CAR_Public/170222.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


           Wednesday, February 22, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 38



                            Headlines

ADV-CARE PHARMACY: Advanced Dermatology Sues Over TCPA Breach
ALLERGAN INC: Faces ERISA Class Action in California
ANG DINER: Faces "Tello" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BANK OF AMERICA: Belevich Seeks to Certify Personal Bankers Class
BENJYS KOSHER: Faces "Ayala-Zacarias" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NYLL

BLACKBERRY LTD: Employees File Suit Over Ford Partnership
BUFFALO TRACE: Falsely Advertises Bourbon Age, Class Claims
CANADA: Advance Costs Awarded in Child Welfare Class Action
CARL KARCHER: Wage Suit at Issue at Puzder Confirmation Hearing
CEPHALON INC: King Drug Purchasers Move for Class Certification

COMCAST CORP: Certification of Class Sought in "McDougal" Suit
CORECIVIC: Prison Recorded Lawyer-Client Meetings, Faces Suit
COREPOWER YOGA: $1.65MM Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court OK
CREDIT PROTECTION: Missouri Court Dismisses "Klein"
CYNOSURE INC: Agrees to Settle TCPA Violation Suit for $16 Million

DARBY DENTAL: Faces Ryoo Class Suit in C.D. Calif.
DELANO FARMS: $6MM Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Okay
DOLE FOOD: Cal. App. Partly Reverses Summary Judgment in "Blair"
EMERY FEDERAL: Gets Okay to Compel Discovery From Plaintiffs
FAMOUS BOURBON: "Weber" Labor Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

FIFTH GENERATION: Singleton Moves to Certify Class of Buyers
FLORIDA, USA: Casey Moves for Certification of Prisoners Class
FLOWERS FOODS: Martins Moves to Certify Class of Distributors
FORD MOTOR: Faces Suit Over Throttle Deceleration Defect
FORSTER & GARBUS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Mierov" Suit Claims

GALENA BIOPHARMA: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: WeissLaw LLP Files Securities Class Action
GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Court Certifies Class & 4 Subclasses in ICS Suit
GOOGLE INC: Sued in Locksmith Operations Antitrust Suit
GR OPCO: Faces "Alvarez" Labor Lawsuit in Florida

HARBOR FREIGHT: Faces "Jackson" Class Suit in California
HARMAN INT'L: Faces Class Action Over Acquisition by Samsung
HOMETEAM PEST: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Garnica" Suit
KPH CONSORTIUM: NDG Residents, Business People Join Turcot Suit
LIVANOVA: Faces Suit Over 3T Heater-Cooler

LOGITECH INC: Faces Suit Over Breach of Warranty
LOUISIANA HEART: Faces Suit by Laid Off Employees
MEDICAL MUTUAL: More Entities Join Class Action Over Service Fees
MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Class Action Over Xbox Live Gold Service
MONTREAL, QC: Police Could Face Suit by Black Coalition

NORTHERN DYNASTY: April 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
OKLAHOMA ENERGY: Bollenbach Class Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
ORACLE: Sales Employees File Class Action Over Lost Commissions
PEPPERMILL CASINOS: "Abrams" Stays in Nevada District Court
PIONEER CREDIT: FDCPA Class Certification Sought in "Kozak" Suit

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Wet Wipes Buyers Seek Class Certification
QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Faces Prevagen Consumer Fraud Class Action
QUORN FOOD: Settles Consumer Class Action in California
REMINGTON ARMS: Judge Expresses Concerns Over Rifle Settlement
RENZENBERGER INC: Wright Moves to Certify Rest Break Class

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Mulford" Hits Washing Machine Exploding Top
SCION DENTAL: Status Hearing in "Orrington" Suit Set for March 15
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Settles Drink Coupons Suit Under New Deal
ST. JOHN, NB: To Appeal Estabrooks Class Action Ruling
STILLWATER MINING: April 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

TARGET CORP: Superior Court Authorizes Privacy Class Action
TAUBRA CORP: "Burcham" Suit Seeks OT Wage Under FLSA, Ohio Law
TBC CORPORATION: Faces "Hamilton" Class Suit in C.D. California
TESORO CORP: "Arias" Sues Board Over Western Refining Merger
TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Action Over Soy-Based Wire Coating Ongoing

TRIGENICS HEALTH: Certification of Class Sought in Swetlic Suit
UNIVERSAL PROPERTY: Rodriguez Seeks to Certify Class of Customers
US NONWOVENS: Mendez Seeks Approval of Notice to Class Members
WACKENHUT CORP: "Lubin" Wage Suit Sent Back to Trial Court
WYNDHAM HOTEL: Court Dismisses Website Booking Suit as to 2 Units

* FICALA Changes Seek to Address Worrisome Litigation Practices
* Litigation Funders Steer Clear of Class Actions
* New House Bill to Impact Class Action Lawyers' Legal Fees
* South African Gold Mining Cos. Near Silicosis Settlement
* Supreme Court Rules in Favor of People with Leprosy in Suit



                            *********


ADV-CARE PHARMACY: Advanced Dermatology Sues Over TCPA Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
ADVANCED DERMATOLOGY (8940 Darrow Road, Twinsburg, Ohio 44087)
Plaintiff, vs. ADV-CARE PHARMACY, INC. (195 Riviera Dr. Unit 2
Markham, Ontario, Canada L3R 5J6) Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00251-DCN (N.D. Ohio, February 7, 2017) is a purported class
action that alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act by sending unsolicited facsimiles to people and businesses who
have not given their consent.

Defendant sells pharmaceutical drugs into the United States and
allegedly solicits medical offices 'targeting medications in your
medical field" asking that the information be passed on to
patients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James S. Wertheim, Esq.
     Ronald I. Frederick, Esq.
     Michael L. Berler, Esq.
     FREDERICK & BERLER LLC
     767 East 185th Street
     Cleveland, OH 44119
     Phone: (216) 502-1055
     Fax: (216) 566-9400
     E-mail: jamesw@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
             ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com
             mikeb@clevelandconsumerlaw.com


ALLERGAN INC: Faces ERISA Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that Allergan
plc's connection to an alleged price-fixing scheme among generic
drug makers spawned a proposed class action Feb. 14, with an
Allergan employee claiming he lost retirement savings by investing
in the company's stock (Xie v. Inv. Comm. & Benefits Oversight
Comm. of Allergan Inc. Sav. & Inv. Plan, C.D. Cal., No. 8:17-cv-
00271, complaint filed 2/14/17).

The complaint accuses Allergan's benefits plan committee and the
company's chief financial officer, Maria Teresa Hilado, of failing
to protect workers from a 23 percent drop in Allergan's stock
price in connection with an ongoing Department of Justice
investigation into price collusion among major pharmaceutical
companies.  Ms. Hilado and the committee breached their duties
under federal benefits law by continuing to let workers invest
retirement savings in Allergan stock, which carried an
artificially inflated price tag before news of the investigation
broke, the complaint alleges.

Allergan -- which was subpoenaed in connection with the DOJ
investigation in 2015 00 is the first drug company to be sued over
related retirement plan losses.  In December 2016, 20 state
attorneys' general filed antitrust charges against six drug
companies, including Aurobindo, Heritage, Mylan and Teva, without
naming Allergan.  The DOJ filed its first criminal charges that
same month, targeting two former Heritage executives.

Litigation over alleged drug price fixing continues to swirl, with
two new lawsuits targeting Allergan in the past month.  The suits,
filed by California's attorney general and the Federal Trade
Commission, challenge the pricing of lidocaine patches intended to
treat shingles.  Allergan has challenged the FTC lawsuit, which
was filed Jan. 23 in a California federal court, as "flagrant
forum shopping" and an attempt to circumvent a settlement entered
in a Pennsylvania-based federal court.

Allergan also faces multiple securities lawsuits over stock losses
connected to the DOJ investigation.  Those lawsuits claim that
hundreds of thousands of Allergan shareholders were harmed by the
alleged fraud.  By contrast, the most recent lawsuit alleges
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and
seeks relief on behalf of "at least 19,000" individuals who held
Allergan stock in the company's retirement plan.  It's the first
time Allergan has been sued under ERISA in at least five years,
according to Bloomberg Law Litigation Analytics.

The ERISA lawsuit will likely face obstacles in the federal
courts, which have been increasingly likely to dismiss ERISA
claims involving employer stock losses since a seminal U.S.
Supreme Court decision in 2014.

Since that decision, a number of companies have beaten these
"stock-drop" lawsuits, with courts rejecting claims involving the
company stock plans of Lehman Brothers, General Motors, RadioShack
Corp., J.C. Penney, Whole Foods Corp., and Sanofi-Aventis U.S.
LLC.

The ERISA lawsuit against Allergan was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California by Zamansky LLC.

Zamansky also represents investors bringing similar claims
involving the retirement plans of L-3 Communications Corp., Exxon
Mobil Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co.

Allergan didn't immediately respond to inquiries about the new
lawsuit.


ANG DINER: Faces "Tello" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Tello, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. A.N.G. Diner Corp. d/b/a Silver Spoon Diner, Halkios
Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Silver Spoon Diner, Xiotis Rest. Corp.
d/b/a Silver Spoon Diner, George Rakitzis, Nick Rakitzis, and Anna
Maidiotis, Case No. 1:17-cv-00749 (E.D.N.Y, February 9, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Silver Spoon Diner restaurant in
New York.

Tony Tello is a pro se plaintiff.

BANK OF AMERICA: Belevich Seeks to Certify Personal Bankers Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled ANTON BELEVICH, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, BANK OF AMERICA N.A., BANK OF AMERICA
NATIONAL ASSOC, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-
cv-09171-PSG-JPR (C.D. Cal.), moves the Court for an order
certifying the:

   * first claim in the First Amended Complaint for failure to
     provide meal periods in violation of California Labor Code;

   * third claim in the First Amended Complaint for waiting time
     penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code;

   * fourth claim in the First Amended Complaint for Unfair
     Competition in Violation of California Business Code, for
     this proposed class:

     All current and former hourly paid personal bankers who, at
     any time within four years preceding the filing of this case
     to the present, worked in the State of California and were
     not paid one hour of pay at their regular rate of pay for
     shifts where timekeeping and payroll records show timely
     meal periods of at least 30 minutes were not provided
     pursuant to the requirements of Labor Code 226.7.

Mr. Belevich also asks the Court to appoint him as class
representative and to appoint Matthew Righetti, Esq., and Michael
Righetti, Esq., as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on April 3, 2017, at 1:30 p.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=powb7GzT

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Righetti, Esq.
          John Glugoski, SBN 191551
          Michael Righetti, SBN 258541
          RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
          456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 983-0900
          Facsimile: (415) 397-9005
          E-mail: matt@righettilaw.com
                  jglugoski@righettilaw.com


BENJYS KOSHER: Faces "Ayala-Zacarias" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NYLL
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROGELIO AYALA-ZACARIAS, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BENJYS KOSHER PIZZA & DAIRY
RESTAURANT INC., BENJYS KOSHER PIZZA CH INC., BENJY'S KOSHER
PIZZA D. INC., MOSHE BENJAMIN, BORIS DAVIDOVOV and EVED NISANOV,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00682 (E.D.N.Y., January 30, 2017),
seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum wage compensation, and an
additional and equal amount as liquidated damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the supporting US Department of Labor
Regulations; as well as alleged unpaid minimum wage compensation
and liquidated damages permitted by law pursuant to the New York
Labor Law and the supporting New York State Department of Labor
Regulations.

The Defendants are involved in the preparation and retail
distribution of various food items, including, but not limited to,
pizza, sushi, calzones, soups, sandwiches, wraps and salads.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William Cafaro, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO
     108 West 39th St., Suite 602
     New York, NY 10018
     Phone: (212) 583-7400


BLACKBERRY LTD: Employees File Suit Over Ford Partnership
---------------------------------------------------------
Shane Dingman at The Globe and Mail reports an Ottawa law firm is
preparing to file a class-action lawsuit seeking more than $20-
million in damages against BlackBerry Ltd., alleging the company
misled employees who accepted a transfer to Ford Motor Co. of
Canada Ltd. as part of a strategic partnership.

Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLP filed a notice of action in Ontario
Superior Court on behalf of David Parker, a 14-year employee of
BlackBerry who claims he accepted a transfer to Ford before being
told that he would not receive any termination benefits from
BlackBerry or retain his years of service. The firm claims more
than 100 workers in the Ottawa area were affected by the
transfers, with as many as 200 more employees affected elsewhere
in Canada.

The filing claims this amounts to a breach of good faith, and that
it misled the workers with a transaction that circumvents
statutory entitlements. In addition to punitive damages, the suit
will seek any severance benefits to which terminated employees
would be entitled.

Sarah McKinney, director of corporate communications for
BlackBerry, offered the following statement: "We have reviewed the
allegations in the lawsuit, and are confident we complied with all
our obligations to our employees. Therefore, we believe the case
lacks merit and we will defend against it vigorously."

The class-action lawsuit has not yet been filed or certified. None
of the allegations have been proven in court.

The employee moves were part of a deal the smartphone pioneer made
with the auto maker in October, 2016, to improve Ford's in-car
infotainment and assisted-driving systems. BlackBerry said at the
time a team of QNX engineers would help integrate such products as
the QNX Neutrino operating system, Certicom encryption technology,
QNX Hypervisor (a heads-up display system for windshields) and QNX
audio-processing software.

"As we announced in October, we are working with Blackberry to
expand the use of Blackberry's QNX and security software to help
ensure we deliver a high-quality and highly-secure experience for
our customers," said Michelle Lee-Gracey, Communications Manager
for Ford of Canada. "We are not going to comment beyond what we
announced."


BUFFALO TRACE: Falsely Advertises Bourbon Age, Class Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado at Legal Newsline reports four consumers have filed
a class action lawsuit against distillery companies, alleging
fraud, negligent misrepresentation and unfair competition.

Stephen Penrose, James Thomas, Joseph Guardino and Daniel Pope
filed a complaint, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Jan. 27 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri against Buffalo Trace Distillery Inc., Old
Charter Distillery Co., and Sazerac Company, Inc., alleging they
falsely advertise the age of their bourbon products.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs suffered monetary
damages from purchasing a bourbon product that was wrongly
labeled. The plaintiffs allege the defendants falsely label their
bourbon to have been aged for eight years in order to deceive
consumers into purchasing a lesser-quality product that is
significantly less than eight years old.

The plaintiffs seek trial by jury, compensatory and punitive
damages, interest, restitution, enjoin the defendants and order
them to engage in corrective advertising, all legal fees and all
other relief the court deems just. They are represented by
attorney Yitzchak Kopel of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. in New York.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri Case
number 4:17-cv-00294-PLC


CANADA: Advance Costs Awarded in Child Welfare Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mallory Hendry, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that in a
rare move, advance costs have been awarded in a class action
against the Government of Alberta and Metis Settlements Child and
Family Services.

"On the merits, I thought this was one of the strongest cases that
could be put forward for advance costs," says Robert Lee, a
victims' rights lawyer at Robert P. Lee PC in Edmonton and counsel
for the plaintiffs in the class action.  "I anticipated we would
win, but you never know.  It was pretty stressful when I received
the decision because the stakes were so tremendously high."

On Feb. 10, the decision in LC v. Alberta was released, the latest
in a string of cases dealing with claims that the government in
that province -- in particular, its child services branch --
failed to file care plans in a timely way or, in some cases, at
all for children in government care under temporary guardianship
orders.

Mr. Lee says his reaction to the decision is mixed.

"On the one hand, I'm happy, but on the other hand, this has gone
on already so long that it's so tiring.  It's not finished.  I
expect that there will be an appeal and that's the whole problem
with this case -- the huge disadvantage that the plaintiffs face
against a government."

Justice Robert Graesser wrote in the decision that he had
"provisionally certified this as a class action proceeding" and
that the class action was split into classes -- the child class
and the parent/guardian class.  Advance costs were awarded in this
decision to the child class.

Mr. Lee is already facing an appeal by the government on the class
action certification, calling the string of cases an ongoing war.

"I started suing child welfare in 1998," he says, noting that he's
not even a class action lawyer -- he's a sole practitioner who
took on a few cases that ended up turning into class actions. "I
might retire before this case is finished.  That's the reality.
And that's why advance costs are so important -- the governments
can drag these things out forever and ever and ever. The lawyers
need to be able to fund themselves while the case goes on."

Mr. Lee adds that if the government is essentially paying for the
case once an advance costs order is made, it "totally changes the
dynamics of the lawsuit."

"Now they don't have the financial advantage anymore," he says.
"They can't grind the plaintiff into the ground."

Mr. Lee says this is one of the first times advance costs have
been awarded in a class action setting, and it's an important
decision because he sees a rise in class action lawyers turning to
litigation funding companies and, "frankly, from my perspective, I
don't think that's a healthy alternative for our legal system and
for plaintiffs."  He argues that advance costs mean the well-
funded defendant loses the economic advantage that causes a
procedural advantage.

"Advance costs is a proper remedy where a litigant can't get a
lawyer to do the case, because these defendants go into this
scorched-earth approach where they throw all their resources into
trying to stop the case from proceeding," Mr. Lee says.

Advance costs is a remedy that exists in our legal system, he
says, and the application has to meet three tests as laid out by
the Supreme Court of Canada.  In British Columbia (Ministry of
Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band the court held that "the power to
order interim costs is inherent in the nature of the equitable
jurisdiction as to costs, in the exercise of which the court may
determine at its discretion when and by whom costs are to be
paid."

Later, in Little Sisters Book & Art Emporium v. Canada
(Commissioner of Customs & Revenue Agency) and in R. v. Caron, the
SCC spelled out the three requirements needed for advance costs to
be ordered.  In this case, Justice Graesser wrote out the three-
prong test:

The party seeking interim costs genuinely cannot afford to pay for
the litigation, and no other realistic option exists for bringing
the issues to trial -- in short, the litigation would be unable to
proceed if the order were not made.

The claim to be adjudicated is prima facie meritorious; that is,
the claim is at least of sufficient merit that it is contrary to
the interests of justice for the opportunity to pursue the case to
be fortified just because the litigant lacks financial means.
The issues raised transcend the individual interests of the
particular litigant, are of public importance and have not been
resolved in previous cases: Okanagan at para. 40.

Though the case law calls advance costs "an extraordinary remedy"
and necessitates "sufficiently special" cases in order to apply,
Mr. Lee says the courts generally use it in trust cases or in
matrimonial cases where there's kind of a spousal fiduciary duty,
and he argues that child welfare should be viewed similarly as a
special category since the government owes the children a
fiduciary duty.

"Advance costs are appropriate in almost every child welfare case
and I'm confident in almost any case you will find the criteria
set by the SCC in Okanagan and Little Sisters -- it's met."

While Justice Graesser approved the advance costs, he did not set
an amount.  "The amount . . . will be determined upon receiving
additional submissions," he wrote in the decision.  Mr. Lee had
sought coverage for his budget of $1,774,537.50, but he says the
judge said he was "not prepared to approve a budget in that
magnitude."

Mr. Lee says that even though he has the costs order, and "as a
lawyer, academically, professionally, I'm so proud of this
decision," which he calls precedent-setting, he's been fighting
this battle for so many years and the piece of paper doesn't help
him pay his staff or his rent.

"In the decision, the judge says maybe we might have to wait for
certification appeal," he says, noting they just filed their
factum on that appeal and he's currently working on his response
to that.  "Until I see something from it, it's just kind of more
of the same -- a lot of fighting against the government where they
can just fight and fight."




CARL KARCHER: Wage Suit at Issue at Puzder Confirmation Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Dayen, writing for The Intercept, reports that the company
run by Andy Puzder, who President Trump has nominated for
secretary of labor, ran an illegal wage-fixing scheme for managers
at his company's restaurants, according to a class-action lawsuit
filed in California superior court.

Puzder is the CEO of the vast Carl Karcher Enterprises (CKE) fast-
food chain.  One former and one current Carl's Jr. shift leader
allege that franchisees -- which Puzder has repeatedly described
as independent businesses -- colluded with one another to prevent
managers from moving between restaurants.

As alleged, the scheme also appears to violate federal law under
the Sherman Antitrust Act, as an illegal restraint of trade. That
would be a felony punishable by a $1 million fine and up to 10
years in prison for individuals charged.

For Mr. Puzder, the lawsuit adds to a growing list of concerns
heading into his Feb. 16 confirmation hearing.  Mr. Puzder, who
has not secured the support of enough Republicans to guarantee his
confirmation, delayed his hearing four times to get his financial
disclosures in order; admitted to employing an undocumented
housekeeper; and worked under the tutelage of a notorious mob
lawyer.  His ex-wife appeared on Oprah in disguise in the 1990s to
discuss domestic violence incidents in their marriage; senators in
both parties have viewed the footage, and divorce records, which
include additional allegations of assault, were unsealed on Feb.
14.

But the class-action suit filed February 8 in Los Angeles, part of
a pattern of alleged labor violations at Carl Karcher Enterprises
(CKE) restaurant chains, speaks to the very issues that Puzder
would oversee at the Labor Department.  Mr. Puzder has already
proven himself an outspoken critic of the minimum wage, expanded
overtime laws and workplace safety rules, and the case charges
that under Puzder's leadership, CKE again violated worker rights.

