CAR_Public/170320.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Monday, March 20, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 56



                            Headlines

ACCEL LOGISTICS: "Bewley" Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Damages
ADELPHIA SUPPLY: Bolling Moves for Class Certification Under TCPA
AFNI INC: Bentley Moves for Certification of Class Under Damasco
ALAMOS TACOS: "Garcia" Labor Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
ALLERGAN PLC: Retirement Plans Bought Inflated Stocks, Suit Says

AMERICAN CORADIUS: Certification of Class Sought in "Vega" Suit
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Appeal in Starr Case Underway
BAKKAVOR FOODS: Faces "Figueroa" Suit Under Cal. Labor Law
BARCLAYS PLC: Appeal on Dismissal Ruling Ongoing
BARCLAYS PLC: Appeal on Class Certification Order Pending

BARCLAYS PLC: Oral Argument on Bid to Affirm Penalty Held
BARCLAYS PLC: Settlement of Debt Securities Class Claims Reached
BARCLAYS PLC: EURIBOR Case Settlement Awaits Final Court Approval
BARCLAYS PLC: Motion to Dismiss Sterling LIBOR Case Underway
BARCLAYS PLC: Dismissal of Calif. LIBOR Case Affirmed on Appeal

BARCLAYS PLC: Seeks to Dismiss 2 Japanese Yen LIBOR Suits
BARCLAYS PLC: Dismissal of SIBOR/SOR Case Sought
BARCLAYS PLC: Dismissal of ERISA FX Claims under Appeal
BARCLAYS PLC: Motion to Dismiss Retail Basis Claims Underway
BMOCORP INC: Faces Suit Over TCPA Violations

BOONE SCHOOL: Faces Suit Over Employees' Insurance Premiums
CATCHLIGHT FILMS: "Ibanez" Seeks to Recoup Minimum Wage
CCB CREDIT: Olbinski Seeks Certification of Class Under Damasco
CEB INC: Being Sold Too Cheaply, "Steinberg" Suit Says
CENTURYLINK INC: Parties in "Tomasulo" Reached MOU

CENTURYLINK INC: Settlement of Fulghum and Abbott Cases Underway
CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeal in Total Bond Market Fund Case Ongoing
CLARK COUNTY, NV: Parents Can Amend Sexual Abuse Complaint
CIGNA CORP: Additional Ruling on Plan Benefits Calculation Issued
CIGNA CORP: Continues to Defend "Franco" Class Suit

COMMERCE BANCSHARES: Still Defends Against "Warren" Suit
COMPANIA SUD: Reaches Deal in Vehicle Carrier Services Suit
CONDOR SECURITIZATION: Cert. of Class Sought in "Deviese" Suit
CVS PHARMACY: Judge Won't Certify Classes in "Corcoran" Suit
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Court Vacates Cert. Hearing in "Maxwell" Suit

EDDIE BAUER: Veridian Credit Union Sues Over Data Breach
ELKS AIDMORE: "Bloodworth" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
ENERGY PROTECTION: "Sahlbach" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
FARMLAND PARTNERS: "Parshall" Class Suit Remains Pending
FLOYD COUNTY: Proposes to Settle Class Action for US$1.23 Million

FORD MOTOR: Anderson's Bid to Certify Denied Due to Pending Deal
GIGPEAK INC: "Mendoza" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
GLOBAL CREDIT: Initial Conference in "Guthrie" Suit on April 25
HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Agrees Bail System Needs to be Reformed
HCA HOLDINGS: "McBride" Files Case Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

HCTEC PARTNERS: "Braniff" Files Case Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
HELIX TCS: "Baker" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
HOME DEPOT: Settlement Raises Questions on Resolving Class Claims
INOVALON HOLDINGS: Pre-Motion Process Ongoing in Securities Suit
INTERNATIONAL INTERACTIVE: Faces "Ramskill" Lawsuit Under TCPA

INVENTURE FOODS: Faces Suit Over Incorrect Product Labeling
IVEST 360 LLC: "Bauer" Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
J.B. HUNT: Appeal in Driver Class Action Lawsuit Underway
LEE COUNTY, FL: Amended Complaint in "Calderone" Suit Dismissed
LIFEWAY FOODS: Smoothie Not Lactose-Free, "Block" Suit Says

LINCOLN NATIONAL: "Glover" Cost of Insurance Suit Pending
LINCOLN NATIONAL: "Hanks" Cost of Insurance Suit Underway
LINCOLN NATIONAL: "Bharwani" Cost of Insurance Litigation Pending
LINCOLN NATIONAL: "Mukamal" Cost of Insurance Litigation Pending
LINCOLN NATIONAL: US Life's Cost of Insurance Suit Pending

LINCOLN NATIONAL: EFG Bank's Cost of Insurance Suit Pending
LINCOLN NATIONAL: "Swenson" Cost of Insurance Litigation Pending
MALLINCKRODT PLC: "Schwartz" Sues Over Inflated Stock Price
MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Motion to Dismiss "Lennen" Suit Underway
MESSERLI & KRAMER: Class Certification Sought in "Olbinski" Suit

MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WI: Class Certification Sought in "Ruehs" Suit
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, NY: Hill Seeks to Certify Class of Detainees
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Teams Pumped Players With Antibiotic, Suit Says
NATIONAL RIFLE: "Kalmbach" Suit Removed to W.D. Wash.
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: MAO-MSO Recovery Sues Over MAO Reimbursement

NOVOCURE LIMITED: "Donahue" and "Rosen" Suits Underway
OAKTON COMMUNITY: Certification of Class Sought in "Dayton" Suit
OPEN CARE: "Ramilo" Files Suit Over TCPA Violation
ORION PORTFOLIO: Judge Dismisses Pro Se Litigant's FDCPA Suit
PEOPLES WATER SERVICE: Faces Class Suit Over Water Contamination

PERFECT 10: Faces "Vo-Watts" Labor Lawsuit Under Calif. Laws
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Class Cert. Bid Taken Under Submission
POPEYES LOUISIANA: Being Sold Too Cheaply, "Parshall" Action Says
RENUE SYSTEMS: Gorss Motels Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
RUPPERT LANDSCAPE: "Chorney" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

SALO INC: "Raines" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Due, Damages
SAM'S WEST: Chikosi Seeks Certification of 3 Classes of Members
SANOFI US: Diabetes Patients Sue Over Overpriced Insulin
SCHIFF NUTRITION: Johnston Moves to Certify Class of Purchasers
SCYNEXIS INC: "Gibson" Sues Over Share Price Drop

SIX FLAGS: Illinois Class Action in Early Stage
SPROUTS FARMERS: Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand Remains Pending
SPROUTS FARMERS: "Phishing" Scam Actions Remain Stayed
STERLING JEWELERS: Denies Sexual Harrasment Allegations
STONEGATE MORTGAGE: "Dubisky" Short-changed Over Merger Deal

STRATEGY ANESTHESIA: Progressive Amends Bid to Certify Class
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Still Faces "Kincaid" TCPA Action
SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Indemnifying Defendants in 3 TCPA Actions
T. ROWE PRICE: Feinberg Files ERISA Class Action in Maryland
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Judge Consolidates 2 End-Payer Class Suits

TEXAS: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling on Inmate's TRFRA Claims
TL TRANSPORTATION: "Hickman" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
TRS RECOVERY: "Baker" Sues Over Vague Collection Letters
U.S. SILICA: 74 Silica Products Liability Claims Pending
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Calif. Judge Rejects Drivers' Settlement

UNIQUE BEVERAGE: Faces Suit Over Coconut Water Content in Product
UNITED STATES: Judge Not Ready to Rule on Travel Ban TRO
UNITED STATES: USCIS Sued Over Denial of Removal Proceedings
VILLE PLATTE, LA: Faces Suit Over Illegal Detention
VOYA FINANCIAL: April 14 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss "Dezelan"

VOYA FINANCIAL: Defending Against "Patrico" Class Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Mislabeled Pita Chips, "Terrazzino" Suit Says
WALGREENS CO: Overcharged Insulin Pumps, "Mayberry" Suit Says
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Ruling on Sleeper Berth Issue Revised
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Self-Cleaning Feature Ruins Oven, Suit Says

WILLIAMS & WILLIAMS: Gorss Motels Sues Over Unsolicited Fax
ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: "Kreindler" Sues Over Sale to Allergan

* Maine Passes Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act


                            *********


ACCEL LOGISTICS: "Bewley" Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Damages
--------------------------------------------------------
Micah Bewley, Elizabeth Anderson and Patrick Neal, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Accel
Logistics Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00676, (N.D. Tex.,
March 8, 2017), seeks 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.

Micah Bewley, Elizabeth Anderson, and Patrick Neal worked as
dispatchers for Accel Logistics Inc. at their Alvarado, Johnson
County facility. They claim to have rendered more than 40 hours
per week without overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shane McGuire, Esq.
      THE MCGUIRE FIRM, PC
      102 N. College St., Suite 301
      Tyler, TX 75702
      Phone: (903) 630-7154
      Fax: (903) 630-7173
      Email: shane@mcguirefirm.com

             - and -

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75702
      Phone: (214) 749-1400
      Fax: (214) 749-1010
      Email: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com


ADELPHIA SUPPLY: Bolling Moves for Class Certification Under TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled BOLLING PRESCRIPTION LAB, INC.
d/b/a ROSELAND PHARMACY, an Illinois professional company,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons v. ADELPHIA SUPPLY USA, INC., YUDAH NEUMAN,
REUVEN SOBEL, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:17-cv-01485 (N.D.
Ill.), moves for entry of an order certifying this class:

     Each person that was sent one or more telephone facsimile
     messages from "Adelphia Supply" after February 27, 2013
     promoting the commercial availability of pharmaceuticals or
     medical supplies but not stating on its first page that the
     recipient may make a request to the sender not to send any
     future ads and that failure to comply with such a request
     within 30 days is unlawful.

Bolling tells the Court that it files the Motion soon after the
filing of its Class Action Complaint in order to avoid an attempt
by the Defendant(s) to moot its individual claims in the class
action.  However, in this case, additional discovery is necessary
for the Court to determine whether to certify the class it seeks
to represent, Bolling explains.  As a result, Bolling says, it
will seek leave to pursue class discovery as soon as practicable.

The case involves common fact questions about the Defendants' fax
campaign and common legal questions under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0JHaFUxL

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
          David. M. Oppenheim, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com
                  tod@classlawyers.com
                  david@classlawyers.com


AFNI INC: Bentley Moves for Certification of Class Under Damasco
----------------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Bentley moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit titled CURTIS BENTLEY, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AFNI, INC., Case
No. 2:17-cv-00280 (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court
both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the
Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting
automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting
material to be filed with the Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence, the
Plaintiff says.  The Plaintiff contends that the Plaintiff is
obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests
of the putative class.

The Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016
U.S. LEXIS 846 *14-15 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016) (internal citations
omitted) and Chapman should have put a stop to this practice.
Unfortunately, they have not, the Plaintiff notes.  In dicta, the
Supreme Court left open the possibility that a defendant facing a
class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's claim with the court and having the court enter
judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to a class certification
motion.  Campbell-Ewald Co., 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 *19 ("We need
not, and do not, now decide whether the result would be different
if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's
individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the
court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount.").

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

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative
and further asks the Court to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as
class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pJ4qrYky

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALAMOS TACOS: "Garcia" Labor Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Hector Garcia, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Alamos Tacos, Inc. d/b/a El
Alamo Mexican Grill, Ismael L. Bonilla, individually and Heriberto
Gomez, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01858, (N.D.
Ill., March 8, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate a Mexican restaurant, "El Alamo Mexican Grill"
at 58 N. Wolf Rd., Wheeling, IL 60090, where Plaintiff worked. He
claims to have been denied overtime pay.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
     6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
     Chicago, IL 60646
     Tel: (312) 878-1302
     Email: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


ALLERGAN PLC: Retirement Plans Bought Inflated Stocks, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Allergan, the pharmaceutical
giant previously known as Actavis, faces a federal class action in
Newark, N.J. alleging that two retirement plans wasted assets by
buying inflated Allergan stock.

The case is captioned, ANDREW  J. ORMOND, on behalf of the
Allergan, Inc.   Savings   and   Investment Plan, the  Actavis,
Inc. 401(k) Plan, himself, and a class consisting of similarly
situated participants of the Plan, Plaintiff, v. ALLERGAN PLC,
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PLAN COMMITTEE OF ALLERGAN PLC, KAREN LING,
BRYAN KAVANAUGH, BENEFITS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE OF ALLERGAN PLC,
JOHN DOES 1-20, AND RICHARD ROES 1-20, Defendants. Case 2:17-cv-
01554(D. N.J., March 7, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
     KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
     210 Summit Avenue
     Montvale, NJ 07645
     Telephone: (201) 391-7000
     Facsimile: (201) 307-1088
     Email: ggraifman@kgglaw.com

          - and -

     STULL, STULL & BRODY
     Michael J. Klein, Esq.
     6 East 45th Street
     New York, NY 10017
     Telephone: (212) 687-7230
     Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
     Email: mklein@ssbny.com


AMERICAN CORADIUS: Certification of Class Sought in "Vega" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Vega moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit styled AMY VEGA, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AMERICAN CORADIUS
INTERNATIONAL, LLC and CIGPF I CORP., Case No. 2:17-cv-00274-PP
(E.D. Wisc.).

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court both stay the motion for
class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the
Defendants) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing
schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed
with the Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence, the
Plaintiff states.  The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is
obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests
of the putative class.

The Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016
U.S. LEXIS 846 *14-15 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016) (internal citations
omitted) and Chapman should have put a stop to this practice.
Unfortunately, they have not, the Plaintiff notes.  In dicta, the
Supreme Court left open the possibility that a defendant facing a
class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's claim with the court and having the court enter
judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to a class certification
motion.  Campbell-Ewald Co., 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 *19 ("We need
not, and do not, now decide whether the result would be different
if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's
individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the
court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount.").

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

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative
and further asks the Court to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as
class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NXaece13

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Appeal in Starr Case Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the class action lawsuit by Starr International
remains pending, American International Group, Inc. said in its
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

AIG said, "On November 21, 2011, Starr International Company, Inc.
(SICO) filed a complaint against the United States in the United
States Court of Federal Claims (the Court of Federal Claims),
bringing claims, both individually and on behalf of the classes
defined below and derivatively on behalf of AIG (the SICO Treasury
Action). The complaint challenges the government's assistance of
AIG, pursuant to which AIG entered into a credit facility with the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York (the FRBNY, and such credit
facility, the FRBNY Credit Facility) and the United States
received an approximately 80 percent ownership in AIG. The
complaint alleges that the interest rate imposed on AIG and the
appropriation of approximately 80 percent of AIG's equity was
discriminatory, unprecedented, and inconsistent with liquidity
assistance offered by the government to other comparable firms at
the time and violated the Equal Protection, Due Process, and
Takings Clauses of the U.S. Constitution."

"In the SICO Treasury Action, the only claims naming AIG as a
party (as a nominal defendant) are derivative claims on behalf of
AIG. On September 21, 2012, SICO made a pre-litigation demand on
our Board demanding that we pursue the derivative claims or allow
SICO to pursue the claims on our behalf. On January 9, 2013, our
Board unanimously refused SICO's demand in its entirety and on
January 23, 2013, counsel for the Board sent a letter to counsel
for SICO describing the process by which our Board considered and
refused SICO's demand and stating the reasons for our Board's
determination.

"On March 11, 2013, SICO filed a second amended complaint in the
SICO Treasury Action alleging that its demand was wrongfully
refused. On June 26, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims granted
AIG's and the United States' motions to dismiss SICO's derivative
claims in the SICO Treasury Action due to our Board's refusal of
SICO's demand and denied the United States' motion to dismiss
SICO's direct, non-derivative claims.

"On March 11, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims in the SICO
Treasury Action granted SICO's motion for class certification of
two classes with respect to SICO's non-derivative claims: (1)
persons and entities who held shares of AIG Common Stock on or
before September 16, 2008 and who owned those shares on September
22, 2008 (the Credit Agreement Shareholder Class); and (2) persons
and entities who owned shares of AIG Common Stock on June 30, 2009
and were eligible to vote those shares at AIG's June 30, 2009
annual meeting of shareholders (the Reverse Stock Split
Shareholder Class). SICO has provided notice of class
certification to potential members of the classes, who, pursuant
to a court order issued on April 25, 2013, had to return opt-in
consent forms by September 16, 2013 to participate in either
class. 286,908 holders of AIG Common Stock during the two class
periods have opted into the classes.

"On June 15, 2015, the Court of Federal Claims issued its opinion
and order in the SICO Treasury Action.  The Court found that the
United States exceeded its statutory authority by exacting
approximately 80 percent of AIG's equity in exchange for the FRBNY
Credit Facility, but that AIG shareholders suffered no damages as
a result.  SICO argued during trial that the two classes are
entitled to a total of approximately $40 billion in damages, plus
interest. The Court also found that the United States was not
liable to the Reverse Stock Split Class in connection with the
reverse stock split vote at the June 30, 2009 annual meeting of
shareholders."

On June 17, 2015, the Court of Federal Claims entered judgment
stating that "the Credit Agreement Shareholder Class shall prevail
on liability due to the Government's illegal exaction, but shall
recover zero damages, and that the Reverse Stock Split Shareholder
Class shall not prevail on liability or damages."  SICO filed a
notice of appeal of the July 2, 2012 dismissal of SICO's
unconstitutional conditions claim, the June 26, 2013 dismissal of
SICO's derivative claims, the Court's June 15, 2015 opinion and
order, and the Court's June 17, 2015 judgment to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The United States filed
a notice of cross appeal of the Court's July 2, 2012 opinion and
order denying in part its motion to dismiss, the Court's June 26,
2013 opinion and order denying its motion to dismiss SICO's direct
claims, the Court's June 15, 2015 opinion and order, and the
Court's June 17, 2015 judgment to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

On August 25, 2015, SICO filed its appellate brief, in which it
stated SICO does not appeal the dismissal of the derivative claims
it asserted on behalf of AIG.

In the Court of Federal Claims, the United States has alleged, as
an affirmative defense in its answer, that AIG is obligated to
indemnify the FRBNY and its representatives, including the Federal
Reserve Board of Governors and the United States (as the FRBNY's
principal), for any recovery in the SICO Treasury Action.

AIG believes that any indemnification obligation would arise only
if: (a) SICO prevails on its appeal and ultimately receives an
award of damages; (b) the United States then commences an action
against AIG seeking indemnification; and (c) the United States is
successful in such an action through any appellate process. If
SICO prevails on its claims and the United States seeks
indemnification from AIG, AIG intends to assert defenses thereto.

"A reversal of the Court of Federal Claim's June 17, 2015 decision
and judgment and a final determination that the United States is
liable for damages, together with a final determination that AIG
is obligated to indemnify the United States for any such damages,
could have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated
financial condition and results of operations," the Company said.


BAKKAVOR FOODS: Faces "Figueroa" Suit Under Cal. Labor Law
----------------------------------------------------------
Ana Luz Figueroa, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bakkavor Foods USA, Inc., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. BC 649405 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, February 3,
2017), alleges that Defendants failed to pay employees minimum
wages for all hours worked. Employees' wages were based upon a
forty-hour work week. However, Employees were consistently
required to work in excess of forty hours in a given week for
which Employees were never compensated.  Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants, and each of them, violated various provisions of the
California Labor Code, relevant orders of the Industrial Welfare
Commission (IWC), and California Business & Professions Code, and
therefore, seeks redress.

Bakkavor Foods USA, Inc. is an international manufacturer of fresh
prepared foods.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Yeremian, Esq.
     Roman Shkodnik, Esq.
     DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
     535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
     Glendale, CA 91203
     Phone: (818) 230-8380
     Fax: (818) 230-0308
     E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com
             roman@yeremianlaw.com


BARCLAYS PLC: Appeal on Dismissal Ruling Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that plaintiffs
have appealed the court's decision in a class action lawsuit
related to Alternative Trading Systems and High-Frequency Trading.

The Securities and Exchange Commission, the New York State
Attorney General (NYAG) and regulators in certain other
jurisdictions have been investigating a range of issues associated
with alternative trading systems (ATSs), including dark pools, and
the activities of high-frequency traders.

In June 2014, the NYAG filed a complaint (NYAG Complaint) against
Barclays PLC and Barclays Capital Inc. (BCI) in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York alleging, amongst other things, that
Barclays PLC and BCI engaged in fraud and deceptive practices in
connection with LX, the Group's SEC-registered ATS. In February
2016, Barclays reached separate settlement agreements with each of
the SEC and the NYAG to resolve those agencies' claims against
Barclays PLC and BCI relating to the operation of LX for $35m
each.

Barclays PLC and BCI have been named in a purported class action
by an institutional investor client under California law based on
allegations similar to those in the NYAG Complaint. In October
2016, the federal court in California granted the motion of
Barclays PLC and BCI to dismiss the entire complaint and
plaintiffs have appealed the court's decision.


BARCLAYS PLC: Appeal on Class Certification Order Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Barclays'
appeal of the certification of a class action lawsuit related to
Alternative Trading Systems and High-Frequency Trading remains
pending.

In June 2014, the New York State Attorney General (NYAG) filed a
complaint (NYAG Complaint) against Barclays PLC and Barclays
Capital Inc. (BCI) in the Supreme Court of the State of New York
alleging, amongst other things, that Barclays PLC and BCI engaged
in fraud and deceptive practices in connection with LX, the
Group's SEC-registered ATS. In February 2016, Barclays reached
separate settlement agreements with each of the SEC and the NYAG
to resolve those agencies' claims against Barclays PLC and BCI
relating to the operation of LX for $35m each.

Following the filing of the NYAG Complaint, Barclays PLC and BCI
were named in a shareholder securities class action along with
certain of its former CEOs, and its current and a former CFO, as
well as an employee in Equities Electronic Trading (Shareholder
Class Action). The plaintiffs claim that investors suffered
damages when their investments in Barclays American Depository
Receipts declined in value as a result of the allegations in the
NYAG Complaint.

Barclays PLC and BCI filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
which the court granted in part and denied in part. In February
2016, the court certified the action as a class action, and
Barclays has appealed that certification.


BARCLAYS PLC: Oral Argument on Bid to Affirm Penalty Held
---------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument on the motion to affirm the penalty assessment in a
lawsuit by the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
occurred in February 2017, Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said
in their Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has filed a
civil action against Barclays Bank PLC and certain of its former
traders in the US District Court in California seeking to collect
a $435m civil penalty and the disgorgement of $34.9m of profits,
plus interest, in connection with allegations that Barclays Bank
PLC manipulated the electricity markets in and around California.
A civil class action complaint was also filed in the US District
Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) against
Barclays Bank PLC asserting antitrust claims based on allegations
that mirror those raised in the civil suit filed by FERC.

In October 2012, FERC issued an Order to Show Cause and Notice of
Proposed Penalties (Order and Notice) against Barclays Bank PLC
and four of its former traders in relation to their power trading
in the western US. In the Order and Notice, FERC asserted that
Barclays Bank PLC and its former traders violated FERC's Anti-
Manipulation Rule by manipulating the electricity markets in and
around California from November 2006 to December 2008, and
proposed civil penalties and profit disgorgement to be paid by
Barclays Bank PLC.

In October 2013, FERC filed a civil action against Barclays Bank
PLC and its former traders in the US District Court in California
seeking to collect the $435m civil penalty and disgorgement of
$34.9m of profits, plus interest.

In June 2015, a civil class action complaint was filed in the US
District Court for the US District Court for the Southern District
of New York (SDNY) against Barclays Bank PLC by Merced Irrigation
District, a California utility company, asserting antitrust
allegations in connection with Barclays Bank PLC's purported
manipulation of the electricity markets in and around California.
The factual allegations mirror those raised in the civil action
filed by FERC against Barclays Bank PLC currently pending in the
US District Court in California.

In October 2015, the US District Court in California ordered that
it would bifurcate its assessment of liabilities and penalties
from its assessment of disgorgement. FERC has filed and Barclays
Bank PLC is opposing a brief seeking summary affirmance of the
penalty assessment. The court has indicated that it will either
affirm the penalty assessment or require further evidence to
determine this issue. Oral argument on the motion to affirm the
penalty assessment occurred in February 2017.

In December 2015, Barclays Bank PLC filed a motion to dismiss the
civil class action for failure to state a claim, which the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) in
February 2016 granted in part and denied in part.

Barclays noted that FERC has made claims against Barclays Bank PLC
totalling $469.9m, plus interest, for civil penalties and profit
disgorgement. The civil class action complaint refers to damages
of $139.3m. These amounts do not necessarily reflect Barclays Bank
PLC's potential financial exposure if a ruling were to be made
against it in either action.


