CAR_Public/170209.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Thursday, February 9, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 29



                            Headlines

AARON'S INC: Court Denies Peterson's Bid for Class Certification
AMBIT ENERGY: 3rd Cir. Reinstates Consumer's Suit Over Fees
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Bid to Certify in "Thompson" Suit Withdrawn
APPLE INC: Wins Summary Judgment in "English" Suit
APNA HOLDING: Cortez, et al. File Suit Under NY, Pa. Labor Law

AREBA CASRIEL: Faces "Allen" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
AUDI AG: "White" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2672
BANC OF CALIFORNIA: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Galanis Ties
BEACH LIFE: Faces "Suarez" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
CANADA: Quebec Transport Ministry Faces Class Action

CAPITAL ONE: Faces "Wiseman" Suit in Southern Dist. of California
CENTRAL YETEV: Faces "Pagoada" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: "Canale" Suit Remanded to State Court
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Shpetehaib" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
CREDIT COLLECTION: "G.G." Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to D.N.J.

DELTA AIRLINES: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Wage Class Action
DEVRY EDUCATION: Seeks to Dismiss Pension Fund's Amended Suit
DEVRY EDUCATION: Seeks to Dismiss Robinson-Brown Amended Suit
DEVRY EDUCATION: Amended Complaint Filed in Petrizzo-Jara Cases
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Illinois Court Drops "Gingerich" Class Suit

DOLLAR GENERAL: Status Hearing in "Lambert" Suit Set for Feb. 28
DUTCH LLC: "Hoffman" Case Settlement Fails Court Scrutiny
E. I. DU PONT: Diagnostic Screening and Testing Begins
E. I. DU PONT: 3,550 Personal Injury Lawsuits Pending at Dec. 31
EDIBLE ARRANGEMENTS: Faces "Rando" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey

ELECTROLUX HOME: "Rice" Suit Stays in M.D. Pa. Court
ENVOY AIR: Anthony, et al. File Suit Under FLSA, Mich. OT Laws
F.H. CANN: Faces "Ezra" Suit in Eastern District of New York
FCA US: "Spratley" Consumer Suit Transferred to N.D. New York
FIVE GUYS: Faces "Lucia" Suit in Southern District of New York

GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Faces "Rice" Suit Over China Oceanwide Merger
GNS & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Marquez" Suit in S.D. of Alabama
GREAT LAKES: "Hutchins" Lawsuit Alleges Violations of FLSA
HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: Trainees are not Employees, Calif. Judge Says
JB MEDICAL: Bid to Transfer "Schwanke" Suit to Calif. Denied

JO-ANN STORES: Faces "Kreppel" Suit in District of New Jersey
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Talcum Powder Ovarian Cancer Lawsuits Ongoing
JUMEI INT'L: Securities Class Suit in New York Dismissed
KELLY SERVICES: Wins Prelim. Okay of "Hillson" Class Settlement
KIMBALL ELECTRONICS: Has $4MM Pre-Tax Income from Deal Payment

KROLL LABS: Appeals Ruling in Case Over False Positive Drug Test
LITHIA MOTORS: Court Narrows Claims in Mendoza et al. Suit
LORENZO AUTO: "Montes" Suit Seeks to Recoup Pay Under FLSA
LOS ANGELES, CA: Yagman Seeks Certification of Three Classes
MALLINCKRODT PLC: Faces "Shenk" Securities Lawsuit Over Acthar

MIDDLESEX CORPORATION: Faces "Myrick" Suit in M.D. of Florida
MISSOURI, USA: Postawko Moves to Certify Class of MDOC Inmates
MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Gusman Seeks to Certify 4 Classes Under TCPA
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $208.7MM
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: "Ponce" Suit Invokes TCPA, Debt Collection Law

NCSLT 2005-1: Citizen & PNC Dismissed from Student Loan Suit
NEW WEST HEALTH: Gordon May Amend Suit to Add Claim for Cert.
NEW YORK: NYSTA Faces American Bus Assoc. Suit in S.D.N.Y.
NEW YORK, NY: Faces "Smyth" Suit Seeking to Recover Wages
OSRAM SYLVANIA: May 4 Auto Lighting Claims Filing Deadline Set

PIGGLY WIGGLY: Faces Class Action Over Employee Stock Plan
PIONEER CREDIT: Court Trims Claims in "Biber" Complaint
PNC BANK: Cruz et al. Appeal Dismissal of Ponzi Scheme Suit
POST HOLDINGS: Has $74.5 Million Provision in Legal Settlements
PPE CASINO: Court OKs Harbourt's Dealer Course Attendees Class

PRECIOUS ANGELS: Faces Class Action Over Patients' Deaths
QUALCOMM INC: "Shah" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violations
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TN: Suit v. Education Board Dismissed
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Higginbotham" Suit in W.D. of Okla.
SANDERSON FARMS: Company, 4 Poultry Producers Defending Suit

SOUTH AFRICA: Health MEC Sued Over Psychiatric Patients' Deaths
SPECIAL COMMITMENT: Faces Disability Right Suit in W.D. Wash.
STANDARD DRYWALL: App. Ct. Won't Send "Cruz" Suit to Arbitration
STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder Class Action
TUESDAY MORNING: Judge Rejects Wage Class Action Settlement

TIERRA LEASE: Faces "Metting" Suit Seeking to Recoup OT Wages
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Grempel" Suit in Eastern Dist. of N.Y.
UNITED PARCEL: Court Rules on Discovery Dispute in "Solo" Suit
UNITED ROAD: Faces "Taylor" Suit in California Superior Court
UNITED STATES: Class of PACER Users Certified in Veterans Suit

UNITED STATES: Darweesh Moves to Certify Class Over Travel Ban
UNITIL CORPORATION: Individual Claims Pending in "Bellermann"
UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE: Court Refuses to Certify "Ung" Suit Class
USA PLUMBING: Overtime Pay Sought in "Molina" Labor Suit
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Deutsche See Files EUR11.9MM Diesel Emissions Suit

WABTEC CORP: Busker Appeals Judgment to Ninth Circuit
WASHINGTON: Sex Offenders' Records Remain Sealed, App. Ct. Says
WAWONA FROZEN: Court Preliminary Approves Settlement in "Aguilar"
WELLS FARGO: Undocumented Immigrants Sue Over Student Loan Denial
WISCONSIN, USA: Jackson Seeks Certification of Prisoners Class

YUMMY SUSHI: Faces "Chen" Suit in Southern District of New York

* Neil Gorsuch Criticized Securities Suits in Judicial Opinions


                            *********


AARON'S INC: Court Denies Peterson's Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., entered an opinion and order in
the lawsuit entitled MICHAEL PETERSON, et al. v. AARON's, INC., et
al., Case No. 1:14-CV-1919-TWT (N.D. Ga.), denying the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

The Plaintiffs has sought certification of this class: "(1) those
persons who leased and/or purchased one or more computers from
Aspen Way on which PC Rental Agent ("PCRA") was installed without
their consent, and (2) their household members and employees."

Michael Peterson and Matthew Lyons allege in this action that the
Defendant Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., a franchisee of the
Defendant Aaron's, Inc., unlawfully accessed their computers from
a remote location and collected private information stored
therein.

According to the Opinion and Order, the Plaintiffs are seeking
monetary relief for each putative class member, and the damages
calculation will be individualized.  Thus, Judge Thrash opines,
the requested monetary relief cannot be considered incidental to
the injunctive relief.

Judge Thrash also notes that injunctive relief cannot be granted
unless "a serious risk of continuing irreparable injury" is
apparent.  Judge Thrash explains that the Plaintiffs have not
presented an argument as to why there is a serious risk of future
injury.  As a matter of fact, Judge Thrash points out, there
appears to be little to no risk of continuing injury because the
Defendants have entered into consent decrees with the Federal
Trade Commission agreeing to cease any use of the monitoring
software at issue.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/JLlKh4 from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Michael Peterson and Matthew Lyons are represented by:

          Andrea Solomon Hirsch, Esq.
          HERMAN GEREL, LLP
          230 Peachtree Street NW
          Atlanta, GA 30303
          Telephone: (404) 880-9500
          Facsimile: (404) 880-9605
          E-mail: ahirsch@hermangerel.com

               - and -

          Frederick S. Longer, Esq.
          LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: flonger@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          John H. Robinson, Esq.
          JAMIESON & ROBINSON, LLC
          214 S. Grant Street
          Casper, WY 82601
          Telephone: (307) 235-3575
          Telecopier: (307) 577-9435
          E-mail: robinsn@vcn.com

Defendant Aaron's, Inc., is represented by:

          Donald MacKaye Houser, Esq.
          Kristine McAlister Brown, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD, LLP
          One Atlantic Center
          1201 West Peachtree Street NW
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-7000
          Facsimile: (404) 881-7777
          E-mail: donald.houser@alston.com
                  kristy.brown@alston.com

Defendant Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., is represented by:

          Anthony Joseph Williott, Esq.
          MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN, P.C.
          U.S. Steel Tower, Suite 2900
          600 Grant Street
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 803-1193
          Facsimile: (412) 803-1188
          E-mail: ajwilliott@mdwcg.com

               - and -

          Mark Stephen VanderBroek, Esq.
          Sean Michael Kirwin, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH
          Atlantic Station
          201 17th Street NW, Suite 1700
          Atlanta, GA 30363
          Telephone: (404) 322-6675
          Facsimile: (678) 777-4878
          E-mail: mark.vanderbroek@nelsonmullins.com
                  sean.kirwin@nelsonmullins.com


AMBIT ENERGY: 3rd Cir. Reinstates Consumer's Suit Over Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Patty Shwartz of the Court of Appeals, Third
Circuit, vacated the order granting summary judgment in favor of
defendant in the case captioned, AMY SILVIS, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF
AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellant, v. AMBIT ENERGY
L.P., d/b/a AMBIT TEXAS, LLC; AMBIT TEXAS, LLC; AMBIT NORTHEAST
LLC, d/b/a AMBIT ENERGY; AMBIT ENERGY; AMBIT ENERGY HOLDINGS,
d/b/a AMBIT NORTHEAST, LLC; AMBIT HOLDINGS LLC, d/b/a AMBIT ENERGY
HOLDINGS, LLC; AMBIT ENERGY HOLDINGS LLC, d/b/a AMBIT, d/b/a AMBIT
ENERGY, Case No. 16-1976 (3rd Cir.).

Amy Silvis brought a putative class action against Ambit
Northeast, LLC (Ambit) alleging that Ambit's pricing of its
variable-rate electricity plan breached their contract "by
charging rates that did not meet the contractual obligation to
provide a competitive rate based on market factors." Ambit
advertised that the price of its variable rate plan favorably
compared with Penelec's prices.

Silvis switched her electricity provider from Penelec to Ambit.
Ambit's services were provided pursuant to a contract composed of
two documents: the "Sales Agreements and Terms of Service" (Terms
of Service) and the "Residential Disclosure Statement".

Silvis avers that Ambit charged her more for electricity than she
would have been charged had she remained with Penelec. After
approximately 20 months of service, Silvis terminated her contract
with Ambit.

Following discovery, Ambit moved for summary judgment. The
District Court granted Ambit's motion, holding that Silvis could
not show that Ambit breached a contractual duty in setting its
prices because the contract unambiguously afforded Ambit
discretion to set the prices and did not impose a duty to set
competitive rates. The District Court also found that Silvis did
not "proffer any legitimate evidence of bad faith" and so could
not raise any genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether
Ambit violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in
setting its rates.

On appeal, Silvis argues that the contract's pricing clause cabins
Ambit's discretion and permits prices to vary based only on the
"energy and capacity markets." Ambit, on the other hand, argues
that the clause merely describes one non-exclusive basis upon
which it may vary the rates.

In the Opinion dated January 9, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/qqRgVJ from Leagle.com, Judge Shwartz found that the
contract is ambiguous as to the limitations on Ambit's pricing
discretion.  The case is remanded to the District Court to
determine whether, viewing the ambiguous clause in the light most
favorable to the non-movant Silvis, the record contains a genuine
issue of material fact as to whether Ambit breached the contract
under the interpretation favoring Silvis, and thus whether the
ambiguity can "affect the outcome of the suit under governing
law."


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Bid to Certify in "Thompson" Suit Withdrawn
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on January 24, 2017, in the case
entitled Cher Thompson, et al. v. American Airlines Group, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-07980 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing
held before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman.

The minute entry states that by agreement, the Plaintiff's motion
to certify class is withdrawn without prejudice.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6PgSKaJM


APPLE INC: Wins Summary Judgment in "English" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California granted Apple's
request for summary judgment and denied Plaintiff's discovery
request in the case captioned FABRIENNE ENGLISH, Plaintiff, v.
APPLE INC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:14-cv-01619-WHO (N.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiff Fabrienne English alleges that Apple misrepresents to
consumers that replacement iPhones under AppleCare+ will be new
when in fact many of the replacement devices in Apple's service
stock are "refurbished" or otherwise not new. She asserts claims
under California law for violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies
Act (CLRA), the False Advertising Law (FAL), the Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), and the Secondhand Merchandize Labeling
Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17531, and for fraud.

Apple Inc., AppleCare Service Company Inc., and Apple CSC Inc.
move for summary judgment of English's claims related to Apple's
alleged misrepresentations and omissions in connection with
AppleCare+, an extended service plan Apple offers to purchasers of
iPhones.

English urges the Court to deny Apple's motion for summary
judgment, or to stay the matter pending additional discovery to
give her the opportunity to present facts essential to justify her
opposition under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56(d). She
insists that, through additional discovery and/or testing of the
phone, she can prove that her replacement phones under AC+ were
not new when Apple gave them to her.

In his Order dated January 11, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/ls5qyY from Leagle.com, Judge Orrick held that
English failed to raise a disputed issue whether she relied on an
affirmative misrepresentation made by defendants, dooming her
CLRA, FAL, UCL, and common law fraud claims. Her claim under
Secondhand Merchandise Labeling Law claim fails because there is
no dispute that she received new phones. Her request for further
discovery lacks good cause.

Fabrienne English is represented by Peter D. Kafin, Esq. --
pkafin@earthlink.net

            -- and --

      Renee Fagan Kennedy, Esq.
      P.O. Box 2222
      Friendswood, TX 77549
      Tel:(832)428-1552

Apple Inc, et al. are represented by Purvi Govindlal Patel, Esq.
-- ppatel@mofo.com -- Margaret Elizabeth Mayo, Esq. --
mmayo@mofo.com -- and -- Penelope Athene Preovolos, Esq. --
ppreovolos@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP


APNA HOLDING: Cortez, et al. File Suit Under NY, Pa. Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
RENE JORGE CORTEZ, INOCENTE RECINOS GARCIA, CONSTANTINO GARCIA
DIAZ, MANUEL LOPEZ, MIGUEL ANGEL MARTINEZ, and MIGUEL COJ MEJIA,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, against APNA HOLDING LLC d/b/a APNA BAZAR CASH &
CARRY, S&K VEGETABLES CORP., S&K GREEN GROCERIES, INC., J&B
VEGETABLES, INC., MASPETH WHOLESALE CORP. d/b/a APNA WHOLESALE,
DESH DEEPAK BHARDWAJ, JASWINDER SINGH, and JOHN DOE CORPS. #1-4,
Jointly and Severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00374
(E.D.N.Y., January 23, 2017), seeks to recover on behalf of
current and former helpers, stock clerks, and general supermarket
employees, alleged unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the New York
Labor Law, unpaid spread-of-hours premiums, and damages due to
Defendants' violations of the wage notice provisions under the New
York Labor Law and unpaid minimum wage and overtime wages pursuant
to the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Wage Payment and
Collection Law.

Defendants own, operate and manage a chain of supermarkets
throughout New York and Pennsylvania specializing in South Asian
groceries operating under the trade name "Apna Bazar."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
     Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
     PELTON GRAHAM LLC
     111 Broadway, Suite 1503
     New York, NY 10006
     Phone: (212) 385-9700
     Web site: http://www.PeltonGraham.com
     E-mail: Pelton@PeltonGraham.com
             Graham@PeltonGraham.com


AREBA CASRIEL: Faces "Allen" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AREBA Casriel, Inc.
The case is captioned as Georgiana J. Allen individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AREBA
Casriel, Inc., Stephen Yohay, and Warren Zysman, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00764 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2017).

AREBA is a private substance abuse treatment provider.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


AUDI AG: "White" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2672
----------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Daniel White, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Audi AG
and Audi of America LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-03037,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, to the U.S. District Court for Northern
District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-00522-CRB to the proceeding.

The White case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re:
Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On December 8,
2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 Liter
diesel engines sold By Defendants Volkswagen Group Of America,
Volkswagen AG And affiliated companies, which allegedly contain
software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements
by engaging full emissions controls only when Official Emissions
Testing Occurs. In its December 8, 2015 order, the MDL panel found
that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the northern District of
California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB.

Audi of America and its network of U.S dealers offer a full line
of highly engineered vehicles, including the newest premium-
engineered compact sedans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
          Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3350
          Telephone: (619) 525 3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525 3991
          E-mail: notice@robbinsarroyo.com
                  kseely@robbinsarroyo.com
                  lkandinov@robbinsarroyo.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Laura Kabler Oswell, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          1870 Embarcadero Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94303
          Telephone: (650) 461 5600
          Facsimile: (650) 461 5700
          E-mail: oswelll@sullcrom.com


BANC OF CALIFORNIA: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Galanis Ties
---------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO X. GARCIA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. BANC OF CALIFORNIA, INC.,
STEVEN A. SUGARMAN, RONALD J. NICOLAS, JR., and JAMES J. MCKINNEY,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00540 (C.D. Cal., January 23, 2017),
alleges that Defendants violated the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Act by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose the Company's ties to Jason Galanis, and that the
revelation of Galanis' ties to the Company could cause a
substantial decline in the market price of the Company's shares.

According to an article by SeekingAlpha.com, Jason Galanis has a
"long history of secretly gaining control of banks and public
companies via front men, looting assets, and leaving unsuspecting
investors and taxpayers with hundreds of millions in losses."

Banc of California is purportedly a financial holding company
regulated by the Federal Reserve Board that serves California's
private businesses and entrepreneurs. The Company claims to offer
a variety of financial products, including both deposit products
offered through multiple channels that include retail banking,
business banking, and private banking; and lending products
including residential mortgage lending, commercial lending,
commercial real estate lending, multifamily lending, and specialty
lending including Small Business Administration lending,
commercial specialty finance, and construction lending.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
     Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
     Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 201-9150
     Fax: (310) 201-9160
     Email: rprongay@glancylaw.com
          info@glancylaw.com


BEACH LIFE: Faces "Suarez" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
NICOLAS MANUEL SUAREZ and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiffs, vs. BEACH LIFE OF MIAMI LLC, NIR SELA,
YAKOV BLIVES, SHLOMI SELA, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-20280-FAM
(S.D. Fla., January 23, 2017), alleges that Defendants have
employed several other similarly situated employees like Plaintiff
who have not been paid overtime and/or minimum wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours weekly from the filing of this
complaint back three years in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a salesman and cashier from
November 10, 2015 to December 31, 2016.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Phone: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865-7167
     Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


CANADA: Quebec Transport Ministry Faces Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Billy Shields, writing for Global News, reports that a man running
an upholstery business on St. Jacques Street has applied for a
class action lawsuit against the Quebec Transport Ministry (MTQ).

Frank Berdah says his business has taken a hit during the Turcot
Interchange construction.

Mr. Berdah has run his family business out of a storefront at the
corner of St. Jacques Street and Girouard Avenue for more than a
decade.

Since Turcot construction closed off part of St. Jacques Street
around a year ago, he says it has cost his business as much as
$150,000.

His lawyer, Joey Zukran, said the lawsuit seeks to represent
anyone in the same area who's experienced a loss of quality of
life or business as a result.

The lawsuit alleges the construction was not explained properly or
carried out in a timely fashion.

In Mr. Berdah's individual case, he said his typical customers
find it almost impossible to get to his storefront.

The Turcot work costs $3 billion and is slated for completion in
2020.

Neither city officials or a spokesperson for the MTQ returned
calls seeking comment by our deadline.


CAPITAL ONE: Faces "Wiseman" Suit in Southern Dist. of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital One Bank
USA, N.A. The case is titled as Christina Wiseman, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Capital One Bank USA, N.A. the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00199-
AJB-KSC (S.D. Cal., Feb. 1, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon.
Judge Anthony J. Battaglia.

Capital One offers financial products and services to consumers,
small businesses, and commercial clients in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNIAN LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400 6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520 5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com


CENTRAL YETEV: Faces "Pagoada" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
------------------------------------------------------------
Mirna Pagoada and Luis Gonzalo Zelaya, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, against Central Yetev
D'Satmar Meat Inc. d/b/a Glatt Kosher Meat & Poultry, Satmar Meat
of Cong. Yetev Lev, Inc. d/b/a Satmar Meats & Take Out, Central
Yetev Lev D'Satmar Meat I d/b/a Satmar Meat Woodbourne and Moshe
Brown, Defendants, is an action that seeks to recover alleged
unpaid overtime compensation for kitchen workers pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Defendants own and operate several meat markets.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Laura Gerace Rodriguez, Esq.
     PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
     488 Madison Avenue
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 583-9500
     Fax: (212) 308-8582
     E-mail: rodriguez@pechmanlaw.com

        - and -

     Louis Pechman, Esq.
     PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
     488 Madison Avenue
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 583-9500
     Fax: (212) 308-8582
     E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: "Canale" Suit Remanded to State Court
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Cathy Seibel of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted Plaintiffs' motion
to remand to state court the case captioned, LORI CANALE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO., Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-
3308 (CS) (S.D.N.Y.).

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

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

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

In her Opinion and Order dated January 10, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/5y8qAn from Leagle.com, Judge Seibel hold that the
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the case and that
CAFA cannot form a basis for subject matter jurisdiction.  The
case is remanded to the Circuit Court for the Twenty-Second
Judicial Circuit, City of St. Louis, Missouri.

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

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


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Shpetehaib" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc. The case is entitled as Rintek Shpetehaib, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00579 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2017).

Convergent Outsourcing offers business process outsourcing,
revenue cycle, and receivables management services. It also
provides receivables collection services to credit grantors in
retail, telecommunications, and utilities industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
          Alan J Sasson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C.
          2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (718) 339 0856
          Facsimile: (347) 244 7178
          E-mail: jmizrahi@sassonlaw.com
                  alan@sassonlaw.com


CREDIT COLLECTION: "G.G." Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to D.N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled G.G., a minor, through Eden Davis,
the GAL, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. CREDIT COLLECTION SERVICES, the
Defendant, Case No. ESX-L-08664-16, was removed from the New
Jersey Superior Court Law Division, Essex County, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-00704-WJM-MF to the
proceeding.