The lawsuit attempts to show that CKE, which owns the Carl's Jr.,
Hardee's, Green Burrito, and Red Burrito brands, undermined
workers' ability to thrive in the free market that Mr. Puzder
cherishes so much in public.

"There's one system in the history of the world that produces
enough economic growth to meaningfully reduce poverty and
meaningfully increase opportunity, and that's free market
capitalism," the lawsuit quotes Mr. Puzder as saying in a
television appearance.

But franchisees of Carl's Jr. and Hardee's deliberately restrict
the free market for workers through "no-hire" agreements.  CKE
franchisees "will not knowingly employ or seek to employ any
person then employed by [Carl's Jr.] or any franchisee of [Carl's
Jr.] as a shift leader or higher, or otherwise directly or
indirectly induce such person to leave his or her employment
without prior written consent," according to a preliminary
franchising agreement quoted in the lawsuit.

This makes workers unable to threaten to leave for another CKE
outlet at a higher wage. Because the CKE system is specialized,
and franchisees are encouraged to promote from within, this
hampers restaurant managers' bargaining power.  "The market for
CKE employees is not free," the lawsuit states.

Several Silicon Valley firms settled a class-action lawsuit over
similar anti-poaching allegations for $415 million in 2015.

The lawsuit cleverly plays on CKE's insistence that individual
franchisees are their own separate entities, in direct competition
with one another.

In testimony before Congress, Mr. Puzder has said that all CKE
franchisees make independent employment and operational decisions.
"Our franchisees are not a division, subsidiary, or alter ego of
CKE, but are truly independent small businessmen and businesswomen
who know how to drive their own business,"
Mr. Puzder told the House Education and the Workforce Committee in
2014.

CKE's franchise disclosure agreement states that franchisees do
not get an exclusive territory, and "may face competition from
other franchisees" or "outlets that we own and/or operate."

The parent company does this to avoid what is known as joint
employer liability, so employees cannot hold them accountable for
wage theft or hazardous working conditions.  In other words: to
avoid responsibility, CKE argues that the franchisees make their
own decisions.

But competing CKE franchises cannot restrict employees from
switching job locations to hold down wages.  Shift leaders at CKE
restaurants, the lowest level of manager, make just $10 an hour on
average, according to the lawsuit.  Plaintiffs argue that the no-
hire agreement suppresses wages and worsens working conditions by
drying up the market for CKE restaurant-level managers.  "CKE and
Puzder cannot have it both ways," the lawsuit states.  "They
cannot eschew responsibilities under labor and employment laws by
embracing a 'free market' model of independent franchisees, while
restraining free competition to the detriment of thousands of
workers."

A similar lawsuit was filed against Uber last year, alleging price
fixing between its nominally "independent" drivers, which Uber
does not classify as employees.

Though filed in state court, the CKE case would apply to federal
statutes as well.  Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act
explicitly prohibits "horizontal" integration, where rival
companies within the same sector collude to fix prices or wages.
These practices are punished as felonies under federal law.
Because CKE, Puzder's company, is not only a franchisor but a
participant in the market -- directly owning 30 percent of the
more than 3,400 CKE franchises as of 2012 -- they would be liable
along with the franchisees for wage-fixing.

The Justice Department just issued guidance last October warning
of criminal penalties for anti-poaching violations.  The state of
California, where the lawsuit was filed and where CKE has a high
density of franchises, also has criminal statutes against
restraint of trade.

Luis Bautista, a Carl's Jr. shift leader, and Margarita Guerrero,
a former shift leader, filed the suit on behalf of all current and
former CKE restaurant-level managers.  Both allege long and
unpredictable hours, heavy responsibilities, "atrocious" working
conditions, and broken promises on wage increases.  Mr. Bautista
alleged that the no-hire agreement was common knowledge among
shift leaders at CKE restaurants, and that employment applications
explicitly asked about prior experience at other CKE franchises.

"Consistent with Puzder's philosophy and CKE's structure, the no
hire agreement suppresses wages and working conditions to ensure
that franchisees make money," the lawsuit argues.  They are
seeking a permanent bar on the no hire agreement, along with
restitution and damages.

CKE has paid millions of dollars in class-action settlements with
its workers in the past.  Its executive vice president and general
counsel, Charles "Chip" Seigel, responded in a written statement
that the lawsuit was "baseless" and "obviously intended to be an
attempt, albeit a feeble one, to derail the nomination of Andy
Puzder."


CEPHALON INC: King Drug Purchasers Move for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The King Drug Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs in the lawsuit
titled KING DRUG COMPANY OF FLORENCE, INC., et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. CEPHALON, INC., et
al., Case No. 2:06-cv-01797-MSG (E.D. Pa.), move the Court for
certification of this class:

     All persons or entities in the United States and its
     territories and/or their assignees (partial or otherwise)
     who purchased Provigil in any form directly from Cephalon at
     any time during the period from June 24, 2006 through
     August 31, 2012 (the "Class").

Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, and their officers,
directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, or affiliates, and
all federal governmental entities.

Also excluded from the Class are Rite Aid Corporation, Rite Aid
HDQTRS. Corp., JCG (PJC) USA, LLC, Eckerd Corporation, Maxi Drug,
Inc. d/b/a Brooks Pharmacy, CVS Caremark Corporation, Walgreen
Co., The Kroger Co., Safeway Inc., American Sales Co. Inc., HEB
Grocery Company, LP, Supervalu, Inc., and Giant Eagle, Inc. and
their officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, or
affiliates in their own right and as assignees from putative
Direct Purchaser Class members.  For purposes of clarity, Steven
L. LaFrance Holdings, Inc. and Steven L. LaFrance Pharmacy, Inc.
d/b/a SAJ Distributors is not a Retailer Plaintiff and is a member
of the Class; while Retailer Plaintiff Walgreen Co. acquired SAJ
in 2012, SAJ's case and claim have proceeded independently of
Walgreen Co.

The King Drug Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs also move for the
Court to re-appoint:

   -- King Drug Company, Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc.,
      Burlington Drug Co., Inc., J.M. Smith Corp. d/b/a Smith
      Drug Co., Meijer, Inc., Meijer Distribution, Inc., Stephen
      L. LaFrance Pharmacy d/b/a SAJ Distributors, Inc., Stephen
      L. LaFrance Holdings, Inc., Meijer Inc., and Meijer
      Distribution, Inc., as representatives of the Class; and

   -- Bruce E. Gerstein and Joseph Opper of Garwin Gerstein &
      Fisher, LLP as Lead Counsel for the Class; Daniel Berger,
      David F. Sorensen, and Daniel C. Simons of Berger &
      Montague, P.C. as Liaison Counsel and as a member of the
      Executive Committee for the Class; and an Executive
      Committee for the Class comprised of: Stuart E. Des Roches,
      Esq. and Andrew Kelly, Esq. of Odom & Des Roches, L.L.P.;
      David P. Smith of Smith Segura & Raphael, LLP; Linda P.
      Nussbaum, Esq. of Nussbaum Law Group, P.C.; and Dianne M.
      Nast, Esq. and Erin C. Burns, Esq. of NastLaw LLC.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=H1KMfGOs

Liaison Counsel and Member of the Executive Committee for
Plaintiffs in the King Drug Direct Purchaser Action:

          David F. Sorensen, Esq.
          Daniel C. Simons, Esq.
          Nicholas Urban, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: dsorensen@bm.net
                  dsimons@bm.net
                  nurban@bm.net

Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs in the King Drug Direct Purchaser
Action:

          Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq.
          Joseph Opper, Esq.
          Kimberly Hennings, Esq.
          GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP
          88 Pine Street, Tenth Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 398-0055
          Facsimile: (212) 764-6620
          E-mail: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com
                  jopper@garwingerstein.com
                  khennings@garwingerstein.com

Counsel for SAJ Distributors, Inc., and Stephen L. LaFrance
Holdings, Inc. and Executive Committee for Plaintiffs in the King
Drug Direct Purchaser Action:

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

The Executive Committee for Plaintiffs in the King Drug Direct
Purchaser Action is represented by:

          Stuart E. Des Roches, Esq.
          ODOM & DES ROCHES, L.L.P.
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2020
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 522-0077
          Facsimile: (504) 522-0078
          E-mail: stuart@odrlaw.com

               - and -

          David P. Smith, Esq.
          Susan C. Segura, Esq.
          SMITH SEGURA & RAPHAEL, LLP
          3600 Jackson Street, Suite 111
          Alexandria, LA 71303
          Telephone: (318) 445-4480
          Facsimile: (318) 487-1741
          E-mail: dsmith@ssrllp.com
                  ssegura@ssrllp.com

Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., is represented by:

          Peter Kohn, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
          101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 277-5770
          Facsimile: (215) 277-5771
          E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs in the King Drug Direct Purchaser Class
Action:

          Russell Chorush, Esq.
          HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH, LLP
          Chase Tower
          600 Travis, Suite 6710
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 221-2000
          E-mail: rchorush@hpcllp.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs Meijer, Inc. and Meijer Distribution, Inc.
and Executive Committee for Plaintiffs in the King Drug Direct
Purchaser Action:

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP P.C.
          1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (917) 438-9102
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumllp.com


COMCAST CORP: Certification of Class Sought in "McDougal" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled JON MCDOUGAL, and DAVID
FIESSINGER, JR., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated v. COMCAST CORPORATION, Case No. 9:16-cv-81906-DMM (S.D.
Fla.), seeks certification of this class: "All persons who are
billed for fees not owed to Defendant, including 'Modem/Leased'
fees."

The Plaintiffs allege that Comcast charges them and other
consumers for a "lease" on the cable modems that they and other
consumers already own.  The Plaintiffs argue that Comcast has no
right to collect a "lease" on property that it does not own.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cullin O'Brien, Esq.
          CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
          6541 NE 21st Way
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308
          Telephone: (561) 676-6370
          Facsimile: (561) 320-0285
          E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com

               - and -

          John B. Patterson, Esq.
          Adam M. Balkan, Esq.
          BALKAN & PATTERSON, LLP
          1877 S Federal Highway, Suite 100
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 750-9191
          Facsimile: (561) 750-1574
          E-mail: john@balkanpatterson.com
                  adam@balkanpatterson.com

               - and -

          Brian Smith, Esq.
          SMITH & VANTURE, LLP
          580 Village Boulevard, Suite 200
          West Palm Beach, FL 33409
          Telephone: (561) 684-6330
          Facsimile: (561) 668-0630
          E-mail: bws@smithvanture.com


CORECIVIC: Prison Recorded Lawyer-Client Meetings, Faces Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Cassens Weiss at ABA Journal reports more than 700 attorney-
client visits at a federal prison in Kansas were likely recorded
on video, according to a court-appointed special master who was
asked to investigate.

Special master David Cohen drew that conclusion after reviewing
recordings made during 30 attorney visits at the prison in
Leavenworth and finding that every visit had been recorded, the
Topeka Capital-Journal reports. Based on the limited review, he
concluded that all of the 700-plus lawyer-client meetings during a
12-week period apparently had been recorded.

The recordings did not contain audio, according to previous
coverage. The prison was run by a private operator, the
Corrections Corporation of America.

Cohen said in his Jan. 31 report (PDF) that privileged attorney-
client material was recorded in five of seven meeting rooms that
were equipped with cameras at the prison in Leavenworth, Kansas.
There were 14,000 hours of recordings in those rooms during the
12-week period in question, and it would be too difficult to view
all of the recordings to figure out which recordings involved
attorney-client meetings, he said.

The U.S. Attorney's office has acknowledged obtaining the video,
but says it was not viewed by any employee of the office or any
law enforcement agent.

There has also been evidence that phone calls between inmates and
their lawyers were recorded, even when the lawyers had provided
their phone numbers and asked that their phone calls not be
recorded. Cohen has said his analysis of more than 48,000 recorded
phone calls found that more than 200 of those calls were made to a
known attorney number.

The prison was operated by Corrections Corporation of America. Its
successor, CoreCivic, was named as a defendant in a class action
suit filed that seeks to represent all lawyers whose
communications with inmates at the prison were "intercepted,
disclosed or used," Law360 (sub. req.) reports. The suit also
names as a defendant the company that operates the phone system,
Securus Technologies.

The suit alleges a violation of wiretap laws in Missouri and
Kansas.


COREPOWER YOGA: $1.65MM Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Zagger, writing for Law360, reports that a California
federal judge on Feb. 14 preliminarily approved a $1.65 million
class-action settlement to end allegations that yoga studio chain
CorePower Yoga did not pay minimum wage to some employees who were
required to buy discounted studio memberships.

The issue emanated from a program dubbed Yoga for Trade, in which
CorePower gave memberships to yoga class students who would agree
to work a two- to three-hour weekly shift as a cleaner.

CorePower started to phase out the program in 2013, allowing the
former Yoga for Trade students to be part of the so-called Studio
Experience Team, in which they continued to work their weekly
shifts for an hourly wage.  However, the students alleged that
they were required to apply a large portion of their wages toward
the purchase of a discounted CorePower membership.

The lawsuit alleged that these programs resulted in the "students"
under both programs being paid below minimum wage standards under
state and federal law.  The Denver, Colorado-based CorePower
denied any wrongdoing.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James conditionally certified a
class of California yoga studio students who worked under the Yoga
for Trade and Studio Experience Team programs, as well as a
collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of Studio
Experience Team students, for purposes of approving the
settlement.

Under the agreement, 65 percent of the net settlement amount will
be allocated to the California class, estimated to include about
2,700 Yoga for Trade students, some of whom overlap with an
estimated 4,900 Studio Experience team students.  The remainder
will go to the approximately 6,800 Yoga for Trade students
estimated to be in the FLSA collective outside of California,
according to the magistrate judge's preliminary approval order.

Before fees and costs, California Yoga for Trade class members
will receive $9.34 per workweek worked, and Studio Experience Team
class members will receive $1.17 per workweek worked, according to
the order. The FLSA collective Yoga for Trade class members will
receive $4.60 per workweek worked.

A fairness hearing on whether to give final approval to the
settlement is scheduled for June.

Plaintiff William Walsh originally filed the class action in
October.

Counsel for the parties did not immediately respond to requests
for comment on Feb. 15.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jahan C. Sagafi, Katrina L.
Eiland and Juno Turner of Outten & Golden LLP.

CorePower is represented by Cheryl D. Orr -- cheryl.orr dbr.com
-- Raymond A. Miyar and Phillippe A. Lebel --
philippe.lebel@dbr.com -- of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.

The case is Walsh v. CorePower Yoga LLC, case number 16-cv-05610,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


CREDIT PROTECTION: Missouri Court Dismisses "Klein"
---------------------------------------------------
Judge Audrey G. Fleissig of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri granted Defendant's motion to
dismiss amended complaint in the case captioned, CHRISTOPHER
KLEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, LP,
Defendant, Case No. 4:16CV01638 (E.D. Mo.).

Christopher Klein's amended complaint alleges that the Defendant,
a debt collector, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692.  The Plaintiff obtained a credit
report that included a debt of $104 that originated with Bright
House Networks and that was "apparently owned or in collections
with the Defendant."

The Plaintiff claims that by "soliciting" him and other putative
class members in the prerecorded message to call the Defendant's
collections specialist, so that the Defendant could continue
collection efforts on the debt, without disclosing in the pre-
recorded message that the message was from a debt collector in an
attempt to collect a debt, the Defendant violated Section
1692e(11) of the FDCPA.

In the motion, the Defendant argues that the Plaintiff fails to
state a claim because the pre-recorded message, which was in
response to the Plaintiff's call, was not a "communication" as
defined in the FDCPA, and was not made in an attempt "to collect a
debt."  In the alternative, the Defendant argues that given the
allegation in the amended complaint that the credit report showed
that the debt in question was owned by or in collection with the
Defendant, any failure to disclose that the Plaintiff was calling
a debt collector was immaterial and therefore not actionable.

The Plaintiff responds that the Defendant's pre-recorded message,
which sought to induce the Plaintiff's payment, was a
"communication attempting to collect a debt," as those terms are
defined by the FDCPA.  The Plaintiff also argues that Section
1692e(11) violations are always material.
In her Memorandum and Order dated February 15, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/sYj0Jx from Leagle.com, Judge Fleissig hold that the
disclosure requirements of Section 1692a(11) do not apply when, as
the instant case, the consumer initiates communication with a
party an unsophisticated consumer would have known was a debt
collector.  The Court was unable to find any cases suggesting that
a pre-recorded message such as the one alleged here, in response
to a call initiated by the consumer to a debt collector,
implicated Section 1692e(11).


Christopher Klein is represented by:

      Dominic M. Pontello, Esq.
      Isaac Joseph Bressler, Esq.
      PONTELLO LAW, LLC
      5988 Mid Rivers Mall Dr #112,
      St Charles, MO 63304
      Tel: (636)487-0912
Credit Protection Association, LP is represented by Vitaly Libman,
Esq. -- vlibman@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW AND CULBERTSON


CYNOSURE INC: Agrees to Settle TCPA Violation Suit for $16 Million
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cynosure Inc. has agreed to pay $16 million to settle allegations
that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by
faxing unwanted advertisements to ARcare Inc.

Cynosure, an aesthetic laser procedures company, was alleged to
have sent thousands of faxes to ARcare Inc. The class action
lawsuit was settled in a Massachusetts federal court. ARcare is a
nonprofit organization located in Arkansas.

"There were hundreds of thousands of unsolicited fax
advertisements sent," David Klein, a managing partner with Klein,
Moynihan and Turco, told Legal Newsline. "Cynosure did not have an
established business relationship with the plaintiff and did not
include the requisite opt-out language that is required under
TCPA."

The complaint defines an established business relationship as "a
prior or existing relationship formed by a voluntary two-way
communication between a person or entity and a business or
residential subscriber with or without an exchange of
consideration, on the basis of an inquiry, application, purchase
or transaction by the business or residential subscriber regarding
products or services offered by such person or entity, which
relationship has not been previously terminated by either party."

ARcare claimed that it was sent unsolicited faxes from Cynosure
without written consent. According to the settlement, Cynosure
attempted to send its advertisements to upwards of 76,000
different fax numbers between July 27, 2012, and Aug. 2, 2016.

The TCPA was violated due to the fact that the faxes were sent
without ARcare's consent and without any opt-out language on the
faxes. The opt-out notice is usually provided on the first page of
a fax in order to comply with TCPA requirements.

"We handle a lot of these cases," Klein said. "People continue to
send faxes without following TCPA guidelines."

According to the complaint, "The fax advertises a seminar
featuring Cynosure's products. The fax informs the recipient that
the seminar will provide up close and personal insight to the
industry's most innovative laser procedures and marketing tools
and that special promotions are available exclusively for seminar
attendees."

ARcare claimed that the unsolicited faxes disrupted its daily
operations and cost it ink and paper. ARcare also claimed that
Cynosure's faxes also took up time that would have otherwise been
spent on its business.

In terms of the settlement amount reached, Klein said, "They most
likely started at a larger number and worked down."

He added, "Cynosure faced an uphill battle" in fighting the
complaint.

In regards to the settlement agreement, Cynosure will produce a
settlement fund of $16 million, agreed upon in mediation of the
two parties. A final settlement approval hearing has not yet been
set.

ARcare was represented by Randall K. Pulliam of Carney Bates &
Pulliam PLLC -- rpulliam@cbplaw.com --  Phillip A. Bock --
phil@classlawyers.com  -- of Bock Hatch Lewis & Oppenheim LLC; and
Alan L. Cantor --acantor@swartzlaw.com -- of Swartz & Swartz PC.

Cynosure was represented by John J. Butts --
john.butts@wilmerhale.com -- Tasha J. Bahal --
tasha.bahal@wilmerhale.com --  Michael J. Horrell --
Michael.horrell@wilmerhale.com -- and Alan E. Schoenfeld --
alan.schoenfeld@wilmerhale.com -- of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale
and Dorr LLP.


DARBY DENTAL: Faces Ryoo Class Suit in C.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Darby Dental
Supply, LLC.  The case is captioned Ryoo Dental, Inc. d/b/a Ryoo
Dental, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Darby Dental Supply, LLC, Case No. 8:17-cv-00233 (C.D.
Cal., February 9, 2017).

Darby Dental Supply, LLC distributes dental supplies in the United
States.

RYOO DENTAL, INC. is a pro se plaintiff.


DELANO FARMS: $6MM Settlement Obtains Preliminary Court Okay
------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Lidgett, writing for Law360, reports that a magistrate judge
granted preliminary approval on Feb. 14 to a $6 million class-
action settlement resolving claims that certain workers at Delano
Farms Co. were denied wages, ending years of litigation that has
included hundreds of depositions and hundreds of thousands of
pages of documents filed.

The settlement was reached between the workers, Delano Farms and
various contractors -- including Cal-Pacific Farm Management LP,
T&R Bangi's Agricultural Services Inc. and Kern Ag Labor
Management Inc. -- in November and would resolve wage-and-hour
claims on behalf of agricultural grape workers who worked for the
contractors at Delano Farms starting as early as July 2005.
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng preliminarily approved the
settlement on Feb. 14, adding that the parties have engaged in
lengthy class and merits-based discovery that has included more
than 160 depositions and the production of more than 500,000 pages
of documents.

