CAR_Public/170321.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Tuesday, March 21, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 57



                            Headlines

ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Sued in E.D. Penn. Over Generic Propranolol Price
AIRCRAFT SERVICE: "Mays" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages and Overtime
AMY LOVE: Faces "Love" Suit in District of Arizona
APALACHEE CENTER: "Burney" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
AUDI: Authorities Search Headquarters in Emissions Probe

AVIS BUDGET: Faces "Ball" Suit in California Superior Court
BARCLAYS PLC: To Seek Dismissal of ETF FX Class Suit
BARCLAYS PLC: $30MM Settlement of ISDAFIX Claims Underway
BARCLAYS PLC: Gold Fix Class Suits Remain Pending in US & Canada
BARCLAYS PLC: Summary Judgment Bid in ADS Suit Underway

BARCLAYS PLC: Motion to Dismiss NY Anti-Terrorism Suit Underway
BARCLAYS PLC: Amended Suit Filed in Illinois Anti-Terrorism Suit
BARCLAYS PLC: Dismissal of Interest Rate Swap Action Sought
BARCLAYS PLC: Treasury Auction Securities Actions Pending
BARNES & NOBLE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss PIN Pad Suit

BARNES & NOBLE: "Carag" Class Suit Remains Pending in California
BARNES & NOBLE: Continues to Defend "Brown" Suit in New York
BARNES & NOBLE: "Hartpence" Suit Remains Pending in Pennsylvania
BARNES & NOBLE: Receivables from Apple Totals $5,064 at Jan. 28
BMOCORP INC: Ted Frank Lead Plaintiff in Robocall Class Action

BULLITT COUNTY, KE: Faces "Shadburne" Suit in W.D. Kentucky
C&J ENERGY: Appeals Court Held Oral Argument in Shareholder Suit
CASHCALL INC: Faces "Apac" Suit in C.D. California
CENTRUE FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Challenging Merger with Midland
CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Ex-Practice Chair Attacks Origination System

CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Awaits Approval of Settlement in "Brown" Suit
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Toss "Rodriguez" Suit
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Continues to Defend "Masters" Suit in Calif.
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Defends "Muransky" Class Suit in Florida
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Faces "Abdelaziz" Class Suit in California

CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Faces "Rodriguez" Class Suit in San Diego
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Guglielmo" Suit Remains Pending in N.Y.
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Tagalogon" Suit Remains Pending in Calif.
CONVERGYS CORP: "Fuerte" Seeks Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
CPI CARD: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Amended Securities Suit

CTI BIOPHARMA: Bid to Toss Securities Suit Remains Pending
DEUTSCHE BANK: Discovery in BlackRock's New York Suit Ongoing
DEUTSCHE BANK: Discovery in BlackRock Suit in Calif. Ongoing
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Class Suit in Arkansas Remains Pending
DR PEPPER SNAPPLE: "Chuang" Alleges Mislabeling of Ginger Ale

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Harley" Suit in E.D. New York
FINANCIAL ASSET: Illegally Collects Debt, "Woods" Suit Claims
FLORIDA: "Brown" Suit Filed Against Barfield et al.
FOREST PARK: Faces "Parker" Suit in Northern District of Texas
FRONTIER RAIL: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA

GC SERVICES: "Errera" Suit Moved to E.D.N.Y.
GENERAL PANEL: "Lawrence" Suit Moved to Federal District Court
GOOGLE INC: Appeals Panel Hears Privacy Settlement Objection
HAIER US: "Dooner" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA
HALLMARK HEALTH: Sued in Mass. Over Patient Medical Information

HARBOR RAIL: "Crisanty" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
HARRISON GLOBAL: Benson Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
HYATT CORPORATION: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Violations
HILLCREST DAVIDSON: Faces "Anthony" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
HP INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Workers Pension Fund Suit

HP INC: Appeal from Dismissal of ERISA Litigation Remains Pending
HP INC: Bids to Junk, Arbitrate in "Forsyth" Suit Underway
HP INC: Fifth Suit Over Authentication of Supplies Dismissed
INNOVATIVE HEALTH: Faces Pacific Suit in Cal. Over P-STIM Devices
INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Kimpton Hotel Unit Faces Class Suit

INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Sued Over Kimpton Data Breach
JELD-WEN INC: "Crane" Suit Moved to S.D. California
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Plaintiff's Lawyer Disappointed Over Verdict
LARGAESPADA KITCHEN: "Chappa" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
LG ELECTRONICS: "Chamberlain" Sues Over Defective Cellphones

LINEBARGER & GOGGAN: Sued in Cal. Over Debt Collection Violations
MANHATTAN BUSINESS: Sued in N.Y. Over Alleged Breach of Contract
MAUCAR USA: Faces "Torres" Suit in S.D. Florida
MAX MRI: Faces "Escarzaga" Suit over Rest & Meal Breaks
MERRIMACK VALLEY: Sued in Mass. Over Medical Records Requests Fee

METRO HEALTH: "Carrafiello" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
MICHIGAN LOGISTICS: Faces "Gordon" Suit in C.D. California
MILLWOOD INC: "Yu" Suit in Wis. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Removal of Case to W.D. Mo.
MOTHER'S MARKET: "Gutierrez" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: May 5 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
NATIONAL CONSUMER: Sued Over Credit Reporting Act Violations
NEXT LEVEL: Faces "Orozco" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage
NISSAN NORTH: Faces Suit in Calif. for Invasion of Privacy
NOOR HOME: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Wells" Suit Claims

NOODLES & CO: Illinois Court Approves Settlement in FLSA Suit
NOODLES & CO: "Selco" Data Security Class Suit Remains Pending
NORTHERN OIL: Continues to Defend "Fries" Class Suit in New York
OVASCIENCE INC: Parties in Massachusetts Class Suit in Discovery
PATRIOT NATIONAL: "Gingello" Sues Over Share Price Drop

PHELAN HALLINAN: Appeal Filed in Pa. Sup. Ct. in "Johnson" Suit
RIO TINTO: Defends Class Suit in New York Over Simandou Payments
ROMERO'S FOOD: "Navarro" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
SAKS & COMPANY: Sued in N.Y. Over Unlawful Wage Deduction Policy
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Opposes Bid to Certify Class in "Deka" Suit

SANTANDER CONSUMER: "Parmelee" Plaintiffs Amend Class Complaint
SFS DEPOT: "Chang" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
SIERRA ONCOLOGY: Defends Securities Class Suit in S.D. New York
SIERRA ONCOLOGY: Defends Two Securities Class Suits in California
STAAR SURGICAL: "Todd" Class Suit Remains Pending in California

STATE STREET: Three Firms Admit to Overbilling in Class Action
STONERIDGE INC: Awaits Ruling on Verde's Bid for Reconsideration
STONERIDGE INC: Continues to Defend "Royal" Suit in Oklahoma
SUNOPTA INC: "De Jesus" Class Suit Parties in Discovery
TAMKO BUILDING: Sued in S.D. Fla. Over Defective Shingles

TARGET CORPORATION: "Halley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
THERMO FISHER: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
TRINIDAD DRILLING: Sisney Appeals W.D. Texas Ruling to 5th Cir.
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Florida Lawyer Objects to Fraud Case Settlement
TORONTO-DOMINION BANK: Sued Over Exchange Act Violations

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Argue Over New Settlement
UNITED STATES: Appeal Filed in Suit Over Migrant Detention
VINOS INC: Faces "Delgado" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Judge Refuses to Release Jailed Executive
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Accuses Plaintiffs Attorney of Double Billing

WENDY'S CO: Awaits Decision on Bid to Dismiss First Choice Suit
WENDY'S CO: Awaits Order on Bid to Junk Torres' Amended Complaint
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Sued over Self-Cleaning Feature in Ovens
WILMINGTON TRUST: Sued in Del. Over Employee Stock Ownership Plan
YAHOO INC: Two Russian Intelligence Agents Charged in Data Breach

YAHOO INC: Names Arthur Chong as New GC Amid Data Breach Cases
YAZAKI NORTH: "Sutka" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
* Companies Await Supreme Court Ruling on Arbitration Agreements
* Litigation Funders Opt Not to Lobby Against Class Action Bill



                            *********


ACTAVIS HOLDCO: Sued in E.D. Penn. Over Generic Propranolol Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc.; Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
Endo International PLC, PAR Pharmaceutical, Inc., Heritage
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Breckenridge Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and
Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-01005-CMR (E.D.
Penn., March 6, 2017), arises from the Defendants' conspiracy to
raise the prices of and allocate markets and customers for generic
propranolol hydrochloride tablets ("Propranolol Tabs") and
propranolol hydrochloride extended-release capsules ("Propranolol
ER Caps") in the United States.

Propranolol hydrochloride is a commonly prescribed medication used
to treat high blood pressure, chest pain (angina), and uneven
heartbeat (atrial fibrillation).

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company in the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert D. Liebenbegerg, Esq.
      Paul Costa, Esq.
      Adam J. Pessin, Esq.
      FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, RPC
      One South Broad Street, Suite 2300
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 567-6565
      Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
      E-mail: rliebenbegerg@finekaplan.com
              pcosta@finekaplan.com
              apessin@finekaplan.com

         - and -

      Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
      Jay L. Himes, Esq.
      Karin E. Gravey, Esq.
      Domenico Minerva, Esq.
      Robin A. Van Der Meulen, Esq.
      Matthew J. Perez, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 907-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
      E-mail: info@labaton.com


AIRCRAFT SERVICE: "Mays" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages and Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
C. MAYS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Aircraft Service International, Inc.
and DOES 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC652828 (Cal.
Sup. Ct., Mar. 3, 2017), seeks restitution, damages, attorney's
fees and costs, pursuant to California Business & Professions
Code.

The action alleges that ASI engaged in unfair, unlawful and/or
fraudulent business practices in violation of California law to
the detriment of Plaintiff, Class Members and the general public
by inter alia, (1) failing to pay to Plaintiff and Class
Members earned wages attributable to late, curtailed or missed
meal and rest periods; (2) failing to reimburse Plaintiff and
Class Members for their business expenses; (3) failing to pay the
correct amount of minimum wages and overtime owed to Plaintiff and
Class Members; (4) failing to provide Plaintiff and other Class
Members who are no longer employed by ASI, upon the termination of
their employment, with all of their wages within the time required
by the California Labor Code; and (5) failing to comply with the
Los Angeles Living Wage Ordinance.

ASIG is an independent aviation ground service provider with
operations at more than 80 airports worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan Harris, Esq.
          Priya Mohan, Esq.
          Rebecca Lee, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          655 North Central Ave.
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (323) 962 3777
          Facsimile: (323) 962 3004
          E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com
                  pmohan@harrisandruble.com


AMY LOVE: Faces "Love" Suit in District of Arizona
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Amy Love. The case
is captioned as Martin Lynch, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Amy Love, lobbyist for the
Arizona State Supreme Court, and Unknown Parties named as John and
Jane Does, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00658-DJH (D. Ariz.,
Mar. 6, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Diane J
Humetewa.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


APALACHEE CENTER: "Burney" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Kendra Burney, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff(s), v. Apalachee Center, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 4:17-cv-00129, (N.D. Fla., March 14, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant is an organization providing individuals and families
with emotional, psychiatric and substance abuse assistance where
Plaintiff was employed as a Licensed Practical Nurse. Defendant's
place of business is located at 2634 Capital Circle, N.E.,
Tallahassee, Florida. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 N. Orange Avenue, 16th Floor
      Post Office Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-3341
      Email: CLeach@forthepeople.com


AUDI: Authorities Search Headquarters in Emissions Probe
--------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that German media report that
authorities are searching offices of Audi in connection with an
investigation into the luxury automaker's parent company
Volkswagen's cheating on diesel emissions tests.

The daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung and public ARD television reported
that Audi offices at its headquarters in Ingolstadt, as well as
buildings in the states of Baden-Wuerttemberg and Lower Saxony,
were being searched on March 15.

The raids come in connection with a fraud investigation launched
by Munich prosecutors several weeks ago.

Neither Munich nor Ingolstadt prosecutors could be immediately
reached for comment.

Volkswagen pleaded guilty on March 10 in the U.S. to a scheme to
get around American pollution rules.  If a judge agrees to the
Justice Department's sentencing recommendation, the scandal will
cost the company more than $20 billion in the U.S. alone.


AVIS BUDGET: Faces "Ball" Suit in California Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Avis Budget Car
Rental, LLC. The case is captioned as BALL, PATRICK INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED, the PLAINTIFF, v.
DOES 1-10, and AVIS BUDGET CAR RENTAL, LLC, the Defendants, Case
No. CGC 17 557396 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 3, 2017).

Avis Budget is a global provider of vehicle rental services.[BN]


BARCLAYS PLC: To Seek Dismissal of ETF FX Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
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
intends to move to dismiss the ETF FX class action lawsuit or,
alternatively, to enjoin the claims as covered by the settlement
agreement in the consolidated FX action.

In September 2016, an action was filed in the US District Court
for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) under federal, New
York and California law on behalf of proposed classes of
stockholders of Exchange Traded Funds and others who supposedly
were indirect investors in FX Instruments. Barclays will move to
dismiss this action as a matter of law or, alternatively, to
enjoin the claims as covered by the settlement agreement in the
Consolidated FX Action.


BARCLAYS PLC: $30MM Settlement of ISDAFIX 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'
$30 million settlement of all ISDAFIX-related claims remains
subject to final approval.

Beginning in September 2014, a number of ISDAFIX related civil
actions were filed in the SDNY on behalf of a proposed class of
plaintiffs, alleging that Barclays Bank PLC, a number of other
banks and one broker, violated the Antitrust Act and several state
laws by engaging in a conspiracy to manipulate the USD ISDAFIX.
Those actions, which were consolidated in February 2015, arose in
connection with certain regulatory and law enforcement agencies'
investigations into historical practices with respect to ISDAFIX.

In April 2016, Barclays Bank PLC and BCI entered into a settlement
agreement with plaintiffs to resolve the consolidated action for
$30m, fully resolving all ISDAFIX-related claims that were or
could have been brought by the class.

In May 2016, the court preliminarily approved the settlement,
which remains subject to final approval and to the right of class
members to opt-out of the settlement and to seek to file their own
claims.

Barclays said that aside from the settlements discussed, it is not
currently practicable to provide an estimate of any further
financial impact of the actions described on the Group or what
effect that they might have upon the Group's operating results,
cash flows or financial position in any particular period.


BARCLAYS PLC: Gold Fix Class Suits Remain Pending in US & Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
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
is defending class action lawsuits in respect of the Gold Fix in
U.S. and Canada courts.

Since March 2014, a number of civil complaints have been filed in
US Federal Courts, each on behalf of a proposed class of
plaintiffs, alleging that Barclays Bank PLC and other members of
The London Gold Market Fixing Ltd. manipulated the prices of gold
and gold derivative contracts in violation of the CEA, the
Antitrust Act, and state antitrust and consumer protection laws.
All of the complaints have been transferred to the SDNY and
consolidated for pretrial purposes.

A similar civil action has been filed in Canadian courts on behalf
of a proposed class of plaintiffs containing similar factual
allegations of the manipulation of the prices of gold in violation
of Canadian law.

Barclays said it is not currently practicable to provide an
estimate of the financial impact of the actions described on the
Group or what effect that they might have upon the Group's
operating results, cash flows or financial position in any
particular period.


BARCLAYS PLC: Summary Judgment Bid in ADS Suit 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 for summary judgment in the class action complaint related
to American Depositary Shares remains pending.

Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC and various former members of
Barclays PLC's Board of Directors have been named as defendants in
a securities class action consolidated in the US District Court
for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) alleging
misstatements and omissions in offering documents for certain
American Depositary Shares issued by Barclays Bank PLC in April
2008 with an original face amount of approximately $2.5 billion
(the April 2008 Offering).

The plaintiffs have asserted claims under the Securities Act of
1933, alleging that the offering documents for the April 2008
Offering contained misstatements and omissions concerning (amongst
other things) Barclays Bank PLC's portfolio of mortgage-related
(including US subprime-related) securities, Barclays Bank PLC's
exposure to mortgage and credit market risk, and Barclays Bank
PLC's financial condition. The plaintiffs have not specifically
alleged the amount of their damages.

In June 2016, the SDNY certified the action as a class action.
Barclays has moved for summary judgement.

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

Barclays said it is not currently practicable to provide an
estimate of the financial impact of the action described on the
Group or what effect that it might have upon the Group's operating
results, cash flows or financial position in any particular
period.


BARCLAYS PLC: Motion to Dismiss NY Anti-Terrorism Suit 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 a lawsuit in New York in respect of the US Anti-
Terrorism Act remains pending.

In April 2015, an amended civil complaint was filed in the US
Federal Court in the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) by a
group of approximately 250 plaintiffs, alleging that Barclays Bank
PLC and a number of other banks engaged in a conspiracy and
violated the US Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) by facilitating US Dollar
denominated transactions for the Government of Iran and various
Iranian banks, which in turn funded Hezbollah and other attacks
that injured or killed the plaintiffs' family members. Plaintiffs
seek to recover for pain, suffering and mental anguish pursuant to
the provisions of the ATA, which allows for the tripling of any
proven damages and attorneys' fees.

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in July 2016, which,
among other things, added various plaintiffs, bringing the total
number of plaintiffs to approximately 350. In November 2016,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

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


BARCLAYS PLC: Amended Suit Filed in Illinois Anti-Terrorism Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 filed an amended complaint in the lawsuit in Illinois in
respect of the US Anti-Terrorism Act.

In November 2016, a civil complaint was filed in the US Federal
Court in the Southern District of Illinois by a group of
approximately 90 plaintiffs, alleging claims under the ATA against
Barclays Bank PLC and a number of other banks. The allegations
against Barclays Bank PLC are substantially similar to those in
the second amended complaint in the US Federal Court in the EDNY
action.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in January 2017, which,
among other things, added various plaintiffs, bringing the total
number of plaintiffs to approximately 200.

Barclays said it is not currently practicable to provide an
estimate of the financial impact of the actions described on the
Group or what effect that they might have upon the Group's
operating results, cash flows or financial position in any
particular period.


BARCLAYS PLC: Dismissal of Interest Rate Swap Action 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 Defendants
have filed a motion to dismiss the Interest Rate Swap US Civil
Action.

Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, and BCI, together with other
financial institutions that act as market makers for interest rate
swaps (IRS), Trade Web, and ICAP, are named as defendants in
several antitrust class actions consolidated in the US District
Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). The complaints
allege defendants conspired to prevent the development of
exchanges for IRS and demand unspecified money damages, treble
damages and legal fees. Plaintiffs include certain swap execution
facilities, as well as buy-side investors. The buy-side investors
claim to represent a class that transacted in fixed-for-floating
IRS with defendants in the US from 1 January 2008 to the present,
including, for example, US retirement and pension funds,
municipalities, university endowments, corporations, insurance
companies and investment funds.

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

Barclays said it is not currently practicable to provide an
estimate of the financial impact of the actions described on the
Group or what effect it have upon the Group's operating results,
cash flows or financial position in any particular period.


BARCLAYS PLC: Treasury Auction Securities Actions Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Treasury auction securities civil actions remain pending against
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC, they 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.

Numerous putative class action complaints have been filed in US
Federal Courts against BCI and other financial institutions that
have served as primary dealers in US Treasury securities. The
complaints have been consolidated in the US Federal Court in New
York. The complaints generally allege that defendants conspired to
manipulate the US Treasury securities market in violation of US
federal antitrust laws, the CEA and state common law. Some
complaints also allege that defendants engaged in illegal
"spoofing" of the US Treasury market.

Certain governmental authorities have been conducting
investigations into activities relating to the trading of
government securities in various markets and Barclays has been
providing information to various authorities on an ongoing basis.

Barclays said it is not currently practicable to provide an
estimate of the financial impact of the actions described on the
Group or what effect that they might have upon the Group's
operating results, cash flows or financial position in any
particular period.


BARNES & NOBLE: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss PIN Pad Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc., awaits decision on its motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint in the PIN Pad Litigation, according to
the Company's March 2, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January
28, 2017.

The Company discovered that PIN pads in certain of its stores had
been tampered with to allow criminal access to card data and PIN
numbers on credit and debit cards swiped through the terminals.
Following public disclosure of this matter on October 24, 2012,
the Company was served with four putative class action complaints
(three in federal district court in the Northern District of
Illinois and one in the Northern District of California), each of
which alleged on behalf of national and other classes of customers
who swiped credit and debit cards in Barnes & Noble Retail stores
common law claims such as negligence, breach of contract and
invasion of privacy, as well as statutory claims such as
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state data breach
notification statutes, and state unfair and deceptive practices
statutes. The actions sought various forms of relief including
damages, injunctive or equitable relief, multiple or punitive
damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest.

All four cases were transferred and/or assigned to a single judge
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, and a single consolidated amended complaint was filed.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint in its entirety, and in September 2013, the Court
granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice.

The Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint, and the Company
filed a second motion to dismiss. On October 3, 2016, the Court
granted the second motion to dismiss, and dismissed the case
without prejudice; in doing so, the Court permitted plaintiffs to
file a second amended complaint by October 31, 2016.

On October 31, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint, and that motion has been fully briefed and is
awaiting decision. A status hearing was scheduled for March 14,
2017.


BARNES & NOBLE: "Carag" Class Suit Remains Pending in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit captioned Cassandra Carag
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Barnes
& Noble, Inc., Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. and DOES 1 through
100 inclusive, remains pending in California, Barnes & Noble,
Inc., said in its March 2, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January
28, 2017.

On November 27, 2013, former Associate Store Manager Cassandra
Carag (Carag) brought suit in Sacramento County Superior Court,
asserting claims on behalf of herself and all other hourly (non-
exempt) Barnes & Noble employees in California in the preceding
four years for unpaid regular and overtime wages based on alleged
off-the-clock work, penalties and pay based on missed meal and
rest breaks, and for improper wage statements, payroll records,
and untimely pay at separation as a result of the alleged pay
errors during employment.

Via the complaint, Carag seeks to recover unpaid wages and
statutory penalties for all hourly Barnes & Noble employees within
California from November 27, 2009 to present. On February 13,
2014, the Company filed an Answer in the state court and
concurrently requested removal of the action to federal court. On
May 30, 2014, the federal court granted Plaintiff's motion to
remand the case to state court and denied Plaintiff's motion to
strike portions of the Answer to the Complaint (referring the
latter motion to the lower court for future consideration).

The Court has not yet scheduled any further hearings or deadlines.


BARNES & NOBLE: Continues to Defend "Brown" Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
putative class action lawsuit initiated by Kelly Brown in New
York, according to the Company's March 2, 2017, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended January 28, 2017.

On September 20, 2016, Kelly Brown filed a complaint against
Barnes & Noble in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (Case No.: 16-7333) in which she also alleges
that she is entitled to unpaid compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Illinois law. Ms. Brown seeks to represent a
national class of all similarly situated Cafe Managers under the
FLSA, as well as an Illinois-based class under Illinois law.

