
directors, 734 Citrus Holdings, LLC d/b/a Silver Nip Citrus, 734
Investors, LLC ("734 Investors"), 734 Agriculture, LLC ("734
Agriculture") and 734 Sub, LLC ("734 Sub") in connection with the
acquisition of Silver Nip Citrus by Alico (the "Merger"). The
complaint alleged that Alico's directors at the time of the
Merger, 734 Investors and 734 Agriculture breached fiduciary
duties to Alico stockholders in connection with the Merger and
that Silver Nip and 734 Sub aided and abetted such breaches. The
lawsuit sought, among other things, monetary and equitable relief,
costs, fees (including attorneys' fees) and expenses.

On May 6, 2015, a putative stockholder class action and derivative
lawsuit captioned Ruth S. Dimon Trust v. George R. Brokaw, et al.,
No. 15-CA-001162 (the "Dimon lawsuit"), was filed in the Circuit
Court of the Twentieth Judicial District in and for Lee County,
Florida, against Alico, its current directors, Silver Nip Citrus,
734 Investors and 734 Agriculture in connection with the Merger of
Silver Nip Citrus by Alico. The complaint alleged breach of
fiduciary duty, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and
tortious interference with contract against Alico's directors;
unjust enrichment against three of the directors; and aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty against Silver Nip Citrus, 734
investors and 734 Agriculture. The lawsuit sought, among other
things, rescission of the Merger, an injunction prohibiting
certain payments to Silver Nip Citrus members, unspecified
damages, disgorgement of profits, costs, fees (including
attorneys' fees) and expenses.

On July 17, 2015, the plaintiffs in the Stein and Dimon lawsuits
filed a stipulation and proposed order consolidating their cases
for all purposes under the caption, In re Alico, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Master File No. 15-CA-000645 (the "Consolidated
Action") and seeking the appointment of a lead plaintiff and lead
and liaison counsel. The court entered that proposed order on July
21, 2015.

On October 16, 2015, the lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Action
reported to the Court that the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle the Consolidated Action and other claims
related to the Merger and that they were in the process of
formally documenting their agreements. The proposed settlement
contemplated that Alico would adopt certain changes to its
corporate governance practices, policies and procedures concerning
related party transactions; the Consolidated Action would be
dismissed; and all claims that were or could have been asserted
challenging any aspect of the Merger would be released. On March
31, 2016, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement.
The parties filed an Amended Stipulation of Settlement with the
Court on April 22, 2016.

On April 28, 2016, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and providing for notice to relevant
Alico shareholders.  Notice of the settlement was mailed to
relevant Alico shareholders and a settlement hearing was held on
September 12, 2016, during which the Court considered the
fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement and
plaintiffs' counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses.

Following the settlement hearing on September 12, 2016, the Court
entered a final order and judgment that approved the settlement as
fair, reasonable and adequate; directed the parties to consummate
the settlement according to its terms; awarded plaintiffs' counsel
attorneys' fees and expenses; and dismissed the Consolidated
Action with prejudice.

Alico is an agribusiness and natural resources management company,
with a legacy of achievement and innovation in citrus, cattle and
resource conservation. The Company owns approximately 122,000
acres of land in twelve Florida counties (Alachua, Charlotte,
Collier, DeSoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, Highlands, Lee, Martin,
Osceola and Polk) including approximately 90,000 acres of mineral
rights.  Its principal lines of business are citrus groves, cattle
ranching and conservation.


AMERICAN HEALTH: "Thompson" Wants Overtime Pay for Phlebotomists
----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANIE THOMPSON, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND THOSE SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, vs. AMERICAN HEALTH ASSOCIATES, INC., A
FOREIGN CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00142 (M.D.
Tenn., January 19, 2017), alleges that Defendant misclassified its
phlebotomists as exempt from overtime compensation in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

American Health Associates, Inc. is a clinical reference
laboratory.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian C. Winfrey, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     2002 Richard Jones Rd., Suite B-200
     Nashville, TN 37215
     Phone: (615) 601-1276
     E-mail: bwinfrey@forthepeople.com

        - and -

     C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
     P.O. Box 4979
     Orlando, FL 32802-4979
     Phone: (407) 420-1414
     Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com


ANZ SECURITIES: Supreme Court to Hear Appeal in CalPERs Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the U.S. Supreme Court agreed on January 13, to clarify
whether its precedent on delaying the start of the statute of
limitations in class actions has an application in the securities
setting.

Referred to generally as "American Pipe tolling," the practice
takes its name from the Supreme Court's decision on the 1974
decision American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah.

CalPERS, short for the California Public Employees' Retirement
System, contends that the precedent should be considered in
determining whether a case it filed in New York is barred by the
three-year statute of repose contained in section 13 of the
Securities Act of 1933.

ANZ Securities is the lead defendant named in the CalPERS case,
which is part of sprawling litigation over the bankruptcy of
Lehman Brothers.

After U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan dismissed CalPERS' case,
the Second Circuit affirmed on July 8, 2016, holding firm to its
position that American Pipe tolling does not affect the statute of
repose embodied in section 13.

In its 6-page opinion, the federal appeals court said it saw no
reason to distinguish CalPERS' case from its 2013 ruling Police &
Fire Ret. Sys. of City of Detroit v. IndyMac MBS Inc.

"Under IndyMac's reasoning, the inapplicability of American Pipe
tolling to a statute of repose turns on the nature of the tolling
rule and its ineffectiveness against statutes of repose, not
whether the named plaintiffs have proper standing to assert claims
on behalf of a class," the decision says.

The ruling also rejects CalPERS' argument that "its claims were
essentially 'filed' against the defendant within three years and
therefore timely" because it fell within the putative class before
exercising its right to opt out.

"The very principle of tolling is to permit claims not timely
asserted to proceed if the requirements for suspending the
limitations period are met," the ruling continues.

As to the issue of due process, the court noted that such
protections "are directed at preventing a putative class member
from being bound by a judgment without her consent."

"In essence, the opt-out right merely ensures that each putative
class member retains the ability to act independently of the class
action if she so elects," the judges added. "The opt-out right
does not confer extra benefits to a plaintiff's independent
action. CalPERS's right to initiate and pursue an individual
action before, during, and after the putative class action was
unchanged -- including the necessity of instituting such an action
within section 13's three-year statute of repose."

Given that IndyMac created a circuit split with the 10th Circuit,
the panel noted that the Supreme Court might want to weigh in.

"Indeed, the court initially granted certiorari to review IndyMac
itself, but dismissed the writ as improvidently granted two weeks
after a motion for settlement approval was filed in the district
court."

That prediction proved prescient on January 13, when the high
court took up the case among a batch of 16 cases. Per their
custom, the justices did not issue any comment with the grant of
certiorari.


APPLE INC: Calif. Judge Rejects "Adkins" Warranty Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in San Francisco, January 11, rejected last-
ditch efforts to save a putative class action accusing Apple of
lying to consumers about its iPhone warranties, and using
refurbished rather than new parts to fix them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Orrick refused that request also on January 11, calling recusal
"unnecessary and inappropriate" and denying allegations of "taint
or judicial bias."

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

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

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

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

The case is captioned, FABRIENNE ENGLISH, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC,
et al., Defendants, Case 3:14-cv-01619-WHO (N.D. Cal.).


ARKANSAS, USA: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Suit v. Helder
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable James R. Marschewski denied the Plaintiff's second
motion for class certification filed in the lawsuit titled ROBERT
W. AVERY v. SHERIFF HELDER, et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-05169-TLB-JRM
(W.D. Ark.).

Tim Helder is the Sheriff of Washington County, Arkansas.

The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class Certification on Nov. 21,
2016, and the Defendant filed their Response on November 22, 2016.
The Plaintiff filed his first Motion for Class Certification on
July 21, 2016, which was denied on August 26, 2016, according to
the Order.

"The Plaintiff has filed numerous claims in federal court.  In the
Fayetteville Division in 2013 he filed a similar claim which was
dismissed for failure to follow the court's orders.  He has also
had cases that have been dismissed for failure to state a claim
(16-5283 and 04-5116)," Judge Marschewski states.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=h9kGPI6C


ARS NAT'L: 9th Cir. Slams Class Action Settlement Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal
magistrate judge abused her discretion in approving a class action
settlement that gave no compensation to a class of 4 million
people and provided "worthless" injunctive relief, an appeals
court ruled on Jan. 25.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that U.S.
Magistrate Judge Karen Crawford in the Southern District of
California had jurisdiction to approve a settlement against debt
collector ARS National Services Inc. but unanimously reversed and
remanded the agreement's approval because it gave no benefit to
the class.

"The magistrate judge abused her discretion by approving the
settlement in this case," wrote Judge Paul Watford, who was joined
on the panel by Michelle Friedland and U.S. District Judge J.
Frederick Motz of Maryland, sitting by designation.  "The
settlement should not have been approved for one primary reason:
There is no evidence that the relief afforded by the settlement
has any value to the class members, yet to obtain it they had to
relinquish their right to seek damages in any other class action."

The case alleged that ARS violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act by leaving voicemail messages that failed to
disclose the callers worked for ARS, which was a debt collector,
or that their intent was to collect a debt.  The class involved
anyone who got such a voicemail message from April 2008 to August
2011.  The 2013 settlement also involved no notice to class
members, who were prohibited from opting out and forfeited their
right to pursue damages as a class.

"Cutting off access to a procedural tool that may offer the only
realistic means of obtaining monetary relief deprived the absent
class members of something of value here, even if it might be
worth relatively little," Judge Watford wrote.

The panel also questioned the settlement's $35,000 cy pres award
and "worthless" injunctive relief -- specifically, a requirement
that ARS change its voicemail message to one it already had been
using.

The case ended up before the Ninth Circuit after an objector
appealed the settlement's approval.  The objector, represented
before the Ninth Circuit by Jonathan Taylor --
jon@guptawessler.com -- of Washington, D.C.'s Gupta Wessler PLLC,
is a named plaintiff in a similar class  action in the Southern
District of Florida against ARS.

"The decision makes clear that the rights of absent class members
cannot be bargained away in exchange for worthless relief,"
Mr. Taylor wrote in an email.  "We hope that the decision puts an
end to attempts to cut class actions off at the knees, on the
cheap, and in the dark."

Sean Flynn, a partner in the Irvine, California, office of Gordon
Rees Scully Mansukhani, who represented ARS, did not respond to
requests for comment.

The case also delved into the use of magistrate judges to oversee
class action settlements.  The National Association of Consumer
Advocates, in an amicus brief, argued that the statute under which
the parties waived their right to a district judge in favor of a
magistrate judge was unconstitutional because it did not require
the consent of unnamed class members.

In a letter to the court, the Department of Justice backed the
constitutionality of the statute, and the Ninth Circuit agreed.


BANKRATE INC: Saxena's Fee Request in Securities Case Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Joseph, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
Boca Raton law firm seeking about $2 million for plaintiffs
attorneys in a securities fraud case has accomplished an
interesting feat: juggling high-profile class actions across the
U.S. while deftly avoiding the spotlight.

Saxena White attorneys Lester Hooker, Esq. --
lhooker@saxenawhite.com -- and Joseph E. White, Esq. --
jwhite@saxenawhite.com -- submitted a motion for fees and expenses
as liaison counsel for Los Angeles' fire and police pension
system, which reached a $20 million settlement with publisher
Bankrate Inc., wealth managers Goldman Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch
Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc. and other defendants.

The motion pending before U.S. District Judge Donald M.
Middlebrooks in West Palm Beach seeks 10 percent of the settlement
fund as part of litigation by lead counsel, Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check in Pennsylvania.  It stems from allegations Bankrate
inflated its stock price by misstating earnings from March 2013 to
September 2014.

But apart from passing mentions in the widely covered case, Saxena
White has flown under the radar -- just as it did as
co-lead counsel in Bank of America Corp.'s landmark $62.5 million
settlement in a derivative case over its acquisition of Merrill
Lynch & Co.

Mr. Hooker shrugged that off on Jan. 19, stressing instead the
firm's supporting role in the Bankrate case.
"Our clients are not concerned about press," he said.  "They want
to meet their fiduciary obligations."

For years, the firm sidestepped the publicity that typically
follows multimillion-dollar litigation involving some of the
nation's largest public companies.  It has said little about
ongoing representation of lead shareholder plaintiffs in a federal
class action suit in Delaware against Wilmington Trust Co., the
first bank to face criminal charges for its role in the 2008
financial market crisis.  It's said even less about its role as
co-lead counsel with San Francisco-based Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein in a shareholder derivative class action against Wells
Fargo & Co.

Saxena White is a 10-year-old firm founded in 2006 by Maya Saxena
and White to specialize in securities class actions and
derivatives litigation involving mostly institutional investors.
Its website lists 11 attorneys, including special counsel and
director of forensic accounting Jorge A. Amador.  The firm has
handled more than 100 class actions, drawing praise from federal
courts in New York, New Jersey, California and Florida, according
to its marketing material.

But its attorneys and corporate clients seem to prefer quiet
litigation.

"Stepping up and serving in an active role . . . obtains recovery
on behalf of hundreds, if not thousands, of investors,"
Mr. Hooker said.


BIG LOTS: Class Certification Bid in "Willis" Action Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
The motion for class certification filed in the case, Willis, et
al. v. Big Lots, Inc., et al., remains pending, Big Lots, Inc.
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 7, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended October 29, 2016.

The Company said, "On July 9, 2012, a putative securities class
action lawsuit captioned Willis, et al. v. Big Lots, Inc., et al.,
2:12-cv-00604 (S.D. Ohio) was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of persons who acquired
our common shares between February 2, 2012 and April 23, 2012.
This lawsuit was filed against us, Lisa Bachmann, Mr. Cooper, Mr.
Fishman and Mr. Haubiel. The complaint in the putative class
action generally alleges that the defendants made statements
concerning our financial performance that were false or
misleading. The complaint asserts claims under sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and
seeks damages in an unspecified amount, plus attorneys' fees and
expenses.

"The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 4, 2013,
which added Mr. Johnson as a defendant, removed Ms. Bachmann as a
defendant, and extended the putative class period to August 23,
2012. On May 6, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
putative class action complaint.

"On January 21, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss, allowing some claims to move
forward. The case is currently in discovery.

"On May 27, 2016, the lead plaintiff moved for class certification
(requesting a class period from March 2, 2012 through August 23,
2012) and to appoint class representatives and class counsel.
Defendants opposed the motion and it remains before the Court."

On August 3, 2016, the Defendants filed an Opposition to the
Motion to Certify Class and to Appoint Class Representatives and
Class Counsel.

On August 15, 2016, the case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge
Kimberly A. Jolson for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge
Norah McCann King was removed from the case.

Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus presides over the case.


BRAND ENERGY: "Gutierrez" Alleges Violations of Cal. Labor Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS GUTIERREZ on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated, v. BRAND ENERGY SERVICES OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; BRAND
SERVICES, LLC; BRAND ENERGY & INFRASTRUCTURE HOLDINGS, INC.; BRAND
ENERGY & INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES, INC.; BRAND SCAFFOLD SERVICES,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG-
17846239 (Cal. Super., Alameda County, January 19, 2017), was
brought to challenge Defendants' alleged (a) policy and practice
of violating California Labor Code and Wage Order by failing to
compensate employees for all off-the-clock time; (b) policy and
practice of violating California Labor Code by failing to provide
complete and accurate itemized wage statements; and (c) policy and
practice of violating California Labor Code by failing to pay
former employees all wages due and owing at the time of discharge
or voluntary quit.

The Defendants provide construction services for clients
throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eric A. Grover, Esq.
     Robert W. Spencer, Esq.
     KELLER GROVER LLP
     1965 Market Street
     San Francisco, CA 94103
     Phone: (415)543-1305
     Fax: (415) 543-7861
     E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com
             rspencer@kellergrover.com

        - and -

     Carlos Cerda, Esq.
     THE CERDA LAW OFFICES
     1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 3010
     Walnut Creek, CA 94596
     Phone: (925) 946-4614
     Fax: (888) 545-4282
     E-mail: carlos@cerdalawoffices.com

        - and -

     Scot Bernstein, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN,
     101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100
     Folsom, CA 95630
     Phone: (916) 447-0100
     Fax: (916)933-5533
     E-mail: swampadero@sbernsteinlaw.com


BT GROUP: Faces Class Action, March 27 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 25 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against BT Group plc ("BT Group" or the "Company") (BT)
and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United
States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed
under 17-cv-00558, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired BT Group
American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between May 23, 2013 and
January 23, 2017, 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 BT Group 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.

BT Group is a multinational telecommunications services company
that offers fixed-line services, broadband, mobile and TV products
and services, and networked IT services in the United Kingdom and
across the world.  The Company also sells wholesale products and
services to communications providers around the world.  Globally,
BT Group supplies managed networked IT services to multinational
corporations, domestic businesses, and national and local
government organizations.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's Italian division
had for years engaged in improper accounting practices; (ii) as a
result, BT Group significantly overstated its earnings throughout
the Class Period; (iii) the foregoing facts, when they became
known, would foreseeably cause BT Group to cut its revenue,
earnings, and free cash flow forecasts; and (iv) as a result of
the foregoing, BT Group's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 27, 2016, BT Group announced that the Company had
uncovered "inappropriate management behavior" at its Italian
division.  BT Group advised investors that the Company had
"conducted an initial internal investigation" which "included a
review of accounting practices during which we have identified
certain historical accounting errors and reassessed certain areas
of management judgment."  Consequently, the Company announced that
it had "written down the value of items on the balance sheet by
GBP145 [million]."  On this news, BT Group's ADR price fell $0.57,
or 2.39%, to close at $23.25 on October 27, 2016.

On January 24, 2017, BT Group issued a news release entitled
"Update on investigation into BT's Italian business and on BT
Group outlook."  On this news, BT Group's ADR price fell $5.05, or
20.67%, to close at $19.38 on January 24, 2017.

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.


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Stolinski Seeks to Certify Class Under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Agnes Stolinski, formerly known as Dawlak, moves the Court to
certify a class in the matter entitled Agnes Stolinski, f/k/a
Dawlak, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Capital Management Services, LP, a Delaware limited
partnership, and LVNV Funding, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Case No. 1:17-cv-00189 (N.D. Ill.).

Ms. Stolinski moves for class certification, and asks that the
Court allow her to represent a class of all persons similarly
situated in the state of Illinois from whom the Defendants
attempted to collect a delinquent, time-barred consumer debt,
allegedly owed for an HSBC/Carsons account, via the same form
collection letter, that the Defendants sent to her, from one year
before the date of this Complaint to the present.  The action
seeks a finding that the Defendants' form letter violates the
Federal Debt Collection Practices Act, and asks that the Court
award damages as authorized by Section 1692k(a)(2) of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

Ms. Stolinski further asks that briefing on the Motion be stayed
pending discovery as to class issues, such as net worth and
numerosity.  She contends that she is filing the Motion now to
avoid an individual "buy-off" settlement payment to her only,
which could potentially wipe out the Class' claims.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1emaTr88

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974-2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com
                  angiekrobertson@aol.com


CHARLES SCHWAB: "Severson" Lawsuit Alleges ERISA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER W. SEVERSON; individually as a participant in the
SCHWABPLAN RETIREMENT SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN and on behalf of
a class of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE CHARLES
SCHWAB CORPORATION; CHARLES SCHWAB & CO INC.; SCHWAB
RETIREMENT PLAN SERVICES INC.; CHARLES SCHWAB BANK; CHARLES SCHWAB
INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, INC.; JOHN DOES 1-50; and XYZ CORPORATIONS
1-5, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00285-JCS (N.D. Cal., January
19, 2017), was filed on behalf of the SchwabPlan
Retirement Savings and Investment Plan to obtain the relief
provided under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act for
losses allegedly suffered by the Plan resulting from the
Defendants' fiduciary breaches and prohibited transactions.  The
Defendants allegedly committed an imprudent and disloyal exercise
of their discretionary fiduciary authority over the Plan to
include Defendants' own affiliated investment products as
investment options within the Plan and sale of their own services
to the Plan.

Defendant Charles Schwab Bank is a federal savings association.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James A. Bloom, Esq.
     Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
     James A. Bloom, Esq.
     Kyle G. Bates, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
     Emeryville, CA 94608
     Phone: (415) 421-7100
     Fax: (415) 421-7105
     E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
             jbloom@schneiderwallace.com
             kbates@schneiderwallace.com

        - and -

     Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
     John J. Nestico, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     8501 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 270
     Scottsdale, AZ 85253
     Phone: (408) 428-0144
     Fax: (866) 505-5036
     E-mail: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com
             jnestico@schneiderwallace.com

        - and -

     Todd S. Collins, Esq.
     Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
     Ellen T. Noteware, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365
     Phone: (215) 875-3000
     Fax: (215) 875-4604
     E-mail: tcollins@bm.net
             scarson@bm.net
             enoteware@bm.net

        - and -

     Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
     James A. Bloom, Esq.
     Kyle G. Bates, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
     2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
     Emeryville, CA 94608
     Phone: (415) 421-7100
     Fax: (415) 421-7105
     E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
             jbloom@schneiderwallace.com
             kbates@schneiderwallace.com


CHRYSLER GROUP: Wants Auto Defect Class Action Documents Unsealed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge
in Los Angeles wrestled on Jan. 23 with whether to keep certain
documents sealed in a case against Chrysler that prompted the
defense bar last year to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review
standards for keeping court records under wraps.

Chrysler Group, now FCA US LLC, had petitioned the high court to
reverse a Jan. 11, 2016, ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, which found it lacked "compelling reasons" for
sealing documents in a class action over an alleged power module
defect.  The Ninth Circuit reversed a 2014 ruling by U.S. District
Judge Dean Pregerson of the Central District of California, who
refused to grant a motion to unseal the documents brought by the
Center for Auto Safety in Washington, which had sought to
intervene in the case.

After the Supreme Court declined to take up Chrysler's petition,
Judge Pregerson asked both sides to submit supplemental briefing
on the "compelling reasons" standard.  He took the matter under
submission following a hearing on Jan. 23.

"The competitive advantage issue is a tough one," he said, noting
that there were many competitive aspects to how something is made
-- not just the technical elements.  "I don't know where to draw
the line."

Leslie Bailey, a staff attorney at Public Justice, which is
representing the Center for Auto Safety, said the documents
include briefs, declarations and email exhibits that could show
FCA was hiding evidence of the defect.

"Without access to this evidence, there's no way for a member of
the public to judge what went on," she said.

But FCA attorney Steve D'Aunoy -- sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- a
partner at Thompson Coburn in St. Louis, Missouri, argued the
advocacy group's interest was to support its own investigation of
an alleged defect, not give the public access to the documents.

"These aren't the type of documents that will aid the public in
understanding the judicial process," he said.

The dispute comes in a case alleging several Chrysler vehicles had
power failures due to a defect.  The plaintiffs sought a
preliminary injunction, prompting both sides to file documents
under seal.

Judge Pregerson denied the motion, and the Center for Auto Safety
moved to intervene.  The judge refused to unseal the documents,
saying that the "compelling reasons" standard, which applies to
court records, did not apply to the motion, which could be sealed
under the lower "good cause" standard.

The Ninth Circuit disagreed.  FCA's petition to the Supreme Court
drew support from big business groups including the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce and the Washington Legal Foundation.

Chrysler settled the case in 2015, leaving just the sealing issue
unresolved.


CHW GROUP: Reynolds Moves for Certification of Eight TCPA Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the case captioned DIANA REYNOLDS and SANDRA
HIGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. CHW GROUP, INC., d/b/a Choice Home Warranty, a New Jersey
corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-00170 (N.D. Ill.) move the Court for
an order certifying the case, as a class action, but ask the Court
to enter and continue the Motion until after the completion of
discovery on class-wide issues, at which time the Plaintiffs will
submit a more detailed memorandum of points and authorities in
support of  class certification.  The Plaintiffs seek
certification of eight classes of similarly situated individuals,
defined as:

   (1) Autodialed No Consent Class: All persons in the United
       States who from four years prior to the filing of the
       initial complaint in this action to the present: (1)
       Defendant (or a third person acting on behalf of
       Defendant) called; (2) on the person's cellular telephone
       number using an ATDS; (3) for the purpose of selling
       Defendant's products and services; and (4) for whom
       Defendant claims it obtained prior express consent in the
       same manner as Defendant claims it obtained prior express
       consent to call the Plaintiffs;

   (2) Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United
       States who from four years prior to the filing of the
       initial complaint in this action to the present: (1)
       Defendant (or a third person acting on behalf of
       Defendant) called more than one time on his/her cellular
       telephone; (2) within any 12-month period (3) where the
       cellular telephone number had been listed on the National
       Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days; (4) for the
       purpose of selling Defendant's products and services; and
       (5) for whom Defendant claims it obtained prior express
       consent in the same manner as Defendant claims it obtained
       prior express consent to call the Plaintiffs;

   (3) Autodialed Stop Call Class: All persons in the United
       States who from four years prior to the filing of the
       initial complaint in this action to the present: (1)
       Defendant (or a third person acting on behalf of
       Defendant) called, (2) on the person's cellular telephone
       number using an ATDS, and (3) for the purpose of selling
       Defendant's products and services, (4) after the person
       informed Defendant that s/he no longer wished to receive
       calls from Defendant;

   (4) Stop Call DNC Registry Class: All persons in the United
       States who from four years prior to the filing of the
       initial complaint in this action to the present: (1)
       Defendant (or a third person acting on behalf of
       Defendant) called, (2) on the person's telephone number,
       (3) where the telephone number had been listed on the
       National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days,
       (4) for the purpose of selling Defendant's products and
       services (5) at least thirty (30) days after the person
       informed Defendant (or a third person acting on behalf of
       Defendant) that s/he no longer wished to receive calls
       from Defendant (or a third person acting on behalf of
       Defendant);

   (5) Illinois Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in
       Illinois who from one year prior to the filing of the
       initial complaint in this action to the present: (1)
       Defendant (or a third person acting on behalf of
       Defendant) called on his/her telephone; (2) where the
       telephone number had been listed on the National Do Not
       Call Registry for at least forty five days; (3) for the
       purpose of selling Defendant's goods and services; and (4)
       for whom Defendant claims it obtained prior express
       consent in the same manner as Defendant claims it obtained
       prior express consent to call the Plaintiffs;

   (6) Illinois Stop Call Class: All persons in Illinois who from
       one year prior to the filing of the initial complaint in
       this action to the present: (1) Defendant (or a third
       person acting on behalf of Defendant) called, (2) on the
       person's telephone number, and (3) for the purpose of
       selling Defendant's products and services, (4) at least
       thirty (30) days after the person informed Defendant (or a
       third person acting on behalf of Defendant) that s/he no
       longer wished to receive calls from Defendant (or a third
       person acting on behalf of Defendant);

   (7) Oregon Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in Oregon
       who from one year prior to the filing of the initial
       complaint in this action to the present: (1) Defendant (or
       a third person acting on behalf of Defendant) called on
       his/her telephone; (2) where the telephone number had been
       listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least
       thirty days; (3) for the purpose of selling Defendant's
       goods and services; and (4) for whom Defendant claims it
       obtained prior express consent in the same manner as
       Defendant claims it obtained prior express consent to call
       the Plaintiffs; and

   (8) Oregon Stop Call Class: All persons in Oregon who from one
       year prior to the filing of the initial complaint in this
       action to the present: (1) Defendant (or a third person
       acting on behalf of Defendant) called, (2) on the person's
       telephone number, and (3) for the purpose of selling
       Defendant's products and services, (4) after the person
       informed Defendant that s/he no longer wished to receive
       calls from Defendant.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that CHW obtained the
cellular telephone numbers of thousands of consumers nationwide --
including the Plaintiffs and eight proposed Classes of consumers -
- and made unsolicited telephone calls to those consumers to
market home warranty plans.  Through that conduct, the Defendant
not only invaded their personal privacy, but repeatedly violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Plaintiffs contend.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          Adam T. Savett, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
          201 S. Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333-9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
          E-mail: Law@Stefancoleman.com
                  Adam@Stefancoleman.com


CLIENT SERVICES: Certification of Class Sought in "Suxstorf" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Suxstorf moves the Court to certify the class described in the
the lawsuit titled TOM SUXSTORF, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. CLIENT SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:17-
cv-00043 (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay
the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and
the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic
briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to
be filed with the Motion.