"It's a great result for farm workers who were denied their wages
while working for Delano farms and the labor contractors,"
Mario Martinez -- mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com -- an attorney for
the plaintiffs, told Law360 on Feb. 15.  "It was a great result
for holding companies accountable for violations they commit with
a very vulnerable population of the workforce."

The court also granted the plaintiffs' request to certify the
settlement class, which included nonexempt agricultural employees
of the contractors in the case who performed work at Delano Farms
in California starting on July 17, 2005, and who did not opt out.
The class excluded, however, those who worked only as tractor
drivers, irrigators or swampers, or those who only worked in cold
storage, according to the judge's order.

Judge Seng added that the entry of the order granting
certification was without prejudice to the defendants' rights to
oppose certification of a litigation class in the case should the
settlement agreement not be finally approved.

The workers claimed that the defendants failed to record and pay
for off-the-clock work performed prior to the shift, at the end of
the shift and in taking grape trays to wash at home.  The workers
also alleged that the defendants didn't provide them with
necessary tools and equipment, among other claims.

Miles A. Yanick -- myanick@sbwllp.com -- an attorney for Delano
Farms, said that while he was able to settle for a figure his
client was happy with, his client's argument was that there was no
companywide policy resulting in any wage and hour violations.

"Because there was no companywide policy at issue, then there was
no way to prove classwide liability and damages, and that was our
central point," he said.

Counsel for the contractors did not immediately respond to
requests for comment on Feb. 15.

The plaintiffs are represented by Mario Martinez, Thomas Patrick
Lynch -- tlynch@farmworkerlaw.com -- and Edgar I. Aguilasocho --
eaguilasocho@farmworkerlaw.com --of Martinez Aguilasocho & Lynch
APLC, William C. Callaham of the Law Office of Wilcoxen Callaham
LLP and Gregory J. Ramirez and Allen R. Ball of the Law Office of
Ball & Yorke.

Delano Farms is represented by David N. Bruce -- dbruce@sbwllp.com
-- and Miles A. Yanick of Savitt Bruce & Willey LLP and William C.
Hahesy of the Law Offices of William C. Hahesy.

Cal-Pacific Farm Management, Kern Ag Labor Management and T&R
Bangi's Agricultural Services are represented by D. Greg Durbin
and Laura A. Wolfe of McCormick Barstow Sheppard Wayte & Carruth
LLP.

The case is Arredondo et al. vs. Delano Farms Co. et al., case
number 1:09-cv-01247, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California.


DOLE FOOD: Cal. App. Partly Reverses Summary Judgment in "Blair"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, BRIGETTE BLAIR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
DOLE FOOD COMPANY, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No.
B263695 (Cal. App.), Acting Presiding Judge Willhite of the
California Court of Appeals affirmed judgment to the extent the
trial court adjudicated in Dole's favor the two issues submitted
under former Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision
(s), and reversed insofar as the trial court adjudicated in Dole's
favor its affirmative defense of inadvertence and found no triable
issue as to Blair's claim.

The Plaintiff and appellant, Brigette Blair was employed by
defendant and respondent Dole Food Company, Inc., from September
2012 until her employment was terminated on January 21, 2014.  She
was an exempt employee, paid on a salaried basis.  After providing
notice to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency
(LWDA), Blair filed the putative class action, alleging that Dole
violated the Labor Code by failing to maintain proper payroll
records, and by failing to identify the accurate rate of pay on
wage statements.

Dole answered the complaint and asserted various affirmative
defenses, including that it had not "knowingly and intentionally"
failed to provide accurate wage statements.

Dole filed a motion seeking summary judgment or, in the
alternative, summary adjudication.  The court agreed to adjudicate
whether Blair's claim for violation of section 226, subdivision
(a) failed as a matter of law because: (1) Dole's use of a unique
payroll identification number satisfied the requirements of
section 226, subdivision (a)(7), and (2) section 226, subdivision
(a) does not require an employer to list the hourly rate of
vacation pay and/or paid time off on wage statements for exempt
employees when vacation wages are paid.

The court issued a written ruling in March 2015 finding that Dole
had not violated section 226.  And, although the issue was not
encompassed within the scope of the parties' stipulation, the
court also found that Dole's failure to include Blair's payroll
identification number on her final wage statement -- which had
been generated outside the company's standard payroll cycle and
procedures at the time of Blair's termination -- was inadvertent,
and granted summary judgment.

The trial court summarily adjudicated the stipulated issues in
favor of the employer.  However, the court then went further,
addressed an issue the parties had not agreed to have adjudicated,
and granted summary judgment in favor of the employer.  The
employee maintains the trial court erred in every respect.

On appeal, Blair appeals from the judgment entered on March 13,
2015, contending that Dole violated its obligation under
California law to provide accurate itemized wage statements. Blair
also contends that the trial court erred in exceeding the bounds
of the parties' stipulation under former Code of Civil Procedure
section 437c, subdivision (s) by granting summary judgment.
In an Order dated February 15, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/drJH8M from Leagle.com, the acting presiding judge
found no error as to the trial court's grant of summary
adjudication on the two stipulated issues.  However, the court
erred in granting summary judgment as to the entire action.

The judgment is affirmed to the extent the trial court adjudicated
in Dole's favor the two issues submitted under former Code of
Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (s), and concluded that
Dole's use of a unique payroll identification number satisfied the
requirements of section 226, subdivision (a)(7), and that section
226, subdivision (a) does not require an employer to list the
hourly rate of vacation pay and/or paid time off on wage
statements for exempt employees when vacation wages are paid.

The judgment is reversed insofar as the trial court adjudicated in
Dole's favor its affirmative defense of inadvertence and found no
triable issue as to Blair's claim that Dole's failure to include
information required by Labor Code section 226 on Blair's final
wage statement violated section 226 and PAGA.

Accordingly, the matter is remanded for further proceedings on
that claim.

Brigette Blair is represented by William L. Marder, Esq. --
bill@polarislawgroup.com -- POLARIS LAW GROUP -- Larry W. Lee,
Esq. -- lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- DIVERSITY LAW GROUP

Dole Food Company, Inc. is represented by Jeffry A. Miller, Esq. -
- jeff.miller@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lann G. McIntyre, Esq. --
lann.mcintyre@lewisbrisbois.com -- John L. Barber, Esq. --
barber@lbbslaw.com -- and -- Tracy Wei-Costantino, Esq. --
costantino@lbbslaw.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH


EMERY FEDERAL: Gets Okay to Compel Discovery From Plaintiffs
------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Gueguen at Legal Newsline reports a defendant in an Ohio
class action was successful in an unusual discovery move seeking
to identify the scope of a possible class, which will affect its
defense strategy, a Carlton Fields attorney says.

An Ohio federal judge on Jan. 17 granted Emery Federal Credit
Union's motion to compel discovery from the plaintiffs in
Palombaro v. Emery Federal Credit Union.

Emery Federal Credit Union has been sued for allegedly violating
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. According to the order,
which was filed Jan. 17 on the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, the plaintiffs
alleged that Emery was paid cash and/or marketing services they
allege to be a sham for business referrals to Genuine Title LLC, a
company that offers title services.

Carlton Fields attorney Thaddeus Ewald, who co-wrote a blog post
with D. Matthew Allen about the order, told Legal Newsline that
Emery likely submitted both the interrogatories and the motion to
compel answers from the plaintiffs so that Emery could prepare for
when the plaintiffs would motion to certify the class.

"A complete understanding of the scope of the proposed class
influences the defendant's strategy, resource allocation, and the
ultimate arguments it makes against the motion to certify," Ewald
said.

Ewald said Emery's move is unusual for defendants in putative
class action cases.

"Generally speaking, the plaintiff is much more likely to pursue a
motion to compel discovery in a putative class action than the
defendant, who is more likely to oppose broad discovery," Ewald
said.

According to the order, Emery sent the plaintiffs five
interrogatories, asking them to explain how they'll prove that
Emery received cash for each referral of each of the putative
class members made to Genuine Title LLC.

Through these interrogatories, Emery also asked the plaintiffs to
explain how they'll prove that Genuine Title and Emery split an
exact amount of money, and along with that, the amount of money
paid; the amount of money paid that was split; the date that the
money was split and paid; who received the split payment; how the
split fee was paid; and how they, their lawyers, the court or the
jury will figure out the amount of money the plaintiffs allege was
split.

Emery also asked the plaintiffs to explain how they will find out
for sure how diligently each putative class member investigated
their Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act claim one year after
each of their loans with Emery closed and after that one-year
period.

According to the order, Emery also sought answers from the
plaintiffs about who would be in the putative class and whether it
would include individuals who currently know about their rights to
prosecute a claim against Emery.

Also requested were individuals who received advertising,
solicitation, or communication from the plaintiffs' counsel about
the case or proceedings in Maryland, where the putative class
action against Emery originated in 2013. Emery also wanted to know
whether the plaintiffs planned to include individuals who did not
receive referrals to Genuine Title and individuals who were
referred to Genuine Title, but the employees who made the
referrals were not rewarded with cash or anything else for those
referrals.

According to the order, finally, Emery sought to know the
plaintiff's plans for trial for issues that would be resolved as
common issues for all putative class members and the course of
action for resolving those issues, how they plan to resolve class
representative claims, including claims limitations that class
representatives can litigate, how they plan to resolve claims,
including claims limitations, for class members who aren't
present, how plaintiffs' cases will go through trial, and jury
instructions that the plaintiffs would like to suggest and how
those instructions would account for individual damages rulings
and affirmative defenses.

Emery sent these interrogatories on Aug. 25.

Ewald said the relevant part of this decision was the discovery
order.

"In granting Emery's motion to compel, the court ordered the
plaintiffs to respond to Emery's interrogatory asking whether
certain types of plaintiffs would be included within their
proposed class," Ewald said.

"The plaintiffs had stated they planned to provide the class
definition at the time they moved for class certification, so this
order merely accelerated the timeline under which they would
clarify the scope of their putative class."


FAMOUS BOURBON: "Weber" Labor Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Weber, Plaintiff, v. Famous Bourbon Management Group, Inc.,
Temptations, Inc., Platinum Bourbon, Inc., Silver Bourbon, Inc.,
Brass Bourbon, Inc., La Beauti, Inc., Jaxx's House, Inc., Scores
West, Fais Deaux-Deaux, Inc., Fiorella's on Decatur, Inc., Bourbon
Burlesque Club, Inc., Last Call, Guy Olano, III, Guy Olano, Jr.
and Joseph Ascani, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01093, (E.D. La.,
February 7, 2017), seeks overtime and minimum wages, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs and expenses of the
litigation, pre-judgment interest and all other relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants collectively operate a network of bars and restaurants
in the New Orleans French Quarter where Weber seeks to represent a
class of restaurant employees claiming unpaid overtime pay for
hours rendered in excess of 40 per work week.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
      Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
      JACKSON+JACKSON
      201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
      New Orleans, LA 70170
      Tel: (504) 599-5953
      Fax: (888) 988-6499
      Email: jjackson@jackson-law.net
             mjackson@jackson-law.net

             - and -

      Christopher L. Williams, Esq.
      WILLIAMS LITIGATION, L.L.C.
      639 Loyola Ave., Suite 1850
      New Orleans, LA 70113
      Telephone: (504) 308-1438
      Fax: (504) 308-1446
      Email: chris@williamslitigation.com


FIFTH GENERATION: Singleton Moves to Certify Class of Buyers
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled TREVOR SINGLETON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
FIFTH GENERATION, INC., d/b/a TITO'S HANDMADE VODKA, Case No.
5:15-cv-00474-BKS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.), asks the Court to certify a
class defined as:

     "all persons in New York who, within the Class Period,
      purchased Tito's Handmade Vodka."

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as representative of the
Class, and for the appointment of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, as Class
Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on March 16, 2017, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wWxhhlT4

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
          Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
          Courtney Maccarone, Esq.
          Stephanie A. Bartone, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          733 Summer Street, Suite 304
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
          E-mail: ek@zlk.com
                  shopkins@zlk.com
                  nkulesa@zlk.com
                  cmaccarone@zlk.com
                  sbartone@zlk.com


FLORIDA, USA: Casey Moves for Certification of Prisoners Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brian M. Casey moves the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida to certify these actions as class action:

   -- Brian M. Casey v. Pamela Jo Bondi, et al.,
      Case No. 2:17-cv-14021-RLR
      A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
      http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=y2k6L4Jn;

   -- Brian M. Casey v. Pamela Jo Bondi, et al.,
      Case No. 2:17-cv-14019-KAM
      A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
      http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7T1gFiF6

   -- Brian M. Casey v. Pamela Jo Bondi, et al.,
      Case No. 2:17-cv-14022-RLR
      A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
      http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=flrypgoM

   -- Brian M. Casey v. Pamela Jo Bondi, et al.,
      Case No. 2:17-cv-14024-KAM
      A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
      http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oGvfDF6n

Mr. Casey alleges that he has been denied access to prison
administrative remedies and medical care for the injuries he
sustained.  He asserts that the Defendants have denied his First
Amendment rights to access the Courts since his arrest in 2010.

Pamela Jo Bondi serves as the current Attorney General of Florida.

Mr. Casey is currently incarcerated at Martin Correctional
Institution, in Indiantown, Florida.


FLOWERS FOODS: Martins Moves to Certify Class of Distributors
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Martins seeks an order for conditional certification of the
collective action captioned DANIEL MARTINS, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC., FLOWERS
BAKING CO. OF BRADENTON, LLC, and FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF VILLA
RICA, LLC, Case No. 8:16-cv-03145-MSS-JSS (M.D. Fla.), and
permitting, under supervision, notice to:

     all Independent Distributors, who distribute fresh bakery
     products for Defendants, Flowers Foods, Inc., Flowers Baking
     Co. of Bradenton, LLC, Flowers Baking Company of Villa Rica,
     L.L.C., and any other bakeries, affiliates or subsidiaries
     of Flowers Foods, Inc., within the state of Florida or
     Georgia.

Flowers misclassified its "Independent Distributor" employees or
IDs as independent contractors, who were not eligible for overtime
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff alleges.

Mr. Martins also asks the Court to require the Defendant to
produce in an electronic or computer-readable format the full
name, address(es), phone numbers, social security numbers, e-mail
address(es), dates and warehouse/bakery locations worked for each
collective members, and to approve the proposed notice and consent
to join forms.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YKg1dFYK

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          Post Office Box 4979
          Orlando, FL 32802-4979
          Telephone: (407) 420-1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245-3341
          E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Andrew. R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
          E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com


FORD MOTOR: Faces Suit Over Throttle Deceleration Defect
--------------------------------------------------------
Linda Chiem at Law360 reports Ford Motor Co. was hit with a new
proposed class action in California federal court on February 15
alleging it failed to warn customers that certain Mustangs,
Lincolns and other Ford models had defective throttles that caused
the vehicles to spontaneously stall or decelerate.

Customers who owned or leased certain Ford Mustang, Edge, Lincoln
MKX and F-150 models equipped with a Delphi sixth-generation
electronic throttle body launched the suit claiming Ford concealed
and failed to disclose to consumers that it knew about the
throttle defects in the hope that Ford's limited warranty would
expire before consumers became aware of the problem.

Plaintiffs Fernando Aviles, Barry Kiery, Michael Kelder and James
Cowen complained that the cars would spontaneously stall or
suddenly decelerate to a near-idle speed. The abrupt deceleration
often happened when traveling at highway speeds and often caused
near-accidents or life-threatening situations, particularly
because driving in a highway passing lane or congested traffic
where navigating a disabled vehicle to a shoulder or different
lane can be extremely dangerous, according to the complaint.

The complaint says the affected cars contained a Delphi sixth =-
generation electronic throttle body. They include model years 2011
to 2015 Mustang with 3.7L TiVCT engines, model years 2011 to 2015
Edge with 3.5L TiVCT and 3.7L TiVCT engines, model years 2011 to
2015 Lincoln MKX with 3.7L TiVCT engines, and model years 2011 to
2015 F-150 with 3.5L TiCVT and 3.7L TiVCT engines.

"Upon information and belief, Ford has known of the aforementioned
problems with the Delphi Gen 6 electronic throttle body since at
least as early as 2009, but has failed to disclose this material
information to the owners and purchasers of class vehicles," the
suit says. "Ford first learned that the specific Delphi Gen 6 ETBs
placed in class vehicles were defective soon after the vehicles
were released in 2011."

Customer complaints began streaming in years ago to Ford and the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration about the throttle
defects, the complaint alleges.

In January 2014, Ford investigated identical safety complaints
about a specific version of the Delphi sixth-generation electronic
throttle body that was installed in different Ford vehicles and
Ford claimed then to have discovered and resolved a defect with
the throttle body in those vehicles, the plaintiffs claimed.

Ford, however, did not resolve the problems with the materially
identical versions of the Delphi sixth-generation electronic
throttle bodies within the vehicles at the center of the instant
class action. Instead, Ford continued to sell a significant number
of vehicles with defective ETBs that present enormous safety
risks, the plaintiffs alleged.

"Despite its knowledge of these defects, Ford failed to disclose,
concealed and continues to conceal, this critical information from
plaintiffs and the other members of the class even though, at any
point in time, it could have done so through individual
correspondence, media release or any other means," the complaint
said. "Plaintiffs and the other class members justifiably relied
on Ford to disclose these material defects in the Ford vehicles
that they purchased or leased, as such defects were hidden and not
discoverable through reasonable efforts by plaintiffs and the
other class members."

The plaintiffs are seeking to represent a nationwide and statewide
classes of Alabama, California and Florida residents who owned or
leased the affected Ford vehicles.

Dearborn, Michigan-based Ford is already contending with several
other California suits similarly alleging throttle problems
causing deceleration.

Earlier this week, Ford and an Explorer owner accusing the auto
giant of not warning customers that some of its vehicles
unexpectedly decelerated asked the Southern District of California
to move the suit to the state's Central District, where a similar
suit is playing out.

Silvia Franco's January suit alleges that her 2012 Ford Explorer
is one of a number of Ford, Lincoln and Mercury vehicles with
defective electronic throttle body control systems that cause the
automobiles to suddenly and unintentionally decelerate. She claims
the auto giant has known about the "potentially deadly" problem
for a long time, but has tried to keep it from consumers.

Franco contends that she was driving the Explorer she bought in
2014 on California's Interstate 5 in June when the vehicle
suddenly decelerated without warning. It has happened twice since
then, according to court documents.

The issue stems from the electronic throttle control, which
electronically connects the accelerator pedal to the throttle to
control airflow to the engine, the suit claims. If the control
isn't working properly, electronic signals misinterpret the
position of the vehicle's throttle, causing the car to
unintentionally decelerate, the complaint alleges.

In a statement to Law360 on February 16, Ford maintained that it
has long prioritized safety.

"Safety continues to be one of the highest priorities in the
design of our vehicles and we take the safety of our customers
very seriously," the company said. "While we cannot comment on
pending litigation, we will respond through the appropriate
channels."

The plaintiffs are represented by David S. Stellings --
dstellings@lchb.com -- Jason L. Lichtman -- jlichtman@lchb.com --
Fabrice Vincent -- fvincent@lchb.com -- and Andrew R. Kaufman --
akaufman@lchb.com -- of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, W.
Daniel "Dee" Miles III, H. Clay Barnett III, Archie I. Grubb II
and Andrew E. Brashier -- andrew.brashier@beasleyallen.com -- of
Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles PC, and Anthony J.
Garcia of AG Law.

Counsel information for Ford was not immediately available.

The case is Fernando Aviles et al. v. Ford Motor Co., case number
8:17-cv-00281, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.


FORSTER & GARBUS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Mierov" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avi Mierov, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Forster & Garbus LLP, Case No. 1:17-cv-00747
(E.D.N.Y., February 9, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Forster & Garbus LLP debt collection law firm is located at 60
Vanderbilt Motor Parkway, Commack NY.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
      735 Central Avenue
      Woodmere, NY 11598
      Telephone: (516) 668-6945
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com

GALENA BIOPHARMA: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on Feb. 16 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of a class (the
"Class") consisting of persons and entities that acquired Galena
Biopharma, Inc. ("Galena" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GALE)
securities between August 11, 2014 and January 31, 2017, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

If you are a member of the Class, you may move the Court no later
than April 14, 2017, to serve as lead plaintiff.  Please contact
Lesley Portnoy at 888-773-9224 or 310-201-9150, or at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter.

The filed complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the Company violated
various statutes in connection with its sales of Abstral; (2)
that, as such, the Company was exposed to civil and criminal
liability; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
statements about Galena's business, operations, and prospects,
were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On November 9, 2015 Galena disclosed plans to "divest its
commercial business," which included the Company's breakthrough
cancer pain drug, Abstral.  On this news, the price of Galena
common stock fell $0.19 per share, or 11%, to close at $1.53 per
share on November 10, 2015, thereby injuring investors.