On November 9, 2016, Ms. Brown filed an amended complaint to add
an additional plaintiff named Tiffany Stewart, who is a former
Cafe Manager who also alleges unpaid overtime compensation in
violation of New York law and seeks to represent a class of
similarly situated New York-based Cafe Managers under New York
law. Since the commencement of the action, six former Cafe
Managers have filed consent forms to join the action as
plaintiffs.


BARNES & NOBLE: "Hartpence" Suit Remains Pending in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit commenced by Christine
Hartpence remains pending in Pennsylvania, according to Barnes &
Noble, Inc.'s March 2, 2017, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended January
28, 2017.

Christine Hartpence filed a complaint against Barnes & Noble, Inc.
(Barnes & Noble) in Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on
May 26, 2015 (Case No.: 160503426), alleging that she is entitled
to unpaid compensation for overtime under Pennsylvania law and
seeking to represent a class of allegedly similarly situated
employees who performed the same position (Cafe Manager). On July
14, 2016, Ms. Hartpence amended her complaint to assert a
purported collective action for alleged unpaid overtime
compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), by
which she sought to act as a class representative for similarly
situated Cafe Managers throughout the United States.

On July 27, 2016, Barnes & Noble removed the case to the U.S.
District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No.:
16-4034). Ms. Hartpence then voluntarily dismissed her complaint
and subsequently re-filed a similar complaint in the Philadelphia
County Court of Common Pleas (Case No.: 161003213), where it is
currently pending. The re-filed complaint alleges only claims of
unpaid overtime under Pennsylvania law and alleges class claims
under Pennsylvania law that are limited to current and former Cafe
Managers within Pennsylvania.


BARNES & NOBLE: Receivables from Apple Totals $5,064 at Jan. 28
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. provided credits to eligible customers
resulting from the settlement reached with Apple Inc. (Apple) in
an antitrust lawsuit filed by various State Attorneys General and
private class plaintiffs regarding the price of digital books. The
Company's customers were entitled to $95,707 in total credits as a
result of the settlement, which is funded by Apple. If a
customer's credit is not used to make a purchase within one year,
the entire credit will expire. The Company estimated total
activations of $59,251 through June 2017, which are recorded as a
liability to customers to the extent they have not yet been
activated and as a receivable from the Apple settlement fund to
the extent they have not yet been reimbursed.

As of January 28, 2017, the Company's customers had activated
$56,024 in credits, of which $48,220 were redeemed. Total
receivables from the Apple settlement fund were $5,064 as of
January 28, 2017, according to the Company's March 2, 2017, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended January 28, 2017.


BMOCORP INC: Ted Frank Lead Plaintiff in Robocall Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that everybody hates telemarketers.  But here's a guy one
telemarketer really should not have called -- Ted Frank, the
founder of the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Class
Action Fairness in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Frank is an expert in class action procedure and well-versed
in the law that makes it illegal to auto-dial consumers without
permission.  Sure, he's notorious for objecting to class action
settlements.  But after receiving a particularly annoying call
asking about a vehicle he no longer owned, Mr. Frank was ready to
turn plaintiff, filing a class action on March 10 against the
call-center operator.

The suit filed in the Eastern District of Missouri brings claims
under the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a law invoked in
several suits where Frank has appeared as objector's counsel.
Surely, he sees a bit of irony in all this? Not really, Mr. Frank
said.

"I've always been on the consumer's side," he said.  "I'm not
against class actions, just the abuse of class actions."

According to the complaint, filed by Chicago's Edelson PC, a
telemarketer named "Missy" from Auto Protection One called
Mr. Frank's cellphone on Feb. 21.  Auto Protection One is the
fictitious name for BMOCorp Inc., which provides aftermarket
third-party auto warranties.  The caller asked if he was
"Theodore" who owned a 2012 Toyota Prius.  Mr. Frank, who
registered his cellphone number with the National Do Not Call
Registry in 2006, started to question the telemarketer.

"When plaintiff informed the telemarketer that he had not provided
any form of consent to receive the call and had no interest in the
call, the caller laughed, and repeated the question about whether
plaintiff owned a Prius," the complaint says.  "After plaintiff
asked to speak with a supervisor, the telemarketer hung up on
him."

The complaint, which also names two of the company's officers,
seeks an injunction to stop BMOCorp from making similar calls,
plus statutory damages.  He filed the case on behalf of a class of
thousands of individuals who received unsolicited calls from Auto
Protection One, which uses an autodialer system.

Despite his work in the field of class actions, this is the first
time he's brought such a case on his own behalf.  His case is
among a growing number brought over unsolicited calls and faxes
under the TCPA.  But Mr. Frank insists his case is different from
those he's objected to, many of which involved "attenuated
theories of liability, rather than people who are really abusing
the statute," he said.

"This is a case of a telemarketer who spoofs numbers, calls
numbers on the do-not-call list without permission, and that's
their entire business model," he said.  "This is exactly in the
heart of the TCPA."

His attorney, Edelson founder Jay Edelson, has brought numerous
high-profile class actions, including those under the TCPA.
Mr. Frank said he's investigated some of Edelson's cases before.
But he decided they "weren't bad enough to object."

The case is THEODORE H. FRANK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BMOCORP INC., a
Missouri corporation, MICHAEL JECKLIN, an individual, and BIFF
MCCULLOUGH a/k/a BIFF HUSSEIN, an individual, collectively doing
business as AUTO PROTECTION 1, a fictitious name registered with
the State of Missouri, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00870
(E.D. Mo., Mar. 10, 2017).

The suit seeks injunction requiring Defendants to stop using an
autodialer to place telemarketing calls to cell phones, as well as
an award of actual and statutory damages to the Class members,
together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

BMOCORP is a telemarketing company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Tel: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
             brichman@edelson.com
             rbalabanian@edelson.com


BULLITT COUNTY, KE: Faces "Shadburne" Suit in W.D. Kentucky
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bullitt County,
Kentucky. The case is titled as Tabatha Lynn Shadburne,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Bullitt County, Kentucky, and Martha Knox, in her
capacity as the Bullitt County Jailer, the Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-00130-DJH (W.D. Ken., Mar. 6, 2017). The case is assigned
to Hon. Judge David J. Hale.

Bullitt County is a county in the U.S. state of Kentucky located
in the far western Bluegrass region known as the Knobs. As of the
2010 census, the population was 74,319. The county seat is
Shepherdsville. The county was founded in 1796. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory W. Butrum, Esq.
          GREGORY WARD BUTRUM, PLLC
          121 S. Seventh Street, 3rd Floor
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 584 0004
          Facsimile: (502) 582 1349
          E-mail: lawyer@netpointe.com


C&J ENERGY: Appeals Court Held Oral Argument in Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
C&J Energy Services, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that oral argument was held
on March 1, 2017, in the Plaintiff's appeal from the dismissal of
the Shareholder Litigation.

C&J Energy Services, Inc.'s business was founded in Texas in 1997
as a partnership and converted to a Delaware corporation ("Old
C&J") in connection with the Company's initial public offering
that it completed in July 2011 with a listing on the New York
Stock Exchange under the symbol "CJES."  In 2015, Old C&J combined
with the completion and production services business (the "C&P
Business") of Nabors Industries Ltd. ("Nabors") in a
transformative transaction (referred to herein as the "Nabors
Merger") that nearly tripled the Company's size, significantly
expanding the Company's Completion Services business and adding
the Well Support Services business to the Company's service
offering.  Upon the closing of the Nabors Merger, Old C&J became a
subsidiary of C&J Energy Services Ltd. (the "Predecessor") and
shares of common stock of Old C&J were converted into common
shares of the Predecessor on a 1-for-1 basis.

In July 2014, following the announcement that Old C&J, Nabors, and
the Predecessor had entered into the Nabors Merger Agreement, a
purported shareholder of Old C&J filed a putative class action
lawsuit challenging the Nabors Merger. The lawsuit is styled City
of Miami General Employees' and Sanitation Employees' Retirement
Trust, et al. ("Plaintiff") v. Comstock, et al.; C.A. No. 9980-CB,
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, filed on July
30, 2014 (the "Shareholder Litigation"). Plaintiff in the
Shareholder Litigation generally alleges that the board of
directors of Old C&J (the "Old C&J Board") breached their
fiduciary duties by allegedly approving the Merger Agreement at an
unfair price and through an unfair process. Plaintiff alleges that
the Old C&J Board, or certain of them (i) failed to fully inform
themselves of the market value of Old C&J, maximize its value and
obtain the best price reasonably available for Old C&J, (ii) acted
in bad faith and for improper motives, (iii) erected barriers to
discourage other strategic alternatives and (iv) put their
personal interests ahead of the interests of Old C&J shareholders.
The Shareholder Litigation further alleges that Old C&J, Nabors
and the Predecessor aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties by the Old C&J Board.

On October 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming
additional defendants and generally alleging, in addition to the
allegations described above, that (i) the special committee of the
Old C&J Board and its advisors improperly conducted the court-
ordered solicitation that the Delaware Supreme Court vacated and
(ii) the proxy statement filed in connection with the Nabors
Merger contains alleged misrepresentations and omits allegedly
material information concerning the Nabors Merger and court-
ordered solicitation process. The Shareholder Litigation asserts,
in addition to the claims described above, claims for breach of
fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty
against the special committee of the Old C&J Board, its financial
advisor Morgan Stanley, and certain employees of Old C&J.
Following the death of Josh Comstock, the Company's founder and
former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Old C&J Board,
Plaintiff substituted the executor of Mr. Comstock's estate in
place of Mr. Comstock as a defendant in the Shareholder
Litigation.

The defendants in the Shareholder Litigation filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaint. On August 24, 2016, the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware granted defendants' motions and
dismissed the Shareholder Litigation in its entirety with
prejudice. On September 22, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of
Appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court, appealing the dismissal of
the Shareholder Litigation. Oral argument was held on March 1,
2017, and Plaintiffs' appeal is still pending.

The Company says it cannot predict the outcome of this or any
other lawsuit that might be filed, nor can it predict the amount
of time and expense that will be required to resolve the
Shareholder Litigation. The Company believes the Shareholder
Litigation is without merit and the Company intends to defend
against it vigorously.

C&J Energy Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation is a provider of
well construction, well completion, well support and other
complementary oilfield services to oil and gas exploration and
production companies in North America.  The Company offers a
comprehensive, vertically-integrated suite of services throughout
the life cycle of the well, including hydraulic fracturing, cased-
hole wireline and pumpdown, cementing, directional drilling,
coiled tubing, service rigs, fluids management and other support
services. The Company is headquartered in Houston, Texas, and
operates in all active onshore basins in the continental United
States and Western Canada.


CASHCALL INC: Faces "Apac" Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cashcall, Inc. The
case is entitled as Jessica Apac, as an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Cashcall,
Inc., a California corporation, LoanMe, Inc., a Nevada
corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, the Defendants, Case No.
8:17-cv-00392 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 6, 2017).

CashCall provides personal and business loans. It offers unsecured
loans to borrowers who use loans for one-time purchase and debt
consolidation.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CENTRUE FINANCIAL: Faces Suit Challenging Merger with Midland
-------------------------------------------------------------
Centrue Financial Corporation is facing a shareholder class action
lawsuit over its pending merger with Midland States Bancorp, Inc.,
according to the Company's March 2, 2017, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

The Company entered into the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated
as of January 26, 2017, among Midland States Bancorp, Inc.,
Sentinel Acquisition, LLC and Centrue Financial Corporation,
whereby the Company would be merged with Midland States Bancorp.,
Inc. and Centrue Bank would be merged with Midland States Bank.

