CAR_Public/170313.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Monday, March 13, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 51



                            Headlines

A & L HOLDINGS: "Bustillo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Regular Wages
ABM ONSITE: "Brinkmann" Sues Over Late Wages
ABSOLUTE WEST: Faces "Jackson" Suit Alleging Labor Law Violations
ADELPHIA SUPPLY: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violations
ADVANCED CRITICAL: Faces "Buckley" Suit Over False Promotion

AMERICAN DG: "Vardakas" Suit Seeks to Block Merger with Tecogen
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Larkin Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
AMERICAN PARA: "Sanchez" Suit Alleges Cal. Labor Law Violations
AQ TEXTILES: Faces Suit Over Incorrect Thread Counts in Products
ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: "Dezi" Seeks Damages Over Share Price Drop

ARBY'S RESTAURANT: Credit Union Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
ARBY'S RESTUARANT: Faces Multiple Suits Over Data Breach
ARCTIC CAT: "Parshall" Suit Seeks to Block Merger with Textron
ARJO FOOD CORP: "Caishpal" Seeks Minimum Wage, Overtime Pay
BANK OF AMERICA: "Culpepper" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

BAYER CORP: Partial Settlement Reached in Cipro Class Action
BEACH COMPANY: Faces "Williams" Suit Over TCPA Violation
BLUE CROSS: Faces "Moe" Suit Over Denied DBT 3D Mammogram
BOEING: Families of Flight 370 Crash Victims File Suit in U.S.
BOSLEY MEDICAL: "Campbell" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls

BOW & TRUSS: Smith, et al. File Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Labor Laws
BRANDI'S HOPE: Overtime Pay Claimed in "Birdie" Labor Suit
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Suit Over Unfair Foreign Buyers Tax
BROADCOM CORP: Class Settlement Granted Final Approval
BUILDER SERVICES: "Wickliffe" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA

CAFE 37 INC: "Calixto" Claims Minimum Wage, Overtime Pay
CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL: Faces "Cerda" Labor Suit Under Cal. Laws
CANADA: Faces Suit Over Prisoners' Solitary Confinement
CAPITAL ADVANCE: Redman's 1st Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
CAPITAL ALLIANCE: "Alves" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls

CASE & ASSOCIATES: "Rangel" Suit Alleges Violations of FLSA
CASTLE & COOKE: Settlement in "Cabrales" Gets Final Approval
CATERPILLAR INC: Stock Drop Suit Filed After Federal Raid
CATERPILLAR INC: May 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
CEMTREX INC: "Guerrier" Sues Over Drop in Cemtrex Share Prices

CEMTREX INC: "Cullinan" Alleges Insider Trading, Hits Share Drop
CENTURY REALTY: Summary Judgment Sought in "Burns" Class Suit
CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Faces Another Gender Discrimination Case
CHEZ JACQUELINE: "Tamay" Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
CHOCOLADA BAKERY: Overtime Premium Sought in "Kalish" Labor Suit

CIGNA CORP: Faces "Welp" Suit Over Blanket Exclusion in Insurance
CLUB MONACO: "Anderson" Claims Website Inaccessible for the Blind
COAST PROFESSIONAL: Bad Collection Practices Alleged by "Fuzaylov"
CONAGRA FOODS: Seeks to Dismiss Suit That Was Denied Certification
CORPS OF ENGINEERS: Settlement Assessment Letters Mailed

CORPS OF ENGINEER: Claimants Dissatisfied with Settlement Amount
CORRECTIONS CORP: Settles Women Prison Visitors' Tampon Suit
CUPCAKE SPOT: Unpaid Overtime Pay Claimed by "Bell"
CYNOSURE INC: "Ira" Contests Shadowy Merger Deal, Seeks More Info
DAKOTA OF ROCKY HILL: "McDougle" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA

DELRAY FOOD: "Angle" Hits Illegal Tip-Credit, Seeks Wage Payments
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Maxwell Moves for Certification of FDCPA Class
ECOLAB INC: Workers Class Certification Sought in "Charlot" Suit
EMERY FEDERAL: Palombaro Seeks to Certify Class of Borrowers
ENTEROMEDICS INC: "Du" Sues Over Onerous Stock Plan, Cries Breach

ENTERPRISE LEASING: "James" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
FAC MANAGEMENT: Unpaid Overtime, Minimum Pay Sought in "Bryant"
FIAT CHRYSLER: Mistreats Older Employees, Suit Says
FIREEYE INC: Judge Will Preliminarily Approve Proposed Settlement
FIRST STEP: Faces "Zeznanski" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA

FREDERICK-THOMPSON CO: Al-Anazi Seeks to Certify Class, Amend Suit
FRESH MARKET: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action
FLOOD BROS: Sued in Ill. Cir. Ct. Over Illegitimate Fees
GALENA BIOPHARMA: Sued Over Securities Exchange Act Violations
GENERAL CABLE: Doshi Sues Over Share Price Drop on Bribery News

GEORGIO'S BAKERY: "Solarte" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA
GERON CORP: Settles Securities Class Action
GF-PASSAIC FOODS: Faces "Barile" Suit Over "Excessive" Sales Tax
GIODARNO CONSTRUCTION: Overtime Pay Claimed in "Giron" Labor Suit
GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Chruby Moves for Certification of Five Classes

GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VA: Transgender Discrimination Case Pending
GRAEBEL VAN: "Coronel" Suit Alleges Misclassification of Drivers
GOOGLE INC: Court Refuses to Dismiss BIPA Violation Suit
GRANA Y MONTERO: Faces "Peralta" Suit Over Odebrecht "Bribes"
HERTZ CORP: Beach-Barrow Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code

HMS HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Delay on Release of Fin'l Results
HOGAN TRANSPORTS: Bid to Certify Class in "Fairfax" Suit Mooted
H.O.P.E. PROGRAM: "Fillion-Frye" Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
HSBC BANK: "Wolff" Suit Alleges False Ad of Referral Funds
ICHIBAN GROUP: "Zhang" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wage Under FLSA

INNOCOLL HOLDINGS: "Huang" Sues Over Drop in Innocoll Share Prices
INTERLINE BRANDS: Ajose Moves to Certify Classes and Subclasses
INVENSENSE INC: "Dunham" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal with TDK
INVENSENSE INC: "Isaac" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal
INVUITY INC: "Paciga" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violations

IOD INC: "Ortiz" Sues for Overcharging of Medical Record Copies
J.C. PENNEY: "Anderson" Sues Over Disabled Inaccessible Stories
J.T. WIMSATT: "Guevarra" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
KIDS FIRST DENTISTRY: "Jeffers" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
KOHL'S CORP: "Tran" Suit Alleges FCRA Breach

KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Sued in Super. Ct. Over Kohl's Cash Marketing
KONA BREWING: Misleads Consumers on Beer Origin, Suit Says
KRISPY KREME: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss False Advertising Suit
KROGER CO: Sued in Cal. Over Kroger Apple Juice Misrepresentation
LIBRE BY: Sued Over Lease Agreement with Migrant Detainees

L'OREAL USA: Faces "Valrie" Suit for Concealing Product Defects
LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued for Illegally Charging Excessive Fees
LOVELL MACASAET: Bustillo Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Gold Seeks Certification of Six Classes
LYNNWOOD: Faces Suit Over Illegal Traffic Infractions

MAJOR LEAGUE: Judge Criticizes Serial Settlement Objector
MDL 1700: ND Court Denies Bid for Emergency Injunction
MDL 2599: Ford's Bid to Dismiss Airbag Suit Granted in Part
METALDYNE PERFORMANCE: "Bushansky" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal
MIDLAND FUNDING: NY Court Narrows Claims in "Madden"

MIRACLE HOME: Faces "Tirona" Labor Suit Filed on Behalf of Nurses
MONTANA: Settlement Reached in Langford v. Bullock
MORGANSHOTEL GROUP: NY High Court Tosses Server Assistant's Suit
MYLAN INC: Faces Suit in Pa. Over Inflated Clomipramine Prices
NATURE'S ELITE: "Young" Sues Over False Ad of Skincare Products

NESTLE USA: Sued in Cal. Over "Slackfill" in Candy Products
NEW SEABURY: Reaches Preliminary Agreement on Class Action
NEW YORK: Faces "Davydov" Labor Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
NITRO GREEN: Faces "Shaffer" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
NJ NEC INC: "Gorski" Alleges No Time-keeping, Denied OT Pay

NORTHLAND GROUP: "Jones" Sues Over Vague Collection Letters
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Bid to Certify Class in "Marshall" Suit Denied
NYC SUNRISE: "Casas" Seeks Minimum Wage, Overtime Pay
OAKMONT MAINTENANCE: "Garza" Seeks OT Pay for Off-The-Clock Work
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER: Lawyer Evades Sanction from Court

ONE SOURCE STAFFING: OT Pay Sought in "Henderson" Labor Suit
ONTARIO: Deadline Set for Claimants to File in 407 Toll Suit
PACWEST SOLUTIONS: Faces "Faustino" Suit Under Cal. Labor Code
PARAMOUNT CARE: "Brown" Labor Suit Claims Overtime Pay
PARAMOUNT PROPERTY: "Cabrera" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay, Damages

PEARSON PLC: "Chupka" Sues Over Share Price Drop
PENDRAGON NORTH: Chiu, et al. Sues Over Racial Discrimination
PLATINUM PARI-MUTUEL: May 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Suit Over Negligent Representation
Q.S. SAN LUIS OBISPO: Settlement in "ABDI" Gets Final Approval

QUANTUM LEARNING: Class Settlement in "Johnson" Has Final OK
QUALCOMM INC: "Rotman" Suit Alleges Sherman Act Breach
QUALCOMM INC: Charged with Anti-trust for Chipset by "Crutcher"
QUALCOMM INC: Charged with Anti-trust for Chipset by "Frederick"
QUALITY THERAPY: "Kondati" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay

RHD JR INC: Court Certifies Class of Mechanics in "Jordan" Suit
RHG & COMPANY: Settlement in "Maxin" Has Preliminary Approval
RIO ARRIBA COUNTY, NM: "Serna" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
SANABI INVESTMENTS: "Carrero" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
SANTA FE, NM: Needs to Change Product Labeling for Deal Compliance

SAP AMERICA: Faces "Stambaugh" Suit Over Employee Stock Options
SIRIUSXM: Music Organizations Join to Disapprove Suit Settlement
SKYC MANAGEMENT: "Luna" Sues Over Rent Stabilization Law Breach
SOLAR BEAR: Class of Installers Certified in "Izquidero" Suit
SPARTAN TECHNOLOGIES: "Williams" Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay

ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY: Bobo's Drugs Seeks Class Certification
STILLWATER MINING: Faces "Rempel" Suit Over Sibanye Merger
STRAWBERRY PATCH: Faces "Harshbarger" Suit Under Cal. Labor Code
SWEDISH MEDICAL: Class Action Adds PreCheck Inc. as Defendant
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Feller Seeks to Certify Class of Policyholders

TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL: Faces "Sackin" Suit Over 2016 Data Breach
TRIDENT SEAFOODS: "Guzman" Asserts Food Supplement Mislabeling
UFC: MMA Fighters File Class Action Over Sherman Act Violations
UNDER ARMOUR: Bloated Stock Price Hit in "Hopkins" Suit
UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Allows Trump Travel Ban Case to Proceed

UNITED STATES: Justice Dept Granted 2-Week Extension for Response
UNITED STATES: ABA Sues Over Reduced Annual Dividend
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA: Decides Not to Eliminate Scholarships
VCA INC: Hight Sues Over Proposed Sale to MMI Holdings
WALMART DE MEXICO: NY Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Fogel" Suit

YAHOO INC: General Counsel Steps Down Amid Data Breach Cases

* Antitrust Suits Could Face Major Hurdles With Class Action Bill
* Colorado Looks to Reform Construction Defects Law
* Reed Smith Atty Comments on Treatment of "Mass Actions" in Pa.
* Rural Electric Cooperatives Receive Dismissals in Class Action
* Sawaya Orchestrates $8,500 Donation to Non-Profit Organization

* What Lawyers Need to Know About Tort Reform Push in Congress





                            *********


A & L HOLDINGS: "Bustillo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Regular Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
RONALD BUSTILLO, an individual; CLASS REPRESENTATIVE,
INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
CURRENT AND FORMER EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANTS, the Plaintiff, v. A &
L HOLDINGS, INC., a corporation, ARIEL REYES, an individual, MA,
LOURDES REYES, an individual, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC649931 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 9, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid regular wages, unpaid overtime premiums,
and other compensation owed to them, plus all benefits.

The Class Members, including Named Plaintiff, were employees of
Defendants, as defined by California Labor Code section 350(b).
However, Defendants purposely misclassified the Class Members,
including Named Plaintiff, as "independent contractor" because by
so doing, Defendants lowered their cost of doing business by means
of, but not limited to, the following: (i) Defendants did not
report or pay the employer's share of federal or state payroll
taxes with respect to any of funds paid to Plaintiff as required
by federal and state; (ii) Defendants did not provide pay for
Workers Compensation insurance for the Plaintiff; and (iii)
Defendants did not provide or pay for State Disability insurance
for the Plaintiff.

As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned violations
of California law committed by Defendants, Named Plaintiff and
Class Members suffered substantial losses related to the loss of
the employer's share of payroll taxes, the use and employment of
such benefits, and expenses and attorney's fees in seeking to
compel Defendants to fully perform their obligations under state
law, all in an amount to be proven at trial.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Caesar S. Natividad, Esq.
          THE NATIVIDAD LAW FIRM
          3550 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 655
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (323) 540 5800
          Facsimile: (213) 387 2297


ABM ONSITE: "Brinkmann" Sues Over Late Wages
--------------------------------------------
Joseph Brinkmann, both in his individual capacity and, in
addition, as a collective action on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ABM Onsite Services - West, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00275 (D. Or.,
February 16, 2017) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff complains of late issuance of paychecks, usually after
the mandated pay date.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jon M. Egan, Esq.
      JON M. EGAN, PC
      547 Fifth Street
      Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3009
      Telephone: (503) 697-3427
      Fax: (866) 311-5629
      Email: Jegan@eganlegalteam.com


ABSOLUTE WEST: Faces "Jackson" Suit Alleging Labor Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Jackson and Juan Hernandez Zuniga, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. Absolute
West, LLC dba Harbor Division, LLC, a California Limited Liability
Company, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, (Cal.
Super., County of Los Angeles, February 24, 2017), alleges wage
and labor violations arising out of, among others, Defendant's
misclassification of employees, failure to pay wages, failure to
reimburse business expenses and failure to provide meal and rest
breaks to its employee drivers in violation of the California
Labor Code and Industrial Wage Order.

Defendant provides various transporting services throughout
California.  Plaintiff is a truck driver.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ADELPHIA SUPPLY: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
David Klein at JD Supra Advisor reports that on March 1, 2017, a
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that a Brooklyn-
based wholesale medical supply company violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  The complaint, drafted by
plaintiff's TCPA attorneys, alleges that Adelphia Supply USA, Inc.
of Brooklyn ("Adelphia"), sent the named plaintiff at least 20
advertisements by facsimile in violation of the TCPA.
Additionally, the complaint alleges that Adelphia has been
dissolved and, as such, seeks to hold its two principals liable
for the claimed TCPA violations.

How did the Adelphia's Faxes Allegedly Violate the TCPA?

According to the complaint, Adelphia allegedly sent 20 different
fax advertisements to the named plaintiff.  None of those fax
advertisements, according to the complaint, "include the mandatory
opt-out notice required" by regulations promulgated under the
TCPA.  The named plaintiff alleges that more than 39 other
individuals received similar advertisements.  As is typical in
class-action litigation, the named plaintiff has already moved for
class certification, despite the fact that none of the defendants
has been served with process.

      Protect Against a Fax TCPA Lawsuit with a TCPA Attorney

Perhaps the best way to avoid potential liability under the TCPA,
both with respect to your company and to you as a principal of the
business, is to consult with TCPA attorneys qualified to provide
regulatory compliance advice.  As the subject TCPA class action
lawsuit against Adelphia demonstrates, companies and their
principals are at risk in sending fax advertisements that may
violate the statute.  Accordingly, telemarketers are advised to
retain experienced TCPA attorneys prior to embarking in any
advertising campaign.


ADVANCED CRITICAL: Faces "Buckley" Suit Over False Promotion
------------------------------------------------------------
Tristram Buckley, an individual and class representative,
Plaintiff, vs. RICHARD MILLS, ADVANCED CRITICAL CARE EMERGENCY AND
SPECIALTY SERVICES, LLC, CITY OF ANGELS VETERINARY SPECIALTY
CENTER, LLC. AMANDA BLACKBURN, SIOBHAN O'NEILL, RICHARD PERLIS,
AMBER COHN AND DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
BC 652054 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, February 24, 2017),
alleges that in order to fraudulently induce consumer class
members to retain the Defendants' veterinary services, choosing
the Defendants' services over their significantly more qualified
competitors, and in order to cash in on this lucrative market,
Defendant Mills, by and through his management and control over
ACCESS and City of Angels Veterinary Center, has falsely promoted,
represented and advertised, and continues to falsely promote,
represent and advertise ACCESS and the City of Angeles Veterinary
Specialty Center as the most qualified and capable "specialist"
veterinary medical facility in Southern California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Tristram Buckley, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TRISTRAM BUCKLEY
     426 S. Rexford Drive, Suite 12
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Phone: 310.980.1842
     E-mail: Tristram_Buckley@yahoo.com


AMERICAN DG: "Vardakas" Suit Seeks to Block Merger with Tecogen
---------------------------------------------------------------
LEE VARDAKAS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN DG ENERGY INC., JOHN
N. HATSOPOULOS, GEORGE N. HATSOPOULOS, BENJAMIN LOCKE, CHARLES T.
MAXWELL, DEANNE M. PETERSEN, CHRISTINE M. KLASKIN, JOHN ROWE, JOAN
GIACINTI, ELIAS SAMARAS, TECOGEN INC., TECOGEN.ADGE ACQUISITION
CORP., and CASSEL SALPETER & CO., LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-10247 (D. Mass., Feb. 15, 2017), seeks to enjoin
Defendants from taking any steps to consummate a proposed
transaction, or, in the event the proposed transaction is
consummated, to recover damages resulting from Defendants'
violations of their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith, due
care and candor and/or their violations of the Securities and
Exchange Act.

The action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated holders of the common stock
of American DG Energy Inc., against the Defendants for their
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection
with a proposed merger between American DG Energy and Tecogen. The
Plaintiff also asserts claims for breaches of fiduciary duty
against the Director/Officer Defendants and George N. Hatsopoulos,
the brother of John Hatsopoulos who beneficially owns more than
21% of Tecogen and 19% of American DG Energy, and claims for
aiding and abetting against George N. Hatsopoulos, Tecogen, Merger
Sub, and Cassel Salpeter.

On November 2, 2016, American DG Energy announced that it had
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (Merger Agreement),
pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and into American DG
Energy, with American DG Energy continuing as the surviving
corporation and as a wholly owned subsidiary of Tecogen. Pursuant
to the terms of the Merger Agreement, American DG Energy
shareholders will receive 0.092 shares of Tecogen common stock for
each share of American DG Energy common stock that they own. Based
on the $4.03 closing price of Tecogen common stock on November 1,
2016, the last trading day before public announcement of the
Proposed Transaction, the Exchange Ratio represents approximately
$0.37 in Tecogen common stock for each share of American DG Energy
common stock, which is significantly below the
Company's 52-week trading high of $0.65.

American DG Energy is an on-site utility offering clean
electricity, heat, hot water and cooling through combined heat and
power (cogeneration).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 971 1341
          E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
                  mschreiner@monteverdelaw.com

               - and -

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 667 6200
          E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com
                  mackerman@brodskysmith.com

               - and -

          Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal Street, Suite 400
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398 5600
          Facsimile: (617) 507 6020
          E-mail: Jason@blockesq.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Larkin Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
MEGAN LARKIN, an individual; ROXANA PORTILLO, an individual; and
DELIA RAJO, an individual; All Individual Plaintiffs on Behalf of
Themselves and as Class Representatives for All Other Similarly
Situated Non-Exempt Current and Former Employees, the Plaintiff,
v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., an Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC650122 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Feb. 9, 2017), seeks to compel Defendants to fully
perform their obligations under California Labor Code, all to
their respective damages in amounts according to proof at time of
trial, and within the jurisdiction of the Court.

In violation of California law, the Defendants have knowingly and
willfully refused to perform their obligations to compensate
Plaintiffs and Class Members for all wages earned and all hours
worked. As a proximate result, Plaintiffs and Class Members have
suffered, and continue to suffer, substantial losses related to
the use and enjoyment of such wages, lost interest on such wages,
and expenses and attorneys' fees

The amount in controversy for each named Plaintiff individually
does not exceed the sum or value of $75,000.00. Moreover, the
amount in controversy for the aggregate claims of the named
Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent is under
$5,000,000.00.

American Airlines operates as a passenger and cargo air carrier.
It also offers freight and mail services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shoham J. Savoy, Esq.
          Grant Joseph Savoy, Esq.
          SOLOUKI & SAVOY, LLP
          316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (213) 814-4940
          Facsimile: (213) 814-2550
          E-mail: shoham@soloukisavoY.com
                  srant@soloukisavoy.com

               - and -

          Dan B. Yakobian, Esq.
          DBY LAW
          3250 Wilshire Boulevard, Floor 13
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 316 8844
          Facsimile: (213) 618 4466
          E-mail: dan@bisdlaw.com


AMERICAN PARA: "Sanchez" Suit Alleges Cal. Labor Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON SANCHEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. AMERICAN PARA PROFESSIONAL
SYSTEMS, INC., a New York corporation; A.P.P.S OF CALIFORNIA,
business entity form unknown; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, (Cal. Super., February 27, 2017), raises claims
against Defendants for failure to pay all minimum and overtime
wages owed, failure to provide off-duty meal periods and paid rest
breaks, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to reimburse all business-related expenses, failure to pay
wages in a timely manner upon separation of employment, and
penalties under the California Labor Code. The suit was also filed
under the Wage Orders of the California Industrial Welfare
Commission and the California Unfair Competition Law and Business
and Professions Code.

American Para Professional Systems, Inc. provides paramedical
service in the insurance industry.  Defendants hired Plaintiff as
an Examiner.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Larry W. Lee, Esq.
     Nick Rosenthal, Esq.
     2 DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
     515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 488-6555
     Fax: (213) 488-6554

        - and -

     William L. Marder, Esq.
     POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
     7 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
     Hollister, CA 95023
     Phone:(831)531-4214
     Fax: (831) 634-0333


AQ TEXTILES: Faces Suit Over Incorrect Thread Counts in Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado at Legal Newsline reports six consumers have filed
a class action lawsuit against textile companies, alleging breach
of warranty, fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

Paulette Kremmel, Angela Barnes, Jamie Kilgore, Travis Garner,
Dominique Morrison and Amy Hill filed a complaint, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Feb. 10 in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against AQ
Textiles, LLC, Creative Textile Mills PVT. Ltd., The TJX Companies
Inc., doing business as TJ Maxx and Home Goods, Ross Stores Inc.,
Macy's Retail Holdings Inc. and Belk Inc., alleging the defendants
made false claims regarding the total thread counts contained in
their products.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs suffered monetary
damages from being misled into purchasing falsely advertised
carpet and sheet products. The plaintiffs allege the defendants
advertise their products as containing a specific amount of thread
counts but they actually contain far less than what is advertised,
making the products lesser in quality.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, disgorge, restitution,
injunction, interest, punitive damages, all legal fees and all
other relief the court deems just. They are represented by
attorney Matthew H. Armstrong of Armstrong Law Firm LLC in St.
Louis.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois Case
number 3:17-cv-00147-MJR-RJD


ARATANA THERAPEUTICS: "Dezi" Seeks Damages Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Dezi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Aratana Therapeutics Inc., Steven St.
Peter and Craig A. Tooman, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01446,
(S.D. N.Y., February 27, 2017), seeks compensatory damages,
reasonable costs and expenses incurred, including counsel fees and
expert fees, extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief and
such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Aratana Therapeutics is a pet therapeutics company focused on
licensing, developing and commercializing innovative
biopharmaceutical products from companion animals. Its pet
therapeutics segment produces Entyce also known as AT-002, an
appetite stimulant for dogs.

Defendants failed to disclose that it did not have sufficient
manufacturing support to produce Entyce at a commercial scale and
consequently, Entyce was not likely to be commercially available
by first quarter 2017.

On the release of the news, Aratana Therapeutics stock price fell
from a closing price of $8.02 per share on February 3, 2017, to a
closing price of $6.58 per share on February 6, 2017, a drop of
approximately 18%.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Telephone: (203) 992-4523
      Facsimile: (212) 363-7171


ARBY'S RESTAURANT: Credit Union Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
VALLEY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION OF MONTANA, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. ARBY'S RESTAURANT
GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00715-ODE (N.D. Ga.,
February 27, 2017), arises out of a data breach at Arby's point-
of-sale systems at locations throughout the United States.

In this data breach, the computer hackers stole data consisting of
customers' debit and credit card information, including card
numbers. This information was compromised because of Arby's
alleged acts and omissions and its overall failure to properly
protect the payment card data of its customers.

Defendant Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc. operates more than 3,300
company-owned restaurants and franchisee locations across the US
and worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kenneth S. Canfield, Esq.
     DOFFERMYRE SHIELDS CANFIELD & KNOWLES, LLC
     1355 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 1900
     Atlanta, GA 30309-3238
     Phone: 404-881-8900
     E-mail: kcanfield@dsckd.com

        - and -

     James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
     Swathi Bojedla, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     1700 K. Street, NW, Suite 650
     Washington, DC 20006
     Phone: 202-540-7200
     E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
             sbojedla@hausfeld.com

        - and -

     W. Pitts Carr, Esq.
     W PITTS CARR & ASSOCIATES
     10 North Parkway Square
     4200 Northside Parkway
     Atlanta, GA 30327
     Phone: 404-442-9000
     E-mail: pcarr@wpcarr.com


ARBY'S RESTUARANT: Faces Multiple Suits Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
Linn Freedman at JD Supra Business Advisor reports that Arby's has
announced that its point-of-sale system had been compromised by
intruders over a four month period between October of 2016 and
January of 2017, exposing the credit and debit card information of
355,000 customers. It is unknown at the present time which Arby's
restaurants were included in the incident, but it is estimated
that 1,000 corporate locations were affected.

In record time, Arby's has been hit with multiple class action
lawsuits involving the data breach. One is spearheaded by
customers. They allege that Arby's had lax data security, which
caused the breach. A second was filed by four credit unions and
the Michigan Credit Union League alleging that the breach caused
the credit unions and others to incur costs to cancel and reissue
credit and debit cards, change or close accounts, notify members
that the cards were compromised, investigate claims of fraud,
refund consumers fraudulent charges, and implement detection and
mitigation measures for consumers.

There is also an allegation that "the charges associated with this
breach at Arby's have been more concentrated than in other recent
data breaches . . . ." which caused the plaintiffs to suffer
greater losses.


ARCTIC CAT: "Parshall" Suit Seeks to Block Merger with Textron
--------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ARCTIC CAT INC., CHRISTOPHER T. METZ,
KENNETH J. ROERING, JOSEPH F. PUISHYS, KIM A. BRINK, TONY J.
CHRISTIANSON, ANDREW S. DUFF, SUSAN E. LESTER, TEXTRON INC., and
ACES ACQUISITION CORP, the Defendants, Case No. 27-CV-17-2073 (D.
Minn., Feb. 15, 2017), seeks to block a Proposed Transaction or,
alternatively, rescission of the Proposed Transaction in the event
defendants are able to consummate it.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on January
25, 2017 (the Proposed Transaction), pursuant to which Arctic Cat
Inc. will be acquired by Textron Inc. and Aces Acquisition Corp.

On January 24, 2017, Arctic Cat's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger (the Merger
Agreement). Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
shareholders of Arctic Cat will receive only $18.50 per share in
cash. The Proposed Transaction is the product of a flawed process
and deprives Arctic Cat's public stockholders of the ability to
participate in the Company's long-term prospects. Furthermore, in
approving the Merger Agreement, the Individual Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to plaintiff and the Class. Moreover, as
alleged herein, Arctic Cat and Textron aided and abetted the
Individual Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties.

Compounding the unfairness of the Proposed Transaction, defendants
issued materially incomplete disclosures in the
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement (the "Solicitation
Statement") filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") on February 2, 2017. The Solicitation Statement
is deficient and misleading in that it fails to provide adequate
disclosure of all material information related to the Proposed
Transaction, says the complaint.

Arctic Cat is a North American manufacturer of snowmobiles and
all-terrain vehicles. The company was formed in 1960 and was
originally based in Thief River Falls, Minnesota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas B. Altman, Esq.
          ALTMAN & IZEK
          901 North Third Street, Suite 140
          Minneapolis, MN 55402

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
          RM LAW, P.C.
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 3112
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (484) 324 6800
          E-mail: rm@maniskas.com


ARJO FOOD CORP: "Caishpal" Seeks Minimum Wage, Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cristian Caishpal, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Arjo Food Corp., Rubani Bueno and Jose
Doe last name being fictitious and unknown, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-00883, (E.D.N.Y, February 14, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum
wages, liquidated damages, unpaid overtime compensation, a service
award in recognition of the services rendered, unpaid spread of
hours compensation, statutory penalties, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of the
action and such other and further relief pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

Defendants own and operate Met Food, a supermarket in Brooklyn,
where Caishpal was employed as a supermarket employee.

Defendant is represented by:

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


BANK OF AMERICA: "Culpepper" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Aileen Culpepper, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals v. Bank Of America, National
Association, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00264, (D. Conn.,
February 16, 2017), seeks unpaid compensation, an equal amount of
liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, penalty
damages under Connecticut Minimum Wage Act, attorneys' fees and
costs, and all other available and appropriate relief.

Bank of America, National Association, is a National Banking
Association with a principal place of business located at 100
North Tryon Street, Suite 170, Charlotte, North Carolina.

Culpepper was employed by the Defendant as an inbound specialist
in Connecticut, responsible for taking inbound calls from
customers of Defendant. She claims overtime for pre-shift and
post-shift work and was only paid from login to logout.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
      THE HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC
      221 Main Street, Suite 502
      Hartford, CT 06106
      Tel: (860) 522-8888
      Fax: (860) 218-9555
      Email: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com


BAYER CORP: Partial Settlement Reached in Cipro Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
If You Paid for the Antibiotic Cipro in California you Could Get
Money from a Class Action Settlement

A partial Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit
involving the antibiotic drug Cipro. The lawsuit claims that Bayer
Corporation, Barr Laboratories, Inc., Hoechst Marion Roussel,
Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and The Rugby Group, Inc. (the
"Defendants") violated antitrust and consumer protection laws by
agreeing not to compete with each other and keeping lower cost
generic versions of Cipro off the market. The Defendants deny
this. No one is claiming that Cipro is unsafe or ineffective.

What Does The Settlement Provide?

Barr Laboratories, Inc. has agreed to pay $225 million into a
Settlement Fund (the "Fund"). After deducting attorneys' fees,
costs, and other fees and expenses, the Fund will be distributed
to Class members who file valid claims. Payments will be based on
the number of valid claims filed and how much you paid for Cipro.
It is estimated that consumers will receive at least $25 each. The
Settlement Agreement, available at the website
www.CiproSettlement.com, contains more details. The Settlement
Agreement involves only Barr Laboratories, Inc. The Other
Defendants previously settled.

Who Is Included?

Generally you are included if you paid a pharmacy, doctor's
office, or hospital for some or all of a Cipro prescription in
California between January 8, 1997 and December 31, 2005.

Excluded from the Class are all persons who obtained Cipro through
MediCal Prescription Drug Program, anyone who purchased Cipro in
order to resell it, governmental entities, the Defendants and
their related entities, all purchasers of Cipro who paid a flat
co-payment and who would have paid the same co-payment for a
generic substitute under the terms of their health insurance
policy, and all persons or parties that have excluded themselves
from the Class.

How To Get A Payment

Class Members must submit a Claim Form to get a payment. If you
previously submitted a Claim Form, visit the website
www.CiproSettlement.com for information regarding whether you need
to file anything else in order to receive a share of this
settlement. If you have not yet filed a Claim Form, instructions
on how to complete and submit a Claim Form are available at
www.CiproSettlement.com or by calling 1-866-404-0135. The deadline
to submit a Claim Form is May 31, 2017.

Your Other Rights And Options

If you are a Class Member, your right to exclude yourself from the
Class (to opt out) expired in 2004, when the Class was certified
and the original notice was disseminated. You may comment on or
object to the proposed Settlement. To do so, you must act by April
5, 2017. Details on how to comment or object are at
www.CiproSettlement.com.

The Court will hold a hearing on April 21, 2017 to consider
whether to finally approve the Settlement and whether to approve
Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees of up to one third
of the Settlement Fund, plus expenses, and service awards for the
Class Representatives.


BEACH COMPANY: Faces "Williams" Suit Over TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
LEEROY WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. THE BEACH COMPANY, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
at-00168 (E.D. Cal., February 24, 2017), alleges that Defendants
negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacted Plaintiff using
an "automatic telephone dialing system" in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection.

The Defendant is engaged in the business of beachside real estate
development.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLUE CROSS: Faces "Moe" Suit Over Denied DBT 3D Mammogram
---------------------------------------------------------
DARLA J. MOE an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA dba
ANTHEM BLUE CROSS, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; ANTHEM BLUE CROSS
LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; and
DOES 1 thru 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 650027 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Feb. 9, 2017), seeks compensatory damages for
reimbursable value of the medical expenses related to the Digital
Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) 3D Mammogram.

For at least four years prior to the filing of this action
continuing to the present, the Defendants have wrongfully refused
to provide Plaintiff and all members of the Proposed Classes with
DBT or "DBT 3D Mammogram" for breast cancer screening purposes.
The Plaintiff and the members of the Proposed Classes were
wrongfully denied DBT after Defendants claimed it was
"investigational" and "not medically necessary", thus wrongfully
denying the appropriate resources for early and accurate breast
cancer detection.

Blue Shield of California is a health plan provider founded in
1939 and based in San Francisco.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
          Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq.
          Arj J. Stiller, Esq.
          Lyubov Lerner, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990 2903
          E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
                  liane@kingsleykingsley.com
                  ari@kingsleykingsley.com
                  luba@kingsleykingsley.com


BOEING: Families of Flight 370 Crash Victims File Suit in U.S.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Collins, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
series of catastrophic electrical and other failures may have led
to the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 over the Indian
Ocean, according to a lawsuit filed in the U.S. on behalf of the
families of 44 people on board the still missing plane.

The lawsuit, filed on March 3 against Boeing in U.S. District
Court in South Carolina, names seven malfunctions, from an
electrical fire to depressurization of the plane's cabin, that
could have led to the crew losing consciousness, the plane's
transponder stopping its transmission and the plane flying
undetected until it crashed after running out of fuel.

The suit was filed by Gregory Keith, a special administrator for
families who lost loved ones on the flight. It names 44 victims as
plaintiffs.

The lawsuit was filed in South Carolina because Boeing has built a
massive new plant in the state to build the 787 Dreamliner. Flight
370 was a Boeing 777 and the lawsuit doesn't say where it was
made.

Boeing doesn't comment on pending lawsuits, but the company's
thoughts continue to be with the people who died on Flight 370,
Boeing spokesman Tom Kim said in a statement.

One lawyer representing the Flight 370 families is Mary Schiavo,
former inspector general of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
She did not respond to an email seeking comment.

The jet disappeared March 8, 2014, while flying from Kuala Lumpur
to Beijing with 239 people on board.  Malaysia, Australia and
China suspended a nearly three-year search in the southern Indian
Ocean on Jan. 17 after failing to find any trace of the plane.

The lawsuit notes that search efforts for the plane have ended and
says the lack of finality has led to unprecedented levels of
"economic and non-economic losses, emotional and physical pain,
distress and mental pain and suffering" for the people on the
airliner and their families. It does not ask for a specific amount
of damages.

Boeing also didn't use available technology on its 777 planes that
would have allowed them to be tracked at all times and made the
flight and cockpit voice recorders easier to find, the lawsuit
says.

Boeing knew of design flaws on the aircraft, including defective
wiring near combustible sources like the emergency oxygen supply
to the plane's crew, it says.

"The defects caused and/or allowed a massive and cascading
sequence of electrical failures onboard the lost plane which
disabled vital systems . . . making it impossible for the crew to
navigate the plane or for the plane to communicate with the ground
stations leaving the aircraft to fly without the ability to
communicate or control the aircraft until the plane ran out of
fuel," lawyers wrote in the lawsuit.

Victims' families have filed other lawsuits as well.

Among them, in March last year, a day before the deadline for
litigation against Malaysia Airlines, 12 Chinese families whose
relatives were aboard the flight filed a lawsuit in Beijing. It
also named Boeing and jet engine manufacturer Rolls-Roys among the
defendants. Another lawsuit on behalf of the families of 32
passengers was filed in Kuala Lumpur.

A month before, a Malaysian woman and her two young sons sued the
airline seeking damages of $7.6 million for the loss of her
husband, S.Puspanathan.  An Australian-based woman, Jennifer
Chong, whose husband Chong Ling Tan was on the flight, filed
similar claims in Australia, alleging the airline was negligent in
failing to ensure passengers' safety.

The families of four more Australian passengers are seeking
$200,000 compensation from Malaysia Airlines, according to
documents filed in the Federal Court of Australia in April 2016.

In June 2016, two Malaysian boys whose father, Jee Jing Hang, was
a passenger secured an out-of-court settlement in the first legal
case against Malaysia Airlines and the government.


BOSLEY MEDICAL: "Campbell" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Campbell, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. d/b/a
Bosley, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01555, (C.D. Cal.,
February 26, 2017), seeks damages under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, disgorgement of any ill-gotten funds acquired as a
result of unlawful telephone calling practices, injunction to
cease all unsolicited text messaging, all expenses of this action
and such other and further relief.

Bosley is into medical hair restoration and hair loss solutions.
It regularly sends text message advertisements to consumers'
cellular telephones, including the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jon Roger Moss, Esq.
      348 33rd Street
      Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
      Tel: (310) 318-5841
      Email: dad4477@aol.com

             - and -

      William H. Beaumont, Esq.
      Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
      William H. Beaumont, Esq.
      BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
      3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Telephone: (504) 534-5005
      Facsimile: (504) 272-2956


BOW & TRUSS: Smith, et al. File Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Labor Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
KRYSTAL SMITH, TRUMAINE HARDY, BRYCE LUCAS, BENJAMIN CREECH,
JEFFREY O'MALLEY, ROBERT HENRY, ETHAN JANTZ, CHRIS COWDREY,
GABR1ELA CAMPOS, and TAYLOR STEELE on behalf of themselves
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiffs, v. BOW & TRUSS, LLC, DOEJO, LLC; PHILIP TADROS, and
DARREN MARSHALL, Defendants, (Ill., Circ., Cook County, February
27, 2017), alleges that Bow Truss routinely operated with a policy
and practice of not paying Plaintiffs, and all similarly situated
individuals, overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of
forty hours in a work week.

The suit was brought under The Fair Labor Standards Act, The
Illinois Wage Payment and Collections Act, The Illinois Minimum
Wage Law, and The Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance.

Bow Truss is a chain of specialty coffee cafes where Plaintiffs
are employees.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Scott Kane Stukel, Esq.
     CAMERON & KANE, LLC
     2864 N. Milwaukee Ave.
     Chicago, 1L 60618
     Phone: (872) 588-0727
     Fax: (312-268-7478
     Email: scott@caineronandkane.com

        - and -

     Scott Kane Stukel, Esq.
     Colin Cameron, Esq.
     2864 N. Milwaukee Ave.
     Chicago, 1L 60618
     Phone: (872) 588-0727
     Fax: (312-268-7478
     Email: colini@cameronandkane.com


BRANDI'S HOPE: Overtime Pay Claimed in "Birdie" Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Renza Birdie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Brandi's Hope Community Services, LLC and Danny
Cowart, Case No. 5:17-cv-00021, (S.D. Miss., February 24, 2017),
seeks monetary and liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil
penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees within
the applicable statutory limitations period for failure to pay
proper overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants' facilities includes group homes providing support to
disabled individuals living there. Plaintiff worked as a Direct
Support worker. Defendants required Plaintiff to clock out at
10:00 PM and clock back in at 6:00 AM but Birdie remained at the
workplace throughout the night, where Renza's duties required her
to rise frequently during the night and aid the residents of the
group home, getting only as much as five hours of uninterrupted
sleep per night. Despite this, Defendants paid Plaintiff only for
time that she was clocked in.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher W. Espy, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PLLC
      4450 Old Canton Road, Suite 200
      Jackson, MS 39211
      Telephone: (601) 718-2087
      Facsimile: (601) 718-2102
      Email: cespy@forthepeople.com


BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Suit Over Unfair Foreign Buyers Tax
-----------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports British Columbia's tax on foreign home buyers,
introduced by the province to cool Metro Vancouver's hot housing
market, violates Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, says a
plaintiff in a proposed class-action lawsuit.

The claim argues that the 15-per-cent tax has zeroed in on people
"whose national origin is from an Asian country, a class of
persons that have historically suffered discrimination in British
Columbia."

B.C. resident Jing Li, a Chinese national who moved to Canada in
2013 to attend university, was part of a class action suit
launched against the province last fall.

