CAR_Public/170215.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


           Wednesday, February 15, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 33



                            Headlines

ABILTO INC: Faces "Sandoval" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ACT FAST: "Young" Suit Seeks Certification of Drivers Class
ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Sued for Inflating Prices for Generic Ursodiol
AKAL SECURITY: "Gelber" Suit Seeks to Recertify ASO Class
ALDI INC: Faces "Garcia" Wage-and-Hour Suit in Rhode Island

ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Defends Securities Suit in Connecticut
ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suit in New York Dismissed
AMERICAN CHORE: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
AMERIGROUP CORP: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Pichardo" Suit Says
APPLE INC: Intentionally Disabled FaceTime, "Grace" Suit Says

APPLIED MATERIALS: Judge Tigar Certifies Settlement Classes
ARCHON INC: Patel Appeals Ruling in "Saiyed" Suit to 2nd Circuit
ASURION INSURANCE: Mix Appeals D. Ariz. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
AUDI AG: "Greenfield" Class Suit Consolidated in MDL 2672
AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Vacates Dismissal of Securities Suit

AVIS RENT: Faces "Sauberman" Suit in New Jersey
BIG APPLE: Faces "Marett" Class Suit in New York
BIG LOTS: Certification of Classes Sought in "Hubbs" Suit
BLACK ANGUS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Sealey" Suit Says
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: McCarthy Attorney Analyzes Court Ruling

BORDEAUX LLC: "Ohana" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
BRAND PLUMBING: Class Certification Granted in "McFeeters" Suit
BRASSELER U.S.A.: "Orrington" Suit Seeks Certification of Classes
BRIAN COLLIER: "Smith" Suit Seeks Certification of Inmate Class
CAC FINANCIAL: Faces "Hatch" Suit in Eastern District of New York

CANADIAN AIR: Court Okays Air Cargo Class Action Payout Protocol
CBOE HOLDINGS: Appeal in Suit vs. Bats Global Remains Pending
CBOE HOLDINGS: Bats Awaits Order on Lanier's Rehearing Petition
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Tech. Managers' OT
CHEVROLET INC: Ohio App. Affirms Stay of "Seyfried" Suit

CIRCLE TRANSPORT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Truck Drivers' Wages
CKE RESTAURANTS: Faces Antitrust Class Action in California
COLUCID PHARMACEUTICALS: Being Sold to Cheaply, Suit Claims
COUSIN VINNY'S: Brandenburg Seeks Certification of Drivers Class
CRAZY HORSE: Seeks 4th Circuit Review of Ruling in "Degidio" Suit

DALLAS, TX: Retirees Sue Police Pension System for Denied Access
DERMA SCIENCES: Faces "Rabadi" Suit Over Proposed Sale to Integra
DETROIT, MI: Frefighters Lose Discrimination Claims
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces "Mustafaev" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
DOLLAR TREE: Court Takes Class Certification Bid Under Submission

DR. PEPPER: Graveyard Shift Workers File Class Suit
EMERY FEDERAL: Palombaros Seek to Certify Class
ERNST & YOUNG: Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments in October
FARMERS GROUP: Faces "Grigson" Suit Over Smart Plan Auto Program
FINANCE SYSTEM: "Boucher" Suit Seeks Certification of Class

FINTEGRA HOLDINGS: Dulhanty Appeals Ruling to Minn. Appeals Court
FIRST NATIONAL: Class Certification Hearing Reset for May 17
FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Lafrenier Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
GC SERVICES: Nationwide Class Certified in "Macy" FDCPA Suit
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Being Sold Too Cheaply, "Chopp" Suit Says

GOSPEL FOR ASIA: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Order in "Dickson" Suit
GREEN BROOK: "Brooking" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
GROVETOWN, GA: Implements Changes After Water Bill Class Action
GRUBHUB HOLDINGS: Class Certification in "Souran" Suit Granted
HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Judge Refuses to Stay Suit Over Bail System

HD SUPPLY: "Weisberg" Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
HOMEAWAY INC: Seeks 5th Cir. Review of Decision in "Arnold" Suit
HUNTER INDUSTRIES: King Suit Seeks Certification of Class
HUNTER WARFIELD: Faces "Lasri" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
HUNTINGTON NATIONAL: Powell Appeals S.D.W. Va. Ruling to 4th Cir.

IMAGE LINE: "Thomas" Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification
INDIANA: Lawmaker Seeks to Limit BMV Class Action Attorney Fees
INLAND BANCORP: iMove Chicago Seeks Class Certification
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces "Beltran" Suit in S.D. of Cal.
JPMORGAN CHASE: Deprives Jurors of Full Payment, Suit Claims

KEYNETICS INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Silverstein" Suit
LIBERTY MUTUAL: "Metrow" Suit Seeks to Certify Employees Class
MARKETECH: JT's Frames Files Amended Class Certification Motion
MARYLAND, USA: Koenig Appeals From Ruling in "Jarboe" Class Suit
METTRUM: Health Canada to Spot Check Medical Marijuana

MIDLAND CREDIT: Pirkles File Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
MOMOIP LLC: Faces "Marett" Class Action in New York
MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces "McKenna" Suit in S.D. of Cal.
MONSANTO COMPANY: "Martin" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
MORGAN AND MORGAN: Faces "Vadnais" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey

MICHIGAN: "McBride" Suit Seeks Certification of MDOC Deaf Class
MUFG UNION BANK: Branch Service Manager Files Wage and Hour Suit
MULLOOLY & JEFFREY: "Gadime" Suit Seeks Certification of Classes
NEW ORLEANS, LA: Class Certification Sought in "Cain" Suit
NEW ZEALAND: MSD May Face Class Action Over Pension Schemes

NORTHSTAR LOTTERY: Faces Class Action in Illinois
NOVO NORDISK: Inflated Diabetic Drug Prices, "Chaires" Suit Says
PANDA RESTAURANT: Site Inaccessible to Screen Readers, Suit Says
PEET'S COFFEE: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Auto Renewals
PIER 1 IMPORTS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit

PRECISION DRILLING: Faces "Haggard" Wage-and-Hour Class Suit
PREMIER HEALTHCARE: FCRA and FLSA Class Certified in "Criddell"
PTZ INSURANCE: "Legg" Suit Seeks Certification of Classes
RAYMOURS FURNITURE: Faces "Guldmann" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
RESTAURANT.COM INC: Shelton Appeals Decision to Third Circuit

RITE AID: Discovery in "Indergit" Class Suit Remains Ongoing
RITE AID: "Hall" Wage-and-Hour Suit Set for Trial in January 2018
RITE AID: "Herring" Securities Suit Still Stayed in Pennsylvania
ROGERS & CARTER: Aberchrombie's Class Certification Bid Denied
SARASOTA COUNTY, FL: Bus Drivers Class Certified in "Leo" Suit

SEPHORA USA: Faces "Marett" Class Suit in S.D.N.Y
SHIVA ESTATE: Court Denied Class Certification in "Shuler" Suit
SHOP VAC: Judge Requires Two Settlement Objectors to Post Bonds
SHOPPERLOCAL LLC: Class Certification Sought in "Cunningham" Suit
SILVER DOLLAR: Exotic Dancers Class Certified in "Murray" Suit

SMITH & NEPHEW: Hip Implant Class Action Can Proceed
SOUTH AFRICA: Families Shocked Over Solidarity Class Action
T-MOBILE USA: Faces "Salgado" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
T-MOBILE USA: Rahmany Appeals W.D. Wash. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: 2nd Cir. Revives Actos Class Suit

TEXAS LAW: Crowley Files Appeal in Texas Supreme Court
TIME WARNER: Says Race Discrimination Claims Too Vague to Stand
TINDER: 11th Cir. Reinstates Dating App Fees Class Action
TRIPOINT GLOBAL: Faces "Blank" Suit Over Hamilton Broadway Show
TRS STAFFING: Williams Seeks Conditional Certification of Class

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Sends "Wilson" to Arbitration
UNITED STATES: HHS Loses Bid to Dismiss Medicare Class Action
UNITED STATES: Marroquin-Perez Files Suit v. Atty. General
UNITY BUILDING: Faces "Segura" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
UNIVERSAL PROPERTY: Certification of Settlement Class Sought

US BANK: Defending Multiple Class Actions in New York
US RX: MD Medical Suit Seeks Certification of Three Classes
VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT: Mission City Appeals Order in "Golan" Suit
WALGREENS BOOTS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Illinois
WALGREENS BOOTS: Shareholders Drop Consolidated Actions in Ill.

WALGREENS BOOTS: M.D. Pa. Suit Over Rite Aid Merger Still Stayed
WIRTZ REALTY: Bid for Class Certification Taken Under Advisement
XTO ENERGY: Class Certification Bid Denied in Mobley Lumber Suit
YAHOO INC: Insurance Agent Files Data Theft Class Action
YAHOO INC: Faces Another Data Breach Class Action in California

YOUNG SHING: Faces "Escamilla" Suit in E.D.N.Y.

* Securities Class Action Filings Hit Record High in 2016
* Wage-and-Hour Class Actions Down in 2016, Report Shows
* Reed Smith Attorney Balks at Class Action Cy Pres Abuse
* N.Y., Calif. Courts May Lead Way in Class Certifications


                            *********


ABILTO INC: Faces "Sandoval" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Sandoval, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public v. AbilTo Inc., AbilTo LLC, and
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC648675 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
January 30, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime compensation and pay for all hours worked, failure
to reimburse business expenses, failure to provide meal, rest
periods, and other protections provided to non-exempt employees
under California law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a "Coach" to help
deliver proprietary cognitive behavioral therapy programs.

The Defendants operate a behavioral healthcare company in
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.D. Henderson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF J. D. HENDERSON
      215 North Marengo Avenue, Suite 322
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Telephone: (424) 254-8870
      E-mail: JDLAW@charter.net

         - and -

      Asaf Agazanof, Esq.
      ASAF LAW APC
      11150 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1080
      Los Angeles, CA 90064
      Telephone: (626) 529-5891
      Facsimile: (888) 254-0561


ACT FAST: "Young" Suit Seeks Certification of Drivers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ERIC YOUNG, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ACT FAST
DELIVERY OF WEST VIRGINIA, INC.; ACT FAST DELIVERY, INC.; HOME
CARE PHARMACY, LLC d/b/a a variety of entities including but not
limited to OMNICARE OF NITRO and/or OMNICARE OF NITRO, WEST
VIRGINIA; COMPASS HEALTH SERVICES, LLC d/b/a a variety of entities
including but not limited to OMNICARE OF MORGANTOWN and/or
OMNICARE OF MORGANTOWN, WEST VIRGINIA; OMNICARE, INC.; and other
JOHN DOE, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-09788 (S.D.W.Va.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to conditionally certify a class of:

   "all current and former delivery drivers classified as
   independent contractors who performed work for Defendants in
   West Virginia during the three-year period before the filing
   of the original Complaint1 up to the date the court authorizes
   notice".

The sole issue presented by the Motion is whether Plaintiffs have
met their lenient showing for the Court to conditionally certify
the case as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and authorize the dispatch of notice of the pendency of the
suit to workers similarly situated to Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs
do not seek a ruling on the merits.

The Plaintiffs sued Defendants to collect unpaid wages and
overtime owed to them and the class of similarly situated workers.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Y0obdB1f

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James A. Kirby III, Esq.
          Carrie Goodwin Fenwick, Esq.
          James A. Kirby II, Esq.
          GOODWIN & GOODWIN, LLP
          300 Summers Street, Suite 1500
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 346-7000
          Facsimile: 304) 344 9692
          E-mail: cgf@goodwingoodwin.com
                  jak@goodwingoodwin.com

Counsel for Act Fast Delivery of WV and Act Fast Delivery, Inc.:

          Eric E. Kinder, Esq.
          John B. Hardison, Esq.
          SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC
          300 Kanawha Boulevard, E.
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 340 3800
          Facsimile: (304) 340 3801
          E-mail: jhardison@spilmanlaw.com
                  ekinder@spilmanlaw.com

Counsel for Home Care Pharmacy, LLC; Compass Health Services, LLC;
and Omnicare, Inc.:

          Mariah H. McGrogan, Esq.
          Marla N. Presley, Esq.
          Mariah H. McGrogan, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          1001 Liberty Avenue, Suite 1000
          Pittsburg, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 232 0404
          Facsimile: (412) 232 3441
          E-mail: Marla.Presley@jacksonlewis.com
                  Mariah.McGrogan@Jacksonlewis.com


ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Sued for Inflating Prices for Generic Ursodiol
--------------------------------------------------------------
NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, individually and on behalf of a
class of all those similarly situated v. Actavis Holdco U.S.,
Inc., Lannett Company, Inc. and Epic Pharma, LLC, Case No. 2:17-
cv-00629 (D.N.J., January 30, 2017), is an action for damages as a
result of the Defendants and co-conspirators' overarching
anticompetitive scheme in the market for generic ursodiol or
ursodeoxycholic acid to artificially inflate prices through
unlawful agreements between and among would-be competitors.

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
      David R. Buchanan, Esq.
      Jennifer R. Scullion, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS LLP
      550 Broad Street, Suite 920
      Newark, NJ  07102
      Telephone: (973) 639-9100
      Facsimile: (973) 639-9393
      E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com
              dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com
              jscullion@seegerweiss.com

         - and -

      Randall J. Baron, Esq.
      David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
      Edward M. Gergosian, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com
              DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com
              EGergosian@rgrdlaw.com


AKAL SECURITY: "Gelber" Suit Seeks to Recertify ASO Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ELLIOT GELBER, and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AKAL SECURITY, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-23170-FAM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court re-certify case as a Nationwide Collective Action.

On August 15, 2016, Plaintiff Gelber filed his motion to certify a
nationwide collective action consisting of all:

   "Air Security Officers (ASOs) employed by Akal. At the time,
   there were over a dozen opt-ins, all based at Akal's Miami
   facility".

On October 27, 2016, the Court granted the motion and certified
the collective action but limited its scope to Miami-based ASOs
because "the complaint fails to establish a reasonable basis to
believe that there are other employees, outside of the state of
Florida, who desire to opt in to this litigation. There are
currently approximately 20 plaintiffs and opt-ins to this
collective action, all based in Miami.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YuqNka5Y

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew Sarelson, Esq.
          KAPLAN YOUNG & MOLL PARRON
          600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1715
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 330 6090
          E-mail: msarelson@kymplaw.com


ALDI INC: Faces "Garcia" Wage-and-Hour Suit in Rhode Island
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a Rhode Islander claims in a
federal class action in Providence, R.I., that the ALDI
supermarket giant violates U.S. labor laws on overtime by making
employees work through their breaks.

The case is captioned, Julio C. Garcia, individually and on behalf
of a class of persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALDI, Inc.,
ALDI Inc. (Connecticut), and John Doe Companies, 1 through 40,
inclusive, Defendants Case No. 1:17-cv-00047 (D. R.I., February 2,
2017).

Plaintiff's attorneys:

     V. Edward Formisano, Esq.
     Michael D. Pushee, Esq.
     FORMISANO & COMPANY P.C.
     100 Midway Place, Suite 1
     Cranston, RI 02920-5707
     Tel: 401-944-9691
     Fax: 401-944-9695
     E-mail: edf@formisanoandcompany.com
             mpushee@formisanoandcompany.com


ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Defends Securities Suit in Connecticut
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is defending a securities class
action lawsuit pending in Connecticut, according to the Company's
January 4, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2016.

Soliris(R) (eculizumab) is the first and only therapeutic approved
for patients with either paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria
(PNH), a life-threatening and ultra-rare genetic blood disorder,
or atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS), a life-threatening
and ultra-rare genetic disease. PNH and aHUS are two disorders
resulting from chronic uncontrolled activation of the complement
component of the immune system.

Several securities class action lawsuits have been filed against
the Company and former officers in federal district court alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, promulgated
thereunder, alleging that defendants made misstatements and/or
omissions concerning the Company's sales of Soliris.

On December 29, 2016, a second shareholder filed a putative class
action against the Company and certain former employees in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging that
defendants made misrepresentations and omissions about Soliris
between February 10, 2014 and December 9, 2016.  The litigation is
in the early stages, and defendants have not yet responded to the
complaint.

Given the early stages of this litigation, management does not
currently believe that a loss related to this matter is probable
or that the potential magnitude of such loss or range of loss, if
any, can be reasonably estimated.

Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on serving patients with devastating and ultra-rare
disorders through the innovation, development and
commercialization of life-transforming therapeutic products.


ALEXION PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suit in New York Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 4, 2017, for the
quarter period ended September 30, 2016, that a shareholder class
action lawsuit filed in New York was voluntarily dismissed.

Soliris(R) (eculizumab) is the first and only therapeutic approved
for patients with either paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria
(PNH), a life-threatening and ultra-rare genetic blood disorder,
or atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome (aHUS), a life-threatening
and ultra-rare genetic disease. PNH and aHUS are two disorders
resulting from chronic uncontrolled activation of the complement
component of the immune system.

Several securities class action lawsuits have been filed against
the Company and former officers in federal district court alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, promulgated
thereunder, alleging that defendants made misstatements and/or
omissions concerning the Company's sales of Soliris.

On November 17, 2016, a shareholder filed a putative class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
While the litigation was in the early stages, and before
defendants had responded to the complaint, on December 30, 2016
plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal and dismissed all
claims without prejudice.

Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on serving patients with devastating and ultra-rare
disorders through the innovation, development and
commercialization of life-transforming therapeutic products.


AMERICAN CHORE: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ahmad Kholbekov, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. American Chore Services d/b/a City Choice
Home Care Services, Case No. 501883/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., January
30, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
employees for all hours worked, time and one half the minimum wage
rate for hours worked in excess of 40 in a work week, spread of
hours pay for the days in which Plaintiff and the Class Members
worked in excess of 10 hours, and for failure to provide pay stubs
and other wage notices that conform with the requirements of the
New York Labor Law ("NYLL") and applicable regulations.

Ahmad Kholbekov worked as a Home Health Aide and a Home Attendant
for the Defendant.

American Chore Services provides home health care to frail elderly
individuals who live in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
      NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, PC
      1517 Voorhies Ave., 2nd Floor
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 808-2224
      E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


AMERIGROUP CORP: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Pichardo" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ronni Pichardo, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated v. Amerigroup Corporation, Case No. 2:17-cv-00276 (S.D.
Nev., January 30, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
using an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a message
without prior express consent of the called party.

Amerigroup Corporation provides insurance coverage for millions of
seniors, people with disabilities, low-income families and other
state and federally sponsored beneficiaries, and federal
employees, making it the nation's largest provider of health care
for public programs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexis Wood, Esq.
      Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
      Kas Gallucci, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
      651 Arroyo Drive
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 696-9006
      Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
      E-mail: alexis@consumersadvocates.com
              ron@consumersadvocates.com
              kas@consumersadvocates.com


APPLE INC: Intentionally Disabled FaceTime, "Grace" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a new class action in San Jose, Calif., claims Apple
intentionally disabled its FaceTime video-calling service for
millions of early-model iPhone users as part of a scheme to save
the company money.

Lead plaintiff Christina Grace sued the iPhone maker in federal
court on February 2, claiming the tech giant manufactured a
"FaceTime break" in April 2014 that made the service inoperable
for those not running the newer iOS 7 operating system.

Apple had found a cheaper way to relay video calls on iOS 7 after
it lost a patent suit in 2012, which had forced it to spend
millions of dollars each month relaying FaceTime calls through a
costlier method, according to the lawsuit.

"Rather than revealing the truth about the cause and impetus of
the FaceTime break, Apple claimed that FaceTime had suffered a
'bug,' and that to regain the ability to use FaceTime, users
needed to transition their device to iOS 7," the 36-page complaint
states.

Grace says internal Apple emails "eliminate any doubt" that the
company intentionally "broke" the service as part of a scheme to
save money.

Prior to November 2012, nearly all FaceTime calls were connected
through a peer-to-peer method. But that changed on Nov. 7, 2012,
when a jury found Apple's peer-to-peer method infringed on patents
held by Virnet X Inc., according to Grace's complaint.

Shifting all FaceTime calls to the relay method was costing Apple
millions of dollars each month in server costs. That's why it
devised a new peer-to-peer method that could only work on its new
iOS 7 operating system, according to the suit.

Grace claims Apple engineers caused a digital certificate needed
to run FaceTime on iOS 6 to prematurely expire on April 16, 2014,
effectively disabling the video calling service for iPhone 4 and
iPhone 4S users not running the new operating system.

Installing iOS 7 was problematic for millions of iPhone users,
Grace says, because the new system was essentially incompatible
with older devices.

"For iPhone4 and iPhone 4S users, for example, the coerced move to
iOS 7 subjected their devices to slowness, system crashes, erratic
behavior and/or the elimination of their ability to use critical
functions on their iPhone," the complaint states.

Grace says Apple ignored the warnings of a former Apple manager,
who sent emails voicing concerns about the move and its
implications. His warnings "fell on deaf ears," the plaintiff
says.

The iPhone 4, launched in June 2010, was the first model to offer
the FaceTime video calling feature, and the new capability was
heavily emphasized in Apple's marketing and advertising campaigns,
according to the lawsuit.

The complaint features screenshots from ads of people
communicating via FaceTime, and cites Apple's advertising slogan
of "FaceTime -- just one more thing that makes an iPhone an
iPhone."

"In a disturbing juxtaposition to Apple's marketing campaigns that
highlighted the life-changing importance of FaceTime to separated
families, deployed soldiers, hearing-impaired individuals and
countless others, Apple advanced its financial interests by
intentionally breaking FaceTime for millions of its users," Grace
says in her complaint.

After a "swift and substantial" negative public response to the
"FaceTime break," Grace says Apple lied about its motives for
disabling FaceTime and blamed the problem on a "bug."

The lawsuit claims Apple's scheme essentially forced millions of
iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S users to stop using Facetime or transition
to a new operating system and "accept the significant reduction in
functionality" that would result.

Grace accuses Apple of trespass to chattels, which holds parties
liable for interfering with one's lawful possession of property,
and violating California's unfair competition law.

She seeks class certification, restitution, disgorgement and
punitive damages. She is represented by Allan Steyer of Steyer
Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith of San Francisco.

Apple's press team did not immediately return a phone call seeking
comment on February 3, morning.

The case is captioned, CHRISTINA GRACE, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLE, INC.,
Defendant, Case 5:17-cv-00551-NC (N.D. Cal., February 2, 2017).

Attorneys for Christina Grace and Proposed Lead Counsel for the
Class:

     Allan Steyer Esq.
     Jill M. Manning Esq.
     D. Scott Macrae Esq.
     STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
     One California Street, Suite 300
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Telephone: (415) 421-3400
     Facsimile: (415) 421-2234
     E-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com
             jmanning@steyerlaw.com
             smacrae@bamlawlj.com

          - and -

     Bruce L. Simon Esq.
     Daniel L. Warshaw Esq.
     Alexander L. Simon Esq.
     PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
     44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Telephone: (415) 433-9000
     Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
     E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com
             dwarshaw@pswlaw.com
             asimon@pswlaw.com


APPLIED MATERIALS: Judge Tigar Certifies Settlement Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MARIA STEWART, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
APPLIED MATERIALS, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-
02632-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon, Jon S. Tigar entered an order:

   1. granting preliminary approval of a settlement;

   2. conditionally certifying a proposed settlement classes
      consisting of all individuals who:

      (1) (a) have been participants or beneficiaries in the Plan
      at any time during the Class Period; (b). . . while
      enrolled in the Plan received Speech Therapy to treat ASD
      during the Class Period and had an Autism diagnosis at the
      time of that Speech Therapy; and (c) were either age six or
      older at the time of receipt of that Speech Therapy or were
      age five or younger and had exceeded 60 Speech Therapy
      visits in a calendar year; and either

        (i) submitted claims for reimbursement of Speech Therapy
        to the Plan and the Claims Processor denied those claims
        ("Class One"); or (ii) did not submit a claim to the Plan
        and were not otherwise reimbursed for the therapy (Class
        Two"); or,

      (2) are the parents and guardians of the individuals

      (3) are the Successors-in-Interest of the individuals;

   3. approving a proposed notice program, and the content of the
      notices;

   4. approving that the proposed opt-out and objection
      procedures be undertaken;

   5. appointing Maria Stewart as class representative and Kantor
      & Kantor, LLP as class counsel;

   6. appointing Nickerson & Associates LLC as the Class
      Administrator.

   7. setting the final approval hearing for July 13, 2017 at
      2:00 p.m.

Within thirty days of the date of the order, the Defendant shall
provide Nickerson & Associates LLC the names and contact
information of class members. Within ten days of Nickerson's
receipt of this information, Nickerson shall mail notice packets
to all class members. Class members shall have sixty days from the
date of this mailing to file a claim form, request exclusion, or
object to the settlement. Plaintiff shall file her motion for
final approval of the settlement, and the application for
attorneys' fees, costs, expenses, and service awards, no later
than May 26, 2017.

As described by Plaintiff, "[t]his case concerns Defendant Applied
Materials Welfare Benefit Plan's ("defendant" or "the Plan")
unreasonable and unlawful denials of coverage for plan
participants and beneficiaries with a need for medically necessary
speech therapy." ("Second Amended Complaint"). Plaintiff alleges
that Defendant breached its fiduciary duties under ERISA, to
"fairly and properly construe and interpret its plans' language
for the 'exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants
and beneficiaries' when it denied coverage for speech therapy to
individuals with Autism and autism spectrum disorders (ASD)."

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant employed "unlawful
plan exclusions" to deny "health care claims totaling many
thousands of dollars as well as [to dissuade] parents from seeking
treatment for their children." The policies in question: "violate
the Federal Mental Health Policy and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAE)
provisions of ERISA because they constitute separate treatment
limitations applicable only with respect to mental health
treatment."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rrHQjEj9


ARCHON INC: Patel Appeals Ruling in "Saiyed" Suit to 2nd Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Rashid Patel filed an appeal from the District Court's
electronic order dated December 27, 2016, entered in the lawsuit
titled Saiyed v. Archon, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-6862, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central
Islip).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 16,
2017, the case asserts labor-related claims and is brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants offer engineering, commercial construction, and
residential building services.

The appellate case is captioned as Saiyed v. Archon, Inc., Case
No. 17-278, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellee Amjad Saiyed, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Michael Farhi, Esq.
          KATES NUSSMAN RAPONE ELLIS & FARHI, LLP
          190 Moore Street
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 488-7211


ASURION INSURANCE: Mix Appeals D. Ariz. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Amanda Mix filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Amanda Mix v. Asurion Insurance Services, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-02357-GMS, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona, Phoenix.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. G.
Murray Snow denied the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff brought the purported class action lawsuit pursuant
to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Amanda Mix v. Asurion Insurance
Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-70264, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Petitioner AMANDA MIX, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          David Neal McDevitt, Esq.
          Russell S. Thompson, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
          5235 E. Southern Ave., Suite D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (602) 845-5969
          E-mail: dmcdevitt@consumerlawinfo.com
                  rthompson@consumerlawinfo.com

Defendant-Respondent ASURION INSURANCE SERVICES, INCORPORATED, is
represented by:

          Robert Shawn Oller, Esq.
          Peter Prynkiewicz, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
          2425 East Camelback Road
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 474-3600
          Facsimile: (602) 957-1801
          E-mail: soller@littler.com
                  pprynkiewicz@littler.com

Defendant-Respondent STERLING INFOSYSTEMS INCORPORATED is
represented by:

          David Dickson Garner, Esq.
          LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
          201 E. Washington Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-2595
          Telephone: (602) 262-5335
          Facsimile: (602) 734-3891
          E-mail: dgarner@lrrc.com

               - and -

          Albert E. Hartmann, Esq.
          Michael C. ONeil, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606-7507
          Telephone: (312) 207-2821
          Facsimile: (312) 207-6400
          E-mail: ahartmann@reedsmith.com
                  michael.oneil@reedsmith.com


AUDI AG: "Greenfield" Class Suit Consolidated in MDL 2672
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Keith Greenfield and Paul
Sherry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Audi AG and Audi of America, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-
12304, was transferred from the District of Massachusetts to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-
00477-CRB to the proceeding.

The Greenfield suit is being consolidated in MDL No. 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:

      Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      55 Cambridge Pkwy, Suite 301
      Cambridge, MA 02142
      Telephone: (617) 482-3700
      E-mail: kristenj@hbsslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Andrew R. Levin, Esq.
      David A. Barry, Esq.
      SUGARMAN ROGERS BARSHAK & COHEN, PC
      101 Merrimac Street, 9th Floor
      Boston, MA 02114
      Telephone: (617) 227-3030
      Facsimile: (617) 523-4001
      E-mail: levin@srbc.com
              barry@srbc.com


AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Vacates Dismissal of Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
January 3, 2017, vacated the dismissal of a purported class action
lawsuit brought against the Company and certain of its former
officers and members of its board of directors (Tuan Ha-Ngoc,
David N. Johnston, and William Slichenmyer) in the lawsuit
entitled In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation et
al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-DJC, AVEO said in its Form 8-K filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 4, 2017.

The operative complaint in the action purported to be brought on
behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock
between May 16, 2012 and May 1, 2013, and generally alleged that
the Company and certain of its present and former officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the
phase 3 trial design and results for the Company's TIVO-1 study in
an effort to lead investors to believe that the drug would receive
approval from the FDA. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees.

The Company denies any allegation of wrongdoing and intends to
continue to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However, there
is no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense
or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any
settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action.
Moreover, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or
reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time.

AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
dedicated to advancing a broad portfolio of targeted therapeutics
for oncology and other areas of unmet medical need.


AVIS RENT: Faces "Sauberman" Suit in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AVIS RENT A CAR
SYSTEM, L.L.C. The case is styled as JOSHUA SAUBERMAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, L.L.C., a New Jersey
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00756-WJM-MF (D.N.J.,
Feb. 3, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge William J.
Martini.

Avis is an American car rental company headquartered in
Parsippany-Troy Hills, New Jersey, United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS ZELMAN LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695 3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298 6256
          E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com


BIG APPLE: Faces "Marett" Class Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big Apple Style
Furniture, Inc. The case is titled as Lucia Marett, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Big
Apple Style Furniture, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00835
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2017).