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

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence, 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=j6q6rrvk

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


COLONY CAPITAL: Reached MOU in "Carter" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Colony Capital, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 12, 2016, that
Colony entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the
plaintiff in the Carter action providing for the settlement of the
Carter action.

As announced, on June 2, 2016, Colony Capital, Inc., a Maryland
corporation ("Colony"), entered into an Agreement and Plans of
Merger, as amended from time to time, with NorthStar Asset
Management Group Inc., a Delaware corporation ("NSAM") and
NorthStar Realty Finance Corp., a Maryland corporation ("NRF"),
and certain subsidiary entities of NSAM and NRF, pursuant to which
NSAM, Colony and NRF will combine in an all-stock merger of equals
(the "Mergers"). In connection with the Mergers, each of NSAM,
Colony and NRF has filed a definitive joint proxy statement with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on
November 18, 2016, which was supplemented by the Current Report on
Form 8-K filed with the SEC by each of NSAM and NRF on November
23, 2016 (the "Definitive Proxy Statement").

As described in the Definitive Proxy Statement, a purported
stockholder of Colony filed a putative class action complaint in
the United States District Court of the District of Maryland
(referred to as the Carter action) against Colony and the members
of the Colony board. The complaint alleges, among other things,
that the initial joint proxy statement/prospectus and the first
amendment thereto filed in respect of the Mergers omit or misstate
various facts concerning the financial analyses performed by the
financial advisors to Colony. Also as noted in the Definitive
Proxy Statement, substantially similar claims were filed against
NSAM, NRF and their respective boards of directors.

On December 9, 2016, Colony entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the plaintiff in the Carter action providing
for the settlement of the Carter action (the "Colony Memorandum of
Understanding"). In the Colony Memorandum of Understanding, Colony
agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures to the Definitive
Proxy Statement solely for the purposes of minimizing the time,
burden, and expense of litigation. The Colony Memorandum of
Understanding provides that, in exchange for making these
disclosures, defendants will receive, after notice to potential
class members and upon court approval, a customary release of
claims relating to the Mergers. Similar settlements in principle
have been reached in the related litigations against NSAM, NRF,
and their respective boards of directors.

Colony believes that no additional disclosure is required to
supplement the Definitive Proxy Statement under applicable laws.
However, to minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent
in litigation and to avoid any potential delay of the consummation
of the Mergers, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing,
Colony has agreed, pursuant to the Colony Memorandum of
Understanding, to make certain supplemental disclosures to the
Definitive Proxy Statement.


CONCORD AUTOMOBILE: Dealership Settles Suit, Terms Confidential
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class action in San
Francisco, accusing a Bay Area Lexus dealership of conversion and
workplace violence has been settled and the terms are
confidential, according to the defendants' attorney.

William Dotinga, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported in
April 2014 that lead plaintiff Robert Brock Jr., six others and
two of their wives sued Concord Automobile Dealership, Lexus of
Concord and Toyota Motor Sales.  Also named as defendants are
dealership owner Hank Torian, general sales manager Patrick
Miliano and general manager Greg James.  According to the 78-page
lawsuit, Brock and co-plaintiff Jeffery Lao discovered in February
that their paychecks indicated higher bonus amounts -- and higher
payroll taxes -- than they actually received.

In March 2016, Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News
Service, reported that a federal judge dismissed some but not all
claims in a class action accusing a California Lexus dealership of
payroll fraud, death threats and workplace violence.

The plaintiffs claimed that Miliano filed false bonus forms in
their names, then pocketed the extra cash, stealing from them and
increasing their tax liabilities.  They claimed Miliano used
racial slurs in profusion, brought deadly weapons to work and
threatened them with violence.  Brock claimed that after he told
the general manager about the payroll fraud, Miliano threatened to
kill him and his family.

On March 3, 2016, U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr.
dismissed the fraud claims against Miliano, finding the complaint
does not allege that any of the plaintiffs relied on a statement
"made by Miliano" to their detriment, but he let those claims
stand against the dealerships.  Gilliam refused to dismiss
conversion claims against the dealership, and refused to dismiss
the conversion claims against Miliano with respect to three
plaintiffs.  He found the assault claim against Miliano barred by
the two-year statute of limitations, and dismissed the claim on
those grounds.  But Gilliam allowed most of the workplace violence
claims to proceed, finding that much of Miliano's alleged behavior
was claimed to stem from race and gender discrimination.

Gilliam dismissed one plaintiff's claim of intentional infliction
of emotional distress as time-barred, but let that claim stand for
plaintiff Christopher Montoya, who alleged that Miliano threatened
him with death, told him about deadly weapons he owned and taunted
him with racist insults "on a daily basis for six months."


CONN'S INC: Opposition to Class Certification Due February 13
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Conn's Inc. Securities Litigation, Cause No.
14-CV-00548 (S.D. Tex.), Judge Keith P Ellison has entered an
Amended Scheduling Order providing for this timeline:

     Plaintiff Expert Witness List due by 6/1/2017

     Plaintiff Expert Report due by 8/15/2017

     Defendant Expert Witness List due by 7/14/2017

     Discovery due by 4/17/2017

     Motion Filing due by 9/15/2017

     Replies to Opposition to Motions due by 12/15/2017

     Opposition to Motions due by 11/15/2017

     Joint Pretrial Order due by 3/19/2018

     Initial Disclosures due by 7/22/2016

     Jury Trial set for 3/26/2018 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3A
     Houston before Judge Keith P Ellison)

Connecticut Carpenters Annuity Fund, Connecticut Carpenters
Pension Fund, Laborers Pension Trust Fund Detroit and Vicinity,
St. Paul Teachers Retirement Fund Association, Universal
Investment Gesellschaft m.b.H., in November 2016 filed a motion to
certify class.

According to the Court's Scheduling Order, Defendants' Opposition
to Class Certification and any expert report(s) submitted by
Defendants opposing class certification are due by February 13,
2017.

Plaintiffs' Reply for Class Certification and any expert report(s)
that rebut(s) Defendants' opposing expert report are due by March
27, 2017.

CONN'S, INC. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2016, "We and one of our
current and one of our former executive officers are defendants in
a consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
(the "Court"), In re Conn's Inc. Securities Litigation, Cause No.
14-CV-00548 (the "Consolidated Securities Action"). The
Consolidated Securities Action started as three separate purported
securities class action lawsuits filed between March 5, 2014 and
May 5, 2014, which were combined into the Consolidated Securities
Action on June 3, 2014. The plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Securities Action allege that the defendants made false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse
facts about our business, operations, and prospects. They allege
violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seek to
certify a class of all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Conn's common stock and/or call options, or
sold/wrote Conn's put options between April 3, 2013 and December
9, 2014. The complaint does not specify the amount of damages
sought."

"On June 30, 2015, the Court held a hearing on the defendants'
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. At the hearing, the Court
dismissed Brian Taylor, a former executive officer, and certain
other aspects of the complaint. The Court ordered the plaintiffs
to further amend their complaint in accordance with its ruling,
and the plaintiffs filed their Fourth Consolidated Amended
Complaint on July 21, 2015.

"The remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 28,
2015. The briefing on the defendants' motion to dismiss was fully
briefed and the Court held a hearing on defendants' motion over
the course of two days, on March 25 and 29, 2016.

"On May 6, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint.
Thereafter, the defendants filed a motion requesting the Court's
decision be certified for interlocutory appeal to the United
States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which the Court denied on
June 13, 2016.

"On June 24, 2016, the defendant's filed their answer to the
Consolidated Securities Action, denying liability and raising
numerous affirmative defenses to the claims asserted against them.

"The parties have negotiated a scheduling order, which was entered
by the Court on September 13, 2016, and discovery is proceeding.

"The plaintiffs filed their motion for certification on November
10, 2016. The defendants were scheduled to file their opposition
motion on January 6, 2017.

"The defendants intend to vigorously defend against all of these
claims. It is not possible at this time to predict the timing or
outcome of any of this litigation, and we cannot reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss from these
claims."


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Green Moves for Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Green moves the Court to certify the class described in
the lawsuit styled REBECCA GREEN, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC.,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00042 (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, Ms. Green 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, Ms. Green
says.  She asserts that she is obligated to move for class
certification to protect the interests of the putative class.

The Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016
U.S. LEXIS 846 *14-15 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016) (internal citations
omitted) and Chapman should have put a stop to this practice.
Unfortunately, they have not, Ms. Green 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, Ms. Green contends.

Ms. Green 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=crT2ApmA

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


D & J QUALITY: "White" Suit Seeks to Recoup Pay for Health Aides
----------------------------------------------------------------
CISELY WHITE, 19430 Shoreland Ave., Rocky River, Ohio 44116, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
vs. D & J QUALITY CARE ENTERPRISES INC. D/B/A COMFORCARE c/o
Statutory Agent Deborah A. Vermillion, 13315 Prospect Road
Strongsville, Ohio 44149, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00138 (N.D.
Ohio, January 19, 2017), arises out of Defendant's alleged
practices and policies of not paying its non-exempt home health
aides, including Plaintiff, overtime compensation at the rate of
one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for the hours
they worked over 40 each workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  The suit also seeks to remedy violations of the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

Defendant is a home health care business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DARLING INGREDIENTS: Faces "Franco" Suit Seeking to Recoup Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jaime B. Franco, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. DARLING INGREDIENTS, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; DARLING INTERNATIONAL, INC., a business form unknown,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 647508,
(Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, January 19, 2017) was filed
pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure for alleged
failure to pay wages including overtime, failure to provide meal
periods, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide accurate
wage statements, and unfair competition.

DARLING INGREDIENTS, INC. and DARLING INTERNATIONAL, INC., operate
as developers, producers, and sellers of sustainable organic
ingredients to both high end and local markets internationally and
domestically. Defendants own and operate facilities across the
U.S., including California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James R. Hawkins, Esq.
     Gregory Mauro, Esq.
     JAMES HAWKINS APLC
     9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
     Irvine, CA 92618
     Phone: (949)387-7200
     Fax: (949)387-6676
     E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
             Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com


DELL TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Action in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------
Dell Technologies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 28, 2016, that a securities class
action lawsuit is proceeding with discovery.

On May 22, 2014, a securities class action seeking compensatory
damages was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned the City of Pontiac
Employee Retirement System vs. Dell Inc. et. al. (Case No. 1:14-
cv-03644).  The action names as defendants Dell Inc. and certain
current and former executive officers, and alleges that Dell made
false and misleading statements about Dell's business operations
and products between February 22, 2012 and May 22, 2012, which
resulted in artificially inflated stock prices.

The case was transferred to the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas, where the defendants filed a motion
to dismiss.

On September 16, 2016, the Court denied the motion to dismiss and
the case is proceeding with discovery.

The defendants believe the claims asserted are without merit and
the risk of material loss is remote.


DOLLAR TREE: Accord in Ex-Assistant Store Manager's Suits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. is awaiting approval of the settlements in two
cases filed by a former assistant store manager, the Company said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on December 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
October 29, 2016.

In 2013, a former assistant store manager on behalf of himself and
others alleged to be similarly aggrieved filed a representative
Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") claim under California law
currently pending in federal court in California. The suit alleges
that the Company failed to provide uninterrupted meal periods and
rest breaks; failed to pay minimum, regular and overtime wages;
failed to maintain accurate time records and wage statements; and
failed to pay wages due upon termination of employment.

In May 2014, the same assistant store manager filed a putative
class action in a California state court for essentially the same
conduct alleged in the federal court PAGA case.

The parties have reached an agreement to settle the two cases and
the proposed settlement amount has been accrued. The two courts
must approve the terms of the settlement for it to be binding and
final.

The Company operates more than 14,200 retail discount stores and
conducts operations in two reporting segments.  Its Dollar Tree
segment operates discount variety stores offering merchandise at
the fixed price of $1.00.  Its Family Dollar segment operates
general merchandise retail discount stores providing consumers
with a selection of competitively-priced merchandise in convenient
neighborhood stores.


DOLLAR TREE: Worker's Suit Moved to Cal. Federal Court
------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. has removed a lawsuit by a distribution center
employee to federal court, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2016.

In April 2015, a distribution center employee filed a class action
in California state court with allegations concerning wages, meal
and rest breaks, recovery periods, wage statements and timely
termination pay. The employee filed an amended complaint in which
he abandoned his attempt to certify a nation-wide class of non-
exempt distribution center employees for alleged improper
calculation of overtime compensation. The Company removed this
lawsuit to federal court.

The Company operates more than 14,200 retail discount stores and
conducts operations in two reporting segments.  Its Dollar Tree
segment operates discount variety stores offering merchandise at
the fixed price of $1.00.  Its Family Dollar segment operates
general merchandise retail discount stores providing consumers
with a selection of competitively-priced merchandise in convenient
neighborhood stores.


DOLLAR TREE: Still Defends Suit by Ex-Store Manager in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. continues to defend against a lawsuit by a
former store manager, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6,
2016, for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2016.

In April 2015, a former store manager filed a class action in
California state court alleging store managers were improperly
classified as exempt employees and, among other things, did not
receive overtime compensation and meal and rest periods and
alleging PAGA claims on behalf of all store employees, including
claims for failure to provide accurate wage statements.

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

The Company operates more than 14,200 retail discount stores and
conducts operations in two reporting segments.  Its Dollar Tree
segment operates discount variety stores offering merchandise at
the fixed price of $1.00.  Its Family Dollar segment operates
general merchandise retail discount stores providing consumers
with a selection of competitively-priced merchandise in convenient
neighborhood stores.


DOLLAR TREE: Ex-Assistant Store Managers' Suit Underway in Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. still defends a lawsuit by former assistant
store managers in Califiornia, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2016.

In November 2015, the Company was served in a PAGA representative
action under California law in California state court on behalf of
former assistant store managers alleging defective wage
statements. This case has been stayed pending the outcome of
previously filed lawsuits alleging defective wage statements.

The Company operates more than 14,200 retail discount stores and
conducts operations in two reporting segments.  Its Dollar Tree
segment operates discount variety stores offering merchandise at
the fixed price of $1.00.  Its Family Dollar segment operates
general merchandise retail discount stores providing consumers
with a selection of competitively-priced merchandise in convenient
neighborhood stores.


DOLLAR TREE: Ex-Store Employee's Suit Pending in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. continues to defend a lawsuit by a former store
employee in Florida, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6,
2016, for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2016.

In April 2016, the Company was served with a putative class action
in Florida state court brought by a former store employee
asserting the Company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act in
the way it handled background checks. Specifically, the former
employee alleged the Company used disclosure forms that did not
meet the statute's requirements and failed to provide notices
accompanied by background reports prior to taking adverse actions
against prospective and existing employees based on information in
the background reports. The plaintiff is seeking statutory damages
of $100 to $1,000 per violation.

The Company operates more than 14,200 retail discount stores and
conducts operations in two reporting segments.  Its Dollar Tree
segment operates discount variety stores offering merchandise at
the fixed price of $1.00.  Its Family Dollar segment operates
general merchandise retail discount stores providing consumers
with a selection of competitively-priced merchandise in convenient
neighborhood stores.


DOLLAR TREE: Former Sales Associates' Case Goes to Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit by a former non-exempt sales associate filed in Arkansas
has gone to arbitration, Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2016.

In July 2016, a former non-exempt sales associate filed in federal
court in Arkansas a putative nationwide collective action alleging
the Company forced sales associates and assistant store managers
to work off the clock while clocked out for meal breaks and, as a
result, underpaid regular and overtime pay. In September 2016, the
court granted the Company's motion to compel arbitration.

The Company operates more than 14,200 retail discount stores and
conducts operations in two reporting segments.  Its Dollar Tree
segment operates discount variety stores offering merchandise at
the fixed price of $1.00.  Its Family Dollar segment operates
general merchandise retail discount stores providing consumers
with a selection of competitively-priced merchandise in convenient
neighborhood stores.


DOLLAR TREE: Ex-Employee Files Suit in California Over Sick Leave
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 29, 2016, that a former employee
filed in October 2016 a PAGA representative action in California
state court alleging the Company failed to provide California
employees information concerning the amount of sick leave
available to them.

The Company operates more than 14,200 retail discount stores and
conducts operations in two reporting segments.  Its Dollar Tree
segment operates discount variety stores offering merchandise at
the fixed price of $1.00.  Its Family Dollar segment operates
general merchandise retail discount stores providing consumers
with a selection of competitively-priced merchandise in convenient
neighborhood stores.


DOLLAR TREE: Says Virginia and Florida Labor Suits Resolved
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 29, 2016, that two cases against
the Company have been resolved.

In 2011, an assistant store manager and an hourly associate filed
a collective action against the Company alleging they were forced
to work off the clock in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and state law. A federal judge in Virginia ruled that all
claims made on behalf of assistant store managers under both the
FLSA and state law should be dismissed. The court, however,
certified an opt-in collective action under the FLSA on behalf of
hourly sales associates. Approximately 4,300 plaintiffs remained
in the case. The court approved settlement of the lawsuit which it
has now dismissed. The settlement amount has been paid.

In February 2016, the Company was served in a putative collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act in Florida federal
court. The case was resolved without any class being certified.

The Company operates more than 14,200 retail discount stores and
conducts operations in two reporting segments.  Its Dollar Tree
segment operates discount variety stores offering merchandise at
the fixed price of $1.00.  Its Family Dollar segment operates
general merchandise retail discount stores providing consumers
with a selection of competitively-priced merchandise in convenient
neighborhood stores.


DOLLAR TREE: Suit by Female Family Dollar Store Managers Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit by Family Dollar's female store managers
remains pending, Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6,
2016, for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2016.

In 2008, a complaint was filed alleging discriminatory practices
with respect to the pay of Family Dollar's female store managers.
Among other things, the plaintiffs seek recovery of back pay,
monetary and punitive remedies, interest, attorneys' fees, and
equitable relief.

In June 2016, the United States District Court in North Carolina
ordered that the case be continued for merits discovery. The court
also certified the case as a class action of approximately 30,000
current and former female store managers employed as far back as
July 2002. The court stated that it could modify its order or even
decertify the action in the future as the case develops.

The Company believes the class action cannot be certified under
the principles of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes and prevailing
case law. If the case remains certified, the Company believes the
class can only cover Family Dollar store managers beginning in
late 2006 under any circumstance. Although the Company believes
that insurance is available for this matter, potential losses may
materially exceed policy coverage if plaintiffs substantially
prevail. The Company disagrees with plaintiffs' claims, does not
believe the class should remain certified, and will vigorously
defend itself in this matter.

The Company operates more than 14,200 retail discount stores and
conducts operations in two reporting segments.  Its Dollar Tree
segment operates discount variety stores offering merchandise at
the fixed price of $1.00.  Its Family Dollar segment operates
general merchandise retail discount stores providing consumers
with a selection of competitively-priced merchandise in convenient
neighborhood stores.


DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Employee's PAGA Claims May Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
A California court has ruled that PAGA claims may proceed in a
class action by a former Family Dollar employee, Dollar Tree, Inc.
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 6, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended October 29, 2016.

In 2014, a putative class action was filed in a California Federal
Court by a former employee alleging that the Company had a policy
of requiring employee bag checks while the employees were not
clocked in for work. As a result of those actions, the employee
alleges the Company violated California law by failing to provide
meal periods and rest breaks, failing to pay regular and overtime
wages for work performed off the clock, failing to provide
accurate wage statements, failing to timely pay all final wages
and by engaging in unfair competition. He has also alleged PAGA
claims.

The former employee dismissed the individual claims after the
court ruled that the claims were subject to arbitration. The court
ruled that the PAGA claims may proceed.

The Company operates more than 14,200 retail discount stores and
conducts operations in two reporting segments.  Its Dollar Tree
segment operates discount variety stores offering merchandise at
the fixed price of $1.00.  Its Family Dollar segment operates
general merchandise retail discount stores providing consumers
with a selection of competitively-priced merchandise in convenient
neighborhood stores.


DOLLAR TREE: Discovery Underway in Family Dollar Employee's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a class action lawsuit by a former Family Dollar
employee are beginning discovery, Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on December 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 29,
2016.

In 2014, a former employee brought a putative class action and
asserted claims under PAGA alleging the Company failed to provide
suitable seating to its California store employees.

The case had been stayed pending a ruling by the California
Supreme Court on whether a drug store retailer has an obligation
to provide suitable seating to drug store cashiers.

The California Supreme Court has ruled, the stay has been lifted
and the parties are beginning discovery.

The Company operates more than 14,200 retail discount stores and
conducts operations in two reporting segments.  Its Dollar Tree
segment operates discount variety stores offering merchandise at
the fixed price of $1.00.  Its Family Dollar segment operates
general merchandise retail discount stores providing consumers
with a selection of competitively-priced merchandise in convenient
neighborhood stores.


DOLLAR TREE: Appeal in Family Dollar Suit Pending in 2nd Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal by Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Family
Dollar remains pending, Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2016.

In 2015, former employees filed a nationwide class action in
federal court in Connecticut alleging the Company had violated
ERISA by overcharging employees who purchased supplemental life
insurance through a Company sponsored plan. In March, 2016, the
district court dismissed the lawsuit.

Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal to the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals.

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

The Company operates more than 14,200 retail discount stores and
conducts operations in two reporting segments.  Its Dollar Tree
segment operates discount variety stores offering merchandise at
the fixed price of $1.00.  Its Family Dollar segment operates
general merchandise retail discount stores providing consumers
with a selection of competitively-priced merchandise in convenient
neighborhood stores.


EMCORE CORP: "Mirasol" Class Action Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------
EMCORE Corporation continues to defend against the Mirasol Class
Action, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2016.

On December 15, 2015, Plaintiff Christina Mirasol ("Mirasol"), on
her own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of similarly
situated individuals composed of current and former non-exempt
employees of the Company working in California since December 15,
2011, filed a complaint against the Company in the Superior Court
of California, Los Angeles County. The complaint alleges seven
causes of action related to: (1) failure to pay overtime; (2)
failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to pay minimum wages;
(4) failure to timely pay wages upon termination; (5) failure to
provide compliant wage statements; (6) unfair competition under
the California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq.;
and (7) penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. The
claims are premised primarily on the allegation that Mirasol and
the putative class members were not provided with their legally
required meal periods. Mirasol seeks recovery on her own behalf
and on behalf of the putative class in an unspecified amount for
compensatory and liquidated damages as well as for declaratory
relief, injunctive relief, statutory penalties, pre-judgment
interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

In exchange for a one-time cash payment offered by the Company,
certain current and former employees have agreed to release the
Company from all potential claims related to the matters alleged
in the Mirasol lawsuit.

The Company has recorded an accrual for these amounts at September
30, 2016 that is not material to the Company's results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows, which has been
recorded within Operating Expenses for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2016.

The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against the claims
asserted in the lawsuit. While the Company believes that it has
valid and meritorious defenses with respect to the allegations,
the ultimate liability to the Company, including penalties and
fines associated with the remaining claims, is subject to many
uncertainties and may range from $39,000 to $2.6 million.

EMCORE Corporation together with its subsidiaries, established in
1984 as a New Jersey corporation, designs and manufactures Indium
Phosphide (InP) optical chips, components, subsystems and systems
for the broadband and specialty fiber optics market.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Brower Piven Commences Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, on Jan. 25 disclosed that it has commenced a class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas on behalf of holders of the common units of
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (NYSE:ETP) ("ETP" or the
"Company").  Investors who wish to become proactively involved in
the litigation have 60 days from January 25, 2017, to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the Class in the action.  Members of the Class will
be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by the
lead plaintiff. No class has yet been certified in the above
action.

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 14a-9 in
connection with the proposed acquisition of ETP common units by
Sunoco Logistics Partners ("SXL"), through its wholly owned
subsidiary SXL Acquisition Sub LP.  On November 21, 2016, ETP and
SXL jointly announced that they had entered into a definitive
agreement pursuant to which ETP would be acquired by SXL in a
unit-for-unit transaction, with each ETP common unitholder
receiving 1.5 common units, representing limited partner interests
in SXL, for each ETP common unit.  The complaint alleges that the
proposed consideration is inadequate in light of ETP's true value
and its growth prospects.  The complaint further alleges that the
prospectus and proxy statement incorporated into the Form S-4
Registration Statement and filed with the SEC provides materially
incomplete and misleading information about the Company and the
proposed transaction, in violation of the Exchange Act.

If you are a shareholder of ETP and would like to learn more about
this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff,
without cost or obligation to you, please visit our website at
http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html. You may
also request more information by contacting Brower Piven either by
email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at
(410) 415-6616.  Brower Piven also encourages anyone with
information regarding the Company's conduct during the period in
question to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former
employees, shareholders and others.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s.  If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your
choice. You need take no action at this time to be a member of the
class.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP on Jan. 25 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, case no. 1:17-cv-00069, on behalf of the
holders of the common units of Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.
("ETP" or the "Partnership") (NYSE: ETP) for violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") in connection with  the Partnership's
proposed merger with Sunoco Logistics Partners L.P. ("SXL").

On November 21, 2016, the Company announced it had entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement") under which SXL
will acquire all of the outstanding units of ETP through SXL's
newly formed wholly-owned Delaware company, SXL Acquisition Sub
LLC (the "Proposed Transaction").

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action or view a
copy of the complaint, you can do so by clicking here:
www.faruqilaw.com/ETPnotice.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, ETP unitholders
will receive 1.5 SXL common units for each of their ETP common
units held, and holders of ETP Series A Cumulative Convertible
Preferred Units (the "Series A units") will receive an equal
number of SXL preferred units.  Based on the closing price of
ETP's common units on November 18, 2016, the last trading day
before the Merger Agreement was announced, the implied merger
consideration is approximately $39.29 per unit.

The complaint alleges that the Form S-4 Registration Statement
(the "S-4") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") on December 19, 2016 provides materially incomplete and
misleading information about the Partnership and the Proposed
Transaction, in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  The S-4 fails to provide ETP's unitholders with
material information concerning the financial and procedural
fairness of the Proposed Transaction.

Take Action

Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant
expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.  Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal
office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California, and
Pennsylvania.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from January 25, 2017.  Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this
action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact:

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James Banko, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  jbanko@faruqilaw.com
          Web site: http://www.faruqilaw.com


FACEBOOK INC: NJ Judge Dismisses "Palomino" Suit
------------------------------------------------
Robert Khan, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in San Francisco, dismissed with prejudice a class
action accusing Facebook's terms of service of violating New
Jersey law by disclaiming liability for negligence and banning
claims for punitive damages and fraud.

The case is captioned, JOSE PALOMINO, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant, Case 3:16-cv-04230-HSG (N.D. Cal.).