Centrue, Midland, Merger Subsidiary and the individual members of
the Centrue board of directors have been named as defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit filed by an alleged shareholder of
Centrue in the Circuit Court of LaSalle County, Illinois: Rader v.
Centrue Financial Corporation, et al., Case No. 17L16 (filed
February 3, 2017). The complaint alleges, among other things, that
the directors of Centrue breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with entering into the merger agreement and that
Centrue, Midland and Merger Subsidiary aided and abetted those
alleged fiduciary breaches. Plaintiffs claim, among other things,
that Centrue's board of directors failed to ensure that Centrue's
shareholders would receive maximum value for their shares,
utilized preclusive corporate and deal protection terms to inhibit
an alternate transaction and failed to conduct an appropriate sale
process, and that Centrue's largest shareholder and its
representative on Centrue's board of directors exerted influence
to force a sale of Centrue at an unfair price. The action seeks a
variety of equitable and injunctive relief including, among other
things, enjoining the consummation of the merger, directing the
defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a
transaction that is in the best interests of Centrue shareholders
and awarding plaintiff its costs and attorneys' fees.

The defendants believe that the claims asserted in the litigation
are wholly without merit and they intend to defend them
vigorously. Other potential plaintiffs may file additional
lawsuits challenging the proposed transaction.

Centrue Financial Corporation is a bank holding company
incorporated in Delaware in 1982.  The Company is a publicly
traded bank holding company with assets of $978 million, net loans
of $677 million, and equity of $127 million at December 31, 2016
and is headquartered in Ottawa, Illinois.  The Company provides a
full range of banking services to individual and corporate
customers extending from western and southern suburbs of the
Chicago metropolitan area across Central Illinois down to
metropolitan St. Louis area.  The Company operates one wholly
owned subsidiary, Centrue Bank.


CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Ex-Practice Chair Attacks Origination System
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Baxter, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that Mary
Yelenick, a former chair of Chadbourne & Parke's products
liability group who sought to join a $100 million gender
discrimination case against the firm, has filed a declaration with
a federal court in New York detailing her claims and criticizing
the firm's methods of compensating partners.

"Over the past twenty years or so, I have repeatedly and
consistently raised gender equity issues -- surrounding
compensation, promotions, training and advancement opportunities
for women, and similar concerns -- with the partnership and
management of the firm," said Ms. Yelenick in court papers.
"However, my complaints have largely been ignored by firm
leadership; at best, I have been given lip service, but nothing
has really changed."

Ms. Yelenick, who made partner at Chadbourne in 1996 and is now of
counsel with the firm in New York after retiring from the
partnership late last year, is the second former partner at the
firm seeking to become part of a suit filed last August by current
litigation partner Kerrie Campbell in Washington, D.C. In October,
former Kiev office managing partner Jaroslawa Zelinsky Johnson
petitioned a federal court in Manhattan seeking to join Ms.
Campbell's case.

In her 16-page filing on March 13 in support of class
certification, Ms. Yelenick echoes many of the same allegations
made by Ms. Campbell and Ms. Johnson.  Ms. Yelenick claims that
during her 35 years at Chadbourne she witnessed firsthand how a
five-member management committee and the firm's managing partner -
- all of whom were men -- had an outsized influence in determining
partner compensation. (Ayse Yuksel, a woman and managing partner
of Chadbourne's Istanbul office, was elected to the firm's
management committee last summer.)

Partners not on the committee are "effectively shut out of
meaningful participation in the firm's governance," according to
Ms. Yelenick, who states that she "noted with interest that the
income levels of many members of the management committee rise
during their tenure on the committee, even when their client work
declines."

While some parts of Ms. Yelenick's declaration are redacted --
plaintiffs in the suit must submit filings to U.S. District Judge
J. Paul Oetken, who determines what can be made public -- she does
identify one former management committee member by name in Marc
Alpert, a defendant in the case and a former head of Chadbourne's
public companies practice.

In June 2016, as Alpert prepared to leave the firm to become
general counsel at New York-based conglomerate Loews Corp., he
chose two male partners to inherit some important clients,
according to Ms. Yelenick's declaration.  The names of the two
partners and clients are redacted in her filing, as are two female
partners who she alleges also did significant work for those
clients, but were not designated by Alpert as his "origination-
credit successor."

As a result, Ms. Yelenick claims that the two unnamed male
partners at Chadbourne will see their compensation rise in future
years.  Their female counterparts at the firm, which is poised to
combine with global legal giant Norton Rose Fulbright, will not be
as fortunate.

"These men did nothing to merit this result," Ms. Yelenick said in
court papers.  "They were simply the designated favorites of a
retiring male partner who had himself inherited origination status
from other men.  The cycle continues."

Ms. Yelenick alleges that Chadbourne's "origination inheritance"
system routinely allows male partners at the firm to bequeath
business to whomever they wish, usually "favored male successors,"
even if there is a female partner with "substantial involvement in
the matter and a long working relationship with the client."

This process helps male partners take credit for the most
profitable clients and earn compensation in excess of their female
counterparts, according to Ms. Yelenick, a scenario that she
claims to have both observed and experienced herself during her
more than three decades at Chadbourne.  The inheritance system,
she said, perpetuates the cycle of gender disparity.

"Origination credit for the same case may be passed down multiple
times in perpetuity," states Ms. Yelenick, describing something
akin to an old boys' network.  "Historically at Chadbourne,
primary responsibility for large institutional clients was vested
with male partners."

Ms. Yelenick claims that despite bringing in new clients and
generating millions in revenue for the firm during the past three
years, she was never awarded more than 525 points, a number that
put her in the lower tier of the partnership compensation matrix.
(Sibling publication Law.com, citing a survey by legal recruiting
firm Major, Lindsey & Africa, examined last year how origination
credits are often to blame for lower female partner pay at large
firms.)

In some years, the points that determined Ms. Yelenick's
partnership draw were reduced, despite her strong performance.
Even after collecting $1.25 million for Chadbourne in 2014,
Ms. Yelenick said she received a reduction in points.

Chadbourne, which before its recent deal with Norton Rose
Fulbright has entertained other suitors in recent years, has
watched its head count and gross revenue slip between 2012 and
2015. The firm did see profits per partner and revenue per lawyer
rise in 2015, to $1.135 million and $785,000, respectively.

In a statement provided to The American Lawyer by a firm
spokesman, Chadbourne said Ms. Yelenick's declaration contained
many inaccuracies and overstated her contributions in origination
client relationships.

"Ms. Yelenick received shared billing and/or responsible credit
for client relationships that other partners and attorneys, in
near entirety, won and developed without her involvement," the
firm said.  "Despite having been with the firm for many years, Ms.
Yelenick completely distorts the facts surrounding how client
relationships are shared and transitioned. She reaped the rewards
of the firm's process in the years when she was among the more
highly compensated partners in the firm, and in other years, her
compensation reflected less significant contributions.  But in
every year, her compensation always reflected her contributions,
and never her gender."

In her declaration, Ms. Yelenick said that her clients over the
years have included luxury cosmetics company Clarins, whiskey
producer Jim Beam Brands Co., electronics giant LG Corp.,
appliance maker Miele and drug manufacturer Purdue Pharma LP.
Ms. Yelenick represented the latter -- long known as one of
Chadbourne's largest clients and closely linked to Chadbourne
management committee member Lawrence Rosenberg, a tax expert who
advises the company's wealthy Sackler family -- in litigation over
its popular painkilling drug OxyContin. (Rosenberg is one of six
Chadbourne partners named as defendants in Campbell's suit.)

In its statement, Chadbourne said the "cause of gender equality is
not advanced by erroneous, self-serving and baseless allegations
used to support a lawsuit that seeks unjust economic reward for
decisions made on the merits, having nothing to do with gender."
Boston-based Lexington Insurance Co., a unit of American
International Group Inc., is Chadbourne's insurance carrier in the
litigation.  Proskauer Rose is representing Chadbourne in the
case.

Ms. Yelenick, who has written about societal issues, maintained in
her declaration that she tried to spur the firm's management
committee to change Chadbourne's origination credit system, but
was ultimately unsuccessful. In the end, she concluded that only a
formal legal action would bring about change at the firm.

"I have repeatedly witnessed female senior associates passed over
for promotion to the partnership in favor of less qualified and
less experienced male associates," Ms. Yelenick said in her
filing. "My own promotion to partner was delayed for years as I
watched men with less experience and less potential for business
development be promoted before me.  I know of numerous female
associates and partners who have left the firm because they were
deeply dissatisfied with what they viewed as a lack of promotional
opportunities and fair compensation for women."

The American Lawyer previously reached out to a dozen former
female Chadbourne partners to discuss the claims levied by
Campbell and Johnson.  Two of those ex-partners, who requested
anonymity in order to speak freely, said that allegations of bias
had some merit.  A third said she saw no evidence of gender
discrimination, but admitted that origination credits were an
issue at the firm.

In January, Margarita Oliva Sainz de Aja, a former project finance
partner with Chadbourne's international arm, told sibling
publication the New York Law Journal ahead of her departure for
Baker McKenzie that she enjoyed her time at the firm. Nonetheless,
Ms. Oliva was well aware of the challenges women face in Big Law.

"In general, women are paid less than men," Ms. Oliva said.  "It
doesn't come easy, you have to fight for your salary and fight for
your bonus."


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Awaits Approval of Settlement in "Brown" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated awaits court approval of the
final settlement agreement in the lawsuit styled Brown v. The
Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., according to the Company's
March 2, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2017.

On November 10, 2015, a current restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the Marin County Superior Court alleging
that the Company failed to provide complete and accurate wage
statements as set forth in the California Labor Code.  On January
26, 2016, the plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.  The
lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under PAGA in addition to
other monetary payments (Brown v. The Cheesecake Factory
Restaurants, Inc.; Case No. CIV1504091).

On April 18, 2016, the court granted the Company's motion to
compel individual arbitration of plaintiff's wage statement claim
and stayed the PAGA claim until completion of the individual
arbitration.  On June 28, 2016, the Company gave notice to the
court that Case Nos. 30-2015-00775529 and BC603620 may be related.
On September 6, 2016, the parties engaged in settlement discussion
and are negotiating the terms of a final settlement agreement.

On February 21, 2017, the court granted the parties' motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement, and preliminarily
enjoined the plaintiffs in Case Nos. 30-2015-00775529 and 37-2014-
00040278 from prosecuting any claims released in Case No.
CIV1504091.

The final settlement agreement will be subject to court approval
and is intended to be a full and final resolution of Case No.
CIV150491.

Based on the current status of this matter, the Company says it
has reserved an immaterial amount in anticipation of settlement.

In 1992, the Company was incorporated in Delaware as The
Cheesecake Factory Incorporated to consolidate the restaurant and
bakery businesses of its predecessors operating under The
Cheesecake Factory(R) mark.  The Company's executive offices are
located in Calabasas Hills, California.  As of March 2, 2017, the
Company operated 208 Company-owned restaurants: 194 under The
Cheesecake Factory(R) mark, 13 under the Grand Lux Cafe(R) mark
and one currently under the Rock Sugar Pan Asian Kitchen(R) mark
(which is in the process of a tradename change to RockSugar
Southeast Asian KitchenTM).  Internationally, 15 The Cheesecake
Factory branded restaurants operated in the Middle East, China and
Mexico under licensing agreements.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Toss "Rodriguez" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit titled Rodriguez v. The Cheesecake
Factory Restaurants, Inc., are waiting for a ruling on The
Cheesecake Factory Incorporated's motion to dismiss, according to
the Company's March 2, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
January 3, 2017.

