CAR_Public/170301.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


          Wednesday, March 1, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 43



                            Headlines

ABEONA THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed Class Action
ABSOLUTE CARE: "Duberry" Seeks Conditional Class Certification
ALCOBRA LTD: April 18 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: MAO-MSO Sues Over Unreimbursed Expenses
AMAYA: AMF Commences Securities Class Action

AMAZON.COM: "Lines" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay, Withheld Tips
AMERICAN FAMILY: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Insurance Case
AMERICAN SAVINGS: "Moskowitz" Suit Alleges Violations of TCPA
ANTHEM INC: OPM Directed to Produce Docs in Data Breach Suit
ANTHONY 57 INC: Minimum Wage, OT Pay Sought in "Losacano" Suit

AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Pink Batts Home Insulation
AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Jailing of Indonesian Boys
AVIS: Consumer Wants Court to Recertify Class in Fraud Case
BADGER LIGHTING: Class Certification Sought in "Spennetta"
BELLAMY'S: Slater & Gordon Launches Investors Class Action

BREAKERS RESORT: Faces Suit Over Rat Infestation
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Court Declines to Appoint Interim Counsel
CEDARS-SINAI: Faces Wage-and-Hour Class Action in California
CITIGROUP: Judge Trims Euribor Antitrust Class Action
CLEVELAND PUBLIC: Resumes Charging Hidden Fee

COMCAST CORP: Judge Dismisses Suit Due to Limited EEOC Charge
CRAZY HORSE: Appeals Decision in "Degidio" Suit to 4th Cir.
CRYPTSY: Class Action Lawyers Launch New Settlement Claims Site
CUSTOMER SERVICE: Overtime Pay Sought in "Elliott" Labor Suit
DOORDASH INC: Edwards Seeks 5th Cir. Review of S.D. Texas Ruling

DUPONT: Spelter Settlement Allocation Discussed at Hearing
ECHOSPHERE LLC: "Inda" Suit Alleges Cal. Labor Code Violations
ELITE GUNITE: "Jalapa" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
ESURANCE: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Overtime Wage Class Action
FACEBOOK INC: TCPA Case Ruling Blow to First Amendment Freedom

FACEBOOK INC: Wants to Appeal Birthday Text Class Action Ruling
FAMILY PRIVATE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
FERRARA CANDY: Faces "Iglesias" Suit Over Deceptive Labeling
FLOOR AND DECOR: Settles Mislabeling Class Suit for $14-Mil.
FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI: Local Servicemen May Have Radiation Poisoning

FULL-TILT POKER: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Class Action
GLOBAL EAGLE: April 24 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
GLOBAL FITNESS: Supreme Court Won't Review Settlement Dispute
GLOBAL TEL LINK: "Lee" Suit Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Sues Two Plaintiffs' Attorneys

HAMILTON PAINTING: Class Certification Partly Granted in "Rowe"
HARDEE'S RESTAURANTS: Settles Hepatitis A Class Action
HERSHEY CO: Faces Class Action Over Jolly Rancher Slack Fill
HOLLYWOOD STYLE: Faces "Heres" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
HOSPITALITY VENTURES: Faces "Kelly" Suit Under FLSA, NC Law

HUMANA INC: Wants Home Health Aides' OT Wage Class Action Tossed
IDENTIV INC: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Cunningham" Class Suit
ILLINOIS: "Heritage" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
INTERCONTINENTAL CAPITAL: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
JANKI HOSPITALITY: "Baltazar" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premiums

JOIE DE VIVRE: Faces "Cornelius" Suit Under FLSA, Cal. Laws
JOLI VENTURES: "Anderson" Labor Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
L3 TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $84-Mil.
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Pompano Police Fund Appeals "Fosbre" Suit Ruling
LINCARE INC: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in "Culley"

MASTERCARD INC: NRF, RILA Want Swipe-Fee Settlement Nixed
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Dismissal of "Shadow Insurance" Suit Affirmed
MILWAUKEE: Police Faces Class Action Over Stop-and Frisk Policies
MORTON COUNTY, ND: Dundon, et al. Files Appeal to 8th Cir.
MURPHY PAINTERS: Faces "Laferte" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations

NEW MIAMI, OH: Speed Camera Case Lawyers Seek $300,000 Interest
NEW YORK: 2d Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Detainees' Suit
NIKE INC: Judge Dismisses Outlet Price Tag Class Action
OMNI LIMOUSINE: McSwiggin Appeals D. Nevada Ruling to 9th Circuit
PALOS VERDES, CA: Judge Tosses Suit Against Lunada Bay Boys

PHENIX CITY, AL: Faces Class Action Over Red Light Cameras
RELIANCE TRUST: "Matthews" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
RENDLE: B.C. Court of Appeal Denies Class Certification
RENTECH INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
RENTECH INC: April 24 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Kader Appeals D. Mass. Decision to 1st Cir.
SELECT MEDICAL: "Joseph" Suit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA
SMOOTH SAILING: "King" Labor Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
SUSHI REPUBLIC: "Jaramillo" Suit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA
SIOUX HONEY: Calif. Woman Says Sue Bee Products Not All Natural

SITO MOBILE: April 18 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
SOCIETE DE TRANSPORT: Faces Suit Over Repeated Service Disruptions
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Faces False Advertising Class Action
STERICYCLE INC: Class Cert. Granted in Sterisafe Litigation
SYNGENTA AG: Loses Bid to Dismiss Suit Over GMO Corn Trait

TILTWARE LLC: Cal. App. Upheld Dismissal of "Kennedy"
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Headlights
TROPICAL SHIPPING: Antitrust Suit Transferred to Florida Court
TRS STAFFING: Faces "Jackson" Suit for Unpaid Overtime Wages
TRUGREEN INC: 6th Circuit Denies Arbitration in TCPA Class Action

UNDER ARMOUR: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action
UNITED STATES: Trimming of Fannie Mae Stockholders' Suit Upheld
UNIVERSITE LAVAL: Copyright Infringement Class Action Certified
VASANT PATEL: "Mata" Litigation Alleges Violations of FLSA
VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT: Class Certified Based on Concrete Injury

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Executive Arrested in U.S. in Emissions Probe
VOLKSWAGEN AUSTRALIA: Pressures Diesel Car Owners to Sign Waivers
WABTEC CORP: Busker's Appellant's Opening Brief Due on July 17
WEN HAIR: Plaintiff's Lawyer Objects to Class Action Settlement
WESTERN UNION: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action

WORKPLACE SAFETY: Court of Appeals Revives Injured Workers' Suit
WWE: Lawyers Ask Judge to Allow Discovery Phase of Recent Deaths
YAHOO INC: 770,000 Hosiers Can Join Data Breach Class Action
YAHOO INC: Unveils Terms of Verizon Deal Amid Data Breach Cases

* Crowell Attorney Shares Highlights from New Class Action Bill




                            *********


ABEONA THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abeona Therapeutics Inc.,  a leading clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company focused on developing therapies for
life-threatening rare genetic diseases, announced that on February
14, 2017, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the putative
securities class action lawsuit he had recently filed against the
company and certain members of its management, following the
Company's demand that the case be dismissed because it lacked a
valid legal and factual basis. The plaintiff based his Complaint,
in its entirety, on allegations that been cut and pasted from an
internet blog article.  No payment or any other consideration was
paid by, or on behalf of, the Company or its management in
connection with the lawsuit's dismissal.

"We are gratified to have brought about the prompt dismissal of
this meritless case just two months after it began, as it should
never have been filed at all," said Jordan D. Hershman --
jordan.hershman@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
lead counsel for the Company.


ABSOLUTE CARE: "Duberry" Seeks Conditional Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KENDRA DUBERRY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ABSOLUTE CARE
STAFFING HEALTH AGENCY, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
01446-NCT-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to
conditionally certify collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), to approve notice and to expedite
consideration.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cE4TFZZZ

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
          CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP
          2400 Freeman Mill Road, Suite 200
          Greensboro, NC 27406
          Telephone: (336) 333 9899
          Facsimile: (336) 333 9894
          E-mail: blkinsley@crumleyroberts.com

               - and -

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


ALCOBRA LTD: April 18 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP disclosed the filing of a class action lawsuit
against Alcobra, Ltd. Investors, who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares between August 13, 2015 and January 17, 2017
inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the Firm
in advance of the April 18, 2017 lead plaintiff deadline.

If you purchased shares of Alcobra during the Class Period, please
contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang, 18101 Von Karman
Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: (949) 419-3834,
or via e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com.

There has been no class certification in this case. Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member.

Alcobra is a biopharmaceutical company that makes and markets oral
drug candidates. On January 17, 2017, Alcobra disclosed that the
Company's attention deficit hyperactivity disorder drug,
Metadoxine Extended Release, could not reach its primary endpoint
during a Phase 3 trial. When this information was disclosed to the
public, the value of Alcobra declined, causing investors serious
harm.

If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit at no charge, or if
you have questions concerning this notice or your rights, please
contact Joon M. Khang, a prominent litigator for almost two
decades, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or via e-mail at --
joon@khanglaw.com


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: MAO-MSO Sues Over Unreimbursed Expenses
-----------------------------------------------------------
MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, a Delaware entity; MSP RECOVERY, LLC, a
Florida entity; MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida entity, Plaintiffs,
vs. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation; ESURANCE
PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a Wisconsin Company,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01340 (N.D. Ill., February 21, 2017),
alleges that Defendants failed to fulfill their statutorily-
mandated duty to reimburse Medicare Advantage Organizations for
medical expenses arising out of automobile accidents.  As such,
Plaintiffs filed this action on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated Class Members for (1) double damages, pursuant
to the Medicare Secondary Payer private cause of action; and (2)
breach of contract under Plaintiffs' direct right of recovery.

Allstate Assurance Company offers life insurance and variable
annuity products and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
     David M. Hundley, Esq.
     Nicholas R. Rockforte, Esq.
     Courtney L. Stidham, Esq.
     PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
     1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400
     New Orleans, LA 70112
     Phone: (504) 355-0086
     E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com
             dhundley@pbclawfirm.com
             nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com
             cstidham@pbclawfirm.com

        - and -

     Michael L. Baum, Esq.
     R. Brent Wisner, Esq.
     BAUM, HEDLUND, ARISTEI & GOLDMAN, P.C.
     12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950
     Los Angeles, CA 90025
     Phone: (310) 207-3233
     Fax: (310) 820-7444
     E-mail: mbaum@baumhedlundlaw.com
             rbwisner@baumhedlundlaw.com


AMAYA: AMF Commences Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------
Sean Griffin, Esq. -- sean.griffin@langlois.ca -- and Antoine
Brylowski, Esq. -- antoine.brylowski@langlois.ca -- in an article
for Langlois lawyers, LLP, report that in the wake of the Autorite
des marches financiers' ("AMF") institution of proceedings notably
against Amaya and its Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), David
Baazov, for alleged insider trading and tipping, a class action
was commenced pursuant to section 225.4 of the Quebec Securities
Act ("QSA").  Petitioners essentially allege that the Respondents
made unlawful use of privileged non-public information, issued
false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about Amaya's business that artificially inflated
the price of Amaya's stock ("Amaya class action").

To be authorized, a class action commenced further to the
provisions of the QSA must (1) be brought in good faith and (2)
show a reasonable possibility of success on the merits.  Section
225.4 QSA provides the following:

"225.4 No action for damages may be brought under this division
without the prior authorization of the court.

The request for authorization must state the facts giving rise to
the action.  It must be filed together with the projected
statement of claim and be served by bailiff to the parties
concerned, with a notice of at least 10 days of the date of
presentation.

The court grants authorization if it deems that the action is in
good faith and there is a reasonable possibility that it will be
resolved in favour of the plaintiff."

The Supreme Court of Canada established that to meet the
evidentiary burden of the second criteria of a reasonable
possibility of success, petitioners must offer sufficient and
credible evidence in support of their action.  As determined by
the Supreme Court of Canada, the reasonable possibility criteria
under section 225.4 QSA requires a higher threshold than the
authorization criteria to institute a class action under the usual
rules of Quebec civil procedure:

"[39] A case with a reasonable possibility of success requires the
claimant to offer both a plausible analysis of the applicable
legislative provisions, and some credible evidence in support of
the claim.  This approach, in my view, best realizes the
legislative intent of the screening mechanism: to ensure that
cases with little chance of success -- and the time and expense
they impose -- are avoided.  I agree with the Court of Appeal,
however, that the authorization stage under s. 225.4 should not be
treated as a mini-trial.  A full analysis of the evidence is
unnecessary.  If the goal of the screening mechanism is to prevent
costly strike suits and litigation with little chance of success,
it follows that the evidentiary requirements should not be so
onerous as to essentially replicate the demands of a trial. To
impose such a requirement would undermine the objective of the
screening mechanism, which is to protect reporting issuers from
unsubstantiated strike suits and costly unmeritorious litigation.
What is required is sufficient evidence to persuade the court that
there is a reasonable possibility that the action will be resolved
in the claimant's favour."1

Request for communication of documents

In the Amaya class action, the Petitioners presented a pre-
authorization motion before the Superior Court to obtain the
communication of specific documents from the Respondents
("Motion").  The Motion was heard by the Honourable Babak Barin,
JSC.  In the Motion, the Petitioners argued that they needed these
documents from Amaya prior to the authorization hearing to meet
their evidentiary burden and persuade the Court that their claim
had a reasonable possibility of success on the merits.  They
therefore filed a request pursuant to articles 20 and 251 of the
Quebec Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP") to compel disclosure of
documents, such as Amaya's "Disclosure, Confidentiality and
Trading Policy" and D&O insurance policies. The relevant CCP
articles read as follows:

"20. The parties are duty-bound to co-operate and, in particular,
to keep one another informed at all times of the facts and
particulars conducive to a fair debate and make sure that relevant
evidence is preserved.

They must, among other things, at the time prescribed by this Code
or determined in the case protocol, inform one another of the
facts on which their contentions are based and of the evidence
they intend to produce.

251. A party in possession of real evidence is required, on
request, to present it to the other parties or, subject to the
conditions agreed with them, to submit it to an expert; the party
is also required to preserve, until the end of the trial, the real
evidence or, if applicable, a suitable representation that shows
its current state.

A third person holding a document relating to a dispute or in
possession of real evidence is required, if so ordered by the
court, to disclose it, present it to the parties, submit it to an
expert or preserve it."

Justice Barin comments on Petitioners' request as follows:

"[21] To be clear, the issue of whether or not there is credible
and sufficient evidence that demonstrates that Petitioners' claim
has a reasonable possibility of success on the merits is not at
this juncture before the Court.

[22] What is before the Court and what Petitioners submit it must
decide based on the rules of civil procedure applicable in Quebec
is whether Petitioners are, at the pre-authorization stage,
allowed to obtain disclosure of certain information and documents
they claim is needed to unbolt the lock that has been placed on
the gate before them.

The Court underlined that the CCP supplements the silence of other
laws in the matters it addresses, including the QSA.  It also
emphasized that the CCP "requires the parties to be open with one
another, keep each other informed and exercise their respective
rights with the spirit of cooperation [. . .]"[3] and made
reference to articles 221 and 222 CCP which pertain to pre-trial
examinations to state that the legislature is "interested in
promoting the early search for truth rather than postponing it for
procedural or other reasons"4.

Justice Barin highlighted that it would be unfair and
unreasonable, in light of the Supreme Court's requirement that the
Petitioners provide credible and sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that their claim has a reasonable possibility of
success at trial, to prevent them from having a way to gain access
to such sufficient and credible evidence:

[50] Even though a class action is a procedural vehicle and not a
substantive right, it would be unfair on the one hand to request
that a petitioner in a section 225.4 class action, furnish
sufficient evidence to satisfy a requirement set out by the
Supreme Court but then not permit it to have a justified,
reasonable and measured opportunity to do so.

[51] To put it differently, if a lock has been placed on the gate
through which a section 225.4 petitioner must pass before being
permitted to continue with a class action, then that petitioner
must be given a fair opportunity to try and unbolt that lock.

[52] To prevent a petitioner from resorting to such a possibility
would not only deprive it of its procedural rights as they are set
out in article 221 CCP for example -- such a prohibition would
certainly confront the specific cooperation direction set tout in
article 20 -- but it would also deprive the petitioner of its due
process and fairness rights.

That being said, the Court highlighted that in its analysis of the
Motion, it must ensure that the Petitioners do not conduct a
fishing expedition and that the scope of disclosure is limited to
avoid harming the interests of third parties, and moreover, to
ensure that the conduct of the proceedings is not delayed,
complicated or jeopardized by the request for evidence that does
not at the preauthorization stage assist in establishing the
reasonable possibility of success at trial.  To this end, Justice
Barin elaborated a three (3) -- step test that must be satisfied
by the Petitioners to obtain disclosure of evidence at the pre-
authorization stage.  The burden of convincing the Court that
these 3 criteria are satisfied relies on the Petitioners:

   1) the evidence sought must exist and must be
described/identified with reasonable accuracy;

   2) the evidence sought must be relevant;

   3) the evidence must be necessary on a prima facie basis to
permit Petitioners to establish before an "unprejudiced mind
seeking the truth" that the claim has a reasonable possibility of
success at trial.

In the context of the Motion, the Court found that the disclosure
of the requested information not only respected the requirements
of co-operation and openness set out in article 20 CCP, but also
the considerations of practicality and fairness that are essential
for the proper, efficient and cost-effective administration of
justice in Quebec.

Take Aways

Justice Barin's findings will have an impact on the conduct of
securities class actions commenced under the QSA.

It now provides petitioners with additional means to strengthen
their case with information and documents which they do not have
at the time of the filing of their motion for authorization of a
class action.

It is to be expected that petitioners will invest a great deal of
effort to obtain documents prior to authorization to meet the
relevant evidentiary burden.  Although the Court highlights in its
judgment that the early disclosure of that information may provide
the parties with an opportunity to make informed, sensible and
pragmatic decisions concerning the conduct of the proceedings,
including perhaps the possibility of amicably resolving the matter
in question6, it is to be expected that such requests will
inevitably lengthen the proceedings and have an impact on the
costs of defending against such securities class actions.

One can also expect that this judgment will have an impact on the
petitioners' counsel pre-certification strategy in class actions
outside the scope of the QSA.


AMAZON.COM: "Lines" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay, Withheld Tips
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Lines, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Amazon.Com, Inc.; Tenet Concepts, LLC and
John Does 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00072 (W.D. Tex.,
February 2, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid and incorrectly paid
wages for all hours worked in a workweek, unpaid overtime, earned
and unlawfully retained tips, liquidated damages, interest and
attorney fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Texas Labor Code.

Tenet Concepts maintains a service contract with Amazon.com to
provide delivery services of Amazon's merchandise. Lines worked as
a delivery driver for Tenet and claims to be denied overtime pay
and withheld tips.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay D. Ellwanger, Esq.
      Holt Major Lackey, Esq.
      DINOVO PRICE ELLWANGER & HARDY LLP
      7000 North MoPac Expressway, Suite 350
      Austin, TX 78731
      Tel: (512) 539-2626
      Fax: (512) 539-2627
      Email: jellwanger@dpelaw.com
             hlackey@dpelaw.com

             - and -

      Robert J. Valli, Jr., Esq.
      Sara Wyn Kane, Esq.
      James Vagnini, Esq.
      VALLI KANE & VAGNINI, LLP
      600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Tel: (516) 203-7180
      Fax: (516) 706-0248


AMERICAN FAMILY: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Insurance Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wystan Ackerman, Esq. -- wackerman@rc.com -- of Robinson+Cole, in
an article for JDSupra, reports that there have been key
developments in the numerous class actions against the insurance
industry involving the application of depreciation to the labor
cost component of estimated replacement cost value in determining
actual cash value under homeowners and commercial property
insurance policies.  The Nebraska Supreme Court recently addressed
this issue on a certified question from that state's federal
district court.  It ruled in favor of the insurer, holding that an
insurer may apply depreciation to the cost of labor when
determining actual cash value under a standard policy that did not
define the term "actual cash value."

In Henn v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, No. S-16-597,
295 Neb. 859 (Neb. Feb. 17, 2017), the court concluded that a
definition of "actual cash value" was not necessary and that term
was unambiguous where Nebraska law had long defined that term as
"the value of the property in its depreciated condition." The
Nebraska courts had also recognized several approaches to
estimating actual cash value, including a fair market value
approach and a broad evidence rule approach, under which a finder
of fact may consider all relevant facts and circumstances.
Agreeing with the Oklahoma Supreme Court, the court held that "an
insured is properly indemnified when the amount calculated for
actual cash value equals the depreciated value of the property
just prior to the loss, which includes both materials and labor."
The court further explained that "payment of the full amount of
labor" in an actual cash value payment, as the plaintiffs sought,
"would amount to a prepayment of benefits to which the insured is
not yet entitled."

This decision is likely to be helpful to the insurance industry in
defending the numerous putative class actions pending involving
this issue.


AMERICAN SAVINGS: "Moskowitz" Suit Alleges Violations of TCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG MOSKOWITZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. AMERICAN SAVINGS BANK, F.S.B., Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00307 (D. Conn., February 21, 2017), alleges that
Defendant, using an automatic telephone dialing system, caused to
be made at least four calls to Plaintiff that delivered text
messages to Plaintiff's cell phone without Plaintiff's prior
express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

AMERICAN SAVINGS BANK, F.S.B. is a Honolulu, Hawaii-based
financial institution.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
     BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
     85 Miles Avenue
     White Plaines, NY 10606
     Phone: 914-358-5345
     Fax: 212-571-0284
     E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com


ANTHEM INC: OPM Directed to Produce Docs in Data Breach Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Amit P. Mehta of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia granted in part and denied in part the lead plaintiffs'
motion to compel, in the case entitled IN RE: ANTHEM, INC. DATA
BREACH LITIGATION, Case No. 16-mc-02210 (APM) (D.D.C.).

Anthem, Inc., provides health benefits and health insurance
services to millions of individuals through a nationwide network
of affiliate and third-party entities.  To provide these services,
Anthem, its affiliates, and the third-party entities maintain a
common computer database of current and former members' personal
information.  This information includes, but is not limited to,
individuals' Social Security numbers, home addresses, and
confidential medical information. Amongst those Anthem serves are
federal employees. The United States Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) negotiates and administers the federal
government's contracts with insurance providers, including Anthem.

Anthem, Inc. suffered a massive cyberattack on its computer
systems sometime between December 2014 and January 2015. The
hackers stole personally identifiable information and personal
health information of approximately 80 million people. Amongst
those whose information was compromised were federal employees who
receive their health insurance through the Federal Employee Health
Benefits Program. Some individuals whose information was
compromised filed suit against Anthem, Inc., its affiliates, and
involved third-party corporations, ultimately leading to
consolidation of those cases in the form of a class-action,
multidistrict litigation in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.

On May 13, 2016, lead plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation
issued a subpoena for documents to the United States Office of
Personnel Management ("OPM") seeking records relating to OPM's
information technology systems audits of Anthem, Inc., and its
affiliates, both before and after the cyberattack. The agency
released a portion of the documents responsive to the subpoena but
withheld others, claiming that the deliberative process privilege
protected all the withheld documents from disclosure and the law
enforcement privilege also protected certain of those documents.
Lead plaintiffs filed a motion to compel OPM to disclose the
withheld records.

Judge Mehta finds that most of documents withheld by OPM are
protected by the deliberative process privilege.  Some of the
withheld documents or portions thereof, however, contain only
factual information.  As to those records or portions of records,
the court concludes that neither the deliberative process nor the
law enforcement privilege applies.  Accordingly, Judge Mehta
granted in part and denied in part the lead plaintiffs' motion to
compel.

The court concludes the audit workpapers that are screenshots of
internal auditing procedures (Anthem_000023, Anthem_00024) and the
e-mails between and amongst OPM employees (Anthem_00025-
Anthem_00267) are privileged and will not be disclosed.

The court orders partial disclosure of the three meeting write-ups
pertaining to Anthem's configuration management (Anthem_00001-
Anthem_00004), network security (Anthem_00011-Anthem_00016), and
special investigations and fraud (Anthem_00021-Anthem_00022).

Further, the Government is directed to disclose in full the
written reports pertaining to meetings on Anthem's "enterprise
security" and "logical access" (Anthem_00006, Anthem_00009-10).

Lastly, the court orders disclosure in full of the audit
workpapers comprising the sign-in sheets (Anthem_00005,
Anthem_00017); e-mail request for a policy statement from Anthem
(Anthem_00018-Anthem_00020); and information request memoranda
between OPM and Anthem (Anthem_00007, Anthem_00008).

A copy of Judge Mehta's memorandum opinion dated February 21,
2017, is available at https://goo.gl/N4E7rW from Leagle.com.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Non-Party Respondent, represented
by Joseph Evan Borson, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

ALL PLAINTIFFS, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew N. Friedman --
afriedman@cohenmilstein.com -- Sally M. Handmaker --
shandmaker@cohenmilstein.com -- at COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL
PLLC; Patrick K. Slyne -- pkslyne@ssbny.com -- at STULL, STULL &
BRODY


ANTHONY 57 INC: Minimum Wage, OT Pay Sought in "Losacano" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Losacano, on behalf of herself and other employees similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Anthony 57, Inc. Anthony Serrago and Sabal
Springs Homeowners' Association, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-
cv-00084, (M.D. Fla., February 8, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum
wages due, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs, post-
judgment interest and all other and further relief pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and Article 10 Sec. 24 of the Florida
Constitution (Florida Minimum Wage Amendment).

Sabal operates a homeowners' association in Fort Myers, Florida
which consists of a gated residential community that has its own
restaurant called "Anthony's on the Green" where Plaintiff worked
as a food and drink server.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Bober, Esq.
      BOBER & BOBER, P.A.
      1930 Tyler St.
      Hollywood, FL 33020
      Phone: (954) 922-2298
      Fax: (954) 922-5455
      Email: peter@bober1aw.com
             sarnara@boberlaw.com


AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Pink Batts Home Insulation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Australia Associated Press reports that a class action on
behalf of businesses who lost out after the Commonwealth pink
batts home insulation was canned alleges the federal government
engaged in unconscionable conduct.

Installers, manufacturers and business owners lost millions or
were forced to close after the then-Labor government terminated
the problematic Home Insulation Program following the deaths of
four workers in 2009 and 2010.

They are suing the Commonwealth for compensation in the Victorian
Supreme Court, with a trial expected to take place next year.

The Commonwealth set up, then shut down, the Home Insulation
Program, a Rudd government initiative designed to stimulate the
economy during the global financial crisis.

The plaintiffs allege they suffered financially because the
program was terminated earlier than expected.

They have argued it was unconscionable for the Commonwealth to
exercise its legal right to terminate the scheme before the
expiration date, or to encourage the industry to invest in
expanding their businesses to make, supply and install insulation.

However, the Commonwealth has argued it was at liberty to make and
change policy for any reason, based on what is in the national
interest.

On Feb. 23, the Supreme Court made rulings on the finer details
that will be litigated at trial.

A royal commission set up by the coalition government and the
subsequent establishment of a compensation scheme has not
compensated businesses, lawyers for more than 100 people have
said.


AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Jailing of Indonesian Boys
------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Hawley, writing for ABC, reports that the central Jakarta
District Court was on Feb. 23 scheduled to begin hearing a class
action against the Australian Government over allegations
Indonesian boys jailed for people smuggling were held in adult
prisons.

With the support of Indonesia's National Commission of Child
Protection (KPAI), lawyer Lisa Hiariej will argue the case on
behalf of the group of 115 Indonesians, who were allegedly either
jailed or held in immigration detention as juveniles.

"They are very scared, they are not criminals," Ms Hiariej told
the ABC ahead of the court appearance.

Ms Hiariej alleged 31 boys aged between 13 and 17 years old were
jailed in adult prisons in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth
between 2008 and 2012 for crewing asylum seeker boats.

Ms Hiariej said a further 84 boys spent more than three months in
immigration detention, which she believes was against the law.

The court will hear the children were themselves victims of people
smuggling and they are seeking millions of dollars in compensation
from the Australian Government.

Three judges will preside over the civil case.

"The lawyers found out they were underage by going to their
villages and finding their birth certificates," Ms Hiariej said.

She said she had the 115 birth certificates to prove the case.


AVIS: Consumer Wants Court to Recertify Class in Fraud Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rick Archer and Nathan Hale, writing for Law360, report that an
English consumer who attempted to lead a class action accusing
Avis and subsidiary Budget Rent-A-Car of fraudulently offering
supplemental insurance in their rental car contracts asked the
Eleventh Circuit to recertify her class on Feb. 21.

In an appeal brief Heather Venerus claims the district court
abused its discretion when it dismissed the class, saying she had
provided sufficient proof all of the members had the same causes
of action against Avis Budget Car Rental LLC and Budget Rent-A-Car
System Inc.

"Venerus . . . contrary to the district court's finding, clearly
has standing to represent this proposed class, and the putative
class members, [who] all executed a common rental agreement," the
brief said.

Ms. Venerus sued the car rental companies in 2012, claiming that
after she got into an accident in September 2010 while driving a
car she rented from Budget in Florida, she determined that
contrary to the details of her reservation, the rental companies
had failed to actually obtain a $1 million supplemental liability
insurance policy from ACE American Insurance Co. to cover injuries
she and her passenger suffered.

