CAR_Public/170206.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Monday, February 6, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 26



                            Headlines

1-800 FLOWERS: "Rodkey" Junked for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
ABC CORP: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Southern District of New York
ABEONA THERAPEUTICS: Feb. 14 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
AFFINITYLIFESTYLES.COM: "Nunes" Remanded to Nevada State Court
AGILE THERAPEUTICS: RM Law Files Securities Class Suit

AIR LINE PILOTS: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Valdez" Suit
ALEX MOLINAROLI: Court Denies Prelim. Injunction Bid in "Gumm"
ALTA-DENA CERTIFIED: Perez Files Another Appeal to Ninth Circuit
APPLE INC: Customer Suit Over IPhone Upgrade Program Dropped
ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholders Sue Over Merger Deal

BALTIMORE, MD: Harrell Appeals Decision in "Smith" Class Suit
BANC OF CALIFORNIA: March 24 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
BANK OF AMERICA: Removal of "Goldberg" Suit Affirmed
BAYER CORP: "Hall" Suit Goes Back to State Court
BAYER CORP: E.D. Mo. Judge Remands "Dotson" Suit to State Court

BIG HEART: Fitzpatrick Appeals E.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
BP EXPLORATION: Woodbridge Baric Not Liable, 5th Cir. Says
BRUCE BOUTON: Faces Class Suit Over Music Royalties
BT GROUP: Holzer Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
BT GROUP: To Bring Forward Auditor Review in Wake of Scandal

CELLULAR BIOMED: 9th Cir. Dismissed Shareholders' Appeal
CHICAGO PARKING: Mobile App Does Not Update Correctly, Suit Says
COOK SALES: Court Approves Settlement in "Warren"
CR ENGLAND: Gradie Appeals Ruling in "Harper" Suit to 10th Cir.
DELTA AIR: Oman Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of N.D. Cal. Ruling

DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Directors Lied to Students, Suit Says
DISH NETWORK: Seeks Tenth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Ray" Suit
DONALD J. TRUMP: Campaign Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
ELECTROLUX HOME: "Kukich" Suit Transferred to M.D. Pa.
ENDOLOGIX INC: March 6 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

EPIQ SYSTEMS: Sued Over Worker's Refusal to Waive Class Rights
ERIC RYAN: Faces Gorss Suit in District of Connecticut
FACEBOOK INC: Judge Declines to Dismiss "Brickman" TCPA Action
FIELDTURF USA: Faces Paw Suit in District of Minnesota
FORD MOTOR: PowerShift Transmissions Defective, Suit Says

FRED BATHON: Class Action Over Bid Rigging Can Proceed
GENESYS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Robbins Geller Tapped as Lead Counsel
GOLDEN RULE: King Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of E.D. Pa. Decision
GRA CONVENIENT: Faces "Muhammad" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
HEARTS WITH HOPE: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Anderson" Suit

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Cooper" Suit
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Watkins Appeals Decision to 6th Circuit
HP INC: Failed to Pay Overtime to Software Testers, Suit Says
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Settlement in Defective Engines Suit Get Final OK
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Court Refuses to Remand Elantras Gas Mileage Suits

ILLINOIS, USA: 7th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Winner" Class Suit
INNOCOLL HOLDINGS: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
ISLE CASINO: Overcharged Customers, Class Action Says
JACKSON HEWITT: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Hollingsworth"
JPMORGAN CHASE: Dismissal of "Holtz" Suit Under SLUSA Affirmed

LACE ENTERTAINMENT: MLB Seeks Review of Ruling in "Gomez" Suit
LOUISIANA: Livingston Parish Joins August Flood Class Suit
LOUISIANA: Court Narrows Claimants in "Marshall" Suit
LOUISVILLE SLUGGER: Trying to Cover Up Defect, Suit Says
MANITOBA: Flood Evacuees' Class Action Can Go Forward

MDL 2445: Court Trims Claims in Amneal Antitrust Suit
MDL 2615: Court Dismisses Complaints in FCRA Suit
MEDICREDIT INC: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Raffin" Suit
METROPOLITAN TRANSIT: Faces "Katz" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
MICROSOFT CORP: Suspended Xbox Service Features, Maher Claims

MINNESOTA, USA: Foster Appeals Judgment Before 8th Cir.
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Bush Appeals Decision to Ninth Circuit
MOUNT SINAI HEALTH: Latner Seeks Review of Judgment to 2nd Cir.
NATIONAL ELECTORAL: To Face Suit Over Destruction of Property
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Suppress Cheerleaders' Wages, Suit Says

NEIU: Defendants Immune from Suit, Judge Says
NEW ORIENTAL: Feb. 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
NEW YORK: Bus Companies Sue Over Excessive Tolls
NEW YORK: Rold Appeals Ruling in Barcia v. Insurance Board
OMNI INSURANCE: Colter Appeals D. S.C. Court Decision to 4th Cir.

OMNI INSURANCE: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Colter" Suit
OMNI LIMOUSINE: Court Refuses to Certify "McSwiggin"
PHARMAVITE LLC: Bradach Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
PIXARBIO CORPORATION: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
PNC FINANCIAL: "White" Plaintiffs Can't Add RICO Claims

PRIMARY CARE: "George" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
REGUS MANAGEMENT: Circle Click Appeals Ruling to Ninth Circuit
RESTAURANT.COM INC: Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of "Shelton" Suit Order
ROCKET FUEL: Bid to Amend Complaint in Securities Suit Denied
SAZERAC CO: Misrepresents Age of Bourbon, "Penrose" Suit Claims

SCOUT ANALYTICS: "Weller" Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
SEATTLE GENETICS: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
SEE'S CANDY: Cal. Appeals Court Tweaks Judgment in "Silva"
SHARKNINJA OPERATING: 3rd Cir. Appeal Filed in "Rosenthal" Suit
SOUTH DAKOTA: Fleming Seeks Review of Judgment in Tribes' Suit

SOUTH DAKOTA: Judge Pfeifle Appeals Judgment in Tribes' Suit
SOUTH DAKOTA: Vargo Seeks Review of Judgment in Tribes' Suit
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Stuppiello" Suit
SPEEDWAY LLC: Faces "Brodie" Suit in Western Dist. of Pa.
ST. ANTHONY'S MEDICAL: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hern" Suit

STILLWATER MINING: Being Sold Too Cheaply, "Assad" Suit Claims
SUGAR TRANSPORT: Plaintiff May Amend "Guinn" FLSA Complaint
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Van Dusen" Suit
SYSCO CORP: Calif. Court Refuses to Remand "Hernandez"
TOBACK BERNSTEIN: Directed to Pay Counsel Fees in "Torres"

TTC AMERIDIAL: Oliver's Bid to Certify Withdrawn as Stipulated
UNARCO INDUSTRIES: Court Partly Dismisses "Hernandez"
UNITED STATES: "Al Saeedi" Files Suit v. Pres. Trump, et al.
UNITED STATES: "Emamjomeh" Files Suit v. Pres. Trump, et al.
UNITED STATES: "Rashekhi" Files Suit v. Pres. Trump, et al.

UNITED STATES: Flint, Mich. Residents Sue over EPA Inaction
UNITED STATES: Turpeinen Brothers, et al. Claims Dismissed
US XPRESS: Ayala Appeals C.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit
VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Judge Rejects Bid for Interlocutory Appeal
VISTA OUTDOOR: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

WAL-MART STORES: Judge Won't Add $86MM to Award for Drivers
WAL-MART STORES: Nikmanesh Appeals C.D. Cal. Order to 9th Circuit
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Savannah Suit Removed to N.D. Ga.
WELLS FARGO: Noncitizen College Students Sue Over Loan Grants
WESTERN UNION: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

WESTERN UNION: Calif. Man Sues Over $586MM Deal with Gov't
WILMINGTON TRUST: Faces Class Action Over ISCO Stock Sale
WYNDHAM VACATION: Calif. Man Sues Over Collection Calls
WYNDHAM VACATION: Appeals Decision in "Bitner" Suit to 7th Cir.
WYOMING, OH: Bid for Summary Judgment in "Daniels" Suit Granted

YAHOO! INC: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set


                            *********


1-800 FLOWERS: "Rodkey" Junked for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas M. Rose of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio granted the Motion to Dismiss the case
captioned, PAMELA RODKEY and CHERIE CUMMINGS, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated employees nationwide,
and on behalf of the Ohio and Oregon Classes, Plaintiffs, v. 1-800
FLOWERS TEAM SERVICES, INC., HARRY AND DAVID, LLC, 1-800-FLOWERS
SERVICES SUPPORT CENTER, INC., and DOES 1-20, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-311 (S.D. Ohio).
1-800-Flowers Support Center employed Pamela Rodkey, an Ohio
resident, as a customer service specialist in Ohio from
approximately August 2009 to October 31, 2014.  Team Services is
an operating subsidiary of 1-800-Flowers.com and issued paychecks
to the Plaintiffs on behalf of 1-800-Flowers Support Center and
Harry and David.

The Plaintiffs allege that their employers failed to pay them
overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(Counts I and II), the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, Ohio
Rev. Code Section 4111.03 (Count III), and Oregon State Law (Count
IV).

Team Services moved to dismiss the First Amended Collective and
Class Action Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), arguing that the Court does not have
personal jurisdiction over the case because it does not have
sufficient contacts with the State of Ohio to satisfy Ohio's long-
arm statute or constitutional due process requirements.
In his Entry and Order dated January 23, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/sedWNV from Leagle.com, Judge Rose held that the
Court does not have personal jurisdiction over Team Services and
that there is no evidence that Team Services determined either
Rodkey's designation as exempt or non-exempt or the amount that
she was paid for her overtime hours.

Cheri Cummings, et al. are represented by Bruce H. Meizlish, Esq.
-- brucelaw@meizgray.com -- Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. -- srey@nka.com
-- and -- Deborah R. Grayson, Esq. -- deborahg@meizgray.com --
MEIZLISH & GRAYSON
1-800 Flowers.com, Inc. is represented by Daniel L. Messeloff,
Esq. -- Daniel.Messeloff@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS PC

Harry and David, LLC is represented by Daniel L. Messeloff, Esq. -
- Daniel.Messeloff@jacksonlewis.com -- and -- Jeffrey B. Keiper,
Esq. -- KeiperJ@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS PC


ABC CORP: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Southern District of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ABC Corp. The case
is captioned as Victor Reyes Gomez on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ABC Corp,
doing business as Che Bella Pizza; Jimmy Berrer; and John Does 1
through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00657
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2017).

ABC is located in New Jersey, USA. The Company builds industrial
gas plants to factories, plants, mills, laboratories and
industrial facilities in many countries around the world.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ABEONA THERAPEUTICS: Feb. 14 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm disclosed a class action
lawsuit against Abeona Therapeutics Inc., (ABEO) concerning
possible violations of federal securities laws. Investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired PlasmaTech Biopharmaceuticals,
Inc. shares between March 31, 2015 and June 19, 2015; and/or
Abeona shares between June 22, 2015 and December 9, 2016
inclusive, are encouraged to contact the firm in advance of the
February 14, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

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

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

Mako Research published a report on SeekingAlpha.com stating "ABEO
science is demonstrably unviable with numerous irrefutable flaws
that will lead to failure." The report found that Steven H.
Rouhandeh, the Company's Executive Chairman and Principal
Executive Officer, was the managing director at D. Blech & Co., a
brokerage firm that was the subject of SEC investigations during
the 1990s as well as a securities class action suit that ended in
a $15 million investor settlement due to allegations that the firm
changed the price of some biotech stocks through transactions that
falsely inflated the market price of the stocks to maintain the
firm's interest in these stocks. When this information was
disclosed to the public, the value of Abeona fell, causing
investors harm.


AFFINITYLIFESTYLES.COM: "Nunes" Remanded to Nevada State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
remand in the case captioned, JENNIFER NUNES, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. AFFINITYLIFESTYLES.COM, INC. d/b/a REAL WATER, Defendant, Case
No. 2:16-cv-02265-APG-NJK (D. Nev.) to the state court.

Plaintiffs Jennifer Nunes, Dennys Sian, Ramona Wells, and Keyatra
Grant filed the proposed class action in Nevada state court
against defendant Affinitylifestyles.com d/b/a Real Water.  The
plaintiffs allege that Real Water uses municipal tap water,
processes it, and sells it as bottled water at a "premium price."
The plaintiffs allege there is no scientific basis for these
claims and some of the claims are contrary to known scientific
principles.  The plaintiffs thus claim Real Water has violated the
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and a Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) regulation by misbranding its bottled water.

The plaintiffs assert only state law claims of violation of
Nevada's laws against consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices
(count 1), breach of express warranty (count 2), breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability (count 3), and unjust
enrichment (count 4).

Real Water removed the action on the basis of federal question
jurisdiction, asserting that the plaintiffs' claims were preempted
by the FDCA.  The plaintiffs move to remand, arguing that they
assert only state law claims and that the mere reference to
federal law within their state law claims does not support
removal.  Real Water responds that the plaintiffs' state law
claims are expressly preempted by the Nutrition Labeling and
Education Act (NLEA), which amended the FDCA. Alternatively, Real
Water argues the plaintiffs' claims raise a substantial question
of federal law sufficient to support federal question
jurisdiction.

In an Order dated January 23, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/FzbYOQ from Leagle.com, Judge Gordon held that Real
Water has not established federal question jurisdiction based on a
substantial question of federal law.


Dennys Sian, et al. are represented by J. Randall Jones, Esq. --
r.jones@kempjones.com -- William L. Coulthard, Esq. --
w.coulthard@kempjones.com -- Michael J. Gayan, Esq. --
m.gayan@kempjones.com -- and -- Nathanael R. Rulis, Esq. --
n.rulis@kempjones.com -- KEMP, JONES & COULTHARD, LLP

            -- and --

      Terry W. Riedy, Esq.
      Scott K. Canepa, Esq.
      CANEPA RIEDY ABELE & COSTELLO
      851 S. Rampart Blvd.,
      Suite 160
      Las Vegas, NV 89145
      Tel:(702)304-2335
Affinitylifestyles, Com, Inc. is represented by David B. Avakian,
Esq. -- David.Avakian@lewisbrisbois.com -- and -- Josh Cole
Aicklen, Esq. -- Josh.Aicklen@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS
BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP -- Paige S. Shreve, Esq. --
Paige.Shreve@lewisbrisbois -- LEWIS ROCA ROTHERGERBER CHRISTIE LLP


AGILE THERAPEUTICS: RM Law Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Agile
Therapeutics, Inc. securities between March 9, 2016 and January 3,
2017, inclusive.

Agile shareholders may, no later than March 7, 2017, move the
Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class.  If you
purchased shares of Agile and would like to learn more about these
claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to
sign up online, visit: www.maniskas.com.

Agile, a specialty pharmaceutical company, focuses on the
development and commercialization of prescription contraceptive
products for women.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that (1) that the Twirla contraceptive patch had an efficacy
rating that fell below peer group standards; (2) that over half of
patients in its "Secure" Phase 3 Study discontinued the study
early; (3) that the Twirla patch therefore allegedly had a slight
chance of FDA approval; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' statements about Agile's business,
operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

On January 3, 2017, Agile disclosed statistical information
pertaining to its Phase 3 SECURE study analyzing the Company's
combined hormonal contraceptive patch Twirla. The study, which was
initiated at the request of the FDA, comes after the FDA rejected
Agile's initial marketing application back in 2013. The Company
cited "positive top-line results" in the study, yet reported an
efficacy measure that failed to meet the standard set by other
approved contraceptive patches. Additionally, 51.4% of subjects
opted to discontinue the study.

On this news, Agile stock fell nearly 48% on January 4, 2017,
closing at $2.63/share, down $2.37/share.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than March 7,
2017, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or
other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this
action.


AIR LINE PILOTS: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Valdez" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Stephen Valdez, Armando Castroverde, Ruben Freyre and
Jeffrey Ware filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit
styled Stephen Valdez, et al. v. Air Line Pilots Association
(ALPA), Case No. 2:16-cv-02256, in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee at Memphis.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs want to recover damages against the Defendant as a
result of alleged intentional or reckless misrepresentation of the
true nature of a 2015 Collection Bargaining Agreement,
particularly pay rate increases, signing bonuses, retirement
benefits, Sick Leave Buyback, overall value, and/or "industry-
leading" status to the FedEx pilots.  The Plaintiffs allege that
ALPA engaged in many forms of misconduct in connection with the
ratification of the 2015 CBA, breaching its duty of fair
representation.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Stephen Valdez, et al.,
Case No. 17-503, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Petitioners STEPHEN VALDEZ, JEFFREY WARE, RUBEN FREYRE
and ARMANDO CASTROVERDE, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Joe David Jacobson, Esq.
          JACOBSON PRESS & FIELDS, P.C.
          168 N. Meramec Avenue, Suite 150
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 899-9789
          E-mail: Jacobson@ArchCityLawyers.com

Defendant-Respondent AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL,
is represented by:

          Deborah Ellen Godwin, Esq.
          GODWIN, MORRIS, LAURENZI & BLOOMFIELD, P.C.
          P.O. Box 3290
          Memphis, TN 38173
          Telephone: (901) 528-1702
          Facsimile: (901) 528-0246
          E-mail: dgodwin@gmlblaw.com


ALEX MOLINAROLI: Court Denies Prelim. Injunction Bid in "Gumm"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Pamela Pepper of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin denied the motion for preliminary
injunction in the case captioned, ARLENE D. GUMM ET AL,
Plaintiffs, v. ALEX A. MOLINAROLI ET AL, Defendants, Case No. 16-
CV-1093-PP (E.D. Wis.).

The plaintiffs hold shares of common stock in the merged company
Johnson Controls Inc. and they hold those shares in taxable
accounts.  JCI and Tyco International entered into the merger plan
on January 24, 2016.  The plan came to fruition after "months of
negotiations between the companies."  In its January 25, 2016
announcement of the merger, JCI stated that the merger would be
tax-free to Tyco shareholders and taxable to JCI shareholders.
The shareholders voted to approve the merger. JCI and Tyco
finalized the merger on September 2, 2016.

The August 16, 2016 complaint names certain senior executive
officers of JCI, all members of JCI's board of directors, JCI
itself, Jagara Merger Sub LLC (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tyco),
and Tyco.  It asserts that the defendants structured the merger in
such a way as to allow JCI to gain tax benefits by reincorporating
in Ireland.  Specifically, the suit argues that because the merger
resulted in the shareholders of JCI owning a particular percentage
of the "parent" corporation, the Internal Revenue Code triggers
capital gains taxes for the shareholders.   The complaint alleges
that this result has damaged two groups: (1) all public
shareholders of JCI, and (2) the "minority taxpaying
shareholders"--people like the named plaintiffs, who hold their
shares in taxable accounts.

In the Plaintiffs' motion seeking a preliminary injunction, they
ask the court to enjoin JCI "from continuing to act in a manner
that will force the plaintiffs and others similarly situated to
pay taxes and from falsely reporting to the IRS that JCI
shareholders owe capital gains taxes in connection" with JCI's
current tax structure.
In her Decision and Order dated January 25, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/5kraur from Leagle.com, Judge Pepper held that the
plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the monetary damages
available as a remedy are inadequate to address the harm they
allege.  The court reminded the plaintiffs that, under its
December 12, 2016 order, within twenty-one days of the date of
this order, they must file either an amended complaint or a notice
that they do not plan to amend the complaint.

Paul J Pontier, et al. are represented by Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq.
-- gmfishbein@locklaw.com -- and -- Vernon J. Vander Weide, Esq. -
- vweide@locklaw.com -- LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP -- K. Scott
Wagner, Esq. -- ksw@wagner-lawgroup.com -- WAGNER LAW GROUP SC

Alex A Molinaroli, et al. are represented by Ben M. Germana, Esq.
-- BMGermana@wlrk.com -- Cecilia A. Glass, Esq. --
CAGlass@wlrk.com -- Claire E. Addis, Esq. -- CEAddis@wlrk.com --
and -- Jonathan M. Moses, Esq.-- JMMoses@wlrk.com -- WACHTELL
LIPTON ROSEN & KATZ -- Kate E. Gehl, Esq. -- kgehl@foley.com --
Thomas L. Shriner, Jr., Esq. -- tshriner@foley.com -- Bryan B.
House, Esq.  -- bhouse@foley.com -- and -- Philip C. Babler, Esq.
-- pbabler@foley.com -- FOLEY & LARDNER LLP


ALTA-DENA CERTIFIED: Perez Files Another Appeal to Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Juan Perez filed an appeal from a court ruling relating
to his lawsuit entitled Juan Perez v. Alta-Dena Certified Dairy,
LLC, Case No. 2:13-cv-07741-R-FFM, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District Court of California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Juan Perez v. Alta-Dena
Certified Dairy, LLC, Case No. 17-55082, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Perez
also filed an appeal from a ruling entered by the District Court.
That appellate case is captioned as Juan Perez v. Alta-Dena
Certified Dairy, LLC, Case No. 16-80168 (9th Cir.).

In his complaint, the Plaintiff raises a total of six causes of
action against the Defendant.  The primary claims for the purpose
of class certification are: claim one for failure to provide meal
and rest breaks and claim two for failure to pay wages.  The
remaining four claims are derivative of the first two.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by February 17, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on March 20, 2017;

   -- Appellant Juan Perez's opening brief is due on April 28,
      2017;

   -- Appellee Alta-Dena Certified Dairy, LLC's answering brief
      is due on May 30, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Plaintiff-Appellant Juan Perez, on behalf of himself and those
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Natasha Chesler, Esq.
          Timothy B. McCaffrey, Jr., Esq.
          CHESLER MCCAFFREY LLP
          11377 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 882-6407
          Facsimile: (310) 882-6359
          E-mail: nchesler@tbmlaw.net
                  tmccaffrey@tbmlaw.net

Defendant-Appellee Alta-Dena Certified Dairy, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, is represented by:

          Amanda Kate Bonn, Esq.
          Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
          Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          1901 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6039
          Telephone: (310) 789-3100
          Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
          E-mail: abonn@susmangodfrey.com
                  mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
                  ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com


APPLE INC: Customer Suit Over IPhone Upgrade Program Dropped
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
an Apple customer who claimed the tech giant willfully kept
upgrades from its most loyal customers in order to drive revenue
dropped his lawsuit on January 13.

Emil Frank, a Brooklyn resident who bought the iPhone Upgrade
Program, filed a federal class action in September claiming that
Apple did not live up to the promises it made customers who
purchased the program.

The program, unveiled in 2015, promised Apple members the
opportunity to upgrade to annual new versions of the iPhone as
long as certain conditions were met -- in this case 12 payments
within 6 months, according to the complaint.

Essentially the company promised to give those enrolled in the
program access to the newest and best technology, but Frank
complained it failed to do this when the iPhone 7 came out in
September.

"This is not just a problem created by the limited supply of the
newly released iPhones," Frank said in the lawsuit. "Rather, Apple
intentionally limited the inventory available to iPhone Upgrade
Program customers (who are already contractually locked into
making monthly payments for their old devices) to capture sales
from new customers who weren't already part of the program."

It is unclear why Frank chose to drop the case.

Apple did not comment when the first complaint was filed, and did
not return request for comment. Frank's lawyers did not return an
email seeking comment.


ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholders Sue Over Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that shareholders claim in a
federal class action in Boston, that key details are omitted from
the Jan. 19 solicitation statement filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission concerning Takeda's proposed $5.2 billion
acquisition of Ariad Pharmaceuticals.

The case is captioned, DONALD D. VENTRICE, JR., Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ARIAD
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., GEORGE W. BICKERSTAFF, III, ALEXANDER J.
DENNER, JULES HAIMOVITZ, PARIS PANAYIOTOPOULOS, ANNA PROTOPAPAS,
NORBERT G. RIEDEL, SARAH J. SCHLESINGER, TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL
COMPANY LIMITED, and KIKU MERGER CO., INC., Defendants, Case 1:17-
cv-10151-DJC (D. Mass., January 28, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
     Wilmington, DE 19803
     Tel: (302) 295-5310

          - and -

     Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
     RM LAW, P.C.
     995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311
     Wayne, PA 19087
     Tel: (484) 588-5516

          - and -

     Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq.
     MATORIN LAW OFFICE, LLC
     18 Grove Street, Suite 5
     Wellesley, MA 02482
     Tel: (781) 453-0100


BALTIMORE, MD: Harrell Appeals Decision in "Smith" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Movant Phoenicia Harrell filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Nicole Smith, et al. v. Housing Authority of
Baltimore, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02921-GLR, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore.

The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.

The appellate case is captioned as Nicole Smith, et al. v. Housing
Authority of Baltimore, et al., Case No. 17-1103, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

According to the briefing schedule in the Appellate Case, initial
forms are due within 14 days.

Movant-Appellant PHOENICIA HARRELL is represented by:

          Landon M. White, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF LANDON M. WHITE
          P. O. Box 3343
          Baltimore, MD 21216
          Telephone: (443) 799-0710
          E-mail: landon@baltimorelegalservices.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees NICOLE ANDREA SMITH, JACQUELINE KIANA MORANT,
AMY TOWSON, SARA GARRET, ONNADAY MCINTOSH-GRIGGS, STEPHANIE
HARRIS, TAKIRA CARTER, LYNETTE COOPER, SHANAE BARNES, CELESTE
ENGLISH, MYRTLE GILBERT, TOWANDA PARKER, TRACEY HOLDEN, ROSENA
PRINCE, LASONIA GILBERT, DETRIA ADAMS, SIERRIA WARREN, SHANAE
BOLES, and KHRYSTYNA KELLEY, All of the above Individually Named
Plaintiffs On Behalf of Themselves and all Other Similarly
Situated, are represented by:

          Cary Johnson Hansel, III, Esq.
          HANSEL LAW, P.C.
          2514 North Charles Street
          Baltimore, MD 21218
          Telephone: (301) 461-1040
          Facsimile: (443) 451-8606
          E-mail: cary@hansellaw.com

               - and -

          Annie Beth Hirsch, Esq.
          HIRSCH & COSCA, PC
          8401 Colesville Road
          Silver Spring
          Telephone: (301) 761-1697
          E-mail: abh@hirschandcosca.com

Defendants-Appellees HOUSING AUTHORITY OF BALTIMORE CITY and PAUL
GRAZIANO, Baltimore City Housing Commissioner and Executive
Director of the Housing Authority of Baltimore City, are
represented by:

          Jannai Charlana Goslee, Esq.
          HOUSING AUTHORITY OF BALTIMORE CITY
          OFFICE OF LEGAL AFFAIRS
          10 South Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202-0000
          Telephone: (410) 396-3345

               - and -

          Carrie Blackburn Riley, Esq.
          BLACKBURN RILEY, LLC
          828 Dulaney Valley Road
          Baltimore, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 825-8088
          Facsimile: (410) 321-4944
          E-mail: cbr@blackburnriley.com


BANC OF CALIFORNIA: March 24 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, announces the filing of
a class action lawsuit against Banc of California, Inc. concerning
possible violations of federal securities laws between October 29,
2015 and January 20, 2017 inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the
Class Period should contact the firm prior to the March 24, 2017
lead plaintiff motion deadline.

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

No class has been certified in the above action. Until a class is
certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You
may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member.

Seeking Alpha released an article claiming that Banc of California
had concealed several connections between it and Jason Galanis,
who has been convicted of criminal securities fraud. Specifically,
the Complaint maintains that: Banc of California CEO Jason
Sugarman was the founder, CEO, and indirect owner of a company
controlled by Galanis; and that separately, Galanis controlled
Banc of California's founding shareholder.The Complaint further
claims that Banc of California was using an off-balance sheet
entity to render loans to insiders.

Then, on November 10, 2016, Banc of California revealed it would
be stalling the filing of its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2016 so that its Special
Committee could complete a review into the aforementioned improper
relationships and related party transactions. On January 23, 2017,
Banc of California stated that the Securities and Exchange
Commission is pursuing a formal order of investigation directed at
these same issues.

When this news was released to the public, the value of Banc
dropped, causing investors serious harm.

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


BANK OF AMERICA: Removal of "Goldberg" Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit affirmed the
district court's judgment in favor of LaSalle Bank in the case
captioned MARGARET RICHEK GOLDBERG, as Trustee under the Seymour
Richek Revocable Trust, on behalf of a class, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and LASALLE BANK, N.A., Defendants-
Appellees, No. 11-2989 (7th Cir.).

Stephen Richek, as trustee under the Seymour Richek Revocable
Trust, opened a custodial account with LaSalle Bank with a sweeps
feature.  Richek was satisfied with LaSalle's services until it
was acquired by Bank of America.  After the acquisition, Bank of
America notified the clients that a particular fee was being
eliminated.  Richek, who had not known about the fee, then sued in
state court, contending that LaSalle had broken its contract
(which had a schedule that did not mention this fee) and violated
its fiduciary duties.  Richek proposed to represent a class of all
customers who had custodial accounts at LaSalle.

The Bank removed the suit to federal court, relying on the
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA or the
Litigation Act).  The Bank is not an issuer or underwriter covered
by the 1933 Act.  SLUSA authorizes removal of any "covered class
action" in which the plaintiff alleges "a misrepresentation or
omission of a material fact in connection with the purchase or
sale of a covered security".  The statute also requires such
state-law claims to be dismissed.  The district court held that
Richek's suit fits the standards for both removal and dismissal
and entered judgment in the Bank's favor.

The Seventh Circuit noted that Richek's claim depends on the
omission of a material fact -- that some mutual funds paid, and
the Bank kept, fees extracted from the "swept" balances.  Richek
conceded that his suit is a "covered class action" and that each
of the mutual funds is a "covered security."  The Bank's omission
was in connection with a purchase or sale of a "covered security".

According to Richek, the Bank's omission is outside the scope of
the Litigation Act because it does not involve the price, quality,
or suitability of any security.  The Seventh Circuit, however,
explained that the Litigation Act does not say what kind of
connection must exist between the false statement or omission and
the purchase or sale of a security; the statute asks only whether
the complaint alleges "a misrepresentation or omission of a
material fact in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered
security".  The Seventh Circuit held that no more is needed as
Richek's complaint alleged a material omission in connection with
sweeps to mutual funds that are covered securities.  The Seventh
Circuit also held that a claim that a fiduciary that trades in
securities for a customer's account has taken secret side payments
is well inside the bounds of securities law.

A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's January 23, 2017 ruling
is available at https://is.gd/kxImnI from Leagle.com.

Terry Rose Saunders -- tsaunders@saunders-lawfirm.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

J. Stephen Walker, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Mary J. Hackett -- mhackett@mcguirewoods.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

David J. Bird, for Defendant-Appellee.

Kim M. Watterson -- kwatterson@reedsmith.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Raven Moore, for Defendant-Appellee.


BAYER CORP: "Hall" Suit Goes Back to State Court
------------------------------------------------
Judge Carol E. Jackson granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand
the case captioned JAMIE HALL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BAYER CORP.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:16-CV-1523 (CEJ) (E.D. Mo.).

On July 28, 2016, 94 individuals filed suit in the Twenty-Second
Judicial Circuit (St. Louis City) seeking damages for injuries
arising from the use of Essure, an implanted birth control device
manufactured by the defendants.  The plaintiffs are citizens of
several states, including Missouri, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and New
Jersey.  Defendant Bayer Corporation is a citizen of Indiana,
where it is incorporated, and Pennsylvania, where it has its
principal place of business; defendant Bayer HealthCare LLC, is a
limited liability company formed under the laws of Delaware whose
nine members are citizens of Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
the Netherlands, and Germany; defendants Bayer Essure Inc., and
Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., are citizens of Delaware
and New Jersey; and Bayer AG is a citizen of Germany.  The
defendants removed the case to the District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, invoking jurisdiction based on diversity of
citizenship, federal question jurisdiction, and mass action
jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

The plaintiffs moved to remand the action to the state court from
which it was removed.  The defendants filed a response in
opposition, a motion to dismiss the claims of all non-Missouri
plaintiffs for lack of personal jurisdiction, and a motion to
sever the plaintiffs' claims.

The defendants argued that the nondiverse plaintiffs are
fraudulently joined because the Court does not have personal
jurisdiction over the defendants for the claims brought by the
non-Missouri plaintiffs.  Judge Jackson, however, held that the
defendants have failed to meet their burden to establish that the
plaintiffs' claims are fraudulently joined.  The judge stated that
courts in the Eastern District of Missouri have repeatedly held
that an alleged lack of personal jurisdiction does not establish
fraudulent joinder.  The judge also found that common issues of
law and fact are likely to arise because the plaintiffs all
alleged that they sustained injuries from the use of Essure.