Li, 29, was the lead plaintiff, arguing the foreign tax added
$83,850 to the cost of a $559,000 Langley, B.C., townhouse, which
she agreed to purchase about a week before the tax was introduced
in August 2016.

An amended notice of civil claim was filed in B.C. Supreme Court.

Li said the tax imposed on foreign buyers was unfair and
blindsided her.

Tax perpetuates 'prejudice,' claim says

She couldn't back out of the deal without losing her deposit.

"Now, I can't go forward and also can't go back," she said at the
time. Li subsequently bought the townhouse despite the extra tax.

She moved to Burnaby, B.C., after completing a master's of public
administration at the University of Saskatchewan, the claim says.

The amended claim includes a Charter of Rights and Freedoms
argument and Victoria constitutional lawyer Joe Arvay is among the
lawyers representing the plaintiff.

The lawsuit has not yet been certified.

The strongly worded statement of claim says the tax unfairly
assumes foreigners have wealth, an assumption that perpetuates
"prejudice and stereotyping."

In an email, Arvay said the case is about inequality and
discrimination "based on race, national origin, citizenship and
immigration."

The tax also assumes that foreign nationals are able to outbid
Canadian citizens and permanent residents in the housing market in
the specified area, the claim says.

                        Violates Treaties

"Nationality and citizenship are not related to wealth," the claim
says. "Many persons who are neither Canadian citizens nor
permanent residents have no more wealth than Canadian citizens or
permanent residents."

The premier's office did not respond to a request for an
interview.

The class action suit initially filed by Li argued the new tax
violates more than 30 international treaties where Canada has
committed to treat foreign nationals as favourably as citizens.

In January, Premier Christy Clark walked back part of the law,
saying the levy will be lifted for those foreigners who have a
work permit and pay taxes in B.C. Clark said the change was made
to encourage more people to come to the province.

The B.C. government has not yet filed a response.


BROADCOM CORP: Class Settlement Granted Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------
Judge James V. Selna of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Southern Division, approves the parties'
settlement in the case titled IN RE BROADCOM CORPORATION
STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION, THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS MA
(Lead Case No. SA 15 CV 00979 JVS (PJWx), consolidated with No.
SACV 15-01303 JVS (C.D. Calif.).

Plaintiffs and defendants filed an application to the court to
determine whether the terms and conditions of the Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise and Settlement are fair, reasonable,
adequate and in the best interest of the Class Members for the
settlement of all claims.

Judge Selna certifies, for settlement purposes only, a settlement
class defined as:

     All record and beneficial owners of Broadcom class a common
stock who owned or held Broadcom class a common stock from May 27,
2015 through and including February 1, 2016, including any and all
of their respective successors in interest, predecessors,
representatives, trustees, executors, administrator, heirs,
assigns, or transferees, immediate and remote, and any person or
entity acting for or on behalf, or claiming under, any of them,
and each of them. Excluded from the class are defendants, members
of the immediate family or any defendant, any entity in which a
defendant has or had a controlling interest, and the legal
representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of any such
excluded person.

The court approves the settlement and finds that the settlement
is, in all respects, fair, reasonable and adequate, and in the
best interests of class members.

The second amended complaint is dismissed on the merits with
prejudice as against the released parties and without costs except
for the payments expressly provided for in the stipulation. Upon
the effective date of the settlement, plaintiffs, all other class
members and defendants shall be deemed to have released, dismissed
and forever discharged the released claims against each and all of
the released parties, with prejudice and on the merits, without
costs to any party.

The court reserves jurisdiction, without affecting in any way the
finality of the order and final judgment over implementation and
enforcement of the settlement, enforcing and administering the
order and final judgment, enforcing and administering the
stipulation, including any releases and bar orders executed in
connection therewith and other matters related or ancillary to the
foregoing.

A copy of Judge Selna's order and final judgment dated February
27, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/s3swai from Leagle.com.

Farshid Yassian, Plaintiff, represented by Leigh A. Parker --
lparker@weisslawllp.com -- Joel E. Elkins --
jelkins@weisslawllp.com -- Joseph H. Weiss --
jweiss@weisslawllp.com -- Richard A. Acocelli --
racocelli@weisslawllp.com -- at WeissLaw LLP

New Jersey Laborers Statewide Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented
by Joshua S. Devore -- jdevore@cohenmilstein.com -- at Cohen
Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC

Iron Workers Mid-America Pension Plan, Movant, represented by
Carol V. Gilden -- cgilden@cohenmilstein.com -- Joshua S. Devore -
- jdevore@cohenmilstein.com -- Kenneth M. Rehns --
krehns@cohenmilstein.com -- Richard A. Speirs --
rspeirs@cohenmilstein.com -- at Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll
PLLC; Jeff S. Westerman -- jwesterman@jswlegal.com -- at Westerman
Law Corp.

Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Movant,
represented by Carol V. Gilden -- cgilden@cohenmilstein.com --
Joshua S. Devore -- jdevore@cohenmilstein.com -- Kenneth M. Rehns
-- krehns@cohenmilstein.com -- at Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll
PLLC; Jeff S. Westerman -- jwesterman@jswlegal.com -- at Westerman
Law Corp.

Scott A McGregor, Henry Samueli, Eric K Brandt, Robert E Switz,
John E Major, Robert J Finocchio, Nancy H Handel, Eddy W
Hartenstein, Maria M Klawe, William T Morrow, Defendants,
represented by Ignacio E. Salceda -- isalceda@wsgr.com -- Boris
Feldman -- lcardenas@wsgr.com -- Catherine E. Moreno --
cmoreno@wsgr.com -- at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati LLP

Pavonia Limited, Safari Cayman LP, Safari Cayman LP, Defendant,
Avago Technologies Cayman Finance Limited, Avago Technologies
Cayman Holdings Ltd, Buffalo CS Merger Sub Inc, Buffalo UT Merger
Sub Inc, Cayman Holdings Ltd, Broadcom Corporation, Defendants,
represented by Brian T. Glennon -- brian.glennon@lw.com -- Sarah
E. Diamond -- sarah.diamond@lw.com -- at Latham and Watkins LLP


BUILDER SERVICES: "Wickliffe" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Wickliffe, individually and as the class representative of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Builder Services Group,
Inc. and Robert Buck, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00481-JSM-AEP
(M.D. Fla., February 27, 2017), alleges that Defendants unlawfully
withheld Plaintiff's wages and failed to compensate him for time
worked in excess of 40 hours per week and other wages due to him
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Builder Services Group, Inc., doing business as Gale Industries,
Inc., installs home insulation products.  Plaintiff worked as an
installer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter L. Tragos, Esq.
     601 Cleveland St., Suite 800
     Cleawater, FL 33755
     Phone: 727 441 9030
     Fax: 727 441 9254
     E-mail: petertragos@greeklaw.com
             linda@greeklaw.com


CAFE 37 INC: "Calixto" Claims Minimum Wage, Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Emilio Juarez Calixto, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cafe 37 Inc., Pedro Gomez and
Francisco Gomez, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01400, (S.D.N.Y,
February 24, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum wage compensation,
liquidated damages, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid spread of
hours compensation, statutory penalties, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of the
action and such other and further relief pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

Cafe 37 is a restaurant owned by Pedro Gomez and Francisco Gomez,
located at 47 West 37th Street, New York, New York 10018. Juarez
has been employed as a dishwasher, food preparer and ostensibly as
a delivery worker.

Defendant is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200


CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL: Faces "Cerda" Labor Suit Under Cal. Laws
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALVARO CERDA, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated non-exempt former and current employees, Plaintiffs, vs.
CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER FOUNDATION, a domestic, non-
profit; and DOES 1 TO 100, Inclusive, Defendants,  Case No. BC
651809 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles, February 27, 2017), alleges that
Defendants engaged in the illegal practice of requiring all non-
exempt employees, including Plaintiffs, to work four or more hours
without a rest period in violation of the Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order, California Labor Code and other relevant
laws, rules, orders, requirements and regulations.

Defendant owns, manages and operates CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL
throughout Los Angeles, California.  Plaintiff ALVARO CERDA is
and/or was an x-ray technician.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brandon J. Sweeney, Esq.
     THE SWEENEY LAW FIRM, APC W
     15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 500
     Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
     Phone: (323) 486-2508
     Fax: (747) 998-1201

        - and -

     Gabriel Sepulveda-Sanchez, Esq.
     SEPULVEDA SANCHEZ LAW, PC.
     555 W. 5th Street, 35th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90013
     Phone: (213) 426-1051
     E-mail: mail: Gabriel@sepulvedalawgroup.com

        - and -

     Michael R. Parker, Esq.
     MICHAEL R. PARKER LAW, PC
     21700 Oxnard St. Suite 2080
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: (818) 334-5711
     Fax: (818)394-6448


CANADA: Faces Suit Over Prisoners' Solitary Confinement
-------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky LLP and McCarthy Tetrault LLP have commenced a class
action against the Attorney General of Canada alleging systemic
infliction of prolonged administrative solitary confinement upon
prisoners incarcerated in Federal Institutions.

In prolonged administrative solitary confinement, prisoners are
placed in small cells and are denied any meaningful human contact
for at least 22 hours per day, for a period of at least 15
consecutive days. This treatment is imposed in instances where the
prisoner has done nothing wrong and is not being punished.

The Statement of Claim, issued on March 3, 2017, alleges that by
virtue of this practice in federal correctional institutions,
Canada has been negligent, has breached its fiduciary duties, has
breached various rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, has subjected class members to false imprisonment,
intentional infliction of mental suffering, assault, and battery,
and has been unjustly enriched.

Jullian Reddock, a prisoner currently incarcerated in the
Donnacona Institution in Quebec, is the proposed representative
plaintiff on behalf of the class. His counsel believes that
thousands of individuals will be included in this class
proceeding.

Kirk Baert -- kmbaert@kmlaw.ca -- co-lead counsel at Koskie Minsky
LLP, has stated "Canada has repeatedly ignored calls from domestic
and international groups to end the barbaric practice of prolonged
administrative solitary confinement, and by doing so, has
committed numerous wrongs and breached its statutory obligations
owed to prisoners, for which it should be forced to account".

Michael Rosenberg -- mrosenberg@mccarthy.ca -- co-lead counsel at
McCarthy Tetrault LLP, has stated "This case provides a voice to
these vulnerable class members who have been left to languish in
prolonged administrative solitary confinement. They have suffered
serious harm and they deserve access to justice."


CAPITAL ADVANCE: Redman's 1st Bid to Certify Class Denied as Moot
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on February 15, 2017, in the case
titled Scott D.H. Redman v. Capital Advance Solutions, LLC, Case
No. 1:16-cv-04380 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before
the Honorable John Robert Blakey.

The minute entry states that in light of the Plaintiff's amended
motion to certify class, the Plaintiff's prior motion to certify
class is denied as moot.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6XoBaMK7


CAPITAL ALLIANCE: "Alves" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Alves, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Capital Alliance Group and Does 1 through
10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
01585, (C.D. Cal., February 27, 2017), seeks damages and any other
available legal or equitable remedies as a result of violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Defendant, an online marketing company, contacted Plaintiff on her
cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialling system,
thus incurring charges. Her number is on the National Do-Not-Call
List.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CASE & ASSOCIATES: "Rangel" Suit Alleges Violations of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR RANGEL JR, MARK GAUNA, And RUBEN RAMIREZ, Individually and
On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. CASE &
ASSOCIATES PROPERTIES, INC. D/B/A CASE PROPERTIES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00057 (W.D. Tex., February 27, 2017),
alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by
failing to pay its employees at time and one-half their regular
rates of pay for all hours worked within a workweek in excess of
forty hours.

The Plaintiffs and the proposed Class Members are all of the
Defendant's current and former "Maintenance Technicians," "Lead
Maintenance Technicians," and "Maintenance Supervisors" for the
Defendant -- regardless of pay structure -- who worked for
Defendant.

CASE & ASSOCIATES PROPERTIES, INC. -- http://www.caseusa.com/--
is a property management company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Raymond D. Martinez, Esq.
     Jonathan L.R. Baeza, Esq.
     MARTINEZ & MARTINEZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
     730 E. Yandell Dr.
     El Paso, TX 79902
     Phone: (915) 541-1000
     Fax: (915) 541-1002
     E-mail: raymond@martinezlawyers.com
             jonathan@martinezlawyers.com


CASTLE & COOKE: Settlement in "Cabrales" Gets Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LUIS CABRALES, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CASTLE & COOKE MORTGAGE, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, No. 1:14-cv-01138-
MCE-JLT (E.D. Cal.), Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the
Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

The Court notes that only five Class Members requested exclusion
from the Settlement, so that 99.96% of Class Members will
participate in the Settlement. The names of the Class Members who
opted-out are: Nancy C. Dyas, Leobardo J. Landerso, Thomas A.
Blank, Allan Sobie, and Bobby Barao.

The Court consequently awards $275,000 for the Class Counsel's
attorneys' fees. The Court also awards Class Counsel reimbursement
of litigation expenses in the amount of $31,716.61, which the
Court finds is reasonable in amount and incurred for the
prosecution of the action.

The Court also grants the motion for award of service payments.
The Court awards service payments in the amount of $5,000 to Luis
Cabrales and in the amount of $2,500 to each of Linda Behrendt,
Richard Berni, Mariano Bonilla, Sara Chik, Alex Deboma, and Todd
Fandrich. Meanwhile, the Court approves the payment of
administration expenses to the Claims Administrator, CPT Group,
Inc., in the amount of $83,000.

A copy of the Court's Order dated February 9, 2017 is available at
https://is.gd/ZmIBsd from Leagle.com.

Luis Cabrales, Plaintiff, represented by James T. Hannink, Dostart
Hannink & Coveney LLP.

Luis Cabrales, Plaintiff, represented by Zach P. Dostart, Dostart
Hannink & Coveney LLP.

Castle & Cooke Mortgage, LLC, Defendant, represented by Marc
Jeremy Feldman -- mfeldman@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin,
Richter & Hampton LLP & Theona Zhordania --
tzhordania@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton LLP.


CATERPILLAR INC: Stock Drop Suit Filed After Federal Raid
---------------------------------------------------------
Jack Newsham at Law360 reports that quick-on-the-buzzer lawyers at
Pomerantz LLP filed a potential class action against Caterpillar
Inc. on March 3, seeking damages for investors who say the company
misled them in the lead-up to March 2 raids by federal law
enforcement that sought documents about its tax strategies.

The lawsuit says the company made misrepresentations and omissions
that led its stock to fall 4 percent after news of the raids
broke. They took place at three Caterpillar offices in Peoria,
Illinois and involved agents from the Internal Revenue Service, an
export enforcement unit of the Commerce Department and the Federal
Depository Insurance Corp.'s inspector general.

The raids appeared to represent the zenith of years of criticism
Caterpillar has faced for its relationship with its Swiss
affiliate Caterpillar SARL. A Congressional committee lambasted
the company in 2014 for an arrangement involving CSARL that it
concluded was legal but morally questionable in cutting its U.S.
tax bill by $2.4 billion. In early 2015, the company told
shareholders that its cash movements overseas were being probed by
a grand jury.

A sealed search warrant published by media outlets focused on
business between Caterpillar and CSARL. It allowed agents to look
for "any and all documents regarding the movement of any products
between the United States and Switzerland and/or CSARL or any
other foreign country ... any and all documents regarding the
relationship between Caterpillar Inc. and CSARL and/or any other
non-U.S. based entities ... [and] any and all financial records
involving sales, order purchases, customers, business transactions
involving exports or shipments to Switzerland and/or CSARL."

The class action says the misleading statements began with the
company's 2012 annual report in February 2013, which said it
adhered to a code of ethics that included commitments to accurate
and honest bookkeeping. The complaint mentioned every quarterly
and annual report thereafter, including several that detailed tax
investigations by the IRS and the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission that involved CSARL.

"Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) Caterpillar unlawfully used foreign
subsidiaries to avoid paying billions of dollars in U.S. taxes;
(ii) discovery of the foregoing conduct would subject the company
to heightened regulatory scrutiny and potential criminal
sanctions; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Caterpillar's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times," the complaint said.

Also named as parties were Caterpillar's CEO D. James Umpleby III,
its chairman Douglas R. Oberhelman and its chief financial officer
Bradley M. Halverson.

Caterpillar has been hit with lawsuits over its allegedly illegal
or wrong use of offshore companies to avoid taxes before. A 2009
federal lawsuit alleging wrongful termination also claimed that
Caterpillar avoided over $2.4 billion in U.S. taxes by shifting
profits overseas and to offshore shell companies. The man who
brought the 2009 lawsuit, Daniel Schlicksup, settled it in 2012.

Schlicksup, who was Caterpillar's global tax strategy manager
until being moved off the job in 2008, had alleged that
Caterpillar retaliated against him for telling Oberhelman and
former Caterpillar Group President Ed Rapp about "serious issues
of potential fraud, violations of federal law, questions of
fiduciary duties to the company and shareholders," among other
issues, according to documents filed with Schlicksup's 2009
complaint.

In those proceedings, Schlicksup claimed that Caterpillar sold and
shipped replacement parts for its machines from an Illinois
warehouse, but improperly attributed $5.6 billion in profits from
those sales to CSARL in Switzerland from 2000 to 2009. The suit
also revealed that Caterpillar's auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers,
helped the company with the tax-lowering offshoring scheme for a
fee of $55 million.

Schlicksup's suit led to the 2014 congressional report. In
exchange for a small royalty, Caterpillar transferred rights to
profits from its international parts distribution business to
CSARL, the report said. In effect, Caterpillar redirected the
profits by simply replacing its name with CSARL on its invoices,
according to the report

Prior to issuing its license with CSARL, Caterpillar booked 85
percent or more of its non-U.S. parts profits in the U.S., where
70 percent of those parts are made and warehoused and where the
company's global parts operation was created and is managed. But
the license allowed CSARL to sell the parts to Caterpillar's non-
U.S. dealers and pay Caterpillar a royalty equal to only about 15
percent of the parts profits, while keeping the remaining 85
percent on its books in Switzerland, the Senate investigators
found.

Caterpillar was assessed a $1 billion tax increase and penalties
for the years 2007 to 2009, stemming from the use of the so-called
Swiss strategy. The company continues to contest the IRS
penalties.

A Caterpillar spokeswoman didn't immediately respond to a request
for comment.

The putative class of shareholders is represented by Louis C.
Ludwig, Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Jeremy A. Lieberman, J. Alexander
Hood II and Hui M. Chang of Pomerantz LLP.

Caterpillar hasn't made an appearance in the case yet.

The case is Newman v. Caterpillar Inc. et al., case number 1:17-
cv-01713 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.


CATERPILLAR INC: May 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
Caterpillar, Inc. securities (CAT) from February 19, 2013 through
March 1, 2017, inclusive. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Caterpillar investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Caterpillar class action, go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1068.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.

The complaint alleges that defendants during the Class Period made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Caterpillar unlawfully used foreign subsidiaries to avoid
paying billions of dollars in U.S. taxes; (2) discovery of such
conduct would subject Caterpillar to heightened regulatory
scrutiny and potential criminal sanctions; and (3) as a result,
Caterpillar's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. On March 2, 2017, law
enforcement officials raided Caterpillar's facilities in Peoria,
Illinois. Later that day, Caterpillar indicated that it believed
the raid is related to, among other things, export filings of its
Swiss subsidiary Caterpillar SARL. On this news, shares of
Caterpillar fell $4.22 or 4.28% to close at $94.36 per share on
March 2, 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 May
2, 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, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases-
1068.html or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this
class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq.
of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm.

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


CEMTREX INC: "Guerrier" Sues Over Drop in Cemtrex Share Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Franck Guerrier, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cemtrex, Inc., Saagar Govil,
Renato Dela Rama and Aron Govil, Defendants., Case No. 2:17-cv-
01071, (E.D. N.Y., February 24, 2017), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Cemtrex provides electronic manufacturing services of electric
system assemblies, instruments and emission monitors for
industrial processes, and industrial air filtration and
environmental control systems worldwide.

According to the complaint, Cemtrex's supposed audit firm was
determined to be fake; controlling partner was banned by SEC for
multiple fraudulent audits, under multiple firm names from four
countries on three continents; company is being heavily promoted
by a promotion firm known as Small Cap Specialists which has
repeatedly halted or delisted due to financial irregularities or
outright fraud; shares held by Cemtrex insiders Aaron Govil,
Saagar Govil and CFO Dela Rama have been decreasing substantially
during 2016, yet have failed to disclose any sales on Form 4s
during 2016 and still encouraging retail investors to buy.

On this news, shares of Cemtrex fell $1.72 per share or over 33.5%
from its previous closing price to close at $3.40 per share on
February 22, 2017, damaging investors including the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
             pkim@rosenlegal.com


CEMTREX INC: "Cullinan" Alleges Insider Trading, Hits Share Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Cullinan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cemtrex, Inc., Saagar Govil,
Aron Govil and Renato Dela Rama, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
01067, (E.D. N.Y., February 24, 2017), seeks compensatory damages,
reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including
counsel fees and expert fees and such other and further relief
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Cemtrex is a technology company that purportedly provides
solutions to meet industrial and manufacturing challenges. The
Company purportedly provides electronic manufacturing services for
advanced electric system assemblies, instruments and emission
monitors for industrial processes, and industrial air filtration
and environmental control systems.

Defendants failed to disclose that the Company was utilizing paid
stock promoters to artificially inflate the price of the Company's
stock, Company insiders were selling their stock during the paid
promotion, taking advantage of the artificially inflated stock
price, that the Company's purported audit firm claimed to operate
at a location that was actually vacant and that the controlling
partner behind the Company's auditor was banned by the SEC for
conducting fraudulent audits or reviews of public companies while
performing little or no work and without being licensed and that
the Company's auditor was signing off on the Company's financial
disclosures without conducting a proper review.

On this news, the price of Cemtrex common stock fell $0.65 per
share, or 11.2%, to close at $5.12 per share on February 21, 2017,
on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lesley F. Portnoy (LP-1941), Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
      New York, NY 10168
      Telephone: (212) 682-5340
      Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
      Email: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

             - and -

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
      Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160


CENTURY REALTY: Summary Judgment Sought in "Burns" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit styled Richard Burns,
Borden Deane, Leslie Jacobson, John McCloskey, Leopold Ouellette,
and John Sardina, et al. v. Lawrence W. Maxwell, Lawrence T.
Maxwell, Century Realty Funds, Inc., Mark Schreiber, Ronald L.
Clark, et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-02793-MSS-TGW (M.D. FL.), move the
Court for an order granting summary judgment in their favor, as
prayed for in their second amended complaint, pursuant to Rule
56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Motion is brought on the grounds that there is no defense to
the action, there is no triable issue as to any material fact and
they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the Plaintiffs
contend.

The Defendants conspired to trick the elderly Plaintiffs into
legally compelled payment of a perpetual ever-increasing monthly
fee for a contrived "System Assessment" under the control of and
to the benefit of the Community developer-defendants, Larry
Maxwell and Schreiber, the Plaintiffs allege. They add that the
Defendants' fraudulent omissions and concealment violated the mail
and wire fraud statutes, citing United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d
at 1238; United States v. Rodriguez, 732 F.3d 1299, 1304 (11th
Cir. 2013).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MRAmeT1c

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel W. Perry, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL W. PERRY
          4767 New Broad St. #1007
          Orlando, FL 32814-6405
          Telephone: (407) 894-9003
          E-mail: dan@danielperry.com


CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Faces Another Gender Discrimination Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Baxter, writing for Law.com, reports that as it prepares to
combine with Norton Rose Fulbright, Chadbourne & Parke is suddenly
grappling with a third accuser in a $100 million gender
discrimination case that has been hanging over the firm since last
year.

Mary Yelenick, a former chair of Chadbourne's products liability
group and a longtime New York partner now working as of counsel at
the firm, filed papers on Feb. 27 seeking to join the proposed
class action as a plaintiff.  According to Ms. Yelenick's profile
on professional networking website LinkedIn, she spent more than
35 years at Chadbourne after joining the firm in 1981.

"During my employment, I believe Chadbourne paid me less than men
who performed similar work," Ms. Yelenick wrote in the Feb. 27
filing.

She is represented by David Sanford -- dsanford@sanfordheisler.com
-- of Sanford Heisler, whose firm brought the case last August on
behalf of named plaintiff Kerrie Campbell, a litigation partner at
Chadbourne in Washington, D.C. A second plaintiff, former Kiev
office managing partner Jaroslawa Zelinsky Johnson, joined the
case in October.

In an interview on Feb. 28, Mr. Sanford said that he has twice
tried to settle with Chadbourne, most recently on Feb. 27, just
before Ms. Yelenick filed her notice with the court.  Those
negotiations have been unsuccessful.  Mr. Sanford is now
considering whether or not to add Norton Rose Fulbright as a
defendant, given the announcement by the firm of its intention to
unite with Chadbourne sometime in the second quarter of this year.

The merger would create a firm with just under $2 billion in
annual gross revenue, and the Chadbourne & Parke name would
disappear as part of the combination.  Media representatives for
Norton Rose Fulbright and Chadbourne did not respond to requests
for comment about Ms. Yelenick's decision to join the case.
Lexington Insurance Co., a Boston-based subsidiary of American
International Group Inc., serves as Chadbourne's insurance carrier
in the litigation.

Proskauer Rose labor and employment litigation partner
Kathleen McKenna -- kmckenna@proskauer.com -- and employment
litigation and arbitration co-head Evandro Gigante --
egigante@proskauer.com -- are representing Chadbourne in the case.
Ms. McKenna previously worked with Dechert in advising her firm on
a gender discrimination settlement in 2013 with former Proskauer
CFO Elly Rosenthal, also represented by Sanford.

In Ms. Campbell's initial complaint, she said her case was filed
on behalf of 26 current and former female Chadbourne partners.
That spurred 14 of Chadbourne's female partners to write a letter
to Sanford chiding him for claiming to speak on their behalf.
Sanford said in response that he was barred from contacting the
group under a New York law precluding lawyers from soliciting
other potential clients before filing a suit.

In late October, Campbell and Johnson filed an amended complaint
against Chadbourne.  At the time, Bloomberg Big Law Business noted
that Ms. Yelenick was the only female partner at Chadbourne who
hadn't signed the letter to Sanford.

Margarita Oliva Sainz de Aja, a corporate and project finance
partner with an international subsidiary of Chadbourne, also did
not sign the letter. She told the New York Law Journal in January
that she didn't know about the letter until it was already sent,
but would have signed it if she had.

Chadbourne has yet to file its opposition to class certification.
The court also hasn't decided a key issue that could make or break
the case: whether or not law firm partners can be considered
employees under Title VII of the federal Equal Pay Act.  Mr.
Sanford said on Feb. 28 that there would be discovery on the
question, with direction from the court on that and the class
certification issue likely by late summer.

Mr. Sanford refused to say whether he had spoken with additional
current or former Chadbourne lawyers who could join the case as
plaintiffs.  He said that he often speaks confidentially with
potential clients.

"People are very concerned about economic stability, professional
continuity and testing the waters for new opportunities,"
Mr. Sanford said of the reluctance that many lawyers feel about
joining an employment action.  "Many times I will hear that people
are evaluating their circumstances and will let me know if they
have a reason to reconsider their options."

At Chadbourne, Yelenick helped defend one of the firm's largest
clients, Stamford, Connecticut-based drug manufacturer Purdue
Pharma, in litigation filed against the OxyContin maker over its
popular pain management medication.  She also once wrote an op-ed
for sibling publication Law.com with Andrew Giaccia, Chadbourne's
managing partner, on how companies can defend against climate
change claims.

In a letter last year to the editor of The New York Times,
Ms. Yelenick, a Colorado native and ice-dancing aficionado, wrote
about white privilege and the "imprint of racism" on U.S. society.
She did not respond to a request for comment.


CHEZ JACQUELINE: "Tamay" Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Segundo Serafin Aucacama Tamay, Carlos Peralta and Eduardo Tapia,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Chez Jacqueline Rest., Inc. (d/b/a Chez
Jacqueline), System D Restaurant Holdings Inc. (d/b/a Chez
Jacqueline), Paul Giraldi, Madeleine Lanza Giraldi, Frank Giraldi,
Philip Kempsity, Ivica Perunovic and Heidi Ruth Leiser,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01470 (S.D. N.Y., February 27, 2017)
seeks to recover minimum and overtime wages, spread of hours pay
and liquidated damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Laws.

Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a French restaurant
located at 72 McDougal Street, New York, New York 10012 under the
name Chez Jacqueline where Plaintiffs were employed as a cook,
waiter/busboy/food runner and porter. Defendants allegedly failed
to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked thus
missing out some hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay
or for any additional overtime premium.

Defendant is represented by:

Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE &ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


CHOCOLADA BAKERY: Overtime Premium Sought in "Kalish" Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Kalish and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Chocolada Bakery & Cafe, Inc. Theodora Dayan, Defendants, Case No.
0:17-cv-60422, (S.D. Fla., February 27, 2017), requests double
damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and
severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for all
overtime wages still owing, along with court costs, interest and
any other relief that the Court finds reasonable under the
circumstances.

Plaintiff worked an average of 50 hours per week and was paid an
average of $9.00 per hour, but was never paid the extra halftime
overtime rate for hours worked above 40 hours in a week as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Kalish seeks payment for
the half-time overtime rate for the 10 hours of overtime she
averaged each week.

Plaintiff is represented by:

James Loren, Esq.
      GOLDBERG & LOREN, P.A.
      100 S. Pine Island Road, Ste. 132
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Tel: (800) 719-1617, Ext 2107
      Fax: 954-585-4886
      E-mail: Jloren@goldbergloren.com


CIGNA CORP: Faces "Welp" Suit Over Blanket Exclusion in Insurance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Welp, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Cigna Corporation, NextEra Energy, Inc.,
and the Employee Benefit Plans Administrative Committee,
Defendants, Case No. 9:17-cv-80237-DMM (S.D. Fla., February 24,
2017), alleges that the blanket exclusion in the Defendants'
insurance for services rendered at wilderness treatment centers,
which is considered a separate treatment limitation applicable
only to mental health, violates the Parity Act.

Defendant NextEra Energy, Inc. is a for-profit, publicly traded
electric company.  Defendant Cigna Corporation, is a for-profit,
publicly-traded insurance company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jordan Lewis, Esq.
     JORDAN LEWIS, P.A.
     4473 N.E. 11th Avenue
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334
     Phone: 954-616-8995
     Fax: 954-206-0374
     Email: jordan@jml-lawfirm.com

        - and -

     Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
     WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
     60 State Street, 7th Floor
     Boston, MA 02109
     Phone: (617) 573-5118
     Fax: (617) 371-2950
     Email: psheehan@whatleykallas.com


CLUB MONACO: "Anderson" Claims Website Inaccessible for the Blind
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Derrick Anderson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Club Monaco U.S., LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-01057 (E.D. N.Y., February 24, 2017) seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief as well as compensatory damages from unlawful
discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and New
York State Human Rights Laws.

Defendant owns and operates approximately fifty stores providing
clothing, shoes and accessories as well as online via
Clubmonaco.com. Anderson is a blind individual and claims that
Clubmonaco.com does not have accessibility provision on the said
website for the visually impaired.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Anne Seelig, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 465-1188
      Fax: (212) 465-1181


COAST PROFESSIONAL: Bad Collection Practices Alleged by "Fuzaylov"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sergey Fuzaylov on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers, Plaintiff, v. Coast Professional, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01085, (E.D. N.Y., February 25, 2017),
seeks statutory damages, attorney fees, litigation expenses and
costs for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Defendant is a debt collector who tried to collect a debt that the
Plaintiff allegedly owes. Coast Professional allegedly sent
confusing collection letters that did not mention that the
consumer can dispute in writing, did not accurately reflect the
amount of the debt and insisted on illegally adding a penalty
charge.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Igor Litvak, Esq.
      THE LITVAK LAW FIRM, PLLC
      1701 Avenue P
      Brooklyn, NY 11229
      Tel: (718) 989-2908
      Facsimile: (718) 989-2908
      E-mail: Igor@LitvakLawNY.com


CONAGRA FOODS: Seeks to Dismiss Suit That Was Denied Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joyce Hanson at Law360 reports that ConAgra Foods Inc. asked a
California federal judge on March 2 to toss what's left of a
proposed class action brought by customers suing over trans fats
in Fleischmann's-brand margarine, saying the only remaining claim
after the class was denied certification is subject to state
jurisdiction.

The food company argued that lead plaintiff Troy Backus identified
the federal Class Action Fairness Act as his sole basis for the
court's jurisdiction, but now that U.S. District Judge William
Alsup has denied certification, Backus can't possibly meet the $5
million threshold required for the matter in controversy and his
class isn't sufficiently diverse.

"Now that class certification has been denied, the court no longer
has jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining individual claim,"
ConAgra said. "Plaintiff has asserted no federal claim, and the
court lacks diversity jurisdiction because plaintiff cannot meet
the amount-in-controversy requirement. Thus, the court should
dismiss plaintiff's claim for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction."

Backus initiated his putative class action in California federal
court on Jan. 26, 2016, and amended his complaint on May 16,
asserting eight claims based on California state statutes and
common law, according to ConAgra's motion on March 2. The court
dismissed all claims except for one mislabeling claim, the motion
said.

On Dec. 22, Judge Alsup denied Backus his bid for certification,
concluding that his claims were not typical of the claims of his
putative class and that Backus is an inadequate class
representative because, among other reasons, "from testimony
residing in his deposition, our jury might infer that Backus is
not truly an aggrieved consumer but a hired plaintiff executing
his attorney's raids on the deep pockets of food manufacturers."

On Nov. 17, ConAgra urged Judge Alsup not to certify the class,
saying Backus was misguided in his attempt to certify the class
under California law for the products at issue, its original
sticks and unsalted sticks, which it said have nothing to do with
California.

"The vast majority . . . .  were manufactured in Indiana, and
neither of those products [is] currently manufactured in
California. Moreover, ConAgra sells more of the products at issue
in at least eight states than it does in California," the food
company said.

Backus alleges he had been a longtime purchaser of Fleischmann's
margarine until October 2015, when he learned that the artificial
trans fat in Fleischmann's causes cardiovascular diseases,
diabetes, cancer and other ailments.

The Food and Drug Administration has deemed trans fats to no
longer be generally recognized as safe and gave the food industry
until June 18, 2018, to come into compliance, according to the
judge.

Backus' legal counsel, Gregory S. Weston, told Law360 in an email
that ConAgra's motion to dismiss relies on out-of-date authority.

"The plain text of CAFA states jurisdiction exists for cases that
are filed as class actions, and binding authority states that
post-filing events do not end CAFA jurisdiction," Weston said.

Representatives for ConAgra did not immediately respond on March 3
to requests for comment.

Backus is represented by David Elliot -- david@westonfirm.com  --
Andrew C. Hamilton -- andrew@westonfirm.com -- and Gregory Weston
-- greg@westonfirm.com -- of The Weston Firm.

ConAgra is represented by Allen Brooks Gresham II --
agresham@mcguirewoods.com -- Angela M. Spivey --
aspivey@mcguirewoods.com -- and Laura Coombe --
lcoombe@mcguirewoods.com -- of McGuireWoods LLP.

The case is Backus v. ConAgra Inc., case number 3:16-cv-00454, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.


CORPS OF ENGINEERS: Settlement Assessment Letters Mailed
--------------------------------------------------------
Shelley Brown at Fox 8 reports that thousands of Katrina victims
with eligible claims in a class-action levee breach settlement
received letters from the court-appointed special master
responsible for evaluating claims.

"We named everybody who we thought feasibly could be liable for
the failure of the levees at 17th Street, Industrial Canal, and
all of the breaks. . . New Orleans East, Lower Nine, St. Bernard
and the like," Joe Bruno said in an interview with the FOX 8
Defenders a year ago.

Bruno was the lead plaintiff's attorney in the class-action
lawsuit alleging failures and over-topping of levees against the
Corps of Engineers, contractors and levee boards after Katrina. It
resulted in a settlement in the Vodanovich vs. Boh Brothers
lawsuit.

The insurance companies for three levee boards -- the Orleans
Levee District, East Jefferson Levee District and Lake Borgne
Levee District -- will pay to settle the class-action suit. Bruno
says there's roughly $11 million waiting to go out to storm
victims.

According to Bruno, 137,000 claim forms were filed, but that
number has been whittled down to 120,000 claimants after the
court-appointed special master obtained experts to verify claims
with issues.

Letters to the eligible 120,000 homeowners were mailed, detailing
minimum awards. Bruno says actual payments range from as little as
$2.50 to as much as $3,700, but money won't be disbursed until
after an objection period. Claimants have until March 29 to object
their assessments. Bruno says it's unclear when checks will be
mailed until the court-appointed special master knows how many
objections he has to review.

The FOX 8 Defenders staffed with volunteers from the National
Council of Jewish Women also field consumer complaints at 1-877-
670-6397 or you can fill out an online complaint form.


CORPS OF ENGINEER: Claimants Dissatisfied with Settlement Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Hammer at WWL reports that an 11-year-old federal class-
action lawsuit for the Hurricane Katrina levee failures is finally
ready to pay 120,000 claims, but a relatively small pot of money,
large legal and processing costs and confounding court notices
delivered this week have many storm survivors confused and angry.

A committee of 35 plaintiff attorneys originally pursued claims
totaling more than $10 billion from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the construction firms involved in designing, building
and maintaining the floodwalls and levees and the local levee
districts.

They won rulings at the U.S. District Court in New Orleans, paving
the way to collect billions in damages caused in two separate
flooding incidents: One for flooding caused east of the Industrial
Canal by the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, or MRGO, and another
for the failure of levees in New Orleans and Jefferson Parish.

But the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed itself
and declared the Corps of Engineers immune from claims related
specifically to the levee failures. While the MRGO case continues
against the Corps, by 2012 the only defendants left in the levee-
failure case were the three local levee districts. They agreed to
settle that case in 2013, but they had only $17 million in
insurance proceeds to pay the claims: $10 million from the Orleans
Levee District, $5 million from the East Jefferson Levee District
and $2 million from the Lake Borgne Levee District.

About $3 million in interest brought the pot of money for the
class action to over $20 million, but costs of administering the
settlement -- including sending notices, analyzing flood data and
calculating awards -- have topped $2.5 million.

Hilsoft Notifications, a company that made $895,000 to send out
the initial notices to claimants, declined to comment. So did Greg
Rigamer, a demographer who was running a firm at the time that
worked on the claim payment distribution model and who testified
as an expert in the case.

Meanwhile, the 35 lawyers representing the class were awarded $3.5
million to cover a portion of their costs of bringing the case.
Lead class counsel Joe Bruno says the lawyers suggested that
amount to the court, even though he said it was dwarfed by what
they spent on expert reports, investigations of government
records, witness depositions and other expenses.

What's more, he said the levee district's insurance companies
insisted on expanding the scope of the settlement to include money
for Hurricane Rita damage, non-flood property damage, money for
renters and businesses and even for people who were just visiting
the area during the storms. That way, the levee districts could
preclude all of those types of victims from bringing any further
claims for the 2005 storms.

That potentially watered down awards for those who actually lost
property and even those whose family members died in places where
the levees and floodwalls failed.

There is about $14.2 million left to pay about 120,000 claims, an
average payment of $118 per claim. The payments range from as low
as $3 to about $3,000. The claims checks will be sent as soon as
all objections are addressed, but Bruno said it's unclear when
that will be. Claimants who got letters this week have until March
29 to mail objections to the special master overseeing the
settlement, Denham Springs-based Shelby Easterly III.

Even with the smaller-than-expected awards, there are claimants
who are getting a lot less than what court documents say they
should be receiving under a court-approved model that tallies
points for different kinds of claims and then uses the points to
calculate payments.

One of those is Marcus Jackson. His father and mother, the Rev.
Royal Jackson Sr. and Elizabeth Jackson, drowned in New Orleans
East during Katrina. A court notice in 2013 said each survivor
would be awarded 807,000 points for a wrongful death claim. That
should translate into at least $732 for two deaths alone, plus
more points for survivor and property ownership claims. Instead,
Jackson got a notice in the mail this week telling him he would
get $44.

His sister, Ivy Jackson-Flemon, is getting just $3.22 as a visitor
from Houston, even though she filed her parents' death notices
with her claim form and has tax forms showing she owned a portion
of her parents' home.

Beyond the pittance she's getting, Jackson-Flemon was insulted
that the notice told her not to call the court, the disbursing
agent or the special master. Bruno said the limited access to the
court's agents is by design -- to save additional millions that
would have been spent from the settlement fund to pay staff to
handle complaints and questions.

"If they're going to do this, they should do it in an orderly
manner, in a way that makes sense for everybody," said David
Quinn, whose family lost its home in Chalmette because of 11-foot-
high rushing flood waters. "Because I'm sure everybody getting
these letters are going through what we're going through right now
and they're not understanding what they're looking at."

Forgive Quinn's confusion. He got one letter from the court-
appointed disbursing agent addressed to him that says his home
wasn't in the hurricane-affected area; then another letter,
addressed to his wife Sheila said she had property and contents
damage that entitle her to $110; and a third letter went to their
son Derek, who was 12 years old at the time, and awarded him $56.

They all lived together in the same house in Chalmette that took
on water up to the ceiling. A court notice in 2013 estimated a
family with a home that flooded in more than 4 feet of water would
qualify for at least $463. Altogether, this week's notices say
they're getting $166.