BARCLAYS PLC: Settlement of Debt Securities Class Claims Reached
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a
settlement has been agreed with respect to the Debt Securities
Class claims in USD LIBOR cases but the plaintiffs have not yet
sought court approval of the settlement.

A number of individuals and corporates in a range of jurisdictions
have threatened or brought civil actions against the Group in
relation to LIBOR and/or other benchmarks. While several of such
cases have been dismissed and certain have settled subject to
approval from the court (and in the case of class actions, the
right of class members to opt-out of the settlement and to seek to
file their own claims), other actions remain pending and their
ultimate impact is unclear.

A number of individuals and corporates in a range of jurisdictions
have threatened or brought civil actions against the Group and
other banks in relation to manipulation of LIBOR and/or other
benchmark rates.

The majority of the USD LIBOR cases, which have been filed in
various US jurisdictions, have been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes before a single judge in the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York (SDNY) (MDL Court).  The complaints
are substantially similar and allege, amongst other things, that
Barclays Bank PLC and the other banks individually and
collectively violated provisions of the US Sherman Antitrust Act
(Antitrust Act), the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), the US
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and
various state laws by manipulating USD LIBOR rates.

The lawsuits seek unspecified damages with the exception of five
lawsuits, in which the plaintiffs are seeking a combined total in
excess of $1.25bn in actual damages against all defendants,
including Barclays Bank PLC, plus punitive damages. Some of the
lawsuits also seek trebling of damages under the Antitrust Act and
RICO.

The proposed class actions purported to be brought on behalf of
(amongst others) plaintiffs that (i) engaged in USD LIBOR-linked
over-the-counter transactions (OTC Class); (ii) purchased USD
LIBOR-linked financial instruments on an exchange (Exchange-Based
Class); (iii) purchased USD LIBOR-linked debt securities (Debt
Securities Class); (iv) purchased adjustable-rate mortgages linked
to USD LIBOR (Homeowner Class); or (v) issued loans linked to USD
LIBOR (Lender Class).

In August 2012 the MDL Court stayed all newly filed proposed class
actions and individual actions (Stayed Actions). In March 2013,
August 2013 and June 2014, the MDL Court issued a series of
decisions effectively dismissing the majority of claims against
Barclays Bank PLC and other panel bank defendants in the three
lead proposed class actions (Lead Class Actions) and three lead
individual actions (Lead Individual Actions).

In July 2014, the MDL Court allowed the Stayed Actions to proceed
and a number of plaintiffs filed amended complaints. The MDL Court
subsequently dismissed a number of Lead Individual Action claims
and all Homeowner Class and Lender Class claims. In May 2016, the
appeal court reversed the MDL Court's holding that plaintiffs in
the Lead Class Actions, including the Debt Securities Class, and
Lead Individual Actions had not suffered an injury under the
Antitrust Act, and remanded the antitrust claims for the MDL
Court's further consideration of those claims and related issues.
Following further consideration, the MDL Court dismissed the
majority of antitrust claims against foreign defendants, including
Barclays Bank PLC, for lack of personal jurisdiction. Certain
plaintiffs have sought leave to move the MDL Court to reconsider
its decision, and certain defendants, including Barclays Bank PLC,
have sought leave to move to dismiss certain of the remaining
antitrust claims.

In December 2014, the MDL Court granted preliminary approval for
the settlement of the Exchange-Based Class claims for $20m. Final
approval of the settlement is awaiting plaintiff's submission of a
plan for allocation of the settlement proceeds acceptable to the
MDL Court and will be subject to the right of class members to
opt-out of the settlement and to seek to file their own claims.

In November 2015, the OTC Class claims were settled for $120m. The
settlement was preliminarily approved by the MDL court in December
2016, but remains subject to final court approval and the right of
class members to opt-out of the settlement and to seek to file
their own claims.

In November 2016, a settlement was agreed with respect to the Debt
Securities Class claims. As the plaintiffs have not yet sought
court approval of the settlement, the amount (which Barclays does
not consider to be material to the Group) has not yet been
publicly disclosed.


BARCLAYS PLC: EURIBOR Case Settlement Awaits Final Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the
settlement of the EURIBOR Case remains subject to final court
approval.

In February 2013, a EURIBOR-related class action was filed against
Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, BCI and other EURIBOR panel banks
in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York
(SDNY). The plaintiffs asserted antitrust, CEA, RICO, and unjust
enrichment claims relating to EURIBOR manipulation.

In October 2015, the class action was settled for $94m subject to
court approval.

The settlement has been preliminarily approved by the court but
remains subject to final approval and the right of class members
to opt-out of the settlement and to seek to file their own claims.


BARCLAYS PLC: Motion to Dismiss Sterling LIBOR Case Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the
Company's motion to dismiss the Sterling LIBOR Case in New York
remains pending.

In May 2015, a putative class action was commenced in the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY)
against Barclays Bank PLC and other Sterling LIBOR panel banks by
a plaintiff involved in exchange-traded and over-the-counter
derivatives that were linked to Sterling LIBOR. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that Barclays Bank PLC and other
panel banks manipulated the Sterling LIBOR rate between 2005 and
2010 and, in so doing, committed CEA, Antitrust Act, and RICO
violations.

In early 2016, this class action was consolidated with an
additional putative class action making similar allegations
against Barclays Bank PLC and BCI and other Sterling LIBOR panel
banks. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.


BARCLAYS PLC: Dismissal of Calif. LIBOR Case Affirmed on Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the
dismissal of a class action complaint in the US District Court for
the Central District of California has been affirmed on appeal.

In July 2012, a putative class action complaint in the US District
Court for the Central District of California was amended to
include allegations related to USD LIBOR and names Barclays Bank
PLC as a defendant. The amended complaint was filed on behalf of a
putative class that includes holders of adjustable rate mortgages
linked to USD LIBOR.

In January 2015, the court granted Barclays Bank PLC's motion for
summary judgement and dismissed all of the remaining claims
against Barclays Bank PLC. The dismissal was affirmed on appeal in
December 2016.


BARCLAYS PLC: Seeks to Dismiss 2 Japanese Yen LIBOR Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the
defendants are seeking dismissal of two Japanese Yen LIBOR cases
in New York.

A putative class action was commenced in April 2012 in the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY)
against Barclays Bank PLC and other Japanese Yen LIBOR panel banks
by a plaintiff involved in exchange-traded derivatives. The
complaint also names members of the Japanese Bankers Association's
Euroyen Tokyo Interbank Offered Rate (Euroyen TIBOR) panel, of
which Barclays Bank PLC is not a member. The complaint alleges,
amongst other things, manipulation of the Euroyen TIBOR and Yen
LIBOR rates and breaches of the CEA and Antitrust Act between 2006
and 2010.

In March 2014, the court dismissed the plaintiff's antitrust
claims in full, but sustained the plaintiff's CEA claims, which
are pending. Plaintiff has amended the pleadings to extend the
putative class period, and defendants have filed a partial motion
to dismiss claims arising during the extended period.

In July 2015, a second putative class action concerning Yen LIBOR
was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of
New York (SDNY) against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC and BCI.
The complaint alleges breaches of the Antitrust Act and RICO
between 2006 and 2010 based on factual allegations that are
substantially similar to those in the April 2012 class action.
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss.


BARCLAYS PLC: Dismissal of SIBOR/SOR Case Sought
------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the
defendants are seeking to dismiss the SIBOR/SOR case in the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY).

A putative class action was commenced in July 2016 in the SDNY
against Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, BCI, and other
defendants, alleging manipulation of the Singapore Interbank
Offered Rate (SIBOR) and Singapore Swap Offer Rate (SOR). The
complaint alleges, amongst other things, manipulation of the SIBOR
and SOR rates and breaches of the Antitrust Act and RICO between
2007 and 2011. Defendants filed motions to dismiss.


BARCLAYS PLC: Dismissal of ERISA FX Claims under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the
plaintiffs in the ERISA FX class action lawsuit have appealed the
dismissal of their claims.

A number of individuals and corporates in a range of jurisdictions
have threatened or brought civil actions against the Group and
other banks in relation to Foreign Exchange or may do so in
future. Certain of these cases have been dismissed or have been
settled subject to approval from the relevant court (and in the
case of class actions, the right of class members to opt-out of
the settlement and to seek to file their own claims).

Since February 2015, several other civil actions have been filed
in US District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY)
on behalf of proposed classes of plaintiffs purporting to allege
different legal theories of injury (other than those alleged in
the Consolidated FX Action) related to alleged manipulation of
Foreign Exchange rates and naming several international banks as
defendants, including Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC and BCI. One
such consolidated action asserts claims under the US Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) statute (ERISA Claims) and
includes allegations of conduct that are duplicative of
allegations in the other cases, as well as additional allegations
about ERISA plans.

The Court has ruled that the ERISA allegations concerning
collusive manipulation of FX rates are covered by the settlement
agreement in the Consolidated FX Action, but has not ruled on
whether allegations characterised by the ERISA plaintiffs as non-
collusive manipulation of FX rates are likewise covered by the
agreement.

In September 2016, the Court dismissed all claims (based on both
alleged collusive and non-collusive conduct) in the ERISA Claims
against Barclays and all other defendants as a matter of law. The
ERISA plaintiffs have appealed this decision.


BARCLAYS PLC: Motion to Dismiss Retail Basis Claims Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that Barclays'
motion to dismiss the Retail Basis Claims remains pending.

An action was filed in the Northern District of California (and
subsequently transferred to the US District Court for the Southern
District of New York (SDNY)) against several international banks,
including Barclays PLC and BCI, on behalf of a putative class of
individuals that exchanged currencies on a retail basis at bank
branches (Retail Basis Claims). The Court has ruled that the
Retail Basis Claims are not covered by the settlement agreement in
the Consolidated FX Action. Barclays has moved to dismiss the
Retail Basis Claims as a matter of law.


BMOCORP INC: Faces Suit Over TCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------
Allison Grande at Law360 reports that the founder of the Center
for Class Action Fairness on March 10 hit a business that markets
auto warranties with a proposed class action in Missouri federal
court alleging that the telemarketer violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by placing thousands of unsolicited
autodialed cellphone calls to consumers nationwide.

Plaintiff Theodore Frank, who founded the non-profit law firm the
Center for Class Action Fairness in 2009 to represent consumers
dissatisfied with their counsel in class actions and class action
settlements, claims in the new complaint that BMOCorp Inc. and its
owners Michael Jecklin and Biff McCullough ran afoul of the TCPA
by failing to obtain prior express written consent from consumers
who received autodialed calls promoting aftermarket third-party
auto warranties.

"The TCPA was enacted to protect consumers from unauthorized and
unwanted autodialed calls exactly like the ones alleged in this
case," said the complaint, lodged by Frank's counsel at the
prominent privacy class action firm Edelson PC. "By placing the
autodialed calls at issue, defendants have violated the privacy
and statutory rights of plaintiff and the class and caused them to
suffer actual harm by subjecting them to the aggravation that
necessarily accompanies the receipt of such repeated and
unauthorized autodialed calls."

In a statement provided to Law360, Frank said that while the
Center for Class Action Fairness -- which merged with the
Competitive Enterprise Institute in October 2015 -- has routinely
objected to class actions and settlements that the firm has
claimed benefited plaintiffs' attorneys more than consumers, he
has "always supported class action as a procedural device, and
merely oppose their misuse."

Frank also praised Jay Edelson, the founder of the plaintiffs'
class action heavyweight that he has retained to represent him in
the instant action.

"Jay Edelson and I probably disagree about the appropriate scope
of the TCPA and Rule 23(b)(3) and many other things, but this case
in my mind is unquestionably aimed at the kind of telemarketing
abuse the TCPA outlaws, and I'm happy we have common ground here,"
Frank said.

Edelson echoed these sentiments in his own statement, saying that
his firm was "honored" that Frank had asked it to represent him
and that it was "very much looking forward to getting this case
moving."

"Ted is a passionate, and especially effective, advocate for the
proposition that class actions must be used to benefit the class
and not as a vehicle to enrich attorneys," Edelson said. "Given
his many accomplishments in helping to reform our industry, most
notably in the settlement space, and his role in the case as lead
plaintiff, we feel like we come into this litigation in an
especially strong position."

The newly filed complaint targets BMOCorp., a Missouri-based
business that uses the name "Auto Protection 1" in its marketing.
The complaint claims that Auto Protection 1 is a fictitious name
registered to Jecklin and provides contact information for
McCullough, but that the defendants have "taken intentional steps
to obfuscate [the company's] actual structure and ownership."

For instance, BMOCorp lists a Missouri-based law firm, the Law
Offices of Raymond Lampert, for a physical address and names
individuals who work for unrelated companies in New York and
California as major players in the business, according to the
complaint.

Frank alleges that, under the Auto Protection 1 brand, the
defendants have implemented a campaign to use autodialers to make
telemarketing calls intended to sell extended auto warranty
coverage to thousands of consumers around the country, whose
contact information they have obtained from "unknown sources."

The suit claims that the calls, which many consumers have
complained about in online forums, are made from numerous spoofed
phone numbers with area codes from around the country and that the
defendants use various techniques to obscure the true numbers from
which they call.

Frank asserts that he heard from the company on Feb. 21, when he
received an autodialed telemarketing call on his personal
cellphone while he was working.

According to the complaint, after hearing a "silent delay, a click
and then background noise consistent with a telemarketing pen,"
Frank was asked by a female telemarketer who introduced herself as
"Missy" from Auto Protection 1 if he was "Theodore" who owned a
2012 Toyota Prius. Frank, who had owned a Prius but sold it in
2016, responded by informing the telemarketer that he had not
provided any form of consent to receive the call, the complaint
said.

Frank claims that the caller then laughed, repeated the question
about whether he owned the car, and hung up on him when he asked
to speak with her supervisor. The complaint added that Frank had
never consented to the call, had no relationship with the
defendants and had registered his cellphone with the National Do
Not Call Registry in January 2006 "for the express purpose of
avoiding unwanted telemarketing calls just like those placed by
defendants."

The complaint asks the court to certify a nationwide class of all
individuals who received a cellphone call from a representative of
"Auto Protection 1" that was placed using an automatic telephone
dialing system for the purpose of marketing defendants' products
or services without the recipient's prior written consent.

Frank is also seeking an injunction requiring the defendants to
stop using an autodialer to place telemarketing calls to
cellphones and an award of actual and statutory damages, including
treble damages for the defendants' purportedly willful conduct.

"Defendants knowingly placed (and continue to place) these
autodialed telemarketing calls to cell telephones without the
prior express written consent of the call recipients," the
complaint said. "As such, defendants not only invaded the personal
privacy of plaintiff and other members of the putative class, but
also intentionally and repeatedly violated the TCPA."

The defendants could not be immediately reached for comment.

Frank is represented by Jay Edelson -- jedelson@edelson.com --
Benjamin H. Richman -- brichman@edelson.com -- and Rafey S.
Balabanian -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- of Edelson PC.

Counsel information for the defendants was not immediately
available.

The case is Frank v. BMOCorp. Inc., case number 4:17-cv-00870, in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.


BOONE SCHOOL: Faces Suit Over Employees' Insurance Premiums
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Quinn, writing for Charleston Gazette-Mail, reports that two
Boone County public school employees have filed what they're
requesting be a class-action lawsuit alleging that their paycheck
deductions didn't properly go toward paying for requested
supplemental retirement and supplemental insurance coverage.

"More people are finding out it's happened to them every day,"
said Stacey Fragile, one of the workers' Beckley-based attorneys.
She said one employee who may join the suit has told her that a
supplemental life insurance plan was completely canceled for
unpaid premiums.

According to the case documents, provided by Fragile, the suit is
currently filed against the Boone school board, the current and
former Boone schools superintendents and Stephen Green, the Boone
school system's director/coordinator of support services.

Fragile said the suit's naming of the generic "John Doe and Jane
Doe" as further defendants allows for more people to be sued if
they're identified as possibly responsible for the alleged
misappropriation.

Boone school officials didn't respond to requests for comment on
March 10 afternoon. The suit was filed in Boone Circuit Court.

Employee Jerriann M. Cochran alleges that while she directed the
defendants to, and the defendants agreed to, deposit set amounts
of money from her wages into accounts with the West Virginia
Retirement Plus Deferred Compensation Plan, the defendants failed
to make such deposits between January and October of last year.

The suit alleges that, in January of this year, the defendants
made a "lump sum" payment that still didn't match the amount of
money that should have been deposited in 2016 nor made up for the
possible dividends that could have been earned from investments in
the plan -- had the money been deposited.

Employee Cheryl D. Judy alleges she directed the defendants to,
and the defendants agreed to, deduct money from her wages to pay
premiums to Washington National Insurance Company, yet the
premiums weren't paid starting Dec. 1, 2016.

The case is seeking court approval to become a class-action suit,
meaning others with circumstances similar to what allegedly
happened to Judy and Cochran would be able to join the suit.

"I don't know how big the class is going to get," Fragile said.

She said that not knowing how many employees the case will involve
means she doesn't know how much money the suit will seek. She said
she also has to have an expert figure out how much was lost in
possible retirement account dividends.

Fragile said the Washington National Insurance plans include
supplemental life insurance plans and supplemental health
insurance plans. The main retirement coverage for Mountain State
public school employees is the Teachers' Retirement System and the
main health insurance comes through the Public Employees Insurance
Agency.

Fragile said that Judy, despite already having had money withheld
from her wages to pay the insurance premiums, started paying her
own premiums after getting nonpayment notes from the insurance
company.

"She received four different letters about four different
supplemental plans she has," Fragile said.

Separate from these allegations, Boone public school employees
already had their pay and benefits drastically cut this school
year.

Last summer, the state Board of Education threatened to take away
power from Boone's locally elected school board members if they
didn't make drastic cuts to save money this school year.

In July, the Boone school board agreed to the cuts, which included
a $3,800 to $4,000 salary cut per full-time professional employee
(a category that includes teachers and school administrators) and
a $3,650 to $3,850 salary cut per full-time service employee (a
category that includes custodians and bus drivers).

The vote also nixed workers' employer-paid dental and vision
insurance coverage.


CATCHLIGHT FILMS: "Ibanez" Seeks to Recoup Minimum Wage
-------------------------------------------------------
LEO IBANEZ, JEFFREY CHIN, BERNARD CISTRUNK, PAUL LAMBIASE,
NICHOLAS KIRSTEN, RICK PEEBLES, and HARRIS & RUBLE, the
Plaintiffs, v. CATCHLIGHT FILMS, LLC, LESSER OF THREE EVILS, LLC,
JEANETTE BRILL FKA JEANETTE VOLTURNO, and DOE ONE through and
including DOE ONE HUNDRED, the Defendants, Case No. BC650730 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Feb. 14, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wage under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The case seeks a judgment upon a judgment (the "Judgment")
pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 337.5(b)
which states that "an action upon a judgment or decree of any
court of the United States or of any state within the United
States may be renewed within 10 years.

On April 24, 2007, Plaintiffs alleged this lawsuit to be a class
action or a representative suit under state or federal law.
The Judgment was entered on July 27, 2007, in the Superior Court
of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles.

The current Complaint is filed within ten years of the date said
Judgment became final. Thus, this complaint is timely under the
provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, says the Plaintiff.  A
judgment creditor is entitled as a matter of right to a judgment
on the original judgment providing it is commenced within the 10-
year statute of limitations period, Plaintiff further notes.
Laches is no defense.

The underlying case in this matter (Los Angeles Superior Court
Case No. BC337732) involved the failure of joint employers, Lesser
of Three Evils, LLC ("LOTE"), Catchlight Films, LLC
("Catchlight"), Jeanette Voltumo aka Jeanette Brill
("Brill"), and Amon Manor ("Manor") (collectively, "Defendants")
to pay Judgment Creditors for labor they performed on a 2004
feature film production, "Lesser of Three Evils" (the
"Production").

The Defendants had continued to employ Plaintiffs, but failed to
pay them their minimum and overtime wages in accordance with state
and federal law for their work during the last two weeks of the
Production.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan Harris, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          655 N. Central Ave. 17th Floor
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: 323 962 3777
          Facsimile: 323 962 3004
          E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com


CCB CREDIT: Olbinski Seeks Certification of Class Under Damasco
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Olbinski moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit titled DUANE OLBINSKI, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CCB CREDIT
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-00281 (E.D. Wisc.), and further
asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification
and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the
Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring
briefs and supporting material to be filed with the motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence, the
Plaintiff states.  The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is
obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests
of the putative class.

The Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016
U.S. LEXIS 846 *14-15 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016) (internal citations
omitted) and Chapman should have put a stop to this practice.
Unfortunately, they have not, the Plaintiff notes.  In dicta, the
Supreme Court left open the possibility that a defendant facing a
class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's claim with the court and having the court enter
judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to a class certification
motion.  Campbell-Ewald Co., 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 *19 ("We need
not, and do not, now decide whether the result would be different
if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's
individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the
court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount.").

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

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative
and further asks the Court to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as
class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kLrWR92J

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CEB INC: Being Sold Too Cheaply, "Steinberg" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News service, reported that
directors are selling CEB Inc. too cheaply through an unfair
process to Gartner Inc., for $54 in cash plus 0.2284 Gartner
shares per CEB share, or $2.6 billion, shareholders of the tech-
management firm claim in a federal class action in Wilmington,
Del.

The case is captioned, CHAILE STEINBERG, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. CEB INC.,
THOMAS L. MONAHAN , III, GREGOR S. BAILAR, STEPHEN M. CARTER,
GORDON J. COBURN, KATHLEEN A. CORBET, L. KEVIN COX, DANIEL O.
LEEMON, STACEY S. RAUCH, JEFFREY R. TARR, GARTNER, INC., and COBRA
ACQUISITION CORP., Defendants. Case 1:17-cv-00226-UNA (D. Del.
March 3, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


CENTURYLINK INC: Parties in "Tomasulo" Reached MOU
--------------------------------------------------
Centurylink, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the parties in the case,
Jeffery Tomasulo v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al., have entered into a
memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of the
lawsuit.

CenturyLink and the members of the CenturyLink Board have been
named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
filed on January 11, 2017 in the 4th Judicial District Court of
the State of Louisiana, Ouachita Parish, captioned Jeffery
Tomasulo v. CenturyLink, Inc., et al., Docket No. C-20170110.

The complaint asserts, among other things, that the members of
CenturyLink's Board allegedly breached their fiduciary duties to
the CenturyLink shareholders in approving the Level 3 merger
agreement and, more particularly, that: the consideration that
CenturyLink agreed to pay to Level 3 stockholders in the
transaction is allegedly unfairly high; the CenturyLink directors
allegedly had conflicts of interest in negotiating and approving
the transaction; and the disclosures set forth in our preliminary
joint proxy statement/prospectus filed in December 2016 are
insufficient in that they allegedly fail to contain material
information concerning the transaction. The complaint seeks, among
other things, a declaration that the members of the CenturyLink
Board have breached their fiduciary duties, corrective disclosure,
rescissory or other damages and equitable relief, including
rescission of the transaction.

On February 13, 2017, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding providing for the settlement of the lawsuit. The
proposed settlement is subject to court approval, among other
conditions.

CenturyLink is an integrated communications company engaged
primarily in providing an array of services to our residential and
business customers.


CENTURYLINK INC: Settlement of Fulghum and Abbott Cases Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Centurylink, Inc. believes the settlement of the Fulghum and
Abbott cases is likely to be final in mid 2017, the Company said
in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

In William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al.,
filed on December 28, 2007 in the United States District Court for
the District of Kansas, a group of retirees filed a class action
lawsuit challenging the decision to make certain modifications in
retiree benefits programs relating to life insurance, medical
insurance and prescription drug benefits, generally effective
January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2008 (which, at the time of the
modifications, was expected to reduce estimated future expenses
for the subject benefits by more than $300 million).

Defendants include Embarq, certain of its benefit plans, its
Employee Benefits Committee and the individual plan administrator
of certain of its benefits plans. Additional defendants include
Sprint Nextel and certain of its benefit plans. The court
certified classes on the claims for vested benefits and age
discrimination, but rejected class certification on the claims for
breach of fiduciary duty.

On October 14, 2011, the Fulghum lawyers filed a new, related
lawsuit, Abbott et al. v. Sprint Nextel et al. In Abbott,
approximately 1,500 plaintiffs alleged breach of fiduciary duty in
connection with the changes in retiree benefits that were at issue
in Fulghum.

After extensive district court proceedings in Fulghum, and an
interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit, defendants prevailed in 2015 on all age
discrimination claims and on the majority of claims for vested
benefits. The district court in Fulghum subsequently granted
judgment in favor of defendants on all remaining vested benefits
claims, and in July 2016 ordered that any affected class members
could appeal this ruling. No appeal was taken, and all claims for
vested benefits thus have lapsed.