The court certified and then, on reconsideration, decertified the
class and issued summary judgment dismissing third-party contract
claims and state deceptive trade practices.  Ms. Venerus was
ultimately granted a summary judgment on breach of contract and
was awarded $174.16 at a bench trial.

In her appeal brief Ms. Venerus argued Budget had claimed the
class had no commonality because of collateral contracts and
agreements modifying the standard rental agreement, but that all
of the class members' rental agreements contained identical
representations that Budget would provide the renter with ACE
supplemental insurance.

"Further, the terms of the rental agreement and the applicable law
reject any attempt by defendants to modify this obligation through
collateral documents, the identity and the contents of which have
never been identified," she said.

She also argued Budget''s failure to obtain the policy in the
contract supported the claims of violations of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and Civil Remedies for
Criminal Practices Act, which the court had dismissed.

"The defendants' business practice, now unearthed, of purporting
to sell legitimate ACE coverage, and instead providing their own
so called 'coverage,' constitutes an extraordinary abuse of the
defendants' licensing privilege under Sec. 626.321 Fla. Stat., to
sell the legal coverage," she said.  "At a minimum, this practice
constitutes the illegal transacting of insurance in Florida, thus
giving rise to an appropriate claim for disgorgement/restitution
and a viable CRCPA claim, neither of which is preempted by Sec.
624.155 Fla. Stat."

Counsel for Ms. Venerus and Budget did not immediately respond to
requests for comment on Feb. 22.

Ms. Venerus is represented by Christopher J. Lynch of Hunter
Williams & Lynch PA and Edmund A. Normand of Normand Law PLLC.

Avis Budget is represented by Philip Glatzer --
pglatzer@marlowadler.com -- of Marlow Connell Abrams Adler Newman
& Lewis and Robert T. Wright -- rwright@stroock.com -- Irene Oria
-- ioria@stroock.com -- and Brian C. Frontino --
bfrontino@stroock.com -- of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP.

The case is Heather Venerus v. Avis Budget Car Rental LLC et al.,
case number 16-16993 in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit.


BADGER LIGHTING: Class Certification Sought in "Spennetta"
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned SPENNETTA FAMILY CARE CHIROPRACTIC, S.C.,
on behalf of plaintiff and the class, the Plaintiff, v. BADGER
LIGHTING AND SIGNS, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-00218-PP (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order certifying a class:

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

   "(a) all persons with fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date
   four years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent
   faxes by or on behalf of defendant Badger Lighting and Signs,
   LLC, promoting its goods or services for sale (d) and which
   did not contain an opt out notice."; and

For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of Wisc. Stats., and
Count III, alleging conversion:

   "(a) all persons with Wisconsin fax numbers (b) who, on or
   after a date six years prior to the filing of this action, (c)
   were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Badger Lighting
   and Signs, LLC, promoting its goods or services for sale (d)
   and which did not contain an opt out notice."

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eJUngh0O

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Heather Kolbus, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS,
          LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379


BELLAMY'S: Slater & Gordon Launches Investors Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Palmer, writing for The Australian, reports that
Slater and Gordon (SGH) has formally launched class action
proceedings against troubled infant milk group Bellamy's in the
Federal Court on Feb. 23.

The expected filing of the claim comes a month after the law firm
said it had secured the required backing from litigation funder
IMF Bentham.

At the time it had been expected the formal proceedings
would begin at some stage in the next "couple of months".

It promises to be one of two class actions Bellamy's (BAL) could
face, with Maurice Blackburn last month noting it had received the
funding required to press on with a similar class action.

There was talk the proceedings could be "open class", which would
mean Bellamy's shareholders could be automatically included
regardless of whether they joined the suit.

Slater and Gordon on Feb. 23 revealed hundreds of aggrieved
investors had already signed up to the class action, with the
proceedings open to shareholders who acquired stock between
April 14, 2016 and December 9, 2016.

That period largely preceded a troubling double downgrade from the
company that battered its share price and forced the resignation
of chief executive Laura McBain in early January.

The class action alleges Bellamy's made "misleading statements" on
its growth strategy in China in light of a shifting regulatory
environment and "failed to keep the market informed" on its
declining market share in Australia.

"Mum and dad investors placed their faith in the Bellamy's story
and have been horrified by the revelations of the past few
months," Slater and Gordon senior class action lawyer Mathew Chuk
said.

"Our investigation has confirmed our initial view that Bellamy's
made misleading statements about its continuing growth in
circumstances where it had no proper basis to do so, particularly
given the likely impact of regulatory reform in China.

"More and more aggrieved shareholders are registering for this
class action every day and the commencement of proceedings today
is a significant step towards recovery of their losses."

Funder IMF Bentham believes potential losses could be as high as
hundreds of millions of dollars to impacted shareholders.


BREAKERS RESORT: Faces Suit Over Rat Infestation
------------------------------------------------
Lance Hernandez at the Denver Channel reports twelve tenants at
the Breakers Resort have filed a class action lawsuit against the
owners and managers of the sprawling rental complex at East
Mississippi Avenue and South Valentia Street.

The lawsuit alleges that BH Management initially turned a blind
eye to a growing rat infestation until tenants began complaining
about widespread damage to the electrical wiring of their cars.

Now, some tenants are suffering health issues, which they link to
the pesticide application process used by BH Management to control
the infestation.

Tanya Collins says she's lived at the Breakers for three years and
never had any problems until early January, when her hair started
falling out in clumps.

Collins told Denver7 that she used a hot tub in the complex just
after Christmas.

"It wasn't that hot," she said, " . . . so I turned around and
exited."

That's when she noticed a dead rabbit lying next to the tub.

Collin's attorney, Ian Hicks, said his investigation showed the
dead rabbit had been floating in the tub a week before Collins
took a dip.

He thinks the rat poison that killed the rabbit was still inside
the water.

"The water had never been changed," he said. "Rat poison is proven
by case studies to cause hair loss."

Collins said she asked maintenance workers to pick up the dead
rabbit and to turn up the heat for the hot tub.

Four days later, she found a dead rat near her vehicle.

"That's when I decided to see if the dead rabbit was still by the
hot tub," she said.  "It was still lying there, four days later."

Car fires, airbag explosions

The lawsuit alleges that cars have caught fire, airbags have
exploded and that a newborn infant inhaled the stench of putrefied
rats in the family car until it was determined that the car had
become the rats' tomb.

Hicks said another plaintiff, Robert Budnicki, was told by one of
the complex managers to wrap electrical tape around the wiring in
his vehicle, that had been chewed bare by rats.

"The Jeep dealer and his insurance agent said, 'You can't do
that,'" Hicks said. "Multiple appraisers looked at this and said
if you drive the vehicle, the airbag could go off."

That's apparently what happened.

Hicks said Budnicki had just dropped off his daughter who was in
the front seat. Within ten seconds, his airbag went off.

"It shattered his windshield," Hicks said.  "He's been driving his
truck with a broken windshield and a deployed airbag, for several
weeks.

Hicks told Denver7 that some tenants were told BH's insurance
would take care of the damage to their cars.

Most never received a check.

Hicks said the excuse was that the plaintiffs didn't give the
right address. He said he doesn't think checks were sent at all.

"We'll find out during the lawsuit," he said. "Insurance companies
have to keep records for tax purposes."

Tenant threatened with eviction

Another plaintiff, who drew attention to the problem, and who
tried to help other tenants get reimbursed for the damage to their
cars, says he was threatened by the other manager.

Christian Woehler told Denver7 in January that the original pest
control company haphazardly scattered First Strike soft bait
throughout the complex.

First Strike contains an active ingredient known as Difethialone.

Difethialone is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency
and should only be applied "within tamper-resistant bait stations
in areas where pets or children are likely to be found."

According to the lawsuit, the exterminator and others, "acting at
the direction and control of manager Mike Holt, indiscriminately
hurled hundreds, if not thousands of packets of First Strike
Poison against exterior walls, into bushes, onto grass, next to
sidewalks, onto front and back porches, and virtually every
location regularly utilized by adults, children, pets and
wildlife, across the entire neighborhood."

Within days, rats of all shapes and sizes, many measuring 12-plus
inches without the tail, and weighing approximately five pounds,
began staggering into the open and then expiring.

Woehler says he repeatedly contacted Mr. Holt and BH to have them
remove the dozens of festering carcasses, but no one responded.

After Denver7 ran a story about the damage to cars, and the
improperly applied rat bait, one of the managers, Ashley Wooten-
Shelite, contacted Woehler by phone.

"She told Christian she was there to make him happy," the lawsuit
states, but the conversation didn't end well.

"She told me at the end of our conversation that if I talked to
anyone about this, I was going to be processed for eviction."

The plaintiffs have submitted 27 claims for relief ranging from
negligence to unjust enrichment and deceit.

Hicks said BH's entire operation is geared toward one thing.

"We believe BH Management came in, in October of 2016, with one
mission -- to cut costs at any expense," he said. "They closed
club houses and drastically reduced amenities, all while charging
premium rents."

                     Breakers Response

Denver7 reached out to the Breakers and BH Management for reaction
to the lawsuit.

Alana Watkins of VOCA PR emailed a reply which states: "The
Breakers is aware that legal actions have been filed in the Denver
County District Court. We are investigating the allegations and
will provide no further comment pertaining to the legal
proceedings of this matter."


CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Court Declines to Appoint Interim Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------------
David L. Luck, Esq. -- dluck@carltonfields.com -- and D. Matthew
Allen, Esq. -- mallen@carltonfields.com -- of Carlton Fields, in
an article for Mondaq, report that even before certification of a
class under Rule 23(a)-(b), the district court has authority to
appoint "interim counsel" under Rule 23(g)(3) "to act on behalf of
a putative class before determining whether to certify the action
as a class action."  However, as the District of New Jersey
recently explained, "neither the federal rules nor the Advisory
Committee Notes expressly" state the analysis used to determine
when "interim counsel" should be appointed and which counsel might
be appropriate.

Nevertheless, several federal courts have used the same analysis
that applies under Rule 23(g)(1) regarding the post-certification
appointment of actual class counsel.  This includes consideration
of:

  (i) the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating
potential claims in the action;

  (ii) counsel's experience in handling class actions, other
complex litigation, and the types of claims asserted in the
action;

(iii) counsel's knowledge of the applicable law; and

(iv) the resources that counsel will commit to representing the
class.

These factors are not exhaustive, and the district court may
consider "any other matter pertinent to counsel's ability to
fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class."
Santos, 2017 WL 215969, at *1.

As the court explained, the appointment of interim counsel
typically occurs in cases "in which a large number of putative
class actions have been consolidated or are otherwise pending
before a single court."  Thus, if "the lawyer who filed the suit
is to be the only lawyer seeking appointment as class counsel,
appointing interim class counsel may be unnecessary." Id. at *2.

In Santos, the district court ultimately declined to appoint
interim counsel regarding a putative class that challenged alleged
kickbacks as to force-placed hazard insurance because it was
apparent that the plaintiff's counsel was not, in fact, seeking to
streamline management of the alleged class through such an
appointment.  Instead, they were seeking to use appointment as
interim counsel to increase their leverage in opposing efforts to
settle overlapping, competing putative class actions pending in
other federal district courts.

The court held this was improper: "Appointment of interim class
counsel is not the proper vehicle by which to oppose settlement."
Id. at * 3.  There were other more appropriate, direct avenues
available for plaintiff's counsel to challenge the attempted
settlements in the overlapping, competing actions pending in other
federal jurisdictions -- seeking appointment as interim counsel
was not the appropriate relief.

Santos v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC, No. 215CV864WHWCLW, 2017
WL 215969 (D.N.J. Jan. 18, 2017).


CEDARS-SINAI: Faces Wage-and-Hour Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Dani Kass, writing for Law360, reports that a former Cedars-Sinai
Medical Center employee has accused the hospital in a potential
class action in California state court of withholding wages, not
paying overtime, forcing employees to work during breaks and other
wage-and-hour violations.

Jerry Thomas Jr.'s Feb. 17 suit alleges several ongoing violations
of California's labor code, which he says stretch back at least
four years.  He is seeking restitution for unpaid wages and other
monetary damages, in addition to injunctive relief against similar
practices.

"As a result of defendants' unfair and unlawful business
practices, defendants have reaped unfair and illegal profits
during the class period at the expense of plaintiff, class members
and members of the public," the complaint states. "Defendants
should be made to disgorge their ill-gotten gains and to restore
them to plaintiff and class members."

First, Mr. Thomas says the hospital didn't provide rest periods,
and employees were not given an extra hour of compensation for
days without rest periods, as required under state law.  He also
alleges Cedars-Sinai didn't pay employees minimum wage for all
hours worked, especially when employees had to work through
breaks.

The complaint states that Cedars-Sinai didn't pay employees
overtime or didn't pay overtime at the proper rate, which
depending on the circumstances was one-and-a-half times the normal
rate, or double the normal rate.

When employees quit, they're supposed to be paid all wages they've
accrued no later than 72 hours after quitting, and if the company
willfully doesn't pay, then the employee receives a waiting time
penalty, in which they're still compensated for up to another 30
days, according to the suit.  Cedars-Sinai failed to do either,
the complaint states.

On top of these alleged wrongdoings, the hospital didn't properly
maintain records, including how many hours each employee worked
daily, how much they should be paid, deductions, time records and
itemized statements, Mr. Thomas alleges.  Those itemized wage
statements should have included gross wages earned, total hours
worked, deductions made, net wages earned, the name and address of
the employer and applicable hourly rates, the suit states.

Cedars-Sinai declined to comment on the suit.

Mr. Thomas is represented by Matthew J. Matern and Joshua D. Boxer
of the Matern Lawn Group PC.

Counsel information for Cedars-Sinai was not immediately
available.

The case is Jerry Thomas Jr. et al. v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
et al., case number BC651054, in the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles.


CITIGROUP: Judge Trims Euribor Antitrust Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Cara Bayles, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal
judge on Feb. 21 trimmed a putative class action brought by
investors who say they lost money in derivatives transactions
because big banks conspired to manipulate Euribor, the euro
interbank offered rate.  But two plaintiffs, including a
California retirement fund, still have claims against JPMorgan and
Citigroup.

U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel cut four plaintiffs from the
suit, saying they lacked standing, as well as six foreign
defendants who didn't fall under his jurisdiction because their
allegedly illegal activities weren't tied to the U.S.  He also
dismissed all Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
and Commodity Exchange Act claims from the suit and cut three out
of four Sherman Act claims in the case.

Now the two remaining plaintiffs, FrontPoint Australian
Opportunities Trust and the California State Teachers' Retirement
System -- the only ones that could allege direct transactions with
any defendants -- will move forward with one Sherman Act claim and
common-law claims of unjust enrichment and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Citigroup and J.P.
Morgan.

Judge Castel said in his 100-page order on Feb. 21 that the fact
U.S. and European investigators had already investigated antitrust
claims over Euribor made it appropriate to reign in claims from
plaintiffs who had no direct dealings with the defendant -- one
individual, Stephen Sullivan, and three investment funds, White
Oak Fund LP, Sonterra Capital Master Fund Ltd. and FrontPoint
Partners Trading Fund LP  --  saying their damages wouldn't be
discernable.

"More than $4 billion in penalties have already been levied over
defendants' alleged manipulation of the Euribor," the judge wrote.
"Given the lack of direct dealings by four of the six plaintiffs,
the nature of the market, the vast size of the umbrella claims and
the significant risk of 'overkill' type damages, the existence of
governmental enforcement actions are afforded some weight."

The investors first sued the banks in Illinois federal court in
February 2013, before the case transferred to New York that April.
The suit claims that from June 2005 to March 2011, the banks
conspired to fix Euribor, which is used to reflect the interest
rate charged on short-term loans of unsecured funds in euros
between prime banks and the wholesale money market.

The European Banking Federation, an unregulated trade association,
forbids banks from coordinating or submitting false data for their
daily terms reports that inform the Euribor rate. According to the
complaint, the scheme flouting those restrictions was orchestrated
by Christian Bittar of Deutsche Bank and Philippe Moryoussef of
Barclays and later RBS.

Last month, the plaintiffs reached a $45 million settlement with
HSBC Bank PLC, and in December 2015, the court granted preliminary
approval to a $94 million settlement with Barclays PLC.

According to the Feb. 21 order, the plaintiffs also voluntarily
dismissed BNP Paribas S.A. and Deutsche Bank AG and DB Group
Services from the case.

The remaining defendants -- the UBS, Rabobank, Credit Agricole,
RBS, Societe Generale and ICAP -- were all deemed to be out of
jurisdiction because their connections to the U.S. were too
tenuous.  While all the banks had branches in the U.S., Judge
Castel said for those defendants, the conduct at issue in the case
took place abroad, and without a "nucleus" in the states, it was
outside his jurisdiction.

Because Citigroup and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. are Delaware
corporations with headquarters in New York, the claims against
them stuck.

Representatives and attorneys for JPMorgan and the plaintiffs did
not immediately respond to requests for comment on Feb. 16.  Citi
declined to comment.

The investors are represented by interim co-lead class counsel
Vincent Briganti -- vbriganti@lowey.com -- Geoffrey M. Horn --
ghorn@lowey.com -- Peter D. St. Phillip and Michelle E. Conston of
Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart PC and Christopher Lovell --
CLovell@lshllp.com -- Gary S. Jacobson -- GSJacobson@lshllp.com  -
- and Ian T. Stoll of Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP. Other
counsel includes Joseph J. Tabacco -- jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com
-- Patrick T. Egan -- PEgan@BermanDeValerio.com -- and Todd A.
Seaver -- tseaver@bermandevalerio.com -- of Berman DeValerio,
Brian P. Murray -- bmurray@glancylaw.com -- and Lee Albert --
lalbert@glancylaw.com -- of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, and David
E. Kovel -- dkovel@kmllp.com -- of Kirby McInerney LLP.

Citibank is represented by Lev Louis Dassin -- ldassin@cgsh.com --
and Jonathan Samuel Kolodner -- jkolodner@cgsh.com -- or Cleary
Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP and by Andrew Arthur Ruffino --
aruffino@cov.com -- and Alan M. Wiseman -- awiseman@cov.com -- of
Covington & Burling LLP.

JP Morgan is represented by Francis John Acott --
francis.acott@stblaw.com -- Michael Steven Carnevale --
michael.carnevale@stblaw.com -- Jeffery Li Ding, Abram Jeremy
Ellis, Paul Christopher Gluckow -- pgluckow@stblaw.com --
Alexander Nuo Li, Omari Largos Royter Mason, Thomas C. Rice,
Elizabeth Jane Shutkin and Rachel Serenity Sparks Bradley of
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

The case is Sullivan v. Barclays PLC, et al., case number 1:13-cv-
02811, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.


CLEVELAND PUBLIC: Resumes Charging Hidden Fee
---------------------------------------------
Leila Atassi at Cleaveland reports court records show that city-
owned utility Cleveland Public Power recently resumed the practice
of charging its customers a hidden fee -- despite public promises
that officials would suspend the billing practice until class-
action lawsuits on the matter are resolved.

Meanwhile, in a deposition for one of the lawsuits, CPP
Commissioner Ivan Henderson acknowledged that for years he decided
how much to tack onto customers' monthly bills and only "mentally"
reconciled the amount charged with expenses he deemed to be
reimbursable by the fee.

As the class-action cases against the city and CPP enter their
second year of litigation, recently unsealed documents, including
internal memos and a consultant's report, have hit the docket,
shedding more light on why and how CPP levied the controversial
fee.

Here's everything you need to know about the latest in the case
and what it all might mean for the 75,000 customers of the
utility.

                What Led to the Lawsuits?

The lawsuits were filed in late 2015, on the heels of a
cleveland.com story, revealing that CPP charged its customers,
over 16 years, more than $128 million beyond the base rate for
power without seeking City Council approval, as required by the
city charter.

The plaintiffs accuse CPP of defrauding many of its residential
and commercial customers out of millions. And they argue that CPP
illegally plugged budget gaps by evoking a decades-old city
ordinance designed to help the utility recover the cost of
compliance with environmental protection laws.
The law that city officials relied on for the fee was passed at a
time when CPP ran its own power plants. But the utility stopped
generating its own power in 1977, and since then, has bought
electricity from other generators and distributes the power to its
customers.

Nevertheless, the utility, which has long struggled to compete
with its private sector counterpart FirstEnergy, continued to rely
on the 40-year-old ordinance to boost its revenue while keeping
the base rate for power unchanged since 1983.
The so-called ecological adjustment charges were obscured on
customers' bills -- folded into the monthly energy adjustment,
which is intended to make up for fluctuations in the cost of
power.

Then-Utilities Director Paul Bender ordered CPP to stop charging
the fee when two of the department's financial managers brought it
to his attention shortly after he took office in March 2013.
Bender, who left the city in 2014, told cleveland.com that he
ended the billing practice because Henderson could not provide a
documented justification for the fees. It was clear that CPP's
budget was propped up by the illegal collections, Bender said. And
Henderson had never reconciled the amount billed to customers with
the actual expenses incurred during any given year.
Bender said he worried that the charges were in violation of the
terms of CPP's bond covenants, requiring the utility's revenues to
exceed its expenses.

As a short-term solution, Bender said, he plugged the budget gap
by finding a legitimate power cost that had never been billed to
customers. And he bought the utility another four years of budget
stability by refinancing its debt, he said.
Bender said he advised Henderson and other high-ranking city
officials that CPP must either cut costs or ask council to approve
an increase in the base rate for power if the utility were to
survive in the long run.

But when those solutions ran their course, CPP reprised the
ecological adjustment.

In response to a written series of questions, filed in one of the
lawsuits, Henderson stated that Bender had violated the orders of
his immediate supervisors when he discontinued the fees.
Henderson also stated that CPP reinstituted the charges sometime
in 2016.

It's unclear exactly what expenses the most recent charges cover
or whether CPP has improved its accounting practices surrounding
the fees. City and utilities officials declined to answer those
questions and all others related to the fees, citing the pending
litigation.

But during a City Council Utilities Committee hearing in October
2015, Henderson and Utilities Director Robert Davis pledged to
reappear before council if they planned on reinstating the
ecological charges in the future. Davis went on to say that he
would not consider assessing the fees again until the class action
cases were resolved.

Well, did CPP notify council?
Whether the administration informed council that CPP had resumed
the fees is unclear.

Council President Kevin Kelley said he had not known that the
charges had been reinstated until a reporter told him.

"And I'm a little bit embarrassed," Kelley said. "Because I'm a
CPP customer, and I do look at my bills, and I had no idea that
charge was included."

But Kelley said February 22 that Utilities Committee Chairman
Terrell Pruitt recalls being notified, though Kelley was unable to
say how or when Pruitt received the notification. Pruitt, who did
not return a call for comment, spent half of last year on military
leave and returned earlier this month. And Henderson said in a
July deposition that, at that time, the fee still had not been
reinstated.

Councilman Brian Cummins, who serves on the Utilities Committee,
said he doesn't believe the administration addressed council about
the fee again.

"Obviously, based on what we know about the slim-to-none margin
between CPP's rates and those of FirstEnergy, it's no wonder why
CPP would be scrambling to recoup every penny possible," Cummins
said. "But if they've begun charging this hidden fee again without
informing council, it's extremely disappointing in light of the
outstanding lawsuit."

Davis and Henderson are scheduled to appear before council on
February 24, as part of a series of hearings on Mayor Frank
Jackson's proposed 2017 budget.

Internal memo casts doubt on fee's legality
Bender's initial inquiry into the legality of the fee was prompted
by two of the city's fiscal managers, Catherine Troy and Frank
Badalamenti.

In one memo that appears as an exhibit in the class action, Troy
points out to Bender that CPP had no process for reconciling the
amounts billed to actual expenses, even though the ordinance that
authorizes the utility to charge the fee specifies that the money
must be used to cover the "costs of special apparatus and
equipment required for compliance with Federal, State or City
environmental protection laws and directives."

Troy wrote: "When asked how CPP determines the charge on an
individual monthly basis, Commissioner stated they compared the
EAC [ecological adjustment charge] from the prior month and the
EAC from the same month, prior year. When asked for support of
this methodology, we have not been provided with written rationale
for this."

Troy went on to say that it's unclear whether CPP could bill for
labor under the ordinance, and if so, CPP provided no
documentation to justify the percentage of labor charged as an
ecological adjustment. She described erratic accounting practices
and the fact that CPP excluded the ecological adjustment
collections from its budget.

"No one takes ownership of the procedure," Troy wrote. "It is
unclear who was responsible for the calculation of this number on
a yearly basis. It seems the Commissioner is the only person that
decides this number each month, but has no formal procedure on how
it is determined."

Troy warned that if the charges are deemed to be illegal, CPP
would have to reduce its expected revenues and expenses to
continue to meet its debt obligations.


COMCAST CORP: Judge Dismisses Suit Due to Limited EEOC Charge
-------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Mersol  at JD Supra Business Advisor reports disparate impact
cases are different in kind from the far more common disparate
treatment claims that are the staple of single-plaintiff
discrimination cases. Disparate treatment claims, of course, are
ones in which an employee contends that he or she was treated less
favorably than others on account of a protected trait, such as
sex, race or color. Disparate impact claims not only involve
different allegations (generally a facially neutral policy that
has the effect of discrimination), but almost always require a
virtual classwide review of the facts and careful statistical
analysis.

Those differences proved fatal to the plaintiff's disparate impact
claims in the case of Spencer v. Comcast Corp., Civil Action No.
16-2589 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 17, 2017), because the plaintiff failed to
account for them in his charge before the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In Spencer, the plaintiff worked at
a call center for the defendant. In early March 2015, he received
a poor performance review for, among other things, communications,
interpersonal affect, cultural diversity and discriminating on the
basis of race. In response, he filed his own internal complaint
contending that he was himself a victim of race discrimination.
Shortly afterward, he was terminated for hanging up on a customer.

The plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC that
focused on his own individual claim, but also referred to lighter-
skinned African American or white employees who were not
terminated for similar offenses. After the EEOC issued its notice
of right to sue, he brought a proposed class action suit for,
among other things, disparate impact race discrimination under
Title VII. The defendant moved to dismiss because the allegations
were beyond the scope of the plaintiff's charge.

In ruling on that motion, the court noted the requirement that the
claimant file a charge with the EEOC and that the scope of any
Title VII litigation was limited to matters "which can reasonably
be expected to grow out of the charge." Quoting Ostapowicz v.
Johnson Bronze Co., 541 F.2d 394, 398-99 (3d Cir. 1976). Although
suits should not be limited by minor technicalities in completing
the charge (such as checking a box), the court found, the charge
should not only put the employer on notice of the claims against
it but also give the EEOC the opportunity to investigate and
attempt to conciliate the claims.

By that measure, the court found that the charge asserted
individual disparate treatment claims and was not sufficient to
preserve the right to assert disparate impact claims. The
plaintiff asserted that other documents should have placed the
employer and the EEOC on notice of wider-ranging claims, such as
the intake questionnaire and various requests for information. The
gist of this argument was that had the EEOC done further
investigation, it would have found that disparate impact claims
could be at issue. The court, however, largely rejected this
attempt to foist off the obligation to identify the claim to the
EEOC, and found that these unsworn documents were insufficient to
place the EEOC on notice that disparate impact claims were in
play. The court therefore dismissed the disparate impact claim.

The Spencer case serves as a reminder that disparate claims are
different from disparate treatment claims and that they should be
dismissed if the claimant has not sufficiently identified them in
the charge. Note as well that at the time of the court's ruling
the plaintiff's remaining claims for disparate treatment remained
pending and he was seeking class certification as to those claims.
Thus, while the court's ruling certainly limited the complaint, it
was not the end to either the underlying claims or to the
potential for class action treatment under another theory.

The bottom line: A claimant cannot rely on the EEOC to identify or
investigate disparate impact claims that are not disclosed in the
charge.


CRAZY HORSE: Appeals Decision in "Degidio" Suit to 4th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Crazy Horse Saloon and Restaurant Inc. filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Alexis Degidio v. CRAZY
HORSE SALOON AND RESTAURANT INC., Case No. 4:13-cv-02136-BHH, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina at
Florence.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Crazy Horse v. Alexis Degidio,
Case No. 17-134, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 15,
2017, Defendant Crazy Horse Saloon and Restaurant Inc., doing
business as Thee New Dollhouse, filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit.  That appellate case is assigned Case No.
17-1145.

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

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

               - and -

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

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

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

               - and -

          Thomas Christopher Tuck, Esq.
          RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
          1037 Chuck Dawley Boulevard
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464-0000
          Telephone: (843) 727-6500
          Facsimile: (843) 216-6509
          E-mail: ctuck@rpwb.com

               - and -

          James Lamar Ward, Jr., Esq.
          MCGOWAN HOOD & FELDER, LLC
          321 Wingo Way
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 388-7202


CRYPTSY: Class Action Lawyers Launch New Settlement Claims Site
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stan Higgins, writing for CoinDesk, reports that the legal team
behind the class action lawsuit against defunct digital currency
exchange Cryptsy has launched a new site in a bid to locate
potential claimants.