Big Apple is a contemporary and traditional furniture store.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


BIG LOTS: Certification of Classes Sought in "Hubbs" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled VIOLA HUBBS, BRANDON COLEMAN, TAMIKA
WILLIAMS, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BIG LOTS
STORES, INC., an Ohio corporation; PNS STORES, INC., an Ohio
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants.
Case No. 2:15-cv-01601-JAK-ASx (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will
move the Court on May 15, 2017, at 8:30 a.m. before the Hon. John
A. Kronstadt for an Order certifying these classes:

Closing Shift Class:

   "all non-exempt employees of Big Lots Stores, Inc. and PNS
   Stores, Inc. (together "Big Lots") who worked one or more
   closing shift at any Big Lots store in California between
   February 7, 2010 and date of class certification and where Big
   Lots' recordkeeping systems reflect a gap between the Closing
   Shift Class Members' end of shift time and the time the
   store's alarm was set";

Security Inspection Class:

   "all non-exempt employees of Big Lots who were subjected to
   security checks at Big Lots stores in California at any time
   between February 7, 2010 and January 1, 2015";

UCL Rest Break Premiums Class:

   "all non-exempt employees of Big Lots in California who worked
   shifts longer than 3.5 hours at any time between February 7,
   2010 and the date of class certification.

Overnight Shift Class:

   "all non-exempt employees of Big Lots who worked one or more
   overnight shifts in California between February 7, 2010 and
   the date of class certification";

UCL Meal Period Premiums Class:

   "all non-exempt employees of Big Lots who worked one or more
   overnight shifts in California between February 7, 2010 and
   date of class certification";

Regular Rate Class:

   "all non-exempt employees of Big Lots who earned quarterly
   bonuses and worked overtime in California between February 7,
   2010 and the date of class certification";

The Plaintiffs further move the Court for an Order:

   1. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel, the Law Offices of Mark
      Yablonovich, as counsel to the class;

   2. appointing one or more of the named Plaintiffs as class
      representatives; and

   3. authorizing notice to Class Members pursuant to Federal
      Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c).

The Plaintiffs allege they were not compensated for all work
performed during closing shifts. At closing, they complied with
Big Lots' timekeeping policy by punching out at the conclusion of
their duties. However, they were not free to leave because the
closing procedures required closers to remain in the store until
the store's alarm was set for the night. Indeed, because the doors
were locked when the stores were closed for business, they were
locked in regardless of the policy.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=456YIFnG

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Yablonovich, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MARK YABLONOVICH
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2508
          Telephone: (310) 286 0246
          Facsimile: (310) 407 5391
          E-mail: mark@yablonovichlaw.com


BLACK ANGUS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Sealey" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nigeria Sealey, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. Black Angus Steakhouses,
LLC and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 17847519 (Cal.
Super. Ct., January 30, 2017), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to compensate employees for all hours worked, missed
meal periods and rest breaks.

Black Angus Steakhouses, LLC owns and operates a chain of steak
and seafood restaurant based in Los Altos, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas Han, Esq.
      Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
      Daniel J. Park, Esq.
      Joy D. Llaguno, Esq.
      JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
      411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 230-7502
      Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
      E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
              statavos@justicelawcorp.com
              dpark@justicelawcorp.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: McCarthy Attorney Analyzes Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Charach, Esq. -- dcharach@mccarthy.ca -- of McCarthy
Tetrault LLP, in an article for Mondaq, wrote that in recent
years, many pharmaceutical class actions in Canada that have
proceeded to a motion for certification have been certified.
However, the recent case Batten v. Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada)
Ltd. [Batten] is another welcome example of a Canadian court
denying certification of a proposed pharmaceutical class action.
The case involves the novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC), Pradaxa(R).

Despite pleading many causes of action, the plaintiffs pursued
only their "failure to warn" claim for certification.  The
allegation centred around the fact that, for the majority of the
relevant time period, Pradaxa(R) (unlike the pre-existing commonly
used anticoagulant, warfarin) did not have a specific antidote
that could reverse its anticoagulant effect.

The plaintiffs requested that Perell J. find that the following
key issues (among others) existed and were certifiable as common
issues:

1. Did any of the Defendants have a duty to warn the Class Members
of the risks of harm, namely from the lack of an antidote for
Pradaxa(R)?

2. Can the lack of an antidote for Pradaxa(R) give rise to or
exacerbate dangerous or life-threatening events for persons who
have ingested Pradaxa(R)?

Justice Perell ultimately found that there was no basis in fact to
support the existence of either as common issues.

A Reminder that Plaintiffs Must Show "Some Basis in Fact"

Justice Perell reminds readers in his decision that, despite a
lowered evidentiary bar at certification, it is still the
plaintiff's burden to show that there is some basis in fact that
the proposed common issues exist:

[160]     The representative plaintiff must come forward with
sufficient evidence to support certification, and the opposing
party may respond with evidence of its own to challenge
certification: Hollick v. Toronto (City), supra at para. 22.

[161]     The purpose of a certification motion is to determine
how the litigation is to proceed and not to address the merits of
the plaintiff's claim . . . However, the plaintiff must show
"some-basis-in-fact" for each of the certification criteria other
than the requirement that the pleadings disclose a cause of
action: Hollick v. Toronto (City), supra at paras. 16-26.
Certification will be denied if there is an insufficient
evidentiary basis for the facts on which the claims of the class
members depend [citations omitted].

[162]     In particular, there must be a basis in the evidence
before the court to establish the existence of common issues
[citations omitted].

No Basis in Fact to Support a Duty to Warn

In relation to the first question, Perell J. found that there was
no basis in fact to conclude that a common issue about a duty to
warn about the absence of an antidote exists.  He noted that there
was a lack of evidence that a patient on Pradaxa(R) who
experiences a bleeding event is at a greater risk of unstoppable
bleeding due to the lack of an antidote than a patient on warfarin
who experiences a bleeding event.

Perell J. further concluded that the evidence showed the lack of
an antidote was not an "undisclosed hazard", as it was not a
hazard at all, based on the following evidence:

There is no increased risk for developing life-threatening
injuries for patients who are prescribed Pradaxa(R) rather than
warfarin; and

Regardless of the prescribed anticoagulant, the physician treating
a patient for excessive bleeding would use conventional methods to
abate the bleeding and would resort to an antidote or reversal
agent as a last resort, because a reversal agent to an
anticoagulant carries the very serious risk of precipitating a
devastating and perhaps life-ending stroke.

No Basis in Fact to Support Commonality

Justice Perell also found that there was no basis in fact to
conclude that the question of whether the defendants had a duty to
warn about the absence of an antidote could be answered in common
across the class of persons who ingested Pradaxa(R) because:

A patient's risk of experiencing a stroke and his or her risk of
experiencing a bleeding event, of which there is a wide range of
variance in nature and intensity, are patient-specific;
The need for an antidote to treat bleeding would depend on
patient-specific factors;

The nature of a patient's specific bleeding event would depend
upon patient-specific factors;

The need for a patient to be told about reversal agents or the
absence of them is patient-specific and very much a matter of
physician judgment on a case-by-case basis.

Justice Perell explained that, since the alternative for a patient
to taking a NOAC like Pradaxa(R) would be to take warfarin,
knowing about the lack of antidote for Pradaxa(R) ought not to
affect a patient's decision to take it, as warfarin has a longer
half-life and, therefore, takes longer to reverse itself.

Justice Perell concluded that the absence of commonality is
inherent in the nature of this case.  He noted that most duty to
warn cases involve an alleged failure by the defendant to warn
about a hidden defect or potential risk of harm caused by the use
of the product; however, in this case, the absence of commonality
arises from the particular nature of the duty to warn problem: an
alleged failure to warn a learned intermediary about the absence
of an antidote when there is no basis in fact for concluding that
the absence of an antidote was a hidden defect or that the absence
of an antidote posed a common and material risk across the class.

A Lack of Methodology to Prove General Causation for the Class

The second common issue that the plaintiffs requested be certified
was classified by Perell J. as their general causation question.
Justice Perell found that it failed as a common issue for the same
reasons as the first question and for two additional reasons:

There is nothing generalized, i.e., common across the class, about
the circumstances of a life-threatening bleeding event and the
absence of an antidote, and whether the patient on Pradaxa(R) (or
warfarin) needs a reversal agent is a patient-specific
circumstance; and

Where a plaintiff seeks to address questions of causation on a
class-wide basis as the foundation for his or her class action,
there must be some evidence of a methodology that will enable the
plaintiff to prove causation on a class-wide basis and the
plaintiffs provided no such evidence.

Practical Takeaways

Batten provides an excellent precedent for defendants of future
pharmaceutical class actions.  A few key takeaways are:

While the evidentiary burden on a certification motion of "some
basis in fact" is low, it exists for a reason.  In order for a
class action to be certified, plaintiffs must be able to satisfy a
judge that there is a sufficient evidentiary basis for the facts
on which the claims of the class members depend, i.e. that the
common issues exist and are, in fact, common.

There are some cases where commonality will be impossible to
prove.  Where a plaintiff alleges that a defendant failed to warn
a learned intermediary about something that is neither a hidden
defect of the product nor a material risk across the class,
defendants should seriously consider resisting certification on
that issue.

The general causation principle in Pro-Sys Consultants v
Microsoft4 holds true for pharmaceutical class actions: where a
plaintiff seeks to certify questions of causation, there must be
some evidence of a methodology that will enable the plaintiff to
prove causation on a class-wide basis.


BORDEAUX LLC: "Ohana" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matan Michael Ohana, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Bordeaux LLC, Shai Guetta, and Isaac Simon,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00513 (E.D.N.Y., January 30, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, and all other appropriate legal and
equitable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a waiter from
March 2015 through the present.

The Defendants operate a kosher steak house in Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
      NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, PC
      1517 Voorhies Ave., 2nd Floor
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 808-2224
      E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


BRAND PLUMBING: Class Certification Granted in "McFeeters" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Eric F. Melgren entered an order in the lawsuit styled
DUANE MCFEETERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. BRAND PLUMBING, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 6:16-cv-01122-EFM-KGS (D. Kan.), granting Plaintiff's
motion to certify class of:

   "all current and former employees of Defendant Brand Plumbing,
   Inc. who held the position of plumber, licensed plumber, or
   plumber's helper who were not paid any overtime premium for
   hours over 40 in any work week, from February 10, 2014 to the
   present, as a consequence of not being credited or compensated
   for (a) the time it takes to drive from the Wichita last job
   location back to Brand Plumbing's office; and (b) the time
   spent driving to and from job locations outside of Wichita."

The Court further entered an order:

   1. authorizing Plaintiff to send out notice to each potential
      member of the class;

   2. direct6ing Defendant to provide Plaintiff with the names,
      addresses, phone numbers, and dates of employment of
      putative class members in an electronic and importable
      format, such as Microsoft Excel, within ten days of this
      Order;

   3. directing Defendant to post Notice of the lawsuit in a
      conspicuous location where it employs its employees; and

   4. appointing Duane McFeeters as class representative, and his
      counsel, are designated class counsel.

The Court said, "Plaintiff defined his FLSA claim in his Complaint
as one for Defendant failing to pay proper compensation to
nonexempt employees for (a) shaving time from employees'
timecards; (b) refusing to compensate for the time it takes to
drive company work trucks from the last job of
the day back to the shop; and (c) refusing to pay overtime premium
with respect to travel time that occurs during the ordinary
workday. In Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification, he
states that he seeks conditional class certification for plumbers,
similarly situated to him, who were not properly compensated with
overtime premium for all hours worked due to drive time at the end
of the day and drive time for travel outside of Wichita. Thus,
Defendant's proposal appears consistent with Plaintiff's
contentions. Accordingly, the Court finds it appropriate to
include Defendant's limiting language in the class definition".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TW9FYPCS


BRASSELER U.S.A.: "Orrington" Suit Seeks Certification of Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JAMES L ORRINGTON, II, D.D.S., P.C., on
behalf of plaintiff and the class member, the Plaintiff, v.
BRASSELER U.S.A. DENTAL, LLC, and J. MORITA, U.S.A., INC., and
ENDODONTIC EDUCATION SEMINARS, LLC, d/b/a REAL WORLD ENDO, and
JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00956 (N.D.
Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify classes:

For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act:

   "(a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four years prior
   to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on
   behalf of defendants Brasseler U.S.A., Dental, LLC, J. Morita,
   U.S.A., Inc., or Endodontic Education Seminars, LLC, d/b/a
   Real World Endo, promoting their goods or services for sale
   (d) which did not contain a compliant opt out notice. By
   "compliant opt out notice" is meant one (i) on the first page
   of the fax (ii) that states that the recipient may make a
   request to the sender not to send any future unsolicited
   advertisements to a telephone facsimile machine (iii) that
   states that failure to comply, within the shortest reasonable
   time, as determined by the Federal Communications Commission,
   is unlawful; (iv) that provides instructions on how to submit
   an opt out request and (v) that includes a domestic contact
   telephone and facsimile machine number and a cost-free
   mechanism for the recipient to transmit such a request to the
   sender that permit a request to be made at any time on any day
   of the week;

For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act:

   "(a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four years prior
   to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on
   behalf of defendants Brasseler U.S.A., Dental, LLC, J. Morita,
   U.S.A., Inc., or Endodontic Education Seminars, LLC, d/b/a
   Real World Endo, promoting their goods or services for sale
   (d) which did not contain a compliant opt out notice"; and

For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion and Count IV,
alleging trespass to chattels:

   "(a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or
   after a date five years prior to the filing of this action,
   (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Brasseler
   U.S.A., Dental, LLC, J. Morita, U.S.A., Inc., or Endodontic
   Education Seminars, LLC, d/b/a Real World Endo, promoting
   their goods or services for sale (d) which did not contain a
   compliant opt out notice.

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XHGbEOg8

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Dulijaza Clark, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS,
          LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379


BRIAN COLLIER: "Smith" Suit Seeks Certification of Inmate Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Timothy John Smith, the Plaintiff, v.
Bryan Collier, Director of TDCJ-CID, the Defendant, Case No. 6:17-
cv-00073-RWS-KNM (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
certify a class of:

   "all Muslim men that are inmates in the TDCJ-CID who are
   sincere in their Islamic religious belief".

The Plaintiff request the Court for an Indegant razor to shave the
following places upon their bodies. The shaving of the Mustache,
the shaving of the neck under the jaw line, and the shaving of
hair above the penis and testicles hair.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's grooming policy are a
violation of his religious right under the RLUIPA Act. The
Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief enjoining the Defendant's
from enforcing the grooming policy and the innamed class [UMMAH-
MUSLIMS].

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aJW1ctnn


CAC FINANCIAL: Faces "Hatch" Suit in Eastern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CAC Financial Corp.
The case is entitled as Gregory Hatch, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAC Financial
Corp., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00648 (E.D.N.Y. Fla., Feb.
3, 2017).

CAC Financial provides financial services and accounts receivable
solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          SANDERS LAW, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


CANADIAN AIR: Court Okays Air Cargo Class Action Payout Protocol
----------------------------------------------------------------
AirCargo Asia-Pacific reports that Siskinds lawyers have issued
the following advice regarding the Canadian Air Cargo Shipping
Services Class Action:

Siskinds (Toronto, Canada), Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman
(Vancouver, Canada) and Liebman Legal (Montreal, Canada) have
advised the court approval of a protocol for the distribution of
settlement funds in the Canadian Air Cargo Shipping Services class
action.

The class action alleges price-fixing in the market for air cargo
shipping services on shipments to/from Canada (excluding to/from
the United States) between January 2000 and September 2006.

Settlements totalling C$29.6 million have been reached in the
litigation.  The Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec courts
approved the settlements and the protocol for distribution of
settlement funds.  The class action is continuing against Air
Canada and British Airways.

Persons who purchased air cargo shipping services on shipments
to/from Canada (excluding to/from the United States) between
January 2000 and September 2006 now can apply to receive
settlement monies on line at www.aircargosettlement2.com no later
than May 11, 2017.


CBOE HOLDINGS: Appeal in Suit vs. Bats Global Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the consolidated securities lawsuit against Bats
Global Markets, Inc., remains pending, CBOE Holdings, Inc. said in
its Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 3, 2017.

CBOE Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, filed the Current
Report on Form 8-K to provide certain financial information with
respect to Bats Global Markets, Inc., and certain financial
information with respect to the combined company.

CBOE entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
September 25, 2016 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among CBOE,
Bats Global Markets, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Bats"), CBOE
Corporation, a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of
CBOE ("Merger Sub"), and CBOE V, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company and wholly owned subsidiary of CBOE ("Merger LLC"). The
Merger Agreement provides, among other things, that, upon the
terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger
Agreement, (i) Merger Sub will merge with and into Bats, with Bats
surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of CBOE (the "Merger"), and
(ii) following the completion of the Merger, the surviving
corporation from the Merger will merge with and into Merger LLC
(the "Subsequent Merger"), with Merger LLC surviving the
Subsequent Merger and continuing as a wholly owned subsidiary of
CBOE.

                     Class Suit Against Bats

On April 18, 2014, the City of Providence, Rhode Island filed a
securities class action lawsuit in the Southern District of New
York against Bats and Direct Edge, as well as 14 other securities
exchanges. The action purports to be brought on behalf of all
public investors who purchased and/or sold shares of stock in the
United States between April 18, 2009 and the present on a
registered public stock exchange (Exchange Defendants) or a United
States-based alternate trading venue and were injured as a result
of the misconduct detailed in the complaint, which includes
allegations that the defendants committed fraud through a variety
of business practices associated with, among other things, what is
commonly referred to as high frequency trading.

On May 2, 2014 and May 20, 2014, American European Insurance
Company and Harel Insurance Co., Ltd. each filed substantially
similar class action lawsuits against the Exchange Defendants
which were ultimately consolidated with the City of Providence,
Rhode Island securities class action lawsuit. On June 18, 2015,
Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York held oral
argument on the pending Motion to Dismiss and thereafter, on
August 26, 2015, the Court issued an Opinion and Order granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, dismissing the Complaint in full.

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the dismissal on Sept. 24,
2015 and its appeal brief on January 7, 2016. Respondent's brief
was filed on April 7, 2016 and oral argument was held on
August 24, 2016.

Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, Bats says it is
unable to estimate what, if any, liability may result from this
litigation.  However, Bats believes that the claims are without
merit and intends to litigate the matter vigorously.

CBOE Holdings, Inc. is the holding company for Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated, CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC, C2
Options Exchange, Incorporated and other subsidiaries.  The
primary business of the Company is the operation of markets for
the trading of listed, or exchange-traded, derivatives contracts
on four broad product categories: 1) options on various market
indexes (index options), 2) futures on the VIX Index and other
products, 3) options on the stocks of individual corporations
(equity options) and 4) options on other exchange-traded products
(ETP options), such as exchange-traded funds (ETF options) and
exchange-traded notes (ETN options).


CBOE HOLDINGS: Bats Awaits Order on Lanier's Rehearing Petition
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bats Global Markets, Inc., awaits a court ruling on a petition for
rehearing filed by Harold R. Lanier, according to CBOE Holdings,
Inc.'s January 3, 2017, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.

CBOE Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, filed the Current
Report on Form 8-K to provide certain financial information with
respect to Bats Global Markets, Inc., and certain financial
information with respect to the combined company.

CBOE entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of
September 25, 2016 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among CBOE,
Bats Global Markets, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Bats"), CBOE
Corporation, a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of
CBOE ("Merger Sub"), and CBOE V, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company and wholly owned subsidiary of CBOE ("Merger LLC"). The
Merger Agreement provides, among other things, that, upon the
terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger
Agreement, (i) Merger Sub will merge with and into Bats, with Bats
surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of CBOE (the "Merger"), and
(ii) following the completion of the Merger, the surviving
corporation from the Merger will merge with and into Merger LLC
(the "Subsequent Merger"), with Merger LLC surviving the
Subsequent Merger and continuing as a wholly owned subsidiary of
CBOE.

                     Class Suit Against Bats

On May 23, 2014 and May 30, 2014, Harold R. Lanier filed three
class action lawsuits in the Southern District of New York against
Bats and other securities exchanges. The complaints were identical
in all substantive respects, but each related to the dissemination
of market data under a different market system -- (i) the NASDAQ
UTP Plan Market System; (ii) the OPRA Market System; and (iii) the
Consolidated Quotation System and the Consolidated Tape System.
Each of the actions purported to be brought on behalf of all
subscribers who entered into contracts with the exchanges for the
receipt of market data and were injured as a result of the
misconduct detailed in the complaints, which includes allegations
that the defendants did not provide market data services in a non-
discriminatory manner or provide subscribers with "valid" data
(i.e., data that is accurate and not stale).

On January 16, 2015, Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern
District of New York held oral argument on the pending Motion to
Dismiss and thereafter, on April 28, 2015, the Court filed an
Opinion and Order granting the exchange defendants' Motion to
Dismiss, terminating all three class action lawsuits with
prejudice.

On May 20, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the
dismissal and on September 1, 2015, Appellant filed its appeal
brief. Respondent's brief was filed on November 24, 2015 and
Appellant's reply brief was filed on December 8, 2015. Oral
argument was held on March 3, 2016.

On September 23, 2016, the Court filed a Judgment affirming the
District Court's dismissal of all three class action lawsuits.
Appellant thereafter filed a petition for a rehearing before the
panel or the entire appellate court on October 7, 2016.

Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, Bats is unable to
estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation.
However, Bats believes that the claims are without merit and
intends to litigate the matter vigorously.

CBOE Holdings, Inc. is the holding company for Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Incorporated, CBOE Futures Exchange, LLC, C2
Options Exchange, Incorporated and other subsidiaries.  The
primary business of the Company is the operation of markets for
the trading of listed, or exchange-traded, derivatives contracts
on four broad product categories: 1) options on various market
indexes (index options), 2) futures on the VIX Index and other
products, 3) options on the stocks of individual corporations
(equity options) and 4) options on other exchange-traded products
(ETP options), such as exchange-traded funds (ETF options) and
exchange-traded notes (ETN options).


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Tech. Managers' OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin French, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 4:17-cv-00479-DMR (N.D. Cal., January 30,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
Technical Managers' overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Headquartered at 1707 Market Place Boulevard, Suite 200, Irving,
Texas 75063, CEC Entertainment, Inc. operates family entertainment
centers and restaurants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Malk, Esq.
      MICHAEL MALK, ESQ., APC
      1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 302
      Los Angeles, CA 90035
      Telephone: (310) 203-0016
      Facsimile: (310) 499-5210
      E-mail: mm@malklawfirm.com


CHEVROLET INC: Ohio App. Affirms Stay of "Seyfried" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JAMES SEYFRIED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
PATRICK O'BRIEN, JR., CHEVROLET, INC., ET AL., Defendants-
Appellees, No. 104212 (Ohio App.), the Court of Appeals of Ohio,
Eighth District, Cuyahoga County, affirmed the judgment of the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas that granted a motion to
stay pending arbitration in a consumer complaint.

On April 13, 2011, Seyfried filed a class action complaint, naming
as defendants four Patrick O'Brien Chevrolet entities (Patrick
O'Brien Jr. Chevrolet, Inc., Patrick O'Brien, Jr. Chevrolet II,
Inc., Patrick O'Brien, Jr. Chevrolet III, Inc., Patrick O'Brien,
Jr. Chevrolet IV, Inc.), Patrick O'Brien, Jr., and Patrick O'Brien
Sr. (collectively as "Chevrolet" hereafter), and First Merit (who
was subsequently dismissed from the lawsuit).  The complaint
alleged the defendants failed to disclose to buyers of a used
vehicle that the vehicle had been used as a rental vehicle, in
violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. 1345.02.
Seyfried passed away in 2012, and his estate was substituted as
plaintiff.

Chevrolet moved to stay the proceeding pending arbitration
pursuant to R.C. 2711.02.  The appellant submitted a brief
opposing the motion to stay, advancing two arguments:

     (1) the purchase contract was fully integrated and it did
         not incorporate the arbitration agreement, and

     (2) the arbitration agreement was substantively and
         procedurally unconscionable.

The trial court found, as a factual matter, that Seyfried signed a
binding arbitration agreement and it granted Chevrolet's motion to
stay pending arbitration.

On appeal, the appellant argued that because the purchase contract
had a merger clause, it was a fully integrated document and it
superseded the separately executed arbitration agreement.
However, by all accounts, the two documents were executed moments
apart, not separated by any meaningful lapse of time.  The
appellate court held that the contemporaneous nature of Seyfried's
execution on June 12, 2009, of the arbitration agreement and the
purchase contract reflects they were documents executed in the
same transaction.  The appellate court found that when the two
documents are read together, the purchase contract did not
supersede the contemporaneously executed arbitration agreement
despite the merger clause.

The appellant also argued the arbitration agreement signed in
conjunction with the purchase contract on June 12, 2009, did not
bind Seyfried to arbitration because the earlier purchase contract
had "expired" and Seyfried entered into a new transaction on June
26, 2009, without executing another arbitration agreement on that
occasion.

The appellate court found that the June 12 and June 26 purchase
contracts concerned the same vehicle transaction -- they were
substantially similar except for the higher trade-in value of
Seyfried's old vehicle and higher "GAP" care fees in the latter
contract.  The appellate court concluded that by the clear terms
of the arbitration agreement Seyfried executed on June 12, 2009,
Seyfried consented to arbitration for all claims arising out of
his purchase of the Cobalt.

Seyfried also claimed that the arbitration agreement was both
substantively and procedurally unconscionable, but the appellate
court found Chevrolet's arbitration agreement distinguishable from
those in the cases cited by the appellant, and concluded that the
appellant's claim is without merit.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's January 26, 2017 journal
entry and opinion is available at https://is.gd/WpTGAo from
Leagle.com.

Appellant is represented by:

          Rosemary Taft-Milby, Esq.
          Michael Berler, Esq.
          Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
          James Wertheim, Esq.
          FREDERICK & BERLER L.L.C.
          767 East 185th Street
          Cleveland, OH 44119
          Tel: (216)502-1055
          Fax: (216)566-9400

Appellee is represented by:

          Christopher A. Tipping, Esq.
          Harry A. Tipping, Esq.
          Harold M. Schwarz, III, Esq.
          STARK & KNOLL CO. L.P.A.
          3475 Ridgewood Road
          Akron, OH 44333
          Tel: (330)376-3300
          Fax: (330)376-6237
          Email: ctipping@stark-knoll.com
                 htipping@stark-knoll.com
                 hschwarz@stark-knoll.com


CIRCLE TRANSPORT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Truck Drivers' Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Contreras, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated v. Circle Transport Inc., Sierra Chemical Co., and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC648674 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
January 30, 2017), arises out the Defendants' unlawful practice of
not paying truck drivers' wages for all hours worked, including
failure to pay all wages due and failure to provide meal and rest
periods or compensation in lieu thereof.

Circle Transport Inc. operates a freight shipping and trucking
company headquartered in Peru, Illinois.

Sierra Chemical Co. manufactures and distributes environmental
chemicals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.D. Henderson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF J. D. HENDERSON
      215 North Marengo Avenue, Suite 322
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Telephone: (424) 254-8870
      E-mail: JDLAW@charter.net

         - and -

      Asaf Agazanof, Esq.
      ASAF LAW APC
      11150 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 1080
      Los Angeles, CA 90064
      Telephone: (626) 529-5891
      Facsimile: (888) 254-0561


CKE RESTAURANTS: Faces Antitrust Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Braden Campbell, writing for Law360, reports that managers at CKE
Restaurants Group, the fast food chain headed by Trump labor
secretary nominee Andy Puzder, filed an antitrust class action in
California state court on Feb. 8 alleging the company and flagship
burger brand Carl's Jr. illegally suppress wages by preventing
franchisees from hiring each other's workers.
Though they don't name him as a defendant, the workers slammed Mr.
Puzder for publicly touting the value of a free market where
businesses compete for labor while at the same time leading a
company that artificially -- and illegally -- stifles that
competition among its franchisees.

"As Puzder has himself explained, 'if employers are competing for
the best employees, they will pay more,'" the workers said.  "And
yet, CKE has participated in an illegal scheme not to compete for
the best employees."

The suit centers on a portion of CKE's contracts with franchisees
barring them from "employ[ing] or seek[ing] to employ" supervisors
who work at other CKE-branded restaurant franchises or have worked
at one in the prior two years.  This so-called "no hire" agreement
covers shift leaders, assistant managers and general managers,
whom the workers allege work grueling, often unpredictable shifts
for annual salaries ranging from about $25,000 for shift leaders
to between $35,000 and $40,000 per year for general managers.  All
franchisees must sign these agreements before opening a CKE-
branded restaurant, the workers claim.

While CKE encourages its franchisees to compete among each other
by choosing their location, choosing how much they invest in their
facilities and equipment and setting the prices they charge, it
suppresses competition for labor, the workers said. This in turn
keeps wages low for management staff and impedes their mobility,
according to the workers.

The workers also criticized the seeming contradiction of
Mr. Puzder claiming CKE is not a joint employer under federal
labor law while the company restricts franchisees' hiring autonomy
through its no hire policy.

"CKE and Puzder cannot have it both ways," the workers said. "They
cannot eschew their responsibilities under the labor and
employment laws by embracing a 'free market' model constituted by
independent, competing franchisees, while at the same time
restraining free competition to the detriment of thousands of
workers employed by CKE and its franchisees."

The suit was filed by named plaintiffs Luis Bautista, a current
Carl's Jr. shift leader, and Margarita Guerrero, who was a shift
leader until late 2016.  Mr. Bautista and Ms. Guerrero are asking
to represent a class of all current and former shift leaders,
assistant managers and general managers at corporate and
franchisee-owned CKE restaurants in California.  The CKE brand
operates Carl's Jr. Hardee's, Green Burrito and Red Burrito.

The workers are backed by nonprofit workers' rights group Towards
Justice, which connects workers with attorneys and files and backs
impact litigation.

"While CKE and its franchisees secretly collude to hold down wages
and maintain poor working conditions, our clients struggle to get
by," Towards Justice Executive Director Nina DiSalvo said in a
statement.  "That is not the result of free market capitalism, but
the result of illegal restrictions on the market that undermine
wages."

Mr. Puzder has faced a torrent of opposition from progressive
groups, Democratic Party leaders and labor advocates since Donald
Trump nominated him to head the Department of Labor in December,
with many critics claiming CKE brands have poor track records for
labor violations that make Mr. Puzder a poor fit for the job.
Mr. Puzder's nomination has also prompted worker's advocacy group
the Fight for $15 to back dozens of worker suits against Carl's
Jr. and Hardee's franchises across the country.

A representative for CKE did not immediately respond on Feb. 8 to
a request for comment.

The workers are represented by Jon Tostrud --
jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com -- of Tostrud Law Group PC, Jonathan W.
Cuneo -- jonc@cuneolaw.com -- and Matthew E. Miller --
mmiller@cuneolaw.com --of Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca LLP and Nina
DiSalvo, Alexander Hood and David Seligman of Towards Justice.

Attorney information for CKE was not available on Feb. 8.

The case is Luis Bautista et al v. Carl Karcher Enterprises LLC et
al, case number BC649777, in the Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County.


COLUCID PHARMACEUTICALS: Being Sold to Cheaply, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
directors are selling CoLucid Pharmaceuticals too cheaply through
an unfair process to Eli Lilly, for $46.50 a share or $897
million, shareholders say in a federal class action in Boston.