The Company said, "On August 31, 2016, the parties reached a
settlement in principle on all remaining claims in Fulghum and
Abbott. Assuming its terms are successfully implemented, we
believe the settlement is likely to be final in mid 2017. We have
accrued a liability that we believe is probable for these matters;
the amount is not material to our consolidated financial
statements."

CenturyLink is an integrated communications company engaged
primarily in providing an array of services to our residential and
business customers.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeal in Total Bond Market Fund Case Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Charles Schwab Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a second appeal
by Plaintiffs in the Total Bond Market Fund Litigation remains
pending.

On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund(TM). The
lawsuit, which alleged violations of state law and federal
securities law in connection with the fund's investment policy,
named CSIM, Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the
fund's shares) and certain current and former fund trustees as
defendants. Allegations include that the fund improperly deviated
from its stated investment objectives by investing in
collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and investing more than
25% of fund assets in CMOs and mortgage-backed securities without
obtaining a shareholder vote. Plaintiff seeks unspecified
compensatory and rescission damages, unspecified equitable and
injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees. Plaintiff's federal
securities law claim and certain of plaintiff's state law claims
were dismissed.

On August 8, 2011, the court dismissed plaintiff's remaining
claims with prejudice. Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit,
which issued a ruling on March 9, 2015 reversing the district
court's dismissal of the case and remanding the case for further
proceedings.

Plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint on June 25, 2015, and
in decisions issued October 6, 2015 and February 23, 2016, the
court dismissed all claims with prejudice. Plaintiff has appealed
to the Ninth Circuit, where the case is again pending.

The Charles Schwab Corporation (CSC) is a savings and loan holding
company, headquartered in San Francisco, California.


CLARK COUNTY, NV: Parents Can Amend Sexual Abuse Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada approved a stipulation and ordered for the
filing of the first amended complaint in the case captioned JOHN
and JANE DOE I, Guardians Ad Litem for JOANN DOE I, a minor,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, and
JOHN and JANE DOE II, Guardians Ad Litem for JOANN DOE II, a
minor, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated;
Plaintiffs, v. JEREMIAH MAZO; CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; DOES 1
through 20; DOE 1 through 20; ROE CORPORATIONS 1 through 20,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00239-APG-PAL (D. Nev.).

The complaint was filed by parents and guardians of students at
the Hayden Elementary School over alleged sexual abuse performed
by Jeremiah Mazo, a former teacher at the school, towards the
student-plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs seek to amend their original complaint to include the
Nevada State Education Association and the Clark County Education
Association as named defendants.

Plaintiffs and counsel for Clark County School District have
stipulated and agreed that plaintiffs may file a first amended
complaint within 5 days from the entry of stipulation and order.
Plaintiffs and existing defendants agree to work with new
defendants to allow for sufficient time for all discovery to be
completed in an efficient and timely manner.

The parties have agreed that the caption for the action shall be
amended to reflect the newly included parties, NSEA and CCEA. The
caption shall be amended effective immediately upon approval of
the stipulation.

Magistrate Judge Leen granted the parties' stipulation

A copy of Judge Leen's Stipulation and order dated February 28,
2017, is available at https://goo.gl/1fqnqt from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Aaron D. Ford, Esq.
Eglet Prince
400 S 7th #400
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Tel: 702-450-5400

Jeremiah Mazo, Defendant, represented by:

John G. George, Esq.
John George
4122 Hazelcrest Dr
Las Vegas, NV 89121-6346

Clark County School District, Defendant, represented by Kara B.
Hendricks -- hendricksk@gtlaw.com -- Mark E. Ferrario --
ferrariom@gtlaw.com -- Moorea L. Katz -- katzmer@gtlaw.com -- at
Greenberg Traurig LLP; Michelle R. Schwarz -- at Buckley King LPA;
Steven T. Jaffe -- at Hall Jaffe & Clayton, LLP


CIGNA CORP: Additional Ruling on Plan Benefits Calculation Issued
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the Amara cash balance pension plan litigation, the District
Court has issued an additional ruling regarding certain aspects of
the calculation of additional plan benefits, Cigna Corporation
said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

In December 2001, Janice Amara filed a class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against Cigna
Corporation and the Cigna Pension Plan (the "Plan") on behalf of
herself and other similarly situated Plan participants affected by
the 1998 conversion to a cash balance formula. The plaintiffs
allege various violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), including that the Plan's cash
balance formula discriminates against older employees; that the
conversion resulted in a wear-away period (when the pre-conversion
accrued benefit exceeded the post-conversion benefit); and that
the Plan communications contained inaccurate or inadequate
disclosures about these conditions.

In 2008, the District Court (1) affirmed the Company's right to
convert to a cash balance plan prospectively beginning in 1998;
(2) found for plaintiffs on the disclosure claim only; and (3)
required the Company to pay pre-1998 benefits under the pre-
conversion traditional annuity formula and post-1997 benefits
under the post-conversion cash balance formula. The Second Circuit
upheld this decision.

From 2008 through the present, this case has undergone a series of
court proceedings that resulted in the original District Court
order being largely upheld.

In 2015, the Company submitted to the District Court its proposed
method for calculating the additional pension benefits due to
class members and plaintiffs responded in August 2015.

In January 2016, the District Court ordered the method of
calculating the additional pension benefits due to class members.
The court order left several aspects of the calculation of
additional plan benefits open to interpretation. During 2016, the
Company submitted its interpretation of the Court Order and the
plaintiffs filed various objections.

On January 10, 2017, the District Court issued an additional
ruling regarding certain aspects of the calculation of additional
plan benefits.

The Company's reserve for this litigation remains reasonable at
December 31, 2016 based on calculations consistent with the
Company's interpretation of the updated guidance from the Court.
However, certain aspects of the ruling will need further
clarification from the Court before final plan benefits can be
determined. As a result, the timing of the resolution of this
matter remains uncertain. Once resolved, the Plan will be amended
to comply with the final interpretation of the District Court's
order and the benefits will begin to be paid.

Cigna Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a global
health services organization dedicated to a mission of helping
individuals improve their health, well-being and sense of
security.


CIGNA CORP: Continues to Defend "Franco" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Cigna Corporation will continue to vigorously defend its position
in the case captioned, Franco v. Connecticut General Life
Insurance Company, et al., Cigna said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In April 2004, the Company was sued in a number of putative
nationwide class actions alleging that the Company improperly
underpaid claims for out-of-network providers through the use of
data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of the
Company's competitors. These actions were consolidated into Franco
v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, et al., pending in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The
consolidated amended complaint, filed in 2009 on behalf of
subscribers, health care providers and various medical
associations, asserted claims related to benefits and disclosure
under ERISA, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
("RICO") Act, the Sherman Antitrust Act and New Jersey state law
and seeks recovery for alleged underpayments from 1998 through the
present. Other major health insurers have been the subject of, or
have settled, similar litigation.

In September 2011, the District Court (1) dismissed all claims by
the health care provider and medical association plaintiffs for
lack of standing; and (2) dismissed the antitrust claims, the New
Jersey state law claims and the ERISA disclosure claim. In January
2013 and again in April 2014, the District Court denied separate
motions by the plaintiffs to certify a nationwide class of
subscriber plaintiffs. The Third Circuit denied plaintiffs'
request for an immediate appeal of the January 2013 ruling. As a
result, the case is proceeding on behalf of the named plaintiffs
only.

In June 2014, the District Court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment to terminate all claims, and denied the
plaintiffs' partial motion for summary judgment. In July 2014, the
plaintiffs appealed all of the District Court's decisions in favor
of the Company, including the class certification decision, to the
Third Circuit.

On May 2, 2016, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's
decisions denying class certification for the claims asserted by
members, the granting of summary judgment on the individual
plaintiffs' claims, as well as the dismissal of the antitrust
claims. However, the Third Circuit also reversed the earlier
dismissal of the providers' ERISA claims. The Company will
continue to vigorously defend its position.

Cigna Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a global
health services organization dedicated to a mission of helping
individuals improve their health, well-being and sense of
security.


COMMERCE BANCSHARES: Still Defends Against "Warren" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Commerce Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the case captioned
as, Cassandra Warren, et al v. Commerce Bank remains stayed.

On August 15, 2014, a customer filed a class action complaint
against the Bank in the Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri.
The case is Cassandra Warren, et al v. Commerce Bank (Case No.
1416-CV19197). In the case, the customer alleges violation of the
Missouri usury statute in connection with the Bank charging
overdraft fees in connection with point-of-sale/debit and
automated-teller machine cards. The class was certified and
consists of Missouri customers of the Bank who may have been
similarly affected.

The case has been stayed pending the final outcome of a similar
case in which a ruling has been made in favor of the bank
defendant.

The Company believes that the stay will remain in effect until any
appeals in the similar case have run their course. The Company
believes the Warren complaint lacks merit and will defend itself
vigorously. The amount of any ultimate exposure cannot be
determined with certainty at this time.

Commerce Bancshares, Inc., a bank holding company as defined in
the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, was incorporated
under the laws of Missouri on August 4, 1966. Through a second
tier wholly-owned bank holding company, it owns all of the
outstanding capital stock of Commerce Bank (the "Bank"), which is
headquartered in Missouri.


COMPANIA SUD: Reaches Deal in Vehicle Carrier Services Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The first settlement in the "Vehicle Carrier Services Class
Action" has been reached. The Plaintiffs in the Vehicle Carrier
Services Class Action allege that among other things, the
Defendants were involved in a price fixing conspiracy where
consumers were overcharged for Vehicle Carrier Services when
shipping vehicles by RoRo from overseas. A "RoRo" is a type of
ocean vessel that allows wheeled vehicles to be driven on and off
the vessel and parked on its decks for ocean transport.

                  The Settlement

A Settlement Agreement has been reached with Compania Sud
Americana de Vapores S.A. ("CSAV") which is one of 20 Defendants
involved in this action. CSAV has agreed to pay CAD $450,000.00
and to provide co-operation to the Plaintiffs in pursuing their
claims against the remaining Defendants. Notably, CSAV is a
Chilean company that did not have any direct commerce with respect
to Vehicle Carrier Services in Canada during the class period.
CSAV and related entities will be provided with a full release of
claims against them in relation to the Vehicle Carrier Services
Class Action. CSAV does not admit any wrongdoing in connection
with the case.

                    Settlement Funds

The Settlement Fund will not be distributed to Class Members at
this time as the litigation is ongoing against the other
Defendants.

The Settlement must be approved by the Courts for it to be
effective.

Class Members can comment on or object to the Settlement but need
to do so by May 1, 2017. More information on how to do this can be
found at www.roroclassaction.com and www.actioncollectiveroro.com.

                          Opting-Out

The matter has been certified for settlement purposes against
CSAV, which means that Class Members now have the opportunity to
opt-out of the class action if they do not wish to be bound by the
result. If you do not want to be a class member you must opt-out
by May 10, 2017. Class members who opt-out will not be able to
participate in this or any future settlement or judgment. It is
not possible to opt back in. If class members do not opt-out now,
they will be bound by this and any other future settlements or
judgment. A class member cannot opt-out later on.

                 The Lawyers representing Class Members

Harrison Pensa LLP (Attention: Jonathan Foreman) represents Class
Members in Ontario and in all provinces other than British
Columbia and Quebec.

Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman (Attention: David G.A. Jones)
represents Class Members in British Columbia.

Belleau Lapointe, s.e.n.c.r.l. (Attention: Maxime Nasr) represents
Class Members in Quebec.


CONDOR SECURITIZATION: Cert. of Class Sought in "Deviese" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled JAMES C. DEVIESE and TERESA
DEVIESE v. CONDOR SECURITIZATION TRUST, CONDOR HOLDCO
SECURITIZATION TRUST, CONDOR ASSETCO SECURITIZATION TRUST, and
CONDOR RECOVERY SECURITIZATION TRUST, Case No. 3:17-cv-00168-JD-
MGG (Ind. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty.), moves for an order certifying
a class consisting of:

     All persons who (1) financed through Condor-owned agreements
     the purchase of a motor vehicle, which was a "consumer good"
     under Section 1-9-102(23) of the UCC, which was repossessed
     during the time period from four (4) years preceding the
     filing of the instant action through the date of
     certification; and (b) who were sent post-repossession
     notices which failed to comply with the notice requirements
     of Article 9, Part 6 of the UCC ("UCC Class").

The Devieses also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives for the UCC Class and to appoint their attorneys
as counsel for the UCC Class.  They further ask the Court to
direct that notice be sent to the members of the UCC Class at the
expense of Condor.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert E. Duff, Esq.
          INDIANA CONSUMER LAW GROUP/
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT E. DUFF
          P.O. Box 7251
          Fishers, IN 46037
          Telephone: (800) 817-0461
          Facsimile: (800) 817-0461
          E-mail: robert@robertdufflaw.com

               - and -

          Robert W. Murphy, Esq.
          MURPHY LAW FIRM
          1212 S.E. 2nd Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 763-8660
          Facsimile: (954) 7638607
          E-mail: rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Evan S. Strassberg, Esq.
          MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH, LLP
          Union Park Center, Suite 100
          Midvale, UT 84047
          Telephone: (801) 833-0477
          E-mail: esstrassberg@michaelbest.com


CVS PHARMACY: Judge Won't Certify Classes in "Corcoran" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in Oakland, California, indicated March 7,
she would not certify 11 state classes in a federal class action
accusing CVS Pharmacy of overcharging customers for generic drugs,
though she signaled she may allow the plaintiffs to amend their
motion for certification.

Lead plaintiff Christopher Corcoran sued CVS in August 2015,
claiming it charged insured customers and their insurers up to
four times more for generic prescription drugs than they charged
uninsured customers.

Corcoran says that by law the co-pay that CVS charges insured
customers can't exceed its "usual and customary price" -- the
amount it charges uninsured customers for a prescription. But CVS
does do that, Corcoran claims.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers pummeled class counsel
throughout a contentious hour-long hearing Tuesday, doubting that
the case could proceed as a class action because it does not
appear to satisfy commonality and reliance requirements.

"The problem I see is that there are fiftyish in that group of
[claims administrators] and 1,200 contracts, all of which were
separately negotiated by sophisticated parties, and somehow you
have common evidence that suggests that there have been
affirmative representations?" she asked class attorney Robert
Gilmore about the drug purchase contracts that CVS negotiates with
insurers and their claims administrators. "I don't see how you are
going to get over this hurdle."

Gilmore responded that CVS's customary prices render its contracts
"materially the same," and that "they all involve the [usual and
customary] prices."

In calculating a customary price, a pharmacy takes into account
the most common prices it charges for drugs without insurance. The
pharmacy then reports its customary price to insurers, and
insurers and patients pay the pharmacy what they owe based on that
price, according to the motion to certify the class.

In 2008, CVS launched its Health Savings Pass program, a discount
program for generic drugs aimed at uninsured patients. When CVS
rolled it out, a 90-day supply of a covered drug cost $9.99. The
plaintiffs say that the cheaper drug prices available under the
program were CVS's most common prices, and that it should have
used them to calculate its customary price, but did not.

On March 7, CVS attorney Frank Heard echoed the judge's assessment
that a class action is impossible.

"Each plaintiff has his own health plan. The evidence shows you
have to go [insurer] by [insurer]. That is why individualized
proof dominates," Heard said, echoing the argument in CVS's motion
in opposition to class certification.

Heard said that determining whether a class member has an injury
means looking at that member's insurance policy, and that "only if
you go back to the individual's policy will you know if they had a
$5 co-pay, and if they did, such a plaintiff would have no loss,
no injury."

Gilmore countered that looking at individual plans is unnecessary.

"If the [customary] price is lower, that's the number the [claims
administrator] tells the pharmacy to collect, so the variations in
plan design don't matter. It makes the class uniform," he said.

Gonzalez Rogers did not appear persuaded, telling Gilmore that
damages can't be determined without analyzing a class member's
health plan.  She also rejected the plaintiffs' request for an
injunction, saying, "There is no conduct to enjoin at this point."

The plaintiffs asked in their 2015 complaint that CVS be barred
"from continuing to engage in the unlawful acts, omissions and
practices described herein," at which time its health savings
program was active.

On March 7, Gilmore told Gonzalez Rogers that though CVS
discontinued the program in February 2016, it moved the program's
members to new discounted memberships, and has continued to
exclude discounted prices from its customary price calculations.

"Is that part of the lawsuit? How can I enjoin conduct that is not
in front of me?" Gonzalez Rogers asked before tossing the claim.

The plaintiffs want to certify 11 classes of CVS customers, in
Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts,
New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas, who between
November 2008 and the present bought a generic drug through CVS's
health savings program, used insurance to buy their prescriptions,
or paid an out-of-pocket price for a prescription that was higher
than the price offered through the program.

They allege consumer law violations, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.

Gilmore is with Stein Mitchell Cipollone Beato & Missner; Heard
with Williams & Connolly, both of Washington, D.C.


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Court Vacates Cert. Hearing in "Maxwell" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on February 27, 2017, in the case
captioned Shelley Maxwell v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, et
al., Case No. 1:17-cv-01224 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing
held before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang.

The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's motion to certify
acknowledges that the motion is not ready for briefing, let alone
decision, so, the motion hearing is vacated and a briefing
schedule will be set after discovery.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Er3LQKdU


EDDIE BAUER: Veridian Credit Union Sues Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
credit union claims in Seattle federal class action that financial
institutions face expensive headaches after a data breach at 350
Eddie Bauer outlets subjected thousands of customers to ID theft
between Jan. 2 and July 17, 2016.

The case is captioned, VERIDIAN CREDIT UNION, on behalf of itself
and a class of similarly situated financial institutions,
Plaintiff, v. EDDIE BAUER LLC, Defendant. Case 2:17-cv-00356 (W.D.
Wash., March 3, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff Veridian Credit Union:

     Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
     Chase C. Alvord, Esq.
     TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
     1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200
     Seattle, Washington 98101
     Telephone: 206.682.5600
     Fax: 206.682.2992
     E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
             calvord@tousley.com

          - and -

     Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
     SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
     The Helmsley Building
     230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
     New York, NY 10169
     Telephone: (212) 223-6444
     Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
     E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

          - and -

     Erin G. Comite, Esq.
     Stephen J. Teti, Esq.
     SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
     156 South Main Street
     P.O. Box 192
     Colchester, CT 06415
     Telephone: (860) 537-5537
     Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
     E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com
             steti@scott-scott.com

          - and -

     Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
     1133 Penn Avenue, 5th floor
     Pittsburg, PA 15212
     Telephone: (412) 322-9243
     Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
     E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com

          - and -

     Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
     Kate Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
     100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Telephone: (612) 339-6900
     Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
     E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
             kmbaxter@locklaw.com

          - and -

     Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
     MURRAY LAW FIRM
     650 Poydras St., Suite 2150
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Telephone: (504) 525-8100
     Facsimile: (504) 284-5249
     E-mail: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com

          - and -

     Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
     ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
     1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th St.
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Telephone: (612) 341-0400
     Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
     E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com

          - and -

     Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
     CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
     17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Telephone: (612) 339-7300
     Facsimile: (612) 336-2921
     E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com


ELKS AIDMORE: "Bloodworth" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fannie K. Bloodworth, Tanika Thomas-Cooley, Plaintiffs, v. Elks
Aidmore, Incorporated, Abe Wilkinson, Andrea Froneak, Vickie Hail,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00409 (N.D. Ga., February 2, 2017),
is a collective action complaint seeking payment for unpaid wages,
overtime wages, liquidated damages, actual damages, compensatory
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and interest pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA).

Defendants are in the business as providing campus-based
residential care and therapeutic foster care and prevention
services for adolescents where Plaintiffs worked as Direct Care
Staff, providing companionship services and fellowship services to
adolescence in a group home environment. Defendants have wilfully
failed to comply with the provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Sec.
207, specifically, by failing to pay Plaintiffs, and others
similarly situated, for all hours worked.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher D. Vaughn, Esq.
      Frank DeMelfi, Esq.
      A. Brian Henson, Esq.
      THE VAUGHN LAW FIRM, LLC
      246 Sycamore Street, Suite 150
      Decatur, GA 30030
      Phone: (404) 378-1290
      Facsimile: (404) 378-1295


ENERGY PROTECTION: "Sahlbach" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Sahlbach, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Energy Protection Systems Group, Inc., a
California Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00369, (E.D.
Cal., March 13, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime, compensation for
missed meal breaks, damages resulting from the non-issuance of
accurate pay stubs, compensation for waiting time penalties and
minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and unfair
business practices under the California Labor Code.

Energy Protection Systems (ENPRO) is a general energy and
electrical contractor servicing San Diego, Riverside, Los Angeles,
Fresno, San Francisco and Temecula. Sahlbach worked for ENPRO as
an Electrician's Apprentice out of the Rancho Cordova facility,
installing lighting, bending conduit other various electrical
installation services. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Tracy, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL TRACY
      2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Tel: (949) 260-9171
      Fax: (866) 365-3051
      Email: mtracy@michaeltracylaw.com


FARMLAND PARTNERS: "Parshall" Class Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Farmland Partners Inc. continues to defend against the case,
Parshall v. American Farmland Company et. al., Farmland Partners
said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

On October 26, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland against the
directors of AFCO, AFCO, certain affiliates of AFCO and the
Company under the caption Parshall v. American Farmland Company et
al., Case No. 24C16005745. The complaint alleges that the AFCO
directors breached their duties to AFCO in connection with the
evaluation and approval of the proposed merger with the Company.

In addition, the complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company aided and abetted those breaches of duties. The initial
complaint sought equitable relief, including a potential
injunction against the AFCO Mergers, but the plaintiffs did not
seek further proceedings and the merger has closed.

"We believe the allegations in the complaint are without merit and
intend to defend against those allegations. By virtue of our
acquisition of AFCO, we succeeded to any liabilities of AFCO," the
Company said.

Farmland Partners Inc. is the largest public farmland real estate
investment trust in the nation, spanning more than 147,000 acres
across 17 states.  The company is currently diversified across 100
tenant farmers who grow more than 26 major commercial crops.


FLOYD COUNTY: Proposes to Settle Class Action for US$1.23 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
US News reports that a southern Indiana county has proposed
settling a federal class action lawsuit alleging inhuman
conditions at its jail for USD1.23 million.

The agreement reached in February between Floyd County and six
former inmates is pending a judge's approval, The (Louisville,
Kentucky) Courier-Journal reported.

The lawsuit filed in 2014 alleges jail officers forcibly removed
clothing from inmates who didn't pose security threats, left them
naked for prolonged periods and subjected them to excessive force.

The settlement agreement applies to inmates not on suicide watch
who were placed in a padded cell where they were deprived of
clothes, bedding and hygiene products between mid-2012 and the
present. Court records indicate about 200 people fit into that
group of inmates.

Under the proposed agreement, plaintiffs' attorneys would receive
about $500,000 and each of the six named plaintiffs -- three men
and three women -- would receive $15,000 for their time and energy
on the case. Members of the class who were subjected to either
pepper spray or a stun gun are eligible to file a claim for
$3,000. Remaining funds would then be evenly divided among all
members of the class who file a claim, up to $25,000 per person.
Any money not given to plaintiffs would be returned to the
defendants.

As part of the settlement, parties agreed on new officer training
measures, noting that the "combative subjects" policy formerly in
place at the jail is no longer in use.

Plaintiff attorney Laura Landenwich said the proposed settlement
is still under review by a judge and has not yet been approved.
The agreement compels the plaintiffs not to speak publicly about
the case and their attorneys agreed to discuss publicly only
information detailed in the court record and not to offer any
opinions.

Messages seeking comment were left on March 10 for attorneys
representing the county and other defendants in the case, which
include former Floyd County Sheriff Darrell Mills and at least
three people who were employed as jail officers.


FORD MOTOR: Anderson's Bid to Certify Denied Due to Pending Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on February 27, 2017, in the case
styled Danielle Anderson, et al. v. Ford Motor Company 1:16-cv-
01632 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable
Elaine E. Bucklo.

The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's amended motion to
certify class and the Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim are denied without prejudice in view of pending
settlement.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LDuaHi8A


GIGPEAK INC: "Mendoza" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------
Felix Mendoza, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Gigpeak, Inc., Avi Katz, Neil J. Miotto,
Kimberly D.C. Trapp, Joseph J. Lazzara, John J. Mikulsky and Frank
W. Schneider, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01351 (N.D. Cal., March
13, 2017) seeks to block the sale of Gigpeak to Integrated Device
Technology, Inc., rescinding it or awarding Plaintiff and the
Class rescissory damages should the merger push through, all
damages as a result of the Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary
duties, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for
the fees and expenses of Plaintiff's attorneys and experts and
such further relief under the Securities and Exchange Act.

Integrated Device will acquire all of the outstanding shares of
GigPeak common stock for $3.08 per share in cash in a transaction
valued at approximately $250 million. Plaintiff, a stockholder of
Gigpeak, alleges that the merger document failed to disclose the
range of illustrative terminal enterprise values for GigPeak and
the details analysis of its advisors.