FAMILY DOLLAR: Certification of Class Sought in "Parrot" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled JENNIFER M. PARROT,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
FAMILY DOLLAR, INC. and DOLLAR TREE, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-00222
(N.D. Ill.), submits her motion for class certification pursuant
to Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011).

Ms. Parrot states that she and the members of the proposed Classes
purchased from the Defendant the product Tropic Sun Aloe Vera Gel
for personal use and not for resale.  The Product's label declares
it to be "Made with 100% Pure Aloe." According to the Product's
ingredient label, it contains "Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Juice."

The Defendants' claim that the Product contains "aloe vera," and
that the Product contains "100% "PURE aloe" are false, and the
Product label is misleading, Ms. Parrot alleges.  She proposes
these class definitions:

     (a) National Class:

     All persons in the United States who, within four (4) years
     of the filing of the Complaint, purchased the Product.

     (b) Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class:

     All persons in the States of California, Florida, Illinois,
     Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, New
     Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin who, within
     four (4) years of the filing of the Complaint, purchased the
     Product.

     (c) Illinois Subclass:

     All persons in the State of Illinois who, within four (4)
     years of the filing of the Complaint, purchased the Product.

Ms. Parrot anticipates that the proposed class definitions may
change after discovery more precisely defines the contours of the
classes.  She asks leave to submit a brief and other evidence in
support of this motion after discovery about the class elements
has been completed.

The proposed classes meet the requirements of Rules 23(a), (b)(1),
(b)(3) and (g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Ms. Parrot
contends.  She also seeks to be appointed as the class
representative, and for the appointment of her attorneys as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=R0V1u9zu

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Nick Suciu III, Esq.
          BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
          1644 Bracken Rd.
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302
          Telephone: (313) 303-3472
          E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com

               - and -

          Jonathan N. Shub, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Jason Thompson, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Towne Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Jason T. Brown, Esq.
          Patrick S. Almonrode, Esq.
          THE JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
          500 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 600
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW, P.C.
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247-0090
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          Susan S. Brown, Esq.
          RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
          101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-4949
          E-mail: mram@rocklawcal.com
                  sbrown@rocklawcal.com

               - and -

          Rachel Soffin, Esq.
          Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: rsoffin@forthepeople.com
                  jcohen@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com
                  lfeldman@zlk.com

               - and -

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
          613 Williamson Street, #209
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 237-1775
          E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com


FEMALE HEALTH: "Glotzer" Merger Class Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------
The Female Health Company continues to defend the case, Glotzer v.
The Female Health Company, et al., the Company said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 8, 2016, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016.

On October 31, 2016, as part of the Company's strategy to
diversify its product line to mitigate the risks of being a single
product company, the Company completed a merger transaction (the
APP Merger) with Aspen Park Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (APP). APP is a
medical therapeutics company focused on the development and
commercialization of pharmaceutical and consumer health products
for men's and women's health and oncology. For men, product and
product candidates are in the areas of benign prostatic
hyperplasia, male infertility, amelioration of side effects of
hormonal prostate cancer therapies, gout, sexual dysfunction, and
prostate cancer.  For women, product candidates are for advanced
breast and ovarian cancers and for female sexual health.  APP was
originally formed on June 9, 2014, has not had significant
revenues and has incurred losses since inception.

On or about October 21, 2016, an alleged FHC shareholder, Martin
Glotzer, filed a purported derivative and class action complaint
on behalf of himself and the public shareholders of FHC in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, captioned Glotzer v. The
Female Health Company, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-13815. The lawsuit
names as defendants FHC and the seven persons who were members of
FHC's board of directors prior to the closing of the APP Merger.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that FHC's directors
breached their fiduciary duties and wasted corporate assets by
continuing to expend FHC's resources in soliciting shareholder
votes in connection with the APP Merger.

Based on these allegations, the complaint seeks equitable relief,
including rescinding the APP Merger, damages on behalf of FHC and
costs and expenses of the litigation, including attorneys' fees.
FHC believes that this action is without merit and intends to
defend its position in this matter vigorously.

The Female Health Company is a medical therapeutics company, with
an initial focus on the development and commercialization of
pharmaceuticals for men's and women's health and oncology that
qualify for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA)
505(b)(2) accelerated regulatory approval pathway.


FEMALE HEALTH: "Schartz" Merger Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants removed the case Schartz v. Parrish, et al., to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, The Female Health Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8,
2016, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016.

On October 31, 2016, as part of the Company's strategy to
diversify its product line to mitigate the risks of being a single
product company, the Company completed a merger transaction (the
APP Merger) with Aspen Park Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (APP). APP is a
medical therapeutics company focused on the development and
commercialization of pharmaceutical and consumer health products
for men's and women's health and oncology. For men, product and
product candidates are in the areas of benign prostatic
hyperplasia, male infertility, amelioration of side effects of
hormonal prostate cancer therapies, gout, sexual dysfunction, and
prostate cancer.  For women, product candidates are for advanced
breast and ovarian cancers and for female sexual health.  APP was
originally formed on June 9, 2014, has not had significant
revenues and has incurred losses since inception.

On or about November 7, 2016, an alleged FHC shareholder, Brian C.
Schartz, filed a purported derivative and class action complaint
on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated shareholders
of FHC in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, captioned
Schartz v. Parrish, et al., Case No. 2016-CH-14488. The lawsuit
names as defendants FHC, the members of FHC's board of directors
prior to the closing of the APP Merger and the members of FHC's
board of directors after the closing of the APP Merger.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that FHC's directors
breached their fiduciary duties by consummating the APP Merger in
violation of the Wisconsin Business Corporation Law and by causing
FHC to disseminate to its shareholders press releases and SEC
filings containing materially false and misleading statements.
Based on these allegations, the complaint seeks equitable relief,
including enjoining the FHC Board from taking action in
furtherance of the APP Merger, damages on behalf of FHC and costs
and expenses of the litigation, including attorneys' fees.

On November 18, 2016, the defendants filed to remove the action to
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, where the case is captioned Schartz v. Parrish, et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-10736. FHC believes that this action is without
merit and intends to defend its position in this matter
vigorously.

The Female Health Company is a medical therapeutics company, with
an initial focus on the development and commercialization of
pharmaceuticals for men's and women's health and oncology that
qualify for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA)
505(b)(2) accelerated regulatory approval pathway.


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Direct Customer Plaintiffs' Appeal Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., Ferrellgas Partners Finance Corp.,
Ferrellgas, L.P., and Ferrellgas Finance Corp. said in their Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2016,
that the direct customer plaintiffs' appeal is pending.

Ferrellgas has been named as a defendant, along with a competitor,
in putative class action lawsuits filed in multiple jurisdictions.
The lawsuits allege that Ferrellgas and a competitor coordinated
in 2008 to reduce the fill level in barbeque cylinders and
combined to persuade a common customer to accept that fill
reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to direct
customers and end-user customers in violation of federal and
certain state antitrust laws. The lawsuits seek treble damages,
attorneys' fees, injunctive relief and costs on behalf of the
putative class. These lawsuits have been consolidated into one
case by a multidistrict litigation panel.

The Court has dismissed all claims brought by direct and indirect
customers other than state law claims of indirect customers under
Wisconsin, Maine and Vermont law.

The direct customer plaintiffs have filed an appeal, which is
pending.

Ferrellgas believes it has strong defenses to the claims and
intends to vigorously defend against the consolidated case.
Ferrellgas does not believe loss is probable or reasonably
estimable at this time related to the putative class action
lawsuit.


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Named as Defend in Securities Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., Ferrellgas Partners Finance Corp.,
Ferrellgas, L.P., and Ferrellgas Finance Corp. said in their Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 8, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2016,
that Ferrellgas has been named, along with several current and
former officers, in several class action lawsuits alleging
violations of certain securities laws based on alleged materially
false and misleading statements in certain of our public
disclosures.

The lawsuits, the first of which was filed on October 6, 2016 in
the Southern District of New York, seek unspecified compensatory
damages.

A derivative lawsuit with similar allegations has been filed in
state court in Missouri naming Ferrellgas and several current and
former officers and directors as defendants.

Ferrellgas believes that it has defenses and will vigorously
defend these cases. Ferrellgas does not believe loss is probable
or reasonably estimable at this time related to the putative class
action lawsuits or the derivative action.


FINISAR CORPORATION: Motion to Dismiss Case under Submission
------------------------------------------------------------
Finisar Corporation's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit has
been briefed and heard by the District Court, and is under
submission, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended October 30, 2016.

Several securities class action lawsuits related to the Company's
March 8, 2011 earnings announcement alleging claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 have been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a purported class of persons
who purchased stock between December 1 or 2, 2010 through March 8,
2011. The named defendants are the Company and its Chairman of the
Board, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer.

To date, no specific amount of damages have been alleged. The
cases were consolidated, lead plaintiff was appointed and a
consolidated complaint was filed.

On September 30, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint and entered
judgment, and plaintiff appealed.

On January 8, 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
the judgment in part for further proceedings in the District
Court.

On July 15, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
in the District Court.

On August 19, 2016, the Company moved to dismiss. The motion has
been briefed and heard by the District Court, and is under
submission.

Finisar is a provider of optical subsystems and components that
are used in data communication and telecommunication applications.


FIRST NATIONAL: Certification of Class Sought in "Stolinski" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled Agnes Stolinski, f/k/a Dawlak,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
First National Collection Bureau, Inc., a Nevada corporation, and
LVNV Funding, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
1:17-cv-00192 (N.D. Ill.), moves for class certification, and
requests that the Court allow her to represent a class of all
persons similarly situated in the state of Illinois from whom the
Defendants attempted to collect a delinquent, time-barred consumer
debt, allegedly owed for an HSBC/Carsons account, via the same
form collection letter, that the Defendants sent to the Plaintiff,
from one year before the date of the complaint to the present.

Ms. Stolinski seeks a finding that the Defendants' form letter
violates the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act, and asks that
the Court award damages as authorized by Section 1692k(a)(2) of
the FDCPA.  She further asks that briefing on the Motion be stayed
pending discovery as to class issues, such as net worth and
numerosity.  She contends that she is filing the Motion now to
avoid an individual "buy-off" settlement payment to her only,
which could potentially wipe out the Class' claims.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7rusjgPV

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974-2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com
                  angiekrobertson@aol.com


FISHER HOMES: Laborers Class Certification Sought in "Ayala" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled JUAN CARLOS AYALA on behalf
of himself, individually and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY situated v.
FISHER HOMES OF TEXAS, KAVAC LLC and KAVAC HOLDING COMPANY, LLC,
Case No. 4:16-cv-03494 (S.D. Tex.), moves for conditional
certification of his claims against the Defendants pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.  In particular, he seeks conditional
certification of a collective action consisting of, and judicially
approved notice to, these individuals:

"ALL FRAMERS, LABORERS AND CONSTRUCTION WORKERS EMPLOYED BY
  DEFENDANTS WITHIN THE PAST THREE YEARS WHO WERE PAID STRAIGHT
  TIME INSTEAD OF TIME AND A HALF FOR OVERTIME HOURS WORKED."
  ("PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS")

Mr. Ayala filed the lawsuit to recover alleged unpaid overtime
wages owed to current and former Framers, Laborers and
Construction Workers employed by Defendants Fisher Homes of Texas,
Kavac LLC, and Kavac Holding Company LLC.  He alleges that the
Defendants misclassified him and all other Framers, Laborers and
Construction Workers as exempt from the overtime requirements of
the FLSA.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
          THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
          3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
          Houston, TX 77054
          Telephone: (832) 778-8182
          Facsimile: (832) 778-8353
          E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


FOOT LOCKER: Class Action Judgment Remains Stayed Pending Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 29, 2016, that the judgment in a
class action lawsuit has been stayed pending the outcome of the
appeal.

The Company and the Company's U.S. retirement plan are defendants
in a class action (Osberg v. Foot Locker Inc. et ano., filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York) in
which the plaintiff alleges that, in connection with the 1996
conversion of the retirement plan to a defined benefit plan with a
cash balance formula, the Company and the retirement plan failed
to properly advise plan participants of the "wear-away" effect of
the conversion. Plaintiff's claims were for breach of fiduciary
duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as
amended, and violation of the statutory provisions governing the
content of the Summary Plan Description. The trial was held in
July 2015 and the court issued a decision in September 2015 in
favor of the class on the foregoing claims. The court ordered that
the Plan be reformed. As a result of this development, the Company
determined that it is probable a liability exists. The Company's
reasonable estimate of this liability is a range between $100
million and $200 million, with no amount within that range more
probable than any other amount. Therefore, in accordance with U.S.
GAAP, the Company recorded a charge of $100 million pre-tax ($61
million after-tax) in the third quarter of 2015. This amount has
been classified as a long-term liability. The Company has appealed
the court's decision, and the judgment has been stayed pending the
outcome of the appeal.

The Company will continue to vigorously defend itself in this
case. In light of the uncertainties involved in this matter, there
is no assurance that the ultimate resolution will not differ from
the amount currently accrued by the Company.

Foot Locker, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates in two
reportable segments -- Athletic Stores and Direct-to-Customers.
The Athletic Stores segment is one of the largest athletic
footwear and apparel retailers in the world, with formats that
include Foot Locker, Lady Foot Locker, Kids Foot Locker, SIX:02,
Champs Sports, Footaction, Runners Point, and Sidestep. The
Direct-to-Customers segment includes Footlocker.com, Inc. and
other affiliates, including Eastbay, Inc., and our international
ecommerce businesses, which sell to customers through their
Internet and mobile sites, and catalogs.


FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Settles TCPA Class Action for $11 Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Grande, writing for Law360, reports that Frontier
Communications Corp. has agreed to pay $11 million to settle a
proposed class action claiming it violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by placing thousands of illegal telemarketing
calls, according to updated documents filed in Connecticut federal
court on Jan. 25.

Plaintiff Diana Mey characterized the proposed class action
settlement as "fair, reasonable and adequate" in pushing the
district court to grant preliminary approval to the pact, which
the parties first announced that they had reached in December. Ms.
Mey revealed the $11 million price tag and other details of the
pact in a motion for preliminary approval filed the following
week, and updated her filing Jan. 25 after the court in early
January "raised some questions" about the motion during a
telephonic status conference, according to the court docket.

In her updated filing, Ms. Mey argued that the settlement provided
a strong result for the proposed class of individuals and entites
that own 36,219 unique telephone numbers that have been identified
as having received allegedly unlawful calls from Frontier, noting
that each claimant stands to receive at least $90.

"In the absence of this class settlement, the individual
litigation of this large number of claims would consume a vast
amount of judicial resources in trial courts across the United
States," Ms. Mey said in her motion.  "Class settlement of this
dispute is by far the most efficient and effective means to
resolve the claims of the named plaintiff and absent class
members."

Ms. Mey also pointed out that the proposed payments to potential
class members exceed those handed out in other TCPA pacts that
have been given court approval.  She specifically cited four
settlements reached since 2010 that have offered claimants
payments ranging from $15 to $61.49.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement with Frontier, each
member of the settlement class -- which consists of individuals or
entities who received a cellphone call placed by means of what the
plaintiff contends was an automatic telephone dialing system, or
who received two or more calls in a 12-month period on a number
that had been on the National Do Not Call Regisry for more than 30
days at the time of the calls -- will get a base payment of $90.
The balance of the fund will then be divided on a per-call basis
to class members who received multiple calls.

Any unclaimed funds will be donated to a cy pres charity approved
by the court, with the parties proposing the Connecticut Legal
Services Inc. as the cy pres designee.

In pushing for preliminary approval, Ms. Mey also pointed to the
hotly contested litigation and extensive discovery that the
parties have engaged in during the past three years, and the cost
and risk of continuing to proceed with the dispute for both sides.

Ms. Mey originally lodged her complaint in 2013, claiming that she
and thousands of others received automated telemarketing calls
that were commissioned by Frontier and placed to them by Virido on
the Five9 predictive dialer pursuant to a contract between
Frontier and Virido using a list of telephone numbers that
Frontier provided.

The complaint alleged that the calling practices violated the
TCPA's Do Not Call provisions and the statute's prohibition
against autodialed and prerecorded calls to cellphones, and sought
statutory damages of $500 for each negligent violation of the TCPA
and $1,500 for each knowing violation.

Frontier lost a bid to nix the suit in 2014, with U.S. District
Judge Michael P. Shea ruling that the telecom's offer to settle
Ms. Mey's claims for $6,400, which she refused, did not moot her
claims because it was a settlement offer, not an offer of
judgment.

The telcom then renewed its dismissal bid, arguing that the
complaint should be dismissed because Ms. Mey did not suffer an
injury that was concrete enough to establish Article III standing
under the U.S. Supreme Court's May ruling in Spokeo v. Robins,
which held that plaintiffs must allege a concrete injury and
cannot rely on mere statutory violations to maintain standing.

That motion was pending when the parties revealed last month that
they had reached a settlement agreement.

"If Frontier were to succeed on any of its defenses, including
that the class could not be certified, settlement class members
would recover nothing," Ms. Mey said in her motion on Jan. 25. "In
light of the risks of ongoing litigation and the modest amount of
the individual statutory recovery relative to the costs of
individual litigation, the settlement in this case is substantive
and fair."

Ms. Mey is represented by Anthony I. Paronich and Edward A.
Broderick of Broderick & Paronich PC, John W. Barrett of Bailey &
Glasser LLP, Nicholas J. Cicale of CEnergy Law and Matthew P.
McCue of The Law Offices of Matthew P. McCue PC.

Frontier is represented by Lauri A. Mazzuchetti --
lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com -- Elizabeth W. Swedock and Henry T.
Kelly -- hkelly@kelleydrye.com -- of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, and
Archis A. Parasharami of Mayer Brown LLP.

The case is Mey v. Frontier Communications Corp., case number
3:13-cv-01191, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut.


GC SERVICES: Kausar Seeks Certification of Class Under FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
Rukhsana Kausar moves the Court for an order determining that the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case captioned RUKHSANA KAUSAR,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. GC
SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 2:15-cv-06027-ES-JAD
(D.N.J.), may proceed as a class action against the Defendant, and
seeks to certify a single class, defined as:

     (1) all persons with a New Jersey address, (2) to whom GC
     Services Limited Partnership mailed an initial communication
     letter in a form materially identical or substantially
     similar to the letter attached as Exhibit A to the
     Plaintiff's Complaint that stated: (a) "However, if you do
     dispute all or any portion of this debt within 30 days of
     receiving this letter, we will obtain verification of the
     debt from our client and send it to you." and/or (b) "if
     within 30 days of receiving this letter you request the name
     and address of the original creditor, we will provide it to
     you in the event it differs from our client, Synchrony
     Bank", (3) between August 5, 2014 through and including
     August 24, 2015, (4) in connection with the collection of a
     consumer debt, (5) that was not returned as undeliverable to
     GC Services Limited Partnership.

Ms. Kausar further asks that she be appointed as the class
representative, and Ryan Gentile, Esq., be appointed as counsel
for the class.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Gentile, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA PC
          110 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 100
          Floral Park, NY 11001
          Telephone: (201) 873-7675
          Facsimile: (212) 675-4367
          E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com


GENESCO INC: Feb. 16 Discovery Conference in "Stewart" Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
A case management and discovery conference is scheduled for
February 16, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. in the case, Amber Stewart vs.
Hat World, Inc., Case No. CIV533617 (Cal. Sup. Ct., San Mateo
County).

Genesco Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 29, 2016, that on April 30, 2015,
an employee of a subsidiary of the Company filed an action,
Stewart v. Hat World, Inc., et al., under the California Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act on behalf of herself, the State
of California, and other non-exempt, hourly-paid employees of the
subsidiary in California, seeking unspecified damages and
penalties for various alleged violations of the California Labor
Code, including failure to pay for all hours worked, minimum wage
and overtime violations, failure to provide required meal and rest
periods, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide complete
and accurate wage statements, and failure to provide full
reimbursement of business-related costs and expenses incurred in
the course of employment. The Company disputes the material
allegations in the complaint and intends to defend the matter.

Genesco Inc. and its subsidiaries business includes the sourcing
and design, marketing and distribution of footwear and accessories
through retail stores in the U.S., Puerto Rico and Canada
primarily under the Journeys, Journeys Kidz, Shi by Journeys,
Little Burgundy, Underground by Journeys and Johnston & Murphy
banners and under the Schuh banner in the United Kingdom, the
Republic of Ireland and Germany; through e-commerce websites
including the following: journeys.com, journeyskidz.com,
shibyjourneys.com, schuh.co.uk, littleburgundyshoes.com,
johnstonmurphy.com and trask.com and catalogs, and at wholesale,
primarily under the Company's Johnston & Murphy brand, the Trask
brand, the licensed Dockers brand and other brands that the
Company licenses for footwear, and the Company's SureGrip(R) line
of slip-resistant, occupational footwear.


GENESCO INC: Settles Lawsuits in Pennsylvania and New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Genesco Inc. has settled class action lawsuits in Pennsylvania and
New York, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 29, 2016.

On March 3, 2016, plaintiffs filed an action Lacey, et al. v.
Genesco Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania, alleging that certain of the Company's internet
websites are inaccessible to the blind, in violation of the
Americans With Disabilities Act. The suit sought injunctive relief
and attorneys' fees. The matter was settled in the second quarter
of Fiscal 2017. The settlement did not have a material effect on
the Company's financial condition or results of operations.

On April 22, 2016, and May 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed putative
class actions (Nahas v. Hatworld, Inc., Murray v. Genesco Inc.,
and Rando v. Hatworld, Inc.) in the U.S. District Court for New
Jersey alleging that certain provisions of the Company's terms and
conditions on its e-commerce websites violate the New Jersey
Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act and seeking
statutory penalties and attorneys fees. The matters were settled
in the second quarter of Fiscal 2017. The settlements did not have
a material effect on the Company's financial condition or results
of operations.

Genesco Inc. and its subsidiaries business includes the sourcing
and design, marketing and distribution of footwear and accessories
through retail stores in the U.S., Puerto Rico and Canada
primarily under the Journeys, Journeys Kidz, Shi by Journeys,
Little Burgundy, Underground by Journeys and Johnston & Murphy
banners and under the Schuh banner in the United Kingdom, the
Republic of Ireland and Germany; through e-commerce websites
including the following: journeys.com, journeyskidz.com,
shibyjourneys.com, schuh.co.uk, littleburgundyshoes.com,
johnstonmurphy.com and trask.com and catalogs, and at wholesale,
primarily under the Company's Johnston & Murphy brand, the Trask
brand, the licensed Dockers brand and other brands that the
Company licenses for footwear, and the Company's SureGrip(R) line
of slip-resistant, occupational footwear.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Says HP Ruling Supports Class Decertification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Germaine, writing for Law360, reports that Goldman Sachs
Group Inc. told the Second Circuit on Jan. 24 that a recent Ninth
Circuit decision affirming that shareholders can't sue Hewlett-
Packard Co. over its CEO's behavior supports Goldman's bid to
decertify a class of investors suing over the bank's Abacus
collateralized debt obligation.

Goldman and three of its current and former executives are seeking
to decertify a class action accusing the bank of lying about its
ethical compliance ahead of the $1 billion in investor losses
caused by its infamous Abacus CDO.


H&R BLOCK: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc.'s petition for writ of certiorari with the United
States Supreme Court related to the Compliance Fee Litigation
remains pending, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2016.

The Company said, "On April 16, 2012, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed against us in the Circuit Court of Jackson
County, Missouri styled Manuel H. Lopez III v. H&R Block, Inc., et
al. (Case # 1216CV12290) concerning a compliance fee charged to
retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons. The plaintiff
seeks to represent all Missouri citizens who were charged the
compliance fee, and asserts claims of violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act, money had and received, and unjust
enrichment."

"We filed a motion to compel arbitration of the 2011 claims. The
court denied the motion. We filed an appeal.

"On May 6, 2014, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District,
reversed the ruling of the trial court and remanded the case for
further consideration of the motion. On March 12, 2015, the trial
court denied the motion on remand. We filed an additional appeal.

"On March 8, 2016, the appellate court affirmed the decision of
the trial court. We filed an application for transfer of the
appeal in the Supreme Court of Missouri, which was denied.

"We subsequently filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the
United States Supreme Court, which remains pending. We have not
concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have
we accrued a loss contingency related to this matter."


H&R BLOCK: "Perras" Appeal in Eighth Circuit Court Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Perras's appeal with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
remains pending, H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8,
2016, for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2016.

The Company said, "On April 19, 2012, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed against us in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri styled Ronald Perras v. H&R
Block, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:12-cv-00450-DGK) concerning a
compliance fee charged to retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012
tax seasons. The plaintiff originally sought to represent all
persons nationwide (excluding citizens of Missouri) who were
charged the compliance fee, and asserted claims of violation of
various state consumer laws, money had and received, and unjust
enrichment."

"In November 2013, the court compelled arbitration of the 2011
claims and stayed all proceedings with respect to those claims. In
June 2014, the court denied class certification of the remaining
2012 claims. The plaintiff filed an appeal with the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals, which was denied on June 18, 2015.

"In January 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
asserting claims of violation of Missouri and California state
consumer laws, money had and received, and unjust enrichment,
along with a motion to certify a class of all persons (excluding
citizens of Missouri) who were charged the compliance fee in the
state of California.

"We subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment on all
claims. On April 29, 2016, the court granted our motion for
summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiff's motion
for class certification as moot. The plaintiff filed an appeal
with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which remains pending.

"We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is
probable, nor have we accrued a loss contingency related to this
matter."


HILL LONG: Faces "Jones" Lawsuit Alleging Violations of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
JULIE JONES, Plaintiff, VS. HILL, LONG & CO., P.C., JERRY R. HILL,
DENNIS K. LONG, and MARY GILLESPIE, Defendants, alleges that
Defendants employed the Plaintiff, yet failed, on numerous
occasions to pay minimum wage, overtime, and other amounts as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The case, therefore, demands on behalf of the Plaintiff and all
employees similarly situated who join in this action, an amount
equal to Plaintiff's unpaid back wages at the applicable overtime
rate for each hour worked over forty hours in a week

Defendant Hill, Long, & Co., P.C. is an accounting firm owned
and/or managed by Defendants Jerry R. Hill, Dennis K. Long, and
Mary Gillespie.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin M. Madden, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN MICHAEL MADDEN, P.L.L.C.
     5225 Katy Freeway, Suite 520
     Houston, TX 77007
     Phone: 281-888-9681
     Fax: 832-538-0937
     Email: kmm@kmaddenlaw.com


HOME CITY: July 11 Packaged Ice Settlement Approval Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
If You Bought Packaged Ice From a Retailer, Your Rights May Be
Affected by a Class Action Settlement.

To all individuals and businesses who purchased packaged ice
indirectly (i.e., not from a manufacturer but from a retailer)
such as from a supermarket, grocery store, or gas station made by
The Home City Ice Company, Arctic Glacier, Inc., Arctic Glacier
International, Inc., Arctic Glacier Income Fund, Reddy Ice
Corporation, or Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc., or their subsidiaries or
affiliates (including all predecessors thereof) from January 1,
2001 through March 6, 2008. Packaged Ice means ice in bags and ice
in blocks.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan ordered this website to inform you of a proposed
settlement with The Home City Ice Company ("Home City").  Home
City denies it did anything wrong, but has settled to avoid the
cost and risk of further litigation and/or a trial.