The case is captioned, PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. COLUCID
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., THOMAS P. MATHERS, ART PAPPAS, MARTIN
EDWARDS, ALISON LAWTON, MARK CORRIGAN, LUC MARENGERE, MARVIN
WHITE, ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, and PROCAR ACQUISITION CORPORATION,
Defendants, Case 1:17-cv-10197-DLC (D. Mass., February 3, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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

          - and -

     Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
     RM LAW, P.C.
     1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 3112
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Tel: (484) 324-6800

          - and -

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


COUSIN VINNY'S: Brandenburg Seeks Certification of Drivers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Thomas Brandenburg, On behalf of himself
and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Cousin Vinny's
Pizza, LLC, et al, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00516-WHR (D.
Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court to:

   1. conditionally certify a class of:

      "all non-owner, non-employer delivery drivers who worked
      for Defendants at any Cousin Vinny's Pizza location from
      February 10, 2014 to present, and who, in one or more
      workweeks, were paid less than the full nontipped minimum
      wage that was applicable at the time of their employment";

   2. approve the Plaintiff's proposed notice of the action;

   3. order Defendants to provide name and contact information
      for all potential Collective members;

   4. authorize Plaintiff to send the notices via first class
      mail, email, and text message;

   5. require Defendants to post the notice in their work
      location; and

   6. authorize putative Collective members to opt in by using an
      electronic signature.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Kimble, Esq.
          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Eric Kmetz, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC
          119 East Court Street, Suite 530
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 651 3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665 0219
          E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com
                  ekmetz@msdlegal.com
                  akimble@msdlegal.com


CRAZY HORSE: Seeks 4th Circuit Review of Ruling in "Degidio" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Crazy Horse Saloon and Restaurant Inc., doing business
as Thee New Dollhouse, filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit entitled Alexis Degidio v. CRAZY HORSE SALOON AND
RESTAURANT INC., Case No. 4:13-cv-02136-BHH, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Carolina at Florence.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Alexis Degidio v. CRAZY HORSE
SALOON AND RESTAURANT INC., Case No. 17-1145, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellee ALEXIS DEGIDIO, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
          Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
          Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPEA & CARPENTER, LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322-9243
          E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com
                  jetzel@carlsonlynch.com
                  ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
                  glynch@carlsonlynch.com

               - and -

          Thomas Christopher Tuck, Esq.
          RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
          P. O. Box 1007
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465-0000
          Telephone: (843) 727-6500
          Facsimile: (843) 216-6509
          E-mail: ctuck@rpwb.com

Defendant-Appellant CRAZY HORSE SALOON AND RESTAURANT INC., d/b/a
Thee New Dollhouse, is represented by:

          James Leon Holt, Jr., Esq.
          Timothy A. Perkins, Esq.
          Stephen L. Shields, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, & HOLT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          262 German Oak Drive
          Cordova, TN 38018-0000
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          E-mail: jholt@jsyc.com
                  tperkins@jsyc.com
                  sshields@jsyc.com

               - and -

          William Paul Young, Esq.
          P. O. Box 4213
          N. Myrtle Beach, SC 29597
          Telephone: (843) 249-9999


DALLAS, TX: Retirees Sue Police Pension System for Denied Access
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ladonna Degan, Ric Terrones, John McGuire, Reed Higgins, Mike
Gurley, and Larry Eddington, individually and collectively on
behalf those similarly situated v. The Board of Trustees of the
Dallas Police and Fire Pension System, Samuel Friar, Ken Haben,
Joe Schutz, Gerald Brown, Clint Conway, Jennifer Staubach Gates,
Scott Griggs, Brian Hass, Tho Tang Ho, Philip T. Kingston, Ken
Spencher,and Erik Wilson, Case No. 4:17-cv-00066-ALM (E.D. Tex.,
January 30, 2017), is an action for damages as a result of the
Defendants' practice of denying Plaintiffs access to their full
Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) accounts.

The Board of Trustees of the Dallas Police and Fire Pension System
is the governing body of the Dallas Police and Fire Pension
System, a public retirement system.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David M. Feldman, Esq.
      FELDMAN & FELDMAN, PC
      3355 West Alabama Street, Suite 1220
      Houston, TX 77098
      Telephone: (713) 986-9471
      Facsimile: (713) 986-9472
      E-mail: David.Feldman@feldman.law


DERMA SCIENCES: Faces "Rabadi" Suit Over Proposed Sale to Integra
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mathew Rabadi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Derma Sciences, Inc., Stephen T. Wills, Srini
Conjeevaram, Brett D. Hewlett, Sam Navarro, Robert G. Moussa,
Integra Lifesciences Holdings Corporation, and Integra Derma,
Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-00628 (D.N.J., January 30, 2017), is
brought on behalf of all public stockholder of Derma Sciences,
Inc., seeking equitable relief for the Defendants' violations of
the Securities Exchange Act, and for their breaches of fiduciary
duty arising out of the attempt to sell the Company to Integra
Lifesciences Holdings Corporation and Integra Derma, Inc., by
means of an unfair process and for an unfair price.

The Proposed Acquisition, which is structured as a tender offer,
has a total approximate value of $204 million and is expected to
complete the transaction in the first quarter of 2017.

Derma Sciences, Inc. operates as a medical device company in the
wound care market with its principal executive offices located at
214 Carnegie Center, Suite 300, Princeton, NJ 08540.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
      1040 Kings Highway N., Ste. 650
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Telephone: (856) 795-725
      Facsimile: (856) 795-1799
      E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com
              mackerman@brodskysmith.com


DETROIT, MI: Frefighters Lose Discrimination Claims
---------------------------------------------------
Judge Sean F. Cox granted the motions for summary judgment filed
by the defendants in the case captioned Erick Peeples, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. City of Detroit, et al., Defendants, Civil Action
No. 13-13858 (E.D. Mich.), but denied the defendants' requests for
sanctions.

The plaintiffs are 11 firefighters who were laid off by the City
of Detroit during a reduction in force.  The plaintiffs were
recalled to work 80 days after being laid off and their union, the
Detroit Fire Fighters Association, Local 344, IAFF, AFL-CIO ("the
Union"), successfully grieved their layoffs, securing a settlement
under which the City agreed to a "make-whole" award of backpay for
each plaintiff.

On May 11, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a one-count First Amended
Complaint asserting a Title VII race discrimination claim against
the City, and against the Union.  The 11 individual plaintiffs in
the action are:

     1) Erick Peeples
     2) Perry Anderson
     3) Vincent Fields
     4) Arnold Freeman
     5) Ralph Glenn, Jr.
     6) Jamal Jennings
     7) Lee Jones
     8) Anthony McCloud
     9) Exander Poe
     10) David Rivera
     11) Samuel Shack

Rivera is Hispanic and the remaining plaintiffs are black.  The
plaintiffs sought the following relief:

     1) back pay and benefits lost due to the layoff;
     2) compensatory damages;
     3) punitive damages; and
     4) attorney fees, and interest.

Following the close of discovery, the City filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment and the Union filed its own Motion for Summary
Judgment.

As to the City's Motion, Judge Cox concluded that the only
plaintiff who has exhausted his administrative remedies such that
he can pursue a Title VII claim against the City in the action is
Rivera.  Judge Cox also concluded that the plaintiffs have failed
to present direct evidence to support their claims, and that the
plaintiffs have failed to establish a prima facie case, under the
circumstantial evidence approach, which includes a heightened
burden in the reduction-in-force case.

As to the Union's Motion, Judge Cox found that the plaintiffs
cannot establish that the Union breached its duty of fair
representation to the plaintiffs, which the plaintiffs must do in
order to proceed with a Title VII claim against a union in the
Sixth Circuit.  Judge Cox also granted the Union's motion because
the plaintiffs have been reinstated and made whole, and other
types of damages claimed by the plaintiffs are unavailable as to
the Union.

Judge Cox however denied both the City's and the Union's requests
for sanctions.  As a threshold matter, the judge found that
neither the City nor the Union fully complied with Rule 11's "safe
harbor" provision.  Moreover, even if they had, Judge Cox held
that he would not impose sanctions under the facts and
circumstances presented in the case.

A full-text copy of Judge Cox's January 26, 2017 opinion and order
is available at https://is.gd/aQ1L2B from Leagle.com.

Erick Peeples, Perry Anderson, Vincent Fields, Arnold Freeman,
Ralph Glenn, Jr., Jamal Jennings, Lee Jones, Anthony McCloud,
Exander Poe, David Rivera, Samuel Shack, Plaintiffs, represented
by Dennis R. Thompson, Thompson & Bishop Law Offices & Bruce B.
Elfvin -- bruce@ekrtlaw.com -- Elfvin, Klingshirn, Royer & Torch,
LLC.

City of Detroit, Law Department, Defendant, represented by Heidi
J. Junttila, City of Detroit & Jason McFarlane, City of Detroit
Law Department.

International Association of Firefighters Local 344, Defendant,
represented by Alidz Oshagan -- aoshagan@wwdlaw.com -- Legghio and
Israel, P.C., Christopher P. Legghio -- cpl@legghioisrael.com --
Legghio & Israel, P.C. & Megan B. Boelstler --
mbb@legghioisrael.com -- Legghio and Israel, P. C..


DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Faces "Mustafaev" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Diversified
Consultants Inc. The case is captioned as Marlen Mustafaev, on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. Diversified Consultants Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00654 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2017).

Diversified Consultants is a telecom-specific collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DOLLAR TREE: Court Takes Class Certification Bid Under Submission
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Curtis Patton, the Plaintiff, v. Dollar Tree
Stores, Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-03813-MWF-
PJW (C.D. Cal.), the Court takes Plaintiff's motion to certify
class under submission.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ckZ9I6bh

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mikhael H. Stahle, Esq.
          Arias Sanguinetti Stahle & Torrijos LLP
          Los Angeles, CA
          Telephone: (310) 844-9696
          E-mail: mikael@asstlawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dominic J. Messiha, Esq.
          Amy M. Turk, Esq.
          2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
          L.A. - Century City
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 712 7343
          E-mail: dmessiha@littler.com


DR. PEPPER: Graveyard Shift Workers File Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Dr. Pepper Snapple Group stiffed graveyard shift workers for their
25-cent-an hour shift differential pay, a class action claims in
Los Angeles Superior Court.


EMERY FEDERAL: Palombaros Seek to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned FRANK A. AND SHELLY PALOMBARO, JR., et
al., the Plaintiffs, v. EMERY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00792-SJD-KLL (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs move
the Court to certify a class of:

   "all individuals in the United States who were borrowers on a
   federally related mortgage loan (as defined under the Real
   Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. par. 2602)
   originated or brokered by Emery Federal Credit Union for which
   Genuine Title provided a settlement service, as identified in
   Section 1100 on the borrower's HUD-1, between January 1, 2009,
   and December 31, 2014. Exempted from this class is any person
   who, during the period of January 1, 2009, through December
   31, 2014, was an employee, officer, member and/or agent of
   Defendant Emery Federal Credit Union, Genuine Title, LLC,
   Brandon Glickstein, Inc., Competitive Advantage Media Group
   LLC, and/or Dog Days Marketing, LLC.

The Emery Class are victims of the same illegal kickback scheme,
suffered the same injuries, have identical claims against Emery
and are entitled to the same statutory measure of damages. As
such, the Emery Class satisfies the four elements of Rule 23(a) --
numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of
representation -- and Rule 23(b)(3), as the common class issues
related to Emery's liability predominate over any individual
issues and a class action is the superior means of adjudicating
the Emery Class' claims.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NamKgp8j

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory M. Utter, Esq.
          KEATING MUETHING & KLEKAMP PLL
          One East 4th Street, Suite 1400
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 579 6540
          Facsimile: (513) 579 6457
          E-mail: gmutter@kmklaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy F. Maloney, Esq.
          Veronica B. Nannis, Esq.
          JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE
          6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
          Greenbelt, MD 20770
          Telephone: (301) 220 2200
          Facsimile: (301) 220 1214
          E-mail: tmaloney@jgllaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Paul Smith, Esq.
          Melissa L. English, Esq.
          SMITH, GILDEA & SCHMIDT, LLC
          600 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
          Towson, MD 21204
          Telephone: (410) 821 0070
          Facsimile: (410) 821 0071
          E-mail: mpsmith@sgs-law.com


ERNST & YOUNG: Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments in October
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Hurley and Robert Iafolla, writing for Reuters, report
that the U.S. Supreme Court will not act until at least the fall
on a major business dispute on whether companies can head off
costly class action lawsuits, meaning President Donald Trump's
nominee to the bench will almost certainly be in place to cast a
possible pivotal vote.

The court notified lawyers in the case on Feb. 8 that the three
consolidated cases "will be scheduled for oral argument in the
2017 term," which starts in October, rather than the current term
that ends in June.

The cases, including one involving global professional services
giant Ernst & Young, concern whether companies can force employees
to give up their right to pursue work-related legal claims in
court as a group.

At stake is the future of so-called class-action waivers, which
employers have increasingly required employees to sign as part of
their arbitration agreements to guard against the rising tide of
worker lawsuits seeking unpaid wages.

Putting restraints on class action litigation is a major goal of
the business community.  Such lawsuits can result in large jury
awards, while individual lawsuits are easier to defend against by
companies.

Trump nominated conservative appeals court judge Neil Gorsuch to
fill a vacant seat on the court.  The high court is ideologically
deadlocked pending Gorsuch's Senate confirmation fight, with four
liberal justices and four conservatives.

The class action waiver dispute, one of the biggest business cases
before the high court, could potentially divide the court, meaning
Gorsuch could cast the decisive vote.


FARMERS GROUP: Faces "Grigson" Suit Over Smart Plan Auto Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action in Austin, Texas claims Farmers Group's Smart
Plan Auto program for new subscribers, with sizable discounts, is
unfair to current subscribers and violates the Texas Insurance
Code.

The case is captioned, CHARLES GRIGSON and ROBERT VALE,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. FARMERS GROUP, INC., a Nevada Corporation,
Defendant, Case 1:17-cv-00088-LY (W.D. Tex., February 8, 2017).

Counsel for Plaintiff:

     Michael L. Slack, Esq.
     John R. Davis, Esq.
     Paula Knippa, Esq.
     SLACK & DAVIS, LLP
     2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 220
     Austin, TX 78746
     Tel.: 512-795-8686
     Fax: 512-795-8787
     E-mail: mslack@slackdavis.com
             jdavis@slackdavis.com
             pknippa@slackdavis.com

          - and -

     Joe K. Longley, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JOE K. LONGLEY
     3305 Northland Dr. Suite 500
     Austin, Texas 78731
     Tel: 512-477-4444
     Fax: 512-477-4470
     E-mail: joe@joelongley.com

          - and -

     Roger N. Heller, Esq.
     Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
     LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
     275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Tel: 415-956-1000
     Fax: 415-956-1008
     E-mail: rheller@lchb.com
             jselbin@lchb.com


FINANCE SYSTEM: "Boucher" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RYAN BOUCHER, HEATHER BOUCHER, CHRISTOPHER
DETTLOFF, and ADAM DUCH, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FINANCE SYSTEM OF GREEN BAY,
INC., a Wisconsin Corporation; and, JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1
THROUGH 25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00132-WCG (E.D.
Wisc.), the plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order determining
that the lawsuit brought pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, may proceed as a class action.

The class is defined as:

   "(a) all persons with addresses in the State of Wisconsin (b)
   to whom FSGB mailed a collection letter in an attempt to
   collect a defaulted medical debt; (c) which was not returned
   as undelivered by the United States Postal Service; (d) and
   which letter stated, "because of interest, late charges and
   other charges that may be assessed by your creditor that vary
   from day to day, the amount due on the day you pay, may be
   greater" and the amount did not increase in the next
   collection letter; (e) and which letter was sent on or after
   January 30, 2016 and on or before February 20, 2017".

Excluded from the Class are FSGB and all officers, members,
partners, managers, directors, and employees of FSGB and their
respective immediate families, and legal counsel for all parties
to the action and all members of their immediate families.

The Plaintiffs further ask that Stern Thomasson LLP and the Law
Office of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed
counsel for the class.

The Bouchers are alleged to have incurred and defaulted on a
financial obligation to Barker Physical Therapy for medical
services ("Barker Debt"). Dettloff is alleged to have incurred and
defaulted on a financial obligation to Hand to Shoulder Center of
Wisconsin for medical services ("Hand Debt"). Duch is alleged to
have incurred and defaulted on a financial obligation to Fox
Valley Emergency Medicine for medical services ("Fox Debt").

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XG3AgOnx

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 917 4500
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  fgreene@edcombs.com

               - and -

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


FINTEGRA HOLDINGS: Dulhanty Appeals Ruling to Minn. Appeals Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Carmen A. Dulhanty filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit entitled Carmen A. Dulhanty, on her own behalf and
on behalf of those similarly situated v. Fintegra Holdings, LLC,
et al., Case No. 27-CV-15-14487, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the action is
brought for damages as a result of the Defendants' alleged gross
mismanagement, gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, self-
dealing, undisclosed conflicts, and fraudulent concealment in
connection with the MiaSole investments.

Fintegra Holdings, LLC is a business established for the
solicitation and sale of securities.

The appellate case is captioned as Carmen A. Dulhanty, on her own
behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, Appellant;
Fintegra Holdings, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company,
Plaintiff v. Daniel Conner, et al., Respondents, Doreen Lea Weber,
et al., Respondents, Frank Charles "Chet" Taylor, III, Respondent,
Fintegra Holdings, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company,
Defendant, Case No. A17-0172, in the Court of Appeals for the
state of Minnesota.


FIRST NATIONAL: Class Certification Hearing Reset for May 17
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Andrea R. Wood entered an order in the lawsuit titled
Agnes Stolinski, the Plaintiff, v. First National Collection
Bureau, Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00192 (N.D.
Ill.), continuing Plaintiff's motion to certify class to the next
status hearing.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on February 9,
2017, the Court sets the following briefing schedule on
Defendants' motions to dismiss. The Plaintiff shall respond by
March 9, 2017 and Defendants shall reply by March 30, 2017.
Initial disclosures shall be made by February 23, 2017. Additional
discovery in this matter is stayed until further order of court.
Status hearing set for March 14, 2017 is stricken and reset for
May 17, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ow4sl6Ro


FRANKLIN COLLECTION: Lafrenier Files Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned TANYA LAFRENIER, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
FRANKLIN COLLECTION SERVICE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-
cv-00174-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order certifying a proposed class, appointing the Plaintiff as
its representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its
Counsel.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay the class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=thhCtP1z

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GC SERVICES: Nationwide Class Certified in "Macy" FDCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled WILBUR MACY and PAMELA J. STOWE, the
Plaintiffs, v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 3:15-cv-
00819-DJH-CHL (W.D. Ken.), the Hon David J. Hale certified the
following class of:

   "(1) all persons with a Kentucky or Nevada address, (2) to
   whom GC Services Limited Partnership mailed an initial
   communication that stated: (a) "if you do dispute all or any
   portion of this debt within 30 days of receiving this letter,
   we will obtain verification of the debt from our client and
   send it to you," and/or (b) "if within 30 days of receiving
   this letter you request the name and address of the original
   creditor, we will provide it to you in the event it differs
   from our client," (3) between November 5, 2014 and November 5,
   2015, (4) in connection with the collection of a consumer
   debt, (5) that was not returned as undeliverable to GC
   Services Limited Partnership."

Macy and Stowe each received a letter from GC Services notifying
them that their Synchrony Bank credit-card accounts had been
referred to GC Services for collection. According to the
Plaintiffs, the notice was deficient because it failed to inform
them that GC Services was only obligated to provide the additional
debt and creditor information if they disputed their debts in
writing. On behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Macy and Stowe assert violations of the two subsections of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act that impose the in-writing
requirement. They seek statutory damages and injunctive relief.

The Court said, "GC Services briefly argues that if the Court is
inclined to grant certification, it should either certify a
nationwide class or define the class to "encompass all the
proposed class members across all the pending lawsuits filed by
Plaintiffs' counsel against GC Services involving the letters at
issue here." It notes the existence of Dickens (which, as
discussed above, was dismissed by the district court and is now on
appeal) and quotes the FDCPA's damages provision, 15 U.S.C.
section 1692k(a), asserting that "Plaintiffs' counsel should not
be permitted to bring serial, piecemeal litigation against GC
Services for the same[] alleged course of conduct in the various
federal districts across the country." The statute does not limit
the number of class actions that may be brought against a
defendant, however, and GC Services cites no precedent in support
of its request to redefine the class. As Macy and Stowe observe,
similar attempts have been rejected on the ground that plaintiffs
are "masters of their complaint"."

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


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Being Sold Too Cheaply, "Chopp" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
directors are selling Genworth Financial too cheaply through an
unfair process to China Oceanwide Holdings Group, for $5.43 a
share or $2.7 billion, shareholders say in a federal class action
in Wilmington, Del.

The case is captioned, ESTHER CHOPP, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. GENWORTH
FINANCIAL, INC., WILLIAM H. BOLINDER, G. KENT CONRAD, MELINA E.
HIGGINS, THOMAS J. MCINERNEY, DAVID M. MOFFETT, THOMAS E. MOLONEY,
JAMES A. PARKE, and JAMES S. RIEPE, Defendants., Case 1:17-cv-
00125-UNA (D. Del).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
     Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
     GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
     440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 983-1300

          - and -

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


GOSPEL FOR ASIA: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Order in "Dickson" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Gospel for ASIA, Inc., David Carroll, Pat Emerick,
Gospel for ASIA - International, Daniel Punnose, Gisela Punnose
and K. P. Yohannan filed an appeal from an opinion & order dated
January 18, 2017, in the lawsuit styled Matthew Dickson, et al. v.
Gospel for ASIA, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-05027-PKH, in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas -
Fayetteville.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Gospel for Asia, Inc. is a Christian missionary focused on
spreading the Gospel to India and Asian countries through the use
of national missionaries.

The appellate case is captioned as Matthew Dickson, et al. v.
Gospel for ASIA, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-1191, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case:

   -- Transcript is due on or before March 8, 2017;

   -- Appendix is due on March 20, 2017;

   -- Brief of Appellants David Carroll, Pat Emerick, Gospel for
      ASIA - International, Gospel for ASIA, Inc., Daniel
      Punnose, Gisela Punnose and K. P. Yohannan is due on
      March 20, 2017;

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

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

Plaintiffs-Appellees Matthew Dickson, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, and Jennifer Dickson,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Woodson William Bassett, III, Esq.
          James M. Graves, Esq.
          BASSETT LAW FIRM
          221 N. College
          P.O. Box 3618
          Fayetteville, AR 72702-3618
          Telephone: (479) 521-9996
          Facsimile: (479) 521-9600
          E-mail: wbassett@bassettlawfirm.com
                  jgraves@bassettlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Thomas W. Mills, Jr., Esq.
          MILLS & WILLIAMS L.L.P.
          5910 North Central Expressway, Suite 980
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 265-9265
          Facsimile: (214) 363-3167
          E-mail: tmills@millsandwilliams.com

               - and -

          Marc R. Stanley, Esq.
          Martin Woodward, Esq.
          STANLEY LAW GROUP
          6116 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1500
          Dallas, TX 75206-0000
          Telephone: (214) 443-4300
          Facsimile: (214) 443-0358
          E-mail: marcstanley@mac.com
                  mwoodward@stanleylawgroup.com

Defendants-Appellants Gospel for ASIA, Inc., Gospel for ASIA -
International, K. P. Yohannan, Gisela Punnose, Daniel Punnose,
David Carroll and Pat Emerick are represented by:

          Debra Brown, Esq.
          Steven Shults, Esq.
          SHULTS & BROWN LLP
          200 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 1600
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3637
          Telephone: (501) 375-2301
          Facsimile: (501) 375-6861
          E-mail: dbrown@shultslaw.com
                  sshults@shultslaw.com

               - and -

          Harriet E. Miers, Esq.
          Robert T. Mowrey, Esq.
          Jason Levi Sanders, Esq.
          Paul Featherstone Schuster, Esq.
          LOCKE & LORD LLP
          2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800
          Dallas, TX 75201-6776
          Telephone: (214) 740-8000
          Facsimile: (214) 740-8800
          E-mail: hmiers@lockelord.com
                  rmowrey@lockelord.com
                  jsanders@lockelord.com
                  pschuster@lockelord.com


GREEN BROOK: "Brooking" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled TIMOTHY BROKING on Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GREEN BROOK BUICK GMC
SUZUKI, and BLUE BONNET TECHNOLOGY, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
3:15-cv-01847-BRM-LHG (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff will move before the
Hon. Brian R. Martinotti, on March 7, 2017 for an order to certify
a class, appoint Plaintiff as the class representative, and
appoint Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, The Sultzer Law Group, and Lite
DePalma Greenberg, LLC as co-lead Class Counsel.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QAaaD4Pe

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, New Jersey 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623 3000
          Facsimile: (973) 623 0858
          E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Innessa S. Melamed, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, New York 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983 9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983 9331
          E-mail: imelamed@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
          85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
          Poughkeepsie, New York 12601
          Telephone: (845) 483 7100
          Facsimile: (888) 749 7747
          E-mail: gonnellia@thesultzerlawgroup.com


GROVETOWN, GA: Implements Changes After Water Bill Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
WRDW/WAGT reports that the City of Grovetown is making some
staffing changes as problems continue for the city's water
department.

For better or for worse, the city of Grovetown is going through a
lot of changes.

"In general, I have found that most of the way things are done
have not been the right way as far as I'm concerned," said
Mayor Gary Jones.

Mayor Gary Jones himself is part of that change, in office for
just over one year.  During that time, the city handled lawsuits
and a federal investigation into missing city funds.

"With this embezzlement, you never know, and I was always checking
my bill," explained Antonia Palmer, "I would always look at it and
compare it from the last month to this month."

Ending with City Clerk, Vicky Capetillo being fired.

"Moving forward, once this investigation plays out, that that will
correct itself," said Mr. Jones.

Flash forward to today, more changes including letting two
longtime employees go.  One of them, City Attorney,
Brendan Fleming.

And now, longtime Utility Billing Supervisor, Renee Beard who,
according to a performance plan, was leaving bank bags unsecured
and sending water bills out late, among other things.

"I have no doubt I'm headed in the right direction," said
Mr. Jones.

The city also changed from postcard invoices to water bills sealed
in envelopes.  They also installed new water meters, so mistakes
from the past don't repeat themselves.

"Making sure that this doesn't happen again because that's the
biggest part for citizens to make sure that this doesn't ever
happen again with us," said Ms. Palmer.

In the next year, the one thing Mayor Jones hopes the city can get
back is trust.


GRUBHUB HOLDINGS: Class Certification in "Souran" Suit Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Charles R. Norgle entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned THOMAS SOURAN, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. GRUBHUB
HOLDINGS, INC. et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06720
(N.D. Ill. ), granting Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class.

The Court said, "Plaintiffs have satisfied the threshold
requirement of making a minimal showing of similarity among the
potential claimants. In light of the recent Seventh Circuit
decision in Lewis, the arbitration provisions are unenforceable
and therefore do not preclude certification. The Court notes that
Plaintiffs will have to develop their factual support through
discovery and that Defendants' may motion the Court to decertify
the class at step two of the certification inquiry. Finally,
Defendants must submit their version of the collective action
notice on or before February 17, 2017".

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


HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Judge Refuses to Stay Suit Over Bail System
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that facing a class action in Houston accusing it of running an
unconstitutional bail system that needlessly jails poor
misdemeanor arrestees, Harris County could not persuade a federal
judge on February 9, to stay the case until it implements long-
overdue reforms.

The Harris County Jail in downtown Houston is the biggest in
Texas, booking an average of 1,400 people a week.  It's been a
headache and embarrassment for county officials in recent years,
due to overcrowding that critics say caused the death of four
people who were beaten by fellow inmates there in 2015 and 2016,
leading the Department of Justice to open an investigation.

A bail system in which as late as spring 2016 only 8 percent of
misdemeanor arrestees were released on no-fee bonds has fueled the
overcrowding. Even newly elected Harris County Sheriff Ed
Gonzalez, a defendant in the class action, has conceded in a brief
to the court that he believes the system is unconstitutional.

Other top officials agree. After a hearing on February 9,
afternoon before U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal on the county's
motion to stay, Harris County Commissioner Rodney Ellis, a former
state senator, said he's confident a settlement will be reached
before trial, but acknowledged the legal wrangling has been costly
for taxpayers.

Commissioners are the executives of Texas counties, led by CEOs
who are called county judges, but are not judicial officers.

"I do think it was a mistake on the county's part to lawyer up.
God knows how much money has been spent already, in my judgment,
to defend a system that's indefensible. . . . It's a real simple
proposition: Are you for simple justice or not?" Ellis, an
African-American, said.

Lead plaintiff Maranda Lynn ODonnell, a 23-year-old mother of a
young daughter, was arrested May 18, 2016 on a charge of driving
on a suspended license and booked into Harris County Jail.
ODonnell says she couldn't afford the $2,500 bail set by Harris
County's bail schedule, which sets predetermined amounts based on
the charges.

Asserting civil rights and equal protection claims, ODonnell's
original complaint named only the county, its sheriff, and five
magistrate judges as defendants. She added the county's 16
misdemeanor court judges as defendants in an amended version.

Magistrates do not consider a person's ability to pay a preset
bond after an arrest for a minor crime, according to the lawsuit.

The county told Rosenthal in a Feb. 2 emergency motion to stay
that it's confident its reformed bail system, set to launch
July 1, will moot ODonnell's claims.

The county's attorneys also bragged in the motion that the
"public-safety assessment," still under construction, in which all
arrestees will be evaluated for bond eligibility by a computer
program without pretrial service staff having to interview them,
will make Harris County "a model for the rest of the nation."

"A stay is warranted because plaintiffs' proposed relief
unnecessarily intrudes into areas that should be left to the local
government. In reality, this case is not about the Constitution or
the law. Rather, this case is about plaintiffs' attempt to force
policy changes -- changes that should be made by elected
officials, not a federal court," the motion states.

One of the county's hired guns, James Munisteri with Gardere Wynne
Sewell in Houston, told Rosenthal on February 9, that the
percentage of defendants granted no-fee bonds has jumped from 8
percent to more than 20 percent since the litigation began in May
2016.  He credited rule changes the county's 16 criminal court
judges made in August 2016 that made no-fee bonds preferred for 12
misdemeanor charges, plus the hiring of two new magistrates and a
new pretrial services form that collects more financial data about
defendants earlier in the post-arrest process.

Unimpressed with Munisteri's statistics, Rosenthal cut to the
heart of the case:  "What percentage of those who cannot pay and
who are subject to no other constraints are still in jail?" she
asked.