GigPeak is into semiconductor ICs and software solutions for high-
speed connectivity and high-quality video compression over the
internet. It is headquartered in San Jose, California, USA, with
operations in Zurich, Switzerland, Auburn, California, USA and
Seoul, Korea. [BN]

The 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

            - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Tel: (202) 524-4290
      Fax: (202) 337-1567
      Email: denright@zlk.com


GLOBAL CREDIT: Initial Conference in "Guthrie" Suit on April 25
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on February 27, 2017, in the case
entitled Stephen Guthrie v. Global Credit & Collection Corp., et
al., Case No. Case No. 1:17-cv-01390 (N.D. Ill., relating to a
hearing held before the Honorable John Robert Blakey.

The minute entry states that an initial status conference is set
for April 25, 2017, at 9:45 a.m. in Courtroom 1725.  The parties
are advised to review and strictly comply with the Court's
standing order concerning initial status conferences and the
filing of the initial status report (which, in this case, will be
due no later than April 18, 2017).

The standing order and the template for the initial status report
are available on the Court's homepage at
http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/. Compliance with this standing
order, and all of the Court's standing orders, is expected and
required.  By way of preliminary information, the Court expects
attorneys to appear at all set dates.  If an attorney has a
conflict with a set date, the attorney must notify Judge Blakey's
Courtroom Deputy, Gloria Lewis, at (312) 818-6699.  If
appropriate, the Court will then reset the matter.  Advising
opposing counsel of a conflict is not a substitute for
communicating with the Court.  Attorneys who fail to appear and
fail to notify the Courtroom Deputy of any conflict may be subject
to sanctions.

Additionally, the parties are strongly encouraged to consider
consenting to proceed before the assigned United States Magistrate
Judge.  Should the parties elect to do so, they should notify Mrs.
Lewis, and the case will be reassigned upon receipt of the signed
consent form.

The Plaintiff's preemptive motion for class certification is
denied without prejudice.  In light of Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, 136 S.Ct. 663 (2016) and Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796
F.3d 783, 786-87 (7th Cir. 2015), the Plaintiff's preemptive
motion is unnecessary.  Although such placeholder motions were
previously required to prevent Defendant from picking off claims
like Plaintiff's, see Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
897 (7th Cir. 2011), that is no longer the case. See Brodsky
v.Humanadental Insurance Co., No. 10 C 3233, 2016 WL 5476233, at
*5 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2016) (Campbell-Ewald "stands for the
general proposition that plaintiffs, not defendants, are the
masters of their complaints.").

The minute entry further states that the March 14, 2017 Notice of
Motion date is stricken, and the parties need not appear.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Jcr250vy


HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Agrees Bail System Needs to be Reformed
----------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the CEO, district attorney and sheriff of Harris County,
Texas, all agree its bail system needs to be reformed, siding with
a federal class action in Houston, that's pushing to keep poor
people accused of petty crimes out of its jail.

Harris County DA Kim Ogg, a Democrat, took office in January
following a campaign in which she promised to focus tax dollars on
prosecuting violent criminals instead of low-level offenders,
especially marijuana possession cases.  Early this month, she
rolled out at a diversion program in which people caught with less
than four ounces of marijuana can take a four-hour drug education
class to avoid being charged. She estimates the program will keep
10,000 people annually out of Harris County Jail, which has been
plagued in recent years by overcrowding that critics say is partly
to blame for the deaths of 55 people in pretrial custody from 2009
to 2015.

The average jail population in January was 9,059 inmates, and an
average of 6,920, or 76 percent, were awaiting adjudication of
their cases, according to a county report.

Harris County, its sheriff, its 16 criminal court judges and five
magistrate judges are facing a federal class action, accusing them
of unconstitutionally jailing misdemeanor defendants solely
because they can't pay bail, which the plaintiffs argue violates
their Eighth Amendment rights against excessive bail and 14th
Amendment equal protection rights.

On March 3, Ogg joined a growing chorus of Harris County and Texas
officials, some of whom are defendants in the case, who believe
the county's bail system should be reformed to grant more low-
level defendants no-fee bonds, also called personal recognizance
bonds.

"Holding unadjudicated misdemeanor offenders in the Harris County
Jail solely because they lack the money or other means of posting
bail is counterproductive to the goal of seeing that justice is
done. We do not want to be complicit in a system that incentivizes
presumptively innocent people to plead guilty merely to expedite
their release from custody," Ogg wrote on March 3 in an amicus
brief for case.

Harris County Judge Ed Emmett -- who is the county's CEO, not a
judicial officer -- said at a recent county commissioners meeting,
"I don't think anybody in Harris County should stay in jail just
because they can't afford to pay bail."

Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez, who replaced his predecessor
Ron Hickman as a defendant in the lawsuit when he took office in
January, and will testify in the case, stated in an affidavit, "I
believe that the current operation of the money bail system,
including the sheriff's active participation in that system,
violates the United States Constitution."

Texas State Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, who has held that
office since 1983 and chairs the Senate Criminal Justice
Committee, said in a joint letter also signed by Harris County
Precinct 1 Commissioner Rodney Ellis in February, "It is our
position that the Harris County bail system blatantly violates the
rights and freedoms protected under the U.S. Constitution by
creating one system of justice for the wealthy and an unjust one
for the poor."

Harris County Criminal Judge Darrell Jordan, an African-American
and former defense attorney, is also a defendant in the class
action. The county assigned him his own defense attorney for the
federal lawsuit due to his practice of not using the bail schedule
approved by the county's criminal judges that sets bail fees based
on the charges.

"Judge Jordan believes the current bail bond system is broken and
needs reform," he wrote on March 6, in a response to the
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, asking that he be
excluded from any injunction.

Harris County is implementing reforms, but doesn't believe its
current bail system is unconstitutional. The county asked U.S.
District Judge Lee Rosenthal to stay the case until after July 1
when it plans to implement a risk assessment tool to rate
defendants on their eligibility for no-fee bonds without pretrial
services having to interview them.

Rosenthal denied the stay motion, unwilling to put off the claims
of the plaintiffs, who argue that every day hundreds of people are
held in Harris County Jail only because they are poor. They say a
preliminary injunction would prevent arrestees from getting booked
into jail, possibly losing their jobs or pleading guilty to crimes
they didn't commit to be released sooner than if they had asked
for a jury trial.

About 8.5 percent of misdemeanor arrestees were granted no-fee
bonds when the class action was filed in May 2016, and that has
increased to about 12 percent now, according to the county.

The county's latest, and perhaps most substantial, reform measure
was introduced last week, when its commissioners approved a pilot
program for public defenders to advise misdemeanor defendants at
probable cause hearings overseen by magistrates.

The program is set to launch July 1, the same day as the new risk-
assessment tool.

Defendants currently do not get representation at the probable
cause hearings and are often told not to talk by the magistrates
to avoid incriminating themselves.

"This is a huge step for Harris County to have that public
defender at the initial bail hearing and have access to the same
information that the prosecutor has, this will put Harris County
at the forefront of a nationwide trend. Harris County will be,
along with El Paso County, one of only two in Texas that provide
this service," Harris County managing attorney Melissa Spinks told
Judge Rosenthal on March 6, the first day of a preliminary
injunction hearing.

"It has taken time but we're very close to achieving what we
believe is the gold standard in pretrial procedures," Spinks said,
adding that the county is increasing its use of "early
presentments" at city jails and outlying county lockups, so
misdemeanor defendants can bond out there before they are
transported to the Harris County Jail in downtown Houston.

About three months after lead plaintiff Maranda ODonnell filed the
class action, the county's 16 criminal judges changed the "County
Rules of Court" to make no-fee bonds "favored" for 12 misdemeanor
charges, including public intoxication, prostitution and
possession of small amounts of marijuana.

Harris County also recently hired two more magistrate hearing
officers and revamped its pretrial-services form to collect more
financial data about misdemeanor defendants earlier in the post-
arrest process.

But ODonnell claims in court filings that the judges' customs are
too ingrained and that even after the August policy change, they
continued to force magistrates to set predetermined bond amounts
for people arrested on those 12 charges.

Changes can't come soon enough for Harris County taxpayers, who
will pick up the more than $1.2 million -- and growing -- tab that
the county has paid private attorneys to fight the lawsuit.

One of ODonnell's attorneys, Neal Manne with Susman Godfrey in
Houston, told Rosenthal on March 6, hearing that he's concerned
how the county's new risk-assessment tool will be used because it
already uses a similar tool that ranks people as more at risk of
not appearing for future court hearings if they are poor.

Another named plaintiff, Robert Ryan Ford, could not pay his
$5,000 preset bail after his arrest in May for misdemeanor theft.
He pleaded guilty at his arraignment five days later, was
sentenced to time served and released.

Manne said Ford is a good example of how the current risk-
assessment tool works against poor people.

Manne, in a dark suit and red tie, his gray hair perfectly parted,
said pretrial-services staff gave Ford a score of seven, meaning
he's high risk, with one being low risk, even though Ford had no
prior failures to appear, despite an extensive criminal history.

"Ford had no prior failures to appear but he had a risk assessment
score of seven because he's indigent, he doesn't have a landline
phone and he lived in someone else's home and he doesn't own his
own car. Oh and because he's male you get a point against you for
being male," Manne said.

"That makes sense to me," Rosenthal said, drawing laughs from some
of the 40 spectators in the gallery of her 11th floor courtroom in
the Bob Casey Federal Courthouse in downtown Houston, a wood-
paneled room topped by skylights and lined with large portraits of
her colleagues.

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

She peppered attorneys with questions throughout a five-hour
hearing on March 6, her highly developed legal mind on display
with probing, rambling inquiries that sounded like she was reading
from a law book, pushing the 20 attorneys before her to give her
an idea of what kind of injunction she could tailor narrowly
enough not to overstep her authority.

"I can't order judges to reach specific outcomes in specific cases
in which they are clearly operating as judges," Rosenthal said,
peering over her large red-framed glasses.

She asked Spinks for hard numbers on the number of people who the
county denies bail to because they believe they are a risk to the
community, noting that the Texas Constitution bans preventive
detention of any misdemeanor arrestee.

Harris County argues in court filings there's no constitutional
right to affordable bail and paying a bond increases the
likelihood a defendant will show up for future court hearings,
arguments echoed by bail bondsmen who have filed their own brief
in the case.

But Manne said he plans to call a witness to refute that claim:
Truman Morrison, a judge from Washington D.C., where for the last
22 years there's been a law that money bail can't be set in an
amount that a misdemeanor defendant can't pay.

"Our point isn't that Harris County should work like D.C. Our
point is there are systems that don't use money bail," Manne said.
"Judge Morrison will tell you it's 99 percent of arrestees are
released without financial conditions in D.C., but not
withstanding that the failure to appear rate is extremely low.
That's because they do tailored things to try to get people back
to court, text reminders, phone reminders, simple things that are
more effective than money bail."

The preliminary injunction hearing continued on March 7 and 8.


HCA HOLDINGS: "McBride" Files Case Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Buddy McBride on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. HCA Holdings, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-
00222, (N.D. Tex., March 13, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages
and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees,
and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

HCA operates North Hills Hospital (now Medical City North Hills)
located at its North Richland Hills, Texas. He regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per week without receiving all the compensation
due. HCA Holdings, Inc. is based at One Park Plaza, Nashville,
Tennessee 37203. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
      Justin Jenson, Esq.
      Katie McGregor, Esq.
      BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY COWAN HECKAMAN PLLC
      440 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 425-7100
      Facsimile: (713) 425-7101
      Email: rcowan@bpblaw.com
             jjenson@bpblaw.com
             kmcgregor@bpblaw.com


HCTEC PARTNERS: "Braniff" Files Case Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Braniff and Ijala Risbrook, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HCTEC Partners, LLC,
f/k/a HCTEC, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00496, (M.D. Tenn.,
March 8, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid straight and overtime
wages, liquidated damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

HCTec Partners, LLC, formerly known as HCTec, LLC is a corporation
providing information technology and educational services for the
healthcare industry across the country. HCTec maintains its
corporate headquarters in Franklin, Tennessee and is incorporated
in Tennessee. Braniff and Risbrook worked for Defendant as
Consultants providing information technology support to clients in
Minnesota, North Dakota, Florida and South Carolina. Plaintiffs
routinely worked in excess of forty hours per workweek, but were
not paid overtime compensation.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Harold Lichten, Esq.
      Olena Savytska, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Tel: (617) 994-5800
      Email: hlichten@llrlaw.com
             osavytska@llrlaw.com

             - and -

      Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
      Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
      Camille Fundora, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 875-3000
      Email: sschalman-bergen@bm.net
             elechtzin@bm.net
             cfundora@bm.net

             - and -

      David M. Blanchard, Esq.
      BLANCHARD & WALKER, PLLC
      221 N. Main Street, Suite 300
      Ann Arbor, MI 48104
      Tel: (734) 929-4313
      Email: blanchard@bwlawonline.com


HELIX TCS: "Baker" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------
William David Baker and Jeffrey Gill on their own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Helix TCS,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00614 (D. Colo., March 8, 2017),
seeks unpaid overtime premiums, liquidated damages, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest, costs and attorney fees and such other
and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Colorado Minimum Wage Act.

Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as salaried security guards.
Defendant allegedly failed to pay its security guards overtime
wages for all hours worked beyond forty each workweek.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandt Milstein, Esq.
      MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE
      595 Canyon Boulevard
      Boulder, CO 80302
      Tel: (303) 440-8780
      Email: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com


HOME DEPOT: Settlement Raises Questions on Resolving Class Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McGinty at JD Supra Business Advisor reports that counsel
for a class of card-issuing banks filed a settlement agreement on
March 8 proposing a class settlement to resolve claims arising
from the 2014 theft of payment card data from Home Depot point-of-
sale terminals.  The contemplated $27.25 million class settlement
follows in the wake of over $140 million already paid by Home
Depot to settle issuer bank claims through card association
settlement processes.  The revelation that Home Depot was able to
use private means to settle the vast majority of the bank claims
outside of the class action raises significant questions about
whether the proposed settlement class satisfies the requirement
under Rule 23(b)(3) that a class action provide a superior means
to resolve class members' claims.

The proposed settlement provides for a non-reversionary fund of
$25 million to pay claims of card-issuing banks that have not
previously given releases to Home Depot for losses arising from
the data breach.  Each of those banks will receive $2.00 for every
card it issued that was on the list of compromised cards. This
presumably compensates the banks for card reissuance costs.  Those
banks can also submit documentation substantiating claims for
fraud losses, and receive pro-rata distributions equal to as much
as 60% of their documented losses, depending on the number and
value of claims submitted.  Those amounts are payable out of the
primary $25 million settlement fund.

Additionally, the settlement would provide for payment of up to an
additional $2.25 million to banks that had previously settled with
Home Depot based on allegedly misleading disclosures.  Those banks
can submit claims against that separate $2.25 million fund to
receive $2.00 per each compromised card issued by those banks.

Class counsel will seek a fee award, to be paid in addition to the
$27.25 million settlement fund, in the amount of $18,000,000.
That fee request equals 66% of the new settlement proceeds to paid
to the class.  As justification for its fee request, class counsel
argues in the brief in support of its motion for preliminary
settlement approval that the reasonableness of the fee should be
measured against not only the value of the new settlement fund,
but also based on $14.5 million in payments previously made to the
class members who were given misleading disclosures and will
collect up to $2.25 million in additional payments in this
settlement.  When that additional sum is taken into account, the
$18 million fee request represents less than 30% of the amounts
recovered by members of the settlement class.  Home Depot has
reserved the right to challenge class counsel's fee request.

This settlement raises serious questions about whether the
proposed settlement class meets the requirement of Rule 23(b)(3)
that a class action provides a superior means of resolving class
members' claims.  As noted above, the declaration of lead class
counsel discloses that Home Depot has already paid in excess of
$140 million to payment card issuing banks in connection with the
data breach. Those amounts were paid through claims settlement and
dispute resolution processes administered by the card brand
organizations -- Visa, MasterCard, American Express and Discover.
As a result, the $27.25 million that is recoverable by the class
under this settlement represents just 16% of the total amounts
paid to card issuing banks.  Or, put another way, the card
association claims resolution processes provided a vehicle to
resolve 84% of issuer bank claims, without having to resort to
litigation or pay class counsel fees.

Other than the $2.25 million that is available to banks that had
previously settled with Home Depot, there is no indication that
class members would have been able to obtain greater recoveries
outside of the class action.  To the extent that class counsel
created value for their clients, they are entitled to be rewarded.
At a counsel fee of 2/3 of the class recovery, the cost of clawing
in that last 14% on behalf of card issuing banks seems awfully
steep.  But even if the class counsel fee award is less than $18
million, there is a serious question whether any of the expenses
associated with class litigation -- including fees of both sets of
counsel and other attendant costs -- are an efficient use of
resources.  The existence of a robust, adequate and efficient non-
judicial claims resolution process, as there appears to be in the
payment card industry, strongly suggests that resort to expensive
and burdensome class litigation may not provide a superior means
to resolve fraud loss claims asserted on behalf of card issuing
banks.


INOVALON HOLDINGS: Pre-Motion Process Ongoing in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Inovalon Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the pre-motion
process required prior to filing a motion to dismiss a securities
class action is ongoing.

On June 24, 2016, a purported securities class action complaint
(Xiang v. Inovalon Holdings, Inc., et.al., No. 1:16-cv-04923) was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, certain officers,
directors and underwriters in the Company's initial public
offering (the "Complaint"). The Complaint was brought on behalf of
a purported class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased shares of the Company's Class A common stock pursuant or
traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with
the Company's initial public offering on February 18, 2015. The
Complaint asserted violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act based on allegedly false or misleading statements
and omissions with respect to, among other things, the Company's
revenues from sales in the city and state of New York and the
Company's effective tax rate. The Complaint sought certification
as a class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus
interest and attorneys' fees.

On June 28, 2016, a nearly identical complaint was filed in the
same court captioned Patel v. Inovalon Holdings, Inc., et. al.,
No. 1:16-cv-05065. On July 5, 2016, the court consolidated the
Xiang and Patel actions.

On September 20, 2016, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel. On December 21, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint")
purporting to assert violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act based on allegedly false or misleading
statements and omissions with respect to substantially the same
topics as alleged in the Complaint.

On February 21, 2017, and as required by the court's individual
practices, the Company invoked the pre-motion process required
prior to filing a motion to dismiss, which process is ongoing. The
Company believes that the claims against it and its officers and
directors are without merit, and the Company and the named
officers and directors intend to defend themselves vigorously.

In light of, among other things, the early stage of the
litigation, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these
consolidated actions and is unable to make a meaningful estimate
of the amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from an
unfavorable outcome.

Inovalon is a technology company providing cloud-based platforms
empowering a data-driven transformation from volume-based to
value-based models throughout the healthcare industry.


INTERNATIONAL INTERACTIVE: Faces "Ramskill" Lawsuit Under TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
LISA RAMSKILL, Plaintiff, vs. INTERNATIONAL INTERACTIVE GROUP INC.
dba Travel iig, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-10331 (D. Mass.,
February 28, 2017), alleges on behalf of herself and a purported
class of similarly situated individuals that Defendants have
willfully or negligently violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act by sending out unsolicited advertising telephone
calls to Plaintiff that were harassing, oppressive and annoying,
despite Plaintiff's Do Not Call designation for her phone.

Travel IIG provides promotional vacation packages at affordable
prices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John F. Skinner, III, Esq.
     587 Union Street
     Manchester, NH 03104
     Phone: (603) 622-8100
     Fax: (888) 912-1497
     E-mail: AttorneySkinner@gmail.com


INVENTURE FOODS: Faces Suit Over Incorrect Product Labeling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Noddy A. Fernandez at Madison St. Clair Record reports that two
consumers have filed a class-action lawsuit against Inventure
Foods Inc., a snack-food manufacturer, citing alleged false
product information for its labeling of sugar ingredients in
Boulder Canyon chips.

Shannah Burton and Michelle Blair, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a complaint on Feb. 8 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against
the food manufacturer alleging that it violated the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act and Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that several
varieties of the company's Boulder Canyon chips contain evaporated
cane juice (ECJ) as an ingredient and that it is labeled as a
juice. ECJ, the plaintiffs claim, is not a juice but a sugar in
disguise. Nutrition facts found on the product did not disclose
the presence of any sugar, only that it contains fruit or
vegetable juice, the suit claims.

The plaintiffs holds Inventure Foods responsible because it
allegedly failed to disclose the presence of any sugar in the
products in order to mislead customers about the amount of sugar
in the food.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury. They seek class
certification of this case, compensatory damages, pre- and post-
judgment interest, attorneys' fees, cost and for any further
relief deemed proper by the court. They are represented by Matthew
H. Armstrong -- matt@mattarmstronglaw.com -- of Armstrong Law Firm
LLC in St. Louis and Stuart L. Cochran -- stuart@stecklerlaw.com -
- of Steckler Gresham Cochran PLLC in Dallas.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case
number 3:17-cv-00134


IVEST 360 LLC: "Bauer" Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------
Sean Bauer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. IVEST 360, LLC d/b/a Fast Capital 360,
IVEST 360 Syndication Group, Inc. and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01030, (E.D. Pa., March 8,
2017), brings this action for damages pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 resulting from nuisance
telemarketing practices of the Defendants.

Bauer alleges that the Defendants repeatedly called his cell phone
promoting "business funding" or a loan, without his prior consent
and using an auto-dialer.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arkady Rayz, Esq.
      Demetri A. Braynin, Esq.
      KALIKHMAN & RAYZ, LLC
      1051 County Line Road, Suite "A"
      Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
      Telephone: (215) 364-5030
      Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
      E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com
              dbraynin@kalraylaw.com

              - and -

      Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
      Robert J. Gray
      2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 275
      King of Prussia, PA 19406
      Telephone: (610) 822-3700
      Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
      Email: gwells@cwglaw.com
             rgray@cwglaw.com


J.B. HUNT: Appeal in Driver Class Action Lawsuit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
The appeal by plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against J.B.
Hunt Transport Services, Inc. remains pending, the Company said in
its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "We are a defendant in certain class-action
lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are current and former
California-based drivers who allege claims for unpaid wages,
failure to provide meal and rest periods, and other items. During
the first half of 2014, the Court in the lead class-action granted
judgment in our favor with regard to all claims. The plaintiffs
have appealed the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals where
it is currently pending. The overlapping claims in the remaining
actions have been stayed pending a decision in the lead class-
action case. We cannot reasonably estimate at this time the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may arise from these
lawsuits."


LEE COUNTY, FL: Amended Complaint in "Calderone" Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Paul A. Magnuson entered a memorandum and order in the
lawsuit entitled Kevin Calderone, George Schwing, Michael Zaleski,
and Selena Lee v. Mike Scott, as the duly elected Sheriff of Lee
County, Florida, Case No. 2:14-cv-00519-PAM-CM (M.D. Fla.):

   1. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

   2. denying the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary
      judgment;

   3. granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment;

   4. denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion in limine;

   5. denying as moot the Defendant's motion to exclude; and

   6. dismissing with prejudice the amended complaint.

The Plaintiffs are former Lee County Sheriff's deputies.  The
Plaintiffs assert claims for violations of the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act.

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


LIFEWAY FOODS: Smoothie Not Lactose-Free, "Block" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Lifeway Foods advertised
that its kefir milk smoothie was 99 percent lactose-free, but lab
testing revealed that it actually contains about 4 percent
lactose, a class claims in Chicago federal court.

The case is captioned, ANDREW BLOCK, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LIFEWAY FOODS, INC.,
an Illinois corporation, Defendant. Case: 1:17-cv-01717 (N.D.
Ill., March 3, 2017).

Attorneys for the Plaintiff, the Putative Classes, and Subclass:

     Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
     Ryan F. Sullivan, Esq.
     KOZONIS LAW, LTD.
     4849 N. Milwaukee Ave., Ste. 300
     Chicago, Illinois 60630
     Phone: 773.545.9607
     Fax: 773.496.8617
     E-mail: gklinger@kozonislaw.com
             rsullivan@kozonislaw.com


LINCOLN NATIONAL: "Glover" Cost of Insurance Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation is defending against the "Glover"
Cost of Insurance Litigation, Lincoln said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:16cv00827,
is a putative class action that was served on LNL on June 8, 2016.
Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who
alleges that LNL charged more for cost of insurance than permitted
by the policy.  Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life
and variable universal life policyholders who owned policies
containing cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those
of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such
policyholders.

"We are vigorously defending this matter," the Company said.