Credit Collection Services Group (CCSG) is a professional full
service debt recovery, law firm and investigations company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          70 Clinton Ave.
          Newark, NJ 07114
          Telephone: (862) 227 3106
          E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lawrence J. Bartel, III, Esq.
          MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER
          COLEMAN & GOGGIN
          2000 Market Street, Suite 2300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 575 2780
          E-mail: ljbartel@mdwcg.com


DELTA AIRLINES: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Wage Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shanice Harris, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
California judge has ruled on the Oman v. Delta case and has held
that an out-of-state employee who has limited attendance in
California is not obligated by the state to be in compliance with
California wage and hour laws.

Four flight attendants filed a class-action lawsuit against their
employer, Delta Airlines, claiming because they frequently are
stationed in California that the California Labor Code governs
their scheduled work for that pay period and they deserve the
benefits that come with that.  In response to the claim, Delta
filed a pre-certification summary judgment motion, which
challenged the applicability of Section 226 and Section 204; both
laws requiring wage statements and timing of pay.

Judge William Orrich eventually ruled in Delta's favor, stating
that since the flight attendants worked minimal hours in
California, they were not eligible for California wage and hour
laws.  Judge Orrich also noted that Delta is headquartered outside
of California, which further negates the flight attendants'
argument.

"It would have sown a lot of confusion [if plaintiffs had won],"
Chantelle C. Egan -- cegan@seyfarth.com -- associate at Seyfarth
Shaw in San Francisco, told Legal Newsline.  "Plaintiffs argued
that anytime a flight attendant flew in or out of a California
airport, California wage and hour laws applied, even if the flight
attendant was a
non-California resident whose work was primarily out-of-state."

Ms. Egan said that If an airline had to comply with California
wage and hour laws every time an out-of-state employee merely
touches land in California, it would create chaos.  Changes would
have to be made to employee wages and work schedules, just for
those hours worked in California.

But, according to Egan, the presiding judge also stated that other
factors, including employer's place of business, nature of the
travel and/or presence in California, could implicate California
wage and hour laws in some other cases.

"The analysis for whether California wage and hour laws apply to
employees who work both in and out of California is a multi-factor
test that relies heavily on the specific facts of each case," Ms.
Egan said.  "Here, the airline is not headquartered in California,
the flight attendants' working time in California was negligible,
and the plaintiffs argued that the flight attendants' residence
was inconsequential."

Not too long before the ruling in Oman v. Delta, Northern District
Judge Jon S. Tigar ruled that California wage and hour protections
did apply to a case involving several flight attendants who
consisted of actual California residents who often only worked in
California airports.  That undisclosed airline is headquartered in
California.  In another case, the outcome was very similar to Oman
vs. Delta.

"In Ward v. United Airlines Inc., District Judge William Alsup
ruled that the California wage statement statute (Labor Code
section 226) does not apply to pilots who, though California
residents, work primarily out of state," Ms. Egan said.

Ms. Egan believes the case was rightfully decided.  Seyfarth Shaw
LLP does not know what the plaintiffs' plans are regarding any
appeal.


DEVRY EDUCATION: Seeks to Dismiss Pension Fund's Amended Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
DeVry Education Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that defendants have
moved to dismiss the second amended class action complaint in the
case by the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers.

On May 13, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by the
Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, against DeVry Group, Daniel
Hamburger, Richard M. Gunst, and Timothy J. Wiggins in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who
purchased DeVry Group common stock between February 4, 2011 and
January 27, 2016. Citing the FTC lawsuit and the ED January 2016
Notice, the plaintiff claims that defendants made false or
misleading statements regarding DeVry University's graduate
employment rate and the earnings of DeVry University graduates
relative to the graduates of other universities and colleges. As a
result of these false or misleading statements about DeVry
University graduate outcomes, plaintiff alleges, defendants
overstated DeVry Group's growth, revenue and earnings potential
and made false or misleading statements about DeVry Group's
business, operations and prospects. The plaintiff alleges direct
liability against all defendants for violations of Sec.10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act and asserted liability against the
individual defendants pursuant to Sec.20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The plaintiff seeks monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
costs and other unspecified relief.

On July 13, 2016, the Utah Retirement System ("URS") moved for
appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of its selection of
counsel, which was not opposed by the Pension Trust Fund for
Operating Engineers and URS was appointed as lead plaintiff on
August 24, 2016.

URS filed a second amended complaint ("SAC") on December 23, 2016.
The SAC seeks to represent a putative class of persons who
purchased DeVry Group common stock between August 26, 2011 and
January 27, 2016 and names an additional individual defendant,
Patrick J. Unzicker. Like the original complaint, the SAC asserts
claims against all defendants for alleged violations of Sec.10(b)
and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act and asserted liability against
the individual defendants pursuant to Sec.20(a) of the Exchange
Act for alleged material misstatements or omissions regarding
DeVry University graduate outcomes. On January 27, 2017,
defendants moved to dismiss the SAC.


DEVRY EDUCATION: Seeks to Dismiss Robinson-Brown Amended Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
DeVry Education Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that the DeVry
Parties have moved to dismiss the amended complaint in the case by
T'Lani Robinson and Robby Brown.

On or about June 21, 2016, T'Lani Robinson and Robby Brown filed
an arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association in
Chicago, seeking to represent a putative class of students who
received a DeVry University education from January 1, 2008 until
April 8, 2016 ("Putative Class Period").

Following DeVry Group's filing of a declaratory judgment action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois seeking, among other things, an order declaring that
federal court is the appropriate venue for this putative class
action, on September 12, 2016, Robinson and Brown voluntarily
withdrew their demand for arbitration.

On September 20, 2016, Robinson and Brown answered the declaratory
judgement action and filed a putative class action counterclaim,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against
DeVry Group Inc., DeVry University, Inc., and DeVry/New York, Inc.
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. The counterclaim asserted causes of action for breach of
contract, misrepresentation, concealment, negligence, violations
of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the
Illinois Private Business and Vocational Schools Act, conversion,
unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief. The plaintiffs sought
monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified relief.

On November 4, 2016, following a stipulated dismissal of the
declaratory action, the DeVry Parties moved to dismiss the
counterclaim after which plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew it.

On December 2, 2016, Robinson and Brown filed an amended complaint
adding two additional named plaintiffs. The amended complaint
purports to assert nationwide class claims under the above-
referenced Illinois statutes and common law theories on behalf of
those who, during the Putative Class Period, (i) enrolled in DeVry
University; (ii) financed their education with DeVry University
with direct loans administered by ED; or (iii) entered into an
enrollment agreement with DeVry University and otherwise paid for
a DeVry University education. The amended complaint also seeks to
represent a fourth class of individuals residing in, or enrolled
in a DeVry University campus located in, California during the
Putative Class Period bringing claims under the California
Business and Profession Code. In addition to the claims previously
asserted as described above, the amended complaint adds a claim
for breach of fiduciary duty owed students in administering Title
IV funds. The DeVry Parties moved to dismiss the amended complaint
on January 13, 2017.


DEVRY EDUCATION: Amended Complaint Filed in Petrizzo-Jara Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
DeVry Education Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that plaintiffs in
the Petrizzo and Jara cases have filed an amended consolidated
complaint.

On October 14, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Debbie Petrizzo and five other former DeVry University students,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, against
the DeVry Parties in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (the "Petrizzo Case"). The complaint
was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons consisting of
those who enrolled in and/or attended classes at DeVry University
from at least 2002 through the present and who were unable to find
employment within their chosen field of study within six months of
graduation.

Citing the FTC lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that defendants
made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry University's
graduate employment rate and asserted claims for unjust enrichment
and violations of six different states' consumer fraud, unlawful
trade practices, and consumer protection laws. The plaintiffs
sought monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified
relief.

On October 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Jairo Jara and eleven others, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, against the DeVry Parties in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Jara
Case"). The individual plaintiffs claim to have graduated from
DeVry University in 2001 or later and sought to proceed on behalf
of a putative class of persons consisting of those who obtained a
degree from DeVry University and who were unable to find
employment within their chosen field of study within six months of
graduation. Citing the FTC lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that
defendants made false or misleading statements regarding DeVry
University's graduate employment rate and asserted claims for
unjust enrichment and violations of ten different states' consumer
fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection laws. The
plaintiffs sought monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other
unspecified relief.

By Order dated November 28, 2016, the district court ordered the
Petrizzo and Jara Cases be consolidated under the Petrizzo caption
for all further purposes. On December 5, 2016, plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated complaint on behalf of 38 individual
plaintiffs and others similarly situated. The amended consolidated
complaint seeks to bring claims on behalf of the named individuals
and a putative nationwide class of individuals for unjust
enrichment and alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Practices Act and the Illinois Private Businesses
and Vocational Schools Act of 2012.

In additional, it purports to assert causes of action on behalf of
certain of the named individuals and 15 individual state-specific
putative classes for alleged violations of 15 different states'
consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, and consumer protection
laws. Finally, it seeks to bring individual claims under Georgia
state law on behalf of certain named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs
seek monetary, declaratory, injunctive, and other unspecified
relief.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Illinois Court Drops "Gingerich" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on January 24, 2017, in the case
styled Rachel Gingerich v. Discover Financial Services, Inc., Case
No. 1:16-cv-10226 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before
the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of
      Civil Procedure, the Plaintiff's individual claims against
      the Defendant are dismissed with prejudice, and without
      costs;

   -- the putative class claims are dismissed without prejudice,
      and without costs or notice;

   -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class is moot;

   -- motion hearing and status hearing set for March 13, 2017,
      are stricken; and

   -- civil case is terminated.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gZJui4Ld


DOLLAR GENERAL: Status Hearing in "Lambert" Suit Set for Feb. 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on January 19, 2017, in the case
titled Thera Lambert, et al. v. Dollar General Corporation, Case
No. 1:16-cv-11319 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before
the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber.

The minute entry states that:

   -- motion hearing was held on January 19, 2017;

   -- Plaintiffs' "Damasco" Motion for Class Certification is
      entered and continued generally; and

   -- status hearing is set for February 28, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.

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


DUTCH LLC: "Hoffman" Case Settlement Fails Court Scrutiny
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, SONIA HOFMANN, an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DUTCH LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:14-CV-02418-GPC-JLB (S.D. Cal.),
District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California on January 19, 2017,
ruled that the Motion 1) Granting Preliminary Approval of Class
Settlement; 2) Scheduling a Fairness and Final Approval Hearing;
and 3) Directing that Notice be Sent to Class Members filed by
Sonia Hofmann is taken under submission.

Judge Curiel on January 10 tentatively denied Plaintiff's third
motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class settlement.

The Court said it would entertain additional argument at the
hearing on January 11.  The next day, the Court entered an order
rescheduling the settlement hearing to January 19.

On April 26, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff's initial motion for
preliminary approval of the class settlement. The initial proposed
settlement provided for: (1) $20 worth of e-gift certificates for
each of the class members; (2) $250,000 in cy pres awards; and (3)
up to $175,000 in plaintiff's attorney's fees with a clear sailing
provision attached. The Court identified three problems with the
proposed settlement, namely: (1) that the e-gift certificates
effectively constituted coupons because they required class
members to pay out of their own pocket before they could redeem
them, since while the face value of the e-gift certificates was
$20, the average price of Defendant's jeans was -- and still is --
around $200, and no item was being sold by Defendant for less than
$58.80; (2) that the cy pres award failed to meet the objective of
the underlying statute of consumer protection, since the proposed
charities did not promote consumer protection, but rather focused
on "helping and meeting the needs of women in our society"; and
(3) that, when considered in conjunction with the other provisions
of the proposed settlement, the clear sailing provision "created
at least a danger of collusion during the settlement negotiations
which is not refuted by the record."

On August 16, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff's second motion for
preliminary approval of the class settlement. For the renewed
attempt to propose a settlement, Plaintiff proposed the following:
(1) one denim tote bag ($128 retail value) and $20 e-gift
certificates for the class members; (2) $250,000 in cy pres
awards, to the same charities as proposed in the initial
settlement; and (3) up to $175,000.00 in Plaintiff's attorney's
fees with the same clear sailing provision attached. In other
words, the only difference between the first and second proposed
settlement was the addition of the denim tote bag. The Court
denied the parties' renewed motion for preliminary approval
because it did not cure the deficiencies that the Court has
previously identified.

Plaintiff filed the motion for preliminary approval on October 14,
2016. Here, the proposed settlement consists of (1) a current-
Elliot brand tote bag (retail value of $128.00) and electronic
gift card codes "redeemable on www.CurrentElliott.com only and
loaded with values of multiples of $20.00 corresponding to the
number of units of Class Products purchased during the Class
Period"; (2) $250,000 in cy pres awards to be made over five
years; (3) and up to $175,000 in attorney's fees, with the same
clear sailing provision.

In the Order dated January 10, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/YlOFD4 from Leagle.com, Judge Curiel held that (1)
the proposed class award still requires class members to purchase
items from Current Elliot in order to reap any monetary benefit.
And as the Court has previously noted, because the cost of
Defendant's jeans hovers around $200.00, class members would have
to spend much more than they would gain by receiving $20, $40, or
even $60 gift cards; and (2) the proposed class settlement does
not remove the clear sailing provision in Plaintiff's request for
attorney's fees. The continued presence of that provision
fortifies the Court's concern that the attorneys have not proposed
a settlement with the best interests of the class in mind and
invites the Court to continue to apply an exacting standard in
analyzing the reasonableness of the settlement terms.

Sonia Hofmann is represented by John H. Donboli, Esq. --
jdonboli@delmarlawgroup.com -- DEL MAR LAW GROUP, LLP

Dutch, LLC is represented by Arthur K. Purcell, Esq. --
apurcell@strtrade.com -- and -- Kenneth N. Wolf, Esq. --
kwolf@strtrade.com -- SANDLER TRAVIS AND ROSENBERG PA -- Mitchell
J. Freedman, Esq. -- mjf@pksllp.com -- PK SCHRIEFFER LLP


E. I. DU PONT: Diagnostic Screening and Testing Begins
------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2,
2017, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that in
the drinking water actions, diagnostic screening and testing has
begun and associated payments to service providers are being
disbursed from the escrow account; at December 31, 2016, less than
$1 million has been disbursed.

In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v DuPont, was
filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living
near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer,
deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA (collectively,
perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts, including the ammonium
salt), in drinking water.

DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004
that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 million and made a
payment of $70 million, which class counsel designated to fund a
community health project.  The company funded a series of health
studies which were completed in October 2012 by an independent
science panel of experts (the C8 Science Panel). The studies were
conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate available
scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists, as
defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and
human disease.

The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the
settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-
induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer;
testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and
diagnosed high cholesterol.

In May 2013, a panel of three independent medical doctors released
its initial recommendations for screening and diagnostic testing
of eligible class members. In September 2014, the medical panel
recommended follow-up screening and diagnostic testing three years
after initial testing, based on individual results. The medical
panel has not communicated its anticipated schedule for completion
of its protocol. The company is obligated to fund up to $235
million for a medical monitoring program for eligible class
members and, in addition, administrative costs associated with the
program, including class counsel fees.

In January 2012, the company established and put $1 million into
an escrow account to fund medical monitoring as required by the
settlement agreement. Under the settlement agreement, the balance
in the escrow amount must be at least $0.5 million; as a result,
transfers of additional funds may be required periodically.

The court appointed Director of Medical Monitoring has established
the program to implement the medical panel's recommendations and
the registration process, as well as eligibility screening, is
ongoing. Diagnostic screening and testing has begun and associated
payments to service providers are being disbursed from the escrow
account; at December 31, 2016, less than $1 million has been
disbursed. While it is probable that the company will incur
liabilities related to funding the medical monitoring program,
such liabilities cannot be reasonably estimated due to
uncertainties surrounding the level of participation by eligible
class members and the scope of testing.

In addition, under the settlement agreement, the company must
continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level
of PFOA in water to six area water districts, including the Little
Hocking Water Association (LHWA), and private well users.


E. I. DU PONT: 3,550 Personal Injury Lawsuits Pending at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2,
2017, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that at
December 31, 2016 there were about 3,550 personal injury lawsuits,
of which about 30 allege wrongful death, pending in various
federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia.

Leach class members may pursue personal injury claims against
DuPont only for the six human diseases for which the C8 Science
Panel determined a probable link exists. At December 31, 2016
there were about 3,550 lawsuits, of which about 30 allege wrongful
death, pending in various federal and state courts in Ohio and
West Virginia. These lawsuits are consolidated in multi-district
litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio (the Court). The approximate number of lawsuits
pending in the MDL remained constant year-over-year. However, the
company has refined the number pending at December 31, 2016, in
connection with updates to the table below. DuPont, through
Chemours, denies the allegations in these lawsuits and is
defending itself vigorously.

The table approximates the number of lawsuits based on primary
alleged disease.

   Alleged Injury                  Number of Claims

   Kidney cancer                            210
   Testicular cancer                         70
   Ulcerative colitis                       300
   Preeclampsia                             200
   Thyroid disease                        1,430
   High cholesterol                       1,340

In 2014, six cases from the MDL were selected for individual
trial.

In 2016, three of these cases, two kidney cancer and one
ulcerative colitis, were settled for amounts immaterial
individually and in the aggregate, and one case was voluntarily
withdrawn by plaintiffs. The other two matters, (Barlett v DuPont,
kidney cancer, and Freeman v DuPont, testicular cancer) were tried
to jury verdicts in 2015 and 2016, respectively. The Bartlett jury
awarded compensatory damages of  $1.6 million and no punitive
damages. The company has appealed the Bartlett verdict to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (the Sixth Circuit) which
is expected to issue a ruling in the first half of 2017.

In 2016, the Freeman jury awarded compensatory damages of $5.1
million and $0.5 million in punitive damages and attorneys' fees.
Pending a post-trial motion, the company will appeal to the Sixth
Circuit.

In January 2016, the Court determined that 40 cases asserting
cancer claims, to be identified by plaintiffs' attorneys, would be
scheduled for trial through year-end 2017. In the first two
matters selected for trial, (Vigneron v DuPont and Moody v DuPont)
plaintiffs make testicular cancer claims.

After a fourth quarter 2016 trial, the Vigneron jury awarded
compensatory damages of $2 million and punitive damages of $10.5
million. Pending post-trial motions, the company will appeal to
the Sixth Circuit.

The Moody trial began in January 2017 and the jury is expected to
render a verdict in the first quarter 2017.

The remaining 38 trials are scheduled to begin each week starting
in May 2017.

In 2016, the Court ordered the parties to participate in
confidential, nonbinding mediation regarding global resolution of
the MDL. This process continues.

At December 31, 2016, the company has established an accrual of
$100 million related to the MDL, representing the company's
estimate of the low end of the range of potential loss. While
DuPont could incur liabilities in excess of the amount accrued,
the upper end of the range of such loss cannot be reasonably
estimated. The range of possible loss is unpredictable and
involves significant uncertainty due to the uniqueness of
individual plaintiff's claims and the company's defenses as to
potential liability and damages on an individual claims basis, and
the timing and outcome of the appellate process, among other
factors. This type of litigation could take place over many years
and interim results do not predict the final outcomes of cases.


EDIBLE ARRANGEMENTS: Faces "Rando" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EDIBLE ARRANGEMENTS
INTERNATIONAL, LLC. The case is styled as NICOLE RANDO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. EDIBLE ARRANGEMENTS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00701-JBS-AMD (D.N.J., Feb. 1, 2017).
The case is assigned to Hon. Chief Judge Jeome B. Simandle.

Edible Arrangements is a U.S.-based franchising business that
specializes in fresh fruit arrangements, melding the concept of
fruit baskets with designs inspired by the floral business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark W. Morris, Esq.
          CLARK LAW FIRM
          811 16th Avenue
          Belmar, NJ 07719
          Telephone: (732) 443 0333
          E-mail: mmorris@clarklawnj.com


ELECTROLUX HOME: "Rice" Suit Stays in M.D. Pa. Court
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Matthew W. Brann of the United States District
Court for the District of Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled
that retention of jurisdiction is appropriate in the case
captioned, ELAINE RICE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:15-CV-00371 (M.D. Pa.).

The case is a putative class action alleging certain defects in
mounted stove-top microwaves that purportedly caused at least one
consumer -- the Plaintiff -- to come into contact with a hot
surface while preparing food. In her complaint, Plaintiff asserted
the following claims, both individually and on behalf of several
putative classes: (1) declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 2201, et seq.; (2) strict liability -- design defect and
failure to warn on behalf of a Rule 23(b)(2) declaratory relief
class; (3) negligent failure to warn on behalf of Rule 23(b)(3)
Pennsylvania and Other State sub-classes; (4) violation of the
Magnuson Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) on behalf of all classes; (5)
breach of implied warranty of merchantability on behalf of all
classes; (6) breach of express warranty on behalf of all classes;
(7) unjust enrichment on behalf of all classes; and (8) strict
liability -- design defect and failure to warn on behalf of
Plaintiff individually for her personal injuries.

Plaintiff brought putative class action claims on behalf of a
nationwide Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive relief class, a Pennsylvania
Rule 23(b)(3) subclass, and an Other States Rule 23(b)(3)
subclass. The Other States subclass included the following 35
jurisdictions: Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine,
Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey,
New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia, and Wyoming.

On July 28, 2015, this Court granted Defendant's Motion to Strike
the Rule 23(b)(3) Other States subclass. Therefore, after the
Court granted the motion to strike the Other States subclass, only
a Pennsylvania damages class remained pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3).
Consideration of that class -- absent some assignment of monetary
value for certain declaratory relief sought by the nationwide
class under Rule 23(b)(2) -- would not satisfy CAFA's
$5,000,000.00 amount in controversy requirement.

A question as to the propriety of subject matter jurisdiction
under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) was raised sua
sponte by the Court during its May 12, 2016 oral argument and
again by the parties in relation to a motion to transfer pending
in a related matter before the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland.

In his Memorandum dated January 10, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/Z3QIT6 from Leagle.com, Judge Brann held that it is
unnecessary to proceed and value the amount in controversy through
the lens of the remaining subclasses because the jurisdictional
amount is properly considered at the time of the filing and not
after rulings on preliminary motions. The motion to strike did not
"oust" the Court of CAFA jurisdiction as perfected at the time of
the filing.

Elaine Rice is represented by Charles J. Kocher, Esq. --
ckocher@smbb.com -- Patrick Howard, Esq. -- phoward@smbb.com --
and -- Simon B. Paris, Esq. -- sparis@smbb.com -- SALTZ,
MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C. -- Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. --
rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com -- Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. --
dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Jason S. Kilene, Esq. --
jkilene@gustafsongluek.com -- GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC -- Joseph G.
Price, Esq. -- jprice@dlplaw.com -- Paul T. Oven, Esq. --
ptoven@dlplaw.com -- and -- Sean P. McDonough, Esq. --
smcdonough@dlplaw.com -- DOUGHERTY, LEVENTHAL & PRICE, L.L.P.