The site, CryptsySettlement.com, details the process by which
affected customers of the exchange can submit a claim or to
request an exclusion -- an option potentially preferred by those
hoping to launch their own litigation related to the exchange.
Potential claimants have until 17th May to file, with a fairness
hearing scheduled for 2nd June.

According to David Silver, one of the attorneys working on the
class action suit, the settlement fund has collected over $1m.  In
October, plaintiffs in the case settled with Lorie Ann Nettles,
the ex-spouse of CEO Vernon, who they claimed had benefited from
funds received during the operation of the exchange.

That said, any potential payout would need to be approved by the
court in Florida.  As the site statement explains:

"The Court in charge of this case still has to approve the
settlements with the Settling Defendants.  Payments will be made
if the Court approves the settlements and orders that the
settlement funds be distributed, and if any appeals of the Court's
approval of these settlements are resolved in Plaintiffs' favor.
Please be patient."

The launch comes more than a year after Cryptsy, following months
of growing complaints over site problems, withdrawal delays and
concerns about its insolvency, abruptly closed its doors after
claiming it had been hacked two years prior.  The class action
lawsuit was filed a day before Cryptsy shut down.

The situation became messier as the months progressed.  Court
documents obtained by CoinDesk indicated that Cryptsy's downfall
was foreseen by CEO Paul Vernon, who fled to China following the
collapse of the exchange.  In past comments to CoinDesk, Vernon
said that Cryptsy's insolvency was kept hidden to avoid a "panic".

In April, following a request from the class action plaintiffs, a
Florida court pushed Cryptsy into receivership, setting the stage
for customers to seek recourse for the funds they lost.

Settlement site aside, the legal process shows no sign of abating.
Late last year, the class action lawyers filed suit against
Coinbase, alleging that the digital currency exchange startup was
used to clear millions of dollars in illicit proceeds.


CUSTOMER SERVICE: Overtime Pay Sought in "Elliott" Labor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Elliott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Customer Service Quality Transportation, Inc., Case
No. 4:17-cv-00069, (E.D. Ark., February 2, 2017), seeks
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of Defendant's failure to
pay Plaintiff and all others similarly situated overtime wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act.

Defendant operates an automotive repair shop in Little Rock,
Arkansas where Plaintiff was employed as an auto mechanic.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steve Rauls, Esq.
      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AK 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      Email: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com
             josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


DOORDASH INC: Edwards Seeks 5th Cir. Review of S.D. Texas Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Dewey Edwards filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Dewey Edwards v. DoorDash, Incorporated, Case No.
4:16-CV-2255, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas, Houston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, lost wages, liquidated
damages, and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

DoorDash, Inc. is a food delivery service that allows customers to
place food orders, through a mobile phone application or through
its Web site, from various restaurants in the "DoorDash
marketplace."

The appellate case is captioned as Dewey Edwards v. DoorDash,
Incorporated, Case No. 17-20082, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant DEWEY EDWARDS, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Alfonso Kennard Jr., Esq.
          KENNARD RICHARD P.C.
          2603 Augusta Drive, 1450
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 742-0900
          Facsimile: (713) 742-0951
          E-mail: Alfonso.Kennard@KennardLaw.com

Defendant-Appellee DOORDASH, INCORPORATED, is represented by:

          Kerry E. Notestine, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          1301 McKinney Street
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 652-4748
          Facsimile: (713) 553-4599
          E-mail: knotestine@littler.com


DUPONT: Spelter Settlement Allocation Discussed at Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Harvey, writing for The Exponent Telegram, reports that how
best to spend the $600,000 left from a toxic waste property
cleanup settlement was the topic of a court hearing on Feb. 22.

The money is what's left of the $34 million that DuPont set aside
for home and property cleanup in northern Harrison County.

Those millions were used to check and clean homes for the presence
of toxic chemicals cadmium, arsenic, lead and zinc, all produced
by the Spelter smelter that was owned and operated by DuPont and
other companies over the years.

The settlement also cleaned up yards in the class action area.

Separately, DuPont agreed to a medical monitoring program for
members of the class action.  That settlement doesn't have a cap,
other than the fact it lasts 30 years.

However, while medical monitoring can and has helped residents
learn that they're ill with diseases tied to the chemicals emitted
by the plant, the settlement doesn't pay a penny toward their
treatment.

And that was a big reason why many -- perhaps all -- of the 10 to
15 residents from the Spelter area who showed up for the Feb. 22
court hearing are in favor of dividing the money among the
approximately 1,000 members of the class action.

Attorneys and class action Claims Administrator Ed Gentle have put
multiple scenarios forward for Harrison Chief Judge Thomas A.
Bedell to consider.

One would be to pay for a study of statistics already collected as
part of the medical monitoring program.

That study would be designed to dovetail the most recent science
involving health problems related to cadmium, arsenic, lead and
zinc, and the findings from the Spelter smelter medical monitoring
database.  The idea would be to better tailor testing for the
remainder of the medical monitoring program, which still has about
a quarter of a century remaining.

Farrest Taylor, the attorney from The Cochran Firm in Dothan,
Alabama, who was a leading figure on behalf of the class action,
is in favor of such testing.  He also mentioned the possibility of
spending some of the remaining money to provide incentives (such
as $25 meal vouchers) for class members to continue participating
in medical monitoring. Gentle has noted that medical monitoring
participation has fallen off dramatically since the initial
testing.

Meredith McCarthy, the area attorney who represents the children
in the case, also believes there should be a study conducted on
the results thus far from the Spelter-area medical monitoring
program.

James Arnold, a Charleston attorney representing DuPont, wasn't
ready to address whether such a study should be conducted, or how
it should be funded.  Mr. Arnold indicated the issue wasn't
properly before the court.  Detailed legal -- and medical --
analysis first should be provided, to "give the court some meat on
the bone to make a decision," he added.

Mr. Arnold did say, however, that DuPont wouldn't object to the
$600,000 being split up among the 1,000 class action members as
dividend checks. If that was done in equal amounts, it would
amount to about $600 per claimant, the court learned.

Spelter area residents offering comments to the court included
Helen McCullough, Mabel Kovar, and Albert "Bud" Sheaffer.  They
came down on the side of the entire $600,000 going to members of
the class action, although it's likely exactly how that should be
divided would cause some heated debate.  For instance, Sheaffer,
who worked in the smelter for 18 years and lived in Spelter all
his life, is clearly against those who most recently moved into
the area receiving any compensation.

And he believes the money also ought to stay with those closest to
the plant.  They were the ones most exposed to the toxins, and
they also have been the ones who have faced the most nuisance from
the property cleanup program that involved noise, vehicles and
other issues produced by construction.

The point also was raised that the cleanup likely was far from 100
percent successful, due to the topography of the Spelter area.
Short of moving everyone out and flattening the landscape, that
means toxins will remain, it was posited.  And it was argued that
could mean homes that were cleaned soon will be contaminated once
more as individuals track materials from unclean areas into their
homes.  So individuals closest to the plant should receive the
money, or at least most of it, it was argued.

Also speaking was Matt Shingleton, deputy chief for the Spelter
Volunteer Fire Department.  He thanked Mr. Bedell for giving the
department $40,000 to replace air tanks in the handling of a prior
surplus of $4 million.

On Feb. 22, Mr. Shingleton asked the court to consider giving the
department additional money toward payment of the nearly $300,000
it owes on its mortgage.  That might, in turn, free up the
department to buy a used tanker truck, Mr. Shingleton said, adding
that the northern part of the county doesn't have a tanker.

In the end, Mr. Bedell said he needs to first decide two
questions: Is a study of the medical monitoring database needed;
and if it is, who will pay for it?

Mr. Bedell raised the possibility that the cost of such a study
might fall to DuPont as part of what it agreed to in the medical
monitoring settlement.  That would leave the $600,000 to be spent
locally in some fashion.

Would DuPont ever willingly agree to such a study of the medical
monitoring results, much less want to underwrite it? It seems
unlikely, because it seems as though it could generate the
groundwork for personal injury lawsuits.

Mr. Bedell set a briefing schedule for the attorneys that will
push a final decision on the matter until at least mid-year.  Part
of the process will involve a panel of medical experts that's part
of the medical monitoring program setting forth the costs and
details of a review of data.

In dispensing of the prior $4 million surplus, Mr. Bedell set
aside about $250,000 to $300,000 for road repairs; additional
money for drainage remediation; the money for the fire
department's air tanks; and $4,000 checks cut to the about 1,000
families participating in remediation of the Spelter area.

The $600,000 -- and there may be even a little bit more than that,
Gentle indicated -- was what was left after the court's order was
followed.

Earlier in the case, a payout was made to members of the class
action on a prorated basis, with those living closest receiving
much more than those who were living farther away.


ECHOSPHERE LLC: "Inda" Suit Alleges Cal. Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL INDA individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. ECHOSPHERE, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00861 (N.D. Cal., February
21, 2017), alleges violation of the California Labor Code for
unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid meal period
premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, wages not timely paid upon
termination, non-compliant wage statements, and violation of the
California Business and Professions Code.

Defendants are the sales and distribution division of the business
entity EchoStar and distribute satellite television receiver
systems to a nation-wide network of retailers.  Defendants
employed Plaintiff DANIEL INDA as a non-exempt, hourly-paid Field
Service Technician.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew R. Bainer, Esq.
     THE BAINER LAW FIRM
     1901 Harrison St., Suite 1100
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Phone: (510) 922-1802
     Fax: (510) 844-7701
     E-mail: mbainer@bainerlawfirm.com


ELITE GUNITE: "Jalapa" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Carlos Jalapa, Angel Noguez, Martin Gomez, Joel Gomez,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals
Plaintiffs, v. Elite Gunite of Texas, LP, and Joel A. Martin
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00103, (N.D. Tex., February 2, 2017),
seeks unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees, and all
other relief permitted under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants are engaged in the business of pool construction where
Jalapa and Joel Gomez worked as drivers while Noguez and Martin
Gomez worked as pool finishers.

Defendants allegedly failed to keep proper records, and thus
failed to account for Plaintiffs' overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff M. Meyerson, Esq.
     Cole E. Gumm, Esq.
     THE MEYERSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
     2224 Walsh Tarlton Lane, Suite 120
     Austin, TX 78746
     Tel: (512) 330-9001
     Fax: (512) 330-9005
     Email: jeffm@meyersonfirm.com
            coleg@meyersonfirm.com


ESURANCE: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Overtime Wage Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Sacramento employment law lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik on Feb. 22 disclosed that they filed a class action
lawsuit alleging that Esurance Insurance Services failed to pay
their California hourly employees the correct amount of overtime
wages and allegedly failed to provide their California employees
with meal and rest periods in accordance with the California Labor
Code.  The Esurance Insurance Services class action lawsuit, Case
No. SCV0038790, is currently pending in the San Joaquin County
Superior Court for the State of California.

According to the Complaint Esurance allegedly paid their non-
exempt employees non-discretionary incentive wages based on their
performance for the company.  The class action lawsuit further
alleges the incentive wages earned by Esurance's employees should
have been included in the employees' hourly rates for the purposes
of paying their employees the correct overtime wages at the
correct overtime rates.  As a result of the allegedly illegal
overtime calculations conducted by Esurance, the class action
lawsuit claims other hourly employees working for the company in
California were also not correctly paid all their overtime wages.

Additionally, the lawsuit also seeks payment relating to alleged
missed meal and rest breaks because allegedly Esurance did not
have a policy to provide their hourly employees thirty (30) minute
uninterrupted meal breaks prior to their fifth (5th) hour of work.

If you would like to know more about the Esurance Insurance
Services lawsuit, please contact Attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw
today by calling (800) 568-8020.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is an employment law firm with
offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los
Angeles, Riverside and Chicago that dedicates its practice to
helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against
unfair business practices, including violations of the California
Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act.  If you need help in
collecting unpaid overtime wages, unpaid commissions, being
wrongfully terminated from work, and other employment law claims,
contact one of their attorneys today.


FACEBOOK INC: TCPA Case Ruling Blow to First Amendment Freedom
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Kidd, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a recent
decision by a federal court in California not to dismiss a
Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against Facebook is a blow
to First Amendment freedom, a TCPA defense attorney based in Costa
Mesa said during a recent interview.

"The ruling allows TCPA lawsuits to continue at a feverish clip
despite the ambiguity of the statute and its potential chilling
effect on speech," Eric Troutman -- troutman.eric@dorsey.com -- a
partner with Dorsey & Whitney, said during a Legal Newsline email
interview.

On Jan. 27, the U.S. District Court for California's Northern
District denied Facebook's motion to dismiss a putative class
action, Brickman v. Facebook.  The court reasoned that the
allegations plaintiff, Colin Brickman of Florida, made were
plausible.  Brickman alleges Facebook violated federal law when it
sent unauthorized text messages about the birthdays of his
Facebook friends.

Brickman maintains that Facebook needs permission to send those
texts and it never asked for his.

The class action is asking for up to $1,500 per text on behalf of
Brickman and other Facebook users.  That could possibly lead to
billions of dollars should the class action go through, Troutman
said in a recent article he wrote about the case.

In its motion to dismiss, Facebook claimed Brickman did consent to
receive the texts.  The court, in denying Facebook's motion, said
that the motion to dismiss was not the time to consider whether
there was consent and that, for now, the court will treat it as if
Brickman did not provide consent to receive text messages from
Facebook.

That decision seems to conflict with a prior ruling by the same
court on March 24 that Facebook's text messages do not fall under
the TCPA.  On that day in Duguid et al. v. Facebook, the court
granted Facebook's motion to dismiss after Facebook claimed
applying TCPA provisions to its text messages would be a clear
violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

In that motion, Facebook maintained its noncommercial speech
claims more protection under the Constitution than do commercial
calls, a claim the plaintiff in that case denied.

The conflicting Northern District rulings aside, Mr. Troutman said
there are other court rulings about the First Amendment and the
TCPA to consider.  For instance, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit has often acted to protect free speech, but it has
also upheld the TCPA over a First Amendment challenge.

"In doing so, however, it previously assumed that that the statute
was content-neutral and applied only intermediate scrutiny," Mr.
Troutman said.  "The district court found that the TCPA contains
content-specific exemptions that favor certain speakers and,
therefore, applied strict scrutiny.

"If the Ninth Circuit agrees with the district court that strict
scrutiny is the proper standard of review, it would be very
difficult for the appellate court to uphold the statute.  The TCPA
is vague and has been interpreted so broadly by the FCC that it
plainly prohibits more speech than necessary to achieve its
objectives."

An appeal would pose a real challenge for the Ninth Circuit,
Troutman said.

"On the one hand, the Court would likely not want to strike down a
statute that has already weathered so many constitutional storms
and has become a fixture in federal courthouses," he said.

"On the other hand, upholding the statute would seemingly
necessitate the application of a watered down version of strict
scrutiny -- not the sort of precedent the 9th Circuit would want
to create at a time when constitutional free speech protections
seem more important than ever."

Troutman declined to speculate about a possible Facebook appeal in
the Brickman case.

"I can't give a legal opinion on something as specific as whether
a party should appeal an adverse ruling," he said.

"But I will say the district court's finding that the TCPA is
'narrowly tailored' to accomplish its objectives is suspect and
the court's analysis of the issue was not particularly rigorous,
which is discordant with strict scrutiny review."


FACEBOOK INC: Wants to Appeal Birthday Text Class Action Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that Facebook is
asking a federal judge for permission to immediately appeal his
refusal to dismiss a class-action lawsuit accusing the company of
illegally sending people messages about their friends' birthdays.

"Reversal on appeal would likely result in the immediate
termination of the litigation, thus avoiding protracted class
action litigation," Facebook argues in papers filed with U.S.
District Court Judge Thelton Henderson in San Francisco.

The lawsuit dates to 2016, when Florida resident Colin Brickman
alleged in a class-action complaint that Facebook's birthday texts
violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits
companies from robo-texting people without their permission.

Facebook unsuccessfully asked Judge Thelton to dismiss the case
for several reasons, including that it has a free speech right to
send the texts.  Judge Thelton rejected that argument, ruling that
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act is constitutional because it
serves a "compelling government interest in promoting residential
privacy," and is neither too broad or too narrow to accomplish
that goal.

The social networking service also unsuccessfully argued that
Brickman's complaint didn't contain enough facts to show that the
company used an automated dialer to send the texts.

Judge  Thelton sided against Facebook, ruling that Brickman's
complaint "alleged exactly how Facebook's software determines who
to text, how it gathers the contact information needed to send out
texts, how it creates text messages, and how it sends them out,
all without human intervention."

Facebook argues in its most recent papers that it wants to appeal
on both of those issues.

"The appeal would resolve two major controlling questions that
would otherwise hang over the case through trial," Facebook
writes.  "It could thereby give both sides more clarity about the
likely outcome and promote the possibility of an earlier
resolution."

Alternatively, Facebook is asking Judge Thelton to stay the
lawsuit until another appellate court -- the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals -- has ruled on a separate dispute over robotexting.

Judge Thelton has directed Brickman's lawyers to respond to
Facebook's motion by March 3.


FAMILY PRIVATE: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Florida Record, reports that a
certified nurse's assistant for a Palm Beach County employer has
filed a class action over unpaid overtime allegations.

Kimberly Anspach filed a complaint on behalf of all others
similarly situated on Feb. 15 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach Division against
Family Private Care Inc. citing the Florida Minimum Wage Act and
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she worked
as a nurse's assistant for more than 40 hours per week but was not
paid any overtime compensation.  The plaintiff holds Family
Private Care Inc. responsible because the defendant allegedly
failed to pay minimum wage to the plaintiff or overtime
compensation at a rate of one-and-one-half of her regular pay.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks damages, unpaid
overtime wages, lost benefits, liquidated damages, all legal fees,
interest, and any other relief as the court deems just.  She is
represented by Neil B. Solomon -- nsolomon@mclaughlinstern.com --
Lee S. Shalov -- lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com -- Brett R. Gallaway
-- bgallaway@mclaughlinstern.com -- and Wade C. Wilkinson of
McLaughlin & Stern LLP in West Palm Beach.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, West
Palm Beach Case number 9:17-cv-80184-KAM


FERRARA CANDY: Faces "Iglesias" Suit Over Deceptive Labeling
------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS IGLESIAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. FERRARA CANDY CO., and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00849 (N.D.
Cal., February 21, 2017), alleges that Defendant intentionally
misleads and shortchanges consumers by falsely and deceptively
misrepresenting the amount of candy actually contained in each box
of Jujyfruits(R) brand candy products.

Ferrara Candy Company is a manufacturer of non-chocolate
confectionery, including gummies, chews and hard candy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
     Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq.
     Shalini M. Dogra, Esq.
     CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
     9255 Sunset Blvd., Ste. 804
     Los Angeles, CA 90069
     Phone: (213) 788-4050
     Fax: (213) 788-4070
     E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
             sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
             sdogra@clarksonlawfirm.com


FLOOR AND DECOR: Settles Mislabeling Class Suit for $14-Mil.
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ackerman at CBS Local reports a national home improvement
chain with locations in Colorado has settled a $14 million class
action lawsuit over claims it was acting unethically in the sale
of formaldehyde treated flooring. The lawsuit claims Floor and
Decor mislabeled flooring as complying with formaldehyde limits.

According to the National Cancer Institute, formaldehyde is a
known carcinogen and prolonged exposure to the chemical can cause
cancer. As part of the settlement, Floor and Decor did not admit
any fault and has always contended its products are safe.

But, former employees CBS4 spoke with aren't convinced.

"At best, this was deceptive to the public," said former Floor and
Decor employee Scott England. "This seemed to be very deceptive
behavior."

The behavior England is talking about was the relabeling of
Chinese-made laminate flooring when he worked as an assistant
manager at the Highlands Ranch Floor and Decor store in 2015.

"They simply needed to get this done as quickly as possible," said
England. He said the company reacted quickly after a bombshell 60
Minutes report about Lumber Liquidators, one of Floor and Decor's
competitors. The 2015 story claimed Lumber Liquidators was selling
laminate flooring that tested off the charts for formaldehyde
emissions.

Just days later, England said employees at his store were offered
unlimited overtime to black out the words "Made in China" and
"California 93120 Compliant for Formaldehyde" on laminate flooring
from China. He says they were instructed to replace the labels
with new ones with no mention of formaldehyde compliance.

After replacing the labels, England said they slashed prices on
the flooring by 60 percent.

"They fire saled it," he said. "They were just dumping this
material on the public."

What didn't sell quickly, England said was trashed.

"Thousands of square feet, palates of materials were thrown away."

Surveillance video England obtained from the Highlands Ranch
store, and shared with CBS4, shows workers disposing of products.

England said crews from out-of-state were brought in to dump any
remaining Chinese-made laminate flooring that had not sold.

An employee at Floor and Decor's Arvada store said the same
relabeling, repricing, and dumping happened there, too. She
requested her name not be used. The Arvada employee said she took
part in the relabeling because she was afraid she'd be fired if
she asked questions or refused to participate.

A former cashier -- who also did not want her name used -- told
CBS4 she was instructed to "redirect customers to a manager" or
tell customers "everything was ok," when people asked about
formaldehyde or the safety of the flooring. She said she "truly
thought she was lying to the customers" after witnessing the
relabeling of the products.

Receipts for the relabeled products -- obtained by CBS4 -- were
later changed to say, "May not meet California air Stnds".

At that point, England started asking pointed questions of his
bosses.

"If there is nothing wrong with these products, why are we
throwing it away? Shouldn't we be selling them?"

England said his bosses had no answer.

Later, England said he was fired for being late to work.

Floor and Decor has now settled a $14 million class action lawsuit
and wouldn't answer many of CBS4's specific questions about the
relabeling and the dumping.

The company issued this statement: In early 2015, Floor & Decor
re-labeled certain laminate flooring products to remove labels
referencing a standard applicable only to flooring sold in
California. Extensive independent testing of these products has
confirmed they were and are safe. Floor & Decor has an industry-
leading compliance program, utilizing independent, third party
inspectors and laboratories to ensure the safety and quality of
its products."

People who purchased Chinese made laminate from Floor and Decor
may be eligible for a cash reimbursement or store credit. Claims
must be postmarked by March 7, 2017.


FUKUSHIMA DAIICHI: Local Servicemen May Have Radiation Poisoning
----------------------------------------------------------------
Torrey Bailey at SD City Beat reports "Right now, I know I have
problems, but I'm afraid of actually finding out how bad they
really are," said William Zeller, a 33-year-old active-duty Navy
servicemember living in San Diego. He's one of the 4,500 sailors
who were aboard the USS Ronald Reagan during Operation Tomodachi,
a humanitarian aid mission sent to Japan the day after a tsunami
triggered the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear meltdown.

"I know there's something wrong," Zeller said. "I've got many
other people around me telling me I don't look good, and I need to
get checked out. While I am a workaholic, it's a distraction."
Zeller is only one of 318 sailors (and counting) who have joined a
billion-dollar class action lawsuit filed in 2012 against the
nuclear generators' operating company, Tokyo Electric Power
Company, or TEPCO, for injuries allegedly caused by radiation
exposure.

The lawsuit argues TEPCO is financially responsible for the
sailors' medical care because the operating company, admittedly,
did not inform the Japanese government of the meltdown. In turn,
the Japanese government unknowingly misinformed the U.S. Navy of
potential dangers of anchoring off the coast of Japan where the
ship was engulfed in a plume of radiation for several hours.
"Everywhere we went we had to carry [gas masks] on our hips,"
Zeller said. "We were turning on news networks, and we could see
how we were right in the plume. You could taste the metallic air."
In the six years since Fukushima, Zeller has only sought medical
attention from the Navy since the care is financially covered.
"The military health system is a process, putting it politely," he
said, explaining how it took four years to learn he had abnormal
bone growth, nerve damage and what he believes is irritable bowel
syndrome, all of which began a year after Operation Tomodachi. His
weight fluctuates 20 to 30 pounds within a month, and he's
unendingly fatigued.

"Before I went [on the USS Ronald Reagan], I used to be a martial
arts instructor," he said. "I used to go on regular bike rides. I
hiked. I was in very good shape. Now, I wear a breathing machine
when I go to sleep because I have respiratory problems. I
literally just go to work and go home now. I don't have the energy
or the pain threshold to deal with anything else."

Considering the Veterans Association's inability to treat members
in a timely or efficient manner, Zeller's lawyer, Paul Garner,
said VA care is not an option. Instead, they're hopeful that a
fund set up by former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi
will come to fruition.

Koizumi announced the creation of the fund while visiting 10
affected sailors, including Zeller, in San Diego in May. Koizumi
said he expects to raise $2 million by a March 31 cutoff date. The
plan is to then transfer the money to the U.S. to supplement the
sailor's medical bills at, according to Garner, some of the best
care centers across the country.
However, Garner knows $2 million won't be enough to cover every
need, especially since some sailors have reported symptoms
appearing in their children who were born after Operation
Tomodachi.

"I have no idea if it's caused by the radiation that I was exposed
to on the Reagan, but I don't know that it's not," said Jason F.,
who was also on board the USS Ronald Reagan but didn't want to
share his last name while he's still active duty. His breathing is
audible over the phone, as if climbing several sets of stairs, but
he's tucking his three-year-old daughter into bed at their San
Diego home.

"That's standard breathing for me," he said. "I don't know what to
do about it. She has difficulty breathing too," he said of his
daughter, who was born in 2013. "She snores like a grown man."
Jason is 36 years old, in shape, never smoked a day in his life
and didn't have trouble breathing until after his time on the USS
Ronald Reagan. His respiratory difficulties have aggrandized since
2011, peaking during a 2016 deployment where the doctors told him
the contrasting temperatures were to blame and gave him an inhaler
to puff on. It took a formal request to fly him off the ship to
receive medical treatment in Bahrain, where he was told he had a
60 percent chance of tuberculosis and a 40 percent chance of lung
cancer. He has since been diagnosed with asthma by an outside
specialist, although the treatments aren't working.

"It's difficult for them to figure out," Jason said. "I mean, how
many patients have they had that are exposed to radiation? And are
they trained for that?"

When Zeller mentioned radiation exposure to doctors at the Navy,
he said he was told it was interesting, if acknowledged at all.
Lung cancer is one of several cancers associated with high
radiation exposure, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission website, as well as leukemia, which several sailors
have been diagnosed with. Bloody noses, rectal and gynecological
bleeding, weakness and ulcers, are also symptoms reported by the
sailors and are signs of radiation poisoning, according to the
Scripps Health website.

In 2014, the Department of Defense published a report
acknowledging that radiation exposure can cause such medical
issues, but that the exposure levels were too low and the symptoms
appeared too soon to make a connection.
While Zeller and Jason hope for financial support either from
Koizumi's fund or by winning the lawsuit, they want support for
the others affected.

"I'm experiencing symptoms, but it's not just for me," Zeller
said. "It's for the individuals who are way worse than me and to
bring attention to them . . .  They have tumors, cancers, birth
defects in their children, some individuals have mass muscle
fatigue where their entire half of their body isn't functional
anymore, and they are stuck in wheelchairs. I am currently on the
better end."
The sailors are waiting for a decision from the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals determining whether the lawsuit will continue in the
United States or in Japan, if at all.

In January, TEPCO urged the court to dismiss the case, citing that
it is a political matter that could impact international
relations.

Jason said the lawsuit is about more than money, specifically when
it comes to his daughter's future.

"I just want accountability," he said. "I want her taken care of.
Whatever that takes."


FULL-TILT POKER: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Ofgang, writing for Metropolitan News-Enterprise, reports
that the Court of Appeal for this district on Feb. 21 affirmed
dismissal of a suit by a pair of poker players who claim they were
mistreated by an operator of online poker games.

Div. Seven, in an unpublished opinion by Los Angeles Superior
Court Judge Virginia Keeny, sitting on assignment, held that Los
Angeles Superior Court Judge Elizabeth White did not abuse her
discretion in dismissing the action by Lary Kennedy and Greg
Omotoy for failure to prosecute.

Mr. Kennedy, a professional player, and Mr. Omotoy sued Full Tilt
Poker; its then-parent company Tiltware, LLC; its then-chief
executive, Raymond Bitar; and a number of others, including
prominent professional players associated with the company, in
2009.

The original complaint included fraud and racketeering causes of
action; the plaintiffs accused the defendants of making false
promises in order to induce them to play.  The alleged falsehoods
included assertions that the defendants' operations did not
include gambling, that it did not allow computer "robots," or
bots, to play; and that players are treated "fairly and
consistently in accordance with the highest standards of the poker
community."

Mr. Kennedy also pled a cause of action for defamation, saying she
had been falsely accused of using a robot of her own and that
$80,000 had been confiscated from her account based on the
accusation.

The plaintiffs also sought restitution to themselves and all
similarly situated players under the Unfair Competition Law.

Removal to Federal Court

The case was removed to federal district court, where the judge
eventually dismissed the racketeering claim without prejudice for
failure to state a cause of action, declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction, and remanded the case to the state
court, where the defendants demurred to the then-operative
pleading, the second amended complaint.