The defendants also argued that federal question jurisdiction
exists under 28 U.S.C. section 1331, which provides that federal
district courts "shall have original jurisdiction of all civil
actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States."  The defendants contended that the plaintiffs'
claims require a determination of whether the defendants violated
federal regulatory requirements.  Judge Jackson, however,  pointed
out that in other removed Essure device cases, courts in the
district have consistently rejected the defendants' federal
question jurisdiction argument.

Lastly, the defendants argued that the case is part of a "mass
action" under CAFA.  CAFA allows removal to federal court of mass
actions defined, in relevant part, as civil actions in which 100
or more individuals pursue claims for monetary relief and there is
a proposal to try the claims "jointly on the ground that the
plaintiffs' claims involve common questions of law or fact."

Judge Jackson found that there are fewer than 100 plaintiffs and
the record does not support a finding that there is a proposal to
try this case jointly with any other pending Essure device case.
The judge thus concluded that CAFA's mass action provision does
not support the Court's exercise of removal jurisdiction.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Jackson found that subject-matter
jurisdiction is lacking and the action must be remanded to the
Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri (City of St.
Louis) from which it was removed.

A full-text copy of Judge Jackson's January 10, 2017 memorandum
and order is available at https://is.gd/XunKiZ from Leagle.com.

Jamie Hall, Mishel Williams, Brandi Stone, Rebekah Trautman,
Sheyla Acevedo, Latoyia Adkins, Susan Bates, Rachael Bauer, Sheila
Bell, Shontel Bolden, Diana Bravo, Katina Brooks, Cheron Brooks,
Victoria Brothwell, Yolanda Buford, Dawn Byers-Platta, Erin
Campbell, Christy Castie, Chantelle Curtis, Kelly Duncan,
Stephanie Falkiewicz, April Feutz, Sandy Finley, Samantha Fregoso,
Carla Garcia, Lisa Hamilton, Jennifer Hodge, Candace Hoover,
Lacrisha Howard, Lakeila Irvin, Chelsea Johnston, Lakesha Jones,
Brenda Jones, Heather Kuone, Kate Largent-Brown, Candice Lewis,
Debbie Lindsay, Joyce Long, Jennifer Lopez, Shanica Lowe, Liza
Lozano, Vanessa Major, Joyce Marsillett, Keri Masse, Lamisise
Miles, Stephanie Miller, Angela Morris, April Mosier, Nicole
Murphy, Shermika Myles, Connie Najar, Jennifer Noriega, Sarah
Okelberry, Nikki Patton, Inez Perez, Victoria Perez, Ashley Perez,
Kathryn Pierce, Odessey Ramos, Tamara Ray, Sara Reinhart, Cassie
Reveile, Maribel Reyes, Doris Roberts, Michelle Rodriguez, Teresa
Russell, Jaimelis Sanchez, Crystal Sedita, Kawana Seymour, Katrina
Sheeler, Lindsey Singh, Leanne Stele, Melody Stowe, Michelle
Stowers, Kristin Stroup, Michelle Suman, Raye Sutton, Metrecia
Terrell, Tanisha Thomas, Rose Thompson, Cherie Townsend, Jessica
Trujillo, Toniesha Turner, Monique Valdez, Crystal Vargas, Megan
Verkamp, Lawain Walker, Leseanda Walker, Jessie Wallace, Melissa
Ward, Susan Wilkinson, Courtney Winkler, Andrea Wolfgang, Monica
Young, Plaintiffs, represented by Eric D. Holland --
eholland@allfela.com -- HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC & Randall S. Crompton
-- scrompton@allfela.com -- HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC.

Bayer Corporation, Bayer Essure Inc., Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc, Bayer HealthCare LLC, Defendants, represented
by W. Jason Rankin -- jrankin@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLER BROOM.


BAYER CORP: E.D. Mo. Judge Remands "Dotson" Suit to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Cohen of the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, granted plaintiffs' motion to remand,
in the case TANYA DOTSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BAYER CORP., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 4:16cv01593PLC (E.D. Mo.)

Essure is a medical device for permanent birth control allegedly
manufactured, promoted, marketed, and sold by Bayer Corp., Bayer
Healthcare LLC, Bayer Essure, Inc. f/k/a Conceptus, Inc., and
Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., all of which are non-
citizens of Missouri.

Plaintiffs are ninety-four Essure users, who are citizens of
Missouri and thirty other states. Plaintiffs filed an action in
the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, seeking
monetary relief, including punitive damages, for injuries
allegedly arising out of their use of Essure.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1441 and 1446, defendants removed
the lawsuit on the grounds that the court has diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332 because the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs,
for each plaintiff's claim and complete diversity of citizenship
exists between the proper plaintiffs and defendants, federal
question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 because
plaintiffs plead violations of federal law on the face of their
petition, and removal jurisdiction under the mass action provision
of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d)(11)(B)(i), due to the number of plaintiffs and claims when
considered in conjunction with the number of plaintiffs and claims
in nearly identical complaints filed in five other removed Essure
device cases.

Defendants further urge there is complete diversity if the court
ignores the citizenship of the non-diverse plaintiffs who,
defendants assert, were fraudulently joined or fraudulently
misjoined. Additionally, defendants argue the court should
initially exercise its discretion and dismiss the non-Missouri
plaintiffs, including the non-diverse plaintiffs, due either to
lack of personal jurisdiction or the doctrine of forum non
conveniens.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand and contend that the court
should first resolve subject matter jurisdiction issues because
they are straight forward and not arduous." In particular,
plaintiffs move to remand due to the absence of subject matter
jurisdiction on the grounds that complete diversity does not exist
between all defendants and all plaintiffs, who are all properly
joined, defendants' alleged violations of the FDCA and CFR are not
sufficiently substantial to confer federal question jurisdiction
and removal jurisdiction under the mass action provision of the
CAFA is inappropriate because no party has proposed a joint trial
of the claims.

Magistrate Judge Cohen granted plaintiffs' motion to remand
because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and the case
is remanded to the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, State
of Missouri, under 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c).

A copy of Judge Cohen's memorandum and order dated January 4,
2017, is available at https://goo.gl/nQCMp9 from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Eric D. Holland -- eholland@allfela.com
-- Randall S. Crompton -- scrompton@allfela.com -- at HOLLAND LAW
FIRM LLC

Bayer Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gerard T. Noce --
gnoce@heplerbroom.com -- Jason Rankin -- jrankin@heplerbroom.com -
- at HEPLER BROOM; Rebecca K. Wood -- rwood@sidley.com -- at
SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP

Bayer Essure Inc., Bayer Healthcare LLC, and Bayer Healthcare
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendants, represented by Gerard T. Noce
-- gnoce@heplerbroom.com -- Jason Rankin --
jrankin@heplerbroom.com -- at HEPLER BROOM


BIG HEART: Fitzpatrick Appeals E.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Fitzpatrick filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Susan Fitzpatrick v. Big Heart Pet Brands, Case
No. 2:16-cv-00063-JAM-AC, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California, Sacramento.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
brought the lawsuit against Milo's Kitchen manufacturers Big Heart
Pet Brands.  The Plaintiff disputes label claims that Milo's
Kitchen dog and cat treats are made in the United States.

The appellate case is captioned as Susan Fitzpatrick v. Big Heart
Pet Brands, Case No. 17-15047, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by February 3, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on March 6, 2017;

   -- Appellant Susan Fitzpatrick's opening brief is due on
      April 14, 2017;

   -- Appellee Big Heart Pet Brands' answering brief due on
      May 15, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Plaintiff-Appellant SUSAN FITZPATRICK, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Wesley W. Barnett, Esq.
          John E. Norris, Esq.
          Dargan Maner Ware, Esq.
          DAVIS & NORRIS, LLP
          2154 Highland Avenue, South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 930-9976
          E-mail: wbarnett@davisnorris.com
                  jnorris@davisnorris.com
                  dware@davisnorris.com

               - and -

          Benjamin P. Tryk, Esq.
          TRYK LAW, PC
          7050 N. Fresno Street
          Fresno, CA 93730
          Telephone: (559) 840-3240
          Facsimile: (888) 528-5570
          E-mail: ben@tryklaw.com

Defendant-Appellee BIG HEART PET BRANDS is represented by:

          Amy B. Alderfer, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3700
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 892-7941
          E-mail: aalderfer@cozen.com

               - and -

          Richard Fama, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNER
          45 Broadway Atrium
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 908-1229
          E-mail: rfama@cozen.com


BP EXPLORATION: Woodbridge Baric Not Liable, 5th Cir. Says
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed
the district court's judgment against Woodbridge Baric Pre-
Settlement Funding, L.L.C. in the case captioned IN RE: DEEPWATER
HORIZON. LAKE EUGENIE LAND & DEVELOPMENT, INCORPORATED; ET AL,
Plaintiffs, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; ET AL,
Defendants. WOODBRIDGE BARIC PRE-SETTLEMENT FUNDING, L.L.C.,
Movant-Appellant, v. LOUIS J. FREEH, Special Master, Appellee, No.
15-30599 (5th Cir.).

In 2012 Woodbridge Baric loaned Jarrod Burrle $24,000.  Woodbridge
Baric and Burrle agreed that Burrle would not be required to repay
the loan if his economic loss claims in connection with the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill fail unless he had misrepresented his
claim to Woodbridge Baric, in which case Burrle agreed to
indemnify Woodbridge Baric and hold it harmless.

In 2013, the Deepwater Horizon Court-Supervised Settlement Program
paid over $50,000 on one of Burrle's claims, and Burrle's
attorneys paid Woodbridge Baric $20,000 of those funds in partial
repayment of the loan.

Subsequently, Louis Freeh, appointed by the district court as a
special master to investigate misconduct in the administration of
the settlement program, determined that Burrle's claim was
fraudulent and moved the court to order Burrle and others,
including Woodbridge Baric, to make restitution for the funds paid
in connection with that claim.  The district court granted the
motion as to Woodbridge Baric, finding that Woodbridge Baric would
be unjustly enriched if allowed to retain the $20,000 from Burrle.

Woodbridge Baric appealed.

The Fifth Circuit found that Woodbridge Baric's right to Burrle's
repayment of the principal amount of its loan did not depend
solely on the success of Burrle's claims: Woodbridge Baric's
contracts with Burrle expressly required Burrle to indemnify and
hold Woodbridge Baric harmless for the loss of the principal
amount of the loan if his representations to Woodbridge Baric
regarding his claims were not accurate and complete in all
respects.  The Fifth Circuit found that although Woodbridge Baric
assumed some of the risks associated with non-recovery in its
contracts with Burrle, it specifically disclaimed the risk that
Burrle had asserted fraudulent claims and withheld that
information from it.  Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit held that
Woodbridge Baric was entitled to Burrle's full repayment of the
principal under their contracts.  Because Burrle's payment to
Woodbridge Baric discharged an unconditional, bona fide
obligation, the Fifth Circuit concluded that Woodbridge Baric is
not liable in restitution to the settlement program.

A full-text copy of the Fifth Circuit's January 9, 2017 ruling is
available at https://is.gd/TmEStj from Leagle.com.

George Davidson Fagan -- gfagan@leakeandersson.com -- for Movant-
Appellant.

Margaret Frohn Swetman -- mswetman@leakandersson.com -- for
Movant-Appellant.

Gregory A. Paw -- pawg@pepperlaw.com -- for Appellee.

Anton L. Hasenkampf -- ahasenkampf@leakeandersson.com -- for
Movant-Appellant.


BRUCE BOUTON: Faces Class Suit Over Music Royalties
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that session musicians and
vocalists claim in a federal class action in Brooklyn that they
are entitled to the more than $100 million in royalties kept in a
fund created in 1998 by AFM, short for the American Federation of
Musicians of the United States and Canada, and SAG-AFTRA, short
for the Screen Actors Guild - American Federation of Television
and Radio Artists.

The case is captioned, JON BLONDELL, PAUL HARRINGTON, TIMOTHY
JOHNSON, STEPHANIE LOWE, F/K/A STEPHANIE MARIE, CHASTITY MARIE,
AND CLAYTON PRITCHARD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF
SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, Plaintiffs, v. BRUCE BOUTON, DUNCAN
CRABTREE-IRELAND, AUGUSTINO GAGLIARDI, RAYMOND M. HAIR, JR., JON
JOYCE, AND STEFANIE TAUB, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00372
(E.D.N.Y., January 23, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     Kieran M. Corcoran, Esq.
     LACKEY HERSHMAN, L.L.P.
     1325 Avenue of the Americas, 27th Floor
     New York, NY  10019
     Tel: (212) 763-8491
     Fax: (212) 763-8304
     E-mail: kmc@lhlaw.net

          - and -

     Roger L. Mandel, Esq.
     Bruce E. Bagelman, Esq.
     LACKEY HERSHMAN, L.L.P.
     3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 777
     Dallas, TX 75219-4259
     Telephone: (214) 560-2201
     Telecopier: (214) 560-2203
     E-mail: rlm@lhlaw.net
             beb@lhlaw.net

          - and -

     Eric Zukoski, Esq.
     James H. Birch, Esq.
     QUILLING, SELANDER, LOWNDS, WINSLETT AND MOSER, P.C.
     2001 Bryan Street, Suite 1800
     Dallas, Texas 75201
     Tel: (214) 871-2100
     Fax: (214) 871-2111
     E-mail: ezukoski@qslwm.com
             jbirch@qslwm.com


BT GROUP: Holzer Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer, LLC, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of investors who purchased BT Group PLC
securities between May 24, 2012 and January 20, 2017.

The lawsuit alleges, among other thing, that BT Group used
improper accounting and sales practices in its Italian business
segment during that time. The complaint claims that BT Group's
financial results were misstated as a result.

If you purchased BT Group securities between May 24, 2012 and
January 20, 2017 and suffered a loss on your investment, you are
encouraged to contact Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at
cholzer@holzerlaw.com or Marshall P. Dees, Esq. at
mdees@holzerlaw.com, or by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832.

The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff is
March 27, 2017.

Holzer & Holzer, LLC is an Atlanta, Georgia law firm that
dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders
and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder
class action and derivative litigation.


BT GROUP: To Bring Forward Auditor Review in Wake of Scandal
------------------------------------------------------------
Nic Fildes at Financial Times reports BT is to bring forward a
review of its auditors in the wake of a damaging accounting
scandal in Italy that will end a relationship with PwC that dates
back more than 30 years.

The telecoms company was due to tender for a new audit partner in
2019 with a view to switching from PwC, according to people
familiar with the situation. However, BT will now accelerate that
following the accounting scandal that has engulfed BT Italia and
triggered a GBP530m write-off.

BT first became aware of issues at its Italian unit, part of its
Global Services division, last summer when a whistleblower
contacted senior management in London. It initially pencilled in a
GBP145m cost of inappropriate accounting but an in-depth
investigation by KPMG uncovered a complex accounting scandal
involving several people.

BT revealed the higher loss on January 24 alongside a warning
about government spending in Britain, which wiped a fifth off its
market value.

The emergence of the worsening crisis in its Italian business has
triggered a number of lawsuits against the company, notably one
led by law firm Pomerantz that has filed a potential class action
in New York against BT and its executives. The law firm led a
class action lawsuit against BP over the 2010 oil spill in the
Gulf of Mexico.

The scale of the accounting scandal at BT Italia has caught
investors by surprise. The managers of the Italian unit have been
accused by BT of artificially depressing its cost base to appear
more profitable than it actually was. This was achieved through
various schemes, including a process where loans were taken to
settle creditor bills against receivables but those loans were not
booked through the balance sheet.

Such activity can be hard to discern but people familiar with the
KPMG investigation have also said that BT Italia's management had
been booking operating expenses as capital expenditure to boost
its cash flow. Such methods, which were adopted by WorldCom during
the technology boom to artificially boost profits, should have
been spotted, according to the people.

BT has used PwC since it was privatised in 1984, when the auditor
was known as Coopers & Lybrand, and has never tendered the
business. A previous accounting problem at BT's Global Services
division in 2008 and 2009, which led to writedowns of almost
GBP2bn, resulted in a change of personnel at PwC working on the
account as the company sought to strengthen its audit functions.

European Union regulations introduced last year require companies
to put the job of auditing their accounts out to tender once every
decade, and change their auditor at least every 20 years.

BT had reserved the right to kick off an early tender for its
audit business stating in its annual report that "service issues"
could be a trigger for a quicker switch.

Both BT and PwC declined to comment.

BT will face further scrutiny when it reports third-quarter
results.


CELLULAR BIOMED: 9th Cir. Dismissed Shareholders' Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News service, reported
that the Ninth Circuit has dismissed an appeal by a group of
shareholders who had accused Cellular Biomedicine Group in a
federal class action in San Francisco, of inflating its stock
price and hiding deaths connected to its cancer treatment.

The shareholders had asked the Ninth Circuit earlier this month to
dismiss the case, but did not reveal the reasons behind the
request. Shareholder attorney Jacob Goldberg declined to comment
in an interview on January 30, why his clients had agreed to drop
their appeal, but said that there had been no settlement of the
case.

Cellular Biomedicine attorney Adrienne Ward said in an interview
that the plaintiffs hadn't told her client why they decided to
drop their appeal, either. But she conjectured that the decision
was influenced by a similar case in the Eleventh Circuit -- In Re:
Galectin Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation -- that found
for the defendant.

"Right now, if they walk away from this appeals case, it has no
precedential value, it's just more of a data point," she said,
adding," I would surmise that they would be concerned about --
within a circuit where they do practice frequently -- causing
there to be an adverse Ninth Circuit opinion to their interests."

The Jan. 23 dismissal affirms a September 2016 decision by U.S.
District Judge William Orrick granting Cellular Biomedicine's
motion to dismiss the shareholders' second amended complaint, and
puts an end to the two-year-old litigation.

"The case as we pleaded it is now over," Goldberg said.

Cellular Biomedicine, a Delaware corporation based in Palo Alto,
develops stem cell and immune cell therapies for diseases like
cancer, osteoarthritis and spinal muscular atrophy, marketing its
patented cell technology to China's burgeoning health care market.

The company's Car-T cancer treatment technology involves
engineering cancer patients' own immune cells to recognize and
attack their tumors, according to an April 2015 complaint filed by
lead plaintiff Francis Bonanno.

Bonanno claimed that the company paid a promoter to inflate its
stock price in violation of the Securities Exchange Act and
Securities and Exchange Commission rules, and that it failed to
disclose that that was how it had achieved its $500 million
valuation. Bonanno also accused the company of hiding deaths that
occurred during its Car-T studies.

Cellular Biomedicine's illicit promotional campaign allegedly
ballooned its stock price from $13.79 per share on January 2, 2015
to a high of $47.06 per share on March 23.

According to Bonanno, the truth about the company's finances and
research was revealed in an April 7, 2015 report published on
Seekingalpha.com by an anonymous blogger called the Pump Stopper,
which claimed that the company was "engaged in a massive
fraudulent scheme to mislead investors and that the company had no
meaningful financial value."

Bonanno said the blog post caused Cellular Biomedicine's stock
price to tumble nearly 22 percent, closing at $25.22 per share the
day it was published.

Orrick dismissed the case for the second time last September,
ruling that the Pump Stopper's report couldn't serve as a
"corrective disclosure" because it contained already-public
information that the average investor could understand. He also
found that the plaintiffs had failed to show that Cellular
Biomedicine's stock price had dropped due to the report's
revelations rather than due to the company's own stock promotion
activities.

Specifically, Orrick said the plaintiffs had failed to plead loss
causation -- a causal connection between a material
misrepresentation and a plaintiff's loss. Loss causation is
satisfied by pleading that a defendant revealed "the truth"
through corrective disclosures that caused the company's stock
price to fall and investors to lose money.

In making his finding, Orrick said the plaintiffs hadn't shown
that the Pump Stopper's report constituted "true facts" and not an
opinion.

Although the plaintiffs had claimed that the Pump Stopper had
revealed for the first time the extent of the company's
promotional campaign, Orrick disagreed, characterizing the report
as "an individual's summary and comments" on facts that were
already public.

"Because the Pump Stopper Report only collected and opined on
already public information, it does not constitute disclosure of
'the truth' as required for a corrective disclosure," he said.

The plaintiffs had acknowledged that Cellular Biomedicine's
promotional activities were public, but had argued that the
average investor couldn't understand them without an analyst's
help.

Orrick, however, found that the plaintiffs hadn't alleged that the
company's promotional campaign would have been difficult for the
average investor to understand. The judge similarly demolished the
plaintiffs' argument that information regarding Cellular
Biomedicine's promotional activities wasn't incorporated into its
market price because it wasn't available in its public filings.

"This argument fails -- it is irrelevant if the public information
at issue comes directly from the company or from non-company
sources; all public information will be incorporated into stock
prices in an efficient market," Orrick said.

"Plaintiffs have failed to point to any non-public information in
the Pump Stopper Report and have failed to explain why this public
information would not be factored into market price," he added.

Goldberg is with The Rosen Law Firm in Jenkintown, Pennsylvania.

Ward is with Ellenoff Grossman & Schole in New York.

The case is captioned, MICHELLE JACKSON; ERVIN D. WINDOM; DING
LIANG; BEVERLY J. NISSENBAUM, Plaintiff -- Appellants, vs.
CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE GROUP, INC., WEI CAO, "WILLIAM", Defendant
-- Appellees. Case: 16-16646 (9th Cir., Jan. 17, 2017).

Lead Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellants:

     Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
     Jenkintown, PA 19046
     Telephone: (215) 600-2817
     Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
     Email: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com


CHICAGO PARKING: Mobile App Does Not Update Correctly, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class of consumers claims
in Chicago, Cook County court that the ParkChicago mobile app that
allows users to pay for parking meter fees does not always update
correctly, leading to parking tickets.

The case is Edward Sanchez, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Chicago
Parking Meters LLC, LAZ Parking Chicago LLC, the City of Chicago
and John Does 1-12, Defendants, Case No. 2017CH01351, in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Jan. 27, 2017.

Attorney for Plaintiff:

     Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
     Jonathan B. Piper, Esq.
     BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS, & OPPENHEIM LLC
     134 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 1000
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: 312-658-5500
     Fax: 312-658-5555


COOK SALES: Court Approves Settlement in "Warren"
-------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge William H. Steele of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Alabama granted the
Consent Motion for Final Order Approving Settlement of Collective
Action in the case captioned, ALLISON WARREN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. COOK SALES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-0603-WS-M
(S.D. Ala.).
Plaintiffs Allison Warren, Chester Dampier, Sherri Mullinax and
Evelyn Clem brought the action seeking unpaid overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
Sections 201 et seq. (FLSA), against defendants, Cook Sales, Inc.,
and Cook Portable Warehouses of Mississippi, LLC.  The Complaint
alleged that the plaintiffs were employed by the defendants as
sales representatives and/or lot managers, that they routinely
worked more than 40 hours per week, and that the defendants failed
to pay them overtime pay of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay for hours worked in excess of 40, as required by the
FLSA.  The Plaintiffs brought their Complaint as a putative FLSA
collective action, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other
similarly-situated sales representatives, pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b).

Following months of mediation, the parties entered into a Release
and Settlement Agreement, which provides that Cook Sales will pay
$495,000 into a common fund, referred to as the "Gross Fund," to
settle the claims of the Named Plaintiffs, Original Opt-In
Plaintiffs, and Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs who submitted consent
to join forms in a timely manner.  The parties have agreed that,
subject to court approval, the Gross Fund will also be used to pay
attorney's fees, litigation costs and expenses of plaintiffs'
counsel in an amount not to exceed $148,500, or 30% of the Gross
Fund.  The Settlement Agreement also provides that the Gross Fund
will be used to furnish each of the four Named Plaintiffs and each
of the four Original Opt-In Plaintiffs with a "service payment" of
$5,000, for an aggregate of $40,000.  The Settlement Agreement
further provides that the Gross Fund will be used to pay all
costs, fees and expenses of the Settlement Claims Administrator,
not to exceed $15,000.

In his Order dated January 23, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/SHtKnG from Leagle.com, Judge Steele held that he is
satisfied that the proposed attorney's fees sought by the
plaintiffs' counsel constitute adequate, reasonable compensation
and that the plaintiffs' recovery in the matter has been neither
tainted nor otherwise adversely affected by the fee award
negotiated and requested by their lawyers; the proposed incentive
awards to each of the Named Plaintiffs and Original Opt-In
Plaintiffs in the amount of $5,000 (or $40,000 in total) from the
Gross Fund are approved as fair and reasonable; and the proposed
payment of $10,168 to Simpluris out of the Gross Fund is approved
as fair and reasonable.

Chester Dampier, et al. are represented by Robert F. Childs, Jr.,
Esq. -- rchilds@wigginschilds.com -- WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN &
PANTAZIS, LLC

            -- and --

      Robert C. Epperson, Esq.
      Sam Jones Smith, Esq.
      BURR & SMITH, LLP
      111 2nd Avenue N.E.
      Suite 1100
      St. Petersburg, FL 33701
      Tel: (813)253-2010

Cook Sales, Inc. is represented by Elliott Britton Monroe, Esq. --
bmonroe@lgwmlaw.com -- Michelle McClafferty, Esq. --
mmcclafferty@lgwmlaw.com -- and -- Taffiny Smith Stewart, Esq. --
tstewart@lgwmlaw.com -- LLOYD, GRAY, WHITEHEAD & MONROE, P.C.


CR ENGLAND: Gradie Appeals Ruling in "Harper" Suit to 10th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Movants William H. Gradie, William Borschowa, Romi Francescu, Sang
Lee and Tony Ruiz filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Harper, et al. v. C.R. England, Case No. 2:16-CV-
00906-DB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah -
Salt Lake City.

The appellate case is captioned as Harper, et al. v. C.R. England,
Case No. 17-4008, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, William H.
Gradie has asked the District Court to not allow the settlement of
an overlapping class action to block his case.  Mr. Gradie, a
truck driver, sued C.R. England for alleged illegal labor
practices.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript order form and docketing statement are due on
      February 9, 2017, for William Borschowa, Romi Francescu,
      William H. Gradie, Sang Lee and Tony Ruiz; and

   -- Notice of appearance due on February 9, 2017, for William
      Borschowa, C.R. England, Inc., Romi Francescu, William H.
      Gradie, Milton Harper, Sang Lee, Jonathan Mitchell, Tony
      Ruiz and Ronnie Stevenson.

Plaintiffs-Appellees MILTON HARPER, RONNIE STEVENSON, and JONATHAN
MITCHELL, individuals, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated, are represented by:

          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
          E-mail: kyle@bamlawca.com

               - and -

          Lauren I. Scholnick, Esq.
          STRINDBERG & SCHOLNICK, LLC
          Plaza 721
          675 East 2100 South, Suite 350
          Salt Lake City, UT 84106
          Telephone: (801) 359-4169
          Facsimile: (801) 359-4313
          E-mail: lauren@utahjobjustice.com

Defendant-Appellee C.R. ENGLAND, INC., a corporation, is
represented by:

          David B. Dibble, Esq.
          Scott A. Hagen, Esq.
          RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER
          36 South State Street, Suite 1400
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 532-1500
          E-mail: ddibble@rqn.com
                  shagen@rqn.com

               - and -

          Drew R. Hansen, Esq.
          THEODORA ORINGHER PC
          535 Anton Boulevard Ninth Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7109
          Telephone: (714) 549-6112
          Facsimile: (714) 549 6201
          E-mail: dhansen@tocounsel.com

Movants-Appellants WILLIAM H. GRADIE, SANG LEE, WILLIAM BORSCHOWA,
TONY RUIZ and ROMI FRANCESCU are represented by:

          Russell Thomas Monahan, Esq.
          COOK & MONAHAN LLC
          323 South 600 East, Suite 200
          Salt Lake City, UT 84102
          Telephone: (801) 595-8600
          Facsimile: (801) 595-8614
          E-mail: Russell@Cooklawfirm.com

               - and -

          Brian F. Van Vleck, Esq.
          VAN VLECK TURNER & ZALLER LLP
          6310 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 430
          Los Angeles, CA 90048
          Telephone: (323) 592-3505
          Facsimile: (323) 592-3506
          E-mail: bvanvleck@vtzlaw.com


DELTA AIR: Oman Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of N.D. Cal. Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Dev Anand Oman, Todd Eichmann, Albert Flores and
Michael Lehr filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit
titled Dev Oman, et al. v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., Case No. 3:15-
cv-00131-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit against the Defendant for alleged
failure to pay minimum wages to its flight attendants.

The appellate case is captioned as Dev Oman, et al. v. Delta Air
Lines, Inc., Case No. 17-15124, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by February 17, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due March 20, 2017;

   -- Appellants Todd Eichmann, Albert Flores, Michael Lehr and
      Dev Anand Oman's opening brief is due on April 28, 2017;

   -- Appellee Delta Air Lines, Inc.'s answering brief is due on
      May 30, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Dev Anand Oman, Todd Eichmann, Michael Lehr
and Albert Flores, individually, on behalf of others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, are represented by:

          Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
          Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 720
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 277-7234
          Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
          E-mail: dbrome@nka.com
                  helland@nka.com

Defendant-Appellee Delta Air Lines, Inc., is represented by:

          Andrew P. Frederick, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market Street
          Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
          E-mail: afrederick@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Robert Jon Hendricks, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-2692
          Facsimile: (213) 442-1601
          E-mail: rj.hendricks@morganlewis.com


DEVRY UNIVERSITY: Directors Lied to Students, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that, citing DeVry University's
$100 million settlement in December with the Federal Trade
Commission, a federal class of shareholders accuses the for-
profit's school board of directors of lying to the students,
investors and the public.

The case is captioned, HARRIET MYERS, derivatively on behalf of
DEVRY EDUCATION GROUP INC., Plaintiff, v. DANIEL HAMBURGER,
TIMOTHY J. WIGGINS, RICHARD M. GUNST, PATRICK K. UNZICKER,
CHRISTOPHER B. BEGLEY, DAVID S. BROWN, LISA WARDELL, ANN WEAVER
HART, LYLE LOGAN, ALAN G. MERTEN, FERNANDO RUIZ, RONALD L. TAYLOR,
and JAMES D. WHITE, Defendants, and DEVRY EDUCATION GROUP INC.,
Nominal Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00384 (N.D. Ill.).

Liaison Counsel:

     Matthew T. Hurst, Esq.
     Matthew T. Heffner, Esq.
     Heffner Hurst
     30 North LaSalle Street, 12th Floor
     Chicago, Illinois 60602
     Tel: (312) 346-3466
     Fax: (312) 346-2829
     Email: mhurst@heffnerhurst.com

Counsel for Plaintiff:

     Jeffrey J. Ciarlanto, Esq.
     Joseph M. Profy, Esq.
     David M. Promisloff, Esq.
     PROFY PROMISLOFF & CIARLANTO, P.C.
     100 N 22nd Street, Unit 105
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215) 259-5156
     Fax: (215) 600-2642

          - and -

     Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq.
     Gerald L. Rutledge, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
     519 Allegheny Building
     429 Forbes Avenue
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219
     Tel: (412) 391-5164
     Fax: (412) 471-1033


DISH NETWORK: Seeks Tenth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Ray" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dish Network, LLC, and Echosphere, L.L.C., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Dish Network, L.L.C, et al.
v. Ray, Case No. 1:16-CV-00314-LTB, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado - Denver.

The appellate case is captioned as Dish Network, L.L.C, et al. v.
Ray, Case No. 17-1013, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the original
lawsuit -- Matthew Ray, on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated persons v. Dish Network L.L.C. and EchoSphere L.L.C.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01239-NYW (D. Colo., June 11, 2015) -- is brought
against the Defendants for alleged failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate call centers in Colorado for the purpose of
providing satellite television services.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Docketing statement was due on January 31, 2017, for Dish
      Network, LLC and Echosphere, L.L.C.;

   -- Transcript order form was due on January 31, 2017, for
      Meghan W. Martinez, Esq.; and

   -- Notice of appearance was due on January 31, 2017, for Dish
      Network, LLC, Echosphere, L.L.C., and Matthew Ray.

Plaintiffs-Appellants DISH NETWORK, LLC and ECHOSPHERE, L.L.C.,
are represented by:

          Ann Elizabeth Christoff Purvis, Esq.
          Meghan W. Martinez, Esq.
          MARTINEZ LAW GROUP
          720 South Colorado Boulevard
          South Tower, Suite 1000
          Denver, CO 80246
          Telephone: (303) 597-4000
          Facsimile: (303) 597-4001
          E-mail: purvis@mlgrouppc.com
                  martinez@mlgrouppc.com

Defendant-Appellee MATTHEW RAY, on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated persons, is represented by:

          Jorge A. Gamboa, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
          E-mail: jgamboa@stephanzouras.com
                  rstephan@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

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


DONALD J. TRUMP: Campaign Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk at Cook County Record reportsa class action lawsuit
alleging Donald Trump's presidential campaign texted people
without their permission has been dismissed, court documents show.
And the plaintiff in the case has told The Cook County Record the
case was setttled.