CORRECTIONS CORP: Settles Women Prison Visitors' Tampon Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Mattise, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
an agreement has been reached in a lawsuit between the nation's
largest private prison operator and women who were ordered to
remove their tampons or sanitary pads to prove they were
menstruating and not trying to smuggle in contraband.

A federal court order on March 6 dismissed claims against
Corrections Corporation of America, now named CoreCivic, and
officers at South Central Correctional Facility about 85 miles
southwest of Nashville.

Neither side would discuss specifics.  The outcome suggests a
confidential settlement that leaves the larger privacy rights
question unresolved.

It also shields the information from having to be released under
Tennessee's public records law, said Alex Friedmann, managing
editor of prisoner rights publication Prison Legal News.

Two female visitors alleged in the complaint that CoreCivic guards
made them expose their genitals to prove they were menstruating.

The Nashville-based company argued that it can require women to
replace their tampons or pads in the presence of guards if they
reasonably suspect visitors are bringing in contraband.  It said
that in this particular case, the guards had their backs turned.

Mr. Friedmann said the undisclosed agreement reflects a lack of
transparency in the private prison industry, which relies on
contracts paid with taxpayer dollars.  CoreCivic, a $4 billion
company, generated $1.85 billion in revenue last year.

Tennessee Department of Corrections spokeswoman Alison Randgaard
referred questions about the case's resolution to the private
prison company.  She said the agency has no information on the
settlement, since it was not named in the lawsuit.

CoreCivic's spokesman, Jonathan Burns, said the company "does not
comment on litigation."

Unlike most of CoreCivic's other Tennessee facilities, South
Central Correctional Facility is exempt from public records
requests in most circumstances due to a quirk in the law,
Mr. Friedmann said.  It took a court ruling after Friedman sued to
determine that the other facilities do fall under the public
records law, he said.

"While inquiring minds want to know how much CoreCivic paid the
women who filed this lawsuit, and whether the company changed its
policies so the conduct alleged in the complaint does not happen
again, CoreCivic doesn't want people to know," Mr. Friedmann said.
"And presently, the law is on their side."


CUPCAKE SPOT: Unpaid Overtime Pay Claimed by "Bell"
---------------------------------------------------
Wendy Bell, Kristian Kinder and Elizabeth Osteen, individually,
and as class representatives of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. The Cupcake Spot & Sweet, Inc., a domestic
corporation, and Carlos Delgado, a/k/a Miguel Delgado, a/k/a
Daniel Delgado, Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00484, (M.D. Fla.,
February 27, 2017), seeks payment of their earned unpaid wages,
pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, attorney's fees and
costs and such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a bakery where Plaintiffs worked. Plaintiffs
claim to be denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CYNOSURE INC: "Ira" Contests Shadowy Merger Deal, Seeks More Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenfeld Ira, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Cynosure, Inc., Michael R. Davin, William
O. Flannery, Brian M. Barefoot, Ettore V. Biagioni, Marina
Hatsopoulos, And Thomas H. Robinson, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
10309, (D. Mass., February 24, 2017), seeks to preliminarily and
permanently enjoin defendants from consummating and/or closing the
acquisition of Cynosure by Hologic.  The lawsuit also seeks
rescissory damages, reasonable allowance for  attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Cynosure and Hologic announced that they had entered into a plan
of merger dated February 14, 2017 to sell Cynosure to Hologic for
$66.00 per share in cash where the deal is approximately $1.44
billion. Plaintiffs allege that this deal was brokered without the
proper disclosure of the details of such transaction for the
shareholder to make an informed decision and vote on it.

Cynosure develops, manufactures and markets aesthetic treatment
systems that enable plastic surgeons, dermatologists and other
medical practitioners to perform non-invasive and minimally
invasive procedures. It also markets radiofrequency energy sourced
medical devices for precision surgical applications such as facial
plastic and general surgery, gynecology, ear, nose and throat
procedures, ophthalmology, and oral and maxillofacial surgery.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq.
      MATORIN LAWOFFICE, LLC
      18 Grove Street, Suite 5
      Wellesley, MA 02482
      Tel: (781) 453-0100
      Email: mmatorin@matorinlaw.com

             - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
      Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212) 682-3025
      Fax: (212) 682-3010


DAKOTA OF ROCKY HILL: "McDougle" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS T. McDOUGLE, and ROSEMARIE TAYLOR, for themselves
and other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs, v. DAKOTA
OF ROCKY HILL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00245 (D. Conn.,
Feb. 15, 2017), seeks to recover damages calculated as twice the
full amount of the minimum wage, liquidated damages, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and
injunctive and equitable relief under Fair Labor Standards Act.

From October 2015 through the present date, Defendant has employed
Plaintiff Taylor as a server at Dakota Steakhouse located at 1489
Silas Deane Highway, Rocky Hill, Connecticut. In this capacity,
Plaintiff Taylor serves food and beverages to persons at tables
and booths in the restaurant area. Defendant requires and required
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated servers to perform
significant amounts of non-service duties without the possibility
for earning tips for such work and failed to pay them a wage
differential. Defendant posted lists of the non-service duties, or
"side-work" performed by Plaintiffs and similarly situated servers
in plastic sleeves at the various server stations throughout the
restaurant.

The Defendant is engaged in the restaurant business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
          HAYBER LAW FIRM
          221 Main Street, Suite 502
          Hartford, CT 06106
          Telephone: (860) 522 8888
          Facsimile: (860) 218 9555
          E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com


DELRAY FOOD: "Angle" Hits Illegal Tip-Credit, Seeks Wage Payments
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Angle, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Delray Food Services, Inc., a Florida
corporation and Constantine Nicholas, an individual, Defendants,
Case No. 9:17-cv-80235, (S.D. Fla., February 24, 2017), seeks
unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime wages, damages and relief
under the FLSA, including but not limited to liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, interest, costs and expenses and all equitable
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate Johnnie Brown's Restaurant, a bar and
restaurant located in Delray Beach, Florida where Plaintiff was
employed from December 16, 2015 to October 17, 2016. Defendants
illegally took out a tip-credit thus rendering Angle's pay below
minimum wage rates.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark J. Beutler, Esq.
      Law Offices of Mark J. Beutler, P.A.
      One Datran Center, Suite 1500
      9100 South Dadeland Boulevard
      Miami, FL 33156
      Tel: (786) 497-7710
      Fax: (786) 513-4651
      E-mail: mjb@mjbpa.com


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Maxwell Moves for Certification of FDCPA Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled  Shelley Maxwell, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company, and
Pendrick Capital Partners, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Case No. 1:17-cv-01224 (N.D. Ill.), moves for class
certification, and asks that the Court allow her to represent a
class of:

     all persons similarly situated in the State of Illinois from
     whom Defendants attempted to collect a delinquent,
     time-barred consumer debt, allegedly owed for a Windy City
     Emergency Physicians account, via the same form collection
     letter that Defendants sent to Plaintiff, from one year
     before the date of this Complaint to the present.

Ms. Maxwell's complaint, filed on February 15, 2017, sets forth
that the Defendants' form debt collection letter, attempting to
collect a time-barred debt, violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Acts.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974-2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com
                  angiekrobertson@aol.com


ECOLAB INC: Workers Class Certification Sought in "Charlot" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled ANTHONY CHARLOT, ALAN
REMACHE, JOSE TEJADA, GREGORY GERMUSKA, GARWYN RICHMOND, MATT
RIGGS, KRISTOFFER WRIGHT, and CHRISTOPHER HENDLEY, individually
and on behalf all others similarly situated v. ECOLAB, INC., Case
No. 2:12-cv-04543-KAM-VMS (E.D.N.Y.), ask the Court to enter an
order certifying a class consisting of:

     all persons who have worked for Ecolab, Inc. in New Jersey
     between September 11, 2010 and the date of final judgment in
     this matter in a non-supervisory capacity, who regularly
     performed maintenance, installation and repair services on
     commercial dishwashing equipment on the premises of Ecolab's
     customers, including but not limited to Route Managers,
     Route Sales Managers, and Service and Sales Route Managers.

Anthony Charlot, et al., also ask the Court to designate the Named
Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and to appoint their Counsel
as Class Counsel.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          Molly A. Brooks, Esq.
          Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 245-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 509-2057
          E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com
                  mb@outtengolden.com
                  sabrahamson@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq.
          Artemio Guerra, Esq.
          GETMAN & SWEENEY, PLLC
          9 Paradies Lane
          New Paltz, NY 12561
          Telephone: (845) 255-9370
          Facsimile: (845) 255-8649
          E-mail: msweeney@getmansweeney.com
                  aguerra@getmansweeney.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John A. Ybarra, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          321 North Clark Street, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 372-5520
          Facsimile: (312) 372-7880
          E-mail: jybarra@littler.com


EMERY FEDERAL: Palombaro Seeks to Certify Class of Borrowers
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned FRANK A. AND SHELLY
PALOMBARO, JR., et al. v. EMERY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No.
1:15-cv-00792-SJD-KLL (S.D. Ohio), filed their amended motion to
certify the class (the "Emery Class") defined as:

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LIebgG2Q

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


ENTEROMEDICS INC: "Du" Sues Over Onerous Stock Plan, Cries Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vinh Du, derivatively on behalf of Enteromedics, Inc. and
individually and on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of Enteromedics, Inc. Plaintiff, v. Gary
Blackford, Dan W. Gladney, Carl Goldfischer, Bobby I. Griffin,
Lori C. Mcdougal, Nicholas L. Teti Jr., Jon T. Tremmel, Nageeb A.
Ansari, Peter M. Delange, Paul F. Hickey, Scott Youngstrom, And
Enteromedics, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00194, (D. Del.,
February 24, 2017), seeks to rescind an amended stock plan that
reserved 40,000,000 shares of common stock for equity awards to
the Company's executive officers, non-employee directors and other
insiders, disgorgement of any awards made under such plan, costs
and disbursements of this action including reasonable allowance of
fees and costs for Plaintiff's attorneys, experts and accountants
and such other and further relief resulting from unjust enrichment
and breach of fiduciary duty.

Plaintiff brings this action to address fiduciary misconduct in
connection with a stockholder vote and a stock plan purportedly to
implement a reverse stock split at any ratio between 1:20 and
1:70, and to reserve 40,000,000 shares of common stock for equity
awards to the Company's executive officers, non-employee directors
and other insiders. The Company's public stockholders, including
the Plaintiff have suffered a massive dilution of their interest
in EnteroMedics.

Defendant is represented by:

Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
      Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
      919 North Market Street, 12th Floor
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 777-0300
      Fax: (302) 777-0301
      Email: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
             mfarnan@farnanlaw.com


ENTERPRISE LEASING: "James" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Alesia James, Plaintiff, v. Enterprise Leasing Company of
Indianapolis LLC and Kerry Johnson, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
00609, (S.D. Ind., February 27, 2017), seeks unpaid back wages due
with corresponding liquidated damages, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest and such other and further relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendant leases vehicles to customers throughout Indiana where
James was employed by Defendants as an Account Executive and/or
Sales Consultant from September 16, 2014 to January 30, 2017.
Defendants have failed to pay James and those similarly situated
her overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew G. Jones, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW G. JONES
      9465 Counselors Row, Suite 200
      Indianapolis, IN 46240
      Telephone: (317) 616-3671
      E-Mail: ajones@andrewgjoneslaw.com


FAC MANAGEMENT: Unpaid Overtime, Minimum Pay Sought in "Bryant"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Bryant and Marvin Myers On behalf of themselves and All
others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. FAC Management Group LLC
and TBG FAC VA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 7:17-CV-00061, (W.D.
Va., February 17, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum wages and unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest both pre- and post-
judgment, attorney's fees and the costs of this action and any
other and further relief for violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendants engage in the business as sellers of donuts and other
baked goods in the City of Salem, doing business as Dunkin Donuts.
Plaintiffs were formerly employed by Defendants as assistant
managers at the Dunkin Donuts location on Main Street in Salem,
Virginia.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Johneal M. White, Esq.
      Risa S. Katz, Esq.
      GLENN ROBINSON & CATHEY PLC
      Fulton Motor Lofts
      400 Salem Avenue, S.W. - Suite 100
      Roanoke, VA 24016
      Tel: (540) 767-2200
      Fax: (540) 767-2220
      Email: jwhite@glennrob.com
             rkatz@glennrob.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: Mistreats Older Employees, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------
Tresa Baldas at Detroit Free Press reports that for the second
time in two months, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles has been hit with a
discrimination class action,  this one alleging it mistreats older
employees during their performance evaluations and as a result,
gives them lower pay and fewer promotions than their younger
counterparts.

Among the allegations: That employees' photographs are used during
the performance review process at FCA.  According to the lawsuit
filed Feb. 27 in U.S. District Court,  FCA's upper-level managers
who rarely work with the employees they are evaluating have the
workers' photo displayed in front of them when they are rating
their performance.

The lawsuit claims that upper-level managers too often give
employees ages 55 and over lower scores, even when the employees'
immediate supervisors have given them glowing reviews. This
ultimately results in lower pay and fewer promotions for older
employees, who, the lawsuit claims, are the victims of a review
process that's stacked against them.

For plaintiff's attorney Shereef Akeel of Akeel And Valentine,
PLC, the use of a worker's picture during an evaluation process is
especially startling,

"The use of a photograph in reviews is a first for me," Akeel
said. "The use of a photograph has no value in determining how
well someone performed for a year. Someone can be judged by
appearance rather than their performance ... This process is
fraught with danger."

FCA US said that it had not yet been served with the lawsuit so it
could not comment on the allegations.

"However, the company does not tolerate discrimination of any kind
in the workplace based on a person's age, race, color, sex, sexual
orientation, etc.," FCA said in a statement. "All claims of
discrimination are investigated thoroughly and in a timely manner,
and all violations are punishable up to and including
termination."

At issue for FCA are claims by a former diversity manager who
alleges that while working at FCA she discovered its review
process adversely affected older employees and African Americans
for at least the years  2014-17. Both groups were
disproportionately getting lower scores than their white and
younger counterparts.

Among those allegedly hurt by FCA's review process is Dan
Cerjanec, a 59-year-old midlevel professional who earned a six-
figure salary at FCA and worked there for 26 years until he was
fired on Feb. 21. According to his age discrimination lawsuit,
which is seeking class action status for older employees like
himself, he received low scores for three years in a row when he
didn't deserve them. On Feb. 21, he was "terminated and escorted
out of the building in front of his peers."

"He feels betrayed," Akeel said of Cerjanec. "He feels the company
let him down."

Cerjanec's lawsuit came almost two months after the diversity
manager revealed her alleged findings in her own lawsuit.  That
plaintiff is former FCA Diversity Manager Marlin Williams,  who
says that part of her job at FCA was to look for potential pay and
promotion disparities involving minorities.

Her lawsuit claims that after discovering irregularities in pay,
she filed a complaint with the company but it cost her. She was
fired a year ago following a 30-year career promoting diversity at
places such as Compuware, Knowledge Brokers and the City of
Detroit.

According to Akeel, who is handling the race discrimination
lawsuit, that class action could affect 800-1,000 African-American
managers at all levels. To date, he said he has heard from about
60 potential class members in that case.

FCA has denied the race discrimination claims.

"The allegations contained in this lawsuit are without merit," FCA
has previously stated. "FCA US does not tolerate harassment or
discrimination of any kind in the workplace ... FCA US will pursue
a vigorous defense of this challenge to its record and
reputation."


FIREEYE INC: Judge Will Preliminarily Approve Proposed Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Atkins at Law360 reports that a California judge indicated
on March 3 he'll preliminarily approve FireEye Inc.'s proposed
$10.25 million deal resolving class action claims that the
cybersecurity company and its executives misled investors about
its malware software's effectiveness, causing its stock to
plummet, saying the parties only need to tweak the class notice.

Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Peter Kirwan said during a
hearing in San Jose, California, that the parties need to include
the proposed attorneys' fees in the notice sent out to the class,
as well as "rough estimates" of the settlement administrator's
fees.

The parties also need to ensure they're not making it overly
burdensome for class members to opt out of the deal by requiring
them to submit documentation of their stock transactions, the
judge said. Those changes aside, Judge Kirwan said he's "happy to
hear" the parties have reached a deal, and wants it to move
forward.

"[I'm] certainly not trying to stand in the way of what appears to
be an arm's-length negotiated settlement," he said.

The dispute dates back to 2014, when FireEye shareholders launched
multiple securities class actions that June and July against the
company, its executives and nine investment banks that acted as
underwriters for FireEye's second public offering, collectively
seeking more than $68 million in damages.

The suits allege the defendants made misleading public statements
in violation of the Securities Act about FireEye's malware that
caused the company's stock price to balloon and then rapidly
decline after two public offerings.

FireEye first went public in September 2013, opening at $20 per
share, according to a consolidated complaint. By 2014, the company
had made a host of positive statements about its prospects and
products, and FireEye was being touted as a "darling" of Wall
Street, the complaint said.

In March 2014, FireEye executives and its largest shareholders
released more than 14 million shares, selling FireEye stock for
$82 per share in a second public offering.

But following the second offering, media reports revealed
FireEye's malware was disabling nonthreatening computer functions,
and as a result, FireEye's corporate clients, including retail
giant Target, were disabling FireEye's software altogether,
according to the suit. Target claimed that that was one reason
hackers were able to attack its data in 2013, which led to a class
action and a $10 million settlement, the suit said.

FireEye's stock fell, closing in May 2014 at approximately $28 per
share, and the plaintiffs filed their class actions. The actions
were consolidated in October 2014, and in July, the court
certified a class of FireEye common stock purchasers who bought
stock during the company's March 6, 2014, secondary public
offering.

In February, the investors filed a notice that the parties had
reached a $10.25 million nonreversionary cash settlement under
which the attorneys would receive just over $3.41 million in fees.
The plaintiffs argued at the time that the settlement was notable
because it is the second-largest recovery ever achieved in a case
brought in California state court under the Securities Act of
1933.

During a hearing on March 3, Judge Kirwan said he would grant
preliminary approval after the parties made his requested changes.
A fairness hearing is scheduled for June 9, according to the
docket.

In November, a California federal judge dismissed another stock
drop class action against FireEye that alleged the company didn't
adequately warn its investors that it was changing to a high-cost
business model.

The investors are represented by John T. Jasnoch --
jjasnoch@scott-scott.com -- of Scott & Scott Attorneys At Law LLP
and Francis A. Bottini Jr. -- fbottini@bottinilaw.com -- Albert Y.
Chang -- achang@bottinilaw.com -- and Yury A. Kolesnikov
ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com -- of Bottini & Bottini Inc.

FireEye is represented by Boris Feldman -- bfeldman@wsgr.com
Ignacio E. Salceda -- isalceda@wsgr.com -- Benjamin M. Crosson --
bcrosson@wsgr.com -- and Doru Gavril -- dgavril@wsgr.com -- of
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC.

The case is In re. FireEye, Inc., Securities Litigation, case
number 2014-1-CV-266866, in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Santa Clara.


FIRST STEP: Faces "Zeznanski" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Zeznanski, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, vs. First Step, Inc., Case No. 6:17-cv-06023-
SOH (W.D. Ark., February 24, 2017), alleges that Defendant failed
to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation for the hours worked in
excess of forty hours in a single week in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendant provides in-home care to disabled or infirm persons in
Arkansas.  The Plaintiff is employed as a caregiver.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steve Rauls, Esq.
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Financial Center
     650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
     Little Rock, AR 72211
     Phone: (501) 221-0088
     Fax: (888) 787 2040
     E-mail: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com

FREDERICK-THOMPSON CO: Al-Anazi Seeks to Certify Class, Amend Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled ABDALLAH AL-ANAZI and SADAQA
NATIONAL, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FREDERICK-THOMPSON COMPANY d/b/a FTI, and BILL
THOMPSON TRANSPORT INC., Case No. 5:15-CV-12928-JEL-RSW (E.D.
Mich.), moves the Court for an order granting:

   (1) leave to file a second amended complaint adding additional
       plaintiffs; and

   (2) class certification and appointment of class
       representatives.

The Plaintiff Class is defined as:

     All independent owner-operators who leased a vehicle/tractor
     to Bill Thompson Transport, Inc. and/or FTI pursuant to a
     Lease Agreement and whose agreements were in effect at any
     time within 4 years prior to the date this action was filed
     or any time after this action was filed.

The Plaintiff further moves the Court to appoint the Plaintiff as
class representative and to appoint the Plaintiff's counsel as
class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HS2PB8es

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack W. Schulz, Esq.
          Elizabeth A. Gotham, Esq.
          SCHULZ GOTHAM PLC
          PO Box 44855
          Detroit, MI 48244
          Telephone: (313) 246-3590
          E-mail: jackwschulz@gmail.com

               - and -

          John C. Philo, Esq.
          Anthony D. Paris, Esq.
          SUGAR LAW CENTER FOR ECONOMIC & SOCIAL JUSTICE
          4605 Cass Ave., 2nd Floor
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 993-4505
          Facsimile: (313) 887-8470
          E-mail: jphilo@sugarlaw.org
                  tparis@sugarlaw.org

               - and -

          Martin J. Leavitt, Esq.
          Paul E. Robinson, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & LEAVITT, P.C.
          PO. Box 5490
          Northville, MI 48167
          Telephone: (248) 349-3980
          E-mail: mjl@sullivanleavitt.com
                  pr@sullivanleavitt.com


FRESH MARKET: Brower Piven Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, disclosed it has commenced a class action in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina on behalf of those who held the common stock of The Fresh
Market, Inc. Investors who wish to become proactively involved in
the litigation have 60 days to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

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. 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 alleges violations of Sections 14(d)(4), 14(e) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 14d-9 against
The Fresh Market's board of directors, Pomegranate Holdings, Inc.,
an affiliate of Apollo Global Management, LLC ("Apollo Global"),
Apollo Management VIII, L.P. (together with Apollo Global,
"Apollo"), and Pomegranate Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), in
connection with the acquisition of The Fresh Market by Apollo
("Transaction").  The complaint alleges that the Schedule 14D-9
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement filed with the SEC provided
materially incomplete and false and misleading information about
the Transaction, in violation of the Exchange Act. The complaint
further alleges that, as a result of the false and misleading
statements and material omissions, which concealed Defendants'
manipulation of the sales process for the Company, The Fresh
Market shareholders received inadequate consideration for their
Company shares.

If you were a shareholder of The Fresh Market 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.

         Charles J. Piven
         Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
         1925 Old Valley Road
         Stevenson, Maryland 21153
         Tel: 410-415-6616
         E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com


FLOOD BROS: Sued in Ill. Cir. Ct. Over Illegitimate Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
BBJL PROPERTIES, LLC, for itself and on behalf of all other
Illinois Citizens similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FLOOD
BROS DISPOSAL CO., d/b/a FLOOD BROTHERS, the Defendant, Case No.
2017-CH-02318 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Feb. 15, 2017), seeks to recover
fees paid by Plaintiff and members of each class.

Defendant provides services to its customers in exchange for an
agreed upon service rate. Often, Defendant enters into written
agreements for these services. These agreements are uniform and
effectively identical. Defendant has breached the terms of its
uniform service agreements by requiring Plaintiff and class
members to pay the Fees which it force-placed on customer invoices
in violation of the pre-printed, uniform agreements entered into
between Defendant and its customers.

The case presents a prototypical situation for class treatment,
says the complaint. Defendant's conduct is uniform among all its
customers. The contracts and invoices are identical in all
relevant respects. The application of Illinois law to a shared
course of conduct will determine liability for each class as a
whole, ensuring that the rights of hundreds of small businesses
and individuals are vindicated through the efficiency of a single
trial.

The Plaintiff and members of each putative class have been damaged
by Defendant's wrongful conduct by paying the illegitimate fees.

The Defendant provides waste disposal and recycling services to
customers such as Plaintiff throughout Chicago and its surrounding
suburbs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          BRANDT LAW LLC
          P.O. Box 487
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone:(618) 307 6116
          Facsimile:(618)307 6161
          E-mail: derek@brandtlawllc.com



GALENA BIOPHARMA: Sued Over Securities Exchange Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUE KATTUAH, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. GALENA BIOPHARMA, INC., MARK J. AHN,
MARK W. SCHWARTZ, RYAN M. DUNLAP, and JOHN T. BURNS, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01039 (D.N.J., Feb. 15, 2017), seeks
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
acquired Galena's securities between August 11, 2014, and January
31, 2017.

On November 20, 2015, the Company announced that it had sold its
Abstral product to a private company in a deal valued at up to $12
million, with $8 million cash up-front, and up to $4 million in
additional cash upon the achievement of certain sales milestones,
effective as of November 19, 2015. On December 11, 2015, the
Company announced the departure of the Company's then Chief
Financial Officer, Ryan Dunlap, and effective December 31, 2015.
On December 22, 2015, the Company announced that it received a
subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New
Jersey requesting the production of a broad range of documents
pertaining to marketing and promotional practices related to
Abstral. The price of Galena common stock fell $0.06 per share, or
3.6%, to close at $1.57 per share on December 23, 2015.

On January 31, 2017, the Company announced the resignation of Mark
W. Schwartz as President, Chief Executive Officer, and a member of
the Board of Directors. On this news, the price of Galena common
stock fell $0.37 per share, or 22.4%, to close at $1.28 per share
on February 1, 2017.2. The stock price continued to decline,
falling another $0.16 per share, or 12.5%, to close at $1.12 on
February 2, 2017.

Throughout the Class Period, says the complaint, the Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose: (1) that the Company violated various statutes
in connection with its sales of Abstral; (2) that, as such, the
Company was exposed to civil and criminal liability; and (3) that,
as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about
Galena's business, operations, and prospects, were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff
and other Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages.

Galena is a biopharmaceutical company that develops hematology and
oncology therapeutics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Donald A. Ecklund, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
          OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994 1700
          Facsimile: (973) 994 1744
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
                  decklund@carellabyrne.com


GENERAL CABLE: Doshi Sues Over Share Price Drop on Bribery News
---------------------------------------------------------------
Satish Doshi, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. General Cable Corporation,
Gregory B. Kenny and Brian J. Robinson, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-
cv-00025 (S.D. N.Y.) seeks damages sustained, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest, as well as their reasonable attorneys'
fees, expert fees and other costs and all such other and further
relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

General Cable is in the development, design, manufacture,
marketing and distribution of copper, aluminum and fiber optic
wire and cable products for use in the energy, industrial,
construction, specialty and communications markets. The Company
additionally engages in the design, integration, and installation
on a turn-key basis for products such as high and extra-high
voltage terrestrial and submarine systems.

Defendants failed to disclose that General Cable paid millions of
dollars in bribes to government officials in foreign countries,
including Angola, Bangladesh, China, Egypt, Indonesia, India and
Thailand, in order to secure business in violation of the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act of 1997, and accrued $33 million in
potential FCPA settlement.

Plaintiff owns shares of stock of General Cable and lost
substantially when share prices dropped after news of this
development.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      Hui M. Chang, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com
             hchang@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

Defendants are represented by

      Bernard J. Garbutt, III, Esq.
      MORGAN, LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP (NY)
      101 Park Avenue
      New York, NY 10178
      Tel: (212) 309-6000
      Fax: (212) 309-6273

            - and -

      David F. Fessler, Esq.
      FESSLER, SCHNEIDER & GRIMME
      14 N. Grand Avenue
      Ft. Thomas, KY 41075
      Tel: (859) 291-9075
      Fax: (859) 291-9165
      Email: dfessler@fsgattorneys.com


GEORGIO'S BAKERY: "Solarte" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
DIEGO FERNANDO PEREZ SOLARTE and all others similarly situate, the
Plaintiff, v. GEORGIO'S BAKERY MARKET, INC., a/k/a GEORGIOS BAKERY
& BISTRO, PETER TSIALIAMANIS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
20513-JAL (S.D. Fla., Feb. 9, 2017), seeks to recover overtime
and/or minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

The action arises under the laws of the United States. The case is
brought as a collective action. It is believed that the Defendants
have employed several other similarly situated employees like
Plaintiffs who have not been paid overtime and/or minimum wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly from the filing of
the complaint back three years.

The complaint says the Defendants willfully and intentionally
refused to pay Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the FLSA
as Defendants knew of the overtime requirements of the FLSA and
recklessly failed to investigate whether Defendants' payroll
practices were in accordance with the FLSA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GERON CORP: Settles Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Geron Corp said on March 2 parties to
securities class action executed a stipulation and agreement of
settlement to settle securities class action

Geron Corp said settlement does not constitute any admission of
fault or wrongdoing by company or any of individual defendants

Geron Corp said expects $6.0 million of settlement amount to be
paid by the company's insurance providers and remaining $250,000
to be paid by company.

Geron said in exchange for dismissal with prejudice of all claims
against all defendants in lawsuit, co to settle securities class
action for $6.25 million in cash.


GF-PASSAIC FOODS: Faces "Barile" Suit Over "Excessive" Sales Tax
----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK BARILE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. GF-PASSAIC FOODS, LLC and GF-EAST
PATTERSON FOODS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. PAS-L 659-17(N.J.
Super., Passaic County, February 27, 2017), accuses Defendants of
charging excess sales tax and pocketing the overcharges in
violation of the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) and other consumer
protection laws.

Defendant GF-Passaic Foods, LLC is a New Jersey entity operating a
supermarket under the name Gala Fresh Farms.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew S. Oorbeek, Esq.
     THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
     1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
     North Brunswick, NJ 08902
     Phone: (732) 545-7900
     Fax: (732) 545-1030

        - and -

     David C. Ricci, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DAVID C. RICCI, LLC
     51 JFK Parkway, First Floor West
     Short Hills, NJ 07078
     Phone: (973) 218-2627
     Fax: (973) 206-6955


GIODARNO CONSTRUCTION: Overtime Pay Claimed in "Giron" Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erwin Giron, on behalf of himself individually and all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Giodarno Construction, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00623, (S.D. Tex., February 26, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, equitable relief,
compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney's fees, taxable
costs of court, and post-judgment interest for failure to pay
overtime wages and compensation for hours worked under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendant operates a construction firm where Giron worked for the
Defendant as a concrete finisher and manual laborer, delivering
tools and materials to various locations, construction work,
debris removal and cleaning.

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
      Facsimile: (832) 778-8353
      Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Chruby Moves for Certification of Five Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled WALTER CHRUBY, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION, Case No. 5:15-cv-05136-TLB (W.D.
Ark.), ask the Court to approve their class notice in accordance
with a notice program and to certify two unjust enrichment
classes:

   UE CLASS 1: All persons who, while in Arkansas, California,
               Indiana, or Vermont, at any time on or after
               April 24, 2011, paid to use inmate calling
               services provided by Global Tel*Link (including
               its operating subsidiaries) to make or receive one
               or more intrastate phone calls from a correctional
               facility during a period of time when Global
               Tel*Link paid the facility a commission of any
               type in connection with the intrastate calls; and

   UE CLASS 2: All persons who, while in Pennsylvania, Georgia,
               Florida, Maryland, Mississippi, South Dakota, or
               Virginia, at any time on or after April 24, 2011,
               paid to use inmate calling services provided by
               Global Tel*Link (including its operating
               subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more
               intrastate phone calls from a correctional
               facility during a period of time when Global
               Tel*Link paid the facility a commission of any
               type in connection with the intrastate calls.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to certify the action to proceed
as specific state class actions on behalf of three state statutory
Classes asserting, respectively, claims under the Arkansas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Arkansas, California Unfair
Competition Law, and Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law:

   The Arkansas Statutory Class: All persons who, while in
               Arkansas, at any time on or after June 12, 2010:
               (1) paid to use inmate calling services provided
               by Global Tel*Link (including its operating
               subsidiaries) to make or receive one or more
               intrastate phone calls from a correctional
               facility during a period of time when Global
               Tel*Link paid the facility a commission of any
               type in connection with the intrastate calls;
               and/or (2) paid deposit fees to Global Tel*Link in
               order to fund a prepaid account used to pay for
               any intrastate calls;

   The California Statutory Class: All persons who, while in
                California at any time on or after August 28,
                2011: (1) paid to use inmate calling services
                provided by Global Tel*Link (including its
                operating subsidiaries) to make or receive one
                or more intrastate phone calls from a
                correctional facility during a period of time
                when Global Tel*Link paid the facility a
                commission of any type in connection with the
                intrastate calls; and/or (2) paid deposit fees to
                Global Tel*Link in order to fund a prepaid
                account used to pay for any intrastate calls; and

   The Pennsylvania Statutory Class: All persons who, while in
                Pennsylvania, at any time on or after April 24,
                2008: (1) paid to use inmate calling services
                provided by Global Tel*Link (including its
                operating subsidiaries) to make or receive one or
                more interstate phone calls from a correctional
                facility during a period of time when Global
                Tel*Link paid the facility a commission of any
                type in connection with the interstate calls;
                and/or (2) paid deposit fees to Global Tel*Link
                in order to fund a prepaid account used to pay
                for any interstate calls.

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint:

   -- Plaintiffs Jacqueline Mills Jacobs and Shondra Caldwell
      together as the representatives of UE Class 1 and
      respectively, as the representatives of the Arkansas
      Statutory Class and California Statutory Class;

   -- Plaintiffs Walter Chruby, Earl Reese, Stephen Orosz, Jr.,
      Stephen Orosz, Sr., Michael Veon, Stefanie Veon, and Lewis
      Brooks as the representatives of UE Class 2 and the
      Pennsylvania Statutory Class; and

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=u3muILny

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
          Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq.
          Amanda R. Trask, Esq.
          Monique Myatt Galloway, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: pmuhic@ktmc.com
                  dmoffa@ktmc.com
                  atrask@ktmc.com
                  mgalloway@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Amy C. Martin, Esq.
          AMY C. MARTIN P.A.
          P.O. Box 765
          Fayetteville, AR 72702
          Telephone: (479) 422-4611
          E-mail: theamymartin@gmail.com

               - and -

          Daniel Berger, Esq.
          Peter R. Kahana, Esq.
          Barbara A. Podell, Esq.
          Yechiel Michael Twersky, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: danberger@bm.net
                  pkahana@bm.net
                  bpodell@bm.net
                  mitwersky@bm.net

               - and -

          Benjamin D. Brown, Esq.
          Robert Braun, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: bbrown@cohenmilstein.com
                  RBraun@cohenmilstein.com
                  elevens@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
          1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-8282
          Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
          E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
                  phoward@smbb.com


GLOUCESTER COUNTY, VA: Transgender Discrimination Case Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
major technology companies and other businesses, warning of the
negative business consequences of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling
against a transgender boy's sex discrimination claim, on March 2
stepped into a simmering controversy that pits them against the
Trump administration.

More than 50 companies -- including Apple Inc., Amazon.com Inc.,
Microsoft Corp., Airbnb Inc. and Twitter Inc. -- are taking a
stand on whether Title IX's ban on sex discrimination includes
discrimination on the basis of gender identify.  The companies,
including non-tech businesses such as Massachusetts Mutual Life
Insurance, The Gap and Williams-Sonoma, filed an amicus brief in
the Supreme Court backing discrimination claims brought by a
Virginia teenager.

"This was an easy one for us," Michael O'Connor, general counsel
to MassMutual Financial Group, said on March 2.  "We've believed
for a long time in the diversity, inclusion and equality that
impact people, whether they are our employees, agents or
customers.  It's not a political issue; it's about people."

Many of the companies on the brief less than a month ago weighed
in against the Trump administration's travel restrictions
targeting immigrants from seven majority Muslim countries.  Their
argument then, as reflected in the transgender litigation, boils
down to this: Government efforts to curtail rights is bad for
business.

The Trump administration has yet to file a brief in Gloucester
County School Board v. G.G.  But on Feb. 22, the U.S. Justice
Department and the U.S. Education Department withdrew statements
of guidance protecting transgender students' use of bathrooms
associated with their gender identity.  The guidance formed the
basis of a Fourth Circuit decision in favor of Virginia student
Gavin Grimm, whose case is now pending in the Supreme Court.  Oral
argument is set for March 28.

The amicus brief filed on March 2 by the 53 companies came
together through the efforts of the Human Rights Campaign and the
law firm Baker & Hostetler.

Deborah Renner -- drenner@bakerlaw.com -- head of Baker &
Hostetler's class action practice and the New York's office's pro
bono coordinator, is counsel of record on the brief.

Sarah Warbelow, legal director at the Human Rights Campaign, said
the brief was the product of "relationships that we developed with
corporations" over the last 10 years.

"We ask corporations to step up and protect their LGBTQ employees.
Now we asking them to take the next step and advocate outside the
walls of their own workplace," she said.  "This particular brief
is a significant step for these corporations in no small part
because the people directly and immediately affected by the
Supreme Court decision are transgender students who are not really
in the workforce."

Human Rights Campaign typically reaches out to corporations to let
them know far in advance that the advocacy group is preparing a
brief, Ms. Warbelow said.  "We host a webinar and invite all of
the corporations we work with to participate," she said.  "We lay
out the case for the corporations and invite the counsel who is
working with us to participate."

Ms. Warbelow, her colleagues and the counsel follow up with
individual corporations.  "We answer lots of technical questions,
take feedback and work with the law firm to incorporate the
feedback into the brief," she added.

Baker & Hostetler, she said, had let Human Rights Campaign know
that it was very interested in supporting the LGBTQ community.
Ms. Warbelow said the companies that participated in the brief
"are open to the general public in terms of their facilities and
that's critically important."

A Supreme Court ruling against Grimm, the companies on the brief
argued, will harm the recruitment and retention of employees, harm
transgender employees and the employee parents of transgender
children, and bring adverse effects on commerce, as evident from
business withdrawals and avoidance of North Carolina because of
its anti-transgender policies.


GRAEBEL VAN: "Coronel" Suit Alleges Misclassification of Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
FIDEL CORONEL, an individual; on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GRAEBEL VAN LINES, LLC.; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 651805 (Cal.
Super., County of Los Angeles, February 27, 2017), arises out of
Defendants' alleged misclassification of its truck and moving
drivers as independent contractors, and other labor violations,
including but not limited to, failure to pay wages, unlawful
deductions of business expenses, failure to provide meal and rest
breaks, and other labor code violations and unfair business
practices.

Go By Truck reports that California labor law requires drivers who
work shifts lasting more than four hours receive a 10-minute rest
break and drivers who work shifts longer than five or 10 hours
must be provided 30-minute meal breaks. Fidel Coronel worked for
Graebel and was classified, incorrectly according to the lawsuit,
as an independent contractor. The suit seeks class action status
for drivers who worked or lived in California and were employed by
the company within the last four years.

"Defendants (Graebel Van Lines) have engaged in a pattern and
practice of misclassifying their employees as independent
contractors to avoid the taxes, insurance and other costs that
accompany employees," the complaint states.

Defendants provide various shipping, moving, and delivery services
throughout California and the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
     Graham G. Lambert, Esq.
     HAFFNER LAW PC
     445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2325
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Phone: (213) 514-5681
     Fax: (213) 514-5682
     E-mail: Ghh@haffiierlawyers.com
             gl@haffiierlawyers.com


GOOGLE INC: Court Refuses to Dismiss BIPA Violation Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Neuburger at JD Supra Business Advisor said that "we've
closely followed the numerous biometric privacy disputes and
legislative developments surrounding the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA), which precludes the unauthorized
collection and storing of some types of biometric data.  In the
latest ruling, an Illinois district court refused to dismiss a
putative class action alleging that the cloud-based Google Photos
service violated BIPA by automatically uploading plaintiffs'
mobile photos and allegedly scanning them to create unique face
templates (or "faceprints") for subsequent photo-tagging without
consent.  (Rivera v. Google, Inc., No. 16-02714 (N.D. Ill. Feb.
27, 2017))."

This is the third instance where a district court refused, at an
early stage of a litigation, to dismiss BIPA claims relating to
the online collection of facial templates for photo-tagging
purposes.  Unlike those prior courts' relatively cursory
interpretations, however, the Rivera court's expansive 30-page
opinion is the deepest dive yet into the statutory scheme (and
purported vagaries) of the Illinois statute.  The decision is the
latest must-read for mobile or online services that collect and
store biometric data from users as to what extent their activities
might fall under the Illinois biometric privacy statute.  It may
well turn out that the plaintiffs' claims in Rivera (as well as
the ongoing biometric privacy litigation going on in California)
may prove unsuccessful on procedural or statutory grounds, yet,
these initial takes on the scope of BIPA stress the importance of
examining current practices and rollouts of new services that
feature biometrics.

The plaintiffs in Rivera claimed that Google's creation of
faceprints in Google Photos and subsequent storage of "biometric
identifiers" was performed without consent in violation of BIPA.
The plaintiffs also alleged that Google did not make publicly
available a biometric data retention and destruction schedule as
required by the Act.  In response, Google filed a motion to
dismiss, principally arguing that BIPA only covers in-person scans
of facial geometry and does not cover photographs or information
derived from photographs.  In addition, among other contentions,
Google advanced a jurisdictional argument that BIPA does not
regulate behavior outside of Illinois and that the creation and
storage of facial scans in its cloud-based service did not occur
"primarily and substantially" in the forum.  The court denied the
motion.

The Illinois statute, generally speaking, prohibits an entity from
collecting, capturing, purchasing, or otherwise obtaining a
person's "biometric identifier" or "biometric information," unless
it satisfies certain notice and consent and data retention
requirements. The statute contains defined terms and limitations,
and parties in ongoing suits are currently litigating what
"biometric identifiers" and "biometric information" mean under the
statute and whether the collection of facial templates from
uploaded photographs using sophisticated facial recognition
technology fits within the ambit of the statute.