Lincoln National Corporation is a holding company, which operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses through subsidiary
companies.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: "Hanks" Cost of Insurance Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation is defending against the Cost of
Insurance Litigation by Helen Hanks, Lincoln said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Helen Hanks v. The Lincoln Life and Annuity Company of New York
("LLANY") and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company
("Voya"), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, No. 16cv6399, is a putative class action
that was served on LLANY on August 12, 2016.  Plaintiff owns a
universal life policy originally issued by Aetna (now Voya) and
alleges that (i) Voya breached the terms of the policy when it
increased cost of insurance rates on Plaintiff's policy; and (ii)
LLANY, as reinsurer and administrator of Plaintiff's policy,
engaged in wrongful conduct related to the cost of insurance
increase and was unjustly enriched as a result.  Plaintiff seeks
to represent all owners of Aetna life insurance policies that were
subject to cost of insurance rate increases in 2016 and seeks
damages on their behalf.

"We are vigorously defending this matter," the Company said.

Lincoln National Corporation is a holding company, which operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses through subsidiary
companies.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: "Bharwani" Cost of Insurance Litigation Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation is defending against the Cost of
Insurance Litigation by Bharwani, et al., Lincoln said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Bharwani, et al. v. Lincoln National Corporation and Lincoln
National Life Insurance Company, pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 16-cv-06605,
is a putative class action filed on December 23, 2016.  Plaintiffs
own universal life insurance policies originally issued by
Jefferson-Pilot (now Lincoln).  Plaintiffs allege that Lincoln and
LNL breached the terms of policyholders' contracts when they
increased cost of insurance rates beginning in September 2016.
Plaintiffs seek to represent three classes of policyowners and
seek damages on their behalf.

"We are vigorously defending this matter," the Company said.

Lincoln National Corporation is a holding company, which operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses through subsidiary
companies.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: "Mukamal" Cost of Insurance Litigation Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation is defending against the "Mukamal"
Cost of Insurance Litigation, Lincoln said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Mukamal, et al. v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and
Lincoln National Corporation, pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 17-cv-00234, is a
putative class action filed on January 17, 2017.  This action is
substantially similar to a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida in December 2016 that
was subsequently dismissed.

Plaintiffs, Barry Mukamal, as Trustee for the Mutual Benefits Keep
Policy Trust, and Milgram Investments, LP, own universal life
insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now
Lincoln).  Plaintiffs allege that Lincoln and LNL breached the
terms of policyholders' contracts when they increased cost of
insurance rates beginning in September 2016.  Plaintiffs seek to
represent three classes of policyowners and seek damages on their
behalf.

"We are vigorously defending this matter," the Company said.

Lincoln National Corporation is a holding company, which operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses through subsidiary
companies.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: US Life's Cost of Insurance Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation is defending against the Cost of
Insurance Litigation by US Life, Lincoln said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

US Life 1 Renditefonds GmbH & Co. Kg and US Life 2 Renditefonds
GmbH & Co. Kg v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, No. 2:17-cv-00307, is a putative class action filed
on January 20, 2017.  Plaintiffs own Legend Series universal life
insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now
Lincoln).  Plaintiffs allege that Lincoln breached the terms of
policyholders' contracts when it increased cost of insurance rates
beginning in 2016.  Plaintiffs seek to represent two classes of
policyowners and seek damages on their behalf.

"We are vigorously defending this matter," the Company said.

Lincoln National Corporation is a holding company, which operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses through subsidiary
companies.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: EFG Bank's Cost of Insurance Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation is defending against the Cost of
Insurance Litigation by EFG Bank AG, Cayman Branch, Lincoln said
in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

EFG Bank AG, Cayman Branch, et al. v. The Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company, pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, No. 2:17-cv-00817, is a civil
action filed on February 1, 2017.  Plaintiffs own Legend Series
universal life insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-
Pilot (now Lincoln).  Plaintiffs allege that Lincoln breached the
terms of policyholders' contracts when it increased cost of
insurance rates beginning in 2016.

"We are vigorously defending this matter," the Company said.

Lincoln National Corporation is a holding company, which operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses through subsidiary
companies.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: "Swenson" Cost of Insurance Litigation Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corporation is defending against the Cost of
Insurance Litigation by Swenson, et al., Lincoln said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

Swenson, et al. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company,
Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York, Lincoln National
Corporation, Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, and
Voya Financial, Inc., pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Washington, No. 2:17-cv-00048, is a putative
class action filed on February 1, 2017.  Plaintiffs own universal
life insurance policies originally issued by Aetna (now Voya).
Plaintiffs allege that Lincoln breached the terms of
policyholders' contracts when it increased cost of insurance rates
beginning in 2016.  Plaintiffs seek to represent multiple
subclasses of policy owners and seek damages on their behalf.

"We are vigorously defending this matter," the Company said.

Lincoln National Corporation is a holding company, which operates
multiple insurance and retirement businesses through subsidiary
companies.


MALLINCKRODT PLC: "Schwartz" Sues Over Inflated Stock Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amy T. Schwartz & Stephen A. Schwartz, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Mallinckrodt PLC,, Case No. 1:17-cv-00447, (D.D.C., March 13,
2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

On April 7, 2014, Mallinckrodt announced that it would acquire
Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in exchange for approximately $5.6
billion in cash and shares of the Company's common stock,
primarily to gain rights over HP Acthar Gel and Synthacten,
repository corticotropin injections used in treating autoimmune
and inflammatory conditions.

Questcor is under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission as
to whether its acquisition of certain rights to develop, market,
manufacture, distribute, sell and commercialize Synacthen from
Novartis AG and Novartis Pharma AG violates antitrust laws.

Also Defendants failed to disclose that Acthar's commercial
viability was dependent on Questcor and Mallinckrodt's illegal
anticompetitive conduct in preventing a synthetic version of ACTH
to enter the U.S. Market.

Plaintiffs Amy T. Schwartz and Stephen A. Schwartz are a married
couple who acquired securities of Mallinckrodt at artificially
inflated prices and have lost substantially. [BN]

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael G. McLellan, Esq.
     FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
     James Place
     1077 30th Street, N.W., Suite 150
     Washington, DC 20007
     Telephone: (202) 337-8000
     Facsimile: (202) 337-8090
     Email: mmclellan@finkelsteinthompson.com

            - and -

     Kim Miller, Esq.
     KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
     250 Park Ave., Suite 2040
     New York, NY 10177
     Telephone: (212) 696-3730
     Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
     Email: kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com

            - and -

     Lewis Kahn, Esq.
     KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
     206 Covington Street
     Madisonville, LA 70447
     Telephone: (504) 455-1400
     Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
     Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com


MARRIOTT VACATIONS: Motion to Dismiss "Lennen" Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Marriott Vacations Worldwide Corporation's motion to dismiss a
class action complaint and a motion to stay the case pending
referral of certain questions to Florida state regulators remain
pending, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 30, 2016.

The Company said, "On May 20, 2016, we, certain of our
subsidiaries, and other third parties were named as defendants in
an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida by Anthony and Beth Lennen. The case is filed as a
putative class action; the plaintiffs seek to represent a class
consisting of themselves and all other purchasers of MVCD points,
from inception of the MVCD program in June 2010 to the present, as
well as all individuals who own or have owned weeks in any resorts
for which weeks have been added to the MVCD program. Plaintiffs
challenge the characterization of the beneficial interests in the
MVCD trust that are sold to customers as real estate interests
under Florida law. They also challenge the structure of the trust
and associated operational aspects of the trust product. The
relief sought includes, among other things, declaratory relief, an
unwinding of the MVCD product, and punitive damages."

"On September 15, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
and a motion to stay the case pending referral of certain
questions to Florida state regulators, which motions remain
pending.

"We dispute the material allegations in the complaint and intend
to defend against the action vigorously. Given the early stages of
the action and the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot
estimate a range of the potential liability, if any, at this
time."

Marriott Vacations is one of the world's largest companies whose
business is focused almost entirely on vacation ownership, based
on number of owners, number of resorts and revenues.  It is the
exclusive worldwide developer, marketer, seller and manager of
vacation ownership and related products under the Marriott
Vacation Club and Grand Residences by Marriott brands.  It is also
the exclusive worldwide developer, marketer and seller of vacation
ownership and related products under The Ritz-Carlton Destination
Club brand, and it has the non-exclusive right to develop, market
and sell whole ownership residential products under The Ritz-
Carlton Residences brand.


MESSERLI & KRAMER: Class Certification Sought in "Olbinski" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Helene Olbinski moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit titled HELENE OLBINSKI, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MESSERLI &
KRAMER, P.A., Case No. 2:17-cv-00282 (E.D. Wisc.).

The Plaintiff also asks that the Court both stay the motion for
class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence, the
Plaintiff states.  The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is
obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests
of the putative class.

The Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016
U.S. LEXIS 846 *14-15 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016) (internal citations
omitted) and Chapman should have put a stop to this practice.
Unfortunately, they have not, the Plaintiff notes.  In dicta, the
Supreme Court left open the possibility that a defendant facing a
class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's claim with the court and having the court enter
judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to a class certification
motion.  Campbell-Ewald Co., 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 *19 ("We need
not, and do not, now decide whether the result would be different
if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's
individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the
court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount.").

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

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative
and further asks the Court to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as
class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=99ac8ulA

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WI: Class Certification Sought in "Ruehs" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled CHERYL RUEHS, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MILWAUKEE COUNTY,
WISCONSIN, Case No. 2:16-cv-00657-PP (E.D. Wisc.), moves the Court
for an order granting conditional class certification, Court
facilitated notice and discovery of the names and addresses of all
potential class members.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan D. Eisenberg, Esq.
          Erin F. Medeiros, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
          310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Telephone: (414) 271-4500
          Facsimile: (414) 271-6308
          E-mail: nde@previant.com
                  efm@previant.com


MONTGOMERY COUNTY, NY: Hill Seeks to Certify Class of Detainees
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned PERRY HILL, both
individually and on Behalf of a Class of others similarly situated
v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, et al., Case No. 9:14-cv-00933-BKS-DJS
(N.D.N.Y.), seeks an order from the Court providing for the
certification of this class:

     All detainees who have been or will be placed into the
     custody of the Montgomery County Jail and were detained for
     at least two consecutive weeks. The class period commences
     on July 25, 2011, and extends to the date on which
     Montgomery County is enjoined from, or otherwise ceases,
     enforcing its policy, practice and custom of refusing to
     provide an appropriate amount of nutritional sustenance to
     all detainees admitted to the Montgomery County Jail.
     Specifically excluded from the class are Defendant and any
     and all of its respective affiliates, legal representatives,
     heirs, successors, employees or assignees.

The Court will commence a hearing on April 6, 2017, at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=S3w0j4Ej

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq.
          Maria K. Dyson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, PC
          One Pine West Plaza, Suite 109
          Albany, NY 12205
          Telephone: (518) 434-1718
          E-mail: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Nicholas Migliaccio, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD, LLP
          412 H Street NE, Suite 302
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470-3520
          E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Teams Pumped Players With Antibiotic, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
RT reports that all 32 National Football League teams have pumped
players with painkillers to keep them on the field, while handing
and transporting drugs against the guidance of federal
authorities, former players are arguing in a class-action lawsuit.

The federal lawsuit, originally filed in February in the Northern
District of California, alleges wanton distribution of powerful
painkillers and anti-inflammatory drugs to players, as well as a
culture of storage and transportation of the drugs that, the suit
says, violates numerous federal and state drug laws.

Details from the sealed, heavily-redacted court filing were
revealed on March 9 by the Washington Post. On March 10, Deadspin
released the full, unredacted filing.

The court filing includes testimony and documented evidence from
team and NFL medical personnel, and details the brazen attitude
toward the handling, record-keeping and distribution of controlled
substances by the league and its teams.

In his deposition testimony, Anthony Yates, team physician for the
Pittsburgh Steelers and the former head of the NFL Physicians
Society, said "a majority of clubs as of 2010 had trainers
controlling and handling prescription medications and controlled
substances when they should not have."

In 2012 alone, the average NFL team prescribed about 5,777 doses
of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and 2,213 doses of
controlled substances to players, according to a March 2013
document from a medical adviser to the NFL. That amount averages
out to around six or seven painkillers or injections per week for
each player during an average NFL season.

The more than 1,800 former players involved in the lawsuit claim
they have incurred serious organ damage and other medical issues
based on the NFL's permissive drug-distribution practices. Several
plaintiffs said they "received and consumed enormous quantities of
pain-numbing and anti-inflammatory medications," without proper
information about the medication or potential side effects,
Deadspin reported.

Bud Carpenter, longtime trainer for the Buffalo Bills, "admitted
under oath that he witnessed team doctors give players injections
of prescription medications without telling them what the drug was
they were receiving or its side effects."

The plaintiffs' attorney said he could not comment to the Post.

NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy told the Post that the allegations in
the lawsuit "are meritless" and that the league "will continue to
vigorously defend these claims."

"The NFL clubs and their medical staffs are all in compliance with
the Controlled Substances Act," McCarthy told the Post, adding
teams' "medical staffs continue to put the health and safety of
our players first, providing all NFL players with the highest
quality medical care. Any claim or suggestion to the contrary is
simply wrong."

The lawsuit claims that even an NFL-funded task force formed to
study the impact of a powerful, popular anti-inflammatory drug
"was just additional lip service to the problems presented by
Toradol." In his deposition, Yates said he saw players lining up
for the "T-Train," or Toradol injections, before a game,
"something that had been occurring with the Steelers for at least
the previous 15 years," the lawsuit reads.

The suit goes on to name many instances in which NFL or team
officials were tipped off to the potentially illegal handling and
distribution of painkillers. Former NFL medical director Elliott
Pellman is mentioned throughout the court filing. He was described
by one person offering a deposition as "lurking in the background"
of team efforts to make sure players stayed on the playing field.

The plaintiffs' attorney said he could not comment to the Post.

NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy told the Post that the allegations in
the lawsuit "are meritless" and that the league "will continue to
vigorously defend these claims."

"The NFL clubs and their medical staffs are all in compliance with
the Controlled Substances Act," McCarthy told the Post, adding
teams' "medical staffs continue to put the health and safety of
our players first, providing all NFL players with the highest
quality medical care. Any claim or suggestion to the contrary is
simply wrong."

The lawsuit claims that even an NFL-funded task force formed to
study the impact of a powerful, popular anti-inflammatory drug
"was just additional lip service to the problems presented by
Toradol." In his deposition, Yates said he saw players lining up
for the "T-Train," or Toradol injections, before a game,
"something that had been occurring with the Steelers for at least
the previous 15 years," the lawsuit reads.

The suit goes on to name many instances in which NFL or team
officials were tipped off to the potentially illegal handling and
distribution of painkillers. Former NFL medical director Elliott
Pellman is mentioned throughout the court filing. He was described
by one person offering a deposition as "lurking in the background"
of team efforts to make sure players stayed on the playing field.

Dr. David Chao, a former NFL team doctor who has been sued by
players in the past, said Pellman scuttled a survey of controlled
medications around the NFL that Chao proposed. Chao left the San
Diego Chargers in 2013 after a Chargers player was caught with a
100 doses of Vicodin. Following this incident, the US Drug
Enforcement Agency (DEA) began to take notice of the NFL's drug
practices.

The DEA told league physicians that, among other guidance,
controlled substances could not be transported across state lines,
the court filing says. The lawsuit alleges that teams often
ignored DEA rules for such transportation of drugs.

The lawsuit involves plaintiffs from all 32 NFL teams. The filing
details the treatment of Seattle Seahawks offensive tackle Jerry
Wunsch, who recalled one game in November 2003 in which team
coaches, trainers and doctors colluded to pump him full of
Vicodin, Tylenol-Codeine #3 and anti-inflammatories to ensure he
played.

The complaint said of Wunsch: "He played -- feeling high -- and
after half time, the Medications wore off and he told anyone who
would listen that he could not play anymore, but Mr. Ramsden, the
head trainer, gave him another 750 mg of Vicodin on the field for
the second half, telling Mr. Wunsch, 'Don't sue me personally for
this.'"

The NFL is still the subject to much scrutiny over its handling of
concussions and subsequent brain trauma in its players. A class
action lawsuit, in which thousands of former NFL players sued the
league over accusations that it hid the risks of concussions from
players for decades, was settled for more than $700 million in
2013.

One 2014 study posited that more than 96 percent of pro football
players had chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a degenerative brain
disease, before dying.

The number of concussions diagnosed by NFL teams dropped in 2016
to 244, down from 275 in 2015.


NATIONAL RIFLE: "Kalmbach" Suit Removed to W.D. Wash.
-----------------------------------------------------
Katharyn Kalmbach, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Rifle Association Of
America, a New York Corporation, and Infocision, Inc. d/b/a
InfoCision Management Corporation, a Delaware Corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 17-2-03381-2, (Wash. Super., February 10,
2017), was removed to the United States District Court of the
Western District of Washington, Seattle on March 13, 2017, under
Case No. 2:17-cv-00399.

Kalmbach seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, seeks actual
and/or statutory damages, treble damages, disgorgement, costs and
attorneys' fees under the Washington Consumer Protection Act for
illegal telemarketing calls of Infocision, Inc. for the purpose of
soliciting memberships into the National Rifle Association of
America. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Curt Roy Hineline, Esq.
      James R. Morrison, Esq.
      BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
      999 Third Avenue, Suite 3600
      Seattle, WA 98104-4040
      Tel: (206) 332-1380
      Fax: (206) 624-7317
      E-mail: chineline@bakerlaw.com
              jmorrison@bakerlaw.com

              - and -

      Terry M. Brennan, Esq.
      Michael D. Meuti, Esq.
      BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
      127 Public Square, Suite 2000
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Tel: (216) 621-0200
      Fax: (216) 696-0740
      E-mail: tbrennan@bakerlaw.com
              mmeuti@bakerlaw.com


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: MAO-MSO Recovery Sues Over MAO Reimbursement
---------------------------------------------------------------
MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, a Delaware entity; MSP RECOVERY, LLC, a
Florida entity; MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida entity, Plaintiffs,
vs. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio company,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00164-MHW-TPK (S.D. Ohio, February 24,
2017), alleges on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated that Defendant failed to fulfill its statutorily-mandated
duty to reimburse Medicare Advantage Organizations for medical
expenses arising out of automobile accidents.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company operates as an insurance and
financial services provider.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Tracy L. Turner, Esq.
     PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
     5093 Heath Gate Drive
     New Albany, OH 43054
     Phone: (614) 657-3454
     E-mail: tturner@pbclawfirm.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

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


NOVOCURE LIMITED: "Donahue" and "Rosen" Suits Underway
------------------------------------------------------
NovoCure Limited is defending against two class action lawsuits by
Joseph E. Donahue III and Stephen Rosen and Susan Rosen, the
Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "On or about January 17, and January 18, 2017,
Joseph E. Donahue III and Stephen Rosen and Susan Rosen filed two
putative class action lawsuits in Rockingham County Superior Court
in New Hampshire against us, our directors and certain of our
officers, as well as the underwriters in our October 2015 initial
public offering, Case No. 218-2017-CV-00058 and Case No. 218-2017-
CV-00069.  The complaints, which purport to be brought on behalf
of a class of persons and/or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired our ordinary shares pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with
our initial public offering, allege material misstatements and/or
omissions in our initial public offering materials in alleged
violation of the federal securities laws and seek compensatory
damages, among other remedies."

"We believe that the complaints are without merit and plan to
defend the lawsuits vigorously."

NovoCure Limited is a commercial stage oncology company developing
a profoundly different cancer treatment centered on a proprietary
therapy called TTFields, the use of electric fields tuned to
specific frequencies to disrupt solid tumor cancer cell division.
Our key priorities are to accelerate commercial adoption of
Optune, our first commercial TTFields delivery system, for the
treatment of glioblastoma ("GBM") and to advance programs testing
the efficacy and safety of TTFields in multiple solid tumor
indications through our clinical pipeline.


OAKTON COMMUNITY: Certification of Class Sought in "Dayton" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled BARRY H. DAYTON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OAKTON COMMUNITY
COLLEGE, MARGARET LEE, JOIANNE SMITH, MICHAEL ANTHONY, KARL
BROOKS, MAYA EVANS, TOM HAMEL, COLETTE HANDS, BONNIE LUCAS, and
MUM MARTENS, Case No. 1:16-cv-06812 (N.D. Ill.), moves for
collective certification of his claims under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, and class certification of his
claims under and for violations of the Illinois Constitution.

Mr. Dayton also moves for Court facilitated notice to all
potential class members.  He further asks that the Court direct
the Defendants to produce a class list within 10 days of the
certification order.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3JT5yOzo

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan D. Eisenberg, Esq.
          Sara J. Geenen, Esq.
          Erin F. Medeiros, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
          310 West Wisconsin Ave., Suite 100 MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Telephone: (414) 271-4500
          Facsimile: (414) 271-6308
          E-mail: nde@previant.com
                  sjg@previant.com
                  efm@previant.com

               - and -

          Stephen Yockich, Esq.
          DOWD, BLOCH, BENNETT, CERVONE, AUERBACH & YOKICH
          8 South Michigan Avenue - 19th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 372-1361
          Facsimile: (312) 372-6599
          E-mail: syokich@laboradvocates.com


OPEN CARE: "Ramilo" Files Suit Over TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Elmer Ramilo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Open Care Medical Clinic, Defendant, Case
No. 30-2017-00901399- CU-MC-CXC (Cal. Super., County of Orange,
February 3, 2017), alleges that Defendant Open Care Medical Clinic
sent unauthorized text messages using computer software designed
to "blast" text messages to many telephone numbers simultaneously
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Open Care Medical Clinic is a medical treatment center that offers
pain management and cosmetic enhancement services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
     Christopher D. Jozwiak, Esq.
     Hans W. Lodge, Esq.
     BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP
     100 South Fifth Street, Suite 1200
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 252-3570
     Fax: (612) 252-3571
     E-mail: sjwanta@baillonthome.com
             cjozwiak@bai11onthome.com
             hlodge@baillonthome.com

        - and -

     Jon A. Tostrud, Esq.
     TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C.
     1925 Century Park East, Ste. 2125
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 278-2600
     Fax: (310) 278-2640
     Email: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com


ORION PORTFOLIO: Judge Dismisses Pro Se Litigant's FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Peter J. Messitte of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland granted defendants' motion to dismiss the
case captioned JONATHAN ALSTON, Plaintiff, prose v. ORION
PORTFOLIO SERVICES, LLC, et al. Defendants, Civil No. PJM 16-3697
(D. Md.).

Pro se plaintiff Jonathan Alston has brought suit against Orion
Portfolio Services, LLC, and Trident Asset Management, LLC, in
connection with a debt he originally owed to Verizon
Communications for unreturned television equipment and associated
fees. Alston claims that Orion, which allegedly purchased the debt
from Verizon, and Trident, which allegedly sought to collect the
debt on behalf of Orion, purportedly attempted to collect the
$1,390.81 debt to Verizon in violation the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. Alston further
seeks class action certification in order to sue defendants under
the FDCPA. Finally, he brought a claim against defendants under
the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681, et seq. as
well as a claim for defamation.

In count I, Alston alleges that defendants violated multiple
provisions of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 (e)(2) and (10) by
attempting to collect a debt by falsely claiming he owed a debt,
(e)(2) by falsely claiming he owed a debt, (e)(8) by communicating
information to a third party, including Trans Union, that was
known to be false and (g)(b) by failing to cease collection of the
debt following his written dispute and prior to their validation
of the debt. In count II, plaintiff alleges that he and two
classes of plaintiffs should be compensated for defendants'
violations of Section 1692(g)(a) of the FDCPA. He argues that
defendants failed to notify him and the first putative class of
their rights to dispute the debt and failed to disclose certain
statutorily required information regarding the debt, which
defendants were required to provide within five days of their
initial communication. He contends that defendants' initial
communication with him and the first putative class was made
through the indirect communication via Trans Union. Alston also
alleges that defendants violated the FDCPA when Trident sent him
and the second putative class letters during the 30 day period
that he and the others were permitted to dispute the debt. The
letters purportedly violated Section 1692(g)(a) because they
included language that demanded payment or may have been perceived
to demand payment.

Defendants have moved to dismiss both FDCPA claims. Defendants
argue that Alston fails to state a claim because the complaint
does not establish that he has been the object of collection
activity arising from a consumer debt.

Judge Messitte held that the defendants are correct that in order
to establish a cause of action under the FDCPA, a complaint must
allege that the plaintiff has been the object of collection
activity arising from a consumer debt, the defendant is a debt
collector as defined by the FDCPA, and the defendant has engaged
in an act or omission prohibited by the FDCPA. To establish a
claim under the FDCPA, plaintiffs must allege and prove that the
subject of the debt is primarily for personal, family or household
purposes. Alston has inadequately alleged that the subject of the
debt in question is a consumer debt as required by the FDCPA. He
merely states that he is a consumer as defined by 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681a(c), hence Alston has failed to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted. The claim in count II goes out for
the simple reason that the Fourth Circuit does not certify a class
where a pro se litigant will act as representative of that class.