On Jan. 11, plaintiff Joshua Thorne, through his lawyers with the
firms of Siprut P.C. and Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim LLC, each
of Chicago, filed a notice in Chicago federal court of his
intention to voluntarily dismiss, with prejudice, the lawsuit
against the Trump campaign, formally known as Donald J. Trump for
President Inc.

The notice does not discuss why the lawsuit was voluntarily
dismissed. However, in messages to The Cook County Record, Thorne
said the case had been settled. He said, on advice of his legal
counsel, he could not provide any more detail.

Thorne, identified in court documents as a resident of Cook
County, had sued the Trump campaign committee in April, asserting
the campaign had violated federal telecommunications law by using
an automated program to send campaign-related text messages to
Thorne's mobile phone, as well as potentially many other phones
belonging to other people, without receiving permission to do so.

According to the complaint, Thorne had received a text message on
March 4 from Trump for President, asking him to "Reply YES to
subscribe to Donald J. Trump for President," and telling him "Your
subscription will help Make America Great Again!"

The complaint asserted the source of the message, listed as
"88022" is a texting short code "leased by Trump for President of
Trump for President's agent(s) or affiliate(s) and is used for
operating Trump for President's text message marketing program."

Thorne claimed he did not provide his number to the Trump
campaign.

The complaint asserted the registrant of the website that hosts
Trump's campaign's privacy policy is a company identified as
Tatango Inc., which "advertises bulk messaging software on its
website." According to the complaint, Tatango's website brags its
programs allow text messages to be simultaneously sent to "42,435
cellular phone numbers."

"On information and belief, prior to sending the text messages,
Trump for President entered into an agreement with Tatango to use
Tatango's software to send hundreds, if not thousands, of text
messages en masse," the complaint said.

Further, the complaint said Thorne and his counsel believe the
Trump campaign received a guide on complying with federal law from
Tatango prior to sending the text messages.

In September, Thorne had formally asked the court to certify a
class of potentially thousands of others who may have received
similar text messages from the campaign.

The complaint had asked the court to award damages of up to $1,500
per text message, plus attorney fees.

However, in October, the plaintiffs had withdrawn that motion for
class certification, without explanation in court documents.

Thorne said resolution of the case had been delayed as the parties
awaited potential further input from the federal government on the
possibility of clarifying the applicability of the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act to political campaigns. When
that guidance was not provided before the end of the 2016
presidential election campaign, the parties agreed to settle the
case, Thorne said.


ELECTROLUX HOME: "Kukich" Suit Transferred to M.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ALEX KUKICH, Individually and on behalf of
all others similar situated, Plaintiff, v. ELECTROLUX HOME
PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. ELH-16-3412 (D. Md.),
Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander granted the motion filed by
Electrolux Home Products, Inc. to transfer the case to the Middle
District of Pennsylvania, where a similar case is pending.

In October 2016, Alex Kukich, a citizen of Maryland, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed suit against
Electrolux, alleging that the stainless steel handles on "Over-
The-Range Microwave Ovens" designed and manufactured by Electrolux
dangerously reach up to 168 Fahrenheit when the "cooking surface
below is in operation . . ."  In the Complaint, Kukich asserted
claims, inter alia, for strict liability on the basis of design
defect and failure to warn; negligent failure to warn; negligence;
violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; and unjust
enrichment.

Electrolux moved to transfer the case to the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, where the case of Rice v. Electrolux Home Products,
Inc., 4:15-cv-0371-MWB is pending in the Williamsport Division of
that district.  According to Electrolux, Rice is "based on the
same allegations that form the basis of Kukich's complaint."
Electrolux pointed out that in Rice, as in Kukich's case, the
plaintiff seeks to certify a national class under Rule 23(b)(2),
consisting of "[a]ll persons in the United States who own a
Microwave with a stainless steel handle . . . ."  Given the
pendency of the Rice case, Electrolux maintained that "the
interests of justice weigh heavily in favor of transferring . . .
to avoid duplicative litigation, avoid inconsistent rulings, and
promote judicial efficiency."

Kukich opposed the motion to transfer, stating, inter alia, that
the Pennsylvania court lacks personal jurisdiction over him and
that a Maryland court should apply Maryland law with regard to the
claims under Maryland law.

Judge Hollander was satisfied that, based on Electrolux's
registration as a foreign corporation in Pennsylvania, it has
consented to general jurisdiction in Pennsylvania.  Thus, the
judge found that Electrolux has made a preliminary showing that
Kukich could have filed suit in the Middle District of
Pennsylvania.

Kukich argued that the Court should afford great weight to his
choice of forum.  However, Judge Hollander held that Kukich's
decision to bring his suit in Maryland is not entitled to
substantial weight, given his intent to seek certification of a
national class.

Judge Hollander found that the convenience of the parties
militates against transfer.  The judge pointed out that, to the
extent that it would be inconvenient for Electrolux to litigate
the case in Maryland, a transfer would merely shift the
inconvenience from Electrolux to Kukich.

Judge Hollander, however, found that the convenience of the
witnesses is a neutral factor in the context of the case,
considering that neither side has identified any witness who would
be inconvenienced by a trial in one district or the other, and
that at least some of the discovery obtained in the Rice case
could be used in the Kukich case, without the need for
duplication.

Judge Hollander determined that the pendency of similar litigation
in the Middle District of Pennsylvania strongly favors the
transfer of the case to that forum.  The judge noted that the
pendency of the Rice case in the Middle District of Pennsylvania
involves the same alleged defect of the same part that was
manufactured and designed by the same defendant, the claims are
being litigated by many of the same attorneys, and the national
classes that are sought to be certified are effectively the same.

Another element that Judge Hollander found relevant to the
interest of justice is a comparison of the docket conditions in
the two courts.  Electrolux argued that transfer will allow for
the speedier resolution of the case because the case load in the
Middle District of Pennsylvania is lighter than in Maryland.  The
judge thus found that this factor favors transfer.

Lastly, Judge Hollander found that the applicability of Maryland
law in the case does not weigh against transfer, noting that
Kukich has not suggested any reason why the Pennsylvania court
would be unequipped to apply the law of a neighboring state.

Judge Hollander thus concluded that the balance of factors
strongly supports the transfer of the case to the Middle District
of Pennsylvania.

A full-text copy of Judge Hollander's January 24, 2017 memorandum
opinion is available at https://is.gd/a2FouJ from Leagle.com.

Alex Kukich, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew N. Friedman --
afriedman@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
Robert Joseph Barton, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC,
Charles J. Kocher -- ckocher@smbb.com -- Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett
& Bendesky PC, pro hac vice, Daniel E. Gustafson --
dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac
vice, Raina Borrelli -- rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustagson
Gluek PLLC, Sally M. Handmaker -- shandmaker@cohenmilstein.com --
Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice & Simon Bahne
Paris -- sparis@smbb.com -- Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky
PC, pro hac vice.

Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric
Christopher Rusnak -- eric.rusnak@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP.


ENDOLOGIX INC: March 6 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Endologix, Inc. and certain of its officers.  The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Central District of
California, and docketed under 17-cv-00061, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Endologix securities between August 2, 2016 and
November 16, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants'
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

Endologix develops, manufactures, markets, and sells medical
devices for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the
United States and internationally.

Endologix's products are intended for the minimally invasive
endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. One of the
Company's products is built on the platform of endovascular
sealing ("EVAS"). Endologix's current EVAS product is the
Nellix(R) EndoVascular Aneurysm Sealing System ("Nellix EVAS
System").

The Nellix EVAS System is currently engaged in the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA") premarket approval process (the "PMA
process"), which requires Endologix to collect and submit
nonclinical and human clinical data on Nellix EVAS System for its
intended use to demonstrate that it is safe and effective. In the
PMA process, the FDA will approve the medical device and thereby
authorize its commercial distribution in the U.S. if it determines
that the probable benefits outweigh the risks for the intended
patient population, and, therefore, makes a determination of
reasonable assurances of safety and effectiveness.

In December 2013, Endologix received Investigational Device
Exemption ("IDE") approval in the United States to begin a
clinical trial for the Nellix EVAS System, which commenced in
January 2014 (the "IDE Study"). Enrollment in the IDE study was
completed in November 2014. In the third quarter of 2015,
Endologix obtained IDE continued access approval for additional
patients.

On May 26, 2016, Endologix reported purportedly positive clinical
data from the IDE Study and submitted the results to the FDA as
part of the PMA process for the Nellix EVAS System.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that:  (1) Endologix did not have the requisite clinical data for
FDA premarket approval of its NellixAr EndoVascular Aneurysm
Sealing System; and (2) as a result, Endologix's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On November 16, 2016, before market hours, Endologix issued a
press release entitled "Endologix Provides Update on Nellix PMA
Process," revealing "that the U.S Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) has requested the Company provide 2-year patient follow-up
data from the EVAS-FORWARD IDE Study of the Nellix(R) EndoVascular
Aneurysm Sealing System (Nellix EVAS System)."

On this news, Endologix's share price fell $2.02, or over 20.5%,
from its previous closing price, to close at $7.82 on November 16,
2016, damaging investors.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions.


EPIQ SYSTEMS: Sued Over Worker's Refusal to Waive Class Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Denney, writing for The New York Law Journal, reports that
the National Labor Relations Board's New York office has filed a
complaint against a legal services technology provider accused of
firing an employee for refusing to sign an employment agreement
requiring him to settle disputes through arbitration and without
joining a class. The suit comes as the U.S. Supreme Court has
granted certiorari to three cases that question the legality of
requiring workers to waive as a condition of employment the right
to join class action suits.

According to a complaint filed in November against Epiq Systems
Inc., a Kansas City-based company with offices across the globe
that provides documents and other services, by the NLRB's regional
office in New York, Epiq's employment agreement contains a
provision obligating employees and the company to arbitrate
disputes and to waive the right to a jury trial.

The agreement also requires employees to bring actions against the
company in their individual capacities and prohibits arbitrators
from consolidating multiple claims.

The complaining party in the case was fired in August after
refusing to sign the contract and Epiq has admitted that refusal
to sign was the reason for termination, according to the NLRB's
motion for summary judgment filed earlier this month.

The provisions, the NLRB alleges in the motion, violate Section 8
of the National Labor Relations Act, which makes it an unfair
labor practice to interfere with workers' rights to form or join
labor unions, bargain collectively or "engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection."

In its reply to the complaint, Epiq denies the legal conclusion
that by admitting an employee was fired for not signing the
employment contract that it has discouraged employees from
concerted activities. Epiq representatives did not respond to
requests for comment.

As for the central issue in the complaint against Epiq--whether it
is legal for companies to include class action waivers in
employment contracts--the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review
this question in three cases from the Fifth, Seventh and Ninth
Circuits.

Cliff Palefsky, a San Francisco-based employment and civil rights
attorney and partner at McGuinn, Hillsman & Palefsky, said that
giving workers an ability to band together and act in concert is
"the essence of our entire labor law system" and that allowing
companies to take away rights to file class action lawsuits would
be a "devastating blow for workers."

"The ability to bring a class action suit for wage and hour
violations is probably the most effective form of concerted action
available to workers right now to redress certain aspects of their
relationship to their employer," Palefsky said.

In Murphy Oil v. NLRB , 808 F.3d 1030, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit ruled in 2015 that it has held that the use
of class action procedures by employees is not a substantive
right under the NLRA and that concerted-activity waivers in
employment agreements are enforceable under the Federal
Arbitration Act.

But last year, U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Seventh and Ninth
circuits each held that concerted-activity waivers imposed by
employers violate provisions of the NLRA and are thus
unenforceable. The cases were Morris v. Ernst & Young , 834 F.3d
975 (9th Cir. 2016) and Lewis v. Epic Systems , 823 F.3d 1147 (7th
Cir. 2016).


ERIC RYAN: Faces Gorss Suit in District of Connecticut
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Eric Ryan
Corporation. The case is styled as Gorss Motels Inc., a
Connecticut Corporation, individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. The Eric
Ryan Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, and John Does 1-5,
the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00126 (D. Conn., Jan. 27, 2017).

Eric Ryan Corporation is a utility and telecommunications cost
reduction consultant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FACEBOOK INC: Judge Declines to Dismiss "Brickman" TCPA Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in San Francisco, on January 30, refused Facebook's
constitutional challenge to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
and its request to dismiss a class action involving data scraping
to send unsolicited text messages.

The case is captioned, COLIN R. BRICKMAN, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK,
INC., Defendant. Case No. 16-cv-00751-TEH (N.D. Cal., January 27,
2017).


FIELDTURF USA: Faces Paw Suit in District of Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FieldTurf USA, Inc.
The case is titled as Paw, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FieldTurf USA, Inc.;
FieldTurf, Inc.; and FieldTurf Tarkett SAS, the Defendants, Case
No. 0:17-cv-00274-JRT-TNL (D. Minn., Jan. 27, 2017). The case is
assigned to Hon. Chief Judge John R. Tunheim.

FieldTurf manufactures synthetic turf for athletic fields
including football, soccer, baseball and multi-purpose use.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian C Gudmundson, Esq.
          Bryce Daniel Riddle, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
          1100 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341 0400
          Facsimile: (612) 341 0844
          E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
                  bryce.riddle@zimmreed.com


FORD MOTOR: PowerShift Transmissions Defective, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
consumers claim in a federal class action in Sherman, Texas, that
Ford Motor Co. knew its PowerShift transmissions are defective,
but sold them in 22 models anyway.

The case is captioned, Benjamin Ascensio, Caleb Barnes, Linda
Bourland, Terrie Bumpus, Felton Burton, Teresa Byrd, Alvin
Cearley, Alice Clark, Florinda Esparza, Ruby Granados, Taylor
Harrell, Deborah Head, Joel Hinojosa, Sharon Johnson, Josh
Lazette, Jamie Lopez-Martinez, Michelle Pope, Daniel Reyes, Megan
Rice, Teresa Rodriguez, Ivy Rosenberg, Juanita Sanches, Julian
Santana, Bill Smith, Christine Tamez, Dawn Utsey, Staci Wyatt, And
Robert Zebrowski, Plaintiffs vs. Ford Motor Company, Defendant,
Case No. 4:17-cv-00074-ALM (E.D. Tex. February 1, 2017).

Attorney for Plaintiffs:

     Richard C. Dalton, Esq.
     1343 West Causeway Approach
     Mandeville, LA 70471
     Tel: (985) 778-2215
     Fax: (985) 778-2233
     E-mail: rdalton746@aol.com


FRED BATHON: Class Action Over Bid Rigging Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------
Ann Maher at Madison St.Clair Record reports that an Illinois
Supreme Court decision issued on January 25 means that a class
action trial over bid rigging by former Madison County treasurer
Fred Bathon and others can proceed.

The high court denied defendants' petition for leave to appeal a
Fifth District Appellate Court ruling, which found that visiting
judge William Becker did not abuse his discretion in certifying a
class of distressed property owners who were charged excessive
interest rates at auctions of delinquent property taxes.

Whether the case proceeds to trial or settlement ensues remains to
be seen.

And while the appellate court ruled that class certification was
appropriate on common questions, justices said last September that
individual damages have to be decided separately.

Associate Circuit Judge William Becker presides over the action by
special assignment as visiting judge from Clinton County.

Plaintiffs claim that at auctions of delinquent property taxes
from 2005 to 2008, Bathon arranged for tax buyers to charge
interest at the legal limit of 18 percent.

Bathon pleaded guilty of antitrust violations in 2013, and served
a sentence.

Tax buyers Scott McLean, Barrett Rochman and John Vassen also
served sentences.

Former U.S. attorney Stephen Wigginton, who prosecuted Bathon and
the tax buyers, did not seek restitution for property owners,
finding individual calculation of damages would be impracticable.

Property owners later filed three suits proposing class actions
against Bathon and tax buyers in Madison County circuit court.

Becker's predecessor on the special assignment, Clinton County
circuit judge Dennis Middendorf, consolidated the actions.

The single action alleged civil conspiracy and violations of
Illinois antitrust law against Bathon, McLean, Rochman, and
Vassen.

The suit also sought damages from tax buyers Dennis Ballinger,
Kenneth Rochman, Scott Sieron and Joseph Vassen, as well as others
who are no longer in the action.

It alleged breach of fiduciary duty against Bathon and sought
action against the bond he executed as treasurer.

It included a count against the county and then treasurer Kurt
Prenzler, who is now county board chairman, seeking recovery under
state law for sales in error.

Finally, it included a count against the county for money had and
received, a claim similar to unjust enrichment.

Defendants opposed class certification, echoing Wigginton's
conclusion that individual calculations weren't practical.

Becker held a hearing on class certification and granted it,
finding that common questions of law or fact predominated over
individual questions.

He wrote that almost 10,000 delinquent tax sales occurred in the
relevant time.

He defined the class as all who paid 12 percent or higher.

Regarding damages, he wrote, "The problem is that if the alleged
tax sale scheme is proved true, all or some of the defendants
created a system whereby it is difficult if not impossible for an
individual plaintiff to prove that a lower rate would have been
bid and what that rate would have been for a particular piece of
property."

He concluded that he could reach an appropriate method to
calculate damages.

The tax buyers, the county, and Foley petitioned the Fifth
District appellate court for interlocutory review, and Fifth
District judges denied it.

Defendants asked the Illinois Supreme Court for leave to appeal,
and obtained instead a supervisory order directing the Fifth
District to hear their appeal.

Fifth District judges heard it and decided Becker didn't abuse his
discretion by certifying a class action.

"Although we recognize that four of the defendants pleaded guilty
to the conspiracy in federal court, the determination of whether
the remaining defendants, including Foley, were involved in the
unlawful behavior is still at issue in the case," Justice Thomas
Welch wrote.

"Foley claims that he was not the auctioneer at the tax sale who
picked the winning bids and that he was not even present at the
2008 tax sale.

"Antitrust conspiracies often have to be proven from inferences
drawn from the circumstantial evidence.

"All class members will rely on the same discovery, same
witnesses, and other evidence to prove the existence of the
conspiracy, whether the remaining defendants were part of the
alleged conspiracy, and a causal connection between the conspiracy
and any injury."

Welch rejected a defense argument that statutes of limitation
precluded the claims.

"Although we recognize that this is an issue that will need to be
determined, commonality is not destroyed where class members may
be affected differently by the applicability of the statute of
limitations," Welch wrote.

Although the Justices found Becker didn't abuse his discretion by
certifying a class action, they found he abused his discretion by
not limiting it to liability.

Welch wrote that findings of the Department of Justice supported
this conclusion.

"Without a methodology to calculate damages on a class wide basis
and given the unique characteristics of real property as well as
the subjective nature of the bidding process, we conclude that the
calculation of actual damages would be too individualized to be
handled as part of the class action," he wrote.

"If individual damage determinations are necessary, the court can
utilize various procedures to determine damages, including the
creation of subclasses.

"Furthermore, if the class becomes unmanageable at some later time
in the litigation, the court always has the option to set aside
the class certification or a portion of it."

Finally, he excused Madison County and Prenzler from the
proceedings.

He wrote that nothing in statutory language allows a delinquent
property tax owner to bring a statutory sale in error cause of
action against the county.

Regarding money had and received, he wrote that plaintiffs alleged
no facts suggesting the county retained any money as a result of
the alleged conspiracy.

Steven Giacoletto -- collinsvilleattorney@gmail.com  -- of
Collinsville, Aaron Weishaar aWeishaar@rwalawfirm.com -- of St.
Louis, and Nelson Mitten -- mitten@riezmanberger.com -- and Paul
Grote -- grote@riezmanberger.com -- with Riezman Berger of Clayton
represent plaintiffs.

Andrew Kasnetz -- akasnetz@sandbergphoenix.com --, Timothy Sansone
-- tsansone@sandbergphoenix.com --, Natalie Kussart --
mkussart@sandbergphoenix.com --, and Michele Parrish --
mparrish@sandbergphoenix.com , all of Sandberg Phoenix in St.
Louis, represent the Rochmans.

Gordon Nash -- Gordon.nash@dbr.com -- and Daniel Delaney --
daniel.delaney@dbr.com -- with Drinker Bindle of Chicago represent
Ballinger.

Paul Slocomb -- paulslocomb@yahoo.com -- of St. Louis represents
the Vassens.

Alvin Paulson -- acp@acplawfirm.com -- with Paulson Law Firm of
Belleville represents Sieron.

Craig Unrath -- cunrath@heylroyster.com -- of Heyl Royster in
Peoria represented the county and continues to represent Foley,
along with Michael Schag -- mschag@heylroyster.com --, Patrick
Cloud -- pcloud@heylroyster.com --, and Ann Barron --
abarron@heylroyster.com --, all of Heyl Royster in Edwardsville.

Bathon didn't participate in the appeal.


GENESYS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Robbins Geller Tapped as Lead Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cara Mannion at Law360 reports an Indiana federal judge tapped
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on January 27 as lead counsel in
a proposed class action challenging call center software provider
Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories Inc.'s $1.4 billion
acquisition of competitor Interactive Intelligence Group Inc. as
undervalued and unduly beneficial to Interactive's executives.

Robbins Geller's client, Karl Trahan, had argued on Jan. 18 that
he had the largest financial interest as a proposed class member
in the case, which alleges Interactive Intelligence's board and
executives pushed through an overly restrictive sale to
California-based Genesys to reap more than $292 million from their
own stock sales.

Interactive Intelligence, which provides customer engagement
software through cloud storage, agreed in August to sell its
shares to Genesys at $60.50 a piece.

But Interactive's shareholders alleged in November that this deal
lowballed the company's value, which a Yahoo Finance analyst
predicted could have been as high as $67 a share.

Interactive's officers and directors stand to make a pretty penny
through special payments on the deal that aren't available to
shareholders, investors said, including senior management's
alleged $20.9 million change-of-control payment. The acquisition
also allows the company's elite to cash in millions of dollars in
holdings while giving them the opportunity to stay on board after
the transaction, investors say.

Shareholders also say the deal's stipulations are overly
restrictive, including a $43 million termination fee and a
nonsolicitation provision that they say bars Interactive from
sharing any confidential company information with bidding
competitors and allows Genesys to match any higher bids.

Interactive's directors breached their fiduciary duties by
agreeing to a deal so preclusive, shareholders say.

Interactive's CEO Donald Brown, who owns 17.1 percent of the
company and is also a defendant in the suit, entered into a voting
agreement with Genesys to back the acquisition, according to the
investors. Brown's shareholding, combined with the shares owned by
other executives said to support the deal, amounts to 19.5 percent
of company shares already pledged to a yes, which could sway other
companies from bidding, they say.

The suit says the Interactive defendants released misleading proxy
statements on Sept. 20 and Oct. 4 that don't detail how its
financial adviser calculated the fairness analysis of the deal.

Robbins Geller did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.

The Interactive shareholders are represented by David T.
Wissbroecker, Edward M. Gergosian and Danielle S. Myers of Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Kathleen Farinas and Linda George of
George & Farinas LLP and Frank J. Johnson and W. Scott Holleman of
Johnson & Weaver LLP.

Counsel information for Interactive Intelligence Group Inc.,
Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories Inc., Giant Merger: Sub
Inc., Greeneden Lux 3 S.AR.L., Greeneden U.S. Holdings I LLC,
Greeneden U.S. Holdings II LLC, Donald E. Brown, Mitchell E.
Daniels, Edward L. Hamburg, Michael C. Heim, Mark E. Hill and
Richard A. Reck was not available on January 27.

The case is Trahan v. Interactive Intelligence Group, Inc., et
al., case number 1:16-cv-03161, in the U.S. District Court of the
Southern District of Indiana.


GOLDEN RULE: King Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of E.D. Pa. Decision
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Wendy King filed an appeal from a court ruling in her
lawsuit titled Wendy King v. Golden Rule Insurance Co., Case No.
2-16-cv-03614, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

The appellate case is captioned as Wendy King v. Golden Rule
Insurance Co., Case No. 17-1162, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The Clerk of the Appeals Court directed all parties to file
written responses addressing the Appeals Court's authority to
consider the appeal, with a certificate of service attached,
within 14 days from the date of the order.

Plaintiff-Appellant Wendy King, Individually and as administrator
of the estate of Christopher King, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Joseph J. Fantini, Esq.
          David S. Senoff, Esq.
          ANAPOL WEISS
          130 North 18th Street
          One Logan Square, Suite 1600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 790-4559
          Facsimile: (215) 875-7735
          E-mail: jfantini@anapolweiss.com
                  dsenoff@anapolweiss.com

Defendant-Appellee Golden Rule Insurance Co. is represented by:

          Francis X. Manning, Esq.
          STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG LLP
          457 Haddonfield Road
          LibertyView, Suite 100
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Telephone: (856) 321-2403
          E-mail: fmanning@stradley.com

               - and -

          Marissa R. Parker, Esq.
          STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG LLP
          2005 Market Street, Suite 2600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 564-8091
          E-mail: mparker@stradley.com


GRA CONVENIENT: Faces "Muhammad" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GRA Convenient Inc.
The case is entitled as Aslam Muhammad and Imran Muhammad,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. GRA Convenient Inc., GRA Convenient 1 Inc., GRA
Convenient II Inc., GRA Convenient III Inc., Adnan Saeed, John Doe
Corp., Jointly and Severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00478 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2017).

GRA is in the convenience stores business.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


HEARTS WITH HOPE: Fifth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Anderson" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Vance Anderson filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Vance Anderson v. Hearts With Hope Foundation,
Case No. 4:15-CV-2037, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
interests, costs and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Vance Anderson v. Hearts With
Hope Foundation, Case No. 17-20021, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant VANCE ANDERSON, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Charles W. Branham, III, Esq.
          DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP
          3900 Elm Street
          Dallas, TX 75226
          Telephone: (214) 722-5990
          Facsimile: (214) 722-5991
          E-mail: tbranham@dobllp.com

Defendant-Appellee HEARTS WITH HOPE FOUNDATION is represented by:

          David M. Noll, Esq.
          HAGAN NOLL & BOYLE, LLC
          820 Gessner Road
          Houston, TX 77024
          Telephone: (713) 343-0478
          Facsimile: (713) 758-0146
          E-mail: david.noll@hnbllc.com


HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Cooper" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Honeywell International, Inc., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit styled Rebecca Cooper, et al. v.
Honeywell International, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00471, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand
Rapids.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated
retirees and their spouses and eligible dependents, and surviving
spouses to enforce their rights to collectively-bargained retiree
healthcare until age 65 pursuant to the Labor Management Relations
Act and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Rebecca Cooper, et al. v.
Honeywell International, Inc., Case No. 17-1042, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

A Telephone Mediation Conference was scheduled for February 2,
2017, at 2:00 p.m. (ET) with Bob Kaiser.

Plaintiffs-Appellees REBECCA COOPER, MORRIS MCKENNEY and ROBERT
KOLINSKE, on behalf of themselves and others similarly-situated,
are represented by:

          John G. Adam, Esq.
          LEGGHIO & ISRAEL, P.C.
          306 S. Washington, Suite 600
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          Telephone: (248) 398-5900
          E-mail: jga@legghioisrael.com

               - and -

          William Wertheimer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM WERTHEIMER
          30515 Timberbrook Lane
          Bingham Farms, MI 48025
          Phone: 248-644-9200
          E-mail: billwertheimer@gmail.com

Defendant-Appellant HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., is represented
by:

          Mark John Magyar, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT
          300 Ottawa Avenue, N.W., Suite 700
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503
          Telephone: (616) 776-7500
          E-mail: mmagyar@dykema.com

               - and -

          Cody D. Rockey, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT
          2723 S. State Street, Suite 400
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 214-7660
          E-mail: crockey@dykema.com


HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Watkins Appeals Decision to 6th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs James Ulicny and Ann Watkins filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit styled Ann Watkins, et al. v.
Honeywell International, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-01925, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 13,
2017, the District Court dismissed retirees' claims for lifetime
healthcare benefits from Honeywell.  Honeywell provided healthcare
benefits to the Plaintiffs through a series of collective
bargaining agreements and, although it continued to do so for
several years after the final CBA expired, Honeywell eventually
notified the Plaintiffs that it would terminate contributions
toward their healthcare benefits.

The appellate case is captioned as Ann Watkins, et al. v.
Honeywell International, Inc., Case No. 17-3032, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellant brief is due on February 21, 2017;

   -- Appellee brief is due on March 23, 2017; and

   -- Mediation Office is involved in this appeal.  A Telephone
      Mediation conference has been scheduled for February 2,
      2017, at 9:30 a.m. (ET) with Bob Kaiser.

Plaintiffs-Appellants ANN WATKINS and JAMES ULICNY, for themselves
and others similarly-situated, are represented by:

          John G. Adam, Esq.
          Stuart M. Israel, Esq.
          LEGGHIO & ISRAEL, P.C.
          306 S. Washington, Suite 600
          Royal Oak, MI 48067
          Telephone: (248) 398-5900
          E-mail: jga@legghioisrael.com
                  israel@legghioisrael.com

Defendant-Appellee HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., is represented
by:

          Jennifer M. Bandy, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          655 15th Street, N.W., Suite 1200
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 879-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 879-5200
          E-mail: jennifer.bandy@kirkland.com


HP INC: Failed to Pay Overtime to Software Testers, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class claims in San Jose,
Calif., that HP Inc., spun off from Hewlett-Packard in 2015,
failed to pay overtime to software testers and business analysts,
among other violations of California labor law.
Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     David R. Markham, Esq.
     Maggie Realin, esq.
     Ben Travis, Esq.
     Michael Morphew, Esq.
     THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
     750 B Street, Suite 1950
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: (619) 399-3995
     Fax: (619) 615-2067
     E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com
             mrealin@markham-law.com
             btravis@markham-law.com
             mmorphew@markham-law.com

          - and -

     Walter Haines, Esq.
     UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
     5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
     Huntington Beach, CA 92649
     Telephone: (888) 474-7242
     Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
     E-mail: walterhaines@yahoo.com

Kellie Hopstein on behalf of herself and other class members,
Plaintiff, v. HP Inc., a Delaware Corporation (d.b.a HEWLETT
PACKARD), and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Case No. 17-cv-305557,
Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara,
January 24, 2017.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Settlement in Defective Engines Suit Get Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California granted final approval of the
proposed settlement in the case captioned, ELIZABETH MENDOZA, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, LTD, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-01685-BLF (N.D. Cal.).
Alleging that their 2011-2014 Hyundai Sonatas were sold with
defective engines, Plaintiffs Elizabeth Mendoza and Beth Graham
sued Hyundai Motor Co., et al.  Specifically, the Plaintiffs
allege that a common defect in the vehicles' rotating assembly --
specifically, in the lubrication channels within the connecting
rods and other parts of the assembly -- was responsible for the
various symptoms and eventual engine failures experienced by
Sonata owners.  The Plaintiffs contend that by selling Sonata
vehicles without disclosing that the engines were defective,
Hyundai violated California's consumer protection statutes and
common law.  The Plaintiffs also aver that Hyundai breached its
warranty obligations by blaming owners for causing the engine
failures, accusing them of not properly maintaining or servicing
their vehicles.

The parties were able to reach a preliminary settlement before the
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint.  The Court granted
preliminary approval to the parties' proposed settlement agreement
and conditionally certified the putative class for settlement
purposes only on July 8, 2016.  In its order granting Plaintiff's
motion for preliminary approval, the Court also (1) appointed the
law firm of Gibbs Law Group LLP and McCune Wright LLP, as counsel
for the settlement class; (2) approved the parties' proposed
notice; (3) set the deadline for filing objections and requests
for exclusion by November 28, 2016; and (4) set the date of the
fairness hearing to December 15, 2016.

Under the terms of the preliminarily approved settlement
agreement, Hyundai has agreed to (1) warn drivers about the
problem; (2) extend its Powertrain Warranty for free inspections
and repairs; (3) reimburse Class Members for past vehicle repairs,
rental cars, and towing services; and (5) compensate Class Members
for trade-ins and sales.

The Plaintiffs have filed a motion for final approval of the class
action settlement and a motion for $761,415.67 in attorney fees,
reimbursement of $33,584.33 in costs, and $2,500 each for Lead
Plaintiffs Mendoza and Graham in service award.

In her Order dated January 23, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/U4XFVb from Leagle.com, Judge Freeman found that the
class meet the Rule 23(a) and (b) requirements; the parties'
proposed settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable; and the
request for attorneys' fees, costs and service award are
reasonable.