On April 24, 2016, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging that the Company violated the New York deceptive business
practices statute by improperly calculating suggested gratuities
on split payment checks (Rodriguez v. The Cheesecake Factory
Restaurants, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02006-JFB-AKT).  The lawsuit
seeks unspecified penalties in addition to other monetary
payments.  On September 1, 2016, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's complaint.  On October 10, 2016, the
plaintiff filed an amended complaint to limit the scope of the
complaint to the State of New York only.

The parties are waiting for a ruling on the Company's motion to
dismiss.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against this
action.  Based upon the current status of this matter, the Company
has not reserved for any potential future payments.

In 1992, the Company was incorporated in Delaware as The
Cheesecake Factory Incorporated to consolidate the restaurant and
bakery businesses of its predecessors operating under The
Cheesecake Factory(R) mark.  The Company's executive offices are
located in Calabasas Hills, California.  As of March 2, 2017, the
Company operated 208 Company-owned restaurants: 194 under The
Cheesecake Factory(R) mark, 13 under the Grand Lux Cafe(R) mark
and one currently under the Rock Sugar Pan Asian Kitchen(R) mark
(which is in the process of a tradename change to RockSugar
Southeast Asian KitchenTM).  Internationally, 15 The Cheesecake
Factory branded restaurants operated in the Middle East, China and
Mexico under licensing agreements.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Continues to Defend "Masters" Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated continues to defend itself and
its subsidiaries against a class action lawsuit entitled Masters
v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al., the Company
said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 2, 2017, for the fiscal year ended January 3,
2017.

On November 26, 2014, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court,
alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code, by failing to pay
overtime, to permit required rest breaks and to provide accurate
wage statements, among other claims (Masters v. The Cheesecake
Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No 37-2014-00040278).  By
stipulation, the parties agreed to transfer Case No. 37-2014-
00040278 to the Orange County Superior Court.  On March 2, 2015,
Case No. 37-2014-00040278 was officially transferred and assigned
a new Case No. 30-2015-00775529 in the Orange County Superior
Court.

On June 27, 2016, the Company gave notice to the court that Case
Nos. CIV1504091 and BC603620 may be related.  The lawsuit seeks
unspecified amounts of fees, penalties and other monetary payments
on behalf of the Plaintiff and other purported class members.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this action.
Based on the current status of this matter, the Company has not
reserved for any potential future payments.

In 1992, the Company was incorporated in Delaware as The
Cheesecake Factory Incorporated to consolidate the restaurant and
bakery businesses of its predecessors operating under The
Cheesecake Factory(R) mark.  The Company's executive offices are
located in Calabasas Hills, California.  As of March 2, 2017, the
Company operated 208 Company-owned restaurants: 194 under The
Cheesecake Factory(R) mark, 13 under the Grand Lux Cafe(R) mark
and one currently under the Rock Sugar Pan Asian Kitchen(R) mark
(which is in the process of a tradename change to RockSugar
Southeast Asian KitchenTM).  Internationally, 15 The Cheesecake
Factory branded restaurants operated in the Middle East, China and
Mexico under licensing agreements.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Defends "Muransky" Class Suit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-K filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended January 3, 2017, that it intends to
vigorously defend itself against a purported class action lawsuit
initiated by David Muransky in Florida.

On February 3, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
alleging that the Company violated the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transaction Act by failing to properly censor consumer credit or
debit card information.  (Muransky v. The Cheesecake Factory
Incorporated, Case No. 0:17-cv-60229-JEM).  The lawsuit seeks
unspecified penalties in addition to other monetary payments.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against this
action.  Based upon the current status of this matter, the Company
has not reserved for any potential future payments.

In 1992, the Company was incorporated in Delaware as The
Cheesecake Factory Incorporated to consolidate the restaurant and
bakery businesses of its predecessors operating under The
Cheesecake Factory(R) mark.  The Company's executive offices are
located in Calabasas Hills, California.  As of March 2, 2017, the
Company operated 208 Company-owned restaurants: 194 under The
Cheesecake Factory(R) mark, 13 under the Grand Lux Cafe(R) mark
and one currently under the Rock Sugar Pan Asian Kitchen(R) mark
(which is in the process of a tradename change to RockSugar
Southeast Asian KitchenTM).  Internationally, 15 The Cheesecake
Factory branded restaurants operated in the Middle East, China and
Mexico under licensing agreements.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Faces "Abdelaziz" Class Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-K
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2,
2017, for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2017, that it is facing
a class action lawsuit commenced by restaurant hourly employees in
California.

On February 3, 2017, five present and former restaurant hourly
employees filed a class action lawsuit in the San Diego County
Superior Court alleging that the Company violated the California
Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code by failing
to permit required meal and rest breaks and failing to provide
accurate wage statements, among other claims.  (Abdelaziz v. The
Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No 37-2016-
00039775-CU-OE-CTL).  The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties
under PAGA in addition to other monetary payments on behalf of the
plaintiffs and other purported class members.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this action.
Based on the current status of this matter, the Company has not
reserved for any potential future payments.

In 1992, the Company was incorporated in Delaware as The
Cheesecake Factory Incorporated to consolidate the restaurant and
bakery businesses of its predecessors operating under The
Cheesecake Factory(R) mark.  The Company's executive offices are
located in Calabasas Hills, California.  As of March 2, 2017, the
Company operated 208 Company-owned restaurants: 194 under The
Cheesecake Factory(R) mark, 13 under the Grand Lux Cafe(R) mark
and one currently under the Rock Sugar Pan Asian Kitchen(R) mark
(which is in the process of a tradename change to RockSugar
Southeast Asian KitchenTM).  Internationally, 15 The Cheesecake
Factory branded restaurants operated in the Middle East, China and
Mexico under licensing agreements.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Faces "Rodriguez" Class Suit in San Diego
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated is facing a putative class
action lawsuit commenced by restaurant hourly employees in San
Diego, California, according to the Company's March 2, 2017, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended January 3, 2017.

On February 22, 2017, a group of present and former restaurant
hourly employees filed a class action lawsuit in the San Diego
County Superior Court alleging that the Company violated the
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code
by failing to pay overtime, furnish proper wage statements, and
maintain accurate payroll records, among other claims. (Rodriguez
v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No 37-
2017-00006571-CU-OE-CTL). The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties
under PAGA in addition to other monetary payments on behalf of the
plaintiffs and other purported class members.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this action.
Based on the current status of this matter, the Company has not
reserved for any potential future payments.

In 1992, the Company was incorporated in Delaware as The
Cheesecake Factory Incorporated to consolidate the restaurant and
bakery businesses of its predecessors operating under The
Cheesecake Factory(R) mark.  The Company's executive offices are
located in Calabasas Hills, California.  As of March 2, 2017, the
Company operated 208 Company-owned restaurants: 194 under The
Cheesecake Factory(R) mark, 13 under the Grand Lux Cafe(R) mark
and one currently under the Rock Sugar Pan Asian Kitchen(R) mark
(which is in the process of a tradename change to RockSugar
Southeast Asian KitchenTM).  Internationally, 15 The Cheesecake
Factory branded restaurants operated in the Middle East, China and
Mexico under licensing agreements.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Guglielmo" Suit Remains Pending in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Guglielmo v. The Cheesecake
Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al., remains pending in New York,
according to The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated's March 2, 2017,
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2017.

On May 28, 2015, a group of current and former restaurant hourly
employees filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, alleging that the Company
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Code, by
requiring employees to purchase uniforms for work and violated the
State of New York's minimum wage and overtime provisions
(Guglielmo v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al;
Case No 2:15-CV-03117).  On September 8, 2015, the Company filed
its response to the complaint, requesting the court to compel
arbitration against opt-in plaintiffs with valid arbitration
agreements.

On July 21, 2016, the court issued an order confirming the
agreement of the parties to dismiss all class claims with
prejudice and to allow the case to proceed as a collective action
at a limited number of the Company's restaurants in the State of
New York.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified amounts of
penalties and other monetary payments.

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

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend this action.
Based upon the current status of this matter, the Company has not
reserved for any potential future payments.

In 1992, the Company was incorporated in Delaware as The
Cheesecake Factory Incorporated to consolidate the restaurant and
bakery businesses of its predecessors operating under The
Cheesecake Factory(R) mark.  The Company's executive offices are
located in Calabasas Hills, California.  As of March 2, 2017, the
Company operated 208 Company-owned restaurants: 194 under The
Cheesecake Factory(R) mark, 13 under the Grand Lux Cafe(R) mark
and one currently under the Rock Sugar Pan Asian Kitchen(R) mark
(which is in the process of a tradename change to RockSugar
Southeast Asian KitchenTM).  Internationally, 15 The Cheesecake
Factory branded restaurants operated in the Middle East, China and
Mexico under licensing agreements.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Tagalogon" Suit Remains Pending in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit styled Tagalogon v. The
Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., remains pending in
California, according to The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated's
March 2, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2017.

On December 10, 2015, a former restaurant management employee
filed a class action lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior
Court alleging that the Company improperly classified its
managerial employees, failed to pay overtime, and failed to
provide accurate wage statements, in addition to other claims.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under PAGA in addition to
other monetary payments (Tagalogon v. The Cheesecake Factory
Restaurants, Inc., Case No. BC603620).  On March 23, 2016, the
parties issued their joint status conference statement at which
time the Company gave notice to the court that Case Nos. 30-2015-
00775529 and CIV1504091 may be related.  On April 29, 2016, the
Company filed its response to the complaint.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend against this
action.  Based upon the current status of this matter, the Company
has not reserved for any potential future payments.

In 1992, the Company was incorporated in Delaware as The
Cheesecake Factory Incorporated to consolidate the restaurant and
bakery businesses of its predecessors operating under The
Cheesecake Factory(R) mark.  The Company's executive offices are
located in Calabasas Hills, California.  As of March 2, 2017, the
Company operated 208 Company-owned restaurants: 194 under The
Cheesecake Factory(R) mark, 13 under the Grand Lux Cafe(R) mark
and one currently under the Rock Sugar Pan Asian Kitchen(R) mark
(which is in the process of a tradename change to RockSugar
Southeast Asian KitchenTM).  Internationally, 15 The Cheesecake
Factory branded restaurants operated in the Middle East, China and
Mexico under licensing agreements.


CONVERGYS CORP: "Fuerte" Seeks Pay for Off-the-Clock Work
---------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Fuerte and Terry Dimery, individually, and on behalf of
other similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Convergys
Corporation, and Convergys Customer Management Group, Inc.,
jointly and severally, as Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00701,
(D.S.C., March 14, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants jointly operate a customer experience outsourcing
service where Plaintiffs worked as hourly at-home customer service
representatives. Plaintiffs seek compensation for their pre-shift
time spent booting up their computers, logging into required
computer networks and software applications, reviewing work-
related e-mails and other information at the start of their shift
as well as midshift technical down time incurred due to problems
with their computers, networks, software applications and phones.
Defendants' based their compensation only on the actual login and
logout times. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin A. Baroody, Esq.
      BELLAMY RUTENBERG COPELAND EPPS GRAVELY & BOWERS, P.A.
      1000 29th Avenue
      Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
      Tel: 843-448-2400
      Email: BBaroody@Bellamy.com

             - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
      Charles R. Ash, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Tel: 248-355-0300
      Email: jthompson@sommerspc.com
             kstoops@sommerspc.com


CPI CARD: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss Amended Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CPI Card Group Inc. awaits ruling on its motion to dismiss the
amended complaint in the consolidated shareholder entitled CPI
Card Group Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:16-CV-04531
(S.D.N.Y.), according to the Company's March 2, 2017, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On June 15, 2016, two purported CPI shareholders filed putative
class action lawsuits captioned Vance, et al. v. CPI Card Group
Inc., et al. and Chipman, et al. v. CPI Card Group Inc., in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against CPI and certain of its officers and directors, along with
the sponsors of and the financial institutions who served as
underwriters for CPI's October 2015 IPO. The complaints,
purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of CPI common
stock pursuant to the October 8, 2015 Registration Statement filed
in connection with the IPO, assert claims under SectionSection11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and
seek, among other things, damages and costs. In particular, the
complaints allege that the Registration Statement contained false
or misleading statements or omissions regarding CPI's customers'
(i) purchases of Europay, MasterCard, and VISA chip cards
(collectively, "EMV cards") during the first half of fiscal year
2015 and resulting EMV card inventory levels, and (ii) capacity to
purchase additional EMV cards in the fourth quarter of fiscal year
2015, and the remainder of the fiscal year ending December 31,
2015. The complaints allege that these actions artificially
inflated the price of CPI common stock issued pursuant to the IPO.