Rosenthal, a George H.W. Bush nominee, is the chief judge of the
Southern District of Texas.

She presides over the most imposing courtroom in the Bob Casey
Federal Courthouse in downtown Houston, its focal point a huge
marble slab that looms behind the bench, nearly filling the wall,
framing the petite but fiery Rosenthal.  She was unfazed during
the 90-minute hearing when Munisteri suggested that perhaps the
only people being illegally detained in Harris County Jail as
alleged in the lawsuit choose to be there.

"There are individuals, for instance, that for whatever reason,
decide they do want to go the jail and stay there. If it's a cold
week," he said.

Rosenthal gently backed Munisteri back from what she called his
"dicey" argument.

"It's uncomfortably reminiscent of the historical argument that
used to be made that people enjoyed slavery because they were
afraid of the alternative," she said.

"There may have been individual cases in which that fear was
tremendously powerful and real. But you didn't see a lot of people
running towards enslavement. You don't see a lot of people
volunteering for jail in order to get warm."

ODonnell's attorney Alec Karakatsanis, with the Civil Rights
Corps, a Washington, D.C. firm that does pro bono work, urged
Rosenthal to see past Harris County's claims that its new risk-
assessment tool "will be magic."

"They've had a validated risk-assessment tool since 1992 that's
been ignored by every defendant in this case," he said.

In a Feb. 3 brief opposing the county's motion to stay,
Karakatsanis and his co-counsel wrote that the parties have been
on the verge of settling the case more than once, but "certain
defendants have blown up the deal." He declined to elaborate on
the holdouts during the hearing.

In refusing to stay the case, Rosenthal said the county had not
given her enough data. She said there were too many "open
questions" about when the county's new system will be implemented,
what changes will be made and how the bail payment schedule will
be revised.

She set a Feb. 22 hearing for the parties to hash out their expert
witnesses and a preliminary injunction hearing for
March 6.

Ellis, the county commissioner, told reporters after the hearing
that the county still has time to settle.  "I think they can still
get there. But when you get vested interests involved who want to
protect that turf, and some people who want to protect their
pocketbooks, that adds to the complexity of it," he said, adding
that bail bondsmen are part of the problem.

The case is captioned, MARANDA LYNN ODONNELL, et al. Plaintiffs,
v. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, et al. Defendants. Case 4:16-cv-01414
(S.D. Tex. February 2, 2017).

Counsel for Harris County, Texas, Eric Stewart Hagstette, Joseph
Licata III, Ronald Nicholas, Blanca Estela Villagomez, and Jill
Wallace:

     Mike Stafford, Esq.
     Katharine D. David, Esq.
     Philip J. Morgan, Esq.
     Ben Stephens, Esq.
     GARDERE WYNNE SEWELL LLP
     2000 Wells Fargo Plaza
     1000 Louisiana Street
     Houston, TX 77002-5011
     Tel: 713-276-5500
     Fax: 713-276-5555
     E-mail: mstafford@gardere.com
             kdavid@gardere.com
             pmorgan@gardere.com
             bstephens@gardere.com

          - and -

     John Odam
     Assistant County Attorney
     OFFICE OF THE HARRIS COUNTY ATTORNEY
     1019 Congress, 15th Floor
     Houston, Texas 77002
     Tel: 713-274-5101
     Fax: 713-755-8924
     E-mail: john.odam@cao.hctx.net

Attorneys For The Harris County Criminal Courts At Law 1-15
Judges:

     John. E. O'Neill, Esq.
     John R. Keville, Esq.
     Sheryl A. Falk, Esq.
     Robert L. Green, Esq.
     WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP
     1111 Louisiana, 25th Floor
     Houston, Texas 77002
     Tel: (713) 651-2600
     Fax: (713) 651-2700
     E-mail: joneill@winston.com
             jkeville@winston.com
             sfalk@winston.com
             rgreen@winston.com

Attorney For Sheriff Ed Gonzalez:

     Victoria Jimenez, Esq.
     Assistant County Attorney
     1019 Congress, 15th Floor
     Houston, Texas 77002
     Tel: (713) 274-5140
     Fax: (713) 755-8924
     E-mail: Victoria.jimenez@cao.hctx.net


HD SUPPLY: "Weisberg" Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Jonathan Weisberg, Individually And On
Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
HD Supply, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-08248-FMO-MRW
(C.D. Cal.), Mr. Jonathan Weisberg will move the Court for an
order granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement
and certification of the settlement class.

The Settlement Class consists of:

   "individuals who are the record subscribers of 13,298 unique
   United States cell phone numbers that were sent text messages
   by Defendant between October 21, 2011 and October 21, 2015."

The Plaintiff will receive an incentive payment of $7,500.00
(subject to Court approval) for bringing and litigating this
action. Class Counsel will request an attorneys' fee reimbursement
award of $306,250 (i.e., 25% of the total settlement amount) and
litigation costs (not to exceed $50,000), subject to Court
approval, to be paid out of the Settlement Fund. Any unclaimed
funds from uncashed settlement checks, including settlement checks
to Class Members who submit valid claim forms but whose current
valid address could not be determined shall be delivered to a cy
pres recipient selected by the parties and approved by the Court.
This cy pres payment from the Settlement Fund is after all
settlement costs and direct payments to the Settlement Class are
paid.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zZp0X2L3

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HOMEAWAY INC: Seeks 5th Cir. Review of Decision in "Arnold" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant HomeAway, Incorporated, filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Ivan Arnold v. HomeAway,
Incorporated, Case No. 1:16-CV-374, in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas, Austin.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
alleges that HomeAway breached its duty of good faith and fair
dealing owed to the Plaintiff by materially changing its rates and
fees during the term of the contract, including by imposing a new
"service fee" on travelers, who rent the Plaintiff's vacation home
through HomeAway's Web sites.

HomeAway, Inc., operates an online market for the vacation and
rental industry.

The appellate case is captioned as Ivan Arnold v. HomeAway,
Incorporated, Case No. 17-50088, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellee IVAN ARNOLD, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Daniel Henry Byrne, Esq.
          FRITZ, BYRNE, HEAD & FITZPATRICK, P.L.L.C.
          98 San Jacinto Boulevard
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 476-2020
          Facsimile: (512) 477-5267
          E-mail: dbyrne@fbhf.com

               - and -

          Keith J. Wesley, Esq.
          BROWNE GEORGE ROSS LLP
          2121 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 274-7100
          Facsimile: (310) 275-5697
          E-mail: kwesley@bgrfirm.com

Defendant-Appellant HOMEAWAY, INCORPORATED, is represented by:

          Jane Webre, Esq.
          SCOTT, DOUGLASS & MCCONNICO, L.L.P.
          303 Colorado Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 495-6300
          Facsimile: (512) 474-0731
          E-mail: jwebre@scottdoug.com


HUNTER INDUSTRIES: King Suit Seeks Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ANTHONY KING, JOHN RAMIREZ, ET AL., the
Plaintiffs, v. Hunter Industries, Ltd., the Defendant, Case No.
6:16-cv-00038 (S.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify
a conditional class of:

   "all current and former earthworks laborers and equipment
   operators employed by Defendant Hunter Industries by the Texas
   Department of Transportation as being principally located in
   Bexar County, Texas and/or Victoria County, Texas, during the
   period from June 24, 2013, to the present.

The Plaintiffs contend that they were not paid for all of their
hours worked, including overtime hours. Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs filed the collective action to recover unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=M8sUOw3C

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Siurek, Esq.
          Patricia Haylon, Esq.
          WARREN & SIUREK, L.L.P.
          3334 Richmond, Suite 100
          Houston, TX 77098
          Telephone: (713) 522 0066
          Facsimile: (713) 522 9977
          E-mail: msiurek@warrensiurek.com
                  thaylon@warrensiurek.com

               - and -

          Gennaro Du Terroil, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GENNARO DU TERRIOL
          18756 Stone Oak Pkwy, Suite 200
          Telephone: (210) 998 5645
          Facsimile: (210) 495 4670
          E-mail: cibelliterroil@outlook.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ramon D. Bissmeyer, Esq.
          Rea Ferandez, Esq.
          Elizabeth Voss, Esq.
          Dykema Cox Smith
          112 East Pecan St., Suite 1800
          San Antonio, Texas 78205
          Facsimile: (210) 226 8395
          E-mail: rbissmeyer@dykema.com
                  rferandez@dykema.com
                  evoss@dykema.com


HUNTER WARFIELD: Faces "Lasri" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hunter Warfield,
Inc. The case is styled as Tali Lasri, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hunter Warfield,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00623 (E.D.N.Y. Fla., Feb.
3, 2017).

Hunter Warfield provides revenue recovery and risk mitigating
services.

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


HUNTINGTON NATIONAL: Powell Appeals S.D.W. Va. Ruling to 4th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jeremy A. Powell and Tina Powell filed an appeal from a
court ruling arising from their lawsuit entitled Jeremy Powell v.
The Huntington National Bank, Case No. 2:13-cv-32179, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia at
Charleston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District
Judge Thomas E. Johnston granted the Defendant's motion for
summary judgment against the Powells.  The Powells brought the
action against Huntington, alleging causes of action arising out
of a home loan that the Powells acquired through the bank.
According to the complaint, Huntington illegally assessed late
fees in violation of the terms of the Powells' mortgage loan
contract and in violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and
Protection Act, and misrepresented the amount of a claim in
violation of the WVCCPA.  It was not in dispute that Huntington
charged the Powells multiple late fees.

The appellate case is captioned as Jeremy Powell v. The Huntington
National Bank, Case No. 17-1118, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

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

   -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on March 8, 2017; and

   -- Response Brief is due on April 7, 2017.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          John William Barrett, Esq.
          Michael Brian Hissam, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301-0000
          Telephone: (304) 345-6555
          E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com
                  mhissam@baileyglasser.com
                  jmarshall@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Patricia Mulvoy Kipnis, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          923 Haddonfield Road
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Telephone: (856) 324-8219
          E-mail: pkipnis@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Scott G. Stapleton, Esq.
          STAPLETON & STAPLETON
          400 5th Avenue
          Huntington, WV 25701-0000
          Telephone: (304) 529-1130
          E-mail: stapletonlawoffices@gmail.com

Defendant-Appellee THE HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK is represented by:

          Carrie Goodwin Fenwick, Esq.
          GOODWIN & GOODWIN, LLP
          300 Summers Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 346-7000
          E-mail: cgf@goodwingoodwin.com

               - and -

          Robert Allen Long, Jr., Esq.
          Andrew James Soukup, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING, LLP
          1 City Center
          850 10th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20001-4956
          Telephone: (202) 662-5612
          E-mail: rlong@cov.com
                  asoukup@cov.com

               - and -

          John Curtis Lynch, Esq.
          Jason E. Manning, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
          222 Central Park Avenue
          Virginia Beach, VA 23462-0000
          Telephone: (757) 687-7765
          E-mail: john.lynch@troutmansanders.com
                  jason.manning@troutmansanders.com


IMAGE LINE: "Thomas" Suit Wins Conditional Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOSHUA THOMAS, the Plaintiff, v. IMAGE LINE,
LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00845-DBP (D. Utah),
the Hon. Dustin B. Pead entered an order granting Plaintiff's
unopposed motion for conditional certification.

The Court authorized Plaintiff to disseminate by first class U.S.
mail and by email the notice and consent forms, in accordance with
this schedule:

   1. 10 Days From Order Approving Notice to Potential Class
      Members

      Wind River to provide to Plaintiff's counsel in an Excel
      spreadsheet the following information (to the extent such
      information is in the possession of Wind River) regarding
      all Truck Pushers that were employed by Wind River from
      three years prior to the date the Court's order granting
      conditional certification is entered to the present: Last
      Name, First Name, Last Known Address, City, State, Zip
      Code, Last Known E-Mail Address, Last Known Telephone
      Number, Beginning Date of Employment, and Ending Date of
      Employment (if any).

   2. 20 Days From Order Approving Notice to Potential Class
      Members

      Plaintiff's Counsel shall send a copy of the Court approved
      Notice and Consent Form to the Putative Class Members by
      First Class U.S. Mail and by email.

   3. 60 Days From Date Notice is Mailed to Potential Class
      Members

      The Putative Class Members shall have 60 days to return
      their signed Consent forms to Plaintiff's counsel for
      filing with the Court.

   4. 30 Days from Date Notice is Mailed to Potential Class
      Members

      Plaintiff's Counsel is authorized to mail a post-card
      reminder of the notice/consent form to the Putative Class
      Members reminding them of the deadline for the submission
      of the Consent forms

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=V2V5Xr7g


INDIANA: Lawmaker Seeks to Limit BMV Class Action Attorney Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Cook, writing for IndyStar, reports that the chairman of a
legislative committee that deals with the Indiana Bureau of Motor
Vehicles is seeking to limit the fees class-action attorneys
receive when they sue the state.

The move comes after a pair of class-action lawsuits that exposed
massive overcharges at the BMV, resulting in nearly $60 million in
refunds to millions of Hoosiers and more than $15 million in
attorneys fees for the Downtown law firm that represented
motorists.

Now, House Road and Transportation Committee Chairman Ed Soliday
wants to restrict how such attorneys fees are calculated -- a move
critics say could come across as revenge.

"We feel we need some protections when the government finds an
error and they are fixing it and this becomes a class-action
suit," Mr. Soliday, a Valparaiso Republican, said during a hearing
on the bill on Feb. 8.  "All you're doing is canonizing what is
good practice."

He emphasized that the new restrictions on attorney fees would
only apply to future cases, not pending ones.

But opponents worry that the measure could make cases such as the
BMV lawsuit less appealing for lawyers.  That could undermine one
of the few mechanisms to hold the government accountable when it
wrongfully overcharges or withholds small amounts of money from a
large number of citizens.

"If you want to curtail attorneys fees in cases like this, why
don't you curb the greed and avarice of those taking from Hoosiers
without the right to do so," said attorney John P. Young,
president of the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association.

Rep. Dan Forestal, the ranking Democrat on the committee, also
raised concerns about the message Mr. Soliday's legislation sends.

"What law firm will ever get involved in a suit if they think the
state will seek revenge?" the Indianapolis Democrat said.

Ultimately, the committee voted 9-4 along party lines to advance
the measure to the full House.

House Bill 1491 contains a laundry list of minor tweaks and
technical corrections to the laws governing the BMV.  In fact, the
bill is titled "Title 9 revisions," a reference to the section of
Indiana code that deals with motor vehicle laws.

But tacked onto the end of the 64-page bill is a provision that
has nothing to do with motor vehicles.  Instead, it would change
Title 34, which governs civil law and procedure.

The provision would require that the maximum recovery for
attorney's fees in a class-action lawsuit against the government
be based on hours worked and a reasonable hourly rate.  That
differs from another common method for calculating fees, which is
based on a percentage -- often about 33 percent -- of the money
awarded to an attorney's clients.

Cohen Malad, the law firm handling the BMV cases, received about
$6 million in fees as part of its first lawsuit against the BMV.
That equaled about 21 percent of the $30 million settlement.

In November, the court awarded the firm another $9.6 million in
fees as part of an ongoing second lawsuit that the judge said
prompted the BMV to refund another $28.75 million to customers.
Those fees represent 33 percent of the refund.  The two sides are
still awaiting a decision on how much additional money the state
owes motorists for unauthorized BMV fees.

Mr. Soliday has railed against the attorneys fees, which he says
come at the taxpayer's expense.

"When the government is cleaning up its own house, let's not
provide an incentive to pile on," Mr. Soliday said.

But Marion County Superior Court Judge Richard Hanley found in
November that the BMV had concealed the overcharges for years, as
IndyStar reported in 2015.  He also found that Cohen Malad's
efforts were largely responsible for the BMV's decision to refund
money to customers.


INLAND BANCORP: iMove Chicago Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled iMOVE CHICAGO, INC., individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. INLAND
BANCORP, INC., INLAND HOME MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC, INLAND BANK AND
TRUST, and GIL KERKBASHIAN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-10106
(N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of:

   "all persons with Illinois fax numbers who were sent facsimile
   messages by or on behalf of Defendants promoting Defendants'
   goods or services, since September 30, 2012".

Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendants, Defendants' agents,
subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in
which Defendants or their parents have a controlling interest, and
those entities' current and former employees, officers, and
directors; (2) the Judge to whom this case is assigned and the
Judge's immediate family; (3) any person who executes and files a
timely request for exclusion from the Class; (4) any persons who
have had their claims in this matter finally adjudicated and/or
otherwise released; and (5) the legal representatives, successors
and assigns of any such excluded person.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court that Zimmerman Law Offices,
P.C. be appointed counsel for the Class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YZqN7H8v

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
          Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440 0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440 4180
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
                  amy@attorneyzim.com
                  nick@attorneyzim.com
                  www.attorneyzim.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces "Beltran" Suit in S.D. of Cal.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JPMorgan Chase Bank,
N.A. The case is captioned as Maria Isabel Beltran, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00221-
WQH-JMA (S.D. Cal., Feb. 3, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon.
Judge William Q. Hayes.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., doing business as Chase Bank, is a
national bank that constitutes the consumer and commercial banking
subsidiary of the multinational banking corporation JPMorgan
Chase.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J O'Connor, Esq.
          O'CONNOR LAW, APC
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 398 4764
          Facsimile: (619) 756 6991
          E-mail: matt@oconnorlawsd.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Deprives Jurors of Full Payment, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Brandi Buchman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
as part of its deal with the District of Columbia to put juror
fees on debit cards, JPMorgan Chase claims that free ATM
withdrawals ensure juror payment in full.  Balking at this scheme
in a federal class action, one juror asks Chase to please identify
the ATMs that dispense amounts in dollar increments.

"Any jurors with balances in odd dollar increments -- including
all jurors receiving the statutory $4 travel allowance only -- are
unable to obtain their full balance for 'free,' as Chase claims,"
the complaint states, filed by D.C. resident William Scott.

Having just served on a jury in July 2016, Scott urges a federal
judge to crack down on Chase's unconscionable practices and return
"the ill-gotten funds Chase siphoned off to those who duly
fulfilled their civic duty to serve as jurors and are entitled to
their full statutory compensation accordingly."

In addition to the $4 daily travel allowance for all potential
jurors in D.C. Superior Court, any juror who is selected for a
trial and is not getting paid by his employer is supposed to take
home $30 a day.

For those only receiving $4 because they were not picked,
according to the complaint, "Chase makes it practically impossible
for these jurors to retrieve their money off of the debit cards."

Scott notes that the debit cards come with monthly charges of
$1.50 for "non-use" of the card, $5 for "out-of-network" ATM use,
$7 for "simply entering a Chase branch to ask for debit card funds
to be converted to cash;" and even charges of 45 cents and 25
cents, respectively, for checking bank balances or for not having
enough money in the account to pay for a declined purchase.

Jurors can opt out of the debit card option, but they have to
forfeit $15 to get a check, the 40-page complaint states.

"In other words," Scott says, "Chase has intentionally designed
the debit card system such that the fees it charges prevent jurors
from actually being able to access the funds to which they are
entitled by statute."

The class seeks punitive damages, alleging unjust enrichment,
conversion and violations of a host of laws, including the federal
Consumer Protection Act and the D.C. Consumer Protection
Procedures Act.

Scott is represented by Anna Haac of the firm Tycko and Zavareei

JPMorgan Chase did not return a call for comment.

The case is captioned, WILLIAM MARK SCOTT, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, 2406 44th St NW
Washington, D.C. 20007-1103 Plaintiff, v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.,
270 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017 Defendant, Case 1:17-cv-00249
(D.D.C., February 7, 2017).

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes:

     Anna C. Haac, Esq.
     Sophia J. Goren, Esq.
     Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
     TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
     1828 L Street, NW, Suite 1000
     Washington, DC 20036
     Telephone: (202) 973-0900
     Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
     E-mail: ahaac@tzlegal.com
             sgoren@tzlegal.com
             jkaliel@tzlegal.com


KEYNETICS INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Silverstein" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff William Silverstein filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit titled William Silverstein v. Keynetics, Inc., et
al., Case No. 4:16-cv-00684-DMR, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, Oakland.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Magistrate
Judge Donna M. Ryu dismissed the Plaintiff's second amended
complaint.

Mr. Silverstein brings the putative class action alleging
violations of California's restrictions on unsolicited commercial
e-mail.  The Plaintiff is a member of the group "C, Linux and
Networking Group" on LinkedIn, a professional networking website.
Through his membership in that group, he received unlawful
commercial e-mails (spam e-mails) that came from fictitiously
named senders through the LinkedIn group e-mail system.  The e-
mails originated from the domain "linkedin.com," even though non-
party LinkedIn did not authorize the use of its domain and was not
the actual initiator of the e-mails.

The appellate case is captioned as William Silverstein v.
Keynetics, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-15176, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case:

   -- Mediation Questionnaire was due February 6, 2017;

   -- Transcript must be ordered by February 27, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on March 28, 2017;

   -- Appellant William Silverstein's opening brief is due on
      May 8, 2017;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees 418 Media, LLC., Click Sales,
      Inc., Lewis Howes and Keynetics, Inc., is due on June 6,
      2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant WILLIAM SILVERSTEIN, individually and on
behalf of all other California residents similarly situated, is
represented by:

          William M. Audet, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
          E-mail: waudet@audetlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark Etheredge Burton, Jr., Esq.
          HERSH & HERSH LLP
          601 Van Ness Avenue
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 441-5544
          E-mail: mburton@audetlaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy J. Walton, Esq.
          WALTON TWU LLP
          9515 Soquel Drive
          Aptos, CA 95003
          Telephone: (831) 685-9800
          E-mail: walton@waltontwu.com

Defendants-Appellees KEYNETICS, INC., a Delaware corporation, and
CLICK SALES, INC., a Delaware corporation, are represented by:

          Rodger Ryan Cole, Esq.
          FENWICK & WEST LLP
          801 California Street
          Mountain View, CA 94041
          Telephone: (650) 988-8500
          E-mail: rcole@fenwick.com

               - and -

          Tyler Griffin Newby, Esq.
          FENWICK & WEST LLP
          555 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 875-2300
          E-mail: tnewby@fenwick.com

Defendant-Appellee, 418 MEDIA, LLC., an Ohio limited liability
company, is represented by:

          Seth Wiener, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SETH W. WIENER
          609 Karina Court
          San Ramon, CA 94582
          Telephone: (925) 487-5607
          E-mail: sethwiener@yahoo.com


LIBERTY MUTUAL: "Metrow" Suit Seeks to Certify Employees Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned LYNN METROW, LINDA MASTIN, SHANAN WALI,
and ROSE ANN GAINOR, individuals, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL MANAGED CARE LLC, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-01133-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff will move the Court on March 6, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. for an
order:

   1. certifying a class of employees defined as:

      "all individuals who are or previously were employed by
      Defendant Liberty Mutual Managed Care, LLC as Telephonic
      Nurse Case Managers in California between February 24, 2012
      to the present."

   2. appointing of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik as class
      counsel; and

   3. approving the designation of Plaintiff Rose Ann Gainor as
      class representative.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          Piya Mukherjee, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551 1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551 1232


MARKETECH: JT's Frames Files Amended Class Certification Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JT'S FRAMES, INC., an Illinois corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. JESSE CASARES, JOE CASARES,
PATRICIA BEZABALETA a/k/a PATRICIA ZABELETA, DAVID A. OZUNA, JOHN
MEDINA, MARKETECH, a Texas corporation d/b/a INTERFAX.NET and 7915
WESTGLEN LLC, AVIGDOR TESSLER, JAY M. KAMENETSKY, ORIE RECHTMAN
and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02504 (N.D.
Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of:

   "all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
   filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile
   messages of material advertising the commercial availability
   or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf
   of Defendants, and (3) which Defendants did not have prior
   express permission or invitation, or (4) which did not display
   a proper opt-out notice".

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint itself as the
class representative, and its attorneys as class counsel.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aHIr3QvK

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          Ross M. Good, Esq.
          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368 1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
                  rgood@andersonwanca.com
                  rkelly@andersonwanca.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jesse Casares, Esq.
          Joe Casares, Esq.
          Patricia Bezabaleta, Esq.
          10900 Northwest Freeway, Suites 218 & 219
          Houston, TX 77092


MARYLAND, USA: Koenig Appeals From Ruling in "Jarboe" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Wayne Koenig filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Jarboe v. Maryland Department of Public Safety and
Correctional Services, et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-00572-ELH, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.

The appellate case is captioned as In re: Bruce W. Koenig, Case
No. 17-1131, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit.

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

   -- Informal Opening Brief is due on February 23, 2017; and

   -- Informal response brief, if any, is due 14 days after
      informal opening brief is filed.

Appellant Bruce Wayne Koenig represents himself:

          Bruce Wayne Koenig
          MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION - JESSUP
          P. O. Box 549
          Jessup, MD 20794-0000

Plaintiff CHRISTOPHER JARBOE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Deborah M. Golden, Esq.
          WASHINGTON LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS &
          URBAN AFFAIRS
          11 Dupont Circle, NW
          Washington, DC 20036-0000
          Telephone: (202) 319-1000
          E-mail: Deborah_Golden@washlaw.org

Plaintiffs CHRISTOPHER JARBOE, CARROLL CONNELLY, VANDER DAVIS,
GARY DENMARK, and GARFIELD REDD, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Lauren Ashley Champaign, Esq.
          Joseph Dowell Edmondson, Jr., Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP
          3000 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20007-5143
          Telephone: (202) 295-4719
          E-mail: lchampaign@foley.com
                  jedmondson@foley.com

Defendants MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL
SERVICES; MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS; MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL
ENTERPRISES; MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, JESSUP (MCIJ);
WESTERN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; GARY D. MAYNARD, Secretary,
Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services;
and J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Maryland Commissioner of Corrections;
STEPHEN M. SHILOH, Chief Executive Officer Maryland Correctional
Enterprises; DAYENA CORCORAN, Warden Maryland Correctional
Institution, Jessup; and J. PHILIP MORGAN, Warden Western
Correctional Institution, are represented by:

          Nichole Cherie Gatewood, Esq.
          Rex Schultz Gordon, Esq.
          Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Esq.
          Dorianne Avery Meloy, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND
          200 St. Paul Place
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 576-6598
          Facsimile: (410) 576-6880
          E-mail: ngatewood@oag.state.md.us
                  rgordon@oag.state.md.us
                  slaneweber@oag.state.md.us
                  dmeloy@oag.state.md.us

Defendants MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING AND REGULATION,
DIVISION OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND ADULT LEARNING (CORRECTIONAL
EDUCATION); and PAULETTE FRANCOIS, Assistant Secretary, Department
of Labor, Licensing and Regulation Division of Workforce
Development and Adult Learning, are represented by:

          M. Willis Gunther, Esq.
          ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND
          DEPARTMENT OF LABOR LICENSING & REGULATION
          500 North Calvert Street
          Baltimore, MD 21202-2272
          Telephone: (410) 230-6268
          Facsimile: (410) 333-6503
          E-mail: willis.gunther@maryland.gov

Defendant MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, LICENSING AND REGULATION,
DIVISION OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND ADULT LEARNING (CORRECTIONAL
EDUCATION) is represented by:

          Christopher Bowie Lord, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND
          200 St. Paul Place
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Telephone: (410) 576-6450
          Facsimile: (410) 333-6503
          E-mail: christopher.lord@maryland.gov


METTRUM: Health Canada to Spot Check Medical Marijuana
------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Chiu, writing for CBC News, reports that Health Canada
says it will begin random testing of medical marijuana products to
check for the presence of banned pesticides after product recalls
affecting nearly 25,000 customers led to reports of illnesses and
the possibility of a class action lawsuit.

Late last year, licensed medical marijuana producers Organigram of
Moncton, N.B., and Toronto-based Mettrum voluntarily recalled
products due to the presence of low levels of the prohibited
chemicals myclobutanil, bifenazate and pyrethrins, all of which
are prohibited in tobacco and marijuana.

In January, nearly all of Organigram's products sold in 2016 were
pulled in a higher-level voluntary recall.

On Health Canada's Jan. 9 recall notice, the department said it
had "not received any adverse reaction reports for products sold
by Organigram Inc."

However, CBC News has confirmed that a Halifax woman, Dawn Rae
Downton, who had received one of the Health Canada notices, had
earlier complained to Health Canada about non-stop nausea and
vomiting.

'I am living proof' of adverse effects

Downton, 60, had a medical marijuana licence for her inflammatory
arthritis.  She said she's upset she received nothing more than a
form letter in November.

"I am living proof there have been very adverse effects. I lost
eight months of my life," she said.  "I'm living proof that Health
Canada is not protecting medical marijuana patients."

She also said she reported her side-effects to Organigram, one of
38 licensed producers in Canada, but did not receive a response.

A spokeswoman for Organigram said the company president was
unavailable for an interview, but the company was working with
Health Canada throughout the recall and hopes "to close this
chapter very soon."

Health Canada 'regrets this error'

In response to CBC inquiries, Health Canada said on Feb. 7 it had
received a report of side-effects prior to issuing the recall and
"regrets this error."

In addition, as of Jan. 31, the department said it had received
one adverse reaction report -- related to the recall -- from among
Organigram's 3,895 medical marijuana customers.  Reported symptoms
include "weight loss; nausea; vomiting; throat irritation; and
respiratory tract irritation," according to an email from a Health
Canada spokesperson.

The spokesperson also said 10 adverse reaction reports specific to
the recall had been received from among the 21,054 Mettrum
customers.

Health Canada says there were 119,709 people with a medical
marijuana licence as of Nov. 30, 2016.  That means about 20 per
cent of all medical marijuana licence holders in Canada are
affected by the recalls.

Random testing announced

On Feb. 7, Health Canada released an additional statement
announcing a new measure beyond the recall.  The department said
"it will begin random testing of medical cannabis products
produced by licensed producers, to provide added assurance to
Canadians that they are receiving safe, quality-controlled
product."

The statement said the testing will be done to ensure only
authorized pest control products are used during the production of
medical cannabis.

"The expanded product testing program will further enhance the
department's existing regime of regular unannounced inspections of
licensed producer facilities, as well as the controls in place by
licensed producers," reads the statement.

'I never want to be that sick again'

In October, Downton went to a gastroenterologist.  She had been
sick to her stomach for eight months, a period when she had been
smoking and eating medical marijuana.

The medical specialist diagnosed her as having an atypical case of
cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, and told her to stop consuming
marijuana.  The doctor had never seen this type of illness in
someone who wasn't a longtime pot user.

Downton had become so sick that she had lost 30 pounds and was
bedridden.

"I never want to be that sick again," she said.

The diagnosis of cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome was made before
the recall.  It wasn't publicly known at that point that the
marijuana, believed to be organically grown, contained trace
amounts of myclobutanil and bifenazate.