Thus, Judge Freeman approved settlement of the class action, for
which Hyundai has already paid $8.6 million in compensation,

Elizabeth Mendoza is represented by David Christopher Wright,
Esq.-- dcw@mccunewright.com -- Jae Kook Kim, Esq. --
jkk@mccunewright.com -- Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. --
jgs@mccunewright.com -- Matthew David Schelkopf, Esq. --
mds@mccunewright.com -- and -- Richard D. McCune, Jr., Esq. --
rdm@mccunewright.com -- MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO, LLP -- David K.
Stein, Esq. -- ds@classlawgroup.com -- and -- Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
-- ehg@classlawgroup.com -- GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP -- Steven
Augustine Lopez, Esq. -- sal@classlawgroup.com -- GIRARD GIBBS LLP

Beth Graham is represented by David K. Stein, Esq. --
ds@classlawgroup.com -- Dylan Hughes, Esq. --
dsh@classlawgroup.com -- Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. --
ehg@classlawgroup.com -- and -- Steven Augustine Lopez, Esq. --
sal@classlawgroup.com -- GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
Hyundai Motor America, Inc. is represented by Shon Morgan, Esq. --
shonmorgan@quinnemmanuel.com -- and -- Joseph Robert Ashby, Esq. -
- josephashby@quinnemannuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART AND
SULLIVAN, LLP


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Court Refuses to Remand Elantras Gas Mileage Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The cases captioned JOHN WILLIAM GENTRY, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v.
HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., Defendant. ALIM ABDURAHMAN, ET AL.,
Plaintiff, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, INC., ET AL., Defendants.
JIHAD ABDUL-MUMIT, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA,
INC., ET AL., Defendants, Case Nos. 3:13-cv-00030, 3:14 cv-00002,
3:14-cv-00005 (W.D. Va.), involve allegations that Hyundai Motor
America, Inc., misstated or misrepresented the gas mileage
obtained by Hyundai Elantras.  Gentry is a class action against a
single defendant, HMA.  Abdurahman is a mass action of over 700
plaintiffs against 29 defendants: HMA and various Virginia
dealerships.  Abdul-Mumit -- also a mass action with substantively
identical allegations to Abdurahman -- has over 500 named
plaintiffs suing 27 defendants.  The cases previously were stayed,
transferred to MDL 2424, and then partially remanded by the MDL
back to the Court in September 2015.  Each case contains a claim
under the Virginia Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act (Lemon
Law), Va. Code Sections 59.1-207.9 et seq.; the Virginia Consumer
Protection Act of 1977 (VCPA), Va. Code Sections 59.1-196 et seq.;
and for false or misleading advertising, Va. Code Sections 18.2-
216 & 59.1-68.3.

On November 2, 2012, HMA announced its "recalculation" of fuel
economy estimates for certain vehicles.  At the MDL, a class
settlement was reached for pre-November 2nd purchasers and is now
on appeal before the Ninth Circuit.  Thus, the MDL remanded these
cases for proceedings on two sets of claims: (1) any pre-November
2nd purchasers who opted out of the settlement; and (2) post-
November 2nd purchasers of 2011-13 Hyundai Elantras sold in
Virginia.

HMA moved to dismiss the three cases arguing that the Plaintiffs
lack standing, which is a jurisdictional issue that must be
decided, and that the VCPA claims are subject to Rule 9(b)'s
heightened pleading standard for fraud.
In his Opinion dated January 23, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/xEyn93 from Leagle.com,

Judge Norman K. Moon of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Virginia concluded that aspects of the Lemon
Law claim in Gentry based on the on-board mileage calculator may
proceed.  But the aspect to the Lemon Law claim based on fuel
economy, as well as Mr. Gentry's VCPA and false advertising
claims, will be dismissed because those counts do not state a
claim.

As for Abdul-Mumit and Abdurahman, the Court finds that it has
jurisdiction based on the Class Action Fairness Act.  In addition
to sharing some shortcomings with the Gentry complaint, the
complaints in Abdul-Mumit and Abdurahman are devoid of facts
pertaining to any of the hundreds of named plaintiffs or to any
Defendant other than HMA.

Accordingly, Judge Moon denied the motions to remand the
Abdurahman and Abdul-Mumit cases, dismisses those cases, and
partially granted the motion to dismiss the Gentry case.

John William Gentry, et al. are represented by:

      James Ben Feinman, Esq.
      JAMES B. FEINMAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      1003 Church St,
      Lynchburg, VA 24504, USA
      Tel: (888)691-0140
Hyundai Motor America, Inc. is represented by Ashley Walker
Winsky, Esq. -- awinsky@mcguirewoods.com -- and -- James Francis
Neale, Esq. -- jneale@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP --
Karin A. Kramer, Esq. -- karinkramer@quinnemmanuel.com -- Shon
Morgan, Esq. -- shonmorgan@quinnemmanuel.com -- and -- Joseph R.
Ashby, Esq. -- josephashby@quinnemmanuel.com -- QUINN EMANUEL
URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP.


ILLINOIS, USA: 7th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Winner" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Sandy Winner and Laura Baston filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Sandy Winner, et al. v.
SEIU Healthcare Illinois & Indiana, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
07213, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the class
action lawsuit was brought by home day care owners Laura Baston of
Casey and Sandy Winner of Jacksonville and names Gov. Bruce Rauner
and the Service Employees International Union Healthcare Illinois
& Indiana as defendants.

The Plaintiffs assert that Illinois should repay what the
conservative Illinois Policy Institute estimates was as much as
$10 million in annual withholding of "agency fees" that were
deducted from reimbursements for private contractors who cared for
low-income children eligible to receive state support.  The fees,
which are not supposed to be used for political activity, had been
collected since 2005 under an executive order by former Gov. Rod
Blagojevich.

The appellate case is captioned as Sandy Winner, et al. v. SEIU
Healthcare Illinois & Indiana, et al., Case No. 17-1126, in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript information sheet was due by February 2, 2017;
      and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before February 28, 2017,
      for Laura Baston and Sandy Winner.

Plaintiffs-Appellants SANDY WINNER and LAURA BASTON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq.
          QUANTUM LEGAL LLC
          513 Central Avenue
          Highland Park, IL 60035
          Telephone: (847) 433-4500
          Facsimile: (847) 433-2500
          E-mail: jeff@Qulegal.com

Defendant-Appellee SEIU HEALTHCARE ILLINOIS & INDIANA is
represented by:

          Robert E. Bloch, Esq.
          DOWD, BLOCH, BENNETT, CERVONE, AUERBACH & YOKICH
          Eight S. Michigan Avenue
          Chicago, IL 60603-0000
          Telephone: (313) 372-1361
          E-mail: rebloch@dbb-law.com

Defendant-Appellee BRUCE V. RAUNER, Governor, in his official
capacity as Governor of Illinois, is represented by:

          Nadine J. Wichern, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          100 W. Randolph Street
          State of Illinois Center
          Chicago, IL 60601-0000
          Telephone: (312) 814-5659
          E-mail: nwichern@atg.state.il.us


INNOCOLL HOLDINGS: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Innocoll Holdings, plc and
certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased
Innocoll securities between November 3, 2016 through December 29,
2016, inclusive.  Such investors are encouraged to join this case
by visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/innl.

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Innocoll's New Drug Application ("NDA") submission to
the FDA in October 2016 for XARACOLL was incomplete; (2) due to
the incomplete NDA submission, XARACOLL would not be approved in
2017 as investors were led to believe; and (3) consequently,
Defendants' statements regarding Innocoll's business, operations,
and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.

On December 29, 2016, Innocoll revealed that it had received a
Refusal to File letter from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration
("FDA") regarding its New Drug Application for XARACOLL, a
postsurgical pain treatment and the Company's lead product
candidate. Innocoll said that the FDA stated that XARACOLL should
have been categorized as a drug/device combination which would
necessitate additional information.  Following this news, Innocoll
stock has dropped up to 66%, damaging investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/innlor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
Innocoll you have until March 27, 2017 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.   Attorney advertising. Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes.


ISLE CASINO: Overcharged Customers, Class Action Says
-----------------------------------------------------
Jeff Weinsier at Local 10 News reports a class-action lawsuit
recently filed against the Isle Casino on Powerline Road in
Pompano Beach claims they have been overcharging some customers.

The game table is still on the floor inside the Isle Casino, but a
sign on it reads "Sorry for the inconvenience, craps is
temporarily out of service."

"We deserve our money back. They ripped us off," Isle Casino Fan
Club member James Scott said.

The lawsuit, in which Scott is named as a plaintiff, claims that
the overcharging has been going on since 2012, when the machine
was put in at the casino.

"We did test bets. We recorded it and noticed on every buy bet,
the casino was taking more than they should have," attorney Daren
Stabinski said.

"In some cases, it was doubling what it was supposed to take,"
attorney Christina Pierson added.

The machine, called "Organic Dice," is supposed to take 5 percent
on the bet as a commission.

"For the 4 and 10, they were taking 10 percent. They were charging
the percentage off the winnings rather than the bet itself,"
Stabinski said.

The suit says players are entitled to compensation for being
overcharged.

Interblock USA, the manufacturer of the game, is also named as a
defendant in the suit.

Pierson said other casinos that use the same machine don't
overcharge.

The class in the lawsuit would be made up of the casino's Fan Club
members.

"We know who the fan club members are. There are stats to show
when they played and how much they played," Pierson said.

Pierson said the casino is responsible for knowing how its games
are working.

"You don't think that the rules would be broken, that they would
be taking more than they should out of your betting," Scott said.

"Casinos are based on trust. It's hard to believe a casino would
allow this to happen," Stabinski said.

Jill Alexander, a spokeswoman for Isle of Capri Inc., had no
comment on the pending litigation.


JACKSON HEWITT: Loses Bid to Dismiss "Hollingsworth"
----------------------------------------------------
Judge Philip G. Reinhard of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois denied the motion to dismiss the
case captioned, Phil Hollingsworth, et al., Plaintiff, v. Jackson
Hewitt Inc., et al., Defendant, Case No. 16 C 50059 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff Steve Yankee alleges the defendant violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 by sending daily
automated text messages to his cellular phone.  Yankee is not a
customer of defendant and has not asked it to send him text
messages.  Yankee alleges the text messages he received from the
defendant were fully automated and were part of the defendant's
daily automated account notification program.

Although the defendant acknowledged receipt of the "STOP" message
by texting back: "Your subscription to Jackson Hewitt messages has
been canceled," Yankee continued to receive additional messages,
the suit alleges.  Yankee further alleges that the text messages
were sent from an automated telephone dialing system (ATDS) as
defined in the TCPA.  Yankee's cell phone number was assigned to a
cellular phone service for which Yankee incurs charges for
incoming messages.

The Defendant moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.  The Defendant argues the complaint
fails "to plead necessary facts to support his allegations that an
ATDS was used to send text messages to Plaintiff."

In his Order dated January 25, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/Hz6uW9 from Leagle.com, Judge Reinhard found that
Yankee met the pleading requirement and his allegations plausibly
suggest he has a right to relief above a speculative level.

Phil Hollingsworth is represented by Katherine Ann Rehan, Esq.  --
Katherine.rehan@illinoisattorney.com -- KATHERINA A. REHAN ATTORNY
AT LAW

            -- and --

      Stephen F. Taylor, Esq.
      Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
      LEMBERG LAW, LLC
      43 Danbury Road,
      Wilton, Connecticut
      Tel: (855)801-2100
Jackson Hewitt Inc., et al. are represented by Joseph E. Hopkins,
Esq.  -- joseph.hopkins@lockelord.com -- and -- Martin Wojslaw
Jaszczuk, Esq. -- martin.jaszczuk@lockelord.com -- LOCKE LORD LLP


JPMORGAN CHASE: Dismissal of "Holtz" Suit Under SLUSA Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal of the case captioned PATRICIA HOLTZ,
et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et
al., Defendants-Appellees, No. 13-2609 (7th Cir.) under the
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA).

JPMorgan Chase Bank offers to manage clients' portfolios of
securities.  Its affiliates sponsor mutual funds in which these
funds can be placed.  The complaint alleged customers invested in
these mutual funds believing that, when recommending them as
suitable vehicles, the Bank acts in clients' best interests.  But
Patricia Holtz, on behalf of a class of other investors, alleged
that the Bank gives its employees incentives to place clients'
money in the Bank's own mutual funds, even when those funds have
higher fees or lower returns than competing funds sponsored by
third parties.  Holtz maintained that the Bank violated its
promises and its fiduciary duties by inducing its investment
advisers to make recommendations in the Bank's interest rather
than the clients'.

Holtz filed the suit in federal court under the Class Action
Fairness Act because the class has more than 100 members, the
stakes exceed $5 million, and at least one member of the class has
citizenship different from the Bank's.  The suit is also a
"covered class action" for the purpose of SLUSA because mutual
funds are securities.  SLUSA requires the district court to
dismiss any "covered class action" in which the plaintiff alleges
"a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection
with the purchase or sale of a covered security."  Under SLUSA,
securities claims that depend on the nondisclosure of material
facts must proceed under the federal securities laws exclusively.
Holtz did not want to invoke federal law and framed her claims
entirely under state contract and fiduciary principles.  But the
district court concluded that these claims necessarily rest on the
"omission of a material fact" and dismissed the suit under SLUSA.

Holtz maintained that falsehoods and omissions have nothing to do
with her claims.  She stated that they "are not in any way based
on, dependent upon, or necessarily entangled with proof that [the
Bank] made any false statements or omitted to disclose material
information.  Rather, [she] assert[s] simply that [the Bank]
failed to provide the independent research, financial advice, and
due diligence required by the parties' contract and their
fiduciary relationship."

However, the Seventh Circuit found that the suit depends on
Holtz's assertion that the Bank concealed the incentives it gave
its employees.  If it had told customers that its investment
advisors were compensated more for selling the Bank's mutual funds
than for selling third-party funds, plaintiffs would have no claim
under either state or federal law.

A full-text copy of Judge Seventh Circuit's January 23, 2017
ruling is available at https://is.gd/acrh3h from Leagle.com.

Stephen Victor D'Amore -- sdamore@winston.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Daniel L. Berger -- dberger@gelaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jonathan K. Youngwood -- jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Tyler S. Graden -- tgraden@ktmc.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Shannon Lack Braden, for Plaintiff-Appellant.


LACE ENTERTAINMENT: MLB Seeks Review of Ruling in "Gomez" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants MLB Enterprises Corporation and Anthony Capeci filed an
appeal from a District Court order dated January 6, 2017, in the
lawsuit styled Gomez v. Lace Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No.
15-cv-3326, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (New York City).

The appellate case is captioned as Gomez v. Lace Entertainment,
Inc., Case No. 17-170, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Jacqueline
Gomez and Yashira Carrasco, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, brought the Case against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants are Lace Entertainment, Inc., d/b/a Lace
Gentlemen's Club, MLB Enterprises, Corp., d/b/a Lace Gentlemen's
Club, MLB Enterprises, Corp., Anthony Capeci and Glen Orecchio.
The Defendants own and operate an adult entertainment club located
at 725 7th Avenue, in New York City.

Petitioners MLB Enterprises Corporation and Anthony Capeci are
represented by:

          Jennifer M. Kinsley, Esq.
          KINSLEY LAW OFFICE
          P.O. Box 19478
          Cincinnati, OH 45219
          Telephone: (513) 708-2595
          E-mail: jennifer@kinsleylawoffice.com

               - and -

          Daniel Alan Silver, Esq.
          SILVER & SILVER LLP
          1 Liberty Square
          New Britain, CT 06051
          Telephone: (860) 225-3518
          E-mail: Daniel@lawsilver.com

Respondents Jaqueline Gomez, Individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, and Yashiro Currasco, Individually, and on
behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Rebecca Solomon Predovan, Esq.
          HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
          192 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-1199
          E-mail: rifbecca@gmail.com


LOUISIANA: Livingston Parish Joins August Flood Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
John Dupont at Livingston Parish News reports that The Livingston
Parish Council on a 7-0 vote on January 26 night joined three
other Livingston Parish governmental entities in a class action
lawsuit against the state Department of Transportation and
Development in relation to the August flood.

The Council acted on the recommendation of Parish President Layton
Ricks to join the cities of Walker and Denham Springs, along with
the Livingston Parish Public School System and two individuals in
a lawsuit that targets the DOTD and 21 contractors.

Councilmen Jeff Averett and Tab Lobell were absent.

The lawsuit, initiated by former Walker Mayor Rick Ramsey, alleges
that barriers along Interstate 12 played a substantial role in the
severe flooding on the north side of the thoroughfare in August.

The barrier was the work was part of the 2009 expansion of
Interstate 12 as DOTD's "Geaux Wider" project to expand the
interstate from two to three lanes in each direction.

The lawsuit says a 19-mile concrete barrier, from East Baton Rouge
Parish to the Walker area in Livingston Parish is "acting as a
man-made flood wall that interrupts the natural flow of surface
waters."

The lawsuit does not request a specific amount of money but asks
for "economic and compensatory damages in amounts to be determined
at trial."

Ricks had initially expressed mixed feelings about a lawsuit
against the state. He told the council Gov. John Bel Edwards
assured him the punitive action would not derail state-funded road
projects in Livingston Parish.

"They look at this as a wall built under the Jindal
Administration, and they weren't a part of that," Ricks said.

Josh Palmintier of the Baton Rouge legal firm of deGravelles,
Palmintier, Holthaus & Fruge filed the suit on behalf of the
plaintiffs Jan. 5 in 19th Judiciai District Court in Baton Rouge.

Palmintier estimated 100,000 homes were affected by the flooding
and the damages could eventually run from the "tens of millions to
hundreds of millions."

District 2 Councilman Garry "Frog" Talbert had asked if the parish
could offer support for the suit without joining as a plaintiff.

He also asked 33-1/3 percent share which would go to the legal
firm for fees if the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs.
Talbert said he did not oppose the suit, but did not believe the
contractors deliberately designed a project that would cause
flooding.

"That amount is the cap," Palmintier said. "The judge decides the
plaintiff's fee."

Talbert also asked Palmantier if his would want plaintiffs to
shell out the difference between the 33 percent and the amount the
judge sets.

"Absolutely not," Palmantier responded. "The judge is the
arbitrator of last resort. If he says 20 percent, our fee goes to
20 percent."

District 9 Councilman Shane Mack said the punitive action was
necessary, regardless of the contractor's intentions.

"I went back and forth. It's hard to foresee the future, and it
would be my hope they didn't try to develop something that would
cause extra flooding, but what's obvious is that this wall caused
homes and businesses to go through extensive flooding," he said.
"I didn't want to join the suit, but this is one way we can take
action to flood out, get contractor and DOTD to review plans, find
way to get water to flow better under the interstate."

Parish Council Chairman Tracy Girlinghouse agreed with a
recommendation by Palmantier that the parish enter into the suit
to show solidarity with the other entities who have already
joined.

"It's important to do this for solidarity and let people know we
support the people of Livingston Parish," he said. "Not to be coy,
but this is an easy decision -- the design clearly elevated the
water."

Talbert said he did not disagree that the wall exacerbated
flooding.

"But even if the wall wouldn't have been there, we still would
have had widespread, rampant flooding," he said.

Ramsey told the council that the City of Walker would have filed
even if the other entities would not come aboard.

He said the law firm had already invested $100,000 on research by
Rice University hydrologist, which backed the former mayor's
claims that the interstate design worsened the flood.

"Had we not filed suit, nothing would've happened," Ramsey said.
"We only did this to get some relief.

"We did this for the people," he said. "Lawyers can't do this for
free. If we don't stand up and make sure DOTD doesn't recognize
this as a flood plan, they'll make the same mistake again and
again. It's a great design for a desert in the mountains, but not
a great design for this area."

Ramsey told the council the plaintiffs would have a greater chance
to win the suit with a larger group involved.

District 4 Councilman John Wascom, who offered the motion to
follow the parish president's recommendation, said the suit had
nothing to do with monetary gain.

"It's to stop a bad design," he said.

Ricks said he initiated the legal action to protect the people of
Livingston Parish.

"I hate lawsuits . . . and (jokingly) I don't like lawyers," he
said. "I lost my home. Layton lost his home. Tracy lost his home,
and this hit widespread across the parish.

"Every voter looks at the actions of elected officials in
Livingston Parish," Ramsey said. "There are options, and this is
the option."


LOUISIANA: Court Narrows Claimants in "Marshall" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARSHALL, v. LOUISIANA STATE, et al.,
Section: "G" (2), Civil Action No. 15-1128 (E.D. La.), Judge
Nannette Jolivette Brown granted in part and denied, in part, the
partial motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants, Law
Enforcement District for the Parish of Orleans and Marlin N.
Gusman.

On April 9, 2015, Donald L. Marshall filed a putative class action
complaint against Sheriff Marlin N. Gusman, in his official
capacity as Sheriff of Orleans Parish, and the Law Enforcement
District for the Parish of New Orleans, seeking unpaid wages and
overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  Marshall
alleged that, in the three years prior to filing his complaint, he
worked for the defendants as a deputy sheriff, and that he and
other similarly situated individuals were not paid in compliance
with the FLSA.  Specifically, Marshall, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, sought wages and overtime for time
spent less than 30 minutes prior to his shift and for up to 30
minutes after his shift for which he was not paid.

On January 22, 2016, the Court conditionally certified the action
as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).
After notice was sent, 99 individuals opted in to the action by
filing a consent and joinder with the Court.

On November 22, 2016, the defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment as to those individuals who failed to timely file their
opt-in notices and/or worked at a facility not covered by the opt-
in class.

The defendants contended that the FLSA claims of 13 of the opt-in
plaintiffs are undisputedly barred by the statute of limitations.
According to the defendants, those 13 opt-in plaintiffs whose
claims are barred by the statute of limitations are: Robert P.
Carr, Nicole S. Clay, Cynthia Donald, Trina Griffin, Kevin Jones,
Corey Lewis, Rennell Lowe, Robert Nolan, Brandon Prevost, Harold
Ramson, Ira Thomas, Ronald Ward, and Troylyn Washington.

Additionally, the defendants contended that it is undisputed that
six of the opt-in plaintiffs never worked at one of the eight opt-
in facilities within the specified timeframe of April 10, 2012 to
April 9, 2015.  According to the defendants, those six opt-in
plaintiffs whose claims are barred because they never worked at
one of the eight opt-in facilities are: John Dimatteo, Carylenna
Grant, Stephanie Hudson, McRay Mottley, Corey Payne, and Carla
Thomas.

Marshall did not oppose summary judgment as to "those individuals
whose opt-in forms were received more than three years after the
last date of work, based on all discovery provided to Plaintiff."
Thus, Marshall did not oppose summary judgment as to the following
opt-in plaintiffs whose opt-in forms were received more than three
years after their last day of work and whose claims are barred by
the statute of limitations under FLSA: Robert P. Carr, Nicole S.
Clay, Cynthia Donald, Trina Griffin, Kevin Jones, Corey Lewis,
Rennell Lowe, Robert Noland, Brandin Prevost, Harold Ramson, Ira
Thomas, Ronald Ward, and Troylyn Washington.  Accordingly, Judge
Brown granted summary judgment as to these opt-in plaintiffs whose
claims are barred by the statute of limitations.

Additionally, Marshall did not oppose summary judgment as to the
claims of opt-in plaintiffs John Dimatteo, Corey Payne, and McRay
Mottley, who did not work at one of the eight facilities covered
by the conditionally certified class during the applicable time
period defined by the Court, between April 10, 2012, and April 9,
2015.  Therefore, Judge Brown granted summary judgment as to the
claims of these three opt-in plaintiffs as well.

Marshall contended, however, that summary judgment is not
appropriate as to Thomas and Hudson, because there is a genuine
dispute as to whether Thomas and Hudson worked at one of the
facilities covered by the conditionally certified class during the
applicable time frame.  To support his contentions, Marshall
pointed to time records that indicate that Thomas was employed by
the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office until at least April of 2015
and to Thomas' discovery questionnaire responses, which indicate
that she worked at covered facilities, the Tents and the Temporary
Detention Center, between 2012 and 2015.  Likewise, Marshall
pointed to the defendants' time records that indicate that Hudson
worked with the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office until October 2014
and to Hudson's discovery questionnaire responses and affidavit,
which indicate that she worked at covered facilities, the Tents
and the Temporary Detention Center, until October 2014.

Judge Brown found that Marshall has pointed to sufficient evidence
in the record to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether the opt-in plaintiffs Thomas and Hudson worked at
facilities covered by the conditionally certified class during the
applicable time period,43from April 9, 2012 to April 9, 2015.
Accordingly, Judge Brown denied summary judgment as to the claims
of opt-in plaintiffs Thomas and Hudson.

Finally, Judge Brown noted that Marshall did not address in his
opposition whether summary judgment is appropriate as to the claim
of opt-in plaintiff Carylenna Grant.  The judge found that the
uncontroverted evidence in the record indicates that Grant did not
file a written consent to join the litigation until more than
three years after her employment at Templeman V.  Thus, the judge
held that Grant's claim is barred by the statute of limitations
under FLSA and the judge granted summary judgment as to Grant's
claim.

A full-text copy of Judge Brown's January 10, 2017 order is
available at https://is.gd/75KVeS from Leagle.com.

Donald L Marshall, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Richard Alvin
Tonry, II, Tonry, Brinson & Glorioso, LLC, Brian L. Glorioso --
brian.glorioso@yahoo.com -- Tonry, Brinson & Glorioso, LLC,
Douglass Evans Alongia, Tonry, Brinson & Glorioso, LLC & Raymond
Joseph Brinson, Tonry, Brinson & Glorioso, LLC.

Marlin N. Gusman, Law Enforcement District for the Parish of
Orleans, Defendants, represented by Henry Philip Julien, Jr. --
hpj@kullmanlaw.com -- Kullman Firm, Alexander C. Landin --
acl@kullmanlaw.com -- Kullman Firm, Eric R. Miller --
em@kullmanlaw.com -- Kullman Firm, Inemesit U. O'Boyle --
iou@chehardy.com -- Chehardy, Sherman, Ellis, Murray, Recile,
Stakelum & Hayes, LLP & James McClendon Williams --
jmw@chehardy.com -- Chehardy, Sherman, Ellis, Murray, Recile,
Stakelum & Hayes, LLP.


LOUISVILLE SLUGGER: Trying to Cover Up Defect, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Klein, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
customers claim Louisville Slugger is trying to cover up a
manufacturing defect in one of its pricey baseball bats by saying
they were made that way on purpose to help batters with their
swings.

In a class-action lawsuit filed Monday in Chicago federal court,
lead plaintiff George Alea claims Louisville Slugger's parent
company Wilson Sporting Goods refused to honor its warranty and
refund him for the bat he bought for his son to use for high
school baseball.

Alea's son noticed that the handle of the Louisville Slugger Prime
BBCOR bat moved independently from the barrel when he swung it,
making it less effective for hitting, the complaint states.
Wilson's customer service department allegedly told Alea that was
normal.

But judging from other complaints littering the internet, the
problem wasn't normal, and Wilson knew all about it, according to
the lawsuit, which cites various posts about broken BBCOR bats.

On top of that "the bats are expensive by any measure, costing
approximately $400 each, and are purported to be of extremely high
quality," Alea says in his lawsuit.

"The release of the bat coincided with an onslaught of
complaints," the lawsuit states.

But instead of correcting it or allowing customers to return the
bats, "defendants took the unorthodox approach of creating a post-
hoc marketing regime focusing on (and indeed promoting) the
defect, as if it were deliberate," Alea claims.

The product description was allegedly changed to say that the
bat's "TRU3 Dynamic Socket Connection allows for slight movement
between the barrel and handle to further maximize barrel
trampoline effect and eliminate negative vibration."

"Defendants appear to have hatched a scheme to deny warranty
claims and act as if the defect was instead a noteworthy feature
of the bats," Alea says in his complaint.

The lawsuit accuses Wilson and Louisville Slugger of violating
consumer-protection laws in several states, including Illinois and
Florida, and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

The proposed class of Florida, California, Illinois, Michigan, New
Jersey and New York consumers who bought the BBCOR bat since April
2015 is represented by Michael Flannery of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca
LLP in St. Louis, Mo., and Washington D.C., and by Baron &
Herkowitz in Miami.

Wilson did not immediately return a request for comment.

The case is captioned, GEORGE ALEA, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated  Plaintiff, vs. WILSON SPORTING
GOODS CO. AND LOUISVILLE SLUGGER, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00498 (N.D. Ill., January 24, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
     7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1675
     St. Louis, MO 63105
     Tel: (314) 226-1015
     Fax: (202) 789-1813
     Email: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

          - and -

     Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
     William H. Anderson, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
     4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
     Washington, DC 20016
     Tel: (202) 789-3960
     Fax: (202) 789-1813
     Email: charlesl@cuneolaw.com
            wanderson@cuneolaw.com

          - and -

     Jon Herskowitz, Esq.
     BARON & HERKOWITZ
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1704
     Miami, FL 33156
     Tel: (305) 670-0101
     Fax: (305) 670-2393
     Email: jon@bhfloridalaw.com


MANITOBA: Flood Evacuees' Class Action Can Go Forward
-----------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports a class-action lawsuit against the Government of
Manitoba and the attorney general of Canada on behalf of a group
of roughly 4,000 Manitoba flood evacuees will go forward after a
trio of Manitoba judges certified the suit.

In a unanimous decision delivered on January 25, three judges from
Manitoba's Court of Appeal -- the province's highest court --
ruled in favour of a group of individuals representing four First
Nations that were evacuated following severe flooding in spring of
2011.

Manitoba First Nation files $100M lawsuit over 2011 flood
The decision officially certifies the class-action suit on behalf
of residents of Dauphin River First Nation, Lake St. Martin First
Nation, Little Saskatchewan First Nation and Pinaymootang First
Nation.

Their effort to bring a $950-million class-action lawsuit against
the province was initially denied in 2014, but the request for an
appeal was granted in late 2015. After court heard the appeal last
September, the Wednesday ruling overturned the initial decision.

The ruling states the first judge erred in his decision and that a
class-action suit is a "fair, efficient and manageable" path to
advance the claims.

Flood victims get second crack at suing Manitoba for 2011 flood
The First Nations were home to around 4,000 people before the
flooding, which the plaintiffs say was caused by the province in
an effort to save homes and towns further south.

Nearly six years later, hundreds of the evacuees still haven't
returned home.

                'Finally going to be some justice'

A spokeswoman from Manitoba Justice said the province is reviewing
the decision and has not yet determined its next steps.

The lawsuit also names the Manitoba Association of Native
Firefighters Inc. as a defendant. MANFF was charged with caring
for thousands of First Nations members whose homes and communities
were flooded in 2011. That responsibility was later transferred to
the Red Cross.

Clifford Anderson, one of the group of 10 plaintiffs representing
the evacuees in the lawsuit, said he was thankful to see the court
decision.

"It means there's finally going to be some justice," he said.
"Somebody's going to be found responsible, or hopefully, maybe it
won't have to go to court and they'll come down to the table and
start some kind of negotiations."

5 years on: Lake St. Martin evacuees 'devastated' and displaced
Anderson left his home on Pinaymootang First Nation with just the
clothes on his back and a few blankets in 2011. At the time, he
said residents believed they'd be back in their homes by the end
of the summer.

"It was devastating to have to leave, especially for the elderly
people . . . they weren't used to moving around, they were used
to living there," he said.

"There was lots of social impacts, like separation from other
family members because some people had to move to Winnipeg, and
there's loss of jobs and loss of income and loss of use of the
land, like traditional gardening and stuff like that."

1,903 Manitobans still displaced from homes, 3 years on
The First Nation now looks like swampland, he said.

"There's cattails and bulrushes growing up right against the
houses. The wells are contaminated. The septic fields and tanks
have been washed away and the homes now, they're full of mould
because they've been sitting in water," he said.

Hope to settle outside of court

The province still has the right to appeal the ruling and bring
the case to the Supreme Court of Canada.

One of the evacuees' lawyers, Michael Peerless, said that process
could add another year to the proceedings.

Peerless, who works for McKenzie Lake Lawyers in Ontario and
specializes in class-action cases, said he hopes the province will
choose instead to settle the suit outside of court.

If the province doesn't appeal and the matter goes to trial,
Peerless said it could easily be another five or six years before
the suit is resolved.


MDL 2445: Court Trims Claims in Amneal Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, granted in part and denied in part, defendant's
motion to dismiss, in the case IN RE: SUBOXONE (BUPRENORPHINE
HYDROCHLORIDE AND NALOXONE) ANTITRUST LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT
APPLIES TO: Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Indivior Inc. et al.,
16-cv-563, MDL No. 2445, No. 13-MD-2445 (E.D. Pa.)

Indivior Inc. manufactures and sold the drug Suboxone, a drug used
to treat opioid dependence. Direct Purchaser plaintiffs and End-
Payor plaintiffs filed consolidated class action complaints
alleging that Indivior Inc. unlawfully delayed and impeded
competition from generic versions of Suboxone tablets. Class
Plaintiffs claimed that Indivior's conduct negatively affected
competition and resulted in ongoing overpayments by consumers.