Thereafter, on March 10, 2016, the Company disclosed that "[a]
federal investigation of two of the high-prescribing physicians
for Abstral has resulted in the criminal prosecution of the two
physicians for alleged violations of the federal False Claims Act
and other federal statutes," and that the Company had received a
trial subpoena for documents in connection with that
investigation.  The Company further disclosed that "other
governmental agencies may be investigating our Abstral promotion
practices," and that "on December 16, 2015, we received a subpoena
issued by the U.S. Attorney's Office in District of New Jersey
requesting the production of a broad range of documents pertaining
to our marketing and promotional practices for Abstral." On this
news, the price of Galena common stock fell 3.3%.

Finally, on January 31, 2017, the Company announced the
resignation of Mark W. Schwartz, who was with the Company at the
time of the disclosures, from his positions as President, Chief
Executive Officer, and a member of the Board of Directors. On this
news, the price of Galena common stock fell 22.4%, thereby further
injuring investors.

If you purchased shares of Galena during the Class Period you may
move the Court no later than April 14, 2017 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff.  To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class.  If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you
have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley
Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925 Century
Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at (310)
201-9150, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: WeissLaw LLP Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
WeissLaw LLP on Feb. 15 disclosed that a class action was
commenced in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware on behalf of shareholders of Genworth Financial, Inc.
(GNW) ("Genworth") seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with
the proposed acquisition of Genworth by China Oceanwide Holdings
Group Co., Ltd. ("China Oceanwide").

On October 23, 2016, Genworth and China Oceanwide announced that
they had entered into a definitive agreement pursuant to which
China Oceanwide will acquire all outstanding shares of Genworth in
a transaction valued at approximately $2.7 billion (the "Proposed
Transaction").  Under the terms of the agreement, Genworth
shareholders will receive $5.43 in cash for each Genworth share
they own.  The complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the
named plaintiff and all Genworth shareholders. The plaintiff is
represented by WeissLaw, which has extensive expertise in
prosecuting investor class actions.

The complaint alleges that in an attempt to secure shareholder
approval for the merger, the defendants filed a materially false
and/or misleading Proxy Statement with the SEC in violation of the
Exchange Act.  The omitted and/or misrepresented information is
believed to be material to Genworth shareholders' ability to make
an informed decision whether to approve the Proposed Transaction.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than sixty days from February 15, 2017.  If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Joshua M. Rubin of WeissLaw at 888.593.4771, or by e-mail at
stockinfo@weisslawllp.com.  Any member of the putative class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

WeissLaw LLP has litigated hundreds of stockholder class and
derivative actions for violations of corporate and fiduciary
duties.  We have recovered over a billion dollars for defrauded
clients and obtained important corporate governance relief in many
of these cases.  If you have information or would like legal
advice concerning possible corporate wrongdoing please email us at
stockinfo@weisslawllp.com


GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Court Certifies Class & 4 Subclasses in ICS Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Timothy L. Brooks entered a memorandum opinion and order
in the lawsuit captioned IN RE GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION ICS
LITIGATION, Case No. 5:14-cv-05275-TLB (W.D. Ark.), granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, appointment of class
representatives and appointment of class counsel.

Plaintiffs Kaylan Stuart, Dustin Murilla, Walter Chruby, and Rocky
Hobbs are appointed as representatives of this class, the "FCA
Class," which is certified to pursue a common claim under the
Federal Communications Act:

     All persons in the United States who, at any time within the
     applicable limitations period: (1) paid to use inmate
     calling services provided by Global Tel*Link (including its
     operating subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more
     interstate phone calls from a correctional facility during a
     period of time when Global Tel*Link paid the facility a
     commission of any type in connection with the interstate
     calls; and/or (2) paid deposit fees to Global Tel*Link in
     order to fund a prepaid account used to pay for any
     interstate calls.

     Excluded from the proposed Class are any persons who paid to
     use Global Tel*Link's inmate calling services in order to
     make or receive telephone calls from a correctional facility
     in New Jersey.

Judge Brooks also certified these subclasses (the "UE Subclasses")
to pursue claims for unjust enrichment under the laws of the
specified states, with the referenced Plaintiff appointed as the
representative of the subclass:

     The Arkansas UE Subclass (Kaylan Stuart):
     All persons who, while in Arkansas, California, Connecticut,
     Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
     South Carolina, Vermont or West Virginia, within the
     applicable limitations period, paid to use inmate calling
     services provided by Global Tel*Link (including its
     operating subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more
     interstate phone calls from a correctional facility during a
     period of time when Global Tel*Link paid the facility a
     commission of any type in connection with the interstate
     calls.

     The Minnesota UE Subclass (Dustin Murilla):
     All persons who, while in Minnesota, Alaska, Ohio,
     Tennessee, Utah or Washington, within the applicable
     limitations period, paid to use inmate calling services
     provided by Global Tel*Link (including its operating
     subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more interstate
     phone calls from a correctional facility during a period of
     time when Global Tel*Link paid the facility a commission of
     any type in connection with the interstate calls.

     The Pennsylvania UE Subclass (Walter Chruby):
     All persons who, while in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Florida,
     Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Maine, Mississippi,
     Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, Virginia
     or Wisoncsin, within the applicable limitations period, paid
     to use inmate calling services provided by Global Tel*Link
     (including its operating subsidiaries) to make or receive
     one or more interstate phone calls from a correctional
     facility during a period of time when Global Tel*Link paid
     the facility a commission of any type in connection with the
     interstate calls.

     The Texas UE Subclass (Rocky Hobbs):
     All persons who, while in Texas, Arizona, Colorado,
     Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey,
     North Dakota or Oklahoma, within the applicable limitations
     period, paid to use inmate calling services provided by
     Global Tel*Link (including its operating subsidiaries) to
     make or receive one or more interstate phone calls from a
     correctional facility during a period of time when Global
     Tel*Link paid the facility a commission of any type in
     connection with the interstate calls.

The law firms of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Berger &
Montague, P.C., Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky P.C., and
Cohen Milstein Seller & Toll, PLLCA, are appointed as Co-Lead
Class Counsel serving on a Co-Lead Class Counsel Committee, with
KTMC serving as the Chair of such Committee.  Amy C. Martin, Esq.
is appointed as Liaison Class Counsel.

The Court further orders that Notice to the Class, in a form
approved by the Court, will be disseminated in accordance with a
Notice program to be approved by the Court following consideration
of the parties' proposal(s) for the form and manner of Notice,
which proposal(s) shall be submitted to the Court within 14 days
of the date of the order.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JM77kwXZ


GOOGLE INC: Sued in Locksmith Operations Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
A group of thirteen locksmith operations from eleven states and
Washington DC have joined Baldino's Lock & Key of Newington,
Virginia in US District Court in DC in an amended complaint
alleging that the three major search engines, Google, Bing, and
Yahoo which together dominate the search market, flood their
search results with false listings and fictitious map business
addresses.

Defendants sought and received an Order for an extension of time
to respond to the Complaint.  Defendants' response is due on or
before February 24, 2017.

The case number is: 1:16-cv-02360-KBJ

To read case go to link: http://nationallocksmithissues.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/01/Filed-Copy-First-Amended-Complaint-
Baldino-v-Google-January-13-2017.pdf

For more information, please contact Plaintiff's attorney:
Jeffrey Waintroob Roberts
Roberts Attorneys, P.A.
4440 PGA BLVD, STE 204
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
TEL: 561-360-2737
WEB: http://www.RobertsAttorneys.com


GR OPCO: Faces "Alvarez" Labor Lawsuit in Florida
-------------------------------------------------
NANCY ALVAREZ, on her own behalf and on behalf of other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. GR OPCO, LLC d/b/a E11EVEN MIAMI, a
Florida limited liability company, and DENNIS DEGORI, an
individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-20490-DPG (S.D. Fla.,
February 7, 2017), alleges that Plaintiffs were misclassified as
independent contractors; employed by Defendants but paid no
minimum or overtime wage; required to share tips with non-tipped
employees; and required to pay house fees for the right to work.
All of these allegedly violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant GR OPCO, LLC d/b/a E11EVEN MIAMI is a Florida limited
liability company that has owned and operates the club E11EVEN
MIAMI.  Plaintiff and the proposed collective action members were
employed as adult entertainers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert W. Brock II, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
     17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: 305.358.6800
     Fax: 305.358.6808
     E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com
             legal@kuvinlaw.com


HARBOR FREIGHT: Faces "Jackson" Class Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Harbor Freight
Tools USA Inc. and Does 1 through 50.  The case is captioned as
Stephen Jackson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. and Does 1 through 50,
Case No. 34-2017-00207758-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., February 9,
2017).

Harbor Freight Tools USA Inc. is a privately held discount tool
and equipment retailer, headquartered in Calabasas, California,
which operates a chain of retail stores as well as a mail-order
and eCommerce business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Spivak, Esq.
      THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
      9454 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 303
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (424) 274-7292


HARMAN INT'L: Faces Class Action Over Acquisition by Samsung
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that a class action has
been commenced on behalf of holders of Harman International
Industries, Incorporated common stock on January 10, 2017, in
connection with the acquisition of Harman by Samsung Electronics
Co. Ltd. and certain of its affiliates.  This action was filed in
the District of Connecticut and is captioned Baum v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al., No. 17-cv-00246.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from today.  If you wish to discuss this action
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins of
Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at
djr@rgrdlaw.com.  Any member of the putative class may move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice,
or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Harman, its Board of Directors (the "Board")
and Samsung with breaches of fiduciary duty and/or violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act") in connection
with the acquisition of Harman by Samsung (the "Acquisition").
Harman designs and engineers connected products and solutions for
automakers, consumers and enterprises worldwide, including
connected car systems, audio and visual products, enterprise
automation solutions and connected services.

On November 14, 2016, Harman and Samsung announced they had
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement"), under which Samsung would acquire all of the
outstanding shares of Harman common stock for $112 per share in
cash.  In total, the Acquisition is worth approximately $8 billion
to Harman stockholders.

On January 20, 2017, Harman filed a definitive proxy statement on
a Schedule 14A (the "Proxy") with the SEC, announcing that the
stockholder vote on the Acquisition would occur on February 17,
2017.  The complaint alleges that the Proxy misrepresents and
omits material information needed by Harman stockholders to cast
an informed vote on the Acquisition.  Specifically, the Proxy
fails to disclose material information concerning: (a) Harman's
financial projections; (b) the financial analyses regarding the
fairness of the Acquisition price that were performed by the
Board's financial advisors; (c) the process leading up to the
execution of the Merger Agreement; and (d) various separation
transactions to split Harman into multiple business groups that
the Board was contemplating before Samsung expressed interest in
an acquisition of Harman.  Without this information, the Company's
stockholders are unable to make an informed decision whether to
vote for or against the Acquisition.  Defendants' failure to
disclose this information renders the Proxy materially deficient
in violation of Sec14(a) of the 1934 Act and also implicates a
breach of the Board's fiduciary duties.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on behalf of holders of Harman
common stock on January 10, 2017.  The plaintiff is represented by
Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting
investor class actions including actions involving financial
fraud.


HOMETEAM PEST: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Garnica" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Vince Chhabria denies the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification submitted in the lawsuit titled JOSE LUIS GARNICA,
et al. v. HOMETEAM PEST DEFENSE, INC., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-
05243-VC (N.D. Cal.).

HomeTeam developed a pest control system that involves building
homes with tube systems in the walls.  HomeTeam enters into deals
with homebuilders for installation of the tube systems as the
homes are being built.  Then, HomeTeam enters into contracts with
homeowners to "service" the systems (that is, to periodically
spray pesticides into the ports).

Plaintiffs Jose Luis Garnica, who lives in Fresno, and Cora
Potter, who lives in Bakersfield, both have tube systems in their
homes.  They contend that HomeTeam has violated the antitrust laws
by engaging in a variety of improper conduct to prevent
competitors from entering the market for servicing the tube
systems, which in turn has forced homeowners to pay HomeTeam
supracompetitive prices for tube service.  In a related case that
is proceeding on the same track and in the same court, a company
called Killian Pest Control, which has tried to compete with
HomeTeam to service tube systems in Fresno and Bakersfield, has
sued HomeTeam alleging the same antitrust violation.

In their lawsuit, the Plaintiffs contend that there are 32
distinct geographic markets for servicing tube systems throughout
the country.  One of those markets, they assert, includes both
Fresno and Bakersfield.  The Plaintiffs don't merely seek to
represent a class of homeowners in that market; they seek to
represent all homeowners with tube systems in all 32 alleged
geographic markets.

"The plaintiffs' presentation in support of class certification is
rife with problems, and it's questionable whether any of their
expert opinions would be admissible at trial.  But in any event,
their presentation fails at the threshold," Judge Chhabria said,
among other things, in the Order.  The Court notes that the
failure by the Plaintiffs to consider variance among markets (not
to mention within individual markets), combined with the evidence
HomeTeam has submitted to suggest that such variance exists, has
prevented the Plaintiffs from meeting their burden to show that
common issues predominate.

At the upcoming case management conference, the Court will discuss
with the parties whether it would be unfairly prejudicial to
HomeTeam, at this late stage, to allow the Plaintiffs to seek to
certify a class of plaintiffs whose homes are in the geographic
markets (as properly defined) in which the named Plaintiffs
reside.

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


KPH CONSORTIUM: NDG Residents, Business People Join Turcot Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
P.A. Sevigny, writing for The Suburban, reports that several NDG
residents and business people are joining the class action suit
that's already been filed against both the KPH Consortium and
Quebec's MTQ -- the powerful Ministere des Transports du Quebec.

"We're seeking damages for lost revenue for all of the local
business people as well as for all the inconvenience that's
affected local residents who had to put up with all the pollution,
the dust and the noise caused by the work that's being done to
replace the old Turcot Expressway," said Montreal Lawyer Joey
Zukran.  "There has to be some kind of compensation for all of
these people who have been putting up with all of this for at
least the past two to three years."

During a Feb. 13 interview, Frank Berdah told The Suburban about
all the pain he has had to put up with as he watched a successful
business slowly die " . . . in front of my eyes."

As the owner of Decors Ora that's located on the corner of the St.
Jacques Road and Addington, Mr. Berdah's business can be found at
the end of an improvised alley that lies behind a massive 25
(linear) foot wall made up of several plywood sheets that block
the store's view of the massive Turcot Project construction site.

"Although I agree that the construction had to happen," said
Mr. Berdah, ". . . people should know that the project's
construction cost me at least $150,000 in lost revenue and another
five people their jobs."

According to Mr. Zukran, the construction had been going on for
years and all the evidence points out to the fact that both the
KPH and the MTQ ignored Mr. Berdah's complaints about what was
happening to his neighborhood as well as his business.

"They're playing ping pong with my head," said Mr. Berdah.  "After
awhile, you have to do something to get their attention."

Although the lawsuit was filed only a week ago, Mr. Zukran is
confident that several local residents will step up in order to
join Mr. Berdah and others who have had to put up with a lot of
assorted annoyance over the past two years.

"All they have to do is to find my site on the web, www.lpclex.com
or email jzukran@lpclex.com in order to learn more about the
lawsuit," he said.  "After that, it's all up to the courts."


LIVANOVA: Faces Suit Over 3T Heater-Cooler
------------------------------------------
Roopal Luhana at The Legal Examiner reports a new class action
lawsuit was filed against 3T heater-cooler device manufacturer
LivaNova, formerly Sorin Group Deutschland GMBH, on January 24,
2017. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina, Columbia Division.

The plaintiff asserts that he and other class action members were
unknowingly exposed to a potentially fatal bacteria during open
chest surgery from the use of the 3T heater-cooler. He seeks class
action certification, and actual and punitive damages.

Plaintiff Exposed to Potentially Deadly Bacteria During Open-Chest
Surgery

The plaintiff who filed the case is a South Carolina resident. On
March 13, 2014, he underwent an open-heart surgery. A Sorin 3T
heater-cooler device was used during his surgery, which regulates
body temperature in the patient during the procedure. The
plaintiff alleges that device exposed him to a nontuberculous
mycobacterium (NTM), a serious and potentially deadly bacteria
that can cause antibiotic-resistant infections.

The Sorin 3T system came onto the market in 2006, and was designed
to provide temperature-controlled water to heat exchanger devices,
like thermal regulating blankets, which warm or cool a patient
during bypass procedures lasting six hours or less. Not long after
it was released on the market, however, hospitals began to report
problems with the device.

         South Carolina Patients at Risk for NTM Infection

The representative plaintiff in this case underwent surgery at
Palmetto Health Richland Hospital, and seeks class members who had
surgery at this hospital or at Greenville Health Hospital System.

In around June 2014, Greenville Health announced that about 14
patients had tested positive for a rare NTM infection, known as M.
abscessus. Most of those patients were exposed to the bacteria
during open chest surgeries. The hospital added that there had
been three deaths resulting from the same infection.

That same month, the hospital released a second statement
indicating there were 15 confirmed cases of patients with the
infection, and that the patient death toll had increased to four.
In July 2014, it sent out letters to about 180 patients notifying
them of a potential risk of infection from the heater-cooler
device.

            FDA Warns of Potential Infection Risk

As news of these potential infections spread, additional hospitals
became aware of the risks associated with the 3T heater-cooler
device. Several hospitals sent out warning letters, notifying
patients to watch for symptoms like night sweats, muscle aches,
weight loss, unexplained fever, and difficulty breathing.

In October 2016, the FDA released a safety communication warning
that surgery with the 3T heating-cooling devices had been linked
with M. chimaera infections, and warned doctors and hospitals to
immediately remove any of the devices that tested positive for the
bacteria.

Then, in December 2016, the plaintiff's hospital, Palmetto Health,
announced that hundreds of its patients were potentially exposed
to the rare bacteria during open-chest surgeries. They also sent
letters to individual patients to inform them that they may be at
risk.

The NTM is a slow-growing bacterium that can take from a few weeks
to four years to manifest into a diagnosable infection. These
infections can cause pulmonary or cardiovascular disease. The
heating-cooling devices were initially linked to the infections
via tests that confirmed that the bacteria came from one
particular manufacturing site.

The plaintiff seeks class action certification to include all
individuals in the state of South Carolina who went through an
open-chest surgery at Greenville Health or Palmetto Health since
January 1, 2011, and who are currently asymptomatic for an NTM
infection. Claims of actual injury from the infection are excluded
from this class action.


LOGITECH INC: Faces Suit Over Breach of Warranty
------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado at Legal Newsline reports two consumers have filed
a class action lawsuit against a California tech company, alleging
breach of implied warranty, breach of warranty and unjust
enrichment.

Steven Chernus of Pennsylvania and Ed Shapiro of New Jersey filed
a complaint, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Jan. 31 in U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey against Logitech Inc. of Newark, California, alleging the
defendant manufactured and distributed defective alert systems to
the consumers.

According to the complaint, Chernus and Shapiro suffered monetary
damages from purchasing a product that was poorly made. The
plaintiffs allege Logitech failed to inform the consumers of the
high rate failure of the systems as well as failure to fix the
software needed to run the product, which contains bugs and
glitches.

Chernus and Shapiro seek trial by jury, compensatory, actual,
treble and punitive damages, restitution and disgorgement,
interest, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, legal fees and
all other relief the court deems just. They are represented by
attorneys William J. Pinilis -- wpinilis@kaplanfox.com -- of
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LPP in Morristown, New Jersey, and by
Laurence D. King -- l.king@kaplanfox.com --  Linda M. Fong --
l.fong@kaplanfox.com --  and Matthew B. George
m.george@kaplanfox.com -- of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimerin in San
Francisco.

U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey Case number
3:17-cv-00673-FLW-TJB


LOUISIANA HEART: Faces Suit by Laid Off Employees
-------------------------------------------------
Rob Krieger at Fox 8 reports former employees of the Louisiana
Heart Hospital hope to file a class action lawsuit against the
hospital after they were unexpectedly laid off when the hospital
filed for bankruptcy.

It was standing room only at the Southern Hotel in Covington,
where more than 100 former employees -- and some who are still
operating various clinics on the North Shore -- turned out to
learn about their legal options in a meeting hosted by the law
firm Bruno & Bruno.

"We have been somewhat inundated by phone calls from very nervous
individuals, doctors, employees of the Heart Hospital," said
attorney Robert Bruno.

Some employees haven't left the job yet as they continue to work
at small clinics in the hospital's network. They said the last few
weeks have been unnerving.

"We still have to deal with patients that are calling every day,
wondering where their doctors are going to. They're worried, the
patients are worried, and so are the doctors. The doctors are
worried, the doctors are more worried about their patients than
they are themselves," said Jenny Harbour, an employee who works at
a clinic but will be out of a job at the end of the month.

For some former employees, the future is unknown as they try to
figure out where they'll get their next paycheck.

"You have so many people saturating the local economy looking for
jobs, it's not easy. Yes, some of us have been offered jobs, but
in many cases, it's an hour or an hour and a half away," said
former employee Faith Cassidy.

Employees said one of their biggest issues is the loss of their
paid time off. Vacation hours they've earned over the years seems
to have evaporated and the hospital hasn't offered any way to fill
the gap between jobs.