Home City has agreed to: (1) pay $2,700,000.00 into a Settlement
Fund and (2) avoid engaging in certain violations of the U.S.
antitrust law.  If you meet the description above, you might be in
one or two Settlement Classes.

To get money, you must be in Settlement Class II and file a claim
by May 17, 2017.  Payments in this case will only be made if the
Settlement receives final approval by the Court and all appeals
are resolved in its favor.

The Court will hold a hearing on July 11, 2017, to consider
whether to approve this Settlement, the claims process, and Class
Counsel's request of attorneys' fees of up to $900,000 and their
expenses (both payable from the Fund).

The Long Form Notice has a more detailed explanation of your legal
rights and options.

A copy of the Long Form Notice is available at:

          https://is.gd/itlw9F


HORIZON HEALTHCARE: 3rd Cir. Revives Customers' Data Breach Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit revived a
federal class action by customers of Horizon Blue Cross Blue
Shield whose personal information was compromised from the theft
of two laptops from the insurer's New Jersey offices.

Though the prospective class members cannot yet prove that the
theft of their data has harmed them personally, the Philadelphia-
based federal appeals court found on January 20, that the
disclosure of their personal information alone is enough to
demonstrate standing.

"With the passage of FCRA, Congress established that the
unauthorized dissemination of personal information by a credit
reporting agency causes an injury in and of itself -- whether or
not the disclosure of that information increased the risk of
identity theft or some other future harm," U.S. Circuit Judge Kent
Jordan wrote for a three-judge panel, abbreviating the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

Jordan added in a footnote that Congress may have been motivated
to make disclosure alone a concrete injury since obtaining proof
of identity theft could take significant time, and would give
defendants wide latitude to distinguish their data breach from
distant abuses.

"Plaintiffs here do not allege a mere technical or procedural
violation of FCRA," Jordan said. "They allege instead the
unauthorized dissemination of their own private information -- the
very injury that FCRA is intended to prevent."

Horizon suffered the laptop thefts at its Newark headquarters over
an early November weekend in 2013. The two laptop computers that
were stolen contained the unencrypted personal information of more
than 839,000 Horizon Healthcare members.

The circumstances surrounding the theft suggest that the thieves
targeted the computers for the information they contained, not the
value of the laptops alone. The files on the laptops contained
files with member addresses, policy number, date of birth, and in
some instances, Social Security numbers.

Horizon notified affected members immediately, and offered them
one year of identity theft protection services for free. It also
promised to implement stronger encryption processes in the future.

Two months ago, Horizon reported another privacy breach. It
accidentally mailed benefits letters to 170,000 New Jersey members
with the names, policy numbers and physician information of other
policyholders. The information disclosed did not include Social
Security numbers, addresses, or dates of birth.

The case is, In Re: HORIZON HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC. DATA BREACH
LITIGATION, No. 15-2309 (3rd Cir.).


INDEPENDENT PHARMACEUTICAL: Glen Ellyn Seeks to Certify 3 Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned GLEN ELLYN PHARMACY, INC.,
on behalf of plaintiff and the class members defined herein v.
INDEPENDENT PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No.
1:17-cv-00188 (N.D. Ill.), asks the Court to enter an order
certifying classes defined as:

     For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
     Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, plaintiff
     seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons (b)
     who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of
     this action (28 U.S.C. Section1658), (c) were sent faxes by
     or on behalf of any of the defendant Independent
     Pharmaceutical, LLC, promoting its goods or services for
     sale.

     For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois
     Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, plaintiff seeks to
     represent a class consisting of (a) all persons in Illinois
     (b) who, on or after a date three years prior to the filing
     of this action (815 ILCS 505/10a), (c) were sent faxes by or
     on behalf of any of the defendant Independent
     Pharmaceutical, LLC, promoting its goods or services for
     sale.

     For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion; Count IV,
     alleging nuisance; and Count V, alleging trespass to
     chattels, plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of
     (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date five years prior
     to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on
     behalf of any of the defendant Independent Pharmaceutical,
     LLC, promoting its goods or services for sale.

Glen Ellyn Pharmacy, Inc., brought the action after allegedly
receiving unsolicited advertising faxes sent by Defendant
Independent Pharmaceutical, LLC.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, and Illinois common law (conversion,
trespass to chattels, nuisance).

The Plaintiff further asks that it be appointed class
representative and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC
be appointed counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jWC4zC9I

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Dulijaza Clark, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  jclark@edcombs.com


INFUSYSTEM HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Infusystem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 12, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is
aware of a putative securities class action complaint filed on
November 8, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (the "Complaint") against the Company, Eric
Steen, its CEO, and Jonathan Foster, its former CFO in connection
with the Company's financial restatements.

To date, neither the Company nor Messrs. Steen and Foster have
been served with the Complaint. The Company cannot, at this time,
estimate the potential impact of the Complaint or similar
threatened investigations or complaints.

The Company believes "we have adequate insurance coverage to
defend against the Complaint should a class action be certified.
The Company is not, at this time, involved in any other legal
proceedings that the Company believes could have a material effect
on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows."


INTEGRITY HOME: Cooper Moves to Certify Healthcare Workers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled DANA COOPER, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTEGRITY HOME CARE,
INC., Case No. 4:16-cv-01293-SWH (W.D. Mo.), asks the Court to (1)
conditionally certify the matter as a Fair Labor Standards Act
collective action, (2) approve dissemination of notice to
collective action members, and (3) consider the motion on an
expedited basis.

The proposed class is defined as:

     "All current or former home healthcare workers employed by
      Defendant and/or any of its affiliated entities at any time
      since January 1, 2015, who were not paid overtime wages for
      all hours worked over 40 in a work week."

Dana Cooper and all those similarly situated are or were employed
by the Defendant as home healthcare workers to provide care for
the Defendant's elderly, ill, and disabled clients.  The lawsuit
challenges the Defendant's alleged policy of classifying all home
healthcare workers as exempt from the overtime requirements of the
Fair Labor Standards Act after January 1, 2015.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cqWmZ8Up

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George A. Hanson, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
          E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

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


JPMORGAN CHASE: "Thornley" Lawsuit Alleges Violations of FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Thornley, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. JPMorgan Chase & Co, a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case 2:17-cv-00174-DKD (D. Ariz., January
19, 2017), was filed against Defendant for alleged unlawful
failure to pay overtime wages in direct violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a banking and financial services company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Sean C. Davis, Esq.
     Preston K. Flood, Esq.
     PHILLIPS DAYES
     3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
     Phoenix, AZ 85012
     Phone: (602) 288-1610 ext. 432
     E-mail: docket@phillipsdayeslaw.com


KIIP INC: Insurer Refuses to Cover App Class Action Defense
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, reports that Admiral Insurance
Co. on Jan. 25 filed a complaint asking an Illinois federal court
to rule that it doesn't have to defend or indemnify mobile
marketing company Kiip Inc. in a proposed class action alleging
that the company engaged in the unauthorized collection of
smartphone users' data through a fitness app.

In its suit, Admiral argued that the underlying claims don't fall
within any of the categories of covered wrongful acts in Kiip's
technology professional liability policy and that, even if they
did, a pair of exclusions would apply to bar coverage.

Kiip uses "proprietary marketing technology" to deliver
advertisements on apps installed on individuals' smartphones,
according to court documents.  The company's platform integrates
with app software to gather information through people's use of
their phones, then tailors ads to users based on that data, court
papers said.

Named plaintiffs Jessica Vasil and Christine Farag filed the
proposed class action in October, claiming that, beginning in
2014, Kiip undertook efforts to secretly extract smartphone
owners' information without their consent.  They are seeking at
least $5 million in damages.

The underlying complaint alleges that Fitnesskeeper Inc., maker of
the popular Runkeeper fitness app, ended its contract with Kiip in
mid-2016 after discovering that the mobile marketer was extracting
users' data, including current geographic location and smartphone
device identifiers, even when the app was not in use. Vasil and
Farag have asserted claims for unjust enrichment and violations of
the Federal Wiretap Act and Illinois Eavesdropping Statute.

In December, Kiip moved to dismiss the suit, contending that the
plaintiffs' claims fail as a matter of law because the allegedly
intercepted information does not constitute the "contents" of a
communication as defined by the Wiretap Act and because Kiip was a
party to the communications at issue, rather than an interloper.
Furthermore, Kiip noted, the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute does
not encompass communications from a tracking device.

Kiip holds a technology professional liability policy with
Admiral, with a policy period spanning from April 2016 through
April 2017.  The policy extends coverage for several specific
types of wrongful acts, including negligent acts, errors or
omissions related to the company's performance of professional
services and the unknowing or unintentional failure to prevent a
privacy breach event, according to court documents.

Admiral asserts that the underlying claims don't fit into any of
the categories of covered wrongful acts, as Kiip is not accused of
negligence or unintentional acts.  Instead, the putative class
action alleges that Kiip intentionally and knowingly intercepted
the contents of electronic communications, the insurer said.

Moreover, even if the underlying plaintiffs claimed that Kiip
engaged in a covered wrongful act, policy exclusions for
unauthorized data collection and intentional acts would preclude
coverage.

Kiip founder and CEO Brian Wong told Law360 on Jan. 25 that the
underlying class action is a "baseless set of allegations" largely
based on a series of news articles regarding a Norwegian consumer
watchdog's privacy complaint over data collection by the Runkeeper
app.

"This whole thing has been blown out of proportion," Mr. Wong
said. "We hold our users' privacy in the utmost importance, and we
would never do anything to harm that."

Admiral is represented by Brian M. Reid -- reid@litchfieldcavo.com
-- of Litchfield Cavo LLP.

Counsel information for Kiip was not immediately available on Jan.
25.

The case is Admiral Insurance Co. v. Kiip Inc., case number 1:17-
cv-00580, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.


LANNETT CO: Engineers Union Alleges Levothyroxine Price-Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCALS 302 AND 612
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY HEALTH AND SECURITY FUND, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LANNETT
COMPANY, INC. and MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-00293-CMR (E.D. Pa., January 19, 2017), alleges a
conspiracy between Defendants to raise the prices of and allocate
markets and customers for generic levothyroxine sodium tablets in
the United States.

LANNETT COMPANY, INC. and MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. manufacture
and distribute generic pharmaceuticals.

The Plaintiff is 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
     Phone: (215) 567-6565
     Fax: (215) 568-5872
     E-mail: 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 LLP
     140 Broadway
     New York, NY 10005
     Phone: (212) 907 0700
     Fax: (212) 818-0477
     E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com
             jhimes@labaton.com
             kgarvey@labaton.com
             lgoldstone@labaton.com
             mperez@labaton.com
             rjulius@labaton.com


LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Response to Amended Complaint Due March 13
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re LifeVantage Corp. Securities Litigation, Judge
Ted Stewart entered a Scheduling Order dated Dec. 28, 2016,
directing the Lead Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint on or
before January 27, 2017.  Defendants shall file their response to
the amended complaint on or before March 13, 2017. In the event
Defendants file a motion to dismiss in response to the amended
complaint, then the Lead Plaintiffs shall file their response
memorandum on or before April 12, 2017; and Defendants shall file
their reply memorandum on or before May 3, 2017.

On Jan. 27, the Lead Plaintiffs filed the Amended Complaint.

On Dec. 13, Judge Stewart granted Plaintiffs Dale Blanch and
Yvonne Cohen's Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff and
Approval of Lead Counsel.

Blanch and Cohen filed the Motion on November 14, 2016, claiming
financial losses of more than $41,674.

Competing motions were filed by Chris Sayer and Francesco Crosara.
Sayer claimed losses of $10,185 and Crosara, $7,563.  Crosara
subsequently withdrew his motion.  Sayer then filed a Notice of
Non-opposition to Competing Lead Plaintiff Motions, leaving Blanch
and Cohen's motion unopposed.

LifeVantage said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 12, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2016, that a purported securities class
action was filed on September 15, 2016, in the United States
District Court for the District of Utah, entitled Zhang v.
LifeVantage Corp., Case No. 2:16-cv-00965-BCW (D. Utah filed Sept.
15, 2016). In this action (now recaptioned as In re LifeVantage
Corp. Securities Litigation), plaintiff alleges that the Company,
its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer violated
Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R.
Sec. 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder, by making false or
misleading statements or omissions in public filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the Company's
internal controls and financial results for the first, second and
third quarters of fiscal year 2016.

The initial complaint sought unspecified damages against the
defendants on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's
stock between November 4, 2015 and September 13, 2016.

By stipulation filed October 7, 2016, the parties agreed that
defendants need not respond to the initial complaint in the action
until after a lead plaintiff is appointed pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, at which time the
parties will meet and confer regarding the timing of the filing of
an amended complaint and responses thereto.

On November 14, 2016, three motions for appointment as lead
plaintiff were filed.

The Company has not established a loss contingency accrual for
this lawsuit as it believes liability is not probable or
estimable, and the Company plans to vigorously defend against this
lawsuit. Nonetheless, an unfavorable resolution of this matter
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
results of operations or financial condition.

The Lead Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

          - and -

     Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     10 S Lasalle Ste 3505
     Chicago, IL 60603
     TelL (312) 377-1181
     E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

          - and -

     Zane L. Christensen, Esq.
     Steven A. Christensen, Esq.
     CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES
     9980 S 300 W Ste 200
     Sandy, UT 84070
     Tel: (866) 861-3333
     E-mail: zanechristensen@christensenyounglaw.com
             stevenchristen@gmail.com

LifeVantage is represented by:

     John P. Stigi , III, Esq.
     SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
     1901 Ave Of The Stars Ste 1600
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Tel: (310) 228-3717
     E-mail: jstigi@sheppardmullin.com

          - and -

     Milo Steven Marsden, Esq.
     DORSEY & WHITNEY (UT)
     136 S Main St Ste 1000
     Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1685
     Tel: (801) 933-7360
     E-mail: marsden.steve@dorsey.com

LifeVantage Corporation is a company dedicated to helping people
achieve their health, wellness and financial independence goals.
It provides quality, scientifically-validated products and a
financially rewarding direct sales business opportunity to
customers and independent distributors who seek a healthy
lifestyle and financial freedom.


LOS ANGELES, CA: 9th Cir. Heard Appeal in Suit v. LAPD
------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on January 12,
heard the appeal of a class action in Los Angeles, from a woman
who says a Los Angeles city policy that allows it to impound cars
for 30 days without a warrant is an unconstitutional taking.

Lamya Brewster of Fontana sued Los Angeles, its police department
and Police Chief Charlie Beck in 2014, seeking an injunction and
damages for licensed drivers she says were victimized by the
city's impound policy.

In a separate lawsuit, a conservative group trained its sights on
the policy after the LAPD issued a special order in 2012 limiting
when officers can seize unlicensed drivers' cars. Under Special
Order 7, officers could not take vehicles if the driver had auto
insurance, a valid ID and no prior convictions for unlicensed
driving, according to the LA Times.

Chief Beck intended to ease the burden on the hundreds of
thousands of people who were in the city illegally and could not
obtain licenses. A state court judge, however, struck down the
special order after the group Judicial Watch challenged it. A
California appeals court found for Chief Beck and reinstated the
special order in late 2014.

Brewster's attorney Donald Cook said that when Brewster filed her
class action, some people viewed the policy as a way to target
undocumented immigrants, but Cook added that "regardless of your
view" officers should not take cars without a "real good reason."

On January 12, morning hearing in Pasadena, Cook urged the court
to reverse U.S. District Judge Jesus Bernal, who ruled that the
policy is a not a seizure but a temporary forfeiture, so
constitutional protections under the Fourth Amendment do not
apply.

But Cook argued that while an officer's taking of a vehicle may be
justified, that does not mean the city should be able to keep the
vehicle for a month without judicial review.

Deputy City Attorney Gabriel Dermer asked the court to affirm,
saying the 30-day hold under a section of the California Vehicle
Code Section is not unconstitutional.

"Is it your position that the single justification for the
seizure, which is the caretaking exception, can then last all the
way through until they give it back?" Ninth Circuit Judge M.
Margaret McKeown asked Dermer.

Dermer said no.

"My position is that once the car is seized, the Fourth Amendment
no longer applies, and because of the Vehicle Code section with
the due process protections, that's what then governs the
continued retention of the property," Dermer said.

In rebuttal, Cook told the panel that temporary forfeiture
procedures usually include a judicial or quasi-judicial review.

"This doesn't have that," Cook said.

In a brief to the court, Cook said that when Brewster showed up to
the pound to claim her car and pay the fees she should be able to
take her car. If not, the city should get a warrant.

According to her complaint, Brewster loaned her Chevrolet Impala
to her brother-in-law so he could pick up some food  --  she did
not know that his license had been suspended.

He was stopped as he pulled into a Chipotle parking lot. Officers
impounded the vehicle without a warrant even after Brewster
arrived in a taxi and told them that she was the registered,
licensed owner of the car.

Brewster said that in some cases the LAPD refuses to return
vehicles to licensed and registered drivers within 30 days even if
the driver offers to pay storage and administrative charges. Those
charges may run from $1,500 to $1,800, according to the lawsuit.

If car owners cannot pay the charges, their vehicles are placed in
a lien sale.

"If the amount recovered by the lien sale is insufficient to pay
outstanding storage charges and administrative fees, the vehicle's
(former) registered owner remains liable to the tow yard for the
difference," Brewster said in her complaint.

Ninth Circuit Judges Alex Kozinski and Judge Paul Watford joined
McKeown on the panel, which took the case under submission.


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Still Defends "Gathmann-Landini" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
lululemon athletica inc. said it intends to vigorously defend the
matter, Rebecca Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA inc., the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 7, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended October 30, 2016.

On October 9, 2015, certain current and former hourly employees of
the Company filed a class action lawsuit in the Supreme Court of
New York entitled Rebecca Gathmann-Landini et al v. lululemon USA
inc. On December 2, 2015, the case was moved to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The lawsuit
alleges that the Company violated various New York labor codes by
failing to pay all earned wages, including overtime compensation.
The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages.

In August 2016, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.  Lululemon then filed a
reply in support of its request.

lululemon is a designer, distributor, and retailer of healthy
lifestyle inspired athletic apparel.


MARKSMEN LANDSCAPING: Jennings Wants to Notify FLSA Class Members
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled ANDREW JENNINGS, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. MARKSMEN
LANDSCAPING, LLC and/or other entities affiliated with or
controlled by ANTHONY MARKS, individually, LINDA MARKS,
individually, SCOTT MARKS, individually, and FRANK MARKS,
individually, Case No. 1:16-cv-00779-RMB-KMW (D.N.J.), moves the
Court to permit Court-supervised notification to members of the
putative collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Court will commence a hearing on February 6, 2017, to consider
the Motion.  Any opposition to the Motion is due 14 days prior to
the motion day and any reply brief must be made seven days prior
to the motion day.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Kwn4ZH1Y

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
          Alison L. Genova, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad, Seventh Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
                  agenova@vandallp.com

               - and -

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          301 North Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (201) 687-9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
                  jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          William P. McLane, Esq.
          Neha Dalal, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          One Newark Center, Eighth Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 848-4700
          Facsimile: (973) 643-5626
          E-mail: wmclane@littler.com
                  ndalal@littler.com


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Jury Trial in "Luna" Suit Set for March 2018
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William Alsup entered a Case Management Scheduling Order
in the case, Luna et al v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. et al.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-05447-WHA (N.D. Cal.).   The order provides that:

     -- Jury Selection set for 3/5/2018 7:30 a.m. in Courtroom 8,
        19th Floor, San Francisco

     -- Jury Trial set for 3/5/2018 7:30 a.m. in Courtroom 8, 19th
        Floor, San Francisco before

In November 2016, the case was reassigned to Judge Alsup from
Judge Ronald M. Whyte.

Marvell Technology Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 6, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2016, that Defendants
had until January 16, 2017 to answer, move to dismiss, or
otherwise respond to the complaint by Daniel Luna.

On January 12, Marvell advised the Court that it intends to file a
Motion to Dismiss.

On September 11, 2015, Daniel Luna filed an action asserting
putative class action claims on behalf of the Company's
shareholders in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York ("S.D. of New York"). This action was
consolidated with two additional, nearly identical complaints
subsequently filed by Philip Limbacher and Jim Farno. The
complaints asserted violations of federal securities laws based on
allegations that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors (Sehat Sutardja, Michael Rashkin, and Sukhi Nagesh)
made, caused to be made, or failed to correct false and/or
misleading statements in the Company's press releases and public
filings. The complaints request damages in unspecified amounts,
costs and fees of bringing the action, and other unspecified
relief.

On November 18, 2015, the S.D. of New York granted the Company's
motion to transfer the consolidated cases to the N.D. of
California. On December 21, 2015, the N.D. of California granted
the Company's motion to deem the consolidated cases related to the
Saratoga litigation.

On February 8, 2016, the N.D. of California granted an unopposed
motion to appoint Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund
as Lead Plaintiff. On March 19, 2016, Lead Plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint.

On April 29, 2016, Marvell and each of the individual defendants
each filed motions to dismiss.

The hearing on the motions to dismiss took place on July 29, 2016
and the court took the matter under submission. On October 12,
2016, the Court granted Defendants' motions to dismiss with leave
to amend and granted lead plaintiff 30 days to file an amended
complaint.

Martin O'Sullivan, writing for Law360, reported that U.S. District
Judge Ronald M. Whyte in an October ruling said shareholders
failed to show that Marvell misrepresented the company's financial
standing by not recording domestic royalties owed to Carnegie
Mellon at various stages of litigation between the parties.  The
shareholder class action alleges Marvell misled investors by
failing to account for litigation that led to a $750 million
patent settlement with Carnegie Mellon University over disk drive
technology.

The parties agreed that the plaintiffs shall file and serve an
amended complaint by November 28, 2016. Plaintiffs filed and
served the amended complaint on November 28, 2016. Defendants had
until January 16, 2017 to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise
respond to the complaint.

Marvell is a fabless semiconductor provider of high-performance
application-specific standard products.


MCADAM LANDSCAPING: Fairness Hearing in "Martinez" Suit on June 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on January 12, 2017, in the case
entitled Juan Martinez v. McAdam Landscaping, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-06461 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before
the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Motion hearing was held on January 12, 2017;

   -- Parties will provide a Proposed Order to the Court; and

   -- Final Fairness hearing is set for June 1, 2017, at 9:00
      a.m.

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


MEDICREDIT INC: Hopkins' Class Cert. Bid Denied as Premature
------------------------------------------------------------
TINA HOPKINS, Plaintiff, v. MEDICREDIT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:16 CV 1429 CDP (E.D. Mo.), alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692 et seq.  Ms. Hopkins
filed her motion for class certification immediately, even though
no scheduling conference or discovery has taken place in the case.

The Defendant moves to deny the motion as premature. Plaintiff
filed no reply brief in support of her motion.

In a Jan. 23 Memorandum and Order, District Judge Catherine D.
Perry denied the motion for class certification without prejudice
as prematurely filed and set this case for a scheduling
conference.

A copy of the Court's Jan. 23, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/oKygCd from Leagle.com

Tina Hopkins, Plaintiff, is represented by:

     Dominic M. Pontello, Esq.
     PONTELLO LAW, LLC
     5988 Mid Rivers Mall Dr
     Saint Charles, MO 63304
     Tel: (636) 541-7673

Medicredit, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Patrick T.
McLaughlin -- pmclaughlin@spencerfane.com -- and Scott J.
Dickenson -- sdickenson@spencerfane.com -- Spencer Fane LLP.


MENTOR GRAPHICS: Plaintiff Fights Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Haroutunian et al v. Mentor Graphics Corporation et
al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00470 (D. Ore.), Plaintiff Western
Pennsylvania Electrical Employees Pension Fund filed a Response in
Opposition to Motion for Supplemental Authority in Support of
Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint.  Defendants Gregory K.
Hinckley, Mentor Graphics Corporation, Joseph Reinhart, and Walden
C. filed have a Response to Notice of Supplemental Authority.

Mentor Graphics Corporation continues to defend against the
lawsuit, Haroutunian v. Mentor Graphics, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on December 6, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 31,
2016.

The Company said, "On March 18, 2016, a purported securities class
action lawsuit, Haroutunian v. Mentor Graphics, was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon against the company
and three executive officers alleging violations of federal
securities laws. The complaint alleges that the company and
certain of our officers made material misstatements and omissions
in press releases, Securities and Exchange Commission filings and
analyst conference calls concerning the company's business
prospects and financial projections that artificially inflated the
price of the company's stock. The lead plaintiff has been
appointed and plaintiff's amended complaint was filed with the
court on August 10, 2016. A class of plaintiffs has not been
certified by the court.

Mentor Graphics is a supplier of electronic design automation
(EDA) tools -- advanced computer software and emulation hardware
systems used to automate the design, analysis, and testing of
complex electro-mechanical systems, electronic hardware, and
embedded systems software in electronic systems and components.


MICHAELS COMPANIES: Store Managers' Suit in California Underway
---------------------------------------------------------------
A representative action brought on behalf of store managers of
Michaels Stores, Inc. is pending in the California Superior Court,
County of San Diego, The Michaels Companies, Inc. said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
December 7, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2016.

On September 15, 2011, Michaels Stores, Inc. ("MSI") was served
with a lawsuit filed in the California Superior Court in and for
the County of Orange ("Superior Court") by four former store
managers as a class action proceeding on behalf of themselves and
certain former and current store managers employed by MSI in
California. The lawsuit alleged that MSI improperly classified its
store managers as exempt employees and as such failed to pay all
wages, overtime and waiting time penalties and failed to provide
accurate wage statements. The lawsuit also alleged that the
foregoing conduct was in breach of various laws, including
California's unfair competition law.

On December 3, 2013, the Superior Court entered an order
certifying a class of approximately 200 members. MSI successfully
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California and on May 8, 2014, the class was
decertified. The named plaintiffs' claims were resolved in
September 2014, but the individual claims of 25 former class
members remain pending in the Central District of California.

In addition, a separate representative action brought on behalf of
store managers throughout the state is pending in the California
Superior Court, County of San Diego.

"We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend the
lawsuits vigorously. We do not believe the resolution of the
lawsuits will have a material effect on our consolidated financial
statements," the Company said.

Michaels Companies is the largest arts and crafts specialty
retailer in North America (based on store count) providing
materials, project ideas and education for creative activities
under the retail brands of Michaels, Aaron Brothers and Pat
Catan's.


MICHAELS COMPANIES: Bercut's FCRA Suit Remanded to Sonoma County
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GRAHAM v. MICHAELS STORES, INC., Case No. 2:14-cv-
07563 (D. N.J.), Judge Kevin McNulty on Jan. 24, 2017, entered an
order granting a motion to dismiss all three complaints against
the Defendant.

Judge McNulty dismissed these three complaints without prejudice:

     Civ. No. 14-7563
     Civ. No. 15-2547
     Civ. No. 15-5504

Judge McNulty also held that Michelle Bercut's case Civ. No. 15-
5504 will be remanded to the Superior Court of California, County
of Sonoma. The remand, however, is stayed until further Court
order of the Court.  Within 30 days, Michelle Bercut may file an
amended complaint, etc.