Judge Messitte granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's
complaint and dismiss counts I and II without prejudice.

A copy of Judge Messitte's memorandum opinion dated February 28,
2017, is available at https://goo.gl/0LmQW0 from Leagle.com.

Jonathan T. Alston, Plaintiff, Pro Se

Defendants, represented by Bradley Todd Canter --
rcanter@roncanterllc.com -- at The Law Offices of Ronald S Canter
LLC


PEOPLES WATER SERVICE: Faces Class Suit Over Water Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that more than a dozen plaintiffs in Donaldsonville, a small town
southeast of Baton Rouge, are asking for class certification in a
lawsuit brought due to toxins in their drinking water.

Lead plaintiff Horace Dorsey and 15 others say in a March 3
lawsuit filed in Ascension Parish District Court that privately
run Peoples Water Service of Donaldsonville failed to take action
or report chlorine dioxide levels four to five times the standard
in the water supply.

Tests over a six-month period, from September 2015 until March
2016, showed dangerously high levels of the chemical, and yet
nothing was done, and the public was not notified, the lawsuit
says. Finally, on March 22, 2016, Donaldsonville Mayor Leroy
Sullivan called a "state of emergency," and urged the town's
residents not to drink the water after the state Department of
Health and Hospitals announced Peoples Water had not disclosed
chlorine dioxide levels were four to five times the standard set
by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Chlorine dioxide is a chemical used in small quantities in
drinking water to treat harmful bacteria, but elevated levels are
known to cause serious nervous system damage in certain people,
including infants, young children, and unborn fetuses in pregnant
women, according to a statement from Louisiana State Health
Officer, Dr. Jimmy Guidry.

However, DHH said adults who are not pregnant and older children
with developed nervous systems should be fine drinking water
containing elevated levels of the chemical.  The agency issued an
inspection report on March 22, 2016, that said records examined
during an on-site inspection of the Peoples Water Company showed
that workers for the company had recorded chlorine dioxide levels
above the EPA's drinking water standards during the months of
September, October, November, December, January and March.

The company did not report test results of collect more water for
additional tests, DHH said. The water company serves roughly
10,000 people in the Donaldsonville area.

"On March 7, we were provided with information that is both
alarming and confusing," Guidry said in a statement issued at the
time. "We are concerned that there appears to be elevated levels
of chlorine dioxide leaving the plant. But we also have concerns
about the testing procedures used by the water system and the
overall training of the operators as well as questions about the
technology used to conduct the sampling."

Guidry said the water was officially deemed unsafe to drink out of
an "abundance of caution."

Four days later, on March 26, 2016, DHH declared the water again
safe to drink after reportedly conducting tests at five different
sample sites.

The lawsuit was filed against Water Treatment & Controls Company,
also known as Peoples Water Service of Donaldsonville, and
formerly Peoples Water Company of Mayland, Inc.

Plaintiffs seek damages for costs associated with finding another
water source, inconvenience, fear, fright and mental anguish,
among other maladies.

Jeff Nicholson, of Baton Rouge, who filed the lawsuit did not
immediately reply to a phoned request for comment.


PERFECT 10: Faces "Vo-Watts" Labor Lawsuit Under Calif. Laws
------------------------------------------------------------
Dong-Phong Vo-Watts, Plaintiff(s) vs. Perfect 10 Nail Spa, Inc., a
business entity, form unknown; Yen Van Nguyen, an individual; Ky
Quoc Thai, an individual; and DOES 1 through 30, inclusive,
Defendant(s), Case No. 17 cv 306757 (Cal. Super., February 27,
2017), alleges on behalf of Plaintiff and other similarly situated
individuals, that Defendants regularly required Plaintiff and
other employees of Defendants to work in excess of eight hours per
day but failed to pay Plaintiff and other employees of Defendants
at least the minimum wage for all hours worked throughout the
course of Plaintiffs employment.

The complaint further asserts that Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff and other employees overtime; maintained a policy or
practice of failing to provide employees with an uninterrupted
thirty-minute meal period for every five hours worked and
regularly deprived Plaintiff and other employees of meal breaks
and rest breaks; maintained policy or practice of deducting
unauthorized amounts from Plaintiff and other employees of
Defendants' wages for alleged work rule violations; maintained a
policy or practice of taking, collecting, or receiving tips, or
parts of tips, paid by customers to Plaintiff and other employees;
maintained a policy or practice of failing to keep and provide
Plaintiff and other employees with accurate itemized wage and hour
records; maintained a policy or practice of failing to timely pay
Plaintiff and other employees wages owed at discharge in violation
of the California Labor Code, California Code of Regulations, and
California Business & Professions Code.

Plaintiff worked as a nail technician.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Hai H. Lai, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF HAI H. LAI
     10061 Talbert Avenue, Suite 204
     Fountain Valley, CA 92708
     Phone: (714)593-5800
     Fax: (714) 200-0221

        - and -

     Jonathan C. Do, Esq.
     FUSION LAW, A PC
     300 S. First Street, Suite 320
     San Jose, CA 95113
     Phone: (408)287-4444


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Class Cert. Bid Taken Under Submission
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez has taken these motions under
submission in the lawsuit titled STACE CHEVEREZ v. PLAINS ALL
AMERICAN PIPELINE, L.P., Case No. 2:15-cv-04113-PSG-JEM (C.D.
Cal.):

   (1) Defendants' motion to strike declarations of Igor Mezic,
       Hunter S. Lenihan, Steve Roberts, and Randall Bell filed
       on October 3, 2016;

   (2) Plaintiff's motion for class certification filed on
       August 22, 2016; and

   (3) Plaintiff's motion to strike Defendants' class
       certification expert declarations filed on December 21,
       2016, per November 4 Order.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tpC5Icm8

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juli Farris, Esq.
          Matthew Preusch, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
          E-mail: jfarris@kellerrohrback.com
                  mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com


               - and -

          Robert J. Nelson, Esq.
          Sarah R. London, Esq.
          Wilson Dunlavey, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN
          Embarcadero Center West
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: rnelson@lchb.com
                  slondon@lchb.com
                  wdunlavey@lchb.com

               - and -

          A. Barry Cappello, Esq.
          Leila J. Noel, Esq.
          Lawrence Conlan, Esq.
          CAPPELLO & NOEL LLP
          831 State Street
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 564-2444
          Facsimile: (805) 965-5950
          E-mail: ptremblay@cappellonoel.com
                  lnoel@cappellonoel.com
                  lconlan@cappellonoel.com

               - and -

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Henry Weissman, Esq.
          Daniel Levin, Esq.
          Thomas Clancy, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 683-9280
          Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
          E-mail: Henry.Weissmann@mto.com
                  daniel.levin@mto.com
                  Thomas.Clancy@mto.com


POPEYES LOUISIANA: Being Sold Too Cheaply, "Parshall" Action Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
directors are selling Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen too cheaply
through an unfair process to Restaurant Brands International, for
$79 a share or $1.6 billion, shareholders say in a federal class
action in Minneapolis.

The case is captioned, PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. POPEYES LOUISIANA
KITCHEN, INC., JOHN M. CRANOR, III, S. KIRK KINSELL, CAROLYN HOGAN
BYRD, MARTYN R. REDGRAVE, CANDACE MATTHEWS, CHERYL A. BACHELDER,
KRISHNAN ANAND, JOEL K. MANBY, LIZANNE THOMAS, RESTAURANT BRANDS
INTERNATIONAL INC., RESTAURANT BRANDS HOLDINGS CORPORATION, and
ORANGE, INC., Defendants. CASE 0:17-cv-00700(D. Minn., March 6,
2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Adam Altman, Esq.
     Douglas Altman, Esq.
     ALTMAN & IZEK
     901 North Third Street, Suite 140
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Telephone: (612) 335-3700
     E-mail: adam@altmanizek.com

          - and -

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

          - and -

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


RENUE SYSTEMS: Gorss Motels Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on February 27, 2017, in the case
captioned Gorss Motels, Inc. v. Renue Systems Development Corp.,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-10975 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a
hearing held before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman.

The minute entry states that in light of the Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal, this case is dismissed without prejudice as to the
members of the putative class.  Hence, the civil case is
terminated.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tlTpNCW1


RUPPERT LANDSCAPE: "Chorney" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Adam Chorney, for himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Ruppert Landscape, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-00655 (D.M.D., March 8, 2017) seeks to recover unpaid wages for
all hours worked, overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, Maryland Wage and Hour Law and the
Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Defendant employed Plaintiff as a field manager for its
landscaping business. Chorney claims to have regularly worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek without being paid overtime wages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Francis J. Collins, Esq.
     Christopher R. Ryon, Esq.
     KAHN, SMITH & COLLINS, P.A.
     201 N. Charles Street, Tenth Floor
     Baltimore, MA 21201 4102
     Tel: (410) 244-1010
     Fax: (410) 244-8001
     Email: fjcollins@kahnsmith.com
            ryon@kahnsmith.com


SALO INC: "Raines" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Due, Damages
-----------------------------------------------------
Annie Raines, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Salo, Inc. d/b/a Interim Healthcare
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00209, (S.D. Ohio, March 13, 2017),
seeks 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.

Salo, Inc. is a home health care service in Columbus, Ohio where
Raines was a home healthcare employee. She claims to have rendered
more than 40 hours per week without overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
      Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
      NILGES DRAHER LLC
      4580 Stephen Circle, NW, Suite 201
      Canton, OH 44718
      Telephone: (330) 470-4428
      Fax: (330) 754-1430
      Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
             sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


SAM'S WEST: Chikosi Seeks Certification of 3 Classes of Members
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled MORGAN CHIKOSI, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SAM'S WEST,
INC., SAM'S EAST, INC., and WAL-MART STORES, INC., Case No. 8:15-
cv-01675-AG-JCG (C.D. Cal.), moves the Court to certify his claims
as a class action.  The proposed classes are:

   -- Injunctive and Declaratory Relief Class is initially
      defined as:

      All California residents who were, or are, members of Sam's
      Club;

   -- Restitution/Damages Class is initially defined as:

      All California residents (a) who were, or are, members of
      Sam's Club, (b) who purchased from Sam's Club a "Fresh
      Product" (fresh meat, seafood, produce, or bakery) item,
      and (c) who returned a "Fresh Product" item to Sam's Club
      during the class period.

   -- Consumer Legal Remedies Act Class is initially defined as:

      All individuals residing in California (a) who were, or
      are, "Sam's Savings" or "Sam's Plus" members of Sam's Club,
      (b) who purchased from Sam's Club a "Fresh Product" (fresh
      meat, seafood, produce, or bakery) item, and (c) who
      returned a "Fresh Product" item to Sam's Club during the
      class period.

The Court will commence a hearing on May 22, 2017, at 10:00 a.m.,
to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Notice of Motion and Motion is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=v3BBUxP6

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          T. Christopher Tuck, Esq.
          RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
          1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Bldg. A
          P.O. Box 1007
          Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 727-6515
          E-mail: ctuck@rpwb.com

               - and -

          Ali Abtahi, Esq.
          ABTAHI LAW GROUP PC
          4000 MacArthur Blvd.
          Suite 600 East Tower
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 326-5500
          Facsimile: (949) 326-5501
          E-mail: aabtahi@abtahilaw.com

               - and -

          William D. Herlong, Esq.
          THE HERLONG LAW FIRM, LLC
          1421 Augusta Street
          P.O. Box 8217
          Greenville, SC 29604
          Telephone: (864) 238-5111
          Facsimile: (864) 752-0820
          E-mail: william@herlonglaw.com


SANOFI US: Diabetes Patients Sue Over Overpriced Insulin
--------------------------------------------------------
Frank Barnett, Aletha Bentele, Dianna Gilmore, Mark Goldsmith,
Ritch Hoard, and Tremayne Sirmons Plaintiffs, v. Sanofi U.S., Novo
Nordisk Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Express Scripts Holding
Company, Express Scripts, Inc., CVS Health Corp., Unitedhealth
Group, Inc., Optumrx, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01580,
(D.N.J., March 8, 2017), seeks to recover damages, costs of suit
and reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from unlawful
monopolization of the United States market for insulin in
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act and various state consumer protection laws.

Sanofi U.S., Novo Nordisk Inc. and Eli Lilly and Company
manufacture insulin used to treat diabetes and sell through bulk
drug distributors known as pharmacy benefit managers that serve as
middlemen between health insurers and drug manufacturers and are
alleged of excessive profiting of the said drug. Express Scripts
and CVS are the two largest pharmacy benefit managers.

Plaintiffs are diabetes patients claiming to have bought insulin
at exorbitant prices, thus seeking redress.

Sanofi U.S. is a Delaware limited liability corporation with its
principal place of business located at 55 Corporate Drive,
Bridgewater, New Jersey 08807. Sanofi manufactures Lantus used for
the treatment of diabetes.

Novo Nordisk Inc. is a Delaware corporation and has its principal
place of business at 800 Scudders Mill Road, Plainsboro, New
Jersey 08536. It manufactures Novolog and Levemir, which are used
for the treatment of diabetes.

Eli Lilly and Company is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Indiana and has a principal place
of business at Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, Indiana
46285. It manufactures Humalog, which is used for the treatment of
diabetes.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ellen Relkin, Esq.
      WEITZ & LUXENBERG
      220 Lake Drive East, Suite 210
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
      Telephone: (212) 558-5500
      Email: ERelkin@weitzlux.com


SCHIFF NUTRITION: Johnston Moves to Certify Class of Purchasers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned JEFFERY JOHNSTON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
SCHIFF NUTRITION INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation, and
RECKITT BENCKISER LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case
No. 4:15-cv-03669-PJH (N.D. Cal.), moves for an order certifying a
proposed class, defined as:

     All California residents who, since 2008, purchased MegaRed
     Omega-3 Krill Oil in 300 mg, 350 mg, 500 mg, 750 mg, and/or
     1000 mg strengths for personal or household use, not for
     resale.

Mr. Johnston also asks the Court to appoint him as Class
Representative and to appoint Fazio Micheletti LLP and Thomas
Misny, M.D., Inc., as Co-Lead Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=umyfHI16

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Fazio, Esq.
          Dina E. Micheletti, Esq.
          FAZIO MICHELETTI LLP
          2410 Camino Ramon, Suite 315
          San Ramon, CA 94583
          Telephone: (925) 543-2555
          Facsimile: (925) 369-0344
          E-mail: jlf@fazmiclaw.com
                  dem@fazmiclaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas J. Misny, Esq.
          THOMAS J. MISNY, M.D., INC.
          7319 Eagle Mills Road
          Waite Hill, OH 44094
          Telephone: (440) 256-1950
          Facsimile: (440) 256-1950
          E-mail: misnyt@netscape.net


SCYNEXIS INC: "Gibson" Sues Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------
John Gibson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Scynexis, Inc., Marco Taglietti, Eric
Francois, Yves J. Ribeill, Jonathan Sears Woodall and Charles F.
Osborne, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01565, (D.N.J., March 8,
2017), seeks damages sustained, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs
and such other and further relief under the Securities and
Exchange Act.

Scynexis, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company that develops and
distributes intravenous drugs for the treatment of serious and
life-threatening invasive fungal infections in humans.

Its lead product candidate, SCY-078, was a novel oral and
intravenous drug for the treatment of serious and life threatening
invasive fungal infections in humans. Defendant allegedly failed
to disclose that it entailed substantial undisclosed health and
safety risks, and that it had overstated the drug's approval
prospectus and/or commercial viability. On this news, Scynexis's
share price fell $0.57, or 17.43%, to close at $2.70 on March 3,
2017.

Plaintiff purchased Scynexis stock at artificially-inflated prices
and lost substantially upon corrective disclosures.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and -

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood, Esq. II
     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

            - 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


SIX FLAGS: Illinois Class Action in Early Stage
-----------------------------------------------
Six Flags Entertainment Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a class
action complaint in Illinios is still in an early stage.

On January 7, 2016, a potential class action complaint was filed
against Six Flags Entertainment Corporation in the Circuit Court
of Lake County, Illinois.  On April 22, 2016, Great America, LLC
was added as a defendant.

The Company said, "The complaint asserts that we violated the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act in connection with the
admission of season pass holders and members through the finger
scan program at Six Flags Great America in Gurnee, Illinois, and
seeks statutory damages, attorney's fees and an injunction. The
program commenced at the park in the 2014 operating season. The
complaint does not allege that any information was misused or
disseminated."

"On June 17, 2016, the court denied our motion to dismiss, and
allowed the case to proceed, however we intend to continue to
vigorously defend ourselves against this litigation.

"Since this litigation is still in an early stage, the outcome is
currently not determinable and a reasonable estimate of loss or
range of loss in excess of the immaterial amount that we have
recorded for this litigation cannot be made."

Six Flags is a regional theme park operator.


SPROUTS FARMERS: Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' motion to remand the securities class action lawsuit
against Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. to state court is currently
under consideration, Sprouts Farmers said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23,
2017, for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2017.

The Company said, "On March 4, 2016, a complaint was filed in the
Superior Court for the State of Arizona against our company and
certain of our directors and officers on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of shares of our common stock in our
underwritten secondary public offering which closed on March 10,
2015 (the "March 2015 Offering"). The complaint purports to state
claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, based on an alleged failure by our company to disclose
adequate information about produce price deflation in the March
2015 Offering documents. The complaint seeks damages on behalf of
the purported class in an unspecified amount, rescission, and an
award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees."

"On March 24, 2016, we removed the action to federal court in the
District of Arizona. On April 18, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a
motion to remand the case to state court, and that motion is
currently under consideration.

"We intend to defend this case vigorously, but it is not possible
at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of, or any
potential liability from, the case.

Sprouts Farmers Market operates as a healthy grocery store that
offers fresh, natural and organic food that includes fresh
produce, bulk foods, vitamins and supplements, packaged groceries,
meat and seafood, deli, baked goods, dairy products, frozen foods,
body care and natural household items catering to consumers'
growing interest in health and wellness.


SPROUTS FARMERS: "Phishing" Scam Actions Remain Stayed
------------------------------------------------------
"Phishing" scam actions against against Sprouts Farmers Market,
Inc. remained stayed pending the court's scheduling of an initial
case management conference, Sprouts Farmers said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2017.

The Company said, "In April 2016, four complaints were filed, two
in the federal courts of California, one in the Superior Court of
California and one in the federal court in the District of
Colorado, each on behalf of a purported class of our current and
former team members whose personally identifiable information
(referred to as "PII") was inadvertently disclosed to an
unauthorized third party that perpetrated an email "phishing" scam
against one of our team members.

"The complaints allege we failed to properly safeguard the PII in
accordance with applicable law.  The complaints seek damages on
behalf of the purported class in unspecified amounts, attorneys'
fees and litigation expenses.

"In June 2016, a motion was filed before the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (referred to as "JPML") to transfer and
consolidate all four of the cases to the federal court in the
District of Arizona. The JPML granted the motion on October 6,
2016, and the cases remained stayed pending the court's scheduling
of an initial case management conference.

"We intend to defend these cases vigorously, but it is not
possible at this time to reasonably estimate the outcome of, or
any potential liability from, the cases."

Sprouts Farmers Market operates as a healthy grocery store that
offers fresh, natural and organic food that includes fresh
produce, bulk foods, vitamins and supplements, packaged groceries,
meat and seafood, deli, baked goods, dairy products, frozen foods,
body care and natural household items catering to consumers'
growing interest in health and wellness.


STERLING JEWELERS: Denies Sexual Harrasment Allegations
-------------------------------------------------------
Drew Harwell at The Washington Post reports that Sterling
Jewelers, the Kay and Jared retail-jewelry conglomerate now facing
a massive class-action arbitration case, dismissed hundreds of
former female employees' allegations that the company fostered a
culture of sexual harassment and discrimination.

Calling those accusations a "purported parallel universe," the
chairman of Signet -- Sterling's parent company -- and other top
executives spoke publicly for the first time since The Washington
Post reported on the allegations. About 69,000 women have claimed
in a private arbitration case that Sterling Jewelers discriminated
against them in pay and promotion practices.

As part of that case, hundreds of former male and female employees
submitted sworn statements alleging that they had seen or
experienced sexual harassment or discrimination at company events
or in Kay Jewelers and Jared the Galleria of Jewelry stores.

"The portrait of Signet painted in recent media reports is
irreconcilable to me with a company that I have served as director
and chairman for more than five years," Chairman Todd Stitzer said
on a call with analysts on March 9 morning. "We have taken
seriously the allegations of sexual harassment prepared in
connection with the pending arbitration matter, many of which go
back decades."

Stitzer said the company's female workforce -- including 68
percent of its store-management staff and 33 percent of its
executives -- is a "direct result of our steadfast commitment to
practices that focus on all aspects of the employment experience
at our company."

"This is the portrayal of Signet which our board and management
team and our valued team members recognize as their own," he
added. "Not the purported parallel universe represented by
others."

Stitzer said 43 class members had alleged in sworn statements that
"they experienced any form of sexual harassment" -- a small
percentage, he noted, of the 69,000 women alleging pay and
promotion disparities in the arbitration -- "and many of these
allegations pertained to incidents that purportedly occurred from
the 1990s to 2005."

"This is a complex matter that cannot be reduced to a simple sound
bite or clever phrase," he said. "The case will be determined
primarily by statistical analysis, not salacious claims."

Joseph Sellers -- lawinfo@cohenmilstein.com --  a partner at the
Cohen Milstein law firm and lead counsel for the case, told The
Post on March 9 said the claim that only 43 women had alleged
sexual harassment is "simply untrue."

"Nearly half of the women who have issued (roughly 250) sworn
statements have alleged sexually demeaning conduct by executives
of the company, and that doesn't even account for the untold
number who were intimidated into keeping silent about the
treatment they endured," Sellers said.

"Furthermore, much of this conduct took place at mandatory
meetings and in public places where other women became
involuntarily aware of it," he added. "It seems that Mr. Stitzer
is the one living in a parallel universe, one where systemic pay
and promotion discrimination and behavior demeaning to women are
permissible."

Sellers also took issue with the company's description of the
ongoing case, which is expected to have a wide-ranging class
hearing next year.

"The fact that Sterling is trying to split hairs over the legal
definition of sexual harassment rather than acknowledging the
widespread mistreatment of its employees is indicative of the
problem," Sellers said.

In its call, Signet did not respond to or rebut the specific
allegations raised by men and women in hundreds of statements
filed since the arbitration began in 2008. But Stitzer said "the
allegations of sexual harassment focused on leadership were denied
under oath."

Signet chief executive Mark Light, named as one of the executives
accused in arbitration filings of having sex with female employees
and promoting women based on how they responded to sexual demands,
spoke about the company's performance but said nothing about the
case.


STONEGATE MORTGAGE: "Dubisky" Short-changed Over Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
John Dubisky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Stonegate Mortgage Corporation, Richard A.
Kraemer, Kevin Bhatt, James G. Brown, Sam Levinson, Richard A.
Mirro, And Scott Mumphrey, Home Point Financial Corporation and
Longhorn Merger Sub, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00478,
(N.D. Ohio, March 8, 2017), seeks to preliminarily and permanently
enjoin the Defendants from proceeding with, consummating, or
closing the sale of Stonegate Mortgage Corporation to Home Point
Financial Corporation, rescinding, to the extent already
implemented, the sale or any of the terms thereof.  The suit also
seeks rescissory damages, costs and disbursements of this action,
including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees and such other
and further equitable relief for violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Stonegate is a non-bank mortgage company focused on originating,
financing, and servicing U.S. residential mortgage loans that
operates as an intermediary between residential mortgage borrowers
and the ultimate investors of these mortgages. On January 27,
2017, it announced its merger with Home Point where the latter
will acquire all of the outstanding shares of Stonegate for $8.00
in cash in exchange for each share of Stonegate common stock owned
at closing. However, as recently as September 17, 2015, Stonegate
was trading at $8.26. The deal included a strict no-solicitation
provision that prevents the Company from soliciting other
potential acquirers or even in continuing discussions and
negotiations with potential acquirers.

Home Point is a New Jersey corporation with its headquarters
located at 1194 Oak Valley Drive, Suite 80, Ann Arbor MI 48108. It
is a national multi-channel mortgage originator and servicer.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Karon, Esq.
      KARON LLC
      700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Tel: (216) 622-1851

            - and -

      Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Tel: (203) 992-4523
      Fax: (212) 363-7171

            - and -

      Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN, LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 545-4600


STRATEGY ANESTHESIA: Progressive Amends Bid to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled PROGRESSIVE HEALTH AND REHAB
CORP., an Ohio corporation, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly-situated persons v. STRATEGY ANESTHESIA,
LLC, a Maryland limited liability company, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case
No. 2:16-cv-01151-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), files with the Court its
first amended "placeholder" motion for class certification.