On August 30, 2016, the Court consolidated the Vance and Chipman
actions and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA"). On October
17, 2016, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint,
asserting the same claims for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act. The amended complaint is based principally on
the same theories as the original complaints, but adds allegations
that the Registration Statement contained inadequate risk
disclosures and failed to disclose (i) small and mid-size issuers'
slower-than-anticipated conversion to EMV technology and (ii)
increased pricing pressure and competition CPI faced in the EMV
market.

On November 16, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. All discovery and other proceedings in the
action are stayed under the PSLRA pending the resolution of that
motion.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to
defend the action vigorously.

CPI Card Group Inc. is a provider of comprehensive Financial
Payment Card solutions in the United States.  The Company's
customers are primarily leading national and regional banks,
independent community banks, credit unions, managers of prepaid
debit programs, "Group Service Providers" (organizations that
assist small card issuers, such as credit unions, with managing
their credit and debit card programs, including managing the
Financial Payment Card issuance process) and card processors.


CTI BIOPHARMA: Bid to Toss Securities Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
CTI BioPharma Corp. said in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a hearing on the
Defendants' motion to dismiss has not been set in the consolidated
lawsuit entitled In re CTI BioPharma Corp. Securities Litigation.

The Company said: "On February 10, 2016 and February 12, 2016,
class action lawsuits entitled Ahrens v. CTI BioPharma Corp. et
al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01044 and McGlothlin v. CTI BioPharma Corp.
et al., Case No. C16-216, respectively, were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York and
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington, respectively, on behalf of shareholders that purchased
or acquired the Company's securities pursuant to our September 24,
2015 public offering and/or shareholders who otherwise acquired
our stock between March 4, 2014 and February 9, 2016, inclusive.
The complaints assert claims against the Company and certain of
our current and former directors and officers for violations of
the federal securities laws under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and
Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, or the Exchange Act, Plaintiffs' Securities Act claims
allege that the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus
for the September 24, 2015 public offering contained materially
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose certain
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations
and prospects, including with respect to the clinical trials and
prospects for pacritinib. Plaintiffs' Exchange Act claims allege
that the Company's public disclosures were knowingly or recklessly
false and misleading or omitted material adverse facts, again with
a primary focus on the clinical trials and prospects for
pacritinib."

On May 2, 2016, the Company filed a motion to transfer the Ahrens
case to the United States District Court for the Western District
of Washington. The motion was unopposed and granted by the court
on May 19, 2016. On June 3, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion
to consolidate the McGlothlin case with the Ahrens case in order
to proceed as a single consolidated proceeding. On June 13, 2016,
the court granted the motion to consolidate with the action being
captioned In re CTI BioPharma Corp. Securities Litigation, Master
File No. 2:16-cv-00216-RSL.

On September 2, 2016, the court appointed Lead Plaintiffs and Lead
Counsel. On September 28, 2016, the court entered a scheduling
order, as revised by order entered December 8, 2016, setting
November 8, 2016 as the deadline to file a consolidated class
action complaint and deadlines for briefing defendants' motion to
dismiss.

Briefing concluded on February 22, 2017. A hearing on the
defendants' motion to dismiss has not been set. The consolidated
class action complaint asserts claims similar to those asserted in
the initial complaints, although it no longer asserts claims
relating to the September 24, 2015 public offering, but adds
claims relating to the Company's October 27, 2015 and December 4,
2015 public offerings. The lawsuit seeks damages in an unspecified
amount.

The Company believes that the allegations contained in the
complaints are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
itself against all claims asserted therein.

CTI BioPharma Corp. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the
acquisition, development and commercialization of novel targeted
therapies covering a spectrum of blood-related cancers that offer
a unique benefit to patients and health care providers.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Discovery in BlackRock's New York Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the lawsuit filed by the BlackRock
plaintiffs in New York, according to JPMBB Commercial Mortgage
Securities Trust 2013-C17's March 2, 2017, Form 10-D filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly
distribution period from January 19, 2017, to February 17, 2017.

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA") and Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company ("DBNTC") have been sued by investors in
civil litigation concerning their role as trustees of certain
residential mortgage-backed securities trusts (RMBS).

On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed by
Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others (the
"BlackRock plaintiffs"), filed a derivative action against DBNTC
and DBTCA in New York State Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of
and for the benefit of 544 private-label RMBS trusts asserting
claims for alleged violations of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of
1939 (TIA), breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and
negligence based on DBNTC and DBTCA's alleged failure to perform
their duties as trustees for the trusts. Plaintiffs subsequently
dismissed their state court complaint and filed a derivative and
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of and for the benefit of 564
private-label RMBS trusts, which substantially overlapped with the
trusts at issue in the state court action.

The complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total
realized collateral losses of U.S. $89.4 billion, but the
complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum
certain. DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss, and on January
19, 2016, the court partially granted the motion on procedural
grounds: as to the 500 trusts that are governed by Pooling and
Servicing Agreements, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction.
The court did not rule on substantive defenses asserted in the
motion to dismiss.

On March 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
federal court.  In the amended complaint, in connection with 62
trusts governed by indenture agreements, plaintiffs assert claims
for breach of contract, violation of the TIA, breach of fiduciary
duty, and breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest.   The
amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered
total realized collateral losses of U.S. $9.8 billion, but the
complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum
certain.

On July 15, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On January 23, 2017, the court granted in part
and denied in part DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to dismiss.  The court
granted the motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs'
conflict-of-interest claim, thereby dismissing it, and denied the
motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs' breach of contract
claim and claim for violation of the TIA, thereby allowing those
claims to proceed.

On January 26, 2017, the parties filed a joint stipulation and
proposed order dismissing plaintiffs' claim for breach of
fiduciary duty.  On January 27, 2017, the court entered the
parties' joint stipulation and ordered that plaintiffs' claim for
breach of fiduciary duty be dismissed.  On February 3, 2017,
following a hearing concerning DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to dismiss
on February 2, 2017, the court issued a short form order
dismissing (i) plaintiffs' representation and warranty claims as
to 21 trusts whose originators and/or sponsors had entered
bankruptcy and the deadline for asserting claims against such
originators and/or sponsors had passed as of 2009 and (ii)
plaintiffs' claims to the extent they were premised upon any
alleged pre-Event of Default duty to terminate servicers.  The
court granted plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint only as to
the first point above.

On February 16, 2017, plaintiffs informed the court that they do
not intend to amend their complaint.  Discovery is ongoing.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Discovery in BlackRock Suit in Calif. Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the lawsuit initiated by the BlackRock
plaintiffs in California, JPMBB Commercial Mortgage Securities
Trust 2013-C17 said in its Form 10-D filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 2, 2017, for the monthly distribution
period from January 19, 2017, to February 17, 2017.

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA") and Deutsche Bank
National Trust Company ("DBNTC") have been sued by investors in
civil litigation concerning their role as trustees of certain
residential mortgage-backed securities trusts (RMBS).

On March 25, 2016, a group of investors, including funds managed
by Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others (the
"BlackRock plaintiffs"), filed a state court action against DBTCA
in the Superior Court of California, Orange County with respect to
513 trusts.  On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint with respect to 465 trusts, and included DBNTC as an
additional defendant.  The amended complaint asserts three causes
of action:  breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; and
breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest.  Plaintiffs
purport to bring the action on behalf of themselves and all other
current owners of certificates in the 465 trusts.  The amended
complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total
realized collateral losses of U.S. $75.7 billion, but does not
include a demand for money damages in a sum certain.

On August 22, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a demurrer as to
Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and breach of
the duty to avoid conflicts of interest cause of action and motion
to strike as to Plaintiffs' breach of contract cause of action.
On October 18, 2016, the court granted DBNTC and DBTCA's demurrer,
providing Plaintiffs with thirty days' leave to amend, and denied
DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to strike.  Plaintiffs did not further
amend their complaint and, on December 19, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA
filed an answer to the amended complaint.  Discovery is ongoing.


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Class Suit in Arkansas Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit filed in Arkansas remains
pending, according to Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc.'s
March 2, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company
and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center (the "Center"). The complaint alleges that
the defendants breached their statutory and contractual
obligations to the patients of the Center over the five-year
period prior to the filing of the complaints. The lawsuit remains
in its early stages and has not yet been certified by the court as
a class action.

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

The Company says it intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. provides post-acute care
services to skilled nursing facility primarily in the Southeast,
Midwest, and Southwest United States.


DR PEPPER SNAPPLE: "Chuang" Alleges Mislabeling of Ginger Ale
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arash Hashemi, Natasha Safaradi and Patrick Gilburt, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Dr.
Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. and Dr. Pepper/Seven-Up, Defendants,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02042, (C.D. Cal., March 14, 2017), seeks
compensatory, treble and punitive damages, prejudgment interest on
all amounts awarded, restitution and all other forms of equitable
monetary relief, injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and
expenses and costs resulting from breach of express and implied
warranty, unjust enrichment and violation of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Business and Professions
Code.

Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. is a corporation organized under
the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 5301
Legacy Drive, Plano, Texas, 75024. Dr. Pepper is in the business
of developing, manufacturing, distributing, and selling beverages
and snack products under various brands, including Canada Dry
Ginger.

Defendants labeled, packaged and marketed Canada Dry Ginger as
being "Made from Real Ginger," despite independent testing by a
laboratory determined that it does not contain a detectable amount
of ginger.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Barbara A. Rohr, Esq.
      Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
      10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1470
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Telephone: (424) 256-2884
      Fax: (424) 256-2885
      E-mail: brohr@faruqilaw.com
              bheikali@faruqilaw.com


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Harley" Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Enhanced Recovery
Company, LLC. The case is captioned as Anita Harley on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-
01238 (E.D.N.Y., March 3, 2017).

Enhanced Recovery provides business process outsourcing services
that include recovery, outsourcing, and market research
primarily.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


FINANCIAL ASSET: Illegally Collects Debt, "Woods" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Woods, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Financial Asset Management Systems, Inc., Case No.
2:17-cv-01775 (C.D. Cal., March 6, 2017), arises as a result of
false, deceptive and unfair debt-collection practices promulgated
nationwide by the Defendant, in an effort to deceive consumers and
debtors by not providing the requisite notices in its collection
letters.

Financial Asset Management Systems, Inc. is a company that uses
any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in its
business, the principal purpose of which is the collection of any
debts; it also regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly
or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due
another. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FLORIDA: "Brown" Suit Filed Against Barfield et al.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barfield. The case
is styled as JAI BROWN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF
PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. BARFIELD, WARDEN,
JERRY M REGISTER, EDUCATION SUPERVISOR, M TAYLOR, CLASSIFICATION
OFFICER, and T OLDS, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00118-RH-CAS
(N.D. Fla., Mar. 6, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge
Robert L Hinkle.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


FOREST PARK: Faces "Parker" Suit in Northern District of Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forest Park Realty
Partners III, LP. The case is captioned as Sharda Parker and Jose
Ibanez, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Forest Park Realty Partners III, LP,
the Defendant, Case No 3:17-cv-00643-D. (N.D. Tex., March 3,
2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Sidney A Fitzwater.