The Michaels Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2016, that on December
11, 2014, Michaels Stores, Inc. was served with a lawsuit,
Christina Graham v. Michaels Stores, Inc., filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey by a former
employee. The lawsuit is a purported class action, bringing
plaintiff's individual claims, as well as claims on behalf of a
putative class of applicants who applied for employment with
Michaels through an online application, and on whom a background
check for employment was procured. The lawsuit alleges that MSI
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and the New Jersey
Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to provide the proper
disclosure and obtain the proper authorization to conduct
background checks. Since the initial filing, another named
plaintiff joined the lawsuit, which was amended in February 2015,
Christina Graham and Gary Anderson v. Michaels Stores, Inc., with
substantially similar allegations. The plaintiffs seek statutory
and punitive damages as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Following the filing of the Graham case in New Jersey, five
additional purported class action lawsuits with six plaintiffs
were filed, Michele Castro and Janice Bercut v. Michaels Stores,
Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Michelle Bercut v. Michaels Stores, Inc. in the Superior
Court of California for Sonoma County, Raini Burnside v. Michaels
Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri, Sue Gettings v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, and Barbara
Horton v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California. All of the plaintiffs alleged
violations of the FCRA. In addition, the Castro, Horton and Janice
Bercut lawsuits also alleged violations of California's unfair
competition law. The Burnside, Horton and Gettings lawsuits, as
well as the claims by Michele Castro, have been dismissed. The
Graham, Janice Bercut and Michelle Bercut lawsuits were
transferred for centralized pretrial proceedings to the District
of New Jersey.

The Company intends to defend the remaining lawsuits vigorously.

The Company said, "We cannot reasonably estimate the potential
loss, or range of loss, related to the lawsuits, if any."

Michaels Companies is the largest arts and crafts specialty
retailer in North America (based on store count) providing
materials, project ideas and education for creative activities
under the retail brands of Michaels, Aaron Brothers and Pat
Catan's.


MICHAELS COMPANIES: Appeal in Data Breach Case Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The Michaels Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2016, that an appeal in
the class action lawsuit related to a data security incident
remains pending.

Five putative class actions were filed against Michaels Stores,
Inc. relating to the January 2014 data breach. The plaintiffs
generally alleged that MSI failed to secure and safeguard
customers' private information including credit and debit card
information, and as such, breached an implied contract and
violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (and other states'
similar laws). The plaintiffs are seeking damages including
declaratory relief, actual damages, punitive damages, statutory
damages, attorneys' fees, litigation costs, remedial action, pre
and post judgment interest, and other relief as available. The
cases are as follows: Christina Moyer v. Michaels Stores, Inc.,
was filed on January 27, 2014; Michael and Jessica Gouwens v.
Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on January 29, 2014; Nancy Maize
and Jessica Gordon v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on February
21, 2014; and Daniel Ripes v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on
March 14, 2014. These four cases were filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division. On March 18, 2014, an additional putative class action
was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, Mary Jane Whalen v. Michaels Stores, Inc.,
but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on April 11, 2014
without prejudice to her right to re-file a complaint. On April
16, 2014, an order was entered consolidating the Illinois actions.
On July 14, 2014, the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint was granted.

On December 2, 2014, Whalen filed a new lawsuit against MSI
related to the data breach in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, Mary Jane Whalen v. Michaels
Stores, Inc., seeking damages including declaratory relief,
monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, injunctive relief, pre and post judgment interest,
and other relief as available. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss which was granted on December 28, 2015, and judgment was
entered in favor of the Company on January 8, 2016. Plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal on January 27, 2016, appealing the
judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit. The appeal is pending.

The Company intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously. We cannot
reasonably estimate the potential loss, or range of loss, related
to the lawsuit, if any.

Michaels Companies is the largest arts and crafts specialty
retailer in North America (based on store count) providing
materials, project ideas and education for creative activities
under the retail brands of Michaels, Aaron Brothers and Pat
Catan's.


MIDDLE MAN: Loses Bid to Certify Class in Sprint Nextel Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION v. THE MIDDLE MAN,
INC., and BRIAN K. VAZQUEZ, Case No. 2:12-cv-02159-JTM (D. Kan.),
the Hon. J. Thomas Marten denied (i) The Middle Man's renewed
motion for class certification, and (ii) Sprint's motion to strike
jury demand.

According to a memorandum and order, Judge Marten opined that TMMI
has not shown that modification of the pretrial order to allow it
to assert a class action counterclaim at this point is necessary
to prevent manifest injustice.

Like TMMI's request for class certification, Sprint's effort to
withdraw its own jury demand and to strike the jury demand of TMMI
comes too late, Judge Marten said.  Judge Marten added that Sprint
demanded a jury trial in all of its pleadings, it agreed to a jury
trial in previous pretrial orders, and it made no prior effort in
five years of litigation to limit its own jury request or to
strike TMMI's jury demand.

A copy of the Memorandum and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=s5K6qwRL


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Ex-Claims Adjuster Files Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a former claims adjuster for Nationwide Mutual Insurance
claims in a class action in Sacramento, Calif., that he faced
retaliation after complaining about unpaid overtime and other
violations of California labor law.

The case is captioned, ANTHONY MARC MOSTAJO,on bchalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, VS NATIONWIDE MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY,and Docs l through 50,inclusive, Defendants.

Altorneys for Plaintiff Anthony Marc Moslajo on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated:

     Robin G. Workman, Esq.
     WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC
     177 Post Street, Suite 900
     San Francisco, CA 94108
     Telephone: (415) 782-3660
     Facsimile: (415) 788-1028
     E-mail: robin@workmanlawpc.com


NAVIENT CORPORATION: CFPB Files Consumer Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
WKYC reports that Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
filed a lawsuit against Navient, the nation's largest student loan
servicer.

Now Navient has been hit with a proposed consumer-filed class
action, according to classaction.org.

The class action alleges that Navient intentionally ". . . put up
roadblocks to prevent student loan borrowers from repaying their
loans."

According to classaction.org, defendants Navient Corporation and
Navient Solutions, Inc. ". . .allegedly misapplied student loan
payments so they could collect the maximum possible amount of
accrued interest -- i.e. the "main source of revenue" for student
loan servicers, the suit says -- on each loan serviced."


NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA: Faces "Bosco" Suit Seeking to Recoup Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Bosco, an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company; Universal City Studios LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100,
Defendants, Case No. BC 647509 (Cal. Super., County of Los
Angeles, January 19, 2017), seeks recovery of alleged unpaid wages
through the California Labor Code.

NBCUniversal Media LLC operates as a media and entertainment
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul K. Haines, Esq.
     Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
     Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
     HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
     2274 East Maple Ave.
     El Segundo, CA 90245
     Phone: (424) 292-2350
     Fax: (424) 292-2355
     E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
             tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
             sblakely@haineslawgroup.com


NCR CORPORATION: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Meadows" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Manish S. Shah denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification and to facilitate notice
filed in the lawsuit titled MICHAEL MEADOWS, Individually, and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NCR CORPORATION, Case
No. 1:16-cv-06221 (N.D. Ill.).

Michael Meadows brings the purported collective action against NCR
Corporation for allegedly violating the Fair Labor Standards Act
by failing to pay adequate and overtime wages.

Judge Shah opined that the Plaintiffs have not made a sufficient
showing that they were victims of a common NCR policy or plan that
violates the law.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dcx6C22D


NEIMAN MARCUS: Oral Argument in "Rubenstein" Appeal on Feb. 17
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument is set for February 17, 2017, in the appeal in the
case filed by Linda Rubenstein, Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on December 13, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
October 29, 2016.

On August 7, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against The Neiman Marcus Group LLC in Los Angeles County Superior
Court by a customer, Linda Rubenstein, in connection with the
Company's Last Call stores in California. Ms. Rubenstein alleges
that the Company has violated various California consumer
protection statutes by implementing a marketing and pricing
strategy that suggests that clothing sold at Last Call stores in
California was originally offered for sale at full-line Neiman
Marcus stores when allegedly, it was not, and is allegedly of
inferior quality to clothing sold at the full-line stores. Ms.
Rubenstein also alleges that the Company lacks adequate
information to support its comparative pricing labels.

The Company said, "On September 12, 2014, we removed the case to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On
October 17, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
which the court granted on December 12, 2014."

"In its order dismissing the complaint, the court granted Ms.
Rubenstein leave to file an amended complaint. Ms. Rubenstein
filed her first amended complaint on December 22, 2014.

"On January 6, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the first
amended complaint, which the court granted on March 2, 2015.

"In its order dismissing the first amended complaint, the court
granted Ms. Rubenstein leave to file a second amended complaint,
which she filed on March 17, 2015.

"On April 6, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint. On May 12, 2015, the court granted our motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety, without
leave to amend, and on June 9, 2015, Ms. Rubenstein filed a notice
to appeal the court's ruling. The appeal is pending, briefing is
complete, and oral argument is set for February 17, 2017."

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a luxury omni-channel retailer
conducting store and online operations principally under the
Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, Last Call and MyTheresa brand
names.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Settlement Reached in "Zaslav" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit by Marney Zaslav have reached a
settlement in principle, Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on December 13, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 29,
2016.

On February 2, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed
against Bergdorf Goodman, Inc. in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, County of New York, by Marney Zaslav. Ms. Zaslav
seeks monetary relief and alleges that she and other similarly
situated individuals were misclassified as interns exempt from
minimum wage requirements instead of as employees and, therefore,
were not provided with proper compensation under the New York
Labor Law.

Bergdorf Goodman has vigorously denied these allegations.

The parties recently reached a settlement in principle regarding
this matter.

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a luxury omni-channel retailer
conducting store and online operations principally under the
Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, Last Call and MyTheresa brand
names.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Feb. 2018 Trial Date in "Attia" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The district court has set a trial date in the lawsuit by Holly
Attia of February 6, 2018, Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on December 13, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 29,
2016.

On February 11, 2016, a putative class action first amended
complaint was filed against The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. in the
Superior Court of California, Orange County, by Holly Attia and
seven other named plaintiffs. They allege claims for failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest breaks,
failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to timely pay
wages due at termination and failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements. Plaintiffs also allege derivative claims for
restitution under California unfair competition law and a
representative claim for penalties under the California Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"). Plaintiffs seek to certify
a class of all nonexempt employees of the Company in California
since December 31, 2011. Plaintiffs seek damages for the alleged
Labor Code violations as well as restitution, statutory penalties
under PAGA, and attorneys' fees, interest and costs of suit.

The Company removed this matter to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on March 17, 2016, and subsequently
filed a motion to compel arbitration as to all named plaintiffs
and requested to stay the PAGA claim.

On June 27, 2016, the court granted the motion and compelled
arbitration of the individual claims. The court retained
jurisdiction of the PAGA claim and stayed that claim pending the
outcome of arbitration.

On September 8, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the court's order regarding the arbitration.

On October 18, 2016, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration based on a recent decision by the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals in Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, and reversed its
order granting the motion to compel arbitration.

The Company filed an appeal on November 16, 2016. The case will
proceed in district court while the appeal is pending.  The
district court has set a trial date in the matter of February 6,
2018.

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a luxury omni-channel retailer
conducting store and online operations principally under the
Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, Last Call and MyTheresa brand
names.


NEIMAN MARCUS: "Nguyen" Class Suit Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit filed by Xuan Hien Nguyen against Neiman Marcus Group
LTD LLC remains stayed, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 13,
2016, for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2016.

On June 1, 2016, a PAGA representative action was filed against
The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. in the Superior Court of California,
Orange County, by Xuan Hien Nguyen pleading only PAGA claims and
asserting the same factual allegations as the plaintiffs in the
Attia matter. On July 21, 2016, Ms. Nguyen filed an amended
complaint with no material differences from the original
complaint.

On August 25, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss or to
stay the case. The motion was heard on September 23, 2016. At the
hearing, the court granted the Company's motion and stayed the
Nguyen case in light of the Attia matter.

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a luxury omni-channel retailer
conducting store and online operations principally under the
Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, Last Call and MyTheresa brand
names.


NEIMAN MARCUS: "Connolly" Class Action Remains Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit filed by Milca Connolly against Neiman Marcus Group
LTD LLC remains stayed, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 13,
2016, for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2016.

On July 28, 2016, former employee Milca Connolly filed a
representative action alleging only PAGA claims against The Neiman
Marcus Group in the Superior Court of California, Orange County.
Ms. Connolly's complaint raises PAGA claims substantially
identical to those raised in Attia and Nguyen based on allegations
of failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, unlawful deductions
from wages, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to
reimburse business expenses, failure to timely pay wages due at
termination and failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements.

The Company was served with the Complaint in Connolly on September
8, 2016. On October 11, 2016, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss or stay the case in light of the Attia and Nguyen matters.
At the hearing on November 18, 2016, the court granted the
Company's motion to stay the case.

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a luxury omni-channel retailer
conducting store and online operations principally under the
Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, Last Call and MyTheresa brand
names.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Awaits Decision in "Ohle" Case
---------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is awaiting the decision of the
Illinois Supreme Court in the appeal in the case by Catherine
Ohle, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 13, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 29, 2016.

On September 27, 2016, a dormant Illinois putative class action
lawsuit, Catherine Ohle v. Neiman Marcus Group, originally filed
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, was revived by an Illinois
appeals court when it reversed a June 2014 trial court's order
granting summary judgment to the Company and dismissing the matter
in its entirety. In Ohle, the plaintiff alleged that the Company's
prior practice of conducting pre-employment credit checks of sales
associates and considering credit history as a factor in its
hiring decisions violated the Illinois Employee Credit Privacy
Act.

The appellate court reversed, holding that no exemption applied.
On November 1, 2016, the Company appealed the decision to the
Illinois Supreme Court. The appeal is now fully briefed, and the
Company awaits a decision as to whether the Illinois Supreme Court
will grant review.

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a luxury omni-channel retailer
conducting store and online operations principally under the
Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, Last Call and MyTheresa brand
names.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Cyber-Attack Class Actions Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Cyber-attack class actions litigation remains pending, Neiman
Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 13, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 29, 2016.

The Company said, "Three class actions relating to a cyber-attack
on our computer systems in 2013 (the "Cyber-Attack") were filed in
January 2014 and later voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs
between February and April 2014. The plaintiffs had alleged
negligence and other claims in connection with their purchases by
payment cards and sought monetary and injunctive relief."

Melissa Frank v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, et al., was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
January 13, 2014 but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on
April 15, 2014, without prejudice to her right to re-file a
complaint. Donna Clark v. Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on
January 27, 2014 but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on
March 11, 2014, without prejudice to her right to re-file a
complaint. Christina Wong v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, et al.,
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on January 29, 2014, but was voluntarily dismissed by
the plaintiff on February 10, 2014, without prejudice to her right
to re-file a complaint.

"Three additional putative class actions relating to the Cyber-
Attack were filed in March and April 2014, also alleging
negligence and other claims in connection with plaintiffs'
purchases by payment cards.

"Two of the cases, Katerina Chau v. Neiman Marcus Group LTD Inc.,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California on March 14, 2014, and Michael Shields v. The Neiman
Marcus Group, LLC, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California on April 1, 2014, were voluntarily
dismissed, with prejudice as to Chau and without prejudice as to
Shields. The third case, Hilary Remijas v. The Neiman Marcus
Group, LLC, was filed on March 12, 2014 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.

"On June 2, 2014, an amended complaint in the Remijas case was
filed, which added three plaintiffs (Debbie Farnoush and Joanne
Kao, California residents; and Melissa Frank, a New York resident)
and asserted claims for negligence, implied contract, unjust
enrichment, violation of various consumer protection statutes,
invasion of privacy and violation of state data breach laws.

"The Company moved to dismiss the Remijas amended complaint on
July 2, 2014.

"On September 16, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the Remijas case on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked
standing due to their failure to demonstrate an actionable injury.

"On September 25, 2014, plaintiffs appealed the district court's
order dismissing the case to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Oral argument was held on January 23, 2015. On July 20, 2015, the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's
ruling and remanded the case to the district court for further
proceedings.

"On August 3, 2015, we filed a petition for rehearing en banc. On
September 17, 2015, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied
our petition for rehearing.

"The district court held a status conference on October 29, 2015
and set a supplemental briefing schedule on the remaining portion
of our previously filed motion to dismiss that had not been
addressed by the court, and scheduled a status hearing for
December 15, 2015.

"The parties completed supplemental briefing on December 21, 2015.
On January 13, 2016, the court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss. The parties jointly requested, and the Court granted, an
extension of time for filing a responsive pleading, which was due
on December 28, 2016."

Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC is a luxury omni-channel retailer
conducting store and online operations principally under the
Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman, Last Call and MyTheresa brand
names.


NETJETS SERVICES: Faces "Jeffers" Suit Under FLSA, Ohio Wage Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STACIE JEFFERS, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, 27 E. Woodstone Dr., Pataskala, Ohio 43062, Plaintiff,
vs. NETJETS SERVICES, INC. c/o Statutory Agent Corporation Service
Company, 50 W. Broad Street, Suite 1330, Columbus, Ohio 43215,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00061-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, January 19,
2017), seeks to collect alleged unpaid overtime and other unpaid
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum
Fair Wage Standards Act, and Ohio common law.

Defendant is a private aircraft provider, providing aircraft that
accommodates 7 to 14 people.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rachel A. Sabo, Esq.
     Peter G. Friedmann, Esq.
     THE FRIEDMANN FIRM LLC
     1457 S. High Street
     Columbus, OH 43207
     Phone: 614-610-9757
     Fax: 614-737-9812
     E-mail: Rachel@TFFLegal.com
             Pete@TFFLegal.com

        - and -

     Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
     Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
     MANSELL LAW, LLC
     1457 S. High St.
     Columbus, OH 43207
     Phone: (614) 610-4134
     Fax: (513) 826-9311
     E-mail: Greg@MansellLawLLC.com
             Carrie@MansellLawLLC.com


NIMBLE STORAGE: Ark. Teacher Ret. Sys. Files 2nd Amended Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Arkansas Teacher Retirement System filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint against Dan Leary, Varun
Mehta, Nimble Storage, Inc., Anup V. Singh, Suresh Vasudevan on
Jan. 20, 2017.

Nimble Storage said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 30, 2016, that a purported
securities class action entitled Vikramkumar v. Nimble Storage,
Inc., et al. was filed on December 17, 2015, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors. A second
purported securities class action entitled Guardino v. Nimble
Storage, Inc., et al. was filed on December 23, 2015, and a third
purported class action entitled Madhani v. Nimble Storage, Inc.,
et al. was filed on February 5, 2016, also in the Northern
District of California against the same parties.

The complaints in the three actions allege claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and financial results.

On March 28, 2016, the Court ordered that the three actions be
consolidated under the caption In re Nimble Storage, Inc.
Securities Litigation, or In re Nimble Sec. Lit. A consolidated
amended complaint was filed in the In re Nimble Sec. Lit. matter
on June 10, 2016.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on July 25, 2016. On December 9, the Court granted the
motion to dismiss with leave to amend.

Given the early stage in the litigation, the Company is unable to
estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss.


NONGSHIM CO: Judge Certifies Two Classes in Ramen Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in San Francisco, certified two classes in an
antitrust case accusing Korean companies of colluding to fix
prices of ramen noodles: a nationwide class of direct purchasers,
and an indirect purchaser class of members of 23 states and the
District of Columbia.

Defendants Nongshim Co., Ltd., Nongshim America, Inc., Ottogi Co,
Ltd., and Ottogi America, Inc., allegedly conspired, along with
Samyang Foods Co. Ltd., and Korea Yakult Co. Ltd. to raise the
price of Korean Noodles in Korea and in the United States, the
suit claims.

Samyang Foods Co. Ltd. and Sam Yang (USA), Inc. settled with the
plaintiffs and judgment has been entered against them.  Korea
Yakult Co. Ltd. was dismissed.

The named DPP plaintiffs are: The Plaza Market, Plaintiff Pacific
Groservice, Inc. d/b/a/ Pitco Foods, Summit Import Corporation,
and Rockman Company U.S.A. Inc.

The named IPP plaintiffs are: Stephen Fenerjian, Joyce Beamer,
Kendal Martin, Anthony An, Eleanor Pelobello, Jill Bonnington,
Kenny Kang, Christina Nguyen, Thu-Thuy Nguyen, Yim Ha Nobel, Ji
Choi, and Charles Chung.

The case is captioned, IN RE KOREAN RAMEN ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
Case 3:13-cv-04115-WHO (N.D. Cal.).


NORTHSTAR ASSET: Reached MOU in "Kessler" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
NorthStar Asset Management Group Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 12,
2016, that NSAM has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
with the plaintiff in the Kessler action providing for the
settlement of the Kessler action.

On June 2, 2016, NorthStar Asset Management Group Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("NSAM"), entered into an Agreement and Plans of
Merger, as amended from time to time, with NorthStar Realty
Finance Corp., a Maryland corporation ("NRF"), Colony Capital,
Inc., a Maryland corporation ("Colony"), and certain subsidiary
entities of NSAM and NRF, pursuant to which NSAM, Colony and NRF
will combine in an all-stock merger of equals (the "Mergers"). In
connection with the Mergers, each of NSAM, Colony and NRF has
filed a definitive joint proxy statement with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on November 18, 2016, which
was supplemented by the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the
SEC by each of NSAM and NRF on November 23, 2016 (the "Definitive
Proxy Statement").

As described in the Definitive Proxy Statement, a purported
stockholder of NSAM filed a putative class action complaint in the
United States District Court of the District of Maryland (referred
to as the Kessler action) against NSAM and the members of the NSAM
board. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the initial
joint proxy statement/prospectus and the first and third
amendments thereto filed in respect of the Mergers omit or
misstate various facts concerning the financial analyses performed
by the financial advisors to NSAM and the special committee of the
NSAM board. Also as noted in the Definitive Proxy Statement,
substantially similar claims were filed against Colony, NRF, and
their respective boards of directors.

On December 9, 2016, NSAM entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the plaintiff in the Kessler action providing
for the settlement of the Kessler action (the "NSAM Memorandum of
Understanding"). In the NSAM Memorandum of Understanding, NSAM
agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures to the Definitive
Proxy Statement solely for the purposes of minimizing the time,
burden, and expense of litigation. The NSAM Memorandum of
Understanding provides that, in exchange for making these
disclosures, defendants will receive, after notice to potential
class members and upon court approval, a customary release of
claims relating to the Mergers. Similar settlements in principle
have been reached in the related litigations against Colony, NRF,
and their respective boards of directors.

NSAM believes that no additional disclosure is required to
supplement the Definitive Proxy Statement under applicable laws.
However, to minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent
in litigation and to avoid any potential delay of the consummation
of the Mergers, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing,
NSAM has agreed, pursuant to the NSAM Memorandum of Understanding,
to make certain supplemental disclosures to the Definitive Proxy
Statement.


NORTHSTAR REALTY: Reached MOU in "Boothe" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
NorthStar Realty Finance Corp. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 12, 2016,
that NRF has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the
plaintiff in the Boothe class action lawsuit providing for the
settlement of the Boothe action.

On June 2, 2016, NorthStar Realty Finance Corp., a Maryland
corporation ("NRF"), entered into an Agreement and Plans of
Merger, as amended from time to time, with NorthStar Asset
Management Group Inc., a Delaware corporation ("NSAM"), Colony
Capital, Inc., a Maryland corporation ("Colony"), and certain
subsidiary entities of NSAM and NRF, pursuant to which NSAM,
Colony and NRF will combine in an all-stock merger of equals (the
"Mergers"). In connection with the Mergers, each of NRF, NSAM and
Colony has filed a definitive joint proxy statement with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on November 18,
2016, which was supplemented by the Current Report on Form 8-K
filed with the SEC by each of NRF and NSAM on November 23, 2016
(the "Definitive Proxy Statement").

As described in the Definitive Proxy Statement, a purported
stockholder of NRF filed a putative class action complaint in the
United States District Court of the District of Maryland (referred
to as the Boothe action) against NRF and the members of the NRF
board. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the initial
joint proxy statement/prospectus and the first and third
amendments thereto filed in respect of the Mergers omit or
misstate various facts concerning the financial analyses performed
by the financial advisors to the special committee of the NRF
board.  Also as noted in the Definitive Proxy Statement,
substantially similar claims were filed against Colony, NSAM, and
their respective boards of directors.

On December 9, 2016, NRF entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the plaintiff in the Boothe action providing
for the settlement of the Boothe action (the "NRF Memorandum of
Understanding"). In the NRF Memorandum of Understanding, NRF
agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures to the Definitive
Proxy Statement solely for the purposes of minimizing the time,
burden, and expense of litigation. The NRF Memorandum of
Understanding provides that, in exchange for making these
disclosures, defendants will receive, after notice to potential
class members and upon court approval, a customary release of
claims relating to the Mergers. Similar settlements in principle
have been reached in the related litigations against Colony, NSAM,
and their respective boards of directors.

NRF believes that no additional disclosure is required to
supplement the Definitive Proxy Statement under applicable laws.
However, to minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent
in litigation and to avoid any potential delay of the consummation
of the Mergers, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing,
NRF has agreed, pursuant to the NRF Memorandum of Understanding,
to make certain supplemental disclosures to the Definitive Proxy
Statement.


OOMA INC: June 2 Class Certification Hearing in "Barnett" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case management conference was held Jan. 23, 2017, in the case,
Michael Barnett vs. Ooma, Inc, et al., Case No. CIV536959 (Cal.
Sup. Ct., San Mateo County).

The Court has set these hearing dates:

     Jun 2, 2017   2:00 p.m. -- Motion to Certify Class Action

     Sep 15, 2017  9:30 a.m. -- Mandatory Settlement Conference

     Oct 20, 2017  9:00 a.m. -- Pretrial hearing

     Oct 23, 2017  9:00 a.m. -- Jury Trial

Ooma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended October 31, 2016, that Michael Barnett filed on
January 14, 2016, a purported stockholder class action in the San
Mateo County Superior Court of the State of California (Case No.
CIV536959) against Ooma, certain of its officers and directors,
and certain of the underwriters of the Company's Initial Public
Offering on July 17, 2015 (the "IPO"). Since that time two
additional purported class actions making substantially the same
allegations against the same defendants were filed, and on May 18,
2016 all three complaints were combined into a "consolidated
complaint" filed in the same court (the "Securities Litigation").

The Company said, "The consolidated complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of all persons who purchased shares of common
stock in our IPO in reliance upon the Registration Statement and
Prospectus the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC"). The consolidated complaint alleges that
Ooma and the other defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended (the "Securities Act") by issuing the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, which the plaintiffs allege contained
material misstatements and omissions in violation of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act. The plaintiffs seek class
certification, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs,
rescission or a rescissory measure of damages, equitable and/or
injunctive relief, and such other relief as the court may deem
proper."

On July 1, 2016 Ooma filed its answer to the complaint, and on
August 26, 2016 Ooma filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Ooma believes that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and is
vigorously defending against the Securities Litigation.


PATTERSON COMPANIES: Burkhart Added as Defendant
------------------------------------------------
Burkhart Dental Supply Company, Inc. has been added as a defendant
in the case, In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, Patterson
Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2016.

Beginning in January 2016, purported class action complaints were
filed against defendants Henry Schein, Inc., Benco Dental Supply
Co. and Patterson Companies, Inc. Although there were factual and
legal variations among these complaints, each alleged that
defendants conspired to foreclose and exclude competitors by
boycotting manufacturers, state dental associations, and others
that deal with defendants' competitors.

On February 9, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York ordered all of these actions, and all other
actions filed thereafter asserting substantially similar claims
against defendants, consolidated for pre-trial purposes.