The relevant definitions are as follows:

"Biometric identifier" means a retina or iris scan, fingerprint,
voiceprint, or scan of hand or face geometry.  Biometric
identifiers do not include writing samples, written signatures,
photographs . . ..

"Biometric information" means any information, regardless of how
it is captured, converted, stored, or shared, based on an
individual's biometric identifier used to identify an individual.
Biometric information does not include information derived from
items or procedures excluded under the definition of biometric
identifiers.

In the court's thinking, the definition of biometric identifier is
"simply a list of specified things that does not distinguish the
manner in which the identifier is generated," and "biometric
information" is simply a qualifier that ensures that "private
entities cannot do an end-around [BIPA] by converting biometric
identifiers into some other format."

In denying the motion, the court rejected Google's argument that
face-scan measurements derived from a photograph do not qualify as
biometric identifiers, holding that "nothing in the text of [BIPA]
directly supports this interpretation."

The court states this proposition in several passages in its
decision:

"Nothing in the statute says, one way or the other, how the
biometric measurements must be obtained (or stored, for that
matter) in order to meet the definition of 'biometric identifier.'
The definition simply lists the specific identifiers that are
covered. And the particular biometric identifiers can, in fact, be
collected in various ways without altering the fact that the
measurements still are biometric identifiers."

"Indeed, because advances in technology are what drove the
Illinois legislature to enact [BIPA] in the first place, it is
unlikely that the statute sought to limit the definition of
biometric identifier by limiting how the measurements are taken.
Who knows how iris scans, retina scans, fingerprints, voiceprints,
and scans of faces and hands will be taken in the future? It is
not the how that is important to the Privacy Act; what's important
is the potential intrusion on privacy posed by the unrestricted
gathering of biometric information. The bottom line is that a
'biometric identifier' is not the underlying medium itself, or a
way of taking measurements, but instead is a set of measurements
of a specified physical component (eye, finger, voice, hand, face)
used to identify a person." [emphasis added]

The court noted that the plaintiffs are not claiming that the
photographs themselves were biometric identifiers, rather the
faceprints captured from them.  In fact, the court commented that
had Google "simply captured and stored the photographs and did not
measure and generate scans of face geometry, then there would be
no violation of the Act."

Still, while ruling that the plaintiffs adequately stated a claim
under BIPA at this early stage, the court remarked that Google
might eventually prevail on its argument that the statute does not
cover what Google collects from user photos once the factual
record is further developed in discovery.

Secondary Argument: Extraterritorial Effect

In addition to its statutory-based arguments, Google contended
that its photo tagging activities occurred outside of Illinois and
therefore fell beyond the reach of BIPA -- that is, the
plaintiffs' claims were an extraterritorial (and therefore non-
actionable) application of BIPA.  While the court held that BIPA
does not have extraterritorial effect outside Illinois, and any
asserted violations must take place in Illinois to be actionable,
the court concluded that discovery was required to determine the
locations of any alleged violations as a matter of law.  Illinois
law applies a "totality of the circumstances" test to determine
whether a transaction occurs within the state, and the court noted
that given the novel technology at issue in this dispute, there
was little guidance concerning such cloud-based transactions of
this type.  While the plaintiffs alleged that they were Illinois
residents and the injury involved photos automatically uploaded in
Illinois from an Illinois-based IP address, Google countered that
the plaintiffs failed to pinpoint where any supposed lack of
consent occurred or a location for the actual scanning of face
geometry (which in Google's thinking, would be the determinative
"situs" of the alleged BIPA violation).  While the court left the
issue for another day, it stated that even if it could definitely
determine that the actual facial scanning took place outside of
Illinois, that fact "would not necessarily be dispositive."


GRANA Y MONTERO: Faces "Peralta" Suit Over Odebrecht "Bribes"
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE CARLOS VALENCIA PERALTA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. GRANA Y MONTERO
S.A.A., MARIO ALVARADO PFLUCKER, and MONICA MILOSLAVICH,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01105 (E.D.N.Y., February 27, 2017),
alleges that Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading
statements in violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act.
Specifically, Defendants allegedly made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that the Company was aware
that its Brazilian partner Odebrecht S.A. paid bribes to former
Peruvian President Alejandro Toledo to win construction work on a
road traveling from Peru to Brazil.

Defendant Grana y Montero is a Peruvian corporation that is
headquartered at Lima, Peru. Grana y Montero provides engineering
and construction, infrastructure, real estate, and technical
services in Latin America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Phillip Kim, Esq.
     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 686-1060
     Fax: (212) 202-3827
     Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
            lrosen@rosenlegal.com


HERTZ CORP: Beach-Barrow Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
DUANE BEACH-BARROW on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v.
THE HERTZ CORPORATION and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No.
RG17848833 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 9, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid wages, overtime, meal and rest period compensation,
penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under the Labor Code and IWC Wage Order.

The Defendants and/or DOES are and were aware that Plaintiff and
members of the proposed Plaintiff Class were not paid all straight
time and overtime wages owed, nor provided meal and rest periods.
Defendants' and/or DOES denial of wages and other compensation due
to Plaintiff and members of the proposed
Plaintiff class was willful and deliberate, says the complaint.

The Hertz Corporation, a subsidiary of Hertz Global Holdings Inc.,
is an American car rental company with international locations in
150 countries worldwide. Hertz is the largest U.S. car rental
company by sales.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Turley, Esq.
          David Mara, Esq.
          Jamie Serb, Esq.
          THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234 2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234 4048


HMS HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Delay on Release of Fin'l Results
---------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP, a national securities litigation firm,
announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against HMS
Holdings Corp. ("HMS or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HMSY) and certain
of its officers and directors for violations of the federal
securities laws. The deadline to move the court for lead plaintiff
status is May 2, 2017.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired HMS securities between May
10, 2016 and March 2, 2017 (the "Class Period") and wish to learn
more about your options, you are encouraged to contact attorney
Bradley Vettraino at (617) 398-5600, by email at
bradley@blockesq.com, or visit www.blockesq.com/hms.

In November of 2016, HMS revealed that there "could be a material
negative impact on our future revenue in future periods" in
connection with disputes over the Company's Medicare Recovery
Audit Contractor, owned by HMS, and the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services.

On this news, HMS shares fell 21.5%, causing tens of millions in
losses to investors.

On March 2, 2017, HMS announced it would be unable to timely file
its full-year 2016 financial results, revealing that the Company
had identified a "material weakness in the Company's internal
controls over financial reporting," resulting in a stock drop of
another 2.5%.

The case, brought on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise HMS securities during the Class Period, alleges that the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) HMS lacked effective internal control over
financial reporting; and (2) as a result, HMS's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times, and that when the truth was revealed, investors suffered
damages.

Confidentiality to whistleblowers or others with relevant
information is assured.

Block & Leviton LLP is a Boston-based law firm representing
investors nationwide. The firm's lawyers have collectively been
prosecuting securities cases on behalf of individual and
institutional investors for over 50 years, and have recovered
billions of dollars on their behalf. Block & Leviton's
investigations into corporate wrongdoing were recently covered by
the New York Times.

The case, filed March 3, 2017, is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, and is captioned
Danahar v. HMS Holdings Corp., et al., Ca No.  3:17-cv-01494
(D.N.J.). The court is located at 4th & Cooper Streets, Camden,
New Jersey 08101.

This notice may constitute attorney advertising.

         Bradley J. Vettraino
         Block & Leviton LLP
         155 Federal Street, Suite 400
         Boston, MA 02110
         Tel No: (617) 398-5600
         E-mail: bradley@blockesq.com


HOGAN TRANSPORTS: Bid to Certify Class in "Fairfax" Suit Mooted
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. George C. Smith ruled that the Plaintiff's initial motion
to certify class filed in the lawsuit entitled DON FAIRFAX v.
HOGAN TRANSPORTS, INC., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00680-GCS-KAJ
(S.D. Ohio), is now moot.

The Plaintiff initiated the action on July 14, 2016, and on the
same day filed a motion to certify class.  On August 22, 2016, the
Plaintiff requested leave to file a second amended complaint
naming two additional Defendants.  The Court granted Plaintiff's
Motion and the second amended complaint was placed on the docket
on August 25, 2016.  Therefore, Plaintiff filed a Renewed Motion
to Certify Class.

"In light of the filing of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint
and the Renewed Motion to Certify Class, Plaintiff's initial
Motion to Certify is now MOOT," Judge Smith ruled.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Gwu9zZ4F


H.O.P.E. PROGRAM: "Fillion-Frye" Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Fillion-Frye, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The H.O.P.E. Program, LLC, a
Florida limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00118, (M.D. Fla., February 24, 2017), seeks damages under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, disgorgement of any ill-gotten
funds acquired as a result of unlawful telephone calling
practices, injunction to cease all unsolicited text messaging, all
expenses of this action and such other and further relief.

Defendant runs and operates several services that assist consumers
in repairing their credit and assists them in finding and/or
purchasing homes. More specifically, it helps consumers with bad
credit buy a home or qualify for a rent-to-own homes. It combines
the removal of bad credit with the addition of good credit in
order to help consumers increase their credit score. Defendant
uses a telemarketing campaign that uses repeated unsolicited
autodialed telephone calls and/or text messages to consumers'
cellular telephones without consent.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stefan Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, PA.
      201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (877) 333-9427
      Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
      Email: law@stefancoleman.com


HSBC BANK: "Wolff" Suit Alleges False Ad of Referral Funds
----------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR WOLFF, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. HSBC BANK USA,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01552 (C.D.
Cal., February 24, 2017), seeks to stop Defendant's alleged
practice of falsely advertising that they will provide consumers
funds for referrals when they have no intention to provide such
funds and to obtain redress for a nationwide class of consumers
who were misled, within the applicable statute of limitations
period, by Defendant.

The case alleges violation of Unfair Competition Law and violation
of Unfair Competition Law.

Defendant HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION is a Foreign Stock
National Association with its United States principal place of
business in Virginia. Defendant is a bank that owns hundreds of
locations across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ICHIBAN GROUP: "Zhang" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wage Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
XUE HUI ZHANG, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. ICHIBAN GROUP, LLC, d/b/a Ichiban Japanese &
Chinese Restaurant and d/b/a Takara; ICHIBAN FOOD SERVICES, INC.
d/b/a Ichiban Japanese & Chinese Restaurant and
d/b/a Takara; CHEN & JU, INC. d/b/a Ichiban Japanese & Chinese
Restaurant and d/b/a Takara; DAVID L IP; SHIOW FEI JU; SHIN SHII
JU; CHWON TZU JU; LIPING JU; TYNG QUH JU; and TOMMY JU, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00148-MAD-TWD (N.D.N.Y., Feb. 9,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest;
and/or attorneys' fees and costs under New York Labor Law (NYLL)
and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiffs
and similarly situated employees at least the hourly minimum wage
rate for each hour worked, says the complaint. The Defendants
allegedly failed to pay Plaintiffs their lawfully due overtime
compensation of one and one half times their regular rate of pay
for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek. While employed
by Defendants, Plaintiffs were not exempt under federal and state
laws requiring employers to pay employees overtime. The Defendants
failed to keep full and accurate records of Plaintiffs' hours and
wages.

Ichiban Group is a small organization in the restaurants industry
located in Albany, New York.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762 1324
          E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com


INNOCOLL HOLDINGS: "Huang" Sues Over Drop in Innocoll Share Prices
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jianmin Huang, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. Innocoll Holdings Public Limited Company,
Anthony P. Zook, Jose Carmona and Lesley Russel, Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-00740, (E.D. Penn., February 16, 2017), seeks damages,
including interest, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees and such
equitable/injunctive or other relief under the Exchange Act.

Innocoll is a global, specialty pharmaceutical company with late
stage development programs, including proprietary, biocompatible,
and biodegradable collagen products. Defendants allegedly failed
to disclose that its lead product XARACOLL for postsurgical pain
treatment entailed undisclosed health and safety risks and it had
overstated the drug's approval prospects and/or commercial
viability.

On this news, Innocoll's share price fell $1.08, or 61.02%, to
close at $0.69 on December 30, 2016. Plaintiff purchased Innocoll
shares and lost substantially.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      Hui M. Chang, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com
             hchang@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Steven J. Toll, Esq.
      Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
      Adam H. Farra, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Fifth Floor
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 408-3640
      Facsimile: (202)408-4699
      Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
             dsommers@cohenmilstein.com
             afarra@cohenmilstein.com

             - and -

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      Mark L. Ackerman, Esq.
      BRODSKI & SMITH, LLC
      9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
      Beverly Hills, CA
      Telephone: (877) 834-2590
      Email: esmith@brodskismith.com
             mackerman@brodskismith.com


INTERLINE BRANDS: Ajose Moves to Certify Classes and Subclasses
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled JACQUELYN D. AJOSE, KATHY
SMITH, SHARON KURTZ, PATRICIA EVETT, & JAMES L.  BOYLAND, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
INTERLINE BRANDS, INC., Case No. 3:14-cv-01707 (M.D. Tenn.), seek
certification of these nationwide class and relevant subclasses:

   -- Nationwide Class: Nationwide Rule 23(b)(2) Equitable Relief
      Class (represented by all named plaintiffs): All persons
      and entities in the United States who own or reside in a
      structure with a DuraPro Connector that has not yet failed;

   -- Rule 23(b)(3) Strict Liability Classes:

      * Arizona Subclass: Arizona Rule 23(b)(3) Strict Liability
        Class (represented by Patricia Evett): All persons and
        entities residing in Arizona who own or reside in a
        structure where damage was caused by a failed DuraPro
        Connector;

      * Colorado Subclass 1: Colorado Rule 23(b)(3) Strict
        Liability Class (represented by Kathy Smith): All persons
        and entities residing in Colorado who own or reside in a
        structure where damage was caused by a failed DuraPro
        Connector;

      * Florida Subclass 1: Florida Rule 23(b)(3) Strict
        Liability Class (represented by James Boyland): All
        persons and entities residing in Florida who own or
        reside in a structure where damage was caused by a failed
        DuraPro Connector;

      * Pennsylvania Subclass 1: Pennsylvania Rule 23(b)(3)
        Strict Liability Class (represented by Jacquelyn Ajose):
        All persons and entities residing in Pennsylvania who own
        or reside in a structure where damage was caused by a
        failed DuraPro Connector;

      * Texas Subclass 1: Texas Rule 23(b)(3) Strict Liability
        Class (represented by Sharon Kurtz): All persons and
        entities residing in Texas who own or reside in a
        structure where damage was caused by a failed DuraPro
        Connector.

   -- Rule 23(b)(3) Implied Warranty Classes:

      * Non-Privity Implied Warranty/MMWA Rule 23(b)(3) Class:
        (represented by Kathy Smith, Jacquelyn Ajose and/or
        Sharon Kurtz): All persons and entities residing in
        Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, District of
        Columbia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska,
        Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North
        Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South
        Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and
        Wyoming, who own or reside is a structure where damage
        was caused by a failed DuraPro Connector;

      * Colorado Subclass 2: Colorado Rule 23(b)(3) Implied
        Warranty/MMWA Class (represented by Kathy Smith): All
        persons and entities residing in Colorado who own or
        reside is a structure where damage was caused by a failed
        DuraPro Connector;

      * Pennsylvania Subclass 2: Pennsylvania Rule 23(b)(3)
        Implied Warranty/MMWA Class (represented by Jacquelyn
        Ajose): All persons and entities residing in Pennsylvania
        who own or reside is a structure where damage was caused
        by a failed DuraPro Connector;

      * Texas Subclass 2: Texas Rule 23(b)(3) Implied
        Warranty/MMWA Class (represented by Sharon Kurtz): All
        persons and entities residing in Texas who own or reside
        is a structure where damage was caused by a failed
        DuraPro Connector.

   -- Rule 23(b)(3) Consumer Protection Class:

      * Florida Subclass 2: Florida Rule 23(b)(3) FDUPTA Class
        (represented by James Boyland): All persons who purchased
        an Interline Toilet Connector in Florida.

Excluded for all Classes are: (i) Interline, its parent company
The Home Depot, Inc., any entity either maintains a controlling
interest, including any other subsidiaries, affiliates, officers,
directors, employees and members of said person's immediate
families; (ii) the presiding judge(s) and their immediate family;
and (iii) any claim for personal injury caused by a DuraPro
Connector.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives of the Nationwide Class and each Plaintiff as
representative of his or her respective state Subclasses.  The
Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint Saltz, Mongeluzzi,
Barrett & Bendesky, P.C., McCune Wright Arevalo, LLP, and Berger &
Montague, P.C. as class counsel for all Plaintiffs; and appoint
Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings PLLC as liaison counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KdREnc1c

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq.
          BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 254-8801
          Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
          E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
                  seamusk@bsjfirm.com

               - and -

          Simon Bahne Paris, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
          One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
          1650 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 575-3986
          Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
          E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
                  phoward@smbb.com
                  ckocher@smbb.com

               - and -

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          MCCUNE WRIGHT, LLP
          1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 200-0580
          E-mail: jgs@mccunewright.com

               - and -

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Glen L. Abramson, Esq.
          Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-4656
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  gabramson@bm.net
                  josterwise@bm.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          John R. Tarpley, Esq.
          LEWIS, THOMASON, KING, KRIEG & WALDROP, P.C.
          424 Church Street, Suite 2500
          P.O. Box 198615
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Telephone: (615) 259-1366
          Facsimile: (615) 259-1389
          E-mail: jtarpley@lewisthomason.com

               - and -

          Hilarie Bass, Esq.
          Mark A. Salky, Esq.
          Timothy A. Kolaya, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
          333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 4400
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 579-0500
          Facsimile: (305) 579-0717
          E-mail: bassh@gtlaw.com
                  salkym@gtlaw.com
                  kolayat@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          David O. Batista, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
          401 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 2000
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-4223
          Telephone: (954) 765-0500
          Facsimile: (954) 765-1477
          E-mail: batistad@gtlaw.com


INVENSENSE INC: "Dunham" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal with TDK
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Dunham, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Invensense, Inc., Behrooz Abdi, Amir
Faintuch, Emiko Higashi, Jon Olson, Amit Shah, Eric Stang, Yunbei
Yu, Usama Fayyad, TDK Corporation and TDK Sensor Solutions
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00957, (N.D. Cal.,
February 24, 2017), seeks compensatory damages, including
interest, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action,
including counsel fees and expert fees, extraordinary equitable
and/or injunctive relief and such other and further relief under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

InvenSense and TDK agreed to merge, with TDK acquiring all of the
outstanding shares of InvenSense. Under the terms of the merger
agreement, InvenSense public stockholders will receive $13.00 in
cash for every share of InvenSense common stock held, for an
approximate aggregate value of $1.3 billion.

Defendants have exacerbated their breaches of fiduciary duty by
agreeing to lock up the merger with preclusive and onerous deal
protection devices that preclude other bidders from making
successful competing offers for the Company including a no
solicitation provision that prevents the Company from negotiating
with or providing confidential information to competing bidders
except under extremely limited circumstances and a matching rights
provision that allows TDK to match any competing proposal in the
unlikely event that one emerges and up to $46,700,000 in
termination fees if the Board agrees to a competing proposal, says
the complaint.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      BRODSKI AND SMITH, LLP
      9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 534-2590
      Facsimile: (310) 247-0160


INVENSENSE INC: "Isaac" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------
Atef Isaac, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Invensense, Inc., Behrooz Abdi, Amir
Faintuch, Emiko Higashi, Jon Olson, Amit Shah, Eric Stang, Yunbei
Yu, Usama Fayyad, TDK Corporation and TDK Sensor Solutions
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01014, (N.D. Cal.,
February 27, 2017), seeks compensatory damages, including
interest, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action,
including counsel fees and expert fees, extraordinary equitable
and/or injunctive relief and such other and further relief under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

InvenSense and TDK agreed to merge, with TDK acquiring all of the
outstanding shares of InvenSense. Under the terms of the merger
agreement, InvenSense public stockholders will receive $13.00 in
cash for every share of InvenSense common stock held, for an
approximate aggregate value of $1.3 billion.

The complaint says Defendants have exacerbated their breaches of
fiduciary duty by agreeing to lock up the merger with preclusive
and onerous deal protection devices that preclude other bidders
from making successful competing offers for the Company including
a no solicitation provision that prevents the Company from
negotiating with or providing confidential information to
competing bidders except under extremely limited circumstances and
a matching rights provision that allows TDK to match any competing
proposal in the unlikely event that one emerges and up to
$46,700,000 in termination fees if the Board agrees to a competing
proposal.

InvenSense designs, develops, markets and sells sensor systems on
a chip, including accelerometers, gyroscopes and microphones for
the mobile, wearable, smart home, gaming, industrial, and
automotive market segments.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 291-2420
      Facsimile: (415) 484-1294
      Email: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com

             - and -

      Daniel Kuznicki, Esq.
      BROWER PIVEN - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
      475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 501-9000
      Facsimile: (212) 501-0300
      Email: kuznicki@browerpiven.com


INVUITY INC: "Paciga" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
MIKE PACIGA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff vs. INVUITY, INC., PHILIP SAWYER and JAMES H.
MACKANESS, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01005-JSW (N.D. Cal.,
February 27, 2017), alleges that Defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements in violation of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Act.

In particular, Defendants allegedly failed to disclose:
(a) that the continued opportunities for growth in mature active
accounts stagnated after the initial sale of a new product; (b)
that revenues per active account were actually declining; and
(c) that the Company's sales force was not meeting stated revenue
growth goals in mature active accounts.

Invuity, Inc. is a medical technology company that develops,
markets, and sells single-use and reusable medical technology for
use by surgeons across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


IOD INC: "Ortiz" Sues for Overcharging of Medical Record Copies
---------------------------------------------------------------
VICKY ORTIZ Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs against IOD INC. and COLUMBIA PRESBYTERIAN
MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants, INDEX NO. 650984/2017 (N.Y. Sup.,
County of New York, February 24, 2017), alleges that the members
of the proposed class were overcharged by Defendants for copies of
her hospital and/or medical records in violation of the statutory
maximum charges permissible under New York Public
Health Law Section 18, which is not to exceed the actual costs
incurred by Defendants and, under no circumstance, to exceed a
charge of seventy-five cents ($0.75) per page.

The proposed class consists of any and all persons or entities who
requested copies of medical records in the State of New York via
an authorization either personally or by his or her legal
representative.

Defendants IOD INC. and COLUMBIA PRESBYTERIAN MEDICAL CENTER are a
hospital and/or "healthcare provider."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lowell J. Sidney, Esq.
     244 Fifth Avenue - Suite 8Q278
     New York, NY 10001
     Phone: 888-222-0513


J.C. PENNEY: "Anderson" Sues Over Disabled Inaccessible Stories
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Anderson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc., and J.C.
Penney Company, Inc., Defendants, Case No. RG 17850641, alleges
that despite an extended period of time in which to become
compliant with building requirements and despite the extensive
publicity the California Disabled Persons Act and Unruh Act has
received over the years, Defendants continue to discriminate
against people who are disabled in ways that block them from equal
access to and use of their stores.

Defendants operate 25 department stores in the state of
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Evan J. Smith, Esq.
     BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
     9595 Wilkshire Blvd., Ste. 900
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Phone: 877 534 2590
     Fax: 310 247 0160


J.T. WIMSATT: "Guevarra" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO GUEVARA, as an individual, and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. J.T. WIMSATT CONTRACTING
CO., INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC650098 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb.
9, 2017), seeks to recover nominal damages; restitution of all
monies due to Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class, and disgorged profits
from the unlawful business practices of Defendant; waiting time
penalties pursuant to Cal. Labor Code; interest accrued to date;
injunctive relief, enjoining Defendants from engaging in their
unlawful and unfair business practices; and declaratory relief.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of Plaintiff Class,
seeks relief against Defendant for the failure to reimburse
employees for necessary expenditures under the Cal. Labor Code;
the failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements upon
payment of wages pursuant to Cal. Labor Code, and the IWC Wage
Orders; and failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned
employees pursuant to Cal. Labor Code. The Plaintiff further seeks
equitable remedies in the form of declaratory relief and
injunctive relief, and relief under the Bus. & Prof. Code for
unfair business practices.

JT Wimsatt is a structural concrete contractor from conception to
completion.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590 5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590 8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net


KIDS FIRST DENTISTRY: "Jeffers" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Tonya Jeffers, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Kids First Dentistry, Inc. and Jila J. Mahajan,
Individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00231, (M.D. Fla.,
February 27, 2017), seeks declaratory relief, unpaid back wages
and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants operate a dental clinic in Duval County where Jeffers
worked as a front office assistant. Plaintiff claims to be denied
overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul M. Botros, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 327-3017
      E-Mail: Qbotros@forthegeogle.com


KOHL'S CORP: "Tran" Suit Alleges FCRA Breach
--------------------------------------------
Larry Tran, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Kohl's Corporation (d/b/a Kohl's), Kohl's
Department Stores, Inc. (d/b/a Kohl's) and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00269, (C.D. Cal.,
February 27, 2017), seeks statutory and punitive damages including
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses as
required by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

Defendants own, manage, maintain and or operate approximately
1,166 Kohl's department stores that sell, among other things,
exclusive and national brand apparel, footwear, accessories,
beauty and home products to their retail customers. Plaintiff
alleges that his credit card expiration date was printed on his
receipt, thus exposing him to credit card fraud and identity theft
should anyone get hold of this receipt.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chant Yedalian, Esq.
      CHANT & COMPANY
      1010 North Central Avenue
      Glendale, CA 91202
      Telephone: (877) 574-7100
      FacsImile: (877) 574-9411


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Sued in Super. Ct. Over Kohl's Cash Marketing
----------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL WATERS, an individual, and TONY VALENTI, an individual, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., a corporation; and
DOES 1-100, the Defendant, Case No. BC650906 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Feb. 15, 2017), seeks to recover general damages, treble damages,
special damages, and punitive damages from Defendant.

The action arises from a massive fraud perpetrated by Defendants
in connection with the marketing and employment of their discounts
and their "rewards" program. With every purchase at Kohl's,
customers earn Kohl's Cash, which can then be applied towards
subsequent purchases. Although Defendants' labeling of the rewards
program infers, implies, and/or represents that Kohl's Cash can be
used as actual "cash," in truth, Defendants do not treat it as
such. In contrast to actual cash, Defendants apply Kohl's Cash
prior to applying any percent-off discounts. By deducting Kohl's
Cash from the purchase price prior to applying any percent-off
discounts, Defendants prevent customers from obtaining and
receiving the full amount and benefit of the advertised or
marketed discount and/or the full amount and benefit of Kohl's
Cash. This results in the customer overpaying for the goods and
Defendants retaining the amount of overpayment.

Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered, and will continue to
suffer, irreparable injury if Defendants are permitted to continue
to engage in the conduct described herein.
Plaintiffs and members of the Class are thus entitled to a
preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, and
their agents, servants, employees and all persons acting under or
in concert with them, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert L. Esensten, Esq.
          Jordan S. Esensten, Esq.
          ESENSTEN LAW
          12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1660
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 273 3090
          Facsimile: (310) 207 5969
          E-mail: resensten@esenstenlaw.com
                  iesensten@esenstenlaw.com


KONA BREWING: Misleads Consumers on Beer Origin, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Fox News reports the bottles might sport hula dancers, surfers and
big waves but two California residents say the company that owns
Kona Brewing Co. is misleading shoppers into believing they're
buying beer brewed in Hawaii.

In a lawsuit filed on February 28 in the U.S. District Court of
California Northern District, Sara Cilloni and Simone Zimmer
allege that Craft Brew Alliance misleads consumers about the true
origin of beers bearing the Kona Brewing Co. brand, reports West
Hawaii Today.

In the suit, the plaintiffs say the company's use of hula dancers,
surfers, the Kilauea volcano, Waikiki beach, and other images and
phrases clearly associated with the Aloha State are deceiving
customers into paying more for the craft ales.

The names of the beers such as Big Wave Golden Ale, Castaway IPA,
Fire Rock Pale Ale and Longboard Island Lager also allegedly give
off a deceptively Hawaiian vibe.

Despite the bottle imagery that hints at Hawaiian origin, nothing
on the packaging makes it clear as to where the beer is actually
brewed. According to the company's website, the fifth-largest U.S.
craft brewer makes beer at facilities in New Hampshire, Oregon,
Tennessee and Washington state -- and any beer sold in the upper
48 is brewed at one of these facilities.

However, Kona Brewing Co. does operate a flagship brew house in
Kailua-Kona on the Big Island of Hawaii, but that facility only
produces around 12,000 barrels of beer annually.

Although most of their beers are not brewed in Hawaii, according
to Kona's website, the beer brewed at partner breweries is made
with hops, malt and proprietary yeast from the island state. The
mineral levels of the water used are also reportedly adjusted to
replicate the water used in Hawaii. The website also claims that a
sample from each batch of beer is sent to the Kailua-Kona brewery
for sensory evaluation.

The lawsuit is seeking class action status and unspecified damages
for Kona purchasers in the state of California -- and nationwide -
- over four years.

Kona isn't the only beermaker to come under fire for allegedly
deceptive marketing practices. In Dec. 2015, a New York City man
sued Foster's beer for allegedly deceiving him into thinking the
company's beer brewed in Texas was actually made in Australia. And
last summer, Anheuser-Busch agreed to settle a $50 million class
action suit over allegations that it fooled customers into
thinking Beck's beer was from Germany when the U.S. bottles are
actually made in St. Louis now.

Craft Brew Alliance says it does not comment on pending
litigation.


KRISPY KREME: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss False Advertising Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver at Winston-Salem Journal reports that a federal
judge has denied Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc.'s request for
dismissal of a federal false-advertising lawsuit involving
ingredient flavors.

Judge Stephen Wilson, of the Central District of California, ruled
on February 27 that the company has not proven to date it would be
harmed by the lawsuit filed Nov. 9 by Jason Saidian.

The lawsuit focuses on Krispy Kreme's chocolate-iced raspberry-
filled, glazed raspberry-filled, maple-iced glazed, maple bar,
glazed blueberry cake and donut holes sold in its doughnut shops.

Saidian claims he purchased the raspberry doughnut in 2015 because
raspberries "are a rich source of Vitamin C, Vitamin K, potassium
and dietary fiber . . . . and help fight against cancer, heart and
circulatory disease, and age-related decline."

Saidian's attorneys cited other potential health benefits from
premium maple and blueberry ingredients.

AmLaw Litigation Daily has called the case one of the three worst
consumer-protection lawsuits of 2016

However, what moves the lawsuit from being considered as
potentially frivolous is that California law has a low bar for
proving violations of business and professions code as well as
false advertising and breach of contract. Saidian is being
represented by a law firm -- Faruqi & Faruqi LLP -- that
specializes in consumer class-action cases.

Saidian is requesting at least $5 million in damages as well as
disgorging of profits made from the products. Krispy Kreme
typically sells its variety doughnuts for $1.09 apiece and $8.99
for a dozen.

Krispy Kreme's attorneys requested the lawsuit be dismissed with
prejudice, meaning it can't be refiled. They also request it not
be certified as class action.

They argued that "the defendant and this court are left to wonder
exactly what amount of nutritional or health benefits the
plaintiff thought he was getting from the doughnuts."

However, Wilson considered "the plaintiff's well-pleaded factual
allegations as true."

Seidian's attorneys claim Krispy Kreme shops do not provide an
ingredient list for its doughnuts.

"Had the plaintiff and other consumers known that the products did
not contain their premium ingredients they would not have
purchased the products or would have paid significantly less for
the products," according to the lawsuit.

Krispy Kreme's attorneys say federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
regulations prohibit states from requiring restaurants to impose -
- at point of sale -- additional labeling requirements beyond
federal requirements that include number of calories per item and
a statement of how the item fits within a 2,000-calorie diet.

Wilson wrote that the plaintiff alleges Krispy Kreme had a duty to
refrain from giving its products misleading names. "Even if
plaintiff's theory were accepted, Krispy Kreme could avoid
liability without making any changes to its labeling simply by
renaming its products."

Since Krispy Kreme doesn't advertise its doughnuts contain real
fruit, its attorneys argue how can it be accused of false
advertising.

However, Wilson rejected Krispy Kreme's claim that no reasonable
consumer would be misled by how the company labeled and marketed
the flavored doughnuts cited.

As the Krispy Kreme attorneys state their defense, their comments
become increasingly incredulous.

Some examples include:

"No reasonable consumer would expect a doughnut to deliver the
same level of antioxidants, for example, as green tea;" "Consumers
also understand that doughnuts are desserts and contain flavoring
... that are shorthand references and are not intended to describe
the ingredients of the doughnuts;" and "What exactly did he think
the raspberry and blueberry doughnuts contained? Was it raw fruit?
Fruit jelly? Fruit jam? Dried fruit?"


KROGER CO: Sued in Cal. Over Kroger Apple Juice Misrepresentation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SONIA PEREZ, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. THE KROGER CO., an Ohio
corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. BC650000 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Feb. 9, 2017), seeks reimbursement for having paid for
Kroger Apple Juice in reliance on Defendants' misrepresentations;
and for order enjoining Defendants from further unfair and
deceptive business practices regarding the deceptive advertising,
sales, and other business practices relating to the Kroger Apple
Juice products.

The action arises out of the unlawful "No Sugar Added" statements
placed by Defendants on the labels and outer packaging of its
Kroger Apple Juice. The Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
regulations promulgated pursuant to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics
Act of 1938 ("FDCA") specify the precise nutrient content claims
concerning sugar that may be made on a food label. Defendants' "No
Sugar Added" claims on its Kroger Apple Juice containers fail to
comply with these requirements. As a result, Defendants have
violated California's Sherman Law and consumer protection
statutes, which wholly adopt the federal requirements.

The Kroger Company, or simply Kroger, is an American retailing
company founded by Bernard Kroger in 1883 in Cincinnati, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lee A. Cirsch, Esq.
          Robert K. Friedl, Esq.
          Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556 4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943 0396
          E-mail: Lee.Cirsch@capstonelawyers.com
                  Robert.Friedl@capstonelawyers.com
                  Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com


LIBRE BY: Sued Over Lease Agreement with Migrant Detainees
----------------------------------------------------------
JUAN QUINTANILLA VASQUEZ and GABRIELA PERDOMO ORTIZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
LIBRE BY NEXUS, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No.
4:17-cv-00755-DMR (N.D. Cal., Feb. 15, 2017), seeks to recover
monetary damages, restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief
from Defendants arising from their exploitation of Spanish-
speaking migrant detainees with so-called "lease agreements" for
GPS trackers.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detains thousands
of undocumented immigrants each year. Once in detention, detainees
who are deemed to not pose a flight risk or a threat to public
safety are afforded the opportunity to post bond. Bond is
typically set at an amount that well exceeds the detainees'
ability to pay, forcing them to obtain third-party financing or
remain in detention.

Through its false and deceptive advertising and pricing scheme,
LBN violated (and continues to violate) California law prohibiting
misleading sales practices, says the complaint. Specifically, LBN
violated (and continues to violate) California's Unfair
Competition and False Advertising Laws, Business & Professions,
and the California Consumers' Legal Remedies Act, California Civil
Code.

From its use of an English-language rental agreement with only
selective Spanish-language disclosures, LBN violated the
California Translation Act, California Civil Code. LBN violates
the Federal Prohibition on Peonage, and the Federal Prohibition on
Forced Labor, adds the complaints.

Libre By Nexus is a Virginia-based bail bond company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Kaliel, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          483 Ninth Street, Suite 200
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone (510) 254 6808
          Facsimile (202) 973 0950
          E-mail: jkaliel@tzlegal.com


L'OREAL USA: Faces "Valrie" Suit for Concealing Product Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
ELLA B. VALRIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. L'OREAL USA, INC., and SOFT HEEN-CARSON,
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00306-JEO (N.D. Ala., February
24, 2017), alleges that an inherent design and/or manufacturing
defect in Defendants' Soft Sheen-Carson Optimum Salon Haircare(R)
brand Amla Legend Rejuvenating Ritual Relaxer Kit causes
significant hair loss and skin and scalp irritation.  But
Defendants allegedly concealed these material facts from
consumers.

L'Oreal USA, Inc. -- http://www.lorealusa.com/-- manufactures and
markets cosmetics for consumer and professional markets. It
provides skincare, haircare, makeup, and perfume products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
     Brandy Lee Robertson, Esq.
     HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
     2224 First Avenue North
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Phone: 205.326.3336
     Fax: 205-326-3332
     E-mail: wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com
             brandy@hgdlawfirm.com

        - and -

     Joseph L. "Josh" Tucker, Esq.
     JACKSON & TUCKER, P.C.
     2229 1st Ave. North
     Birmingham, AL 35203-4203
     Phone: 205.252.3535
     Fax: 205.252.3536
     Fax: 205.252.3536
     E-mail: josh@jacksonandtucker.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued for Illegally Charging Excessive Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the case captioned SHEILA LINDERMAN, on behalf of
herself, and all others similarly situated, the Petitioner and
Plaintiff, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, and DOES 1 through 100, the
Respondents and Defendants, Case No. BC650785 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Feb. 15, 2017), seeks to enjoin Respondents/Defendants from
illegally charging excessive fees in connection with alarm permits
required by the City of Los Angeles for residents to legally have
alarm systems. She also seeks a refund of such sums and to obtain
voter approval for what is a tax.

Proposition 218, the Right to Vote on Taxes Act, was passed by the
people of California in November 1996. The measure stated its
purpose "was intended to provide effective tax relief and to
require voter approval of tax increases. However, local
governments have subjected taxpayers to excessive tax, assessment,
fee and charge increases that not only frustrate
the purposes of voter approval for tax increases, but also
threaten the economic security of all Californians and the
California economy itself. This measure protects taxpayers by
limiting the methods by which local government exact revenue from
taxpayers without their consent."

By passing Proposition 218, the California Constitution was
amended to add articles XIII C and XIII D. Article XIII C dealt
with voter approval for local government general taxes and special
taxes. Article XIII D sets forth procedures, requirements and
voter approval mechanisms for local government assessments, fees
and charges. This action pertains to Article XIII D relating to
fees and charges wrongly imposed by Defendants. In November 2010,
California voters approved Proposition 26, the Supermajority Vote
to Pass New Taxes and Fees Act. Proposition 26 further amended
Article XIII C to clarify that "[t]he local government bears the
burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a levy,
charge, or other exaction is not a tax, that the amount is no more
than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental
activity, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated
to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor's
burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity."

The Plaintiff seeks to compel Respondents/Defendants to comply
with Proposition 26.

Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city and the center
of the nation's film and television industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Kearney, Esq.
          Prescott W. Littlefield, Esq.
          KEARNEY LITTLEFIELD, LLP
          3436 N. Verdugo Rd., Suite 230
          Glendale, CA 91208
          Telephone (213) 473-1900
          Facsimile (213) 473-1919
          E-mail: tak@keameylittlefield.com
                  pwl@keameylittlefield.com

               - and -

          Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
          Richard D. Lambert, Esq.
          STONEBARGER LAW
          75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone (916) 235 7140
          Facsimile (916) 235 7141
          E-mail: gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com
                  rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com



LOVELL MACASAET: Bustillo Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROLDAN BUSTILLO, an individual, CLASS REPRESENTATIVE, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, CURRENT AND FORMER
EMPLOYEES OF DEFENDANTS, The Plaintiff, v.
LOVELL MACASAET, an individual, HERITAGE GLENDALE LLC, a limited
liability company, doing business as Heritage Home Care Solutions,
HHCS CORPORATION, a corporation, doing business as Heritage Home
Care Solutions, and DOES 1-300, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
BC6 50 584 (Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 15, 2017), seeks remedy for wage
and hour violations by Defendants, who engaged in a pervasive and
unlawful scheme to deprive their employees of the protections
granted them by California wage and hour laws.

The Defendants paid the Class Members, including Plaintiff, about
$110 per day. The amounts paid to the Class Members by the
Defendants were not even enough to cover the minimum wages, much
less overtime premium wages, says the complaint.

Heritage Home Care is a non-medical home care agency that provides
care giving.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Caesar S. Natividad, Esq.
          THE NATIVIDAD LAW FIRM
          3550 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 655
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (323) 540 5800
          Facsimile: (213) 387 2297


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Gold Seeks Certification of Six Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned DANA GOLD, TAMMY EMERY,
EDWIN MENDEZ, LAURA NORRIS, DONALD FURSMAN, and JOHN TRIANA, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. LUMBER
LIQUIDATORS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 200,
inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv-05373-TEH (N.D. Cal.), move for class
certification of six classes of individuals, who purchased Morning
Star Bamboo flooring from January 1, 2008 to present and reside in
California, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and West
Virginia.

Dana Gold, et al., purchased Morning Star Bamboo flooring from
Lumber Liquidators, Inc. ("LL").  They contend that the flooring
contains a common design defect that renders it unable to stand up
to normal variations in a home's ambient moisture levels.  This
defect causes the flooring to warp, shrink, cup, gap and splinter,
the Plaintiffs allege.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives, and to appoint Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski
LLP and Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, to serve as co-lead class
counsel.  The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to direct them to
submit a proposed notice plan and form of notice within a
reasonable time following entry of order.