Electrolux Home Products, Inc. is represented by David R. Fine,
Esq. -- david.fine@klgates.com -- David R. Osipovich, Esq. --
david.osipovich@klgates.com -- Loly G. Tor, Esq. --
loly.tor@klgates.com -- Michael S. Nelson, Esq. --
michael.nelson@klgates.com -- and -- Patrick J. Perrone, Esq. -
patrick.perrone@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP


ENVOY AIR: Anthony, et al. File Suit Under FLSA, Mich. OT Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
LESLIE ANTHONY, AARON HENDERSON, ANGELA VALCARCEL, and CHAVONNE
WIMBERLY, Plaintiffs, v. ENVOY AIR INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:17-
cv-10212-JEL-RSW (E.D. Mich., January 23, 2017), was brought on
behalf of individuals who were employed by Defendant Envoy Air
Inc. and who did not receive their workers overtime pay, and pay
for work performed during "lunch periods" in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Michigan overtime laws.

Envoy Air Inc. is an air carrier that is a wholly owned subsidiary
of American Airlines Group.  The plaintiffs are cabin cleaners.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Bruce A. Miller, Esq.
     Keith D. Flynn, Esq.
     Adam C. Graham, Esq.
     MILLER COHEN, P.L.C.
     600 W. Lafayette Blvd., 4th Floor
     Detroit, MI 48226-0840
     Phone: (313) 964-4454


F.H. CANN: Faces "Ezra" Suit in Eastern District of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against F.H. Cann &
Associates, Inc. The case is captioned as Ouriel Ezra, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
F.H. Cann & Associates, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00572 (E.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 1, 2017).

F.H. Cann offers default prevention, debt collection and account
resolution solutions for federal, state and local governments,
education & financial institutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan J Sasson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C.
          2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Brooklyn, NY 11235
          Telephone: (718) 339 0856
          Facsimile: (347) 244 7178
          E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com


FCA US: "Spratley" Consumer Suit Transferred to N.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned STEVEN SPRATLEY, TIMOTHY CANFIELD, ANDREW
CATTANO, JAMES LETT, DENNIS PECK, SUSAN STEBBINS, AND YVETTE
TAYLOR, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC f/k/a CHRYSLER GROUP LLC Defendant, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00062-MAD-DEP (August 3, 2016) was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Eastern New York to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York and
assigned Case Number 1:16-cv-04334.

The case was brought by Plaintiffs in four states who allege that
Chrysler concealed from its customers a defect in its metal alloy
valve stem on vehicles equipped with a tire pressure monitoring
system.

The Defendant designs, manufactures and sells automobiles
throughout the United States.

An Initial Rule 16 Conference is set for February 17, 2017 at
12:30 PM in Binghamton before Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
     Robert A. Lubitz, Esq.
     KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
     747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200
     Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
     Phone: (845) 356-2570

        - and -

     Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
     Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
     MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
     412 H Street N.E., Ste. 302
     Washington, DC 20002
     Phone: (202) 470-3520

        - and -

     Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH III, P.C.
     1040 Riverfront Center
     P.O. Box 70
     Amsterdam, NY 12010
     Phone: (518) 434-1718

        - and -

     Gary E. Mason, Esq.
     WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
     5101 Wisconsin Ave NW, Suite 305
     Washington, DC 20016
     Phone: (202) 429-2290

        - and -

     Daniel Calvert, Esq.
     PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
     27300 Riverview Center Boulevard, Suite 103
     Bonita Springs, FL 34134
     Phone: (239) 390-1000


FIVE GUYS: Faces "Lucia" Suit in Southern District of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Five Guys
Enterprises LLC. The case is titled as Marett Lucia, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Five
Guys Enterprises LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00788
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2017).

Five Guys is an American fast casual restaurant chain focused on
hamburgers, hot dogs, and French fries, with its headquarters in
the Lorton community in unincorporated Fairfax County, Virginia.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Faces "Rice" Suit Over China Oceanwide Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER RICE, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. GENWORTH FINANCIAL INCORPORATED, THOMAS J.
MCINERNEY, JAMES S. RIEPE, WILLIAM H. BOLINDER, G. KENT CONRAD,
MELINA E. HIGGINS, DAVID M. MOFFETT, THOMAS E. MOLONEY, JAMES A.
PARKE, DEBRA J. PERRY, ROBERT P. RESTREPO JR., Defendants, Case
No. 3:17-cv-00059-REP (E.D. Va., January 23, 2017), is a
securities suit over the proposed acquisition of Genworth by a
Chinese investment holding company, China Oceanwide Holdings Group
Co., Ltd. through a merger.  The Plaintiffs alleged that the
Transaction is unfair to Genworth's public stockholders as the
Merger Consideration represents only a 4.2% premium to the
Company's closing price of $5.21 on October 21, 2016, the last
trading day before the Proposed Transaction was announced.

GENWORTH FINANCIAL INCORPORATED provides mortgage insurance
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Scott A. Simmons, Esq.
     Christopher J. Habenicht, Esq.
     MEYERGOERGEN PC
     1802 Bayberry Court, Suite 200
     Richmond, VA 23226
     Phone: 804.288.3600
     Fax: 804.565.1231
     E-mail: simmons@mg-law.com
             habenicht@mg-law.com

        - and -

     James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 983-9330
     Fax: (212) 983-9331

        - and -

     Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
     New York, NY 10118
     Phone (212) 971-1341
           (305) 205-8284
           (646) 522-4840
     E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com


GNS & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Marquez" Suit in S.D. of Alabama
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against GNS & Associates,
Inc. The case is captioned as James Marquez and Kennedy Dixon,
individually, and on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GNS & Associates, Inc.; Oasis Legal
Finance, LLC; and Oasis Financial,  LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-00060 (S.D. Ala., Feb. 1, 2017).

GNS & Associates is a rental company that provides consumer
electronics and appliances for rent.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lucy Elizabeth Tufts, Esq.
          CUNNINGHAM, BOUNDS, LLC
          P.O. Box 66705
          Mobile, AL 36660
          Telephone: (251) 471 6191
          E-mail: let@cunninghambounds.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Allen E. Graham, Esq.
          P.O. Box 2727
          Mobile, AL 36652
          Telephone: (251) 432 4481
          Facsimile: (251) 433 1820
          E-mail: teeto.graham@phelps.com

               - and -

          Jessica Breanne Stanley Zarzour, Esq.
          PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
          P. O. Box 2727
          Mobile, AL 36652
          Telephone: (251) 441 8210
          Facsimile: (251) 433 1820
          E-mail: Brie.Zarzour@Phelps.com


GREAT LAKES: "Hutchins" Lawsuit Alleges Violations of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA HUTCHINS, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, v. GREAT LAKES HOME HEALTH SERVICES, INC.
and GREAT LAKES ACQUISITION CORP., d/b/a GREAT LAKES CARING,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-10210-GCS-DRG (E.D. Mich., January
23, 2017), alleges that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees overtime premium compensation for
hours worked over 40 in a week, in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards.

Defendants have employed hundreds of other individuals who
provided home health, palliative, and hospice care to homebound
clients. These individuals are referred to as "home health
workers."  Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a Licensed
Practical Nurse.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jesse Young, Esq.
     JESSE YOUNG SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
     One Town Square, 17th Floor
     Southfield, MI 48076
     Phone: (248) 746-4027
     E-mail: JYoung@sommerspc.com

        - and -

     Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
     Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
     BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON LLC
     414 Union Street, Suite 900
     Nashville, TN 37219
     Phone: (615) 244-2202
     E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
     E-mail: jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

        - and -

     Peter Winebrake, Esq.
     R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
     Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
     WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
     715 Twining Road, Suite 211
     Dresher, PA 19025
     Phone: (215) 884-2491
     E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
             asantillo@winebrakelaw.com
             mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com


HAWAIIAN AIRLINES: Trainees are not Employees, Calif. Judge Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Vince Chhabria of the United States District Court
for the District of Northern District of California on January 18,
2017, entered an order of dismissal in the case captioned, KATHRYN
OTICO, Plaintiff, v. HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
9:16-CV-81316-ROSENBERG/BRANNON (N.D. Cal.).

On January 9, the Court granted summary judgment for Hawaiian
Airlines.  The court had set an in-person case management
conference for January 24 at 1:30 p.m. to discuss if Otico may
proceed on her alleged claim at all, and if so, how.

On January 17, the Plaintiff filed a notice with the Court that a
settlement has been reached by the parties.

Otico was accepted into a training program to become a customer
service representative for Hawaiian Airlines. The program, which
took place at Oakland International Airport, lasted ten days. It
consisted almost exclusively of classroom work and tours of the
facilities. Employees of the company taught Otico about FAA
regulations, the computer system, and the way the company
operated. At the end of the training period, Otico was required to
take a test. Otico passed the test, was hired, and worked a short
period for Hawaiian before quitting.

Otico filed a proposed class action lawsuit in which she alleges
that she was an "employee" under federal and California law during
the training period, and that Hawaiian should therefore have paid
her for that time. Neither side argues that there is any
difference between the federal and California legal standards for
determining whether Otico qualifies as an "employee" for purposes
of the FLSA and California Labor Code, and the law of both
jurisdictions indeed appears to be the same.

The parties opted to file cross-motions for summary judgment on
her individual claims before litigating the class certification
question.

In his Order dated January 9, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/qmRnbw from Leagle.com, Judge Chhabria held that
Otico presents no evidence to support her claims because it cannot
be inferred she was acting as an "employee" when she took her
training courses at Hawaiian Airlines.

Kathryn Otico is represented by Alisa Ann Martin, Esq. --
alisa@amartinlaw.com -- PATTERSON LAW GROUP, APC -- Lindsay
Christine David, Esq. -- lcdavid@sdlawoffices.com -- SAN DIEGO
COUNTY LAW OFFICES

Hawaiian Airlines, Inc, et al. are represented by Tracy Thompson,
Esq. -- TracyThompson@dwt.com -- Michael A. Aparicio, Esq. --
maparicio@dwt.com -- and -- Victoria L. Tallman, Esq. --
victoriatallman@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP


JB MEDICAL: Bid to Transfer "Schwanke" Suit to Calif. Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James S. Moody, Jr. of the United States District
for the Middle District of Florida granted in part the motion to
transfer or dismiss in the case captioned, LAWRENCE E. SCHWANKE,
D.C., d/b/a BACK TO BASICS FAMILY CHIROPRACTIC, a Florida
resident, individually, and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. JB MEDICAL MANAGEMENT
SOLUTIONS, INC., MCKESSON CORPORATION, MCKESSON BUSINESS
PERFORMANCE SERVICES, MCKESSON TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, MCKESSON
PROVIDER TECHNOLOGIES, MCKESSON TECHNOLOGIES, INC. and JOHN DOES
1-12, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-CV-597-Oc-30PRL (M.D. Fla.).

McKesson Corporation, including its various divisions and
subsidiaries, created a medical software product called Medisoft.
Medisoft is marketed to healthcare providers nationwide.

On October 4, 2012, Plaintiff received an unsolicited fax from
Defendant JB Medical Management Solutions, Inc. advertising
Medisoft and bearing McKesson's name and motto. The fax, though,
does not list any particular McKesson entity or any other
information identifying what McKesson entity was involved.

Plaintiff claims the unsolicited fax violated the TCPA and
unlawfully converted his property. On September 29, 2016,
Plaintiff filed a class action against JB Medical, the McKesson
Defendants, and 12 John Does.  The Complaint does not make
specific allegations about any of the McKesson Defendants; instead
it lumps all McKesson Defendants together and accuses them jointly
of sending the fax or having it sent on their behalf. The proposed
class is "Every person sent one or more facsimiles from JB Medical
at any time after September 29, 2012, about Medisoft and which did
not state that the fax recipient could request that the sender not
send any future fax and that the failure to comply with such a
request within 30 days would be unlawful."

In the motion, the McKesson Defendants raise two arguments: The
first is that Plaintiff's action for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and conversion should be
transferred to the District Court for the Northern District of
California because it substantially overlaps with a case that was
filed there first, or because transferring would further the
interests of convenience and justice. The second argument is that
Plaintiff's action should be dismissed for failing to state a
cause of action.

In the motion dismiss, the McKesson Defendants argue the Complaint
should be dismissed for two reasons. First, they argue the
Complaint fails to state a cause of action because Plaintiff lumps
the five McKesson Defendants together without differentiating what
each of the Defendants did. Second, they argue that the conversion
count should be dismissed because the loss is de minimis. The
Court agrees with both arguments, but says only the first has
merit.

In his Order dated January 9, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/Avx9ak from Leagle.com, Judge Moody, Jr. held that
Plaintiff's case does not substantially overlap with the Northern
District of California case and that transfer would not further
convenience or justice. As to motion to dismiss, the Court found
that it is fair to dismiss the Complaint as to all McKesson
Defendants except McKesson Corporation and allow Plaintiff to
conduct discovery so it can determine what other entities may be
proper defendants to this action. The statutes of limitations will
also be tolled to give Plaintiff time to conduct discovery.

Lawrence E. Schwanke is represented by Daniel J. Cohen, Esq. --
daniel@classlawyers.com -- and -- Phillip Bock, Esq. --
phil@classlawyers.com -- BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC

McKesson Corporation, et al. are represented by Grant C. Schrader,
Esq. -- gschrader@mofo.com -- Lucia X. Roibal, Esq. --
lroibal@mofo.com -- and -- Tiffany Cheung, Esq. --
tcheung@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP -- Jennifer Lada,
Esq. -- jennifer.lada@hklaw.com -- and -- Joseph H. Varner, III,
Esq. -- joe.varner@hklaw.com -- HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP


JO-ANN STORES: Faces "Kreppel" Suit in District of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jo-Ann Stores, LLC.
The case is entitled as JODI KREPPEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. JO-ANN STORES,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00708-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., Feb.
1, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Freda L. Wolfson.

Jo-Ann Stores is a specialty retailer of crafts and fabrics based
in Hudson, Ohio. It operates the retail chains Jo-Ann Fabrics and
Jo-Ann Etc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark W. Morris, Esq.
          CLARK LAW FIRM
          811 16th Avenue
          Belmar, NJ 07719
          Telephone: (732) 443 0333
          E-mail: mmorris@clarklawnj.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Talcum Powder Ovarian Cancer Lawsuits Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph H. Saunders, writing for Legal Examiner, reports that
Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder has been implicated in hundreds of
cases of ovarian cancer in women.  Many women have used talcum
powder for decades for feminine hygiene believing in the safety of
the powder.  Johnson & Johnson markets the product for "freshness"
and "comfort".  Many advertisements suggest that use of the powder
in the vaginal area would mask odors and adsorb excess wetness.

Women were not told of a medical study in 1982 that found a 92%
increase in ovarian cancer in women who reported genital talc use.
There had been a prior study that suggested this connection back
in 1971.  Since the 1982 study by Dr. Daniel Cramer there have
been 27 studies on the connection between Talcum powder and
ovarian cancer and most of them have confirmed the relationship.

Johnson & Johnson internal documents obtained in the lawsuits
reveal the Company knew years ago that "Retrospective studies have
implicated talc use in the vaginal area with the incidence of
ovarian cancer".

In 1993, The United States National Toxicology Program concluded
that talc was a carcinogen.  And in 1996, the condom industry
stopped dusting condoms with talc at the request of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA).  This was the direct result of the
scientific concern about the ovarian  cancer risk from vaginal
exposure to talc.

In spite of this overwhelming evidence that Johnson & Johnson Baby
Powder was causing ovarian cancer, it continued to aggressively
market the powder and failed to warn women of the increased risk
of ovarian cancer.  Johnson & Johnson put the companies own
profits from sales ahead of the health of its customers by
continuing to promote the talcum powder and concealing the cancer
risk.  Johnson & Johnson should have changed to product to a corn
starch powder which works just as well as talc.  They did not do
so because from a sales perspective customers were so used to
"talcum powder" that the company feared loss of sales.  Johnson &
Johnson was also part of a trade group named Talc Interested Party
Task Force (TIPTF). This group included companies such as Imerys
Talc that sold talc and had a vested interest in continuing to
market talc baby powder.

These companies organized and pooled resources to defend talc and
create false science to counter the objective academic scientific
studies done by Cramer and others.  They followed the playbook of
the Tobacco industry in trying to attack the science against their
products and hiring lobbyists to prevent any government
regulation.

The filing of personal injury lawsuits by women with ovarian
cancer who used baby powder is rapidly increasing.  A petition was
recently filed with the United States Federal Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to have the talcum powder cases all
assigned to one federal judge for pretrial management.  This
should be helpful in organizing the lawsuits which will number in
the hundreds and possibly thousands.  The Multidistrict Panel
assigned the cases to U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson in New
Jersey.  Currently, there are fewer than 100 cases in federal
court but new ones are being filed every day.

There have already been some multi-million dollar jury verdicts in
St. Louis in the Missouri state court system against Johnson &
Johnson.  Those cases are on appeal and J&J has not paid anyone in
any settlements or verdicts.  In New Jersey, one state court judge
dismissed over 200 lawsuits ruling that there was not enough
science yet to prove that the baby powder causes ovarian cancer.
That ruling is on appeal.

None of these cases are class action lawsuits.  An individual
lawsuit must be filed on behalf of any woman who has contracted
ovarian cancer from baby powder.

There are strict time limits for filing these lawsuits so it is
important for individuals to get prompt legal advice from my firm
or any other lawyer specialized in this area of the law.

Set forth below are some of the scientific articles that I have
cited in one of the Talc lawsuits Mr. Saunders filed in January
2017:

In 1983, a case-control study found a 150% increased risk of
ovarian cancer for women who use talcum powder in the genital
area. Hartge, P., et al. Talc and Ovarian Cancer. 1983;
250(14):1844.

In 1988, a case control study of 188 women diagnosed with
epithelial ovarian cancer and 539 control women found that 52% of
the cancer patients habitually used talcum powder on the genital
area before their cancer diagnosis.  The study showed a 40%
increased risk of ovarian cancer in women that used talcum powder
on their genital area and the relative risk for talc use between 1
and 9 years, relative to a shorter duration, was 1.6 (p = 0.05).
Whittemore AS, et al. Personal and environmental characteristics
related to epithelial ovarian cancer. II. Exposures to talcum
powder, tobacco, alcohol, and coffee. J. Epidemiol. 1988 Dec;
128(6):1228-40.

A 1989 study looked at 235 women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian
cancer and 451 controls, and found a 29% increased risk in ovarian
cancer with women who reported genital talcum powder use more than
once a week. Booth, M., et al. Risk factors for ovarian cancer: a
case-control study. Br J Cancer. 1989 Oct; 60(4):592-8.

In 1992, a case-control study found an 80% increased risk of
ovarian cancer in women with more than 10,000 lifetime perineal
applications of talc, demonstrating a positive dose-response
relationship. Harlow BL, et al. Perineal exposure to talc and
ovarian cancer risk. Obstet Gynecol. 1992 Jul; 80(1):19-26.

Another 1992 case-control study reported at 70% increased risk
from genital talc use and a 379% significantly increased risk of
ovarian cancer in women who used talc on sanitary napkins in their
genital area. Rosenblatt, K.A. et al. Mineral fiber exposure and
the development of ovarian cancer. Oncol. 1992 Apr; 45(1):20-5.

Yet another case-control study by Yong Chen with 112 diagnosed
epithelial ovarian cases and 224 age-matched community controls
found an elevated risk for ovarian cancer in women who applied
talc-containing dusting powder to the lower abdomen and perineum
for longer than 3 months. Yong Chen, et al., Risk Factors for
Epithelial Ovarian Cancer in Beijing, China, 21 I Epidemiol. 23-29
(1992).

In 1995, the largest study of its kind to date found a 27%
increased risk in ovarian cancer for women who regularly use talc
in the abdominal or perineal area. Purdie, D., et al. Reproductive
and other factors and risk of epithelial ovarian cancer: An
Australian case-control study. Survey of Women's Health Study
Group. Int J Cancer. 1995 Sep 15; 60(6):678-84.

In 1996, a case-control study found a statistically significant
97% increased risk of ovarian cancer in women who used what they
described as "moderate" or higher use of talc-based powders in
their genital area. See Shushan, A., et al. Human menopausal
gonadotropin and the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer. Steril.
1996 Jan; 65(1):13-8.

In 1997, a case control study of 313 women with ovarian cancer and
422 without this disease found that the women with cancer were
more likely to have applied talcum powder to their external
genitalia area.  Women who performed any perineal dusting or used
genital deodorant spray respectively had a statistically
significant 60% to 90% higher risk of developing ovarian cancer.
Cook, LS, et al. Perineal powder exposure and the risk of ovarian
cancer. J Epidemiol. 1997 Mar 1; 145(5):459-65.

In 1997, a case-control study involving over 1,000 women found a
statistically significant increased risk of 42% for ovarian cancer
for women who applied talc directly or via sanitary napkins to
their perineal area. Chang, S, et al. Perineal talc exposure and
risk of ovarian carcinoma. 1997 Jun 15; 79(12):2396-401.

In 1998, a case-control study found a 149% increased risk of
ovarian cancer in women who used talc-based powders on their
perineal area. Godard, et al. Risk factors for familial and
sporadic ovarian cancer among French Canadians: a case-control
study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Aug; 179(2):403-10.

Daniel Cramer conducted another case-control study in 1999,
observing 563 women newly diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer
and 523 women in a control.  The study found a statistically
significant 60% increased risk of ovarian cancer in women that
used talc-based body powders on their perineal area and an 80%
increase in risk for women over 10,000 lifetime applications.
Cramer, DW, et al. Genital talc exposure and risk of ovarian
cancer. Int J Cancer. 1999 May 5; 81(3):351-56.

In 2000, a case-control study including over 2,000 women found a
statistically significant 50% increased risk of ovarian cancer
from genital talc use in women. Ness, RB, et al. Factors related
to inflammation of the ovarian epithelium and risk of ovarian
cancer. 2000 Mar; 11(2):111-7.

In 2004, a case-control study of nearly 1,400 women from 22
counties in Central California found a statistically significant
37% increased risk of epithelial ovarian cancer from women's
genital talc use, and a 77% increased risk of serous invasive
ovarian cancer from women's genital talc use.  Importantly, this
study also examined women's use of cornstarch powders as an
alternative to talc, and found no increased risk of ovarian cancer
in women in the cornstarch group, supporting a safe alternative to
talc for genital use. Mills, PK, et al. Perineal talc exposure and
epithelial ovarian cancer risk in the Central Valley of
California. Int J Cancer. 2004 Nov 10; 112(3):458-64.

In at 2007 study by Buz'Zard, et al., talc was found to increase
proliferation, induce neoplastic transformation and increase
reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation time-dependently in the
ovarian cells.  The study concluded that talc may contribute to
ovarian carcinogenesis in humans.  The data suggested that talc
may contribute to ovarian neoplastic transformation and Pycnogenol
reduced the talc-induced transformation. Phytotherapy Research:
PTR 21, no. 6 (June 2007): 579-86.