"[I lost] close to $14,000 to $15,000 between severance and
vacation time. That's a lot, enough to get anyone through a couple
of months, and now we're all looking for jobs. I have an
interview, but along with seven or eight of my co-workers. We're
all looking for the same job," said Jill Tarzia.

It's one reason Bruno believes his firm can help the hundreds of
employees left out in the cold as the future of the Heart
Hospital's network on the North Shore seems to crumble.

"Our job is to really play detective and find out if there any
other angles, any other people out there with any connections
where we could possibly find wrongdoing and get into some of their
pockets. Find out who may have known or who may have contributed
to the goings-on," Bruno said.

FOX 8 reached out to the Heart Hospital for comment, but the
organization did not respond to our request.


MEDICAL MUTUAL: More Entities Join Class Action Over Service Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Wysochanski, writing for The Chronicle-Telegram, reports that
Lorain County and cities of Lorain and Elyria have joined a class-
action lawsuit against Medical Mutual of Ohio which accuses the
insurance company of charging hidden service fees to fund a
Cleveland Clinic incentive program.

The suit was filed Feb. 14 in the Lorain County Court of Common
Pleas by attorney Eric Zagrans, who is representing Lorain County,
Elyria and Lorain.

Mr. Zagrans said it is believed that more than 500 other entities
across the state, including Lorain County, Elyria and Lorain, may
have fallen victim to a scheme in which hidden and unexplained
fees were charged and used to pay incentive payments to Cleveland
Clinic-affiliated doctors.

Mr. Zagrans said the Cleveland Clinic, which is not a party in the
lawsuit, entered into a program called Quality Alliance several
years ago in an effort to improve quality of care given by clinic-
affiliated doctors who aren't employed by the hospital.

"The clinic wanted to give the doctors who were affiliated an
incentive to implement quality control measures, the same as what
the employed doctors do at the clinic," Mr. Zagrans said.

Mr. Zagrans said it is believed Medical Mutual agreed to put money
toward the Cleveland Clinic's payment obligations to affiliated
doctors on the Quality Alliance program.  The suit alleges that
the various counties and cities were never told of the
arrangement, and the charges were passed on to those entities, who
were unwittingly left footing the bill for the incentive program.

Medical Mutual of Ohio could not immediately be reached for
comment regarding the lawsuit.

Mr. Zagrans said when an employer buys a product from an insurance
company it can usually choose from two products.

In the first scenario, employers can purchase health insurance in
which they pay a premium and the insurance company pays for the
cost of all the covered services that employees of the employer
need.

The second scenario, which the lawsuit deals with, involves
administrative services only, or ASOs, in which an employer self-
funds health coverage.

Under an ASO, an employer is on the hook for paying for services
and the insurance company is simply the claims processor or
administrator, which saves the employer the time and trouble of
working through all the paperwork, processing all the medical
claims and determining which doctor, hospital or pharmacy gets
paid.

The lawsuit accuses Medical Mutual of burying hidden charges in
bills that were not authorized or agreed to in ASO contracts.

It is believed the unexplained charges of $2.13 and $4.26 were
racking up for several years, Mr. Zagrans said.  The scheme is
believed to involve a significant amount of money and tens or even
hundreds of thousands of charges, he said.

"We won't know how much in total until we find out how many
similarly situated cities and counties and governmental entities
around the state of Ohio were involved in this kind of arrangement
and how much they overpaid," Mr. Zagrans said.

Mr. Zagrans said the charges are completely buried and hidden and
an employer would never pick up on the charges unless they were to
manipulate the data in a particular way.

"This was discovered in the way the complainant describes, which
was quite by accident," Mr. Zagrans said.


MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Class Action Over Xbox Live Gold Service
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a consumer
has filed a class action lawsuit against Microsoft Corp., citing
alleged fraud and violation of state and federal law.

James Maher filed a complaint on Jan. 30 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Microsoft
alleging that the Washington corporation failed to provide service
to the plaintiff after being suspended from its Xbox Live Gold
service.

According to the complaint, Maher alleges that he suffered damages
from paying for a Xbox Live Gold, which was denied to him after he
was suspended.  He holds Microsoft responsible because it
allegedly failed to credit the service back into his account for
the time his account was suspended.

Maher requests a trial by jury and seeks enjoin the defendant,
award the plaintiff and all similarly situated the pro rata amount
of their Xbox Live Gold membership account fee, punitive damages,
court costs and any further relief this court grants.  He is
represented by James X. Bormes and Catherine P. Sons of Law Office
of James X. Bormes, P.C. in Chicago and Kasif Khowaja of The
Khowaja Law Firm LLC in Chicago.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Case
number 1:17-cv-00753


MONTREAL, QC: Police Could Face Suit by Black Coalition
-------------------------------------------------------
Montreal CTV News reports the Black Coalition of Quebec wants to
launch a class action lawsuit against the Montreal police for
racial profiling.

The coalition says dozens of Montrealers have been treated
unfairly by the police and in some cases violently.

The coalition said the Montreal police have systematically refused
to eliminate racial profiling, adding that it is fed up with what
it said is declining interest from police to stop using race as a
factor when investigating a potential suspect.

On Dec. 31, a 26-yr-old black man was shot in the back of the head
and in his back downtown. He survived, but remains in hospital.
Police said he shot at them first, but the coalition said that the
fact he was shot in the back proves he was not an imminent threat.
The coalition says there are about 10 cases of blatant
discrimination by police over the past year.

"In cases where there is racial profiling, where there is abuse of
power, arrest without justification, we have many cases and when
we take these cases to the Ethics Commission, it's a waste of
time," said Dan Philip, president of the Black Coalition of
Quebec.

The Montreal police commander in Montreal North said on February
15 night that he has zero tolerance for racial profiling, but the
coalition argued that has yet to happen
Any class action would have to be approved by a judge first before
it could be debated in court.

The case comes as the Quebec Human Rights Commission has ruled a
police officer must pay $17,000 in damages to a young black man.


NORTHERN DYNASTY: April 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Northern Dynasty Minerals
Ltd. and certain of its officers, and is on behalf of purchasers
of Northern Dynasty securities between September 16, 2013 and
February 13, 2017, inclusive. Such investors are encouraged to
join this case by visiting the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/nak.

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Northern Dynasty's Pebble project is commercially
unviable; (2) Northern Dynasty's Pebble project had a negative
present value; and (3) consequently, Defendants' statements about
Northern Dynasty's business, operations and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable bases
at all relevant times.

On February 14, 2017, Kerrisdale Capital Management released an
article about Northern Dynasty alleging that Northern Dynasty's
main asset, the low-grade Pebble deposit, is not commercially
sustainable and that for several years the Company has been
concealing this information from the investing public that the
Pebble project has a negative present value. Following this news,
Northern Dynasty stock dropped $0.68 per share or over 21% to
close at $2.50 per share on February 14, 2017.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/nak or you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
Northern Dynasty you have until April 17, 2017 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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


OKLAHOMA ENERGY: Bollenbach Class Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bollenbach Enterprises Limited Partnership, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated v. Oklahoma Energy Acquisitions
LP, Alta Mesa Services LP, and Alta Mesa Holdings LP, Case No. CJ-
17-00010, was removed from the District Court of Kingfisher County
to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
(Oklahoma City). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.  5:17-
cv-00134-W to the proceeding.

The Defendants operate an oil & gas exploration & production
company located at 15021 Katy Fwy #400, Houston, TX 77094.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Reagan E Bradford, Esq.
      THE LANIER LAW FIRM
      12 E California Ave, Suite 200
      Oklahoma City, OK 73104
      Telephone: (405) 820-4401
      Facsimile: (713) 659-2204
      E-mail Reagan.Bradford@lanierlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
      REX A SHARP PA
      5301 W 75th St
      Prairie Village, KS 66208
      Telephone: (913) 901-0505
      Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
      E-mail rsharp@midwest-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Eric L. Huddleston, Esq.
      ELIAS BOOKS BROWN & NELSON PC
      211 N Robinson Ave, Suite 1300
      Oklahoma City, OK 73102-7114
      Telephone: (405) 232-3722
      Facsimile: (405) 232-3746
      E-mail ehuddleston@eliasbooks.com


ORACLE: Sales Employees File Class Action Over Lost Commissions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sanford Heisler, LLP, along with co-counsel from Kastner Kim LLP,
filed a class action complaint in U.S. District Court in San
Francisco against Redwood City-based Oracle, alleging that the
Silicon Valley giant has stiffed its sales employees of millions
in earned commission wages by retroactively changing commission
contracts.  The complaint alleges that Oracle retroactively
increases quotas or decreases commission rates on past sales in
order to pay sales employees less than what their existing
compensation plans require.  The lawsuit, Johnson v. Oracle
America, Inc., seeks unpaid commission wages and waiting time
penalties and requests an injunction and other relief on behalf of
a class of California sales employees.

The class alleges that Oracle "re-plans" employees to reduce
commissions earned on completed sales going back to any time of
Oracle's choosing.  When it "re-plans" employees after commission
wages have already been paid, according to the complaint, Oracle
claws back prior payments by withholding newly earned commissions
until the employees have paid the company back.  The complaint
also describes Oracle's retroactive re-plans as a willful and
systematic scheme designed to align commissions with financial
forecasts and bottom line goals.

By reducing and withholding commissions in such fashion, according
to the complaint, Oracle's commission policies and practices
violate numerous California Labor Code requirements and have
resulted in damages of over $150 million to California employees
over a four-year period.

David Sanford, chairman of Sanford Heisler and counsel for
Plaintiff and the class, noted, "Oracle proudly touts itself as
'treating each employee fairly and with dignity.' We look forward
to having a California jury determine whether Oracle lives up to
its ideals, or, in fact, betrays them."

Plaintiff Marcella Johnson claims she was a typical sales employee
subjected to a retroactive re-plan that reduced her commission
payments. Oracle demanded that Johnson pay back a substantial
amount of her earned commissions that had been paid before the re-
plan. "The lawsuit we have filed contends that Oracle has
essentially confiscated significant amounts of commission dollars
from its salesforce by retroactively changing the terms of
commission contracts at will.  We believe such a practice is
grossly unfair and violates California law," said Daniel Qualls of
Kastner Kim, one of the lawyers representing the Plaintiff.

"California law does not allow a company to point to fine print
that supposedly allows it to reduce commissions after the fact,"
said Xinying Valerian -- xvalerian@sanfordheisler.com -- Senior
Litigation Counsel at Sanford Heisler.  "We think all employers
should honor the commission formulas that they have provided sales
employees and be held accountable for paying employees the
commission they have earned."

                  About Sanford Heisler, LLP

Sanford Heisler, LLP is a public interest class-action litigation
law firm with offices in New York, Washington, D.C, San Francisco
and San Diego.  The Firm specializes in civil rights and general
public interest cases, representing plaintiffs with employment
discrimination, labor and wage violations, predatory lending,
whistleblower, consumer fraud, and other claims.  Along with a
focus on class actions, the firm also represents individuals and
has achieved particular success in the representation of
executives in employment disputes.  For more information go to
http://www.sanfordheisler.com/or call 202 499-5200 or email
dsanford@sanfordheisler.com.


PEPPERMILL CASINOS: "Abrams" Stays in Nevada District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Miranda M. Du of the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada denied the motions to stay and remand
the case captioned, JOSHUA ABRAMS, an individual, PRESTON FORTNEY,
an individual; NOE LUNA, an individual; SALESH JATAN, an
individual; NANCI WIRTH, an individual; ADAM YOUNG, an individual;
EMERIO BENAVIDES, an individual; JEFFREY SHARP, an individual; ANA
HLEDIK, an individual; and FE HLEDIK, an individual, all on behalf
of themselves and all similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiffs,
v. PEPPERMILL CASINOS, INC., a Nevada corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00454-MMD-VPC
(D. Nev.).
Plaintiffs, Joshua Abrams, Preston Fortney, Noe Luna, Salesh
Jatan, Nanci Wirth, Adam Young, Emerio Benavides, Jeffrey Sharp,
Ana Hledik, Fe Hledik (Plaintiffs) brought a class action suit in
Nevada state court against their employer, Peppermill Casinos,
Inc., (Defendant), alleging that the Defendant fails to provide
the minimum hourly wage rate required under Article XV, Section 16
of the Nevada Constitution (the Minimum Wage Amendment or the
Amendment) and to provide an employee health benefit plan as
required under NRS Section 608.1555.

The Defendant removed the action on the basis of federal question
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331, 1441(c), and 1446.

In the motion to remand, the Plaintiffs alleged that their state-
law claims are not preempted by the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).  The Defendant filed a response, arguing
that ERISA preemption applies to the second state-law claim in the
Plaintiffs' amended class action complaint and requires removal.

The Defendant moved for a temporary stay of the proceedings
pending review of three issues of law before the Nevada Supreme
Court: (1) whether "providing" health benefits as stated in the
Amendment requires employers to make insurance available to their
employees or, in the alternative, whether it requires employers to
actively enroll their employees in offered health insurance plans;
(2) whether an employee's tip-income should be factored into an
employee's gross taxable income for calculating insurance
premiums; and (3) whether the Amendment's silence as to a statute
of limitations means there is a "limitless" statute of limitations
for claims brought under the Amendment or if instead NRS Section
608.260's two-year statute of limitations applies.

In her Order dated February 15, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/JzPHWI from Leagle.com, Judge Du denied as moot the
motion to stay because the issues raised by the Defendants are
already decided by the court ruling that (1) the Amendment's
direction to "provide" health insurance requires that employers
offer health insurance, not enroll their employees in plans; (2) a
two-year statute of limitation applies to claims brought under the
Amendment; and (3) employers may not factor in the employee's tip-
income when calculating insurance premiums.

As to motion to remand filed by the Plaintiffs, the Court denied
it finding that complete preemption under ERISA is satisfied.  The
Defendant is given leave to file a renewed motion to dismiss
within 30 days.

Joshua Abrams, et al. are represented by Bradley Scott Schrager,
Esq. -- bschrager@wrslawyers.com -- Daniel Bravo, Esq. --
dbravo@wrslawyers.com -- Don Springmeyer, Esq. --
dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com -- and -- John M. Samberg, Esq. --
jsamberg@wrslawyers.com -- WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN &
RABKIN, LLP

Peppermill Casinos, Inc. is represented by Rick D. Roskelley, Esq.
-- rroskelley@littler.com -- and -- Kathryn Blakey, Esq. --
kblakey@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON


PIONEER CREDIT: FDCPA Class Certification Sought in "Kozak" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Kozak asks the Court to enter an order determining that the
action styled SARA KOZAK, formerly known as SARA LEMKE and SARA
AZZALINE v. PIONEER CREDIT RECOVERY, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-00318
(N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action against the Defendant
pursuant to claims based on the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff brings the claim on behalf of a class that consists
of (a) all individuals in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin (b) who
were sent a letter in the form represented by Exhibit A (c) on or
after a date one year prior to the filing of this amended
complaint and on or before a date 21 days after its filing.

Ms. Kozak further asks 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=iLbWscPr

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Michelle A. Alyea, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-1824
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  malyea@edcombs.com


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Wet Wipes Buyers Seek Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Hanson and William Gorta, writing for Law360, report that a
group of California consumers asked for class certification on
Feb. 15 in their suit against Procter & Gamble Co. over alleged
false claims that its bathroom wipes are flushable, arguing their
suit mirrors a class action in New York that a federal judge has
said he intends to certify.

The proposed class of wipes buyers led by consumer Jamie Pettit
told a California federal court that Procter & Gamble's Charmin
Freshmates product has forced municipalities throughout California
to spend millions of dollars to fix problems created by the so-
called flushable wipes that aren't actually suitable for flushing,
arguing that U.S. District Judge Jack B. Weinstein of New York has
found that millions of consumers were exposed to identical
misrepresentations on P&G's labels and purchased the same
mislabeled product.

"This case is well-suited for class certification," Pettit said.
"In a similar case pending in New York, Judge Weinstein stated on
Feb. 3, 2017, that he intended to certify a New York class of
Freshmates purchasers to pursue similar claims under New York
law."

Calling it a "knife-edge" decision, Judge Weinstein said on
Feb. 3 that he would certify two of six proposed class actions
accusing Procter & Gamble, Kimberly-Clark, Costco and others of
mislabeling as "flushable" bathroom wipes that do not degrade
quickly enough.

Judge Weinstein said he would issue an order in 30 days approving
a suit entirely composed of New York plaintiffs as well as the New
York plaintiffs in a multistate suit.  He said the New York cases
were easier to certify because of the state's statutory damages of
$50 per customer per purchase.

Judge Weinstein transferred two suits to their home states --
Armstrong v. Costco Wholesale Corp. et al. to Oregon and Palmer v.
CVS Health et al. to Maryland -- saying that the meaning to
consumers of the word "flushable" and the value ascribed to it
would likely differ from that in New York.

He dismissed another New York suit, Honigman v. Kimberly-Clark, as
duplicative of one of the cases in which he indicated he would
grant certification. The sixth case, Richard v. Wal-Mart Stores
Inc. et al., was withdrawn Feb. 2, but Judge Weinstein noted that
it would have been transferred to New Hampshire were it not
voluntarily dismissed.

In the Pettit suit in California, the putative class alleges that
its expert's testing of the Freshmates wipes confirms they are not
flushable and are environmentally unsound.

"For example, after subjecting both versions of the Freshmates to
an agitation test for 30 minutes, neither version had broken into
any pieces, and neither version had even the first rip or tear,
whereas three brands of toilet tissue dispersed into 1-inch pieces
in less than three minutes," the proposed class said.

Pettit said the class should be certified because it met the
requirements of Federal Rule 23 on numerosity, since purchasers of
Freshmates can be readily identified.  The proposed class members
share commonality because they were all prey to P&G's allegedly
deceptive advertising, Pettit said, adding that all class members
were subject to the California Plumbing Code, which makes it
illegal to flush "any other thing whatsoever that is capable of
causing damage to the drainage system or public sewer."

Procter & Gamble in a Jan. 19 filing in the California court said
Pettit's case involved her allegations that on several occasions
in 2014, her use of Freshmates clogged her toilet when flushed and
required multiple flushes to clear her toilet bowl.  But Pettit
has resisted P&G's proposed inspection of her toilet and plumbing,
the company said, comparing her case unfavorably to the ongoing
court-ordered settlement discussions in one of the similar cases,
Belfiore v. Procter & Gamble Co., implicating Freshmates in the
Eastern District of New York.

"P&G has sought entry into plaintiff's condominium unit to permit
its plumbing expert to conduct a routine inspection of plaintiff's
toilet and plumbing," Procter & Gamble said.  "Where P&G inspected
that plaintiff's plumbing without incident, such an inspection is
likely to yield evidence that is highly relevant to this case,
including to P&G's defenses to class certification and on the
merits."

Representatives for Pettit and Procter & Gamble didn't immediately
respond to requests for comment on Feb. 15.

Pettit is represented by Adam J. Gutride -- adam@gutridesafier.com
-- Seth A. Safier -- seth@gutridesafier.com -- and Kristen G.
Simplico -- kristen@gutridesafier.com -- of Gutride Safier LLP,
Lorenzo B. Cellini of Tycko & Zavareei LLP, and Stuart E. Scott --
Sscott@spanglaw.com -- of Spangenberg Shibley & Liber LLP.

Procter & Gamble is represented by Emily Johnson Henn --
ehenn@cov.com -- Cortlin H. Lannin -- clannin@cov.com -- and Sonya
D. Winner -- swinner@cov.com -- of Covington & Burling LLP.

The case is Pettit v. Procter & Gamble Co., case number 3:15-cv-
02150, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Faces Prevagen Consumer Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Lorenzsonn, writing for The Capital Times, reports that
Quincy Bioscience, a maker of dietary supplements based in
Madison, is the target of a class-action lawsuit over alleged
consumer fraud.

Attorneys representing a nationwide class of supplement consumers
filed the suit in a New Jersey federal court.  At issue is
Prevagen, an over-the-counter Quincy product that's sold at
pharmacies like Walgreens, CVS and Rite-Aid around the country.

The supplement's key ingredient is a protein typically found in
jellyfish that Quincy claims can improve consumers' memories and
foster a "sharper mind" and "clearer thinking." In the past, the
company has even suggested that Prevagen could assuage the
symptoms of Alzheimer's disease.

The attorneys behind the lawsuit say that those claims are bunk.

"The only reason a consumer would purchase Prevagen is to obtain
the advertised brain function and memory benefits, which it does
not provide," they write in the complaint.  "Prevagen is a
singular purpose product: its only purported benefit is to enhance
brain function and memory -- which it does not do."

The complaint says that no peer-reviewed evidence exists that
supports the company's claims.

The lawsuit is hardly the first time that Prevagen's legitimacy
has been called into question, as The Isthmus outlined in a report
earlier this year.

Just last month, the Federal Trade Commission and New York
attorney general asked a judge to block sales of the supplement in
that state, also based on concerns of consumer fraud.  In 2012,
the Food and Drug Administration slapped the company on the wrist,
saying that some of the company's marketing practices for Prevagen
were illegal and calling into question whether the product could
be considered a supplement in the first place.

Numerous researchers have also criticized Quincy, calling the
science behind Prevagen "quackery."