The Court will commence a hearing on May 8, 2017, at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Notice of Motion and Memorandum of Points and
Authorities is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=95JrujIc

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Esq.
          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          Susan Brown, Esq.
          Matt Malone, Esq.
          RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
          101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-4949
          Facsimile: (415) 433-7311
          E-mail: jbc@rocklawcal.com
                  mram@rocklawcal.com
                  sbrown@rocklawcal.com
                  mjm@rocklawcal.com

               - and -

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          Brendan Thompson, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com
                  brendant@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
          Adrienne D. McEntee, Esq.
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                  jmurray@terrellmarshall.com
                  amcentee@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq.
          CHAIKIN LAW FIRM PLLC
          1280 University Drive, Suite 600
          Fort Myers, FL 33907
          Telephone: (239) 470-8338
          Facsimile: (239) 433-6836
          E-mail: jordan@chaikinlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael McShane, Esq.
          S. Clinton Woods, Esq.
          Ling Y. Kuang, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
          E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com
                  cwoods@audetlaw.com
                  lkuang@audetlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                  rapeterson@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Erica C. Mirabella, Esq.
          132 Boylston Street, 5th Floor
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 580-8270
          E-mail: erica@mirabellallc.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Daniel C. Calvert, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          27300 Riverview Center Blvd., Suite 103
          Bonita Springs, FL 34134
          Telephone: (239) 390-1000
          Facsimile: (239) 390-0055
          E-mail: dcalvert@yourlawyer.com

Defendant Lumber Liquidators, Inc., is represented by:

          William Lewis Stern, Esq.
          William Francis Tarantino, Esq.
          Lauren Wroblewski, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: wstern@mofo.com
                  wtarantino@mofo.com
                  lwroblewski@mofo.com

               - and -

          Kimberly R. Gosling, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          12531 High Bluff Drive
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 720-5100
          Facsimile: (858) 720-5125
          E-mail: kgosling@mofo.com

               - and -

          Diane Flannery, Esq.
          Bethany Gayle Lukitsch, Esq.
          Christopher Edward Trible, Esq.
          McGUIREWOODS LLP
          800 East Canal Street
          Richmond, VA 23219-3916
          Telephone: (804) 775-1000
          Facsimile: (804) 775-1061
          E-mail: dflannery@mcguirewoods.com
                  blukitsch@mcguirewoods.com
                  ctrible@mcguirewoods.com


LYNNWOOD: Faces Suit Over Illegal Traffic Infractions
-----------------------------------------------------
Amy Clancy at Kiro7 reports that tens of thousands of people have
paid millions of dollars in fines for driving through red lights
in Lynnwood.

Those infractions were all caught on camera. A class-action
lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Seattle seeks millions of
dollars in refunds.

Ian Jordan admits that he drove through the intersection of 196th
Street Southwest and 36th in Lynnwood just as the light turned
red.

However, the engineer from Mill Creek claims that the city is
operating its red light cameras illegally, so he and thousands of
others should get back the money that they were fined.

"If you want to say, 'If you don't want this ticket, don't break
the law,' I'd say to Lynnwood, 'If you wanted to collect all that
money, don't break the law,'" Jordan said from his attorney's
office on March 3.

Jordan and his lawyer, Jay Carlson of Carlson Legal in Seattle,
filed a tort claim last year against Lynnwood.

They filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court.

They claim that state law requires municipalities operating red
light camera systems to "post an annual report of the number of
traffic accidents that occurred at each location" where a camera
is located, plus "the number of notices of infraction issued for
each camera."

According to Jordan and Carlson, Lynnwood didn't provide those
numbers for 2-1/2 years, beginning in 2013, and started posting
them on the city's website only after they filed their claim.

"Without communicating with us, they began slowly updating the
data that they had not posted in years," Carlson told KIRO 7.  "In
my view, posting the data the way they did is an admission by the
city that our tort claim was correct, that they were in violation
of state law, and they knew they had to fix it, which is what they
tried to do."

Now that the data is being posted, Carlson and Jordan estimate
that more than 100,000 people were illegally issued tickets during
that 2-1/2 year period.

Their lawsuit seeks a reimbursement to drivers of more than $12
million.

"We've heard nothing from Lynnwood," Jordan said, "so we're going
to continue to bring this to the next level to make sure that
Lynnwood fixes the problem."

In an emailed statement, Julie Moore of the city of Lynnwood told
KIRO 7 that the class-action lawsuit has been forwarded to the
city's attorney.  Other than that, she said no one is able to
comment "on the merits of the suit."


MAJOR LEAGUE: Judge Criticizes Serial Settlement Objector
---------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a
Texas lawyer known as a "professional objector" has worn out his
welcome with another federal judge -- this time in New York.
Christopher Bandas was criticized on Feb. 27 by U.S. District
Judge Valerie Caproni of the Southern District of New York for a
last-minute objection to a class action settlement over Major
League Baseball Internet TV packages in 2016.

Judge Caproni said "Bandas' behavior has been, at best,
unprofessional, and at worst, an unseemly effort to extract fees
from class counsel in exchange for the withdrawal of a meritless
objection to the proposed class settlement."  But she ultimately
decided she lacked the jurisdiction to sanction him.
Nevertheless, being "gravely concerned that Bandas uses attorneys
as 'local counsel' without full disclosure of his track record and
to shield himself from potential disciplinary action associated
with frivolous objections," the judge ordered Bandas to provide a
copy of her searing opinion to any local counsel he engages with
in the Southern District.

Mr. Bandas, of the Bandas Law Firm in Corpus Christi, Texas, has
been sharply criticized by numerous judges and even sued, along
with other objectors, in federal court in Chicago by plaintiff's
lawyer Jay Edelson, who calls the serial objectors
"extortionists."

Judge Caproni took note of his history in her opinion on Feb. 27
in Garber v.  Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, 12-cv-3704.
"This court joins the other courts throughout the country in
finding that Bandas has orchestrated the filing of a frivolous
objection in an attempt to throw a monkey wrench into the
settlement process and to extort a pay-off," she said.

In the Garber case, Mr. Bandas drafted an objection for Sean Hull,
who alleged excessive attorney fees.  Mr. Bandas did not appear
personally, and the objection was filed on the last possible day
by local counsel David Stein of Samuel & Stein.

The class in the case was certified only for injunctive relief,
but the settlement awarded $16.5 million in fees and costs; Hull
proposed reducing it to $10.6 million in fees and costs.  Had that
proposal been accepted, it would have yielded a payout of $1.18 to
each of the roughly 5 million class members -- minus the cost of
mailings.  In her order, Judge Caproni referred to the possible
payout as so low "it would have made little economic sense to
distribute it."  Mr. Stein later asked to be relieved as local
counsel.

The plaintiffs moved for sanctions, and lawyer Forrest Turkish
agreed to defend Hull's objection, but only if Mr. Bandas agreed
to indemnify him for any sanctions.

Plaintiffs' class counsel, Edward Diver, Howard Langer and Peter
Leckman of Langer, Grogan & Diver in Philadelphia, later targeted
Turkish for sanctions as well, in part because of the
indemnification provision.

Before the court could rule, Mr. Bandas, Turkish and Hull agreed
to drop the objection in exchange for plaintiffs counsel
withdrawing their sanctions motion.

Judge Caproni called them all in for a hearing anyway on why she
shouldn't sua sponte impose sanctions.  She noted that Mr. Bandas
has represented Hull in numerous objections and that Hull has
never received compensation though Bandas has collected.

"That testimony, if true, is gravely concerning," Judge Caproni
wrote.  "It indicates that Bandas' settlement of objections has
been without any benefit to his client . . ."


MDL 1700: ND Court Denies Bid for Emergency Injunction
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC. EMPLOYMENT
PRACTICES LITIGATION (MDL 1700), Cause No. 3:05-MD-527 RLM (N.D.
Ind.), Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Indiana denied the Co-Lead Counsel's
motion for an emergency injunction, corrective notice, and order
to show cause.

The case involves all seven New Jersey class representatives who
objected the proposed settlement between the class and FedEx
resolving claims related to the alleged misclassification of
employees as independent contractors. The class representatives
were campaigning for other class members to object to the
settlement, and both co-lead counsel and FedEx want them to stop.

The Court noted that the lack of misinformation weighs against
limiting communications. The Court added that a restriction would
hinder class representatives' ability to express dissatisfaction
with the settlement.

A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated February 9, 2017,
is available at https://is.gd/tOwWaP from Leagle.com.

Dean Alexander, Plaintiff, represented by Beth A. Ross, Leonard
Carder LLP.

Dean Alexander, Plaintiff, represented by Lynn R. Faris, Leonard
Carder LLP, Peter J. Agostino, Anderson Agostino & Keller PC &
Susan E. Ellingstad, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP.

Suzanne Andrade, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Beth A. Ross -
- bross@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard Carder LLP, Lynn R. Faris,
Leonard Carder LLP, Peter J. Agostino -- agostino@aaklaw.com --
Anderson Agostino & Keller PC & Susan E. Ellingstad --
seellingstad@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP.

James Geiger, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Dmitri Iglitzin -
- iglitzin@workerlaw.com -- Schwerin Campbell Barnard LLP, Martin
S. Garfinkel -- garfinkel@sgb-law.com -- Schroeter Goldmark &
Bender & Peter J. Agostino -- agostino@aaklaw.com -- Anderson
Agostino & Keller PC.

FedEx Ground Package System Inc, et al., Defendants, represented
by C. Victor Pyle, III, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC,
Chris A. Hollinger -- chollinger@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Evelyn L. Becker, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac vice, Karen P.
Kruse, Jackson Lewis PC, Kenneth Lee Blalack, II --
lblalack@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Michael J. Puma --
michael.puma@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro
hac vice, R. Jay Taylor, Jr., Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson &
Feary PC, Robert I. Harwood -- rharwood@hfesq.com -- Harwood
Feffer LLP, Robert M. Schwartz -- rschwartz@irell.com -- Irell &
Manella LLP, pro hac vice, Steve Dennis -- sdennis@reiddennis.com
-- Reid & Dennis PC, pro hac vice, Alison G. Fox --
alison.fox@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Thomas J.
Brunner, Jr., Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Evelyn L. Becker,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac vice, Karen P. Kruse, Jackson Lewis
PC, Michael J. Puma, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro hac vice,
Robert M. Schwartz, Irell & Manella LLP, pro hac vice, Steve
Dennis, Reid & Dennis PC, pro hac vice, Alison G. Fox, Faegre
Baker Daniels LLP, Thomas J. Brunner, Jr., Faegre Baker Daniels
LLP, Evelyn L. Becker, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac vice, Karen
P. Kruse, Jackson Lewis PC, Michael J. Puma, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, Robert M. Schwartz, Irell & Manella
LLP, pro hac vice, Alison G. Fox, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP,
Lawrence J. Rosenfeld, Greenberg Traurig LLP & Thomas J. Brunner,
Jr., Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.


MDL 2599: Ford's Bid to Dismiss Airbag Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Federico A. Moreno of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, granted in part and
denied in part Ford Motor Company's motion to dismiss in the case
captioned IN RE: TAKATA AIRBAG PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL
No. 2599, Master File No. 15-2599-MD-MORENO, No. 14-24009-CV-
MORENO (S.D. Fla.)

Suits were consolidated in a multidistrict litigation on the
allegations of economic loss and personal injury related to
airbags manufactured by defendants Takata Corporation and TK
Holdings and equipped in vehicles manufactured by defendants
Honda, BMW, Ford, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Subaru, and Toyota.

Some of the named plaintiffs are Joseph Aliscio a Florida
resident, who purchased a used 2004 Ford Ranger in October 2009 in
Florida. Aliscio's claims were transferred into the MDL from the
Southern District of Florida. Nancy Barnett, a Texas resident, who
purchased a used 2007 Ford Mustang in July 2008 in Texas.
Barnett's claims were direct-filed into the MDL. Alicia Benton, a
South Carolina resident, who purchased a used 2010 Ford Mustang in
August 2010 in South Carolina. Benton's claims were direct-filed
into the MDL. John Huebner, a California resident, purchased a
used 2005 Ford Mustang in March 2011 in California. Huebner's
claims were transferred into the MDL from the Western District of
Pennsylvania. Eugennie Sinclair, a Florida resident, who purchased
a used 2007 Ford Mustang in September 2012 in Florida. Sinclair's
claims were direct-filed into the MDL. Brooks Weisblat, a Florida
resident, who purchased a used 2005 Ford GT in February 2011 in
Florida. Weisblat's claims were transferred into the MDL from the
Southern District of Florida and Teresa Woodward, a South Carolina
resident, purchased a new 2005 Ford Mustang in 2005 in South
Carolina. Woodard's claims were direct-filed into the MDL.
Plaintiffs allege 11 counts against Ford. These 11 counts against
Ford consist of the following: count 3 for violations of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; count 20 for fraudulent concealment;
count 21 for breach of Michigan's implied warranty of
merchantability; count 22 for unjust enrichment; count 23 for
violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act; count 24 for
negligence; count 47 for violation of Florida's Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act on behalf of a Florida sub-class; count
48 for breach of Florida's implied warranty of merchantability on
behalf of a Florida sub-class; count 87 for violation of the Ohio
Consumer Sales Practices Act on behalf of an Ohio sub-class; count
97 for violation of Texas's Deceptive Trade Practices Act on
behalf of a Texas sub-class; and count 98 for breach of Texas's
implied warranty of merchantability on behalf of a Texas sub-
class.
Ford's Motion asks the court to dismiss all counts alleged against
it in the second amended economic loss complaint.

Judge Moreno granted in part and denied in part Ford's motion to
dismiss. Specifically, count 21, 23, 24, 48 and 87 are dismissed.
Count 3 is dismissed as asserted by the Florida plaintiffs.

Alicio, Sinclair, Weisblat purchased their used vehicles in
Florida from Bev Smith Toyota, CarMax, and CNC Exotics,
respectively. Plaintiffs do not allege these dealerships had any
affiliation with Ford. The court cannot reasonably infer from the
facts alleged that Ford ever held any money belonging to Aliscio,
Sinclair, or Weisblat.
Barnett purchased her used vehicle in Texas from Henna Chevrolet
LP. Plaintiffs do not allege that the dealership had any
affiliation with Ford. The court cannot reasonably infer from the
facts alleged that Ford ever held any money belonging to Barnett.

Lastly, plaintiffs only state that Huebner's used 2005 Ford
Mustang was purchased in Burbank, California. It is unclear if
Huebner purchased the vehicle from a Ford dealership like
plaintiffs Benton and Woodard, or if he purchased it from a
dealership with no affiliation to Ford, such as CarMax. Count 22
is dismissed as by Alicio, Sinclair, Weisblat, Barnett and
Hyebner.

A copy of Judge Moreno's order dated February 27, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/2CE01F from Leagle.com.

Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, In Re, represented by
Christopher K. Eppich -- ceppich@cov.com -- at Covington &
Burling, LLP

Daniel S. Silva, James Herron, Leslie Flaherty, Holly Ruth, M&K
Used Auto Parts, Inc., Robert Barto, John Meiser, Charles & Vickie
Burd Plaintiffs, Charles & Dana Talamantes, Eugennie Sinclair,
Quarnos Auto Salvage, Daniel Thies, Camila G. Corteleti, Rigsby's
Auto Parts & Sales, Inc., Darla Spies, Vickie Burd, Dana
Talamantes, Alicia Benton, Justin S. Birdsall, Loren Petersen,
Eric Rosson, Teresa Woodard, Plaintiffs, represented by Peter
Prieto -- pprieto@podhurst.com -- at Podhurst Orseck, P.A.

Mary Hasley, Megan Sayre-Scibona, Pamela Wilsey, Doreen Dembeck,
Helen Klemer, Lisa Peterson, Plaintiffs, represented by Brian
Morrison -- bmorrison@labaton.com -- Daniel R. Leathers -- at
Labaton Sucharow, LLP; Peter Prieto -- pprieto@podhurst.com -- at
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.

Regina M. Reilly, Rebecca Lew, Carla Thompson, Plaintiffs,
represented by W. Daniel Miles, III -- dee.miles@beasleyallen.com
-- Archie I. Grubb, II -- archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com -- H. Clay
Barnett -- clay.barnett@beasleyallen.com -- at Beasley Allen Crow
Methvin Portis & Miles; Peter Prieto -- pprieto@podhurst.com -- at
Podhurst Orseck, P.A.

Plaintiffs Lead Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Peter Prieto --
pprieto@podhurst.com -- at Podhurst Orseck, P.A.; Curtis Bradley
Miner -- curt@colson.com -- Stephanie Anne Casey --
scasey@colson.com -- at Colson Hicks Eidson

Gurinder Dhillon, Plaintiff, represented by Curtis Bradley Miner -
- curt@colson.com -- at Colson Hicks Eidson

Craig Dunn, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Samuel Podhurst
-- apodhurst@podhurst.com -- John Gravante, III --
jgravante@podhurst.com -- Matthew Weinshall --
mweinshall@podhurst.com -- Stephen Frederick Rosenthal --
srosenthal@podhurst.com -- Peter Prieto -- pprieto@podhurst.com --
at Podhurst Orseck, P.A.; David Fernandes --
dfernandes@baronbudd.com -- J. Burton LeBlanc -- Mark Pifko --
mpifko@baronbudd.com -- Pablo Orozco -- Roland Tellis --
rtellis@baronbudd.com -- at Baron & Budd, PC; Michael P. Thornton
-- mthornton@tenlaw.com -- at Thornton Law Firm, LLP; Eric D.
Gottlieb -- egottlieb@labaton.com -- Gregory S. Asciolla --
gasciolla@labaton.com -- Katherine R. Ryan -- Lawrence A. Sucharow
-- lsucharow@labaton.com -- Martis Alex -- Michael W. Stocker --
mstocker@labaton.com -- Robin A. van der Meulen --
rvandermeulen@labaton.com -- at Labaton Sucharow LLP
FCA US LLC, Defendant, represented by Martin Leonard Steinberg --
marty.steinberg@hoganlovells.com -- at Hogan Lovells US, LLP;
Mitchell Edward Widom -- mwidom@bilzin.com -- at Bilzin Sumberg
Baena Price & Axelrod; Scott M. Sarason -- ssarason@rumberger.com
-- at Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell
Inflation Systems Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen J.
Krigbaum -- skrigbaum@carltonfields.com -- at Carlton Fields
Jorden Burt, P.A.

General Motors LLC, Defendant, represented by Laurie Michele Riley
-- lriley@joneswalker.com -- at Jones Walker LLP; Leonid Feller --
leonid.feller@kirkland.com -- Renee D. Smith --
renee.smith@kirkland.com -- at Kirkland & Ellis, LLP

Takata Corporation, Consol Defendant, represented by Brian O.
Beverly -- bob@youngmoorelaw.com -- at Young, Moore & Henderson,
PA; Giovanna Tarantino Bingham -- Kyle Harold Dreyer --
kdreyer@hdbdlaw.com -- Larry Don Grayson -- lgrayson@hdbdlaw.com -
- at Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP; Keith A. Teel --
kteel@cov.com -- Kevin M. Kelly -- kkelly@cov.com -- Lanny A.
Breuer -- lbreuer@cov.com -- Michael X. Imbroscio --
mimbroscio@cov.com -- Neil K. Roman -- nroman@cov.com -- Shankar
Duraiswamy -- sduraiswamy@cov.com -- Emily Ullman --
eullman@cov.com -- John J. DeBoy -- jdeboy@cov.com -- Paul W.
Schmidt -- pschmidt@cov.com -- at Covington & Burling, LLP;
Phillippa V. Ellis -- ellis@owengleaton.com -- at Owen, Gleaton,
Egan, Jones & Sweeney, LLP; T. Christopher Trent --
ctrent@johnsontrent.com -- at Johnson, Trent, West & Taylor, LLP;
Mitchell Edward Widom -- mwidom@bilzin.com -- at Bilzin Sumberg
Baena Price & Axelrod; Stephen J. Krigbaum --
skrigbaum@carltonfields.com -- at Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.

TK Holdings, Inc., Consol Defendant, represented by Alex P.
Tilling -- atilling@leakeandersson.com -- Cristin Fitzgerald
Bordelon -- Jerry L. Saporito -- jsaporito@leakeandersson.com --
at Leake & Anderson LLP; Benjamin W. Allen -- T. Christopher Trent
-- ctrent@johnsontrent.com -- at Johnson, Trent, West & Taylor,
LLP; Brian O. Beverly -- bob@youngmoorelaw.com -- at Young, Moore
& Henderson, PA; Christopher K. Eppich -- ceppich@cov.com -- Keith
A. Teel -- kteel@cov.com -- Kevin M. Kelly -- kkelly@cov.com --
Lanny A. Breuer -- lbreuer@cov.com -- Michael X. Imbroscio --
mimbroscio@cov.com -- Neil K. Roman -- nroman@cov.com -- Shankar
Duraiswamy -- sduraiswamy@cov.com -- Emily Ullman --
eullman@cov.com -- John J. DeBoy -- jdeboy@cov.com -- at Covington
& Burling, LLP; Christopher J. York -- at McGahren Gaskill & York,
LLC; Cynthia A. Hawkins -- Cynthia@CynthiaHawkinsLaw.com -- at Law
Office of Cynthia Hawkins; Damien Arthur Orato --
dorato@rumberger.com -- Lena Marguerite Mirilovic --
lmirilovic@rumberger.com -- Michael Daniel Begey --
mbegey@rumberger.com -- Sally Rogers Culley --
sculley@rumberger.com -- William L. Kirk, Jr. -- at Rumberger,
Kirk & Caldwell; Daniel John Kissan -- daniel.kissane@csklegal.com
-- at Cole, Scott & Kissane; Frederick Rom -- from@wcsr.com -- at
Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice; Garth Thomas Yearick --
gyearick@carltonfields.com -- Stephen J. Krigbaum --
skrigbaum@carltonfields.com -- Thomas Meeks --
tmeeks@carltonfields.com -- at Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.;
Giovanna Tarantino Bingham -- Kyle Harold Dreyer --
kdreyer@hdbdlaw.com -- Larry Don Grayson -- lgrayson@hdbdlaw.com -
- at Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP; James B. Hood --
james.hood@hoodlaw.com -- John O'Connor Radeck, Jr. --
John.Radeck@hoodlaw.com -- at Hood Law Firm, LLC; Loren William
Fender -- loren.fender@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Yesenia Esmeralda
Cardenas-Colenso -- yesenia.cardenas@bowmanandbrooke.com -- at
Bowman and Brooke LLP; Matthew J. Stanczyk --
mstanczyk@plunkettcooney.com -- at Plunkett Cooney; Phillippa V.
Ellis -- ellis@owengleaton.com -- at Owen, Gleaton, Egan, Jones &
Sweeney, LLP; Mitchell Edward Widom -- mwidom@bilzin.com -- at
Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod; Robert J. Hoffman --
rjhoffman@bryancave.com -- at Bryan Cave LLP; Sterling Gardner
Culpepper, II -- gculpepper@rh-law.com -- at Rogers & Hardin, LLP;
William W. Oxley -- at Orrick Herrington & Sutcliff
Highland Industries, Inc., Consol Defendant, represented by
Benjamin W. Allen -- T. Christopher Trent --
ctrent@johnsontrent.com -- at Johnson, Trent, West & Taylor;
Frederick Rom -- from@wcsr.com -- at Womble Carlyle Sandridge &
Rice; Giovanna Tarantino Bingham -- Kyle Harold Dreyer --
kdreyer@hdbdlaw.com -- Larry Don Grayson -- lgrayson@hdbdlaw.com -
- at Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP; James B. Hood --
james.hood@hoodlaw.com -- John O'Connor Radeck, Jr. --
John.Radeck@hoodlaw.com -- at Hood Law Firm, LLC; Jerry L.
Saporito -- jsaporito@leakeandersson.com -- at Leake & Anderson
LLP; Lena Marguerite Mirilovic -- lmirilovic@rumberger.com --
Michael Daniel Begey -- mbegey@rumberger.com -- Sally Rogers
Culley -- sculley@rumberger.com -- Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell;
Robert J. Hoffman -- rjhoffman@bryancave.com -- at Bryan Cave LLP;
Sterling Gardner Culpepper, II -- gculpepper@rh-law.com -- at
Rogers & Hardin, LLP; William W. Oxley -- at Orrick Herrington &
Sutcliff; Stephen J. Krigbaum -- skrigbaum@carltonfields.com --
Thomas Meeks -- tmeeks@carltonfields.com -- at Carlton Fields
Jorden Burt, P.A.

Honda Motor Company, LTD, Consol Defendant, represented by Adam P.
Micale -- amicale@sidley.com -- Alexis Rollins Dunton --
adunton@sidley.com -- Amanda Farfel -- afarfel@sidley.com --
Andrew J. Chinsky -- achinsky@sidley.com -- Darlene M. Cho --
dcho@sidley.com -- Kristen E. Rau -- at Sidley Austin, LLP; Joel
H. Smith -- joel.smith@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Matthew Brooks
Miller -- brooks.miller@bowmanandbrooke.com -- at Bowman & Brooke,
LLP; Martin Leonard Steinberg -- marty.steinberg@hoganlovells.com
-- at Hogan Lovells US, LLP; Kimberly A. Cook --
kimberly.cook@sedgwicklaw.com -- at Sedgwick LLP; Mitchell Edward
Widom -- mwidom@bilzin.com -- at Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price &
Axelrod

American Honda Co., Inc., Consol Defendant, represented by
Courtney Crook Shytle -- courtney.shytle@bowmanandbrooke.com -- at
Bowman and Brooke; Daniel John Kissane --
daniel.kissane@csklegal.com -- Thomas E. Scott, Jr. --
thomas.scott@csklegal.com -- at Cole, Scott & Kissane; Ellyce R.
Cooper -- ecooper@sidley.com -- Eric S. Mattson --
emattson@sidley.com -- Mark Douglas Campbell --
mcampbell@sidley.com -- Michael C. Andolina --
mandolina@sidley.com -- Michael L. Mallow -- mmallow@sidley.com --
Sean A. Commons -- scommons@sidley.com -- Catherine Valerio Barrad
-- at Sidley Austin LLP

Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, Consol Defendant, represented by
Jessica Farley -- jessica.farley@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Steven
D. Jansma -- steven.jansma@nortonrosefulbright.com -- at Norton
Rose Fulbright US LLP

BMW of North America, LLC and BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC, Consol
Defendants, represented by Christopher J. Dalton --
christopher.dalton@bipc.com -- Rosemary Joan Bruno --
rosemary.bruno@bipc.com -- Jesse H. Diner -- jesse.diner@bipc.com
-- Stephen Carey Villeneuve -- carey.villeneuve@bipc.com -- at
Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney, PC; Kimberly A. Cook --
kimberly.cook@sedgwicklaw.com -- at Sedgwick LLP; Mitchell Edward
Widom -- mwidom@bilzin.com -- at Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price &
Axelrod; Eric Y. Kizirian -- Eric.Kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com --
Jeffrey Arthur Mowers -- Jeffrey.Mowers@lewisbrisbois.com --
Michael Keith Grimaldi -- Michael.Grimaldi@lewisbrisbois.com -- at
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith, LLP; Martin Leonard Steinberg -
- marty.steinberg@hoganlovells.com -- at Hogan Lovells US, LLP;
Jeffrey T. Gorcyca -- jeffrey.gorcyca@bowmanandbrooke.com --
Matthew G. Berard -- matthew.berard@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Thomas
P. Branigan -- tom.branigan@bowmanandbrooke.com -- at Bowman and
Brooke, LLP; Philip Semprevivo, Jr. --
Philip.Semprevivo@lawbhs.com -- at Biedermann Hoenig-Semprevivo;
Robert Mark Brochin -- bobby.brochin@morganlewis.com -- at Lewis &
Bockius LLP

Toyota Motor Corporation, Consol Defendant, represented by
Mitchell Edward Widom -- mwidom@bilzin.com -- at Bilzin Sumberg
Baena Price & Axelrod; Kimberly A. Cook --
kimberly.cook@sedgwicklaw.com -- at Sedgwick LLP; Derek S.
Whitefield -- dwhitefield@dykema.com -- Eric C. Tew --
etew@dykema.com -- at Dykema Gossett, PLLC; Janet Hickson --
jhickson@shb.com -- at Shook Hardy & Bacon, LLP; Michiko A. Brown
-- brown@wtotrial.com -- Stephen E. Oertle -- oertle@wtotrial.com
-- at Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP; Robert Mark Brochin --
bobby.brochin@morganlewis.com -- at Lewis & Bockius; John Carl
Seipp, Jr. -- john.seipp@bowmanandbrooke.com -- at Bowman and
Brooke, LLP

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. and Toyota Motor Engineering &
Manufacturing North America, Inc. Consol Defendants, represented
by Martin Leonard Steinberg -- marty.steinberg@hoganlovells.com --
at Hogan Lovells US, LLP; Mitchell Edward Widom --
mwidom@bilzin.com -- at Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod;
Kimberly A. Cook -- kimberly.cook@sedgwicklaw.com -- at Sedgwick
LLP; Derek S. Whitefield -- dwhitefield@dykema.com -- Eric C. Tew
-- etew@dykema.com -- Terri Steinhaus Reiskin --
treiskin@dykema.com -- at Dykema Gossett, PLLC; Janet Hickson --
jhickson@shb.com -- at Shook Hardy & Bacon, LLP; John Carl Seipp,
Jr. -- john.seipp@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Donald Arthur Blackwell -
- don.blackwell@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Yesenia Esmeralda Cardenas-
Colenso -- yesenia.cardenas@bowmanandbrooke.com -- at Bowman and
Brooke LLP; Robert Mark Brochin -- bobby.brochin@morganlewis.com -
- at Lewis & Bockius LLP; Michiko A. Brown -- brown@wtotrial.com -
- Stephen E. Oertle -- oertle@wtotrial.com -- at Wheeler Trigg
O'Donnell, LLP; Mark N. Bodin -- mbodin@mcglinchey.com -- Sarah
Elizabeth McMillan -- semcmillan@mcglinchey.com -- at McGlinchey
Stafford, PLLC

Chrysler Group LLC, Consol Defendant, represented by Armando
Gustavo Hernandez -- ahernandez@rumberger.com -- Scott M. Sarason
-- ssarason@rumberger.com -- at Rumberger, Kirk and Caldwell, PA;
John W. Rogers -- at Coburn, LLP


METALDYNE PERFORMANCE: "Bushansky" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Bushansky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Metaldyne Performance Group Inc., George
Thanopoulos, Kevin Penn, Loren Easton, Michael Fisch, Nick
Bhambri, William Jackson, Jeffrey Stafeil and John Pearson Smith,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-10508, (E.D. Mich., February 16,
2017), seeks preliminarily and permanently enjoining defendants
from proceeding with, consummating, or closing a merger and any
vote unless and until defendants disclose and disseminate relevant
material information.  The suit also seeks an award for rescissory
damages in the event defendants consummate the merger, reasonable
allowance for attorneys and experts' fees, and such other and
further relief for violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

On November 3, 2016, Metaldyne announced that it was to be sold to
American Axle. Metaldyne stockholders will receive $13.50 in cash
and 0.5 shares of American Axle common stock with a value of
$11.75 for each share of Metaldyne common stock they own. Said
transaction is valued at approximately $1.6 billion. Plaintiffs
claim that the company's financial forecast was not disclosed to
them prior to the merger discussion and there were offers as high
as $21.00 to $22.50 to counter American Axle's offer.

Metaldyne produces complex metal-formed components for engine,
transmission, driveline and suspension applications for the
automotive, commercial and industrial markets.

American Axle is a global automotive manufacturer and supplier of
driveline and drive train components and systems.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
      Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212) 682-3025
      Fax: (212) 682-3010

           - and -

      Sara K. MacWilliams, Esq.
      MACWILLIAMS LAW PC
      6663 Bloomfield Lane
      West Bloomfield, MI 48322
      Tel: (248) 514-5399


MIDLAND FUNDING: NY Court Narrows Claims in "Madden"
----------------------------------------------------
Judge Cathy Seibel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification with modifications, in the case
captioned SALIHA MADDEN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC and
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, No. 11-CV-8149 (CS)
(S.D.N.Y.).

Midland Funding, LLC, is in the business of purchasing defaulted
debts, and Midland Credit Management, Inc. is in the business of
collecting those debts. Both are indirect wholly-owned
subsidiaries of Encore Capital Group, Inc. and both have their
principal places of business in San Diego, California.

Saliha Madden opened a credit card account with Bank of America on
April 23, 2005. The Cardholder Agreement provided that it was
governed by applicable Arizona and federal law. Plaintiff's August
14, 2006 account statement was sent to her address in White
Plains, New York and contained an important notice alerting
customers that Bank of America was changing the terms of the
Cardholder Agreement that governs Plaintiff's credit card account.

The change in terms advised plaintiff that, beginning on the
effective date of October 19, 2006, the change in terms would
replace the Cardholder Agreement. It also stated that beginning on
October 19, 2006, the credit card account will be issued and
administered by FIA Card Services, N.A. The change in terms
provided that the agreement is made in Delaware and that it is
governed by the laws of the State of Delaware without regard to
its conflict of laws principles and by any applicable federal
laws.

Midland sued plaintiff in the City Court of the City of White
Plains, Westchester County on May 2, 2011 to collect on her debt
of $5,291.25. The case has since been dismissed.

Plaintiff filed a complaint and an amended complaint on May 7,
2012, asserting violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, 15 U.S.C. Section1692 et seq., based on defendants' attempt
to collect interest on her debt above the rate permitted by New
York's usury laws, New York General Business Law Section 349,
based on defendants' representations that they were entitled to
collect interest at a usurious rate and  New York's civil and
criminal usury laws, entitling plaintiff to a declaration that her
debts are void and to disgorgement.

Plaintiff moved for class certification on January 18, 2013.
Defendants moved for summary judgment on January 25, 2013, arguing
that plaintiff's state-law claims were preempted by the National
Bank Act and thus that plaintiff's federal clam, which is
predicated on the state law claims, also failed. Judge Cathy
Seibel denied both motions.

The parties then entered into a stipulation for entry of judgment
dated May 30, 2014, agreeing that FIA assigned defendants Ms.
Madden's account, and that plaintiff received the cardholder
agreement and change in terms. In light of the Stipulation, Judge
Seibel entered judgment for defendants on June 2, 2014.

The Second Circuit reversed and remanded the suit, holding that
the National Bank Act did not preempt Madden's state law usury
claims, leaving Judge Seibel to address in the first instance
whether the Delaware choice-of-law clause precludes Madden's
claims.

Defendants move for summary judgment again, arguing that Delaware
law applies to plaintiff's claims, and so plaintiff's claims under
New York law fail, and further argue that because governing
Delaware law imposes no usury cap and plaintiff's FDCPA claims are
predicated on a violation of New York's usury laws, plaintiff's
FDCPA claims must also fail. Plaintiff moves again for class
certification.

Judge Seibel granted defendants' motion for summary judgment as to
plaintiff's Section 5-501 and Section 190.40 claims and denied as
to plaintiff's FDCPA and GBL Section 349 claims. Judge Seibel
agrees with plaintiff that to apply Delaware usury law would
violate a fundamental public policy of the state of New York,
hence New York law applies to plaintiff's claim.


Plaintiff's motion for class certification is granted with
modifications and the court certifies:

     A Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive and declaratory relief class
comprising all persons residing in New York who were sent a letter
by defendants attempting to collect interest in excess of 25% per
annum regarding debts incurred for personal, family, or household
purposes, whose cardholder agreements: (i) purport to be governed
by the law of a state that, like Delaware's, provides for no usury
cap; or (ii) select no law other than New York. The class covers
only claims arising out of GBL violations from November 10, 2008
through today's date.

     A Rule 23(b)(3) damages class comprising all persons residing
in New York who were sent a letter by defendants attempting to
collect interest in excess of 25% per annum regarding debts
incurred for personal, family, or household purposes, whose
cardholder agreements: (i) purport to be governed by the law of a
state that, like Delaware's, provides for no usury cap; or (ii)
select no law other than New York. The class comprises two
subclasses: (a) for claims arising out of GBL violations from
November 10, 2008 through today's date; and (b) for claims arising
out of FDCPA violations from November 10, 2010 through today's
date.

A copy of Judge Seibel's opinion and order dated February 27,
2017, is available at https://goo.gl/YPViF5 from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Adam Schlanger --
dschlanger@kakalec-schlanger.com -- at Kakalec & Schlanger, LLP;
Elizabeth Ann Shollenberger -- Peter Thomas Lane -- at Schlanger &
Schlanger, LLP; O. Randolph Bragg -- at Horwitz, Horwitz &
Associates

Defendants, represented by Thomas Arthur Leghorn --
thomas.leghorn@wilsonelser.com -- Joseph Louis Francoeur --
joseph.francoeur@wilsonelser.com -- at Wilson Elser Moskowitz
Edelman & Dicker LLP


MIRACLE HOME: Faces "Tirona" Labor Suit Filed on Behalf of Nurses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN TIRONA, an individual, and all other similarly situated
employees; Plaintiff, vs. MIRACLE HOME HEALTH CARE, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC 651826 (Cal. Super., County of Los
Angeles), alleges that Defendants have engaged in, and continue to
engage in, a common course of wage and hour violations against its
nurses in the State of California.

In particular, says the complaint, Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff and other current and former employees their wages for
all hours worked in that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and
other similarly situated employees for all patient visits they
completed during their employment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Omid Nosrati, Esq.
     Tatiana Toroyan, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF OMID NOSRATI
     1875 Century Park East, 6th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 553-5630
     Fax: (310)553-5691
     Email: omid@nosratilaw.com
     Email: tatiana@nosratilaw.com

        - and -

     Edwin Pairavi, Esq.
     PAIRAVI LAW, P.C.
     1875 Century Park East, Suite 1025
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 789-2063
     Fax: (310) 789-2064
     Email: Edwin@pairavilaw.com


MONTANA: Settlement Reached in Langford v. Bullock
--------------------------------------------------
A press release on March 2 announced that the parties involved in
the class action law suit Langford v. Bullock reached a settlement
agreement March 2 after filing the case back in 1991.

The lawsuit was filed in 1991 on behalf of prisoners following a
disturbance at the Montana State Prison that resulted in seven
deaths.

Some of the issues were settled years ago, but the new agreement
ensures renovations throughout the prison, including significant
revisions to policies to ensure equal access and non-
discrimination for the prisoners with disabilities in all programs
and services at the Montana State Prison.

The lawsuit challenged inadequate medical and mental health care,
overcrowding, and inadequate environmental and fire safety
conditions, classification policy, and sex offender policies.

The press release announced that attorneys for prisoners with
disabilities at the Montana State Prison and the state of Montana
filed the proposed settlement agreement that would bring the
prison into greater compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The agreement guarantees that prisoners with physical disabilities
will have greater access to facilities and programs at the prison
that are available to the rest of the population, like vocational
training programs and prison jobs.

The agreement also requires that prisoners with mental
disabilities shall be given accommodations when needed, such as in
disciplinary hearings and education programs. They will also be
ensured the accommodations they need to participate in work
assignments.

The new agreement ensures prisoners with disabilities are not
disciplined for behavior that is a product of a mental illness or
physical disability.

"The Montana Department of Corrections is to be congratulated for
working with the plaintiffs to reach this settlement," said Jon
Ellingson, lead local counsel and staff attorney for the ACLU of
Montana. "The department's actions demonstrate a commitment to
prison reform that both helps prisoners rehabilitate and benefits
the public when these prisoners reenter society after serving
their terms."

The class-action lawsuit, Langford v. Bullock, originated 23 years
ago following riots at the Montana State Prison. The parties
reached a settlement long ago, and the prison complied with all
provisions with one exception: compliance with the requirements of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The agreement filed on March 2 finally resolves that issue. The
ACLU National Prison Project, the ACLU of Montana, and the Civil
Rights Education and Enforcement Center of Denver, Colorado
(CREEC) participated in the final negotiations with the state.

"This agreement reminds us that our prisons contain many people
with physical and mental disabilities who are entitled to be
treated equally and humanely under the law. This agreement helps
us reach that goal," observed Amy Robertson, CREEC's co-executive
director.

"Without the appropriate accommodations and programs, people with
physical and mental disabilities can suffer terribly in prison,
and can be denied paths to earn their release by completing
programs they need to be paroled," said Eric Balaban --
ebalaban@np-aclu.org --, senior staff attorney with the ACLU
National Prison Project. "This settlement will help ensure that
prisoners with disabilities at the Montana State Prison can work
their way to freedom like prisoners who don't have disabilities."

"The ACLU of Montana is proud to have participated in this
lawsuit, the result of which brings substantial prison reform to
the state of Montana," said Caitlin Borgmann, executive director
of the ACLU of Montana. "It needs to be emphasized that reform
inside our prisons benefits the public by better preparing the
prisoners for life outside of prison."

The parties have jointly filed a motion with the court requesting
preliminary approval of the settlement. If the court approves, a
notice will go out to prisoners at Montana State Prison, and the
court will schedule a final fairness hearing for later in the
year.


MORGANSHOTEL GROUP: NY High Court Tosses Server Assistant's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, New York County, granted defendants' motion for
summary judgment in the case styled JAHANGIR AHMED, ON BEHALF OF
HIMSELF and OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. MORGANSHOTEL
GROUP MANAGEMENT, LLC; RICHARD SZYMANSKI; and ANY OTHER RELATED
ENTITIES, Defendants, 153841/15 (N.Y.).