In 2008, a combined study of over 3,000 from a New England-based
case-control study found a 36% statistically significant increased
risk for all types of epithelial ovarian cancer from genital talc
use and a 60% increased risk of the serous invasive cancer
subtype.  The study also found a highly significant dose-response
relationship between the cumulative talc exposure and incidence of
ovarian cancer (an all serous invasive ovarian cancer), adding
further support to the causal relationship. Gates, MA, et al. Talc
Use, Variants of the GSTM1, GSTT1, and NAT2 Genes, and Risk of
Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prey. 2008
Sep; 17(9):2436-44.

A 2009 case-control study of over 1,200 women found the risk of
ovarian cancer increased significantly with increasing frequency
and duration of talc use, with an overall statistically
significant 53% increased risk of ovarian cancer from genital talc
use.  That increased risk rose dramatically, to 108%, in women
with the longest duration and most frequent talc use. Wu, AH, et
al. Markers of inflammation and risk of ovarian cancer in Los
Angeles County. J Cancer. 2009 Mar 15; 124(6):1409-15.

In 2011, another case-control study of over 2,000 women found a
27% increased risk of ovarian cancer from genital talc use.
Rosenblatt, KA, et al. Genital powder exposure and the risk of
epithelial ovarian cancer. Cancer Causes Control. 2011 May;
22(5):737-42.

In June of 2013, a pooled analysis of over 18,000 women in eight
case-control studies found a 20% to 30% increased risk of women
developing epithelial ovarian cancer from genital powder use. The
study concluded by stating, "Because there are few modifiable risk
factors for ovarian cancer, avoidance of genital powders may be a
possible strategy to reduce ovarian cancer incidence." Terry, KL,
et al. Genital powder use and risk of ovarian cancer: a pooled
analysis of 8,525 cases and 9,859 controls. Cancer Prey Res
(Phila). 2013 Aug; 6(8):811.

In May, Roberta Ness performed a meta-analysis of all accumulated
epidemiologic evidence (23 case-control studies, 5 meta-analyses,
and analyses of a single cohort).  Talc use was found to increase
ovarian cancer by 30-60% in almost all well-designated studies.
The results were published in the International Journal of
Gynecological Cancer. Ness, R. Does talc exposure cause ovarian
cancer? Intl. Jnl Gyn Cancer. 25 Suppl 1 (May 2015): 51.

Also in 2015, Cramer, et al. performed a retrospective case-
control study. Overall, genital talc use was associated with an OR
(95% CI) of 1.33 (1.16; 1.52), with a trend for increasing risk by
talc-years. In addition, subtypes of ovarian cancer more likely to
be associated with talc included invasive serous and endometriod
tumors and borderline serous and mucinous tumors. Premenopausal
women and postmenopausal HRT users with these subtypes who had
accumulated greater than 24 talc-years had ORs (95% CI) of 2.33
(1.32; 4.12) and 2.57 (1.5, 4.36), respectively. Epidemiology
(Cambridge, Mass.), December 17, 2015.

A 2016 study of African-American women found that body powder was
significantly associated with Epithelial Ovarian Cancer.  Genital
powder was associated with an increased risk of EOC (OR = 1,44;
95% CI, 1.11-1.86) and a dose-relationship was found for duration
of sue and a number of lifetime applications (P <05). The study
concluded that body powder is a risk factor for epithelial ovarian
cancer among African-American women. Schildkraut JM, et al.
Association between Body Powder Use and Ovarian Cancer: the
African American Cancer Epidemiology Study (AACES). Cancer
epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention: a publication of the
American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the
American Society of Preventative Oncology. Cancer Epidemiol
Biomarkers Prey; 21(10); 1411-7.

A 2014 study examined 2,041 cases with epithelial ovarian cancer
and 2,100 age-and-residence-matched controls. Genital use of talc
was associated with a 1.33 OR with a trend for increasing risk by
years of talc use.  Most women in the study reported using Johnson
& Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to Shower.  Among epidemiologic
variables, no confounders for the association were identified.
Cramer, DW, et al. The association between talc use and ovarian
cancer: a retrospective case-control study in two US states. 2016;
27, 33446.

In 1990, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") asked
manufacturers to voluntarily stop putting talc on surgical gloves
because mounting scientific evidence showed that it caused
adhesions in surgical patients, an indication of a foreign body
reaction.  On December 19, 2016, the FDA issued a ban on powdered
surgical gloves, stating that "the risk of illness or injury posed
by powdered gloves is unreasonable and substantial".

In November 10, 1994. the Cancer Prevention Coalition mailed a
letter to Ralph Larson, who was CEO of Johnson & Johnson at the
time, informing his company that studies as far back as 1960's " .
. . show[ ] conclusively that the frequent use of talcum powder in
the genital area pose [ ] a serious health risk of ovarian
cancer."  The letter cited a recent study by Dr. Bernard Harlow
from Harvard Medical School confirming this fact and quoted a
portion of the study where Dr. Harlow and his colleagues
discouraged the use of talc in the female genital area.  The
letter further stated that 14,000 women per year die from ovarian
cancer and that this type of cancer is very difficult to detect
and has a low survival rate.  The letter concluded by requesting
that Johnson & Johnson withdraw talc products from the market
because of the alternative of corn starch powders, or at a
minimum, place waning information on its talc-based body powders
about the ovarian cancer risk they pose.

On or about September 17, 1997, Johnson & Johnson's own toxicology
consultant, Dr. Alfred Wehner, informed the company about false
public statements being made by the Defendants regarding talc
safety.

In February, 2010, the International Association for the Research
of Cancer (IARC) part of the World Health Organization published a
paper whereby they classified perineal use of talc based body
powder as a "Group 2B" human carcinogen.  IARC which is
universally accepted as the international authority on cancer
issues, concluded that studies from around the world consistently
found an increased risk of ovarian cancer in women from perineal
use of tale.  IARC found that between 16-52% of women in the world
were using talc to dust their perineum and found an increased risk
of ovarian cancer in women talc users ranging from 30-60%. IARC
concluded with this "Evaluation":  "There is limited evidence in
humans for the carcinogenicity of perineal use of talc-based body
powder."  By definition "Limited evidence of carcinogenicity"
means "a positive association has been observed between exposure
to the agent and cancer for which a causal interpretation is
considered by the Working Group to be credible, but chance, bias
or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence."

In approximately 2006, the Canadian government under The Hazardous
Products Act and associated Controlled Products Regulations
classified talc as a "D2A" , "very toxic", "cancer causing"
substance under its Workplace Hazardous Materials Information
System (WHMIS). Asbestos is also classified as "D2A".

In or about 2006, Imerys Talc began placing a warning on its
Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) it provided to the Johnson &
Johnson Defendants regarding the talc it sold to them to be used
in the PRODUCTS.  These MSDSs not only provided the warning
information about the IARC classification, but also included
warning information regarding "States Rights to Know" and warning
information about the Canadian Government's "D2A" classification
of talc as well.

In 2008, the Cancer Prevention Coalition submitted a second
"Petition Seeking a Cancer Warning on Cosmetic Talc Products" to
the FDA.  The first Citizen Petition had been filed on November,
17, 1994.  The second Petition requested that the FDA immediately
require cosmetic talcum powder products to bear labels with a
prominent warning that frequent talc application in the female
genital area is responsible for major risks of ovarian cancer.
The FDA response to the two Citizen Petitions was filed on April
1, 2014.

In 2013, Cancer Prevention Research published a study that showed
that women who used talcum powder in their groin area had a 20 to
30 percent greater risk of developing ovarian cancer than women
who did not use talc products in that area.

The Gilda Radner Familial Ovarian Cancer Registry, Roswell Park
Center Institute, and the Department of Gynecologic Oncology at
the University of Vermont, published a pamphlet entitled "Myths &
Facts about ovarian cancer: What you need to know." In this
pamphlet, under "known" risk factors for ovarian cancer, it lists:
"Use of Talc (Baby Powder) in the Genital Area".


JUMEI INT'L: Securities Class Suit in New York Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Pauley, III of the United States
District for the Southern District of New York granted dismissal
of the complaint in the case captioned, IN RE JUMEI INTERNATIONAL
HOLDING LIMITED SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 14cv9826
(S.D.N.Y.).

The action arises from Jumei's May 16, 2014 initial public
offering of Jumei's American Depository Shares (ADS), on the New
York Stock Exchange. Jumei is a Chinese online retailer
specializing in beauty products and apparel. Plaintiffs claim that
the IPO registration statement and a subsequent earnings report
contained materially false and misleading statements because they
failed to disclose Jumei's plan to wind down its third-party
beauty supply marketplace in September 2014, a decision that
precipitated a sharp decline in Jumei's share price. The putative
class, consisting of investors in Jumei's ADS brings the suit
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act.

Defendants move to dismiss the Securities Act claims on two
theories. First, Defendants argue that the Section 11 claims sound
in fraud and thus are subject to the heightened pleading standard
of FRCP 9(b). In the alternative, Defendants maintain that these
claims fail even under the less-stringent FRCP 8 pleading rules,
as Plaintiffs have failed to allege an actionable
misrepresentation or omission.

In his Opinion and Order dated January 10, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/FOhuLi from Leagle.com, Judge Pauley, III held that
Plaintiffs have failed to allege an actionable misstatement or
omission and that Plaintiffs point to no evidence other than the
temporal proximity between the positive financial forecasts and
Jumei's exit from the marketplace business which is not sufficient
to meet either the Rule 9(b) or PSLRA pleading standard.

Goldenrain Assets Limited, et al. are represented by Jeremy Alan
Lieberman, Esq. -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- and -- Michele S.
Carino, Esq. -- mscarino@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP

Chao Lu, et al. are represented by Frank James Johnson, Esq. --
FrankJ@JohnsonandWeaver.com -- and -- William Scott Holleman, Esq.
-- scotth@johnsonandweaver.com -- JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP -- Samuel
Howard Rudman, Esq. -- SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER
RUDMAN & DOWD LLP

Xiangbo Yin is represented by Casey Edwards Sadler, Esq. --
csadler@glancylaw.com -- Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Michael Goldberg, Esq. --
ngoldberg@glancylaw.com -- Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. --
lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- and -- Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq. --
rprongay@glancylaw.com -- GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP

Jumei International Holding Limited, et al. are represented by
Robert Alexander Fumerton, Esq. -- robert.fumerton@skadden.com --
and -- Scott D. Musoff, Esq. -- scott.musoff@skadden.com --
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP

Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C., et al. are represented by Edmund
Polubinski, III, Esq. -- edmund.polubinski@davispolk.com --
Jessica L. Turner, Esq. -- jessica.turner@davispolk.com -- John
Hammond Heath, Esq. -- john.health@davispolk.com -- and --
Lawrence Jay Portnoy, Esq. -- lawrence.portnoy@davispolk.com --
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL


KELLY SERVICES: Wins Prelim. Okay of "Hillson" Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Laurie J. Michelson entered an opinion and order
preliminarily approving a settlement agreement and preliminarily
certifying a settlement class in the lawsuit styled LASANDRA
HILLSON, STEVEN BOHLER, and ASHLEY SCHMIDT, individually and as
proposed representatives of a class v. KELLY SERVICES INC., Case
No. 2:15-cv-10803 (E.D. Mich.).

The Settlement Class is defined as:

     All persons on whom Defendant procured a consumer report
     pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act during the period
     from July 18, 2012 through January 23, 2014, and whose
     initial hire date with Defendant was during the period of
     time when Defendant was providing new applicants with a
     disclosure form that contained a liability release.

Plaintiffs Lasandra Hillson, Steven Bohler, and Ashley Schmidt
allege that Defendant Kelly Services, Inc. violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.  When Plaintiffs applied for jobs Kelly
offered, they received a form disclosing that Kelly might run a
background check to assess their employability. But, say the
Plaintiffs, this form included additional information that
violated the FCRA's requirement that the disclosure be in a stand-
alone document.

The Plaintiffs are appointed as Class Representatives, and
Nichols Kaster, PLLP; Berger & Montague, P.C.; and Lyngklip &
Associates Consumer Law Center PLC are appointed as Class Counsel.

Judge Michelson also approves the Parties' Second Revised Postcard
Notice and Claim Form and Second Revised Adjudicated Ineligible
Postcard Notice and Claim Form for distribution in accordance with
the schedule included in the Settlement Agreement.  Settlement
Class Members will have the right to either opt out or object to
this Settlement pursuant to the procedures and schedule included
in the Settlement Agreement.

A Final Approval Hearing is set for August 2, 2017, at 10:00 a.m.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/UiD9DO from Leagle.com.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eleanor Michelle Drake, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          43 SE Main Street, Suite 505
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: (612) 594-5933
          Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
          E-mail: emdrake@bm.net

               - and -

          Anna P. Prakash, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          80 S. 8th St., Suite 4600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-2242
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
          E-mail: aprakash@nka.com

               - and -

          Ian B. Lyngklip, Esq.
          LYNGKLIP & ASSOCIATES CONSUMER LAW CENTER, PLC
          24500 Northwestern Highway, Suite 206
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: (248) 208-8864
          E-mail: IanLyngklip@Att.Net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq.
          David J. Rowland, Esq.
          Laura Jean Maechtlen, Esq.
          Michael Williams Stevens, Esq.
          Pamela Q. Devata, Esq.
          Shireen Y. Wetmore, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          131 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 2400
          Chicago, IL 60603-5577
          Telephone: (312) 460-5000
          Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
          E-mail: gmaatman@seyfarth.com
                  drowland@seyfarth.com
                  lmaechtlen@seyfarth.com
                  bstevens@seyfarth.com
                  pdevata@seyfarth.com
                  swetmore@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Weissman, Esq.
          FINKEL WHITEFIELD SELIK
          32300 Northwestern Highway, Suite 200
          Farmington Hills, MI 48334
          Telephone: (248) 855-6500
          Facsimile: (248) 855-6501
          E-mail: mweissman@fwslaw.com


KIMBALL ELECTRONICS: Has $4MM Pre-Tax Income from Deal Payment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kimball Electronics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2017, for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2016, that Other General
Income in the six months ended December 31, 2016 included $4.0
million of pre-tax income resulting from a payment received
related to a class action lawsuit in which Kimball Electronics was
a class member. The lawsuit alleged that certain suppliers to the
EMS industry conspired over a number of years to raise and fix the
prices of electronic components, resulting in overcharges to
purchasers of those components. No Other General Income was
recorded in the six months ended December 31, 2015.

Kimball Electronics, Inc. is a global contract electronic
manufacturing services ("EMS") company that specializes in
producing durable electronics for the automotive, medical,
industrial, and public safety end markets.


KROLL LABS: Appeals Ruling in Case Over False Positive Drug Test
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Yakin, writing for Times Herald-Record, reports that a
drug test can change your life.

Test positive one day for an illicit drug, and you can lose your
job, or your kids, your marriage or your freedom.

Dec. 17, 2007, was that day for Eric Landon, formerly of
Middletown.

He was two weeks from finishing probation for a felony forgery
conviction.  And then, a saliva drug screen showed a false-
positive for marijuana.

"I was a guy that was, for the first and only time in his life,
engaged to be married and become a stepfather to two young girls,
was at the beginning of living and working in a perfect kind of
town for me -- Albany, and had career and business plans and
opportunities stacked up and waiting to be activated by, and all
timed, with one thing: the end of that probation sentence," Landon
said.

"And none of that ever got to happen."

If not for Mr. Landon's natural wariness -- a trait that led him
to get his own blood tests and to document everything -- he would
likely have gone to prison on that false-positive screen.

Instead, he's David taking on a Goliath, and he helped make a new
law.

Mr. Landon is suing the testing company, Kroll Laboratories LLC,
in Orange County Supreme Court for negligence over its failure to
follow established scientific and state standards for testing and
reporting of results.

Mr. Landon said the probation violation triggered by the test left
him with diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder.

He is seeking damages for his loss of liberty and for emotional
and psychological harm.

This negligence claim -- that a testing lab has a "duty of care"
or responsibility to the person being tested -- did not exist in
New York law until Landon's case.

Jackie Lustig, the senior director of corporate communications for
Alere Toxicology, which now owns Kroll, said the company does not
comment on ongoing litigation.

Lawyer Mitchel Ochs of Manhattan-based Anderson & Ochs LLP, who
represents Kroll in Mr. Landon's lawsuit, did not respond to
multiple phone calls and an email seeking comment on the case.

In legal papers and during in-court arguments, Ochs has argued
that Kroll's labs did everything they were supposed to do in
processing Landon's sample.

Kroll denies that Mr. Landon has suffered damage that can be
recovered through a negligence claim.

"Our argument is that nothing we did was the legal cause of the
harm he claims," Mr. Ochs argued in court on Aug. 18, 2015,
according to a transcript.

"It was the county that took our -- our results.  It was the
county that decided to do additional testing.  It was the county
that decided to commence violation of parole (sic) proceedings."

According to court papers, Kroll offered, at one point, to settle
Mr. Landon's claim for $100,000.

Mr. Landon said he turned down the offer on principle.  He wants
his day in court.

Orange County spokesman Justin Rodriguez said the county no longer
uses Kroll or Alere.

Since 2012, probation has used instant tests -- three different
companies since then, as pricing changes and technology improves -
- to administer the roughly 4,000 drug tests the department
conducts annually.

As of late January, about 2,400 people were on probation in Orange
County -- about 40 percent of them for felonies.

'Fatally flawed'

Mr. Landon said his case is about the principle.

"I want every probationer to find out that they should get their
own blood test," he said.

Documents show that Mr. Landon's Dec. 17, 2007 specimen, once
screened, didn't contain enough material for confirmation.

New York's testing standards -- which labs must follow to maintain
a license to operate in the state, and which Kroll was obliged to
follow by its contract with Orange County -- require that an
insufficient sample be discarded as "fatally flawed."

If Kroll had followed those requirements, there would have been no
extension of probation and no anguish, Mr. Landon argues.

In 2001, Mr. Landon was arrested on forged-prescription charges.

He says he had been prescribed opioids for intractable migraines
and became dependent, but he makes no excuses for the crime.

He pleaded guilty to second-degree forgery, a felony, and was
sentenced in January 2002 to five years of probation.

An early drug test showed positive for marijuana; Landon said
that, too, was a false-positive.

He started getting his own blood tests immediately after every
probation test.

False-positives can be caused by environmental exposure to a drug,
or by medications.  Confirmation testing weeds out those false
alarms.

Dec. 17, 2007 was supposed to be Mr. Landon's last probation
appointment.

He had a full-time retail job and part-time funeral services work
waiting for him upstate.

"I was laying the first row of bricks in the foundation in Albany,
when everything was made different -- and far worse -- for me,"
Mr. Landon said.

The probation officer asked him to take one last drug test, using
the then-standard OraSure Intercept saliva swab kit.

Court documents show that Kroll notified the probation officer of
the positive screen on Dec. 20, 2007.

She requested a confirmation test and filed paperwork to revoke
probation, charging Mr. Landon with testing positive for marijuana
and denying that he had used marijuana.

Kroll's documentation shows that they could not perform the
confirmation because the sample was insufficient.

Court of Appeals victory

On Jan. 2, 2008, Judge Jeffrey Berry extended Mr. Landon's
probation until the test issue could be resolved, despite Mr.
Landon's proof of clean blood test results and despite him passing
a urine test that morning at the courthouse.

As the probation fight unfolded, Mr. Landon says, his relationship
with his long-term girlfriend deteriorated.

Mr. Landon and his lawyer demanded a hearing.

In mid-March 2008, according to court papers, probation withdrew
the revocation petition, and Judge Berry released Landon from
probation.

Mr. Landon said he called a lawyer from the parking lot to start
his lawsuit.

As the civil case began, Mr. Landon's relationship with his
girlfriend ended.  He moved to Erie, Pa., hoping for a fresh
start.

Lawyers Robert Isseks and Kevin Bloom filed a federal class-action
lawsuit against Orange County, probation, the probation officer
and her boss, and Kroll on behalf of Landon and others similarly
situated.

That case was dismissed after they failed to amend a flawed
complaint.

The lawyers then filed a new class action against Kroll in Orange
County Supreme Court, but the court dismissed the claim, accepting
Kroll's argument that they were responsible only to the county.

By the time the state's highest court was ready to hear his
appeal, Mr. Landon had parted ways with Messrs. Isseks and Bloom
over strategy disagreements.

Mr. Landon argued his own case before the Court of Appeals on
Sept. 3, 2013.  His victory there resurrected his lawsuit.

Mr. Landon's life revolves around the litigation.

He does his legal research at the Erie County, Pa., courthouse.

He writes his own briefs, investigates witnesses, and makes the
six-hour drive to argue his case in court.

He has devoted his limited spare time and money to rescuing and
caring for stray cats.

"I haven't sat in a restaurant in eight years," he said.  "I
haven't been on a date. I haven't been to a concert."

His case survived bids by Kroll for dismissal in 2015 and again in
November.

Mr. Landon lost his economic harm claim because he couldn't
document the expenses and losses, but Orange County Supreme Court
Judge Catherine Bartlett ruled that his claims on loss of liberty
and emotional harm will go forward.

Kroll appealed the latest ruling.

Mr. Landon's case returns to court for a pretrial conference on
March 30, when Judge Bartlett will likely set the trial date.


LITHIA MOTORS: Court Narrows Claims in Mendoza et al. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, JOSEPH FRANK MENDOZA, MARTIN and CAROL
JOCKS, DONALD and ANGELA GARRISON, DAVID and ANGELITA JARMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. LITHIA MOTORS, INC., LITHIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
SALEM-V, LLC d/b/a VOLKSWAGEN OF SALEM, and LITHIA KLAMATH, INC.
d/b/a LITHIA KLAMATH FALLS AUTO CENTER, Defendants, Case No. 6:16-
CV-01264-AA (D. Or.), District Judge Ann Aiken of the United
States District Court for the District of Oregon ruled that
defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in
part; and Plaintiff's motion to seek leave to amend is allowed.

Plaintiffs purchased a vehicle from a Lithia dealership. The
dealership paid a third party more than $100 for the warranty
contract, and defendants either retained a large portion the
warranty payment or received a large "kickback" payment from the
third-party.

Plaintiffs bring the putative class action suit against defendants
alleging violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA),
Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act (UTPA), and Oregon's
financial elder abuse statute. Plaintiffs allege that defendants
failed to comply with the disclosure requirements of both TILA and
the UTPA, and that in failing to make those disclosures,
defendants wrongfully appropriated money from elderly persons.

Defendants move to dismiss certain claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
Proc. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted on grounds that plaintiffs fail to allege and cannot
show that they suffered ascertainable loss as a result of
defendants' alleged misrepresentations. Defendants also move to
dismiss plaintiffs' claims relating to third-party good or
services on grounds that no UTPA provision requires them to
itemize and disclose profits associated with third-party goods and
services.