As it has in past scenarios, Quincy is staunchly defending its
product. In an emailed statement to the Capital Times, company
representatives wrote that Prevagen delivers on its promises.

"We have an extensive body of research proving Prevagen users
experience clinically meaningful and statistically significant
improvements in cognitive function and memory.  We have anecdotal
evidence, organic testimonials, and 'gold standard' testing," the
statement read.

The statement also questioned the motivations behind the lawsuit,
declaring: "It is not an uncommon practice for third parties to
seek financial gain at the expense of small businesses, which they
perceive to be vulnerable."

Attorneys behind the lawsuit declined to comment on the case.


QUORN FOOD: Settles Consumer Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------
A Class Action lawsuit has been filed in the Federal District
Court for the district of Central California, alleging that Quorn
Foods, Inc., a manufacturer of vegetarian and vegan food products,
misled consumers into buying products made from fermented mold (a
type of fungi), not mushroom-based protein as plaintiff claims the
product package implies.  The plaintiff, Kimberly Birbrower,
brought this action on behalf of all consumers in the United
States that purchased Quorn Food Products between the January
26th, 2012 through December 14th, 2016. Quorn has denied the
allegations.  The case is Birbrower v Quorn Foods Inc, Case Number
CV-16-1346 DMG (AJWx).

The parties have agreed to a nationwide class action settlement
that was preliminarily approved by a U.S. District Court Judge for
the Central District of California.  The settlement is not to be
construed as an admission of any wrongdoing by Quorn whatsoever,
and Quorn has and continues to deny any wrongdoing and disputes
plaintiff's claims.

Lead counsel on behalf of the Class, Jason Frank --
jfrank@lawfss.com -- of Frank Sims & Stolper LLP, a law firm based
in Southern California, said in a statement that, "We are pleased
with the Settlement which we believe provides an excellent outcome
for the Class."

Class members may be entitled to a full refund for purchases made
during the class period with a proof of purchase, or other
monetary remedies as provided for in the Settlement.

Specific information concerning the Settlement can be found at
www.QuornFoodsSettlement.com.

General Questions concerning the settlement please contact:

         EMAIL: info@QuornFoodsSettlement.com
         PHONE: 1-800-399-9796

To receive a payment from the Settlement, you must complete and
submit a timely Claim Form and provide any required supporting
documentation.  You can complete your Claim Form and submit the
required supporting documentation online at the Settlement
Website, www.QuornFoodsSettlement.com.  The Claim Form can be
downloaded from the Settlement Website, as well.  You can also
request a Claim Form be sent to you by sending a written request
to the Claims Administrator by mail or email, or by calling toll-
free.

MAIL:

          Quorn Foods Settlement
          C/O Atticus Administration
          P.O. Box 582959
          Minneapolis, MN 55458
          EMAIL: info@QuornFoodsSettlement.com
          PHONE: 1-800-399-9796

Updates will be posted at www.QuornFoodsSettlement.com as
information about the Settlement process becomes available.


REMINGTON ARMS: Judge Expresses Concerns Over Rifle Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Cohn, writing for CNBC, reports that the federal judge
considering a landmark class action settlement involving 7.5
million allegedly defective Remington rifles is raising new
concerns about what he called the "exceedingly small" number of
gun owners who have filed claims to get their guns fixed.

"It seems inconceivable to me that someone would have a firearm
that might injure a loved one and not have it fixed," said U.S.
District Judge Ortrie Smith at the start of a three-hour hearing
in Kansas City on Feb. 14 to consider final approval of the
settlement.

As of Feb. 13, only about 22,000 owners have filed claims in the
two years since the settlement was announced, attorneys say.  With
as many as 7.5 million guns, that's a claims rate of about 0.29
percent.  Critics, including attorneys general from nine states
and the District of Columbia, are urging Smith to reject the deal,
in part because of those numbers.  They also complain that the
settlement sends a mixed message by allowing Remington to continue
claiming the guns are safe.

The case involves some of Remington's best-selling guns including
the wildly popular Model 700 rifle, which CNBC first investigated
in 2010.  Lawsuits have alleged that for decades, Remington
covered up a design flaw that allows the guns to fire without the
trigger being pulled, resulting in dozens of deaths and hundreds
of serious injuries.

Remington has consistently maintained the guns are free of defects
and that the incidents are the result of user errors.  But in late
2014, the company said that to avoid drawn-out litigation, it was
agreeing to replace the triggers on millions of guns free of
charge.

Judge Smith noted that the fewer people file claims, the less
expensive the settlement will be for Remington.

"If the settlement is approved, Remington is absolved of close to
half a billion dollars in potential liability . . . at a cost of
less than $3 million," Judge Smith said.  "That is a very small
payment for Remington in this case."

Judge Smith also questioned the $12.5 million in fees that
plaintiffs' lawyers stand to collect if he approves the deal -- no
matter how many claims ultimately are filed.

"That sum sort of looms," Judge Smith said, saying it "seems large
compared to the benefit to the class."

In addition to the criticism from the attorneys general, a handful
of Remington owners have formally objected to the settlement,
claiming that the plan to notify the public is needlessly
complicated and uses ineffective methods like internet banner ads
to direct owners to a special settlement web site. Smith already
sent the parties back to the drawing board once before, in
December of 2015.

But attorneys for plaintiffs and Remington say the claim numbers
do not tell the full story. M any gun owners are unwilling to turn
over their guns to be repaired, especially if they never had a
problem with theirs.  And because the guns in question were
manufactured as far back as 1948, many might no longer exist, they
say.

That means the seemingly small claim numbers are not
insignificant, argued plaintiffs' attorney Mark Lanier, and the
attorney fees are well deserved.

"20,000 guns is a whole lot of potential life saving," Mr. Lanier
said.

Further complicating the decision for Judge Smith is what the
alternative would be if he rejects the deal.

An attorney representing the state of Massachusetts argued Smith
should let the case go to trial.

"The settlement is deeply flawed and can't be fixed at this
point," said Gary Klein, a Senior Trial Counsel for Massachusetts
Attorney General Maura Healey.

But going to trial carries the risk of losing.  Five previous
class action cases have been dismissed or withdrawn.

"Then you'd have zero guns fixed. Zero," Mr. Lanier said.

As if to underscore that point, attorney Dale Wills, representing
Remington, said the company continues to defend the trigger
design.

"There are millions of users and owners across the country that
know one thing well," he said.  "The guns work."

Judge Smith has promised a ruling within 30 days.

"You have given me a lot to think about," he said.

If he approves the settlement, owners will have an additional 18
months to file a claim.

The agreement covers Remington models 700, Seven, Sportsman 78,
673, 710, 715, 770, 600, 660, XP-100, 721, 722, and 725.


RENZENBERGER INC: Wright Moves to Certify Rest Break Class
----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled RODERICK WRIGHT, FERNANDO
OLIVAREZ, MARCUS HAYNES, JR., and MICHAEL WATSON, individuals on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
RENZENBERGER, INC., a Kansas corporation; and DOES 1 through 10
inclusive, Case No. 2:13-cv-06642-FMO-AGR (C.D. Cal.), filed a
renewed motion for certification of a class in connection with
their rest break claim:

     All yard drivers and road drivers employed by Renzenberger,
     Inc. in California from August 1, 2011 through the date of
     certification who worked one or more days of three and
     one-half (3 1/2) hours or more ("Rest Break Class").

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as
representatives of the Rest Break Class, and to appoint Hayes
Pawlenko LLP, Matthew B. Hayes, Esq., and Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq.,
as class counsel for the Rest Break Class.

The Court will commence a hearing on March 9, 2017 at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Renewed Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Bq9XpTbi

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew B. Hayes, Esq.
          Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq.
          HAYES PAWLENKO LLP
          595 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 303
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 808-4357
          Facsimile: (626) 921-4932
          E-mail: mhayes@helpcounsel.com
                  kpawlenko@helpcounsel.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Mulford" Hits Washing Machine Exploding Top
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clayton Mulford, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated Plaintiff, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-03017, (D.
Neb., February 7, 2017), seeks all damages associated with the
replacement of the defective products and parts, punitive damages,
consistent with the actual harm caused, attorney's fees, interest
including pre judgment and post-judgment interest and any and all
other and further relief resulting from fraud and violation of
various state consumer protection laws.

Plaintiff alleges that Samsung home washing machines' top can
unexpectedly detach from the washing machine chassis during use,
posing a risk of injury from impact.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is a New York corporation with
headquarters in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey and is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David W. Rowe, Esq.
      KINSEY ROWE BECKER & KISTLER, LLP
      3800 VerMaas Place #100
      Lincoln, NE 68502
      Phone: (402) 438-1313
      Fax: (402) 438-1654
      Email: drowe@krbklaw.com

             - and -

      William B. Pederman, Esq.
      FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
      10205 N. Pennsylvania, Ave.
      Oklahoma City, OK 73120
      Phone: (405) 235-1560
      Fax: (405) 239-2112


SCION DENTAL: Status Hearing in "Orrington" Suit Set for March 15
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on February 3, 2017, in the case
titled James L. Orrington, II, D.D.S., P.C. v. Scion Dental, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-00884 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing
held before the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Initial status hearing is set for March 15, 2017, at 8:30
      a.m. in courtroom 1241;

   -- Parties shall refer to Judge St. Eve's web page at
      http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/and file a joint status
      report by 3/10/17 as set forth in the Initial Status
      Conferences procedure;

   -- If the defendant has not been served as of March 10, 2017,
      the Court will continue the filing date for the joint
      status report until the defendant is served;

   -- If the defendant files a motion to dismiss prior to the
      filing of the joint status report, the Court will continue
      the filing date for the joint status report until after the
      Court rules on the pending motion;

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied as
      premature without prejudice;

   -- Defendants are on notice that this is a putative class
      action.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fc8E15T6


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Settles Drink Coupons Suit Under New Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dee Thompson at Cook County Record reports a Chicago federal judge
has ended a long-running lawsuit involving Southwest Airlines
premium drink coupons, after Southwest agreed to give members of
the class triple damages and attorneys for the plaintiffs agreed
to reduce their demand for fees by $200,000.

The litigation has a long and tortured history. In November 2011,
Chicago attorney Joseph Siprut filed suit on behalf of Joseph
Levitt, a Cook County resident, against Southwest Airlines. The
matter arose from a dispute over drink vouchers. Southwest had a
policy of distributing free $5 drink vouchers to customers in its
Business Select program. Some travelers would hold on to the
coupons to use on future flights. The coupons had no expiration
date. After issuing the vouchers for years, Southwest decided to
stop honoring them. The 2011 class action suit sought to force
Southwest to pay customers for the vouchers they held.

In 2013 a settlement was reached and replacement coupons, worth a
collective face value of $29 million, were given to class members.
Siprut asked the court to award him $3 million in fees. The judge
awarded $1.3 million to Siprut initially, and increased the fee
award to $1.6 million several months later, at Siprut's request.
The case was appealed, but the settlement was upheld.

The settlement also included class members who had filed claims,
who would get drink vouchers good for one year. Levitt and another
lead plaintiff, Herbert C. Malone, were awarded $15,000 each.

At that point, the Washington, D.C.-based Competitive Enterprise
Institute's Center for Class Action Fairness joined class members
in objecting to the fees and appealing the ruling, saying they
believed the fee award was unfair. The judge in the case had
upheld the award, noting it fell well below the $3 million that
Southwest had set as a limit to what they would pay in attorney
fees.

The appeals court remanded the case back to District Court Judge
Matthew Kennelly, who deemed the fees to be appropriate.

Center for Class Action Fairness attorney Melissa Holyoak said the
Center sought to redirect some of those attorney fees to the class
members. In June 2016 the district court partially denied the
Center's request and another appeal was filed. Following that
appeal, Southwest and the plaintiffs agreed to rework the
settlement deal to end the litigation and appeals.

"The settlement was unfair because the attorneys' fees award was
grossly disproportionate to the relief actually delivered to the
class, Holyoak said. "Before the Center for Class Action Fairness
objected, the plaintiffs' attorneys were to receive $2.11 million,
while the class members would have received $412,815 in coupons."

Holyoak told the Cook County Record the judge had upheld the fee
awards, even though he "never knew how much the class was actually
receiving."

"It wasn't until on appeal that plaintiffs revealed the number of
claims that were submitted," Holyoak said.

Two appeals later, Holyoak defends the hard-fought case.

Under the original settlement, she said, class members would have
received $412,815 in coupons - 137,605 coupons with $3 market
value - compared to attorneys' fees of $2.11 million.

Under the new settlement, class members will receive $1.23 million
in coupons and attorneys' fees were reduced to $1.88 million.


ST. JOHN, NB: To Appeal Estabrooks Class Action Ruling
------------------------------------------------------
Global News reports that the City of Saint John wants to appeal a
judge's decision to allow a class action lawsuit regarding
convicted sex offender and former police officer Kenneth
Estabrooks to go forward.

Mr. Estabrooks was sentenced in 1999 to six years in prison on
four sex-related charges against children.  He died in 2005.  A
city commissioned investigation of Mr. Estabrooks found there
could be hundreds of victims.

A judge ruled there was enough merit to warrant a class action
lawsuit against the city.

The decision to apply for leave to appeal came at a special
meeting of Common Council.  The city says it does not comment
publicly on ongoing legal matters

Robert Hayes, a victim who brought forward the lawsuit, said the
city's decision is frustrating especially after the emotion of
telling an alleged victim the class action lawsuit had been
approved.

"I shook his hand and told him," Mr. Hayes said.  "He sat down on
the stairs and cried just like a little kid".

Mr. Hayes' lawyer John McKiggan believes a class action will be
successful and said certain facts can't be debated including an
Estabrooks confession in 1975.

"So what did the city do?," asked Mr. McKiggan.  "Did they charge
him? No.  Did they discipline him? No. Did they fire him? No.
They simply moved him to the city works department so that he'd be
able to collect his pension.  So from 1975 until he retired in
1983 he continued to work for the city and continued to abuse
children."

Mr. Hayes said he and other alleged victims are prepared to
continue the fight and are actually gaining strength.

"It's not as hard as it was now that the cats out of the bag and a
lot of them are saying if they want to hear some stuff, I'll talk
about what he's done," Mr. Hayes said.  "If they want to fight,
roll up your sleeves and lets go."

The application for leave to appeal is expected to be heard in
May.


STILLWATER MINING: April 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado on
behalf of holders of Stillwater Mining Company common stock in
connection with the proposed acquisition of Stillwater by Sibanye
Gold Limited and its wholly-owned subsidiaries announced on
December 9, 2016.  The Complaint, which alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Stillwater, its Board of
Directors (the "Board"), and Sibanye, is captioned Assad v.
Stillwater Mining Company, Case No. 1:17-cv-00267 (D. Colo.).

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Seth D. Rigrodsky or Gina M. Serra at
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington,
DE 19803, by telephone at (888) 969-4242; by e-mail at info@rl-
legal.com; or at:
http://rigrodskylong.com/investigations/stillwater-mining-company-
swc/.

On December 9, 2016, Stillwater entered into an agreement and plan
of merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Sibanye.  Pursuant to the
Merger Agreement, Stillwater shareholders will receive $18.00 per
share in cash (the "Proposed Transaction").

The Complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder
support for the Proposed Transaction, on January 24, 2017,
defendants issued materially incomplete disclosures in a
Preliminary Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Statement") filed with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Complaint
asserts that the Proxy Statement, which recommends that Stillwater
stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits
material information necessary to enable shareholders to make an
informed decision as to how to vote on the Proposed Transaction,
including material information with respect to Stillwater's
financial projections, the opinions and analyses of Stillwater's
financial advisor, and the background of the Proposed Transaction.
The Complaint seeks injunctive and equitable relief and damages on
behalf of holders of Stillwater common stock.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 17, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and
Garden City, New York, regularly prosecutes securities class,
derivative and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation, and
corporate governance litigation, on behalf of shareholders in
states and federal courts throughout the United States.


TARGET CORP: Superior Court Authorizes Privacy Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eloise Gratton and Christopher C. Maughan, Esq. --
CMaughan@blg.com -- of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, in an article
for Mondaq, report that privacy class actions triggered by data
breaches are growing in popularity in Canada, with more than 30 of
them pending throughout the country. While none of these cases
have yet been heard on their merits, some are being certified or
authorized.  In Quebec, there are at least seven privacy class
actions before the courts.

The Superior Court of Quebec recently rendered judgment on a
motion to authorize a privacy class action in Zuckerman v. Target
Corporation, in which the petitioner alleged damages as a result
of a data breach involving an estimated 40 million credit and
debit cards, as well as the personal information of up to 70
million customers.

The Nature of the Breach

The motion followed a public acknowledgement by the respondent
Target in late 2013 to the effect that there had been unauthorized
access to "payment card data" in its U.S. stores, including names,
card numbers, expiration dates, and security codes. Target later
acknowledged that encrypted PIN data had been removed from its
system (while maintaining that PINs were secure), and that
customer names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses had
also been taken.

Target had offered free credit monitoring for a year to all
customers (including Canadians) who shopped in its U.S. stores.
More than 80 class actions followed in the U.S.; these actions
were eventually consolidated into a single proceeding. In Canada,
only the Zuckerman class action was filed.

Jurisdictional Issues

After a preliminary jurisdictional challenge, Target argued forum
non conveniens, alleging that its domicile, witnesses, and
evidence were all in Minnesota. The Superior Court found that the
same argument could be made from the petitioner's point of view
relative to QuÇbec. It ultimately decided that it would not "force
a Quebec resident who has suffered damage as a result of the fault
of a large U.S. corporation to sue in Minnesota to recover his
damages."2 The court also narrowed the proposed class to QuÇbec
residents only, based on the specific facts of the case.

Damages Claimed

On behalf of the class, the petitioner alleged damages for fear,
confusion, and loss of time (including time spent closely
monitoring accounts); costs or fees for credit monitoring services
(Mr. Zuckerman had paid $19.95 for such services prior to Target's
offer to provide them free of charge); Target's failure to notify
some members of the breach; and potential fraud or identity theft.
The petitioner also claimed punitive damages, alleging an
intentional breach of class members' privacy.

In contesting the petitioner's ability to make out a prima facie
case, Target argued that the inconveniences alleged were not
compensable damages; that the expense incurred by the petitioner
for credit monitoring was not a direct consequence of the alleged
fault (especially in light of Target's offer to pay for such
credit monitoring); that the petitioner himself was not the victim
of identity theft, fraud, or a failure to notify; and that there
was simply no appearance of right with respect to punitive
damages.

The question of what counts as compensable damage in privacy class
actions has been the subject of some debate. In Zuckerman , the
court recognized that privacy class actions in QuÇbec may be
somewhat unpredictable with respect to whether causes of action
for inconvenience, stress, and anxiety will be authorized. It
acknowledged the Supreme Court's reasons in Mustapha v. Culligan
of Canada Ltd.3 to the effect that "psychological disturbance"
must be distinguished from mere "psychological upset." It also
referred to two QuÇbec class actions, Sofio v. Organisme canadien
de rÇglementation du commerce des valeurs mobiliäres4 and Mazzonna
v. DaimlerChrysler Financial Services Canada Inc.5 in which the
Court of Appeal and Superior Court respectively held that having
to make normal or routine financial verifications, while suffering
some stress, cannot ground a claim in damages.

On the other hand, the court also acknowledged statements in Sofio
and in another recent case, Belley v. TD Auto Finance,6 to the
effect that allegations of identity theft are not a necessary
condition of authorization in class actions following security
breaches.

The court held that while monitoring accounts and credit card
statements are normal activities and not inconveniences for which
damages can be awarded, activities such as setting up credit
monitoring and security alerts, obtaining credit reports, and
cancelling or replacing cards and closing accounts are potentially
compensable.7

Damages Suffered by Other Class Members

The court authorized common questions with respect to fraud and
identity theft, as well as with respect to an alleged failure to
notify class members of the breach, even though the petitioner did
not allege that he suffered those damages personally. In doing so,
the court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Bank of
Montreal v. Marcotte.8 Given the significant factual differences
between Marcotte and Zuckerman, the clearly limited scope of the
Supreme Court's reasons, and the potential impact of the Zuckerman
decision on defendants' already limited rights at the
authorization stage, the court's reference to Marcotte in this
context may be questioned.

That said, the Zuckerman decision is noteworthy in that it
illustrates the courts' apparent willingness to authorize privacy
class actions that take into account potential fraud or identity
theft, as well as any failure to notify affected customers.

Takeaways for Businesses

This case provides a number of takeaways for businesses on how to
manage privacy breaches. It is interesting to note that the court
authorized a common question on Target's alleged failure to notify
affected customers. While breach notification is not yet mandatory
in most Canadian provinces (it is only mandatory in Alberta),
organizations may still decide to notify on a voluntary basis,
especially if it is open to customers to argue that their damages
were exacerbated because they did not receive timely notification.

Moreover, given that one of the common questions authorized
against Target pertained to the cost of credit monitoring
services, organizations which manage security incidents involving
personal information may consider paying for such services (in
cases that warrant them). This may be considered as a mitigating
factor when assessing the damages sustained by customers.