Morganshotel Group Management, LLC, and Richard Szymanski
employed, in furtherance of their catering business, numerous
individuals, including plaintiff Jajamgir Ahmed and the putative
class members, in trades including wait staff, waiters, servers,
captains, bussers, bartenders, food runners, maitres d', bridal
attendants, and in various other related customarily tipped
trades. For each catered event, defendants employed a staff of
numerous service workers to perform food and service related
tasks.

Ahmed worked for Morgans as a server's assistant from 2013 until
March 2015 at the former Mondrian Soho. Ahmed alleged that since
April 2009, Morgans has engaged in a policy and practice of
charging its banquet customers a mandatory 23% service charge,
without disclosing that the service charge is not a gratuity for
employees. Without such a disclaimer, a reasonable customer would
presume that such charge was, in fact, a gratuity, and that,
because he and other employees were not paid these gratuities,
defendants violated Section 196-d  of the Labor Law and the
Department of Labor's Hospitality Wage Order 12 NYCRR 146-2.18 and
2.19.

Plaintiff also alleges that defendants violated the Labor Law by
failing to pay him minimum wage, since he was paid $5.00 per hour
in checks that failed to show allowances including any tip credit
taken against his earnings by defendants. Plaintiff also alleges
that he and other members of the putative class did not receive
their portion of the service charge, and that defendants retained
the service charge for themselves.

Plaintiff filed his original complaint on April 17, 2015 and an
amended complaint on July 8, 2015. On July 28, 2015, defendants
moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 13, 2015, the
court denied the motion, but recognized that there are certain,
strong questions that have been raised about the veracity of
plaintiff's position based on the motion presented to the court."

Defendants move, pursuant to CPLR 3212, for summary judgment
dismissing the first amended class action complaint. Defendants
also move, pursuant to CPLR 2304, for an order quashing the
subpoena issued to a nonparty, and, pursuant to CPLR 3103, for the
grant of a protective order, as well as sanctions, attorneys' fees
and costs. Plaintiff cross-moves for partial summary judgment on
the complaint and an order certifying the action as class action
and granting him leave to amend the complaint to include Sharif
Uddin as a named plaintiff.

Judge Reed held that the Morgans did not lead its customers to
believe that the "service charge" is a gratuity and, therefore,
did not unlawfully withhold these purported gratuities.  Instead,
Morgans, in its regular course of business, makes the requisite
service charge disclaimers/notifications.  On the minimum wage
claim, Judge Reed held that the documentary evidence demonstrates
that plaintiff was always paid at least the minimum wage.
Accordingly, summary judgment must also be granted dismissing the
second cause of action.  Plaintiff cannot be a class
representative, and the action must be dismissed in its entirety,
and like plaintiff, Uddin has failed to demonstrate that he
suffered any injury, and thus, he is not qualified to serve as a
class representative.

Defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint
is granted and the complaint is dismissed. Defendants' motion for
an order quashing the nonparty subpoena, for the grant of a
protective order, and for sanctions, attorneys' fees and costs are
denied. Plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment, for class
certification and the motion to amend the complaint are all
denied.

A copy of Judge Robert R. Reed order dated February 227, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/ljyvCq from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs represented by:

     Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
     Leeds Brown Law, PC
     1 Old Country Rd Suite #347
     Carle Place, NY 11514
     Tel: 516-873-9550

Francis V. Cook -- fcook@foxrothschild.com -- at Fox Rothschild,
LLP, for Defendants


MYLAN INC: Faces Suit in Pa. Over Inflated Clomipramine Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
TWIN CITIES PIPE TRADES WELFARE FUND, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MYLAN, INC.,
TARO PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., TARO PHARMACEUTICALS
USA, INC. and SANDOZ, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
00724-CMR (E.D. Pa., Feb. 15, 2017), seeks to recover treble
damages and injunctive relief against Defendants for violations of
the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act and the laws
of the state of Minnesota.

Taro, Sandoz, and Mylan inflated the price of Clomipramine between
May and August 2013. On November 3, 2016, it was announced that
the DOJ expected to file charges arising from its investigation by
the end of 2016, and on December 14, 2016, the
DOJ brought criminal charges in connection with the pricing of
certain generic antibiotics and diabetes treatments. The following
day, on December 15, 2016, a group of twenty state attorneys
general filed suit against Mylan and five other generic-drug
makers, alleging the companies conspired to fix prices and
constrain competition for certain antibiotics and diabetes
treatments. Further charges by the DOJ or other officials are
expected in 2017. There is no reasonable justification for
Defendants' abrupt and uniform shift in pricing conduct. Indeed,
Defendants engaged in a broad, well-coordinated, and long-running
agreement in restraint of trade to artificially raise the price of
generic Clomipramine, says the complaint.

Mylan is an American global generic and specialty pharmaceuticals
company registered in the Netherlands, with principal executive
offices in Hatfield and global headquarters Canonsburg,
Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
          Paul Costa, Esq.
          Adam J. Pession, Esq.
          FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK R.P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2300
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 567 6565
          Facsimile: (215) 567 5872
          E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
                  pcosta@finekaplan.com
                  apessin@finekaplan.com

               - and -

          Karren Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
          Anna M. Horning, Esq.
          Kristen G. Martilla, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 S Washington Ave No. 2200,
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339 6900


NATURE'S ELITE: "Young" Sues Over False Ad of Skincare Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
LAVERNE YOUNG and LAVONNE CARROLL, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. NATURE'S ELITE,
INC. a Florida corporation, GOLD ELEMENTS VALENCIA, INC., a
California corporation, and PREMIER RETAIL GROUP, INC., a Florida
corporation; and DOES 1 - 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-at-00204 (E.D. Cal., February 24, 2017), alleges that
Defendants make erroneous claims in the packaging, labeling,
marketing, advertising, and promotion of skincare products they
refer to as their "Gold Elements" line, such as falsely asserting
that the Products are capable of providing a non-surgical
facelift, and claims that any such results will last for fifteen
years.

Nature's Elite, Inc. is a mid-sized organization in the beauty
shops industry.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
     Sara D. Avila, Esq.
     Marc A. Castaneda, Esq.
     MILSTEIN FAIRCHILD JACKSON & WADE, LLP
     10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 1400
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 396-9600
     Fax: (310) 396-9635
     E-mail: gwade@mjfwlaw.com
             savila@mjfwlaw.com
             mcastaneda@mjfwlaw.com

        - and -

     Michael T. Fraser, Esq.
     THE FRASER LAW FIRM, P.C.
     4120 Douglas Blvd., Suite 306-262
     Granite Bay, CA 95746
     Phone: (888) 557-5115
     Fax: (866) 212-8434
     E-mail: mfraser@thefraserlawfirm.net


NESTLE USA: Sued in Cal. Over "Slackfill" in Candy Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
JADE THOMAS and KETRINA GORDON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NESTLE USA, INC., and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC649843
(Cal. Super. Ct., Feb. 9, 2017), seeks damages against Defendant
in an amount to be determined at trial, together with pre- and
post-judgment interest at the maximum rate
allowable by law on any amounts awarded; restitution and/or
disgorgement in an amount; punitive damages; order enjoining
Defendant from continuing to engage in the unlawful conduct and
practice; and reasonable attorney fees and costs.

The case is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all
purchasers of Raisinets (TM), Buncha Crunch (TM), Butterfinger
Bites (TM), Tollhouse Semi-Sweet Chocolate Morsels(TM), Rainbow
Nerds (TM), SweeTarts (TM), Spree(TM), Gobstopper (TM), and
Sno-Caps (TM) boxed candy products sold at retail outlets and
movie theaters throughout California and the United States.

The complaint says the Defendant intentionally misleads and
shortchanges consumers by falsely and deceptively misrepresenting
the amount of candy actually contained in each box of Product. The
Defendant uniformly under-fills the opaque boxes by 48%. Every box
is filled only 52% full with candy product. The 48% balance is
empty space, or "slackfill," nearly all of which serves no
legitimate or lawful function.

Nestle is the world's leading Nutrition, Health and Wellness
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW SEABURY: Reaches Preliminary Agreement on Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Sam Houghton at Cape News reports that members of New Seabury
reached a preliminary agreement late last week with the owners and
managers of the southern Mashpee resort, opening a path for
closure to the year-long dispute.

Judge Robert C. Rufo signed a Preliminary Settlement Approval
Order in Barnstable Superior Court on February 23 that details the
terms of an agreement.

Members in the class action lawsuit, plaintiffs or otherwise, can
object to the settlement agreement. The judge scheduled a
"fairness hearing" in April for the voicing of complaints.

Judge Rufo, in the ruling, states that the settlement terms would
not go into effect until following the fairness hearing, so long
as no objections are filed.

The preliminary agreement marks a possible end to a dispute that
began last March when the ownership unveiled a new system of
categorizing memberships at the club. Many members argued that
they were coerced into these new memberships and would be forced
to forfeit certain rights previously agreed to by the club's
owners.

In July, four members of New Seabury as plaintiffs filed a class
action lawsuit in Barnstable under the state Consumer Protection
Act which covered all members of New Seabury that joined the club
following a previous bankruptcy agreement reached in 1998.
(Members who joined the club prior to 1998, known as pre-
bankruptcy members, reached an agreement with New Seabury in
August.)

At the center of the lawsuit are what have been called
"Refundability Rights." When members joined the club, many were
offered a refund to their initiation fee in the event that they
would leave the club. The new membership structures did not offer
that right. Members could keep their old membership category and
keep the right to a refund of the initiation fee, but they would
face a higher annual fee compared to the new memberships, many
upwards of a 20- to 30-percent increase.

Based on a reading of the settlement terms on file at the court,
members did not retain their original right to these refunds.

The terms also dictates that individuals in the case not speak
with reporters or journalists except in filed settlement approval
papers and in a statement. Attorneys in the case did not wish to
comment at this time.

Attorneys in both parties worked on an agreement prior to a
hearing scheduled for late February came to an agreement after
"extensive settlement discussions," court documents reads. ". . .
the parties through their counsel have negotiated at arm's length
regarding their respective positions," it states.

While the agreement did not allow the transfer of refundablity
rights to the new membership, it allows current members to join
new memberships without paying an initiation fee.

"All Class Members who have not heretofore elected into a New
Membership Category for which there were eligible (i.e. Diamond,
Medallion, Golf or Lifestyle) may elect into any New Membership
Category that is comparable or superior to their existing
membership category on the same terms and conditions that were
offered by the Club in 2016," the terms read.

"The Club will allow any such Class Member who wishes to elect
into the New Membership Category that is immediately superior to
their equivalent new category (e.g. a Sports member who wish to
elect into Medallion, a Gold member who wishes to elect into
Diamond, etc.) to do so without paying any additional initiation
fee."

The agreement reads that both sides and their attorneys waive all
claims to attorney's fees and expenses. All claims that have been
brought are released with the passage of the agreement.

Many members argued that they were coerced into new memberships
and would be forced to forfeit certain rights previously agreed to
by the club's owners.


NEW YORK: Faces "Davydov" Labor Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
HANNA DAVYDOV, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, against THE NEW YORK COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF
BROOKLYN, INC., Defendant, INDEX NO. 503906/2017 (N.Y. Sup.,
County of Kings, February 27, 2017), accuses Defendant of a)
requiring Hourly Nurses to perform work without compensation
before the start of their scheduled shift; (b) requiring Hourly
Nurses to perform work without compensation after the end of their
scheduled shift; (c) failing to pay Hourly Nurses at their
straight or agreed upon rate for all hours worked under 40 hours
in a week; and (d) failing to provide accurate wage statements in
violation of the New York Labor Law.

THE NEW YORK COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF BROOKLYN, INC. --
http://www.nych.com/-- is a non-profit acute care hospital.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     THE LAW FIRM OF LOUTS GINSBERG, P.C.
     1613 Northern Boulevard
     Roslyn, NY 11576
     Phone: (516)625-0105


NITRO GREEN: Faces "Shaffer" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Brandy Shaffer, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Nitro Green Inc., a Florida corporation,
and Clinton M. Woods, Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-00336-PGB-KRS
(M.D. Fla., February 27, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff were
regularly required to work in excess of 40 hours weekly but were
not paid overtime compensation as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  Moreover, Defendants allegedly failed to use the
proper regular rate for purposes of calculating overtime
compensation.

The Defendant performs landscaping and ground maintenance
services.  The Plaintiff was employed as office
manager/bookkeeper.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
     Jason M. Melton, Esq.
     WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
     One Progress Plaza
     200 Central Avenue, #400
     St. Petersburg, FL 33701
     Phone: 727 822 1111
     Fax: 727 898 2001
     E-mail: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com
             lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
             shelleytheFLlawfirm.com


NJ NEC INC: "Gorski" Alleges No Time-keeping, Denied OT Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maciej Gorski, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated who were employed by NJ NEC, Inc. and/or any
other entities affiliated with or controlled by NJ NEC, Inc.,
Plaintiffs, v. NJ NEC, Inc., Dariusz Czyzewski, John Does 1-5 and
Jane Does 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01092 (D.N.J.,
February 17, 2017) seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime
wages, damages and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Act.

Defendants engaged in services relating to electrical contracting
work in New Jersey where Plaintiff was employed as an electrician.
NJ NEC allegedly failed to keep accurate time records thus failing
to pay Gorski overtime wages.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darius A. Marzec, Esq.
      MARZEC LAW FIRM, PC
      225 Broadway, Suite 3000
      New York, NY 10007
      Tel: (212) 267-0200
      Email: dmarzec@marzeclaw.com


NORTHLAND GROUP: "Jones" Sues Over Vague Collection Letters
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott C. Jones, Plaintiff, v. Northland Group Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 6:17-cv-06120, (W.D. N.Y., February 24, 2017), seeks
statutory damages, costs and reasonable attorney fees and such
other and further relief for violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

This is a consumer class action brought by Plaintiff individually
and on behalf of similarly situated consumers resulting from
Defendant's issuance of collection letters with vague
representations of the actual amount owed, in the guise of "other
adjustments that might vary from day to day" and other similar
terminology.

Northland Group Inc. is organized under the laws of Minnesota
engaged in the business of collecting debts in New York State,
with an office at 7831 Glenroy Rd #350 Edina, MN 55439.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      David M. Kaplan, Esq.
      401 Penbrooke Dr., Bldg. 2, Ste. B
      Penfield, NY 14526
      Tel: (585) 330-2222
      Email: dmkaplan@rochester.rr.com


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: Bid to Certify Class in "Marshall" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Andre Birotte, Jr., entered an order in the lawsuit
entitled Marshall, et al. v. Northrop Grumman Corp., et al., Case
No. 2:16-cv-06794-AB-JC (C.D. Cal.), denying the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify class, and denying as moot their motion to
consolidate cases.

According to the Court's civil minutes, on February 13, 2017, the
Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, which, therefore,
supersedes the original complaint, citing Ramirez v. County of San
Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015).

The Court has also vacated the hearings set for February 27, 2017.

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


NYC SUNRISE: "Casas" Seeks Minimum Wage, Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Ernesto Casas, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NYC Sunrise 99 Cents Store, Inc. (d/b/a
Sunrise 99 Cents Store), Alex Doe, Jeremy Doe and Mei Ying Lin,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01415, (S.D.N.Y, February 24, 2017),
seeks unpaid minimum wage compensation, liquidated damages, unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid spread of hours compensation,
statutory penalties, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of the action and such other
and further relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
New York Labor Laws.

Sunrise 99 Cents Store is a retail store owned by Alex Doe, Jeremy
Doe, and Mei Ying Lin located at 2140 Third Avenue, New York, New
York 10035. Casas was employed as a general store assistant. He
worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without
receiving the applicable minimum wage or appropriate compensation
for the hours over 40 per week that he worked.

Defendant is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200


OAKMONT MAINTENANCE: "Garza" Seeks OT Pay for Off-The-Clock Work
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edwardo Garza on behalf of himself, individually and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Oakmont Maintenance and Rental
Company, Case No. 4:17-cv-00515, (S.D. Tex., February 16, 2017),
seeks equitable relief, compensatory and liquidated damages,
attorney's fees, taxable costs of court, and post-judgment
interest for failure to pay overtime wages and compensation for
hours worked pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Garza worked for the Defendant as a manual laborer. He seek
overtime pay for off-the-clock hours rendered.

Defendant 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
      Facsimile: (832) 778-8353


OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER: Lawyer Evades Sanction from Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Valerie Caproni of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York did not impose a sanction to a lawyer in the
case styled FERNANDA GARBER, MARC LERNER, DEREK RASMUSSEN, ROBERT
SILVER, GARRETT TRAUB, and VINCENT BIRBIGLIA, representing
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL, et al., Defendants, No.
12-CV-03704 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y.).

On the last day that he was permitted to file an objection, Sean
Hull filed a class settlement objection that was drafted by
Christopher Bandas of Bandas Law Firm. It asserted that the
proposed settlement was not fair, adequate, or reasonable because
it did not provide for monetary damages, ignoring Judge
Scheindlin's decision to certify the class only for injunctive
relief and plaintiffs' counsel's unsuccessful interim appeal of
the decision. It also asserted that the proposed attorneys' fees
award was excessive and further alleged that Hull was a class
member who has timely filed a claim.

The Hull objection was drafted by Bandas but was filed by local
counsel, David Stein of Samuel and Stein, after Stein's associate
conducted a basic review. After plaintiffs threatened Rule 11
sanctions for the Hull objection, Stein requested leave to
withdraw his firm's representation of Hull because his firm did
not have sufficient confidence in the Hull objection and was not
sufficiently well-informed about the case. Judge Scheindlin
granted Stein's request to withdraw.

After the settlement was approved and while discovery and briefing
relating to the Rule 11 motion was proceeding, the case was
reassigned to Judge Valerie Caproni and because Stein no longer
represented him, Hull himself submitted a letter to advise the
court of his intent to respond substantively to class counsels'
motion for sanctions.

Plaintiffs then filed a Rule 11 motion for sanctions against
Bandas, to which Bandas refused to respond. Bandas stated that he
was fully aware of the Rule 11 motion against him, but that he
ignored and reasoned that because he had not filed a notice of
appearance, he was not before the court and, therefore, was not
sanctionable. Bandas acknowledged, however, that he represented
Hull, drafted the Hull objection as Hull's attorney, and also
drafted Hull's opposition brief to the Rule 11 sanctions motion
against Hull.

Three months after the initial Rule 11 sanctions motions were
filed, and while the Rule 11 motions, the motion to compel, and
the motion for an appeals bond were pending before the court, and
while the appeal of the settlement order was pending in the Second
Circuit-Bandas, Turkish, Hull, and plaintiffs' class counsel filed
a stipulation that settled the Hull objection in exchange for the
withdrawal of the sanctions motions against Hull and his counsel.
The court ordered plaintiffs' class counsel and Bandas, Stein, and
Turkish to appear for a hearing to discuss why the Court should
not sua sponte issue an order to show cause why sanctions should
not be imposed upon the attorneys who represented Hull. Following
the hearing, Bandas submitted a brief regarding whether the court
has authority to impose sanctions against him.

Judge Caproni held that despite attorney Christopher Bandas
unprofessional conduct, she is not convinced the court had
jurisdiction to sanction him since he never actually appeared in
the case nor is he a member of the Southern District of New York,
hence she declines to impose Rule 11 sanctions on Bandas.
Nevertheless, because the court is gravely concerned that Bandas
uses attorneys as local counsel without full disclosure of his
track record and to shield himself from potential disciplinary
action associated with frivolous objections, Bandas is ordered to
provide a copy of the opinion to any local counsel he seeks to
engage for any case pending in the Southern District of New York.

A copy of Judge Caproni's opinion and order dated February 27,
2017, is available at https://goo.gl/82DR7G from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Edward A. Diver -- Peter E. Leckman --
at Langer Grogan & Diver, P.C.; Adam G. Kurtz --
agkurtz@pomlaw.com -- at Pomerantz LLP; Craig W. Hillwig -- Robert
J. Larocca -- Steven M. Steingard -- at Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.;
Howard I. Langer -- at Sandals, Langer & Taylor L.L.P.; Jeffrey
Benjamin Dubner -- jdubner@cohenmilstein.com -- at Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll; John Andrew Ioannou -- Michael Morris Buchman --
mbuchman@motleyrice.com -- at Motley Rice LLC; John Douglas
Richards -- Marc Ian Gross -- migross@pomlaw.com -- at Pomerantz
Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP; Kevin M. Costello; Joshua D.
Snyder -- JSnyder@bonizack.com -- Michael J. Boni --
MBoni@bonizack.com -- at BONI & ZACK LLC

Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, Major League Baseball
Enterprises Inc, Defendant, represented by Alexandra M. Walsh --
awalsh@wilkinsonwalsh.com -- at Wilkinson Walsh & Eskovitz;
Bradley I. Ruskin -- bruskin@proskauer.com -- at Proskauer Rose
LLP; William Yates Durbin -- at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison, LLP

MLB Advanced Media L.P., MLB Advanced Media, Inc., Athletics
Investment Group, LLC, Major League Baseball Enterprises Inc.,
Officer of the Commissioner of Baseball, The Baseball Club of
Seattle, L.P., San Francisco Baseball Associates, L.P., Chicago
White Sox, Ltd., Colorado Rockies Baseball Club, Ltd., The
Phillies, L.P., Pittsburgh Baseball, Inc, Chicago Cubs Baseball
Club, LLC, Defendants, represented by Adrian Fontecilla --
afontecilla@proskauer.com -- Bradley I. Ruskin --
bruskin@proskauer.com -- Jane Wu -- cwu@proskauer.com -- Jill
Sharon Streja -- Joelle Anne Milov -- Jordan Blake Leader --
jleader@proskauer.com -- Stephen Michael Ahron --
sahron@proskauer.com -- Carl Clyde Forbes -- cforbes@proskauer.com
-- Helene Debra Jaffe -- Jennifer R. Scullion -- Robert Davis
Forbes -- at Proskauer Rose LLP; Alexandra M. Walsh --
awalsh@wilkinsonwalsh.com -- Beth A. Wilkinson --
bwilkinson@wilkinsonwalsh.com -- at Wilkinson Walsh & Eskovitz
PLLC; William Yates Durbin -- Daniel John Toal --
dtoal@paulweiss.com -- Jeremy Aaron Benjamin --
jbenjamin@paulweiss.com -- at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP

Directv LLC and Directv Sports Networks LLC, Defendants,
represented by James Howard Mutchnik --
james.mutchnik@kirkland.com -- Joseph Serino, Jr. --
joseph.serino@kirkland.com -- Melissa Dawn Ingalls --
melissa.ingalls@kirkland.com -- John Carlos Vazquez --
john.vazquez@kirkland.com -- Tammy A. Tsoumas --
tammy.tsoumas@kirkland.com -- at Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Louis A.
Karasik -- Stephanie A. Jones -- stephanie.jones@alston.com -- at
Alston & Bird LLP

Root Sports Pittsburgh, Root Sports Rocky Mountain, and Root
Sports Northwest, Defendants, represented by James Howard Mutchnik
-- james.mutchnik@kirkland.com -- Joseph Serino, Jr. --
joseph.serino@kirkland.com -- Melissa Dawn Ingalls --
melissa.ingalls@kirkland.com -- John Carlos Vazquez --
john.vazquez@kirkland.com -- Tammy A. Tsoumas --
tammy.tsoumas@kirkland.com -- at Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Louis A.
Karasik -- at Alston & Bird LLP

Comcast Corp., Comcast Sportsnet Bay Area, L.P., Comcast SportsNet
Philadelphia, L.P., Comcast Sportsnet California, L.P., Comcast
SportsNet California, LLC, Comcast SportsNet Chicago, LLC, and
Comcast Sportsnet Chicago, L.P., Defendants, represented by Arthur
J. Burke -- arthur.burke@davispolk.com -- Christopher Philip Lynch
-- christopher.lynch@davispolk.com -- David Brendan Toscano --
david.toscano@davispolk.com -- James William Haldin --
james.haldin@davispolk.com -- at Davis Polk & Wardwell

Yankees Entertainment and Sports Networks, LLC, Defendant,
represented by Alan Borden Vickery -- avickery@bsfllp.com --
Christopher Emmanuel Duffy -- cduffy@bsfllp.com -- Jonathan David
Schiller -- jschiller@bsfllp.com -- at Boies Schiller & Flexner
LLP; James Harris Weingarten -- jweingarten@wc.com -- John E.
Schmidtlein -- jschmidtlein@wc.com -- Kenneth Charles Smurzynski -
- ksmurzynski@wc.com -- William Jefferson Vigen -- wvigen@wc.com -
- at Williams & Connolly LLP

New York Yankees Partnership, Defendant, represented by Alan
Borden Vickery -- avickery@bsfllp.com -- Christopher Emmanuel
Duffy -- cduffy@bsfllp.com -- Jonathan David Schiller --
jschiller@bsfllp.com -- David Wadi Ata -- data@bsfllp.com -- at
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP

Sean Hull, Objector, represented by Forrest Scott Turkish -- at
Forrest Scott Turkish, Law Office
Mr. David D Buckley, Jr., Objector, represented by Scott William
Wert -- at Wert Law

Chris Bandas, Esq., Interested Party, represented by Brian Edward
Maas -- bmaas@fkks.com -- Tyler Maulsby -- tmaulsby@fkks.com -- at
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, P.C.


ONE SOURCE STAFFING: OT Pay Sought in "Henderson" Labor Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Kiwan Henderson on behalf of himself individually, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. One Source Staffing and Labor
d/b/a Catstaff, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00622, (S.D. Tex.,
February 26, 2017), seeks all unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, post-judgment
interest on all amounts awarded and all such other and further
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a staffing company where Henderson worked as a manual
laborer, supervising employees, demolition, gutting, cleaning and
debris removal for Defendant's Disaster Restoration Division. He
claims to have been denied overtime pay.

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
      Facsimile: (832) 778-8353
      Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


ONTARIO: Deadline Set for Claimants to File in 407 Toll Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Buist at The Spec reports that bankrupt drivers in Ontario
who had their licence plate renewals denied because of Highway 407
toll debts have just over three weeks left to submit a claim for
compensation as part of a class-action lawsuit settlement.

Lawyers for Hamilton's Scarfone Hawkins LLP won an $8-million
settlement in late 2015 with the 407 ETR consortium that operates
the toll highway.

The lawsuit, which started five years ago, alleged people who
declared bankruptcy and listed 407 tolls among their debts
discovered the province could still refuse to issue them a vehicle
permit even after they exited the bankruptcy process.

The case ultimately went to the Supreme Court of Canada, which
ruled that provisions of the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act
trump a section of Ontario's Highway 407 Act.

The country's highest court ruled only a very limited number of
debts can outlive a bankruptcy -- income tax arrears, for example
-- and a Highway 407 toll debt isn't one of them.

Attempts were made to contact more than 8,000 potential claimants
as part of the class action but so far, only about 1,000 claims
have been submitted, said David Thompson, one of the Hamilton
lawyers who led the lawsuit.

The deadline to make a claim is March 27.

Each eligible claimant will receive a base payment of $200, plus a
share of additional compensation based on the amount of debts that
were repaid to 407 ETR and the amount of time the plate renewal
was denied.

In some cases, Thompson said, the additional compensation could be
hundreds to thousands of dollars, depending on the final number of
claims submitted.

"We still have not received a robust response, shall we say, and
we'd like to see it increase to as many people as possible,"
Thompson said, adding he has no vested interest in the number of
claims submitted because a judge has already established legal
fees for the case.

"It's a simple form," Thompson said. "It's literally a 30-second
exercise.

"Even if you don't have all the information, sign it, date it,
have it witnessed and return it to us."


PACWEST SOLUTIONS: Faces "Faustino" Suit Under Cal. Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
Melania Faustino, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Pacwest Solutions, Inc. and
DOES 1 to 100, Defendants, Case No. RB 17850643 (Cal. Super.,
County of Alameda County, February 24, 2017), was brought for
Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to furnish accurate itemized statements of
their true wages earned and true hours worked in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The proposed class is composed of caregivers or personal
attendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Allan A. Villanueva, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF ALLAN A. VILLANUEVA
     1001 Bayhill Drive, Suite 200
     San Bruno, CA 04066
     Phone: (650) 616-4144
     Fax: (650) 479-3086


PARAMOUNT CARE: "Brown" Labor Suit Claims Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Laniece Brown, on behalf of herself individually, and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Paramount Care Services and
Gail Ann Champagne, Defendants., Case No. 4:17-cv-00620, (S.D.
Tex., February 25, 2017), seeks all unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the FLSA,
post-judgment interest and all such other and further relief as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Laniece Brown worked for Paramount Care Services and Gail Ann
Champagne as a caregiver at its Spring, Texas location. She claims
to be paid straight time instead of time and a half for hours
worked above forty per week.

Defendant 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
      Facsimile: (832) 778-8353
      Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


PARAMOUNT PROPERTY: "Cabrera" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay, Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Cabrera, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. Paramount Property Maintenance LLC, Rafael A.
Cadena and Humberto Castelan, Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-60349,
(S.D. Fla., February 16, 2017), seeks to recover money damages for
unpaid overtime wages as well as an additional amount as
liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the
Florida Statutes Section 440.205 and the Fair Labor Standards.

Paramount is a maintenance company in Broward County, Florida
where Plaintiff worked as a maintenance personnel.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PEARSON PLC: "Chupka" Sues Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------
Daniel Chupka, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Pearson PLC, John Fallon, Natalie Dale and
Stephen Jones, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01422, (S.D. N.Y.,
February 24, 2017), seeks compensatory damages, including
interest, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action,
including counsel fees and expert fees, extraordinary equitable
and/or injunctive relief and such other and further relief under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Pearson is an international education company with its principal
operation in the education and consumer publishing markets.
Pearson is in the business of coming up with and managing
intellectual property, which it sells to customers under well-
known brand names. The content is delivered to customers through a
variety of mediums which include books and online services.
Pearson's American Depositary Receipts trade on the New York Stock
Exchange NYSE under the ticker symbol PSO.

The complaint says Defendants made overly optimistic projections
for 2017 and 2018 regarding its U.S. education business when, in
reality, students were not likely to purchase Pearson's products
when more affordable alternatives were available, resulting in an
excess of unsold products.  On this news, Pearson's stock price
declined from a closing price of $9.99 per share on January 17,
2017 to $7.13 per share on January 18, 2017, a drop of
approximately 29%.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Telephone: (203) 992-4523
      Facsimile: (212) 363-7171


PENDRAGON NORTH: Chiu, et al. Sues Over Racial Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL CHIU, an Individual; YAN HUA WANG, an individual; JUN WANG,
an Individual; SUN MEIZHI, an Individual; and all other members of
the general public similarly situated Plaintiffs, vs. PENDRAGON
NORTH AMERICA, INC. dba HORNBURG JAGUAR LAND ROVER
SANTA MONICA and HORNBURG LAND ROVER HOLLYWOOD, a California
Corporation; SAMI OHEB, an Individual; SERGEI KALUSTOV, an
Individual; RP AUTOMOTIVE, INC. dba PENSKE JAGUAR LAND ROVER
CERRITOS, a California Corporation; AKSEL SARDARYAN, an
Individual; TERRY YORK MOTOR CARS, LTD. dba LAND ROVER ENCINO, a
California Corporation; CARLOS DIAZ, an Individual; ANAHEIM
HILLS JAGUAR LAND ROVER, INC. dba JAGUAR LAND ROVER ANAHEIM HILLS,
a California Corporation; JOHN TOTARO, an Individual; PENEGON
NEWPORT BEACH, INC. dba JAGUAR LANDROVER NEWPORT BEACH, a
California Corporation; JENNIFER KIM, an Individual; NATASHA
BIJELIC, an Individual; PENEGON MISSION VIEJO, INC. dba JAGUAR
LAND ROVER MISSION VIEJO, a California Corporation; TERRENCE
WILSON, an Individual; BRITISH MOTOR CARS DISTRIBUTOR LTD. dba
LAND ROVER OF SAN FRANCISCO, a California Corporation; GILLIAN
PENITENTI, an Individual; and DOES 1 to 750, Defendants, Case No.
BC 651940 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, February 24, 2017),
alleges that the processes and procedures allegedly imposed by the
Defendants were arbitrary and meant to discriminate against
Chinese nationals either visiting and/or residing in the United
States of America, individuals of Chinese descent and/or
individuals perceived to be of Chinese or Asian descent by
prohibiting or discouraging them from purchasing or leasing a new
Range Rover/Land Rover vehicle of a particular model.

Defendants are dealerships authorized by Jaguar Land Rover North
America to sell Range Rovers of a particular model to members of
the general public.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
     Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM LLP
     555 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 818
     Long Beach, CA 90802
     Phone: 562.432.8933
     Fax: 562.432.8933
     E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
             brent@carlinbuchsbaum.com


PLATINUM PARI-MUTUEL: May 2 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces that
it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
Platinum Pari-Mutuel Holdings Inc. securities (PPMH) from July 12,
2016 through February 15, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Platinum Pari-
Mutuel investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Platinum Pari-Mutuel class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1063.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) Platinum Pari-Mutuel's press releases and financial
information lacked veracity; (2) Platinum Pari-Mutuel's disclosure
controls and procedures were inadequate; and (3) as a result,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market,
the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May
2, 2017. If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1063.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.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm.

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


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Suit Over Negligent Representation
----------------------------------------------------------
Louie Torres at Legal Newsline reports that two consumers have
filed a class action lawsuit against Procter & Gamble, alleging
fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

Tom Takano of California and Tracy McCarthy of New York filed a
complaint, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Feb. 21 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California against The Procter & Gamble Company, alleging the
defendant advertises its products as "natural" despite having
synthetic and dangerous ingredients.

According to the complaint, Takano and McCarthy sustained
financial damages from being deceived into purchasing shampoo and
conditioning products that were labeled "natural". The plaintiffs
allege Procter & Gamble misleads consumers into purchasing its
products despite knowing they contain unnatural and synthetic
ingredients.

Takano and McCarthy seek trial by jury, compensatory and punitive
damages, interest, restitution, injunctive relief, court costs and
all further relief the court grants. They are represented by
attorneys L. Timothy Fisher -- tfisher@bursor.com -- Joel D. Smith
-- jsmith@bursor.com -- and Yeremey Krivoshey --
ykrivoshey@bursor.com -- of Bursor & Fisher PA in Walnut Creek,
California, and by Scott Bursor of Burser & Fisher in New York.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Case
number 2:17-cv-00385-TLN-AC


Q.S. SAN LUIS OBISPO: Settlement in "ABDI" Gets Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LILI ORDUNA, as an individual, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Q.S. SAN LUIS OBISPO, a
California limited partnership; WARMINGTON HOTEL ASSOCIATES 7,
L.P., a California limited partnership; WINEGARDNER & HAMMONS,
INC., an Ohio corporation; and DOES 4 through 10, Defendants, Case
No. 8:15-cv-00593-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal.), Judge Josephine L. Staton
of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
entered an Order granting the Plaintiff's motions for (1) final
approval of class action settlement and (2) attorneys' fees,
costs, and incentive payment.

For purposes of the Settlement, the Settlement Class is composed
of all the current and former non-exempt employees employed by the
Defendants in California at any time between April 14, 2011
through July 18, 2016.

Judge Staton further ordered the payment of:

     (a) the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency in
the amount of $3,750;

     (b) the Class Counsel's attorney's fees in the amount of
$121,500 in attorneys' fees;

     (c) the Class Counsel's litigation costs of $10,019.51; and

     (d) the Claims Administrator, CPT Group, Inc.'s fees and
expenses in the amount of $10,000.

The Copy of the Court's Order dated February 1, 2017 is available
at https://goo.gl/cE25W5 from Leagle.com.

Lili Orduna, Plaintiff, represented by Erica Flores Baltodano,
Baltodano and Baltodano LLP.

Lili Orduna, Plaintiff, represented by Oscar Ramirez, Law Offices
of Oscar Ramirez, PC & Hernaldo Jose Baltodano --
hjb@bbemploymentlaw.com -- Baltodano and Baltodano LLP.

Q.S. San Luis Obispo, et al., Defendants, represented by Rachel J.
Moroski -- rachel.moroski@ogletree.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash
Smoak and Stewart PC & Carolyn Blecha Hall --
carolyn.hall@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak
and Stewart PC.


QUANTUM LEARNING: Class Settlement in "Johnson" Has Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lucy H. Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted plaintiffs' motion for final
approval of class action settlement and granted in part and denied
in part class counsel's motion for attorneys' fees, costs and
representative plaintiffs awards in the case captioned TREVOR
JOHNSON, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. QUANTUM LEARNING NETWORK, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-05013-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of the proposed class
action settlement, while class counsel filed a motion for approval
of attorneys' fees, costs and representative plaintiffs awards.

The class members are composed of two subclasses, the California
class and the FLSA Class. The settlement will provide each class
member with a proportionate share based upon the number of
SuperCamp sessions worked, the class members' job titles with
respect to each of those sessions worked, the location with
respect to each of those sessions worked by the class member,
specifically, whether the class member worked in California or
outside of California.

Class counsel requests 33.33% of the $400,000 settlement, or
$133,333.33. Class Counsel also requests reimbursement of their
out-of-pocket expenses incurred to prosecute the action in an
amount of $13,699.10. The settlement agreement capped class
administration costs at $20,000, and class counsel seeks to deduct
$20,000 in class administration expenses from the common fund.
Class counsel's list of costs includes $679 of additional class
administration costs.

Judge Lucy H. Koh granted plaintiffs' motion for final approval of
the proposed class action settlement and granted in part and
denied in part class counsel's motion for approval of attorneys'
fees, costs and service awards.  The court awards $112,000 in
attorney's fees to class counsel and approves $13,020.10 in
litigation costs. The court also awards named plaintiffs Johnson
and Harmon $5,000 each, and awards $1,000 to pre-settlement opt-in
plaintiff Engle. The court will not award the $679 in additional
class administration costs.

A copy of Judge Koh's order dated February 27, 2017 is available
at https://goo.gl/eIBQjX from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Logan McMillan Starr --
logan@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- at
Bryan Schwartz Law

Quantum Learning Network, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas
S. Ingrassia -- tingrassia@pettitkohn.com -- Jenna Heather Leyton-
Jones -- jleyton@pettitkohn.com -- Shannon Riyana Finley --
sfinley@pettitkohn.com -- at Pettit Kohn Ingrassia Lutz PC


QUALCOMM INC: "Rotman" Suit Alleges Sherman Act Breach
------------------------------------------------------
Allan Rotman, Shari Cole, Phillip James Zacharias, Mary Beth
Cummins, Guy Snowdy, Cynthia Bambini, Grant Hauschild, David
Floyd, Kim Coughlin, Brandon Fuller, Lisa Patnode, and Nina
Bartoshevich, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Qualcomm Incorporated, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00260-JLS-NLS (S.D. Cal., Feb. 9, 2017), seeks to
recover for substantial injuries they have suffered as a result of
Qualcomm's violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, state
antitrust and consumer laws and the common law of unjust
enrichment.

The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, monetary damages and all
available remedies to which they are entitled for Qualcomm's
unlawful conduct. Plaintiffs brought the action against Defendant
Qualcomm Incorporated for Qualcomm's unlawful maintenance of a
monopoly in baseband processors. Qualcomm has maintained its
monopoly by engaging in anticompetitive, exclusionary conduct,
including, without limitation: (a) failure to license standard-
essential patents to all applicants on fair, reasonable and non-
discriminatory ("FRAND") terms; (b) withholding Qualcomm's
baseband processors unless a customer accepts a license to
standard-essential patents on terms imposed by Qualcomm, including
excessive and unlawful royalties that the customer must pay when
using competitors' processors ("no license-no chips"); (c)
refusing to license its cellular standard-essential patents to
competitors, in violation of Qualcomm's FRAND commitments; and (d)
entering into exclusive dealing arrangements, including with Apple
Inc., a large and highly important cellphone manufacturer.

Qualcomm is an American multinational semiconductor and
telecommunications equipment company that designs and markets
wireless telecommunications products and services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
          Jason M. Lindner, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 1750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400 5822
          Facsimile: (619) 400 5832
          E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegel.com
                  lindner@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
          KARON LLC
          700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 622 1851
          Facsimile: (216) 241 8175
          E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com


QUALCOMM INC: Charged with Anti-trust for Chipset by "Crutcher"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dayan Crutcher and Catherine Schmidlin, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Qualcomm
Incorporated, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-
00766, (N.D. Cal., February 16, 2017), seeks to recover damages,
pre- and post-judgment interest, costs of suit, including
reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from unjust enrichment and
violation of California state consumer protection statutes, state
antitrust and restraint of trade laws, unfair competition law and
violation of the Cartwright Act and Sherman Act.

Qualcomm is a developer of cellular technology, such as the Code
Division Multiple Access (CDMA) standard on which network carriers
rely upon. It is the dominant producer of CDMA chipsets and holds
the largest number of Standard Essential Patents for CDMA
technology and it incorporated into virtually every relevant
cellular standard in the last several years.

Plaintiff alleges that Qualcomm has not adhered to fair,
reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms, but has instead taken
advantage of the standard-setting process to acquire and maintain
monopoly control of the modem chipset market by refusing to
license and/or impose onerous restrictions on licenses of its
patents to competing chipset makers.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Azra Z. Mehdi, Esq.
      THE MEHDI FIRM, PC
      One Market
      Spear Tower, Suite 3600
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Tel: (415) 293-8039
      Fax: (415) 293-8001
      Email: azram@themehdifirm.com,


QUALCOMM INC: Charged with Anti-trust for Chipset by "Frederick"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Frederick, Charles Poon, Andrea Hogan, Tina Heim, Monica
Morrow, Mark Cardillo, and Allison Shipp, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Qualcomm
Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00377 (S.D. Cal.,
February 24, 2017) seeks to recover damages, pre- and post-
judgment interest, costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys'
fees resulting from unjust enrichment and violation of California
state consumer protection statutes, state antitrust and restraint
of trade laws, unfair competition law and violation of the
Cartwright Act and Sherman Act.