On December 3, 2014, Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg issued an opinion
dismissing one of direct purchaser plaintiffs' stand-alone claims,
a variety of state law claims brought by end-payor plaintiffs as
well as the claims against several of the defendant entities.
Thereafter, class plaintiffs filed amended complaints, answers
were filed, and a discovery scheduling order was entered.

On December 23, 2015, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, a generic
manufacturer and competitor of Indivior, filed a complaint in the
District of New Jersey regarding Indivior's alleged
anticompetitive conduct surrounding Suboxone. The action was
transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in February
and consolidated with the MDL currently before Judge Goldberg.

Amneal's complaint consists of claims of monopolization in
violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 2, attempted monopolization in
violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 2,  false advertising in violation
of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1152(a). Indivior filed a
partial motion to dismiss Amneal's complaint.

Judge Goldberg granted in part and denied in part Indivior's
partial motion to dismiss. Amneal has offered shifting accounts of
what particular statements form the basis of its Lanham Act claim.
Given such ambiguity, Judge Goldberg concludes dismissal of
Amneal's Lanham Act claim is warranted. Amneal, however, will be
given leave to file an amended complaint which more clearly
identifies the particular statements that it contends constitute
false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act.

Lastly, Indivior moves to dismiss Reckitt Benckiser
Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Indivior PLC because Amneal has failed to
serve the two entities. Additionally, Indivior urges that Reckitt
Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc. should be dismissed because it is
merely Indivior's former corporate name. Amneal responds that it
does not oppose the dismissal of its claims against Reckitt
Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc. Amneal, however, does not respond
to Indivior's arguments regarding Indivior PLC.
The motion to dismiss Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc. will
be granted as unopposed. Indivior PLC was not served and Amneal
has not responded to the argument to dismiss Indivior PLC. As
such, Indivior PLC will also be dismissed.

A copy of Judge Goldberg's memorandum opinion dated January 4,
2017, is available at https://goo.gl/QIoDli from Leagle.com.


MDL 2615: Court Dismisses Complaints in FCRA Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Judge Kevin McNulty has dismissed all the complaints in the case
captioned IN RE: MICHAELS STORES, INC., FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT
(FCRA) LITIGATION, Civ. Nos. 14-7563 (KM) (JBC), 15-2547 (KM)
(JBC), 15-5504 (KM) (JBC), MDL No. 2615 (D.N.J.) for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

The putative class action arises out of alleged violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and its New Jersey and California
state counterparts.

Christina Graham, Gary Anderson, Michele Castro, Janice Bercut,
and Michelle Bercut applied for employment at Michaels Stores,
Inc. through an online employment application.  One section of the
online application form disclosed that Michaels would be obtaining
background checks on the applicants and required applicants to
authorize and consent to those checks.  Michaels in fact obtained
consumer reports, known also as background checks, which it used
in making hiring decisions.  All of the plaintiffs were hired by
Michaels.  They contended, however, that Michaels violated the
FCRA (and its state counterparts) because its disclosure of its
intent to obtain the background checks was insufficient.

In essence, the allegations which set forth the elements of a
statutory violation are:

     (1) the plaintiffs completed the online job application on
         Michaels' website;

     (2) the application failed to comply with the FCRA's (and/or
         a state counterpart's) stand-alone disclosure
         requirement; and

     (3) for each plaintiff, Michaels procured a consumer report
         from an outside consumer reporting agency.

It follows, say the plaintiffs, that Michaels violated the FCRA
because it failed to make a proper disclosure and therefore failed
to obtain proper authorizations before procuring the consumer
reports.

Michaels filed motions to dismiss the operative complaints.  In
part, Michaels sought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) to dismiss
the complaints for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Michaels
challenged the plaintiffs' standing, asserting that the complaints
failed to allege an injury-in-fact.

Judge McNulty found that the plaintiffs have merely alleged a
violation of the purely formal requirements of FCRA, and that they
did not factually allege any harm aside from the statutory
violation itself.  The judge pointed out that, in light of the
Supreme Court's recent decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robbins, 136
S.Ct. 1540, 194 L. Ed. 2D 635 (2016), bare procedural violations
of the FCRA, such as the violation of the stand-alone requirement
alleged by the plaintiffs, do not constitute an injury-in-fact.

In an attempt to salvage standing post-Spokeo, the plaintiffs
argued that the alleged FCRA violations caused them two types of
concrete harm: (1) informational injury, and (2) invasion of
privacy.

Judge McNulty, however, found that the plaintiffs did not even
allege that they have suffered the harm addressed by Congress'
promulgation of the stand-alone disclosure rule.  That harm would
be an applicant's failure to understand that he or she was
authorizing an employer background check.  The judge explained
that, where the plaintiffs do not allege that they did not see the
disclosure, or were distracted from it, the allegations amount to
no more than a bare procedural violation of the stand-alone
requirement.  Thus, the judge concluded that the plaintiffs'
allegations do not confer standing on an informational injury
theory.

The plaintiffs also contended that, by violating the stand-alone
disclosure requirement, Michaels invaded their privacy when
procuring consumer reports, contrary to the FCRA.

In relation to this, Judge McNulty stated that the harm addressed
by Congress in the FCRA, which would be enough to confer standing,
is one traditionally recognized at law: unauthorized release of
private information.  However, the judge noted that the plaintiffs
have conceded that they received a disclosure, and did not allege
that they were confused or distracted by the format, or that they
did not know what they were authorizing.  Nor did the plaintiffs
they deny that in fact they completed the online application and
authorized the background check.  The judge therefore concluded
that this was insufficient to confer standing.

Lastly, the plaintiffs argued that if the Court finds the
plaintiffs to lack Article III standing, Michelle Bercut's action
should not be dismissed.  Instead, the plaintiffs said that it
must be remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of
Sonoma, where it was commenced.  Having found that the district
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs'
actions, Judge McNulty held that he must remand the removed case
to the California state court.

A full-text copy of Judge McNulty's January 24, 2017 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/LcWY5L from Leagle.com.

CHRISTINA GRAHAM, Gary Anderson, Plaintiffs, represented by
PATRICIA A. BARASCH, SCHALL & BARASCH, LLC.

Michelle Bercut, Plaintiff, represented by Marc L. Godino --
mgodino@glancylaw.com -- COUNSEL NOT ADMITTED TO USDC NJ.

Michele Castro, Janice Bercut, Plaintiffs, represented by JOE
KENDALL -- jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com -- COUNSEL NOT ADMITTED TO
USDC, Jody Lynn Rudman -- jrudman@kendalllawgroup.com -- The
Kendall Law Group LLP & Matthew R. Scott, Kendall Law Group LLP.

Barbara Horton, Plaintiff, represented by ROSEMARY M. RIVAS --
rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com -- FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON.

MICHAELS STORES, INC., Defendant, represented by KEITH J. MILLER -
- kmiller@rwmlegal.com -- ROBINSON MILLER LLC, ROBERT T. SZYBA
-- rszyba@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW LLP & JUSTIN TAYLOR QUINN
-- jquinn@rwmlegal.com -- ROBINSON MILLER LLC.


MEDICREDIT INC: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Raffin" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Medicredit, Inc., and The Outsource Group, Inc., filed
an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Sheena
Raffin v. Medicredit, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-04912-MWF-
PJW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 18,
2017, the Hon. George H. King granted the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.  The class is defined as:

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

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

The appellate case is captioned as Sheena Raffin v. Medicredit,
Inc., et al., Case No. 17-80008, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

Plaintiff-Respondent SHEENA RAFFIN, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN PC
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: abacon@toddflaw.com

               - and -

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
          324 S. Beverly Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com

Defendants-Petitioners MEDICREDIT, INC., and THE OUTSOURCE GROUP,
INC., are represented by:

          Brad D. Brian, Esq.
          Michael R. Doyen, Esq.
          Henry Weissman, Esq.
          Mark Remy Yohalem, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 683-9280
          E-mail: Brad.Brian@mto.com
                  Michael.Doyen@mto.com
                  Henry.Weissmann@mto.com
                  Mark.Yohalem@mto.com

               - and -

          Mark P. Goodman, Esq.
          DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
          919 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 909-6000
          E-mail: mpgoodman@debevoise.com


METROPOLITAN TRANSIT: Faces "Katz" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metropolitan Transit
Authority. The case is captioned as Yaakov Katz, individually and
on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Metropolitan Transit Authority, a New York public benefit
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00472 (E.D.N.Y., Jan.
27, 2017).

MTA is a public benefit corporation responsible for public
transportation in the U.S. state of New York, serving 12 counties
in Downstate New York, along with two counties in southwestern
Connecticut under contract to the Connecticut Department of
Transportation, carrying over 11 million passengers on an average
weekday systemwide, and over 800,000 vehicles on its seven toll
bridges and two tunnels per weekday. MTA is the largest public
transit authority in the United States.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MICROSOFT CORP: Suspended Xbox Service Features, Maher Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Microsoft sold gamers
12-month Xbox Live Gold memberships but then suspended service
features without notice and without issuing credits or refunds, a
class claims in Chicago federal court.

The case is captioned, JAMES MAHER, individually and on behalf of
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. MICROSOFT
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case: 1:17-cv-00753 (N.D. Ill, January 30,
2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Kasif Khowaja, Esq.
     The Khowaja Law Firm, LLC
     70 East Lake Street, Suite 1220
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: 312-356-3200-T
     Fax: 312-386-5600-F
     E-mail: kasif@khowajalaw.com

          - and -

     James X. Bormes, Esq.
     Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
     Law Office of James X. Bormes, P.C.
     8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: 312-201-0575
     Fax: 312-332-0600-F
     E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.coom
             cpsons@bormeslaw.com


MINNESOTA, USA: Foster Appeals Judgment Before 8th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sheila Foster filed an appeal from a court order dated
December 21, 2016, and judgment dated December 22, 2016, entered
in her lawsuit styled Sheila Foster v. State of Minnesota, et al.,
Case No. 0:16-cv-02561-DSD, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota - Minneapolis.

The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights.

The appellate case is captioned as Sheila Foster v. State of
Minnesota, et al., Case No. 17-1177, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript is due on or before March 6, 2017;

   -- Appendix is due on March 16, 2017;

   -- Brief of Appellant Sheila Foster is due on March 16, 2017;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the Court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant; and

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
      court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.

Plaintiff-Appellant Sheila Foster, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq.
          Mark A. Wendorf, Esq.
          Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          E1250 First National Bank Building
          332 Minnesota Street
          Saint Paul, MN 55101-0000
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
          E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
                  m.wendorf@rwblawfirm.com
                  r.yard@rwblawfirm.com

               - and -

          Joseph Bourne, Esq.
          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON & GLUEK PLLC
          120 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-0000
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: jbourne@gustafsongluek.com
                  dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Erin Burns, Esq.
          Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
          NASTLAW LLC
          1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 923-9300
          Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
          E-mail: eburns@nastlaw.com
                  dnast@nastlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael R. Cashman, Esq.
          Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq.
          HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC
          8050 W. 78th Street
          Edina, MN 55439
          Telephone: (952) 941-4005
          Facsimile: (952) 941-2337
          E-mail: mcashman@hjlawfirm.com
                  rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Frank T. Davis, Jr., Esq.
          Joseph Goldberg, Esq.
          FREEDMAN BOYD HOLLANDER GOLDBERG URIAS & WARD P.A.
          20 First Plaza, Suite 700
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 842-9960
          Facsimile: (505) 842-0761
          E-mail: ftd@fbdlaw.com
                  jg@fbdlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          Simon Bahne Paris, Esq.
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY PC
          One Liberty Place
          1650 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19192-0000
          Telephone: (610) 891-0696
          E-mail: phoward@smbb.com
                  ckocher@smbb.com
                  sparis@smbb.com

               - and -

          Marisa C. Katz, Esq.
          Douglas Micko, Esq.
          Vildan Aksoz Teske, Esq.
          TESKE MICKO KATZ KITZER & ROCHEL
          222 S. Ninth Street, Suite 4050
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 746-1558
          Facsimile: (651) 846-5339
          E-mail: katz@teskemicko.com
                  micko@teskemicko.com
                  teske@teskemicko.com

               - and -

          Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
          THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
          Cornerstone Building
          One Central Avenue West, Suite 203
          St. Michael, MN 55376
          Telephone: (763) 515-6110
          Facsimile: (763) 226-2515
          E-mail: pat@throndsetlaw.com

               - and -

          Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
          E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  kaw@wexlerwallace.com

Defendants-Appellees State of Minnesota; Lori Swanson, in her
official capacity as Minnesota Attorney General; and Myron Frans,
in his official capacity as Commissioner of Minnesota Management
and Budget, are represented by:

          Alethea Marie Huyser, Esq.
          ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
          ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1100
          Saint Paul, MN 55101-2128
          Telephone: (651) 296-6196
          E-mail: alethea.huyser@ag.state.mn.us

               - and -

          Oliver J. Larson, Esq.
          Jeffery Thompson, Esq.
          ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
          ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          1800 Bremer Tower
          445 Minnesota Street
          Saint Paul, MN 55101-2134
          Telephone: (651) 297-2040
          Facsimile: (651) 297-1235
          E-mail: oliver.larson@ag.state.mn.us
                  jeffery.thompson@ag.state.mn.us


MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Bush Appeals Decision to Ninth Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony J. Bush filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
entitled Anthony Bush v. Mondelez International, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:16-cv-02460-RS, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
alleges that Mondelez falsely and deceptively misrepresents the
quantity of food contained in each unit of Go-Paks (including Mini
Chips Ahoy!, Mini Oreo, Golden Oreo Mini, Nutter Butter Bites,
Mini Nilla Wafers, Ritz Bits, and Teddy Grahams) by way of its
packaging.

Mondelez International, Inc., and Mondelez Global, LLC are the
owner, manufacturer, and distributor of Go-Paks.

The appellate case is captioned as Anthony Bush v. Mondelez
International, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-15126, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by February 21, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on March 20, 2017;

   -- Opening brief of Appellant Anthony J. Bush is due on May 1,
      2017;

   -- Appellees Mondelez Global LLC and Mondelez International,
      Inc.'s answering brief is due on May 30, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Plaintiff-Appellant ANTHONY J. BUSH, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          The Pershing Square Building
          448 S. Hill St., Suite 701
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 788-4050
          Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
          E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com

Defendants-Appellees Mondelez International, Inc., and Mondelez
Global LLC are represented by:

          Kenneth K. Lee, Esq.
          Kate T. Spelman, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          633 West 5th Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239-5152
          E-mail: KLee@jenner.com
                  kspelman@jenner.com

               - and -

          Dean N. Panos, Esq.
          JENNER & BLOCK LLP
          353 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 923-2765
          E-mail: dpanos@jenner.com


MOUNT SINAI HEALTH: Latner Seeks Review of Judgment to 2nd Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Daniel Latner filed an appeal from the District Court's
order and judgment, both dated December 14, 2016, entered in the
lawsuit titled Latner v. Mount Sinai Health System, Inc., Case No.
16-cv-683, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
brought the lawsuit to put an end to the Defendant's alleged
practice of making unsolicited calls.

The appellate case is captioned as Latner v. Mount Sinai Health
System, Inc., Case No. 17-99, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant Daniel Latner, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, is represented by:

      Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
      BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
      155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 729-5288
      Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
      E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com

Defendants-Appellees Mount Sinai Health System, Inc., and West
Park Medical Group, P.C., are represented by:

          Jeffrey Neal Rosenthal, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          1 Logan Square, 130 North 18th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 569-5553
          Facsimile: (215) 832-5553
          E-mail: rosenthal-j@blankrome.com


NATIONAL ELECTORAL: To Face Suit Over Destruction of Property
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tendai Kamhungira at Nehandra Radio reports the National Electoral
Reform Agenda (Nera) must face a class-action lawsuit for the
alleged looting and destruction of property during a protest for
electoral reforms, a Harare judge has ruled.

In a decision yesterday, High Court judge Owen Tagu ruled that the
Zanu PF-aligned peace and business organisation, Citizens Against
Violence and Anarchy Trust (Cavaat), had a standing to lead the
case.

The decision means Cavaat can hold Nera as a group liable over the
alleged damage to property during a protest that took place in
Harare on August 26 last year.

This could lead to a large payout than if individual lawsuits were
required.

Nera failed to respond to the application for a certification
decision, with the case placed on the unopposed roll.

Nera -- a grouping of over 18 political parties -- is accused of
organising the demonstration.

"I accept that the respondent (Nera) has a right to conduct
peaceful demonstrations.

"However, I am advised that it is required to put in place
adequate measures to ensure that demonstrations are conducted
peacefully and must comply to the best of its ability with its
notice of a public gathering and or directions given to it by the
regulatory authority," said Elton Ziki, who deposed an affidavit
on behalf of Cavat.

"Notwithstanding this, there was violence during the
demonstration," he said, adding that "some of the protestors also
participated in the violence."

"Ultimately, there was public disorder and a breach of peace,
which resulted in loss and or damage of property of individuals
who did not even participate in the demonstrations," Ziki argued.

The application was filed in terms of Section 3 (1) of the Class
Actions Act.

In terms of the law, a class action cannot be instituted directly
without seeking the court's permission.

"The respondent as the convenor had a duty to ensure that the
demonstration was peaceful. It was required to put in place
adequate measures to ensure that there was no violence," Ziki
said.

"Even after the violence had started, it had a duty to discourage
its members from participating in the violence," he said.

He said the Nera protestors were seen throwing stones, looting,
vandalising and even burning property, but accused the convenors
of failing to take any action to normalise the situation.

"As a result of the violence that occurred during the
demonstrations, ordinary citizens lost property and business.

"It is no longer certain whether one can conduct business in the
usual manner for fear of loss or damage of property."

"It is only fair, reasonable, necessary and justifiable that the
respondent be held liable for the loss or damage of property
suffered by ordinary citizens," Ziki said, adding that Nera failed
to comply with a High Court order for it to demonstrate
peacefully.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Suppress Cheerleaders' Wages, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News service, reported
that an antitrust class action in San Francisco, accuses the NFL
and 26 of its 32 teams of conspiring to suppress wages for
cheerleaders in the multibillion-dollar sports enterprise, forcing
them to work off the clock and prohibiting them from seeking work
in other sports.

Former San Francisco 49ers cheerleader Jane Doe claims in the
federal class action that NFL and 26 of its 32 teams struck
anticompetitive deals designed to underpay their "female
athletes."

"The conspiracy began with an agreement between senior executives
of defendant NFL member teams to eliminate competition for female
athletes with the intent and effect of suppressing the
compensation and mobility of female athletes," the 25-page
complaint states.

Doe says the teams agreed to not to recruit each other's female
athletes; to pay all cheerleaders a low, flat rate for each game;
not to pay them at all for time spent rehearsing or other
mandatory activities, such as community outreach; to bar them from
working in other professional sports; and to prohibit them from
discussing their pay with each other, to mask "the illegal nature
of their employment and compensation."

Several NFL teams have settled wage-and-hour lawsuits from
cheerleaders in recent years

In 2014, Oakland Raiders cheerleaders settled their lawsuit for
$1.25 million.

The Cincinnati Bengals settled a similar lawsuit for $250,000 in
2015, and the New York Jets settled with cheerleaders for $324,000
in 2016.

California in 2015 passed a law requiring professional sports
teams to pay cheerleaders minimum wage, overtime and provide sick
leave, workers' compensation and other employment benefits.

Before the rash of labor suits raised most cheerleaders' pay to at
least minimum wage, Doe says, dancers were paid as little as $90
to $125 per game with no compensation for other required
activities.

"Perhaps even more insultingly, defendant NFL member teams
required female athletes auditioning for the team to pay
approximately $25 per woman just to try out," Doe says in her
complaint.

In addition to game performances, cheerleaders work approximately
100 three-hour rehearsals, three times a week from about May until
December, according to the complaint.

Doe estimates the fair market value for their work should be
$100,000 per year. That figure is based on minimum rates for live
shows and performances prescribed by the Dancers Alliance, a union
for professional dancers and choreographers.

Doe also complains that NFL teams require cheerleaders surrender
the right to use their likenesses in promotional and retail
materials. This allows the NFL and its teams to sell calendars and
other products featuring female athletes, which bring in about $1
million per team each year, according to Forbes.

Doe says the NFL teams use fear and intimidation to further their
conspiracy to suppress dancers' wages.

"Female athletes were told by defendant NFL member team agents
they were lucky to be chosen, should be grateful and could be
quickly replaced if they failed to perform in any way," Doe says
in the complaint.

She accuses the NFL and 26 teams of violating federal and
California antitrust laws.

Doe seeks class certification, damages for suppressed earnings and
recovery of litigation costs.

She is represented by Drexel Bradshaw in San Francisco.

The case is captioned, Jane Doe, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated,  Plaintiffs, vs. NFL Enterprises LLC
dba National Football League, San Francisco 49ers, Oakland
Raiders, San Diego Chargers, Los Angeles Rams, Arizona Cardinals,
Atlanta Falcons, Baltimore Ravens, Buffalo Bills, Carolina
Panthers, Cincinnati Bengals, Dallas Cowboys, Denver Broncos,
Detroit Lions, Houston Texans, Indianapolis Colts, Jacksonville
Jaguars, Kansas City Chiefs, Miami Dolphins, Minnesota Vikings,
New England Patriots, New Orleans Saints, New York Jets,
Philadelphia Eagles, Seattle Seahawks, Tampa Bay Buccaneers,
Tennessee Titans and Washington Redskins, Case No. 3:17-cv-00496
(N.D. Cal., January 31, 2017).

NFL spokesman Robert Roberts did not return a phone call seeking
comment on February 1.

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class:

     Drexel A. Bradshaw, Esq.
     Thomas J. O'Brien, Esq.
     Bradshaw & Associates, P.C.
     One Sansome Street
     Thirty-Fourth Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: (415) 433-4800
     Fax: (415) 433-4841


NEIU: Defendants Immune from Suit, Judge Says
---------------------------------------------
District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer of the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted defendants' motion for summary
judgment in the case KIMBERLY BOLANOS, Plaintiff, v. NORTHEASTERN
ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY, DANIEL WEBER, and SHARON HAHS, Defendants No.
14 CV 7533 (N.D. Ill.)

Kimberly Bolanos, a Caucasian woman, was a graduate student at
Northeastern Illinois University (NEIU), and began working there
in June 2007 as a Graduate Assistant. Beginning in June 2009, she
was employed in the Registrar's office, in a position referred to
as the Assistant Registrar of Graduate Records or, sometimes,
Coordinator of Graduate Records under the supervision of the
University Registrar, Daniel Weber.

Bolanos disapproved of the practices of several other workers,
who, she claims, came to work late, misreported their time, and
engaged in personal activities while at work. Bolanos confronted
these other workers from time to time; after one such
confrontation, another employee claimed that Bolanos had created a
hostile and threatening work environment.

On March 13, 2014, Bolanos was served with a union grievance. The
grievance, filed as a class action, alleged that Bolanos did not
provide a respectful workplace. Bolanos was investigated and
eventually was terminated by NEIU.

Bolanos filed a complaint on September 26, 2014 against NEIU,
alleging claims of sex, race, and national origin discrimination,
and retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, and 42
U.S.C. Section 1983; due process violations under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983; violations of the Stored Communications Act (SCA),
18 U.S.C. Section 2701, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18
U.S.C. Section 1030; and state law claims of intrusion on
seclusion, retaliatory discharge, and intentional infliction of
emotional distress (IIED).

NEIU moved to dismiss all but the Title VII claims on sovereign
immunity grounds.  The court granted that motion without prejudice
on February 18, 2015. The court noted that Bolanos's Section 1981
and Section 1983 claims against NEIU were barred by sovereign
immunity, and that the other claims were also barred absent an
immunity waiver for such claims. The court granted Bolanos leave
to amend to address the sovereign immunity issue for those claims
and to make a claim for prospective relief, if appropriate.

In her amended complaint filed on March 11, 2015, Bolanos withdrew
her claim under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the intrusion-on-
seclusion claim, and added Weber and Hahs as defendants in their
individual and official capacities. The amended complaint alleges,
against all defendants: sex discrimination under Title VII (Count
I); race and national origin discrimination under Title VII (Count
II); retaliation under Title VII (Count III); violation of
procedural and substantive due process under Section 1983 (Count
IV); sex, race, and national origin discrimination and retaliation
under Section 1983 (Count V); sex, race, and national origin
discrimination and retaliation under Section 1981 (Count VI);
retaliatory discharge (Count VIII); and IIED (Count IX). She
alleged a violation of the SCA against NEIU only (Count VII).
Aside from removing two claims and adding two defendants, the
allegations in the amended complaint are virtually identical to
those in the original complaint.

Defendants Weber and Hahs moved to dismiss all but the Section
1983 claim alleging sex, race, and national origin discrimination.
The court also dismissed the due process clams in Count IV and
dismissed the Section 1981 claim in Count VI because there is no
private right of action against state actors under Section 1981.
As for Count V, the court dismissed the retaliation aspect of the
claim, and all of the official-capacity claims. The court denied
the motion with respect to Count IX. All claims in the amended
complaint remain against defendant NEIU, and the claims remaining
against defendants Weber and Hahs are Count V and Count IX, in
their individual capacities. Defendants have moved for summary
judgment on all counts.

Judge Pallmeyer granted defendants' motion for summary judgment
reasoning that the absence of evidence sufficient to reach a jury
on plaintiff's Title VII claims defeats her claims under Section
1983, and Section 1981 as well. Defendants Weber and Hahs are
entitled to summary judgment on Count V and because defendants
have sovereign immunity and Bolanos's claim for IIED fails as a
matter of law, summary judgment is granted on Count IX.

A copy of Judge Pallmeyer's memorandum opinion and order dated
January 4, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/kNTH2v from
Leagle.com.

Kimberly Bolanos, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Jennifer Marie Hill, Esq.
     Anthony J. Peraica Esq.
     Anthony J. Peraica & Associates
     5130 S Archer Ave
     Chicago, IL 60632
     Telephone: 773-735-1700

Defendants, represented by Erin M. Petrolis -- Jeffrey John
Freeman -- at Office of the Attorney General, State of Illinois


NEW ORIENTAL: Feb. 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc. and certain
of its officers.   The class action, filed in United States
District Court, District of New Jersey, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired New Oriental American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs")
between September 27, 2016 and December 1, 2016, both dates
inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased New Oriental ADRs during
the Class Period, you have until February 13, 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.

New Oriental is a Cayman Islands corporation headquartered in
Beijing, People's Republic of China ("PRC"). New Oriental provides
private educational services under the New Oriental brand in the
PRC.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that:  (1) New Oriental engaged in college application fraud; and
(2) as a result, defendants' statements about New Oriental's
business, operations and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On December 2, 2016, Reuters published a report detailing
allegations of academic fraud at the company. Specifically,
Reuters reported that eight former and current New Oriental
employees informed Reuters that New Oriental "engaged in college
application fraud, including writing application essays and
teacher recommendations, and falsifying high school transcripts."

On that same day, Reuters reported that the American International
Recruitment Council, which certifies agencies that recruit foreign
students on behalf of U.S. colleges, will investigate the company
in response to the Reuters report.

On this news, shares of the Company fell $6.99 per share or over
14% from its previous closing price to close at $42.00 per share
on December 2, 2016, damaging investors.

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


NEW YORK: Bus Companies Sue Over Excessive Tolls
------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that citing a federal judge's
finding that trucking companies pay excessive tolls on the New
York Thruway to subsidize the state's canal system, bus companies
claim in a federal class action in Manhattan, that the
unconstitutional scheme affects them the same way and they want a
refund.

The case is captioned, AMERICAN BUS ASSOCIATION; DATTCO, INC;
STARR TRANSIT CO., INC., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY
AUTHORITY; NEW YORK STATE CANAL CORPORATION; BILL FINCH in Civil
Action No.1.17-cv-782 his official capacity as Acting Executive
Director of the New York State Thruway Authority; JOANNE M.
MAHONEY in her official capacity as Chair of the New York CLASS
ACTION COMPLAINT State Thruway Authority/ Canal Corporation Boards
of Directors; DONNA J. LUH in her official capacity as Vice-Chair
of the New York State Thruway Authority/ Canal Corporation Boards
of Directors; and RICHARD N. SIMBERG, J. DONALD RICE JR., JOSE
HOLGUIN-VERAS, ROBERT L. MEGNA, STEPHEN M. SALAND, in their
official capacities as members of the New York State Thruway
Authority/Canal Corporation Boards of Directors, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00782 (S.D.N.Y. February 1, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     Regind R. Goeke, Esq.
     Evan M. Tager, Esq.
     Kristina M. Portner, Esq.
     Matthew A. Waring, Esq.
     MAYER BROWN LLP
     1999 K Street, NW.
     Washington, DC 20006-1101
     Telephone: (202) 263-3000
     Facsimile: (202) 263-3300

          - and -

     Richard P. Schweitzer, Esq.
     Richard P. Schweitzer, PLLC
     1717 K Street, NW., Suite 900
     Washington, DC 20006
     Telephone: (202) 223-3040


NEW YORK: Rold Appeals Ruling in Barcia v. Insurance Board
----------------------------------------------------------
Intervenor William J. Rold filed an appeal from the District
Court's stipulation and order dated December 19, 2016, relating to
the lawsuit titled Barcia v. Sitkin, Case No. 79-cv-5831, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New
York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Louis Sitkin
was sued individually and as Chairman of the New York State
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.  The consolidated class
actions challenged the practices and procedures of the
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, a body established by the
State of New York to determine eligibility for unemployment
benefits.

The appellate case is captioned as Barcia v. Sitkin, Case No. 17-
160, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Intervenor-Appellant William J. Rold is represented by:

          Jane Becker, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JANE BECKER WHITAKER
          416 Ponce de Leon
          San Juan, PR 00918
          Telephone: (787) 585-3824
          E-mail: janebeckerwhitaker@gmail.com
                  janebeckerwhitaker@yahoo.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Nidia Barcia, Municipal Labor Committee,
Kettely Laraque, Michael Wernham, Charles Rosa, Soso Liang Lo,
Joan Miller, John Paulsen, Esperanza Polanco, and Joyce Glotzer,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          David Alan Raff, Esq.
          RAFF & BECKER, LLP
          470 Park Avenue South
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 732-5400
          Facsimile: (212) 732-0270
          E-mail: raffd@raffbecker.com

Defendants-Appellees Louis Sitkin, Individually and as Chairman of
the New York State Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board; James R.
Rhone, Individually and as members of the New York State
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board; Arthur Strauss, Individually
and as members of the New York State Unemployment Insurance Appeal
Board; Harry Zankel, Individually and as members of the New York
State Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board; Douglas Pugh,
Individually and as members of the New York State Unemployment
Insurance Appeal Board; Philip Ross, Individually and as
Industrial Commissioner of the State Of New York; New York State
Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board; and New York State Department
of Labor are represented by:

          Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
          NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          120 Broadway
          New York, NY 10271
          Telephone: (212) 416-8020
          E-mail: barbara.underwood@ag.ny.gov


OMNI INSURANCE: Colter Appeals D. S.C. Court Decision to 4th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Allison Colter filed an appeal from a court ruling in
her lawsuit styled Allison Colter v. Omni Insurance Company, Case
No. 3:15-cv-04171-JMC, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina at Columbia.

The appellate case is captioned as Allison Colter v. Omni
Insurance Company, Case No. 17-1071, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 20,
2017, District Judge J. Michelle Childs denied the Plaintiff's
Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment in the Case.

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

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

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

Plaintiff-Appellant ALLISON COLTER, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Thomas Jefferson Goodwyn, Jr., Esq.
          GOODWYN LAW FIRM, LLC
          2519 Devine Street
          Columbia, SC 29205
          Telephone: (803) 251-4517
          E-mail: JGoodwyn@Goodwynlaw.com

               - and -

          Rachel Gottlieb Peavy, Esq.
          GOODWYN LAW FIRM, LLC
          2519 Devine Street
          Columbia, SC 29205
          Telephone: (803) 251-4517

Defendants-Appellees OMNI INSURANCE COMPANY and OMNI INDEMNITY
COMPANY are represented by:

          Brett Harris Bayne, Esq.
          J. Andrew Delaney, Esq.
          MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, LLP
          1320 Main Street
          P. O. Box 12519
          Columbia, SC 29211-2519
          Telephone: (803) 227-2281
          E-mail: brett.bayne@mgclaw.com
                  adelaney@mgclaw.com


OMNI INSURANCE: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Colter" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Omni Insurance Company and Omni Indemnity Company filed
an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Allison Colter
v. Omni Insurance Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-04171-JMC, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina at Columbia.

The appellate case is captioned as Allison Colter v. Omni
Insurance Company, Case No. 17-1104, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff
Allison Colter filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in her
District Court case.  The Appellate Court Clerk assigned Case No.
17-1071 to that proceeding.