Forest Park offers commercial construction and development
services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher Kupa, Esq.
          Levi & Korsinsky LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY, 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363 7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363 7171
          E-mail: ckupka@zlk.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Melissa S Hayward, Esq.
          Franklin Hayward LLP
          10501 N Central Expwy, Suite 106
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Telephone: (972) 755 7100
          Facsimile: (972) 755 7104
          E-mail: mhayward@franklinhayward.com


FRONTIER RAIL: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
PAUL F. JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FRONTIER RAIL CORPORATION; FRONTIER
RAIL GROUP; YCR CORPORATION; YAKIMA CENTRAL RAILWAY; WESTERN
WASHINGTON RAILROAD; KENNEWICK TERMINAL RAILROAD; OREGON
RAILCONNECT; LAKE RAILWAY; CINCINNATI EAST TERMINAL RAILROAD; and
PAUL DIDELIUS individually, and in his capacity as Owner of
Frontier Rail Corporation, Frontier Rail Group, YCR Corporation;
Yakima Central Railway, Western Washington Railroad, Kennewick
Terminal Railroad, Oregon Railconnect, Lake Railway, and
Cincinnati East Terminal Railroad, the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-
cv-05030-TOR (E.D. Wash., Mar. 10, 2017), seeks to recover
compensation for unpaid overtime wages, failure to timely pay
wages, failure to furnish timely and accurate wage statements,
failure to maintain accurate payroll records, for interest and
penalties, and for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), and the Washington
Minimum Wage Act.

The Defendants regularly required Johnson to work over 40 hours a
week, doing non-supervisory duties which included, but were not
limited to, inspection and repair of railcars, track maintenance
and repair, signal inspection, switching operations and work as a
train conductor and a locomotive engineer. The Defendants'
managers intentionally required Johnson, and other employees, to
split their recorded work hours between more than one of the
Defendants to avoid paying overtime. The Defendants avoided paying
overtime by issuing Johnson, and other employees, separate
paychecks from separate companies.[BN]

Frontier Rail is a local and suburban transit company located in
Burbank, Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

William A. Gilbert, Esq.
GILBERT LAW FIRM, PS
421 W. Riverside, Suite 353
Spokane, WA 99201
Telephone: (509) 321 0750
Facsimile: (509) 343 3315
E-mail: bill@wagilbert.com

     - and -

Jeff R. Dingwall, Esq.
EIGHT & SAND
110 W C Street, Suite 1903
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 796 3464
E-mail: jeff@eightandsandlaw.com


GC SERVICES: "Errera" Suit Moved to E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gary Errera, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GC Services
Limited Partnership, Defendant, Case No. 616496/2016, was removed
from the Supreme, Suffolk County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01250 to the proceeding.

GC Services is the largest privately-held outsourcing provider of
call center management and collection agency services in North
America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
          775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 335-1107
          E-mail: mpash@verizon.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew B Corwin, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON, LLP
          800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 471 6200
          Facsimile: (212) 935 1166
          E-mail: mcorwin@hinshawlaw.com


GENERAL PANEL: "Lawrence" Suit Moved to Federal District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Lawrence, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. General Panel Corp, a division of
Perma R Products Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2016-CP-10-06588,
was removed from the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
(Charleston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-
00600-RMG to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Richard
M Gergel.

The Defendant manufactures and sells stress skin panels, nailbase
panels, and structural insulated panels in the Southeastern United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian C Duffy, Esq.
          Duffy and Young LLC
          96 Broad Street
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Telephone: (843) 720 2044
          Facsimile: (843) 720 2047
          E-mail: bduffy@duffyandyoung.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Everett Augustus Kendall, II, Esq.
          Richard Edward McLawhorn, Jr., Esq.
          SWEENY WINGATE AND BARROW
          PO Box 12129
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Telephone: (803) 256 2233
          Facsimile: (803) 256 9177
          E-mail: eak@swblaw.com
                  rem@swblaw.com


GOOGLE INC: Appeals Panel Hears Privacy Settlement Objection
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal
appeals panel grilled lawyers in a case against Google over a
claim of conflict of interest in steering funds from an $8.5
million class action settlement to the alma maters of two of the
plaintiffs' attorneys, including Harvard and Stanford
universities.

The case focuses on class action settlements that provide no money
to class members but fund charitable organizations under the cy
pres doctrine, a controversial practice normally used to
distribute unclaimed funds.  In the case before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, objector Ted Frank said the Google
accord gave nothing to the class while funding six entities,
including Harvard's Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society,
the Stanford Center for Internet and Society and the Center for
Information, Society and Policy at the Illinois Institute of
Technology's Chicago-Kent College of Law..

Lead plaintiffs' attorney Kassra Nassiri is an alumnus of Harvard
University Law School and Stanford University, and another lawyer
bringing the case, Michael Aschenbrener -- masch@kamberlaw.com --
of KamberLaw, graduated from Chicago-Kent College of Law.

In oral arguments on March 13, Ninth Circuit Judge John Clifford
Wallace asked whether the federal judge in San Jose, California,
who approved the settlement, did enough to protect class members
from potential conflicts of interest.

"I'm just wondering why there was not more done by the court," he
said.  "This is very important.  There are millions of dollars at
stake, and they just seem to go to alumni of counsel.  I'm not
saying that's wrong. I'm just saying there should have been more
of a record by the district court."

In his 2015 decision, U.S. District Judge Edward Davila of the
Northern District of California acknowledged the potential
conflicts of interest but granted approval, noting "there is no
indication that counsel's allegiance to a particular alma mater
factored into the selection process."  He also relied on the 2012
decision by the Ninth Circuit in Lane v. Facebook that upheld a
$9.5 million class action settlement involving cy pres funds
alone.

"This was not a rubber stamped process," said Nassiri of San
Francisco's Nassiri & Jung, speaking for the plaintiffs.  "The
court spent a lot of time looking at this and put us in the hot
seat."

The case alleged that Google was illegally sending personal
information to third parties about users of its search function.
It bore many resemblances to other online privacy class actions,
like a $5.5 million settlement with Google approved last month in
which Mr. Frank, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center
for Class Action Fairness, also objected.

In that case, which also involved cy pres payouts to six entities,
including Harvard's Berkman Klein Center, a federal judge in
Delaware found that delivering money to the class would have been
impractical.

Lawyers backing the $8.5 million settlement made similar arguments
before the Ninth Circuit, noting that the class size in this case
would be 130 million people -- practically every internet user in
the country.

But Mr. Frank relied on Fraley v. Facebook, a $20 million
settlement in which lawyers managed to arrange the distribution of
$15 to each class member.

"The fact of the matter is Fraley v. Facebook was 130 million
class members, and they figured out a way to get millions of
dollars to the class," Mr. Frank said.


HAIER US: "Dooner" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES DOONER, FREDERICK R. SHELLHAMMER, III, THOMAS FOLEY, DAVID
LEPPO, and ANTHONY CHELPATY, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. HAIER US APPLIANCE
SOLUTIONS, INC., d/b/a GE APPLIANCES, a Delaware Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01635-JBS-KMW (D.N.J., Mar. 10, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiffs assert that Defendant failed to pay wages and
overtime pay to Named Plaintiffs and those similarly situated for
certain hours worked in violation of the FLSA.

Haier US Appliance Solutions, Inc., doing business as GE
Appliances, manufactures and markets consumer durable appliances
and lighting equipment.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
1101 Kings Highway N, Ste. 402
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
Telephone: (856) 685 -7420
Facsimile: (856) 685 7417
E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com
rswartz@swartz-legal.com

     - and -

Robert D. Soloff, Esq.
ROBERT D. SOLOFF, P.A.
7805 S.W. 6th Court
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 472 0002
Facsimile: (954) 472 0052
E-mail: robert@solofflaw.com

     - and -

Alan Eichenbaum, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ALAN EICHENBAUM
7890 Peters Road, Suite G-102
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 900 4919
Facsimile: (954) 900 4919
E-mail: alanlaw@bellsouth.net


HALLMARK HEALTH: Sued in Mass. Over Patient Medical Information
---------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. HALLMARK HEALTH SYSTEM,
INC. and LAWRENCE MELROSE MEDICAL ELECTRONIC RECORD INC.,
Defendants, the Defendants, Case No 11-013 (Mass. Commonwealth
Ct., Mar. 3, 2017), seeks damages, together with interest, costs,
and reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of Defendants breached
of fiduciary duty and obligation to keep confidential the patient
protected health information (PHI) and/or personal information
(PI).

The Plaintiffs assert that: (1) Defendants breached their
fiduciary duty and obligation to keep confidential the PHI and PI
of patients; (2) Defendants breached their fiduciary duty and
obligation to monitor access to patients' PHI and PI; and (3)
Defendants did not adequately fulfill their fiduciary duty to
mitigate actual or potential damages caused by Employee and The
Breach.

LMMER is a company that operates an electronic medical record
system (EMR) for Hallmark.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert E. Mazow, Esq.
          Kevin J. McCullough, Esq.
          FORREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOW,
          MCCULLOUGH, YASI & YASI, P.C.
          2 Salem Green, Suite 2
          Salem, MA 01970
          Telephone: (617) 231 7829
          E-mail: mazow@forrestlamothe.com
                  kmccullough@forrestlamothe.com


HARBOR RAIL: "Crisanty" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------
YRMA CRISANTY; individually, and on behalf of members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HARBOR RAIL
SERVICES OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 652761 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Mar. 3, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, meal or
rest period premiums, waiting time penalties, wage statement
penalties, and any other claims or penalties under the California
Labor Code.

Despite requesting that Plaintiff and the other class members sign
one of the releases, Defendants never inquired as to how many
overtime hours Plaintiff or the other employees worked for
Defendants, how many meal or rest breaks they "missed," how many
hours they worked off the clock, how many inaccurate wage
statements they received, whether their final paycheck was
provided timely, how much in necessary business-related expenses
remained unpaid by Defendants, and/or whether they received
minimum wages for all hours worked.

Harbor Rail offers railcar repair and maintenance services. The
company provides locomotive repair, derailment, railcar pre-trip
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020


HARRISON GLOBAL: Benson Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT BENSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. HARRISON GLOBAL, LLC DBA BOSTON COACH,
and does 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
17CIV00921 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 3, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid wages, including unpaid compensation for interrupted and/or
missed meal and/or rest period, liquidated damages and other
penalties under California Labor Code.

Defendant allegedly has had a consistent policy of (1) unlawfully
Denying Plaintiff and class member statutorily-mandated meal
and/or rest periods, (2) willfully failing to provide Plaintiff
and class member with accurate semimonthly itemized wage
statements reflecting the total number of hours each worked, and
(3) willfully failing to pay compensation in a prompt and timely
manner.

Harrison Global was founded in 2012. The company's line of
business includes transportation services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Graham, Esq.
          1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 891 9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891 7030
          E-mail: scole@scalaw.com
                  jgraham@scalaw.com


HYATT CORPORATION: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS GUARISMA, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. HYATT CORPORATION a Delaware
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-20931-UU (S.D. Fla.,
Mar. 11, 2017), seeks to recover statutory damages and injunctive
relief as a result of Defendant's willful violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

The case arises from Defendant's violation of the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) amendment to the FCRA,
which requires Defendant to truncate certain credit card
information on receipts. Despite the clear language of the
statute, Defendant willfully, knowingly, or in reckless disregard
of the statute, failed to comply with the FCRA by printing 10 of
the credit card numbers and the card's expiration date on receipt
given to consumers. As such, Plaintiff and certain other consumers
who conducted business with Defendant during the time frame
relevant to this complaint, each of whom paid for goods and/or
services using a credit or debit card, suffered violations of par.
1681c(g). As a result of Defendant's unlawful conduct, Plaintiff
and the Class have suffered an invasion of their privacy, have
been burdened with an elevated risk of identity theft and are
entitled to an award of statutory damages and other relief.