The Zuckerman case may also serve as a warning of the extent of
the potential consequences of a data breach, given the court's
authorization of a common question pertaining to punitive damages.
In response, businesses may wish to invest in prevention and
ensure that they have adequate security measures in place, as well
as an appropriate privacy governance framework. This will become
even more important when the new notification and recordkeeping
requirements in the Personal Information Protection and Electronic
Documents Act come into force. These requirements provide that it
will be a criminal offence for an organization to knowingly fail
to report breaches, punishable by significant fines.

Finally, the Zuckerman decision may also serve as a warning to
businesses that their actions in one jurisdiction (in this case,
the United States) can lead to significant legal exposure in
another (i.e., Quebec), in situations where their customer bases
extend beyond provincial, state or national borders.


TAUBRA CORP: "Burcham" Suit Seeks OT Wage Under FLSA, Ohio Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES BURCHAM and GRADY HILL, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND THOSE
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, vs. TAUBRA CORP., AN OHIO
CORPORATION, D/B/A MERCURY SERVICE, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00115-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, February 7, 2017), alleges that
Plaintiffs and other courier drivers were misclassified as
independent contractors by Defendant under the FLSA and Ohio law.
As a result of this misclassification, these drivers are not paid
overtime wages nor are they guaranteed appropriate minimum wages
for their work performed in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Ohio law.

Defendant operates a delivery/courier service.  Plaintiffs worked
as delivery drivers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Andrew Kimble, Esq.
     C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
     P.O. Box 4979
     Orlando, FL 32802-4979
     Phone: (407) 420-1414
     Fax: (407) 425-8171
     Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com

        - and -

     Andrew Biller, Esq.
     Eric Kmetz, Esq.
     Andrew Kimble, Esq.
     MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC
     Easton Town Center
     4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
     Columbus, OH 43219
     Phone: (614) 604-8759
     Fax: (614) 583-8107
     Email: abiller@msdlegal.com
            ekmetz@msdlegal.com
            akimble@msdlegal.com


TBC CORPORATION: Faces "Hamilton" Class Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against TBC Corporation,
Dynamic Tire Corporation, and Does 1-10.  The case is captioned
Julie Hamilton, Jerad Hamilton, and Lyle McLean, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TBC Corporation,
Dynamic Tire Corporation, and Does 1-10, Case No. 2:17-cv-01060-
DMG-JEM (C.D. Cal., February 13, 2017).

The Defendants are marketers of automotive replacement tires
through a multi-channel strategy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dan C. Bolton, Esq.
      Daniel L. Keller, Esq.
      Stephen M. Fishback, Esq.
      KELLER FISHBACK AND JACKSON LLP
      28720 Canwood Street Suite 200
      Agoura Hills, CA 91301
      Telephone: (818) 342-7442
      Facsimile: (818) 342-7616
      E-mail: dbolton@kfjlegal.com
              dkeller@kfjlegal.com
              sfishback@kfjlegal.com


TESORO CORP: "Arias" Sues Board Over Western Refining Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
CARL ARIAS, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly
Situated Stockholders of TESORO CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. GREGORY
J. GOFF, RODNEY F. CHASE, EDWARD G. GALANTE, ROBERT W. GOLDMAN,
DAVID LILLEY, MARY PAT MCCARTHY, J.W. NOKES, WILLIAM H.
SCHUMANN, III, SUSAN TOMASKY, MICHAEL E. WILEY and PATRICK Y.
YANG, Defendants, Case No. 2017-0094- (Del., Ch., February 7,
2017), alleges that Tesoro Board breached their fiduciary duty for
failing to disclose material information in connection with a
merger between Tesoro Corporation and Western Refining, Inc.

Allegedly, the Registration Statement filed for the merger failed
to disclose plainly material information concerning Goldman, Sachs
& Co.'s independence (or lack thereof) as both financial advisor
and financier in the merger.

The deal is a mixed consideration valued at approximately $6.4
billion.

Relevant non-party Tesoro is one of the largest independent
petroleum refining, logistics and marketing companies in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
     Craig J. Springer, Esq.
     David Sborz, Esq.
     The ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
     3801 Kennett Pike
     Building C, Suite 305
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Phone: (302) 504-4957


TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Action Over Soy-Based Wire Coating Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Bartell, writing for KXTV, reports that do you have warning
lights and costly car repairs? Rodent damage could be the culprit
behind your next break down.

A class action lawsuit claims the type of plastic used in new cars
could be attracting vermin that eat the wires.

"I never could figure out where the stuff came from until I saw
the rat," said Barbara Olm.  On more than one occasion a tiny
hitch hiker made a meal out of the wiring in Ms. Olm's 2012 Lexus.

The 84-year-old poisoned one rat in her car, but not before the
rodent cause more than $400 in damage.

"The mechanic found a ground wire and coolant wire eaten by rats,"
Ms. Olm said.  Today Barbara's best defense against the rodents is
a loud radio that she places by her parked car."  They don't like
country music."

Barbara is not the only one with a rat problem.  Rodent damage is
a regular occurrence at University Honda in Davis.

"42 years in the business and I have seen it from day one," said
University Honda Service manager Mark Campanili.  When we met with
him there were 2 cars in his shop with rodent damage.

Chewed up insulation is a cheap fix but wiring damage can be
costly.  "I have seen a couple in the $2000 range," Mr. Campanili
said, and damage is not covered under warrantee.

University Honda can't explain what's attracts rodents to
vehicles, but attorney Brian Kabateck can.

"The plastic coating around the wires is made of soy,"
Mr. Kabateck said.  "I am not a rat expert, but soy must be
delicious to rats."

The Los Angeles lawyer recently filed a class action lawsuit
against car maker Toyota Motor Company for their use of a soy
based eco-friendly wire coating in many 2012 to 2016 model cars.
The lawsuit specifically targets the soy based wire coating and
not the copper wire inside.

Toyota sent ABC10 this statement regarding the lawsuit:

"While we cannot comment on this litigation, we can say that
rodent damage to vehicle wiring occurs across the industry, and
the issue is not brand- or model-specific."  Victor Vanov
Corporate Communications Toyota Motor North America.

Mr. Kabateck believes Toyota may not be the only car maker using
the soy based plastic coating.

"At least Ford and Subaru and other dealers are using a similar
product and their owners are reporting similar problems,"
Mr. Kabateck said.

The goal of the class action lawsuit is get Toyota to cover rodent
damage in cars with the soy based plastic.  Honda is also facing a
class action lawsuit.  Mr. Kabateck says other car manufacturers
may see similar lawsuits in the future.

Extermination company Terminex ranks Sacramento as one of the top
10 cities for roof rats.  The rodents are not picky when it comes
to choosing a nesting spot.

"The number one advice I can give is to drive your car every day,"
said Terminex Spokesperson Leo Skattebo.

A car parked for more than 48 hours is like a welcome mat for
rodents.  Mr. Skattebo says your car may be at the most risk in
your garage.  If rats have moved into the garage, traps are the
best way to get rid of them.

"Regular snap traps work great, but If it a high traffic area, say
with pet or kid you should use sticky traps," Mr. Skattebo said.

Rodent damage may not be covered under warrantee at this time, but
some home owner's insurance will cover some of the damage. Check
with your provider.


TRIGENICS HEALTH: Certification of Class Sought in Swetlic Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled SWETLIC CHIROPRACTIC &
REHABILITATION CENTER, INC., an Ohio corporation, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v.
TRIGENICS HEALTH GROUP INC., THE TRIGENICS INSTITUTE OF
NEUROMUSCULAR MEDICINE INC., THE INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
TRIGENICS INC., and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 2:17-cv-00100-ALM-TPK
(S.D. Ohio), moves for certification of this class:

     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, (3) from whom Defendants did not have
     "prior express invitation or permission" to send fax
     advertisements, and (4) with whom Defendants did not have an
     established business relationship, and/or (5) which did not
     display a proper opt-out notice.

Swetlic tells the Court that it files the "placeholder" Motion for
Class Certification in order to prevent against a "buy-off"
attempt, a tactic class-action defendants sometimes use to attempt
to prevent a case from proceeding to a decision on class
certification by attempting to "moot" the named plaintiff's claims
by tendering the plaintiff individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff, hence, asks the Court to allow this "placeholder"
motion to remain pending to protect against any alternative pick-
off attempt following the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-
Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

Swetlic also asks to be appointed as the class representative and
for the appointment of its attorneys as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fk2PpO1S

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
          250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221-4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
          E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com

               - and -

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


UNIVERSAL PROPERTY: Rodriguez Seeks to Certify Class of Customers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned Karen RODRIGUEZ, et al.,
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated persons v.
UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 0:16-cv-
60442-JIC (S.D. Fla.), move for certification of a class of
customers of the Defendant.  The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief
and class damages on behalf of this proposed nationwide class:

     All current and former customers of defendant Universal
     Property & Casualty Insurance Company who owned real
     property insured by defendant between September 20, 2013 and
     March 10, 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. Section 455(b), and their
     immediate families.

Plaintiffs Karen Rodriguez, Antonio Rodriguez, Boris Shaykevich
and Yelena Shaykevich also move (i) to be appointed as class
representatives, and (ii) for appointment of Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP as Lead Counsel and Wites & Kapetan P.A. as Liaison
Counsel.

On March 7, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Breach of
Contract and Unjust Enrichment against Universal Property.  As
Florida's largest private issuer of homeowners' insurance
policies, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant makes certain
sensitive customer information available to third-party mortgage
lenders, including insurance declaration pages and evidence of
insurance through the Lender Verification portal on its Web site.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zE9X40tO

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marc A. Wites, Esq.
          WITES & KAPETAN P.A.
          4400 North Federal Highway
          Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
          Telephone: (954) 526-2729
          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 -

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          Mario M. Choi, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
                  mchoi@kaplanfox.com


US NONWOVENS: Mendez Seeks Approval of Notice to Class Members
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned EFRAIN DANILO MENDEZ, et
al. v. U.S. NONWOVENS CORP., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-05583-ADS-
SIL (E.D.N.Y.), ask the Court approve their proposed class notice
and to authorize their counsel to mail the notice, via first class
mail, to all class members within 30 days of the Court's order.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven John Moser, Esq.
          MOSER EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM, PC
          3 School Street, Suite 207B
          Glen Cove, NY 11542
          Telephone: (516) 671-1150
          Facsimile: (516) 882-5420
          E-mail: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael C. Schmidt, Esq.
          COZEN O'CONNOR
          277 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10172
          Telephone: (212) 453-3937
          Facsimile: (866) 736-3682
          E-mail: mschmidt@cozen.com


WACKENHUT CORP: "Lubin" Wage Suit Sent Back to Trial Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Kerry Goff, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that on Nov. 21, a
California appeals court reversed a trial court's previous class
action decertification on Lubin v. Wackenhut Corp.

The plaintiffs in the suit claimed that Wackenhut Corp. violated
California labor laws by failing to provide employees with off-
duty meal and rest breaks, and also provided inadequate wage
statements.

"The trial court initially granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification," the decision of the Second Appellate Division's
Fourth Division said.  "However, as the case approached trial, the
United States Supreme Court reversed a grant of class
certification on (another case) Walmart v. Dukes.

The trial court -- the Los Angeles Superior Court -- reversed its
decision to certify a class in the case.

The appeals court found that Wackenhut lacked a rest-break policy
and then further implemented a policy that required security
officers to remain on call during their breaks.

The court of appeal also held that the plaintiffs could sue based
on inadequate wage statements, based on Labor Code, section 226.
The court explained that certain required information was missing
from the wage statements, which implied that putative class
members were injured.

The appeals court sent the case back to the trial court for
further consideration.

The proposed class consists of 10,000-13,000 security officers.


WYNDHAM HOTEL: Court Dismisses Website Booking Suit as to 2 Units
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Mark R. Hornak of the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied the motion to
dismiss the case captioned, THOMAS LUCA, JR., Plaintiff, v.
WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE CORP., WYNDHAM HOTEL GROUP, LLC, WYNDHAM HOTELS
AND RESORTS, LLC, and WYNDHAM HOTEL MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants,
Case No.  2:16-cv-00746 (W.D. Pa.), as to Defendants Wyndham Hotel
Group, LLC (WHG) and Wyndham Hotels and Resorts (WHR) and granted
as to Defendants Wyndham Hotel Management (WHM) and Wyndham
Worldwide Corporation (WWC).

In the civil action, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a
purported class, avers that a hotel reservation website for which
the Defendants are responsible violated the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A. Section 56:8-1, et seq., and the New
Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act
(TCCWNA), N.J.S.A. Section 56:12-14, et seq.  In sum, the
Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint avers that he reserved a hotel
room through the website, which did not adequately disclose the
total costs associated with the room.

Before the Court are two Motions to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint,
one filed by Defendants WHG and WHR arguing that (1) Plaintiff's
CFA claim fails because the website's disclosures were adequate,
because the Plaintiff has not pleaded ascertainable loss, and
because the Plaintiff cannot sue under New Jersey law; and (2) the
TCCWNA claim, which is based on the website Terms of Use, fails
because the Plaintiff suffered no injury from the Terms of Use and
thus lacks Constitutional and statutory standing to sue.  The
other Motion was filed by Defendants WHM and WWC arguing that the
Plaintiff has not sufficiently pied facts that would support
direct liability against them, and that derivative liability
principles do not apply.

In his Opinion dated February 15, 2017 available at
https://is.gd/sYj0Jx from Leagle.com, Judge Hornak granted without
prejudice the motion to dismiss filed by WHM and WWC because the
Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to provide WHM and WHC with sufficient
factual content to provide the "fair notice" required by
applicable pleading standards and that the allegations do not
allow the reasonable inference that WHM and WWC are liable for the
alleged conduct.  As to WHG and WHR, the Court denied without
prejudice finding that the Plaintiffs allegations are sufficient
to assert a quantifiable loss for CFA purposes.

Thomas Luca, Jr. is represented by Gary F. Lynch, Esq. --
glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP --
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- and --
Erin G. Comite, Esq. -- ecomite@scott-scott.com -- SCOTT+SCOTT,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP.
Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, et al., are represented by David A.
Strassburger, Esq. -- dstrassburger@smgglaw.com -- STRASSBURGER,
MCKENNA, GUTNICK & GEFSKY -- Kathleen Ann Brogan, Esq. -
kathleen.brogan@kirkland.com -- and -- Kenneth Winn Allen, Esq. --
winn.allen@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP


* FICALA Changes Seek to Address Worrisome Litigation Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Trask, Esq. -- atrask@mcguirewoods.com -- of McGuireWoods
LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that the House of
Representatives has reintroduced the Fairness in Class Action
Litigation Act (FICALA), and it's more substantial than the 2015
version.  The previous version, you may recall, attempted to
reinforce the typicality requirement to minimize the number of "no
injury" class actions brought.  It cleared the House, but died in
the Senate.  It appears that House Republicans sense an
opportunity with the new administration to enact more sweeping
class reforms.

It's not seeing to abolish the class action, but to curb some of
the more worrisome litigation practices that have evolved since
CAFA.

It resurrects the requirement that the named plaintiff suffer the
same "type and scope" of injury (Sec. 1716).  This is an important
step in combatting the problem posed by "no injury" class actions
(more accurately, "mixed injury" class actions), where a named
plaintiff who has suffered a compensable loss seeks to represent
thousands or millions of class members who did not.  These
frequently lead to questionable class settlements.
It requires class counsel to disclose any conflicts of interest
(Sec. 1717).  The adequacy requirement of Rule 23 is criminally
under-enforced.  It's the biggest open secret in class actions
that plaintiffs do not hire the counsel, the counsel recruits the
plaintiffs.  Recruiting is harder than it sounds, so counsel will
often turn to business associates, family, friends, members of the
law firm, or former clients.  This provision would require those
relationships to be disclosed up front, instead of waiting for the
deposition of the named plaintiff to uncover it.  Moving this
disclosure up is a good thing: if the proposed representative has
a disqualifying conflict, the court should know as soon as
possible.

Professor Elizabeth Chamblee Burch, in her comments to the bill,
has a more substantive critique: what about when repeat clients
are good, like the pension funds that bring securities class
actions?

It codifies the Third Circuit's ascertainability requirement (Sec
1718(a)).  As you may recall, this was a topic on the table for
the Rules Advisory Committee during the recent amendment process.
The Committee backed away from it as "too controversial."  But
codifying some ascertainability requirement remains a good idea.
Should it be the Third Circuit's "administrative feasibility"
requirement?  Professor Burch says no, that makes certification
too hard.  Professor Myriam Gilles, in her comments, goes further,
worrying that it provides "impunity" to corporate defendants.
Ultimately, one's view on this provision is going to depend on
one's view of the class action: is it a "deterrent" that
authorizes self-appointed enforcers to bring massive lawsuits for
huge fees, or is it a mechanism for getting compensation to
injured parties.  If you're an enforcer, you don't need a method
of distributing compensation, but you also probably run afoul of
the Rules Enabling Act, and so you should get explicit
Congressional authorization under the Constitution.  If you're a
compensator, then you need to know how to get that compensation to
the class members: the Third Circuit's standard does that.

It directly ties attorneys' fees to the relief class members
receive, and makes the attorneys wait until the class members get
it (Sec. 1718(b)).  This, one would think, would be
uncontroversial.  Hardly.  In the words of Professor Patricia
Moore: "This bill would critically hobble class actions by making
them much more difficult to certify and reducing the compensation
to plaintiffs' class action lawyers."

In fact, much of the criticism I've been hearing behind the scenes
comes from this "delaying fees" provision.  Let me just say this:
if the biggest problem you have with a bill is that it makes it
harder for the lawyers to get paid, well, that tells you where
people's priorities lie.

It requires the lawyers to give settlement data for further study
(Sec. 1719).  The biggest problem with the enforcer v. compensator
debate, or the "are class actions frivolous" debate, is that
there's just not a lot of data available for academics to test
their arguments.  This section seeks to remedy that.  Once again,
unalloyed good, right?  Apparently not.  Professor Burch has two
worries.  One, this doesn't go far enough, there should be more
data.  To which I respond, sign me up!  The other, though: I'll
use her words:

"requiring an accounting before paying plaintiffs' attorneys could
create a bottleneck and backlog.  As such, this provision appears
to be less concerned about delivering the necessary data to judges
and more concerned with holding up plaintiffs' attorneys' funds in
administration so as to prevent them from investing in new
lawsuits."

Sure, we need data.  But first we apparently need to pay the
lawyers.

There is, by the way, a simpler reason to require the data before
paying the lawyers: it ensures the data gets published, instead of
languishing for some extended period.  After all, once the lawyers
are paid, their incentive to do the rest of the work diminishes
considerably.

It requires issues classes to meet the requirements of Rule
23(b)(3) overall (Sec. 1720).  This, of course, has been a
longstanding debate among class action litigators: does Rule
23(b)(3) govern Rule 23(c)(4), or is Rule 23(c)(4) a "get out of
predominance free" card that allows one to sever all of the
predominating individualized issues?  (This was another provision
the Advisory Committee considered, and then backed off from.)
This provision would codify the common-sense reading of Rule 23:
Rule 23(a) & (b) control certification requirements, Rule 23(c)
tells you how to effect that once you've made the determination.
Will it make it harder to certify classes?  Sure, if they have
predominating individual issues.

Mr. Trask said "It requires a stay of discovery if a motion to
dismiss or strike class allegations gets filed (Sec. 1721). I have
advocated for this for a long time.  The PSLRA already requires
this stay in securities class actions; and those are hardly dead
or delayed.  And it simply makes sense: if a dispositive motion
has been filed that challenges the complaint as facially flawed,
why would you embark on expensive and time-consuming discovery?
Resolve the facial motion first, then get into the case.  (The
Second and Ninth Circuits already require this for class
discovery, even if it's rarely enforced.)  Professor Burch, among
others, worries that this will needlessly delay the cases.  But it
is a simple fact, reported by judges even, that plaintiffs can use
the threat of discovery as a cudgel in class actions.  This would
reduce costs on both sides, and make sure that meritorious class
actions get the discovery they deserve."

"It requires disclosure of any third-party funders of class
actions (Sec. 1722).  I've advocated for this for a long time as
well (though not as long as Skadden's John Beisner).  Defendants,
of course, are already subject to this requirement: Rule 26
requires disclosure of any insurance.  If someone else is paying
money and directing the litigation rather than the class
representative, the court should know about it.  (And judges, once
they learn this is a possibility, do want to know about it.)
Professor Burch worries that this might require firms to divulge
other firms they work with but otherwise won't disclose until the
fee request: I really don't see why that's a bad thing.
It mandates appeals for all certification rulings (Sec 1723).  It
appears that this language would replace the discretionary appeal
process under Rule 23(f).  And here, I'll make myself unpopular in
the defense bar: I don't think that this provision is necessary or
wise.  Yes, in a given case, the losing party at certification
will always want to appeal that judgment.  And yes, as a practical
matter, one can view the certification ruling as a de facto final
order.  But, appealing every class cert grant or denial would (a)
needlessly tie up the Court of Appeals and (b) result in lots of
conflicting or ill-considered opinions.  (Think of the number of
cases filed in the various California districts, all of which
would now sit before the Ninth Circuit.)  Moreover, defendants
have good options available already, including (a) decertification
motions, (b) various trial motions, and (c) an appeal should they
try the case all the way through.  I understand why House
Republicans might want this provision, but I'd hope they'd trade
it away if they need to."