Judge David L. Minning sustained the demurrer with leave to amend
most of the putative causes of action.  The plaintiffs later moved
to file a third amended complaint, eliminating Full Tilt Poker as
a defendant -- on the ground that it was not a legal entity and
lacked capacity to be sued -- while eliminating causes of action
based on fraud and adding claims under the RICO Act and the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Class Claims

The RICO and CLRA claims, among others, were pled on behalf of a
class.  When Judge Minning questioned the class action
allegations, plaintiffs' counsel responded that they were based on
new facts, and that counsel intended to add several additional
defendants, based on a civil suit that the federal government had
filed against many of the same defendants in the Southern District
of New York.

(That action was later settled without an admission of liability.)

Judge Minning denied the motion to amend, saying the case had
grown from a "give me my money back type of case . . . into what
now appears to be a national class action or potentially national
class action" that "doesn't even sound like the same case
anymore."  The proposed new allegations, he suggested, were more
appropriately sued upon in a separate action.

Judge Minning said the plaintiffs could file a motion for leave to
file a third amended complaint, limited to curing the deficiencies
he had identified in the previous pleading.

The plaintiffs then dismissed all of their claims other than for
libel, and filed a class action complaint in federal district
court.  They argued they should be permitted to reopen the
previously dismissed RICO action because of "Judge Minning's
ability to handle the complexities of the case, but the judge said
they had misconstrued Judge Minning's comments, and that any
prejudice they had suffered was "entirely of their own making."

The judge stayed the action to avoid the possibility of a result
that might conflict with whatever decision was reached in the
government's then-pending action in New York.

The state action subsequently landed in front of White, after the
case was deemed related to a later-filed action, and a party in
that action filed a Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 170.6 declaration
against Judge Minning.

At a July 2013 status conference, White noted that the plaintiffs
had not filed a motion for leave to file the third amended
complaint, pursuant to Judge  Minning's order of nearly two years
earlier, and ordered them to show cause why the action should not
be dismissed for failure to prosecute, under the discretionary
two-year dismissal statute.

A month later, she ruled that the plaintiffs had been given
"abundant opportunity to amend" by both Judge Minning and the
federal judge, and dismissed the case.  The plaintiffs later moved
for a new trial based on irregularity in the proceedings, under
Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 657(1), saying their attempts to
amend "were illegally refused or struck by the court" and that an
automatic bankruptcy stay as to defendant Erik Lindgren precluded
the case from proceeding.

That motion was denied.

Judge Keeny, writing for the Court of Appeal, said the Lindgren
bankruptcy stay had no effect on the proceedings because Lindgren
didn't assert it and nobody else had standing to.

She also reiterated the federal judge's comments, saying Judge
Minning did not reject the proposed third amended complaint
because of any perceived inadequacies on his part, but because he
believed the case would be unmanageable with the addition of the
new allegations and new parties.

Those concerns were reasonable, Judge Keeny said, and justified a
denial of leave to amend, notwithstanding the principle that such
leave should be granted liberally.

Cyrus Sanai represented the plaintiffs on appeal.  Erik L. Jackson
-- ejackson@cozen.com -- and Nathan Dooley -- ndooley@cozen.com --
of Cozen O'Connor represented most of the defendants; however
Maurice Suh -- msuh@gibsondunn.com -- and
Jay Srinivasan -- jsrinivasan@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher represented Phil Gordon and Craig N. Hentschel --
chentschel@dykema.com -- and Vivian I. Kim of Dykema Gossett,
represented Perry Friedman.

The case is Kennedy v. Ferguson, B253090.


GLOBAL EAGLE: April 24 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Global Eagle Entertainment Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Central District of California, and docketed under 17-cv-
01479, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Global Eagle securities, seeking
to recover compensable damages caused by defendants' violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Global Eagle securities
between July 27, 2016 and February 17, 2017, both dates inclusive,
you have until April 24, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as
Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the Complaint can be
obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss this action,
contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

Global Eagle provides content, connectivity, and digital media
solutions for travel industry worldwide. The Company operates
through two segments, Connectivity and Content.

On July 27, 2016, Global Eagle announced that it had completed its
previously announced acquisition of Emergency Markets
Communications ("EMC"), a communications services provider to
maritime and hard-to-reach land markets.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that:  (i) Global Eagle was unable to timely and properly account
for the EMC acquisition; (ii) consequently, the Company lacked
effective internal controls over financial reporting; and (iii) as
a result, Global Eagle's financial statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On February 21, 2017, pre-market, Global Eagle announced that the
Company's Chief Executive Officer David M. Davis and Chief
Financial Officer ("CFO") Thomas E. Severson Jr. had resigned from
their positions with the Company. Concurrently, Global Eagle
announced that it expected to file its Annual Report for fiscal
year 2016 after the March 16, 2017 U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission deadline, citing the Company's "increased size and
complexity" after its acquisition of EMC, as well as "its need to
transition the finance department after the prior CFO's departure
and its need to complete additional financial-closing procedures
associated with the Company's material weaknesses in internal
control over its financial reporting."

On this news, Global Eagle's share price fell $1.74, or 27.97%, to
close at $4.48 on February 21, 2017.

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


GLOBAL FITNESS: Supreme Court Won't Review Settlement Dispute
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fola Akinnibi, writing for Law360, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court will not review a settlement dispute in a consumer class
action suit against a fitness company, it said in a Feb. 21 order,
putting to bed claims that a Sixth Circuit decision opened the
door for collusion between class counsel and defendants.
In a Feb. 21 order list, the high court denied certiorari in a
settlement dispute brought on by Joshua Blackman and Robert and
April Zik, objectors to the settlement in a consumer class action
against Global Fitness Holdings LLC.  The court did not provide an
explanation for the denial in its Feb. 21 order.

The objectors were challenging the Sixth Circuit's May ruling that
said they did not demonstrate that the settlement was unfair or
that legal counsel's $2.39 million fees were disproportionate to
the claims paid.

Adam E. Schulman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center
for Class Action Fairness, an attorney for Blackman, told Law360
on Feb. 21 that they were disappointed by the ruling.  He added
that because of a circuit split on the matter, it is likely to
appear again before the court.

"We're obviously disappointed that they didn't grant cert this
time," he said.  "We'll probably be bringing similar cases to
their attention in the future."

Representatives for the settling members and Global Fitness did
not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The case involves challenges to the settlement of a consumer class
action that was filed against Global Fitness by Amber Gascho and
other plaintiffs.  They alleged that between 2006 and 2012, the
company sold gym memberships and incorrectly charged fees
pertaining to cancellation, facility maintenance and personal
training contracts, according to the Sixth Circuit.

Counsel reached a settlement in the case in September 2013, after
more than two years of litigation that included extensive
discovery, with the approved settlement class consisting of 49,808
gym members out of approximately 606,246 people who signed a gym
membership or personal training contract with Global, the judges
said.

Of a $15.5 million proposed award to class members, the actual
payout came to $1.59 million, according to the Sixth Circuit.
Class members who filed approved claims received $5, while some
received additional claim awards ranging from $15 to $30 depending
on their fees and contracts with Global Fitness, for a maximum
per-person recovery of $75, the Sixth Circuit said.

In October, a coalition of 17 state attorneys general, led by
Arizona's Mark Brnovich, filed an amicus brief in support of the
objectors.

The state officials argued that class action attorneys' fees
should be paid only in proportion to the amount consumers actually
collect in the deal, as demanded by the Seventh Circuit. In the
Global Fitness case, the attorneys negotiated a settlement fund of
$15.5 million and their $2.39 million fee was based on the entire
fund.  However, the consumers ended up taking home only $1.6
million, thanks to the claims process, with the remaining 90
percent returning to the fitness company.

They added that the May ruling creates a situation where class
counsel and defendants can collude to the detriment of consumers,
the brief said.  It also urged the high court to take on the case
because of the circuit split, which would allow forum shopping by
class counsel to the detriment of consumers.

Mr. Blackman is represented by Adam E. Schulman of the Center for
Class Action Fairness and Theodore J. Froncek.

Robert and April Zik are represented by Joshua T. Rose of Hummel
Coan Miller Sage & Rose LLC, Gregory A. Belzley and Ronna Lucas.

Amber Gascho is represented by Joanne S. Beasy --
jbeasy@isaacwiles.com -- Mark D. Landes -- mlandes@isaacwiles.com
-- Gregory M. Travalio -- gtravalio@isaacwiles.com -- Mark H.
Troutman and Christopher J. Wagner of Isaac Wiles Burkholder &
Teetor LLC and by Thomas N. McCormick, William G. Porter II --
wgporter@vorys.com -- and Kenneth J. Rubin --
tnmccormick@vorys.com -- of Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease.

Global Fitness is represented by Dan L. Cvetanovich --
dcvetanovich@baileycav.com -- and Sabrina C. Haurin --
shaurin@baileycav.com -- of Bailey Cavalieri LLC, by Richard S.
Gurbst of Squire Patton Boggs LLP, by Brandon McGrath --
bmcgrath@bgdlegal.com -- of Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP, by
Douglas R. Cole -- drcole@organcole.com -- and Erik J. Clark --
ejclark@organcole.com -- of Organ Cole LLP and by Matthew A.
Kairis -- makairis@jonesday.com -- and Alexis J. Zouhary of Jones
Day.

The case is Blackman v. Gascho et al., case number 16-364, in the
Supreme Court of the United States.


GLOBAL TEL LINK: "Lee" Suit Seeks Initial OK of Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ALICE LEE, et al, the Plaintiffs, v. GLOBAL
TEL LINK CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-02495-ODW-
PLA (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

      "all persons using and/or subscribing to a mobile telephone
      number to which a Notification Call was placed during the
      Class Period".

   2. appointing Plaintiff as the representative of the Class and
      appointing Class Counsel;

   3. preliminarily approving an Agreement as fair, reasonable,
      and adequate;

   4. approving and directing the parties to provide notice and
      receive claims from Class Members, consistent with the
      Agreement;

   5. setting deadlines for Class Members to opt out and object,
      for Plaintiff and his counsel to file their application for
      attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards, and for the
      parties to file for final approval of the settlement; and

   6. scheduling a final approval hearing.

Under the proposed settlement:

   1. Defendant will pay $8,800,000 into a common fund.
      Settlement Class members who submit a claim will receive a
      pro rata share of the balance of that amount after payment
      of notice and administration costs, any Court ordered award
      of attorney's fees and expenses, and any Court ordered
      incentive award for Plaintiff.

   2. Defendant will also change its practices to include in all
      Notification Calls an interactive-voice and/or key-
      activated opt-out mechanism that the called party may use
      to opt-out of all future Notification Calls and a toll-free
      number that the called party may call to opt out of all
      future Notification Calls.

Defendant provides certain collect-call telephone services to
inmates at jails and prisons throughout the country, which require
the called party to establish a billing relationship with
Defendant in order to pay for and receive calls from an inmate.
When an inmate attempts to place a collect call to a telephone
number for which there is no pre-established billing relationship,
the inmate's call attempt will trigger a separate prerecorded
Notification Call from Defendant that tells the called party that
an inmate is trying to reach him or her and that an account must
be set up to receive and pay for that call.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fyugnkB5

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patric A. Lester, Esq.
          LESTER & ASSOCIATES
          E-mail: pl@lesterlaw.com
          5694 Mission Center Road, No. 385
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 665 3888
          Facsimile: (314) 241 5777

               - and -

          Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD
          55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          E-mail: TSostrin@KeoghLaw.com


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Sues Two Plaintiffs' Attorneys
----------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reports that Geico sued two
plaintiffs' attorneys in Pennsylvania federal court on Feb. 21,
alleging they obtained confidential information in discovery in a
putative class action against the insurer and tried to use it to
get a leg up in a similar suit against Geico rival United Services
Automobile Association, exposing Geico's trade secrets.

In the complaint filed in Pennsylvania's Eastern District, the
Government Employees Insurance Co. and a host of its subsidiaries
accuse Scott P. Nealey of the Law Office of Scott P. Nealey,
Stephen M. Hansen of Law Offices of Stephen M. Hansen and
employment litigation expert witness Bernard Siskin of BLDS LLC of
misappropriating the insurance company's trade secrets, and for
the attorneys, of doing so to unjustly enrich themselves.

Geico contends that Messrs. Nealey and Hansen represent named
plaintiffs Megan Stone and Christine Carosi in a putative class
action in Washington federal court accusing the insurer of
breaching its insurance agreements by shorting insureds on the
value of the loss of the use of their vehicles after accidents.

In the course of that lawsuit, the plaintiffs moved to remand the
suit to Washington State Superior Court -- and in opposition Geico
submitted a declaration from David Antonacci, a supervisor in its
claims department, that contained details about Geico's claims
management system, its average claim payouts, its claims handling
procedures, and the numbers of certain claims it received during a
period of time, according to Geico's complaint.

"Mr. Antonacci's declaration contained information that Geico
strives to keep confidential and from which Geico derives
independent economic value," Geico alleged.  "If a competitor were
to discover information regarding the ways Geico tracks
information relating to the handling of claims, the number of
particular types of claims during a specific time period or the
average amounts Geico paid relating to specific types of claims
during a specific time period, that competitor could use the
information for its own economic benefit and to Geico's economic
detriment."

Because of the sensitive nature of the information in the
declaration, Geico first obtained a stipulated protective order
covering confidential information in the Stone class action, and
then filed two copies of the declaration -- a heavily redacted
public filing, and the complete version, filed under seal, with
the words "Filed Under Seal" stamped in conspicuous red font on
its first page, according to Geico's complaint.

Geico alleges that two days after the filing, however, the
attorneys took that declaration to use in another lawsuit in which
they represented plaintiffs bringing a class action against an
auto insurance company -- in this case, named plaintiff David and
Marissa Turk's suit against United Services Automobile Association
and its affiliates.

The suit further alleges that the attorneys gave the declaration
to their class certification expert, Siskin, and that while Mr.
Nealey deposed Mr. Siskin, with USAA counsel present, the duo
produced the Antonacci declaration, with the "Filed Under Seal"
mark removed.

Geico's suit seeks a permanent injunction barring the use of its
misappropriated trade secrets, compensatory damages, and damages
for any unjust enrichment the attorney defendants' may have
obtained by using the Antonacci declaration, as well as double
exemplary damages.

Mr. Hansen and representatives for Messrs. Nealey and Siskin did
not immediately respond to requests for comment on Feb. 22.

Geico is represented by Nicholas M. Centrella --
ncentrella@conradobrien.com -- and Andrew K. Garden --
agarden@conradobrien.com -- of Conrad O'Brien PC and Dan W.
Goldfine -- dgoldfine@lrrc.com -- Bruce E. Samuels --
bsamuels@lrrc.com -- and Jared L. Sutton -- jsutton@lrrc.com -- of
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP.

Counsel information for the defendants was not immediately
available on Feb. 22.

The case is Government Employees Insurance Co., et al. v. Scott P.
Nealey, et al., case number 2:17-cv-00807 in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


HAMILTON PAINTING: Class Certification Partly Granted in "Rowe"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled GREGORY ROWE, CODY PILKINTON, the
Plaintiffs, v. CRAIG HAMILTON, d/b/a HAMILTON PAINTING, the
Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-03259-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Roseann
A. Ketchmark entered an order:

   1. granting in part Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
      certification and notification of all putative class
      Members; and

   2. denying Plaintiffs' request to approve the proposed notice
      and consent subject to resubmission.

The Court directed the parties to confer regarding objections to
the proposed notice and consent within seven days from the date of
this order. The Plaintiffs shall submit a revised proposed notice
and consent with an explanation of any remaining issues consistent
with the order within 14 days from the date of this Order.
Hamilton may file a response and/or alternative proposal within
seven days from the date of Plaintiffs' submission. In addition to
filing proposals with the Court, the parties are directed to e-
mail proposals to my Courtroom Deputy,
latandra_wheeler@mow.uscourts.gov, in MS Word format.

Hamilton shall provide Plaintiffs' counsel with the full names and
last known addresses for all current and former employees employed
by Hamilton as painters from three years prior to September 16,
2016. Hamilton shall provide this information within 14 days from
the date of this Order and shall provide Plaintiffs' counsel with
an electronic copy of the information.

The opt-in period for individuals to join the class shall be 60
days from the date Plaintiffs' counsel mails the notice and
consent forms. Plaintiffs are not permitted to send a reminder
notice. The Plaintiffs' counsel that are currently listed as
counsel on the Electronic Court Filing System are authorized to
act as interim class counsel.

The Court finds Plaintiffs have presented at least a modest
factual showing that Plaintiffs and the putative class members
were victims of a single decision, policy, or plan, ruled Judge
Ketchmark.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=L8iqk3xh


HARDEE'S RESTAURANTS: Settles Hepatitis A Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The following release was issued on Feb. 21 by The Notice Company,
Inc.:

A Settlement has been reached in the lawsuit entitled Cody
Werkmeister v. Hardee's Restaurants, LLC, Case No. 2015-CP-42-
3982, pending in the Court of Common Pleas in the Seventh Judicial
Circuit Court of Spartanburg County, South Carolina, concerning
alleged exposure to the Hepatitis A virus.

What is This Case About?

On September 18, 2015, the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control ("Health Department") announced that
customers who ate at two Hardee's Restaurants in Spartanburg
County might have been exposed to the hepatitis A virus ("HAV").
One restaurant location was at 12209 Greenville Highway in Lyman,
South Carolina, and the second location was at 1397 East Main
Street in Duncan, South Carolina.  The Health Department
recommended that persons who ate at either the Hardee's Restaurant
in Duncan between September 4 and 13, 2015 or the Hardee's
Restaurant in Lyman between September 4 and 15, 2015, be
vaccinated.  These time periods are referred to as the "Exposure
Period".

Who is Included in the Settlement?

Included in the Settlement are all persons who:

(1) consumed food or drink between September 4 and September 13,
2015, at the Hardee's Restaurant located in Duncan, South
Carolina, or between September 4 and September 15, 2015, at the
Hardee's Restaurant located in Lyman, South Carolina, and
(2) subsequently obtained a Hepatitis-A Virus ("HAV") vaccination,
an immune globulin ("IG") shot, or HAV blood test within thirty
days after eating at these Hardee's Restaurant locations, but in
no event later than October 15, 2015.

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
has not provided notice that any persons developed HAV infections
after consuming food or drink at these Hardee's Restaurant
locations during these time periods; such persons, if any, are
excluded from the class.  Employees of Hardee's Restaurants are
also excluded from the class.

What Does the Settlement Provide?

Each member of the Settlement Class who submits a timely,
qualified claim will share equally in the aggregate Class Award of
$500,000.00.

How Do You Make a Claim?

To make a claim, you must submit a Claim Form so that the Claims
Administrator receives it no later than March 30, 2017.  If you
did not receive a Claim Form in the mail, you can obtain a Claim
Form online at www.SpartanburgHepa.com, by calling 1-800-352-1270,
or by writing to the Claims Administrator at:

Spartanburg Hep-A Class Action
c/o The Notice Company
P. O. Box 455
Hingham, MA 02043

Who Represents You?

The Court has appointed Marler Clark, LLP, PS, as the Class
Counsel.  Class Counsel will receive as attorneys' fees 25% of the
amount paid to the entire Settlement Class for general damages, or
what is awarded by the Court, whichever is less.  The defendant,
Hardee's Restaurants, LLC, will pay the determined Class Counsels'
fees and costs.  The Class Award of $500,000.00 will not be
reduced by these attorneys' fees and costs.

What Are Your Options?

Submit a Claim:  If you want to participate in the Settlement and
receive a portion of the Class Award, you must make a claim as
described above.

Exclude Yourself:  If you do not want to be legally bound by the
Settlement, you must exclude yourself in writing by sending a
written request for exclusion to the Claims Administrator so that
it is postmarked by March 30, 2017, or you will not be able to
sue, or continue to sue, Hardee's Restaurants, LLC, about the
legal claims in this case.  An exclusion request must include your
name and address, state "I request exclusion from the Hardee's
HEP-A Settlement in Spartanburg County, SC", be signed by you or
your legal representative, and be mailed to:

         Spartanburg Hep-A Class Exclusions
         c/o The Notice Company
         P.O. Box 455
         Hingham, MA 02043

If you exclude yourself you may not submit a Claim Form and you
will not be entitled to share in the Class Award.

Object:  If you stay in the Settlement Class, you may object to
the Settlement by filing with the Court, with copies to Class
Counsel and to counsel for Hardee's Restaurants, LLC, a notice of
intent to appear and/or object, no later than March 30, 2017.

         Court Address:
         The Court of Common Pleas of Spartanburg County
         180 Magnolia Street
         Spartanburg, SC 29306

         Class Counsel Address:

         William D. Marler, Esquire
         MARLER CLARK, L.L.P., P.S.
         1012 First Avenue, Fifth Floor
         Seattle, WA 98104-1008

         Defendant's Counsel Address:
         Kenneth W. Ward, Esq.
         TRAMMELL, ADKINS & WARD, P.C.
         P.O. Box 51450
         Knoxville, TN 37950-1450

The Court of Common Pleas of Spartanburg County will hold a Final
Approval Hearing at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, April 17, 2017, at 180
Magnolia Street, Spartanburg, SC 29306.  At the hearing, the Court
will consider whether the proposed settlement should be granted
final approval as fair, adequate, and reasonable, and in the best
interests of the Settlement Class as a whole.  The Parties will
request that the Court enter a Final Approval Order. You may
attend this hearing if you wish, but you are not required to do so
in order to participate in the Settlement.

This Notice is only a Summary. To obtain a copy of the detailed
Notice of Settlement, you may visit www.SpartanburgHepa.com, call
1-800-352-1270 or write to the Claims Administrator at the above
address.  You may also write to Class Counsel.

PLEASE DO NOT DIRECT QUESTIONS TO THE COURT


HERSHEY CO: Faces Class Action Over Jolly Rancher Slack Fill
------------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
California man is suing Hershey, alleging fraud and unfair
competition.

David Greenstein filed a complaint Dec. 21 in Los Angeles County
Superior Court against The Hershey Company and Does 1-5, alleging
they packed their products with 50 percent non-functional slack
fill.

According to the complaint, in August, Greenstein purchased Jolly
Rancher candies that contained in excess of 50 percent non-
functional slack fill.  The plaintiff alleges the defendants
packaged their product in such a way that consumers could not tell
that the bag has at least 50 percent none-functional slack fill.

Greenstein seeks trial by jury, to enjoin the defendant,
injunctive relief, actual damages, restitution, court costs and
all further relief the court grants. He is representing himself.

The defendant removed the case to U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on Feb. 13.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number 2:17-cv-01152-GW-JPR


HOLLYWOOD STYLE: Faces "Heres" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
ISAAC G. HERES and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff (s), v. HOLLYWOOD STYLE INC, ALBERT SETTON and
SAMUEL ANIDJAR, individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-60378-
WPD (S.D. Fla., February 21, 2017), seeks to recover from
Defendants half time overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
and costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Corporate Defendant HOLLYWOOD STYLE is a retail store specializing
in selling beach outfits, related articles, souvenirs, and
novelties. Defendant caters mostly to tourists and beachgoers.
Plaintiff was hired as a full-time store attendant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Phone: (305) 446-1500
     Fax: (305) 446-1502
     E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


HOSPITALITY VENTURES: Faces "Kelly" Suit Under FLSA, NC Law
-----------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON KELLY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. HOSPITALITY VENTURES LLC, d/b/a UMSTEAD
HOTEL AND SPA, NC CULINARY VENTURES LLC, d/b/a AN ASIAN CUISINE,
SAS INSTITUTE INC., and ANN GOODNIGHT, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-
cv-00098-FL (E.D.N.C., February 21, 2017), was brought to recover
alleged unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and all related penalties and damages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The case also alleges invalid
and/or unauthorized deductions from wages, payment of all owed and
promised wages, and for other relief as appropriate, under the
North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

An Asian Cuisine is an extension of Defendant Umstead Hotel and
Spa, offering customers a fine dining experience with authentic
Asian cuisine. Defendant SAS Institute Inc. is an American
multinational developer of analytics software based in Cary, North
Carolina.  Named Plaintiff worked as an hourly server for
Defendants, waiting on customers and providing diners with upscale
service and a fine dining experience.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
     Michael B. Cohen, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
     1020 Southhill Dr., Ste. 130
     Cary, NC 27513
     Phone: (919) 741-8693
     Fax: (919) 869-1853
     E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
             mcohen@gildahernandezlaw.com


HUMANA INC: Wants Home Health Aides' OT Wage Class Action Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alana Stramowski, writing for Home Health Care News, reports that
from the pause of the federal overtime rule to putting an end to
overtime for home care workers in Illinois, overtime has been a
hot topic in the last year.  Insurance provider Humana Inc. is now
feeling the sting as a lawsuit asking for class certification
could potentially impact thousands of home health aides employed
by the company's subsidiaries across the country.

The company urged a Connecticut federal court to deny class
certification to two home health aides who filed a lawsuit
claiming they were shorted overtime pay while working for a
subsidiary of Louisville, Kentucky-based Humana, according to
court documents.

The plaintiffs, Daverlyn Kinkead and Grenesha Upton, are seeking
unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and an enjoinder that would
force Humana to pay overtime to thousands of home health aides.

Kinkead and Upton are seeking class certification on behalf of
current and former Humana home health workers employed between
January 2015 and October 2015, according to the complaint.

However, Humana is opposing the certification, and states the
motions presented by Kinkead and Upton rest on two flawed factual
assumptions, court documents show.

First, the plaintiffs argued that the certification should be
granted because Humana had a national, uniform policy of
improperly classifying all home health aides as exempt from
overtime.

Second was the argument that the certification should be granted
because everyone who was classified as exempt worked more than
forty hours, but didn't get overtime pay and is owed overtime.

Both of these assumptions are false, the court documents say.

"Plaintiffs have no evidence to explain to the court or rebut
these legally significant distinctions, and do not present
evidence which otherwise binds these disparate populations," the
document says.  "Plaintiffs' burden for conditional certification
may be 'modest,' but plaintiffs' scant evidence that is specific
to just two employees and two Humana subsidiaries fails to justify
national conditional certification."

It is also noted that Humana and Humana At Home are parent
companies of multiple subsidiaries around the country and do not
employ home health aides directly.

If certification is granted by the court, the company stresses
that the class should be limited to home health aides employed by
only the two subsidiaries of Humana by which the plaintiffs were
employed.

Humana's home care sector has seen ups and downs, from increasing
its home care bandwidth in the form of a 2015 acquisition to most
recently laying off 500 workers from its home care unit, Humana At
Home.


IDENTIV INC: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Cunningham" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Thomas Cunningham filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Thomas Cunningham v. Identiv, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-05775-CRB, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District
Judge Charles R. Breyer granted the Defendants' separate motions
to dismiss the complaint.

The case is a putative securities fraud class action based on
alleged corporate excess at Identiv, Inc. pursuant to Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Court
appointed Thomas Cunningham as lead plaintiff. In May 2016,
Cunningham filed the FAC on behalf of "himself and all other
similarly situated purchasers" of Identiv securities during the
Class Period.

The appellate case is captioned as Thomas Cunningham v. Identiv,
Inc., et al., Case No. 17-15220, pending before the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by March 6, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on April 3, 2017;

   -- Appellant Thomas Cunningham's opening brief is due on
      May 15, 2017;

   -- Appellees Jason Hart, Identiv, Inc. and Brian Nelson's
      answering brief is due on June 15, 2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant THOMAS CUNNINGHAM, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG, LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
          Phong L. Tran, Esq.
          JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
          600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Personal: 619-230-0063
          Telephone: (619) 230-0063
          Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
          E-mail: frankj@johnsonandweaver.com
                  PhongT@johnsonandweaver.com

Defendant-Appellee IDENTIV, INC., is represented by:

          Ryan Fawaz, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          695 Town Center Drive, 17th Floor
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 641-1100
          E-mail: ryanfawaz@paulhastings.com

               - and -

          Christopher H. McGrath, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          4747 Executive Drive
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 458-3000
          E-mail: haroldmcgrath@paulhastings.com

Defendant-Appellee JASON HART is represented by:

          Robert P. Varian, Esq.
          ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
          405 Howard Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 773-5700
          Facsimile: (415) 773-5759
          E-mail: rvarian@orrick.com

Defendant-Appellee BRIAN NELSON is represented by:

          Sara Beth Brody, Esq.
          Nicole Marie Ryan, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 California Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104-1715
          Telephone: (415) 772-1200
          Facsimile: (415) 772-7400
          E-mail: sbrody@sidley.com
                  nicole.ryan@sidley.com


ILLINOIS: "Heritage" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled HERITAGE OPERATIONS GROUP, LLC, et al., the
Plaintiffs, v. FELICIA F. NORWOOD, in her official capacity as the
Director of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family
Services, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-10614 (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of:

   "all disabled and/or medically needy persons who require long
   term care at a skilled nursing facility and have received
   nursing care at a skilled nursing facility managed and
   operated by Heritage Operations Group, LLC, who are eligible
   for Medicaid and who submitted Medicaid applications and
   either 1) have not received a determination on their
   application by Defendant within forty-five days of submitting
   their application, or 2) who were approved for Medicaid
   benefits, and who have not received payment for their nursing
   care within 12 months of the date that benefits were approved
   to begin".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1ilT0q0d

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Katie Z. Van Lake, Esq.
          SB2, INC.
          1426 N. 3rd Street, Suite 200
          Harrisburg, PA 17102
          Telephone: (516) 509 1289
          Facsimile: (717) 909 5925
          E-mail: kvanlake@s-b-b.com


INTERCONTINENTAL CAPITAL: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a Canyon Country man alleges a real estate company unlawfully
called him to solicit its services.