Progressive Health proposes this class definition:

     All persons who (1) from October 24, 2014 to present (2)
     were sent telephone facsimile messages of material
     advertising the commercial availability or quality of any
     property, goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendants,
     (3) from whom Defendants did not obtain "prior express
     invitation or permission" to send fax advertisements, and
     (4) with whom Defendants did not have an established
     business relationship, and/or (5) which did not display a
     proper opt-out notice.

Progressive Health asserts that it files the Motion in order to
prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action
defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from
proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to
"moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff
individual (but not classwide) relief.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
          250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 2221-4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
          E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com

               - and -

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


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Still Faces "Kincaid" TCPA Action
------------------------------------------------------
Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company remains a
defendant in a putative class action lawsuit alleging claims under
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") relating to
facsimiles.

In Michael W. Kincaid, DDS et al. v. Synchrony Financial,
plaintiff alleges that the Company violated the TCPA by sending
fax advertisements without consent and without required notices,
and seeks up to $1,500 for each violation. The amount of damages
sought in the aggregate is unspecified.

The original complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on January 20, 2016. On August 11,
2016, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss based on
the lack of personal jurisdiction. On August 15, 2016, the
plaintiff re-filed the case in the Southern District of Ohio.

Synchrony is one of the premier consumer financial services
companies in the United States.


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Indemnifying Defendants in 3 TCPA Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
In its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016, Synchrony Financial said it is indemnifying the
defendants named in three class action lawsuits under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") filed in January:

     -- Campbell et al. v. Gap Inc., for which the Bank is
indemnifying the defendant, was filed on January 25, 2017 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.

     -- Campbell et al. v. J.C. Penney Company, Inc.; and J.C.
Penney Corporation, Inc., for which the Bank is indemnifying the
defendants, was filed on January 25, 2017 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of New York.

     -- Neal et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., for which the Bank
is indemnifying the defendant, was filed on January 17, 2017 in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina.

According to the SEC report, the Company is or has been defending
a number of putative class actions alleging claims under the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") as a result of
phone calls made by the Company's Bank subsidiary. The complaints
generally have alleged that the Bank or the Company placed calls
to consumers by an automated telephone dialing system or using a
pre-recorded message or automated voice without their consent and
seek up to $1,500 for each violation, without specifying an
aggregate amount.

The Company also disclosed that the case, Abdeljalil et al. v. GE
Capital Retail Bank, which was filed on August 22, 2012 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, was
dismissed on December 22, 2016 after receiving the court's final
approval of an agreement to settle the case on a class basis.

The Company also provided updates to other TCPA-related lawsuits.

Pursuant to the agreement, a related case (Hofer et al. v.
Synchrony Bank, which was filed on November 4, 2014 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri), was
dismissed on February 11, 2016.

In addition to the Campbell, Campbell, Neal, Abdeljalil and Hofer
matters, the Bank has resolved ten other putative class actions
that made similar claims under the TCPA on an individual basis
with the class representative.

Travaglio et al. v. GE Capital Retail Bank and Allied Interstate
LLC was filed on January 17, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida and dismissed on October 9, 2014.

Fitzhenry v. Lowe's Companies Inc. and GE Capital Retail Bank was
filed on May 29, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina and dismissed on October 20, 2014.

Cowan v. GE Capital Retail Bank was filed on May 14, 2014 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and dismissed
on July 8, 2015.

Pittman et al. v. GE Capital d/b/a GE Capital Retail Bank was
filed on July 29, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama and dismissed on August 20, 2015.

Dubanoski et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., for which the Bank
indemnified the defendant, was filed on February 27, 2015 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
and dismissed on September 1, 2015.

Mintz et al v. Synchrony Bank was filed on December 28, 2015 in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and
dismissed on May 11, 2016.

Deutsche et al. v. Synchrony Bank et al. was filed on March 27,
2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and
dismissed on June 27, 2016.

Ciotti et al. v. Synchrony Financial et al. was filed on April 27,
2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California and dismissed on June 2, 2016.

Johnson et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Synchrony Financial
was filed on April 22, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California and dismissed on September 8, 2016.

Anand v. Synchrony Bank and Synchrony Financial was filed on June
22, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois and dismissed on September 15, 2016.

Synchrony is one of the premier consumer financial services
companies in the United States.


T. ROWE PRICE: Feinberg Files ERISA Class Action in Maryland
------------------------------------------------------------
David G. Feinberg, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc., T.
Rowe Price Trust Company, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. Management
Committee, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. Management Compensation
Committee, Christopher D. Alderson, Edward C. Bernard, Michael C.
Gitlin, James A. C. Kennedy, John D. Linehan, Brian C. Rogers,
William J. Stromberg, Eric L. Veiel, Edward A. Wiese, T. Rowe
Price U.S. Retirement Program Trustee Does 1-40, and Does 1-30,
c/o T. Rowe Price Group Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00427,
(D. Md., February 14, 2017), seeks equitable restitution,
disgorgement of all fees paid and other appropriate equitable
monetary relief, attorneys' fees and costs and such other and
further relief pursuant to Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974.

T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. is the sponsor, a fiduciary of the
401(k) Plan, and a party in interest to the T. Rowe Price U.S.
Retirement Program. T. Rowe Price is a large mutual fund and
financial services organization that provides a broad range of
services to consumers and corporate customers. Feinberg worked for
T. Rowe Price out of their Florida office for 16 years as a
technical support specialist for T. Rowe Price's international
offices.

According to the complaint, the in-house funds offered in the
401(k) Plan were expensive not only compared to funds offered by
other investment companies, but also compared to other funds
offered by T. Rowe Price itself. Plan Trustees breached their
fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty in selecting these funds
for the 401(k) Plan.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mikael S. Neville, Esq.
      J. Brian McTigue, Esq.
      James A. Moore, Esq.
      Mikael Neville, Esq.
      MCTIGUE LAW LLP
      4530 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 300
      Washington, DC 20016
      Tel: (202) 364-6900
      Fax: (202) 364-9960
      Email: bmctigue@mctiguelaw.com
             jmoore@mctiguelaw.com
             mneville@mctiguelaw.com

             - and -

      Karen L. Handorf, Esq.
      Scott M. Lempert, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
      1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
      Suite 500, West Tower
      Washington, DC 20005
      Tel: (202) 408-4600
      Fax: (202) 408-4699
      Email: khandorf@cohenmilstein.com
             slempert@cohenmilstein.com


TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Judge Consolidates 2 End-Payer Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Eslinger at Law360, reports that a New York federal judge
consolidated two end-payer cases in a proposed class action
alleging that drugmakers conspired to jack up the price of generic
blood pressure medication propranolol, and rejected a motion for
separate trials for cases filed by direct purchasers.

The proposed antitrust class actions filed against Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., Mylan Inc. and a slew of other
drugmakers allege the manufacturers worked together to
artificially fix the prices for generic propranolol capsules.

The two new cases from end-payers, or indirect purchasers, were
filed by the American Federation of State County and Municipal
Employees District Council 37 Health & Security Plan. The cases
were filed in the wake of two direct purchaser cases filed by drug
and cosmetics distribution company Cesar Castillo Inc and drug
purchaser FWK Holdings LLC, which were consolidated in January.

In addition to consolidating the actions of the end-payor
plaintiffs, and ordering that all four actions be coordinated for
pre-trial and trial purposes on a master docket styled "In re
Propranolol Antitrust Litigation," U.S. District Judge Jed S.
Rakoff rejected the direct purchasers' assertion that without
separation between the direct and indirect purchaser cases, a jury
could have difficulty sorting out issues related to damages.

"While the court very much doubts that jurors typical of those
chosen for juries in the Southern District of New York would, if
properly instructed, ever be confused in the manner suggested, the
court will revisit this issue at the close of discovery," the
judge said.

In its motion, the direct purchaser plaintiffs said without some
separation, a jury might "misunderstand" that the direct purchaser
plaintiffs are entitled to recover the full amount of the
overcharge even if some of the overcharge imposed by the
defendants is passed on to the indirect purchasers.

An attorney for the plaintiffs, Robert Kaplan of Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP, told Law360 that he's hanging his hopes on the
judge's promise that he'll revisit the issue.

"So, hopefully this will not be the final form of the trial,"
Kaplan wrote in an email.

The court granted the U.S. government's request to intervene in
the proposed class action after the U.S. said the case could
interfere with a criminal investigation.

The U.S. Department of Justice said in a memorandum supporting its
motion to intervene that the consolidated action will likely
result in information being disclosed that could harm an ongoing
criminal antitrust investigation into the generic pharmaceuticals
industry, which was unsealed in December. The government said it
would file a separate motion seeking a limited stay of certain
discovery in the case if allowed to intervene.

"The United States' criminal investigation into antitrust
violations in the generic pharmaceutical industry presents
circumstances that warrant intervention in these consolidated
actions," the memorandum said.

The complaint filed by drug and cosmetics distribution company
Cesar Castillo Inc. in January claims the drugmakers first fixed
the price for the products in December 2013 at 150 percent over
the previous price. Then, spurred by their success, they conspired
to push the prices up by more than 700 percent, and past 1,000
percent for some dosages, according to the complaint.

Because the price increases were contrary to each company's self-
interests and appear to have come shortly after all the defendants
attended Generic Pharmaceutical Association conferences in Florida
and Maryland, Cesar Castillo claims that a price-fixing conspiracy
is the likely reason for propranolol prices to rise "substantially
in lockstep."

The only factors that could otherwise justify such sweeping price
increases -- significantly higher manufacturing costs, a
significant decrease in propranolol supply or a massive hike in
demand for the drug -- didn't happen, the company said.

Both Castillo's and FWK's complaints point to the Justice
Department's open investigation. The DOJ also noted in its
memorandum that the overlap in its case and the instant suit is
clear, since the first document request made includes "all
documents and [electronically stored information] submitted to, or
seized by, the United States Department of Justice."

Cesar Castillo is represented by Linda P. Nussbaum --
lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com --  Bart D. Cohen --
bcohen@nussbaumpc.com --  Bradley J. Demuth --
bdemuth@nussbaumpc.com -- and Peter E. Moran --
pmoran@nussbaumpc.com -- of Nussbaum Law Group PC.
FWK Holdings Ltd. is represented by Robert N. Kaplan --
rkaplan@kaplanfox.com --  Richard J. Kilsheimer --
rkilsheimer@kaplanfox.com --  Jeffrey P. Campisi --
jcampisi@kaplanfox.com -- and Joshua Saltzman --
jsaltzman@kaplanfox.com -- of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Thomas
M. Sobol -- Thomas@hbsslaw.com --  David S. Nalven --
david@hbsslaw.com --  Lauren Guth Barnes -- lauren@hbsslaw.com --
and Kiersten Taylor -- kierstent@hbsslaw.com -- of Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP and Joseph M. Vanek and David P. Germaine of
Vanek Vickers & Masini PC.

The Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund is
represented by Daniel Charles Girard -- dcg@girardgibbs.com --
Christina H.C. Sharp -- chs@girardgibbs.com --  Elizabeth A.
Kramer -- eak@girardgibbs.com --  Scott M. Grzenczyk --
smg@girardgibbs.com -- and Adam E. Polk -- aep@girardgibbs.com --
of Girard Gibbs LLP and Peter George Safirstein --
psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com -- of Safirstein Metcalf LLP.
The American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees
District Council 37 Health & Security Plan is represented by Dan
Drachler -- ddrachler@zsz.com -- of Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling
and Dean M. Harvey -- dharvey@lchb.com --  Elizabeth J. Cabraser -
- ecabraser@lchb.com --  Eric B. Fastiff -- efastiff@lchb.com -- ,
Michelle Lamy -- mlamy@lchb.com --  Brendan Patrick Glackin
bglackin@lchb.com --  and David Taylor Rudolph --
drudolph@lchb.com -- of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP.

Teva Pharmaceuticals and Actavis Elizabeth are represented by Marc
Kasowitz -- mkasowitz@kasowitz.com --  Hector Torres --
htorres@kasowitz.com --  Sheron Korpus -- skorpus@kasowitz.com --
and Seth Davis -- sdavis@kasowitz.com -- of Kasowitz Benson Torres
& Friedman LLP. Breckenridge Pharmaceuticals is represented by R.
Brendan Fee -- brendan.fee@morganlewis.com -- and Stacey Anne
Mahoney -- stacey.mahoney@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP. Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc. is represented by David
Jarrett Arp -- darp@gibsondunn.com --  Melanie L. Katsur --
mkatsur@gibsondunn.com -- and Indraneel Sur -- isur@gibsondunn.com
-- of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP. Mylan and UDL Laboratories are
represented by Jeffrey C. Bank -- jbank@wsgr.com -- and Chul Pak -
- cpak@wsgr.com -- of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. Upsher-
Smith Laboratories is represented by Devora Whitman Allon --
dallon@kirkland.com --  Jay Philip Lefkowitz --
lefkowitz@kirkland.com -- and Nathan Edmund Taylor --
nate.taylor@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Par
Pharmaceutical Inc. is represented by Omid Gabriel Banuelos --
obanuelos@wc.com -- of Williams & Connolly LLP.

The case is In re Propranolol Antitrust Litigation, case number
1:16-cv-09901-JSR,  in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


TEXAS: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling on Inmate's TRFRA Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District, Amarillo,
affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remand in part, the
appeals case captioned MARK WALTERS, Appellant, v. BRAD
LIVINGSTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, Appellees, No.
07-15-00146-CV (Tex. App.).

Appellant, Mark Walters, a former inmate, sued Brad Livingston,
individually and in his official capacity as executive director of
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, alleging that Livingston
and TDCJ substantially burdened the free exercise of his Native
American religion by denying him the right to personally smoke a
sacred ceremonial pipe during religious ceremonies. Walters
alleged that the acts of Livingston and TDCJ were in violation of
the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution, a violation of Article I, Sections 3, 6, 8 and 19 of
the Texas Constitution, a violation of the compromise and
settlement agreement reached in previous litigation between TDCJ
and another Native American inmate, and a violation of the Texas
Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

In addition to seeking personal relief, Walters requested the
trial court to certify 42 other similarly-situated Native American
inmates or former inmates as a class for purposes of a class
action proceeding pursuant to sections 26.001-.051 of the Texas
Civil Practice and Remedies Code (West 2015) and Rule 42 of the
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Walters sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, damages
including attorney's fees and costs of court.

Livingston and TDCJ filed a traditional motion for summary
judgment pursuant to Rule 166a(c) of the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and
dismissed Walters's lawsuit with prejudice. The trial court finds
that Walters lacked standing to pursue his claims and those claims
were barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Walters filed a notice of appeal and contends that the trial court
erred by determining that his claims were moot due to his release
from incarceration, by determining that his damage claims under
TRFRA were barred by the statute of limitations, and by granting
summary judgment.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court as
to Walters's breach of contract claim and his claim for
prospective injunctive relief under TRFRA.  The judgment of the
trial court is reversed as to his claim for damages or declaratory
relief under TRFRA or pursuant to his constitutional civil rights
or due process causes of action and the cause is remanded.

A copy of the opinion penned by Justice Patrick A. Pirtile dated
February 15, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/66c4TF from
Leagle.com.

Mark Walters, for Appellant, Pro se

Brad Livingston, in his Official Capacity as Executive Director,
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Appellee, represented by
Celamaine Cunniff -- Craig Jacobs -- Texas Attorney General's
Office

The Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District panel, consists of
Chief Justice Brian Quinn and Justices Patrick A. Pirtile and
James T. Campbell.


TL TRANSPORTATION: "Hickman" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Tyhee Hickman and Shanay Bolden, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TL Transportation, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01038, (E.D. Pa., March 8, 2017),
seeks back pay damages, including unpaid overtime compensation,
unpaid spread of hours payments and unpaid wages, prejudgment
interest, liquidated damages, litigation costs, expenses and
attorneys' fees and such other and further relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the
Maryland Wage and Hour Law.

Defendant provides delivery services to various clients, including
Amazon.com. Hickman has been employed since November 2016 as a
Delivery Associate, assigned to the Amazon.com fulfillment center
in Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Hickman is paid a flat rate of $152.00 a day regardless of how
many hours he actually works.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Camille Fundora, Esq.
     Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215) 875-3053
     Fax: (215) 875-4604
     Email: sschalman-bergen@bm.net

            - and -

     Ryan Allen Hancock, Esq.
     Bruce Ludwig, Esq.
     WILLIG, WILLIAMS & DAVIDSON
     1845 Walnut Street, 24th Floor
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Telephone: (215) 656-3600


TRS RECOVERY: "Baker" Sues Over Vague Collection Letters
--------------------------------------------------------
Denise Nekile Baker on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers Plaintiff, v. TRS Recovery Services Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01749, (S.D. N.Y., March 8, 2017),
seeks statutory damages, attorney fees, litigation expenses and
costs incurred and any other relief under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Defendant is a debt collector who attempted to collect a consumer
debt from the Plaintiff. The "Total Due" that is indicated on its
collections letter was for an amount that included original
principal and contractual interest but do not disclose that the
balance might increase due to interest. Plaintiff asserts that the
letters failed to clearly, explicitly and unambiguously convey the
amount of the debt.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Igor Litvak, Esq.
      The Litvak Law Firm, PLLC
      1701 Avenue P
      Brooklyn, NY 11229
      Tel: (718) 989-2908
      Fax: (718) 989-2908
      E-mail: Igor@LitvakLawNY.com


U.S. SILICA: 74 Silica Products Liability Claims Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
As of December 31, 2016, there were a total of 74 active silica-
related products liability claims pending in which U.S. Silica
Holdings, Inc. was a defendant and 1 inactive claim, U.S. Silica
said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

Prolonged inhalation of excessive levels of respirable crystalline
silica dust can result in silicosis, a disease of the lungs.
Breathing large amounts of respirable silica dust over time may
injure a person's lungs by causing scar tissue to form.
Crystalline silica in the form of quartz is a basic component of
soil, sand, granite and most other types of rock. Cutting,
breaking, crushing, drilling, grinding and abrasive blasting of or
with crystalline silica containing materials can produce fine
silica dust, the inhalation of which may cause silicosis, lung
cancer and possibly other diseases including immune system
disorders such as scleroderma. Sources of exposure to respirable
crystalline silica dust include sandblasting, foundry
manufacturing, crushing and drilling of rock, masonry and concrete
work, mining and tunneling, and cement and asphalt pavement
manufacturing.

The Company said, "Since at least 1975, we and/or our predecessors
have been named as a defendant, usually among many defendants, in
numerous lawsuits brought by or on behalf of current or former
employees of our customers alleging damages caused by silica
exposure. Prior to 2001, the number of silicosis lawsuits filed
annually against the commercial silica industry remained
relatively stable and was generally below 100, but between 2001
and 2004 the number of silicosis lawsuits filed against the
commercial silica industry substantially increased. This increase
led to greater scrutiny of the nature of the claims filed, and in
June 2005 the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas issued an opinion in the former federal silica multi-
district litigation remanding almost all of the 10,000 cases then
pending in the multi-district litigation back to the state courts
from which they originated for further review and medical
qualification, leading to a number of silicosis case dismissals
across the United States. In conjunction with this and other
favorable court rulings establishing "sophisticated user" and "no
duty to warn" defenses for silica producers, several states,
including Texas, Ohio and Florida, have passed medical criteria
legislation that requires proof of actual impairment before a
lawsuit can be filed."

"As a result of the above developments, the filing rate of new
claims against us over the past few years has decreased to below
pre-2001 levels, and we were named as a defendant in one, zero and
two new silicosis cases filed in 2014, 2015 and 2016,
respectively. As of December 31, 2016, there were a total of 74
active silica-related products liability claims pending in which
we were a defendant and 1 inactive claim. Almost all of the claims
pending against us arise out of the alleged use of our silica
products in foundries or as an abrasive blast media, and involve
various other defendants.

"Prior to the fourth quarter of 2012, we had insurance policies
for both our predecessors that cover certain claims for alleged
silica exposure for periods prior to certain dates in 1985 and
1986 (with respect to certain insurance). As a result of a
settlement with a former owner and its insurers in the fourth
quarter of 2012, some of these policies are no longer available to
us and we will not seek reimbursement for any defense costs or
claim payments from these policies. Other insurance policies,
however, continue to remain available to us and will continue to
make such payments on our behalf.

"The silica-related litigation brought against us to date has not
resulted in material liability to us. However, we continue to have
silica-related products liability claims filed against us,
including claims that allege silica exposure for periods for which
we do not have insurance coverage. Any such pending or future
claims or inadequacies of our insurance coverage could have a
material adverse effect on our business, reputation or results of
operations."

U.S. Silica is one of the largest domestic producers of commercial
silica, a specialized mineral that is a critical input into a
variety of attractive end markets.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Calif. Judge Rejects Drivers' Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenblatt and Edvard Pettersson at Bloomberg News report
that Uber Technologies failed to persuade a judge to approve a
settlement offering 1.6 million California drivers an average of
$1.08 apiece to dispense with alleged labor-code violations that
their lawyer claimed might have been worth billions of dollars.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Maren Nelson issued a tentative
ruling rejecting a deal aimed at resolving one of more than a
dozen U.S. lawsuits challenging the company's contractor-based
business model.

The judge said there's merit to objections that the $7.75 million
accord shortchanges drivers who sued seeking the protections and
benefits of employees. Most of the settlement would go to state
coffers, administrative costs and lawyer fees. Nelson also said
the settlement provides too broad a release of liability for Uber
from labor-code claims.

"I need some analysis why it is fair and adequate," she said
during a hearing Friday.

While the judge allowed the company and lawyers for the drivers to
revise the terms of the deal and resubmit it for approval, her
ruling marks another setback for Uber in its effort to dispose of
the most potent legal threat to its business model. Uber still
faces a class-action case by California drivers in San Francisco
after a federal judge in August rejected a $100 million settlement
as inadequate. A critical appeals court hearing over the size and
scope of that case is scheduled for June.

It's already been a tough year for the San Francisco-based
startup, valued at $69 billion. Uber is facing calls from
customers to #DeleteUber, reports of a toxic corporate culture,
sexual harassment allegations, criticism from investors and the
abrupt departure of a new senior executive over an undisclosed
harassment claim from his previous job at Google.

The company is also contending with Alphabet Inc.'s high-profile
lawsuit accusing it of copying technology for self-driving cars.
Uber's chief executive officer said he's seeking "leadership help"
in the form of a chief operating officer after his verbal
altercation with a driver was caught on video.

An Uber spokesman declined to comment on Nelson's tentative
ruling. Christopher Morosoff and Douglas Caiafa, lawyers for the
drivers, didn't immediately respond to phone calls and email
messages seeking comment.

The Los Angeles case was brought under a California law that gives
employees the right to step into the shoes of the state labor
commissioner to bring enforcement actions. Under the 2004 Private
Attorneys General Act, the state keeps 75 percent of any penalties
won. The remaining 25 percent is a reward for the workers who
bring the case. Thousands of so-called bounty hunter lawsuits have
been filed in the past 12 years.

The drivers' lawyers who negotiated the settlement touted it as
the largest known settlement in the history of the act, and Uber
said it was a fair compromise in light of the "high likelihood"
the company would win a trial over the claims if they aren't
settled.

But lawyers suing Uber in other cases objected in court filings,
saying it's a travesty for the drivers.

"In a troubling political climate when the role of all branches of
government [is] being undermined," lawyers who bring claims in the
shoes of state officials "have a duty to push back against
businesses looking to exploit consumers," attorney Mark Geragos
said in a filing. He called the settlement "shameful and
embarrassing."

In last year's rejection of the San Francisco settlement, a judge
concluded that the $1 million allotted to resolve Private
Attorneys General Act allegations was insufficient because it
amounted to just 0.1 percent of claims that state officials valued
at $1 billion.

Nelson cited that finding in her ruling, adding that the
settlement amount in the Los Angeles case is a only slightly
higher recovery: 0.77 percent.

The judge said she needs an explanation of how the settlement's
provision for dismissal of class-action claims in the lawsuit,
which are separate from the claims under the act, affects
potential claims by Uber drivers.

"I don't know if you've been flooded with calls from drivers
asking 'What about me?'" Nelson told Morosoff. She gave the
lawyers two weeks to file more written arguments and scheduled
another hearing for May 2.


UNIQUE BEVERAGE: Faces Suit Over Coconut Water Content in Product
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Harden at The Portland Tribune reports that a Gresham woman
is suing the company that makes Cascade Ice because she says the
company's coconut water doesn't contain any coconut at all.