On February 26, 2016, a consolidated class action complaint was
filed by Arnell Prato, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., d/b/a Down to Earth
Dental, Evolution Dental Sciences, LLC, Howard M. May, DDS, P.C.,
Casey Nelson, D.D.S., Jim Peck, D.D.S., Bernard W. Kurek, D.M.D.,
Larchmont Dental Associates, P.C., and Keith Schwartz, D.M.D.,
P.A. (collectively, the "putative class representatives") in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, entitled
In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:16-
CV-00696-BMC-GRB.  Burkhart Dental Supply Company, Inc. was added
as a defendant on October 22, 2016.

Subject to certain exclusions, the putative class representatives
seek to represent all persons who purchased dental supplies or
equipment in the U.S. directly from any of the defendants, since
August 31, 2008. In the consolidated class action complaint,
putative class representatives allege a nationwide agreement among
Henry Schein, Benco, Patterson and Burkhart not to compete on
price. The consolidated class action complaint asserts a single
count under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and seeks equitable
relief, compensatory and treble damages, jointly and severally,
interest, and reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees and expert fees.  Putative class representatives have not
specified a damage amount in their complaint.

"While the outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain, we
believe the consolidated class action complaint is without merit,
and we are vigorously defending ourselves in this litigation," the
Company said.


PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: "Michaeli" Action Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. continues to defend against the
case, Michaeli v. Steven W. King, et al., the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on December 12, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 31,
2016.

On October 10, 2013, a derivative and class action complaint,
captioned Michaeli v. Steven W. King, et al., C.A. No. 8994-VCL,
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against certain of our executive officers and directors
(collectively, the "Defendants").

On December 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended and
supplemental derivative and class action complaint (the "Amended
Complaint").

According to the Company, "the Amended Complaint alleges that the
Defendants breached their respective fiduciary duties in
connection with certain purportedly improper compensation
decisions made by our Board of Directors during the past four
fiscal years ended April 30, 2015, including: (i) the grant of a
stock option to Mr. King on May 4, 2012; (ii) the non-routine
broad-based stock option grant to our directors, executives, all
other employees and certain consultants on December 27, 2012; and
(iii) the payment, during the past four fiscal years ended April
30, 2015, of compensation to our non-employee directors. In
addition, the complaint alleges that our directors breached their
fiduciary duty of candor by filing and seeking stockholder action
on the basis of an allegedly materially false and misleading proxy
statement for our 2013 annual meeting of stockholders. The
plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, rescission of a
portion of the stock option grant to Mr. King on May 4, 2012 and
the stock options granted to the Defendants on December 27, 2012,
as well as disgorgement of any excessive compensation paid to our
non-employee directors during the four fiscal years ended April
30, 2015 and other monetary relief for our benefit."

The Defendants filed their answer to the Amended Complaint on
February 19, 2016.

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

The Company said, "We believe that the Amended Complaint is
without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action. In
addition, due to the early stage of this matter, we cannot
reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any,
that may result from this matter."

Peregrine is a biopharmaceutical company committed to improving
the lives of patients by manufacturing pharmaceutical products
through its wholly-owned subsidiary Avid Bioservices, Inc.
("Avid"), a contract development and manufacturing organization
("CDMO") and through advancing and licensing its novel,
development-stage immunotherapy products.


PREMIER CONSTRUCTION: Loses Bid for Approval of "Patterson" Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Sandra L. Townes denied without prejudice to reurge
parties' joint motion for preliminary certification and class
settlement approval filed in the lawsuit entitled SEAN PATTERSON,
on behalf of himself and All others similarly situated v. PREMIER
CONSTRUCTION CO. INC., and SAEED M. ANJUM, Case No. 1:15-cv-00662-
SLT-ST (E.D.N.Y.).

Judge Townes also adjourned without rescheduling the hearing set
for January 18, 2017.

Sean Patterson initiated the action on February 10, 2015, alleging
Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, and related city law
violations against his employer, Premier Construction.  He
primarily alleges that he and others similarly situated regularly
worked eight hours a day for six days a week but never received
overtime pay (1.5 regular pay) for their sixth day.

In her memorandum & order, Judge Townes ruled that any future
motions for preliminary approval must evaluate a range of
reasonable recoveries, drawing from and providing:

     (i) Both parties' analyses provided to the mediator.

    (ii) The aforementioned summary of "the damages of the
         seventy-five putative class members."

   (iii) Any and all information either party has regarding how
         many of the seventy-five putative class members worked
         for Premier for more than one year.

    (iv) An explanation of why Plaintiffs brief only mentioned
         the $5,000 and $1,000 "service awards" to Plaintiff and
         Moises Rosario, respectively, and failed to mention the
         much larger $15,000 and $4,000 "settlement checks"
         called for under the Settlement Agreement.

     (v) A justification for the $25,000 in payments to Plaintiff
         and Rosario and an explanation of how those sums were
         reached.

Finally, the Court also noted that the parties have erred when
assessing the reasonableness of the entire $290,000 "Settlement
Fund."  Instead they "must assess the value of the settlement to
the class," which in its present state involves $140,000 as a
source of $1,000 to $2,000 payments, Judge Townes said.

A copy of the Memorandum & Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jBaMk9hD


PURE STORAGE: Files Demurrer to Consolidated Complaint
------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the case, In re Pure Storage, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, filed a demurrer to Plaintiffs' consolidated class
action complaint on January 26, 2017.

Plaintiffs filed the consolidated complaint on December 13, 2016.

Pure Storage, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 13, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 31, 2016, that, "On September 1,
2016, a purported securities class action entitled Ramsay v. Pure
Storage, Inc., et al. was filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California (San Mateo County) against us and certain of our
officers, directors, investors and underwriters for our initial
public offering, asserting claims under sections 11, 12 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a purported class
consisting of purchasers of our common stock pursuant or traceable
to our initial public offering, and seeking unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief."

"Substantially identical lawsuits were subsequently filed in the
same court, bringing the same claims against the same defendants,
captioned Peter Galanis v. Pure Storage, Inc., et al. (filed
September 14, 2016), Curtis Wilson v. Pure Storage, Inc., et al.
(filed September 15, 2016), Loren Moe v. Pure Storage, Inc., et
al. (filed September 23, 2016), and Mason Delahooke and Mahsa
Shirazikia v. Pure Storage, Inc., et al. (filed October 5, 2016).

"On October 27, 2016, the aforementioned actions were consolidated
under the caption In re Pure Storage, Inc. Shareholder Litigation.

"We believe there is no merit to the allegations and intend to
defend ourselves vigorously," the Company said.


QUALCOMM INC: Hagens Berman Files Antitrust Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that every day seems
to bring new troubles for Qualcomm, the chip maker accused by
Apple and the Federal Trade Commission of abusing its monopoly on
a key broadband processor used in cellphones and tablets.  The
headache: an antitrust class action by consumers who bought
devices containing the Qualcomm processors.

The complaint, filed in federal court in San Francisco by Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro, says a class of potentially millions of
consumers overpaid for devices because Qualcomm's market
domination forced manufacturers such as Apple and Samsung to pay
inflated prices for essential Qualcomm technology.  The
manufacturers, in turn, passed the overcharges along to purchasers
of the devices, according to the complaint.

That sort of damages claim by indirect purchasers -- as end-use
consumers are known in antitrust parlance -- was squelched by the
U.S. Supreme Court back in 1977 in Illinois Brick v. Illinois.  In
Illinois Brick the justices said that consumers at the end of a
supply chain tainted by monopolistic overcharging can't bring
federal antitrust claims against the monopolist because (to
oversimplify) it's too hard to figure out what portion of the
final cost of the product is attributable to antitrust violations.

So how do Qualcomm purchasers plan to get around Illinois Brick?

By taking advantage of California's Cartwright Act, which allows
indirect purchasers to recover money damages.  If you look at the
complaint against Qualcomm, you'll see that it asserts only a
claim for injunctive relief under the federal Sherman Act.  The
suit asks for treble damages under California state law, which is
similar to laws in two dozen other states that allow consumers to
recover for monopoly-generated overcharges.  According to Jeff
Friedman, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers leading the Qualcomm
case, mainstream economic theory holds that manufacturers pass
overcharges down the supply line so consumers end up bearing
almost the entire brunt of illegal costs.  The Qualcomm complaint
asserts that "the entire overcharge for the cellular devices was
passed on to the members of the proposed class."

Friedman pointed in an email to several antitrust class actions in
which consumers have obtained damages despite Illinois Brick,
including suits over optical disk drives, lithium ion batteries
and milk.  In the vast antitrust litigation against the illegal
cartel that inflated the cost of liquid crystal display screens,
indirect purchasers who bought televisions, computers and other
products recovered more than $1 billion after U.S. District Judge
Susan Illston of San Francisco refused to dismiss their claims
under Illinois Brick.

Even in antitrust litigation over dynamic random access memory, or
DRAM, defendants agreed to pay more than $200 million to end-use
consumers -- and that was after U.S. District Judge Phyllis
Hamilton of Oakland dismissed indirect purchaser claims. (An
appeals was under way when the case settled.) Plaintiffs' lawyer
Steve Berman said in an email that Judge Hamilton's dismissal
ruling was an outlier.

As Hagens Berman tells it, there only one catch for consumers who
bought phones and tablets with allegedly overpriced Qualcomm
processors: Only those who live in states with antitrust statutes
like California's Cartwright Act, known as "repealer laws," can
recover damages in the class action.  "No repealer, no recovery,"
Berman said, although Friedman added that the firm persuaded a
federal judge in at least one case that a state repealer law
should apply nationwide.

The company has previously denied allegations by Apple and the
FTC, insisting that it did not abuse the standard-setting process
to overcharge for its technology.


RAM-T CORP: Faces "Wilson" Suit Under FLSA, Penn. Wage Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------
CAMERON WILSON, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
326 Main Street, Apt-A, Parkesburg, PA 19365 and
TOMAYO SHEPHERD, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, 119 Mayfield Drive, Coatesville, PA 19320, Plaintiffs,
v. RAM-T CORPORATION, 1121 Downingtown Pike, West Chester, PA
19380 and DEBORAH TURNER C/O RAM-T CORPORATION, 1121 Downingtown
Pike, West Chester, PA 19380, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00291
(E.D. Pa., January 19, 2017), alleges that Defendants failed to
pay all overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Defendant Ram-T Corp. is a construction and landscaping company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
     Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
     Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
     Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
     SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
     1101 Kings Highway North Suite 402
     Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
     Phone: (856) 685-7420
     Fax: (856) 685-7417


REMINGTON ARMS: Supreme Court to Hear Appeal in Sandy Hook Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Storace, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports
that as the Connecticut Supreme Court is expected to begin later
this year to hear an appeal from several families whose loved ones
were killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre and
who are seeking to hold manufacturers of the gun used responsible,
legal experts, attorneys and law professors say the plaintiffs
have a long, uphill battle.

The primary hurdle can only be cleared if the state's high court
rules that gun manufacturers bear responsibility under the theory
of "negligent entrustment."  Such a ruling would require the court
to overrule Fairfield District Superior Court Judge Barbara
Bellis, who in granting motions from two gun manufacturers
dismissing the complaint in October, wrote the law broadly
prohibits lawsuits against gun makers, distributors, dealers and
importers from harm caused by the criminal misuse of their
firearms.

"The allegations in the present case do not fit within the common-
law tort of negligent entrustment under well-established
Connecticut law, nor do they come within (the Protection of Lawful
Commerce in Arms Act)'s (PLCAA) definition of negligent
entrustment," Judge Bellis wrote.

Many legal experts, while sympathetic to the families of the 20
children and six educators murdered by Adam Lanza, say many
factors will need to fall into place in this first-impression case
facing the high court for plaintiffs to prevail.

"It's a novel creative long-shot legal theory," said John Thomas,
professor of law at Hamden-based Quinnipiac University.
Mr. Thomas predicts a "unanimous decision" on behalf of the gun
manufacturers, saying, "Some justices might not be happy about
voting that way, but they will do so because the laws is so
clear."

Similarly, Sachin S. Pandya, professor of law at the University of
Connecticut Law School in Hartford, said the plaintiffs attorney,
led by Joshua Koskoff of the Bridgeport-based law firm of Koskoff
Koskoff & Bieder, "are using negligent entrustment in a nontypical
fashion.  They are asking the court to innovate."
Late last year, the state's high court bypassed a lower court to
hear the appeal, a decision hailed as a victory by attorneys
representing the families.  The court's decision came only two
weeks after nine families of the victims and a survivor appealed
Judge Bellis' ruling, which many have said was a thoughtful and
well-balanced decision.

"Judge Bellis' decision was extremely supported by research and
was well-reasoned.  It was a scholarly opinion," said Patrick
Tomasiewicz, an adjunct paralegal studies professor at the
University of Hartford in West Hartford and a partner in the
Hartford law firm of Fazzano and Tomasiewicz.

According to Mr. Thomas, negligent entrustment "occurs when one
party provides a product to another party while knowing that the
receiving party is likely to cause someone an injury with the
product.  The key is that the entrustor knows, or reasonably
should know, of the risk that the entrustee poses."

The most oft-quoted ruling by the Connecticut Supreme Court
dealing with negligent entrustment comes from a case involving an
automobile in Greeley v. Cunningham in 1933.  In that case, the
high court, in overturning a lower trial court, wrote, "When the
evidence proves that the owner of an automobile knows or ought
reasonably to know that one to whom he entrusts it is so
incompetent to operate it upon the highways that the former ought
reasonably to anticipate the likelihood of injury to others by
reason of that incompetence and such incompetence does result in
such injury, a basis of recovery by the person injured is
established."

In interviews with the Connecticut Law Tribune, legal experts say
negligent entrustment relating to an automobile is one thing but
trying to transfer that to a gun used in a murder is another case,
especially if there are many layers involved in how that weapon
was purchased.  "If you give a loaded gun to a 5-year-old,
obviously that fits the definition [of negligent entrustment],"
said Kenneth Bartschi, Esq. -- kbartschi@hortonshieldsknox.com --
a partner in the Hartford-based law firm of Horton, Shields &
Knox.  "Nancy Lanza [Adam's mother and owner of the weapon in
question] could have also been held liable [but she was killed by
her son].  But the further you get from her, the more difficult
negligent entrustment is to prove.  It's too far down the road and
there are too many layers to know that [Adam Lanza] would do what
he did. It's one thing if the store owner does or does not do a
background check and then sells to the gun owner."

Lanza used a Remington Bushmaster AR-15 rifle in his shooting
spree four years ago.  The plaintiffs allege Remington sold the
weapon to the distributor, Camfour, which in turn sold the rifle
to the gun shop, Riverview Sales, which then sold the gun to
Lanza's mother.  Remington, Bushmaster, Camfour and Riverview
(which has since gone out of business) are all listed as
defendants.

If the plaintiffs are to win in the Connecticut Supreme Court, the
court will not have to only overrule Judge Bellis and find
negligent entrustment applicable, but must also square such a
finding with the PLCAA, a federal law passed in 2005.

"After PLCAA was passed, the [National Rifle Association (NRA)]
thanked President [George W.] Bush for signing the legislation,"
Mr. Tomasiewicz said on Jan. 23.  "It appears that Congress sought
to pre-empt lawsuits by victims such as the Sandy Hook families."
The law, legal scholars say, pretty much gives immunity to gun
manufacturers when being sued by plaintiffs such as those in the
Sandy Hook case.

"I think it is a travesty to give gun manufacturers a legal
immunity that is not available to any other manufacturer of any
other product.  It's unfair to me," Thomas said.

The question in the Connecticut case is whether a negligent
entrustment theory of liability could prove an exception to the
PLCAA.

Many experts who spoke to the Connecticut Law Tribune say the case
is likely to be closely watched not only by the NRA and gun
manufacturers but also attorneys and judges across the country.
"I think a lot of different groups are watching this case,"

Mr. Pandya said.  "They are doing so not necessarily because they
have a deep interest in Connecticut common law, but because groups
in different states [under PLCAA] are all subject to the gun
immunity statute to which negligent entrustment could be the
exception."
Mr. Bartschi said that, depending on how the justices rule, the
state high court might not be the last word on the negligent
entrustment theory or its pre-emption by federal law.

"If the defendants win on state law grounds, it is over.  That is
it," Mr. Bartschi said.  "But if the court analyzes it on federal
statute, the U.S. Supreme Court could take the case if they wanted
to."

How will the seven-member court rule? Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, a
liberal Democrat, has a chance to replace Justice Peter T.
Zarella, arguably the court's must conservative justice, who left
the bench at the end of December.  In addition, Justice Dennis
Eveleigh must retire in early October when he turns 70 years old.
According to Mr. Tomasiewicz, the case might not be heard until
after Eveleigh leaves the bench.  "It could take six to nine
months or longer" before the high court hears the case, he said.
While Zarella was the most conservative justice along with
Carmen Espinosa, the liberal wing, legal experts say, is led by
Justices Richard Palmer and Andrew McDonald.

"I'm not even sure that the Zarella successor will be able to
change the outcome," said Mr. Tomasiewicz, adding, "It's an uphill
battle [for the plaintiffs].  No one has a crystal ball, but it
will be a very difficult case for them to prevail."

"I would not be surprised if the Connecticut Supreme Court were
divided," Mr. Bartschi said.  "There are certainly different views
there on how broad tort law should be in the court."


REMINGTON ARMS: Nine States, DC Urge Judge to Reject Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Bradley, writing for Daily Hornet, reports that
Remington has agreed to replace triggers on 7.5 million guns as
part of a class action lawsuit settlement over rifles that can
fire without pulling the trigger.

Most of the guns have a Walker Fire Control trigger assembly,
which has been standard on Remington rifles since 1962.

X-Mark Pro trigger mechanisms have a smooth trigger
X-Mark Pro triggers sold from May 2006 to April 2014 are also
eligible for replacement.  They were recalled because gunk left
over from manufacturing could cause the rifle to fire
unexpectedly, often just as the safety is turned off.

Nine states and D.C. are urging a federal judge to reject the
proposal because less than 20,000 people signed up --
approximately one-quarter of 1% of the total number of guns that
are eligible for repair.

Massachusetts AG Maura Healey wrote that the number of claims was
troublingly low for rifles with a potentially deadly safety
hazard:

If approved, millions of the 7.5 million firearms that have the
capability of firing without a trigger pull would remain unfixed -
- quite literally loaded guns that might go off accidentally at
any time."

Remington has been aware of the problem for decades.  There have
been over 2,000 complaints in the last four years alone.  You can
watch YouTube videos showing how the rifles can fire without
pulling the trigger.

Over 75 lawsuits have been filed and dozens of people have died.
The most recent case involves a Wisconsin man who was killed by
his brother on a hunting trip.

In 1994, after a Texas jury awarded $17 million to a man who lost
his foot after a Model 700 rifle misfired, Remington quietly
started paying out-of-court settlements.  Another $20 million has
been paid since then.

Critics say the problem with the Walker Fire Control is an
internal component called a "connector."  No other rifle
manufacturers use this design.  The only purpose of the connector
is to make the trigger pull smoother.

The connector is not actually connected to anything. It sits on
top of the trigger.  Pulling the trigger pushes the connector
forward and fires the rifle, but releasing the trigger does not
push the connector back.

Here's the problem: When the connector does not move back, it
leaves a gap.  Anything in the gap (dirt, rust, manufacturing
debris, etc.) could cause the rifle to fire without pulling the
trigger.

Remington re-designed the Walker Fire Control without a connector
in 2002 and called it the X-Mark Pro, but continued selling both
triggers.  In April 2014, Remington recalled X-Mark Pro triggers
because they could fire unexpectedly due to "excess bonding agent"
left over from the manufacturing process.


ROYAL BANK: Shareholder Class Action Trial Delayed
--------------------------------------------------
Alex Davis and William Shaw, writing for Law360, report that the
London trial for a shareholder class action against Royal Bank of
Scotland PLC over a GBP12 billion rights issue has been delayed by
two months as the parties reconfigure their positions following a
series of recent settlements, the judge overseeing the case ruled
on Jan. 25.

The delay comes after four of the five claimant groups settled in
December, which meant the remaining claimant, RBoS Shareholders
Action Group, had to submit a new, modified suit to the court on
Jan. 20.  The group represents more than 35,000 RBS shareholders
seeking in excess of GBP1.2 billion ($1.5 billion) in damages,
according to the website for its solicitors, Signature Litigation.

The investor groups claimed the bank willfully misled them when it
undertook a funding drive during the global financial crisis in
2008, shortly before a subsequent government bail-out wiped out
its share price.  But RBS has managed to shrink the suit from an
initial GBP4 billion claim with the settlements, the latest in its
victories against waves of claims arising from the financial
crisis era.

"The case has moved from being exceptional to simply a very heavy
case," said David Railton, a barrister representing RBS.

Clients represented by Mishcon de Reya LLP, Stewarts Law LLP and
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP settled with RBS in early
December for GBP800 million, before a smaller group of investors
represented by Leon Kaye Solicitors settled just before Christmas,
the firm announced on its website.

The 12-week trial to determine liability had been due to get
underway in March, but it is now scheduled for oral arguments to
start on May 22.  With interruptions as a result of court vacation
periods and Judge Robert Hildyard's commitments in other cases,
final submissions are not expected to be over until the end of
October, the court heard.

Although the suit has shrunk after the four settlements, it still
presents a daunting undertaking.  The action group represents the
largest number of investors, according to its website, and 35
factual witnesses are expected to testify in the trial.

"It's a very heavy and sustained progression of witnesses," said
Judge Hildyard, who requested the parties include photographs of
the witnesses to accompany their statements so that he could keep
track of who was being called to the stand and why.  "It's jolly
difficult to do three witnesses, four witnesses a day."

The complex suit has featured several skirmishes in the years
leading up to the trial.  The most recent was a victory for the
claimants, who demanded the disclosure of witness interview
transcripts and notes prepared by RBS's in-house counsel during
internal investigations into its mortgages and collateralized debt
businesses.

Judge Hildyard decided in early December that the notes were not
protected by legal privilege rules and ordered they be handed
over.

RBS claimed on Jan. 25 that the material was not relevant to the
remaining claimant's case.  The judge gave the bank until
4:00 p.m. on Jan. 30 to provide expert witness statement
confirming the reasons why the information was no longer relevant.
He also gave the shareholder group until Feb. 1 to consider its
response to the statement.

The RBoS Shareholders Action Group is represented by Jonathan Nash
QC -- jnash@3vb.com -- Peter de Verneuil Smith and Ian Higgins --
ihiggins@3vb.com -- of 3VB and Signature Litigation.

RBS is represented by David Railton and David Murray of Fountain
Court Chambers and Herbert Smith Freehills LLP.

The case is the RBS Rights Issue Litigation, case number HC-2013-
000484, in the Chancery Division of the High Court of England and
Wales.


SAMSUNG CORP: Faces "Wells" Class Suit Over Exploding Washers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that 34
models of recalled Samsung washing machines "explode" or suffer
catastrophic failure, a class action claims in Oklahoma City
Federal Court.

The case is captioned, [1] JERRY WELLS, on Behalf of Himself and
all others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. [1] SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., [2] SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
Defendants, Case 5:17-cv-00046-D (W.D Okla. Jan. 13, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Kessler" Sues Over Defective Phone Cameras
----------------------------------------------------------------
DALE KESSLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00082-LA (E.D. Wis., January 19,
2017), seeks an order temporarily and permanently enjoining
Samsung from continuing its alleged unlawful, deceptive,
fraudulent, and unfair business practices of selling its S7 series
devices with defective cameras.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. supplies consumer electronics
and digital products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lynn L. Sarko, Esq.
     Michael D. Woerner, Esq.
     Erin M. Riley, Esq.
     Alison S. Gaffney, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
     Seattle, WA 98101-3052
     Phone: (206) 623-1900
     Fax: (206) 623-3384
     Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
            mwoerner@kellerrohrback.com
            eriley@kellerrohrback.com
            agaffney@kellerrohrback.com

        - and -

     James A. Olson, Esq.
     Dixon R. Gahnz, Esq.
     LAWTON & CATES, S.C.
     345 West Washington Avenue, Suite 201
     Madison, WI 53703
     Phone: (608) 282-6200
     Fax: (608) 282-6252
     Email: jolson@lawtoncates.com
            dgahnz@lawtoncates.com


SANTANDER BANK: U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Appeal
-------------------------------------------------
Gina Carrano, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the Supreme Court will decide whether Santander Bank's collections
group can be sued by a class of plaintiffs who claim the company
skirted the law while collecting on their delinquent car notes.

The country's highest court granted the would-be class members'
petition for a writ of certiorari on January 13.  Their order set
the stage for a potentially precedent-setting review of a Fourth
Circuit ruling that the collections activities of Santander
Consumer USA were not governed by the federal Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act.

At issue in is the question of whether Santander qualifies as a
"debt collector," which would make them subject to the terms of
the FCDPA, or a "creditor," which would render them immune from
the act's constraints.

Santander was sued in November 2012 by four Maryland residents
seeking to represent a class of consumers who were subject to
collections activity by the company after having their cars
repossessed and sold for non-payment of loans.

According to court documents, CitiFinancial Auto sold the balances
owed on the plaintiffs' car notes for pennies on the dollar to
Santander, which then allegedly began to engage in some aggressive
collection practices.

The company allegedly misrepresented the amounts it was collecting
and communicated directly with consumers it "knew to be
represented" by attorneys.

In their lawsuit, lead plaintiffs Ricky Henson, Ian Glover, Karen
Pacouloute and Paulette House claim these activities violated the
FDCPA.

The lower court granted Santander's motion to dismiss the suit.
Its decision stated that Santander owned the debts and was
collecting them on its own behalf, therefore making it a creditor
rather than a debt collector and freeing it from the boundaries of
the FDCPA.

The plaintiffs appealed, contending that the roles of debt
collectors and creditors were mutually exclusive under the terms
of the Act.

Much of their argument hinged upon an exclusion in the FDCPA's
definition of a debt collector based on whether or not the alleged
debts were in default when the collections activity took place.

But the Fourth Circuit dismissed this logic as irrelevant, stating
that in order to lean on an exclusion in a clause governing debt
collectors, the plaintiffs must first prove that Santander was
actually a debt collector, which they did not do.

"Because the complaint does not satisfy any definition of debt
collector, the analysis ends, and the exclusion from the
definition of debt collector, on which the plaintiffs rely, has no
significance," U.S. Circuit Judge Paul Niemeyer wrote in the March
2016 decision.

When the plaintiffs' motion for a rehearing was denied, they
petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

The justices said they decided to take up the case because "The
courts of appeals are deeply and avowedly divided over
whether.purchasers of defaulted debt are covered by the FDCPA.
This case presents the Court an opportunity to resolve that
important conflict."


SHIPCOM WIRELESS: Novick Wants to Notify Potential Class Members
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned JUSTIN NOVICK, CHRIS KEHN,
JAMES ABRAHAM, ZAHID ISLAM, and LESLIE WOODS, and on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. SHIPCOM WIRELESS,
INC., Case No. 4:16-cv-00730 (S.D. Tex.), file with the Court
their motion for notice to potential class members.