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

                          *     *     *

An order is filed consolidating the Defendant's Appellate Case
(Case No. 17-1104) with the Plaintiff's Appellate Case (Case No.
17-1071).

In addition, according to the briefing schedule in the instant
Appellate Case, initial forms are due within 14 days.

Plaintiff-Appellee ALLISON COLTER, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Thomas Jefferson Goodwyn, Jr., Esq.
          Rachel Gottlieb Peavy, Esq.
          GOODWYN LAW FIRM, LLC
          2519 Devine Street
          Columbia, SC 29205
          Telephone: (803) 251-4517
          E-mail: JGoodwyn@Goodwynlaw.com
                  rpeavy@goodwynlaw.com

Defendants-Appellants OMNI INSURANCE COMPANY and OMNI INDEMNITY
COMPANY are represented by:

          Brett Harris Bayne, Esq.
          J. Andrew Delaney, Esq.
          MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, LLP
          1320 Main Street
          P. O. Box 12519
          Columbia, SC 29211-2519
          Telephone: (803) 227-2281
          E-mail: brett.bayne@mgclaw.com
                  adelaney@mgclaw.com

               - and -

          Helen Faith Hiser, Esq.
          MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK & COURIE, LLC
          P. O. Box 650007
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
          Telephone: (843) 567-2930
          E-mail: helen.hiser@mgclaw.com


OMNI LIMOUSINE: Court Refuses to Certify "McSwiggin"
----------------------------------------------------
Judge James C. Mahan of the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, the defendant's decertification, and the
defendant's objection to the Magistrate's Order in the case
captioned, CHRISTY McSWIGGIN and KEVIN McSWIGGIN, Plaintiffs, v.
OMNI LIMOUSINE, Defendant, Case No. 2:14-cv-02172-JCM-NJK (D.
Nev.).
The Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint on December 19,
2014, alleging seven causes of action against the defendant
involving their compensation for their employment as
"Chauffeurs/Limousine drivers."

Before the court is the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, defendant Omni
Limousine's motion for decertification of the conditional class
formed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the
defendant's objection to Magistrate Judge Koppe's September 23,
2016, order denying defendant's second motion to strike.

In his Order dated January 23, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/xQ0XpY from Leagle.com, Judge Mahan denied class
certification saying the motion was overdue and failed to comply
with the numerosity requirement.  As to the Defendants'
decertification, the Court found that the plaintiffs, in the
particular circumstances of the case, are sufficiently "similarly
situated" under the FLSA to survive the motion.  Regarding the
defendant's objection to Magistrate Judge Koppe's order, Judge
Mahan held that the plaintiffs accurately argue that the defendant
has failed to file a timely objection to that order.

Kevin McSwiggin, et al. are represented by:

      Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
      Leah Lin Jones, Esq.
      Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
      Joshua R. Hendrickson, Esq.
      THIERMAN BUCK, LLC
      7287 Lakeside Dr.
      Reno, NV 89511-76520
      Tel: (775)284-1500

Omni Limousine is represented by Anthony L. Hall, Esq. --
ahall@hollandhart.com -- and -- Rico Cordova, Esq. --
rncordova@hollandhart.com -- HOLLAND & HART LLP


PHARMAVITE LLC: Bradach Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Bradach filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the
lawsuit titled Noah Bradach, et al. v. Pharmavite, LLC, Case No.
2:14-cv-03218-GHK-AGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Noah Bradach v. Pharmavite,
LLC, Case No. 17-55064, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs
Noah Bradach and Laura Corbett have previously filed an appeal to
the Ninth Circuit.  That appellate case is captioned as Noah
Bradach, et al. v. Pharmavite LLC, Case No. 16-56407.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that they viewed "Helps
Maintain a Healthy Heart" on Pharmavite's vitamin E supplements
and purchased at least one bottle of the supplements in reliance
on this statement.  The Plaintiffs brings two claims rooted in the
alleged falsity of the "Helps Maintain a Healthy Heart" statement:
(1) violation of California's unfair competition law, and (2)
violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by February 17, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on May 18, 2017;

   -- Appellant Noah Bradach's opening brief is due on June 27,
      2017;

   -- Appellee Pharmavite, LLC's answering brief is due on
      July 27, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Plaintiff-Appellant NOAH BRADACH, On Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Jonathan D. Miller, Esq.
          NYE, PEABODY, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER, LLP
          33 West Mission Street, Suite 201
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 963-2345
          Facsimile: (805) 563-5385
          E-mail: jonathan@nps-law.com

               - and -

          Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
          Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT PC
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-7748
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: mmuecke@bffb.com
                  psyverson@bffb.com

               - and -

          Elaine A. Ryan, Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
          2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: eryan@bffb.com

               - and -

          Laura Mummert, Esq.
          GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C.
          Eight Tower Bridge
          161 Washington Street, Suite 1025
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (484) 342-0700
          E-mail: mummert@lawgsp.com

               - and -

          Brian Penny, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005-1108
          Telephone: (212) 907-0718
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: bpenny@labaton.com

               - and -

          Howard Sedran, Esq.
          LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: hsedran@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Max A. Stein, Esq.
          Stewart M. Weltman, Esq.
          BOODELL & DOMANSKIS, LLC
          1 N. Franklin Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 300-5505
          E-mail: mstein@boodlaw.com
                  sweltman@boodlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee PHARMAVITE, LLC, is represented by:

          Bridget Ahmann, Esq.
          Joseph Michael Price, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          90 South Seventh Street, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 766-8055
          Facsimile: (612) 766-1600
          E-mail: bridget.ahmann@FaegreBD.com
                  joseph.price@FaegreBD.com

               - and -

          Juliet Arlene Markowitz, Esq.
          Rene P. Tatro, Esq.
          TATRO TEKOSKY SADWICK LLP
          333 S. Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 225-7171
          Facsimile: (213) 225-7151
          E-mail: jmarkowitz@ttsmlaw.com
                  renetatro@ttsmlaw.com


PIXARBIO CORPORATION: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C., announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
in United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of all persons or entities that purchased PixarBio
Corporation ("PixarBio" or the "Company) (OTC: PXRB) securities:
(1) pursuant and/or traceable to PixarBio's private placement that
closed on October 30, 2016; and/or (2) publicly traded on the open
market from October 31, 2016 through January 20, 2017, inclusive.

PixarBio shareholders may, no later than March 27, 2017, move the
Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class.  If you
purchased shares of PixarBio and would like to learn more about
these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to
sign up online, visit: www.maniskas.com.

PixarBio is a specialty pharmaceutical/biotechnology company that
focuses on the pre-clinical and clinical development of
neurological drug delivery systems for post-operative pain.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that (1) the market for PixarBio's securities exhibited
manipulative or deceptive activities; (2) PixarBio's assertions in
press releases, third-party promotional materials, and PixarBio's
Form S-1 concerning, among other things, PixarBio's business
combinations and current shareholders; the identity and
qualifications of key shareholders and employees and PixarBio's
current and prospective development efforts lacked veracity; and
(3) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On January 3, 2017, PixarBio's Chief Executive Officer, Frank
Reynolds, disclosed that the Company had plans to acquire InVivo
Therapeutics Holdings Corp. ("InVivo"). In response, InVivo stated
that it had never been involved in any negotiations regarding a
deal and rejected the offer.

Then on January 23, 2017, citing concerns about possible
"manipulative or deceptive activities," the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission froze trading of PixarBio shares. According to
the SEC, "the market for the security appears to reflect
manipulative or deceptive activities."

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than March 27,
2017, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or
other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this
action.

For more information regarding this, please contact RM LAW, P.C.
(Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or by
email at rm@maniskas.com or visit: www.maniskas.com.  For more
information about class action cases in general or to learn more
about RM LAW, P.C. please visit our website: www.maniskas.com.

RM LAW, P.C. is a national shareholder litigation firm.  RM LAW,
P.C. is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and
institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and
federal courts nationwide.


PNC FINANCIAL: "White" Plaintiffs Can't Add RICO Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lawrence F. Stengel granted in part and denied in part, the
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint in the case
captioned NELSON WHITE, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE PNC
FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action
No. 11-7928 (E.D. Pa.).

The putative class action was brought by homeowners claiming
violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).
The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants carried on a "captive
reinsurance scheme" in which the defendants enjoyed kickbacks,
referrals, and fees that are prohibited by RESPA.

After Judge Stengel denied the defendants' motion to dismiss in
2014, the case was stayed pending the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit's decision in Cunningham v. M & T Bank Corp.,
814 F.3d 156 (3d Cir. 2016).  Both parties sought a stay pending
the Cunningham decision because the issue in that case was
identical to an issue in this case: whether equitable tolling
applies to RESPA's one-year statute of limitations.  After
Cunningham was decided, the plaintiffs moved to lift the stay.
The plaintiffs also moved for leave to amend their complaint to
modify their RESPA claim and add several entirely new claims under
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

Judge Stengel granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend their
complaint to modify their RESPA claims.  The judge found that,
assuming the veracity of the plaintiffs' allegations, the
defendants violated RESPA each time an allegedly illegal kickback,
fee, or referral was given or received.  The judge held that the
captive reinsurance scheme, as pled, constitutes a continuing
violation of RESPA.  Judge Stengel thus concluded that, because
the continuing violations doctrine was applicable, the statute of
limitations runs from the date of the last RESPA violation rather
than the first.  The judge found that the amendment with respect
to RESPA was not unduly delayed and would not prejudice the
defendants.

Unlike with their RESPA claims, however, Judge Stengel found that
the plaintiffs have unduly delayed moving to amend to add claims
under RICO.  The judge also found that the new RICO claims do not
relate back to the original complaint under Fed. R. Civ. Proc.
15(c).  For both of these reasons, Judge Stengel denied the
plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to add new RICO
claims.

A full-text copy of Judge Stengel's January 10, 2017 memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/8PRZcc from Leagle.com.

NELSON WHITE, JR., LISA WHITE, CHARLES HIGHTOWER, COLLEEN
HIGHTOWER, Plaintiffs, represented by EDWARD W. CIOLKO --
eciolko@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, JOSEPH H.
MELTZER -- jmeltzer@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP, AMANDA TRASK -- atrask@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, DONNA SIEGEL MOFFA -- dmoffa@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP, MICHAEL K. YARNOFF --
myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com -- KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP,
NATALIE LESSER -- nlesser@ktmc.com -- AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER &
FELD LLP & TERENCE S. ZIEGLER -- tziegler@ktmc.com -- Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.

GEORGE G. DONALD, LUZ GARCIA, MICHELLE B. JOHNSTON, KEVIN
ZIELINSKI, DAN B. JOHNSTON, JILL CRUMPLER, Plaintiffs, represented
by JOSEPH H. MELTZER, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, EDWARD
W. CIOLKO, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, MICHAEL K. YARNOFF,
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP, NATALIE LESSER, AKIN GUMP
STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP & TERENCE S. ZIEGLER, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP.

THE PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., Defendant, represented by
ANDREW J. SOVEN -- asoven@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH, LLP, DANIEL
I. BOOKER -- dbooker@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP, JOSEPH J.
MAHADY -- jmahady@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP, LOUIS W. SCHACK
-- lschack@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP & ROBERT A. NICHOLAS --
rnicholas@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP.


PRIMARY CARE: "George" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Centeria George, on behalf of
herself and all similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v.
Primary Care Holdings, Inc., doing business as Humana, the
Defendant, Case No. CACE-16-022625, was removed from the 17th
Judicial Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 0:17-cv-60217-BB to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to Hon. Judge Beth Bloom.

Primary Care Holdings operates as a subsidiary of Humana Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 337 7992
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sean Alan Douthard, Esq.
          Angelique Groza Lyons, Esq.
          CONSTANGY, Brooks, Smith,
          Prophete, LLP
          100 N. Tampa Street, Suite 3350
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223 7166
          Facsimile: (813) 223 2515
          E-mail: alyons@constangy.com


REGUS MANAGEMENT: Circle Click Appeals Ruling to Ninth Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Circle Click Media LLC and CTNY Insurance Group filed
an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Circle
Click Media, LLC, et al. v. Regus Management Group, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 3:12-cv-04000-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco.

Regus is in the business of leasing fully equipped commercial
office space using an Office Service Agreement (OSA).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs filed the putative class action against the Defendants
alleging that the actual monthly payment amount exceed the monthly
amount stated on the OSA because Regus charges mandatory fees that
are not adequately disclosed until after the lease is signed.
Based on these allegations, the Plaintiffs brought claims for: (1)
violations of California Business & Professions Code section 17200
(Unfair Competition Law) (UCL); (2) violations of California
Business & Professions Code section 17500 (California False
Advertising Law) (FAL), and (3) unjust enrichment.

The appellate case is captioned as Circle Click Media, LLC, et al.
v. Regus Management Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 17-15088, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by February 13, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on March 13, 2017;

   -- Appellants CTNY Insurance Group, LLC and Circle Click
      Media, LLC's opening brief is due on April 24, 2017;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees HQ Global Workplaces, LLC,
      Regus Business Centre, LLC, Regus Management Group, LLC and
      Regus, PLC, is due on May 24, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Plaintiffs-Appellants CIRCLE CLICK MEDIA, LLC, a California
limited liability company, and CTNY INSURANCE GROUP, LLC, a
Connecticut limited liability company, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Ali Ari Aalaei, Esq.
          Ari Law, P.C.
          90 New Montgomery St., Suite 905
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 357-3600
          E-mail: aaalaei@psalaw.com

               - and -

          S. Chandler Visher, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF S. CHANDLER VISHER
          44 Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 901-0500
          E-mail: chandler@visherlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees REGUS MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; REGUS BUSINESS CENTRE, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; REGUS, PLC, a Jersey, Channel Islands,
public limited company; and HQ GLOBAL WORKPLACES, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, are represented by:

          Stephanie A. Blazewicz, Esq.
          Meryl Macklin, Esq.
          K. Lee Marshall, Esq.
          Tracy M. Talbot, Esq.
          Daniel T. Rockey, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 375-3400
          E-mail: stephanie.blazewicz@bryancave.com
                  meryl.macklin@bryancave.com
                  kenneth.marshall@bryancave.com
                  tracy.talbot@bryancave.com
                  daniel.rockey@bryancave.com

               - and -

          Darci F. Madden, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          211 North Broadway
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 259-2366
          E-mail: darci.madden@bryancave.com


RESTAURANT.COM INC: Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of "Shelton" Suit Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Restaurant.Com Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit entitled Larissa Shelton, et al. v. Restaurant.Com
Inc., Case No. 3-10-cv-00824, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs purchased gift certificates from Restaurant.com that
allegedly violated several New Jersey statutes.  Restaurant.com
sold gift certificates online that provided a credit for the
holder for purchases of food and beverages at the restaurant named
on the certificate.  The amount paid did not always coincide with
the face amount of the certificate with standard terms and
conditions that the certificate expired one (1) year from date of
issue, except in California and where otherwise provided by law
and the certificate was void to the extent prohibited by law.  The
Plaintiffs filed a purported class action against Restaurant.com
in New Jersey state court, and the case was later removed to
federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.

The appellate case is captioned as Larissa Shelton, et al. v.
Restaurant.Com Inc., Case No. 17-1078, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellees LARISSA SHELTON and GREGORY BOHUS, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
          E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. McGinn, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. MCGINN
          79 Paterson Street
          New Brunswick, NJ 08901
          Telephone: (732) 937-9400
          Facsimile: (800) 931-2408
          E-mail: mcginn.chris@gmail.com

               - and -

          Henry P. Wolfe, Esq.
          THE WOLF LAW FIRM
          1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: (732) 545-7900

Defendant-Appellant RESTAURANT.COM INC. is represented by:

          Michael R. McDonald, Esq.
          Caroline E. Oks, Esq.
          Jennifer M. Thibodaux, Esq.
          GIBBONS PC
          One Gateway Center
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 596-4827
          Facsimile: (973) 639-6295
          E-mail: mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com
                  coks@gibbonslaw.com
                  jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com


ROCKET FUEL: Bid to Amend Complaint in Securities Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied the plaintiff's motion for leave
to file an amended complaint in the case captioned IN RE ROCKET
FUEL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, No. 14-cv-03998-PJH (N.D. Cal.).

A putative class action was filed against Rocket Fuel and several
of its officers for securities violations.  Rocket Fuel is an
Internet advertising company, offering technological solutions to
find, sell, and optimize digital advertising using its automated
ad-buying platform.

The plaintiffs, who were purchasers of Rocket Fuel stock during
the relevant period, alleged that Rocket Fuel's directors and
officers made false and misleading statements (and omissions)
regarding the technology's effectiveness at combatting ad fraud,
which artificially inflated its stock price.  Despite knowing of
the true extent of the bot problem, the defendants allegedly
continued to tout their technology's capabilities.  The plaintiffs
also alleged that the defendants made a secondary stock offering
that was timed to allow company insiders to unload their stock at
artificially inflated prices.  Ultimately, the defendants were
forced to announce poor earnings performances and to admit that
customers were taking their business elsewhere because of the bot
problem.  These announcements caused Rocket Fuel's stock price to
drop, precipitating the lawsuit.

The amended consolidated complaint was filed on February 27, 2015,
bringing claims based on the Securities Act and Exchange Act.  On
December 23, 2015, the Court granted in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss the complaint.  All of the Securities Act claims
were dismissed without leave to amend.  Rocket Fuel's underwriters
and directors who were named as defendants only with respect to
the Securities Act claims, were also dismissed as defendants
entirely.

However, the Court found that statements made in a November 2013
blog post were potentially actionable, and allowed the Exchange
Act claims to proceed against Rocket Fuel and the insiders, only
with respect to those statements.

The plaintiffs sought leave to file a proposed amended complaint
which would add Mohr Davidow Ventures (MDV) as a new defendant, as
well as reinstating some claims against the former underwriter
defendants and William Ericson.  MDV is a "venture capital
institutional investor" whose affiliates at one time controlled
approximately one-third of Rocket Fuel's shares.  Ericson was both
a Director of Rocket Fuel and the managing general partner of MDV.
The proposed amended complaint also adds new factual allegations,
based on materials unearthed in discovery.

Judge Hamilton found that the plaintiffs have not shown "good
cause" for their request for leave to amend.  The judge found that
the plaintiffs nowhere justify the reinstatement of dismissed
claims and parties, or the addition of new parties to the case.
Moreover, the judge found that the plaintiffs were not diligent in
pursuing amendment, and that permitting amendment would
substantially prejudice the defendants.  For all these reasons,
Judge Hamilton denied the motion for leave to file an amended
complaint.

The parties have filed several motions to file materials under
seal.  The plaintiffs' motions were based on the defendants'
confidentiality designations, which the defendants have sought to
justify with several supporting declarations.

Judge Hamilton held that the defendants have not met their burden
to show that the material designated as "confidential" is
sealable.  Under the Local Rules, sealing must be narrowly
tailored and limited to information that is privileged, a trade
secret, or otherwise protected by law.  With a few exceptions, the
judge found that the information sought to be sealed, while
perhaps embarrassing to Rocket Fuel, is not information that, if
made public, would reveal Rocket Fuel's trade secrets or give
their competitors an unfair advantage.

Judge Hamilton, therefore, denied all of the pending motions to
file material under seal.  However, the judge granted the parties
leave to redact:

     (1) specific third-party customer names;

     (2) the names of Rocket Fuel employees who are not officers,
         directors, or named defendants; and

     (3) the technical portion of Exhibit 24 to the Abadou
         Declaration.

In addition, Judge Hamilton permitted one document, Exhibit 20 to
Abadou Declaration, to be filed under seal in its entirety.

A full-text copy of Judge Hamilton's January 24, 2017 order is
available at https://is.gd/ucGPuW from Leagle.com.

Nipu Shah, Plaintiff, represented by Ramzi Abadou --
ramzi.abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick Foti LLP.

Institutional Investor Group, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence
D. King -- lking@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP,
Mario Man-Lung Choi -- mchoi@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP, Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick Foti LLP & Alexander
Louis Burns -- alexander.burns@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick Foti
LLC.

Rocket Fuel Inc., George H. John, J. Peter Bardwick, Richard
Frankel, Defendants, represented by Evan L. Seite --
eseite@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati PC, Joni L.
Ostler -- jostler@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
Nina F. Locker -- nlocker@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati & Rodney Grant Strickland, Jr. -- rstrickland@wsgr.com --
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

Harry Quan, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A..

Ajay Goel, Victor Veloso, Movants, represented by Patrice L.
Bishop -- pbishop@ssbla.com -- Stull, Stull & Brody.

Thirukumaran Velayudhan, Bernie Bowden, Movants, represented by
David E. Azar -- dazar@milberg.com -- Milberg LLP.

James Summers, Movant, represented by Evan Jason Smith --
esmith@brodsky-smith.com -- Brodsky & Smith LLC.

Sanjiv Mehrotra, Movant, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

State-Boston Retirement System, Movant, represented by Bruce W.
Leppla, Leiff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein.

Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Browder
Capital, LLC, Patrick Browder, Movants, represented by Laurence D.
King, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Donald R. Hall, Kaplan Fox and
Kilsheimer, Joel B. Strauss, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Joseph
Scott St. John, Kahn Swick Foti LLC, Mario Man-Lung Choi, Kaplan
Fox & Kilsheimer LLP & Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick Foti LLP.

William Pack, Movant, represented by Frank James Johnson, Johnson
& Weaver, LLP.

Michael McCawley, Movant, represented by Michael Stuart Strimling,
Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP.

Mohr David Ventures, Objector, represented by Heather Annette Dunn
Navarro, Five Palo Alto Square.


SAZERAC CO: Misrepresents Age of Bourbon, "Penrose" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News service, reported that a
federal class action in St. Louis, accuses Buffalo Trace
Distillery, Old Charter Distillery and Sazerac Co. of
misrepresenting Old Charter bourbon as aged for eight years,
though they stopped aging it for that long in 2014.

The case is captioned, STEPHEN PENROSE, JAMES THOMAS, JOSEPH
GUARDINO, and DANIEL POPE on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BUFFALO TRACE DISTILLERY, INC.,
OLD CHARTER DISTILLERY CO., and SAZERAC COMPANY, INC.
Defendants, Case: 4:17-cv-00294 (E.D. Mo., January 27, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     888 Seventh Avenue
     New York, NY 10019
     Tel: (646) 837-7150
     Fax: (212) 989-9163
     E-Mail: ykopel@bursor.com


SCOUT ANALYTICS: "Weller" Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in San Jose, Calif., dismissed with leave to amend a
shareholder class action accusing Scout Analytics of goosing the
"cloud-based customer lifecycle management solution" company's
stock price through omissions and misrepresentations.

The case is captioned, SCOTT WELLER, Individually and on behalf
all others similarly situated v. SCOUT ANALYTICS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case 5:15-cv-03170-EJD (N.D. Cal.).


SEATTLE GENETICS: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Seattle Genetics, Inc.
("Seattle Genetics" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:SGEN) and certain of
its officers, and is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased Seattle Genetics securities
between October 27, 2016 through December 23, 2016, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are advised to join
this case by visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/sgen.

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

Seattle Genetics is a biotechnology company focused on developing
and commercializing innovative, empowered monoclonal antibody-
based therapies for the treatment of cancer. One of the Company's
leading products in development is SGN-CD33A (vadastuximab
talirine).  Throughout the Class Period, vadastuximab talirine was
in clinical trials for various applications, including: (1) a
Phase 1/2 trial in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) as a
pre-conditioning regimen prior to an allogenic stem cell
transplant and as a maintenance therapy following transplant; (2)
a Phase 1 trial evaluating vadastuximab talirine monotherapy,
including a subset of older AML patients in combination with
hypomethylating agents; and (3) a Phase 1 trial evaluating
vadastuximab talirine combination treatment with 7+3 chemotherapy
in newly diagnosed younger AML patients.

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

On December 27, 2016, Seattle Genetics revealed that the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration had placed a clinical hold or partial
clinical hold on some early stage trials of vadastuximab talirine,
its experimental cancer drug, to evaluate the potential risk of
hepatotoxicity.  Seattle Genetics affirmed that six acute myeloid
leukemia patients had been identified with liver toxicity and that
four had died.  Following this news, Seattle Genetics stock
dropped $9.50 per share, or 15.36%, to close at $52.36 on December
27, 2016.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/sgenor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
Seattle Genetics you have until March 13, 2017 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.   Attorney advertising. Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes.


SEE'S CANDY: Cal. Appeals Court Tweaks Judgment in "Silva"
----------------------------------------------------------
Justice Judith L. Haller of the Court of Appeals of California,
Fourth District, Division One, ruled on plaintiff's appeal, in the
case PAMELA SILVA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SEE'S CANDY SHOPS,
INC., Defendant and Respondent, No. D068136 (Cal. App.)

Pamela Silva filed an action against her former employer, See's
Candy Shops, Inc., alleging wage and hour violations. Silva
brought the action in her individual capacity, on behalf of a
class of See's Candy employees, and on behalf of aggrieved workers
under the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA).

See's Candy denied Silva's allegations and asserted numerous
affirmative defenses, including that its employees were fully and
fairly compensated under its rounding policy and grace-period
policy, and that these policies were consistent with state and
federal laws.

The court certified a class on Silva's claims challenging two of
See's Candy's policies pertaining to the calculation of employee
work time: (1) a rounding policy, which calculates timeclock
punches to the nearest tenth of an hour; and (2) a grace-period
policy, which permits employees to clock in 10 minutes before and
after a shift, but calculates work time from the employee's
scheduled start/end times.

Silva moved for summary adjudication on See's Candy's rounding-
policy affirmative defense. Silva argued See's Candy's rounding
policy violates California law requiring an employer to fully
compensate an employee every two weeks and pay premium wages for
overtime work. The court agreed, granted the motion, and dismissed
See's Candy's rounding defense.

See's Candy successfully petitioned for a writ of mandate in the
Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District. The Court of
Appeals held that an employer is entitled to use a rounding policy
if the policy is fair and neutral on its face and is used in such
a manner that it will not result, over a period of time, in
failure to compensate the employees properly for all the time they
have actually worked.

After remand, See's Candy successfully moved for summary
adjudication on Silva's PAGA cause of action. In a later
proceeding, the court granted summary judgment in See's Candy's
favor on all of Silva's remaining claims. Silva appeals and
challenges the summary adjudication order on her PAGA claim and
the summary judgment on all remaining causes of action. She raises
numerous contentions.

Justice Haller affirmed the summary adjudication on the PAGA
claim, reversed the summary judgment on the first and second
causes of action with directions to the trial court to enter a new
order: (1) granting summary adjudication in See's Candy's favor on
the class and individual claims based on Silva's challenges to
See's Candy's rounding and grace-period policies; and (2) denying
summary adjudication on Silva's individual claims alleging See's
Candy violated Silva's rights with respect to rest and meal
periods, and business expense reimbursement. The court shall
dismiss the class-certified claims and the PAGA claims in their
entirety.

A copy of Justice Haller's opinion dated January 5, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/AFkOYQ from Leagle.com.

For Plaintiff and Appellant:

     William B. Sullivan, Esq.
     Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq.
     Sullivan Law Group
     2330 3rd Avenue
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: 619-702-6760
     Facsimile: 619-702-6761

David S. Bradshaw -- BradshawD@jacksonlewis.com -- James T. Jones
-- JonesJ@jacksonlewis.com -- Evan D. Beecher --
Evan.Beecher@jacksonlewis.com -- Paul F. Sorrentino --
SorrentinoP@jacksonlewis.com -- at Jackson Lewis, for Defendant
and Respondent

The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One
panel consists of Acting Presiding Justice Patricia D. Benke and
Justices Judith L. Haller and Cynthia Aaron.


SHARKNINJA OPERATING: 3rd Cir. Appeal Filed in "Rosenthal" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Mordechai Rosenthal filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit styled Mordechai Rosenthal v. Sharkninja Operating
LLC, Case No. 3-16-cv-01048, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
purchased one of the Defendant's vacuums in part due to the
Defendant's pervasive advertising of the vacuum as a quality and
reliable product.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant was
aware of the vacuum's electrical defects and tendency to
malfunction but failed to disclose these facts to the Plaintiff
and other vacuum purchasers.  Consequently, on February 24, 2016,
the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against the
Defendant, claiming that it violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Mordechai Rosenthal v.
Sharkninja Operating LLC, Case No. 17-1155, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant MORDECHAI ROSENTHAL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, is represented by:

          Natalie F. Bennett, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          35 East State Street
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          Facsimile: (610) 891-9883
          E-mail: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          475 White Horse Pike
          Collingswood, NJ 08107
          Telephone: (856) 858-1770
          E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
                  nzipperian@sfmslaw.com

Defendant-Appellee SHARKNINJA OPERATING LLC is represented by:

          Lorna A. Dotro, Esq.
          COUGHLIN DUFFY LLP
          350 Mount Kemble Avenue
          P.O. Box 1917
          Morristown, NJ 07962
          Telephone: (973) 267-0058
          Facsimile: (973) 267-6442
          E-mail: ldotro@coughlinduffy.com


SOUTH DAKOTA: Fleming Seeks Review of Judgment in Tribes' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Lisa Fleming and Lynne A. Valenti filed an appeal from
a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction both dated
December 15, 2016, entered in the lawsuit titled Oglala Sioux
Tribe, et al. v. Lisa Fleming, et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-05020-JLV,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota -
Rapid City.

Lisa Fleming is the head of the Pennington County Child Protection
Services while Lynne A. Valenti is the secretary of the South
Dakota Department of Social Services.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs accused state officials of violating the Indian Child
Welfare Act by holding improper hearings after children were
removed from homes, according to the complaint filed March 21,
2013.

The appellate case is captioned as Oglala Sioux Tribe, et al. v.
Lisa Fleming, et al., Case No. 17-1137, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript is due on or before February 28, 2017;

   -- Appendix is due on March 10, 2017;

   -- Brief of Appellants Mark Vargo, Craig Pfeifle, Lisa Fleming
      and Lynne A. Valenti is due on March 10, 2017;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellants; and

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
      court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Oglala Sioux Tribe; Rosebud Sioux Tribe, as
parens patriae, to protect the rights of their tribal members;
Madonna Pappan; and Lisa Young, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, are represented by:

          Dana L. Hanna, Esq.
          HANNA LAW OFFICE PC
          P.O. Box 3080
          Rapid City, SD 57709
          Telephone: (605) 791-1832
          E-mail: dhanna@midconetwork.com

               - and -

          Stephen L. Pevar, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION
          765 Asylum Avenue
          Hartford, CT 06105
          Telephone: (860) 570-9830
          E-mail: Pevaraclu@aol.com

Defendants-Appellants Lisa Fleming, in her official capacity, and
Lynne A. Valenti, in her official capacity, are represented by:

          Robert L. Morris, II, Esq.
          MORRIS LAW FIRM
          704 Seventh Avenue, Second Floor - Suite 2
          P.O. Box 370
          Belle Fourche, SD 57717-0370
          Telephone: (605) 723-7777


SOUTH DAKOTA: Judge Pfeifle Appeals Judgment in Tribes' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Craig Pfeifle filed an appeal from a declaratory
judgment and permanent injunction both dated December 15, 2016,
entered in the lawsuit titled Oglala Sioux Tribe, et al. v.
Honorable Craig Pfeifle, et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-05020-JLV, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Rapid
City.

Craig A. Pfeifle serves in South Dakota's Seventh Judicial Circuit
in South Dakota as a circuit court judge.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs accused state officials of violating the Indian Child
Welfare Act by holding improper hearings after children were
removed from homes, according to the complaint filed March 21,
2013.

The appellate case is captioned as Oglala Sioux Tribe, et al. v.
Honorable Craig Pfeifle, Case No. 17-1136, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript is due on or before February 28, 2017;

   -- Appendix is due on March 10, 2017;

   -- Brief of Appellants Mark Vargo, Craig Pfeifle, Lisa Fleming
      and Lynne A. Valenti is due on March 10, 2017;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellants; and

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
      court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Oglala Sioux Tribe; Rosebud Sioux Tribe, as
parens patriae, to protect the rights of their tribal members;
Madonna Pappan; and Lisa Young, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, are represented by:

          Dana L. Hanna, Esq.
          HANNA LAW OFFICE PC
          P.O. Box 3080
          Rapid City, SD 57709
          Telephone: (605) 791-1832
          E-mail: dhanna@midconetwork.com

               - and -

          Stephen L. Pevar, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION
          765 Asylum Avenue
          Hartford, CT 06105
          Telephone: (860) 570-9830
          E-mail: Pevaraclu@aol.com

Defendant-Appellant Honorable Craig Pfeifle, in his official
capacity, is represented by:

          Jeffrey G. Hurd, Esq.
          BANGS & MCCULLEN
          333 West Boulevard
          P.O. Box 2670
          Rapid City, SD 57709-0000
          Telephone: (605) 343-1040
          E-mail: jhurd@bangsmccullen.com


SOUTH DAKOTA: Vargo Seeks Review of Judgment in Tribes' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Mark Vargo filed an appeal from a declaratory judgment
and permanent injunction both dated December 15, 2016, entered in
the lawsuit titled Oglala Sioux Tribe, et al. v. Mark Vargo, et
al., Case No. 5:13-cv-05020-JLV, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of South Dakota - Rapid City.