In a 13-page lawsuit filed on March 9 in U.S. District Court
against Unique Beverage Co. LLC, makers of Cascade Ice waters,
Gresham's Vicky Silva and her attorneys, Michael Fuller  --
mfuller@olsendaines.com -- of Olsen Daines in Portland and Mark
Geragos -- mark@geragos.com -- of Geragos & Geragos in Los
Angeles, asked the court to certify the lawsuit as a class action,
so other Oregon consumers who purchased the coconut water thinking
they were getting the benefits of coconut could be compensated.

Representatives of Unique Beverage Co. have not commented on the
lawsuit. No court date has been set for the case.


UNITED STATES: Judge Not Ready to Rule on Travel Ban TRO
--------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Baumann at Seattle Times reports that a federal judge in
Seattle who issued the order temporarily halting nationwide
implementation of President Donald Trump's initial travel ban said
on March 10 that because of procedural reasons he won't
immediately rule on whether his restraining order applies to the
new travel ban.

U.S. District Judge James Robart said in an order that motions or
a complaint over the revised ban need to be filed before he can
make a decision. The states of Washington and Minnesota, as well
as the Justice Department, have only so far filed notices.

The U.S. Justice Department said in a filing that the original
order had been revoked and that the court's restraining order does
not limit the government's ability to immediately begin enforcing
the new order.

The states of Washington and Minnesota in a response notice argue
that sections of the new order have the same effect as the
original one and that the federal government can't unilaterally
decide to change a court's previous ruling.

Trump's revised ban blocks new visas for people from six
predominantly Muslim countries including Somalia, Iran, Syria,
Sudan, Libya and Yemen. It also temporarily shuts down the U.S.
refugee program. Unlike the original order, the new one says
current visa holders won't be affected, and it removes language
that would give priority to religious minorities.

Washington was the first state to sue over the original ban, which
resulted in Robart stopping its implementation around the country.
The lawsuit says the initial travel ban was unconstitutional and
hurt the state's businesses and universities.

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said the revised travel
ban has "the same illegal motivations as the original."

On March 10, the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project filed an
amended class-action complaint in U.S. District Court, saying the
new version discriminates against Muslims and raises the same
legal issues as the original.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer said on M the administration
believed the revised ban will stand up to legal scrutiny.

On Twitter on March 10, the Washington state Attorney General's
Office said Ferguson was reviewing Robart's Friday's order with
his legal team to determine next steps.

The revised travel ban was scheduled to go into effect on March 9.

The new ban The Northwest Immigrant Rights Project filed an
amended class-action complaint in U.S. District Court on March 10,
saying the new version of the travel ban discriminates against
Muslims and raises the same legal issues as the original.

The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge James Robart, who is
also overseeing the legal challenge brought by Washington state,
and who issued the order halting nationwide implementation of the
first ban. Among the plaintiffs in the case are a legal permanent
resident who has been trying to bring her 16-year-old son from
war-torn Syria and a U.S. citizen who's trying to bring her 6-
year-old son from Somalia.


UNITED STATES: USCIS Sued Over Denial of Removal Proceedings
------------------------------------------------------------
AYNEALEM GEBRESLASIE, the Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; JOHN KELLY, United States Secretary of
Homeland Security; and JEANNE M. KENT, Las Vegas Field Office
Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services,
the Defendants, Case No. (D. Nev., Jan. 30, 2017), seeks relief
from Defendants' actions of categorically refusing to place
the Plaintiff into removal proceedings which is the prerequisite
to his ability to challenge the June 2, 2016 denial of his
application for adjustment.

The Plaintiff, for himself and others similarly situated, seeks a
declaration that Defendants' actions are unlawful and constitute
violations of legal duties that Defendants owe to Plaintiffs under
the immigration laws of this Nation.

Defendants' refusal to place Plaintiff into removal proceedings is
a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act because the Las
Vegas Field Office's Director's decision to disregard the agency's
own regulations, is both arbitrary and capricious and not grounded
in any legitimate or reasonable basis, says the complaint.

Defendants' refusal to place Plaintiff into removal proceedings is
a clear violation of Defendants' non-discretionary duty, it
further adds. The agency's own regulations, compels review of a
denial of an application for adjustment filed by an asylee before
an immigration judge. Indeed, 8 C.F.R. 209.2(f) provides that upon
denial of an application for adjustment of status "USCIS will
notify an applicant of the right to renew the request in removal
proceedings under Section 240 of the Act." Director Kent's letter
conspicuously omitted this language from her June 2, 2016 letter
denying Plaintiffs application for adjustment. By placing
Plaintiff into a "no-man's land" between deportation and permanent
residency, Defendants are thwarting Plaintiff's ability to have
judicial review of their denial of his application and instead
require him to continue paying the government exorbitant filing
fees for applications that will continue to be denied, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul S. Padda, Esq.
          Wayne H. Price, Esq.
          PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC
          4240 West Flamingo Road, Suite 220
          Las Vegas, NV 89103
          Telephone: (702)366 1888
          Facsimile:(702) 366 1940
          E-mail: psp@paulpaddalaw.com
                  whp@paulpaddalaw.com


VILLE PLATTE, LA: Faces Suit Over Illegal Detention
---------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth West at Ville Palate Today reports that the lawsuits
just keep coming for the City of Ville Platte and the Ville Platte
Police Department since the U.S. Department of Justice found
regularly arrested and held people in jail without a warrant or
probable cause.

This time around however, the Evangeline Parish Sheriff's Office
and Evangeline Parish are named as defendants as well.
The complaint was filed in the United States District Court
Western District of Louisiana on March 1, 2017 on behalf of
plaintiffs Christopher Dugas, Timothy Johnson, Sharonna Tezeno and
Nichole Fontenot.

Representing the plaintiffs are attorneys with Hach Rose Schirripa
& Cheverie LLP out of New York City, the Law Office of Conrad
Benedetto out of Philadelphia, and Cornish Law, LLC out of New
Orleans.

In their class action complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they
personally experienced the illegal investigative holds that the
DOJ found the VPPD and EPSO used, which they stated in their
report violated the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The complaint summarizes what the plaintiffs allege occured while
detained illegally by VPPD and EPSO.

According to the document, Dugas, of Lafayette, claims that he was
accused of "taking a picture of a minor with his cell phone," and
was arrested by a VPPD officer and "taken to the VPPD jail."
The complaint goes on to say that "no such picture of a minor was
found on the device."

Dugas then claims that he was moved to the Evangeline Parish Jail
"four or five months" after being detained by VPPD.
According to the complaint, "EPSO officers placed him in a room of
family members of the minor he was accused of taking the
photographs of," who proceeded to "physically beat and abused him
in the EPSO jail."

Dugas was allegedly "brought before a judge six months after being
brought into the VPPD jail, he was offered a plea bargain for time
served and a 'pass without dismissal.'"

In regards to Johnson, of Mamou, his claim is that he was arrested
by VPPD in 2013 for stealing his roommate's television.
According to the complaint, "Johnson's roommate informed the
police that plaintiff Johnson was sleeping at the time of the
incident," however, he was held for "11 days at the VPPD without
being charged."

Tezeno, also of Mamou, claims that after witnessing a "home
invasion in the course of which a firearm was discharged," she was
arrested, interrogated, and stripped of her possessions
indefinitely - including a cell phone and money.

The complaint states that Tezeno was "detained, uncharged, and
forced to remain in a jail cell for over 48 hours," but she was
"never charged with anything and never appeared in court for any
violations arising out of this incident."

The final plaintiff named in the complaint - Fontenot - has
alleged that around March of 2016, "EPSO officers came to
Plaintiff Fontenot's house to arrest a male companion for an
outstanding bench warrant."

The complaint then states that "EPSO arrested the male companion"
at that time, and then "returned to Plaintiff Fontenot's home and
arrested her."

Fontenot claims that "seventy days after being arrested and not
charged, Plaintiff Fontenot was brought before a judge and
released from custody."

According to complaint, the plaintiffs' counsel are asking for
"compensatory and punitive damages in favor of Plaintiffs and the
other class members against Defendant for all damages sustained as
a result of Defendant's wrongdoing."

In the complaint, detectives who ordered the arrests of the
plaintiffs, the patrol officers who carried out the arrests, and
those responsible for any and all control over the detainees at
the Evangeline Parish Jail and those at the VPPD Jail are also
being named as defendants.

They are referred to in the complaint as DOES 1-50 for EPSO and
DOES 51-100 for VPPD.

The first class action lawsuit filed on behalf of plaintiffs who
allege to have also experienced being detained illegally by VPPD
was filed by Ville Platte attorney Jacob Fusilier on February 6,
2017.


VOYA FINANCIAL: April 14 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss "Dezelan"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Dezelan v. Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity
Company, Case No. 3:16-cv-01251 (D. Conn.), Connecticut District
Court Jude Victor A Bolden will convene a hearing on the Motion to
Dismiss on April 14, 2017 2:00 PM in Courtroom Two, 915 Lafayette
Blvd., Bridgeport, CT.

In a Feb. 1 docket entry, discovery in the case is stayed, except
for (i) exchanging initial disclosures; and (ii) meeting and
conferring concerning any requests for production that the parties
serve pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34.  An Amended Rule 26(f)
Report is to be filed within 14 days of entry of any order denying
defendants motion to dismiss in whole or in part.

Voya Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company continues to
face the lawsuit captioned as, Dezelan v. Voya Retirement
Insurance and Annuity Company (USDC District of Connecticut, No.
3:16-cv-1251) (filed July 26, 2016), a putative class action in
which plaintiff, a participant in a 403(b) Plan, seeks to
represent a class of plans whose assets are invested in Voya
Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company ("VRIAC") "Group Annuity
Contract Stable Value Funds."

Plaintiff alleges that VRIAC has violated the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") by charging unreasonable
fees and setting its own compensation in connection with stable
value products. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
disgorgement of profits, damages and attorney's fees.

The Company denies the allegations, which it believes are without
merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously.

Voya is a premier retirement, investment and insurance company
serving the financial needs of approximately 13.6 million
individual and institutional customers in the United States as of
December 31, 2016.


VOYA FINANCIAL: Defending Against "Patrico" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the Company continues to
face the lawsuit Patrico v. Voya Financial, Inc., et al (USDC
SDNY, No. 1:16-cv-07070) (filed September 9, 2016), a putative
class action in which plaintiff, a participant in a 401(k) Plan,
seeks to represent a class of plans "for which Voya or its
subsidiaries provide recordkeeping, investment management or
investment advisory services and for which Financial Engines
provides investment advice to plan participants."

Plaintiff alleges that the Company and its affiliates have
violated ERISA by charging unreasonable fees in connection with
in-plan investment advice provided in conjunction with Financial
Engines, a third-party investment adviser. Plaintiff seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits,
damages and attorney's fees.

The Company denies the allegations, which it believes are without
merit, and intends to defend the case vigorously.

Voya is a premier retirement, investment and insurance company
serving the financial needs of approximately 13.6 million
individual and institutional customers in the United States as of
December 31, 2016.


WAL-MART STORES: Mislabeled Pita Chips, "Terrazzino" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class claims in a federal
lawsuit in Chicago that Wal-Mart's Great Value brand "all natural"
pita chips actually contain a variety of synthetic, artificial and
highly processed unnatural ingredients.

The case is captioned, ERIN TERRAZZINO, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. WAL-MART STORES,
INC., Defendant. Case: 1:17-cv-01731(N.D. Ill., March 3, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Kasif Khowaja
     The Khowaja Law Firm, LLC
     70 East Lake St. Suite 1220
     Chicago IL 60601
     Tel: 312-356-3200
     E-mail: kasif@khowajalaw.com

          - and -

     James X. Bormes, Esq.
     Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
     Law Office of James X. Bormes, P.C.
     8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
     Tel: 312-201-0575
     E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
             cpsons@bormeslaw.com


WALGREENS CO: Overcharged Insulin Pumps, "Mayberry" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Walgreens, CVS and other pharmacies systematically
overcharged diabetes patients for their insulin pump supplies when
they should have been covered by Medicare, according to a federal
class action in Chicago.

"Defendants misapplied, or did not apply, benefits to which
Medicare Plan participants were entitled and instead repeatedly
and systematically overcharged diabetic patients with excessive
out-of-pockets fees for insulin pump supplies that would have
otherwise been considered covered services by Medicare and subject
to the Medicare reimbursement rates," lead plaintiff Robert
Mayberry says in the complaint filed on March 3, in Chicago
federal court.

The pharmacies -- Walgreens, CVS, Albertsons and SuperValu --
allegedly submitted reimbursement claims for insulin pump supplies
under Medicare Part D, which offers prescription drug benefits,
rather than Medicare Part B, the correct section for medical
equipment costs.

"Not only is the patient confronted with out-of-pocket expenses
for the insulin pump supplies, but the patient is also at risk for
reaching Medicare Part D limits," the lawsuit states. "Once
reaching the limits, the patient incurs out-of-pocket expenses for
all prescriptions filled beyond those limits, until reaching the
catastrophic coverage threshold. This is known as the donut hole."

The complaint further explains the "donut hole" as a coverage gap
in Medicare Part D insurance plans that, in 2016, left patients
responsible for paying out-of-pocket for drug costs over $3,310
but under $4,850.

An estimated 29 million people in the U.S. suffer from diabetes,
and approximately 500,000 people use an insulin pump.

The class claims the pharmacies intentionally submitted
reimbursement claims under the wrong Medicare section, believing
that patients would be unaware of the error and pay the higher
out-of-pocket price for the supplies.

Diabetes patients also recently filed a RICO action against the
three major manufacturers of insulin, claiming they schemed to
inflate the cost of the life-saving medication for their own
profit.

On March 3 lawsuit seeks punitive damages for claims of fraud and
unjust enrichment, and an order compelling the pharmacies to
establish a program to reimburse patients for previously denied
claims for insulin pump supplies.

The proposed class is represented by:

     Shannon M. McNulty, Esq.
     E-mail: smm@cliffordlaw.com
     CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES
     120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3100
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: 312.899.9090

Neither Walgreens nor CVS responded on March 8, to a request for
comment.

The case is captioned, ROBERT MAYBERRY, individually, and on
behalf of those similarly situated, v WALGREENS, CO., an Illinois
corporation, ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC., an Idaho corporation,
SUPERVALU, INC., a Minnesota corporation, and CVS PHARMACY, INC.,
a Rhode Island Corporation, Case No.: 17-cv-1748 (N.D. Ill., March
3, 2017).


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Ruling on Sleeper Berth Issue Revised
---------------------------------------------------------
A Nebraska court has revised the decision in a class action
lawsuit from August 2015 and denied summary judgment to the
plaintiffs on the sleeper berth issue, Werner Enterprises, Inc.
said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 23, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "We are involved in class action litigation in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, in which the
plaintiffs allege that we owe drivers for unpaid wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Nebraska Wage Payment and
Collection Act and that we failed to pay minimum wage per hour for
drivers in our student driver training program, related to short
break time and sleeper berth time. The period covered by this
class action suit dates back to 2008 through March 2014.

"In August 2015, the court denied our motion for summary judgment
and granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ruling in
plaintiff's favor on both theories of liability (short breaks and
sleeper berth time). During second quarter 2016, the court issued
two rulings, the first of which dismissed plaintiff's claims under
the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act (but not the FLSA)
and the second of which granted our motion to strike plaintiff's
untimely damages calculations. As a result, we reduced our accrual
in second quarter 2016, and we had a $1.2 million estimated
liability at December 31, 2016 related to the short break matter.

"In February 2017, the court revised the decision from August 2015
and denied summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the sleeper berth
issue. In doing so, the court also ruled that the Company had not
willfully violated the law on the sleeper berth claim and
dismissed the liquidated damages portion of the case, related to
the sleeper berth claim.

"Based on the knowledge of the facts related to the sleeper berth
matter, management does not currently believe a loss is probable,
thus we have not accrued for the sleeper berth matter. We are
currently unable to determine the possible loss or range of loss.
We intend to vigorously defend the merits of these claims and to
appeal any adverse verdict in this case."

Werner is a transportation and logistics company engaged primarily
in transporting truckload shipments of general commodities in both
interstate and intrastate commerce.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Self-Cleaning Feature Ruins Oven, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
using the self-cleaning feature on Whirlpool ovens can ruin the
appliance, consumers claim in a federal class action in
Sacramento.

The case is captioned, NANCY TURGEON, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WHIRLPOOL CORP,
Defendant, Case 2:17-cv-00473-MCE-AC(E.D. Cal. March 3, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER Esq.
     1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
     Walnut Creek, CA 94596
     Telephone: (925) 300-4455
     Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
     E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com

          - and -

     Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER
     888 Seventh Avenue
     New York, NY 10019
     Telephone: (212) 989-9113
     Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
     E-Mail: scott@bursor.com




WILLIAMS & WILLIAMS: Gorss Motels Sues Over Unsolicited Fax
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gorss Motels, Inc., a Connecticut corporation, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. Williams & Williams Marketing Services, Inc., an
Oklahoma corporation, Williams, Williams & McKissick, LLC, an
Oklahoma limited liability company, Williams, Williams & McKissick
Auction Services, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, and
John Does 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00399, (D. Conn.,
March 8, 2017), seeks actual monetary loss, treble damages, pre-
judgment interest, costs, and such further relief under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

Defendants are realtors offering properties for use in the hotel
industry. Plaintiff received an unsolicited fax advertisement from
the Defendants without prior express invitation or permission.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
      BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
      85 Miles Avenue
      White Plains, NY 10606
      Telephone: (914) 358-5345
      Email: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com

             - and -

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


ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: "Kreindler" Sues Over Sale to Allergan
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kreindler, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Zeltiq Aesthetics, Inc., Mark J. Foley, D.
Keith Grossman, David J. Endicott, Mary M. Fisher, Kevin C.
O'Boyle and Andrew Schiff, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-1353,
(E.D. Pa., March 8, 2017), seeks to block the sale of Zeltiq
Aesthetics, Inc. to Allergan Holdco US, Inc., or rescinding it or
awarding Plaintiff and the Class rescissory damages should the
merger push through.  The suit also seeks all damages as a result
of the Defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties, costs of
this action, including reasonable allowance for the fees and
expenses of Plaintiff's attorneys and experts and such further
relief under the Securities and Exchange Act.

Said sale is for $56.50 per share in cash and is valued at
approximately $2.475 billion. Plaintiff, a stockholder of Zeltig,
alleges that the merger document did not reflect future financial
projections that might affect the long term value of the company
and that Allergan lacks any expertise or knowledge of the
company's CoolSculpting technology. Kreindler also alleges that
the individual defendants hold conflicts of interest that pushed
them into quickly accepting the Allergan offer and that Zeltiq
stockholders were not informed of prior communications between
Allergan and any members of Zeltiq management regarding post
transaction retention of its management.

Zeltiq is a medical technology company focused on developing and
commercializing products utilizing its proprietary controlled-
cooling technology platform. Its first commercial product, the
CoolSculpting (R) System, utilizes patented technology to reduce
the temperature of fat cells through precisely controlled cooling,
which is intended to cause fat cell elimination through a natural
biological process known as apoptosis. [BN]

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

            - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Tel: (202) 524-4290
      Fax: (202) 337-1567
      Email: denright@zlk.com


* Maine Passes Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act
------------------------------------------------------
Press Herald reports that the members of Maine's House of
Representatives passed the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act
(H.R. 985).

Along with roll call votes, the House also passed the Fairness for
Breastfeeding Mothers Act (H.R. 1174), to provide a lactation room
in public buildings; and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Transition Authorization Act (S. 442), to authorize
NASA's programs.

                       House Votes

MILITARY SPENDING: The House passed the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act (H.R. 1301), sponsored by Rep. Rodney P.
Frelinghuysen, R-N.J. The bill would provide $578 billion of
fiscal 2017 funding for the Defense Department's military
operations, including $62 billion for overseas wars and anti-
terrorism activities. Frelinghuysen said its funding will allow
upgrades for badly needed readiness, technology, and surveillance
programs, reversing years of cutbacks and increasing personnel
levels. An opponent, Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., criticized the
bill for failing to fulfill Congress's responsibility to oversee
war activities in Syria and Iraq. The vote, on March 8, was 371
yeas to 48 nays.

YEAS: Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-1st District, Rep. Bruce Poliquin,
R-2nd District

CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS: The House passed the Fairness in Class
Action Litigation Act (H.R. 985), sponsored by Rep. Bob Goodlatte,
R-Va. The bill would change procedures for class action lawsuits
in federal court by setting criteria for determining who can join
the lawsuits and limiting payments to lawyers representing the
plaintiffs. Goodlatte said the changes would maximize compensation
for the actual injured parties in class action suits. An opponent,
Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said the changes were intended "to make
it virtually impossible for class action lawsuits to be brought by
groups of citizens who share a common injury." The vote, on March
9, was 220 yeas to 201 nays.

NAY: Pingree

YEA: Poliquin

VENUES FOR LAWSUITS: The House passed the Innocent Party
Protection Act (H.R. 725), sponsored by Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo. The
bill would direct federal courts to adopt procedures for finding
cases when a lawsuit has been fraudulently moved to a given state
court by improperly adding new plaintiffs who have minimal
connection to the subject of the lawsuit. A supporter, Rep. Bob
Goodlatte, R-Va., said the practice, known as fraudulent joinder,
puts a tremendous burden on small businesses who are added to
lawsuits and must spend time and money defending themselves. An
opponent, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said the bill overrode
principles of federalism and state authority over civil
litigation, and would make it much harder for plaintiffs to pursue
claims against wrongdoing companies in state courts. The vote, on
March 9, was 224 yeas to 194 nays.

NAY: Pingree

YEA: Poliquin

SENATE VOTES

LABOR RULE FOR CONTRACTORS: The Senate passed a resolution (H.J.
Res. 37), sponsored by Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., stating
disapproval of a NASA, Defense Department, and General Services
Administration rule requiring contractors to the federal
government to report various violations and alleged violations of
labor laws, with data on the violations used to determine whether
a contractor is eligible to win future contracts. A supporter,
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said the disclosure rule carried "the
very real potential of subjecting perfectly innocent contractors
to blackmail and extortion tactics during union contract
negotiations." An opponent, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said
the rule was only attempting to ensure that contractors "follow
the law and provide a safe and equitable workplace" by treating
workers fairly. The vote, on March 6, was 49 yeas to 48 nays.

YEA: Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine

NAY: Sen. Angus King. I-Maine

RULE FOR USE OF BLM LANDS: The House passed a resolution (H.J.
Res. 44), sponsored by Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wy., stating disapproval
of an Interior Department rule regarding plans to use land under
the Bureau of Land Management's control. A supporter, Sen. Lisa
Murkowski, R-Alaska, said maintaining the rule, known as BLM
Planning 2.0, would reduce transparency and public involvement in
planning for how to use federal lands, degrading the ability to
adopt sensible plans that take local concerns into account. An
opponent, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said the rule "has
guaranteed public access, transparency, and sunshine in planning
for our public lands." The vote, on March 7, was 51 yeas to 48
nays.

YEA: Collins

NAY: King

OVERSIGHT OF TEACHER PREPARATION: The House passed a resolution
(H.J. Res. 58), sponsored by Rep. Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., stating
disapproval of an Education Department rule that tied agency
grants to evaluations of the adequacy of a state's teacher
preparation program. A supporter, Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said the
rule's bid to have federal bureaucrats micromanage teacher
training programs across the country was absurd. An opponent, Sen.
Patty Murray, D-Wash., said keeping the rule would help states
improve schools' teaching preparation programs and give students
important information about teacher preparation programs at the
schools they plan to attend. The vote, on March 7, was 59 yeas to
40 nays.

YEAS: Collins, King

OVERSIGHT OF EDUCATION PLANS: The Senate passed a resolution (H.J.
Res. 57), sponsored by Rep. Todd Rokita, R-Ind., disapproving of
an Education Department rule setting out accountability
requirements for state education plans. A supporter, Sen. Lamar
Alexander, R-Tenn., said the rule violated federal law by
exceeding Education's statutory authority to interfere in state
and local education policy. An opponent, Sen. Patty Murray, D-
Wash., said the rule sought to fulfill civil rights promises by
supporting equitable education opportunities for all. The vote, on
March 9, was 50 yeas to 49 nays.

YEA: Collins

NAY: King

RUNNING MEDICARE AND MEDICAID: The Senate approved a cloture
motion to end debate on the nomination of Seema Verma to serve as
administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services at
the Health and Human Services Department. A supporter, Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Verma had a track
record of success in reforming health care agencies, and predicted
that her "experience in reforming and modernizing state-level
Medicaid programs will help lower the staggering costs" for states
resulting from the health care reform law, aka Obamacare. An
opponent, Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said Verma backed measures
"that penalize and create roadblocks to coverage for low-income
Americans," denying them access to adequate health care. The vote
to end debate, on March 9, was 54 yeas to 44 nays.

YEAS: Collins, King




                            *********

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  * * *