Large concentrations may have health effects

Myclobutanil is a fungicide permitted on food crops. But when
burned, it produces hydrogen cyanide.

According to Health Canada, hydrogen cyanide interferes with how
oxygen is used in the body and may cause headaches, dizziness,
nausea and vomiting.  Larger concentrations may cause gasping,
irregular heartbeats, seizures, fainting and even death.

Now, Downton suspects it was the joints she smoked -- tainted with
myclobutanil -- that caused her eight-month illness.

Since she stopped using the marijuana, she said, she hasn't had
constant nausea and vomiting.

Studying hydrogen cyanide signs

Frank Conrad, the lab director at Colorado Green Lab who has
studied the question of pesticides and medical marijuana, agreed
Downton's symptoms are signs of possible hydrogen cyanide
exposure.

"Nausea and vomiting are two things that can be a byproduct of
this," he said from his Denver-based office.

Conrad, who has a masters in biomedical sciences from the
University of Colorado, said the body can clear hydrogen cyanide
in small levels within hours, but in severe cases, it can cause
increased blood pressure and heart rates.

In rare cases, it's fatal, although Conrad said there are no
documented cases of death caused by hydrogen cyanide poisoning
from marijuana produced with myclobutanil.

He said Colorado Green Lab is developing a test for cannabis
strains to determine whether they are susceptible or resistant to
powdery mildew.  The idea is that growers can watch for early
signs of disease, and apply organic preventative treatments so
they "never have to resort to myclobutanil."

Possible class action lawsuit

Patients affected by the recalls are banding together.  So far,
more than 90 medical marijuana patients have contacted Wagners, a
class action and medical malpractice law firm in Halifax.

"That is an awful lot in a short period of time," said Ray Wagner,
the founder of the firm.  "It's shocking to a number of people who
have compromised immune systems and are ill from other disease
processes to find out that the product they thought was organic is
not."

He's still assessing the potential for a class action, and said a
health claim may be challenging because of the different
underlying medical problems among the patients.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.  A judge would
have to approve the class action for it to proceed.

Wagner also believes he's got a good shot at another type of claim
-- disgorgement -- which is a refund of amounts paid, plus a
portion of profits.

Wagner said many people who have contacted him have autoimmune
disorders.

"They're more vulnerable to these types of circumstances and that
is why, in most cases, why they seek out a particular product that
is organic."

Downton plans to follow up with her doctor to determine if there's
medical proof her illness was caused by pesticides and hydrogen
cyanide.

She plans to ship the remainder of her dried cannabis from
Organigram to a testing lab to see what else is in the product. As
well, she has volunteered to front a potential class action
lawsuit as the representative plaintiff.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Pirkles File Placeholder Class Cert. Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned GAIL PIRKLE, DAVID PIRKLE and THERESA
VYTLACIL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. and
MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00173-WED
(E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying proposed classes, appointing Plaintiffs as their
respective representatives, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP
as their Counsel.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ze101kKm

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MOMOIP LLC: Faces "Marett" Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MomoIP LLC. The case
is titled as Lucia Marett, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MomoIP LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00829 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2017).

MomoIP offers restaurant services, including sit-down service of
food and take-out restaurant services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces "McKenna" Suit in S.D. of Cal.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monarch Recovery
Management, Inc. The case is captioned as Margaret A. McKenna,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00223-JM-BLM (S.D. Cal., Feb. 3, 2017). The case
is assigned to Hon. Judge Jeffrey T. Miller.

Monarch Recovery, an accounts receivable management company,
provides financial recovery solutions.

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: "Martin" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ELISABETH MARTIN, on behalf of herself, all
others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff,
v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-02168-JFW-SP
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on March 13, 2017,
before the Hon. John F. Walter for an order certifying, with
respect to her claims for breach of express warranty, violation of
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA), and violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law
(FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), a class of:

   "all persons who, on or after October 13, 2012, purchased in
   California, for personal or household use and not for resale
   or distribution, Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Concentrate Plus
   ("Concentrate Plus") or Roundup Weed & Grass Killer Super
   Concentrate ("Super Concentrate") in packaging stating that
   the product "Makes up to" a specified number of gallons as
   follows:

         Product                         Label Statement

Super Concentrate 35.2 fl. oz.       "Makes up to 23 Gallons"
Super Concentrate 53.7 oz.           "Makes up to 35 Gallons"
Super Concentrate 64 fl. oz.         "Makes up to 42 Gallons"
Super Concentrate 128 fl. oz.        "Makes up to 85 Gallons"
Concentrate Plus 32 oz.              "Makes up to 10 Gallons"
Concentrate Plus 36.8 oz.            "Makes up to 12 Gallons"
Concentrate Plus 40 oz.              "Makes up to 13 Gallons"
Concentrate Plus 64 oz.              "Makes up to 21 gallons"
Concentrate Plus 128 oz.             "Makes up to 42 gallons"

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WKOT09Zz

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
          Melanie Persinger, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
          Hillcrest Professional Building
          3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692 3840
          Facsimile: (619) 362 9555
          E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

               - and -

          JACKSON & FOSTER, LLC
          Sidney W. Jackson, Iii, Esq.
          75 St. Michael Street
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 433 6699
          Facsimile: (251) 433 6127


MORGAN AND MORGAN: Faces "Vadnais" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Morgan and Morgan,
P.C. The case is entitled as JUSTIN VADNAIS, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF
AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. MORGAN AND
MORGAN, P.C. doing business as: MORGAN, BORNSTEIN & MORGAN AND
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, the Defendant, v. Case No. 1:17-cv-
00748-RBK-KMW (D.N.J., Feb. 3, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon.
Judge Robert B. Kugler.

Morgan and Morgan is a law firm providing legal representation to
clients including individuals and their families.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          LAWRENCE C. HERSH, Esq.
          17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 507 6300
          E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com


MICHIGAN: "McBride" Suit Seeks Certification of MDOC Deaf Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MARY ANN MCBRIDE, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs move the
Court to certify a class of:

   "all deaf and hard of hearing individuals in the custody of
   Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) (whether now or in
   the future), who require hearing-related accommodations,
   including but not limited to interpreters, hearing devices, or
   other auxiliary aids or services, to communicate effectively
   and/or to access or participate in programs, services, or
   activities available to individuals in the custody of MDOC".

According to the lawsuit, the record developed by Plaintiffs
demonstrates that MDOC does not provide reasonable accommodations
for deaf and hard of hearing prisoners. Until Plaintiffs filed
this lawsuit, MDOC did not even know on a system-wide basis which
of the prisoners in its custody were deaf and hard of hearing
because MDOC had no system-wide process for identifying such
prisoners. Once MDOC started trying to identify deaf and hard of
hearing prisoners, MDOC discovered that it was housing dozens of
such prisoners at facilities that MDOC itself had not designated
as facilities designed to house deaf and hard of hearing
prisoners. And most importantly, none of MDOC's facilities have
the types of services, programs, policies, or training that
Plaintiffs' two nationally-renowned experts in this area show in
their expert reports are necessary to provide reasonable
accommodations for deaf and hard of hearing prisoners. Indeed,
MDOC's failure to provide such accommodations on a system-wide
basis is so clear that MDOC did not even attempt to rebut
Plaintiffs' experts with an expert of its own.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Cl87LO1i

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Abraham Singer, Esq.
          Kitch Drutchas Wagner, Esq.
          VALITUTTI & SHERBROOK
          One Woodward Avenue, Ste 2400
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 965 7445
          E-mail: abraham.singer@kitch.com

               - and -

          Deborah M. Golden, Esq.
          Elliot M. Mincberg, Esq.
          WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR
          CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS
          11 Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 319 1000
          E-mail: deborah_golden@washlaw.org
                  elliot_mincberg@washlaw.org

               - and -

          Andrew D. Lazerow, Esq.
          Stephen C. Bartenstein, Esq.
          Philip J. Levitz, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          One City Center
          850 Tenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 662 6000
          E-mail: alazerow@cov.com
                  sbartenstein@cov.com
                  plevitz@cov.com

               - and -

          Chris E. Davis, Esq.
          Mark A. Cody, Esq.
          MICHIGAN PROTECTION AND
          ADVOCACY SERVICE, INC.
          4095 Legacy Parkway, Ste 500
          Lansing, MI 48911
          Telephone: (517) 487 1755
          E-mail: cdavis@mpas.org
                  mcody@mpas.org

               - and -

          Phoebe Yu, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          One City Center
          850 Tenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 662 6000
          E-mail: pyu@cov.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Allan J. Soros, Esq.
          James E. Long, Esq.
          Jeanmarie Miller, Esq.
          MI DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
          CIVIL LITIGATION, EMPLOYMENT & ELECTIONS DIVISION
          P.O. Box 30217
          Lansing, MI 48909
          E-mail: sorosa@michigan.gov
                  longj@michigan.gov
                  MillerJ51@michigan.gov


MUFG UNION BANK: Branch Service Manager Files Wage and Hour Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a branch service manager of
32 years at MUFG Union Bank has brought a class action in Ventura,
Calif. saying she was systematically denied meal and rest breaks
as well as overtime.

MUFG Union is an American full-service bank with 398 branches in
California, Washington and Oregon which is wholly owned by The
Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ.

The case is captioned, Cynthia Garcia-Espinoza, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MUFG
Union Bank N.A., a Delaware corporation, and Does 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 56-2017-00492522-CU-OE-VTA (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Ventura County, Feb. 3, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     James Hawkins APLC
     James R. Hawkins, Esq.
     Gregory Mauro, Esq.
     9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
     Irvine, CA 92618
     Tel: 949-387-7200
     Fax: 949-387-6676
     E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
             greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com


MULLOOLY & JEFFREY: "Gadime" Suit Seeks Certification of Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned NILGUN GADIME, on behalf of plaintiff and
a class, the Plaintiff, v. LAW OFFICE MULLOOLY, JEFFREY, ROONEY &
FLYNN, LLP, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00777 (E.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff moves the Court to certify classes:

   "(a) all individuals in New York (b) to whom defendant sent a
   letter including two or more accounts as a single account (c)
   on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this action
   and on or before a date 20 days after the filing of this
   action"; and

   "(a) all individuals in New York (b) to whom defendants sent a
   letter (c) on or after a date one year prior to the filling
   of this action and on or before a date 20 days after the
   filing of this action, (d) seeking to collect the debt of an
   adult child".

The Plaintiff further asks the Court that Kleinman LLC and
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed as class
counsel.

The Defendant has been attempted to collect a medical debt from
Plaintiff that was incurred for personal, family purposes. In an
attempt to collect the alleged debt, on March 17, 2016, Defendant
sent Plaintiff the collection letter on behalf of North Shore
University Hospital at Plainview. The letter is intended for use
by Defendant as the initial letter it sends to a putative debtor.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5NE03mfh

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tiffany N. Hardy, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-35 3
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com

               - and -

          Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
          KLEINMAN, LLC
          626 RXR Plaza
          Uniondale, New York 11556-0626
          Telephone: (516) 522 2621
          Facsimile: (888) 522-1692


NEW ORLEANS, LA: Class Certification Sought in "Cain" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Alana Cain and Ashton Brown, the Plaintiffs,
v. City Of New Orleans; Orleans Parish Criminal District Court;
Marlin Gusman, Orleans Parish Sheriff; Robert Kazik, Judicial
Administrator; Section "A" Of The Orleans Parish Criminal District
Court, Judge Laurie A. White; Section "B" Of The Orleans Parish
Criminal District Court, Judge Tracey Flemings- Davillier; Section
"C" Of The Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, Judge Benedict
Willard; Section "E" Of The Orleans Parish Criminal District
Court, Judge Keva Landrum-Johnson; Section "F" Of The Orleans
Parish Criminal District Court, Judge Robin Pittman; Section "G"
Of The Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, Judge Byron C.
Williams; Section "H" Of The Orleans Parish Criminal District
Court, Udge Camille Buras; Section "I" Of The Orleans Parish
Criminal District Court, Judge Karen K. Herman; Section "J" Of The
Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, Judge Darryl Derbigny;
Section "K" Of The Orleans Parish Criminal District Court, Judge
Arthur Hunter; Section "L" Of The Orleans Parish Criminal District
Court, Judge Franz Zibilich; Magistrate Of The Orleans Parish
Criminal District Court, and Judge Harry Cantrell, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:15-cv-04479-SSV-JCW (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to certify a class of:

   "all persons who currently owe or who will incur court debts
   arising from cases adjudicated in the Orleans Parish Criminal
   District Court".

The Plaintiffs file the motion at this juncture solely to ensure
that their important goal of permanently ending unconstitutional
practices that have devastating systemic consequences cannot be
evaded through procedural maneuvering. The Plaintiffs have no
objection to staying the consideration of this motion until this
Court deems appropriate. Indeed, Defendants still have not
produced basic discovery relating to Plaintiffs' class claims.
Once Plaintiffs have received the discovery to which they are
entitled, they may supplement this motion with additional evidence
supporting class certification.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6KQDu0Tb

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alec Karakatsanis, Esq.
          CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS
          916 G Street, NW Suite 701
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 681 2409
          E-mail: alec@civilrightscorps.org

               - and -

          Bill Quigley, Esq.
          William P. Quigley, Esq.
          7214 St. Charles Ave.
          Campus Box 902
          New Orleans, LA 70118
          Telephone: (504) 710 3074
          E-mail: quigley77@gmail.com

               - and -

          Anna Lellelid, Esq.
          ANNA LELLELID-DOUFFET
          PO Box 19388
          New Orleans, LA 70179
          Telephone: (504) 224 9670
          E-mail: alellelid.law@gmail.com

               - and -

          Jon Greenbaum, Esq.
          Mateya Kelley, Esq.
          Hallie Ryan, Esq.
          Jon Greenbaum, Esq.
          Mateya Kelley, Esq.
          Hallie Ryan, Esq.
          LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW
          1401 New York Ave NW Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 662 8315
          E-mail: jgreenbaum@lawyerscommittee.org
                  mkelley@lawyerscommittee.org
                  hryan@lawyerscommittee.org

               - and -

          Jonathan P. Guy, Esq.
          ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP
          1152 15th Street, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20005-1706
          Telephone: (202) 339 8516
          E-mail: jguy@orrick.com


NEW ZEALAND: MSD May Face Class Action Over Pension Schemes
-----------------------------------------------------------
NZ Seniors Party on Feb. 9 disclosed that a class action has been
proposed and is being worked on against the Ministry of Social
Development, (MSD) in respect to the pension schemes run by them
for the NZ Govt under Section 70.

Section 70, (S70) which the MSD has in place is being used
surreptitiously to deduct pensions and savings schemes from Kiwis
who've worked overseas and immigrants relocating to New Zealand to
spend their final years in this country.

In 2004 the High Court of New Zealand ruled, (because of the case
in front of them) that what MSD were doing was ILLEGAL. (Refer:
Sant Raj Rai High Court case 2004).  MSD has disregarded this
ruling and continued to take over $500M per annum from returning
kiwis and immigrant pensioners to subsidise the NZ pension's
scheme.

After this ruling, the CEO of MSD attempted to have the wording in
the Judges findings changed so he could continue to illegally
remove overseas pension.  That too was rejected by the High Court.
More recently he has attempted to change the wording in S70 to
read, "Overseas pensions are a tax imposed by overseas
Governments".  That too is incorrect and can be confirmed by
talking with other overseas Governments and letters sent to the
NZSP by overseas governments.

Both sets of individuals, (totalling 160000+) have overseas
pensions which are not contributed to by that country's government
and therefore do not fall under S70 direct deduction policy, but
still MSD remove these pensions.

MSD has, when challenged had to repay deductions to certain
individuals from overseas.

Recently MSD had to repay $88000 to an Asian couple after being
found in breach of this deduction process.  Many pensions/savings
schemes from other countries do not have any Government
contributions, these pensions are paid for from individual's
personal wages with a top up from the company they worked for and
therefore are exempt the direct deduction policy.

MSD states that returning kiwis and immigrants relocating to NZ
must relinquish their overseas pensions and savings schemes, and
that goes for any/all individuals from any/all countries MSD have
also stated that it is a level playing field for all immigrants
and returning kiwis.  No one in NZ can have two pensions!!

You have to ask yourself then. . .

WHY are Chinese and Islanders able to retain their
savings/pensions from their own country, and obtain a full NZ
pension, when those funds are deducted from immigrants from 33
other countries, totalling $350m+ per annum.  There is no level
playing field here.  S70 direct deduction policy also affects
returning kiwis (77000, $150m pa) who have paid into financial
schemes overseas.

The current massive influx of immigrants into NZ is placing undue
pressure on our infrastructures, housing, the reduction of job
opportunities for kiwis, purchase of land and farms and the taking
over of small and medium sized businesses.  The strain on funding
by allowing the repatriation of parents of these immigrants is
placing a further strain on the current over-burdened NZ pension
scheme.

THIS HAS TO STOP!!!!!!!.

New Zealand Seniors Party believe a pro rata pension scheme based
on a timeframe of residency (say 20-30 years) would have a
positive impact on NZ pensions scheme, without having to
disadvantage the current 160000 kiwis and immigrants having their
overseas pensions illegally deducted.

Consider all this information and work with us to make a change,
because if it's not affecting you now . . .  it will be in the
future . . . we will all be old one day!!!!.  There are likely to
be more changes affecting all future pensioners . . .

To conclude one has to question what the Government is going to do
in the future with the funds in the Kiwi Saver after all they
contribute to them???

Release ends

Refer below for more information.

For your information . . . OTHER REMOVAL NOTIFICATIONS.

Check how super schemes and benefits MP's are allowed when
departing their government posts, and when they receive them . . .
they don't have to wait for pension age!!

We have learned of an islander continuing to receive her dead
husband's pension together with a full NZ pension, and who has
never worked a day in her life either in the islands or in NZ?

A kiwi who married an American! The American pension was greater
than the sum of his NZ pension, the kiwi can't claim a NZ
pension!! Why?

Why do they have to live solely on the US pension? The answer is
self-explanatory.

How can anyone who has never worked in the UK and never paid into
the UK pension fund, be forced by MSD to apply for a UK pension,
which when approved by the UK (Impossible to work out why?) has
that amount of money paid into a Westpac bank account they are
forced to open, but have no access to, then deducted by MSD.

Singaporeans have their Singapore CPF fund removed by MSD, when a
senior member of the NZ government was allowed to retain his CPF
Fund after working in Singapore, bring it back to NZ and deposit
it in his Kiwi savings account . . . why, what's the difference .
. . a decision by MSD to add additional funds to their illegal
actions.

MSD are using and retaining the same conversion rates for long
periods to access even more funds form converting pensions from
around the world.  Conversion rates operate within a dynamic
market with rates changing every minute . . . so why retain the
same rate for a month or more at a time? The answer is simple!!! .
. . . MORE MONEY IN MSD's illegal fund!!!

If anyone can find a level playing field from all the inequities
demanded by MSD then we would like to hear from them??

We are in possession of many more instances that demonstrate how
MSD are stealing funds from both Kiwis and immigrants!!

THIS HAS TO STOP!!!! . . . . . NOW!!!

Join the NZSP NOW and have your rights restored and your illegally
removed funds returned from MSD.

Collectively we can make this happen!!!!!!!


NORTHSTAR LOTTERY: Faces Class Action in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
Ann Maher, writing for Madison Record, reports that the first
private company to run Illinois Lottery is being sued in St. Clair
County for allegedly not paying out all -- and in some cases any -
- grand prizes to ticket purchasers.

Chicago-based Northstar Lottery Group, whose 10-year contract with
the state was not due to expire until 2021, was fired by the
Rauner administration in 2015 after a report showed that Illinois
Lottery lost money in 2014.  A termination agreement canceled its
contract at the end of last year.

Northstar not only was the first private company to manage the
state's lottery system, it was also the first private company in
the nation to manage a state lottery system, the suit says.

The proposed class action was filed Feb. 6 by attorneys
Robert Sprague of Belleville, attorneys at TorHoerman Law and
Brandt Law in Edwardsville and Timothy Hoerman in Westmont

It includes retailer and purchaser groups of plaintiffs.  Raqqa
Food Mart in Fairview Heights, also known as Fairview Lounge, will
seek to represent retailers' interests; Michael Cairo and Jason
Van Lente of Cook County and John Bean of St. Clair County will
represent purchasers.

"Purchasers were induced to purchase tickets for these games and
retailers were induced to perform work to sell those tickets," the
complaint states.  "But before all (or sometimes any) grand prizes
were awarded, Northstart discontinued games."

The suit claims Northstar's scheme allowed it to lock in profits
for itself and eliminate risk of paying out winnings to ticket
buyers as well as bonuses and commissions to retailers.

It further claims the company committed fraud on consumers by
misrepresenting the actual odds of winning and reaped unjust
profits from retailers by interfering with retailers' contracts
and their expectations of commissions and bonuses.

According to the complaint, Northstar was paid operating expenses
and incentive compensation.

In 2013 and 2014, the company was awarded $130 million per year
for operating expenses, paid out on a regular monthly basis.

For incentive compensation, the company would get a percentage of
net income based on exceeding certain thresholds.  At the highest
level, it would receive 30 percent of net income exceeding $754
million.

Net income includes all revenue derived from the lottery, less
paid prizes, commissions to retailers and operating expenses.

"To maximize Net Income, Northstar had an incentive to maximize
the Lottery's revenues and minimize its payouts of prizes (to
purchasers) and commissions (to retailers)," the suit says.

Plaintiffs claim that in order to win the contract with the state,
Northstar had an incentive to make a relatively low bid for
operating expenses as that would also benefit the state.

The company also was subject to having its compensation adjusted
downward in case of net income shortfall.

Northstar is alleged to have also had an incentive to make a
relatively high bid on net income targets, because it would
incentivize the state to pick the bidder who had a greater
likelihood of not reaching net income goals.

The suit says that net income shortfalls did in fact occur for
fiscal years 2012, 2013 and 2014.

"In light of its motivation to bid low for Operating Expenses, but
high for Net Income Targets, Northstar had a strong financial
motivation to cover its risk on both of these fronts by increasing
the Net Income of the Lottery," the suit states.

Northstar sought to increase income and revenue while it reduced
prize payouts and commissions and bonuses to retailers, the suit
says.  It also successfully boosted ticket sales by hundreds of
millions in its first three years as private manager.

The suit describes instances in which special games were created,
but before all or any grand prizes were claimed, the games were
discontinued.

In 2012, "Birthday Surprise" was one of the games in which
Northstar ordered a print of 10 million tickets -- more than three
and a half times the number of tickets the state would normally
sell for $5 games, the suit claims.

The game offered a $150,000 immediate pay out along with a
$150,000 prize on the winner's birthday for 20 years.

According to the complaint, the first Birthday Surprise grand
prize was awarded in March 2013, but the same month the company
planned to discontinue it despite internally calling it a popular
game.  The suit says that the game ended with only 64 perent of
its tickets sold and a second grand prize never awarded.

For the six years preceding Northstar's management of the Lottery,
Illinois awarded 87.5 percent of the grand prizes that its big
prize games were designed to pay out, but under Northstar
management, the award rate dropped to 59.6 percent, the complaint
states.

"An award rate decrease of this magnitude is not explainable as
happenstance or attributable to a lack of interest in the Lottery
-- indeed, ticket sales were up under Northstar," the complaint
states.  "Rather, it reflects Northstar's implementation of a
practice of discontinuing games early when the profitability of
the game was statistically maximized.

"Because Northstar knew with a reasonable degree of certainty how
many tickets had been sold for a game at any given time, how many
prizes (and grand prizes) had been claimed for the game, and what
the commensurate profitability of the remaining unsold tickets
was, Northstar was in a position to, and did, discontinue games
before winning tickets could be sold."

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 17-L-51


NOVO NORDISK: Inflated Diabetic Drug Prices, "Chaires" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that diabetes patients filed a class-action RICO suit against the
three major manufacturers of insulin, claiming they schemed to
inflate the cost of the life-saving medication for their own
profit.

Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly and Co., and Sanofi U.S. are the three
primary makers of insulin, a drug that diabetic patients need on a
daily basis to survive. Patients filed a 171-page lawsuit against
the pharmaceutical companies on February 2, in New Jersey federal
court on the heels of another action filed in Boston.

Insulin was first synthesized for human use in 1922, and the first
synthetic insulin was produced in the early 1960s. Little has
changed about the drug since.  However, despite little to no costs
for research and development, the price of insulin has skyrocketed
over 150 percent in the last five years, and tripled in price from
2002 to 2013, patients claim.  Drugs that used to cost $25 now
cost between $300 and $450. Some patients pay almost $900 per
month for their medicine, according to the complaint.

Price-gouging by pharmaceutical companies frequently made
headlines in 2016, and President Donald Trump pledged to address
increasing drug prices in his campaign, saying the industry was
"getting away with murder."

Public outrage followed Martin Shkreli's decision to increase the
price of a drug to treat toxoplasmosis 5,000 percent from $13.50
to $750 a pill, and Mylan Pharmaceuticals CEO Heather Bresch was
likewise called before Congress to explain the sixfold increase in
the price of the Epipen used to treat severe allergic reactions.

The alleged price-gouging of insulin has a far wider impact than
these prior scandals, as an estimated 29 million people in the
U.S. suffer from the disease.

"Increased benchmark prices [for insulin] are the result of a
scheme and enterprise among each defendant and several bulk drug
distributors," the complaint says. "In this scheme, the defendant
drug companies set two different prices for their insulin
treatments: a publicly-reported benchmark price -- also known as
the 'sticker' price -- and a lower, real price that they offer to
certain bulk drug distributors."

The three biggest pharmacy benefits managers, or PBMs -- Express
Scripts, CVS Health, and OptumRx -- are the biggest of these bulk
distributors, controlling more than 80 percent of the market with
$200 billion in annual revenue.

As compensation for their role in negotiating the drug prices paid
by insurance companies, PBMs pocket a percentage of the difference
between the reported benchmark price, and the real price they
secure -- a price that is protected from public disclosure as a
trade secret.

"Taking advantage of these realities, drug manufacturers competing
with the same therapeutic class have begun to offer the PBMs
higher benchmark prices instead of lower real prices," the
complaint states. "In other words, instead of marketing lower real
prices to PBMs, they market the spread between prices. The drug
manufacturer with the largest spread between benchmark and real
price is more likely to secure a PBM's preferred formulary
position, and, as a result, the business of that PBM's clients."

A Bloomberg analysis shows Sanofi and Novo Nordisk increased their
benchmark prices in 2014 in lockstep, strongly suggesting to
diabetes patients that the companies acted in concert to inflate
insulin prices.

Patients claim the impact of the drug companies' conduct has been
financially devastating.

"Patients' out-of-pocket payments for their medications are
typically based on their drugs' reported benchmark prices, not
their concealed real prices. As a result, defendants' benchmark
price arms race has saddled individuals living with diabetes with
crushing out-of-pocket expenses," they say.

Some class members claim they are forced to go without insulin and
directly threaten their health because they cannot afford the
drug's steep price increases.

"I often cry, and I think, have I done something wrong that I
can't afford to take care of myself?" one unidentified diabetes
patient was quoted as saying in the complaint.

Another expressed anger, saying, "I feel so taken advantage of;
now, I can't afford my medications, and for what? All so some drug
company can profit from my sickness?"

In Europe, insulin costs about one-sixth of what it does in the
U.S. because the government is directly involved in negotiating
drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies, according to the
New York Times.

Patients are not the only class alleging the drug makers engaged
in an illegal scheme to inflate prices. Novo Nordisk shareholders
filed a securities class action against the company two weeks ago,
claiming it colluded with Sanofi and Eli Lilly to set the prices
for insulin, thereby falsely inflating its share price.

The patients' class action seeks damages for violations of the
federal RICO Act, and makes claims under all 50 states' consumer
fraud statutes. They are represented by James E. Cecchi with
Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agenello in Roseland,
N.J., and Steve Berman with Hagens, Berman, Sobol, Shapiro in
Seattle.

Gregory Kueterman, an Eli Lilly spokesperson, said in a statement,
"Lilly disagrees with the allegations reported to be in the
lawsuit. We conduct business in a manner that ensures compliance
with all applicable laws, and we adhere to the highest ethical
standards."

Novo Nordisk and Sanofi also issued statements denying the
allegations.

The case is captioned, DONALD CHAIRES, GEORGE DENAULT, JANE DOE,
JOHN DOE, BRITTANY GILLELAND, GERALD GIRARD, SARA HASSELBACH,
LINDSEY KINHAN, JOSEPH MCLAUGHLIN, MARILYN PERSON, MATTHEW
TEACHMAN, and KARYN WOFFORD, Plaintiffs, v. NOVO NORDISK INC., ELI
LILLY AND COMPANY, and SANOFI U.S. Defendants. Case 3:17-cv-00699-
BRM-LHG (D.N.J., February 2, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     James E. Cecchi, Esq.
     CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
     5 Becker Farm Road
     Roseland, NJ 07068
     Tel: (973) 994-1700

          - and -

     Steve W. Berman, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Tel: (206) 623-7292

          - and -

     Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
     Hannah Brennan, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
     Cambridge, MA 02142
     Tel: (617) 482-3700


PANDA RESTAURANT: Site Inaccessible to Screen Readers, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a blind woman claims in a class action in San Bernardino,
Calif. that the parent company behind Panda Express, the Chinese
fast-food chain, has not made its website accessible to screen
readers, in violation of California civil rights law.

The case is captioned, CHERYL THURSTON an individual, Plaintiff,
V. PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP INC., a California ccrporation; and DOES
1-10 inclusive, Defendants. Case No. CIVDS 1701664 (Cal. Super.,
San Bernardino County, January 31, 2017).

Attorney for Plaintiff:

     Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
     PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
     A Professional Corporation
     4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
     Newport Beach, CA92660
     Telephone: (949)706 6464


PEET'S COFFEE: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Auto Renewals
-------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that, hoping to represent a class
in San Francisco, a California man says Peet's Coffee and Tea
offers a subscription service that fails to make required
disclosures about automatic renewals.

The case is captioned, Eduardo Leon Castillo, on behalf of a class
of similarly situated individuals and himself individually,
Plaintiffs, v. Peet's Coffee & Tea LLC, a Washington limited
liability company, dba Peet's Coffee & Tea, and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-17-556926 (Cal. Super., San
Francisco County, February 3, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
     Crystal L. Matter, Esq.
     Stonebarger Law APC
     75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
     Folsom, CA 956310
     Tel: 916-235-7140
     Fax: 916-235-7141
     E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com
             cmatter@stonebargerlaw.com

          - and -

     Tony M. Soliman, Esq.
     Soliman Law Group, PC
     10866 Wilshire Blvd., Fourth Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90024
     Tel: 310-230-5255
     Fax: 888-400-0833
     E-mail: tms@solimanlawgroup.com


PIER 1 IMPORTS: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pier 1 Imports, Inc., continues to defend a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit pending in Texas, according to the
Company's January 4, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
November 26, 2016.