Justin Novick, et al., who were formerly employed in the positions
of Trainer, Accounts Payable Clerk/Financial Analyst, Field
Support Engineer, and Travel Coordinator have filed the lawsuit --
a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act -- on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, to recover
unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages as a result of
Shipcom's policy and practice.  They contend that Shipcom violated
the FLSA by failing to pay individuals employed in the positions
of Trainer, Accounts Payable Clerk/Financial Analyst, Field
Support Engineer, and Travel Coordinator for hours worked in
excess of 40 in a single workweek at the applicable overtime
premium rate.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark G. Lazarz, Esq.
          Daryl J. Sinkule, Esq.
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621-2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
          E-mail: mlazarz@eeoc.net
                  dsinkule@eeoc.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kerry E. Notestine, Esq.
          Karmyn W. McCloud, Esq.
          Luke C. MacDowall, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          1301 McKinney Street, Suite 1900
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 951-9400
          Facsimile: (713) 951-9212
          E-mail: knotestine@littler.com
                  kwedlow@littler.com
                  lmacdowall@littler.com


SPIN MASTER: Hatchimals Don't Always Hatch, "Hejduk" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal class action in Fresno, Calif., claims that Hatchimals,
the nationwide toy craze that hatches from an egg, don't always
hatch, producing unhappiness in families that the filing attorney
says can range from "extreme disappointment to tragic."

Hatchimals are stuffed animals that hatch out of the colored
spotted eggs they are sold in. The creature inside is a mystery,
making kids excited to see what they may get. The hatching is the
toy's signature attraction, according to the Jan. 19 lawsuit
against Spin Master Corp.

Spin Master released the toys in early October 2016, in time for
the holidays, and they quickly became the year's must-have gift.
By November they were hard to find. Some parents waited for hours
outside toy stores; others paid up to seven times the retail price
eBay and other internet sites.

Hatchimals typically sold for $50 to $60. They were advertised
Jan. 23 morning for $79.99 on the Toys Are U website, and for
$59.99 on the Wal-Mart website, which, however, was out of stock.

Spin Master made an estimated $100 million in profits off the toy,
attorney Ben Meiselas said in an interview, but investigations
indicate that its failure rate is exceptionally high.

"This was an aggressive and brilliant marketing campaign built on
a house of cards and lies for a product that was not ready for the
market," Meiselas said. "Spin Master knew it was spinning
consumers; they knew the product didn't hatch."

Meiselas noted the irony of the company's name: Spin Master.
Stories told by families who bought the toy "border on extreme
disappointment to tragic, depending on different families'
situations and their ability to purchase these expensive items,"
said Meiselas, of Geragos & Geragos in Los Angeles.

"They were playing on the most visceral emotions of a family: a
child's happiness. It exceeds a mere letdown and caused real
damages."

Many consumers who tried to solve the problem by contacting Spin
Master hit a brick wall, as customer service never returned their
calls or messages, "with some customers reporting being on hold
for as long as three hours before having their call disconnected,"
the complaint states, citing a Dec. 28 article in Global News.

Lead plaintiff Jodie Hejduk seeks to represent both a California
class and a national class, though Meiselas says his office has
been getting calls from people around the world.

"We want Spin Master to stop the spin, be a responsible corporate
citizen, and redress the damages to consumers, or it's headed to a
jury of moms and dads, husbands and wives, who will decide whether
the product was fraudulent. We think they will," Meiselas said.

He said he hopes the class action sends a message to other
corporations "looking to exploit the average consumer saving money
to buy their kids a gift not to sell a defective product that hits
Americans in the pocketbook."

Hejduk, who snagged one of the coveted toys for her daughter's
birthday, says her daughter was thrilled to get it, but "dismayed"
when it never hatched, though she followed the instructions.

Other parents have written scathing reviews on Amazon.com and on
the Toys R Us website.

Spin Master promised to address the issues, but the few remedial
measures it took were ineffective, according to the 25-page
complaint. Hejduk says the company should have recalled the toys
or issued refunds, but it did neither.

Spin Master did not return emailed requests for comment on January
20.

Hejduk seeks class certification, a recall, restitution with
interest, and compensatory, statutory and punitive damages for
consumer law violations, unfair competition, false advertising,
breach of warranty and unjust enrichment.

The case is captioned, JODIE HEJDUK, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SPIN MASTER CORP. and
SPIN MASTER INC., Defendants., Case 1:17-at-00052 (E.D. Cal.,
January 19, 2017).

Counsel for Plaintiff:

     Mark J. Geragos, Esq.
     Ben J. Meiselas, Esq.
     Eric Y. Hahn, Esq.
     GERAGOS & GERAGOS, APC
     644 South Figueroa Street
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Telephone: (213) 625-3900
     Facsimile: (213) 232-3255
     E-mail: 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
     Telephone: (212) 363-7500
     Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
     E-mail: lfeldman@zlk.com
             aclisura@zlk.com
             cmaccarone@zlk.com
             jsherman@zlk.com


STAR GAS: Motion to Dismiss "Donnenfeld" Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Star Gas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 7, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that no decision has
been issued yet on the Partnership's motion to dismiss the
complaint by M. Norman Donnenfeld.

On February 18, 2016, a civil action was filed in the United
States District Court, District of New Jersey, entitled M. Norman
Donnenfeld v. Petro Home Services, Petro Holdings Inc. and Petro,
Inc., Civil Action Number 2:16-cv-00882 JMV-JBC, against Petro
Home Services which is a brand name, Petro Holdings Inc. and
Petro, Inc. Plaintiff alleges he did not receive expected
contractual benefits under his protected price plan contract when
oil prices fell and asserts various claims for relief including
breach of contract, violation of the New York General Business Law
and fraud. The Plaintiff also seeks to have a class certified of
all customers of the defendants in the United States who entered
into protected price plan contracts and were denied the same
contractual benefits and to be appointed to represent them.

No class has yet been certified in this action. The Plaintiff
seeks compensatory, punitive and other damages in unspecified
amounts.

On May 9, 2016, the Partnership filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a
claim for relief and to strike the class action allegations. The
motion was fully briefed and submitted to the court on July 12,
2016 and no decision has been issued yet.

The Partnership believes the allegations lack merit and intends to
vigorously defend the action; at this time we cannot assess the
potential outcome or materiality of this matter.

Star Gas Partners, L.P. is a home heating oil and propane
distributor and services provider with one reportable operating
segment that principally provides services to residential and
commercial customers to heat homes and buildings.


STRAIGHT PATH: Motion to Dismiss "Zacharia" Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Straight Path Communications Inc.'s motion to dismiss the amended
complaint in the case, captioned Zacharia v. Straight Path
Communications, Inc., remains pending, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on December 12, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 31,
2016.

On November 13, 2015, a putative shareholder class action was
filed in the federal district court for the District of New Jersey
against Straight Path Communications Inc., and Davidi Jonas and
Jonathan Rand (the "individual defendants"). The case is captioned
Zacharia v. Straight Path Communications, Inc. et al., No. 2:15-
cv-08051-JMV-MF, and is purportedly brought on behalf of all those
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock
between October 29, 2013, and November 5, 2015. The complaint
alleges violations of (i) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 of the
Exchange Act against the Company for materially false and
misleading statements that were designed to influence the market
relating to the Company's finances and business prospects; and
(ii) Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual
defendants for wrongful acts by controlling persons. The
allegations center on the claim that the Company made materially
false and misleading statements in its public filings and
conference calls during the relevant class period concerning the
Company's spectrum licenses and the prospects for its spectrum
business. The complaint seeks certification of a class,
unspecified damages, fees, and costs.

The case was reassigned to Judge John Michael Vasquez on March 3,
2016. On April 11, 2016, the court entered an order appointing
Charles Frischer as lead plaintiff and approving lead plaintiff's
selection of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as lead counsel and
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP as liaison counsel.

On June 17, 2016, lead plaintiff filed his amended class action
complaint, which alleges the same claims.

The defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint on
August 17, 2016; the plaintiff opposed that motion on September
30, 2016, and the defendants filed their reply brief in further
support of their motion to dismiss on October 31, 2016.

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

Straight Path is represented in the case by:

     Joel A Pisano, Esq.
     Liza M. Walsh, Esq.
     Selina Miriam Ellis, Esq.
     WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP
     One Riverfront Plaza
     1037 Raymond Blvd, 6th Floor
     Newark, NJ 07102
     Tel: (973) 757-1100
     E-mail: jpisano@thewalshfirm.com
             lwalsh@thewalshfirm.com
             sellis@thewalshfirm.com

Straight Path Communications Inc. is a communications asset
company.  It owns, via intermediate wholly-owned entities, 100% of
Straight Path Spectrum, Inc. and 100% of Straight Path Ventures,
LLC, and it owns 84.5% of Straight Path IP Group, Inc.


TAILORED BRANDS: March 2 Initial Conference in "Makhlouf" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tailored Brands, Inc. is defending against a class action lawsuit
by Peter Makhlouf, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 8, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2016.

An Initial Conference has been set for March 2, 2017, at 10:00
a.m. in Courtroom 704 before Magistrate Judge Frances H Stacy.

On March 29, 2016, Peter Makhlouf filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer
("CEO"), Douglas S. Ewert, in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas (Case No. 4:16-cv-00838). The
complaint attempts to allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative
class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities between June 18, 2014 and December 9, 2015. In
particular, the complaint alleges that the Company and its CEO
made certain statements about the Company's acquisition and
subsequent integration of Jos. A. Bank that were false and
misleading and omitted material facts.

"We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend
the lawsuit vigorously. The range of loss, if any, is not
reasonably estimable at this time. We do not currently believe,
however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our
financial position, results of operations or cash flows," the
Company said.


TIMBERCORP FINANCE: High Court Examines Anshun Principle
--------------------------------------------------------
Bridget Slocum, Esq., of The Commercial Bar Association of
Victoria, in an article for Lexology, reports that the interplay
between the Anshun principle and class actions has finally been
examined in detail by the High Court, in Timbercorp Finance Pty
Ltd (In Liquidation) v Collins and Tomes [2016] HCA 44.

Background

Timbercorp Finance loaned funds to investors to invest in managed
investment schemes.  The schemes failed. Investors commenced a
class action against the scheme operator, directors and Timbercorp
Finance.  The class action defined certain claims.
Those claims were unsuccessful.  Following the conclusion of the
class action, Timbercorp Finance commenced loan-recovery
proceedings against investors.  Individual investors raised
various defences, which Timbercorp Finance asserted were precluded
by the lead plaintiff's failure to pursue them in the class
action.

That question was referred to Robson J, who ruled against
Timbercorp Finance.  His Honour's decision was upheld by the Court
of Appeal. Timbercorp Finance obtained special leave to appeal to
the High Court.

Anshun estoppel

Both judgments in the High Court (a plurality plus a separate
judgment by Gordon J reaching the same conclusion) restated the
orthodox position as to Anshun.

It arises where the matter relied upon in a second action is so
relevant to the subject matter of an earlier action that it would
have been unreasonable not to raise the issue in the first action.

First question -- lead plaintiff a privy in interest of the class
members?

Timbercorp Finance's first contention was that the lead plaintiff
was the privy in interest of class members, and the class members
were Anshun estopped from raising any defence that the lead
plaintiff could have raised in the earlier class action.

The plurality drew upon the statutory framework of the class
action regime (Part 4A of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic)) to
conclude that the lead plaintiff was a privy in interest of the
class members in relation to the pleaded common issues in the
class action, but not in relation to the class members' individual
Thus, the lead plaintiff's conduct was not determinative of the
Anshun question.

Moreover, since the defence pleaded by Collins was a defence
common to all members of the Collins schemes, it seems the High
Court considers that the lead plaintiff is not a privy of the
class members even in respect of common questions that he or she
elected not to plead.

Second question -- class members' conduct unreasonable?

Given that the lead plaintiff was only a privy in interest of the
class members in respect of the pleaded common questions in the
earlier class action, the next question was whether it had
nevertheless been unreasonable for them not to have pressed for
their individual defences to be addressed in the class action.

Again, all members of the Court held that it had not been
unreasonable for class members to refrain from raising their
individual issues in the earlier action, nor unreasonable for them
to decline to opt out from the earlier action because of those
individual issues.  This conclusion followed both from the
structure of the Part 4A-type proceeding, which focuses on the
common questions, and from the way issues had actually been
defined and addressed in the class action under the various case-
management orders made by the trial judge (Judd J).

Third question -- abuse of process?

Finally, the High Court held that it was not an abuse of process
for the investors to raise their individual defences in the later
proceeding.  The plurality emphasised that the trial judge had had
power to manage the conduct of the proceeding.  The trial judge
had been aware of the individual claims and, the plurality
inferred, he had determined that it was not necessary, for the
management of the class action, to resolve those individual
claims.  The plurality noted that there was no reason to suppose
that the class action would have been conducted any differently,
had the borrowers raised their individual defences.
Observations

Timbercorp emphasises the limits on the "estopping" effects of
class actions.  Depending on the pleadings and case-management
orders, class members can decide to remain as a member of the
class, without restricting their ability to run either individual
issues or, perhaps, common issues outside those pleaded in the
class action.

This has practical consequences.  Future defendants might now seek
to broaden the scope of common issues; press for wider use of sub-
groups; or seek to include more individual issues at the initial
trial of class actions.

Certainly, parties seeking to resolve class actions will need to
be mindful of the extent to which the lead plaintiff can bind
members to releases and acknowledgements with effects beyond the
pleaded common issues.

It is likely that the ramifications of Timbercorp will soon be
tested. Readers are referred to Byrne v Javelin Asset Management
Pty Ltd [2016] VSCA 214 and, more recently, Pekell Delaire
Holdings Pty Ltd v Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited [2016] VSC
570 for illustrations of the complexities that arise in the
"managed investment scheme" class actions, as lenders now seek to
enforce loan agreements against the former class members.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Authorizes Quebec Drivers' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that taxi companies and drivers across
Quebec are claiming a first victory in their battle against Uber
after a judge on Jan. 25 authorized their class action against the
ride-hailing company.

The taxi industry is seeking "hundreds of millions" against the
U.S.-based firm, said Marc-Antoine Cloutier, a lawyer representing
drivers, owners and their union.

"Uber has made revenues nosedive for drivers and owners of taxis
and limousines across Quebec," Mr. Cloutier alleged.

The lead plaintiff in the case is Wilson Jean-Paul, a taxi owner
and spokesman for the union representing 4,000 drivers in Quebec.

Mr. Cloutier said the lawsuit covers all taxi and limousine
companies and drivers working in Montreal, its south and north
shore, and in the Quebec City area.

The Quebec government recently signed a pilot project with Uber
allowing the company to operate in the province legally under
strict conditions.

Taxi companies previously tried to have a judge impose an
injunction against the pilot project but failed.

Mr. Cloutier said aside from the class action, the taxi industry
is taking the government to court to in order to have the
agreement signed with Uber declared illegal.

Uber Canada spokesman Jean-Christophe de Le Rue said the company
is aware of the Jan. 25 court ruling.

"For our part," he said, "we are focusing our energies on
providing quality service to Quebecers in line with the parameters
of the pilot project regulating ridesharing within the province."


UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE: Faces "Allen" Insurance Coverage Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
United Services Automobile Association aka USAA Casualty Insurance
Co. systematically rejects or reduces coverage for personal injury
claims, a class action claims in Austin, Texas Travis County
Court.

The case is, STEPHANIE ALLEN and MARK ALLEN as individuals on
behalf of themselves and for all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION; USAA
CASUALTY INSURANCE COM PANY: USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY:
GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; USAA COUNTY
MUTUAL INSURANCE: and USAA TEXAS LLOYD'S COMPANY, Defendants,
Cause No. D-1-GN-17-000155 D-1-GN-17-000155, in the District Court
Travis County, Texas, 345th Judicial District.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs are:

     Paul Colley, Jr., Esq.
     Jarrett Stone, Esq.
     Colley & Colley LLP
     12912 Hill County Blvd., Suite F-234
     Austin, TX 78738
     Tel: 512-477-2001
     Fax: 512-477-3335
     E-mail: paul@colleylaw.net
             Jarrett@colleylaw.net


UNITED STATES: Judge Certifies Class Action Over PACER Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that paying too much
for PACER? You could get an email notice later this spring to join
a class action that seeks refunds for several hundred thousand
people who allege the electronic court service has charged
excessive fees.

A federal judge for the District of Columbia granted class
certification in the case, which alleges that the Public Access to
Court Electronic Records system, managed by the Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts, overcharges for online access to court
dockets and documents, often using the revenue to pay for other
expenses such as audio systems and flat screens for jurors.  The
case, brought by appellate attorney Deepak Gupta on behalf of
three Washington nonprofit organizations, alleges that the U.S.
government has violated the E-Government Act of 2002, which
allowed the federal judiciary to charge fees for PACER "only to
the extent necessary." PACER charges 10 cents per page for court
records, with a maximum of $3 per record.  There is no charge for
judicial opinions.

U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle in the District of Columbia on
Jan. 24 granted certification of a class comprised of anyone who
paid PACER fees during the six years before April 21, 2016.  She
rejected the Department of Justice's contention that the
plaintiffs weren't adequate class representatives because they
could apply for fee waivers.

"Defendant greatly exaggerates the relevance of named plaintiffs'
nonprofit status," she wrote.  "Named plaintiffs are not exempt
from PACER fees and thus share with the other class members an
interest in reducing the fees."

In her order, Judge Huvelle specifically made sure to clarify that
the class would include attorneys who bring class actions, except
for those handling the case.  But she also excluded all federal
government entities from the class.

The ruling is a blow to the Justice Department, which has been
fighting a series of cases over PACER fees.  On June 15, the DOJ
got a case dismissed that alleged a faulty pricing formula causes
PACER to overcharge its users.  But on Sept. 26, a U.S. Court of
Federal Claims judge refused to dismiss a proposed class action
brought by the same plaintiff.  That case is now in preliminary
settlement talks.  The DOJ also got hit with a new proposed class
action on Nov. 22 in the Southern District of Florida claiming
that PACER users are being improperly charged for judicial
opinions.

The nonprofits' case was brought under the Little Tucker Act,
which waives sovereign immunity "to recover an illegal exaction by
government officials when the exaction is based on an asserted
statutory power."  Judge Huvelle refused to dismiss the case on
procedural grounds last month.

She ordered the plaintiffs to provide a proposed class notice
within 30 days.  The notice would be sent to class members 90 days
following her approval, during which both sides would move forward
on discovery in preparation for summary judgment motions on the
merits of the case.

The nonprofit plaintiffs are the National Veterans Legal Services
Program, the National Consumer Law Center and the Alliance for
Justice.  Mr. Gupta, founding principal of Washington's Gupta
Wessler PLLC, is joined in the case by William Narwold --
bnarwold@motleyrice.com -- who manages the appellate group at
Motley Rice, and the Institute for Public Representation, a
public-interest firm at Georgetown University Law Center.

A spokeswoman for the Justice Department said it would decline to
comment on the pending litigation.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces "Condry" Suit Over Breastfeeding
----------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that in a federal class action in Oakland Calif., a California
woman accused UnitedHealth Group of denying new mothers coverage
for breastfeeding services, in violation of the Affordable Care
Act, ERISA and 25 years of national health policy.

Lead plaintiff claims UnitedHealth and three subsidiaries refused
to reimburse her for a $225 in-home lactation consultation after
her newborn daughter began losing weight due to difficulties
breastfeeding.

After UnitedHealth denied her claim as "not a reimbursable
service," Condry says she chose not to submit claims for two
additional consultations that cost $181 and $150.

Condry says the Affordable Care Act requires coverage of women's
preventive services, including breastfeeding support, supplies and
counseling. Denying it "improperly shifts the cost of coverage of
a preventive service onto women, [and] is directly counter to the
ACA provisions on preventive services and ERISA duties," Condry's
attorney Kimberly Donaldson Smith said in an email on January 17.

The federal government has promoted breastfeeding for a quarter of
century. A string of surgeons general have recommended
breastfeeding for improving public health. The American Academy of
Pediatrics advises new mothers to breastfed exclusively for the
first six months of a child's life, with continued breastfeeding
interspersed with solid foods for at least the first year,
according to reports cited in the complaint.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention touts breastfeeding
as one of the most effective ways mothers can safeguard their
children's health.

Among the way UnitedHealth dodges the ACA is by failing to
establish networks of trained breastfeeding consultants, Condry
says, so mothers either get no breastfeeding benefits because they
can't afford out-of-network rates for them, or they do get them,
but pay all or most of the fees.

"Some insurance companies have fallen woefully short in the
delivery and coverage of such services and are erecting
administrative barriers that deter mothers from getting the
services to which they are entitled," Donaldson Smith said. "As a
result, mothers and their infants have suffered, and the impact is
not only in the pocketbooks of the mothers, but in the future
health of their children."

A UnitedHealthcare spokeswoman declined to comment on January 17.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says in its
website that all qualified health plans, inside and outside the
ACA marketplace, must cover breastfeeding counseling, support and
supplies for pregnant and nursing women, even if they were
pregnant before their coverage began.

"It's just one of many benefits of the health care law that let
women and their doctors, not insurance companies, make decisions
about a woman's care," wrote then-HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
said in a 2012 statement.

In 2011, HHS issued women's preventive services guidelines in
which it estimated that breastfeeding can save $1,200 to $1,500 on
infant formula in the first year of a baby's life. If 90 percent
of U.S. families followed federal recommendations to breastfeed
exclusively for six months, the HHS estimated the country would
save $13 billion annually in reduced medical costs and costs
associated with premature death.

"Therefore, access to and coverage for comprehensive lactation
benefits advances the long held public policy goal to improve the
health of Americans by increasing access and diminishing the cost
barriers to sustained breastfeeding during the first year of a
child's life," Condry says in the 45-page complaint.

She seeks class certification, declaratory judgment, an
accounting, reimbursement, disgorgement of unjust profits, damages
for unjust enrichment, ACA violations, discrimination, equitable
relief, and costs of suit.

Donaldson Smith is with Chimicles & Tikellis of Haverford, Pa.;
she is assisted by Kristen Law Sagafi with Tycko & Zavareei  in
Oakland.

The case is captioned, RACHEL CONDRY, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UnitedHealth Group Inc.;
UnitedHealthcare, Inc.; UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company; and,
UnitedHealthcare Services, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-
00183-DMR (N.D. Cal., January 13, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     Kristen Law Sagafi, Esq.
     TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
     483 Ninth Street, Suite 200
     Oakland, CA 94607
     Telephone (510) 254-6808
     Facsimile (202) 973-0950
     E-mail: ksagafi@tzlegal.com

          - and -

     Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq.
     Kimberly M. Donaldson Smith, Esq.
     Stephanie E. Saunders, Esq.
     CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
     361 W. Lancaster Avenue
     Haverford, PA 19041
     Telephone (610) 642-8500
     Facsimile (610) 649-3633
     E-mail: NEC@chimicles.com
             KMD@chimicles.com
             SES@chimicles.com


URANIUM ENERGY: 5th Circuit Dismissed Class Action Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Uranium Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 12, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended October 30, 2016, that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has dismissed the appeal in
a securities class action lawsuit.

On or about June 29, 2015, Heather M. Stephens filed a class
action complaint against the Company and two of its executive
officers in the United States District Court, Southern District of
Texas, with an amended class action complaint filed on November
16, 2015 (the "Securities Case"), seeking unspecified damages and
alleging the defendants violated Section 17(b) of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss and on July 15, 2016, the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas entered a
final judgement dismissing the case in its entirety with
prejudice.

On September 22, 2016, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
appeal of the district court's judgment and on September 26, 2016
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed
the Securities Case pursuant to the plaintiffs' motion. As a
result, the judgment in favor of the Company is final. No
settlement payments or any other consideration was paid by the
Company to the plaintiffs in connection with the Securities Case's
dismissal.

Uranium Energy has been engaged in uranium mining and related
activities, including exploration, pre-extraction, extraction and
processing on uranium projects located in the United States and
Paraguay.


VISTA OUTDOOR: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC on Jan. 26 announced the filing of a class action
lawsuit against Vista Outdoor, Inc. ("Vista" or the "Company")
(VSTO).  Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Vista
shares between August 11, 2016, and January 13, 2017, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm in
advance of the March 27, 2017 lead plaintiff deadline.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Vista shares and would like
more information regarding the class action lawsuit, we encourage
you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian Schall, of Goldberg Law
PC, 1999 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1100, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
800-977-7401, to discuss your rights without cost to you.  You can
also reach us through the firm's website at
http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or by email at
info@goldberglawpc.com.

On January 12, 2017, Vista disclosed that it anticipates a
material asset impairment charge (approximately $400 -- $450
million) due to its Hunting and Shooting Accessories reporting
unit during the third quarter of the 2017 fiscal year.  When this
news was released, the value of Vista fell over 21% that day.  On
January 13, 2017, Vista revealed that the President of its Outdoor
Products segment, in which the Hunting and Shooting Accessories
unit belongs, had resigned from his position.

When this information was revealed to the investing public, the
value of Vista declined, causing investors severe harm.

If you have any questions concerning your legal rights, please
immediately contact Goldberg Law PC at 800-977-7401, or visit our
website at http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or email us at
info@goldberglawpc.com.

Goldberg Law PC represents shareholders around the world and
specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights
litigation.


WARNER MUSIC: Still Faces Suit Over Digital Music Downloads
-----------------------------------------------------------
Warner Music Group Corp. continues to defend a class action
lawsuit related to pricing of digital music downloads, the Company
said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 8, 2016, for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2016.

The Company said, "On December 20, 2005 and February 3, 2006, the
Attorney General of the State of New York served the Company with
requests for information in connection with an industry-wide
investigation as to the pricing of digital music downloads. On
February 28, 2006, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department
of Justice served us with a Civil Investigative Demand, also
seeking information relating to the pricing of digitally
downloaded music."

"Both investigations were ultimately closed, but subsequent to the
announcements of the investigations, more than thirty putative
class action lawsuits were filed concerning the pricing of digital
music downloads. The lawsuits were consolidated in the Southern
District of New York. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on
April 13, 2007, alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay
the release of their content for digital distribution, inflate
their pricing of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads. The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory and treble
damages.

"On October 9, 2008, the District Court issued an order dismissing
the case as to all defendants, including us. However, on January
12, 2010, the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of the District
Court and remanded the case for further proceedings and on January
10, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition
for Certiorari.

"Upon remand to the District Court, all defendants, including the
Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss challenging, among
other things, plaintiffs' state law claims and standing to bring
certain claims. The renewed motion was based mainly on arguments
made in defendants' original motion to dismiss, but not addressed
by the District Court.

"On July 18, 2011, the District Court granted defendants' motion
in part, and denied it in part. Notably, all claims on behalf of
the CD-purchaser class were dismissed with prejudice. However, a
wide variety of state and federal claims remain for the class of
Internet download purchasers.

"On March 19, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which has now been fully briefed. Plaintiffs filed
an operative consolidated amended complaint on September 25, 2015.
The Company filed its answer to the fourth amended complaint on
October 9, 2015, and filed an amended answer on November 3, 2015.

"A mediation took place on February 22, 2016, but the parties were
unable to reach a resolution. The Company intends to defend
against these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the
outcome of these suits.

"Regardless of the merits of the claims, this and any related
litigation could continue to be costly, and divert the time and
resources of management. The potential outcomes of these claims
that are reasonably possible cannot be determined at this time and
an estimate of the reasonably possible loss or range of loss
cannot presently be made."


WASHINGTON, DC: 200 People Hit with Felony Charges After Protest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Lazare, writing for AlterNet, reports that according to a
class-action lawsuit, more than 200 people hit with "felony riot"
charges following their mass arrest at the Jan. 20 inauguration
protest in Washington, D.C. were indiscriminately swept up
"without warning and without any dispersal order" and attacked
with chemical weapons, flash-bang grenades and batons.