Robert Bohlke filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on Feb. 15 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against Intercontinental Capital Group Inc.
and Does 1 through 10 alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that beginning
in May 2016, he suffered damages from receiving several unwanted
calls on his cellular telephone from the defendant in an attempt
to solicit its services.  The plaintiff holds Intercontinental
Capital Group Inc. and Does 1 through 10 responsible because the
defendants allegedly used an automatic dialing system to place
calls.  The plaintiff also alleges his number is listed on the
National Do-Not-Call Registry.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks $500 in statutory
damages, $1,500 in statutory damages, injunctive relief and any
other relief as the court deems just.  He is represented by Todd
M. Friedman, Adrian R. Bacon and Meghan E. George of Law Offices
of Todd M. Friedman P.C. in Woodland Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 2:17-cv-01240-ODW-AFM


JANKI HOSPITALITY: "Baltazar" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premiums
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carmela Baltazar, individually, and as the class representative of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Janki Hospitality Inc.
and Mukund D. Patel, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00304, (M.D.
Fla., February 8, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
monies due and owing, liquidated damages, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.

Baltazar was employed by Defendants as a housekeeper/maid from
approximately March 2014 until present, cleaning rooms, laundry
service and light maintenance.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter L. Tragos. Esq.
      TRAGOS, SARTES & TRAGOS, PLLC
      601 Cleveland Street, Suite 800
      Clearwater, FL 33755
      Phone: (727) 441-9030
      Facsimile: (727) 441-9254
      Email: pctertragosfibgreeklaw.com
             linda@greekIaw.com


JOIE DE VIVRE: Faces "Cornelius" Suit Under FLSA, Cal. Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------
SAMANTHA CORNELIUS, an individual, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. JOIE DE VIVRE HOSPITALITY, LLC,
a Delaware corporation; COMMUNE HOTELS AND RESORTS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; COMMUNE SERVICES, LLC, a
California limited liability company; THE SAGUARO PALM SPRINGS, a
business form unknown; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01399 (C.D. Cal., February 21, 2017),
was filed over the defendants' alleged systematic illegal payroll
practices and policies.

The case accuses Defendants of failing to provide PLAINTIFF and
purported CLASS MEMBERS with proper meal periods by not providing
any meal period at all (including second meal periods after ten
hours of work) or authorizing and permitting meal periods that
were less than 30 minutes, late (starting after the end of the
fifth hour of work or after the end of the tenth hour of work), or
interrupted; failing to provide proper rest periods by not
providing any rest periods at all or providing rest periods that
were less than 10 minutes, late, or interrupted; failing to pay
one hour of pay at each employee's regular rate of compensation
for missed meal and rest periods; failing to pay for all hours
worked and for hours worked off the clock, including overtime
compensation; and failing to provide accurate itemized wage
statements as a result of the meal period, rest period, and
overtime violations. These alleged illegal practices and policies
were applied to PLAINTIFF and purported CLASS MEMBERS in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, the
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission wage order, and the
California Business and Professions Code which prohibits unfair
business practices arising from such violations.

Joie de Vivre Hospitality operates boutique hotels. PLAINTIFF was
employed by DEFENDANTS as a non-exempt front office host at
DEFENDANTS' hotel in Palm Springs, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel J. Bass, Esq.
     Tagore Subramanian, Esq.
     Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
     MATERN LAW GROUP
     1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 200
     Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
     Phone: 310.531.1900
     Fax: 310.531.1901
     E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
             tagore@maternlawgroup.com
             dbass@maternlawgroup.com


JOLI VENTURES: "Anderson" Labor Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Anderson, individually, and as the class representative of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Joli Ventures, Inc.,
Clearwater Beach Treats, LLC, John Sgro and Lisa Sgro, Defendants,
Case No. 8:17-cv-00303, (M.D. Fla., February 8, 2016), seeks
unpaid overtime wages, monies due and owing, liquidated damages,
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants operated two Dairy Queen locations in Pinellas County,
Florida where Anderson was employed as a fast food worker from
approximately April 16, 2015 until January 19, 2017, serving food,
cleaning facilities, customer service and cashiering.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter L. Tragos, Esq.
      TRAGOS, SARTES & TRAGOS, PLLC
      601 Cleveland Street, Suite 800
      Clearwater, FL 33755
      Phone: (727) 441-9030
      Facsimile: (727) 441-9254
      Email: petertragos@greeklaw.com
             linda@greeklaw.com


L3 TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $84-Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Newsham at Law360 reports that military contractor L3
Technologies Inc. will pay $34.5 million to settle accusations by
shareholders that its statements leading up to the disclosure of
an $84 million accounting error amounted to securities fraud, and
their lawyers will seek up to a quarter of that amount in fees,
according to papers filed in New York federal court on February
22.

The lawsuits accused L3 of issuing figures over the first half of
2014 that lowballed expenses and led net income numbers to drop
significantly, largely because workers who serviced C-12 aircraft
for the U.S. Army were pressured to fudge their work forecasts
upward to cover up cost overruns. The company failed to get the
suit tossed last year and has fought over discovery for the past
several months.

Lead counsel Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP said in filings that
it would seek up to 25 percent of the settlement fund, or $8.6
million, in legal expenses, plus $600,000 in costs. The firm said
the figure was justified, given the class hadn't been certified
and L3 still had defenses in its arsenal that could have swayed a
jury, including an expert who said the accounting misconduct
didn't boost the company's stock price.

"Here, lead counsel obtained a settlement that represents
approximately 26 percent of lead plaintiffs' expert's estimate of
the maximum provable damages," the plaintiffs said.

"This percentage far exceeds the median recovery in similar
securities class actions settled in 2016. In fact, the median
settlement as a percentage of ... investor losses of $100 million
to $199 million, where this case falls, was 3.2 percent from 1996
through 2016," they added, citing a report by the consulting firm
NERA.

L3, which previously went by L-3 Communications Holdings Inc., was
hit by several suits shortly after it disclosed accounting
misconduct in its aerospace systems segment, which accounts for
more than a third of its revenue. Heads rolled at the company and
its stock dropped 12 percent on the day the matter was disclosed.

According to the court's dismissal decision, the plaintiffs based
their suit on testimony from former employees who said they were
pressured to increase their estimates of engines to overhaul on
Army aircraft. Although U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni threw
out the case against several senior employees and said the suit
against L3 remained "fragil[e]," resting on vague and unexplained
allegations, she allowed it to go forward.

A spokeswoman for the company declined to comment on the
settlement on February 23. David Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in an email
that he was pleased with the deal.

The investors are represented by Samuel Rudman --
Samueld@rgrdlaw.com --, David Rosenfeld -- davidr@rgrdlaw.com --
Alan Ellman -- alane@rgrdlaw.com -- and Ellen Gusikoff Stewart --
elleng@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Thomas
Michaud -- tmichaud@vmtlaw.com -- of Vanoverbeke Michaud & Timmony
PC, and Cynthia J. Billings -- cbdunn@swappc.com -- of Sullivan
Ward Asher & Patton PC.

L-3 is represented by Paul Curnin -- Paul.Curnin@stblaw.com --
Michael Garvey -- Michael.Garvey@stblaw.com -- and David Elbaum --
david.elbaum@stblaw.com -- of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

The consolidated case is Patel et al. v. L-3 Communications
Holdings Inc. et al., case number 1:14-cv-06038, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Pompano Police Fund Appeals "Fosbre" Suit Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiffs Pompano Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement
System and Alaska Electrical Pension Fund filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the consolidated securities lawsuit titled FRANK
J. FOSBRE, JR., et al. v. LAS VEGAS SANDS CORPORATION, et al.,
Case No. 2:10-cv-00765-APG-GWF, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada, Las Vegas.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Andrew
P. Gordon issued an order:

     (1) granting the defendants' motions for summary judgment,

     (2) denying as moot the defendants' motion to exclude
         testimony,

     (3) denying the plaintiffs' motion to strike reply, and

     (4) granting the plaintiffs' motion to file supplement.

Las Vegas Sands Corporation (LVS) operates resorts and gaming
properties in Las Vegas, Macao, and Singapore.  The plaintiffs
contended they purchased LVS stock at artificially high prices
between August 2, 2007 and November 5, 2008 because during that
period LVS allegedly made various false and misleading public
statements about its development plans and liquidity.  The
plaintiffs brought claims under section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against defendants LVS,
Sheldon Adelson, and William Weidner, and under section 20(a) of
the Act against Adelson and Weidner for "control person"
liability.

The appellate case is captioned as Pompano Beach Police &
Firefighters' Retirement System, et al. v. Las Vegas Sands
Corporation, et al., Case No. 17-15216, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by March 6, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on April 3, 2017;

   -- Appellants Alaska Electrical Pension Fund and Pompano Beach
      Police & Firefighters' Retirement System's opening brief is
      due on May 15, 2017;

   -- Appellees Sheldon G. Adelson, Las Vegas Sands Corporation
      and William P. Weidner's answering brief is due on June 15,
      2017; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants POMPANO BEACH POLICE & FIREFIGHTERS'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM and ALASKA ELECTRICAL PENSION FUND, Lead
Plaintiffs, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated, are represented by:

          Spencer A. Burkholz, Esq.
          Christopher Dennis Stewart, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-742
          E-mail: spenceb@rgrdlaw.com
                  cstewart@rgrdlaw.com

Defendants-Appellees LAS VEGAS SANDS CORPORATION and SHELDON G.
ADELSON are represented by:

          James Ducayet, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1 South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
          E-mail: jducayet@sidley.com

               - and -

          Akke Levin, Esq.
          Steve Morris, Esq.
          MORRIS LAW GROUP
          300 South Fourth Street
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Telephone: (702) 474-9400
          E-mail: al@morrislawgroup.com
                  sm@morrislawgroup.com

Defendant-Appellee WILLIAM P. WEIDNER is represented by:

          Daniel Scott Carlton, Esq.
          Sarah Elisabeth Kelly-Kilgore, Esq.
          William Francis Sullivan, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          515 South Flower Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 683-6113
          Facsimile: (213) 996-3113
          E-mail: scottcarlton@paulhastings.com
                  sarahkellykilgore@paulhastings.com
                  williamsullivan@paulhastings.com

               - and -

          Tamara Beatty Peterson, Esq.
          PETERSON BAKER, PLLC
          10001 Park Run Drive
          Las Vegas, NV 89145
          Telephone: (702) 786-1001
          Facsimile: (702) 786-1002
          E-mail: tpeterson@petersonbaker.com


LINCARE INC: Wins Partial Summary Judgment in "Culley"
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Morrison C. England of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, in the case
CHRISTINA CULLEY, Plaintiff, v. LINCARE INC.; ALPHA RESPIRATORY
INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, No. 2:15-cv-00081-MCE-CMK
(E.D. Cal.).

Defendants Lincare Inc. and Alpha Respriatory Inc. employed
Christina Culley as a Healthcare Specialist from September 2010
through September 2015.  Lincare Inc. paid Culley on an hourly
basis, and she received a bonus as additional compensation.  In
addition to eight-hour shifts, Culley was also expected to be on-
call certain evenings and weekends to handle customer issues that
cropped up outside regular business hours.  Culley worked as a
non-exempt employee and claims she was entitled to overtime pay
and meal and rest breaks.

Culley alleges various employment claims under California law
against Lincare and Alpha Respriatory.  Culley originally
initiated the action in state court on October 21, 2014, and the
defendants subsequently removed the case to the Eastern District
of California.  Two months later, on December 15, 2014, the
Plaintiff sent a letter to California's Labor and Workforce
Development Agency ("LWDA"), notifying the LWDA of Alpha's alleged
labor violations.  On January 21, 2016, Culley filed a First
Amended Complaint to include her PAGA claims.

On August 10, 2016, the court certified plaintiff's two proposed
classes, defined as: (1) all individuals who are or previously
were employed by defendants as nonexempt employees during October
21, 2010, to the present (the Class Period), for (a) failure to
pay overtime wages under the UCL and California Labor Code section
510 (the overtime claim), and (b) failure to put in place a lawful
meal period policy applicable up to the change in policy occurring
in October 2014 under the UCL (the meal period claim), and (2) a
subclass of Healthcare Specialist and Service Representative
employees for failure to pay reporting time wages under the UCL
(the reporting time claim).

The Defendants moved for partial summary judgment seeking to
dispose of several issues, including the scope of the relevant
California laws and the calculation of damages under those laws,
prior to trial.

Judge England granted in part and denied in part the defendants'
motion for summary judgment.

The Defendants' motion regarding reporting time pay is granted.
Judge England held that the Plaintiff's claims fail to the extent
they allege a provision of two hours' pay is required when an
employee does not physically report for work.

The Defendants' motion regarding second meal breaks is granted,
after the Court concluded that the Plaintiff's claims fail to the
extent they allege a second meal break is required separate and
apart from a break between two work periods that cumulatively
result in a work day of ten or more hours.

The Defendants' motion regarding the plaintiff's claim that her
regular rate of pay should have included her bonus in calculating
overtime pay is denied.  Defendants' motion regarding plaintiff's
claims premised on California Labor Code Section 256 is granted.
Plaintiff's Section 256 claims fail. Defendants' motion regarding
PAGA's statute of limitations is granted in part. Plaintiff's PAGA
claims are time-barred as to any alleged labor code violations
that occurred prior to December 15, 2013. Defendants' motion
regarding defendants' meal time policy change is granted.
Plaintiff may not pursue PAGA claims for meal time violations that
occurred after defendants' October 2014 policy change due to the
failure to provide adequate notice under California Labor Code
Section 2699.3(a)(1)(A).7. Defendants' motion challenging the
sufficiency of plaintiff's notice under California Labor Code
Section 2699.3(a)(1)(A) to pursue the civil penalties set out in
California Labor Code Section 558 is denied. Defendants' motion
regarding whether plaintiff can recover civil penalties under
California Labor Code Section 2699(f) for wage statement
violations is granted. Plaintiff may not recover such civil
penalties. Defendants' motion regarding statutory remedies and
civil penalties for meal time violations is denied. For meal time
violations, plaintiff can seek both the statutory remedy provided
in Section 226.7 as an individual and the civil penalties defined
in Section 558 under PAGA. Defendants' motion regarding
plaintiff's claims under California Labor Code Section 203 for
nonpayment of wages premised on a failure to pay meal time
penalties is granted. Plaintiff may not pursue such claims.
Defendants' motion regarding plaintiff's claims under California
Labor Code Section 226 for wage statement violations premised on a
failure to pay meal time penalties is granted. Plaintiff may not
pursue such claims. Defendants' motion regarding plaintiff's
attempt to recover interest under California Labor Code Section
218.6 for failure to pay meal time penalties is granted.
Defendants' motion regarding the ability to recover underpaid
wages pursuant to PAGA is granted. Any recovery of underpaid wages
pursuant to PAGA shall only be sufficient to recover those wages
once, taking into consideration any and all recovery plaintiff
ultimately obtains. Defendants' motion regarding the availability
of civil penalties under Section 558 is denied. Plaintiff may
collect reporting time pay and meal period premium wages as a
civil penalty under Section 558.15. Defendants' motion regarding
plaintiff's claims under California Labor Code Section 1198 is
granted.

A copy of Judge England's memorandum and order dated February 21,
2017, is available at https://goo.gl/3akMQX from Leagle.com.

Christina Culley, Plaintiff, represented by Norman Blumenthal --
norm@bamlawca.com -- Aparajit Bhowmik -- aj@bamlawlj.com --
Ruchira Piya Mukherjee -- piya@bamlawlj.com -- Victoria Bree
Rivapalacio -- victoria@bamlawca.com -- at Blumenthal Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik

Defendants, represented by David Cheng -- dcheng@fordharrison.com
-- Todd S. Aidman -- taidman@fordharrison.com -- Alexandria M.
Witte -- awitte@fordharrison.com -- at Ford & Harrison LLP


MASTERCARD INC: NRF, RILA Want Swipe-Fee Settlement Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------
Convenience Store News reports that as retailers fight to keep
debit card swipe-fee reform in place, they are also keeping an eye
on a class-action settlement over credit card fees that was struck
down in the courts.

The National Retail Federation (NRF) and the Retail Industry
Leaders Association (RILA) have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to
let stand an appeals court ruling that struck down a 2012
settlement of a class action lawsuit over Visa Inc. and MasterCard
Inc.'s credit card swipe fees.

"This alleged 'settlement' was a backroom deal that would have
done nothing to end price fixing or keep swipe fees from soaring
in the future," NRF Senior Vice President and General Counsel
Mallory Duncan said.  "Even worse, it includes a provision that
would keep merchants from ever suing over this issue again.  The
Circuit Court did the right thing in tossing this case out and it
should not be revived.  There are ways to bring swipe fees under
control but this settlement is not one of them."

According to Mr. Duncan, this is not just a business-to-business
dispute.  "These fees drive up the price of retail merchandise,
costing the average family hundreds of dollars a year in added
expenses," the executive added.

SETTLEMENT TOSSED

In late June, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York
threw out the $7.25-billion antitrust settlement among Visa,
MasterCard and millions of retailers over credit card fees.  In
the move, the federal appeals court said some of the retailers
were inadequately represented in the litigation, as CSNews Online
previously reported.

It also decertified the case as a class action.

The court's decision overturned a July 2012 agreement that settled
claims that the credit card companies overcharged merchants on
swipe fees -- also known as interchange fees. U.S. District Judge
John Gleeson in Brooklyn, who has since left the bench, had
approved the settlement in 2013.

The settlement had been the largest all-cash antitrust accord in
U.S. history.  One class of merchants that accepted Visa or
MasterCard from January 2004 to November 2012 was to share up to
$7.25 billion, while a second class accepting the cards from then
on was to get injunctive relief in the form of rule changes.

But many retailers objected, saying the settlement, among other
things, forced members of the second class to give up their right
to sue over various policies and practices.

Writing for the appeals court, Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs said
the two classes should not have been represented by the same
lawyers, who were awarded $544.8 million in fees.  He said the
lawyers suffered from a "fundamental conflict," having been in
position to negotiate terms that could simultaneously benefit one
class and harm the other.

"We have reason to think that that occurred here," and in the end
"sapped class counsel of the incentive to zealously represent" the
class obtaining injunctive relief, Judge Jacobs said.

RETAILERS REJECTION

According to NRF, Judge Gleeson approved the settlement even
though the organization and others argued that it failed to reform
the price-fixing system under which Visa and MasterCard set fees
for credit cards issued by thousands of banks.

Rather than lower the fees, the card companies proposed in the
settlement that they be passed along to consumers as a surcharge.
Major retailers rejected the surcharge proposal, saying it was the
opposite of what they sought, while small retailers would have
seen as little as a few hundred dollars each.

Retailers who rejected the monetary settlement would still have
been bound by other restrictions the court would not let them opt
out of, including a prohibition on future lawsuits over the fees,
according to NRF.

In 2014, NRF asked the 2nd Circuit to overturn the settlement,
saying a broad cross section of the retail industry ranging from
independent Main Street stores to national chains opposed the
deal.

"The settlement itself achieved nothing important for merchants
that accept credit cards, which is why every prominent group that
represents merchants has opposed it," NRF and RILA said in a joint
brief filed Feb. 21 with the Supreme Court.  "This deal is a bad
one, unworthy of resuscitation."


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Dismissal of "Shadow Insurance" Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Archer at Law360 reports the Second Circuit affirmed on
February 23 the dismissal of a proposed policyholder class action
against Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. and AXA Life Insurance Co.
over "shadow insurance" transactions, saying the plaintiffs failed
to allege injury.

The panel found that neither the policyholder claims of New York
state insurance law violations nor the arguments of increased
risks of unpaid claims and future loss of benefits were sufficient
to give them Article III standing.

"Like appellants' 'increased risk' claim, any injury for a
possible inability of AXA and MLIC to fully pay out the life
insurance and annuity rider claims in the future is speculative
and hypothetical," the panel said in its summary order.

The policyholders contend that AXA's and MetLife's use of captive
reinsurance -- dubbed "shadow insurance" in a scathing report from
state regulators -- runs afoul of a New York insurance law
provision barring insurers from lying about their financial
stability or reserve system.

The suits came in the wake of a 2013 report from the New York
State Department of Financial Services finding that some New York-
based life insurers were creating subsidiaries to reinsure their
claims, allowing the parent insurers to artificially reduce the
amount of capital they were required to hold and putting their
policyholders -- and the entire financial system -- at risk.

While a lower court found a lack of injury meant there was no
standing to sue, the policyholders argued that they suffered harm
because they face an increased risk of nonpayment in light of the
decreased capital buffers and that New York insurance law
specifically provides a private right of action for policyholders
to sue insurers who misrepresent their financial condition.

The insurers argued that the policyholders had failed to establish
they had sustained the injuries required to have standing, and the
panel agreed, saying they had failed to show the
misrepresentations alleged in the state law claim caused them to
purchase the policies.

"Appellants also fail to allege, or even suggest, that consumers
generally would not have purchased AXA's and MLIC's life insurance
and annuity riders had they known about the alleged shadow
insurance practices," they said.

The panel also dismissed the claim that the plaintiffs' future
benefits would be put in jeopardy by an economic downturn as "too
far down the speculative chain."

"Such an economic downturn is not only speculative itself but also
simply the first of many necessary conditions that must be
fulfilled (including a bank lender of a letter of credit refusing
to renew its outstanding LOCs to the reinsurer or, alternatively,
the parent company or the New York Department of Financial
Services pressuring AXA or MLIC not to draw down the available
LOC) in order for the risk appellants posit to cause them harm,"
they said.

Counsel for the plaintiffs, AXA and MetLife did not immediately
respond to requests for comment on February 23.

Judges John M. Walker Jr., Rosemary S. Pooler and Barrington D.
Parker sat on the Second Circuit panel.

The plaintiffs are represented by Timothy W. Burns --
TBurns@perkinscoie.com -- David J. Harth -- dharth@perkinscoie.com
-- Jeff J. Bowen -- JBowen@perkinscoie.com -- Freya K. Bowen --
FBowen@perkinscoie.com -- Eric D. Miller --
EMiller@perkinscoie.com -- of Perkins Coie LLP, Edward W. Ciolko -
- eciolko@ktmc.com -- of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP and
Glen L. Abramson -- gabramson@bm.net -- of Berger & Montague PC.

AXA is represented by Brad S. Karp, Bruce Birenboim --
bbirenboim@paulweiss.com  --, Elizabeth M. Sacksteder --
esacksteder@paulweiss.com -- and Justin D. Lerer --
jlerer@paulweiss.com -- of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison
LLP. MetLife is represented by Patrick J. Gennardo --
Patrick.Gennardo@denrons.com and Sandra D. Hauser --
Sandra.Hauser@dentons.com of Dentons.

The cases are Jonathan Ross et al. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance
Co., case number 15-2665; Calvin W. Yarbrough v. AXA Equitable
Life Insurance Co., case number 15-3553; Maria Del Carmen Robainas
et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., case number 15-3504;
and Mark Andrew Intoccia Sr. et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Co., case number 15-4189; all in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.


MILWAUKEE: Police Faces Class Action Over Stop-and Frisk Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Hensley, writing for New York Daily News, reports that the
Milwaukee Police Department will need to defend its controversial
use of stop-and-frisk policies in light of a class-action lawsuit
lodged by the American Civil Liberties Union, according to a
report.

The nonprofit is representing Charles Collins, 67, and numerous
others in the Wisconsin city, with a class-action case accusing
the police force led by Chief Edward Flynn of racially profiling
with quotas.

In an interview with Reason magazine, Mr. Collins cited one
instance in 2014 when an officer pulled him over just to see his
driver's license and check for weapons.

"We're not the ticket police," the officer reportedly told
Mr. Collins when asked if he had been speeding.

Mr. Collins claims Milwaukee police have stopped him without
probable cause countless times.  Mr. Flynn has overseen the
department since 2008.

"As a brother or black man living in Milwaukee, it's not an
unusual thing," Mr. Collin told Reason.  "When I leave my home, I
leave with apprehension. Not that it's in your face, but it's
there. I feel there's a good possibility that I'll get shot or
pulled over."

"It's in me, you know what I'm saying? I can feel it."

A teen boy is among the policy's challenges.  He claims he has
been stopped by Milwaukee cops three times -- once as a fifth-
grader, again in seventh grade and most recently while walking to
his high school.  The lawsuit, expected to be filed as early as
Feb. 22, will detail a pattern of abuse with its "high-volume,
suspicionless stop-and-frisk program," court documents state. The
city has already faced dozens of lawsuits challenging police
tactic.

The lawsuit comes on the heel of the ACLU scoring a large round of
donations while battling the Trump administration's travel ban.
Its attorneys will claim that Milwaukee's policy violates Title VI
civil rights, the Fourteenth Amendment and Fourth Amendment
protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

New York City has led the way in bringing down stop-and-frisk
practices.

In 2013, a federal judge found the NYPD's use of stop-and-frisk in
predominantly black and Latino communities unconstitutional. Cops
have conducted more than five million impromptu street
interrogations since 2002, according to the New York Civil
Liberties Union.

The ACLU lawsuit will allege that Milwaukee's use of the NYPD's
CompStat to monitor crime statistics has fueled a quota among
officers, according to Reason.

High-profile minority deaths, such as Eric Garner in NYC and
Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., at the hands of law enforcement
has created a heightened awareness of police abuse of power and
sparked the Black Lives Matter movement.

A police shooting in Milwaukee sparked two nights of violent
unrest in 2016.

Former police officer Dominique Heaggan-Brown fatally shot the
gun-toting Sylville Smith, 23, after he fled traffic stop.  The
rookie cop was fired from the Milwaukee department following
sexual assault claims.  A man told police Heaggan-Brown raped him
after a drunken night at a bar, watching the fiery riots on TV.

He was later charged with reckless homicide in Smith's death.  He
allegedly fired the fatal shots after Smith was disarmed.


MORTON COUNTY, ND: Dundon, et al. Files Appeal to 8th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Vanessa Dundon, Mariah Marie Bruce, David Demo, Guy
Dullknife III, Frank Finan, Israel Hoagland-Lynn, Noah Michael
Treanor, Crystal Wilson and Jade Kalikolehuaokal Wool filed an
appeal from a court order denying their motion for preliminary
injunction entered on February 7, 2017, in the lawsuit styled
Vanessa Dundon, et al. v. Kyle Kirchmeier, et al., Case No. 1:16-
cv-00406-DLH, in the U.S. District Court for the District of North
Dakota - Bismarck.

Kyle Kirchmeier is the Sheriff of Morton County, North Dakota.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief arising from
curtailment of their First and Fourth Amendment rights.

On November 20, 2016, the Plaintiffs gathered to pray and to
peacefully protest the continued construction of Dakota Access
Pipeline and the ongoing blockage of the public highway 1806.
Police officers from the Morton County Sheriff's Department, City
of Mandan Police Department and Stutsman County Sheriff's
Department deployed teargas and fired water cannons to disperse
them.

The appellate case is captioned as Vanessa Dundon, et al. v. Kyle
Kirchmeier, et al., Case No. 17-1306, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript is due on or before March 21, 2017;

   -- Appendix is due on March 31, 2017;

   -- Brief of Appellants Mariah Marie Bruce, David Demo, Guy
      Dullknife III, Vanessa Dundon, Frank Finan, Israel
      Hoagland-Lynn, Noah Michael Treanor, Crystal Wilson and
      Jade Kalikolehuaokal Wool is due on March 31, 2017;

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

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants Vanessa Dundon, Jade Kalikolehuaokal Wool,
Crystal Wilson, David Demo, Guy Dullknife, III, Mariah Marie
Bruce, Frank Finan, Israel Hoagland-Lynn and Noah Michael Treanor,
on behalf of themselves and all similarly-situated persons, are
represented by:

          Alexsis Beach, Esq.
          Rachel Lederman, Esq.
          RACHEL LEDERMAN & ALEXSIS C. BEACH, ATTORNEYS
          558 Capp Street
          San Francisco, CA 94110
          Telephone: (415) 282-9300
          Facsimile: (510) 596-9296
          E-mail: rlederman@2momslaw.com
                  rachel@bllaw.info

               - and -

          Melinda Power, Esq.
          WEST TOWN LAW OFFICE
          2502 W. Division Street
          Chicago, IL 60622
          Telephone: (773) 278-6706
          Facsimile: (773) 278-0635
          E-mail: melindapower@comcast.net

               - and -

          Lauren C. Regan, Esq.
          CIVIL LIBERTIES DEFENSE CENTER
          783 Grant Street, Suite 200
          Eugene, OR 97402
          Telephone: (541) 687-9180
          Facsimile: (541) 804-7391
          E-mail: lregan@cldc.org

Defendants-Appellees Kyle Kirchmeier, Morton County, City of
Mandan, Jason Ziegler, Stutsman County and Chad Kaiser are
represented by:

          Randall J. Bakke, Esq.
          Shawn A. Grinolds, Esq.
          Bradley Neuman Wiederholt, Esq.
          BAKKE GRINOLDS WIEDERHOLT ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          300 W. Century Avenue
          P.O. Box 4247
          Bismarck, ND 58502-4247
          Telephone: (701) 751-8188
          Facsimile: (701) 751-7172


MURPHY PAINTERS: Faces "Laferte" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO LAFERTE, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. MURPHY PAINTERS, INC. and GERALD MURPHY,
Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-60376-BB (S.D. Fla., February 21,
2017), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation, as
well as an additional amount as liquidated damages, costs, and
reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendant is a painting and construction company.  The
Plaintiff was employed by Painters as a painter and driver for the
business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
     SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
     20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: (305) 503.5131
     Fax: (888) 270.5549
     Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


NEW MIAMI, OH: Speed Camera Case Lawyers Seek $300,000 Interest
---------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Callahan, writing for Journal-News, reports that lawyers
for drivers in the New Miami speed camera case not only want the
village to settle immediately, but they also now want more than
$300,000 in interest.