Mark Vargo is Pennington County State's Attorney.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs accused state officials of violating the Indian Child
Welfare Act by holding improper hearings after children were
removed from homes, according to the complaint filed March 21,
2013.

The appellate case is captioned as Oglala Sioux Tribe, et al. v.
Mark Vargo, Case No. 17-1135, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The appellate case is captioned as Oglala Sioux Tribe, et al. v.
Honorable Craig Pfeifle, Case No. 17-1136, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript is due on or before February 28, 2017;

   -- Appendix is due on March 10, 2017;

   -- Brief of Appellants Mark Vargo, Craig Pfeifle, Lisa Fleming
      and Lynne A. Valenti is due on March 10, 2017;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellants; and

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
      court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Oglala Sioux Tribe; Rosebud Sioux Tribe, as
parens patriae, to protect the rights of their tribal members; and
Madonna Pappan; and Lisa Young, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, are represented by:

          Dana L. Hanna, Esq.
          HANNA LAW OFFICE PC
          P.O. Box 3080
          Rapid City, SD 57709
          Telephone: (605) 791-1832
          E-mail: dhanna@midconetwork.com

               - and -

          Stephen L. Pevar, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION
          765 Asylum Avenue
          Hartford, CT 06105
          Telephone: (860) 570-9830
          E-mail: Pevaraclu@aol.com

Defendant-Appellant Mark Vargo, in his official capacity, is
represented by:

          Rebecca L. Mann, Esq.
          J. Crisman Palmer, Esq.
          GUNDERSON & PALMER LLP
          506 Sixth Street
          P.O. Box 8045
          Rapid City, SD 57709-8045
          Telephone: (605) 342-1078
          Facsimile: (605) 342-9503
          E-mail: RMann@gpna.com
                  CPalmer@gpna.com


SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Stuppiello" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Matthew Stuppiello filed an appeal from a court ruling
in his lawsuit styled Matthew Stuppiello v. Southwest Credit
Systems, L.P., Case No. 3:16-cv-01811-H-JMA, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
sought to stop the Defendant's alleged unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

Southwest Credit Systems, L.P. operates a debt collection firm in
California.

The appellate case is captioned as Matthew Stuppiello v. Southwest
Credit Systems, L.P., Case No. 17-55061, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by February 10, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on March 13, 2017;

   -- Appellant Matthew Stuppiello's opening brief is due on
      April 21, 2017;

   -- Appellee Southwest Credit Systems, L.P.'s answering brief
      is due on May 22, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Plaintiff-Appellant MATTHEW STUPPIELLO, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jared M. Hartman, Esq.
          HARTMAN LAW OFFICE
          400 South Melrose Drive
          Vista, CA 92081
          Telephone: (951) 837-9183
          Facsimile: (888) 819-8230
          E-mail: jaredhartman@jmhattorney.com

               - and -

          Asil Mashiri, Esq.
          MASHIRI LAW FIRM, APC
          11251 Rancho Carmel Drive
          San Diego, CA 92150
          Telephone: (858) 348-4938
          E-mail: alexmashiri@yahoo.com

Defendant-Appellee SOUTHWEST CREDIT SYSTEMS, L.P., is represented
by:

          Brett Goodman, Esq.
          YU MOHANDESI LLP
          633 West Fifth Street, Suite 2800
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 375-3543
          Facsimile: (213) 377-5501
          E-mail: bgoodman@yumollp.com


SPEEDWAY LLC: Faces "Brodie" Suit in Western Dist. of Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SPEEDWAY LLC. The
case is captioned as CAROLINE BRODIE, ANGELA HUNTER, and ACCESS
NOW, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SPEEDWAY LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-00133-RCM (W.D. Pa., Jan. 27, 2017). The case is assigned
to Hon. Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell.

Speedway is the operator of a combination gas station/convenience
stores that is based in Enon, Ohio, United States, with locations
operating under its namesake brand along the Midwestern and East
Coast of the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH
          SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322 9243
          Facsimile: (412) 231 0246
          E-mail: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com


ST. ANTHONY'S MEDICAL: Eighth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hern" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Dana R. Hern filed an appeal from a court memorandum and
order and judgment, both dated December 12, 2016, entered in the
lawsuit titled Dana Hern v. St. Anthony's Medical Center, Case No.
4:16-cv-01296-JAR, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri - St. Louis.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Dana Hern v. St. Anthony's
Medical Center, Case No. 17-1086, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appendix is due on February 21, 2017;

   -- Brief of Appellant Dana R. Hern is due on February 21,
      2017;

   -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      appellant; and

   -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
      court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      appellee brief.

Plaintiff-Appellant Dana R. Hern, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          David Damick, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID N. DAMICK
          211 N. Broadway
          Saint Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 231-0570
          E-mail: DND@Cat2.com

               - and -

          Blake Green, Esq.
          BG LAW
          1600 Genessee Street, Suite 350
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Telephone: (816) 463-9930
          Facsimile: (816) 463-2815
          E-mail: blake@bglawkc.com

Defendant-Appellee St. Anthony's Medical Center is represented by:

          Robert Taylor Matthews, III, Esq.
          Edward T. Pivin, Esq.
          Winthrop Blackstone Reed, III, Esq.
          Oliver H. Thomas, Esq.
          LEWIS & RICE LLC
          600 Washington Avenue, Suite 2500
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 444-1372
          Facsimile: (314) 612-1372
          E-mail: tmatthews@lewisrice.com
                  epivin@lewisrice.com
                  wreed@lewisrice.com
                  othomas@lewisrice.com


STILLWATER MINING: Being Sold Too Cheaply, "Assad" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
directors are selling Stillwater Mining Co. too cheaply through an
unfair process to Sibanye Gold Ltd., for $18 a share or $2.2
billion, shareholders say in a federal class action in Denver.

The case is captioned, GEORGE ASSAD, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. STILLWATER MINING
COMPANY, BRIAN D. SCHWEITZER, MICHAEL J. MCMULLEN, GEORGE M. BEE,
PATRICE E. MERRIN, LAWRENCE PETER O'HAGAN, MICHAEL S. PARRETT,
GARY A. SUGAR, SIBANYE GOLD LIMITED, THOR US HOLDCO INC., and
THOR MERGCO INC., Defendants, Case 1:17-cv-00267-CBS (D. Colo.,
January 27, 2017).

Local Counsel for Plaintiff:

     Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.
     THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
     600 17th Street, Suite 2800 South
     Denver, CO 80202
     Telephone: (303) 861-3003
     Facsimile: (303) 536-7849
     Email: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

          - and -

     Kip B. Shuman, Esq.
     THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
     Post-Montgomery Ctr.
     One Montgomery Street, Ste. 1800
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Telephone: (303) 861-3003
     Facsimile: (303) 536-7849
     Email: kip@shumanlawfirm.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     Jeremy J. Riley, Esq.
     2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
     Wilmington, DE 19803
     Tel: (302) 295-5310


     RM LAW, P.C.
     Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
     995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311
     Wayne, PA 19087
     Tel: (484) 588-5516


SUGAR TRANSPORT: Plaintiff May Amend "Guinn" FLSA Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge William B. Shubb granted Ryan Guinn's motion for leave to
amend his complaint in the case captioned RYAN GUINN, on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v.
SUGAR TRANSPORT OF THE NORTHWEST, INC., a California corporation,
and DOES 1 through 100, Defendant, Civ. No. 2:16-325 WBS EFB (E.D.
Cal.).

On October 23, 2015, Guinn brought a class action against Sugar
Transport of the Northwest in the California Superior Court,
alleging that Sugar Transport failed to pay him and other truck
drivers overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and failed to provide uninterrupted meal and break
periods in violation of California law.  Sugar Transport removed
the action to the District Court for the Eastern District of
California on February 17, 2016.

After the deposition of John Riella, an employee of Sugar
Transport, plaintiff undertook further investigation and "learned
that . . . Bronco Wine . . . and Classic Wines . . . had
significant input on the discipline of [defendant's] drivers," and
that Classic Wines "provided direction and instruction directly to
[defendant's] drivers regarding the performance of their jobs,
including how to address particular deliveries."

On December 23, 2016,  Guinn filed a motion seeking leave to amend
his complaint to add Bronco Wine Company and Classic Wines as
defendants to the action.  Guinn alleged that Bronco Wine and
Classic Wines are, along with defendant, are his "joint
employers," and that of the putative class, for liability purposes
in the action.  He argued that "good cause" exists to add Bronco
Wine and Classic Wines because "he acted diligently" in
discovering the facts necessary "to state 'joint employer'
allegations against [them]" and adding them once he had enough
facts.

Sugar Transport opposed the motion, contending that Guinn did not
act diligently in adding Bronco Wine and Classic Wines to the
action because the facts he cites in support of adding them as
joint employers -- that Bronco Wine and Classic Wines monitored,
instructed, and provided trucks and facilities to him and other
truck drivers -- are ones that, as a former employee of Sugar
Transport, he knew or should have known from the start of the
action.

While Judge Shubb agreed with Sugar Transport, the judge also
found that it is likewise plausible that Guinn would not have been
aware, from working as a truck driver, that:

     (1) Bronco Wine owns the warehouses he worked out of and is
         affiliated with the company that leased the trucks he
         drove,

     (2) Classic Wines monitored him and other truck drivers
         through "electronic logs and hand held tracking
         devices," and

     (3) Bronco Wine and Classic Wines had "input on [employee]
         discipline."

Because Sugar Transport has not presented any evidence indicating
that Guinn was or should have been aware of such facts prior to
the Riella deposition, Judge Shubb assumed, for purposes of the
motion, that Guinn was not aware of such facts prior to the Riella
deposition.

Judge Shubb found that Guinn was diligent in discovering facts and
adding Bronco Wine and Classic Wines to the action.  The judge
also found that Sugar Transport will not be prejudiced by Guinn's
motion.  The judge thus found that Guinn has demonstrated "good
cause" for his motion.

Judge Shubb also stated that futility is not a concern because the
facts presented in Guinn's motion indicate that Guinn has a
colorable argument that Bronco Wine and Classic Wines are joint
employers in the action.  Accordingly, the Guinn's motion was
granted.

A full-text copy of Judge Shubb's January 24, 2017 memorandum and
order is available at https://is.gd/UqGrBa from Leagle.com.

Ryan Guinn, Plaintiff, represented by Ian A. Kass, Law Offices of
James L Pagano, James L. Pagano, Law Offices of James L Pagano.

Sugar Transport of the Northwest, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Cassandra M. Ferrannini -- cferrannini@downeybrand.com -- Downey
Brand LLP & Alexandra K. LaFountain -- amurphy@downeybrand.com --
Downey Brand LLP.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Van Dusen" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Swift Transportation Company Incorporated, Interstate
Equipment Leasing Incorporated, Chad Killibrew and Jerry Moyes
filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit styled
Virginia Van Dusen, et al. v. Swift Transportation Company I, et
al., Case No. 2:10-cv-00899-JWS, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona, Phoenix.

The appellate case is captioned as Virginia Van Dusen, et al. v.
Swift Transportation Company I, et al., Case No. 17-15102, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Virginia
Van Dusen and Joseph Sheer are interstate truck drivers, who
entered into contracts with Swift Transportation Company, Inc. and
Interstate Equipment Leasing, Inc. The contracts designated Van
Dusen and Sheer as independent contractors, not employees. Each
contract also contained a clause to arbitrate all disputes and
claims arising under, arising out of or relating to the agreement.

The complaint alleged that Swift misclassified Van Dusen and
others as independent contractors. The complaint also alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor
Code, New York labor laws, state and federal minimum wage laws,
and laws prohibiting forced labor, among other claims.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by February 13, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on March 13, 2017;

   -- Opening brief of Appellants Interstate Equipment Leasing
      Incorporated, Chad Killibrew, Jerry Moyes and Swift
      Transportation Company Incorporated is due on April 24,
      2017;

   -- Appellees John Doe and Virginia Van Dusen' answering brief
      is due on May 24, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

Plaintiffs-Appellees VIRGINIA VAN DUSEN, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated persons, and JOHN DOE, 1,
are represented by:

          Daniel L. Bonnett, Esq.
          Jennifer Kroll, Esq.
          Susan Joan Martin, Esq.
          MARTIN & BONNETT, PLLC
          1850 N. Central Ave.
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 240-6900
          Facsimile: (602) 240-2345
          E-mail: dbonnett@martinbonnett.com
                  jkroll@martinbonnett.com
                  smartin@martinbonnett.com

               - and -

          Dan Getman, Esq.
          GETMAN & SWEENEY, PLLC
          9 Paradise Lane
          New Paltz, NY 12561
          Telephone: (845) 255-9370
          Facsimile: (845) 255-8649
          E-mail: dgetman@getmansweeney.com

               - and -

          Edward Tuddenham, Esq.
          228 W. 137th Street
          New York, NY 10030
          Telephone: (512) 413-4863
          E-mail: etudden@prismnet.com

Defendants-Appellants SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY INCORPORATED,
INTERSTATE EQUIPMENT LEASING INCORPORATED, CHAD KILLIBREW and
JERRY MOYES are represented by:

          Paul Scott Cowie, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4106
          Telephone: (415) 774-3182
          E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Anna Stancu, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
          Telephone: (213) 617-5479
          E-mail: astancu@sheppardmullin.com


SYSCO CORP: Calif. Court Refuses to Remand "Hernandez"
------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California denied the
motion to remand the case captioned, HENRY HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff,
v. SYSCO CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-06723-JSC
(N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Henry Hernandez, a former non-exempt employee of
Defendants Sysco Corporation and Sysco San Francisco, filed the
putative class action complaint in Alameda Superior Court on
October 18, 2016.  He asserts seven claims for relief under state
law including: (1) failure to provide rest periods in violation of
California Labor Code Section 226.7 and Wage Order 7; (2) failure
to provide meal periods in violation of California Labor Code
Sections 226.7, 512, and Wage Order 7; (3) failure to pay overtime
in violation of California Labor Code Sections 510, 1194, 1194.2,
and Wage Order No. 7; (4) failure to pay minimum wage in violation
of California Labor Code Sections 1197, 1194(a), 1194.2; (5)
failure to pay wages at termination in violation of California
Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203; (6) failure to issue accurate
and itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code
Sections 226(b), 1174, 1175, and Wage Order No. 7); and (7)
violation of unfair competition law in violation of California
Business and Professions Code Sec 17200 et seq.

The Defendants filed their answer in state court on November 21,
2016, and simultaneously removed the complaint to federal court
under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.  In the Notice of
Removal, the Defendants allege that removal is proper under CAFA,
28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d)(2), because the case has more than 100
putative class members, the amount in controversy exceeds
$5,000,000, and the Plaintiff is a citizen of California whereas
the Defendants are citizens of Delaware and Texas.

In the motion to remand, the Plaintiffs contend that remand is
appropriate under the "local controversy" exception to CAFA
removal jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(4)(A).

In her Order dated January 25, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/R0elo2 from Leagle.com, Judge Corley found that the
Plaintiff has not met the burden of showing that the local
controversy exception applies because he has not shown that during
the three years preceding the filing of this action no other class
action has been filed asserting the same or similar claims against
the same defendants.

Henry Hernandez is represented by:

      Joseph Donald Sutton, Esq.
      Eric Sebastian Trabucco, Esq.
      Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
      Marco A. Palau, Esq.
      Stanley S. Mallison, Esq.
      MALLISON AND MARTINEZ
      1939 Harrison St # 730,
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Tel: (510)832-9999

Sysco Corporation is represented by Vartan Serge Madoyan, Esq. --
vmadoyan@bakerlaw.com -- Jeffrey Charles Bils, Esq.  --
jbils@baklerlaw.com -- Margaret Rosenthal, Esq.  --
mrosenthal@bakerlaw.com -- and -- Sabrina Layne Shadi, Esq.  --
sshadi@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP


TOBACK BERNSTEIN: Directed to Pay Counsel Fees in "Torres"
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, LEILANI TORRES, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TOBACK, BERNSTEIN &
REISS LLP, et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 11-CV-1368 (VVP)
(E.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted
the plaintiff's counsel's motion for an order approving an agreed
upon award of attorneys' fees and costs.

The plaintiff's amended complaint alleged various violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in connection with the
defendants' conduct in seeking to collect various student loan
debts.  The alleged transgressions included improperly calculating
the interest owed, assessing excessive collection fees, and
engaging in collection activities in New York City without being
licensed to do so.

After a period of discovery and the amendment of the original
complaint, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations that
achieved a settlement of all claims on behalf of two sub-classes,
one comprising student loan debtors who were overcharged for
interest and fees and the other comprising student loan debtors
who were subject to the defendants' unlicensed collection
efforts. The settlement received conditional approval and final
approval after a hearing.

The settlement includes separate payments of maximum statutory
damages to each sub-class, as well as a recalculation of interest
and fees for the members of the overcharged sub-class.  Thus the
members of each sub-class received approximately $80 in statutory
damages.  More importantly, the members of the overcharged sub-
class received reductions in their indebtedness totaling
approximately $2.4 million.  The included repayments totaling more
than $59,000 to 21 class members who had overpaid their accounts.

The Plaintiff's counsel seek an award of attorneys' fees and costs
of no more than $195,000 as agreed by the parties.
In his Memorandum and Order dated January 23, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/2uVuvv from Leagle.com, Judge Pohorelsky concluded
that the award sought by the counsel is fair and reasonable, and
is entirely appropriate.  Accordingly, Judge Pohorelsky directed
the defendants to pay that amount to the plaintiff's counsel.

Leilani Torres is represented by:

      Brian L. Bromberg, Esq.
      BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      26 Broadway,
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212)248-7906

             -- and --

      Ahmad Keshavarz, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF AHMAD KESHAVARZ
      16 Court St.26th Floor 11241
      Brooklyn, NY 78701-3660
      Tel: (718) 522-7900
Toback, Bernstein & Reiss LLP, et al. are represented by Marian C.
Rice, Esq. -- mrice@lbcclaw.com -- and -- Matthew J. Bizzaro, Esq.
-- mbizzaro@lbcclaw.com -- L'ABBATE, BALKAN, COLAVITA & CONTINI,
LLP

            -- and --

      Ahmad Keshavarz, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF AHMAD KESHAVARZ
      16 Court St.26th Floor 11241
      Brooklyn, NY 78701-3660
      Tel: (718) 522-7900


TTC AMERIDIAL: Oliver's Bid to Certify Withdrawn as Stipulated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on January 22, 2017, in the case
entitled Kristina Oliver v. TTC Ameridial, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-05177 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly.

The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's placeholder motion
for class certification is withdrawn based on the parties'
stipulation.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mOUcIh9k


UNARCO INDUSTRIES: Court Partly Dismisses "Hernandez"
-----------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma granted in part the
Motion to Dismiss the case captioned MARTHA HERNANDEZ, on
behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. UNARCO INDUSTRIES, a foreign Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, Case No. CIV-15-001-KEW (E.D. Okla.).

Plaintiff Martha Hernandez initiated the action on September 2,
2014, in the District Court in and for Wagoner County, Oklahoma.
Defendant Unarco Industries removed the case to the District Court
on January 2, 2015.  After Unarco filed a Motion to Dismiss,
Hernandez filed an Amended Complaint.  Unarco then filed a Motion
to Dismiss related to the allegations and claims asserted in the
Amended Complaint.

On March 30, 2016, the District Court entered an Opinion and Order
on Unarco's Motion, finding (1) Hernandez's discrimination claims
based in Title VII lacked factual foundation in the Amended
Complaint; (2) Hernandez's claim based in 42 U.S.C. Section 1981
was not supported in the facts as a race-based claim; (3)
Hernandez failed to exhaust her administrative remedies on the
class-based claims; and (4) Hernandez had sufficiently exhausted
her administrative remedies with regard to her racial and sexual
discrimination claims.  As a result, Hernandez's class claims were
dismissed and she was given an opportunity to amend the Complaint
to cure the deficiencies in the factual allegations supporting the
discrimination claims.

Hernandez filed a Second Amended Complaint.  Hernandez asserts in
the Second Amended Complaint that Unarco has begun hiring
temporary service employees without benefits in lieu of full time
employees with benefits and permitting non-Hispanic workers to be
given permanent status after a year but not Hispanic workers.
Hernandez brings this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e, et seq.) and
the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (Okla. Stat. tit. 25 Section
1301 et seq.).  She expressly states that the action is based upon
discrimination in employment on the basis of race, religion, sex,
and national origin.  Hernandez seeks (1) declaratory relief
finding Unarco in violation of Title VII and Oklahoma law; (2) a
permanent injunction prohibiting Unarco from continuing
discriminatory practices; (3) Unarco to "make whole those persons
adversely affected by the policies and practices" which were
discriminatory to the female, Hispanic employees, including back
pay and reimbursement for lost benefits; (4) damages for mental
distress; (5) punitive damages;(6) retention of jurisdiction for
enforcement of the injunctive relief; and (7) attorney's fees and
costs

In the motion to dismiss, Unarco urges that the Court should
dismiss any claims which Hernandez may be asserting on behalf of
others.  Unarco centers on the fact that the factual allegations
in the Second Amended Complaint are too vague and do not relate to
actions taken against Hernandez herself.

In her Opinion and Order dated January 23, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/IC22KN from Leagle.com, Judge West granted Unarco's
motion to dismiss as to Hernandez's claim asserting on behalf of
others because they represent mere background to the allegations
supporting Hernandez's individual claims.  Judge West denied
dismissal as to remaining claims because Hernandez has set forth
facts actionable under Title VII.

Martha Hernandez is represented by:

      James G. Wilcoxen, Esq.
      WILCOXEN & WILCOXEN
      Wilcoxen Callaham LLP
      2114 K Street
      Sacramento, CA 95816
      Tel: (916) 442-2777

Unarco Industries is represented by:

      Jacob S. Crawford, Esq.
      W. Kirk Turner, Esq.
      NEWTON O'CONNOR TURNER & KETCHUM
      2700 Bank of America Center
      15 West Sixth Street
      Tulsa, OK 74119-5423
      Tel:(918)587-0101


UNITED STATES: "Al Saeedi" Files Suit v. Pres. Trump, et al.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against US President Donald
J. Trump. The case is titled as Hamdiyah Al Saeedi, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, the Petitioner, v.
Donald J. Trump President of the United States; John Kelly,
Secretary of DHS; Kevin K. McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of CBP;
Jamea T. Madden, New York Field Director, CBP; U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (DHS); and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP), the Respondents, Case No. 1:17-cv-00484-KAM (E.D.N.Y., Jan.
28, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto.

Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television
personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United
States.

The Petitioner is represented by:

          Tahanie A. Aboushi, Esq.
          THE ABOUSHI LAW FIRM
          1441 Broadway, Ste. 5036
          New York, NY 10018
          Telephone: (212) 391 8500
          Facsimile: (212) 391 8508
          E-mail: tahanie@aboushi.com


UNITED STATES: "Emamjomeh" Files Suit v. Pres. Trump, et al.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against US President Donald
Trump. The case is captioned as Zahra Emamjomeh and Mohammed
Houshmand, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
the Petitioners, v. Donald Trump, President of the United States;
Secretary US Department of Homeland Security; US Customs and
Border Protection; John Kelly, Secretary of DHS; Kevin K.
McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of CBP; and James Madden, New York
Field Director CBP; the Respondents, Case No. 1:17-cv-00494-CBA
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 28, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge
Carol Bagley Amon.

Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television
personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United
States.

The Petitioner is represented by:

          Thais Maria Paschoal Saad, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THAIS P. SAAD
          21-12 Broadway
          Astoria, NY 11106
          Telephone: (347) 463 2513
          Facsimile: (718) 425 0665
          E-mail: thais.saad@hotmail.com


UNITED STATES: "Rashekhi" Files Suit v. Pres. Trump, et al.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against US President Donald
Trump. The case is entitled as Vahideh Rashekhi, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, the Petitioner, v.
Donald Trump, President of the United States; U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP); Kevin
K. McAleenan, Acting Commissioner of CBP; James T. Madden, New
York Field Director CBP; and John Kelly, Secretary of DHS, the
Respondents, Case No. 1:17-cv-00489-CBA (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 28, 2017).
The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Carol Bagley Amon.

Donald John Trump is an American businessman, television
personality, politician, and the 45th President of the United
States.

The Petitioner is represented by:

          Thais Maria Paschoal Saad, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THAIS P. SAAD
          21-12 Broadway
          Astoria, NY 11106
          Telephone: (347) 463 2513
          Facsimile: (718) 425 0665
          E-mail: thais.saad@hotmail.com


UNITED STATES: Flint, Mich. Residents Sue over EPA Inaction
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andy Olesko, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
with $722 million in administrative claims pending against the
Environmental Protection Agency, more than 1,700 people from
Flint, Michigan filed a federal class action in Detroit, against
the United States on January 30, after what they say is months of
inaction.

Lead plaintiff Jan Burgess says the EPA "failed to follow several
specific agency mandates and directives governing its conduct
which resulted in injury."

Among those mandates and directives are providing "advice and
technical assistance to states and local providers" that did not
comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act. Burgess claims that upon
learning of the severity of Flint's lead poisoning, the EPA was
required to bring an emergency action but failed to do so until
January 2016.

In the 37-page federal complaint, Burgess says she became
increasingly concerned about the taste and smell of Flint's tap
water in the summer of 2014, and requested an investigation
through the EPA's Enforcement web page in October 2014.

Lead poisoning from old corroded pipes that carry tap water for
Flint, pop. 102,000, has made world news for more than two years.
The city is 63 percent nonwhite; 57 percent are black.

Flint switched its water source this year from Lake Huron via the
Detroit water system to the Flint River. "Since this change, our
drinking water has tripled in cost and the quality varies daily,"
Burgess says in the complaint.

"Some days it smells like an over-chlorinated swimming pool; other
days, like pond scum. It is often brown in color and frequently
has visible particles floating in it. . . . Just this morning our
local paper reports that General Motors Engine plant has shut off
Flint River water to the plant due to the over-chlorination and
the fears that the water will cause corrosion."

Burgess says residents of Flint no longer trust their local
government.

"There is reasonable suspicion that reports have been falsified.
Some residents have had water tested privately and the results are
not even close to those reported by the city," the complaint
states. "Calls to the city and state have resulted in no action
whatsoever."

After asking the EPA to investigate, in October 2014, Burgess says
in the complaint, she received an email from EPA representative
Jennifer Crooks, who tried to assuage her fears and said the water
quality problems were temporary.

"The Flint River water is a different quality than the Lake Huron
raw water, and requires additional treatment to ensure an
acceptable quality drinking water," Crooks wrote, according to the
complaint. Using the abbreviation for the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality, she added: "MDEQ is aware of the multiple
complaints from citizens and is working closely with the Flint
Water Department to ensure the distribution system and the water
treatment processes work more efficiently and more effectively."

Burgess says she did not hear from the EPA again until April 2016,
when she was contacted by investigators. She says an EPA agent
told her then that more than 120 complaints about the water had
not yet been addressed.

In January 2015, another Flint resident called the EPA to say
"that she and her family members were becoming physically ill from
exposure to the water coming from her tap," according to the
complaint.

The lawsuit then quotes a number of damning statements it
attributes to a Feb.26 email from Crooks to other EPA officials
and the MDEQ.

"Crooks noted that the iron contamination was so high that the
testing instrumentation  could not measure it. She went on to say:

"'But, because the iron levels were so high [Michael Glasgow,
Flint Utilities Administrator], suggested testing for lead and
copper. WOW!!!! Did he find the LEAD! 104 ppb [parts per billion]
She has 2 children under the age of 3. . . . Big worries
here . . .

"'I think lead is a good indication that other contaminants are
also present in the tap water that obviously were not present in
the compliance samples taken at the plant. . . .

"'We also talked about Dr. Joan Rose from Michigan State being on
the Flint Tech Advisory committee . . . would want to dive further
into this . . . she and her family are also exhibiting the rashes
when exposed to the water, and her daughter's hair is falling out
in clumps.'"

By September 2015, newspapers around the world were reporting a
massive health crisis in Flint, particularly for children, as lead
poisoning can cause developmental disabilities and mental
retardation.

"The media reported that the highly corrosive Flint River water
was causing lead contamination in Flint homes. The media reported
that the corrosion control plan would be implemented in January
2016," according to the complaint.

Yet on Sept. 9, 2015, EPA spokesman Peter Cassell "misleadingly"
told ABC News "that the 'lead monitoring shows Flint has not
exceeded the lead action level,'" according to the complaint.

Burgess and the other residents seek damages for negligence,
failure to take mandatory actions required by the Safe Water
Drinking Act, including failure to issue an emergency order,
failure to provide technical assistance, negligent failure to
warn, and emotional and physical injuries, including "lead
poisoning, dermatological disorders, loss of hair,
gastrointestinal disorders, out of pocket economic losses . . .
pain and suffering, emotional distress, deprivation of a quality
of life . . . [and] property damage to real estate and personal
property."

The 1,703 claimants seek at least $722.4 million.

An EPA spokesperson said the agency does not comment on pending
litigation.

The case is, JAN BURGESS, and all 1,703 individuals identified in
the Burgess FTCA administrative Complaint, Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-10291-LVP-RSW (E.D.
Mich., Jan. 30, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     Michael L. Pitt, Esq.
     Cary S. McGehee, Esq.
     Beth M. Rivers, Esq.
     Peggy G. Pitt, Esq.
     Pitt McGehee Palmer & Rivers, PC
     117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200
     Royal Oak, MI 48067
     Tel: (248) 398-9800
     E-mail: mpitt@pittlawpc.com
             cmcgehee@pittlawpc.com
             brivers@pittlawpc.com
             ppitt@pittlawpc.com

          - and -

     William Goodman, Esq.
     Julie H. Hurwitz, Esq.
     Goodman & Hurwitz, PC
     1394 E. Jefferson Ave.
     Detroit, MI 48207
     Tel: (313) 567-6170
     E-mail: bgoodman@goodmanhurwitz.com

          - and -

     Brian McKeen, Esq.
     Salvatore Amodeo, Esq.
     McKEEN & ASSOCIATES, PC
     645 Griswold Street, Suite 4200
     Detroit, MI 48226
     Tel: (313) 961-4400
     E-mail: BjMcKeen@mckeenassociates.com
             Samodeo@mckeenassociates.com

          - and -

     Trachelle C. Young, Esq.
     Trachelle C Young & Associates PLLC
     2501 N Saginaw St
     Flint, MI 48505-4443
     Tel: (810) 239-6302
     E-mail: trachelleyoung@gmail.com

          - and -

     Deborah A. LaBelle, Esq.
     Law Offices of Deborah A. LaBelle
     221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
     Ann Arbor, MI 48104
     Tel:  (734) 996-5620
     E-mail: deblabeIle@aol.com

          - and -

     Teresa Caine Bingman, Esq.
     The Law Offices of Teresa A. Bingman
     1425 Ambassador Drive
     Okemos, MI 48864
     Tel: (877) 957-7077
     E-mail: tbingman@gmail.com

          - and -

     Shermane Sealey, Esq.
     RSB Law Firm PLLC
     30300 Northwestern Hwy Suite 142
     Farmington Hills, MI 48334-3350
     Tel: (844) 772-2700
     E-mail: stsea403@gmail.com

          - and -

     Cynthia M. Lindsey, Esq.
     Cynthia M. Lindsey & Associates
     8900 E. Jefferson Avenue, Suite 612
     Detroit, MI 48214
     Tel: (248) 766-0797
     E-mail: cmlind6439@gmail.com


UNITED STATES: Turpeinen Brothers, et al. Claims Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TURPEINEN BROTHERS INC., et al., Plaintiffs,
v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, No. 15-584L (Fed. Cl.), the
United States Court of Federal Claims granted without prejudice
the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the claims of Turpeinen
Brothers, Inc., Jason Quinn, Wayne Solberg, and Lee and Shirley
Jackson.

The plaintiffs have moved under Rule 41(a)(2) of the Rules of the
United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC), to voluntarily
dismiss from the rails-to-trails takings case, without prejudice,
the claims of five plaintiffs.  The motion noted that each of
these claims are defective, either because the railroad obtained a
fee simple interest in the adjacent land, the property owners'
land is not adjacent to the railroad corridor, or the property
allegedly taken was obtained after the date of the taking.  The
government consented to the dismissal of the claims, but argued
this should be with prejudice.