In her Opinion and Order dated January 10, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/GNaUh5 from Leagle.com, Judge Aiken granted
dismissal as to plaintiffs' UTPA claims because plaintiffs do not
allege concealment of any fact relating to credit availability,
the nature of the credit transaction, or the credit obligation
incurred by plaintiffs and denied as to the elder financial abuse
claim because plaintiffs' allegations suffice to state plausible
claims under Sec. 646.608(1)(u).

Within 30 days, plaintiffs shall move to amend their complaint to
clarify the nature of the losses they suffered and explain how
their losses were caused by each defendant's conduct.

Joseph Frank Mendoza, et al. are represented by Jack E. McGehee,
Esq. -- txlaw@lawtx.com -- MCGEHEE CHANG BARNES LANDGRAF -- Young
W. Walgenkim, Esq. -- young@hansonwalgenkim.com -- HANSON &
WALGENKIM, LLC

Lithia Motors, Inc., et al. are represented by Jeremy D. Sacks,
Esq. -- Jeremy.sacks@stoel.com -- Keith E. McIntire, Esq. --
keith.mcintire@stoel.com -- and -- Kennon H. Scott, Esq. --
kennon.scott.stoel.com -- STOEL RIVES LLP


LORENZO AUTO: "Montes" Suit Seeks to Recoup Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
ROGER JAVIER CARBALLO MONTES and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiffs, vs. LORENZO AUTO SERVICES
CORP., FRANCISCO J JIMENEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-20271-DPG
(S.D. Fla., January 23, 2017), was filed to recover overtime
and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours
weekly under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

LORENZO AUTO SERVICES CORP. offers car repair services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Phone: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865-7167
     Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


LOS ANGELES, CA: Yagman Seeks Certification of Three Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled STEPHEN YAGMAN, etc. v. ERIC
GARCETTI, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-05944-JAK-E (C.D. Cal.), moves
the Court to certify three classes of persons, who were issued
parking violation citations within the City of Los Angeles.

The class definitions should be:

     Class 1. All persons whose parking citation initial review
     was conducted not by defendants, as is required by Cal.
     Vehicle Code Section 40125(a), as interpreted by Weiss v.
     City of Los Angeles, 2 Cal.App. 5th 194 (2016), 206
     Cal.Rptr. 3d 213 (2016), but instead by a processing agency;

     Class 2. All persons whose parking citation initial review
     was conducted not by defendants, but instead by a processing
     agency, who did not prevail in the initial review, and who
     were required to pay the parking citation fine amount as a
     condition precedent to a review of the initial review by
     defendants; and

     Class 3. All persons whose parking citation initial review
     was conducted not by defendants but instead by a processing
     agency, who did not prevail in the initial review, who did
     not pay the parking citation fine to obtain a review by
     defendants of the initial review, who were not provided
     review by defendants, and who then were required to pay the
     fine.

The class period should be March 29, 2012, to the date of
certification.

Eric Michael Garcetti is the current mayor of Los Angeles.

The Court will commence a hearing on April 3, 2017, at 8:30 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Q7uIMmIH

Plaintiff STEPHEN YAGMAN is represented by:

          Joseph Reichmann, Esq.
          Marion R. Yagman, Esq.
          YAGMAN & REICHMANN
          475 Washington Boulevard
          Venice Beach, CA 90292-5287
          Telephone: (310) 452-3200
          Facsimile: (310) 557-0420
          E-mail: JReichm@aol.com
                  mrygmn@msn.com


MALLINCKRODT PLC: Faces "Shenk" Securities Lawsuit Over Acthar
--------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA A. SHENK, 106 Cambridge Dr., Hershey, PA 17033,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. MALLINCKRODT PLC, 675 McDonnell Blvd., Hazelwood, MO
63042 and MARK TRUDEAU, c/o Mallinckrodt PLC 675 McDonnell Blvd.,
Hazelwood, MO 63042, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00145 (D.C.,
January 23, 2017), alleges that Defendants violated the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Act by making false and misleading
statements and failing to disclose material adverse facts about
the long-term sustainability of the Company's revenues from its
Acthar drug and the exposure of Acthar to reimbursement rates by
Medicare and Medicaid.

Mallinckrodt develops and produces specialty pharmaceutical
products, including generic drugs and imaging agents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Weitzner, Esq.
     4916 Brandywine Street N.W.
     Washington, DC 20016
     Phone: (202) 905-1172
     Fax: (202) 265-0403
     E-mail: mweitzner@weitznerlaw.com

        - and -

     Geoffrey C. Jarvis, Esq.
     Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
     Ryan T. Degnan, Esq.
     Nathan Hasiuk, Esq.
     KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
     280 King of Prussia Road
     Radnor, PA 19087
     Phone: (610) 667-7706
     Fax: (610) 667-7056
     E-mail: gjarvis@ktmc.com
             namjed@ktmc.com
             rdegnan@ktmc.com
             nhasiuk@ktmc.com


MIDDLESEX CORPORATION: Faces "Myrick" Suit in M.D. of Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Middlesex
Corporation. The case is styled as Marshall Myrick, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. The Middlesex Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
8:17-cv-00261-JDW-MAP (M.D. Fla., Feb. 1, 2017). The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge James D. Whittemore.

Middlesex Corporation provides heavy civil construction and
asphalt paving services throughout the Northeast and Southeast
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300
          Tampa, FL 33602-3343
          Telephone: (813) 224 0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com



MISSOURI, USA: Postawko Moves to Certify Class of MDOC Inmates
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned Michael G. Postawko, et
al. v. Missouri Department of Corrections, et al., Case No. 2:16-
cv-04219-NKL (W.D. Mo.), move the Court for certification of a
Plaintiff Class on the claims for prospective relief set forth in
Counts I and II of their second amended complaint. The Plaintiffs
ask the Court to certify a Plaintiff Class of:

     all those individuals in the custody of MDOC, now or in the
     future, who have been, or will be, diagnosed with HCV but
     who are not provided treatment with DAA drugs

In this action, the Plaintiffs challenge the alleged custom or
policy Defendants Missouri Department of Corrections (MDOC), Anne
L. Precythe (in her official capacity), and Corizon to refuse
medical treatment that is consistent with current and prevailing
medical standards in a manner that is deliberately indifferent to
Plaintiffs' serious medical needs.  In particular, the Plaintiffs
contend, while a cure is available for Hepatitis C viral infection
in the form of direct-acting antiviral drugs, these Defendants
withhold that treatment from inmates who should receive it--
leaving them to develop serious illnesses, spread Hepatitis C
viral infections to other inmates, and, in some cases, die.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Michael Postawko,
Christopher Baker, and Michael Jamerson as class representatives,
and appoint Mae C. Quinn, Esq., Amy E. Breihan, Esq., Gillian R.
Wilcox, Esq., Jessie Steffan, Esq., and Anthony E. Rothert, Esq.,
as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=S401ENbZ

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony E. Rothert, Esq.
          Jessie Steffan, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION
          454 Whittier Street
          St. Louis, MO 63108
          Telephone: (314) 652-3114
          Facsimile: (314) 652-3112
          E-mail: trothert@aclu-mo.org
                  jsteffan@aclu-mo.org

               - and -

          Gillian R. Wilcox, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION
          406 West 34th Street, Suite 420
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 470-9938
          Facsimile: (314) 652-3112
          E-mail: gwilcox@alcu-mo.org

               - and -

          Mae C. Quinn, Esq.
          Amy E. Breihan, Esq.
          MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER AT ST. LOUIS
          3115 South Grand Blvd., Suite 300
          St. Louis, MO 63118
          Telephone: (314) 254-8540
          Facsimile: (314) 254-8547
          E-mail: mae.quinn@macarthurjustice.org
                  amy.breihan@macarthurjustice.org


MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Gusman Seeks to Certify 4 Classes Under TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled JAMES GUSMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. MONTEREY FINANCIAL
SERVICES LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them,
Case No. 2:16-cv-07003-JAK-AS (C.D. Cal.), moves the Court for an
order granting his motion for class certification and for
appointment of class counsel in the action asserting violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Mr. Gusman moves the Court to certify two classes under 47 U.S.C.
Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) consisting of:

     All persons within the United States who received any
     collection telephone calls from Defendant to said person's
     cellular telephone made through the use of any automatic
     telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded
     voice and such person had not previously consented to
     receiving such calls within the four years prior to the
     filing of this Complaint.

     All persons within the United States who received any
     solicitation/telemarketing telephone calls from Defendant to
     said person's cellular telephone made through the use of any
     automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
     prerecorded voice and such person had revoked any prior
     express consent to receive such calls prior to the calls
     within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint.

The Plaintiff additionally moves the Court to certify two classes
under 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c) consisting of:

     All persons within the United States registered on the
     National Do-Not-Call Registry for at least 30 days, who had
     not granted Defendant prior express consent nor had a prior
     established business relationship, who received more than
     one call made by or on behalf of Defendant that promoted
     Defendant's products or services, within any twelve-month
     period, within four years prior to the filing of the
     complaint.

     All persons within the United States registered on the
     National Do-Not-Call Registry for at least 30 days, who
     received more than one call made by or on behalf of
     Defendant that promoted Defendant's products or services,
     after having revoked consent and any prior established
     business relationship, within any twelve-month period,
     within four years prior to the filing of the complaint.

Mr. Gusman also asks the Court to appoint him as Class
Representative and to appoint his attorneys as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on December 4, 2017, at 8:30
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KJE0Hsps

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $208.7MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the NCAA and 11 major athletic
conferences announced on Feb. 3 they have agreed to pay $208.7
million to settle a federal class-action lawsuit filed by former
college athletes who claimed the value of their scholarships was
illegally capped.

The settlement still must be approved by a judge and it does not
close the antitrust case.  The NCAA said in a statement the
association and conferences "will continue to vigorously oppose
the remaining portion of the lawsuit seeking pay for play."

The settlement will be fully funded by NCAA reserves, the
association said.  No school or conference will be required to
contribute.

The original antitrust lawsuit was filed in 2014 by former West
Virginia football player Shawne Alston.  The case was later
combined with other lawsuits and covers Division I men's and
women's basketball players and FBS football players who competed
from 2009-10 through 2016-17 and did not receive a cost-of-
attendance stipend.

In January 2015, the five wealthiest college conferences -- the
Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and
Southeastern Conference -- passed NCAA legislation that allowed
schools to increase the value of an athletic scholarship by
several thousand dollars to the federally determined actual cost
of attending a college or university.

Cost of attendance includes expenses beyond tuition, room and
board, books and fees.

Each member of the class will receive approximately $6,000, said
Steve Berman, lead attorney in the case.

"This is a historic settlement for student-athletes and there is
more to come as the second part of the case seeks injunctive
relief that will force the NCAA to pay student-athletes a fair
share," Mr. Berman told AP in a text message on Feb. 3.

The NCAA said in its statement that the agreement maintains cost
of attendance as "an appropriate dividing line between collegiate
and professional sports."  The statement also said the NCAA and
conferences "only settled this case because the terms are
consistent with Division I financial aid rules."

The NCAA and college sports have been facing numerous legal
challenges simultaneously in recent years.

Last year, a judge approved a $75 million class-action concussion
case against the NCAA.

Also in 2016, the Supreme Court declined to hear the NCAA's appeal
of the Ed O'Bannon case, leaving in place lower court rulings that
found amateurism rules for big-time college sports violated
federal antitrust law but prohibited payments to student-athletes.

In 2014, a U.S. district judge decided the NCAA's use of names,
images and likenesses of college athletes without compensation
violated antitrust law.  Judge Claudia Wilken ruled schools could
-- but were not required to -- pay football and men's basketball
players up to $5,000 per year.  The money would go into a trust
and be available to the athletes after leaving college.  Judge
Wilken also ruled schools could increase the value of the athletic
scholarship to meet the federal cost of attendance figure for each
institution.

In 2015, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
overturned Judge Wilken's ruling on the payments of $5,000 but
upheld the antitrust violation.

The NCAA and Division I football conferences are also currently
facing dozens of new lawsuits by former players seeking damages
for the mishandling of concussions.


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: "Ponce" Suit Invokes TCPA, Debt Collection Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED PONCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-00551 (C.D. Cal., January 23, 2017), alleges negligent
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, willful
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act in connection with its debt collection
practices.

Navient Solutions, Inc. -- https://www.navient.com/ -- provides
loan management, servicing, and asset recovery solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NCSLT 2005-1: Citizen & PNC Dismissed from Student Loan Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, JANE C. FORRESTER WINNE, Plaintiff, v.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2005-1, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-CV-00229-JDL (D. Maine), District Judge Jon D. Levy
of the United States District Court for the District of Maine
granted dismissal of the Complaint as to Citizen's and PNC's
motion to dismiss and denied as to US Bank's motion to dismiss.

The Plaintiff, Jane C. Forrester Winne, filed a class action
complaint seeking damages and injunctive relief, brought, she
asserts, on behalf of "vulnerable Maine students who are being
unlawfully pursued on alleged private student loan debts they do
not owe, were fraudulently procured, or both." Her individual
claims arise out of attempts by various parties to collect student
debts she allegedly owes.

Winne's claims focus on two private student loans that were
allegedly made to her in 2004 and 2005 by Charter One Bank (now
Citizens) and PNC, respectively. Winne denies ever receiving the
proceeds from these loans, and asserts that she has never made any
payments on either loan. Winne alleges that Charter One sold its
loan to National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-1 (NCSLT 2005-
1), and PNC sold its loan to National Collegiate Student Loan
Trust 2005-3 (NCSLT 2005-3). The two loans allegedly then became
the subject of collection efforts by various entities connected
with the NCSLTs, beginning in 2014.

Three of the defendants -- Citizens Bank, N.A. (Citizens), U.S.
Bank National Association (US Bank), and PNC Bank, N.A. (PNC) --
filed motions to dismiss the claims against them pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
claim. US Bank also seeks dismissal under Rule 12(b)(2), asserting
lack of personal jurisdiction.

In his Order dated January 11, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/TmTa9j from Leagle.com, Judge Levy granted the
motion to dismiss as to Citizen and PNC finding that Winne has
failed to plead any basis for concluding that she exercised due
diligence in trying to discover that the required TILA disclosures
were not made, or for concluding that Citizens or PNC fraudulently
concealed their failure to make disclosures from her within the
one-year statutory period.  The Court denied US Bank's motion to
dismiss finding that Winne has plausibly stated claim for relief
against it under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and
the Maine Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (MFDCPA) and Maine
Unfair Trade Practices Act (MUTPA).

Jane C Forrester Winne is represented by Cynthia A. Dill, Esq. --
cdill@troubhheisler.com -- and William K. Mckinley, Esq. --
wmckinley@troubhheisler.com -- TROUBH HEISLER

National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-1, et al. are
represented by Brian D. Roth, Esq. -- broth@sessions.legal --
Bryan C. Shartle, Esq. -- bshartle@sessions.legal -- and --
Kristen L. Burge, Esq. -- kburge@sessions.legal -- SESSIONS
FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL -- Michael Messerschmidt, Esq. --
mmesserschmidt@preti.com -- and --  Adam J. Shub, Esq. --
ashub@preti.com -- PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU, & PACHIOS, LLP


NEW WEST HEALTH: Gordon May Amend Suit to Add Claim for Cert.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Brian Morris entered an order in the lawsuit styled LANCE
R. GORDON and RONI A. GORDON v. NEW WEST HEALTH SERVICES, and its
related affiliates, subsidiaries, and successors, Case No. CV 15-
24-GF-BMM (D. Mt.):

   (1) denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

   (2) granting the Defendant's motion to deny class
       certification; and

   (3) permitting the Plaintiffs to amend their complaint to
       include a claim for class certification under Rule
       23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Judge Morris ruled, among other things, that the Gordons' putative
class cannot be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) due to the Gordons'
failure to identify any ongoing conduct that they seek to enjoin.

Plaintiff Roni A. Gordon works as an employee of the Billings
Clinic and Lance and Roni Gordon were insured for health care
under New West Health Services Billings Clinic plan in 2010 and
2011.  The Gordons' policy remained in effect at the time that
they made a claim to New West on behalf of their minor son.  The
Gordons' attending physician recommended inpatient detoxification
therapy, but New West denied the claim based upon its
determination that inpatient detoxification was not medically
necessary.

The Gordons originally proposed the following class for injunctive
relief: All beneficiaries as such term is used under the
provisions of 29 U.S.C. Section 1002(8) of ERISA plans as that
term is defined under the provisions of 29 U.S.C. Section 1002(1)
for which Defendant provided insurance services known as New West
Health Plan for such ERISA Plans in which beneficiaries have made
application for treatment for mental health, alcohol, chemical,
and/or drug abuse and/or addiction; who were in need of alcohol
and/or drug treatment; and, who were denied said benefits by
Defendant on the grounds that said treatment was not medically
necessary.  The Gordons defined the class more specifically after
further discovery.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/X9Zsrr from Leagle.com.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Patrick Buckley, Esq.
          BUCKLEY LAW OFFICE
          125 West Mendenhall
          Bozeman, MT 59715
          Telephone: (406) 587-3346
          Facsimile: (406) 587-0475
          E-mail: dbuckley@danbuckleylaw.com

               - and -

          Lawrence A. Anderson, Esq.
          ANDERSON LAW OFFICE
          PO Box 2608
          Great Falls, MT 59403
          Telephone: (406) 727-8466
          Facsimile: (406) 771-8812
          E-mail: laalaw@me.com

Defendant New West Health Services is represented by:

          Ian McIntosh, Esq.
          Kelsey E. Bunkers, Esq.
          William M. Morris, Esq.
          CROWLEY FLECK
          1915 South 19th Avenue
          PO Box 10969
          Bozeman, MT 59719-0969
          Telephone: (406) 556-1430
          Facsimile: (406) 556-1433
          E-mail: imcintosh@crowleyfleck.com
                  kbunkers@crowleyfleck.com
                  wmorris@crowleyfleck.com


NEW YORK: NYSTA Faces American Bus Assoc. Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New York State
Thruway Authority. The case is titled as American Bus Association,
DATTCO, Inc., and Starr Transit Co., Inc., on behalf of themselves
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. New York State
Thruway Authority; New York State Canal Corporation; Bill Finch,
in 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 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; Richard N.
Simberg, in his official capacity as a member of the New York
State Thruway Authority/Canal Corporation Boards of Directors; J.
Donald Rice, Jr., in his official capacity as a member of the New
York State Thruway Authority/Canal Corporation Boards of
Directors; Jose Holguin-Veras, in his official capacity as a
member of the New York State Thruway Authority/Canal Corporation
Boards of Directors; Robert L. Megna, in his official capacity as
a member of the New York State Thruway Authority/Canal Corporation
Boards of Directors; Stephen M. Saland, in his official capacity
as a member of the New York State Thruway Authority/Canal
Corporation Boards of Directors, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00782 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2017).

New York State Thruway is a system of limited-access highways
located within the state of New York in the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Reginald Raybern Goeke, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP(DC)
          1999 "K" Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 263 3241
          Facsimile: (202) 263 5241
          E-mail: rgoeke@mayerbrown.com


NEW YORK, NY: Faces "Smyth" Suit Seeking to Recover Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
FAYE SMYTH, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, against THE CITY OF NEW YORK, THE
CITY OF NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT, Daniel A. Nigro, as Commissioner
of the New York City Fire Department, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-
cv-00492 (S.D.N.Y., January 23, 2017), was brought pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act to recover liquidated damages for delayed
payments of overtime and other wages.

Defendant, The City of New York, is a municipal corporation duly
organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the
State and City of New York.  Defendant, The City of New York Fire
Department, is an agency of the City of New York authorized and
existing, pursuant to New York City Charter.

Plaintiff Faye Smyth has been employed by Defendant the City of
New York in various capacities since approximately 1989, has been
employed by the Fire Department of the City of New York since
approximately 1997, and currently works as a Supervising Fire
Alarm Dispatcher, Level 1.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
     James Emmet Murphy, Esq.
     VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
     40 Broad Street
     7th Floor New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 943-9080


OSRAM SYLVANIA: May 4 Auto Lighting Claims Filing Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
If You Bought Sylvania Automotive Lighting You Could Get Money
from a Class Action Settlement

Detailed information and updates are available on the Settlement
Website: www.AutolightClaims.ca

A Canada-wide Settlement has been negotiated in class actions
relating to the marketing and sales of Osram Sylvania Premium
Automotive Lighting.  This Settlement has been approved by the
Courts and will provide benefits to purchasers of the following
"Covered Products":

   -- SilverStar ULTRA, SilverStar, XtraVision, or Cool Blue
replacement headlight capsules;
   -- SilverStar, XtraVision, or Cool Blue sealed beam headlights;
or
   -- SilverStar fog or auxiliary lights.

ARE YOU INCLUDED?

You may be a Class Member if you purchased a Covered Product in
Canada from September 22, 2005 until December 31, 2014.

WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT?

The lawsuits claim that Osram Sylvania, Inc., Osram Sylvania
Products, Inc. and Osram Sylvania, Ltd. ("Sylvania")
misrepresented that certain replacement automotive lighting is
brighter, provides a wider beam and allows drivers to see farther
down the road than standard halogen lighting.  It also claims that
Sylvania omitted material information regarding the reduced life
of the replacement lighting.  Sylvania denies that it did anything
wrong.  The Courts did not decide which side was right. Instead,
the parties have decided to settle.

WHAT DOES THIS SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

A Settlement Amount of not less than CDN $1,150,000 (the
"Settlement Fund Minimum") and not more than CDN $1,750,000 (the
"Settlement Cap Maximum") is intended to pay claims to eligible
Class Members, Notice Costs, Claims Administration Fees and
Expenses, Class Counsel Fees and Expenses, and Honorarium Awards
to the Representative Plaintiffs.  In addition, Sylvania has also
modified certain product(s) packaging.  Full details about the
Settlement are available on the Settlement Website at
www.AutolightClaims.ca.

WHAT TYPE OF COMPENSATION CAN YOU RECEIVE?

Individual Class Member may qualify for Compensation for one of
the following, irrespective of how many products have been
purchased:

Covered Products         Initial Amount       Maximum Amount

SilverStar ULTRA,
SilverStar, XtraVision,
or Cool Blue replacement
headlight capsule         $12.00                 $24.00

SilverStar, XtraVision,
or Cool Blue sealed beam
headlight                 $12.00                 $24.00

SilverStar fog or
auxiliary lights          $12.00                 $24.00

For each Claimant who submits a valid Claim, payment as described
above will be issued1, so long as providing such Compensation does
not exceed the Settlement Cap Maximum.  If providing each Claimant
with such Compensation will exceed the Settlement Cap Maximum,
then in such circumstances each Claimant's Compensation will be
reduced on a pro-rata basis.

HOW DO I ASK FOR A PAYMENT?