Putative class action complaints were filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas - Dallas
Division against Pier 1 Imports, Inc., Alexander W. Smith and
Charles H. Turner in August and October 2015 alleging violations
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The
lawsuits, which have been consolidated into a single action
captioned Town of Davie Police Pension Plan, Plaintiff, v. Pier 1
Imports, Inc., Alexander W. Smith and Charles H. Turner,
Defendants, were filed on behalf of a purported putative class of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired stock of Pier 1
Imports, Inc. between December 19, 2013 and December 17, 2015. The
plaintiffs seek to recover damages purportedly caused by the
Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint seeks certification as a class action,
unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys'
fees.

Although the ultimate outcome of litigation cannot be predicted
with certainty, the Company believes that this lawsuit is without
merit and intends to defend against it vigorously.

Pier 1 Imports, Inc., is the original global importer of home
decor and furniture. The Company directly imports merchandise from
many countries, and sells a wide variety of decorative
accessories, furniture, candles, housewares, gifts and seasonal
products in its stores and through the Company's Web site,
http://www.pier1.com/.


PRECISION DRILLING: Faces "Haggard" Wage-and-Hour Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a California man who worked
as an hourly employee on Precision Drilling's public works
projects wants to represent a class in Oakland, Calif., saying
Precision failed to pay a prevailing wage, keep accurate records
or provide adequate pay stubs.

The case is captioned, Justin Haggard, an individual on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated California employees,
Plaintiff, v. Precision Drilling, Inc., a California corporation;
and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG17848582
(Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda County, February 7, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Mark L. Venardi, Esq.
     Martin Zurada, Esq.
     Mark Freeman, Esq.
     VENARDI ZURADA LLP
     700 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 300
     Walnut Creek, CA 94596
     Tel: 925-937-3900
     Fax: 925-937-3905


PREMIER HEALTHCARE: FCRA and FLSA Class Certified in "Criddell"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MYLINDA CRIDDELL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. PREMIER
HEALTHCARE SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-05842-R-
KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Manuel L. Real entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiff's motion to certify FCRA Class and FLSA
      Class; and

   2. denying California Statutory Claims Class.

The Court said, "Plaintiff has met the lenient standard for
preliminary certification. For support of her claim
that Defendant failed to pay overtime wages, Plaintiff cites
deposition testimony of Defendant's corporate representative that
the overtime pay policy was not enacted until in November.
Plaintiff alleges that overtime pay should have begun in mid-
October of the same year. This testimony indicates that potential
plaintiffs together were victims of a common policy that violated
the law by failing to pay overtime wages when legally required to
do so.

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


PTZ INSURANCE: "Legg" Suit Seeks Certification of Classes
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled CHRISTOPHER LEGG and PAGE LOZANO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. PTZ INSURANCE AGENCY, LTD. an Illinois Corporation,
and PETHEALTH, INC., a Canadian Corporation, and FAIRFAX FINANCIAL
HOLDINGS LTD., a Canadian Corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
1:14-cv-10043 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant
Plaintiffs' second amended motion for class certification of:

Class - for Defendants Sending Advertising Robocalls:

   "(1) all persons in the United States (2) who Defendants or
   some person on Defendants' behalf (3) called on their cell
   phone using an artificial or prerecorded voice message to play
   Defendants' Day 2 or Day 6 message (4) where the person did
   not provide signed express written consent to receive
   automated prerecorded calls (5) in the period between October
   16, 2013 to the present"; and

Class - for Defendants Sending Robocalls:

   "(1) all persons in the United States (2) who Defendants or
   some person on Defendants' behalf (3) called on their cell
   phone using an artificial or prerecorded voice message to play
   Defendants' Day 2 or Day 6 message (4) where the recipient did
   not give prior express consent to Defendants to receive
   automated calls (5) in the period between October 16, 2013 to
   the present".

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint Plaintiffs as
class representatives and appoint Plaintiffs' counsel to be
counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=p4lLgQuJ

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
          Michael R. Karnuth, Esq.
          Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq.
          Michael Hilicki, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 W. Monroe St., Ste. 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: 312 726 1092
          Facsimile: 312 726 1093
          E-mail: Keith@KeoghLaw.com

               - and -

          Scott D. Owens, Esq.
          Patrick C. Crotty, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          3800 S. Ocean Drive, Ste. 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019
          Telephone: (954) 589 0588
          Facsimile: (954) 337 0666
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com
                  patrick@scottdowens.com


RAYMOURS FURNITURE: Faces "Guldmann" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Raymours Furniture
Company, Inc. The case is captioned as Rony Guldmann, on behalf of
himself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Raymours Furniture Company, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00614 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2017).

Raymours Furniture, doing business as Raymour & Flanigan
Furniture, retails furniture and mattresses in the United States.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


RESTAURANT.COM INC: Shelton Appeals Decision to Third Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Larissa Shelton and Gregory Bohus filed an appeal from
a court ruling entered in the lawsuit titled Larissa Shelton, et
al. v. Restaurant.Com Inc., Case No. 3-10-cv-00824, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The appellate case is captioned as Larissa Shelton, et al. v.
Restaurant.Com Inc., Case No. 17-1172, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 6,
2017, Defendant Restaurant.Com Inc. filed an appeal to the Third
Circuit from a court ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate case
is captioned as Larissa Shelton, et al. v. Restaurant.Com Inc.,
Case No. 17-1078.

The Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that they purchased gift
certificates from Restaurant.com that allegedly violated several
New Jersey statutes.  Restaurant.com sold gift certificates online
that provided a credit for the holder for purchases of food and
beverages at the restaurant named on the certificate.  The amount
paid did not always coincide with the face amount of the
certificate with standard terms and conditions that the
certificate expired one (1) year from date of issue, except in
California and where otherwise provided by law and the certificate
was void to the extent prohibited by law.  The Plaintiffs filed a
purported class action against Restaurant.com in New Jersey state
court, and the case was later removed to federal court on the
basis of diversity jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs-Appellees LARISSA SHELTON and GREGORY BOHUS, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623-3000
          Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
          E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. McGinn, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. MCGINN
          79 Paterson Street
          New Brunswick, NJ 08901
          Telephone: (732) 937-9400
          Facsimile: (800) 931-2408
          E-mail: mcginn.chris@gmail.com

               - and -

          Andrew R. Wolf, Esq.
          Henry P. Wolfe, Esq.
          THE WOLF LAW FIRM
          1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: (732) 545-7900
          Facsimile: (732) 545-1030
          E-mail: awolf@wolflawfirm.net
                  hwolfe@wolflawfirm.net

Defendant-Appellee RESTAURANT.COM INC. is represented by:

          Michael R. McDonald, Esq.
          Caroline E. Oks, Esq.
          Jennifer M. Thibodaux, Esq.
          GIBBONS PC
          One Gateway Center
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 596-4827
          Facsimile: (973) 639-6295
          E-mail: mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com
                  coks@gibbonslaw.com
                  jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com


RITE AID: Discovery in "Indergit" Class Suit Remains Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery related to the merits of the claims in the lawsuit
titled Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation is still ongoing, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 5, 2017, for the quarter period
ended November 26, 2016.

The Company has been named in a collective and class action
lawsuit, Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation et al. pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, filed purportedly on behalf of current and former store
managers working in the Company's stores at various locations
around the country. The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to
pay overtime to store managers as required under the FLSA and
under certain New York state statutes. The lawsuit also seeks
other relief, including liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs
and injunctive relief arising out of state and federal claims for
overtime pay.

On April 2, 2010, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide
collective group of individuals who worked for the Company as
store managers since March 31, 2007. The Court ordered that Notice
of the Indergit action be sent to the purported members of the
collective group (approximately 7,000 current and former store
managers) and approximately 1,550 joined the Indergit action.
Discovery as to certification issues has been completed. On
September 26, 2013, the Court granted Rule 23 class certification
of the New York store manager claims as to liability only, but
denied it as to damages, and denied the Company's motion for
decertification of the nationwide collective action claims. The
Company filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court's
September 26, 2013 decision which motion was denied in June 2014.

The Company subsequently filed a petition for an interlocutory
appeal of the Court's September 26, 2013 ruling with the U. S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which petition was denied
in September 2014. Notice of the Rule 23 class certification as to
liability only has been sent to approximately 1,750 current and
former store managers in the state of New York. Discovery related
to the merits of the claims is ongoing.

At this time, the Company says it is not able to either predict
the outcome of this lawsuit or estimate a potential range of loss
with respect to the lawsuit. The Company's management believes,
however, that this lawsuit is without merit and is vigorously
defending this lawsuit.

Rite Aid Corporation is a full service pharmacy retail healthcare
company, providing its customers and communities with the highest
level of care and service through various programs it offers
through its two reportable business segments: Retail Pharmacy
segment and Pharmacy Services segment.  The Company delivers
comprehensive care to its customers through its 4,547 retail
drugstores, 92 RediClinic walk-in retail health clinics and
transparent and traditional EnvisionRx and MedTrak pharmacy
benefit managers with over 4.0 million plan members.  The Company
also offers fully integrated mail-order and specialty pharmacy
services through EnvisionPharmacies.


RITE AID: "Hall" Wage-and-Hour Suit Set for Trial in January 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation is defending itself against several lawsuits
alleging violations of wage-and-hour laws in California, according
to the Company's January 5, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November
26, 2016.

The Company is currently a defendant in several lawsuits filed in
state courts in California alleging violations of California wage-
and-hour laws, rules and regulations pertaining primarily to
failure to pay overtime, failure to pay for missed meals and rest
periods, failure to reimburse business expenses and failure to
provide employee seating (the "California Cases"). The class
actions pertaining to failure to reimburse business expenses and
provide employee seating purport to be class actions and seek
substantial damages. The single-plaintiff and multi-plaintiff
lawsuits regarding failure to pay overtime and failure to pay for
missed meals and rest periods, in the aggregate, seek substantial
damages. The Company says it has aggressively challenged the
merits of the lawsuits and, where applicable, the allegations that
the cases should be certified as class or representative actions.

In the business expense class action (Fenley v. Rite Aid
Corporation, Santa Clara Superior Court), the parties have reached
a settlement under which the Company will pay an immaterial amount
to settle the class claims.  The court granted preliminary
approval of the settlement on September 8, 2016.  The parties
currently are involved with the notice process which will lead to
a motion for final court approval being filed in calendar year
2017.

In the employee seating case (Hall v. Rite Aid Corporation, San
Diego County Superior Court), the Court, in October 2011, granted
the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Company filed
its motion for decertification, which motion was granted in
November 2012. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the Court's order
which appeal was granted in May 2014. The Company filed a petition
for review of the appellate court's decision with the California
Supreme Court, which petition was denied in August 2014.
Proceedings in the Hall case were stayed pending a decision by the
California Supreme Court in two similar cases. That decision was
rendered on April 4, 2016.

A status conference in the case was held on November 18, 2016, at
which time the court lifted the stay and scheduled the case for
trial on January 26, 2018.

With respect to the California Cases, the Company, at this time,
is not able to predict either the outcome of these lawsuits or
estimate a potential range of loss with respect to said lawsuits.

Rite Aid Corporation is a full service pharmacy retail healthcare
company, providing its customers and communities with the highest
level of care and service through various programs it offers
through its two reportable business segments: Retail Pharmacy
segment and Pharmacy Services segment.  The Company delivers
comprehensive care to its customers through its 4,547 retail
drugstores, 92 RediClinic walk-in retail health clinics and
transparent and traditional EnvisionRx and MedTrak pharmacy
benefit managers with over 4.0 million plan members.  The Company
also offers fully integrated mail-order and specialty pharmacy
services through EnvisionPharmacies.


RITE AID: "Herring" Securities Suit Still Stayed in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
The securities lawsuit styled Herring v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.,
remains stayed in Pennsylvania, according to the Company's January
5, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended November 26, 2016.

As of November 26, 2016, the Company was aware of ten (10)
putative class action lawsuits that were filed by purported
Company stockholders, against the Company, its directors (the
Individual Defendants, together with the Company, the Rite Aid
Defendants), Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. (WBA) and Victoria
Merger Sub Inc., (Victoria) challenging the transactions
contemplated by the Merger agreement between the Company and WBA,

Eight (8) of these actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware (Smukler v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.,
Hirschler v. Standley, et al., Catelli v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.,
Orr v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., DePietro v. Standley, et al., Abadi
v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., Mortman v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.). One
(1) action was filed in Pennsylvania in the Court of Common Pleas
of Cumberland County (Wilson v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., Sachs
Investment Grp., et al. v. Standley, et al.).

The complaints in these nine (9) actions alleged primarily that
the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among
other things, agreeing to an allegedly unfair and inadequate
price, agreeing to deal protection devices that allegedly
prevented the directors from obtaining higher offers from other
interested buyers for the Company and allegedly failing to protect
against certain purported conflicts of interest in connection with
the Merger. The Complaints further allege that the Company, WBA
and/or Victoria aided and abetted these alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty. The complaints sought, among other things, to
enjoin the closing of the Merger as well as money damages and
attorneys' and experts' fees.

On December 23, 2015, the eight (8) Delaware actions were
consolidated in an action captioned In re Rite Aid Corporation
Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 11663-CB (the
Consolidated Action). In addition to the claims asserted in the
nine (9) complaints discussed above, the operative pleading in the
Consolidated Action also included allegations that the preliminary
proxy statement contained material omissions, including with
respect to the process that resulted in the Merger agreement and
the fairness opinion rendered by the Company's banker.

On December 28, 2015, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action
filed a motion for expedited proceedings, which the Court orally
denied at a hearing held on January 5, 2016. On March 11, 2016,
the Court granted the plaintiffs' notice and proposed order
voluntarily dismissing the Consolidated Action as moot, while
retaining jurisdiction solely for the purpose of adjudicating
plaintiffs' counsel's anticipated application for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. On April 15, 2016,
the Company reached a settlement in principle related to this
matter for an immaterial amount.  On May 11, 2016, the Court
entered a stipulated order regarding notice of payment thereof and
final dismissal of this matter.

A tenth action was filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the Pennsylvania District
Court), asserting a claim for violations of Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 against all defendants and a claim
for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
Individual Defendants and WBA (Herring v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.).
The Herring complaint alleges, among other things, that Rite Aid
and its Board of Directors disseminated an allegedly false and
materially misleading proxy. The complaint sought to enjoin the
shareholder vote on the proposed Merger, a declaration that the
proxy was materially false and misleading in violation of federal
securities laws, and an award of money damages and attorneys' and
experts' fees. On January 14 and 16, 2016, respectively, the
plaintiff in the Herring action filed a motion for preliminary
injunction and a motion for expedited discovery. On January 21,
2016, the Rite Aid Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Herring complaint.

At a hearing held on January 25, 2016, the Pennsylvania District
Court orally denied the plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery
and subsequently denied the plaintiff's motion for preliminary
injunction on January 28, 2016. On March 14, 2016, the
Pennsylvania District Court appointed Jerry Herring, Don Michael
Hussey and Joanna Pauli Hussey as lead plaintiffs for the putative
class and approved their selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP as lead counsel. On April 14, 2016, the Pennsylvania District
Court granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion to stay the Herring
action for all purposes pending consummation of the Merger.

Rite Aid Corporation is a full service pharmacy retail healthcare
company, providing its customers and communities with the highest
level of care and service through various programs it offers
through its two reportable business segments: Retail Pharmacy
segment and Pharmacy Services segment.  The Company delivers
comprehensive care to its customers through its 4,547 retail
drugstores, 92 RediClinic walk-in retail health clinics and
transparent and traditional EnvisionRx and MedTrak pharmacy
benefit managers with over 4.0 million plan members.  The Company
also offers fully integrated mail-order and specialty pharmacy
services through EnvisionPharmacies.


ROGERS & CARTER: Aberchrombie's Class Certification Bid Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Elizabeth Erny Foote entered an order in the lawsuit
entitled BENNIE E. ABERCHROMBIE, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ROGERS, CARTER & PAYNE, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 5:15-cv-02214-EEF-KLH (W.D. La.),
dismissing Plaintiff's complaint without prejudice for lack of
standing and denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification
and appointment of class counsel.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EvPBFQV0


SARASOTA COUNTY, FL: Bus Drivers Class Certified in "Leo" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SUSAN LEO, ROBERT BIEGEL, THERESA JONES,
LUIS MORALES, BONNIE CHRISTIE, ANDREW GAMMILL, PAUL NAUGLE, RONALD
SEEKFORD, and SHEILA SEEKFORD, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SARASOTA COUNTY SCHOOL
BOARD, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-03190-JSM-TGW (M.D. Fla.),
the Hon. James S. Moody Jr. entered an order:

   1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for an order permitting court
      supervised notice to employees of their opt-in rights;

   2. certifying a class of:

      "all current and former school bus drivers employed by
      Sarasota County School Board during the period of time from
      three years prior to the date that the notice is sent who
      were not paid overtime for any hours worked over 40 hours
      in a workweek";

   3. directing parties to confer with respect to any remaining
      objections to certain provisions of the notice (to the
      extent not already addressed by the Court), and to file a
      joint proposed notice within 14 days of the Order. If the
      parties are unable to agree on the details of the notice,
     they shall individually file a proposed notice for the
      Court's review during that same period of time.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nVmv5bTP


SEPHORA USA: Faces "Marett" Class Suit in S.D.N.Y
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sephora USA, Inc.
The case is captioned as Lucia Marett, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sephora USA,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00834 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3,
2017).

Sephora USA owns and operates a chain of perfume and cosmetics
stores worldwide. The company offers makeup products, skin care
products, and fragrances.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


SHIVA ESTATE: Court Denied Class Certification in "Shuler" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Elizabeth A. Kovachevich entered an order in the lawsuit
entitled DELORES SHULER, the Plaintiff, v. SHIVA ESTATE, INC.,
AJAY GUPTA, and NORAMA RESORTS LLC, as successor in interest, the
Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-02248-EAK-AEP (M.D. Fla.), denying
motion for conditional class certification without prejudice.

Ms. Shuler is granted leave to refile the motion in Ms. Shuler's
name on or before March 9, 2017. In the renewed motion for
conditional class certification, Ms. Shuler is directed to
specifically delineate any and all allegations, affidavits, and
other proffered evidence tending to show that the proposed class
of Plaintiffs are similarly situated to Ms. Shuler. Ms. Shuler is
additionally directed to refile the notices of consent to join
under Ms. Shuler's name. Additionally, Ms. Shuler will brief the
merits of the arguments in Section 11 of the Defendant's Response
in Opposition in a separate filing to be filed with the Court on
or before March 9, 2017. Defendants shall respond to the renewed
motion for class certification and any other argument advanced by
Ms. Shuler on or before March 31, 2017.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GAbEDq2o


SHOP VAC: Judge Requires Two Settlement Objectors to Post Bonds
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Beauge, writing for PennLive, reports that a federal judge is
requiring two objectors to post bonds if they want to continue to
appeal the settlement of federal class action lawsuits that
claimed Shop Vac Corp wet-dry vacuums do not live up to their
advertised specifications.

But U.S. Middle District Judge Yvette Kane on Feb. 8 set the
amount of the bonds at $5,000 each, rather than the $32,000 sought
by the class plaintiffs.

The judge, who noted neither Michelle Vullings nor
Shirley Morales attended a settlement fairness hearing, gave each
14 days to post the bonds.

The two women, who the class plaintiffs called "serial objectors,"
claimed they would be unable to post $32,000 if that was required.

Bonds were sought from Ms. Vullings of Collegeville and
Ms. Morales of Oregon to ensure the class would be reimbursed the
cost of defending the appeals.

They are appealing Judge Kane's December decision giving final
approval to the settlement and denying their objections.

The settlement awarded $5,000 to each of four named plaintiffs in
Florida, Missouri, California and Illinois and $4.25 million in
legal fees.

Judge Kane estimated the value of the settlement, in which Shop
Vac, headquartered in Williamsport, did not admit any liability,
at nearly $175 million.

Besides the cash payments and attorney fees, Shop Vac agreed to a
two-year extension of the warranty on the motors of the vacuums
purchased or acquired since Jan. 1, 2006.

It also agreed to change how it refers to peak horsepower on
marketing materials and alter what the plaintiffs claimed is
misleading information about the canister size measurement.

Ms. Vullings in her objection contended all class members should
receive a cash payment for their waiver of consumer fraud and
warranty claims and she disputed the amount of the attorney fees.

Ms. Morales also objected to the attorney fees and claimed the
settlement is over inclusive.

Of the 1,164,149 individuals who received notice of the
settlement, only three filed an objection.  Ms. Vullings and
Ms. Morales were the only two to appeal Kane's order rejecting
them.


SHOPPERLOCAL LLC: Class Certification Sought in "Cunningham" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned CRAIG CUNNINGHAM, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SHOPPERLOCAL,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00024-UA-LPA (M.D.N.C.), Mr.
Craig Cunningham moves the Court for an order certifying these two
classes:

Class A:

   "all persons in the United States, from four years prior to
   the filing of the instant Complaint through the date of the
   filing of the instant Complaint, to whom, without obtaining
   the persons' prior express consent, Defendant, using an
   automatic telephone dialing system as defined in the TCPA,
   initiated and/or caused to be initiated calls to the persons'
   cellular telephones"; and

Class B:

   "all persons in the United States, from October 16, 2013,
   through the date of the filing of the instant Complaint, to
   whom, without obtaining the person's prior express written
   consent, Defendant, using an automatic telephone dialing
   system as defined in the TCPA, made, initiated and/or caused
   to be initiated any calls to the persons' cellular telephones
   or residential telephones whose subject matter was identical
   or substantially similar to the subject matter of the call
   Defendant made to Plaintiff".

Cunningham also seeks appointment as class representative of the
two proposed classes. Cunningham further requests that the Court
appoint his counsel to serve as class counsel pursuant to the
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xfMGkkg6

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Matthew Norris, Esq.
          NORRIS LAW FIRM, PLLC
          P.O. Box 1318
          Wake Forest, NC 27588
          Telephone: (919) 981 4475
          Facsimile: (919) 926 1676
          E-mail: jmn@ncconsumerlaw.com

               - and -

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          50 Main Street, Suite 1000
          White Plains, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358 5345
          Facsimile: (212) 571 0284
          E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Eilender, Esq.
          Seth D. Allen, Esq.
          SCHLAM STONE & DOLAN LLP
          26 Broadway
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 344 5400
          Facsimile: (212) 344 7677
          E-mail: jeilender@schlamstone.com
                  sallen@schlamstone.com


SILVER DOLLAR: Exotic Dancers Class Certified in "Murray" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MARIAH MURRAY and AMBER EVANS, each
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
PLAINTIFFS, the Plaintiffs, v. SILVER DOLLAR CABARET, INC.;
PLATINUM CABARET, LLC; ANTHONY F. CATROPPA; and ANTHONY K.
CATROPPA, each individually and as officers and/or directors of
Silver Dollar Cabaret, Inc. and/or Platinum Cabaret, LLC, Case
No5:15-cv-05177-PKH (W.D. Ark.), the Hon. P.K. Holmes, III entered
an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' second
motion for conditional certification of a collective action,
disclosure of contact information for potential opt-in plaintiffs,
and to send court-approved notice.

The Court conditionally certifies an opt-in class of:

   "all exotic dancers who worked for Defendants Silver Dollar
   Cabaret, Inc., Platinum Cabaret, LLC, Anthony F. Catroppa, and
   Anthony K. Catroppa (Defendants) in the State of Arkansas at
   any time since February 15, 2013. Upon receiving the
   information described below, Plaintiffs will have 90 days by
   which to distribute notice and file opt-in plaintiffs' signed
   consent to join forms with the Court. The 90-day opt-in period
   will begin on March 1, 2017".

The Court will toll the statute of limitations for opt-in
plaintiffs from February 15, 2013 to February 8, 2017.

The Defendants are directed to provide the names, mailing
addresses, email addresses and phone numbers for all individuals
who worked for Defendants as exotic dancers at any time since
February 15, 2013. The use of phone numbers to contact putative
class members is conditioned on notice by mail being returned as
undeliverable. Defendants may provide this information ordered
disclosed in any reasonable format. Defendants have until February
22, 2017 to deliver the contact information to Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs' proposed notice, consent to join, and follow-up
postcard are approved.

The Defendants are directed to post the notice in a conspicuous
location at their facilities where putative class members would be
most likely to see it, to maintain an adequate number of copies of
the consent to join at all times, and to distribute a copy of the
notice and consent to join to any dancer or former dancer who
requests one.

In all other respects, the second motion for conditional
certification of a collective action is denied. The Plaintiffs'
second motion for Rule 23 class certification is denied.

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


SMITH & NEPHEW: Hip Implant Class Action Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------
Canadian Underwriter reports that the Supreme Court of Canada will
not hear an appeal from medical equipment firm Smith & Nephew plc,
paving the way for a class action lawsuit to proceed in Alberta.

In 2015, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench denied an application,
from Milana Warner, to certify a lawsuit against London, England-
based Smith & Nephew as a class proceeding. The ruling was
overturned on appeal.  On Feb. 3, the Supreme Court of Canada
announced it dismissed Smith & Nephew's application for leave to
appeal the Alberta Court of Appeal decision, released July 27,
2016.

In 2005, Ms. Warner had the Birmingham hip resurfacing system,
made by Smith & Nephew, implanted by an orthopaedic surgeon.

"Unfortunately, problems developed which led to removal of the
system and a total hip replacement," Mr. Justice Glen Poelman of
the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench wrote in 2015. About three
months after her surgery, Ms. Warner "noticed the system beginning
to "pop and click'" Justice Poelman added.  "A blood test showed
elevated metal ion levels."

Court records indicate Ms. Warner was told the levels of cobalt in
her system were considered toxic.  She filed a lawsuit against
Smith & Nephew and applied for certification of her action as a
class proceeding.

"Members of the class would be all persons in Canada who have had
the defendant's system implanted," Justice Poelman wrote.
Justice Poelman found that Warner "failed to establish that there
is an identifiable class of two or more persons" though he ruled
that Warner could pursue an individual action against Smith &
Nephew.

In overturning Justice Poelman's ruling, the province's appeal
court noted, in a divided ruling, that a "a consideration of the
merits of the claim itself is neither necessary nor warranted at
the certification stage, nor is the certification judge to enter
into a weighing of conflicting evidence with respect to the merits
of the claim."

The Alberta Court of Appeal cited case history, including the
Supreme Court of Canada ruling, released in 2001, against
John Hollick, who wanted to sue the City of Toronto over noise and
pollution from the Keele Valley landfill north of the city. Mr.
Hollick sought to represent 30,000 people living in the area. A
motions judge allowed him to pursue the claim in 1997, but that
ruling was overturned on appeal.

It was likely, in the complaint involving the Keele Valley
landfill, "that some areas were affected more seriously than
others, and that some areas were affected at one time while other
areas were affected at other times," Chief Justice of Canada
Beverly McLachlin wrote in Hollick.

In determining whether there are common issues among class
members, "the representative need not show that everyone in the
class shares the same interest in the resolution of the asserted
common issue," Chief Justice McLachlin wrote in Hollick.  "There
must be some showing, however, that the class is not unnecessarily
broad -- that is, that the class could not be defined more
narrowly without arbitrarily excluding some people who share the
same interest in the resolution of the common issue. Where the
class could be defined more narrowly, the court should either
disallow certification or allow certification on condition that
the definition of the class be amended."

The Hollick ruling established that "any definition of the class
may well exclude some potential claimants, and include some who
will eventually be shown to have no claim," the majority of the
Alberta Court of Appeal wrote in Warner v Smith & Nephew.


SOUTH AFRICA: Families Shocked Over Solidarity Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Who the hell are they?" asked family member Christine Nxumalo
when told of Solidarity's decision to launch a class action suit
on behalf of the families of 94 mentally ill patients who died in
Gauteng after being transferred to NGOs, Katharine Child, writing
for Times Live, reports.

Ms. Nxumalo lost her sister Virginia Machpelah on August 15th
after she was transferred from Life Esidimeni in June to so-called
NGO Precious Angels.

She is yet to receive Ms. Machpelah's autopsy report to determine
the cause of death.

On Feb. 8, Solidarity's charity arm Helpende Hand announced it was
representing the families of the 94 patients who died so that they
could launch a class action lawsuit to sue for compensation for
trauma they suffered.  It confirmed it did not yet have the names
of the victims.

Ms. Nxumalo said she had not been consulted by Solidarity Helpende
Hand.

"I don't know them. They don't represent me.  Nobody has called
me.  Where were they when they were needed?" "After the [health]
ombudsman's press briefing many lawyers have been calling. They
realised there was this gold mine.

"It is about them and what they can get, not us.  I am surprised
by people like this. After what we have gone through, we need some
compassion."

Ms. Nxumalo said the SA Depression and Anxiety Group and Section
27 had been representing the families since November 2015 soon
after the move of patients from Life Esidimeni had been announced.

The SA Depression and Anxiety group was not invited to the media
briefing.  Its spokesman Cassey Chambers was mystified at the
announcement of the lawsuit.  "It seems odd that the family
members that we have been dealing with since the beginning know
nothing about this lawsuit. Surely a class action would want to
represent the majority of family members affected," she said.

Solidarity Helpende Hand CEO Dirk Hermann said: "We are willing to
work with everyone.  After a case goes to court, everyone comes to
together and the different legal teams meet each other."

Their advocate Jacques Basson said the legal action had only been
decided on Feb. 6.

"There are different organisations involved with relatives. But no
one as yet has said they are prepared to go for court for these
people."

He said the organisation was using the media conference to call
for the families of loved ones to come forward and join in the
class action.

"The point is someone needs to go to court.  We're willing to go
to court."

The second court action Solidarity Helpende Hand wants to start is
to ask that the court order the department of health to act on the
ombudsman's recommendations.

This would enable Solidarity to approach the courts if the Gauteng
department of health did not follow the ombudsman's
recommendations to move patients out of NGOs or discipline
officials involved, he said.



T-MOBILE USA: Faces "Salgado" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against T-Mobile USA, Inc.
The case is styled as EMMANUEL SALGADO, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. T-MOBILE USA,
INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. BCV-17-
100243 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 3, 2017).