One of the speeders' attorneys, Josh Engel, said interest on the
unconstitutional fines has been calculated at $355,613, so the
total amount owed now is $3.4 million.

Mr. Engel called on the village to quickly end the four-year
battle over speed cameras.

"We will be asking the court to order New Miami to immediately pay
back all motorists, with interest," Mr. Engel said.  "Rather than
continuing to drag this matter out for years in the Court of
Appeals and spend another hundred thousand dollars on lawyers, we
call on New Miami to finally acknowledge the decision of the
court, accept responsibility for its unconstitutional scheme, and
come to the table with a fair and just settlement offer that will
allow people to receive payments immediately."

New Miami's outside counsel James Englert said he cannot discuss
settlement talks.  As for giving up the fight, he said speed
camera programs have already been approved by the Ohio Supreme
Court, a fact he said class action lawyers tend to ignore, so they
will continue to defend the case on remaining claims.

"The administrative hearings were fair, and the village looks
forward to review of that issue," Mr. Englert said.  "The village
of New Miami has complied with Ohio law and places the interests
of its inhabitants and safety of motorists above the efforts of
class action lawyers."

A judge ruled two weeks ago that the village has received ill
gotten gains from an unconstitutional speed camera program and
said the speeders are due a $3 million refund.


NEW YORK: 2d Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Detainees' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, affirmed in
part, vacated in part, and remanded the case, KEVIN DARNELL,
GERMAIN CANO, MICHAEL GLENN, MICHAEL MCGHEE, KERRY SCOTT, TRAVIS
GORDAN, GREGORY MAUGERI, DMITRIY MILOSLAVSKIY, STEVEN MODES,
JACQUELINE GUARINO, MICHAEL SPALANGO, WESLEY JONES, RAYMOND
TUCKER, YVONNE MING, NANCY VIGLIONE, KEITH JENNINGS, ELLI VIKKI,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, ERIC CEPHUS, PHILLIP SINGLETON, DEBORAH GONZALEZ,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, Nakaita Moore, Jahmel Lawyer, Peter Eppel,
Plaintiffs, v. RAFAEL PINEIRO, WILLIAM TOBIN, CITY OF NEW YORK,
KENNETH KOBETITSCH, Defendants-Appellees, Deputy Commissioners
John Does, 1-5, (representing the Deputy Commissioners who
supervised the operation of Brooklyn Central Booking from June 12,
2010 to the present), Police Officers John Does, 1-5,
(representing the commanding officers of Brooklyn Central Booking
from June 12, 2010 to the present), Police Commissioner Raymond
Kelly, Defendants, Docket No. 15-2870 (2d Cir.).

The Plaintiffs are 21 detainees arrested on separate dates between
July 10, 2011, and July 23, 2013. The Plaintiffs brought
individual Section 1983 claims in the same complaint against the
City of New York, New York City Police Department Captain Kenneth
Kobetitsch, and NYPD Captain William Tobin in their individual
capacities. The plaintiffs alleged that they were each subjected
to appalling conditions of confinement while held pre-arraignment
at Brooklyn Central Booking (BCB) with deliberate indifference to
the deprivation of their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.
Because BCB was only a pre-arraignment holding facility, no
plaintiff was held at BCB for more than twenty-four hours.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York granted summary judgment to the defendants, reasoning that
the plaintiffs failed to meet both the objective and subjective
requirements for a claim of unconstitutional conditions of
confinement based on a theory of deliberate indifference. The
District Court concluded that, with respect to the objective
prong, no plaintiff could establish an objectively substantial
deprivation of any constitutional rights because no plaintiff
actually suffered a serious injury, or was regularly denied his or
her basic human needs or was exposed to conditions that posed an
unreasonable risk of serious damage to his or her future health
for more than twenty-four hours, nor could any plaintiff establish
the subjective prong of a deliberate indifference claim by proving
that the individual defendants were actually aware of any
dangerous conditions, or that the individual defendants acted
unreasonably in responding to any such conditions, nor, for
similar reasons, could the plaintiffs establish that the
individual defendants acted with punitive intent.

The District Court issued its opinion shortly after the Supreme
Court's decision in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S.Ct. 2466
(2015), in which the Supreme Court held that, for excessive force
claims brought under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, a pretrial detainee must show only that the force
purposely or knowingly used against him was objectively
unreasonable. The District Court's opinion was also issued two
weeks before the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit's
decision in Willey v. Kirkpatrick, 801 F.3d 51, 66-68, in which
the court held that while the proper inquiry for a conditions of
confinement claim is by reference to the duration and severity of
the conditions, the claim did not require a minimum duration or
minimum severity to reach the level of a constitutional violation.
The court further made clear that a serious injury is
unequivocally not a necessary element of an Eighth Amendment
conditions of confinement claim.

The Second Circuit affirmed in part, and vacated in part, the
district court's judgment, and remanded the case to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  The
district court rejected the requirement that, for such claims, a
pretrial detainee establish a state of mind component to the
effect that the official applied the force against the pretrial
detainee "maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. The district
court did not also analyze the implications of Kingsley in its
opinion. Moreover, the district court denied the plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration based on Willey, as well as the
plaintiffs' later motion for reconsideration of the order denying
the first motion for reconsideration, because the district court
found that the plaintiffs' appeal of the summary judgment order
divested it of jurisdiction over the case.

A copy of Judge Koeltl's opinion dated February 21, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/rN0joK from Leagle.com.

For Plaintiffs-Appellants:

Scott A. Korenbaum, Esq.
11 Parl Pl
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: 212-587-0018

     - and -

Stephen Bergstein, Esq.
Bergstein & Ullrich, LLP
5 Paradies Lane
New Paltz, NY 12561
Telephone: 845-469-1277

Zachary CW. Carter, Richard Dearing, Devin Slack, Kathy Chang
Park,, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY,
for Defendants-Appellees

The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit panel consists
of Judges John G. Koeltl, Pierre N. Leval and Raymond J. Lohier,
Jr.


NIKE INC: Judge Dismisses Outlet Price Tag Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Fola Akinnibi, writing for Law360, reports that an Oregon federal
judge has dismissed a consumer's proposed class action suit
against Nike Inc., throwing out claims that the company duped
shoppers at its outlet stores with false suggested retail prices
on items, leading them to believe that they were getting a
discount.

U.S. District Judge Michael Mosman found on Feb. 17 that Monika
Taylor did have standing to bring the suit against the athletic
apparel giant, but he ultimately ruled that she didn't adequately
plead fraud in the proposed consumer class action suit, according
to the opinion.  The dismissal does, however, leave room for
Taylor to amend her suit.

Ms. Taylor has failed to show exactly how Nike went about its
fraud, and it is unclear how exactly the suggested retail price
misled consumers.  She fails to specify whether she is referring
to a past price that the items were sold for at the outlet or
other stores and whether an independent manufacturer determined
the price of the products, among other questions, the opinion
says.

"It is difficult to identify Ms. Taylor's theory of fraud in a way
that allows Nike to adequately defend against the allegations,"
the opinion says. "Thus, plaintiff has failed to sufficiently
plead how she and reasonable consumers understand the [suggested]
retail price to be a former price."

Judge Mosman dismissed all of the claims under California's false
advertising law, its Consumers' Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair
Competition Law and unjust enrichment claims.

Representatives for both parties did not immediately respond to
requests for comment on Feb. 22.

In April, Ms. Taylor, a California resident, filed the suit
alleging deceptive and misleading labeling of products at company-
owned outlet stores.

She had gone to the company's outlet store in California back in
June 2015. While shopping, the complaint alleges, she noticed that
some of the items included a tag with the manufacturer's suggested
retail price and the company's price for the item, which was at a
significant discount.

Ms. Taylor purchased multiple items from the store based on these
representations and the assumption that she was getting a discount
from the price that the items were sold at previously, court
documents said.

However, she alleged, the company never sold these items at the
MSRP, meaning she was tricked into buying the items at their full
retail price.

Nike moved to dismiss the case in June 2016, according to court
documents, on the grounds that Taylor had not stated a claim and
that her charges fail under California consumer protection laws.

Ms. Taylor is represented by Shannon Armstrong --
ShannonArmstrong@MarkowitzHerbold.com -- and J. Matthew Donohue
-- MattDonohue@MarkowitzHerbold.com -- of Markowitz Herbold PC,
along with Jeffrey Kaliel of Tycko & Zavareei LLP.

Nike is represented by Michelle Doolin -- mdoolin@cooley.com --
and Darcie Tilly -- dtilly@cooley.com -- of Cooley LLP and Brad
Daniels -- brad.daniels@stoel.com -- of Stoel Rives LLP.

The case is Taylor v. Nike Inc., case number 3:16-cv-00661, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland Division.


OMNI LIMOUSINE: McSwiggin Appeals D. Nevada Ruling to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Christy McSwiggin filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Christy McSwiggin, et al. v. Omni Limousine,
Case No. 2:14-cv-02172-JCM-NJK, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada, Las Vegas.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 6,
2017, District Judge James C. Mahan denied the Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

The Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint on December 19,
2014, alleging seven causes of action against the defendant
involving their compensation for their employment as
"Chauffeurs/Limousine drivers."

In his Order dated January 23, 2017, available at
https://is.gd/xQ0XpY from Leagle.com, Judge Mahan denied class
certification saying the motion was overdue and failed to comply
with the numerosity requirement.

The appellate case is captioned as Christy McSwiggin, et al. v.
Omni Limousine, Case No. 17-80015, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Petitioners CHRISTY MCSWIGGIN and KEVIN MCSWIGGIN, on
behalf of themselves, the general public and all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
          Leah Lin Jones, Esq.
          Mark Russell Thierman, Esq.
          THIERMAN BUCK, LLP
          7287 Lakeside Drive
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 284-1500
          Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
          E-mail: josh@thiermanlaw.com
                  leah@thiermanbuck.com
                  mark@thiermanbuck.com

Defendant-Respondent OMNI LIMOUSINE, a Nevada Corporation, is
represented by:

          Anthony L. Hall, Esq.
          HOLLAND & HART LLP
          5441 Kietzke Lane
          Reno, NV 89511
          Telephone: (775) 327-3000
          Facsimile: (775) 786-6179
          E-mail: ahall@hollandhart.com


PALOS VERDES, CA: Judge Tosses Suit Against Lunada Bay Boys
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Washicko and Megan Barnes, writing for The Daily Breeze,
report that in a blow to plaintiffs accusing a group of Palos
Verdes Estates surfers of operating as a criminal gang, a federal
court judge denied the case class-action status.

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge James Otero rejected
plaintiffs' arguments that thousands of people have been adversely
affected by the behavior of the surfers, known as the Bay Boys.

The ruling limits the number of plaintiffs in the lawsuit -- a
positive development for the defendants.

"Our position has been the same from the beginning, so in that
sense it was nothing surprising," said attorney Pat Carey, who
represents one of the defendants.  "We didn't think this was a
class action from the beginning, so it just finally came to a
point where the court is beginning to formally agree with our
position."

However, attorneys for the plaintiffs said their case is far from
over.

In March 2016, a lawsuit filed in federal court sought an
injunction to keep the surfers from gathering on the beach,
claiming they use threats and violence to keep outsiders away from
their prime surf spot, and the city allows them to do it.

A separate state lawsuit, which focuses on beach access, alleges
the surfers have violated the California Coastal Act, which
protects public access to the coastline.  A state judge will still
have to decide whether that complaint will be designated as a
class-action lawsuit, allowing other victims to potentially join
as plaintiffs.

In the court ruling on Feb. 21, Judge Otero listed several reasons
for denying the class-action certification.  He struck down a
claim by the plaintiffs that more than 20,000 people have been
impacted by the Bay Boys' behavior, saying their attorney, Vic
Otten, did not prove that enough people have, in fact, been
affected.

In his ruling, Judge Otero said those who haven't been to Lunada
Bay -- perhaps because they were intimidated by stories of
localism -- can't claim they've been impacted by the behavior of
the Bay Boys.  The "some day intentions" of people who may or may
not visit the bay do not support the claim that those people have
been harmed in some way by the surfers, according to the ruling.

An expert for the plaintiffs estimated that 20,000 to 25,000
people would visit Lunada Bay on average every year if not for the
Bay Boys, but that only about 1,500 to 3,000 actually do.  The
court, however, threw out that portion of the suit.

The plaintiffs used accounts from more than two dozen people who
say they were either harassed at Lunada Bay or prevented from ever
going to the bay because of its reputation.  Judge Otero threw out
those claims as well.

The judge also limited the permissible witnesses to those who have
been accosted within the two years leading up to the March 29,
2016, date that the lawsuit was filed, which eliminated several
decades-old accounts of harassment.  Under those limitations, only
nine people were included in the plaintiffs' class, too small a
number to support the certification, according to the ruling.

The ruling also cited other reasons for denying the certification,
such as the potential plaintiffs had experienced a variety of
different problems at Lunada Bay.

Judge Otten on Feb. 22 said he was disappointed by the judge's
ruling, but that the lawsuit will proceed toward trial.

He and co-counsel Kurt Franklin, of the Northern California firm
Hanson Bridgett LLP, will be weighing their next steps, Mr. Otten
said.

They could proceed with the three original plaintiffs --
Cory Spencer, Diana Milena Reed and the nonprofit Coastal
Protection Rangers -- and file an appeal with the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals, or amend the lawsuit to potentially add
additional plaintiffs and defendants.

"We have very good factual information that we did not have
previously that we will be bringing in, whether it's in the
federal litigation or the state litigation," Mr. Otten said.
"There are plenty of other defendants actively involved in the
harassment of outsiders."

Messrs. Otten and Franklin are still seeking to have the Bay Boys
classified as a criminal street gang and ban them from the beach
with an injunction.

Mr. Carey, the attorney for one of the defendants, Allen "Jalian"
Johnston, said he was pleased with the judge's ruling.

"For us, at least on behalf of Mr. Johnston, we're going to
continue to do what we've been doing, and that's maintain his
innocence from these allegations," Mr. Carey said.

Mr. Johnston was named in the suits as one of the Bay Boys, and
Reed has accused him of exposing himself on the beach and spraying
a can of beer on her.

Mr. Johnston was arrested in April on suspicion of battery and
sexual harassment, but the District Attorney's Office declined to
file charges because of insufficient evidence.

Judge Otero's ruling is a boost for the defendants, Mr. Carey
said.  Now, he said, they'll have to wait to see what the
plaintiffs do next, and continue to deny their allegations.


PHENIX CITY, AL: Faces Class Action Over Red Light Cameras
----------------------------------------------------------
TheNewspaper.com reports that officials in Phenix City, Alabama
were served with a federal lawsuit claiming the city's red light
cameras are violating the civil rights of motorists passing
through the town.  The suit focuses on what a driver can do in
response to a ticket received in the mail from Redflex Traffic
Systems, the Australian firm that has been issuing tickets at
three intersections since 2013.

"The option for a hearing is simply stated on a coupon that can be
sent to the city," attorney George W. Walker III explained in the
complaint.  "No information is provided as to how the hearing is
conducted or who conducts it, nor is there any information on what
plaintiffs and class members' rights are following a violation.
Instead, a notice inconspicuously states that plaintiff and class
members can request a hearing within a specific timeframe."

There is no statewide law authorizing red light camera or speed
camera use in Alabama. Instead, Brantley, Midfield, Montgomery,
Opelika, Phenix City, Selma and Tuscaloosa had the state
legislature enact separate local laws granting individual
permission to each jurisdiction for camera use (the legislature
revoked Montgomery's permission last year).  The individual laws
make passing reference to the standard of proof to be used at
hearings where photo tickets are contested.

"The prosecution of a civil violation created hereby shall carry
reduced evidentiary requirements and burden of proof," states
House Bill 575, enacted in 2012, granting Phenix City permission
to use cameras.

Mr. Walker argues that the reduced burden of proof established by
the local law violates the constitution.  It fails, he argues, to
afford any real due process.  The ordinance, for instance, does
not require the city to bring proof at the hearing that the camera
system was functioning at the time of the alleged offense.

"The 'hearing' option itself afforded by defendant Phenix City is
ultimately a sham procedure that fails to amount to anything other
than said administrator, who in reality is neither a lawyer nor a
judicial officer, viewing a computer screen in an office," Mr.
Walker contended.  "The 'hearings' are simply a redundant look at
what the city already decided.  The city is not an administrative
agency that is empowered by Alabama law with the ability to
judicially review its own decisions . . . It is clear that there
are no 'witnesses' or contractors from defendant Redflex present
at the hearings, and plaintiffs and class members had no
opportunity to challenge anything."

US District Judge William Keith Watkins has been assigned to the
case.  The city must answer the lawsuit by March 6.


RELIANCE TRUST: "Matthews" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ALTAVIA MATTHEWS, on behalf of The
Bradford Hammacher Group, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and
on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. RELIANCE TRUST COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-04773 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order certifying a class of:

   "all persons who were participants in The Bradford Hammacher
   Group, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan".

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
          Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
          Patrick O. Muench, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 463 2101
          Facsimile: (202) 463 2103
          E-mail: rjenny@baileyglasser.com
                  gporter@baileyglasser.com
                  pmuench@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Izard, Esq.
          Douglas P. Needham, Esq.
          IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE, LLP
          29 South Main Street, Suite 305
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 493 6292
          Facsimile: (860) 493 6290
          E-mail: rizard@ikrlaw.com
                  dneedham@ikrlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Theodore M. Becker, Esq.
          Richard J. Pearl, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
          191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 3700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 569 1000
          E-mail: Theodore.Becker@dbr.com
                  Richard.Pearl@dbr.com


RENDLE: B.C. Court of Appeal Denies Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
Nardia Chernawsky, Esq. -- nardia.chernawsky@blakes.com -- and
Mathew Good, Esq. -- mathew.good@blakes.com -- of Blake, Cassels &
Graydon LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that on February
15, 2017, the B.C. Court of Appeal issued its decision in Baker v.
Rendle (Baker) denying class action certification in a case about
nuisance claims against industrial operations.  Baker lends
further weight to the view that private claims by landowners for
environmental nuisance are ill suited for resolution by class
action.

BACKGROUND

The defendants obtained a composting facility licence to import
and compost post-consumer food waste on a property in a suburb of
Victoria, B.C.  Complaints relating to "nuisance odours" from the
composting activities began not long after operations started and
increased in frequency over time.  The composting facility licence
was ultimately surrendered.

The plaintiff, Raymond Baker, began a lawsuit against the owner-
operators alleging private nuisance.  In September 2015, the
plaintiff sought certification of the claim as a class action. The
B.C. Supreme Court denied the class certification because the
claim did not meet certain requirements for certification under
the Class Proceedings Act, namely: the class members' claims did
not raise common issues, a class proceeding was not the preferable
procedure for the resolution of the common issues and Mr. Baker
was found not to be an appropriate representative plaintiff.  The
plaintiff appealed.

CLASS PROCEEDINGS FOR PRIVATE NUISANCE

To establish private nuisance, a plaintiff must prove interference
with his or her use or enjoyment of land that is both substantial
and unreasonable.  The interference must be intolerable to an
ordinary person, which is assessed by the nature, severity and
duration of the interference, the neighbourhood's character, the
sensitivity of the plaintiff's use and the utility of the
activity. The court focuses on the harm suffered by the plaintiff
and not the defendant's conduct.

In Baker, the B.C. Court of Appeal held that assessing liability
for the tort of nuisance involves subjective considerations
specific to each of the proposed class members.  In this case, the
question of whether the effect of the composting odours on the
individual class members was a substantial, unreasonable
interference with the use and enjoyment of their land could not be
determined on a class-wide basis.  Whether the operation resulted
in a nuisance could only be determined by examining the particular
circumstances of each neighbour.  The B.C. Court of Appeal
therefore concluded that a class proceeding was not the preferable
procedure for adjudicating the nuisance claims and dismissed the
appeal.

IMPLICATIONS

Baker joins a line of cases that have made it difficult for
plaintiffs to pursue private nuisance claims through class
actions.  These decisions include a B.C. Court of Appeal decision
in which certification of private nuisance claims failed the class
action certification test, as well as one judgment each from
Ontario and from Alberta.  As a result, operations with widespread
environmental impacts may be less likely to face collective
actions for redress by property owners.  Whether this will result
in less litigation overall, more individual lawsuits for private
nuisance, or a renewed focus on public nuisance claims by
governments or regulatory bodies, remains to be seen.


RENTECH INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 23
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Rentech, Inc. securities (RTK) from November 9, 2016
through February 20, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Rentech
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Rentech class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1057.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Rentech's resources were not sufficient to overcome any
operating challenges and remaining bottleneck at the Wawa
facility; (2) consequently, the Wawa facility would not reach
approximately 60% of production capacity within the next couple
quarters and achieve full capacity in the range of 400,000 to
450,000 metric tons late in the year; (3) as a result, defendants'
statements about Rentech's business, operations and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable bases
at all relevant times.  On February 21, 2017, Rentech announced
its decision to idle the Wawa facility due to equipment and
operational issues that would require additional unbudgeted
capital investment.  On this news, shares of Rentech fell $1.31
per share or over 47% from its previous closing price to close at
$1.44 per share on February 21, 2017, damaging investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
April 24, 2017.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1057.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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


RENTECH INC: April 24 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Rentech, Inc. in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on behalf of persons
or entities who purchased Rentech stock on the open market from
November 9, 2016 and February 20, 2017, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's
resources were not sufficient to overcome any operating challenges
and remaining bottleneck at its Wawa facility; (2) consequently,
the Wawa facility would not reach approximately 60% of production
capacity within the next couple quarters and achieve full capacity
in the range of 400,000 to 450,000 metric tons late in the year;
(3) as a result, Defendants' statements about the Company's
business, operations and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable bases at all relevant times.

On February 21, 2017, the Company announced its decision to idle
the Wawa facility due to equipment and operational issues that
would require additional capital investment.  On this news, shares
of the Company fell over 47% from its previous closing price to
close at $1.44 per share on February 21, 2017.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 24, 2017.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of
Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at --
tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- or -- gegleston@gme-law.com


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Kader Appeals D. Mass. Decision to 1st Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs William Kader, Laxmikant Chudasama, Morad Ghodooshim
and Roger Lam filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit
styled Kader, et al. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:14-cv-14318-ADB, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, Boston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 20,
2017, Judge Allison D. Burroughs denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to amend their complaint.

In the securities fraud putative class action, the Plaintiffs
sought to represent a class of all purchasers of securities issued
by Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. during the period from
March 4, 2014 to October 27, 2014.

The appellate case is captioned as Kader, et al. v. Sarepta
Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-1139, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

The First Circuit notified the parties that the December 1, 2016
amendment to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure make
significant changes to appellate practice.  The full text of the
amendments, as well as a summary of major rule changes, is
available at https://goo.gl/tzUpHu.  The changes are effective on
December 1, 2016.

Plaintiffs-Appellants WILLIAM KADER, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, MORAD GHODOOSHIM, ROGER LAM and
LAXMIKANT CHUDASAMA are represented by:

          Jason Mathew Leviton, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal Street, Suite 400
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          E-mail: jason@blockesq.com

               - and -

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Kara Wolke, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park E
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com
                  kwolke@glancylaw.com

Defendants-Appellees SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS, INC., CHRIS GARABEDIAN
and SANDESH MAHATME are represented by:

          Alexia Rhae De Vincentis, Esq.
          Justin Florence, Esq.
          Mark David Vaughn, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY LLP
          800 Boylston St.
          Boston, MA 02199-3600
          Telephone: (617) 951-7000
          E-mail: alexia.devincentis@ropesgray.com
                  justin.florence@ropesgray.com
                  mark.vaughn@ropesgray.com

Defendants-Appellees SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS, INC., CHRIS GARABEDIAN,
SANDESH MAHATME and ED KAYE are represented by:

          Christopher G. Green, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY LLP
          800 Boylston St.
          Boston, MA 02199-3600
          Telephone: (617) 951-7000
          E-mail: christopher.green@ropesgray.com


SELECT MEDICAL: "Joseph" Suit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUNIOR JOSEPH, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. SELECT MEDICAL CLINIC INC.; SELECT MEDICAL RESEARCH
CENTER, L.L.C.; CARMELO MADDY; and ROSE AUGUSTIN,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-20661-JEM (S.D. Fla., February 21,
2017), seeks to recover from the Corporate Defendants alleged
unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, as well as an
additional amount as liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable
attorneys' fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Corporate Defendants operate a medical clinic and related
activities of a medical clinic. Plaintiff was employed by the
Corporate Defendants as a Clinic Assistant/clerk/driver for the
Corporate Defendants' business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
     SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
     20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: (305) 503-5131
     Fax: (888) 270-5549
     Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


SMOOTH SAILING: "King" Labor Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Jeffery King and Moshe Dweck, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Smooth Sailing, Inc. and
Don E. Cauthen, individually and John Does 1-10, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00309, (D.S.C., February 2, 2017),
seeks actual damages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, and for other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.

Smooth Sailing, Inc. operates Dirty Don's Oyster Bar owned by Don
E. Cauthen where King and Dweck worked. Both claims overtime pay
for off-the-clock work rendered.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
      BRUCE E. MILLER, P.A.
      147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
      Charleston, SC 29412
      Tel: (843) 579-7373
      Fax: (843) 614-6417
      bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com


SUSHI REPUBLIC: "Jaramillo" Suit Seeks to Recoup Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE JARAMILLO, LUZ GIRALDO, and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, v. SUSHI REPUBLIC, INC. and TAKAHIRO
KOHARA, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-20666-DPG (S.D. Fla.,
February 21, 2017), seeks to recover from the Corporate Defendant
alleged unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, as well as
an additional amount as liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable
attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

SUSHI REPUBLIC, INC. -- http://www.sushirepublic.net/-- is a
Japanese food restaurant offering traditional Japanese food table
seating.

Plaintiff was employed as a dishwasher and delivery person.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
     SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
     20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
     Aventura, FL 33180
     Phone: (305) 503.5131
     Fax: (888) 270.5549
     Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


SIOUX HONEY: Calif. Woman Says Sue Bee Products Not All Natural
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
California woman has filed a class-action lawsuit against Sioux
Honey Association, citing alleged deceptive and misleading
business practices.

Susan Tran filed a complaint on Jan. 23 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California against Sioux Honey
Association, alleging that the cooperative violated the Unfair
Competition Law.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that as a result
of Sioux Honey's false and misleading labeling and omissions of
fact, she and others were deceived into believing that the Sue Bee
products they bought were pure, and/or all-natural.  She was
damaged for paying a premium price for a product that actually
costs less.  Ms. Tran holds Sioux Honey Association responsible
because the company allegedly falsely claimed that its products
are pure and all natural.  Instead, its products contain
glyphosate, a synthetic chemical.

Ms. Tran requests a trial by jury and seeks an order certifying
this case a class action, appointing her as class representative
and her counsel as class counsel, as well as award for monetary
damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs and all
other relief as may be deemed just, necessary and proper.  She is
represented by Stephen R. Basser -- sbasser@barrack.com -- of
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine in San Diego; Lori G. Feldman and Courtney
E. Maccarone of Levi & Korsinsky LLP in New York City; and Kim E.
Richman and Jaimie Mak of Richman Law Group in Brooklyn, New York.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 8:17-cv-00110


SITO MOBILE: April 18 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased SITO Mobile,
Ltd. securities between February 9, 2016 and January 2, 2017,
inclusive. SITO investors have until April 18, 2017 to file a lead
plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their SITO investments are
encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM to discuss their legal
rights in this class action at 310-201-9150 or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com.

The Complaint filed in this class action lawsuit alleges that
throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) SITO's
development of bookings would not drive the Company's fourth
fiscal quarter 2016 media placement revenues and revenue growth to
the level represented during the Class Period; (2) SITO was aware
that the election would impact its fourth fiscal quarter 2016
revenue, (3) clients' campaign spending and media placement
revenues in the fourth quarter 2016 was highly dependent on the
elections; (4) SITO's growth in media placement revenues would not
occur in the fourth fiscal quarter 2016; (5) consequently, SITO's
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On January 3, 2017, SITO disclosed disappointing quarterly revenue
results for its preliminary media placement for the quarter ending
December 31, 2016. According to SITO, the results were adversely
impacted by limited marketing expenditures and an "elongated media
focus on this year's U.S. election." On this news, SITO stock fell
32% on January 3, 2017.

If you purchased shares of SITO during the Class Period you may
move the Court no later than April 18, 2017 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements. 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 GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California
90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
http://glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.