The government argued that, unless the dismissal is with
prejudice, it is burdened with "the uncertainty of future
litigation" over the dismissed claims.  The defendant contended
that it expended time and resources to discover the invalidity of
these claims, and that it is being deprived of the ability to
obtain summary judgment concerning them.

The Court, however, found that, despite having purportedly taken
the time to investigate the merits of these claims, the government
neglected to provide the Court with the specific reason or reasons
why each is believed to be invalid, nor identified any reason why
it would be more burdensome to use this information to seek the
dismissal of any subsequent lawsuit filed on behalf of the
dismissed claimants than to move for summary judgment in this
proceeding.

Moreover, the Court noted that it is not clear that class action
tolling would apply to the claims of named parties in a class
action.  Thus, the six years that have elapsed since the date of
the alleged taking or from the issuance of the Notice of Interim
Trail Use should dramatically reduce the prospect of any future
litigation over these claims.

The Court thus concluded that a dismissal of the claims without
prejudice is appropriate.

A full-text copy of the Court of Federal Claims' January 9, 2017
order is available at https://is.gd/TUusN7 from Leagle.com.

Turpeinen Brothers Inc., Robert Wagner, Sarah Mase, Cheryl
Mathers, Richard Horon, Iii, David F. Smydra, Sr., Jason Quinn,
Wayne Solberg, Lee Jackson, Shirley Jackson, Bruno Baron, Barbara
Baron, Japheth Baron, Leona Marie T'niemi, Harvey Peterson, Bertha
V. Peterson, Robert A. Peterson, Edla Ylonen, Ina Laitala, Taini
Laitala, Ernest Laitala, Joseph Laitala, Elvie E. Mannikko,
Margaret Lutz, David R. Kekke, Plaintiffs, represented by John
Robert Sears -- sears@bscr-law.com -- Baker Sterchi Cowden and
Rice, LLC.

USA, Defendant, represented by Daniela Alejandra Arregui Labarca,
U.S. Department of Justice.


US XPRESS: Ayala Appeals C.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Anthony Ayala filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Anthony Ayala v. U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc., et
al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00137-GW-KK, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Riverside.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 11,
2017, the Hon. George H. Wu denied the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification, in light of the oral argument at the December
22, 2016 hearing.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of
the California Labor Code and California Industrial Commission
Wage Orders, including failure to provide meal and rest periods in
violation of the Labor Code.  The proposed Class consists of:

     [A]ll truck drivers who worked or work in California for
     U.S. Express after the completion of training at any time
     since four years from the filing of this legal action until
     such time as there is a final disposition of this lawsuit.

The appellate case is captioned as Anthony Ayala v. U.S. Xpress
Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-80004, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Petitioner ANTHONY AYALA, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          David Borgen, Esq.
          James Kan, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 835-1417
          E-mail: dborgen@gbdhlegal.com
                  jkan@gbdhlegal.com

               - and -

          James M. Sitkin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES M. SITKIN
          1 Kaiser Plaza, Suite 505
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 318-1048
          Facsimile: (415) 362-3268
          E-mail: jsitkin@sitkinlegal.com

               - and -

          Justin Lee Swidler, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 North Kings Highway
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
          E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com

Defendants-Respondents U.S. XPRESS ENTERPRISES, INC., and U.S.
XPRESS, INC., is represented by:

          James Harold Hanson, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
          10 West Market Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 492-9205
          Facsimile: (317) 687-2414
          E-mail: jhanson@scopelitis.com

               - and -

          Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr., Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
          2 North Lake Avenue
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 795-4700
          E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com

               - and -

          Adam Carl Smedstad, Esq.
          SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C.
          30 West Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 255-7181
          Facsimile: (312) 422-1224
          E-mail: asmedstad@scopelitis.com


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Judge Rejects Bid for Interlocutory Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Pauley, III of the Southern District of
New York, denied defendants' motion to certify an interlocutory
appeal, in the case MARK YOUNGERS, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VIRTUS
INVESTMENT PARTNERS INC., et al., Defendants, No. 15cv8262
(S.D.N.Y.)

Plaintiffs allege that appendices to Virtus Trust registration
statements and prospectuses were false and misleading because
indices contained performance data that did not reflect trades
with live assets.

Plaintiffs plead loss of causation with two separate theories.
First, a loss of value in the mutual fund shares resulting from
defendants' alleged misrepresentation, irrespective of any effect
on the funds' of the net asset value (NAV). Plaintiffs' second
theory of loss causation is that the misstatements caused a direct
loss to the mutual funds' value because investors paid higher fees
than they would have if they were informed of the true performance
history of the AlphaSector Indices.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and alleged that the
statement in the prospectus did not affect the NAV and therefore,
as a matter of law, Plaintiffs failed to plead loss causation.

District Judge William H. Pauley granted in part and denied in
part defendants' motion to dismiss.

Defendants move to certify an interlocutory appeal from the
opinion and order.  Specifically, they contend that the case
presents an opportunity to obtain appellate clarity on the
threshold question of pleading loss causation in the context of
mutual funds.

Judge Pauley concludes that plaintiffs adequately plead loss
causation and believes that the issue of loss causation is best
addressed on a more fulsome record after discovery is complete.
Defendants' motion to certify an interlocutory appeal is denied.

A copy of Judge Pauley's opinion and order dated January 6, 2017,
is available at https://goo.gl/pbLcW1 from Leagle.com.

Mark Youngers, Alfred Tolli, Brendan Hoffman, Joseph D. Mitchell,
Kimball Lloyd, Frances Briggs, Plaintiffs, represented by Laurence
M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- Gonen Haklay --
ghaklay@rosenlegal.com -- Jonathan Stern -- jstern@rosenlegal.com
-- at The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

William Echols and Louise Quigley, Plaintiffs, represented by
Jonathan Stern -- jstern@rosenlegal.com -- at The Rosen Law Firm,
P.A.

Virtus Group, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- at The Rosen Law Firm PA

Virtus Investment Partners Inc., Defendant, represented by George
S. Wang -- gwang@stblaw.com -- Joseph Michael McLaughlin --
jmclaughlin@stblaw.com -- Michael David Kibler --
mkibler@stblaw.com -- Daniel Joseph Stujenske --
dstujenske@stblaw.com -- Meredith Dawn Karp --
meredith.karp@stblaw.com -- Shannon Kyle McGovern --
smcgovern@stblaw.com -- at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

Virtus Investment Advisers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph
Michael McLaughlin -- jmclaughlin@stblaw.com -- Michael David
Kibler -- mkibler@stblaw.com -- Daniel Joseph Stujenske --
dstujenske@stblaw.com -- Meredith Dawn Karp --
meredith.karp@stblaw.com -- Shannon Kyle McGovern --
smcgovern@stblaw.com -- at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

Amy Robinson, Michael A. Angerthal, Mark S. Flynn, Francis G.
Waltman, W. Patrick Bradley, Euclid Advisors, LLC, and Virtus
Opportunities Trust, Defendant, represented by Joseph Michael
McLaughlin -- jmclaughlin@stblaw.com -- Michael David Kibler --
mkibler@stblaw.com -- Daniel Joseph Stujenske --
dstujenske@stblaw.com -- Shannon Kyle McGovern --
smcgovern@stblaw.com -- at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

F-Squared Investments, Inc., -Squared Alternative Advisors, LLC,
F-Squared Institutional Advisors, LLC, and F-Squared Investment
Management, LLC, Defendant, represented by Aric Hugo Wu --
awu@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP

George R. Aylward, Defendant, represented by George S. Wang --
gwang@stblaw.com -- Joseph Michael McLaughlin --
jmclaughlin@stblaw.com -- Michael David Kibler --
mkibler@stblaw.com -- Daniel Joseph Stujenske --
dstujenske@stblaw.com -- Meredith Dawn Karp --
meredith.karp@stblaw.com -- Shannon Kyle McGovern --
smcgovern@stblaw.com -- at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP; Aric
Hugo Wu -- awu@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP

Ferdinand L. J. Vredonck, Richard E. Segerson, James M. Oates,
Geraldine M. McNamara Philip R. McLoughlin, and Leroy Keith, Jr.,
Defendants, represented by Geoffrey Hunter Coll --
gcoll@bakerlaw.com -- Michael R. Matthias --
mmatthias@bakerlaw.com -- at Baker & Hostetler LLP

Howard Present, Defendant, represented by Alexandra G. Watson --
awatson@collorallp.com -- Anthony E. Fuller --
afuller@collorallp.com -- Justin P. O'Brien --
jobrien@collorallp.com -- at Collora LLP; Beth Kressel Itkin --
Paul W. Ryan -- pryan@serperyan.com -- at Serpe Ryan LLC


VISTA OUTDOOR: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Vista Outdoor, Inc. and
certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased
Vista securities between August 11, 2016, and January 13, 2017,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts including that: (1) Vista was suffering an
acceleration in the softening of the retail environment and an
acceleration in its own promotional activity; (2) Vista was facing
both revenue and gross margin declines; (3) Vista would have to
start the impairment assessment for its Outdoor Products segment's
reporting units in the third quarter of 2017, rather than with the
preparation of the Company's fiscal year 2017 ("FY17") annual
financial statements; and (4) as a result, Vista would have to
identify an impairment charge in the range of $400 million to $450
million; and (5) consequently, Defendants' statements regarding
Vista's business, operations, and prospects, were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/vstoor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
Vista you have until March 27, 2017 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.   Attorney advertising. Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes.


WAL-MART STORES: Judge Won't Add $86MM to Award for Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge said Jan. 24 she is unlikely to add $86
million to a $54 million jury award for Wal-Mart truck drivers
because the retail giant showed "good faith" in trying to follow
labor laws.

In November, a seven-member jury found Wal-Mart intentionally
failed to pay hundreds of California drivers for time spent
inspecting and washing trucks and for layovers and mandatory rest
breaks from October 2005 to October 2015.

The truckers filed a motion last month seeking an extra $86
million -- $25.6 million in penalties, $54.6 million in liquidated
damages, and $5.8 million in restitution -- on top of the $54
million jury award.

During a hearing Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said
she was inclined to grant the request for $5.8 million in
restitution but not the other $80 million in damages and
penalties.

Class attorneys appeared dumbfounded by Illston's reliance on a
post-trial declaration by a Wal-Mart human resources director
touting the company's efforts to comply with labor laws and to
offer competitive pay to drivers.

Finding that Wal-Mart acted in "good faith" is a conclusion
directly contradicted by the jury's unanimous verdict that the
company intentionally violated minimum wage laws, class attorney
Nicholas "Butch" Wagner argued.

Wagner said considering a corporate Wal-Mart manager's post-trial
declaration would violate his clients' rights because that
evidence was not presented at trial and not subject to cross-
examination.

But Wal-Mart attorney Scott Edelman said it was unreasonable to
argue Wal-Mart should have presented evidence at trial on the law
and his client's understanding of it, given that matters of law
are to be resolved by a judge, not a jury.

Illston also pointed out that Wal-Mart did present witnesses at
trial who testified about the company's "good faith" efforts to
adequately compensate drivers.

"You did have witnesses very supportive of how Wal-Mart was paying
their truckers -- that it was very generous and toward the top of
the industry," Illston said.

The judge also concluded California labor laws do not authorize
giving employees penalties paid for wage violations. She rebuked a
class attorney for adding an extra word to a California statute
cited in his brief.

"The only way I can see you win the argument is if I rewrite the
statute as you did," Illston told the attorney.

The law states any employer who pays a person less than minimum
wage "shall be subject to a civil penalty, restitution of wages,
liquidated damages payable to the employee, and any applicable
penalties."

Illston said class attorney Lawrence Artenian added an "and"
before "liquidated damages" in his brief, implying that civil
penalties, restitution and liquidated damages were all payable to
the employee.

Artenian called the mistake inadvertent and said he would never
intentionally try to mislead the court. He argued the California
Legislature specifically wrote that language to make sure
employers who intentionally stiff workers on minimum wage would be
liable for such penalties.

But Illston disagreed with Arentian's interpretation of the
statute.

"In my view, civil penalties are not modified as payable to the
employee," she said.

Illston ended the hearing after an hour of debate, seemingly
unmoved by attempts to dissuade her from her tentative ruling
against awarding the extra $80 million in damages and penalties.


WAL-MART STORES: Nikmanesh Appeals C.D. Cal. Order to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Afrouz Nikmanesh, Elvis Atencio, Anna Nguyen and Effie
Spentzos filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit
entitled Afrouz Nikmanesh, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et
al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00202-AG-JCG, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

The appellate case is captioned as Afrouz Nikmanesh, et al. v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-80005, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 12,
2017, the Hon. Andrew J. Guilford denied certification of these
classes:

Rest Break Class:

   "all current and former non-exempt employees, employed by
   Defendants as Pharmacists in the State of California, who did
   not take a 10-minute rest break during the first 4 hours of
   their shift, or a second 10-minute rest break for all shifts
   of 6-10 hours, when they were scheduled to be the only
   Pharmacist on duty at any time during their shift, within four
   years before the filing of the original complaint until the
   date of judgment;

Wage Statement Class:

   "all current and former non-exempt employees, employed by
   Defendants as Pharmacists within the State of California, who
   are members of the Rest Break Class, and as a result of the
   rest break claims alleged in the Second Amended Complaint,
   were not provided with accurate, itemized wage statements as
   required by California Labor Code section 226, within one year
   before the filing of the original Complaint until the date of
   judgment; and

Waiting Time Class:

   "all former non-exempt employees, employed by Defendants as
   Pharmacists in the State of California, who are not members of
   the Training Course Class, but are members of the Rest Break
   Class, and as a result of the rest break claims alleged in the
   Second Amended Complaint, were not paid all wages due and
   owing at the time of their separation as required by
   California Labor Code sections 201-203, within three years
   from the filing of the original Complaint until the date of
   judgment.

A copy of Judge Guilford's Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QmCfhxK9

Plaintiffs-Petitioners AFROUZ NIKMANESH, ELVIS ATENCIO, ANNA
NGUYEN, and EFFIE SPENTZOS, on behalf of themselves, the general
public and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          Mark Russell Thierman, Esq.
          THIERMAN BUCK, LLP
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
          E-mail: josh@thiermanlaw.com
                  mark@thiermanbuck.com

               - and -

          Eric M. Epstein, Esq.
          ERIC M. EPSTEIN, APC
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, #1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6002
          Telephone: (310) 552-5366
          E-mail: emepstein@aol.com

               - and -

          Dayton B. Parcells, III, Esq.
          PARCELLS LAW FIRM
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, #1100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9882
          E-mail: dbparcells@parcellslaw.com

Defendants-Respondents WAL-MART STORES, INC., and WAL-MART
ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware corporation, are represented by:

          Robert James Herrington, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 586-7700
          Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
          E-mail: herringtonr@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Naomi Beer, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1200 17th Street
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 572-6500
          E-mail: beern@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert M. Goldich, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          2700 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 988-7883
          Facsimile: (215) 717-5242
          E-mail: goldichr@gtlaw.com


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Savannah Suit Removed to N.D. Ga.
---------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Savannah Oaks Condominium
Association, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Waste Management, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 2016CV284207, was removed from the Superior Court of
Fulton County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia (Atlanta). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:17-cv-00330-SCJ to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to Hon. Judge Steve C Jones.

Waste Management is an American waste management, comprehensive
waste, and environmental services company in North America.
Founded in 1971, the company is headquartered in the First City
Tower in Houston, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Adam Webb, Esq.
          G. Franklin Lemond, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew C. Klase, Esq.
          WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
          1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444 0773
          E-mail: eadamwebb@hotmail.com
                  flemond@webbllc.com
                  mattklase@bellsouth.net

               - and -

          Wayne Charles, Esq.
          WAYNE CHARLES, PC
          395 Highgrove Drive
          Fayetteville, GA 30215
          Telephone: (770) 241 8936
          E-mail: wc115@bellsouth.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          David A. Dial, Esq.
          Nicholas Peter Panayotopoulos, Esq.
          WEINBERG WHEELER HUDGINS GUNN
          & DIAL, LLC-ATL
          3344 Peachtree Road, NE, Suite 2400
          Atlanta, GA 30326
          Telephone: (404) 876 2700
          Facsimile: (404) 875 9433
          E-mail: ddial@wwhgd.com
                  npanayo@wwhgd.com


WELLS FARGO: Noncitizen College Students Sue Over Loan Grants
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
with U.S. discrimination against immigrants making world news on
January 30, noncitizen college students filed a federal class
action in San Francisco, against Wells Fargo bank, accusing it of
refusing them student loans though they are legally in the United
States.

Mitzie Perez is one of roughly 665,000 residents of the United
States who has been granted Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals, or DACA. The program protects qualified applicants from
deportation if they were brought here as children and have clean
records. They may apply for and be granted work permits good for
two years, which can be renewed.

"Wells Fargo, an American multinational banking and financial
services holding company, outright refuses to extend loans to
individuals who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents," the
complaint states, adding that such practices violate federal civil
rights laws.

Perez is a junior at the University of California, Riverside. The
California League of United Latin American Citizens, or LULAC,
signed on as co-plaintiff.

Perez says she searched for student loans on Wells Fargo's website
in August 2016. After answering a few questions, one of which
asked whether she was a U.S. citizen or permanent resident, a
denial message popped up: "Thank you for your interest in a Wells
Fargo student loan. However, based on information you provided, we
do not have a student loan option that meets your needs. This
could be due to the school you selected, your field of study,
and/or your citizenship status."

Perez hit the "Back" button on her browser and changed her
response to "I am a permanent resident alien." She received
information about obtaining a student loan through Wells Fargo,
with a note at the top of the screen saying she was required to
provide a U.S. citizen co-signer.

"I tried to obtain a student loan from Wells Fargo because it was
a bank that said it worked with the Latino community, but they
denied me a loan because of my citizenship status, not my credit
history. That's wrong and I don't want others to face the same
problem," Perez said.

Proof of citizenship is unnecessary when applying for a loan, as
banks are supposed to only verify the applicant's identity and
assess their risk, according to the complaint. Perez says she
could have provided Wells Fargo with any number of documents to
prove her identity and fulfill the bank's Customer Identification
Requirements.
"There is no federal or state law or regulation that restricts
banks from providing financial products to customers because the
customer is an alien," the complaint states. "Under federal law,
alienage is merely one factor among many used to verify enough
information to confirm the true identity of the customer."
Perez says she had to pay for her tuition with credit cards.
Many members of co-plaintiff LULAC, like Perez, are DACA
recipients.

Among their attorneys is the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund,
or MALDEF.

"All students should be treated equally in accessing the loan
assistance needed to complete a university education," MALDEF
president and general counsel Thomas Saenz said in a statement.

"The nation and California have a dire need for educated workers,
and discrimination that impedes the expansion of that educated
workforce is against the public interest and should be promptly
eliminated."

Perez seeks to represent a nationwide class of people who since
Jan. 30, 2013 were "denied the right to contract for a loan or
other financial product by Wells Fargo because they were not U.S.
citizens despite satisfying Wells Fargo's CIP [Customer
Identification Program] requirements."

In addition to class certification, Perez and LULAC seek damages
for violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, unfair competition,
and alienage discrimination.

She also wants Wells Fargo enjoined from continuing to deny
student loans to non-citizens.

Wells Fargo issued a statement through its spokesman Jason
Vasquez: "While we respect the important role that the California
League of United Latino Citizens and the Mexican American Legal
Defense and Educational Fund play in support of the community, we
are disappointed they filed a lawsuit rather than work with us on
solutions to help people realize their goals of higher education.

"Wells Fargo understands the dream of pursuing higher education
and we remain focused on our responsible lending practices to
assist temporary and permanent residents and U.S. citizens in
obtaining student financing. Wells Fargo is deeply committed to
the needs of the communities we serve."

Vasquez said that Wells Fargo accounts for 1 one percent of
student loans in the United States, and follows guidelines set by
the U.S. Department of Education, which does not have a policy on
lending to DACA recipients.

The numerosity of the class should be ascertainable by examining
Wells Fargo's records, plaintiffs' attorney said.

"We will certainly seek and believe plaintiffs are entitled to
records to identify the putative class," co-counsel Ossai Miazad,
of New York City, said in an email.

Miazan is with Outten and Golden, of San Francisco, the lead law
firm. Also representing the plaintiffs are Jahan Sagafi with
Outten & Golden in San Francisco; Patrick David Lopez of
Washington, D.C.; and Saenz, with MALDEF's office in Los Angeles.

The case is captioned, MITZIE PEREZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF UNITED
LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO & CO. and
WELLS FARGO, N.A., Defendants, Case 3:17-cv-00454-JCS (N.D. Cal.,
January 30, 2017).

Attorney for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class:

     Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
     Katrina Eiland, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Telephone: (415) 638-8800
     Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
     E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
             keiland@outtengolden.com

          - and -

     Thomas Saenz, Esq.
     Victor Viramontes, Esq.
     MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
     634 S. Spring St., 11th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90014
     Telephone: (213) 629-2512
     Facsimile: (213) 629-0266
     E-mail: tsaenz@maldef.org
             vviramontes@maldef.org


WESTERN UNION: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against The Western Union Company in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Western Union stock between February 24, 2012 and January 19,
2017, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Western
Union's fraud prevention efforts did not comply with applicable
laws; (2) Western Union knowingly failed to maintain an effective
anti-money laundering program; (3) Western Union aided and abetted
wire fraud; (4) for at least five years, Western Union knew of
agents structuring transactions designed to avoid the reporting
requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act; (5) Western Union was not
compliant with its regulatory responsibilities; (6) between 2004
and 2012, Western Union violated U.S. laws -- the Bank Secrecy Act
and anti-fraud statutes--by processing hundreds of thousands of
transactions for Western Union agents and others involved in an
international consumer fraud scheme; (7) Western Union knew of but
failed to take corrective action against Western Union agents
involved in or facilitating fraud-related transactions; (8) from
January 1, 2004 and August 29, 2015, Western Union received at
least 550,928 complaints about fraud-induced money transfers,
totaling at least $632,721,044; and (9) consequently, Defendants'
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On January 19, 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice and the
Federal Trade Commission publicized that Western Union admitted to
"aiding and abetting wire fraud" by allowing scammers to process
transactions even when Western Union realized its agents were
disguising transactions to avoid detection and therefore settled
to pay $586 million.  Following this news, Western Union stock
dropped 3.30% to close at $21.13 per share on January 19, 2017.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 27, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of
Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at --
tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- or -- gegleston@gme-law.com


WESTERN UNION: Calif. Man Sues Over $586MM Deal with Gov't
----------------------------------------------------------
Suevon Lee at Law360 reports that The Western Union Co. was
slapped with a putative securities class action on January 26 in
California federal court after recently disclosing it agreed to
pay the U.S. government $586 million to resolve an investigation
it violated anti-fraud laws and aided and abetted fraud between
2004 and 2012.

Martin Herman is suing the global payment service and three
individual executives on behalf of a proposed class of
shareholders who bought publicly traded Western Union securities
between Feb. 14, 2012, and Jan. 19, 2017, and were allegedly
damaged by the dip in stock price following the recent disclosure.

Western Union on Jan. 19 publicly admitted to failing to maintain
an effective anti-money laundering program and to aiding and
abetting wire fraud, resulting in a $586 million deal with the
feds to resolve civil charges from the Federal Trade Commission
and criminal charges for which it entered into a deferred
prosecution agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice.

Herman's complaint contends that statements the company made in
SEC filings between 2012 and 2016 -- including that its fraud
prevention efforts were "effective" and that it was compliant with
regulatory responsibilities -- were materially false and
misleading in light of the recent developments, ultimately
damaging investors.

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

Share prices fell $0.87 per share, or over 3.9 percent, over two
trading days to close at $20.98 per share on Jan. 20 in the wake
of the news, according to the suit.

Named in the complaint are Western Union and its CEO and President
Hikmet Ersek, former CFO Scott T. Scheirman and current CFO Rajesh
K. Agrawal.

Herman contends that he and other potential class members relied
on Western Union's statements in public filings over the four-year
period and trusted the integrity of the market price of the
securities which, he later realized, had been "artificially
inflated."

Had he known Western Union's statements were misleading, he and
other proposed class members wouldn't have purchased the Western
Union securities, the lawsuit alleges.

The suit comes a week after the blockbuster agreement in which the
financial services company admitted to violating the Bank Secrecy
Act and other anti-fraud laws.

Federal authorities alleged that the fraud scheme involved
fraudsters who would contact unwitting victims, pretending to be
relatives who needed money for a job opportunity or other reason.
The money would be sent through Western Union, with the help of
complicit agents within the company who received a cut of
payments, according to the DOJ.

Western Union was aware of the activity as early as 2004 due to
consumer fraud reports, but failed to implement guidelines that
could have staved off further losses to victims and blocked the
actions of more than 2,000 fraudulent agents worldwide between
2004 and 2012, according to prosecutors.

Officials also alleged that Western Union didn't have an effective
anti-money laundering program in place. The company was aware of
illegal practices dating back two decades, in which people used
the money transfer service to send illegal gambling transactions
abroad, according to the DOJ.

In a statement announcing its deal with federal investigators,
Western Union said it increased compliance funding by more than
200 percent and now spends about $200 million a year on compliance
measures.

A company spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for
comment in response to on January 26's suit.

Herman is represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com --, Phillip Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com --
and Kevin Chan -- kchan@rosenlegal.com -- of The Rosen Law Firm.

Counsel information for Western Union wasn't immediately available
on January 26.

The case is Martin Herman v. The Western Union Co. et al., case
number 2:17-cv-00650, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.


WILMINGTON TRUST: Faces Class Action Over ISCO Stock Sale
---------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Castro-Pagan at Bloomberg BNA reports Wilmington Trust N.A.
is accused in a proposed class action of violating ERISA by
authorizing the sale of ISCO Industries Inc.'s stock to the
company's employee stock ownership plan for $59 million more than
the stock was worth (Swain v. Wilmington Trust, D. Del., No. 1:17-
cv-00071, complaint filed 1/25/17).

The ESOP purchased the stock for $98 million, but just 11 days
after the purchase, an independent appraiser revalued the company
stock at $39 million, according to the lawsuit filed Jan. 25 in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Two plan
participants, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the plan and more
than 300 participants, also allege that the transaction allowed
ISCO's prior owner to unload his interests in the company at an
inflated price. It also saddled participants with millions of
dollars of debt payable to the company to finance the transaction,
they allege.

This isn't the first lawsuit Wilmington Trust faces over alleged
ESOP mismanagement in violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act. Wilmington Trust went to trial in November over
allegations that it mishandled an $81 million company stock
purchase for an ESOP connected to government security contractor
Constellis Group Inc.

ISCO is a privately held company that provides customized piping
solutions with more than 30 facilities in the U.S., Canada,
Australia and Chile. The company adopted the ESOP in January 2012
and conducted the transaction by December 2012.

As the plan trustee, Wilmington Trust caused the plan to issue a
note payable to ISCO in the amount of $98 million to purchase the
company stock, the complaint said.

The ESOP paid for a control premium that it never got because the
previous owner retained it, the participants alleged. Because the
ESOP didn't receive any discount for this lack of control, the
participants alleged that the plan overpaid for the stock.

The participants seek to recover the difference between the price
paid by the ESOP and the actual value of ISCO shares at the time
of the transaction--$59 million.

Wilmington Trust didn't immediately reply to Bloomberg BNA's
request for comments.

The participants are represented by Bailey & Glasser LLP. In
December, the law firm sued Bankers Trust Co. of South Dakota over
a $37.5 million stock transaction and recently reached a $19.8
million settlement in an action related to Mona Vie Inc. stock.
Bailey also represents participants in an action against Reliance
Trust Co. over a $100 million deal between Bradford Hammacher
Group Inc. and its ESOP.


WYNDHAM VACATION: Calif. Man Sues Over Collection Calls
-------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado at Northern California Record reports that a Los
Angeles resident has filed a class-action against a debt collector
over allegations it called him after he revoked his consent to
receive calls.

Shawn Evelyn filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on Jan. 16 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against Wyndham Vacation Resorts Inc. and
Does 1-100 alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that beginning
in June 2016, he suffered damages from receiving several
collection calls from the defendant. The plaintiff holds Wyndham
Vacation Resorts Inc. and Does 1-100 responsible because the
defendants allegedly kept on calling the plaintiff using an
automatic telephone dialing system despite his request to stop
calling him.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks $500 in statutory
damages, $1,500 in treble damages, and any other relief as this
court deems just. He is represented by Todd M. Friedman, Meghan E.
George and Adrian R. Bacon of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman,
P.C. in Woodland Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 2:17-cv-00334-ODW-RAO


WYNDHAM VACATION: Appeals Decision in "Bitner" Suit to 7th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the lawsuit entitled THOMAS BITNER and TOSHIA
PARKER, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v.
WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS, INC., Case No. 3:13-cv-00451-wmc, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

The appellate case is captioned as Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc.
v. Thomas Bitner, et al., Case No. 17-8001, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 12,
2017, the Hon. William M. Conley entered an order:

   1. denying Defendant's motion for decertification;

   2. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification of:

      all persons who were employed by Wyndham Vacation Resorts,
      Inc. in the State of Wisconsin as In-House Sales
      Representatives at any time from June 25, 2011, to [a date
      in fall of 2014 to be determined by the parties];

   3. appointing Thomas Bitner as class representative;

   4. appointing Hawks Quindel, S.C., and Nichols Kaster, PLLP,
      as class counsel;

   5. denying Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment;

   6. denying Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment;
      and

   7. granting Defendant's motion to dismiss four  opt-in
      plaintiffs who have failed to respond to discovery requests
      and noticed depositions.

Petitioner WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS, INC., is represented by:

          Tony H. McGrath, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          One South Pinckney Street
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 807-5274
          Facsimile: (608) 260-0058
          E-mail: Tony.McGrath@jacksonlewis.com

Respondents THOMAS BITNER, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, and TOSHIA PARKER, Individually and on behalf
of those similarly situated, are represented by:

          David C. Zoeller, Esq.
          HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
          222 W. Washington Avenue
          P.O. Box 2155
          Madison, WI 53701-2155
          Telephone: (608) 257-0040
          Facsimile: (608) 256-0236
          E-mail: dzoeller@hq-law.com


WYOMING, OH: Bid for Summary Judgment in "Daniels" Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan J. Dlott granted the defendant's motion for summary
judgment filed in the case captioned QUINCY C. DANIELS, Plaintiff,
v. CITY OF WYOMING, ET AL., Defendants, No. 1:15-CV-00507 (S.D.
Ohio).

Quincy C. Daniels asserted a claim for violation of his Fourth
Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights against Tom Riggs, a
police officer with the City of Wyoming, Ohio, arising from a
traffic stop.  Daniels asserted that the traffic stop was illegal
because it was racially motivated.  Officer Riggs moved for
summary judgment on the grounds that he did not violate Daniels's
constitutional rights and that he is entitled to qualified
immunity as a matter of law.

Judge Dlott found that the material undisputed evidence
establishes that Officer Riggs had probable cause to pull over
Daniels for the traffic violation of driving with an expired
license plate.   Thus, the judge concluded that Officer Riggs did
not violate Daniels's Fourth Amendment rights.  Moreover, the
judge held that Officer Riggs is entitled to qualified immunity as
a matter of law.

A full-text copy of Judge Schneider's January 10, 2017 order is
available at https://is.gd/UsnoDV from Leagle.com.

Quincy C. Daniels, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Brand Newman,
Newman & Meeks Co LPA.

City of Wyoming, City Manager Lynn Tetley, Wyoming Police
Department, Chief Gary Baldauf, Officer Tom Riggs, Officer Mike
World, Officer Brian Berigan, Officer Jeffrey Banker, Unknown
Officers, Defendants, represented by Gary Edward Becker --
gary.becker@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl & Nathan B. Spencer
-- nathan.spencer@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP.


YAHOO! INC: March 27 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, announces a class action
lawsuit against Yahoo! Inc., concerning possible violations of
federal securities laws. Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Yahoo shares between November 12, 2013 and December 14,
2016, inclusive, are encouraged to contact the firm prior to the
March 27, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

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

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

The investigation is centered on whether Yahoo and some of its
officers and/or directors have violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or committed violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

On December 14, 2016, Yahoo announced that it had a data breach,
with data from more than 1 billion user accounts at risk during
August 2013. When this news was released to the public, Yahoo's
share price dropped as much 6.5% on December 15, 2016.
Furthermore, it is assumed that the data breach threatens
Verizon's purchase of Yahoo. Lundin Law PC was established by
Brian Lundin, a securities litigator based in Los Angeles
dedicated to upholding shareholders' rights.

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



                            *********

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  * * *