T-Mobile is a major wireless network operator in the United
States. The German telecommunications company Deutsche Telekom is
its majority shareholder.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
          Law Offices of Kevin T. Barnes
          5670 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1460
          Los Angeles, CA 90036-5614
          Telephone: (323) 302 9675
          Facsimile: (323) 549 0101


T-MOBILE USA: Rahmany Appeals W.D. Wash. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs David Moshe Rahmany and Yehuda Rahmany filed an appeal
from a court ruling entered in their lawsuit styled David Rahmany,
et al. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01416-JCC,
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington,
Seattle.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case was
filed on September 6, 2016, and assigned to Judge John C
Coughenour.  The Plaintiffs accuse T-Mobile, a major wireless
network operator in the United States, of violating the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The appellate case is captioned as David Rahmany, et al. v. T-
Mobile USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-35094, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by March 2, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on April 3, 2017;

   -- Appellants David Moshe Rahmany and Yehuda Rahmany's opening
      brief is due on May 11, 2017;

   -- Appellee Subway Sandwich Shops, Inc.'s answering brief is
      due on June 12, 2017; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants DAVID MOSHE RAHMANY and YEHUDA RAHMANY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

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

               - and -

          Joshua Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Personal: 619-233-7770
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

Defendant-Appellee SUBWAY SANDWICH SHOPS, INC., is represented by:

          Kristine McAlister Brown, Esq.
          Derin B. Dickerson, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Telephone: (404) 881-7000
          E-mail: kristy.brown@alston.com
                  derin.dickerson@alston.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Moore, Esq.
          CORR CRONIN MICHELSON BAUMGARDNER & PREECE, LLP
          1001 Fourth Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98154
          Telephone: (206) 625-8600
          Facsimile: (206) 625-0900
          E-mail: mmoore@corrcronin.com


TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS: 2nd Cir. Revives Actos Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Christine Stuart, writing for Courthouse News service, reported
that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit revived
claims in Manhattan on February 8, that Takeda Pharmaceuticals
delayed a competitor from releasing a generic version of its
diabetes drug Actos.

Unions and municipalities that purchase drugs for their employees
brought the underlying class action in Manhattan. They claimed in
a federal complaint that Takeda's monopolization of the market for
Actos forced them to pay inflated prices from at least January
2011, when Takeda's patent on the active ingredient in Actos
expired, to at least February 2013, when generic competitors began
to flood the market.

The case hinged on a claim that Takeda used false patent
descriptions to force generic competitors into an approval process
by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that gives first filers a
180-day exclusivity periods and bottlenecks subsequent filers.

Of the 10 drugmakers that wanted to market generic versions of
Actos, nine took the bottlenecked route and faced patent-
infringement suits from Takeda.

Though the first three reached settlements that allowed them
to begin marketing their versions on August 17, 2012, the latter
six had to wait until February 2013.

Teva was the only generic drugmaker that sought approval of its
drug through another regulatory scheme, but it wound up in the
bottlenecked route anyway because of an FDA announcement.

Though a federal judge dismissed the class action, the Second
Circuit reversed in part on February 8, saying the claims
regarding Teva's market entry may have merit since they do not
require any knowledge of Takeda's allegedly false patent
descriptions.

"Teva's application received preliminary approval from the FDA in
2006, and if Teva had been granted final approval, then it would
not have been subject to the first-filers' 180-day exclusivity
period, and could have begun marketing generic Actos for non-
patented uses," the 18-page ruling states.

Sitting by designation from the Southern District of New York,
U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff wrote the opinion for a three-
person panel.

The class's unsuccessful theory "posits a delay in the marketing
of generic alternatives to ACTOS by all the generic applicants
other than Teva," according to the ruling.

"Plaintiffs claim that but for the false patent descriptions,
applicants would not have been forced to make Paragraph IV
certifications, no bottleneck would have arisen, and one or more
generics would have entered the market as early as January 2011,"
Rakoff wrote.

The court called this theory implausible on February 8, however,
because it "presupposes that the generic manufacturers knew that
Takeda had described them as drug product patents when they filed
their ANDAs [abbreviated new drug applications]."

Rakoff said it was "incumbent upon plaintiffs to allege that the
generic applicants were aware of the descriptions when they filed
their ANDAs in 2003 and 2004."

"The complaint is bereft of any such allegations," he added.

Seeing the claims involving Teva in a different light, however,
Rakoff noted that "this second theory does not depend on Teva's
knowledge of Takeda's description of its patents as drug product
patents, because the FDA's 2010 announcement was itself expressly
based on Takeda's repeated and allegedly false patent
descriptions."

Rakoff said the FDA made no attempt to evaluate whether the
descriptions of the patents were true.

"While Teva thereafter sought to challenge the truthfulness of
these descriptions in its litigation with Takeda (but settled
before the issue was resolved), the damage had been done," Rakoff
wrote (parentheses in original). "A plaintiff could hardly ask for
a clearer causal connection."

U.S. Circuit Judges Dennis Jacobs and Debra Ann Livingston joined
the opinion.

The plaintiffs are represented by Steve Shadowden with Hilliard &
Shadowden of Austin,Texas. Teva is represented by Rohit Singla of
Munger, Tolles & Olson in San Francisco. Neither firm has returned
emails seeking comment sent outside business hours.


TEXAS LAW: Crowley Files Appeal in Texas Supreme Court
------------------------------------------------------
BRAD CROWLEY AND TERRILYN CROWLEY, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Petitioner v. TEXAS LAW SHIELD,
LLP, DARREN R. RICE, T. EDWIN WALKER, WALKER & RICE, PC, AND
WALKER & BYINGTON, PLLC, the Respondents, Case No. 17-0096 16-
55228 (Tex. Sup. Ct., Feb. 3, 2017), is an appeal filed before the
Texas Supreme Court from a lower court decision in a
class action with Case No. 14-15-00705-CV (14th Court of Appeals).

Texas Law Shield's site claims that it's not a law firm, but a
"legal services provider."  TLS refers its members directly to
attorneys who handle their legal problems, purportedly at no extra
cost.

The Petitioners are represented by:

          D. Todd Smith, Esq.
          Maitreya Tomlinson, Esq.
          SMITH LAW GROUP LLLP
          1250 Capital of Texas Highway South
          Three Cielo Center, Suite 601
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: 512-439-3230
          Facsimile: 512-439-3232
          Website: http://www.appealsplus.com

The Respondents are represented by:

          Roger D. Townsend, Esq.
          Marcy Hogan Greer, Esq.
          Patrick Kevin Leyendecker, Esq.
          ALEXANDER DUBOSE JONES & TOWNSEND LLP
          1844 Harvard St., Ste. 2350
          Houston, TX 78701-3562


TIME WARNER: Says Race Discrimination Claims Too Vague to Stand
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene and Braden Campbell, writing for Law360, report that
Time Warner Inc. on Feb. 7 struck back at a proposed class action
alleging its hiring and performance review systems keep minorities
from being promoted, telling a Georgia federal court the claims in
the race discrimination suit are too vague to stand.

TBS senior manager Ernest Colbert Jr. and ex-CNN executive
administrative assistant Celeslie Henley, both of whom are black,
told the Northern District of Georgia in their December complaint
that Time Warner's promotion and review policies all but block
minority employees from rising through the ranks, in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

The employee rating system, the workers said, was biased enough to
let white leadership handpick internal candidates for promotion,
leaving out minorities.

But the claims in the suit are so unclear that Time Warner is
uncertain which of its four units is being accused of which
activity, and which policies are even in question, because no
specific policy was drawn into the spotlight in the complaint, the
company argued in its motion to dismiss.

"Plaintiffs' claims are merely conclusory, failing to put
defendants on reasonable notice of the specific allegations being
asserted against them or upon which a plausible claim for relief
is based," Time Warner said.

The proposed class, too, is laid out in a sweeping definition that
doesn't explain which workers would be included, and features
claims for discrimination over a two-decade period, despite the
longest statute of limitations closing out at four years, Time
Warner said in its filing.

Mr. Colbert and Ms. Henley had held up an internal Time Warner
human resources analytics document, a "diversity trends" report
spanning from 2010 through the first quarter of 2013, that the two
claim shows bias against minorities.

According to the complaint, Time Warner's manager-run performance
evaluation system consistently results in significantly worse
ratings for minorities, especially minority males, than for
whites.  Mr. Colbert and Ms. Henley further claim that minorities
are promoted and paid less than whites in the same or similar
positions, and that minorities hold next to no leadership roles,
even in divisions where they comprise the majority of employees.

Ms. Henley also said that she was discriminated against shortly
after returning from maternity leave, and that she was fired five
days after lodging a complaint with human resources about her
treatment, court records show.

Mr. Colbert, meanwhile, said that in his nearly 20 years at the
company, he's long been paid below his grade level and receives
thousands of dollars less per year than white employees who have
comparable roles in the company.

Mr. Colbert and Ms. Henley aim to represent a class of black
salaried and mid-level managerial employees who worked at Time
Warner between April 1997 and now.

In its motion to dismiss on Feb. 7, Time Warner zeroed in on the
size of the class, saying the description of potential class
members was unclear and that the claims, both for the individual
workers and the class, ran back too far in time to be covered by
law.

Daniel R. Meachum, an attorney for the plaintiffs, told Law360 on
Feb. 8 he's not concerned about overcoming Time Warner's challenge
to the suit.

"These kinds of motions to dismiss are customary responses by most
defendants in cases of this nature and we will address their
arguments in our response," Mr. Meachum said.  "We see no problem
presently in overcoming their argument in our responses and now
have more than 130 potential members of the putative class."

An attorney for Time Warner didn't immediately respond to a
request for comment on Feb. 8.

Mr. Colbert and Ms. Henley are represented by Daniel R. Meachum of
Daniel R. Meachum & Associates and Mario Williams of Williams
Oinonen LLC.

Time Warner is represented by Leslie A. Dent -- ldent@littler.com
-- Dionysia Johnson-Massie -- djmassie@littler.com -- and Amy M.
Palesch -- apalesch@littler.com -- of Littler Mendelson PC and
James A. Lamberth -- james.lamberth@troutmansanders.com -- of
Troutman Sanders LLP.

The case is Celeslie Henley et al v. Turner Broadcasting System
Inc. et al, case number 1:16-cv-04506, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia.




TINDER: 11th Cir. Reinstates Dating App Fees Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Geske, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a Florida
man's second lawsuit over the additional charges he incurred to
have more "likes" for use on the dating app Tinder was recently
reinstated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

Billy Warner filed the suit on Oct. 9 in U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida, claiming Tinder violated the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trades Practices Act, Electronic
Funds Transfer Act, and the California Business and Professions
Code.  The violations allegedly came when Warner was charged
additional fees to gain more "likes" to use with the app.

The Florida court dismissed the lawsuit as a sanction because
Mr. Warner had previously filed essentially the same lawsuit in
California federal court in 2015.

That court dismissed, without prejudice, the case, allowing him to
amend.  Instead of amending his complaint, he voluntarily
dismissed it and basically refiled it in the Florida court, which
ruled he had engaged in judge-shopping.

Tinder allows users to swipe right and "like" profiles of persons
they are interested in.  When both users "like" and swipe right, a
match is made and communication between the two users can ensue
through Tinder.

Tinder changed its use policy and began charging its users
additional fees to garner more "likes," but the company claims it
notified its users of the change.

Mr. Warner claims he was never notified of the policy change by
Tinder until he ran out of "likes" and decided to purchase more at
the nominal fee of $2.99, which he believed would give him an
unlimited amount of likes.

Mr. Warner was again allegedly prompted for more money from the
app for more "likes," which he paid in the amount of $19.99.  He
also claimed that his bank account continued to be charged the
$2.99 fee despite paying the $19.99 for the new service. He had
assumed he ended his $2.99 service.

He claims the two services he is paying for with Tinder are
identical and filed a class action suit on behalf of all others
affected by the dating app.  While his initial suit was dismissed
by the district court, he filed an appeal Jan. 17 in the 11th
Circuit, which reversed the dismissal.

"The 11th Circuit found that the record developed in the trial
court did not appear to support the imposition of a sanction as
harsh as dismissal with prejudice, so it remanded for
reconsideration of whether a lesser, if any, sanction against was
indeed warranted against Warner," Jeremy Gilman, a partner with
Benesch, told Legal Newsline.

Mr. Warner is determined to have the case certified as a class-
action suit, where anyone that downloaded the app prior to March
2, 2015, which Tinder says it began notifying its users of the use
changes.

"The two subclasses he also seeks to have certified are nationwide
classes, including one consisting of 'all persons in the United
States whose bank accounts were debited on a reoccurring basis by
defendants without defendants obtaining a written authorization
signed or similarly authenticated for preauthorized electronic
fund transfers within the one year prior to the filing of the
complaint,' and another consisting of 'all persons in the United
States that purchased a subscription from defendant via the
defendant's app, and who were charged a rate that exceeded the
rate available for a comparable purchase by an individual who was
offered a discount based on their reported age,'" said Mr. Gilman.


TRIPOINT GLOBAL: Faces "Blank" Suit Over Hamilton Broadway Show
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that on the heels of securities
charges over a ticket-resale scheme involving the Broadway megahit
"Hamilton," a class of shareholders in Manhattan, blames due-
diligence failures by Tripoint Global Equities for buoying a Ponzi
scheme that has quickly become known as "Hamilcon."

The case is captioned, ADAM BLANK, individually and as trustee of
the ADAM BLANK 2012 GRAT, ACKER FAMILY 2012 GIFT TRUST and ACKER
FAMILY 2013 GIFT TRUST, Plaintiffs, v. TRIPOINT GLOBAL EQUITIES,
LLC, TRIPOINT CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, MARK H. ELENOWITZ and MICHAEL
BOSWELL, Defendants. Case 1:17-cv-00876-ALC (S.D.N.Y. February 6,
2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

     David Pfeffer, Esq.
     Richard Schoenstein, Esq.
     Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP
     1350 Broadway
     New York, New York 10018
     Tel: (212) 216-8075


TRS STAFFING: Williams Seeks Conditional Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JAY WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. TRS STAFFING
SOLUTIONS, INC., and FLUOR ENTERPRISES, INC., the Defendants, Case
No. 3:16-cv-00119 (S.D. Tex.), Mr. Williams asks the Court to
enter an order:

   1. conditionally certifying the case as a collective action;

   2. directing Defendants to furnish Plaintiff's counsel with a
      complete and accurate list of the names, social security
      numbers, and last known addresses and telephone numbers of
      the potential class members within 14 days from the date of
      the Court's order;

   3. approving the issuance of notice and consent to join forms;
      and

   4. granting all other relief to which Plaintiff may show
      himself justly entitled.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xnZ16FCF

The Defendants have allegedly violated the overtime provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay properly
their HSE Sr. Specialists the appropriate overtime pay due to
them. As a result of Defendants' illegal pay scheme, each HSE SR.
SPECIALISTS did not receive time and one half of his/her regular
hourly rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty in one
or more workweeks during his/her employment with Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq.
          THOMAS H. PADGETT, JR.
          ROSS LAW GROUP
          4809 Pine St.
          Bellaire, TX 77401
          Telephone: (800) 634 8042
          Facsimile: (512) 474 7677
          E-mail: tpadgett@rosslawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by

          Dennis P. Duffy, Esq.
          Kelline R. Linton, Esq.
          811 Main Street, Suite 1100
          Houston, TX 77002-4995


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Sends "Wilson" to Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned WILLIAM SCROGGINS, RICHARD WILSON,
Plaintiffs, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RASIER, LLC, Defendants,
No. 1:16-cv-01419-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind.), Judge Mark J. Dinsmore
granted in part and denied, in part, the defendants' motion to
compel putative opt-in plaintiff Richard Wilson to arbitration and
to dismiss him from the action.

Wilson is an Indiana resident who worked as an Uber driver.  At
the heart of the case is the plaintiffs' contention that Uber
misclassifies its drivers as independent contractors rather than
employees resulting in the violation of wage payment laws.
William Scroggins brought the diversity action on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated persons working as
drivers in the district for Uber Technologies, Inc.

Wilson did not dispute that he accepted the Technology Services
Agreement with Uber and did not opt out of the Arbitration
Provision.  Rather, he argued that the class action waiver
included in the Arbitration Provision violates the National Labor
Relations Act (NLRA) and the Norris-LaGuardia Act (NLGA) and
therefore renders the Arbitration Provision unenforceable.

Wilson first asserted the Arbitration Provision is unenforceable
because it contains a class action waiver that violates Sections 7
and 8 of the NLRA.  However, Judge Dinsmore found that Wilson
could have opted-out of the Arbitration Provision -- including the
class action waiver -- even after he began driving for Uber, in
order to preserve his right to pursue a collective action, as
plaintiff Scroggins did. But Wilson did not do so.

Wilson also argued that the NLGA prohibits the enforcement of
class action waivers.  The NLGA prohibits two types of agreements:
(1) one in which a person promises not to join a labor union; and
(2) one in which a person promises to withdraw from a labor union.
Judge Dinsmore pointed out that an agreement to arbitrate is not
covered by the NLGA and concluded that the NLGA does not render
the class action waiver, or the Arbitration Provision,
unenforceable.

In summary, Judge Dinsmore granted the defendants' motion to
compel individual arbitration and the matter is stayed as to
Wilson only pending resolution of the arbitration proceeding.  The
judge denied the motion to dismiss, as the Seventh Circuit has
held repeatedly, "the proper course of action when a party seeks
to invoke an arbitration clause is to stay the proceedings rather
than to dismiss outright."

A full-text copy of Judge Dinsmore's January 26, 2017 order is
available at https://is.gd/hhPlaQ from Leagle.com.

WILLIAM SCROGGINS, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew J. Dressel,
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC, Brittany Weiner -- brittany@lawicm.com --
IMBESI LAW PC, pro hac vice, Irwin B. Levin --
ilevin@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP, Paul B. Maslo,
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC, Richard E. Shevitz --
rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP & Vess Allen
Miller -- vmiller@cohenandalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., RASIER, LLC, Defendants, represented by
Alan L. McLaughlin -- amclaughlin@littler.com -- LITTLER
MENDELSON, P.C., Andrew M. Spurchise -- aspurchise@littler.com --
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., pro hac vice, Edward H. Chyun --
echyun@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., pro hac vice &
Emily L. Connor -- econnor@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C..


UNITED STATES: HHS Loses Bid to Dismiss Medicare Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Kennedy, writing for Law360, reports that a Connecticut
federal judge declined on Feb. 8 to dismiss class allegations
against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, finding
that Medicare patients claiming an agency policy forced them to
overpay for hospital care sufficiently showed they were denied
their constitutional right to due process.

U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea dealt with a trio of motions
in his 38-page order, denying summary judgment motions on both
sides and partially denying HHS' motion to dismiss the case.
Specifically, he found that HHS, through the Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services, plausibly encouraged hospitals to place
patients on "observation status" rather than admitting them as
inpatients, thus causing the patients to pay more for their care
without providing any way for the patients to appeal that
decision.

Judge Shea did dismiss the claim that patients did not receive
enough notice about their status, finding it moot because no
administrative appeal option existed for them to be notified of.

Seven Medicare patients had filed the proposed class action in
November 2011, claiming that certain services identical to those
provided to inpatients are covered under Medicare Part B, not Part
A, when provided to patients under observation, and are thus
reimbursed at a lower rate.  As such, the patients lost thousands
of dollars in coverage when they were placed under observation.

Although official Medicare policy leaves the status decision up to
individual doctors, the patients argued that in practice, CMS
pressures hospitals to list patients as under observation.

The case was dismissed almost two years later.  On appeal, the
patients challenged the dismissal of their claims that the agency
had violated the Medicare Act and the constitutional due process
clause by not providing sufficient notice or a chance to appeal
the observational status decision.

In January 2015, the Second Circuit upheld the lower court's
dismissal of the patients' Medicare Act claims, but revived the
due process claims.  Currently, the case has 14 plaintiffs, but
they have not refiled a class certification motion after the
original one was denied as moot.

To sufficiently allege their Fifth Amendment rights were violated,
the patients had to show that state action deprived them of
liberty or property without due processes.  To help answer this
question, the Second Circuit ordered the lower court to oversee a
limited discovery period on whether being admitted as inpatients
was a "property interest," and address it in summary judgment, the
judge said on Feb. 8.  He then denied both sides' summary judgment
motions because important factual disputes remain.

HHS had attempted to argue that the patients did not plausibly
show that any state action led to their being listed as under
observation.  Judge Shea disagreed Wednesday, finding that the
decision to list patients as under observation was plausibly the
result of "significant encouragement" by the agency through CMS.

Neither side could be reached for comment on Feb. 8.

The patients are represented by Alice Bers, Gill Deford, Judith A.
Stein and Toby S. Edelman of the Center for Medicare Advocacy
Inc., Anna Rich, Kevin Prindiville and Eric Carlson of Justice in
Aging, and Luke A. Liss, Dylan G. Savage, Jason B. Mollick and
Whitney Costin of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

The government is represented by Benjamin C. Mizer, Joel McElvain
and Kieran G. Gostin of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The case is Alexander et al. v. Cochran, case number 3:11-cv-
01703, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.


UNITED STATES: Marroquin-Perez Files Suit v. Atty. General
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against acting U.S. Attorney
General Dana Boente. The case is captioned as Monica Marroquin-
Perez, On Behalf of Herself and Those Similarly Situated, the
Petitioner, v. Dana Boente, Acting U.S. Attorney General; John F
Kelly, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security (named as DHS);
Juan Osuna, Acting Director, EOIR; Michael Zackowski, Assistant
ICE Field Office Director, Arizona District; Unknown Party, named
as John Doe 1, Officer-in-Charge, Eloy Detention Facility; and
Michael J Donahue, Warden, Eloy Detention Facility, the
Respondents, Case No. 2:17-cv-00366-JJT--JFM (D. Ariz., Feb. 5,
2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge John J Tuchi.

The United States Attorney General is the head of the United
States Department of Justice, concerned with legal affairs, and is
usually assumed to be the chief law enforcement officer and chief
lawyer of the United States government. The office is currently
held by Dana J. Boente, who assumed the office on January 30, 2017
after the firing of acting Attorney General Sally Yates.

The Petitioner is represented by:

          Joseph Kenneth Lacome, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH LACOME
          1 E Washington St., Ste. 500
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (415) 847 1944
          E-mail: lacomelaw@gmail.com


UNITY BUILDING: Faces "Segura" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unity Building
Services, Inc. The case is titled as Francisco Segura, on behalf
of himself and all other persons similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Unity Building Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00826 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2017).

Unity Building Services provides unarmed licensed guard services
and commercial cleaning, support and maintenance services.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


UNIVERSAL PROPERTY: Certification of Settlement Class Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Karen Rodriguez, et al., individually and on
behalf of other similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v.
Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, the Defendant,
Case No. 0:16-cv-60442-JIC (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs seek
provisional certification of the following proposed nationwide
settlement class for settlement purposes only:

   "all current and former customers of defendant Universal
   Property & Casualty Insurance Company who insured real
   property with defendant between September 1, 2013 and March
   31, 2016".

Excluded from the proposed class are defendant, its past or
current officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives,
predecessors, successors, assigns and entities in which any of
them have a controlling interest.

Also excluded is defendant's indirect ultimate parent entity, and
any entity in which any of them have a controlling interest,
directly or indirectly. The proposed class also excludes all
judicial officers assigned to this case as defined by 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 455(b), and their immediate families.

Subject to Court approval, defendant has agreed to pay awards of
up to (but no more than) $7,500 individually to Karen Rodriguez,
$7,500 individually to Antonio Rodriguez, and $7,500 jointly to
Boris and Yelena Shaykevich. The Agreement is not conditioned on
defendant's agreement to support (or the Court's award of) any
attorney's fee application. However, defendant has agreed not
oppose any fee application to the extent Class Counsel request up
to (but not more than) $850,000 in fees and expenses.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marc A. Wites, Esq.
          WITES & KAPETAN P.A.
          4400 North Federal Highway
          Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
          Telephone: (954) 570 8989
          Facsimile: (954) 354 0205
          E-mail: mwites@wklawyers.com

               - and -

          Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
          David A. Straite, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687 1980
          Facsimile: (212) 687 7714
          E-mail: dstraite@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          E-mail: dstraite@kaplanfox.com
          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          Mario M. Choi, Esq.
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772 4700
          Facsimile: (415) 772 4707

The Defendant is represented by:

          Marcy Levine Aldrich, Esq.
          Bryan T. West, Esq.
          ACKERMAN LLP
          Three Brickell City Centre
          98 Southeast Seventh St., Suite 1100
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 982 5600
          E-mail: Marcy.aldrich@ackerman.com
                  Bryan.west@ackerman.com

               - and -

          Edward R. McNicholas, Esq.
          Clayton G. Northouse, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1501 K Street, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 736 8010
          E-mail: emcnicholas@sidley.com
          cnorthouse@sidley.com


US BANK: Defending Multiple Class Actions in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
U.S. Bank National Association, in its capacity as trustee,
defends multiple actions alleging individual or class action
claims against the trustee with respect to multiple trusts,
according to Ohio Phase-In-Recovery Funding LLC's January 3, 2017,
Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the semi-annual distribution period from July 1, 2016, to
December 31, 2016.

Since 2014 various plaintiffs or groups of plaintiffs, primarily
investors, have filed claims against U.S. Bank National
Association ("U.S. Bank"), in its capacity as trustee or successor
trustee (as the case may be) under certain residential mortgage
backed securities ("RMBS") trusts.  The plaintiffs or plaintiff
groups have filed substantially similar complaints against other
RMBS trustees, including Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of
New York Mellon and Wells Fargo. The complaints against U.S. Bank
allege the trustee caused losses to investors as a result of
alleged failures by the sponsors, mortgage loan sellers and
servicers for these RMBS trusts and assert causes of action based
upon the trustee's purported failure to enforce repurchase
obligations of mortgage loan sellers for alleged breaches of
representations and warranties concerning loan quality. The
complaints also assert that the trustee failed to notify
securityholders of purported events of default allegedly caused by
breaches of servicing standards by mortgage loan servicers and
that the trustee purportedly failed to abide by a heightened
standard of care following alleged events of default.

Currently U.S. Bank is a defendant in multiple actions alleging
individual or class action claims against the trustee with respect
to multiple trusts with the most substantial case being: BlackRock
Balanced Capital Portfolio et al v. U.S. Bank National
Association, No. 605204/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (class action
alleging claims with respect to approximately 794 trusts) and its
companion case BlackRock Core Bond Portfolio et al v. U.S Bank
National Association, No. 14-cv-9401 (S.D.N.Y.). Some of the
trusts implicated in the aforementioned Blackrock cases, as well
as other trusts, are involved in actions brought by separate
groups of plaintiffs related to no more than 100 trusts per case.

U.S. Bank cannot assure as to the outcome of any of the
litigation, or the possible impact of these litigations on the
trustee or the RMBS trusts. However, U.S. Bank denies liability
and believes that it has performed its obligations under the RMBS
trusts in good faith, that its actions were not the cause of
losses to investors and that it has meritorious defenses, and it
intends to contest the plaintiffs' claims vigorously.


US RX: MD Medical Suit Seeks Certification of Three Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MD MEDICAL, LLC and MICHELLE DEES, M.D.,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. US RX CARE, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-11154 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask
the Court to certify these classes:

TCPA Class (Count I):

   "(1) all persons, (2) who, on or after a date four years prior
   to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C Sec. 1658) were
   sent faxes by or on behalf of Defendant, US RX, promoting its
   goods or services for sale, and (3) with respect to whom
   defendant cannot provide evidence of express consent or an
   established business relationship prior to the faxing";

ICFA Class (Count II):

   "(1) all persons and entities with Illinois fax numbers, (2)
   who, on or after a date three years prior to the filing of
   this action were sent faxes by or on behalf of Defendant, US
   RX, promoting its goods or services for sale, and (3) with
   respect to whom Defendant cannot provide evidence of express
   consent or an established business relationship prior to the
   faxing"; and

Illinois Common Law Class (Count III, Conversion; Count IV,
Private Nuisance; and Count V, Trespass to Chattel):

   "(1) all persons and entities with Illinois fax numbers who,
   (2) on or after a date five years prior to the filing of this
   action were sent faxes by or on behalf of Defendant, US RX,
   promoting its goods or services for sale, and (3) with respect
   to whom Defendant cannot provide evidence of express consent
   or an established business relationship prior to the faxing".

The Plaintiffs brought the action to secure redress for the
actions of Defendant US RX CARE, LLC ("US RX"), in sending or
causing the sending of unsolicited advertisements to telephone
facsimile machines in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, and the common
law (conversion, trespass to chattels and nuisance).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mi6zb10x

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Sobek., Esq.
          JS LAW
          29 E. Madison Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone (312) 756 1330
          E-mail: jeffs@jsslawoffices.com


VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT: Mission City Appeals Order in "Golan" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Mission City Management, Inc., Courage 2012, LLC, and
James R. Leininger filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled RON GOLAN, et al. v. VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, et
al., Case No. 4:14-cv-00069-ERW, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 2,
2017, the District Court certified a class on January 18, 2017, to
sue the telemarketers behind a robocall scheme that used the voice
of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee to promote a movie.

Using a recording of Mr. Huckabee's voice, the survey asked
consumers how they felt about "traditional American values."  Mr.
Huckabee was previously dismissed as a defendant to the Golans'
lawsuit, which alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

On January 18, Judge E. Richard Webber certified the Golans to
represent a class of Americans, who received the Huckabee-movie
calls within four years of Oct. 3, 2012.

The Defendants include Veritas Entertainment, LLC; Veritas
Marketing Group, LLC; FreeEats.com, Inc., doing business as CC
Advertising; AIC Communications, LLC, doing business as CC
Advertising; Gabriel S. Joseph, III; Stephen Wayne Griffin; SixDi,
Inc., doing business as SixDi; Bob Brewer; and Michael Dale
Huckabee, also known as Mike Huckabee.

The appellate case is captioned as Ron Golan, et al. v. Mission
City Management, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-8006, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Respondents Ron Golan and Dorit Golan, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Kevin M. Carnie, Jr., Esq.
          John G. Simon, Esq.
          THE SIMON LAW FIRM
          800 Market Street, Suite 1700
          Saint Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-2929
          E-mail: kcarnie@simonlawpc.com

               - and -

          Ronald J. Eisenberg, Esq.
          Robert Schultz, Esq.
          SCHULTZ & ASSOCIATES LLP
          640 Cepi Drive, Suite A
          Chesterfield, MO 63005-1221
          Telephone: (636) 537-4645
          Facsimile: (636) 537-2599
          E-mail: reisenberg@sl-lawyers.com
                  rschultz@sl-lawyers.com

Petitioners Mission City Management, Inc., Courage 2012, LLC, and
James R. Leininger are represented by:

          Ronald Michael Jacobs, Esq.
          Ari Nicholas Rothman, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          575 Seventh Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004-0000
          Telephone: (202) 344-8215
          Facsimile: (202) 344-8300
          E-mail: rmjacobs@Venable.com
                  anrothman@Venable.com

               - and -

          Cicely I. Lubben, Esq.
          Jaclyn Niccole Warr, Esq.
          STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP
          7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100
          Saint Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 863-0800
          E-mail: cicely.lubben@stinson.com
                  nicci.warr@stinson.com


WALGREENS BOOTS: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., continues to defend a securities
class action lawsuit filed in Illinois, according to the Company's
January 5, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended November 30, 2016.