SOCIETE DE TRANSPORT: Faces Suit Over Repeated Service Disruptions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Montreal Gazette reports that a metro user wants Montreal's
transit authority to compensate her and her fellow commuters for
delays caused by service disruptions.

Marion Croteau on February 23 filed a motion with Quebec Superior
Court seeking to launch a class action suit against the Societe de
transport de Montreal.

In the motion, Croteau complains that repeated STM service
disruptions have caused her to be late for work and to miss
appointments.

"When (the STM) publishes precise schedules for the metro and
buses, it's saying that it's committed to providing that service,"
the motion said.

She points to two cases where metro delays compelled her to use a
taxi in 2016.

Croteau wants the STM to pay $32.75 to cover those taxi trips, in
addition to the equivalent of 15 per cent of the monthly passes
she has purchased since she started using STM services in May
2015.

In addition, the motion suggests the STM should provide 15-per-
cent refunds to all STM users who have purchased monthly passes
since March 1, 2014.

"The total damages and interest sought, multiplied by the number
of users who have suffered prejudice, could reach into the tens of
millions of dollars, a factor which makes this class action of
considerable importance," according to Legal Logik, the law firm
representing Croteau.

A judge will have to decide whether the lawsuit can proceed.


SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Faces False Advertising Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Legal Newswire, reports that a
California woman has filed a class action lawsuit against Sprint,
alleging false advertising and violation of Unfair Competition
Law.

Sylvia Nixon of Los Angeles County filed a complaint, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Feb. 13 in U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California against
Sprint Communications Inc., alleging the communications company
obtained profit through unfair or deceptive trade or commerce.

According to the complaint, Nixon and other similarly situated
consumers have suffered monetary damages from being enticed by
Sprint to cancel their existing telephone services in exchange for
the defendant's offer to pay for termination fees, cut current
phone bills in half and provide prepaid Visa cards. The suit says
Sprint failed to provide any of these services.

The plaintiff allege Sprint failed to provide advertised products
as promised, and issued false statements to deceive consumers into
changing their telephone service provider.

Nixon seeks trial by jury, certification as a class action,
appoint her and her lawyer class representative and counsel,
corrective advertising, actual, punitive, and statutory damages,
restitution, attorney fees, court costs, interest, and all other
equitable relief.  She is represented by attorneys Todd M.
Friedman and Adrian R. Bacon of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC
in Woodland Hills, California.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 17-cv-01149


STERICYCLE INC: Class Cert. Granted in Sterisafe Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit re: Stericycle, Inc., Sterisafe Contract
Litigation, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-05795 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon.
Milton I. Shadur entered an order granting motion for class
certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on February 16,
2017, both motions to exclude witnesses are denied. Hagens Berman
is appointed as class counsel officially. The action was set for a
status hearing at 9:30 a.m. on February 27, 2017 to discuss
further proceedings in the case.

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


SYNGENTA AG: Loses Bid to Dismiss Suit Over GMO Corn Trait
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge David R. Herndon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois denied Sygenta AG's motion to dismiss and
request for oral argument in the case titled IN RE SYNGENTA MASS
TORT ACTIONS, This Document Relates to Poletti, et al. v. Syngenta
AG, et al, No. 3:15-cv-01121-DRH (S.D. Ill.)

Agrisure VIPTERA(TM) and its variant DURACADE(TM) were licensed
and marketed by Syngenta and, both products contained multiple
genetically enhanced modified traits and were sold to seed
manufactures for their insect resistance capabilities.  At the
time, MIR162 was barred for sale in several countries, including
China where it was not yet approved for purchase or consumption.

In March 2016, Roland Poletti, et al., filed their First
Consolidated and Amended Complaint against Syngenta, under the
Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).   The
Plaintiffs alleged that Syngenta prematurely commercialized the
genetically modified corn trait MIR162, under the trade name
Agrisure VIPTERA(TM), and in doing so, acted negligently,
recklessly, and deceptively, causing harm to the plaintiffs and
contaminating the entire United States corn supply.  The
Plaintiffs further contended that at the time of the alleged acts,
Syngenta knew of and foresaw the risk to the plaintiffs, and
thereby breached the duty owed in preventing the harm alleged.
The Plaintiffs note that United States exportation of corn amounts
to billions of dollars annually, and because the U.S. corn
marketing system is commodity-based, the highest standards of
purity are required to be maintained.  Moreover, the plaintiffs
point to the premature release of Agrisure VIPTERA(TM) as the sole
cause of foreign export-market refusal to import U.S. grown corn,
and further maintain that heavy financial losses have been
incurred.

The Plaintiffs assert claims against Syngenta of public nuisance,
private nuisance, negligence, products liability, tortious
interference with business actions, strict liability as to certain
classes of plaintiffs, and the violation of various state
deceptive trade practices and consumer protection acts. Causes of
action for damages include the premature release of VIPTERA(TM)
and DURACADE(TM) into the U.S. corn and corn seed supply, the
materially misleading statements made relating to approval status
of MIR162 in China upon which the plaintiffs relied, the failure
to disclose the material fact that MIR162 was not approved for
import into China, and the continuing and future MIR162
contamination of the U.S. corn and seed supply. The Plaintiffs
seek compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages, and
injunctive relief.

Syngenta filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint for
lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim for
which relief may be granted. In its memorandum in support,
Syngenta discusses several legal principals which it believes
warrants a grant of dismissal. Namely, non-Illinois plaintiffs'
lack of personal jurisdiction; and, the bar of plaintiffs' claims
by the "Stranger" and "Contractual" Economic Loss Doctrines.

Judge Herndon denied Syngenta's motion to dismiss and request for
oral argument, finding that the complaint has sufficiently alleged
claims against Syngenta that survive both Rule 12(b)(2) and Rule
12(b)(6) Fed. R. Civ. P. pleading standards.

A copy of Judge Herndon's memorandum and order dated February 20,
2017, is available at https://goo.gl/qAlImn from Leagle.com.

Ellen K. Reisman, Special Master, Pro Se

All Plaintiffs in Case 15-1221, Plaintiff, represented by William
W. Blair -- blair@onderlaw.com -- James G. Onder --
onder@onderlaw.com -- Michael J. Quillin -- quillin@onderlaw.com -
- at Onder, Shelton et al; Brian Leighton Kinsley; Crumley
Roberts; Amanda Scott Williamson -- amanda@hgdlawfirm.com --
Christopher B. Hood -- chood@hgdlawfirm.com -- Mark Ekonen --
mark@hgdlawfirm.com -- Taylor Christopher Bartlett --
taylor@hgdlawfirm.com -- W. Lewis Garrison, Jr. --
wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com -- William L. Bross --
wlbross@hgdlawfirm.com -- at Heninger, Garrison et al.; Brian E.
Jorde -- David Alan Domina -- at Domina law Group, PC LLO; Peter
H. Burke -- pburke@burkeharvey.com -- William Todd Harvey --
tharvey@burkeharvey.com -- at Burke Harvey LLC

Defendants, represented by Michael J. Nester -- at Donovan Rose
Nester PC; Edwin John U -- Jordan M. Heinz --
jordan.heinz@kirkland.com -- Michael D. Jones --
michael.jones@kirkland.com -- Patrick F. Philbin --
patrick.philbin@kirkland.com -- Ragan Naresh --
ragan.naresh@kirkland.com -- at Kirkland & Ellis


TILTWARE LLC: Cal. App. Upheld Dismissal of "Kennedy"
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Virginia Keeny of the Court of Appeals of California, Second
District, Division Seven, affirmed the trial court's order of
dismissal, in the case captioned LARY KENNEDY, et al., Plaintiffs
and Appellants, v. CHRIS FERGUSON et al., Defendants and
Respondents, No. B253090 (Cal. Ct. App.)

Plaintiffs Lary Kennedy and Greg Omotoy alleged that defendants,
who operated online poker games, fraudulently induced them to
deposit money and play on their website with promises that their
operations did not constitute gambling, the company did not allow
robots or computers to play, money deposited was safe and the
company treated its players fairly and consistently in accordance
with the highest standards of the poker community.  They further
alleged that defendants had falsely accused Kennedy of using a
robot to assist her to play and confiscated $80,000 from her
account because of this alleged rule violation.  The complaint
sought return of the $80,000, relief under the Racketeers
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act for the fraudulent
statements and violations of the California Penal Code banning
illegal gambling, damages to Kennedy for libel and slander based
on statements that she was operating a robot to play on her
behalf, restitution to California players misled by their business
practices and punitive damages.

On the course of the trial, the trial court had dismissed their
action for failure to prosecute, denied them leave to amend to add
class allegations, and had made orders denying the plaintiffs'
motion to disqualify counsel, motion for new trial, and motion to
tax costs or strike the memorandum of costs.  The Plaintiffs
appealed.

Judge Keeny affirmed the order of dismissal and held that the
trial court acted within its discretion in refusing leave to add
class allegations since it will substantially alter the case and
the plaintiffs cannot justify their subsequent delay in obtaining
leave to file an amended complaint.  Accordingly, Judge Keeny
dismissed the appeal as to the subsequent orders denying the
motion to disqualify counsel, the motion for a new trial, and the
motion to tax costs or strike the memorandum of costs.

A copy of Judge Keeny's opinion dated February 21, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/ehbzKx from Leagle.com.

For Plaintiffs and Appellants:

   Cyrus Sanai, Esq.
   Sanais
   433 N Camden Dr Ste 600
   Beverly Hills, CA 90210
   Telephone: 310-717-9840
   Facsimile: 310-279-5101

Erik L. Jackson -- ejackson@cozen.com -- Nathan Dooley --
ndooley@cozen.com -- at Cozen O'Connor for Defendants and
Respondents Chris Ferguson, Howard Lederer, Raymond Bitar, Andy
Bloch, Phil Ivey, John Juanda, Erik Lindgren, Erik Seidel, Michael
Matusow, Allen Cunningham, Gus Hansen, Patrik Antonious, Tiltware,
LLC and Pocket Kings Ltd

Maurice Suh -- msuh@gibsondunn.com -- Jay Srinivasan --
jsrinivasan@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher for
Defendant and Respondent Philip S. Gordon

Dykema Gossett, Craig N. Hentschel and Vivian I. Kim for Defendant
and Respondent Perry Friedman

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Seven panel consists of Presiding Justice Dennis M. Perluss,
Justice Laurie D. Zelon and Judge Virginia Keeny.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Headlights
----------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that an Alameda consumer alleges his Toyota Prius has defective
headlights.

Michael Robey filed a complaint on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals on Dec. 16 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against Toyota Motor Sales USA
Inc. alleging violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, the California Unfair Competition Law and other counts.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he suffered
damages from purchasing a 2010 Toyota Prius that has a defective
headlight lamp that burned out prematurely.  The plaintiff holds
Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc. responsible because the defendant
allegedly failed to disclose to consumers the defective nature of
the headlights equipped on its vehicles.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks provide a notice
to all class members, reimburse all current and former owners of
the class vehicles, consequential and incidental damages, order
the defendant to immediately cease the sale and leasing of the
class vehicles without first notifying consumers about the defect,
damages and restitution, compensatory, exemplary and statutory
damages, plus interest, disgorgement, all legal fees plus
interest, and any other relief as the court deems just.  He is
represented by Mark S. Greenstone and Lionel Z. Glancy of Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP in Los Angeles.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case
number 3:16-cv-07212-EMC


TROPICAL SHIPPING: Antitrust Suit Transferred to Florida Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anne E. Thompson of the U.S. District Court for the District
of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Croix, granted the
defendants' motions in the case, LEROY DANIELSON, SILICONE
DISTRIBUTORS, INC. d/b/a ROOFTOPS, and TRADEMARK ENTERPRISES, LLC
d/b/a LISA'S PAINT SHOP, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TROPICAL SHIPPING AND
CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD., VI CARGO SERVICES, LLC, and SALTCHUK
RESOURCES, INC., Defendants, Civ. No. 15-00045 (D.V.I.).

Tropical Shipping and Construction Co., Ltd., and VI Cargo
Services, LLC, provide shipping services to consumers in need of
moving goods between St. Croix and Florida.  Specifically,
Tropical and VI Cargo participate in the less-than-a-container
cargo shipping market (LCL market), whereby they ship goods for
consumers and small businesses who wish to ship less than an
entire shipping container of goods. Saltchuk Resources, Inc., is
the parent company of Tropical and VI Cargo.

Plaintiffs Leroy Danielson and Trademark Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a
Lisa's Paint Shop purchased LCL Shipping services from Tropical
and/or VI Cargo.  The Plaintiffs alleged that they were
overcharged for the shipping services that they purchased from the
defendants as a result of the defendants' monopolization of the
relevant LCL market.  The Plaintiffs claim that Tropical has been
the dominant firm in LCL shipping for many years, and that
Tropical's purchases of two competing firms, Caribtrans in 2008
and VI Cargo in 2010, increased the market share of Tropical and
the companies that it controlled to 100% of the LCL market.
Tropical increased its prices within months of acquiring VI Cargo
and continued to increase its prices thereafter.

The Plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants and alleged
violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2, and
the Virgin Islands Antitrust Act, 11 V.I.C. Section 1503.

Defendants Tropical Shipping and VI Cargo have moved to dismiss or
transfer the plaintiffs' claims.  Defendant Saltchuk Resources
separately moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims against it.

Defendants' Tropical and VI Cargo make several arguments in
support of the motion to dismiss or transfer. One of those
arguments is based on two forum selection clauses contained in
written agreements between plaintiffs and defendants.

The Plaintiffs opposed both motions.

Judge Thompson granted Saltchuk's motion to dismiss as the parties
agreed on the record that the plaintiffs' claims against Saltchuk
would be dismissed.

Judge Thompson also granted defendants' Tropical and VI Cargo's
motion to dismiss or transfer.  Guided by the Supreme Court's
decision in Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W.
Dist. of Tex., 134 S.Ct. 568 (2013), Judge Thompson held that the
defendants have demonstrated that at least 75 out of 105 of the
plaintiffs' claims are subject to a forum selection clause, which
requires that the plaintiffs' claims be brought in the Southern
District of Florida.  The court said it is not persuaded that any
public-interest factors set forth in Atlantic Marine warrant the
denial of transfer.  In the interest of justice, the court will
transfer all of the plaintiffs' claims to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

A copy of Judge Thompson's opinion dated February 15, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/4dTLL9 from Leagle.com.

Leroy Danielson and Trademark Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Lisa's Paint
Shop, Plaintiffs, represented by:

   Vincent A. Colianni, II, Esq.
   COLIANNI & COLIANNI
   1138 King Street
   Christiansted, VI 00820
   Telephone: 340-719-1766
   Facsimile: 340-719-1770

Paradise Freight, LLC (FL), as assignee of Silicone Distributors,
Inc. d/b/a Rooftops, Plaintiff, represented by:

   Mark W. Eckard, Esq.
   HAMM & ECKARD, LLP
   5030 Anchor Way
   Christiansted, VI 00820
   Telephone: 340-773-6955

Defendants, represented by Simone D. Francis --
simone.francis@ogletree.com -- at Ogletree, Deakins; Adriane J.
Dudley -- adudley@dudleylaw.com -- at Dudley Rich Davis LLP; James
Ian Serota -- serotaj@gtlaw.com -- at Greenberg Traurig LLP


TRS STAFFING: Faces "Jackson" Suit for Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP JACKSON on behalf of himself individually, and ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. TRS STAFFING SOLUTIONS INC.,
and CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL COMPANY LLC, Defendants, Case No.
4:17-cv-00558 (S.D. Tex., February 21, 2017), alleges that
Defendants do not pay their Materials Supervisors overtime as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Instead, TRS Staffing
Solutions Inc. and Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LLC pay its
Materials Supervisors straight time, not time and a half for
overtime hours worked.

TRS STAFFING SOLUTIONS INC. -- https://www.trsstaffing.com/ -- is
an engineering recruitment agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRUGREEN INC: 6th Circuit Denies Arbitration in TCPA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Cubita, Esq. -- cubitap@ballardspahr.com -- Mark J.
Furletti, Esq. -- furlettim@ballardspahr.com -- Alan S. Kaplinsky,
Esq., Scott Pearson, Esq. -- PearsonS@ballardspahr.com -- Jeremy
T. Rosenblum, Esq. -- rosenblum@ballardspahr.com -- John D.
Socknat, Esq., Glen Trudel, Esq. -trudelg@ballardspahr.com -- of
Ballard Spahr LLP, in an article for JDSupra report that phone
calls made by a lawn care company after the termination of a
customer's contract were beyond the scope of the parties'
agreement to arbitrate any claim "arising from or relating to"
their contract, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
recently held.  In an unpublished opinion, Stevens-Bratton v.
TruGreen Inc., the panel reversed the district court's decision
denying class certification and compelling individual arbitration
of the customer's putative Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) class action.

In May 2013, the plaintiff entered into a contract with TruGreen,
a national lawn care services company.  The plaintiff gave
permission for TruGreen to contact her at the cell phone number
she provided "using an automatic telephone dialing system or
artificial voice to discuss my account and lawn care services,
including current and possible future services."  The contract
further provided that "any claim, dispute or controversy . . .
arising from or relating to" the contract, "including but not
limited to any tort or statutory [c]laim" was subject to
arbitration.  The plaintiff also expressly waived any ability to
maintain any class action "in any forum whatsoever." However, the
contract did not expressly provide that the arbitration clause
would survive the termination of the contract.

In May 2014, the plaintiff terminated the contract. Eight months
later, TruGreen used an autodialer to solicit its former customer.
The plaintiff requested that TruGreen stop calling her, but she
continued to receive calls and filed a class action for violation
of the TCPA.  In response to TruGreen's motion to compel
arbitration, the plaintiff argued that because the calls were made
after the termination of the contract, the arbitration clause did
not apply to the dispute.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that under the Federal Arbitration
Act, broadly worded arbitration clauses must be enforced "unless
it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause
is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted
dispute."  Accordingly, to defeat a motion to compel arbitration,
plaintiffs are obligated to show that an arbitration clause is
negated "expressly" or "by clear implication." Where there is a
question whether the arbitration agreement survived the
termination of the contract in which it is contained, courts must
analyze whether:

   -- the dispute involves facts and occurrences that arose before
termination;
   -- an action taken after termination infringes a right that
accrued or vested under the agreement; and
   -- under normal principles of contract interpretation, the
disputed contractual right survives termination of the remainder
of the agreement.

Applying this inquiry, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the
arbitration clause did not survive the termination of the
customer's contract.

First, with respect to the "facts and occurrences" prong of the
analysis, the court held that the proper inquiry is whether a
majority of the material facts and occurrences arose before
termination.  In this case, the plaintiff's dispute exclusively
involved phone calls made after the termination of the contract.
Second, the Sixth Circuit concluded that "the right to call a
person's number is not the type of right that would accrue or vest
under a contract," particularly since consent to be called can be
revoked at any time.  Finally, the court held that because the
contract had no explicit survival clause, the arbitration clause
should be construed against TruGreen, the drafter, under general
principles of contract interpretation.

The Sixth Circuit's decision should be heeded by companies who
assume that arbitration clauses in their customer contracts will
automatically apply to conduct that occurs after the contract's
termination, including telephone calls made to prior customers.


UNDER ARMOUR: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation disclosed that has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland on
behalf of purchasers of Under Armour, Inc. (NYSE: UA, UAA) ("Under
Armour" or the "Company") common stock during the period between
April 21, 2016 and January 30, 2017, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  The action is captioned Brian Breece v. Under Armour,
Inc., et. al. (1:17-cv-00388).  Investors who wish to become
proactively involved in the litigation have until April 10, 2017
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

Under Armour is a corporation organized under the laws of the
State of Maryland with its principal place of business located in
Baltimore, Maryland.  Brower Piven is the only firm headquartered
in Maryland that has a practice dedicated primarily to
representing plaintiffs in shareholder class action litigation.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the Class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants who retain counsel like Brower
Piven and who claim the largest loss from investment in Under
Armour common stock during the Class Period.  Members of the Class
will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel chosen by
the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been certified in the above
action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that Under Armour's
revenue and profit margins would not be able to withstand the
heavy promotions, high inventory levels and ripple effects of
numerous department store closures and the bankruptcy of one of
its large retailers. Instead, Under Armour promoted itself as a
growth company that would continue to develop and market game-
changing products.

According to the complaint, the fraud was revealed on January 31,
2017 when Under Armour released weaker-than-expected earnings for
the fourth quarter of 2016, and the poor results were in fact tied
to market factors, such as department store closings.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Under Armour common stock purchased on or after April 21, 2016
and held through the revelation of negative information during
and/or at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more
about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead
plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please visit our
website at http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html.
You may also request more information by contacting Brower Piven
either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at
(410) 415-6616. Brower Piven also encourages anyone with
information regarding the Company's conduct during the period in
question to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former
employees, shareholders and others.

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


UNITED STATES: Trimming of Fannie Mae Stockholders' Suit Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Patricia A. Millett of the United States Court of Appeals,
District of Columbia Circuit, affirmed the district court's
judgment and remanded the case styled PERRY CAPITAL LLC, FOR AND
ON BEHALF OF INVESTMENT FUNDS FOR WHICH IT ACTS AS INVESTMENT
MANAGER, Appellant, v. STEVEN T. MNUCHIN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY
AS THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, ET AL.,
Appellees, Nos. 14-5243 Consolidated with 14-5254, 14-5260, 14-
5262 (D.C.)

Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) originated as a
government-owned entity designed to provide stability in the
secondary market for residential mortgages, to increase the
liquidity of mortgage investments, and to promote access to
mortgage credit throughout the United States.  In 1968, Congress
made Fannie Mae a publicly traded, stockholder-owned corporation.
Congress created the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
(Freddie Mac) in 1970 to increase the availability of mortgage
credit for the financing of urgently needed housing.  Much like
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac buys mortgage loans from a broad variety
of lenders, bundles them together into mortgage-backed securities,
and then sells those mortgage-backed securities to investors. In
1989, Freddie Mac became a publicly traded, stockholder-owned
corporation.

In 2007-2008, the national economy went into a severe recession
due in significant part to a dramatic decline in the housing
market.  Congress concluded that resuscitating Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac was vital for the Nation's economic health, and to
that end passed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008
(Recovery Act).  Under the Recovery Act, the Federal Housing
Finance Agency (FHFA) became the conservator of Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac.  In an effort to keep Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
afloat, FHFA promptly concluded on their behalf a stock purchase
agreement with the Treasury Department, under which Treasury made
billions of dollars in emergency capital available to Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac in exchange for preferred shares of their stock.
In return, Fannie and Freddie agreed to pay Treasury a quarterly
dividend in the amount of 10% of the total amount of funds drawn
from Treasury. Fannie's and Freddie's frequent inability to make
dividend payments, however, meant that they often borrowed more
cash from Treasury just to pay the dividends, which in turn
increased the dividends that Fannie and Freddie were obligated to
pay in future quarters.

In 2012, FHFA and Treasury adopted a third amendment to their
stock purchase agreement, which replaced the fixed 10% dividend
with a formula by which Fannie and Freddie just paid to Treasury
an amount roughly equal to their quarterly net worth, however much
or little that may be. Under the third amendment, Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac together paid Treasury $130 billion in dividends in
2013, and another $40 billion in 2014. The next year, however,
Fannie's and Freddie's quarterly net worth was far lower, Fannie
paid Treasury $10.3 billion and Freddie paid Treasury $5.5
billion. Under the Third Amendment, and FHFA's conservatorship,
Fannie and Freddie have continued their operations for more than
four years. During that time, Fannie and Freddie, among other
things, collectively purchased at least 11 million mortgages on
single-family owner-occupied properties, and Fannie issued over
$1.5 trillion in single-family mortgage-backed securities.

In 2013, a number of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stockholders filed
suit challenging the third amendment. Different groups of
plaintiffs have pressed different claims. First, various hedge
funds, mutual funds, and insurance companies argued that (i)
FHFA's and Treasury's adoption of the third amendment exceeded
their authority under the Recovery Act, and (ii) FHFA and Treasury
each engaged in arbitrary and capricious conduct, in violation of
the Administrative Procedure Act. The institutional stockholders
requested declaratory and injunctive relief, but no damages.

Second, a class of stockholders and a few of the institutional
stockholders alleged that, in adopting the third amendment, FHFA
and the companies breached the terms governing dividends,
liquidation preferences, and voting rights in the stock
certificates for Freddie's common stock and for both Fannie's and
Freddie's preferred stock. They further alleged that the
defendants breached the implied covenants of good faith and fair
dealing in those certificates. The class plaintiffs also alleged
that FHFA and Treasury breached state-law fiduciary duties owed by
a corporation's management and controlling shareholder,
respectively. Some of the institutional stockholders asserted
similar claims against FHFA. The class plaintiffs asked the court
to declare their lawsuit a proper derivative action, J.A. 277, and
to award damages as well as injunctive and declaratory relief.

The district court granted FHFA's and Treasury's motions to
dismiss both complaints for failure to state a claim under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court
that the institutional plaintiffs' claims against the FHFA and the
Treasury alleging arbitrary and capricious conduct and conduct in
excess of their statutory authority are barred by 12 U.S.C.
Section 4617(f). The district court's dismissal of their common-
law claims is also affirmed, because they were not properly
appealed.  With respect to the class plaintiffs' claims, the Court
of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court on all
claims except for the claims alleging breach of contract and
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
regarding liquidation preferences and the claim for breach of the
implied covenant with respect to dividend rights, which claims the
Court of Appeals remanded for further proceedings consistent with
the opinion.

A copy of Judge Millett's opinion dated February 21, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/Q3xfcD from Leagle.com.

Theodore B. Olson -- tolson@gibsondunn.com -- Douglas R. Cox --
dcox@gibsondunn.com -- Matthew D. McGill -- mmcgill@gibsondunn.com
-- at Gibson Dunn; Charles J. Cooper -- ccooper@cooperkirk.com --
David H. Thompson -- dthompson@cooperkirk.com -- Peter A.
Patterson -- ppatterson@cooperkirk.com -- Brian W. Barnes -- at
Cooper and Kirk, PLLC; Michael H. Barr -- michael.barr@dentons.com
-- Drew W. Marrocco -- drew.marrocco@dentons.com -- Richard M.
Zuckerman -- richard.zuckerman@dentons.com -- Sandra Hauser --
sandra.hauser@dentons.com -- at Dentons; Janet M. Weiss --
weiss.janet@dorsey.com -- at Dorsey, for Perry Capital LLC

Hamish P.M. Hume -- hhume@bsfllp.com -- at Boies, Schiller &
Flexner; Matthew A. Goldstein -- mgoldstein@ktmc.com -- Geoffrey
C. Jarvis -- gjarvis@ktmc.com -- at Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
LLP; David R. Kaplan -- DKaplan@BaconWilson.com -- at
Bacon/Wilson, for American European Insurance Company, et al.

Thomas P. Vartanian -- thomas.vartanian@dechert.com -- Steven G.
Bradbury -- steven.bradbury@dechert.com -- Robert L. Ledig --
robert.ledig@dechert.com -- Robert J. Rhatigan --
robert.rhatigan@dechert.com -- at Dechert LLP, for amici curiae
the Independent Community Bankers of America, the Association of
Mortgage Investors, Mr. William M. Isaac, and Mr. Robert H.
Hartheimer in support of appellants

Thomas F. Cullen, Jr. -- tfcullen@jonesday.com -- Michael A.
Carvin -- macarvin@jonesday.com -- James E. Gauch --
jegauch@jonesday.com -- Lawrence D. Rosenberg --
ldrosenberg@jonesday.com -- Paul V. Lettow  --
pvlettow@jonesday.com -- at Jones Day, for amici curiae Louise
Rafter, Josephine and Stephen Rattien, and Pershing Square Capital
Management, L.P. in support of appellants and reversal

Jerrold J. Ganzfried -- Bruce S. Ross -- bruce.ross@hklaw.com --
at Holland & Knight, for amici curiae 60 Plus Association, Inc. in
support of reversal

Eric Grant -- grant@hicks-thomas.com -- at Hicks Thomas, for
amicus curiae Jonathan R. Macey in support of appellants and
reversal

Thomas R. McCarthy -- tom@consovoymccarthy.com -- at Consovoy
McCarthy Park PLLC, for amici curiae Timothy Howard and The
Coalition for Mortgage Security in support of appellants

Myron T. Steele -- msteele@potteranderson.com -- at Potter
Anderson Corroon LLP, for amicus curiae Center for Individual
Freedom in support of appellants

Michael H. Krimminger -- mkrimminger@cgsh.com -- at Cleary
Gottleib, for amicus curiae Investors Unite in support of
appellants for reversal

Howard N. Cayne -- howard.cayne@apks.com -- David B. Bergman --
david.bergman@apks.com -- Dirk C. Phillips --
dirk.phillips@apks.com -- Ian S. Hoffman -- ian.hoffman@apks.com
at Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP; Paul D. Clement --
paul.clement@kirkland.com -- D. Zachary Hudson -- at Kirkland &
Ellis LLP; Michael J. Ciatti -- mciatti@kslaw.com -- Graciela
Maria Rodriguez -- gmrodriguez@kslaw.com -- at King & Spalding,
for appellees Federal Housing Finance Agency, et al.