Qualcomm is a developer of cellular technology, such as the Code
Division Multiple Access (CDMA) standard on which network carriers
rely upon. It is the dominant producer of CDMA chipsets and holds
the largest number of Standard Essential Patents for CDMA
technology and it incorporated into virtually every relevant
cellular standard in the last several years.

Plaintiff alleges that Qualcomm has not adhered to fair,
reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms, but has instead taken
advantage of the standard-setting process to acquire and maintain
monopoly control of the modem chipset market by refusing to
license and/or impose onerous restrictions on licenses of its
patents to competing chipset makers.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
      Jason M. Lindner, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP
      550 West C Street, Suite 1750
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 400-5822
      Facsimile: (619) 400-5832
      Email: hartley@stuevesiegel.com
             lindner@stuevesiegel.com

             - and -

      Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
      Brant D. Penney, Esq.
      REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
      E1250 First National Bank Bldg.
      332 Minnesota Street
      St. Paul, MN 55101
      Telephone: (651) 287-2100
      Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
      Email: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
             b.penney@rwblawfirm.com


QUALITY THERAPY: "Kondati" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Sumana Kondati, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated as class representative under Illinois Law
and/or as members of the Collective as permitted under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, Plaintiff, v. Quality Therapy and
Consultation, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01461, (N.D. Ill.,
February 25, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime pay,
injunctive and declaratory relief, compensation and credit for all
uncompensated work required, liquidated and/or other damages,
restitution and payment of all benefits and attorneys' fees and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

Kondati worked as a clinical therapist for the Defendants, a
medical provider specializing in therapy.

Defendant is represented by:

      John C. Ireland, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND
      636 Spruce Street
      South Elgin IL 60177
      Tel: (630) 464-9675
      Facsimile 630-206-0889
      Email: attorneyireland@gmail.com


RHD JR INC: Court Certifies Class of Mechanics in "Jordan" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. P.K. Holmes, III, entered an opinion and order in the
lawsuit titled MARK JORDAN and BRANDON WATKINS, each individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RHD, JR., INC.,
d/b/a MAYFLOWER RV SALES & SERVICE; and ROBERT H. DUDLEY, JR.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-02227-PKH (W.D. Ark.), granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification of a collective action, disclosure of contact
information for potential opt-in plaintiffs, and to send court-
approved notice.

Judge Holmes conditionally certifies the case as a collective
action pursuant to the FLSA and authorizes notice to be sent to
potential opt-in plaintiffs.  The opt-in class will consist of all
mechanics employed by Defendants at any time after September 12,
2013.

RHD, Jr., Inc., doing business as Mayflower RV Sales & Services,
sells and services new and used recreational vehicles at its two
locations in Sherwood and Van Buren, Arkansas.  Mr. Jordan began
working for RHD's Van Buren location as a mechanic around November
of 2011 and represents that he continues to work for RHD.  Mr.
Watkins worked for RHD as a mechanic for a period during 2015.
The Plaintiffs allege that while they were mechanics for RHD, the
Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act.

The Defendants are directed to provide the names and last known
home mailing addresses of all putative members.  The Plaintiffs'
proposed notice, consent to join, and follow-up postcard are
approved subject to certain changes, including the Defendants'
proposed revision to the description of the lawsuit in the
proposed notice that states that the Defendants deny liability and
assert that they have compensated the mechanics on a 'flat rate'
basis that constitutes a commission and is compliant with federal
law.

In all other respects, the Motion for Conditional Certification of
a collective action is denied.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=CEI4881L


RHG & COMPANY: Settlement in "Maxin" Has Preliminary Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Janis L. Sammartino of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California granted plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement, in the case
HEATHER MAXIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. RHG & COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
16CV2625 JLS (BLM) (S.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Heather Maxin has filed a class action complaint for
damages and injunctive relief, in violation of California Civil
Code section 1750, et seq., California Business & Professions Code
section 17533.7, California Business and Professions Code section
17200, et seq.,  against RHG & Company, Inc., an American
pharmaceutical grade and professional strength supplements'
manufacturer that conducts business through Internet sales and
mail orders, and a numerous pharmaceutical and supplement stores
within the United States.

Plaintiff alleged that defendant made, and continues to make,
affirmative misrepresentations regarding its products, including
the Vitamin D3 product purchased by plaintiff, it manufactures,
markets and sells. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that "Defendant
packaged, advertised, marketed, promoted, and sold its Products as
`Made in the USA.

In October, the parties participated in a full day of mediation
before the Honorable Leo S. Papas and have agreed to settle the
claims in the action on a nationwide basis under the terms and
conditions memorialized in a settlement agreement.

Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement.

Judge Sammartino preliminary approved the settlement agreement as
fair, reasonable, and adequate and the action is preliminarily
certified, for settlement purposes only, as a class action on
behalf of:

   Settlement Class: All Persons who purchased in the United
States between August 1, 2012 and the date on which the order is
electronically docketed one or more of defendant's products that
contained an unqualified "Made in USA" label or were otherwise
represented as being "Made in USA," including on defendant's
website, brochures, and/or any other marketing materials.
For settlement purposes only, plaintiff Heather Maxin as the class
representative, and Abbas Kazerounian of the Kazerouni Law Group,
A.P.C. and Joshua B. Swigart of Hyde & Swigart as class counsel.
Additionally, the court approves and appoints Kurtzman Carson
Consultants as the claims administrator.

Within thirty days of the date of the order is electronically
docketed, the parties shall disseminate the notices. Judge
Sammartino shall conduct a final approval hearing on September 28,
2017 at 221 W. Broadway, Courtroom 4D, 4th Floor, San Diego, CA
92101, to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of
the proposed settlement, plaintiff's request for the award of
attorney fees and costs, the class representative enhancement,
dismissal with prejudice of the class action with respect to
Defendant and the entry of final judgment.

No later than twenty-one days before the final approval hearing,
the parties shall file a motion for final approval of class action
settlement. Class counsel shall also file an application for
attorney fees, costs, and a class representative service award.
Class Counsel shall provide documentation detailing the number of
hours incurred by attorneys in litigating this action, supported
by detailed time records, as well as hourly compensation to which
those attorneys are reasonably entitled.

Class Counsel should address the appropriateness of any upward or
downward departure in the lodestar calculation, as well as reasons
why a percentage-of-the-fund approach to awarding attorney fees
may be more preferable in this case. Class Counsel should be
prepared to address any questions the Court may have regarding the
application for fees at the Final Approval Hearing.

Defendant to deliver class List to within 5 days of the date on
which claims administrator the order is electronically docketed.
Claims Administrator to establish within 28 days of the date on
which Website and Toll-Free Number the order is electronically
docketed. Publish notice of settlement in USA Today and send
notice to class members and relevant pharmacies.

Request for Exclusion, no later than 90 days from the date the
order is electronically docketed. Objections to the settlement, no
later than 90 days from the date the order is electronically
docketed. Notice of Intention to Appear at Final Approval Hearing,
no later than 100 days from the date the order is electronically
docketed. Parties to file motion for final approval hearing, no
later than 21 days before the final approval. Class counsel to
file motion for attorney fees and costs and incentive award,
September 28, 2017 at 1:30 p.m.

A copy of Judge Sammartino's order dated February 17, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/GBOFKX from Leagle.com.

Heather Maxin, Plaintiff, represented by Abbas Kazerounian --
ak@kazlg.com -- Andrei Armas -- andrei@kazlg.com -- Matthew M.
Loker -- ml@kazlg.com -- at Kazerouni Law Group, APC

RHG & Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lee S. Brenner --
lbrenner@kelleydrye.com -- at Kelley Drye and Warren LLP


RIO ARRIBA COUNTY, NM: "Serna" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH SERNA, SANTANA BUSTAMANTE, GABRIEL M. BLEA, RONNIE CARILLO,
JR., ALIFONSO DELEON, GERMAN JACQUEZ-TORRES, GUY J. JORDAN, DAVID
WAYNE JOURDAN, ADELINE MARTINEZ, ANTHONY MARTINEZ,
CHRISTOPHER M. MARTINEZ, ROMAN MARTINEZ, KENNETH MERCURE, LEA
PACHECO, ELIZABETH RAMIREZ, ROSE RASCON and CHRIS VALDEZ, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF RIO ARRIBA
COUNTY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00196-SCY-KBM (D.N.M.,
Feb. 9, 2017), seeks to recover back pay, compensatory, exemplary
and punitive damages as a result of Defendant's failure to pay
employees for all hours worked and for Defendant's failure to pay
overtime wages as required by law under state wage and hour laws
and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Plaintiffs work (or worked) for Defendant as Correctional Officers
at the Rio Arriba County Detention Center. Their duties include,
inter alia, maintaining custody and control of inmates at the
Detention Center, patrolling designated areas of the detention
facility, controlling traffic to and from assigned areas,
maintaining security and inspecting the facility to ensure the
safety and security of inmates, taking periodic resident counts in
the detention levels and arranging for and guarding work details.

The Plaintiffs and other employees are generally not permitted to
leave their post maintaining control over inmates until they are
relieved from their shift by another employee. The Plaintiffs and
other employees are scheduled and paid only for the stated length
of their shift. However, Plaintiffs and other employees are
consistently required to work longer than the time allotted for
their scheduled shift. Plaintiffs and other employees are not
compensated for this extra work time. The Defendant is aware of
this extra time worked, requires that such work routinely be
performed, and fails to compensate its employees for that time.

Rio Arriba County is a county located in the U.S. state of New
Mexico. As of the 2010 census, the population was 40,246. Its
county seat is Tierra Amarilla. Its northern border is the
Colorado state line.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shane C. Youtz, Esq.
          Stephen Curtice
          James A. Montalbano
          YOUTZ & VALDEZ, P.C.
          900 Gold Avenue S.W.
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 244 1200
          Facsimile: (505) 244 9700
          E-mail: shane@youtzvaldez.com
          stephen@youtzvaldez.com
          james@youtzvaldez.com


SANABI INVESTMENTS: "Carrero" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Arwin Nicolas Zapata Carrero and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Sanabi Investments LLC, Sandy Bijani and Hanin
Prieto, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-20608, (S.D. Fla., February
16, 2017), seeks double damages and reasonable attorney's fees
from Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act for all overtime wages still owing along with court
costs, interest and any other relief.

Sanabi Investments LLC operates as Oscar's Moving and Storage
where Plaintiff worked for Defendants as mover from June 1996
through February 10, 2017.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SANTA FE, NM: Needs to Change Product Labeling for Deal Compliance
------------------------------------------------------------------
T.S. Last at Albuquerque Journal reports that Natural American
Spirit cigarettes, which were originally made in Santa Fe, may
keep its name but otherwise must remove the term "natural" along
with the phrase "additive free" from its product labeling,
advertising and promotional material under an agreement between
its manufacturer and the Food and Drug Administration.

Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, which manufactures the
cigarettes and is now owned by Reynolds tobacco, has until August
to implement the changes.

Though marked "Confidential -- Not for Public Disclosure," the
Jan. 19 agreement came to light when Santa Fe Natural Tobacco on
Feb. 24 filed a motion to dismiss a class-action lawsuit against
it in U.S. District Court.

The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids posted a link to the agreement
on its website along with a press release criticizing the deal.

"The deceptive marketing for Natural American Spirit cigarettes is
costing lives, and this agreement fails to stop it," Matthew L.
Myers, the group's president, said. "This agreement falls woefully
short of the complete prohibition needed on use of the term
'natural' and other deceptive claims that falsely imply a safer
cigarette."

The group also objects to a provision that allows the company to
list ingredients as "Tobacco and Water" and that the agreement
doesn't address the use of the word "organic" as part of the
product labeling and advertising, which it says is another
misleading term.

A spokesman for Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company and its parent
company, Reynolds American Inc., declined comment. Santa Fe
Natural still has offices in Santa Fe.

Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company was formed more than 30 years
ago. It was sold to Reynolds in 2002 for $340 million.

The class-action lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in
2015, contends the product is "neither natural nor additive-free"
and that it contains "a variety of harmful additives that are not
disclosed to consumers," citing pesticides and fertilizer.

It also claims the image of an Indian in headdress smoking from a
feathered pipe "misleads consumers into believing that the
cigarettes are affiliated with an Indian tribe."

According to data released by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention in December, the Santa Fe Natural product was the
seventh most popular cigarette sold in the U.S. in 2015.


SAP AMERICA: Faces "Stambaugh" Suit Over Employee Stock Options
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH STAMBAUGH, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, against SAP AMERICA, INC., Defendant, INDEX
NO. 650964/2017 (N.Y., Sup., County of New York, February 24,
2017), seeks damages, or alternatively, a declaratory judgment,
arising from the alleged failure of Defendant SAP America, Inc. to
honor Named Plaintiff's exercise of vested employee virtual stock
options, as well as Defendant's violations of applicable
employment discrimination laws.

SAP America, Inc. develops business software solutions for various
industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennifer A. L. Battle, Esq.
     CARPENTER LIPPS AND LELAND LLP
     1540 Broadway, Suite 3710
     New York, NY 10036
     Phone: 212 837 1110


SIRIUSXM: Music Organizations Join to Disapprove Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Christman at Billboard reports that SoundExchange, RIAA and
A2IM are among several music organizations to join an amicus brief
arguing that the pending class-action settlement between members
of the Turtles and SiriusXM over pre-1972 recordings should not be
approved in its present form.

According to the filing, made March 1 in the U.S. Central District
Court of California, the organizations argued that the proposed
settlement could impact future rate-setting proceedings, as well
as the ways pre-1972 recordings are valued and licensed. The brief
was filed by Jenner & Block LLP on behalf of Sound Exchange, RIAA,
A2IM, AFM & SAG-AFTRA Intellectual Property Rights Distribution
Fund, American Federation of Musicians of United States and Canada
and SAG-AFTRA.

The settlement, struck in December, provided that SiriusXM would
pay the Turtles class action group $25-40 million dollars,
depending on how the class action suit turned out in three states.
The Turtles won in California and New York, but those results are
under appeal. In Florida, the "Happy Together" group lost but has
also appealed.

The settlement provided for a ten-year license for recordings of
class action participants, which would be paid at a rate of 5.5
percent of revenue if the Turtles suit prevailed in all three
states. At that percentage, the settlement could result in as much
as a $59 million payout.

The suit came about because the U.S. had no master-recording
copyright until 1972, and Sirius argued that for that reason, it
had no obligation to pay for playing those recordings. Because of
this loophole, they have been deducting money for the pro-rata
share of performances from those recordings every year from
payments made to Sound Exchange, the record labels and performers.
Copyright holders, like the Turtles in their class-action suit,
argue that while there is no Federal law for pre-1972 recordings,
they are protected by state law, which is why so far suits have
been filed against SiriusXM in those three states.

After the Turtles class-action lawsuit prevailed in California,
Sirius agreed to a settlement with the major labels and ABKCO to
the tune of $210 million in June 2015. So, while the majors gained
a windfall, the Turtles class action lawsuit still had to slug it
out in court, until it finally scored the settlement in December.
Even with that outcome, the suits continue because the settlement
merely acts as insurance, capping out what Sirius could pay if it
loses, while guaranteeing at least some kind of payment for
members of the Turtles class-action suit.

The amicus filing says that record labels and performer
organizations have "deep misgivings about the prospective relief
embedded in the Turtles settlement, including the assertion that
it identifies a 'market rate,'" which could be used as evidence in
future rate proceedings.

The RIAA, SoundExchange, A2IM and the other organizations argue
that the settlement "would impose a steep discount from the rate
that Sirius XM pays for federally protected recordings -- i.e.,
those made after 1972 when the master recording copyright was
created."

Sirius pays 11 percent of gross revenue, while the settlement
calls for the class to receive its pro-rata share of 5.5 percent
of revenue, or half the going rate paid this year.The Copyright
Royalty Board is currently holding rate court proceedings to
determine what the rate should be for the 2018-2022 period.
SoundExchange has proposed a rate of 23 percent of revenue, while
Sirius initially proposed a rate of 8.1-11 percent, or in other
words, a rate reduction. In December, major labels executives told
Billboard they fear that Sirius will use the settlement market
rate to their benefit in the CRB proceeding and thus win a lower
rate than the radio service is currently paying.

Now, sources say SiriusXM is trying to use this market rate to
receive a more favorable royalty rate in the CRB proceeding. They
also argue the court should not endorse the settlement as a
"market" rate -- one struck between a willing buyer and willing
seller.

The rate set forth in the agreement calls for 5.5 percent on a
going forward basis and has a mechanism to be further discounted
based on whether the Turtles class action wins appeals in all
three states where the litigation was ongoing. The rate declines
by 2 percent if the Turtles lose in New York, which they just did;
and another 1.5 percent if they lose the appeal in Florida. So
with the New York loss, the going forward rate now stands at 3.5
percent.

While major label executives were immediately wary of the rate-
setting mechanism in the settlement, one executive on the Turtles'
side of the class action said that their concerns are misplaced.
That executive argued that the 5.5 percent rate covers three
states with 13 percent of Sirius listeners. If that rate was
extrapolated out across all 50 states, it implies a rate of 38.5
percent of revenue.

The amicus filing argues that if the class actions constitute 5
percent of SiriusXM sound recording performances, in terms of
gross revenues, the payout would equal less than three-tenths of
one percent of SiriusXM's gross revenues, which would further be
discounted by the deduction of attorney fees awarded to class
counsel, Gradstein & Marzano.

This is not a market rate, but well below it, according to the
filing.

The amicus says that the class action plaintiffs no doubt agreed
to settle at reduced rates due to the costly and uncertain
prospects of multiple state court litigation, not because those
rates reflect what would happen in the marketplace.

Most direct licenses are for a few years, while the CRB
proceedings occur every five years. "Simply put a license spanning
10 years is inconceivable as the product of a transaction between
a willing buyer and willing seller." That provision basically
saddles "a class of copyright owners with what amounts to a 10-
year compulsory license," the filing states.

The filing argues that the settlement uses the class action
mechanism to put in place what is fundamentally a policy solution
to an industry-wide problem, not a solution appropriate for
judicial adoption.

While members of the class-action suit can opt out, they probably
are focusing on the payday instead of the long-term implications
of the deal, according to the filing. But it's possible they
aren't considering that the settlement provides SiriusXM with
ammunition to possibly secure lower rates in future proceeding,
which will harm copyright owners and performers outside the class.

That's why, they argue, the settlement should not be approved
without changes to address these deficiencies


SKYC MANAGEMENT: "Luna" Sues Over Rent Stabilization Law Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
ENRIQUETA LUNA, DESMOND HILL, JOSE L.S. GARCIA and STACEY SANCHEZ
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SKYC MANAGEMENT LLC a/k/a GREISMAN MANAGEMENT and
a/k/a B. GREISMAN REALTY, 161 HOLDING LTD, POST LLC, ABBY
ASSOCIATES, 2275 HOLDING LTD, 22 HOLDING CORP., CHAMA HOLDING
CORP., 346 HOLDING CORF., STEB REALTY CORP., 674 HOLDING LTD, 666
HOLDING LLC, 116 WEST CORP., DBPB HOLDING CORP., HELBOR REALTY
CORP., BRAGREIS REALTY CORP., S&S GROUP HOLDINGS, LLC, BRONX RIVER
ASSOC. LLC, WALTON AVENUE REALTY ASSOC LLC, TOWNSEND AVENUE REALTY
LLC, 1820 HOLDING LTD., HENNESSY REALTY LLC, GLEASON LLC, 2246
HOLDING CORP., 2188 REALTY LTD, 2195 GRAND CONCOURSE REALTY LLC;
2472 WEBSTER REALTY LLC, 2281-85 REALTY LLC, 2395-97 REALTY LLC,
UNIVERSITY REALTY HOLDINGS LLC, 2522 REALTY LLC, and HEIGHTS
REALTY CO. LLC., Defendants, INDEX NO. 151905/2017 (N.Y. Sup.,
County of New York, February 27, 2017), alleges that Defendants
unlawfully, willfully and pervasively (1) charged and held
security deposits in excess of one month's rent in blatant
disregard of rent stabilization laws, (2) commingled security
deposits with nonsecurity funds, and (3) charged "key money"
(i.e., committing the crime known as rent gouging) as a condition
to entering into a lease with new tenants.

Defendants have approximately 1,872 total apartment units in the
buildings that serve as residences for largely low income,
immigrant families.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Marc A. Rapaport, Esq.
     RAPAPORT LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Penn Plaza, Suite 2430
     New York, NY 10119
     Phone: (212) 382-1600
     Fax: (212) 382-0920
     E-mail: mrapaport@rapaportlaw.com


SOLAR BEAR: Class of Installers Certified in "Izquidero" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Darrin P. Gayles granted in part the Plaintiff's motion
to authorize notice to potential class members submitted in the
lawsuit titled ALEYMER IZQUIDERO, on behalf of himself and all
employees similarly situated v. SOLAR BEAR SERVICES, INC., Case
No. 1:16-cv-22790-DPG (S.D. Fla.).

Judge Gayles granted the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class
certification for "[a]ll current and former Solar Bear Air
Conditioning Installers and Installation Helpers who worked at the
company's Miami, Florida locations: 2013 NW 84th Avenue, Doral,
Florida 33122 or 10125 NW 116th Way, Suite 10, Medley, Florida
33178 for any length of time since June 28, 2013."

Aleymer Izquierdo brought the action against the Defendant for
alleged failure to compensate him and similarly situated
employees' overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Judge Gayles also approved the Plaintiff's revised proposed
notice.  Judge Gayles ruled that within 5 days of the date of the
Order, the Plaintiff shall file a proposed amended consent form,
and within 15 days, the Defendant will provide the contact
information of its air conditioning installers and installation
helpers, who worked for it since June 28, 2013.  The Defendant is
not required to provide the dates of birth of the employees nor is
Defendant required to provide this information in the form of an
excel spreadsheet.

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


SPARTAN TECHNOLOGIES: "Williams" Seeks to Recoup Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Williams, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Spartan Technologies, LLC, a Foreign For
Profit Corporation, and Intec Communications, LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00132-CWR-FKB (S.D. Miss., February 27, 2017),
seeks to recover from Defendants overtime compensation under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant is a business and technology consulting firm that
focuses on architecting business solutions providing IT staffing
and digital services.  Plaintiff is a cable technician.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher W. Espy, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, PLLC
     4450 Old Canton Road, Suite 200
     Jackson, MI 39211
     Phone: 601 718 2087
     Fax: 601 718 2102
     E-mail: CEspy@forthepeople.com


ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY: Bobo's Drugs Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled BOBO'S DRUGS, INC. d/b/a DAVIS
ISLANDS PHARMACY, a Florida corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. ST.
JOHN'S UNIVERSITY and GETAWAY SEMINARS, INC., Case No. 8:17-cv-
00372-VMC-AEP (M.D. Fla.), moves for entry of an order certifying
this class:

     Each person sent one or more telephone facsimile messages
     from "St. John's University & Getaway Seminars" on or after
     February 26, 2013 promoting continuing education vacation
     seminars but did not state on its first page that the fax
     recipient may request that the sender not send any future
     fax and that its failure to comply with such a request
     within 30 days would be unlawful.

The case involves common fact questions about the Defendants' fax
campaign and common legal questions under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, the Plaintiff asserts.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fs6mhWzq

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. LaSalle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          P.O. Box 416474
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: 312-658-5500
          Facsimile: 312-658-5555
          E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com


STILLWATER MINING: Faces "Rempel" Suit Over Sibanye Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN REMPEL, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. STILLWATER MINING COMPANY,
BRIAN D. SCHWEITZER, MICHAEL J. MCMULLEN, MICHAEL S. PARRETT,
GARY A. SUGAR, GEORGE M. BEE, PATRICIA E. MERRIN, and LAWRENCE
PETER O'HAGAN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00400 (D. Colo.,
Feb. 15, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants from taking any steps
to consummate a proposed transaction or, in the event the proposed
transaction is consummated, recover damages resulting from the
Defendants' violations of the Securities and Exchange Act.

The case is a stockholder class action brought by Plaintiff on
behalf of himself and the other public stockholders of Stillwater
Mining Company against the Defendants in connection with the
December 9, 2016 entry by Stillwater into a definitive merger
agreement (Merger Agreement) with Sibanye Gold Limited (Parent),
Thor US Holdco Inc., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of
Sibanye (US Holdco), and Thor Mergco Inc., a direct wholly owned
subsidiary of US Holdco, pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge
with and into Stillwater, with Stillwater surviving as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Parent (Proposed Transaction).

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Stillwater
shareholders will receive $18.00 for each share of Stillwater that
they own (Merger Consideration). This Merger Consideration is
inadequate and undervalues the Company, says the complaint. It
fails to adequately value the Company's recent financial
performance and is well below analyst estimates, the Plaintiff
relates.

According to the complaint, the Proposed Transaction is further
marred by a flawed process and conflicts of interest, not the
least of which is that some of the directors will receive windfall
profits not shared by non-insider shareholders. To secure these
benefits, the Director Defendants further exacerbated their
breaches of fiduciary duty by agreeing to certain deal protection
devices in the Merger Agreement that will prevent other bidders
from making successful competing offers.

Stillwater Mining Company is a palladium and platinum mining
company with headquarters located at Littleton, Colorado, United
States. It is the only palladium and platinum producer in the USA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
          206 Covington Street
          Madisonville, LA 70447
          Telephone: (504) 455 1400
          Facsimile: (504) 455 1498
          E-mail: Michael.Palestina@ksfcounsel.com


STRAWBERRY PATCH: Faces "Harshbarger" Suit Under Cal. Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAM HARSHBARGER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STRAWBERRY PATCH, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. BC 651593 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles), alleges that
Plaintiff Worked more than eight hours in any given day and more
than 40 hours in any given week; did not receive rest or meal
periods; was not properly paid for time worked, did not received
overtime compensation, did not receive rest/meal period premiums,
and did not receive accurate itemized wage statements; and, when
terminated from his employment, he did not receive his final
paycheck within the time limits prescribed by the California Labor
Code.

The Defendants is a restaurant/bar where Plaintiff was employed as
an hourly paid employee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey K. Compton, Esq.
     Mark A. Ozzello, Esq.
     Ari Y. Basser (SBN 272618)
     MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE & COMPTON LLP
     17383 Sunset Boulevard, Suite A-380
     Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
     Phone: (310) 454-5900
     Fax: (310)454-5970
     E-mail: icompton@mzclaw.com
             mozzello@mzclaw.com
             abasser@mzclaw.com


SWEDISH MEDICAL: Class Action Adds PreCheck Inc. as Defendant
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kieran Nicholson at The Denver Post reports that a class action
lawsuit brought against Swedish Medical Center saying it was
negligent in hiring a surgical technologist who stole drugs and
exposed patients to HIV, hepatitis B and C has added the company
that performed Rocky Allen's background check for the hospital.

Court documents show PreCheck Inc., a Texas corporation, has been
added to the suit, according to court documents.

Swedish and HealthONE of Denver Inc. recently disclosed that
PreCheck performed the background hiring check on Allen, who was
sentenced in November to 6-1/2 years in prison by a federal judge.

A class-action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Denver
court alleges patients were exposed to HIV, hepatitis B or
hepatitis C, in part, due to the hospital's negligence in hiring
Allen.

The Englewood hospital fired Allen, who has since been convicted
in federal court for stealing a syringe filled with fentanyl from
an operating room.

Court records show that by the time Swedish hired him, Allen had
been fired from four other hospitals and also had been court-
martialed in 2011, when he was serving with the Navy in
Afghanistan, for the theft of fentanyl.

"By the time Allen appeared on the doorstep of SMC in August 2015
looking for a job as a surgical technician, all the warning signs
of what would later occur at SMC were present," the lawsuit
states. "Allen already had been terminated by numerous other
hospitals for the exact conduct that has now exposed thousands of
SMC patients at an increased risk of bloodborne pathogens."

The lawsuit names three plaintiffs, Angelica Porras, Catherine
Pecha and Gary Wolter, but sought class-action status for all
individuals who had surgery at Swedish between Aug. 17, 2015, and
Jan. 22, 2016. The plaintiffs seek economic and compensatory
damages.

The hospital offered free blood tests to 2,900 patients.

Each of the three named plaintiffs has received negative test
results for the three viruses, the lawsuit states. But all three
were told that despite those test results, they remain at risk and
should pursue continued blood testing, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims the hospital negligently hired Allen,
negligently inflicted emotional distress and failed to properly
supervise Allen after hiring him.

Named as defendants are Swedish and its parent companies, Hospital
Corp. of America and HealthONE of Denver. The lawsuit states that
another HealthONE hospital, Rose Medical Center, had another drug-
theft scandal.

In February, Allen received an additional year on his prison
sentence for breaking a judge's trust when he took a vacation with
family while on his way to an Oregon prison to serve his sentence.


TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Feller Seeks to Certify Class of Policyholders
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned GORDON AND MARY FELLER, et
al. v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:16-cv-
01378-CAS-AJW (C.D. Cal.), move for provisional certification of
this class:

     All persons who own an in-force Policy for which the Monthly
     Deduction Rate increases imposed by Transamerica beginning
     August 1, 2015, has resulted or will result in higher
     Monthly Deduction charges than those applicable under the
     rate schedule in effect before that date.

The Plaintiffs also move for the appointment of Donna M. White as
the sole class representative of the provisional class and for the
appointment of Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC, Kozyak
Tropin & Throckmorton, LLP, and Consumer Watchdog as class counsel
for the provisional class.

Should the Court grant the their previously filed renewed
application for preliminary injunction, the Plaintiffs also ask
the Court to order that notice be provided to the provisional
class members informing them of the terms of the preliminary
injunction and the Court's decision to grant provisional class
certification.  The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court order
Transamerica Life Insurance Company to bear the cost of issuing
notice to the provisional class.

The Court will commence a hearing on March 27, 2017, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=P1gZ2F9j

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
          Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq.
          BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC
          2325 East Camelback Road, Suite 300
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 274-1100
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com
                  fbalint@bffb.com

               - and -

          Harvey Rosenfield, Esq.
          Jerry Flanagan, Esq.
          CONSUMER WATCHDOG
          2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 112
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (310) 392-0522
          Facsimile: (310) 392-8874
          E-mail: Harvey@consumerwatchdog.org
                  jerry@consumerwatchdog.org

               - and -

          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          Gail M. McQuilkin, Esq.
          Robert J. Neary, Esq.
          Rachel Sullivan, Esq.
          Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 372-1800
          Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
          E-mail: amm@kttlaw.com
                  gam@kttlaw.com
                  rn@kttlaw.com
                  rs@kttlaw.com
                  tjl@kttlaw.com

               - and -

          William M. Shernoff, Esq.
          Travis M. Corby, Esq.
          SHERNOFF BIDART ECHEVERRIA BENTLEY LLP
          301 N. Canon Drive, Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 246-0503
          Facsimile: (310) 246-0380
          E-mail: wshernoff@shernoff.com
                  tcorby@shernoff.com

               - and -

          Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
          Mark R. Rosen, Esq.
          Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          One America Plaza
          600 West Broadway, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230-0800
          Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
          E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
                  sward@barrack.com
                  mrosen@barrack.com

               - and -

          John G. Emerson, Esq.
          EMERSON SCOTT, LLP
          830 Apollo Lane
          Houston, TX 77058
          Telephone: (281) 488-8854
          Facsimile: (281) 488-8867
          E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com

               - and -

          David G. Scott, Esq.
          EMERSON SCOTT, LLP
          The Rozelle-Murphy House
          1301 Scott Street
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 907-2555
          Facsimile: (501) 907-2556
          E-mail: dscott@emersonfirm.com

               - and -

          Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
          JOHNSON VINES PLLC
          2226 Cottondale Lane, Suite 210
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 372-1300
          Facsimile: (888) 505-0909
          E-mail: cjennings@johnsonvines.com

               - and -

          James R. Patterson, Esq.
          Allison H. Goddard, Esq.
          Catherine S. Wicker, Esq.
          PATTERSON LAW GROUP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6990
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com
                  ali@pattersonlawgroup.com
                  catherine@pattersonlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Lance A. Harke, Esq.
          Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
          HARKE CLASBY & BUSHMAN LLP
          9699 NE Second Avenue
          Miami Shores, FL 33138
          Telephone: (305) 536-8220
          Facsimile: (305) 536-8229
          E-mail: lharke@harkeclasby.com
                  hbushman@harkeclasby.com

               - and -

          Chip Merlin, Esq.
          MERLIN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          777 S. Harbour Island Blvd., Suite 950
          Tampa, FL
          Telephone: (813) 229-1000
          E-mail: cmerlin@merlinlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Denise H. Sze, Esq.
          MERLIN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1800 Century Park East, Suite 600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 229-5961
          Facsimile: (310) 229-5763
          E-mail: deniseszelaw@gmail.com

               - and -

          Jack Scarola, Esq.
          SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY PA
          2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
          West Palm Beach, FL 33409
          Telephone: (561) 686-6300
          Facsimile: (561) 383-9451
          E-mail: jsx@searcylaw.com


TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL: Faces "Sackin" Suit Over 2016 Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
JESSE SACKIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01469 (S.D.N.Y., February 27, 2017), alleges that
Defendant betrayed Plaintiff's trust by failing to properly
safeguard and protect his personally identifiable information
(PII) and by disclosing his PII to cybercriminals.  This case
seeks redress for TransPerfect's alleged unlawful and negligent
disclosure of thousands of Employees' PII in a massive data breach
on January 17, 2016, in violation of common law.

TRANSPERFECT GLOBAL, INC. -- http://www.transperfect.com--
provides services including translation, interpretation, website
globalization, subtitling, voiceovers, marketing, deposition, and
litigation support services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
     Todd S. Garber, Esq.
     John D. Sardesai-Grant, Esq.
     Difie M. Osborne, Esq.
     FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
     445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605
     White Plains, NY 10601
     Phone: (914) 298-3281
     Fax: (914) 824-1561
     E-mail: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com
             tgarber@fbfglaw.com
             jsardesaigrant@fbfglaw.com
             dosborne@fbfglaw.com


TRIDENT SEAFOODS: "Guzman" Asserts Food Supplement Mislabeling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ricarlos Guzman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Trident Seafoods Corporation and COSTCO
Wholesale Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01102, (E.D.
N.Y., February 27, 2017), seeks restitution, disgorgement, refund,
and/or other monetary damages, together with costs and
disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to
the applicable statutes and prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, injunctive relief and statutory or actual damages
pursuant to New York General Business Law, punitive damages and
such further relief resulting from unjust enrichment, breach of
implied and express warranty and violation of various state
consumer protection statutes.

Trident Seafoods Corporation and Costco Wholesale Corporation
advertise, market, sell and distribute Wild Alaskan Fish Oil in
400 mg soft gel capsules. According to the product label, it
contains Omega 11 fatty acids despite the lack of scientific
literature that this is even present in fish oils.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael J. Gabrielli, Esq.
     GABRIELLI LEVITT
     2426 Eastchester Road, Suite 103
     Bronx, NY 10469
     Telephone: (718) 708-5322
     Fax: (718) 708-5966


UFC: MMA Fighters File Class Action Over Sherman Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Gyetvan, Jonathan Hatch at JD Supra Business Advisor
reports that "we have not previously reported on an antitrust
litigation that is enveloping the mixed martial arts ("MMA")
world.  Six current and former MMA fighters have filed a class
action lawsuit against the company that owns the UFC, Zuffa, LLC,
for violations of the Sherman Act.  A review of the docket
indicates that the UFC will have to go a few more rounds before it
has another opportunity for a knockout."

The putative class plaintiffs allege that the UFC has monopoly or
monopsony power in two markets: (a) the market for promotion of
live MMA bouts, and (b) the market for professional MMA fighting
services  The plaintiffs claim that the UFC receives 90% of the
revenues from MMA bout promotion and that MMA fighters do not have
the ability to work for MMA promoters other than the UFC.

The plaintiffs' claims regarding the UFC's allegedly
anticompetitive scheme partly rely on the fighters' exclusive-
dealing contracts with the UFC, which include: (1) a champion's
clause that allows the UFC to extend a fighter's contract when he
or she is a champion (and most marketable), (2) an ancillary
rights clause which grants the UFC the fighters' exclusive and
perpetual worldwide personality and identity rights for all
commercial purposes, (3) a promotions clause which requires the
fighters to promote bouts for no additional compensation, and (4)
a sponsorship and endorsement clause which grants the UFC the sole
discretion to approve a fighter's sponsorship and endorsement
deals.  The plaintiffs also claim that the UFC has retaliated
against fighters who work or threaten to work for other promoters
and against fighters who have refused the UFC's contractual terms.

The Amended Complaint also attributes statements to Zuffa's owners
and officers as evidence of anticompetitive intent.  The
plaintiffs allege, for example, that Zuffa's president boasted:
"There is no competition.  We're the NFL.  You don't see people
looking at the NFL and going, 'Yeah, but he's not the best player
in the world because there's a guy playing for the Canadian
Football League or the Arena League over here.' We're the NFL.
There is no other guy." (emphasis in original).  The president
also allegedly posted a video to YouTube that showed a tombstone
which listed the dates of death for other MMA promoters.  After
reading the other promoters' names, the president allegedly
referred to himself as the grim reaper.

In February 2015, the defendant moved to dismiss the pleading on
Twombly grounds.  Zuffa's primary argument was that  the
plaintiffs had failed to plausibly allege that its exclusive
dealing agreements with fighters were anticompetitive.  At a
September 2015 hearing, the court issued an oral decision denying
Zuffa's motion.

Since the court's ruling, the parties have been engaged in wide-
ranging discovery.  A review of the court's discovery rulings
indicates that Zuffa must produce documents from at least 22
custodians and must  respond to 25 interrogatories.  The court
also increased the number of depositions available under the
Federal Rules to 45 per side.

More recently, a third party has challenged the expansive nature
of the discovery sought in the Zuffa litigation.  On February 22,
2017, Bellator Sport Worldwide, LLC, a rival MMA promotion
company, filed a motion to quash subpoenas served by the
plaintiffs and Zuffa.  Bellator claims that while it has produced
thousands of pages of documents in response to the subpoenas, it
objects to producing documents concerning its contracts and
negotiations as well as its revenues and expenses.  Bellator
objects to producing these confidential materials to its rival and
to the athletes with whom it negotiates.  Bellator's motion to
quash has not yet been fully briefed.


UNDER ARMOUR: Bloated Stock Price Hit in "Hopkins" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Jodie Hopkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Under Armour, Inc., Kevin A. Plank and
Lawrence P. Molloy, Case No. 1:17-cv-00452, (D. Md., February 16,
2017), seeks damages, including interest, reasonable costs and
attorneys' fees and such equitable/injunctive or other relief
under the Securities and Exchange Act.

Under Armour is engaged in the manufacturing, development,
marketing and distribution of sportswear, performance and casual
apparel, footwear and accessories. Under Armour is headquartered
in Baltimore, Maryland.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose 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 bankruptcy of The Sports
Authority, one of its major retailers.

Plaintiff claims to have purchased Under Armour stock at
artificially inflated prices.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      Hui M. Chang, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             ahood@pomlaw.com
             hchang@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

             - and -

      Steven J. Toll, Esq.
      Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
      Adam H. Farra, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Fifth Floor
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 408-3640
      Facsimile: (202)408-4699
      Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
             dsommers@cohenmilstein.com
             afarra@cohenmilstein.com

             - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
      Email: peretz@bgandg.com


UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Allows Trump Travel Ban Case to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal appeals
court has rejected the Trump administration's bid to freeze
proceedings over its controversial travel ban while the White
House lays plans to issue a new one.

In a one-page order Feb. 27, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit denied the administration's motion to hold
the case in abeyance pending a "substantially revised" executive
order.

The panel also extended by one week the briefing schedule in the
government's appeal of a Seattle judge's order temporarily
blocking the travel ban.  The government's opening brief is due
March 10.

The decision keeps the ball rolling in the Ninth Circuit after it
issued an initial per curiam opinion early in February denying an
emergency stay of U.S. District Judge James Robart's order.  The
ban restricts inbound travel by citizens of seven predominantly
Muslim nations.

The state attorneys general of Washington and Minnesota, which
launched the suit, had opposed the administration's effort to
freeze the case.  They noted that the White House has said it will
not rescind the order and has given no timeline for when it plans
to release the new one.

In their brief, the states also pointed out White House spokesman
Sean Spicer has said the administration plans to fight the Seattle
judge's restraining order "on both fronts, making sure that we
keep evolving through the court system" while drafting a new
executive order.

        Justice Dep't Wants Travel Ban Appeal Dismissed

Martha Bellisle, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
the U.S. Justice Department wants to dismiss its appeal of a
federal judge's ruling that temporarily blocked President Donald
Trump's initial travel ban.

The agency filed a motion on March 7 with the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals a day after Trump signed a revised ban, which
goes into effect March 16.  The government agreed to pay the costs
of the case and said Washington state and Minnesota, who sued over
the original executive order, agreed to the motion.

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said in an email that the
move confirms his position that the original ban signed in late
January was unconstitutional.  He said a day earlier that his
office was reviewing the new version to determine whether to
oppose it.