To receive Compensation, eligible Class Members must submit a
Claim Form to the Claims Administrator through the Settlement
Website, by email, or by mail sent no later than May 4, 2017.  The
Claim Form only takes 3-5 minutes to complete.  No proof of
purchase is necessary.

WHEN SHOULD I MAKE A CLAIM?

Immediately - the Claim Form is already available on the
Settlement Website at www.AutolightClaims.ca or you can obtain one
by contacting the Claims Administrator at 1-855-745-7374.  You
should act as quickly as possible, a Claim Deadline has been set
for May 4, 2017.

WHAT HAVE THE COURTS DECIDED?

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of
Quebec have approved the Settlement as fair, reasonable and in the
best interests of Class Members.  The Courts have also approved a
request from Class Counsel for counsel fees, disbursements and
taxes, as well as, honorarium payments to the Representative
Plaintiffs.

WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS?

If you are a Class Member, you may (1) send in a Claim Form; (2)
exclude yourself (Opt-Out); or (3) do nothing.

If you don't want to be legally bound by the settlement, you must
opt-out.  To do so, you must complete and submit an Opt-Out Form
to the Claims Administrator by no later than March 20, 2017.  The
manner in which you opt-out is available on the form found on the
Settlement Website.  Residents of Quebec must in addition give
notice to the Clerk of the Superior Court of Quebec.  Anyone who
opts out will not be bound by the Settlement Agreement and will
not be eligible to claim benefits under the Agreement, but may be
eligible to pursue an individual claim.

WHEN WILL I BE PAID?

Cheques will only begin to be mailed to eligible Class Members for
Compensation at the earliest starting on July 3, 2017.

HOW CAN I GET MORE INFORMATION?

This Notice summarizes the proposed Settlement. More details are
in the Settlement Agreement.  You can get a copy of the Settlement
Agreement and detailed information on how to obtain or file a
Claim or Opt-Out on the Settlement Website at
www.AutolightClaims.ca

For any other information, please call the Claims Administrator
at:

         Bruneau Group Inc.
         Nelson P.O. 20187 - 322 Rideau St.
         Ottawa, Ontario K1N 5Y5
         Tel:  1-855-745-7374
         Email:  info@autolightclaims.ca

WHO REPRESENTS ME?

Class Counsel, or the law firms representing the Plaintiffs, are
the following:

         Consumer Law Group P.C.
         251 Laurier Ave. West, Suite 900
         Ottawa, Ontario KIP 5J6
         jorenstein@clg.org

         Consumer Law Group Inc.
         1030 rue Berri, Suite 102
         Montreal, Quebec H2L 4C3
         agrass@clg.org

This Notice has been approved by the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice and the Superior Court of Quebec.

1 less the withholding owing to the Fonds d'aide aux recours
collectifs (for Quebec residents only and if applicable).


PIGGLY WIGGLY: Faces Class Action Over Employee Stock Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
WCBD reports that a federal class action lawsuit may go to court
in Charleston County.

The lawsuit claims several counts of breach of fiduciary duty
against an employee stock plan for Piggly Wiggly Carolina company
Inc. and Greenbax Enterprises Inc. The defendants also include the
plan's trustees.

The complaint alleges that more than a thousand employees included
in the stock plan will not get money expected due to the company's
wrong doings over almost a decade.

The lawsuit states almost Piggly Wiggly and Greenbax Enterprises
offered an Employee Stock Option Plan, or "ESOP".  In short, a
privately owned company sells the company to the employees.  In
this case, the employees expected to gain money at retirement.

The ESOP trustees and directors for the company are held to a
fiduciary standard, in which they are to manage the money in the
best interest of the employees.  However, the suit alleges that
the trustees and directors misused the money and did not uphold
that standard.

The suit claims those handling the money did not have the
employees best interest in mind.

The lawsuit says, and gives examples of, "company-wide
corruption."

Former Piggly Wiggly employees who were part of the ESOP received
a letter that shows their ESOP account balance as $0.00.

David Schools, President of Greenbax enterprises, said in the
letter the money was used, among other things, to go toward worker
compensation claims.

Schools denied comment on the open litigation.


PIONEER CREDIT: Court Trims Claims in "Biber" Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge T.S. Ellis III of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia granted in part motions to
dismiss in the case captioned, ATTILA BIBER et al., Plaintiffs, v.
PIONEER CREDIT RECOVERY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-804
(E.D. Va.).

The putative class action arises from defendant's issuance of a
letter that allegedly violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692 et seq. Plaintiff, Attila
Biber, a Virginia resident who has defaulted on federal student
loans, contends that defendant, Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc.
(Pioneer), a debt-collection corporation, violated the FDCPA by
sending letters that mislead recipients into believing that their
wages are about to be garnished if the recipients do not pay their
debts.

The Second Amended Complaint (SAC) alleges that on April 1, 2016,
Pioneer sent a letter (the Letter) to Biber and others, which was
captioned in bold, capitalized letters, "Administrative Wage
Garnishment Proceedings Notice." Biber, in the SAC, alleges that
Pioneer violated the FDCPA's prohibition on a debt collector's
"use of any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or
means in connection with the collection of any debt." 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692e. Specifically, the SAC alleges that Pioneer used
false, deceptive, or misleading representations or means.

Pioneer has moved to dismiss the SAC raising a facial challenge to
Biber's Article III standing to bring an FDCPA claim and
contending that the SAC fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), Fed. R.
Civ. P.

In the Memorandum Opinion dated January 11, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/3ALb4A from Leagle.com, Judge Ellis, III granted the
motion to dismiss as to false implication that the letter was
legal process and deprivation of statutory verification rights
because Biber lacks standing and has no there is no subject matter
jurisdiction to adjudicate Pioneer's Rule 12(b)(6) motion and as
to unfair and unconscionable means to collect pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6). Both the Rule 12(b)(1) and the Rule 12(b)(6) motions
must be denied in all other respects.

Attila Biber is represented by:

      Thomas Ray Breeden, Esq.
      THOMAS R. BREEDEN PC
      894 Paramount Rd
      Oakland, CA 94610
      Tel: (703)361-9277

Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. is represented by Deborah Jean
Israel, Esq. -- disrael@wcsr.com -- and Alexander Paul Rothschild,
Esq. -- ARothschild@wcsr.com -- WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE
PLLC


PNC BANK: Cruz et al. Appeal Dismissal of Ponzi Scheme Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Gloria Cruz, Rafael M. Cruz, and Rafael F. Cruz filed
on January 27, 2017, a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from the Order on Motion to Dismiss
for Failure to State a Claim entered by the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio in the case captioned, RAFAEL M.
CRUZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-CV-292 (S.D. Ohio).

Plaintiffs Dr. Rafael M. Cruz, Dr. Gloria Cruz, and Dr. Rafael F.
Cruz brought the putative class action lawsuit against PNC Bank
and PNC Financial Services for alleged violation of the Ohio
Securities Act, Ohio Rev. Code Section 1707.01, et seq. Plaintiffs
allege that they are victims of a massive financial fraud
perpetrated by William Apostelos and his wife, Connie Apostelos,
with the assistance of his sister, niece and other associates. As
alleged in the Complaint, between January 2010 and October 2014,
the Aposteloses and their associates raised at least $66.7 million
from at least 350 investors across the United States.

William Apostelos, who portrayed himself as a sophisticated
investor and businessman, falsely represented to investors that
their funds would be pooled with other funds and invested in real
estate, stock, bonds, or precious metals, or used to make high
risk loans to businesses and farmers. Instead, the Aposteloses
used investors' funds to operate a Ponzi scheme, in which early
investors were paid fictitious returns on their investments with
money received from later investors. In October 2014, the Ponzi
scheme collapsed when a group of defrauded investors forced
William and Connie Apostelos into involuntary bankruptcy.

The Complaint contains a single count against Defendants for the
sale of unregistered securities in violation of the Ohio
Securities Act, Ohio Rev. Code Section 1707.01. Plaintiffs allege
that the Aposteloses sold the unregistered securities to them and
the members of the proposed class. Plaintiffs contend that the
Aposteloses and Defendants are jointly and severally liable to
Plaintiffs and the proposed class for their purchases because
Defendants "participated in or aided" the Aposteloses in making
the unlawful sales.

PNC Bank and PNC Financial Services moved to dismiss the Complaint
for failure to state a claim on the grounds that Plaintiffs have
not alleged that they engaged in anything more than ordinary
banking activities, which Defendants contend are not actionable
under the Ohio Securities Act.

In his Entry and Order dated January 10, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/YtpFYf from Leagle.com, District Judge Thomas M.
Rose granted a motion to dismiss the Complaint.  Judge Rose held
that plaintiffs failed to make any allegation that the defendant
"acted outside the scope of routine banking activities," which
Ohio courts have held do not subject financial institutions to
liability under Ohio Rev. Code Section 1707.43. The Court premised
its ruling to Boyd v. Kingdom Trust Co., No. 3:16-CV-009, 2016 WL
6441411, recently dismissed a nearly identical complaint alleging
the same cause of action under the Ohio Securities Act against
another financial institution.

Gloria Cruz, et al. are represented by Gary A. Gotto, Esq. --
ggotto@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK, LLP -- Matthew G.
Bruce, Esq. -- mbruce@ssdlaw.com -- and --  Toby K. Henderson,
Esq. -- thenderson@ssdlaw.com -- SEBALY SHILLITO & DYER

PNC Bank, National Association, et al. are represented by Thomas
David Warren, Esq. -- twarren@bakerlaw.com -- Jessie Morgan
Gabriel, Esq. -- jgabriel@bakerlaw.com -- and -- Lauren Marie
Hilsheimer, Esq. -- lhilsheimer@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER
LLP


POST HOLDINGS: Has $74.5 Million Provision in Legal Settlements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Post Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:POST), a consumer packaged goods holding
company, reported results for the first fiscal quarter ended
December 31, 2016.  Net sales were $1,249.8 million, an increase
of 0.1%, or $1.0 million, compared to the prior year. On a
comparable basis, net sales declined 2.2% when compared to the
same period in fiscal 2016 primarily resulting from an anticipated
decline in sales within the Michael Foods Group segment.  Gross
profit was $379.2 million or 30.3% of net sales, an increase of
$16.7 million compared to the prior year gross profit of $362.5
million or 29.0% of net sales. Selling, general and administrative
(SG&A) expenses were $264.1 million or 21.1% of net sales, an
increase of $77.1 million compared to the prior year SG&A of
$187.0 million or 15.0% of net sales. First quarter 2017 SG&A
expenses include a provision for $74.5 million in legal
settlements related to agreements to settle egg antitrust class
action claims.

Post Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.postholdings.com/--
headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, is a consumer packaged goods
holding company operating in the center-of-the-store, foodservice,
food ingredient, private label, refrigerated and active nutrition
food categories. Through its Post Consumer Brands business, Post
is a leader in the ready-to-eat cereal category and offers a broad
portfolio that includes recognized brands such as Honey Bunches of
Oats(R), Pebbles(TM), Great Grains(R), Grape-Nuts(R),
Honeycomb(R), Frosted Mini Spooners(R), Golden Puffs(R), Cinnamon
Toasters(R), Fruity Dyno-Bites(R), Cocoa Dyno-Bites(R), Berry
Colossal Crunch(R) and Malt-O-Meal(R) hot wheat cereal. Post's
Michael Foods Group supplies value-added egg products,
refrigerated potato products, cheese and other dairy case products
and dry pasta products to the foodservice, food ingredient and
private label retail channels and markets retail brands including
All Whites(R), Better'n Eggs(R), Simply Potatoes(R) and Crystal
Farms(R). Post's Active Nutrition platform aids consumers in
adopting healthier lifestyles through brands such as PowerBar(R),
Premier Protein(R) and Dymatize(R). Post's Private Brands Group
manufactures private label peanut butter and other nut butters,
dried fruits, baking and snacking nuts, cereal and granola.


PPE CASINO: Court OKs Harbourt's Dealer Course Attendees Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Catherine C. Blake entered a memorandum in the lawsuit
titled CLAUDIA HARBOURT, et al., v. PPE CASINO RESORTS MARYLAND,
LLC, d/b/a MARYLAND LIVE! CASINO, Case Nos. CCB-14-3211, CCB-16-
339 (D. Md.), stating that the Plaintiffs' motions for equitable
tolling and conditional certification will be denied, and
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification will be granted.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify this class:

     All persons that attended Defendant's twelve (12) week
     dealer course at Marley Station between January 7, 2013, the
     date that the course began, and April 1, 2013, the date the
     course ended. The putative class consists of all persons
     that attended the course, regardless of the number of days
     or weeks attended.

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against PPE Casino
Resorts Maryland, LLC, owner and operator of Maryland Live!
Casino.  The Plaintiffs allege that PPE failed to pay them for the
vast majority of a training course they attended as Casino
employees, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
and Maryland wage and hour laws.

"In this case the plaintiffs have shown neither due diligence
towards preserving the rights of other potential opt-in plaintiffs
nor extraordinary circumstances in the litigation process. No
motion for conditional certification or equitable tolling was
filed between October 14, 2014, when the complaint was filed, and
April 21, 2015, when the motion to dismiss was granted within four
months of full briefing. A new complaint was filed February 5,
2016, with seven new plaintiffs, but again no motion for
conditional certification or equitable tolling followed until June
2016," according to the Memorandum.

"Under the FLSA, the filing of the complaint in itself is not
enough to permit tolling of potential plaintiffs' claims.
Inevitably some plaintiffs' claims may expire before they receive
notice, even where conditional class certification is sought and
granted at an early stage of the litigation. Given the statutory
framework, and that the narrow circumstances under which the
Fourth Circuit has permitted equitable tolling have not been shown
here, the plaintiffs' motion must be denied," Judge Blake opined.

Because the motion for equitable tolling has been denied, and more
than three years has passed since the conclusion of the dealer
school, the motion for conditional certification must be denied,
Judge Blake noted.  Judge Blake added that the Plaintiffs will be
permitted to proceed with their FLSA claims.

A copy of the Memorandum is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/UWoXUY from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Claudia Harbourt, Michael Lukoski and Ursula Pocknett
are represented by:

          Steven Marc Lubar, Esq.
          James A. Lanier, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
          36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 244-7005
          Facsimile: (410) 244-8454
          E-mail: slubar@nicholllaw.com
                  jlanier@nicholllaw.com

Plaintiffs Claudia Harbourt, Michael Lukoski and Ursula Pocknett,
and Consol Plaintiffs Philip Kroll, Melvin Lorden, Charles Parker,
Nathan Reid, Tyrese Rice, Harvey Robinson and William Sanders are
represented by:

          Benjamin L. Davis, III, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
          36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 244-7005
          Facsimile: (410) 244-8454
          E-mail: bdavis@nicholllaw.com

Defendant PPE Casino Resorts Maryland, LLC, is represented by:

          Lillian Lane Reynolds, Esq.
          Robert G. Ames, Esq.
          Todd James Horn, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          750 East Pratt Street, Suite 900
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 244-7844
          Facsimile: (410) 244-7742
          E-mail: llreynolds@Venable.com
                  rgames@Venable.com
                  thorn@Venable.com


PRECIOUS ANGELS: Faces Class Action Over Patients' Deaths
---------------------------------------------------------
Ntombizodwa Makhoba, writing for News24, reports that the presence
of white patients at nongovernmental organisation (NGO) Precious
Angels in Atteridgeville, Tshwane, caused a concerned neighbour to
dismiss thoughts of alerting health inspectors to the facility
where 20 mentally ill patients died.

"There were white patients there, so I was sure that the NGO was
legitimate," she said.

"I could have saved many lives. Look what happened now," she said
with tears in her eyes.

Health Ombudsman Malegapuru Makgoba revealed in his that at least
94 patients died after being moved from Life Esidimeni to 27 NGOs
that operated illegally.

The neighbour, who lives a few houses away from the NGO that
belonged to Ethel Ncube, said they were relieved when the facility
was shut down in September in 2016.

"Patients used to cry loudly day and night.  We witnessed
ambulances and hearses coming in and out from the house," she
said.

"At some point we had to stop our kids from playing outside
because they were being exposed to dead bodies while playing. This
was bad for our children.

"Ethel has to go to jail.  She played with many people's lives."

On Feb. 3, Ms. Ncube was nowhere to be found.

The house's new occupants allowed City Press inside.  The
facility, which was occupied by 57 patients, had only one bath tub
and toilet.

The neighbour said mentally disabled children and adults lived
under the same roof.

Neighbours, she said, were also not told that the patients were
going to move in in April last year.

"We only saw a bus full of patients and since then we've had
sleepless nights," she said.

Ms. Ncube, she said, was gone.

"I haven't seen her since it was announced that [Gauteng health
MEC] Qedani Mahlangu had resigned.  I hope the families who lost
their family members find closure."

Meanwhile, some members of the bereaved families, led by Christine
Nxumalo, whose sister, Virginia Machpelah, died in August last
year at Precious Angels, have united to file a class action
against the department.

"It is sad that Mahlangu resigned without giving us answers," she
said.

Ms. Machpelah spent two years at Life Esidimeni before she was
dumped at Precious Angels.  Ms. Nxumalo said her family was only
told of her sister's death two weeks thereafter.

"She was frail, dry, her eyes were hollow and you could literally
see her bones. I was shocked to see my sister like this when I
went to identify her body," she said.

"The only thing that helped me to identify her was a black spot
between her front teeth."

She said the provincial health department promised the families a
settlement that has yet to be determined.

"We want closure with this whole thing.  Settlement is the small
part of accountability and it won't bring our loved ones back,"
she said.


QUALCOMM INC: "Shah" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violations
----------------------------------------------------------- RASESH
SHAH, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, STEVE MOLLENKOPF, PAUL E.
JACOBS, GEORGE S. DAVIS, and WILLIAM KEITEL, Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-00121-JAH-WVG (S.D. Cal., January 23, 2017), alleges that
Defendants violated the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act, by among
others, making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing
to disclose that Qualcomm was engaging and/or had engaged in
anticompetitive conduct to maintain a monopoly for semiconductors
used in mobile phones in violation of the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) Act.

Defendant Qualcomm develops, designs, manufactures, and markets
worldwide digital communications products and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 785-2610
     Fax: (213) 226-4684
     Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


RUTHERFORD COUNTY, TN: Suit v. Education Board Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Aleta A. Trauger of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted the motion to
dismiss in the case captioned, T.D., a minor student, by and
through her parents, W.D. and H.D., and all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. RUTHERFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-CV-1488 (M.D. Tenn.).

On June 21, 2016, T.D., by and through her parents and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, filed the proposed class action
against Rutherford County Board of Education (RCBOE), bringing
claims for violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act, 20
U.S.C. Section 1400 et seq. (the IDEA) and Tennessee's special
education laws, Tenn. Code Ann. Section 49-10-101 et seq., and
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

According to the Complaint, T.D. is a minor child who attends
Lascassas Elementary School in Lascassas, Tennessee, and resides
in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, both within Rutherford County. The
Complaint alleges that a Senior Occupational Therapist within the
Rutherford County school system, Matt Barnett, placed in writing
and disseminated a policy and practice for Rutherford County that
aims to remove or reduce related services in order to save money
for RCBOE.

On July 20, 2016, RCBOE filed the currently pending Motion to
Dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 12(b)(6), along with an
accompanying Memorandum, arguing that T.D. has failed to state a
claim due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies. RCBOE
also argues that the allegations in the Complaint do not meet the
requirements for certification of a class action.

In her Memorandum dated January 9, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/TyHkTZ from Leagle.com, Judge Trauger held that the
case failed to administratively exhaust. Class certification is
unlikely to be appropriate in this situation, given the dearth of
factual allegations involving any students aside from T.D. and the
fact that the unique constellation of needs addressed by any
individual student's Individualized Education Program (IEP) is
unlikely to be compatible with the commonality required for class
action litigation.

T. D., et al. are represented by:

      Justin S. Gilbert, Esq.
      GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER PLC
      341 Cool Springs Blvd, Suite 230
      Franklin, TN 37067
      Tel:(615)354-1144

Rutherford County Board of Education is represented by Melinda H.
Jacobs, Esq. -- jacobslawmelinda@gmail.com -- THE LAW OFFICE OF
MELINDA JACOBS

            -- and --

      Jeffrey L. Reed, Esq.
      COPE, HUDSON, REED & MCCREARY, PLLC
      16 Public Square North
      PO Box 884
      Murfreesboro, TN 37133
      Tel:(615)893-5522


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Higginbotham" Suit in W.D. of Okla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Samsung Electronics
America Inc. The case is captioned as Vicky Higginbotham on behalf
of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Samsung Electronics America Inc.; Samsung
Electronics Co Ltd; Home Depot Inc.; Lowes Companies Inc.; Best
Buy Co Inc.; and Sears Holding Corporation, the Defendants, Case
No. 5:17-cv-00102-HE (W.D. Okla., Feb. 1, 2017). The case is
assigned to Hon. Joe Heaton.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SANDERSON FARMS: Company, 4 Poultry Producers Defending Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2017, that the
Company, along with the Company's subsidiaries Sanderson Farms,
Inc. (Foods Division), Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Production Division)
and Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Processing Division), were named as
defendants along with four other poultry producers and certain of
their affiliated companies in a putative class action lawsuit
filed on January 27, 2017 in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Oklahoma. The complaint alleges that the
defendants unlawfully conspired by sharing data on compensation
paid to broiler farmers, with the purpose and effect of
suppressing the farmers' compensation below competitive levels.
The complaint also alleges that the defendants unlawfully
conspired to not solicit or hire the broiler farmers who were
providing services to other defendants. The complaint seeks treble
damages, costs and attorneys' fees. The lawsuit is in its early
stages and the Company intends to defend it vigorously.


SOUTH AFRICA: Health MEC Sued Over Psychiatric Patients' Deaths
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Sonderup, writing for AllAfrica, reports that the MEC for
Health in Gauteng, South Africa's wealthiest province, resigned on
Jan. 31 just before the release of a report into the deaths of 94
mental health patients.  Qedani Mahlangu's post is the equivalent
of a health minister but at provincial level.  She faces a class
action lawsuit after a report by South Africa's health ombudsman
exposed the appalling conditions in which the psychiatric patients
died between 23 March and 19 December 2016.

The patients came to their deaths because of a cost-cutting
exercise by the Gauteng government.  A total of 2,000 patients
were moved from Life Esidimeni private hospitals to 27 NGOs.  The
report stated that:

All the 27 NGOs to which patients were transferred operated under
invalid licences.  All patients who died in these NGOs died under
unlawful circumstances.

It was initially reported that 36 patients had died, but the
figure turned out to be nearly triple that.  The health ombudsman
found that the most common cause of the deaths was pneumonia,
followed by uncontrolled seizures.  Patients were found to be
starving and dehydrated.  Relatives testified that the patients
had been given no blankets or warm clothing during last year's
cold winter.

The patients died on average two months after the hurriedly and
haphazardly arranged transfers took place.