Mark B. Stern, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the
cause for appellee Steven T. Munchin. With him on the brief were
Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Beth S. Brinkmann, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Alisa B.
Klein, Abby C. Wright, and Gerard Sinzdak, Attorneys

Dennis M. Kelleher, for amicus curiae Better Markets, Inc. in
support of appellees and affirmance

Pierre H. Bergeron, for amicus curiae Black Chamber of Commerce in
support of neither party

The United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
panel consists of Circuit Judges Patricia A. Millett, Douglas H.
Ginsburg and Janice Rogers Brown.


UNIVERSITE LAVAL: Copyright Infringement Class Action Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keith D. Rose, Esq. -- krose@mccarthy.ca -- of McCarthy Tetrault
LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that on February 8, 2017,
the Quebec Court of Appeal certified a class action by Copibec
against Universite Laval, for copyright infringement.

This decision overturns a Superior Court ruling from 2016, which
would have dismissed the claim on the basis that Copibec did not
satisfy the eligibility requirements under the province's Code of
Civil Procedure for an association to bring a class action on
behalf of its members.

Copibec is a collective management organization representing book
publishers, visual artists, and newspaper and periodical authors
and publishers in Quebec.

Copibec alleges that, in 2014, Universite Laval declined to renew
its license agreement with the collective and stopped paying
royalties for the reproduction of its members' works, including
for use in course packs.  The University instead sought to rely on
a fair usage policy.  Copibec asserts both copyright and moral
rights infringements.

The decisions to date have been essentially procedural and have
not considered the merits of the claims.  The case will now
proceed to trial in the Quebec Superior Court.


VASANT PATEL: "Mata" Litigation Alleges Violations of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
Juana Mata, on her own behalf and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Hawaiian Court Hospitality, LLC, Pinnacle Holdings
X, LLC, EOC Solutions, Inc., M&M Cleaning, USA, Inc., and Vasant
Patel, individually, Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-00299-JA-DCI
(M.D. Fla., February 21, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff was not
paid overtime for all of the hours she worked beyond 40 in a
single workweek, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant Vasant Patel owns and operates at least two hotels.  EOC
Solutions, Inc., M&M Cleaning, USA, Inc. are staffing agencies.
Plaintiff was an hourly laborer for Vasant Patel.

     W. John Gadd, Esq.
     Bank of America Building
     2727 Ulmerton Rd. Ste. 250
     Clearwater, FL 33762
     Phone: 727 524 6300
     E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com

        - and -

     Kyle J. Lee, Esq.
     LEE LAW, PLLC
     P.O. Box 4476
     Brandon, FL 33509 4476
     Phone: 813 343 2813
     E-mail: Kyle@KyleLeeLaw.com


VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT: Class Certified Based on Concrete Injury
---------------------------------------------------------------
David L. Luck and D. Matthew Allen, Esq., of Carlton Fields, in an
article for Mondaq, report that following the United States
Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct.
1540, 1549 (2016) -- which held that Article III standing requires
a concrete injury, even when an injury has otherwise been
established for statutory purposes -- there has been a debate as
to what constitutes Article III "concrete injury" under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Sec.
227.

With certain exceptions, the TCPA creates a statutory cause of
action for injunctions, damages, or both against persons or
entities that initiate phone calls to residential telephone lines
using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message
without the prior express consent of the called party.

On one side of the "concrete injury" debate are decisions holding
that unanswered calls and answered calls that do not cause greater
lost time, aggravation, and distress than manually dialed,
answered calls are "bare procedural violations" and do not satisfy
Article III's concrete injury-in-fact requirement. See, e.g.,
Romero v. Dep't Stores Nat'l Bank, No. 15-CV-193-CAB-MDD, 2016 WL
4184099 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2016).

However, on the other side are decisions holding that unwanted
calls -- regardless of whether they are unanswered or answered --
cause a risk of injury due to interruption, distraction, and
invasions of privacy and are therefore concrete injuries, not bare
procedural violations of the TCPA. See, e.g., Krakauer v. Dish
Network, LLC, 168 F. Supp. 3d 843, 845 (M.D.N.C. 2016).

In Golan v. Veritas Entm't, LLC, the Eastern District of Missouri
aligned itself with the latter side of this debate, holding that
allegedly unwanted robo calls, voiced by Mike Huckabee, and placed
to promote the religious film "Last Ounce of Courage," were
sufficient to satisfy Article III standing in a TCPA class action.

The district court also analyzed the Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3)
factors necessary to support its certification of a nationwide
class of recipients of such calls.  First, the class was
ascertainable based on a list of phone numbers and associated
addresses derived from defendants' records.

Second, defendants' deponents admitted that calls were made to
over four million residential numbers, thus demonstrating
numerosity.

Third, on commonality and predominance, the court reasoned that
common evidence would be used to attempt to establish liability
vis-a-vis all class members because, on the issue of consent or
lack thereof, a defense witness had testified that none of the
four million numbers had consented to receiving future calls about
movies for commercial purposes.  In addition, class-wide injury
could be determined based on the court's "concrete injury" ruling
described above.

Fourth, on typicality, the court found that all of these calls
"concerned Last Ounce of Courage and the same prerecorded message
was played for each."

Fifth, as to the adequacy, the court rejected a challenge based on
a preexisting friendship between one of the plaintiff's attorneys
and the primary representative plaintiff: "Numerous district
courts have held even a familial relationship is not enough to
create a conflict of interest; instead, courts look for shared
financial interests. A friendship and shared passion for running
do not create a conflict of interest."

Finally, the court held that a class was a superior means of
litigating these claims because there were potentially millions of
class members; a class action would be more efficient and conserve
judicial resources; class treatment would ensure consistent
rulings on shared issues; and there were not any known lawsuits
concerning this same telemarketing campaign.

Golan v. Veritas Entm't, LLC, No. 4:14CV00069 ERW, 2017 WL 193560,
at *1 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 18, 2017).


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Executive Arrested in U.S. in Emissions Probe
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a Volkswagen executive who was
arrested in the U.S. before he could fly home to Germany has
appeared in Detroit federal court on charges related to the
company's emissions scandal.

A not-guilty plea was entered on Feb. 23 on Oliver Schmidt's
behalf.  He's charged with conspiracy and other crimes in
Volkswagen's scheme to sell nearly 600,000 diesel vehicles that
didn't meet U.S. pollution standards.  The company is expected to
plead guilty on March 10.

Mr. Schmidt was manager of a VW office in suburban Detroit from
2012 to 2015.  He was arrested at the Miami airport on Jan. 7
after a vacation in Florida and Cuba.

Mr. Schmidt is in custody without bond.  His lawyer plans to seek
his release.  Five other VW executives charged in the case are in
Germany.


VOLKSWAGEN AUSTRALIA: Pressures Diesel Car Owners to Sign Waivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Dowling, writing for News Corp Australia Network, reports
that Volkswagen Australia has been accused of pressuring owners of
its "dirty diesel" cars to sign waivers and providing them with
false information, according to documents filed in a Federal Court
case management hearing on Feb. 22.

Lawyers representing close to 100,000 owners of Volkswagen, Audi
and Skoda diesel cars in Australia presented the court with "an
extensive dossier" detailing numerous instances of "bullying
tactics" and "providing inaccurate information".

Law firm Maurice Blackburn, which is taking up the open class
action on behalf of local owners, claims VW asked customers to
sign waiver documents "purporting to waive all their legal rights"
and "wrongfully" told customers their vehicles will not be covered
by manufacturer warranty if they refuse the voluntary repair work
to their diesel car.

Volkswagen Australia insists the company has not asked owners to
waive any rights and the recalls have been issued in consultation
with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).

In a statement to News Corp Australia, VW said: "The recall is
strongly recommended by Volkswagen but is voluntary -- and the
owner waives no legal rights if they choose to refuse it."

Volkswagen says owners of affected vehicles are contacted via
email, and also receive a letter inviting them to make an
appointment with their dealer.

"The communications with customers inviting them to come to a
dealership and have the update implemented voluntarily have been
finalised in consultation with the ACCC," says Volkswagen.

Jason Geisker, who heads the Maurice Blackburn class action, said
in a media statement: "After presiding over one of the biggest
motor vehicle scams in automotive history, impacting almost
100,000 Australian motorists and many millions more globally,
Volkswagen seems to be completely unrepentant".

Since the diesel emissions scandal was exposed in September 2015
"VW has been far from transparent or candid about its conduct,"
said Mr Geisker.

"The company has passed up numerous important opportunities to
explain why it set out to mislead regulators and approval
authorities about the real emissions generated by these so-called
green diesel cars."

Volkswagen says diesel "solutions" have now been approved by
Federal authorities for the majority of affected Australian
Volkswagen vehicles.  However, the majority of vehicles are yet to
have the recall work done.

"More than 13,000 vehicles in Australia have had the software
solution performed, in addition to more than 3 million in Europe,"
said the Volkswagen statement.

"Cars which have had the free software upgrade have been confirmed
by the Australian Government as conforming to relevant emissions
standards."

Volkswagen faces fines totalling more than $26 billion in the US
and Europe after authorities discovered certain diesel cars were
found to have software that pass emissions tests in a laboratory -
- but belch out toxic fumes in real driving conditions.

Although Australia's emissions standards lag those in the US and
Europe, Volkswagen is yet to provide details on the true tailpipe
emissions of affected diesel cars sold locally -- prior to the
recall work -- when driven on public roads.


WABTEC CORP: Busker's Appellant's Opening Brief Due on July 17
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit entered a time schedule order in the lawsuit entitled JOHN
BUSKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and
the general public, Plaintiff-Appellant v. WABTEC CORPORATION, a
Pennsylvania corporation; MARK MARTIN, an individual; DOES, 1
through 100, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 17-55165.

The Order states that the Parties shall meet in the following time
schedule:

   * July 17, 2017 Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of
     record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th
     Cir. R. 32-1.

   * August 16, 2017 Appellees' answering brief and excerpts of
     record shall be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th
     Cir. R. 32-1.

   * The optional appellant's reply brief shall be filed and
     served within fourteen days of service of the appellees'
     brief, pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1.

   * Failure of the appellant to comply with the Time Schedule
     Order will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal. See
     9th Cir. R. 42-1.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 9,
2017, Plaintiff John Busker filed the putative class action on
September 11, 2015, in the Los Angeles Superior Court against
Wabtec Corporation and Mark Martin.  Mr. Busker and other putative
class members work on a public works project under the employment
of Wabtec.  On October 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint in state court alleging causes of action for, among
other things, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages and
failure to pay prevailing wages on a public works project.

On October 19, 2015, the Defendants removed the action to federal
court.  The case is captioned as JOHN BUSKER, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated and the general public v. WABTEC
CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania corporation; MARK MARTIN, an
individual; DOES, 1 through 100, Case No. 2:15-cv-08194-ODW-AFM,
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Los Angeles.

On February 7, 2017, Mr. Busker filed a Notice of Appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the judgment,
Order on Motion to Remand Case to State Court, and Order granting
the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, entered by the
District Court.


WEN HAIR: Plaintiff's Lawyer Objects to Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cristin Severance, writing for CBS 11 News, reports that newly
filed court documents in the WEN Hair Care class action lawsuit
claim that the product is not natural as advertised in their
infomercials.  The legal document filed on February 10 is an
objection to the class action settlement for $26.5 million, which
received a judge's preliminary approval.  The plaintiffs allege
that their hair started to fall off after using the product.

Amy Davis, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs filed the
objection to the settlement.  The document states the ingredients
used in WEN are not all natural products like it suggests in the
infomercials.  Some of them, it says, are "synthetic allergens."
Allergens like kathon and HICC.  Researchers say these substances
are known to cause red, itchy, flaky and blistered scalps in some
people.  It says in severe cases; it can trigger hair loss.

The FDA is also investigating reports of hair loss caused by WEN
with at least 1386 complaints through November, 2016.
Additionally, the FDA says it is also looking into 21,000
complaints reported directly to Chaz Dean and Guthy Renker.

WEN has always maintained that there is no basis to these claims.
In a statement to CBS 11 News, they said:

"We stand behind our products, ingredients and formulations, all
of which meet or exceed the safety and quality standards set by
the cosmetics industry.  After more than a year of back-and-forth
in the courts, we reached an agreement to resolve this matter. The
settlement is a result of our decision to put this behind us so
that we can focus on continuing to deliver quality products to our
millions of customers.

The settlement does not require any new changes to the
formulations or ingredients of the products.  It does, however,
give the small percentage of our customers who believe they
encountered problems an opportunity to have their concerns
addressed.  Recent objections to the settlement serve no other
purpose than to hinder this process.  The lawyers behind this
filing seek only to enrich themselves at the expense of the WEN(R)
customers who are eager to see this issue resolved."


WESTERN UNION: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") on Feb. 23
disclosed that a class action has been commenced by an
institutional investor on behalf of purchasers of The Western
Union Company ("Western Union") (WU) publicly traded securities
during the period between February 24, 2012 and January 19, 2017
(the "Class Period").  This action was filed in the Middle
District of Pennsylvania and is captioned UA Local 13 Pension Fund
v. The Western Union Company, No. 17-cv-00326.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from January 26, 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, Darren
Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via
e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com.  If you are a member of this class, you
can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/westernunioncompany/.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 Western Union and certain of its current and
former officers and/or directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Western Union provides money movement and
payment services worldwide.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information regarding the Company's business and
compliance polices.  Specifically, during the Class Period,
Western Union and its senior management represented to investors
that the Company maintained a robust compliance program and obeyed
federal and international laws.  The complaint, however, alleges
that, contrary to these representations, Western Union was
systematically aiding and abetting a vast network of international
criminal activities, including money laundering and consumer fraud
schemes, and had willfully failed to implement effective
compliance programs and had turned a blind eye to its agents'
misconduct in order to boost the Company's short-term business.
As a result of defendants' false statements and/or omissions,
Western Union shares traded at artificially inflated prices during
the Class Period, reaching prices above $22 per share.

Then on January 19, 2017, The Wall Street Journal published an
article stating that Western Union had "agreed to pay $586 million
to resolve U.S. criminal and civil charges that it failed to
effectively police customers who were potentially using its
services to engage in fraud."  The article stated that in the
settlement agreement with the Department of Justice ("DOJ") and
Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"), the Company "admitted it failed
to maintain an effective anti-money-laundering program and it
aided and abetted wire fraud."  The same day, the DOJ and the FTC
issued releases detailing the settlement and the Company's
unlawful conduct.  The DOJ's release stated that "'Western Union's
failure to implement proper controls and discipline agents that
violated compliance[] policies enabled the proliferation of
illegal gambling, money laundering and fraud-related schemes.
Western Union's conduct resulted in the processing of hundreds of
millions of dollars in prohibited transactions.'"  Over the next
several days, additional information continued to come out about
the Company's settlements with various regulators and the
widespread misconduct of its employees and agents.  On this news,
which was revealed over several days, the price of Western Union
shares fell $2.31 per share, or over 10%, to close at $19.54 per
share on February 1, 2017.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Western Union publicly traded securities during the Class Period
(the "Class").  The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller,
which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class
actions including actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller is widely recognized as one of the leading law
firms advising U.S. and international institutional investors in
securities litigation and portfolio monitoring.  With 200 lawyers
in 10 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history and was ranked first
in both total amount recovered for investors and number of
securities class action recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 Report for
the last two years.  Robbins Geller attorneys have shaped the law
in the areas of securities litigation and shareholder rights and
have recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of the Firm's
clients.  Robbins Geller not only secures recoveries for defrauded
investors, it also strives to implement corporate governance
reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors
worldwide.  Please visit rgrdlaw.com/cases/westernunioncompany/
for more information.


WORKPLACE SAFETY: Court of Appeals Revives Injured Workers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
JD Supra Advisor reports the Ontario Court of Appeal has revived a
proposed class action brought by the appellant, Pietro Castrillo,
on behalf of a class of injured workers whom he alleges have been
wrongfully denied the full extent of benefits to which they were
entitled under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997, by
the respondent the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.  The
class action alleges misfeasance in public office, bad faith, and
negligence on the part of the WSIB.

The class action claims that injured workers were "denied the full
extent of benefits to which they were entitled" as a result of a
"secret policy" implemented by the WSIB, which policy adopted a
broader interpretation of the term "pre-existing impairment" to
include asymptomatic pre-existing conditions, which had previously
been excluded.   The appellant claims that this change in
interpretation was illegally made in order to save WSIB money by
reducing injured workers' non-economic loss awards.  The class
action seeks declarations that the WSIB "perpetrated a misfeasance
in public office" in how it handled the non-economic loss claims
of the class, "breached its duty to act in good faith" to the
class, and, in the alternative, was negligent.  According to the
Toronto Star, the alleged "secret policy" was in force between
2012 and 2014.

Two years ago, the WSIB successfully brought a motion to strike
the statement of claim, asserting there was no cause of action,
and that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the class action due to the privative clause in the Act, which
gives the WSIB exclusive jurisdiction to examine, hear and decide
all matters and questions arising under the Act. The motions judge
granted the motion to strike the statement of claim, without leave
to amend.  The motions judge held that the WSIB's decisions to
reduce the class members' non-economic loss benefits were "legal
decisions that fall within the four corners of the privative
clause", and were therefore beyond court challenge.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's ruling to the Court of
Appeal.  On appeal, the court considered two issues: 1) were the
causes of action properly pleaded, and 2) does the privative
clause in the Act prevent the appellant from pursuing the causes
of action.  The Court of Appeal held that, except for the
allegation of bad faith, the claim was properly pleaded, and the
privative clause in the Act does not prevent the appellant from
pursuing claims of misfeasance in public office and negligence
against the WSIB.  As a result, the class action against the WSIB
has been granted permission to proceed.


WWE: Lawyers Ask Judge to Allow Discovery Phase of Recent Deaths
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Thomas at 411 Mania reports that the lawyers who are
representing a swath of former WWE talent in a lawsuit against the
company over their handling of concussions has filed a motion
asking the judge in the case to shoot down WWE's request to put a
stop to the discovery phase. PWInsider reports that the attorneys
for the plantiffs submitted a filing on February 22 arguing that
the recent passing of Jimmy Snuka, Ivan Koloff and George Steele
among others is a reason that discovery should move ahead.

WWE's lawyers have been asking for discovery to cease in the
lawsuit, arguing that the class action suit was added to existing
lawsuits that were already ongoing against the company. The
plaintiffs' legal team say that the current lawsuit was not yet
filed when discovery was ended on the existing and related cases
and thus the new plantiffs have not had time for their charges to
be heard. The filing states, "The epidemic that is killing
professional wrestlers and the Plaintiffs in this case necessitate
a full and robust discovery to ensure that these wrestlers are
given the relief they need before more wrestlers die from the
complications of professional wrestling. Discovery should not be
stayed as it is only further wasting precious time and rewarding
the Defendants abusive, delaying tactics."

Listed in the filing as examples of wrestlers who have continued
to pass away as a result of what they say are WWE's actions are
Steele, Snuka, Koloff, Chavo Guerrero Sr., Nicole Bass and Rex
King. The motion states, "While Plaintiffs are dying from their
in-ring injuries and long-term neurological conditions, the
Defendants seek to delay simple discovery to prevent the public
and its former wrestlers from finally seeing the decades of
fraudulent conduct that has resulted in severe injuries for its
employees."

In addition, the motion argues that discovery must continue
because they intend to scrutinize WWE's claims that they pay for
the medical costs of talents' in-ring injuries and medical care,
arguing that the company's contractual and public statements on
the matter "inherently covers the latent and long-lasting effects
of repeated in-ring head trauma. It also argues that the case goes
beyong CTE to "a much broader series of claims relating to WWE's
violation of numerous common law, contractual and statutory rights
of the Plaintiffs resulting in financial as well as physical
injury."

A hearing is set for March 2nd in regard to sanctions that WWE and
Vince McMahon in particular have requested be taken against
lawyers Konstantine Kyros -- contact@kyroslaw.com -- of Kryos Law,
Brenden Leydon of Tooher Wocl & Leydon, LLC, S. James Boumil --
jboumil@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer, Anthony Norris, Erica C.
Mirabella -- erica@mirabellaLLC.com -- of Mirabella Law, LLC, and
R. Christopher Gilreath -- chrisgil@sidgilreath.com -- of Gilreath
and Associates, who they claim have plagiarized allegations from a
NFL-concussion lawsuit amond many other claims.


YAHOO INC: 770,000 Hosiers Can Join Data Breach Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Kara Kenney, writing for TheindyChannel, reports that over 770,000
Hoosiers impacted by Yahoo's latest massive data breach may be
able to take part in a class-action lawsuit against the company.

The Indiana Attorney General's office sent Yahoo a written letter
asking for more information about the breach.  The company
responded, saying Indiana residents impacted by the data breach
received notice by email.

Attorneys from 33 law firms across the country have filed the
largest class-action suit in history against Yahoo, alleging the
company failed to protect consumer information such as email
addresses, passwords, birthdates and security questions and
answers.

"To have that kind of breach by a company that engages in the
internet in the exchange of information with users is
intolerable," said attorney John Yanchunis, who is leading the
class action lawsuit.

The attorneys also allege Yahoo failed to notify consumers of the
data breach in a timely manner.

IUPUI student and longtime Yahoo user Samantha Harrison said she's
not sure if she was a victim of the data breach, but is concerned.

"Anything that is associated with your email somebody who has
hacked into that, can access that," said Ms. Harrison.  "That's a
privacy invasion, and that's not cool."

Hackers cracked Yahoo's security in 2013 and 2014, and the company
recently announced another breach might have happened in 2015 as
well.

Yahoo users who join the class action lawsuit could end up with
money in their pocket, depending on whether they suffered losses
or identity theft as a result of the breach, according to
Mr. Yanchunis.

Aside from restitution, the suit demands Yahoo do more to ensure
the protection of their email account holders.

Yahoo did not provide a comment to Call 6 Investigates on the
litigation.

Later this year, the judge handling the case is expected to order
that notices be sent to Yahoo account holders to give them the
option of joining the suit.

In the meantime, you can contact the Morgan and Morgan law firm at
1-877-621-7573.

Indiana's breach disclosure law requires Hoosiers to be notified
only if certain types of personal information are compromised,
such as social security numbers, credit card numbers and driver's
license numbers.

"In this case, it does not appear that this kind of information
was disclosed.  Therefore Indiana's law does not appear to apply,"
said Corey Elliot, spokesperson for the Indiana Attorney General's
Office.  "Any time a breach happens it calls into question the
appropriateness of the safeguards in place to protect information.
These incidents are a reminder to companies to implement and
maintain robust data security protections, including measures to
review whether sensitive information has been previously leaked."


YAHOO INC: Unveils Terms of Verizon Deal Amid Data Breach Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Therese Poletti, writing for Marketwatch, reports that the revised
deal between Verizon Communications Inc. and Yahoo Inc. may give
Altaba another reason to exist beyond holding a bunch of cash and
stock.  But it isn't a good reason.

On Feb. 21, Verizon and Yahoo unveiled the terms of their expected
new deal, the result of some lengthy negotiations after the
discovery of two massive security breaches at Yahoo that affected
more than a billion users.  The revised terms slashed $350 million
from the $4.8 billion purchase price Verizon agreed to pay, and
included a clause about legal bills that will push some of the
burden of shareholder litigation and a regulatory inquiry onto
Yahoo.

Specifically, Verizon and Yahoo agreed to share equally each any
liabilities resulting from non-SEC related investigations and
other third-party litigation associated with the data breach.
There are currently 23 consumer class-action lawsuits filed
against Yahoo for the breach, according to an SEC filing.

But Yahoo will bear the sole responsibility of liabilities
associated with the continuing SEC investigation and any
shareholder lawsuits.  The SEC is investigating whether the two
huge data breaches should have been reported sooner to investors.
At least one shareholder lawsuit was filed against Yahoo soon
after the SEC investigation was announced and is seeking class
action status in federal court.  That suit alleges that Yahoo and
its top executives, Chief Executive Officesr Marissa Mayer and CFO
Ken Goldman, made public misrepresentations and failed to disclose
material facts to investors about the data breaches at the
company.

Yahoo, though, may not exist in its current form when the results
of all these legal actions are known.  Verizon and Yahoo still say
that they expect the deal to close in the second quarter; once it
does, "Yahoo" will become part of Verizon while everything else
that is part of Yahoo Inc. becomes part of a new holding company
called Altaba.

That means Altaba could be left holding the bag for some legal
expenses stemming from the Yahoo hacks, possibly taking a chunk
out of the $7 billion in cash and securities that Yahoo held at
the end of 2016.  For investors who have spent years waiting for
Yahoo to figure out a way to spin out its cash and stakes in
Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. and Yahoo Japan from the flagging core
business without a huge tax liability, this potential drain on the
assets cannot be appealing.

Yahoo declined to comment when contacted on Feb. 21.

Yahoo investors seemed relieved on Feb. 21 that Verizon chose a
slight discount instead of dropping the deal entirely, sending
shares up 0.9%.  Yahoo stock has gained 10.6% in the last three
months and 51.5% in the past year, easily topping the S&P 500
index's SPX, +0.15%  gains of 7.6% and 23.3% in those time frames.

Yahoo's gains have pushed its market cap north of $43 billion,
which would mean Altaba is valued at roughly $39 billion given the
price Verizon is paying.  That price may be too rich if the SEC
and shareholder legal actions against Yahoo end up successful.


* Crowell Attorney Shares Highlights from New Class Action Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Thomas Foust, Esq. -- jfoust@crowell.com -- of Crowell &
Moring LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that just a week
before Congress began its first extended recess of 2017, the
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee took a step towards
dramatically changing the landscape of class action litigation.
On Thursday, February 9, Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
introduced a bill (H.R. 985) that would "amend the procedures used
in Federal court class actions" by adding a number of new hurdles
to class certification in federal court.

Chairman Goodlatte was a principal author of the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005, which considerably expanded federal
diversity jurisdiction over interstate class actions.  He was also
behind another class action reform bill introduced in 2015 that
failed to clear the Senate.  His new bill, dubbed the Fairness in
Class Action Litigation Act of 2017, is in much the same vein --
and, if passed, would represent the most sweeping revision of
federal class action law to date.

Highlights from the bill:

Injury and Damages: Under the new bill, plaintiffs seeking
"monetary relief" would have to "affirmatively demonstrate that
each proposed class member suffered the same type and scope of
injury as the named class representative."

Practical Impact: It is not immediately clear how this change
would affect the certification inquiry in practice; federal courts
already require a high degree of uniformity in the type of injury
that class members have suffered in order to find that common
questions predominate.  In theory, though, the new language has at
least two stated aims: (1) to ensure that no certified classes
include uninjured absent class members, and (2) to prevent the
certification of classes that require widely diverging
calculations of individual damages awards.

Conflicts of Interest: The new bill would require class action
complaints to disclose:

   1. whether any proposed class representative "is a relative of,
is a present or former employee of, is a present or former client
of (other than with respect to the class action), or has any
contractual relationship with (other than with respect to the
class action) class counsel," and

   2. "the circumstances under which each class representative or
named plaintiff agreed to be included in the complaint," including
"any other class action in which any proposed class representative
or named plaintiff has a similar role."

Practical Impact: Under the new bill, if a named plaintiff has a
pre-existing relationship with class counsel, then the court
"shall not issue an order granting certification" -- plainly
targeting the trend of "repeat offenders" filing multiple class
action complaints against multiple defendants using the same
counsel.

Ascertainability: In a direct response to recent circuit court
decisions, the bill would enshrine in statute the implied
"ascertainability" requirement recognized by the Third Circuit in
Carrera v. Bayer and rejected by the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and
Ninth Circuits. Specifically, the bill would prohibit
certification of damages classes "unless the class is defined with
reference to objective criteria and the party seeking to maintain
such a class action affirmatively demonstrates that there is a
reliable and administratively feasible mechanism" for identifying
class members and distributing individual damages awards.

Practical Impact: In practice, this provision could, for example,
authorize courts to demand that consumers come forward with
records or proofs of purchase showing they meet the class
definition -- even in class actions involving inexpensive consumer
goods.

Attorneys' Fees: The bill seeks to prevent disproportionately
large fee awards by limiting class counsel's fees "to a reasonable
percentage of any payments directly distributed to and received by
class members." In addition, the provision would cap the fee award
at "the total amount of money directly distributed to and received
by all class members."

Practical Impact: This provision is ostensibly designed to make it
more difficult for plaintiffs' counsel to recover fee awards --
and thus to discourage them from filing class actions in the first
instance. By the same token, however, the bill would also make it
harder for defendants to negotiate -- and get approval for --
class action settlements.

Appeals: Finally, the bill would require federal circuit courts to
accept any appeals of district court orders granting or denying
class certification.

Practical Impact: Given the inherently high stakes of a
certification ruling, this provision would likely increase
appellate litigation over Rule 23 issues dramatically: currently,
under Rule 23(f), appellate review is only available at the
court's discretion.

Of course, the new bill faces a long road to becoming law; the
most recent class-action reform bill proposed by Chairman
Goodlatte, for example, failed to pass the Republican Senate after
making it out of the House. But given what a sea change this
legislation would represent for class action practice in the
federal courts, its progress in Congress is worth monitoring
closely.



                            *********

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  * * *