The new ban is narrower and seeks to ease concerns about violating
the due process rights of travelers from six predominantly Muslim
nations.

It temporarily bars new visas for citizens of Somalia, Iran,
Syria, Sudan, Libya and Yemen and suspends the U.S. refugee
program for 120 days.  Iraq was dropped from the list of
countries.

Trump officials say their goal is the same: to keep would-be
terrorists out of the United States while the government reviews
how refugees and visa applicants from certain parts of the world
are vetted.

Washington and Minnesota argued in their lawsuit that the original
ban illegally targeted people on the basis of religion. U.S.
District Judge James Robart in Seattle put it on hold while the
case moved forward.

The Justice Department appealed to the 9th Circuit, where a three-
judge panel denied a request to reinstate the ban.  The
government's opening brief in its appeal was due on March 3.

The appeals court was evaluating the new order's effect on the
existing case, a spokesman said on March 6.  The Justice
Department filed papers that day in federal court in Seattle
arguing that the restraining order should not block the new ban
from taking effect.

In the March 6 motion before the original judge, the government
said it followed the 9th Circuit's ruling and guidance to
"substantially" revise the immigration order.


UNITED STATES: Justice Dept Granted 2-Week Extension for Response
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Baumann at WMCA Action News reports that a federal judge in
Seattle on March 3 granted a two-week extension to the Justice
Department in a lawsuit alleging that President Donald Trump's
immigration order is blocking efforts by legal residents to
reunite with their children who are trapped in war-torn countries.

U.S. District Judge James Robart, who halted enforcement of
Trump's immigration order nationwide in February in a separate
case brought by the states of Washington and Minnesota, said in
his order that the federal government could have more time before
responding to plaintiff's efforts to have the case certified as a
class-action lawsuit.

The Justice Department argued that Trump intends to rescind the
order and replace it with a new, substantially revised executive
order that may "influence the shape of the legal issues ... in
ways relevant to the class certification question."

After being repeatedly postponed, a White House official said a
replacement order now won't be unveiled until at a later date.

Robart also said he understood the frustrations of the parents and
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, who filed the lawsuit, over
Trump administration statements that seemingly contradict those
made by federal government lawyers.

"The court understands Plaintiffs' frustrations concerning
statements emanating from President Trump's administration that
seemingly contradict representations of the federal government's
lawyers in this and other litigation before the court," the order
said.

Nevertheless, Robart said, the court will continue to rely on
statements coming from the federal attorneys.

The lawsuit filed in Seattle's U.S. District Court in late January
claims Trump's order barring people from seven predominantly
Muslim countries from entering the U.S. is unconstitutional. It
asked for a judge to intervene and stop the application of the
part of the order that suspends visas to citizens of those seven
countries.

Juweiya Abdiaziz Ali, one of the plaintiffs, is a U.S. citizen
living in Seattle who started the process in August of bringing
her son from Somalia. But Trump's order has her worried that her
son's visa process will be indefinitely suspended, she said.

Like thousands of others, those named in the lawsuit pursued the
immigrant visa process that includes hundreds of dollars in filing
fees, security screenings, medical examinations and interviews,
Matt Adams, the group's legal director said previously.

The Trump administration has defended the order, saying more
restrictions are needed to protect the U.S. from future terrorist
attacks.

The new deadline for federal government attorneys to respond to
the motion is March 20.


UNITED STATES: ABA Sues Over Reduced Annual Dividend
----------------------------------------------------
AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION; and WASHINGTON FEDERAL, N.A.,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-00194-SGB (U.S. Ct. of Federal Claims, Feb. 9, 2017),
seeks judgment that Defendant has breached its contracts with
Washington Federal and other member bank stockholders; taken the
stockholders' property within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment
to the United States Constitution; and breached its implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  The lawsuit seeks
judgment awarding Plaintiffs and all Class members their full and
reasonable damages; judgment awarding Plaintiffs and all Class
members their full and just compensation; accounting for damages
suffered by Plaintiffs and all Class members and judgment
requiring Defendant to compensate Plaintiffs and all Class members
for such damages; judgment declaring that each failure by
Defendant to pay dividends at a rate of six percent shall
constitute a breach of contract; and award of any pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees to
which Plaintiffs may be entitled.

The case is of national importance involving agreements that are
central to the nation's banking system. In a classic bait-and-
switch, the United States Government broke its promise to pay all
banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System a fixed
annual dividend of six percent on stock purchased in one of twelve
regional Federal Reserve Banks, says the complaint. That six
percent dividend had been guaranteed to member bank stockholders
since the Federal Reserve Act was enacted in 1913, and it is
memorialized in contracts between the Federal Reserve Banks and
their member bank stockholders. For more than a century, the
promise of a six percent dividend had induced banks to join -- and
to remain part of -- the Federal Reserve System, notes the
complaint. By reneging on that promise and failing to pay all
member bank stockholders a six percent annual dividend, the
Government either breached its contracts with those banks or
failed to pay just compensation for a Fifth Amendment taking.

According to the complaint, the Government's failure to pay just
compensation for the reduction in Federal Reserve Bank dividends
has a significant adverse economic impact on Washington Federal
and other member bank stockholders.  The Government used the
proceeds from the reduction in Federal Reserve Bank dividends to
pay for public transportation infrastructure projects that have no
relation to the Federal Reserve System and could not have been
reasonably foreseen by Washington Federal and other member bank
stockholders when they invested capital in Federal Reserve Bank
stock and the Federal Reserve Banks agreed to pay a six percent
dividend.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett A. Shumate, Esq.
          1776 K Street N.W.
          WILEY REIN LLP
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 719 7000
          Facsimile: (202) 719 7049
          E-mail: bshumate@wileyrein.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Toner, Esq.
          Jon W. Burd, Esq.
          Stephen J. Obermeier, Esq.
          Ari Meltzer, Esq.
          Daniel P. Brooks, Esq.
          Stephen J. Kenny, Esq.
          1776 K Street N.W.
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 719 7000
          Facsimile: (202) 719 7049


UNIVERSITY OF IOWA: Decides Not to Eliminate Scholarships
---------------------------------------------------------
Nonparei Online reports that on March 1, the University of Iowa --
having endured the threat of lawsuits and days of criticism from
students and their parents -- backed off a plan to eliminate
scholarships promised to thousands of current and incoming
students.

It was a wise decision.

Students had filed two proposed class-action lawsuits claiming
that the university's cuts violated their constitutional rights
and amounted to a breach of contract.

UI President Bruce Harreld announced that he had reinstated the
Iowa Heritage Award and four other smaller scholarship programs
previously promised to current students and those who start next
fall.

Harreld informed 3,071 students that he was eliminating their
awards, citing "devastating" funding cuts approved by lawmakers
and Gov. Terry Branstad to help balance the state budget. It was a
decision met with criticism from lawmakers, who accused the
university of playing politics, and from parents, alumni and
students.

While the criticism from parents, alumni and students was to be
expected, the accusations from lawmakers that the university was
"playing politics" was, in our view, hypocritical.

The Heritage scholarships, created in 2014 to recruit more
students to Iowa, promised an automatic $1,500 annual tuition
discount to the children and grandchildren of alumni for four
years of undergraduate studies. Many students said they came to
Iowa instead of other schools due to the awards, which only
required they keep a 2.0 grade point average.

Harreld said he heard concerns from many students and parents who
feared financial hardships if the scholarships were eliminated,
even though they were not need-based. He said continuing them
won't be easy while absorbing a $9.2 million funding cut. He added
that he would work with state leaders "to establish predictable
tuition revenue increases and state support moving forward."

Harreld said the programs would be eliminated for new students
beginning in 2018, and the university would prioritize other need-
based and merit-based awards.

The university will now look for other ways to find $4.4 million
in savings that the scholarship cuts would have generated, school
spokeswoman Jeneane Beck said.

Outgoing Board of Regents President Bruce Rastetter said
reinstating the scholarships "places the University of Iowa in a
very difficult financial situation." He warned that the board
would bring the university's below-average tuition rates "in line
with its national peer group" if lawmakers do not adequately
invest in the university, which is starting a five-year strategic
plan. That could mean major hikes in coming years.

Iowa's tuition and mandatory fees for in-state students currently
rank at the bottom of an 11-member group of universities that it
considers peers: $8,575 this academic year compared to an average
of $11,581.

The creation of the now-troublesome four-year Heritage
scholarships to recruit the children and grandchildren of alumni
regardless of need was ill-conceived from the outset, but promises
made are promises that should be kept.


VCA INC: Hight Sues Over Proposed Sale to MMI Holdings
------------------------------------------------------
KAREN HIGHT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. VCA INC., ROBERT L. ANTIN, JOHN
M. BAUMER, JOHN B. CHICKERING, JR., JOHN HEIL, FRANK REDDICK,
MMI HOLDINGS, INC., VENICE MERGER SUB INC., and MARS,
INCORPORATED, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00289-JGB-SP (C.D.
Cal., Feb. 15, 2017), seeks to preliminarily and permanently
enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing a proposed transaction.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on January
9, 2017 (Proposed Transaction), pursuant to which VCA Inc. will be
acquired by MMI Holdings, Inc. On January 7, 2017, VCA's Board of
Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan
of merger (Merger Agreement) with Mars. Pursuant to the terms of
the Merger Agreement, shareholders of VCA will receive $93.00 in
cash for each share of VCA common stock. On February 3, 2017,
defendants filed a proxy statement (Proxy Statement) with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy Statement omits material
information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which
renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading.

The Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
the Proxy Statement.

VCA is an animal healthcare company operating in the United States
and Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel E. Elkins, Esq.
          WEISSLAW LLP
          9107 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 450
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 208 2800
          Facsimile: (310) 209 2348
          E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com

               - and -

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295 5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654 7530


WALMART DE MEXICO: NY Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Fogel" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the case captioned MICHAEL FOGEL, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART DE
MEXICO SAB de CV, ERNESTO VEGA, SCOT RANK, and WAL-MART STORES,
INC., Defendants, No. 13 Civ. 2282 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.).

Walmart de Mexico SAB de CV or Wal-Mex owns and operates a network
of retail stores in Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras,
Nicaragua, and Costa Rica. Wal-Mex is a subsidiary of Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. More specifically, it is a subsidiary of Wal-Mart
International, one of Wal-Mart's three divisions.

Ernesto Vega, and Scot Rank are employees of Mal-Mex, who has held
a variety of executive positions at the company.

On April 21, 2012, the New York Times published an article by
David Barstow titled, Wal-Mart Hushed Up a Vast Mexican Bribery
Case. The Times Article exposed an internal investigation of
alleged bribery at Wal-Mex that was conducted by Wal-Mart in 2005
and 2006.

Lead Plaintiff Michael Fogel is a holder of Wal-Mex American
Depository Shares or ADRs that he purchased on March 7, 2012;
March 26, 2012; and April 17, 2012. Fogel alleges that Wal-Mex,
Ernesto Vega, Scot Rank, and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, in public statements that
were issued as late as 2012.

The lawsuit was originally filed against Vega and Wal-Mex but on
December 8, 2014, plaintiff filed his first amended complaint,
bringing for the first time claims against Wal-Mart and Rank, in
addition to the claims brought in plaintiff's original complaint.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss to which the court without
prejudice to its renewal and set a schedule for defendants to file
their renewed motion.

Defendants filed their second motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint on February 5, 2016. . In lieu of his opposition,
plaintiff requested leave to file a second amended complaint on
April 4, 2016, which request defendants did not oppose.  The court
ordered that the pending motion to dismiss be withdrawn, and
granted plaintiff leave to file the second amended complaint.

Plaintiff claims in the second amended complaint that Wal-Mart's
December 2011 Form 10-Q was materially misleading, that Wal-Mex
failed to correct the misrepresentations at Wal-Mart's behest; and
that Wal-Mex and Vega misled ADR purchasers in the Wal-Mex press
releases and in Audit & Corporate Practice Group reports published
in December 2011, and January, February, March, and April 2012. In
contrast, plaintiff's original complaint identifies defendants'
materially false and misleading statements as being found on the
Wal-Mex website and in the company's 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008,
2009, 2010, and 2011 Annual Reports, the alleged falsity of which
was revealed by the New York Times on April 22, 2012.

Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's second amended complaint
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim. Plaintiff has cross-moved to strike the
three appendices attached to defendants' motion. Plaintiff also
requests leave to amend the second amended complaint and file a
third amended complaint rectifying its deficiencies.

Judge Failla observed that plaintiff has taken advantage of two
separate opportunities to replead his complaint in response to
contemplated dispositive motions from defendants. And, indeed, the
size of the operative pleading has jumped from approximately 23
pages and 61 paragraphs to 128 pages and 289 paragraphs, exclusive
of the many exhibits. The court has carefully considered
plaintiff's second amended complaint, but concludes that the
additional text has not remedied the many pleading deficiencies
identified by defendants. Defendants' motion is granted and
plaintiff's motion is denied.

The court finds that further amendment would be futile,
plaintiff's request is denied.

A copy of Judge Failla's order dated February 27, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/6NVvKH from Leagle.com.

Michael Fogel, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Gregory M. Egleston
-- gegleston@gme-law.com -- Thomas James McKenna -- tjmckenna@gme-
law.com -- at Gainey McKenna & Egleston

Claudia S. Egleston, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas James McKenna
-- tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- at Gainey McKenna & Egleston

C. E., Plaintiff, represented by Thomas James McKenna --
tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- at Gainey McKenna & Egleston

Defendants, represented by Brian T. Glennon --
brian.glennon@lw.com -- Colleen C. Smith -- colleen.smith@lw.com -
- Peter A. Wald -- peter.wald@lw.com -- Sarah A. Greenfield --
sarah.greenfield@lw.com -- at Latham & Watkins LLP


YAHOO INC: General Counsel Steps Down Amid Data Breach Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Williams-Alvarez, writing for The Recorder, reports that
Yahoo Inc. announced on March 1 that general counsel Ron Bell is
leaving the tech giant after an investigation of the company
revealed that its legal team failed to sufficiently inquire into a
massive 2014 cybersecurity breach.

According to a March 1 filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Bell "resigned as the Company's General
Counsel and Secretary and from all other positions with the
Company" effective March 1.  The filing said that "[n]o payments
are being made to Mr. Bell in connection with his resignation."

In addition to announcing Mr. Bell's departure, the filing
revealed the results of an investigation by an independent
committee of Yahoo's board of directors, with assistance from law
firm Sidley Austin, into a 2014 hack of the company's networks
that impacted at least 500 million customer email accounts.

Yahoo, which did not immediately respond to request for comment on
Bell's departure, explained in the filing that certain senior
executives at Yahoo as well as members of its legal team "had
sufficient information to warrant substantial further inquiry in
2014" about a hack by a state-sponsored actor into the company's
networks, but "they did not sufficiently pursue it."

"As a result, the 2014 Security Incident was not properly
investigated and analyzed at the time and the Company was not
adequately advised with respect to the legal and business risks
associated with the 2014 Security Incident," the filing said.

"The Independent Committee found that failures in communication,
management, inquiry and internal reporting contributed to the lack
of proper comprehension and handling of the 2014 Security
Incident."

The company did not disclose the 2014 data breach to the public
until September 2016.  Then, in December 2016, the company
admitted that it had suffered yet another breach in 2013, that had
affected more than one billion user accounts.

Aside from raising questions about the company's security and
disclosure practices, the delayed public disclosure of the two
massive breaches has at times led to speculation that Verizon
Communications Inc.'s acquisition of Yahoo's operating business
may be in jeopardy.

A Feb. 21 SEC filing from Verizon, however, revealed that the deal
is moving forward, though the price has been reduced by $350
million, from approximately $4.83 billion in cash to roughly $4.48
billion.


* Antitrust Suits Could Face Major Hurdles With Class Action Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liz Crampton at BNA reports that the House is slated to vote on a
bill the week of March 6 that could limit plaintiffs' ability to
hold companies liable for antitrust violations by preventing them
from suing as a class.

The measure could have sweeping ramifications for antitrust cases.
Class action lawsuits are often the only way customers hurt by
anticompetitive companies can receive compensation because the
cost of bringing such cases is so high.

Foreign companies in particular could benefit from the bill
because they've been targets of major recent antitrust class
actions, Irving Scher, partner at plaintiff's law firm Hausfeld
LLP, told Bloomberg BNA. Price-fixing class action cases in the
auto parts, air freight and LCD panel industries in the past few
years have involved foreign businesses.

Several groups concerned with antitrust issues, including the
American Antitrust Institute, Consumers Union and the Committee to
Support the Antitrust Laws, signed a Feb. 14 letter to House
Judiciary Committee leaders expressing their opposition to the
bill. Randy Stutz, general counsel for the American Antitrust
Institute, told Bloomberg BNA his group is tracking the bill and
will be examining it "in detail" as it moves to the floor.

Supporters of the bill, such as the Small Business &
Entrepreneurship Council, say it would cut down on "lawsuit
abuse."

Most antitrust cases are brought by a class of plaintiffs. A 2013
report from the University of Baltimore School of Law analyzed 60
of the largest recent successful antitrust cases in the U.S. and
found that 49 were class action suits that delivered as much as
$21 billion in compensation to victims.

The House Rules Committee has set a March 7 deadline for proposed
amendments to the bill (H.R. 985). It could be on the House floor
as early as March 8. The bill, introduced by House Judiciary
Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), would add conditions to
class action and complex litigation cases in an effort to ensure
"fairer and more efficient outcomes."

A similar bill passed the House last year. It then stalled in the
Senate. There isn't a Senate companion measure yet this year.

                      'Complete Disarray.'

The proposal threatens to throw established legal standards for
antitrust cases "into complete disarray," Stutz said. Opponents
are chiefly concerned about the bill's requirement that all
members of a class suffer the same injury.

Courts have always recognized that classes will contain members
who are injured to various degrees for different reasons and the
law has been clear that that fact doesn't defeat class
certification, Stutz said.

"I've been trying to think of a single successful antitrust class
action in the past where all the victims all suffered 'the same
type and scope of injury,' and I can't," Stutz said. "The problem
would be particularly acute in antitrust cases, because antitrust
plaintiffs frequently have to rely on statistical evidence to
calculate damages."

"Class action lawsuits are among the most important tools to
enable harmed, cheated and violated individuals and small
businesses to hold large corporations and institutions accountable
and deter future misconduct," the letter said. "H.R. 985 would
annihilate that tool. We urge you to oppose this bill."

                   New Mandates for Plaintiffs

The bill would create new mandates for plaintiffs in big antitrust
cases that are filed in multiple jurisdictions that could make it
more difficult to collect damages. For example, plaintiffs in
consolidated multi-district litigation proceedings in federal
court would face new evidence requirements if they are seeking
compensation for injuries. The SBE Council, by contrast, says that
provision would prevent "injured individuals from being forced
into class actions with those with minimal or no injuries."

The bill also would hamper the antitrust plaintiff's bar by
capping or delaying the distribution of fees to class counsel and
requiring disclosure of litigation financing.

"Broadly, it's a bill that's intent is to end class actions," Eric
Fastiff, president of the Committee to Support the Antitrust Laws,
told Bloomberg BNA. "For antitrust in particular, any attempt that
makes it harder for victims, particularly consumers, that have
suffered a wrongdoing that's not financially viable for them to
prosecute on their own means that they have no redress."

Scher is also concerned about a provision that would prevent a
company bringing a class action from retaining the same attorneys
more than once. That prohibition would remove efficiencies that
his firm has gained from representing clients such as retailers,
pension funds, and hospitals, he said.

The bill also would extend the duration of a class action
dramatically because class certification decisions would be
automatically appealed, and pretrial discovery stayed based on
motion practice, Scher said.

"It's going to clog the courts," he said.


* Colorado Looks to Reform Construction Defects Law
---------------------------------------------------
Pat Ferrier at Coloradoan reports that Colorado housing advocates
are making their fourth attempt to temper a law they believe has
stopped developers from building affordable housing in a state
where home prices are soaring.

Efforts to reform the state's construction defects law -- which
allows as few as two condo owners to bring a class-action lawsuit
against a builder -- failed in 2014 and 2015 and never got off the
ground last year. This year, advocates are tackling the issue
piecemeal with five different bills in the Colorado Legislature;
four of which remain in play.

The 12-year-old law was passed to protect consumers from
unscrupulous developers and shoddy construction during the
nation's pre-recession building boom.

But the ease with which homeowners can sue has made it
prohibitively expensive for developers to insure, build and sell
condominiums, say critics who want to see the law changed. That
means many builders shy away from condos, which are oftentimes the
most affordable entry point into home ownership.

According to Colorado Legislative Council staff, Colorado courts
process between 150 and 200 construction defect lawsuits per year.

In Fort Collins, the median sales price for a single-family home
in January was $361,275 compared to $274,500 for a townhouse or
condo, although sale prices for such multifamily homes are
escalating more quickly due to tight supply, according to Fort
Collins Board of Realtors.

Statewide, condominiums accounted for 2 percent of all new
construction in 2015 compared to 8 percent in 2003, before the
construction defects law was passed, according to the Home
Builders Association of Northern Colorado, or NoCo HBA. Fort
Collins' building department does not separate approved building
permits for condos from other multifamily permits, so it is
difficult to determine how many new condos are built or permitted
in the city.

Opponents of changing the state's construction defects law say
watering down or removing their right to sue deprives them of
their constitutional rights.

"There really isn't a shortage of condos in Fort Collins," said
Amanda Silvestri, a member of a Fort Collins homeowner association
involved in a dispute with its developer. "Now we want to make it
easier for developers and harder for homeowners to protect their
property? These bills are ridiculous."

Greg Miedema, executive officer of NoCo HBA, said: "We are not
looking for free reign to do as we please. We want to know first
when something's wrong; we want the opportunity to repair it and
we want to make sure everyone involved is aware of the
consequences" and cost of a potential lawsuit.

Reform proponents "tried passing one big bill and it kept getting
caught up," Miedema said. This year, supporters -- including
mayors of cities throughout Colorado -- hope breaking the legal
issues into smaller bites will result in "a composite and we can
have significant reform," he said.

This year, five bills introduced in the Colorado Legislature
intend to chip away at current construction defects law. Senate
Bill 045 divides the costs to defend a construction defects
lawsuit among insurers. Another proposal, SB 155, defines a
construction defect as a defect in the design or construction that
causes damages to or the loss of use of property or personal
injury.

Senate Bill 156, considered by many reform advocates as the most
significant of the bunch, requires arbitration or mediation to try
to settle the issues prior to a lawsuit if requested by the
developer.

The bill passed the Senate Business, Labor and Technology
Committee on a 5-2 vote. It now heads to the Senate floor for
debate.

Senate Bill 157 requires homeowner association boards to notify
all unit owners of a potential for and cost of a lawsuit and
requires approval from a majority of unit owners. It also limits
the contact a developer can have with unit owners while the HOA is
seeking approval for a lawsuit.

Finally, House Bill 1169, heard by the State, Veterans & Military
Affairs committee, would have given developers the right to
inspect a contested property and decide whether to fix the
problems or settle before homeowners file a lawsuit.  The bill
died in committee on March 1.

Fort Collins condominium owners Mike Pretz and Silvestri say
consumer protections should not be weakened by changes to the law.
Each tells a harrowing tale of problems in their own condo
projects and the difficulties they've had getting them fixed.

Pretz, president of a homeowner association in south Fort Collins,
said problems arose several years ago when basements flooded,
windows leaked, concrete sidewalks buckled, retaining walls bowed,
patio railings separated from their buildings and patio stairs
sunk several inches.

Requests to the developer to fix the problems went unheeded, Pretz
said. Homeowners waited more than a year for repairs.

When nothing happened, the HOA began looking at its options, he
said. "No one wakes up in the morning and says 'Hey, let's sue
someone.' It's time-consuming, expensive and wearying. "We didn't
do it without a lot of forethought and deliberation."

The HOA recently won a $2.5 million judgment -- netting $1.1
million after paying lawyers and consultants -- to help cover
about $1.6 million in needed repairs, Pretz said.

"I think we did pretty well," Pretz said. A general contractor is
expected to begin repairs.

Pretz doesn't buy the argument that a stout construction defects
law has led to the demise of affordable housing.

"They've tried to frame this as an affordable housing issue ... If
they didn't have to pay this insurance they would build more
condos. It simply is not true. ... there are too many other
drivers for costs that won't make housing any more affordable."

Opponents of change, including the Build Our Houses Right, point
to Lakewood, the first city in the state to implement its own
reforms in 2015. Since the change was made, no condo projects have
been proposed.

What will $1 million buy you in Fort Collins' hot real estate
market?
Fort Collins City Council also passed its own rules two years ago,
but the city has seen little movement in condo construction.

No builder wants to be the first to test a municipal regulation
that might be preempted by state law, Fort Collins City Council
member and developer Gino Campana said.

Shoddy workmanship is unacceptable in any housing project and
needs to be corrected, he said, but "the pendulum has swung too
far. If someone has an issue with the product I build, I would
like them to bring it to my attention and allow me the opportunity
to correct it. I don't want to just be served by an attorney with
a lawsuit."

Just as there are bad builders and bad developers, there are
lawyers waiting to create class-action lawsuits that tie up
projects when there are no damages, Campana said. "I think there's
compromise in there somewhere. We just have to find it."

The Fort Collins City Council has instructed its lobbyists to
support construction defect reform efforts.

The law has caused Fort Collins to lose "the entire condo market,"
Campana said. "When you take out condos -- the most affordable
home ownership we have in the community -- it sends a ripple
through the entire market."

Developers would be scrambling to put up new condos if they were
"reasonably affordable" to build, said Clint Skutchan, executive
director  of the Fort Collins Board of Realtors

Skutchan, however, does not believe reform has to come at the
expense of consumer protections.

"Our approach is to take a balanced and sensible (approach) to
protect consumers while not creating such a quagmire and liability
that adds to the cost," he said. There are other ways to mediate
and arbitrate the issues rather than resorting to the court
system, he said.

Silvestri told a House committee during the hearing HB 1169 that
her HOA tried everything to get its builder to fix major issues in
its 64-unit development.

"Homes in our community had been built with missing building wrap,
missing flashing and a missing moisture management system," she
said. "Joints were not sealed. Gutters were missing. Grading
around our foundations was completely wrong. Basements were
flooding and water seeped into the doors of handicap-accessible
units."

Homeowners complained for years and the developer always promised
he would fix the problems and never did, Silvestri said. Finally,
the HOA took action "to preserve our rights," she said. The suit
is still active.


* Reed Smith Atty Comments on Treatment of "Mass Actions" in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Boranian, Esq. -- sboranian@reedsmith.com -- at Mondaq
reports that it is has been a rough few weeks for forum-shopping
litigation tourists. We wrote the other day on the Missouri
Supreme Court's landmark opinion in State ex rel. Norfolk Southern
Railway Co. v. Dolan, which held that Missouri's courts do not
have jurisdiction over out-of-state controversies involving out-
of-state defendants.  It has long been the practice of many
plaintiffs' lawyers to group hundreds of claims together in
Missouri state court because they prefer that venue and for the
sake of their own convenience.  The Norfolk Southern Railway case
should put an end to that.

Another bulwark against litigation tourism is the Class Action
Fairness Act, which Congress enacted in 2005 to address abuses in
aggregated litigation. Among other provisions, CAFA makes actions
combining 100 or more plaintiffs removable to federal court as
"mass actions."  We have written a lot on mass actions, including
multiple posts on removing mass actions to federal court even when
plaintiffs' counsel try to break their claims into multiple
actions of less than 100 plaintiffs.  The gist is that transparent
gamesmanship should not prevent federal courts from retaining
jurisdiction over hundreds of plaintiffs bringing coordinated
claims, even when plaintiffs' lawyers go through their usual
machinations to avoid it.

That is what happened in Portnoff v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, No.
16-5955, 2017 WL 708745 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 2017), and the district
court's order denying the plaintiff's motion to remand is really
interesting.  First some background:  Six plaintiffs' law firms
filed a "Petition to Consolidate and for Mass Tort Designation" in
the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas requesting consolidation of
87 pending pharmaceutical cases.  They withdrew the petition about
two weeks later and filed a second petition in its place. Id. at
**2-3.

The number of cases and plaintiffs in the second petition are key.
The petition identified 94 cases and well over 100 plaintiffs.
But the six plaintiffs' firms who filed the petition represented
only 96 of the plaintiffs and had no authority to bind the others.
However, once the 20-day deadline for other plaintiffs to object
passed, those other plaintiffs became subject to the petition,
thus boosting the numbers over 100.  The defendants thereafter
removed all the cases to federal court as a CAFA "mass action."
Id. **1-3.  Pretty smart, if you ask us.  But the plaintiffs did
not think so, and they moved to remand on the basis that (1) the
removal was untimely and (2) the cases were not a "mass action,"
i.e., 100 or more plaintiffs whose claims "are proposed to be
jointly tried."

The district court rejected both arguments. First, the district
court acknowledged that although removal statutes are generally
strictly construed, "the presumption against removal does not
apply to class actions invoking jurisdiction under [CAFA]." Id. at
*2.  We understand that the party invoking federal jurisdiction
bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction, but we have never
thought that a "presumption" against removal really exists.
Either way, it is refreshing to have a district judge roundly
reject any such presumption in a CAFA removal.  As the court
reasoned, "Congress enacted CAFA to facilitate class actions in
federal court, and its provisions should be read broadly, with a
strong preference that interstate class actions should be heard in
federal court if properly removed by any defendant." Id.
(citations omitted).

As for timeliness, the plaintiffs submitted a legal assistant's
affidavit attesting that the second consolidation petition was
merely a "refiled version" of the initial petition and thus was
not a new case triggering a new clock for removal. Id. at *4.  But
the district court found the initial petition to be a legal
nullity.  And, the defendants could not have removed the case
anyway until the deadline for other plaintiffs to object passed
and it was apparent that the petition covered more than 100
plaintiffs.  That is the event that made the cases removable.

This last point is the most interesting part of the order. In
determining whether a paper provides "sufficient notice of
removability," the court applied an objective standard.  In other
words,

[T]he 30-day removal clock does not begin to run until litigation
documents . . . reveal facts supporting removal . . . .
Critically, though, . . . the triggering event focused solely upon
the defendant's receipt of a litigation document[;] that is, the
scope of the defendant's knowledge . . . plays no role in
triggering the 30-day removal clock.

Id. at *4 (emphasis added, citations omitted). Or, put yet another
way, "[T]he relevant test is not what the defendants' purportedly
knew, but what these documents said." Id. at *5 (citations
omitted).

But here is where it gets really good. In ascertaining whether a
paper gives notice of removability, a defendant must apply a
"reasonable amount of intelligence." Id. at 6.  We admit that we
have never before seen the "reasonable amount of intelligence"
standard.  But now that it has come to our attention, we love it.
We will apply it to other aspects of life.  If the Cleveland
Browns pay a king's ransom for an untested and overrated
quarterback, did they apply a "reasonable amount of intelligence"?
If any governmental entity says it can balance its budget by
increasing spending while simultaneously decreasing revenue, did
it apply a "reasonable amount of intelligence"?  If anyone orders
gazpacho in a Chinese restaurant (or any other kind of
restaurant), does that reflect a "reasonable amount of
intelligence"?

Fine, these are loaded questions. But in Portnoff, a "reasonable
amount of intelligence" foretold that no paper proposed
consolidation of more than 100 pages until the deadline for other
plaintiffs to object passed.  Until that time, there were at most
96 plaintiffs, and the removal clock had not started.

Second, what about the fact that these were multiple separate
civil actions? Were the plaintiffs' claims "proposed to be jointly
tried?  Yes, they were.  Whether claims are "proposed to be
jointly tried" has been hotly contested (see our posts referenced
above).  But here, the plaintiffs' consolidation petition
"explicitly and plainly" proposed consolidation for pretrial and
trial. Id. at *8.  The plaintiffs tried to negate their request
with an affidavit from the attorney who prepared the petition
stating that she used a previously filed petition as a template
and that the request for a consolidated trial was a "scrivener's
error." Id. at *8.  The plaintiffs also tried to file a post-
removal "supplement" disclaiming any "intent to suggest that
consolidation of trials occur." Id.

We are sure the attorney "scrivener" did not enjoy drafting that
affidavit, but the district court was unforgiving. The petition
reinforced the request for consolidated resolution multiple times,
and multiple plaintiffs' attorneys reviewed and signed off on the
petition.  In the end, we cannot improve on the district court's
conclusion:  "In short, a common sense reading of the entire
Petition established that Plaintiff proposed a joint trial." Id.
at *9.  Chalk one up for common sense and fairness -- and
intelligence.


* Rural Electric Cooperatives Receive Dismissals in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Beard Renstrom and Christina Schwing at JD Supra Advisor
reports that two recent dismissal orders -- filed within days of
each other -- signal positive news to rural electric cooperatives
defending actions brought by former or current members regarding
the distribution of patronage capital and excess revenues.

Recently, in Florence N. Brunson v. Gulf Coast Electric
Cooperative, Inc., Case No. 2015-CA-000063, a Florida circuit
court granted in part a motion to dismiss filed by Gulf Coast
Electric Cooperative, dismissing the plaintiff's claims for unjust
enrichment and violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act (FDUTPA). Less than one month after the court's oral
ruling on the motion and before the court entered its written
order, the plaintiff dismissed the remaining counts and filed a
notice of appeal with Florida's First District Court of Appeal.
Instead of pursuing the appeal, plaintiff Florence N. Brunson
filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice on Feb. 22,
2017. The notice provides that each party is to bear its own
attorneys' fees and costs. Further, the fact that the dismissal is
with prejudice signifies that the plaintiff is barred from
bringing any future action on the same claim.

In a related action the next day, in Grice Webb v. Tombigbee
Electric Cooperative, Inc., No. 49-CV-2014-900078, the Circuit
Court of Marion County, Alabama granted the parties' Joint Motion
to Dismiss and issued an Order of Dismissal, dismissing the claims
of Grice Webb without prejudice.

These dismissals come on the heels of an appellate court decision
upholding the dismissal of a related action brought by Alabama
rural electric members and former members. The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Jan. 1, 2017, upheld the
dismissal of plaintiffs' claims in the case of Pamela Caver, et
al. v. Central Alabama Electric Cooperative, Case No. 15-15207.
The court affirmed the district court's holding that the
cooperative's "distribution of excess revenues to its members by
making credits to their capital accounts, as opposed to making
cash payments, complied with Alabama state law." The court
dismissed the plaintiffs' argument that the cooperative must
annually distribute patronage refunds in the form of a cash
payment to its members and instead held that the Alabama state
statute, which is similar to many other states' excess revenue
statutes, does not require an annual cash payment to be made to
rural electric cooperative members.

Rural electric cooperatives have been the target of actions in
many jurisdictions, and the legal landscape facing them is in a
state of considerable flux. However, a number of recent rulings
and developments have favored cooperatives.


* Sawaya Orchestrates $8,500 Donation to Non-Profit Organization
----------------------------------------------------------------
Menafn reports that law firm names "Towards Justice" as recipient
of Cy Pres funds. In two recent Colorado court decisions district
court judges have approved the payment of unclaimed funds in wage
and hour class actions to a Colorado non-profit that provides
legal services to low-wage workers who have not been paid what
they are owed under the wage and hour laws.

The Sawaya Law Firm represented the plaintiffs in both lawsuits.
In each -- one from a state court and another from a federal
district court -- the judges recently ordered that the payments to
class members who could not be located will be paid to the Denver,
Colorado, non-profit organization, Towards Justice. Towards
Justice litigates and educates workers and the community about
employment rights, wage theft, how to defend against exploitation,
and how to seek legal relief when wages are not paid as the law
requires.

So what makes this settlement a big deal? Typically in class
action settlements, unclaimed funds are given back to the at-fault
company. Such claims usually involve lawsuits for unpaid overtime,
failure to pay the minimum wage, and for time worked off-the-clock
or through rest breaks where no wages are paid for time worked.
Instead of those unclaimed funds going back to the defendants at
the offices of Towards Justice, David H. Miller, the lead class
action attorney for the plaintiffs in both of the cases, will be
presenting checks totaling approximately 8,500 in unclaimed funds
to the Executive Director of Towards Justice, Nina DiSalvo, to
help support the work Towards Justice does in assisting low wage
workers to be paid what they are owed.

Why would one of the most successful law firms in Colorado
orchestrate a donation of this size to a non-profit organization
like Towards Justice? The truth is inspiring. The Sawaya Law Firm
not only handles personal injury, work comp, and social security
cases, but has operated a successful Wage and Hour class action
department for several years. The Wage and Hour team fights for
groups of workers who have been denied the pay that the law
requires.

Headed by attorney David H. Miller, former Legal Director for the
ACLU of Colorado, the Wage and Hour team's approach to legal work
reflects their values. "In the U.S., if we mean what we say about
the need to increase the number of American jobs and support the
working class, then employers must pay their workers the wages
they are owed," said Miller. "We proudly represent those many
workers who have little power within our system; to see to it that
they are paid what the law says is theirs."

Rewarding the wrong-doing employer that has kept inaccurate or
incomplete information so that the former workers cannot be
located has frequently resulted in class action money being
returned to the employer. Miller explained that such a practice of
rewarding the wrong-doer is not fair. "The employer should not
benefit from taking money meant to be paid to the missing class
member and keeping it for themselves." That kind of result
encourages wrong-doing employers to mistreat their workers. "We
all want more jobs for workers," said Miller, "but if employers
are not paying what they owe then they are cheating those who do
the work that makes our economy strong and our country
successful."

"I hope these donations encourage other attorneys to adopt this
same approach in the lawsuits they are bringing so that money from
class action judgments and settlements stops going back to the
wrong-doers," says Miller. "We're spearheading this effort to
strengthen Colorado's working communities, so that through the
work Towards Justice does we can help others who are not directly
our clients but who are also being treated unfairly at work."

Time and location: The presentation was held at Towards Justice at
1:30 p.m. March 3, 2017 -- 1535 High Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO
80214.


* What Lawyers Need to Know About Tort Reform Push in Congress
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad at Law.com reports four bills are set to go before
the U.S. House of Representatives' Rules Committee this week in
one of the most comprehensive efforts at legal reform in more than
a decade.

The bills, targeting everything from class actions to attorney
sanctions, are scheduled for amendments on March 6 and March 7.
Another three bills are being closely watched. Some have companion
bills in the U.S. Senate.

Here's what you need to know about the bills being considered this
week -- and those in the pipeline:

Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017 (HR 985). This
bill would make several changes designed to reduce class actions
and fees paid to plaintiffs' attorneys. Critics contend the bill
could kill class actions, but its overall impact isn't certain.
The core provision attempts to make it harder to bring class
actions that have what advocates call "no injuries." This issue
has come up several times in consumer cases. Critics point to the
Volkswagen emissions case, in which the carmaker admitted a defect
but the complaints involved claims for devalued cars, not physical
injuries. The bill also ties fees to a settlement's value and
forces attorneys to disclose third-party financing.

Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2017 (HR 906). This
bill requires that the trusts of bankrupt companies file quarterly
reports disclosing payments to victims of mesothelioma and other
cancers caused by asbestos. Advocates complain that plaintiffs'
attorneys withhold evidence in lawsuits brought on behalf of
people who also have claims against the trusts. Critics contend
the alleged fraud is rare and the bill, backed by corporate
interests, would make it harder for victims to get compensated.

Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2017 (HR 720). This bill would
mandate that judges impose monetary sanctions against attorneys
who file frivolous cases in federal courts. The bill would reverse
amendments in 1993 that gave attorneys 21 days to withdraw their
case before getting sanctioned. Critics say the bill would
eliminate judicial discretion and could encourage more litigation
spurred by sanctions motions.

Innocent Party Protection Act (HR 725). This bill makes it harder
for plaintiffs' attorneys to remand federal cases to more
plaintiff-friendly state courts by naming a defendant located in
that state. The issue comes up a lot in products liability cases
where, for instance, a plaintiff files a suit against a
pharmaceutical company that's based in another state but adds a
local pharmacy to avoid federal jurisdiction. Advocates refer to
the practice as "fraudulent joinder." But critics say the bill is
really about large corporations that want to remove cases to
federal court, which is a friendlier venue for defendants.

Stay tuned for these bills to come down the pipeline:

Stop Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2017 (HR 732). This bill would
prevent the U.S. Department of Justice from allowing funds in
settlements to go to third parties. The practice, common during
the Obama administration, has been criticized as executive
overreach and the bill's supporters have pointed to mortgage
lending settlements with banks as examples. In a $25 billion
settlement in 2012, for example, $3.5 billion was directed to fund
housing counselors, legal aid and other public programs. Opponents
of the bill contend it would handcuff the DOJ's ability to redress
wrongdoing beyond the individuals who are owed restitution.

Sunshine for Regulations and Regulatory Decrees and Settlements
Act (HR 469). This anti-regulation bill is aimed at limiting the
ability of federal agencies, particularly the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, to make rules and other actions as a result of
consent decrees. The bill would open such agreements, often
obtained in suits brought by environmental groups, to public
comment and allow those affected by the rules to intervene.
Critics say the bill would make it longer and more expensive to
get the EPA to act.

Protecting Access to Care Act (HR 1215). This bill's key provision
would impose a cap of $250,000 in noneconomic damages in medical
malpractice cases, limiting awards for pain and suffering. The
bill mirrors a similar statute in California. It's the only legal
reform issue that President Donald Trump highlighted in his
address to Congress.








                            *********

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  * * *