The crackdown, which was overseen by acting Metropolitan Police
Department Chief Peter Newsham, echoes another mass arrest that
Newsham ordered as assistant police chief in 2002, in which
hundreds of people were indiscriminately kettled and hogtied,
forcing the government to eventually pay out millions of dollars
in settlements.

More than 200 people arrested in the Jan. 20 sweep face felony
riot charges punishable by up to 10 years in prison.  The
arrestees have had their phones and cameras confiscated as
evidence, according to Jeffrey Light, a Washington, D.C.-based
lawyer who filed the class-action lawsuit on Jan. 20 on behalf
those detained.  The lawsuit, which was emailed to AlterNet, names
Newsham, as well as "John Doe" Metropolitan Police Department and
Park Police officers.

"Without warning and without any dispersal order, the police
officers kettled all of the plaintiffs," states the lawsuit, which
notes that "members of the media, attorneys, legal observers and
medics" were among those rounded up.

"Defendants John Doe MPD Officers and/or John Doe Park Police
Officers deployed a large amount of chemical irritants against the
plaintiffs, as well as struck multiple plaintiffs with their
batons, and deployed flash-bang grenades," the lawsuit continues.
"The use of chemical irritants against Plaintiffs, the use of the
batons against Plaintiffs and the deployment of flash-bang
grenades under the circumstances constituted unreasonable and
excessive force."

One video by CrimethInc. shows police attacking a crowd not far
from where a group of protesters was being kettled.  The footage
captures an apparently disabled woman hit with chemical agents
while surrounded by riot police before the other protesters can
shield her with their bodies.  The same video features a toddler
in the aftermath of an apparent attack with chemical agents.  Some
protesters can be heard screaming, "You maced a child!"

"On information and belief, Chief Newsham ordered, caused to be
ordered, and/or condoned the illegal mass arrest and use of
excessive force," states the lawsuit, which demands a jury trial.

In his former role as assistant police chief, Newsham oversaw a
violent crackdown on a "People's Strike" protest against the World
Bank and International Monetary Fund more than a decade ago.

"On the morning of September 27, 2002, the D.C. Police Department,
working with the U.S. Park Police encircled Pershing Park, refused
to allow anyone to leave and then arrested and hog-tied peaceful
demonstrators, tourists, passers-by, and legal observers.  Many
were bound wrist-to-ankle on a police gym floor for upwards of 24
hours," stated the Partnership for Civil Justice, which filed a
class-action lawsuit on behalf of nearly 400 people arrested at
the park in 2002.  In total, PCJ won 10.7 million in settlements
from the city and the federal park police. The class action
resulted in policies that ostensibly prohibit "the use of police
lines to encircle protesters and demonstrations," the Partnership
for Civil Justice summarized.

Alexis Baden-Mayer was one of those arrested in 2002.  During the
mass sweep, she was with her father, who was then 69 years old and
suffering from a knee injury.  "The police line formed around us,
and my father and I tried to communicate with the police line, and
they wouldn't address our questions," Ms. Baden-Mayer, a
Washington, D.C.-based activist and lawyer, told AlterNet.  "We
were saying we would like to leave. Cops dressed in riot gear with
their masks on wouldn't speak to us. They were standing shoulder
to shoulder, holding billy clubs."

At a certain point, she said, the police "closed the circle
tighter" by moving in on the crowd and tapping their batons on
their shields.  "They hustled us. Because my dad had a bad knee,
he couldn't move fast.  Then they moved us to a gymnasium and
handcuffed us wrist to ankle.  We were detained there for a total
of 36 hours. It was really rough on my father being hog-tied wrist
to ankle because of his knee injury."

The class-action lawsuit filed on Jan. 20 notes, "Chief Newsham
was previously a defendant in the mass arrest of protesters at
Pershing Park in 2002 and claimed that he ordered the roundup."

Notably, Newsham has been the public face of efforts to defend the
police crackdown to the press, telling WTOP radio on Jan. 22 that
"all the police officers were outstanding in the judgment that
they used."

AlterNet spoke with a person arrested at the Jan. 20 protest who
was also detained in the Pershing Park protests of 2002.  The
individual, who requested anonymity because he currently faces
charges, said that people endured abuse while encircled on
Jan. 20, claiming that he saw "at least one, I'm pretty sure two,
concussion grenades thrown into the kettle while we were already
surrounded." The individual described degrading conditions during
detention, stating: "We were in the kettle for eight hours, and
people had to pee and go to the bathroom.  So there was a lot of
peeing in bottles or on the ground, as well as pooping in bags,
while we were in close proximity."

The anonymous witness said news of the class-action lawsuit broke
while people were still kettled, immediately lifting the spirits
of those detained.  "Of course the state is first going to go
after anarchists or whoever they think they can marginalize and
split off," the witness said.  "It's only letting the security
apparatus of Donald Trump grow stronger if we allow them to split
off people accused of more combative protest.  It is important for
everyone who is against Trump to support the people arrested."


WESTERN REFINING: Faces "Solak" Suit Over Merger with Tesoro
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN SOLAK, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. WESTERN REFINING, INC., PAUL L.
FOSTER, JEFF A. STEVENS, SCOTT D. WEAVER, BRIAN J. HOGAN,
L. FREDERICK FRANCIS, SIGMUND L. CORNELIUS, and ROBERT J. HASSLER,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00020 (W.D. Tex., January 19, 2017),
is a securities suit over a definitive merger agreement of Western
Refining with Tesoro Corporation, Tahoe Merger Sub 1, Inc., and
Tahoe Merger Sub 2, LLC, which allegedly is inadequate and
undervalues the Company.

Western Refining, Inc. is a Texas-based Fortune 200 and Global
2000 crude oil refiner and marketer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
     KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
     206 Covington Street
     Madisonville, LA 70447
     Phone: (504) 455-1400
     Fax: (504) 455-1498
     E-mail: Michael.Palestina@ksfcounsel.com


WISCONSIN, USA: Austin Seeks to Certify Class of Oshkosh Inmates
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the case captioned David D. Austin II, And All
Other Inmates Similarly Situated Past, Present, and Future v. Judy
P. Smith, Warden, Oshkosh Correctional Institution Individually
and In Her Official Capacity, Edward Wall, Secretary, Wisconsin
Department of Corrections, Individually and In His Official
Capacity, Rexford Smith, Unit Manager, R-Unit, Oshkosh
Correctional Institution, Individually and In His Official
Capacity, Case No. 3:15-cv-00525-jdp (W.D. Wisc.) moves the Court
for an order granting class action status to the lawsuit.

The proposed class consists of over 2000 inmates currently housed
at the Oshkosh Correctional Institution who were housed in R Unit
prior to May of 2016 and W Unit prior to March of 2016, and is so
numerous that joinder of class members is impracticable.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Nitschke, Esq.
          BLAISE & NITSCHKE, P.C.
          123 N. Wacker, Suite 250
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 448-6602
          Facsimile: (312) 803-1940
          E-mail: tjnitschke@blaisenitschkelaw.com


YAHOO INC: Law Firms Compete for Data-Breach Class Lead Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for Law.com, reports that competition to lead
data-breach litigation against Yahoo Inc. is highlighting
different strategies for divvying up work on complex class actions
as well as the spin law firms put on their pitches when they seek
lucrative lead counsel appointments.

On one side is a coalition of five plaintiffs firms, with Morgan &
Morgan's John Yanchunis serving as the chairperson of a proposed
executive committee.

Meanwhile three firms -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, Susman Godfrey -- are vying for the lead counsel
spot independently, arguing that litigation-by-committee is
unnecessary and would make managing the case unwieldy.

A hearing on lead counsel petitions in the Yahoo case is set
before U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh on Feb. 9.

"It's an extremely important case," Mr. Yanchunis said in an
interview, "and I think that the coalition of lawyers that I've
brought together in the structure have cumulatively much more
experience in this arena."  If Judge Koh has concerns about
efficiency issues, he added, "I can address them from the podium."

The debate over how many plaintiffs firms it takes to keep a big
case on track plays out differently from judge-to-judge and from
case-to-case.  U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer notably chose a
"Dream Team" of 22 lawyers to sit on the steering committee for
multidistrict litigation related to the diesel emissions scandal
at Volkswagen AG.

Judge Koh, who is overseeing the Yahoo MDL in the Northern
District of California, has previously taken a skeptical view of
bulky leadership structures.  In 2015, Judge  Koh chastised
lawyers from Altshuler Berzon and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Tol
after they proposed to add six firms to a steering committee in
the data breach MDL against health insurer Anthem Inc. Judge  Koh
ultimately appointed the two firms as lead but trimmed their
steering committee to just two additional firms.

The Morgan & Morgan coalition, which also includes Milberg;
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd; Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt
& Penfield; and Lockridge Grindal Nauen, is the consensus choice,
with backing from 20 other firms with suits in the MDL.

In their application to lead the Yahoo case, lawyers wrote that
the geographic diversity of class members in the case warrants a
group of lawyers with national reach.  Their proposal outlines a
complex division of labor with Ariana Tadler of Milberg heading up
e-discovery, Stuart Davidson -- SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com -- of
Robbins Geller handling research and writing on the legal briefs,
Karen Hanson Riebel -- khriebel@locklaw.com -- of Lockridge
Grindal vetting the plaintiffs, and Gayle Blatt -- gmb@cglaw.com
-- of Casey Gerry leading the drafting of the plaintiffs
consolidated complaint.

"The immense scope of this action -- encompassing in excess of one
billion users -- lends itself to the appointment of an
organization, which empowers its members to exercise authority and
discretion within his or her area of expertise," wrote
Mr. Yanchunis, a Tampa-based litigator who would oversee the work
and coordinate with lawyers handling similar cases in California
state court.

The divide-and-conquer approach, however, has drawn fire from the
other three plaintiffs firms.  Jennifer Joost -- jjoost@ktmc.com -
- of Kessler Topaz, who sat on the executive committee
representing financial institutions in the Target Corp. data
breach case, wrote that her firm's application "would not
interject complications created by appointment of multiple law
firms."

"Although multi-firm leadership structures are certainly
appropriate in some cases, they run the risk of creating needless
inefficiency," she wrote.

Kaplan Fox, a firm which handled an earlier privacy case before
Judge Koh against Yahoo over email scanning, also questioned the
larger structure.  "Naturally, the management of any case could be
divvied up among five lead firms but the joint application never
articulates why that many is necessary in this relatively
straightforward data-breach case against a single defendant,"
wrote Kaplan Fox's Laurence King.

Susman Godfrey's Marc Seltzer -- mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com --
called the five-firm proposal "both unnecessary and unwieldy."
Mr. Seltzer, who has handled antitrust claims in a class action
pending before Judge Koh, wrote that there was "likely overlap"
among the tasks that the committee had laid out and pointed out
that the committee's own filings indicates that negotiating the
leadership structure has already required a teleconference, an in-
person meeting and subsequent calls and meetings.

"While we believe that Susman Godfrey can handle this litigation
efficiently and by itself, if the court believes it is appropriate
to appoint one or more other firms as co-lead counsel we are
prepared to work cooperatively with other counsel as we have done
in many other cases," Mr. Seltzer wrote.

Reached by phone shortly after his coalition came under fire in
the court filings, Morgan & Morgan's Yanchunis said that he was
"rather shocked" by the criticism.  "There isn't going to be
either any inefficiencies or overlap in the way the committee runs
the case," Mr. Yanchunis said.  "I assume that those that seek to
criticize it do so from a basis of experience," he said.

Mr. Yanchunis said that he would have preferred that other firms
seeking to lead the Yahoo MDL stick to highlighting their own
credentials rather than undercutting the proposal he and his
colleagues put together.

In response to all the criticism, the coalition filed court papers
pointing out that no judge in a major data-breach case has ever
elected to appoint a single firm as lead counsel.

"It would be passing strange," wrote Robbins Geller's Davidson,
"to adopt such a method, wholly untested in major data-breach
litigation, in what has been referred to as 'the largest known
data breach in history.'"


ZICO BEVERAGES: Faces "Reza" Suit Over "No Sugar Added" Label
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a California man claims in a class action in Los Angeles
County Superior Court that Zico Beverages misleads consumers by
affixing a "no sugar added" label on bottles of 100 percent
coconut water.

Though the label implies that Zico's product contains less sugar
than other brands have, lead plaintiff Jason Reza notes that
comparable coconut water products also lack added sugar.


* Litigation Funding Ruling May Spark More Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that litigation
funders, the lawyers they do business with and industry critics
were digesting the ramifications on Jan. 24 of a first-of-its-kind
disclosure rule affecting class actions.

But one thing seems clear: It's unlikely to be the last word in
the transparency debate surrounding the growing financial
industry.

"It's really a harbinger and a signal that courts are really
starting to see the need to consider the presence of third-party
financiers in a lawsuit and consider their role," said
Radoslaw Goral, a Dentons attorney who studies the litigation-
funding industry.

The rule announced on Jan. 25 by the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California mandates that the existence of a
third-party funder be disclosed in class-action lawsuits.  Though
there's no immediate sign that other district courts will follow,
observers say the Northern District is likely to be a kind of
laboratory that other courts look to.

The rule also is likely to generate more litigation -- and case
law -- around the limits of what is discoverable to defense
counsel once they learn that a funder is behind a class-action
suit.  It gives no indication as to what happens once a disclosure
is made and whether plaintiffs will be forced to turn over their
agreement with a financier or other communications showing case
strategy or valuation.

"If they don't make that clear, they're probably going to spend a
lot of court time sorting through discovery motions and demands
for depositions," said Alan Zimmerman, CEO of the Bay Area-based
Law Finance Group.

Christopher Chorba -- cchorba@gibsondunn.com -- co-chair of
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's class-action litigation practice, said
that defense counsel would almost surely want to see a copy of any
funding agreement to know whether a financier has any control over
litigation or the settlement decisions.

"It might be irrelevant if all of that authority is with the
attorney," Mr. Chorba said.  "But I would still want to know that
and verify."

The Northern District bench had considered a rule to mandate the
disclosure of funding agreements in any case before the court. Its
decision to limit the rule only to class actions was greeted with
some relief by the big-name funders who had opposed the broader
proposal.

But the rule also targets an aspect of the industry that critics
of litigation funding like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have seen
as the greatest threat to business.

"Investors who get a contingent fee based on the outcomes of
lawsuits should not be allowed to operate in the shadows nor
control litigation, especially in class actions, where they can
more easily put their own interests before class members'," Harold
Kim, executive vice president of the chamber's Institute for Legal
Reform, said in a statement on Jan. 24.  "We are pleased that the
court's order requires transparency in precisely those kinds of
cases."

Because the rule applies only to class actions, it's not a fight
that all funders will have to worry about.  Australia-
headquartered Bentham IMF, for example, says it doesn't fund class
actions.  And Burford Capital, the largest commercial litigation
funder in the U.S., says that class actions make up only a small
portion of its investments.

By contrast, Mr. Zimmerman says class actions make up a
significant portion of the cases that his company invests in.
Other firms, like New York-based Counsel Financial, also market
themselves as offering various kinds of financing to class-action
plaintiffs attorneys.


* Securities Class Action Settlement Dollars Hit Record High
------------------------------------------------------------
Laarni T. Bulan, Esq., Ellen M. Ryan, Esq., and Laura E. Simmons,
Esq., of Cornerstone Research, in an article for The National Law
Review, report that there were 80 securities class action
settlements approved in 2015, the highest number since 2010.
Total settlement dollars rose to more than $3 billion, an increase
of 184 percent over the historic low in 2014.

The surge in securities class action settlements in 2015 can be
attributed in part to three consecutive year-over-year increases
in the number of case filings.  The increases in case filings may
suggest that higher numbers of settlements will persist in the
near future.  While settlement volume fluctuates from year to
year, the size of the typical settlement tends to remain fairly
consistent.

In 2015 there were eight mega settlements ($100 million or
greater), compared to only one in 2014.  This increase was likely
driven by a corresponding rise in cases with very high "estimated
damages," a simplified calculation representing a proxy for
damages.  The median "estimated damages" for mega settlements in
2015 was the second highest in the last 10 years.

"Settlements in class action securities litigation can be viewed
as rather predictable phenomena," observed Professor Joseph A.
Grundfest, director of the Stanford Law School Securities Class
Action Clearinghouse. "You can only get a high settlement value
for a strong case that alleges substantial damages, and those
factors can often be assessed relatively early in the litigation
process. When the number of mega filings is up, you can expect an
increase in mega settlements three or more years down the road,
with the larger settlements taking longer to reach, and that's the
process that seems to be at work in the 2015 settlement data."

While larger damages appear to have driven up settlement values
for some cases in 2015, other factors associated with higher
settlements were less prevalent. For example, the proportion of
settlements of $50 million or greater involving financial
statement restatements, public pension plan lead plaintiffs,
and/or SEC actions was lower than most years since the passage of
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Highlights

Total settlement dollars in 2015 were 9 percent higher than the
average for the prior five years.

The average settlement size increased from $17 million in 2014 to
$37.9 million in 2015 (an increase of 123 percent), while the
median settlement amount (representing the typical case) remained
relatively flat ($6.0 million in 2014 and $6.1 million in 2015).

Average "estimated damages" rose 151 percent from 2014. Since
"estimated damages" is the most important factor in predicting
settlement amounts, this increase contributed to the substantially
higher average settlement amounts in 2015.

Median settlements as a percentage of "estimated damages"
decreased to historic low levels in 2015.

In 2015, 35 percent of accounting-related cases had a named
auditor defendant, representing a 50 percent increase over the
prior 10-year average. Underwriter defendants were named in 76
percent of cases with Section 11 claims.

Although the proportion of securities class action settlements
involving financial sector firms was lower in 2014 and 2015
compared to prior years, these cases continue to be some of the
largest when measured by "estimated damages." In 2015, 55 percent
of financial sector cases had "estimated damages" greater than $1
billion.

The Second and Ninth Circuits continued to lead all circuits in
the number of settlements.

Dollar amounts are adjusted for inflation; 2015 dollar equivalent
figures are used.


* Uncertainty Remains on Department of Labor's Overtime Rule
------------------------------------------------------------
Tim K. Garrett, writing for Law.com, reports that is the
Department of Labor (DOL) overtime rule now dead? Will the
overtime rule be modified to a more modest version? Much
uncertainty remains regarding the recently announced overtime rule
in both the legal and the political sphere.

The Legal Landscape

In a ruling announced on Nov. 22, just days before a Dec. 1
effective date, U.S. District Judge Amos L. Mazzant of the Eastern
District of Texas halted nationwide the effectiveness of the new
regulations.  These regulations would have more than doubled the
salary level required to be paid by employers to those employees
who are classified as exempt from receiving overtime pay.

The DOL has appealed the ruling, and the court has granted the
DOL's request for the appeal to be heard on an expedited basis.
However, the appeal will not be "ripe for decision" until after a
new Trump Administration and a new Congress take office.

The Current Political Landscape

Trump has appointed a known opponent of the new overtime rule to
be Secretary of Labor.  Some Congressional Republicans are
planning an attempt to revoke the new regulations in the new
Congress through use of the Congressional Review Act.

The legal and political landscape has created uncertainty, and
many employers wonder what to expect.  A more detailed analysis is
herein, but several strategies are being explored on both fronts,
either to halt the rule in its entirety, or to modify its dramatic
increase of the salary level to a more modest "phased-in"
approach.

In the interim, it appears those employers who already had
announced and implemented changes in salaries or classifications
did not attempt to reverse those changes despite the Nov. 22
ruling.  Those employers who had not yet implemented any changes,
even if already announced, have tended to postpone the announced
changes pending further developments in the case or pending
further guidance from a Trump-Administration DOL.

The DOL Rule-Making And Its Impact

As most readers know, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires
employers to pay employees at least the minimum wage for all hours
worked and additional pay (an overtime premium) of 1.5 times the
employee's "regular rate" of pay for all hours worked by the
employee in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.  The FLSA exempts
certain employees from these requirements due to their status as
an executive, administrative, or professional (EAP) employee.  The
FLSA authorizes DOL to "define and delimit" these exemptions.

In 2014, President Obama directed the DOL to update and modernize
these exemptions.  At the time, and for many years prior, the DOL
had used three tests to determine whether an employee was exempt
under the EAP classifications:

   -- Whether the employee was paid "on a salaried basis" ("the
salary basis test");
   -- Whether the employee was paid a sufficiently high salary
that was no less than a DOL-determined level ("the salary level
test"); and,
   -- Whether the employee actually engaged in certain job duties
that qualified for the applicable exemption ("the job duties
test").

Two years after President Obama's directive, the DOL issued a
final rule that significantly increased the "salary level test."
The final rule more than doubled the salary level test, increasing
it from $455 per week to $913 per week (or $47,476 annually);
increased the salary level of the highly compensated employee
(HCE) exemption from $100,000 to $134,004; and established an
automatic update to these salary levels every three years based
upon certain criteria, namely: 1) Standard salary level would be
increased every three years based on the 40th percentile of
earnings of all full-time salaried workers in the lowest-wage
Census Region; and 2) The HCE threshold would be increased every
three years based on the 90th percentile of full-time salaried
workers nationally.

The new DOL rules were scheduled to have taken effect Dec. 1,
2016.  After the announcement but before implementation, employers
across the country began evaluating the impact of the new rules on
their labor costs.  The analysis involved a complex audit process,
and for some -- especially small businesses and non-profits -- the
new rule created an existential budget crisis. Employers had to
determine whether employees previously classified as exempt should
have their salaries increased to the new level in order to
preserve their exempt status, or, in the alternative, whether
employees should be re-classified as non-exempt.  Labor costs were
not the only concern. Savvy employers knew that re-classification
would impact morale, as persons previously labeled as exempt would
be re-classified as non-exempt and face a sense of loss in
prestige for their jobs; those employees also would be required to
track their hours worked, for some, a cumbersome and demeaning
process. Details as seemingly minor as off-duty access to email
and other company systems might be impacted.

Some praised the final rules, claiming that the DOL's actions
would help the middle class and would extend the right to overtime
pay to approximately 4.2 million workers who previously had been
classified as exempt.  Others were critical, noting that the new
overtime rules would have unintended consequences of job loss,
especially among entry-level manager jobs where young workers
often enter the job market.  In addition, the burden on private-
sector employers was projected to be $1.5 billion each year, with
the DOL estimating the average annualized direct employer costs to
be $295.1 million, in addition to the expected annual transfer of
$1.2 billion of income from employers to employees as a result of
the rule.  Further, costs to state and local governments were
expected to be $115.1 million in the first year alone.

The Lawsuit and Its Ruling

Twenty-one states filed a federal lawsuit in Texas against the
DOL, challenging the final rule.  Over 50 businesses filed suit as
well.  The two lawsuits were consolidated into one proceeding. The
plaintiffs argued that the DOL had exceeded its authority in
announcing the new salary level.

The plaintiffs asked the court to enter a preliminary injunction
designed to stop the allegedly unlawful rule from taking effect
during the pendency of the lawsuits.  In their request, the
plaintiffs argued that the DOL exceeded its authority because the
new salary level was increased to such a degree that the tests for
the EAP exemptions had become, in essence, a salary level test
only.

On Nov. 22, in a ruling few expected, Obama-appointee Judge Amos
L. Mazzant ruled that the plaintiffs had a substantial likelihood
of prevailing on their argument that the DOL had exceeded its
authority. Judge Mazzant ordered a halt to implementation of the
new salary level, at least temporarily, until the court could
consider more fully whether the regulations were properly
authorized.

More specifically, Judge Mazzant found improper the DOL's
application of a minimum salary level when the plain meanings of
"executive," "administrative," and "professional" read together
with the statute, made it clear that "Congress defined the EAP
exemption with regard to duties, which does not include a minimum
salary level."  By increasing the salary threshold so
significantly, the DOL has created "essentially a de facto salary-
only test."  In direct conflict with Congress' intent, explained
the court, the DOL's final rule requires employers to extend
overtime pay to any employee, regardless of his/her job duties,
whose pay is below the heightened salary level. "[T]he Department
exceeds its delegated authority and ignores Congress's intent by
raising the minimum salary level such that it supplants the duties
test."

The district court also noted that the minimum salary level
originally established in regulations years ago "was purposefully
set low" to exclude those workers who were clearly nonexempt.  The
court's injunction does not address the lawfulness of a salary-
level test in general, but specifically enjoins the application of
the DOL's increased salary-level test in its final rule as
exceeding the agency's delegated authority.

The DOL issued a statement "strongly disagreeing" with the
district court and has appealed the ruling to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  The circuit court has granted the
DOL's request to expedite the appeal.  However, even on the
expedited schedule, the case will not be "ripe" for consideration
until after the new administration and new Congress take office.

What Can We Expect?

As employers wait and see what will happen, a few significant
questions emerge:

1. Does the ruling mean the new salary level will never go into
effect? No. The legal ruling only halts the effectiveness of the
new salary level pending further action by the court or pending
what occurs on appeal.  It remains possible the new salary level
could go into effect in the future.  However, the ruling does
provide the new administration with an opportunity to stop, or
modify, the new salary level.  The legal landscape has provided
significant opportunity for change through the political
landscape.

2. Will the Trump Administration and the new Congress kill the DOL
salary level rule? Perhaps. There are prominent signals that the
DOL salary level test, as currently announced, will not take
effect. President-Elect Trump has appointed Andrew Puzder as Labor
Secretary.  Mr. Puzder is a known critic of the new overtime
regulations as bad for business and bad for those workers they
were designed to help.  In the pending lawsuit, the Trump
Administration could drop the appeal, or attempt to "settle."

Dropping the appeal, or settling, likely would result in a
permanent injunction. The DOL could then conduct new rule-making
to implement a new salary level at a more modest level -- a
"phase-in" that some in Congress on both sides of the aisle
proposed in legislation months ago; or, the new DOL could decide
to take no further action to increase the current salary level of
$455 per week.

Congressional Republicans could use the Congressional Review Act
to pass a joint resolution in the new Congress to kill the
overtime regulations, since the regulations were announced toward
the end of the prior congressional session.  This option, which is
rarely used, prevents the DOL from issuing substantially similar
regulations, making it questionable whether the DOL could raise
the salary level at all.  More interestingly, however, the court's
ruling raises a significant legal question as to whether a salary
level of any amount is authorized by statute.  If that ruling is
made permanent as noted above, that legal question persists.

Employers Response

Of those employers that had already implemented salary increases
and/or reclassifications in accordance with the new salary level,
most kept those actions in place.  Those employers recognized that
it would be more disruptive to attempt to "undo" the salaries or
reclassifications, regardless of whether the new regulations
ultimately are implemented.

Of those employers that had only announced changes but had not yet
implemented them, there was a "mixed bag."  Some employers did not
wish to renege on the announced plans, especially salary
increases; but often, those employers explained to their employees
that they might not get another "raise" in calendar year 2017 in
light of the December 2016 increase.  Other employers did postpone
the announced salary increases due to strong concerns about
increased labor costs, especially smaller employers and non-
profits.

In addition, those employers who faced significant morale issues
with the planned reclassifications (i.e., employees upset at "loss
of prestige" or having to track hours), used the opportunity to
postpone any reclassifications given the morale issue. Other
employers tended to proceed with the announced changes.

Is There Anything Further An Employer Should Do Now?

No, assuming the employer did some analysis around the previously
announced Dec. 1 effective date. Other than whatever audit the
employer did at that time, there are no other "proactive" steps to
take.  However, given the nature of the EAP exemptions, regular
audits -- especially of those jobs "near the edges" -- is a wise
practice.



                            *********

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  * * *