The report has been met with outrage and shock.  In addition to
the Gauteng Health MEC's resignation, the suspensions of two other
senior officials have also been recommended -- the head of Health
and a senior director.  Both are registered medical doctors.  The
report stated that the MEC's and the two officials'
fingerprints are 'peppered' throughout the project.


SPECIAL COMMITMENT: Faces Disability Right Suit in W.D. Wash.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Special Commitment
Center. The case is captioned as R. R., G. J., R. G.; all others
similarly situated, and Disability Rights Washington, the
Plaintiffs, v. DSHS, Patricia Lashway, Special Commitment Center,
and William Van Hook, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-05080 (W.D.
Wash., Feb. 1, 2017).

Special Commitment Center in the state of Washington is a post-
sentence treatment institution for people designated as sexually
violent predators, located on McNeil Island.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anna Catherine Guy, Esq.
          David R Carlson, Esq.
          Rachael E Seevers, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON
          315 5th Ave S. Ste 850
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 324 1521
          E-mail: annag@dr-wa.org
                  DavidC@dr-wa.org
                  rachaels@dr-wa.org


STANDARD DRYWALL: App. Ct. Won't Send "Cruz" Suit to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Judge Lee Ann Edmon of the California Court of Appeals
affirmed an order denying petition to compel arbitration in the
case captioned, JOSE VINCENTE DE LA CRUZ, Plaintiff and
Respondent, v. STANDARD DRYWALL, INC. Defendant and Appellant,
Case No. B270433 (Cal. App.).

On August 19, 2015, Jose Vincente De La Cruz filed the putative
class action against Standard, his former employer. Standard is a
construction company that performs carpentry and drywall work in
California and throughout the Western United States. Plaintiff
alleges that he was employed by Standard as a plasterer from
approximately April 2010 to October 20, 2013. During the course of
his employment plaintiff traveled daily to job sites in various
California counties.

In the lawsuit, plaintiff seeks relief on behalf of himself and a
putative class consisting of all nonexempt hourly-paid employees
currently or formerly employed by Standard in California during
the class period, which plaintiff defines as the period commencing
four years prior to the filing of the complaint through the date
of certification. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for failure
to pay all wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to
provide rest periods, failure to pay wages of terminated or
resigned employees, unfair competition, and failure to reimburse
business expenses.

In lieu of an answer, on December 18, 2015, Standard filed a
petition to compel arbitration of each cause of action alleged in
the complaint. Standard asserted that its construction employees
in California, including De La Cruz, work pursuant to collective
bargaining agreements. In opposition, De La Cruz contended the
petition to compel arbitration should be denied because Standard
failed to establish that he and Standard were parties to the
collective bargaining agreements at issue.

The trial court denied Standard's petition to compel arbitration
finding that Standard failed to meet its initial burden to show
the existence of a valid arbitration agreement.

On appeal, Standard contends that the trial court erred in holding
that Standard had not proven the existence of the Southwest
Regional Council Agreements and their applicable arbitration
provisions by a preponderance of the evidence; the trial court
erred in shifting the burden of establishing waiver of arbitration
to Standard to prove that it had not waived arbitration; and the
trial court erred in not granting Standard a further evidentiary
hearing.

In her Opinion dated January 23, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/QPn3Qh from Leagle.com, Judge Edmon concluded that
the trial court properly determined that Standard failed to
establish that it was a party to either of the two arbitration
agreements on which it sought to rely and that there is no abuse
of discretion in the trial court's refusal to reopen the matter.

Jose Vincente dela Cruz is represented by Kevin Mahoney, Esq. --
kmahoney@mahoney-law.net -- Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq. --
kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net -- Morgan Glynn, Esq. --
mglynn@mahoney-law.net -- and -- Anna R. Salusky, Esq. --
asalusky@saluskylaw.com -- MAHONEY LAW GROUP

Standard Drywall, Inc. is represented by Chad T. Wishchuk, Esq. --
cwishchuk@ftblaw.com -- and -- Kathleen A. Donahue, Esq. --
kdonahue@ftblaw.com -- FINCH, THORNTON & BAIRD


STEMLINE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on Feb. 4
announced that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed
against Stemline Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: STML) ("Stemline" or
the "Company") on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
made: (1) pursuant and/or traceable to Stemline's secondary public
offering on or about January 20, 2017; and/or (2) on the open
market between January 19, 2017 and February 1, 2017, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

Investors who purchased Stemline securities during the Class
Period may, no later than April 4, 2017, seek to be appointed as a
lead plaintiff representative of the class.  For additional
information or to learn how to participate in the action please
visit https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/stemline-therapeutics-
inc#join

Stemline, a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the discovery, acquisition, development and commercialization of
proprietary oncology therapeutics in the United States.  The
Company is developing "SL-401," a targeted therapy directed to the
interleukin-3 receptor (IL-3R), which is in Phase II clinical
trial for advanced hematologic cancers.

On January 20, 2017, Stemline announced the pricing of a public
offering of common stock.  Specifically, the Company announced
that it had priced an underwritten public offering of 4.5 million
shares of Stemline common stock at a price of $10.00 per share,
for gross proceeds to the Company of $45 million.

Less than two weeks later, on February 2, 2017, Stemline provided
an update "on its ongoing pivotal Phase 2 trial" and disclosed
that, "[o]n January 18, the Company received a report that a
patient death had occurred.  The patient had developed capillary
leak syndrome (CLS), a known, sometimes fatal, and well-documented
side effect of SL-401."  Following this news, shares of the
Company's common stock declined $4.15 per share, or over 42.5%, to
close on February 2, 2017 at $5.60 per share, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

The complaint alleges that Stemline and certain of its executive
officers violated the federal securities laws by making false and
misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that a cancer
patient in a Stemline clinical trial tied to SL-401 died from a
severe side effect on January 18, 2017.  Additionally, the
complaint alleges that, as a result of the foregoing, the
defendants' statements about Stemline's business, operations and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Stemline shareholders who wish to discuss this action and their
legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or
Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com.

Stemline shareholders may, no later than April 4, 2017, petition
the Court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check or other counsel,
or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  A
lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all
class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be
appointed as a 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 in the action.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not
affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff.  For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this action please visit https://www.ktmc.com/new-
cases/stemline-therapeutics-inc#join

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check -- http://www.ktmc.com-- prosecutes
class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate
governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf
of institutional and individual investors from the United States
and around the world.  The firm represents investors, consumers
and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent
practices against the government and share in the recovery of
government dollars).  The complaint in this action was not filed
by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check.


TUESDAY MORNING: Judge Rejects Wage Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Monitor reports that a California federal judge on
Feb. 3 rejected discount retailer Tuesday Morning Corporation
agreement to pay $750,000 to end an unpaid wages class action,
saying that the retailer may be getting a bargain by settling
claims for a fraction of a percentage of the claims' maximum
value.


TIERRA LEASE: Faces "Metting" Suit Seeking to Recoup OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
RUSSELL METTING, on behalf of himself and others similarly-
situated, Plaintiff, v. TIERRA LEASE SERVICE, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00044 (W.D. Tex., January 23, 2017),
was brought on behalf of Plaintiff and all others similarly-
situated, who were formerly or are currently employed as laborers,
roustabouts, and heavy equipment operators by Defendant, and
seeking damages resulting from Defendant's alleged failure to
comply with the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendant Tierra is a Texas corporation that provides equipment
and personnel to oil drilling operators in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Grempel" Suit in Eastern Dist. of N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems
Inc. The case is captioned as Thomas Grempel, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Transworld
Systems Inc. and EGS Financial Care, Inc. f/k/a NCO Financial
Systems, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00585 (E.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 1, 2017).

The Transworld Systems is debt collection company.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


UNITED PARCEL: Court Rules on Discovery Dispute in "Solo" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge R. Steve Whalen of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted in part
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatory No. 1 in the
case captioned, JOE SOLO, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED PARCEL
SERVICE CO., Defendant, Case No. 14-12719 (E.D. Mich.).

The case is a putative consumer class action case in which
Plaintiffs claim that Defendant United Parcel Service Co. (UPS)
breached its contract with shippers by overcharging for shipments
that had a declared value of over $300. Specifically, UPS's
pricing table contained "declared value service" charges that
increased incrementally with the declared value of the package
being shipped. From zero to $100, the charge was zero, and from
$100.01 to $50,000, the charge was $0.85 "for each $100.00 of the
total value declared." Plaintiffs claim that for packages with a
declared value of over $300, UPS charged $0.85 for the first $100
of value, in violation of the contractually binding pricing table.

Plaintiffs' Interrogatory No. 1 reads as follows:

     (A) Separately for Direct Shippers and Third-Party Retailer
Shippers, provide the total number of Qualifying Shipments carried
by UPS from each Originating State for the time periods indicated
in the chart attached as Exhibit A hereto and made part hereof;

     (B) Separately for Direct Shippers and Third-Party Retailer
Shippers, identify the number of Qualifying Shipments carried by
UPS from December 30, 2013, to the close of the calendar month
immediately preceding the response to this interrogatory;

     (C) Separately for Direct Shippers and Third-Party Retailer
Shippers, identify the number of Qualifying Shipments carried by
UPS from June 30, 2013, to December 29, 2013; and

     (D) For each of the totals in answer to the above
Interrogatory No. 1A-1C, quantify on a monthly basis the
Qualifying Shipments you contend were not subject to UPS's
published pricing tables for declaring excess value, including the
pricing tables contained in the Declared Value of Carriage charts
on pages 70 and 136 of the UPS Rate and Service Guide updated on
July 8, 2013; and identify the agreements, terms, pricing tables,
or rates that were used to price coverage for loss or damage for
such Qualifying Shipments, and the customers to whom they applied

UPS contends that providing the package-specific information
requested in Interrogatory No. 1 would be excessively burdensome
in terms of both time, manpower, and costs. UPS argues that the
cost and burden of responding to the interrogatory on a package-
level basis, going back as far as 2008, would be overwhelming and
would take at least six months just to restore the archived tapes
as described above, at a cost of $120,000 in labor, requiring UPS
employees to take on responsibilities outside of their regular
duties.

Instead, UPS provided an estimate of the number of packages with
declared value over $300 that were shipped during the period June
30, 2013 to December 29, 2013. The estimate was based on a
methodology described in the sealed version of UPS's response.
Therefore, UPS contends, June 30, 2013 through December 29, 2013
is "the time period most likely to be deemed relevant if
Plaintiffs' claims are ultimately permitted to proceed on a
classwide basis."

In his Opinion and Order dated January 10, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/DW5Zvs from Leagle.com, Judge Whalen denied as to
Plaintiff's request for the production of package-specific
information going back as far as 2008 because producing package-
specific information going as far back as 2008 would be
extraordinarily burdensome, particularly at the stage of the
proceedings and granted as to the extent that the parties will
meet, confer, and devise a mutually agreeable methodology for
obtaining a sampling of the requested data for the time period
June 30, 2013 to December 29, 2013.  UPS will provide the data
thus sampled to Plaintiff, and UPS shall bear the cost of the
production.

If the parties are unable to agree on an acceptable sampling
methodology, then Plaintiff will have the option of requesting
that UPS produce the package-specific data for the period June 30,
2013 to December 29, 2013, with Plaintiff bearing the entire cost
of production.

Joe Solo and BleachTech L.L.C. are represented by Daniel R. Karon,
Esq. -- dkaron@karonllc.com -- KARON LLC -- Diana Gjonaj, Esq. --
dgjonaj@milberg.com -- and -- Paul F. Novak, Esq. --
pnovak@milberg.com -- MILBERG LLP

United Parcel Service Co. is represented by Bonnie L. Mayfield,
Esq. -- bmayfield@dykema.com -- DYKEMA GOSSETT -- Caitlin S.
Blythe, Esq. -- cblythe@mofo.com -- Gregory B. Koltun, Esq. --
gkoltun@mofo.com -- and -- Paul T. Friedman, Esq. --
pfriedman@mofo.com -- MORRISON AND FOERSTER


UNITED ROAD: Faces "Taylor" Suit in California Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Road
Services, Inc. The case is styled as CEDRIC TAYLOR ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF, ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND ON BEHALF OF THE
GENERAL PUBLIC, the Plaintiff, v. UNITED ROAD SERVICES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. BCV-17-100222 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 1, 2017).

United Road provides automobile transport services in the United
States and Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jamie Serb, Esq.
          THE TURLEY LAW FIRM
          7428 Trade St.
          San Diego, CA 92121


UNITED STATES: Class of PACER Users Certified in Veterans Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Ellen Segal Huvelle granted the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification filed in the lawsuit captioned NATIONAL
VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM, et al. v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, Case No. 1:16-cv-00745-ESH (D.D.C.).  The certified class
consists of:

     All individuals and entities who have paid fees for the use
     of PACER between April 21, 2010, and April 21, 2016,
     excluding class counsel in this case and federal government
     entities.

The Court certifies one class claim: that the fees charged for
accessing court records through the PACER system are higher than
necessary to operate PACER and, thus, violate the E-Government
Act, entitling plaintiffs to monetary relief from the excessive
fees under the Little Tucker Act.

Gupta Wessler PLLC and Motley Rice LLC are appointed as co-lead
class counsel.

Judge Huvelle directed the parties to file an agreed-upon proposed
form of class notice within 30 days of the date of the Order.  If
the parties cannot agree on a proposed form of class notice, then
they will file separate proposed forms within 20 days of the date
of the Order.

After a form of class notice has been determined by the Court,
class counsel will ensure that individual notice is provided to
all absent class members, who can be identified through reasonable
efforts using the records maintained by defendant, as required by
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2), within 90 days of the Court's order
approving the form of notice.  Class counsel will pay all costs
incurred to provide notice.

Parties will proceed according to the Scheduling Order issued by
the Court on January 24, 2017.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tkyN5rTt


UNITED STATES: Darweesh Moves to Certify Class Over Travel Ban
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Petitioners in the lawsuit entitled Hameed Khalid Darweesh, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; and, Haider
Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. DONALD TRUMP; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY ("DHS"); U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION ("CBP"); JOHN
KELLY, Secretary of DHS; KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, Acting Commissioner
of CBP; JAMES T. MADDEN, New York Field Director, CBP, Case No.
1:17-cv-00480-CBA (E.D.N.Y.), moves for class certification or
representative habeas action.

The Petitioners contend that they have valid entry documents for
the United States but are presently detained by the Respondents at
John F. Kennedy International Airport on the basis of an Executive
Order issued by President Donald Trump on January 27, 2017.  Mr.
Khalid Darweesh is an Iraqi national with a valid Special
Immigrant Visa to enter the United States, based on his work for
U.S. contractors and the U.S. consulate general in Erbil, Iraq.
Mr. Abdulkhaleq Alshawi is also an Iraqi national, who arrived in
the United States with an approved application to join his legal
permanent resident wife, who entered as a refugee, and their
child.

The Jan. 27 EO purports, inter alia, to suspend the U.S. Refugee
Admissions Program and categorically deny admission to the United
States for certain individuals from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan,
Libya, Somalia, and Yemen, which are designated as "countries of
concern."  The Executive Order is the sole basis for the
Respondents' custody over them, the Petitioners contend.

The Petitioners are represented by:

          Michael J. Wishnie, Esq.
          Muneer I. Ahmad, Esq.
          Elora Mukherjee, Esq.
          Amit Jain, Law Student Intern
          Aaron Korthuis, Law Student Intern
          Natalia Nazarewicz, Law Student Intern
          My Khanh Ngo, Law Student Intern
          Victoria Roeck, Law Student Intern
          Yusuf Saei, Law Student Intern
          Thomas Scott-Railton, Law Student Intern
          THE JEROME N. FRANK LEGAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION
          P.O. Box 209090
          New Haven, CT 06520-9090
          Telephone: (203) 432-4800
          Facsimile: (203) 432-1426
          E-mail: michael.wishnie@yale.edu
                  muneer.ahmad@yale.edu
                  elora.mukherjee@yale.edu

               - and -

          Omar C. Jadwat, Esq.
          Lee Gelernt, Esq.
          Cecillia D. Wang, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2600
          E-mail: ojadwat@aclu.org
                  lgelernt@aclu.org
                  cwang@aclu.org

               - and -

          Jennifer Chang Newell, Esq.
          Cody H. Wofsy, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
          39 Drumm Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 343-0770
          E-mail: jnewell@aclu.org
                  cwofsy@aclu.org

               - and -

          Mark Doss, Esq.
          Rebecca Heller, Esq.
          Julie Kornfeld, Esq.
          Stephen Poellot, Esq.
          INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT
          URBAN JUSTICE CENTER
          40 Rector St, 9th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (646) 602-5600
          E-mail: mdoss@refugeerights.org
                  bheller@refugeerights.org
                  jkornfeld@refugeerights.org
                  spoellot@refugeerights.org

               - and -

          Karen C. Tumlin, Esq.
          Nicholas Espiritu, Esq.
          Melissa S. Keaney, Esq.
          Esther Sung, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
          3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 639-3900
          E-mail: tumlin@nilc.org
                  espiritu@nilc.org
                  keaney@nilc.org
                  sung@nilc.org

               - and -

          Justin B. Cox, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
          1989 College Ave. NE
          Atlanta, GA 30317
          Telephone: (678) 404-9119
          E-mail: cox@nilc.org

               - and -

          Jonathan Polonsky, Esq.
          KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
          1114 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036-7703
          Telephone: (212) 775 8703
          E-mail: jpolonsky@kilpatricktownsend.com


UNITIL CORPORATION: Individual Claims Pending in "Bellermann"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Unitil Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 2, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that plaintiffs' individual
claims remain pending.

In early 2009, a putative class action complaint was filed against
Unitil's Massachusetts based utility, Fitchburg, in Massachusetts'
Worcester Superior Court (the "Court"), (captioned Bellermann et
al v. Fitchburg Gas and Electric Light Company). The Complaint
seeks an unspecified amount of damages, including the cost of
temporary housing and alternative fuel sources, emotional and
physical pain and suffering and property damages allegedly
incurred by customers in connection with the loss of electric
service during the ice storm in Fitchburg's service territory in
December 2008.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an order denying
class certification status in July 2016, though the plaintiffs'
individual claims remain pending. The Company continues to believe
that this suit is without merit and will continue to defend itself
vigorously.

The Town of Lunenburg filed a separate action in the Court arising
out of the December 2008 ice storm. The Court granted the
Company's Motion for Summary Judgment on all counts in December
2016 and dismissed the Town's complaint. The Court's decision
remains subject to a potential motion for reconsideration and
appeal.

The Company believes, based upon information furnished by counsel
and others, that the ultimate resolution of these suits will not
have a material impact on its financial position, operating
results or cash flows.

Unitil's principal business is the local distribution of
electricity and natural gas to approximately 184,200 customers
throughout its service territories in the states of New Hampshire,
Massachusetts and Maine.


UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE: Court Refuses to Certify "Ung" Suit Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Richard H. Kyle denied the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification and motion to strike untimely disclosed witness
filed in the lawsuit captioned Spencer Ung v. Universal Acceptance
Corporation, Case No. 15-127 (RHK/FLN) (D. Minn.).

In this action, Plaintiff Spencer Ung alleges that Defendant
Universal Acceptance Corporation made unauthorized calls to his
cell phone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Mr. Ung has moved for an order certifying this class:

     All persons in the United States to whose cellular telephone
     number [Universal] placed a non-emergency telephone call
     using the same software and/or equipment it used to call
     Plaintiff between July 1, 2012, and February 9, 2015, where
     the person was identified as a landlord or other reference
     in UAC's system.

In his memorandum opinion and order, Judge Kyle noted that while
Ung is correct that class certification "is normal in litigation
under" the TCPA, "there are no invariable rules regarding the
suitability of a particular case under. . . the TCPA for class
treatment," citing Gene & Gene LLC v. BioPay LLC, 541 F.3d 318,
328 (5th Cir. 2008).  "[T]he unique facts of each case generally
will determine whether certification is proper," id., and for the
reasons set forth above, the Court concludes the facts of this
case render it inappropriate for class-action treatment.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no
charge at https://goo.gl/oH6ABI from Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Michael S. Hilicki, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726-1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726-1093
          E-mail: Keith@KeoghLaw.com
                  mhilicki@keoghlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick J. Helwig, Esq.
          Peter F. Barry, Esq.
          BARRY & HELWIG, LLC
          2701 University Ave. SE, Suite 209
          Minneapolis, MN 55414-3236
          Telephone: (612) 379-8800
          Facsimile: (612) 379-8810
          E-mail: phelwig@lawpoint.com
                  pbarry@lawpoint.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Burt M. Rublin, Esq.
          Daniel J.T. McKenna, Esq.
          Matthew David Lamb, Esq.
          Philip N. Yannella, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS AND INGERSOLL, L.L.P.
          1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 864-8238
          Facsimile: (215) 864-9511
          E-mail: rublin@ballardspahr.com
                  mckennad@ballardspahr.com
                  lambm@ballardspahr.com
                  yannellap@ballardspahr.com

               - and -

          David L. Hartsell, Esq.
          Sarah A. Zielinski, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          77 West Wacker Dr., Suite 4100
          Chicago, IL 60601-1818
          Telephone: (312) 849-8100
          Facsimile: (312) 849-3690
          E-mail: dhartsell@mcguirewoods.com
                  szielinski@mcguirewoods.com

               - and -

          Patrick C. Summers, Esq.
          DEWITT, MACKALL, CROUNSE & MOORE, S.C.
          1400 AT&T Tower
          901 Marquette Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 305-1473
          Facsimile: (612) 305-1414
          E-mail: pcs@dewittmcm.com


USA PLUMBING: Overtime Pay Sought in "Molina" Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Yoel Molina and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
U.S.A. Plumbing & Septic, Inc., Antonio L. Garcia, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-20374, (S.D. Fla., January 26, 2017), requests
double damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants,
jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

U.S.A. Plumbing & Septic, Inc., is a sanitation company operating
within Miami-Dade County, owned by Antonio L. Garcia, and where
Plaintiff worked. Mr. Molina seeks unpaid overtime for hours
rendered in excess of 40 weekly.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      Email: zabogado@aol.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Deutsche See Files EUR11.9MM Diesel Emissions Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Schwartz, writing for Reuters, reports that fish distributor
Deutsche See is suing Volkswagen for misrepresenting a fleet of
vehicles it leased as environmentally friendly, becoming the first
major German customer to sue Europe's biggest carmaker over its
diesel-test cheating.

Volkswagen already faces numerous lawsuits from individual owners,
regulators, states and dealers, many of them in the form of class-
action cases in the United States.  This is the first case brought
by a corporate customer in its home market.

Bremerhaven-based Deutsche See, which leases about 500 vehicles
from Volkswagen, said it had been unable to reach an out-of-court
settlement.  Talks had broken down after Volkswagen replaced the
relevant managers with lawyers and PR managers.