Is the bill perfect? Of course not.  (See, e.g., Sec. 1723.)  But
it is a well-considered, common-sense response to several long-
standing issues that have plagued class litigation for the last
decade.


* Litigation Funders Steer Clear of Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that some industry
players are steering clear of class actions because of a ban on
attorneys sharing fees with nonlawyers.  Others are willing to
invest but structure their deals to avoid the rule.

When the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California became the first federal court in the nation to set
down transparency requirements for litigation funding, it focused
on a particular segment of the industry: class actions.  The major
funders such as Burford Capital and Bentham IMF reacted with a
shrug, saying that class actions are a small or nonexistent part
of their business.

It invites the question: why have some litigation financiers
steered clear of what plaintiffs lawyers have long recognized is a
lucrative area of the legal profession? The answer involves a
bedrock rule of American legal ethics, and points to the careful
and sometimes divergent ways that litigation funders keep on the
right side of its mandate that attorneys not share fees with
nonlawyers.

The gravamen: Litigation funders are tiptoeing around a legal
ethics rule that prohibits lawyers from sharing their fees with
non-lawyers.  But they don't always take a consistent approach.
Why it matters: The fee-splitting rule is limiting the types of
cases that some funders will back and the way they structure their
deals.  Some say it's not meant to apply to litigation finance
firms, while others see it as helping safeguard attorney
independence.

Bentham takes the position that it cannot fund an individual class
action and comply with the so-called fee-splitting ban. Collecting
a return on its investment directly from the attorney, in its
view, would clearly run afoul of the rule and attempting to
contract with hundreds or thousands of class members would be
logistically difficult if not impossible.  Not to mention that
judges would almost certainly frown on a funder attempting to
collect on an investment from the class.

Burford, on the other hand, posits that it can bankroll class
action lawyers directly as long as the deals are tailored
carefully.  The financier might, for instance, set the return at a
fixed amount rather than as a percentage of the lawyer's fees,
according to Travis Lenkner, managing director of Burford.  In an
interview last month, he said that class actions are a "quite
small" part of the funder's business.

It's true that either way the money is paid back from fees the
lawyer recovers through a judgment or settlement.  But financiers
such as Burford view these types of fixed-amount arrangements as
akin to traditional financing offered by banks, although
investments by litigation funders are often nonrecourse and
involve heavy vetting of the underlying legal matter.

The disparate positions adopted by funders highlight just how
little clarity there is on the meaning of the fee-splitting ban as
it applies to litigation finance.  They also demonstrate how the
industry is navigating ethical rules that were created long before
modern litigation financing developed, in order to tap a legal
market that has come under increasing cost pressures.

"I'm sure it's correct to say that nobody had litigation funding
of class actions in mind when they drafted that rule," said
Peter Jarvis, a partner at Holland & Knight and co-author of "The
Law of Lawyering."  He added: "I think there is a question that
the profession and courts and so forth will need to answer over
the next couple years about how to make this work."

In a class action pending against Chevron Inc. in the Bay Area, a
disclosed funding agreement between a pair of California attorneys
and U.K.-based Therium Capital Management took something of a
hybrid approach, promising Therium six times the $1.7 million it
invested in the lawyers, plus 2 percent of all "proceeds."  The
money is explicitly to be paid out of the lawyers' fees under the
agreement.

The Bay Area-based Law Finance Group, which frequently funds class
actions and was involved in the massive LCD flat panel price-
fixing case in the Northern District of California, structures its
investments so that the law firm pays back the principal plus an
interest rate, said Alan Zimmerman, who heads the company.  "We
never share the fee with the lawyer,"
Mr. Zimmerman said. "We get a return."

Bentham's decision to stay away from funding class actions appears
to be done out of an abundance of caution, amid moves to subject
the industry to even more scrutiny.

"I'm not disparaging what our contemporaries feel is acceptable
under the ethical rules.  What I'm telling you is what we believe,
our interpretation," said Matthew Harrison, head of Bentham's San
Francisco office.  "We never want to be accused by anyone --
whether it's the court or an opponent or anyone that we contract
with -- of being unethical."

MURKY WATERS

The American Bar Association ban on fee-splitting, established as
Model Rule 5.4(a), has been replicated in the codes for attorney
conduct by state bars across the U.S.  The rule dates back to the
early 1900s, and most experts agree it was intended to prevent the
kind of situation where a doctor refers an injured patient to a
lawyer with the promise of receiving a portion of the lawyer's fee
as a kickback. Ostensibly, it aims to keep lawyers from having
their judgment compromised by outside financial interests.
Over the past few decades, as litigation finance has developed,
state bar associations have occasionally taken up inquiries from
lawyers about whether Rule 5.4(a) would allow or prohibit various
financing arrangements.  The resulting opinions have not revealed
a clear, bright-line rule, according to a forthcoming paper by
Anthony Sebok, a professor at Yeshiva University's Cardozo Law
School in New York and a legal ethics adviser to Burford.

The Texas bar's ethics committee, for example, determined in a
2006 opinion that it would be fee-splitting -- and therefore
prohibited -- if a lender funded an attorney's litigation expenses
on the condition that the attorney repay the amount advanced plus
a funding fee equal to a fixed percentage of any amount recovered,
when and if the client recovered in the lawsuit.

In an opinion the same year, a North Carolina ethics committee
found that a similar nonrecourse loan would not be fee-splitting
if the repayment were the principal plus a sum based on an
interest rate, and if the breach of the loan agreement would be
enforceable against the lawyer's property.  But it would be fee-
splitting, it reasoned, if the repayment was the principal plus a
percentage of the lawyer's fees or if the only source of repayment
was the lawyer's contingent fee in the case.

If you think that reasoning seems a bit serpentine, you're not
alone.

"I would say that we are in a current environment where there is
confusion about the meaning of Rule 5.4(a) as it extends to
finance," Mr. Sebok said in an interview. For his part, he argues
that the ethics rules should treat litigation funding no
differently than they treat so-called factoring of law firm
receivables, a practice in which a law firm sells its accounts
receivable to a third party at a discount.

"My view is maybe we should stop forcing people to create
transactions according to formalistic boundaries," mr. Sebok said,
"and just create transactions on what's in the best interest of
both parties in the transaction with an eye to risk for
interference into the client's interest."

The ABA declined to comment for this article.

OTHER FUNDING MODELS

It bears saying that class actions are far from the only time that
litigation funders will directly contract with a lawyer or law
firm.  To the contrary, much of Burford's business is so-called
portfolio funding, where the funder essentially gives a pot of
cash to a firm and the return is paid off based on the fees from a
basket of cases that the funder assesses.  There seems to be a
general agreement among funders that this type of "de-coupling" of
the investment from any individual case sufficiently quells the
notion that the financing might be fee-splitting.

In what is seen as the birthplace of modern litigation funding, in
Australia, where Bentham is headquartered, the system for class
actions is significantly different from the U.S. Plaintiff
attorneys can bring an action on behalf of what is referred to as
an "opt-in" or "closed" class, and if a litigation funder is
involved, the individuals who consent to join the class generally
have to agree to share a portion of their recovery with the
funder.  Put simply, it is the class members -- and not the
attorney -- who are sharing their payment with the financier.

The lack of clarity about the fee-splitting rule in the U.S.
hasn't stopped some funders from forging ahead.  And for the most
part, they have gone unchallenged.  In the few instances where
courts have been confronted with arguments that a funding
agreement violates ethics rules -- at least in one instance, by a
fundee trying to escape having to pay -- judges have been
unpersuaded, according to Mr. Sebok's paper.

Philip Schaeffer, the former general counsel of White & Case,
co-chaired an ABA working group that published a white paper in
2012 on legal ethics and third-party finance.  He sees the
confusion about what the rule requires as the result of an
outdated system of ethics rules.

"It seems to me what you've got essentially is it's a loan to the
lawyers that's secured by the fees.  That's not an extraordinary
thing," Mr. Schaeffer said in an interview.  "This business is
changing very, very quickly and the rules that the ABA have
foisted on the country are very, very foolish.  They are really
antiquated."

Still, some see these types of arrangements as at least creating a
potential pressure point for lawyers, especially if the finance is
nonrecourse and the funder has a direct stake in the outcome of
the case.  "The question that could be asked," said Holland &
Knight's Jarvis, is "does that kind of funding threaten the
exercise of independent professional judgment on the part of the
lawyers?"


* New House Bill to Impact Class Action Lawyers' Legal Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, reports that a new bill in
Congress would make class-action lawyers work much harder for
their money, by requiring courts to peg legal fees to the actual
amount of money their clients receive and throwing obstacles in
the way of consumer class actions where a vanishingly small
percentage of consumers get anything at all.

The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017 was introduced
Feb. 10 by U.S. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the same congressman
who introduced the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 banning
coupon settlements and pushing many class actions into federal
court where judges tend to be a little more skeptical of lawyer-
driven litigation.

Rep. Goodlatte's latest bill would go much farther, eliminating
most of the tactics plaintiff lawyers use to extract large fees
for themselves while delivering little or nothing to their
clients.  It wouldn't close the courthouse doors to consumers, as
critics are sure to say.  Nothing in the law would prevent a group
of plaintiffs who suffered the same damages to hire a single
lawyer and ask the court to join their cases together for
efficiency.  What it would do is discourage lawyer-driven
litigation, where plaintiff attorneys target a company with a
class-action suit knowing full well the bulk of their clients will
never learn of the lawsuit or seek to claim their piece of the
settlement.

Plaintiff lawyers say that's the same thing as outlawing class
actions, since nobody will hire a lawyer to pursue a $2 overcharge
on their cellphone bill.  But they are engaging in ends-justifies-
the-means reasoning that not incidentally puts money in their
pockets.  If mass consumer litigation is worthwhile, consumers
should be able to join it willingly, not be forced into it without
their knowledge.

The proposed law has already drawn strong criticism from, among
others, Myriam Gilles of Cardozo Law and Elizabeth Burch of the
University of Georgia Law School.  Allison Frankel at Reuters also
thinks it would "gut class actions" and discourage some types of
civil rights litigation (which was the original intent behind Rule
23, the federal rule approved by Congress that established the
class action in the first place). I examine at the bill's major
provisions and some of their criticisms below:

Uniform damages. Class members would have to have suffered damages
of "the same type and scope of injury" to be bundled into a single
action.  This would discourage lawsuits where plaintiffs have a
wide variety of damages, including some with no damages at all,
which defendant companies say unfairly complicates their defense.
Gilles and Burch say this requirement conflicts with decisions
including last year's Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, which upheld a
class action verdict even though some class members weren't
entitled to anything.  It's practically impossible to construct a
class with no zero-damages members, Gilles and Burch say. But how
does that square with the U.S. Constitution's requirement that
courts hear only cases and controversies where plaintiffs have an
actual claim?

Ascertainability. This is a big one, and it is surprising judges
don't require it already. The bill would require plaintiff lawyers
to demonstrate there is a "reliable and administratively feasible
mechanism" to identify who their clients are and distribute money
to them directly.  Burch says this would "mire the courts and the
parties in unnecessary and costly discovery," and Gilles says it
would eliminate the deterrent value of small-dollar consumer class
actions where consumers don't have records of their purchases.
The first criticism assumes plaintiff lawyers would even get to
discovery with lawsuits that lack identifiable plaintiffs.  The
second assumes there is a meaningful deterrent value to consumer
class actions, which typically settle for little more than the
fees of the plaintiff lawyers which are covered by insurance.  It
also assumes the goal of deterrence outweighs the cost of
litigation.  Both are debatable at best.  If a company's behavior
is egregious enough, regulators and state attorneys general can
and do deliver the deterrence.

Fees.  Plaintiff lawyers could only be paid a percentage of what
their clients actually recover, not some fanciful calculation of
what might get paid out if everybody submitted a claim, which
almost never happens.  They'd also have to wait until all the
money is paid out to get their fee.  Critics say this would
discourage settlements like the NFL players' concussion suit,
where the money will flow for decades.  Fair enough.  Allow judges
to present-value settlements that pay out over time and award a
fee based on that.  But tying fees to the actual amounts paid out
would eliminate the glaring conflict facing plaintiff lawyers, who
have an incentive to collude with defendant companies on a
settlement that looks good on paper but only really represents
their fee.

Reporting.  Another proposal that is long overdue.  Before they
could collect their fees, class counsel would have to submit to
the Federal Judicial Center data on the amount actually paid by
the defendant company, the number of class members who were paid,
the average and median payment per class member, and any money
paid to non-class members.  Burch says she supports reporting but
that holding lawyers' fees hostage to it "could create a
bottleneck and backlog."  Or not, if lawyers comply promptly with
the requirement, and negotiate settlements that pay out quickly
and reliably.  Now, plaintiff lawyers hide the data showing how
ineffective their settlements are.  They also tend to disguise
payments to rival firms that otherwise might have competed against
them on fees and friends and relatives who may or may not have
earned a piece of the settlement pie.  These are plaintiff lawyers
who claim to be defending consumers against sharp practices by
corporate defendants; they should be held to the same standards of
disclosure and honesty as their targets.
No conflicts.  Class-action lawyers couldn't tap relatives,
employees or present or former clients to serve as class
representatives.  This would eliminate the squalid practice of
recruiting friends 'n' family to serve as bogus representatives in
bogus lawsuits designed only to elicit a nuisance settlement. It
also would tighten considerably the widely ignored requirement
under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act limiting lead
plaintiffs in securities class actions to five cases in a three-
year period.  A complete ban on law firms representing former
clients in class actions might go too far, but under the current
rules too many nuisance suits feature "representative" plaintiffs
that are too close to the lawyers they are supposed to be watching
with a critical eye.

MDL procedures. The bill also would require plaintiffs to present
solid evidence of injury before their cases are included in
multidistrict litigation, a technique federal courts use to
consolidate mass litigation before a single judge to resolve
common issues.  Too often lawyers salt the mine with a few high-
dollar cases and then throw in hundreds or thousands of lawsuits
with little evidence behind them to negotiate big settlements.
Under this law, questionable cases would be dismissed within 30
days.

This bill is sure to draw strong criticism from trial lawyers, who
represent some of the best-paid and most important contributors to
the Democratic Party.  But examine their message closely. It's
likely to be more ends-justifies-the-means rhetoric, claiming
their rich fees are the price the public must pay to hold
corporations accountable for overcharging consumers a penny a
widget.  Maybe so, but who can argue with them at the very least
being required to supply the information they possess showing how
effective they are at achieving their mission?


* South African Gold Mining Cos. Near Silicosis Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Greg Nicolson, writing for Daily Maverick, reports that for
decades, the gold mining industry ignored health and safety
standards and exposed black workers to silicosis and tuberculosis.
Class action cases are still in court, with the Supreme Court of
Appeal to decide whether they can go ahead. An out-of-court
settlement, however, looks likely.

Speaking at the Mining Indaba, Occupational Lung Disease Working
Group chairman Graham Briggs was confident a settlement would be
reached this year with mineworkers who have launched class action
suits against more than two dozen gold mining companies.

The mineworkers are demanding compensation for employees, or their
descendants, who contracted silicosis and tuberculosis in the
mines.  If the cases proceed in court they could take over a
decade to resolve.

"We are optimistic because we are working together and we are
continuing to talk to the class action lawyers, the various unions
and the claimants' lawyers," said Mr. Briggs.  The Working Group
represents six large mining companies, African Rainbow Minerals,
Anglo American, AngloGold Ashanti, Harmony, Goldfields and
Sibanye.

Mr. Briggs, former CEO of Harmony, said, "There is no reason to
believe that a settlement cannot be found that would be fair to
claimants and sustainable for the companies."  An out-of-court
settlement is likely to be agreed upon this year, he suggested.

The South Gauteng High Court last year certified two classes to
proceed with compensation claims against gold mining companies,
with cases dating back as far as 1965, affecting up to 200,000
current and former mineworkers.  It could cost the mining
companies billions of rand, but with a lengthy litigation process
ahead, a court case means many suffering mineworkers may not live
to see their compensation.

Mr. Briggs was confident a settlement might be reached in 2017
because he said engagements between the claimants' lawyers, unions
and government had been positive and finding a fair and
sustainable solution sooner rather than later was in the interests
of the different parties.

Predictions on how many mineworkers could claim compensation
through the class action suits vary, with Mr. Briggs claiming that
even 100,000 people could be an overestimation.  "It's a big
problem, but we're making progress," said Briggs on the difficulty
of tracking down former workers.

If a settlement is reached, it's also unclear how much it could
cost the mining companies, with potential compensation still to be
agreed upon and claimants, beyond the 25,000 or so listed in the
class action suits, needing to come forward.

The Occupational Lung Disease Working Group envisages a settlement
agreement that would include a "legacy fund" under which the
affected could claim compensation.  This would be in addition to
the compensation due to them from government, which has failed to
manage and distribute billions of rand owed to mineworkers.  Mr.
Briggs was asked at length at the indaba about what he said
amounted to R3.7-billion sitting in the government compensation
fund, made up of employer contributions, which has not been paid.

Mr. Briggs, however, wouldn't go into detail on who might be able
to claim compensation through the legacy fund. Mining companies
have been granted leave to appeal three aspects of the class
action in the Supreme Court of Appeal.  They will argue against
the certification of classes claiming compensation for silicosis
and tuberculosis, as well as the South Gauteng High Court's
decision to allow dependants of deceased workers to join the
action.

Charles Abrahams, from Abrahams Kiewitz, which has been working on
the class action with Richard Spoor Attorneys and the Legal
Resource Centre, on Feb. 15 said settlement discussions continued
in good faith.  "There have been discussions.  Those discussions
have been ongoing and they're aimed at finding a resolution that
includes compensation," said Mr. Abrahams.

According to representatives of both mineworkers and mining
companies, current compensation discussions include potentially
compensating workers who have contracted silicosis and
tuberculosis, as well as the dependents of employees who have
passed away.  Mr. Abrahams said it would be in his clients' best
interest if a decent settlement is reached out of court.

The legal action is complex and there is strong on the parties to
take the issue forward.  As Lucas Ledwaba wrote on Feb. 14 about
suffering mineworkers: "Without work and unable to work due to
their poor physical state, they continue, together with their
dependents, to go hungry and struggle to pay for medical care.
Silicosis has rendered them mere shells, pale shadows of their
former selves, men who struggle to as much as walk a few hundred
metres to a clinic."

During the Mining Indaba, Sonke Gender Justice, which has been
admitted as amicus curiae in the class action cases, led a number
of protests in Cape Town representing silicosis sufferers. The
organisation, which is represented by SECTION27, acts for the
women and children who have suffered as a result of occupational
lung disease in mining.

"Personally, I hear about people protesting.  We need those people
to come forward and say, 'I was a miner and this is my record',"
said Briggs, appearing frustrated with protesters and the public
outrage over the case.

Sonke's Patrick Godana on Feb. 15 was in King William's Town,
Eastern Cape, visiting women and children affected by silicosis
and tuberculosis in the gold mining industry. He said he has seen
how the families of the sick are particularly impacted upon.

Mr. Godana met a silicosis sufferer who could hardly breathe.  His
young daughter had not gone to school on Feb. 15. She was missing
out on her education because she had to care for her father.  Many
rural women are foregoing work and education opportunities because
they have to care for the sick, said
Mr. Godana.

He said there are "some indications" that the mining companies
want to achieve an out-of-court settlement this year, but it would
need to benefit the affected, their carers and their communities.
"If they opt to settle outside of court, the better for us," said
Mr. Godana.  "People are dying."

For now, it seems an out-of-court settlement is likely. The
question is when, and, most important, how much.


* Supreme Court Rules in Favor of People with Leprosy in Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
KBS World Radio reports the Supreme Court has ruled, for the first
time, that the state has the responsibility to provide
compensation for its policy to have people with leprosy undergo
vasectomies and abortions.

The top court on February 15 upheld a lower court ruling that
sought compensation of 40 million won each to ten people with
leprosy who were forced to undergo abortions and of 30 million won
each to nine people who had to undergo vasectomies.

The final ruling came some five years after the 19 people began a
class action suit against the government which had refused to
compensate them.

In its ruling, the court said the operations that were carried out
on the plaintiffs were the execution of illegal governmental power
thus the state must assume responsibility.

The 19 leprosy patients were forced to undergo vasectomies and
abortions while being treated at state-run hospitals in Sorok
Island and other cities between 1955 and 1977.

The operations on people with leprosy began in Yeosu in 1935 when
the nation was under Japanese colonial rule.

The policy resulted from the wrong belief that leprosy is
hereditary. In Sorok Island off the south coast, which housed a
community of people with leprosy, married people were allowed to
live together from 1936 on the condition they had vasectomies.

Five other lawsuits filed by about 520 leprosy patients are
pending at the Supreme Court and the Seoul Central District Court
with similar rulings expected.



                            *********

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  * * *