On April 10, 2015, a putative shareholder filed a securities class
action in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois
against Walgreen Co. and certain former officers of Walgreen Co.
The action asserts claims for violation of the federal securities
laws arising out of certain public statements the Company made
regarding its former fiscal 2016 goals. On June 16, 2015, the
Court entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff. Pursuant to
the Court's order, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
August 17, 2015, and defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint on October 16, 2015. Lead plaintiff filed a response to
the motion to dismiss on December 22, 2015, and defendants filed a
reply in support of the motion on February 5, 2016.

On September 30, 2016, the Court issued an order granting in part
and denying in part Walgreen Co.'s motion to dismiss. Defendants
filed their answer to the amended complaint on November 4, 2016.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., is a pharmaceutical company which
operates the second largest chain in the United States.


WALGREENS BOOTS: Shareholders Drop Consolidated Actions in Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 5, 2017, for the
quarter period ended November 30, 2016, that the Plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed their consolidated shareholder actions
without prejudice.

On December 5 and 12, 2014, putative shareholders filed class
actions in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois
against the Walgreens Board of Directors, Walgreen Co., and
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. arising out of the Company's
definitive proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC in
connection with the special meeting of Walgreens shareholders on
December 29, 2014. The actions asserted claims that the definitive
proxy statement/prospectus was false or misleading in various
respects.

On December 23, 2014, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, Walgreens entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs in both actions, pursuant to
which Walgreens made certain supplemental disclosures. The
proposed settlement was subject to, among other things, court
approval. On July 8, 2015, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement, and on November 20, 2015, the Court entered an order
of final approval of the settlement.

On December 17, 2015, a purported class member who had objected to
the settlement appealed the Court's order. The appeal was docketed
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Oral argument was held on June 2, 2016. On August 10, 2016, the
Seventh Circuit issued an order reversing the district court's
judgment approving the settlement and remanding the case for
further proceedings.

On December 8, 2016, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
consolidated actions without prejudice.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., is a pharmaceutical company which
operates the second largest chain in the United States.


WALGREENS BOOTS: M.D. Pa. Suit Over Rite Aid Merger Still Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania over the proposed
merger with Rite Aid Corporation remains stayed, according to
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.'s January 5, 2017, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended November 30, 2016.

In the event that the merger contemplated by the Agreement and
Plan of Merger dated as of October 27, 2015 among the Company,
Rite Aid Corporation ("Rite Aid") and Victoria Merger Sub, Inc., a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company (the "Merger Agreement") is
not consummated on or prior to June 1, 2017 (the first anniversary
of the issuance date of the notes) or if the Merger Agreement is
terminated at any time on or prior to June 1, 2017, then Walgreens
Boots Alliance will be required to redeem the notes due 2018, the
notes due 2021 and the notes due 2023 (but not the notes due 2026
or notes due 2046) on the date described in the applicable note at
a redemption price equal to 101% of the aggregate principal amount
of the notes to be redeemed, plus accrued and unpaid interest from
and including the date of initial issuance, or the most recent
date to which interest has been paid, whichever is later, to, but
excluding, the date of redemption.

As of November 30, 2016, the Company was aware of ten putative
class action lawsuits (the "Rite Aid actions") filed by purported
Rite Aid stockholders against Rite Aid and its board of directors,
Walgreens Boots Alliance and Victoria Merger Sub, Inc. for claims
arising out of the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement (the "Rite Aid Transactions"). Eight of the Rite Aid
actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the "Delaware actions"), one Rite Aid action was filed
in the State of Pennsylvania in the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County (the "Pennsylvania action"), and one Rite Aid
action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania (the "federal action").

The Delaware actions and the Pennsylvania action primarily alleged
that the Rite Aid board of directors breached its fiduciary duties
in connection with the Rite Aid Transactions by, among other
things, agreeing to an unfair and inadequate price, agreeing to
deal protection devices that preclude other bidders from making
successful competing offers for Rite Aid, and failing to disclose
all allegedly material information concerning the proposed merger;
and also allege that Walgreens Boots Alliance and Victoria Merger
Sub, Inc. aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty.

The federal action alleges, among other things, that Rite Aid and
its board of directors disseminated an allegedly false and
misleading proxy statement in connection with the Rite Aid
Transactions. The Delaware actions were consolidated, and
plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited proceedings and a motion
for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the Rite Aid
shareholder vote on the Rite Aid Transactions. The plaintiffs in
the federal action also filed a motion for preliminary injunction
seeking to enjoin the same Rite Aid shareholder vote. All such
motions were denied, and the Rite Aid shareholders approved the
Rite Aid Transactions at a special meeting on February 4, 2016.

On April 15, 2016, the plaintiffs in the Delaware actions agreed
to a settlement in principle related to this matter for an
immaterial amount. In the federal action, plaintiffs agreed to
stay the litigation until after the Rite Aid Transactions have
closed.

Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., is a pharmaceutical company which
operates the second largest chain in the United States.


WIRTZ REALTY: Bid for Class Certification Taken Under Advisement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Andrea R. Wood entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned EDUARDO CAZAREZ, the Plaintiff, v. WIRTZ REALTY
CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06814 (N.D. Ill.),
taking under advisement the Parties' joint motion for
certification and for approval of collective action settlement
agreement and notice.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hu35aISj


XTO ENERGY: Class Certification Bid Denied in Mobley Lumber Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Billy Roy Wilson entered an order in the lawsuit styled
Mobley Lumber Company, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. XTO Energy,
Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00012-BRW (E.D.
Ark.), denying Plaintiffs' motions for class certification.

The Court said, "This case is comprised of Plaintiffs from two
consolidated cases -- Mobley and Hutchinson. Plaintiffs propose
five classes, all of whom assert that XTO defrauded Plaintiffs by
selling gas to a subsidiary (Cross Timbers) at below-market price,
which resulted in Plaintiffs receiving lower royalty payments.
When combined, the proposed classes appear to cover everyone who
received royalty payments from XTO after October 2006. In 2009,
the Honorable G. Thomas Eisele denied certification of a class of
royalty owners who alleged that XTO had underpaid royalties by
deducting certain expenses that were hidden through an improper
relationship between XTO and Cross Timbers. According to
Plaintiffs, this case is different than Riedel [v. XTO Energy,
Inc., 257 F.R.D. 494 (E.D. Ark. 2009)] because this is not a
deductions case. Defendants assert that Plaintiffs are trying to
"artfully cast their claim as a pricing claim." Plaintiffs assert
that Defendants are trying "to confuse the Court and distract from
the real contention." In fine, the parties disagree about what
they disagree about. The question that resolves Plaintiffs' claims
as pled in the Complaint and Motions for Class Certification is
the same question posed in Riedel -- that is, whether Defendants
paid lower royalty payments than each lease allowed. As Judge
Eisele held in Riedel, certification is not appropriate here
because individualized questions about what each lease allowed
predominate over the common questions."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xSO3jMle


YAHOO INC: Insurance Agent Files Data Theft Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Ethan Baron, writing for Silicon Beat, reports that in a claim
that appears to contradict Yahoo's public statements on two
record-setting breaches of users' personal data, a Texas insurance
agent is alleging in a just-filed class-action lawsuit that his
credit card data was stolen in the hacks, leading to fraudulent
charges.

Brian Neff, who owns an online insurance company based in Little
Elm, Texas, said in the suit he paid Yahoo for web hosting and
small-business email services.

"In addition to paying Yahoo thousands of dollars for services
that subjected him to a security breach, Mr. Neff was also a
victim of actual identity theft following the data breaches," said
the lawsuit filed Feb. 8 in U.S. District Court in San Jose.

"He incurred fraudulent charges on his Capital One credit card and
his Chase debit card, both of which were on file with Yahoo to pay
for services connected with two of his websites, with Yahoo being
the only company to which Mr. Neff had provided information about
both accounts."

The suit further alleged that an unauthorized credit card account
in Mr. Neff's name was opened at Credit One Bank in 2015, with
fraudulent charges made in May and June of that year.

"The probability that separate criminals stole card information
from separate sources, stole the information necessary to open a
new credit card account from a separate source, and made
fraudulent charges on all three cards in the same month is
staggeringly remote," the lawsuit said.

Yahoo said Feb. 8 it did not comment on litigation.  Whether the
claimed theft of Mr. Neff's credit and debit card information and
fraudulent creation of a credit card account resulted from the
firm's data breaches remains unproven.

In the latter part of last year, Yahoo announced two record-
setting hacks, of at least 500 million accounts in 2014 and of
more than a billion accounts in 2013.  The company also said in a
Securities and Exchange Commission filing that it knew of the 2014
hack for nearly two years before revealing it.

Yahoo has issued two statements, one for each breach, concerning
what might have been stolen.  Both statements said email
addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, scrambled passwords,
and security questions and answers may have been taken.

Both statements said that Yahoo's investigation indicated no
payment-card data or bank account information was taken.

Regarding the 2014 hack, "payment card data and bank account
information are not stored in the system that the investigation
has found to be affected," Yahoo said.

The firm's statement on the 2013 breach is slightly less
conclusive: "Payment card data and bank account information are
not stored in the system the company believes was affected," Yahoo
said.

Mr. Neff's suit accused Yahoo of negligently failing to take
reasonable measures to protect users' data, failing to prevent the
data breaches, failing to notify users that Yahoo's data-security
measures were inadequate, and failing to promptly disclose it had
been hacked. The firm's actions amounted to fraudulent and
deceptive business practices, according to the suit.

Mr. Neff is seeking unspecified damages, and certification of a
plaintiff class made up of small-business customers of Yahoo.

The Sunnyvale tech giant is in the midst of a sale to Verizon that
has been delayed, and could be scrapped, as a result of the
breaches. Yahoo has said it remains committed to the sale, but
Verizon said in January it's still evaluating the larger of the
two hacks.

Yahoo said in January that the sale, supposed to close in the
first quarter of this year, would be delayed until the second
quarter.

Analysts have predicted that if Verizon does buy Yahoo, it will be
at a significant discount from the initial $4.8 billion price.

Yahoo faces at least two dozen lawsuits related to the hacks,
several of which have been wrapped into one.


YAHOO INC: Faces Another Data Breach Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Trader, Cara Bayles and Shayna Posses, writing for Law360,
report that Yahoo Inc. has been slapped with yet another proposed
class action over two massive data breaches announced in late 2016
affecting more than one billion users, this time by a New Jersey
couple who claim Yahoo's negligence has led to their information
being used fraudulently by criminals.

Matthew and Deana Ridolfo launched their suit in California
federal court on Feb. 7 claiming that, since they became users in
2000 and turned over substantial personal information in the
process, Yahoo has continuously represented that it had their
privacy and security interests at heart.  But wasn't actually the
case, the couple said, because hackers were able to steal that
information in two of the largest data breaches in U.S. history,
which Yahoo revealed back in September and December.

On Sept. 22, Yahoo announced that information related to 500
million accounts was stolen in late 2014.  That breach was deemed
the largest in history, until the company revealed on Dec. 14 that
hackers had stolen one billion users' account data in 2013.

Those breaches have taken a significant toll, the Ridolfos said,
because just this past January they learned that their personal
information was fraudulently accessed and used to open several
credit cards and alter the information for various accounts,
including their phone company account, which criminals allegedly
accessed in order to reroute their home phone number to a
different location.

The couple said no doubt the stolen personal information was
obtained through their Yahoo accounts, as each of them had used
those accounts for financial and other confidential
correspondence.

"At no point prior to Yahoo's announcement on Sept. 22, 2016, were
plaintiffs informed by Yahoo of a potential security breach
exposing their personal data or provided any instructions
regarding additional security measures to minimize their risk of
identity theft," the couple wrote.

As a result of the theft, the couple has enrolled in Life Lock, a
privacy protection service, for roughly $30 a month in order to
monitor and freeze their credit, and they also had to exert time
changing their passwords and security questions for all of their
accounts, all of which equates to real damage.

According to the Ridolfos, Yahoo knew as early as July that
hackers may have stolen the first trove of user data, but was
unable to substantiate the hackers' claims.  Therefore, rather
than step up its own security measures or potentially warn the
public of the hack, it did nothing, leaving all users vulnerable,
the couple said.

What's more, when the couple signed up for accounts with the
company in 2000, they turned over substantial amounts of personal
information after relying on Yahoo's assurances that it "takes
your privacy seriously" and that "protecting our systems and our
users' information is paramount to ensuring Yahoo users enjoy a
secure user experience and maintaining our users' trust," the
Ridolfos said.

"The insufficient security policies and procedures implemented by
Yahoo is a material fact that a reasonable consumer would consider
when deciding whether to create an online account and provide
personal information," the couple wrote.  "Had plaintiffs and
other class members known that Yahoo failed to employ necessary
and adequate protection of their personal information, they would
not have created a Yahoo account."

A representative for Yahoo did not immediately return a request
for comment, and counsel information wasn't immediately available.

A stream of proposed class actions poured in after Yahoo revealed
the initial breach in September, eventually leading the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to centralize the cases
in California's Northern District federal court in early December,
which is where the Ridolfos filed their suit.

Ridolfo is represented by Lee A. Cirsch, Robert K. Friedl and
Trisha K. Monesi of Capstone Law APC.

The case is Matthew and Deana Ridolfo v. Yahoo Inc., case number
3:17-cv-00619, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


YOUNG SHING: Faces "Escamilla" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Young Shing Trading
Co., Inc. The case is entitled as Francisco Montenegro Escamilla,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Young Shing Trading Co., Inc., doing business as:
Young Shing Trading Co.; Ki Tai Yeung; Wendy Yeung; and Ping
Yeung, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00652 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 3,
2017).

Young Shing Trading is doing business in the food service
wholesale industry.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


* Securities Class Action Filings Hit Record High in 2016
---------------------------------------------------------
Angela Madden, writing for The Global Legal Post, reports that
securities class actions in the United States rose to their
highest level in 20 years and filings targeting European issuers
reached record numbers.

Securities class actions in the United States rose to their
highest level in 20 years and filings targeting European issuers
reached record numbers.

In 2016, the 15 filings against European issuers were more than
double the 1997-2015 historical average of seven.

Securities Class Action Filings-2016 Year in Review issued by
Cornerstone Research and the Stanford Law School Securities Class
Action Clearinghouse also revealed that for the first time since
2009, European filings outnumbered filings against Chinese
issuers, who were the most common targets in 2015.

Filings against firms headquartered in the United Kingdom (six),
Germany (four), and Ireland (four) were the highest on record.
"The majority of the European filings were in the Second Circuit,
the federal district for New York," commented Mr Jamie Meehan,
senior vice president and head of Cornerstone Research's European
finance practice.

"The pharmaceutical industry was the most heavily targeted with
six filings, the only sector that had more than one in 2016."
Overall, the record 270 federal filings in 2016 -- 82 more than in
2015 -- was 44 per cent above the historical average.  The
increase was largely due to 80 filings related to merger and
acquisition transactions.  Filings against foreign issuers totaled
42 in 2016, second only to 2011, according to the report.
The report can be downloaded from Cornerstone Research and the
Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse.


* Wage-and-Hour Class Actions Down in 2016, Report Shows
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert Teachout, writing for Society for Human Resource
Management, reports that although the number of wage and hour
class-action lawsuit filings decreased last year, the settlement
valuation has more than tripled over the last two years.

An annual report by law firm Seyfarth Shaw that tracks class-
action litigation data shows that the trend for wage and hour
cases ran counter to other employment law class actions, which
decreased in settlement value by nearly 30 percent overall.  The
report, issued Jan. 11, looked at class-action cases involving
wage and hour law, employment discrimination, the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and government
enforcement.

Employment class-action lawsuits can cost millions of dollars to
defend and adversely impact a company's operations.  In some cases
they can even jeopardize or end senior management careers.

The report showed that businesses face accelerating and rapidly
changing litigation issues.  Plaintiffs' class-action attorneys
and governmental enforcement litigators are developing new
theories to successfully prosecute complex employment litigation,
said Gerald Maatman Jr., an attorney in Seyfarth Shaw's Chicago
office and author of the report.

Wage and Hour Case Filings Remain Prevalent

In 2016, for the first time in 15 years, the number of wage and
hour case filings decreased compared to the previous year.
However, Mr. Maatman cautioned that this probably was just "an
aberration."  He noted that although wage and hour case filings
decreased last year, 2016 still had the second-highest number of
wage and hour cases ever filed.

He expects an increase in wage and hour cases for the trend to
return to the norm 2017.  "To the extent that government wage and
hour law enforcement is ratcheted down, the private plaintiffs'
bar likely will 'fill the void' and again increase the number of
wage and hour lawsuit filings," Mr. Maatman said.

Such cases are particularly well-suited to the plaintiff's bar, he
said, given the low investment needed to pass the threshold for
class certification -- permitting individuals bringing different
claims against a company to consolidate their claims. Expert
opinion and documentation to bring a class action under other
areas of employment law, such as employment discrimination, can
cost upwards of $250,000, he said, and the data shows that only
about half of the classes in other areas are certified.  Wage and
hour class cases, on the other hand, can be prepared for only a
few thousand dollars and have a 76 percent certification rate.
Once certification is granted, an employer is under great pressure
to settle.

Recent news reports on the overtime regulations may also spark
more filings.  "Historically," said Mr. Maatman, "when the FLSA
[Fair Labor Standards Act] and related wage and hour laws have
received active media attention, the number of lawsuits filed
under those laws has spiked," even though a court barred the
overtime rule from taking effect as scheduled on Dec. 1, 2016.

Regardless, the media attention surrounding the overtime rule
makes wage and hour compliance a top priority, according to
Mr. Maatman: "If [as a business owner] I have $100 to spend on
compliance efforts, $95 to $99 would be focused on wage and hour
compliance because that is where the most risk is these days."

Value of Wage and Hour Settlements Rose

The monetary value of the top employment-related class-action
settlements declined significantly in 2016, Seyfarth Shaw found,
after reaching all-time highs in 2014 and 2015.  The top 10
settlements in the various employment categories totaled $1.75
billion in 2016, which declined from $2.48 billion in 2015 and
$1.87 billion in 2014.

In contrast, the value of wage and hour settlements increased
significantly.  The value of the top 10 settlements hit $695.5
million in 2016, a 50 percent increase over 2015's $463.6 million
valuation, and more than triple the $215.3 million valuation in
2014.

Decisions certifying wage and hour class-action lawsuits increased
11 percent over the previous year.  But at the same time,
employers won decertification motions at a slightly higher rate
than in 2015.  That both rates could increase reflects the 28
percent increase in certification cases overall, from 175 in 2015
to 224 in 2016.

Impact of Supreme Court Rulings

Recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings increasingly have shaped and
influenced class-action dynamics, according to Maatman. Cases last
year, such as Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016)
and Spokeo v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), were more favorable
to plaintiffs and made it easier for class actions to advance.

In Tyson, the court ruled that statistical sampling can be used to
establish class-action claims in which large numbers of employees
each assert small-dollar claims.  In Spokeo, the court held that
"standing" -- the ability to sue because one has a stake in the
matter -- requires a showing of a "concrete injury" but not
necessarily a "tangible injury." As a result, certain intangible
harms may be sufficient to satisfy standing requirements.

"The court decided several cases in 2016 that favored workers
bringing class actions, which in turn portend significant
challenges for employers facing these exposures in 2017,"
Mr. Maatman said.  By declining several opportunities to impose
more restraints on class actions and often deciding cases on
narrow grounds, he said the Supreme Court left many gaps to be
filled in by lower federal courts.

Effect of Political Change

The U.S. Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission continued their aggressive regulatory enforcement
litigation programs last year.  But Mr. Maatman said that their
enforcement activities were limited in their effectiveness when
measured by lawsuit filings and recoveries compared to previous
years. However, he expects the agencies to continue their focus on
systemic investigations and collective actions.

Employment law class-action lawsuits are becoming more
sophisticated, Mr. Maatman said, and will continue to be a source
of significant risk for financial exposure to employers well into
the future.  The one sure bet in 2017, he said, is that "change is
inevitable, and corporate America will encounter new litigation
challenges."

Employers can expect class-action lawsuits increasingly to combine
claims under multiple statutes.  "With the changeover from a
Democratic White House to a Republican one and the second-most
filings of wage and hour litigation [in 2016] over the past
decade, 2017 is sure to present twists and turns for employers in
dealing with these types of litigation issues," Mr. Maatman said.

Robert Teachout, SHRM-SCP, is a writer in Washington, D.C., who
covers employment law and HR issues.


* Reed Smith Attorney Balks at Class Action Cy Pres Abuse
---------------------------------------------------------
James Beck, Esq., of Reed Smith, in an article for JDSupra, states
"We can't stand 'cy pres' distributions of class action settlement
funds to non-litigants.  We've blogged about this benighted
doctrine many times.  We fought against cy pres at in the ALI, and
we've been fighting against it through Lawyers for Civil Justice
in the context of federal rules amendments."

"Sure, cy pres can be useful in resolving this or that class
action once our clients are unfortunate enough to have become
embroiled.  But we firmly believe in the 'build it and they will
come' theory -- that making class actions easier to settle make
them easier to bring, because 99% of all class actions (at least
those seeking $$$) are brought as strike suits to settle, rather
than to litigate.  A cy pres award is a sure-fire indicator of
litigation that should never have been brought -- because even
after settlement, without any opposition from the defendant(s), a
cy pres request is an admission that the plaintiffs still can't
prove damages and causation with respect to the absent class
members.  They can't even win a walkover.  Outside the class
action area, that would mean 'case dismissed' (and maybe
sanctions).  As a class action, it means 'write a check'."

"There is no basis for cy pres in substantive law (outside of a
couple oddball statutes), and there's nothing more "substantive"
than taking money supposedly owed to absent class members and
giving it to non-litigant charities.  Since it's substantive,
there's also no possible basis for it in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, since
court rules can't change substantive law.  Cy pres a racket --
designed primarily to inflate attorney fee awards -- and while the
charities might do good work, call us the Grinch, because we don't
think the litigation industry should be funding charities with
other people's money extorted through litigation threats.

"Here's the latest example of cy pres abuse occurring in the
context of bogus litigation that should never have been brought,
Koby v. ARS National Services, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, 2017 WL 359670
(9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2017).  This isn't a drug/device case.
Thankfully, between the FDCA no private right of action rule
(which, regrettably has a food loophole) and the rejection of
personal injury class actions, we don't encounter all that many of
them anymore against drug/device clients.  Instead, Koby is a Fair
Debt Collection Practices ("FDCP") action, and as you might expect
from the introduction, a bottom-feeding FDCP action at that.

"Supposedly the defendant violated the FDCP at some point a decade
or so ago when its employees left messages that did not fully
identify themselves.  This issue was later fixed, but the class
action supposedly includes "some four million people nationwide."
Koby, 2017 WL 359670, at *1.  Predictably, nobody in the class was
actually harmed by what appears to have been a technical FDCP
violation (quickly fixed), so only statutory damages were sought.
Theoretically that could have been a lot (4M x $1000), but because
ARS was a small company, the 1% of net worth statutory cap limited
recovery to $35,000. Id. at *1-2.

You do the math.

"No, the court did.  That's 3,500,000 in pennies, to be shared
between 4 million or so class members -- none of whom were
actually injured.  Id. at *2 ("less than a penny to each member of
the class").  No actual damages.  Less than a penny in statutory
damages per person.  Koby was [insert barnyard expletive of your
choice] litigation in every sense of the word.

"But lawyers cost money, and litigation consumes time and effort
that could be better directed to business pursuits, so the
plaintiff class was able to extort a settlement.  Here's what they
got:

"[Defendant] agreed to pay each of the three named plaintiffs
$1,000, the maximum they could hope to recover under the FDCPA as
none of them had suffered any actual damages . . . .  Given the
impossibility of distributing less than a penny to each member of
the class, [defendant] agreed to make a $35,000 cy pres award to a
local San Diego charity instead. . . .  The four million unnamed
class members receive no monetary compensation under the
settlement.

Koby, 2017 WL 359670, at *2. And of course, the most important
thing, "[defendant] also agreed to pay class counsel the
negotiated sum of $67,500 in attorney's fees."  Id.

Before getting to the merits, the Ninth Circuit had to sort
through a procedural dispute about whether the case could properly
be assigned to a magistrate (what district judges often do with
[insert same expletive] cases).  Koby upheld the assignment.  Id.
at *3-5 (ruling that all 4 million absent class members don't have
to consent to assignment to a magistrate).

The Ninth Circuit then hammered the cy pres settlement.  The
purported "injunctive relief" was meaningless, since:  (1) it was
a "mismatch" with the class definition, which looked backward, and
(2) it did "not obligate [defendant] to do anything it was not
already doing" (as already mentioned, the violation had been
corrected).  Id. at *5-6.

Thus the only supposed "value to the class" was the $35,000 in
statutory damages that the settlement took from the class and gave
to a charity.  That didn't pass muster either.

[The settling parties] likewise presented no evidence that the
absent class members would derive any benefit from the
settlement's cy pres award.  Indeed, it is doubtful that the award
could be approved under our precedents, which require that cy pres
awards be tethered to the objectives of the underlying statutes or
the interests of the class members.  Here, the award consists of a
$35,000 donation to a San Diego veterans' organization.  The San
Diego location of the chosen charity has no geographic nexus to
the class, which includes four million individuals scattered
throughout the United States.  Nor was there any evidence that the
settlement class is disproportionately composed of veterans.  And
there was no showing that the work performed by the designated
charity would protect consumers from unfair debt collection
practices, the objective of the FDCPA.  Thus, even putting aside
the relatively small size of the cy pres award, we cannot say that
this aspect of the settlement provided any material benefit to the
class members.

Id. at *6 (emphasis added) (citation omitted).  But the named
plaintiffs would get $1000 each and class counsel would get fees
almost twice the settlement amount.

So the fig leaf cy pres award was rejected.  Reversed and
remanded. Id. at *7.  What next?  With total FDCP damages capped
at an amount that the defendant was already willing to pay, this
sounds like a good candidate for interpleader.  Pay the $35,000
into the court and let plaintiffs' counsel - who claim to be
"adequate representatives" for this [same expletive] litigation
sort out distribution on their own dime.

If one wants to stop class action abuse, it has to become
uneconomic for the lawyers to bring them.  There is no other way.
Getting rid of cy pres would do that in the Koby case and hundreds
of similarly meritless strike suits.



* N.Y., Calif. Courts May Lead Way in Class Certifications
----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Forbes, reports that one of the
nation's top employment and labor law firms found, in its most
recent study, that New York and California courts lead the way in
the number of class action certifications.

Two jurisdictions in particular, the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, are "magnets" for workplace
litigation, said Gerald Maatman, a partner at Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

Mr. Maatman, who works out of the firm's Chicago and New York
offices, primarily defends employers sued in employment
discrimination class actions and wage and hour collective actions,
among others.

According to his bio, he has pioneered the process of conducting
employment practices audits to assist employers in structuring
effective and practical personnel policies and protocols.

These audits are designed to minimize the incidence of employment-
related class action litigation and to maximize management
discretion and workplace productivity.

The two jurisdictions, as Mr. Maatman explained in a recent
interview with Legal Newsline, are in urban areas and the most
"worker-friendly" of all jurisdictions in terms of case law.

He said plaintiffs lawyers are well aware of this.

"Most Fortune 1000 companies do business in New York and
California, so they have an inordinate number of class actions
filed there," he pointed out.

According to Seyfarth Shaw's statistical study of class
certification rulings in 2016, within the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit -- which includes the Southern District of
New York -- 29 conditional certification motions were granted in
Fair Labor Standards Act, or FLSA, certification decisions.  In
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit -- which includes
the Northern District of California -- 33 conditional
certification motions were granted, also in FLSA certification
decisions.

The numbers are telling, said Mr. Maatman, who is co-chair of the
Seyfarth Shaw's class action litigation practice group and served
as general editor of the firm's study.

They substantiate that the district courts within the two circuits
are the "epicenters" of wage and hour class actions and collective
actions, he said.

Seyfarth Shaw's 13th Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation
Report, which also looked at employment discrimination and
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, certification
trends, was compiled from case filings and rulings the firm tracks
on a daily basis, from Jan. 1, 2016 to Dec. 31, 2016.  The
information, Mr. Maatman explained, was collected through PACER,
the online resource center of the federal court system.

Mr. Maatman, in evaluating the data and trends, said he is
especially concerned with the increased filings of wage and hour
lawsuits.

Complex workplace litigation, in particular wage and hour class
actions, drives corporate legal budget expenditures and is the
type of legal dispute that causes the most concern for companies,
he said.

"Wage and hour class actions are the most frequent and expensive
type of class action to defend and lose," he said.  "The
certification standards are the easiest for workers."

According to the firm's study, the number of wage and hour lawsuit
filings in federal court decreased in 2016; however, while the
number of filings decreased for the first time in 15 years, 2016's
filings were the second highest total ever,
Mr. Maatman pointed out.

He said the number of filings may be attributed to the low-cost
investment in prosecuting such lawsuits.

"Plaintiffs do not need to hire an expert to secure a
certification order or go through discovery; unlike employment
discrimination cases where the cash outlay on an expert could be
$250,00 and discovery can last up to 18 months, a plaintiff in a
wage and hour class action can secure a certification order with
several affidavits," he explained.

The area of the law also has attracted more plaintiffs class
action lawyers, he said.

"In terms of their 'rate of return,' the plaintiffs' bar can
convert their case filings more readily into certification orders,
and create the conditions for opportunistic settlements over
shorter periods of time," the report states.  "The certification
statistics for 2016 confirm these factors."

According to the study, worker awareness also has contributed to
the growth of wage and hour litigation.

"Wage and hour laws are usually the domain of specialists, but in
2016 wage and hour issues made front-page news," the report
states. "The widespread public attention to how employees are paid
almost certainly contributed to the sheer number of suits.

"Big verdicts and record settlements also played a part, as
success typically begets copy-cats and litigation is no
exception."

Technology, in particular the Internet and social media, also have
helped fuel the litigation trend, the study found.

"Technology has opened the doors for unprecedented levels of
marketing and advertising by the plaintiffs' bar -- either through
direct soliciting of putative class members or in advancing the
overall cause of lawsuits," the report states.

Mr. Maatman, who often defends employers, expects the plaintiffs
bar and government enforcement attorneys to be equally, if not
more, aggressive in 2017 in bringing such class actions against
employees.

Employers, he said, need to evaluate their strategy.

"[My advice would be to] focus compliance efforts on the manner in
which employees are paid -- that is the area where most of the
lawsuits are coming from," he said.




                            *********

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  * * *