German tabloid Bild am Sonntag said Deutsche See was suing for
11.9 million euros ($12.8 million).  Deutsche See was not
immediately reachable to comment on the sum.

"Deutsche See only went into partnership with VW because VW
promised the most environmentally friendly, sustainable mobility
concept," said a statement from Deutsche See, which won a
sustainability prize in 2010.

Volkswagen said on Feb. 5 it had not yet seen the charge and so
could not comment on it.

Deutsche See said it had filed its complaint for malicious
deception at the regional court in Braunschweig, near Volkswagen's
Wolfsburg headquarters.  The court was not reachable on Feb. 5 to
confirm it had received the case.

Volkswagen admitted in September 2015 it had used software to
cheat diesel-emissions tests in the United States.

The legal fallout has cost the company over 20 billion euros
($21.6 billion) so far and its former chief executive is being
investigated by German prosecutors for suspected fraud and market
manipulation.


WABTEC CORP: Busker Appeals Judgment to Ninth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------
John Busker filed on February 7, 2017, a Notice of Appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the judgment,
Order on Motion to Remand Case to State Court, and Order on Motion
for Summary Judgment, entered by the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California in the case captioned, JOHN BUSKER,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. WABTEC CORPORATION; MARK MARTIN; and DOES 1 through 100,
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-CV-08194-ODW-AFM (C.D. Cal.).

On September 11, 2015, Plaintiff John Busker filed the putative
class action in the Los Angeles Superior Court against Wabtec
Corporation and Mark Martin.  Busker and other putative class
members work on a public works project under the employment of
Wabtec.   Then, on October 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint in state court alleging causes of action for: (1)
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, (2) failure to pay
prevailing wages on a public works project, (3) failure to provide
accurate wage statements, (4) waiting time penalties under
California Labor Code section 203, (5) unfair business
competition, (6) declaratory relief, and (7) penalties pursuant to
California Labor Code section 2699.

On October 19, 2015, Defendants removed the action to federal
court.

Defendants move for summary judgment, arguing that Busker's claims
fail as a matter of law because prevailing wage requirements are
not applicable to his work for Defendants.

In his Order dated January 10, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/0THDl6 from Leagle.com, District Judge Otis D.
Wright, II of the United States District Court for the Central
District of California granted Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment.  Judge Wright, II found that as a matter of law Busker's
work for Wabtec does not entitle him to prevailing wages, and as
such, there is no need for discussion of his additional claims.
Defendants, the Court said, have proven that Busker was not
involved in a public works project involving fixed works or realty
on land.

John Busker is represented by Judith L. Camilleri, Esq. --
jcamilleri@donahoo.com -- Richard E. Donahoo, Esq. --
rdonahoo@donahoo.com -- and -- Sarah Louise Kokonas, Esq. --
skokonas@donahoo.com -- DONAHOO AND ASSOCIATES -- Aaron Lee Arndt,
Esq. -- aarndt@foleybezek.com -- Justin P. Karczag, Esq. --
jkarczag@foleybezek.com -- Kevin D. Gamarnik, Esq. --
kgamarnik@foleybezek.com -- Muhammed Talal Hussain, Esq. --
mhussain@foleybezek.com -- and -- Thomas Foley, Esq. --
tfoley@foleybezek.com -- FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE AND CURTIS LLP

WABTEC Corporation and Mark Martin are represented by Christopher
J. Kondon, Esq. -- christopher.kondon@klgates.com -- Patrick M.
Madden, Esq. -- patrick.madden@klgates.com -- Suzanne J. Thomas,
Esq. -- suzanne.thomas@klgates.com -- and -- Saman M. Rejali, Esq.
-- saman.rejali@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP


WASHINGTON: Sex Offenders' Records Remain Sealed, App. Ct. Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justice J. Robert Leach of the Washington Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial court's order enjoining disclosure of certain
special sex offender sentencing alternative (SSOSA) evaluations in
the case captioned, JOHN DOE G, JOHN DOE I, and JOHN DOE H, as
individuals and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Respondents, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Appellant, DONNA ZINK, a married woman, Appellant, Case No. 74354-
6-I, Consolidated with No. 74355-4-I (Wash App.).

The plaintiffs are current or former level I sex offenders who
underwent SSOSA evaluations. Level I offenders are those who the
Department's end-of-sentence review committee determines pose the
lowest risk to the public.

Doe filed the action to enjoin the Department from releasing
evaluations of level I sex offenders. The trial court first
granted a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary
injunction against the Department. It also allowed the plaintiffs
to use pseudonyms and to represent a certified class of compliant
level I offenders who have received SSOSA evaluations since 1990.

The trial court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs,
finding that RCW 71.05.445 and ch. 70.02 RCW exempt the
evaluations from disclosure. The court permanently enjoined the
Department from fulfilling Zink's request.

On appeal, the appellant contends that that the trial court
improperly sealed court records when it allowed the plaintiffs to
use pseudonyms. She asserts that the trial court had to hold a
hearing in open court and apply the five factors from Seattle
Times Co. v. Ishikawa before allowing the plaintiffs to use
pseudonyms.

In his Opinion dated January 23, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/GxfyE4 from Leagle.com, Judge Leach hold that the
trial court did not err in allowing the plaintiffs to proceed
under pseudonyms. And because the PRA does not prohibit plaintiffs
from suing as class representatives, the trial court did not err
in certifying the class.

Department of Corrections and Donna Zink are represented by:

      Timothy John Feulner,
      OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
      Po Box 40116,
      Olympia, WA, 98504-0116

John Doe G, John Doe I and John Doe H are represented by:

     Benjamin Blystad Gould, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
     E-mail: bgould@kellerrohrback.com

          - and -

     Prachi Vipinchandra Esq.
     Attorney at Law
     901 5th Ave Ste 630
     Seattle, WA, 98164-2086

          - and -

      Timothy John Feulner,
      OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
      Po Box 40116,
      Olympia, WA, 98504-0116


WAWONA FROZEN: Court Preliminary Approves Settlement in "Aguilar"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Court Dale A. Drozd of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California granted plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary approval of a class action settlement in the case
captioned, LUIS AGUILAR and VEDA RAMOS, individually and on behalf
of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WAWONA FROZEN FOODS,
and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-CV-00093-DAD-
EPG (E.D. Cal.).

The wage-and-hour class action was originally filed in this court
on January 20, 2015. The case is currently proceeding on
plaintiffs' second amended complaint (SAC), filed on October 2,
2015. Plaintiffs and the putative class members are employees and
former employees of Wawona Frozen Foods, which owns and operates
various food production facilities. Plaintiffs allege they are
non-exempt, hourly employees who were not paid for all required
pre- and post-shift work activities required for their jobs,
including "donning and doffing, waiting in line to sanitize, [and]
waiting in line to punch-in/out."

Plaintiffs' SAC presents the following nine causes of action: (1)
failure to pay the requisite minimum wage pursuant to various
California labor laws; (2) failure to compensate for all hours
worked in violation of California law; (3) failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of California law; (4) failure to provide meal
and rest breaks in accordance with California law; (5) penalties
in relation to unpaid wages and waiting time penalties pursuant to
California Labor Code Sections 201-03; (6) failure to properly
itemize pay stubs in violation of California law; (7) violations
of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et
seq.; (8) civil penalties available under California Labor Code
Section 2698, et seq.; and (9) violation of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C.
Section 201, et seq., for failing to pay overtime wages or
providing appropriate meal and rest breaks.

Plaintiff seeks certification of estimated to include
approximately 4,557 members. The proposed classes were determined
after mediation conducted in front of Honorable Patrick J. O'Hara
(retired) on May 3, 2016 and July 13, 2016. The mediation was
conducted after substantial discovery had been conducted by the
parties, including the exchange of disclosures, interrogatories,
document production, and a number of depositions.

The matter came before the court on December 6, 2016 for hearing
on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a class action
settlement. Attorneys Philip A. Downey and Robert W. Sink appeared
at the hearing on behalf of plaintiffs, and attorney Ian Wieland
appeared on behalf of defendant. In support of the pending motion,
plaintiffs submitted the declaration of Robert W. Sink, co-counsel
for the plaintiffs.

According to Attorney Silk, the maximum possible recovery class
members stood to recover, in attorney Sink's estimation, was
$6,175,955.00.  The total proposed settlement amount of $4.5
million, per attorney Sink, reflects approximately 75 percent of
the estimated total maximum possible recovery.

Attorney Sink declares he multiplied $9 per hour by 1.5, assuming
that the extra ten minutes would be paid at an overtime rate, and
determined that payment for ten minutes at that rate worked out to
$2.25 per workday.  The amount of $2.25 multiplied by 686,217
workdays equals $1,543,988.00, which would equal the maximum
expected recovery for the uncompensated job preparation time.
Concerning the claims about meal period violations, he determined
a maximum possible award of $4,631,967.00 for the meal/rest period
violations.

In the Order dated January 11, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/NAFnZD from Leagle.com, Judge Drozd found that the
settlement amount in the case to be fair for the purposes of
preliminary approval of the settlement. Plaintiffs' counsel Robert
W. Sink and Philip A. Downey are appointed as class counsel;
plaintiffs Luis Aguilar and Veda Ramos as appointed as class
representatives; and Rust Consulting is approved as claims
administrator.

The hearing for final approval of the proposed settlement is set
for May 16, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.

Veda Ramos, et al. are represented by:

      Philip A. Downey, Esq. -- and -
      Cory Lee, Esq.
      THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
            801 Noble Street, Suite 1005
      Anniston, Alabama 36201
      P. O. Box 626 (36202)
      Tel: (256)294-4129

            -- and --

      Robert W. Sink, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT W. SINK
      1600 John F Kennedy Blvd #503,
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215)729-3333

Wawona Frozen Foods is represented by:

      Howard A. Sagaser, Esq.
      Ian Blade Wieland, Esq.
      SAGASER, WATKINS & WIELAND, PC
      7550 N Palm Ave #100,
      Fresno, CA 93711, USA
      Tel: (559)421-7000


WELLS FARGO: Undocumented Immigrants Sue Over Student Loan Denial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Cowley, writing for The New York Times, reports that student
loan debt is not something most people covet, but for Mitzie
Perez, a 25-year-old university student in California, borrowing
money to cover her tuition bills would be a boon.

Ms. Perez is an undocumented immigrant who was illegally brought
to the United States from Guatemala in 1997, when she was 5 years
old.  She was sheltered from deportation by the Deferred Action
for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, an Obama-era
initiative that grants some protections to those who were brought
here as children.

But Ms. Perez, a junior majoring in gender and sexuality studies
at the University of California, Riverside, has never been able to
do something that most college students take for granted: obtain a
loan to finance her studies.  She sued a lender, Wells Fargo, that
turned her down, claiming that its policy of denying applicants
because of their immigration status is illegal.

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, is one of the first
to challenge common industry policies that make it difficult for
undocumented students to finance higher education.  The case was
filed in San Francisco federal court, with the California League
of United Latin American Citizens participating as a plaintiff.

"Our position is that banks are supposed to make these kinds of
loan decisions based on an assessment of risk," said
Ossai Miazad, a lawyer who is representing Ms. Perez.  "To put
that aside completely and deny people based on their immigration
status is discriminatory."

Most student borrowers rely on loans backed by the federal
government, but undocumented students are not eligible for federal
loans.  Those wishing to borrow must turn to private loans, which
generally carry fewer protections -- and, often, higher rates --
than federal loans.

No laws prohibit lenders from making loans to undocumented
borrowers who possess identifying information like a Social
Security number, which Ms. Perez has.  Still, this is an area
where banks tread very lightly.

Among five of the nation's largest issuers of private student
loans, two -- Discover Bank and Sallie Mae -- said they made loans
to undocumented students under some circumstances.

Discover "does not differentiate between borrowers based on DACA
status, and would loan to such individuals if they were otherwise
qualified," said Robert Weiss, a company spokesman.

Sallie Mae will make loans to qualifying students enrolled in DACA
if they have a co-signer who is a United States citizen or
permanent resident, said Rick Castellano, a company spokesman.

Those loans are typically more expensive than federal loans.  For
undergraduates, the interest rate on federal loans disbursed this
year is fixed at 3.76 percent. (The loans also carry an
origination fee of around 1 percent.) The rates that Discover and
Sallie Mae offer vary by borrower, but can top 11 percent.

At other banks, even high-interest student loans cannot be
obtained by undocumented borrowers.  Wells Fargo and PNC Bank said
they required student borrowers to have United States citizenship
or permanent resident status.  Citizens Bank did not provide
details on its policy.

"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 United States
citizens in obtaining student financing," Jason A. Vasquez, a
spokesman for Wells Fargo, said in response to Ms. Perez's
lawsuit.

Lenders face unique challenges in extending credit to borrowers
who are not in the country legally. Students with DACA status can
legally work in the United States, but that right could vanish if
the program is curtailed or eliminated.

Still, many banks, including Wells Fargo, will issue credit cards
to undocumented borrowers.  Ms. Perez has several credit cards
(from banks other than Wells Fargo), and uses them to help pay her
tuition -- at a much higher interest rate than a student loan
would carry.

The fate of the DACA program and the 750,000 young immigrants in
it is one of the thorniest immigration issues facing President
Trump.

Created in 2012 by President Barack Obama through an executive
action, the program has allowed hundreds of thousands of people
who were brought here as children to obtain jobs, pursue college
degrees and live openly in the country where they were raised.
Many are worried that they will lose those protections under
Mr. Trump, who has moved to upend America's immigration policies.

Ms. Perez said she was deeply anxious about the future of the DACA
program and how Mr. Trump's actions would affect her and her
family.  But she also has immediate concerns, like how to pay for
her next few months of schooling.

For the moment, she works as a community organizer and uses her
income and credit card loans to finance her education.

"I'm considering having to drop out or cut back, because I can't
make ends meet," Ms. Perez said.

Thomas A. Saenz, the president of the Mexican American Legal
Defense and Educational Fund, which helped Ms. Perez bring her
lawsuit, said expanding access to student loans was a critical
issue for thousands of people.

"We are hoping that businesses will understand that this type of
discrimination is not permissible -- regardless of how folks may
erroneously conclude that the rhetoric of the new administration
may change things," Mr. Saenz said.  "It doesn't change what anti-
discrimination laws provide."


WISCONSIN, USA: Jackson Seeks Certification of Prisoners Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled J.J., by and through his
next friend, Sakeena Jackson; et al., for themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Jon E. Litscher, in his official
capacity as Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections,
et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00047-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), move the Court
for class certification of this class:

     "All prisoners who are now, or in the future will be,
     confined at Lincoln Hills School for Boys and Copper Lake
     School for Girls."

The Plaintiffs also ask that their counsel be appointed to
represent the certified Class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yR5ZCkir

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Laurence J. Dupuis, Esq.
          Karyn L. Rotker, Esq.
          R. Timothy Muth, Esq.
          ACLU OF WISCONSIN FOUNDATION
          207 E. Buffalo Street, Suite 325
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 272-4032
          Facsimile: (414) 272-0182
          E-mail: ldupuis@aclu-wi.org
                  krotker@aclu-wi.org
                  tmuth@aclu-wi.org

               - and -

          Jessica Feierman, Esq.
          Karen Lindell, Esq.
          Marsha Levick, Esq.
          JUVENILE LAW CENTER
          The Philadelphia Building
          1315 Walnut Street, 4th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 625-0551
          E-mail: jfeierman@jlc.org
                  klindell@jlc.org
                  mlevick@jlc.org

               - and -

          Matthew J. Splitek, Esq.
          Rachel A. Graham, Esq.
          QUARLES & BRADY LLP
          33 East Main Street, Suite 900
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 251-5000
          E-mail: matthew.splitek@quarles.com
                  rachel.graham@quarles.com

               - and -

          Emily L. Stedman, Esq.
          Zachary T. Eastburn, Esq.
          QUARLES & BRADY LLP
          411 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2400
          Milwaukee, WI 53202-4426
          Telephone: (414) 277-5000
          E-mail: emily.stedman@quarles.com
                  zachary.eastburn@quarles.com


YUMMY SUSHI: Faces "Chen" Suit in Southern District of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yummy Sushi 1st Ave,
Inc. The case is titled as ZHEN MING CHEN, individually and on
behalf of all other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. YUMMY SUSHI 1ST AVE, INC. d/b/a YUMMY JAPANESE RESTAURANT,
corporate defendant; XONG YI ZHI, individual defendant; YI ZHI
ZHENG, individual defendant; and Lin "Jane" (First Name Unknown),
individual defendant, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00786
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 1, 2017).

Yummy Sushi is compact sushi bar serving tempura, teriyaki and
hibachi-grilled dishes.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


* Neil Gorsuch Criticized Securities Suits in Judicial Opinions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hazel Bradford, writing for Pensions & Investments, reports that
Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch's legal positions are
reassuring employer groups that they will have a pro-business ally
critical of regulators and investor lawsuits if he is confirmed to
replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Still, legal experts say, his reputation for balance does not
guarantee it.  Mr. Gorsuch, President Donald Trump said as he
announced the nomination Jan. 31, is "a "judge's judge' who
decides cases based on the law, not personal policy preferences.
He is not afraid to reach results contrary to his own policy
views."

And as the current court's youngest justice at 49, Mr. Gorsuch
would have a say in plenty of issues before the Supreme Court for
many years to come.

Some of the pro-business optimism comes from legal opinions
Mr. Gorsuch has written in the last 10 years as a judge in the
10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.  In those, he has
disagreed with the Supreme Court precedent for deferring to
federal agencies on interpretation of laws and complained that it
is too easy for investors to bring securities fraud claims.

The Supreme Court's position that federal agencies'
interpretations of ambiguous statutes should prevail, known as
Chevron deference based on a 1984 decision in Chevron vs. Natural
Resources Defense Council, was criticized by Mr. Gorsuch in a 2016
concurring opinion.  In that opinion, he suggested that it was
time to reconsider such deference, which would make it easier for
employers and others to push back.

"Elephant in the room'

Calling it "an elephant in the room," he went on to say that in
the opinion, Chevron and a similar case "permit executive
bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and
legislative power and concentrate federal power in a way that
seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution
of the framers' design.  Maybe the time has come to face the
behemoth."  Federal regulations have gotten so complicated that it
takes "an army of perfumed lawyers and lobbyists" to keep up, he
wrote.

David Levine, a principal at Groom Law Group, a Washington firm
specializing in ERISA, said that "in the benefit context, given
the significant number of administrative rules and
interpretations, including enforcement actions by regulators, such
a change could make efforts to challenge agency actions and rules
more likely to succeed."

Still, said Nancy Ross, a Chicago-based partner at law firm Mayer
Brown, while Mr. Gorsuch will be wary of regulatory burdens on
employers, "he will not uniformly side with the employer or plan
sponsor."

Billy Corriher, a legal expert with the progressive advocacy group
Center for American Progress in Washington, worries that if
confirmed, Mr. Gorsuch's position on Chevron "would upset the
long-standing separation of power between the judiciary and the
political branches of government," and give unelected judges more
power to strike down regulations.

Noting that Mr. Gorsuch has criticized using litigation for social
agendas, "he seems to be fine with corporations using lawsuits to
strike down laws if they do not want to comply,"
Mr. Corriher said.

Mr. Gorsuch has often criticized the proliferation of securities
lawsuits in his judicial opinions and in legal writings from his
time in private practice.  An August 2014 opinion from the appeals
court bench made it harder to bring securities cases about
misleading statements by issuers.  In MHC Mutual Conversion Fund
LP et al. vs. Sandler O'Neill & Partners LP et al., investors were
rebuffed in seeking to establish liability by United Western
Bancorp Inc. over projections in a 2009 stock offering.

"Establishing that an opinion about the future failed to pan out
in the end may go some way to meeting that standard (for pursuing
such cases) but it doesn't go all the way," wrote Mr. Gorsuch. "To
establish liability for an opinion about the future, more is
required."

As a partner in the Washington office of law firm Kellogg, Huber,
Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel PLLC until 2005, Mr. Gorsuch served a
diverse clientele, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, on
whose behalf he filed two briefs arguing to make it harder to file
securities class actions.  Such cases, he complained in a 2005
paper, largely lead to settlements that enrich lawyers as much, or
more, than investors.

In that paper written for the Washington Legal Foundation while he
was at the law firm, he argued that while securities class actions
have offered some social benefits, "experience has shown that,
like many other well-intended social experiments, they are not
exempt from the law of unintended consequences, having brought
with them vast social costs never imagined by their early
promoters.  Today, economic incentives unique to securities
litigation encourage class-action lawyers to bring meritless
claims and prompt corporate defendants to pay dearly to settle
such claims.  These same incentives operate to encourage
significant attorneys' fee awards even in cases where class
members receive little meaningful compensation. And the problem is
widespread," argued Mr. Gorsuch, who recommended a bidding process
to reduce lawyers' fees, and more enforcement by courts of
securities law restrictions on "professional plaintiffs" that
would help institutional investors "from becoming spread too
thin."

Represented institutions

Mr. Gorsuch has also represented institutional investors before
the Supreme Court in two related cases criticizing the dynamics of
class-action settlements that favor some class members over
others.

In one, arguing for the Council of Institutional Investors and the
lead plaintiffs, the $306.6 billion California Public Employees'
Retirement System, Sacramento, and the $186.2 billion Florida
State Board of Administration, Tallahassee, Mr. Gorsuch said
class-action settlements prevented them from objecting to
settlements that benefited lead class members, counsel and
defendants at the expense of other class members.  His successful
1999 petition for Supreme Court review ended in a tie with the
lower court judgment affirmed.  But in a related case three years
later in which Mr. Gorsuch wrote the amicus brief, a 6-3 vote gave
CII and its public pension fund members standing to object to
settlements.

Shaped by clerkships

His opinions have also been shaped by his clerkship for a District
of Columbia circuit judge and for Supreme Court justices Byron
White and Anthony Kennedy, and his time as principal deputy
associate attorney general from 2005 to 2006.  After being
appointed by President George W. Bush to the 10th circuit
appellate court in 2006, Mr. Gorsuch was approved by the Senate in
a unanimous voice vote, which the current Senate is not likely to
repeat, given vocal resistance from the Democratic party on Feb.
6, 11 of whom approved him in 2006.

If confirmed by March, Mr. Gorsuch will have a role in deciding
whether church-affiliated retirement plan sponsors are covered by
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a decision that could
have wide implications for all benefit plans.

The case, which consolidates three cases brought by plan sponsors
Dignity Health, Advocate Health Care and Saint Peter's Healthcare,
has already sparked interest because of the unexpected position of
federal regulators.

Those regulators on Jan. 24 joined the U.S. solicitor general"s
amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to overturn lower court
rulings that ERISA does apply to church-affiliated defined benefit
plan sponsors.

Arguments will be heard March 27, and a decision is expected
before the Supreme Court term ends in June.

This article originally appeared in the February 6, 2017 print
issue as, "Employer groups happy with high court nominee".



                            *********

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  * * *