Hyatt is an American multinational owner, operator, and franchiser
of hotels, resorts, and vacation properties.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Scott D. Owens, Esq.
SCOTT D. OWENS, PA
3800 S. Ocean Dr., Ste. 235
Hollywood, FL 33019
Telephone: (954) 589 0588
Facsimile: (954) 337 0666
E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com

     - and -

Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
KEOGH LAW, LTD.
55 W. Monroe St., Ste. 3390
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 726-1092
Facsimile: (312)726-1093
E-mail: Keith@Keoghlaw.com

     - and -

Bret L. Lusskin, Jr., Esq.
BRET LUSSKIN, PA
20803 Biscayne Blvd, Suite 302
Aventura, FL 33180


HILLCREST DAVIDSON: Faces "Anthony" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hillcrest Davidson &
Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Stefanie Anthony,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Hillcrest Davidson & Associates, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01267 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 6, 2017).

Hillcrest Davidson analyzes current internal collection processes
and evaluates how and when to transfer accounts for collection
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HP INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Workers Pension Fund Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 2, 2017, for the quarter period ended
January 31, 2017, that the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the District Court's
dismissal of the action commenced by the Cement & Concrete Workers
District Council Pension Fund.

Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund v.
Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. is a putative securities class
action filed on August 3, 2012 in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California alleging, among other
things, that from November 13, 2007 to August 6, 2010 the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
by making statements regarding HP's Standards of Business Conduct
("SBC") that were false and misleading because Mr. Hurd, who was
serving as HP's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer during that
period, had been violating the SBC and concealing his misbehavior
in a manner that jeopardized his continued employment with HP.

On February 7, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. On August 9, 2013, the court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss with leave to amend the complaint by September
9, 2013. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 9,
2013, and the defendants moved to dismiss that complaint on
October 24, 2013. On June 25, 2014, the court issued an order
granting the defendants' motions to dismiss and on July 25, 2014,
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On January 19, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the district court's
dismissal of this action.

HP Inc. is a global provider of personal computing and other
access devices, imaging and printing products, and related
technologies, solutions and services. HP sells to individual
consumers, small and medium-sized businesses and large
enterprises, including customers in the government, health and
education sectors.


HP INC: Appeal from Dismissal of ERISA Litigation Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal from the dismissal of the second amended complaint in
the consolidated class action lawsuit over alleged violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act remains pending in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, HP Inc. said in its
Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 2, 2017, for the quarter period ended January 31, 2017.

In re HP ERISA Litigation consists of three consolidated putative
class actions filed beginning on December 6, 2012 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
alleging, among other things, that from August 18, 2011 to
November 22, 2012, the defendants breached their fiduciary
obligations to HP's 401(k) Plan and its participants and thereby
violated Sections 404(a)(1) and 405(a) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, by concealing negative
information regarding the financial performance of Autonomy and
HP's enterprise services business and by failing to restrict
participants from investing in HP stock. On August 16, 2013, HP
filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On March 31, 2014, the
court granted HP's motion to dismiss this action with leave to
amend. On July 16, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint containing substantially similar allegations and seeking
substantially similar relief as the first amended complaint.

On June 15, 2015, the court granted HP's motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint in its entirety and denied plaintiffs
leave to file another amended complaint. On July 2, 2015,
plaintiffs appealed the court's order to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

HP Inc. is a global provider of personal computing and other
access devices, imaging and printing products, and related
technologies, solutions and services. HP sells to individual
consumers, small and medium-sized businesses and large
enterprises, including customers in the government, health and
education sectors.


HP INC: Bids to Junk, Arbitrate in "Forsyth" Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
HP Inc. awaits rulings on its partial motion to dismiss and
motions to compel arbitration in the lawsuit initiated by Forsyth,
et al., according to the Company's March 2, 2017, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended January 31, 2017.

The lawsuit entitled Forsyth, et al. vs. HP Inc. and Hewlett
Packard Enterprise is a purported class and collective action
filed on August 18, 2016 in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California, against HP and Hewlett Packard
Enterprise alleging the defendants violated the Federal Age
Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act, California public policy and the
California Business and Professions Code by terminating older
workers and replacing them with younger workers. Plaintiffs seek
to certify a nationwide collective class action under the ADEA
comprised of all U.S. residents employed by defendants who had
their employment terminated pursuant to a workforce reduction
("WFR") plan on or after May 23, 2012 and who were 40 years of age
or older. Plaintiffs also seek to represent a Rule 23 class under
California law comprised of all persons 40 years or older employed
by defendants in the state of California and terminated pursuant
to a WFR plan on or after May 23, 2012.

Following a partial motion to dismiss, a motion to strike and a
motion to compel arbitration that the defendants filed in November
2016, the plaintiffs amended their complaint.  New plaintiffs were
added, but the plaintiffs agreed that the class period for the
nationwide collective action should be shortened and now starts on
December 9, 2014.

On January 30, 2017, the defendants filed another partial motion
to dismiss and motions to compel arbitration as to several of the
plaintiffs.

HP Inc. is a global provider of personal computing and other
access devices, imaging and printing products, and related
technologies, solutions and services. HP sells to individual
consumers, small and medium-sized businesses and large
enterprises, including customers in the government, health and
education sectors.


HP INC: Fifth Suit Over Authentication of Supplies Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in a consumer class action lawsuit filed against HP
Inc. arising out of the supplies authentication protocol in
certain OfficeJet printers voluntarily dismissed their compliant
without prejudice, according to the Company's March 2, 2017, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended January 31, 2017.

Five purported consumer class actions have been filed against HP,
arising out of the supplies authentication protocol in certain
OfficeJet printers.  This authentication protocol rejects some
third-party ink cartridges that use non-HP security chips.
Several of the cases have since been dismissed or consolidated,
and further consolidation is expected. All of the remaining cases
are proceeding in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

On September 23, 2016, Bayse v. HP, Inc. was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
alleging claims for injunctive relief, negligence and/or
wantonness, breach of warranty, and violations of the Sherman Act
- 15 U.S.C. Section 1, et seq.  Plaintiffs sought to certify a
class of all persons in the United States who purchased and/or
otherwise owned a printer manufactured and/or sold by HP in the
OfficeJet, OfficeJet Pro and/or OfficeJet Pro X line of printers,
any time between September 18, 2009 and September 18, 2016. On
December 15, 2016, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his complaint
without prejudice.

On September 28, 2016, Doty v. HP, Inc. was filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California
alleging claims for violations of California's False Advertising
Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500, et seq. and Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.
Plaintiffs added a claim under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750, et seq. on October 31, 2016.
Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of all United States citizens
who, between the applicable statute of limitations and the
present, had an HP printer that was modified to reject third
party-ink cartridges. On January 26, 2017, the Central District of
California granted the parties' stipulation to transfer the action
to the Northern District of California.

On October 7, 2016, San Miguel v. HP Inc. was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
alleging claims for violation of California's Unfair Competition
Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq. and for unjust
enrichment.  Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of all persons in
the United States who own one or more HP printer or device in any
of the following categories:  OfficeJet 6220 series; OfficeJet Pro
6230 series; OfficeJet 6820 series; OfficeJet Pro 6830 series;
OfficeJet 8600 series; and OfficeJet Pro X series.

On November 9, 2016, Ware v. HP Inc. was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
alleging claims for violation of California's Unfair Competition
Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq. and for unjust
enrichment.  Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of all persons in
the United States who own one or more HP printer or device in any
of the following categories:  OfficeJet 6220 series; OfficeJet Pro
6230 series; OfficeJet 6820 series; OfficeJet Pro 6830 series;
OfficeJet 8600 series; and OfficeJet Pro X series. On January 18,
2017, the Ware v. HP Inc. action was judicially consolidated with
the San Miguel v. HP Inc. action. The Doty v. HP, Inc. action has
been related to the consolidated San Miguel and Ware actions.

On January 11, 2017, Mullins v. HP Inc. was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
alleging claims for violations of California's Unfair Competition
Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq., California's
False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500, et
seq., and for unjust enrichment.  Plaintiffs seek to certify a
class of all persons in the United States who own an HP printer or
device in any of the following categories: OfficeJet 6220 series;
OfficeJet Pro 6230 series; OfficeJet Pro 6810 series; OfficeJet
Pro 6820 series; OfficeJet Pro 6830 series; OfficeJet 8600 series;
and OfficeJet Pro X series.  On February 16, 2017, plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed their compliant without prejudice.

HP Inc. is a global provider of personal computing and other
access devices, imaging and printing products, and related
technologies, solutions and services. HP sells to individual
consumers, small and medium-sized businesses and large
enterprises, including customers in the government, health and
education sectors.


INNOVATIVE HEALTH: Faces Pacific Suit in Cal. Over P-STIM Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Surgical Institute of Pain Management, Inc., and San Diego
Comprehensive Pain Management Center, Inc., on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Innovative Health Solutions, Inc., Acclivity Medical, LLC,
Corenexus, LLC, Medical Innovations, LLC, and Does 1-20,
inclusive, Case No. BC6533397 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 6, 2017), is
an action for damages as a result of the Defendants' practice of
conveying false information concerning how to bill for P-STIM
devices and related services to third party payors and health
insurers.

The P-STIM is a medical device for administering autonomic nervous
system and vascular stimulation.

The Defendants engaged in the business of marketing, selling and
distributing a medical device called P-STIM. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew D. Rifat, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MATTHEW D. RIFAT, APC
      3703 Camino del Rio South, Suite 200
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619)282-0185
      Facsimile: (619)282-0186


INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Kimpton Hotel Unit Faces Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action lawsuit was filed against a subsidiary of
InterContinental Hotels Group PLC alleging breach of implied
contract, among other allegations, InterContinental disclosed in
its March 2, 2017, Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

A claim was filed on September 20, 2016, against Kimpton Hotel and
Restaurant Group, LLC, seeking class action status and alleging
breach of implied contract, negligence, and deceptive business
practices related to an alleged data breach.

As of February 20, 2017, the Company says the likelihood of a
favorable or unfavorable result cannot be reasonably determined
and it is not possible to determine whether any loss is likely or
to make a reliable estimate of the possible financial effect of
any claims.


INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Sued Over Kimpton Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
InterContinental Hotels Group PLC is facing a class action lawsuit
arising from a breach of Kimpton guest payment card data,
according to the Company's March 2, 2017, Form 20-F filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

During the first half of 2016, the Group was notified of a
security incident at a number of Kimpton hotels that resulted in
unauthorized access to guest payment card data (the Kimpton
Security Incident). Based on the estimated number of cards
affected and opinion of external advisers, an amount of $5m has
been provided in the Financial Statements to cover the estimated
cost of reimbursing the impacted payment card networks for
counterfeit fraud losses and related expenses. This estimate
involves significant judgment based on currently available
information and is subject to change as actual claims are made and
new information becomes available.

In December 2016, the Group was notified of a security incident at
a number of hotels in The Americas region (the Americas Security
Incident). The Group issued a Substitute Notice on 3 February 2017
notifying guests that malware was installed on servers that
processed payment cards used at restaurants and bars of 12 IHG
managed properties. An investigation of other properties in The
Americas region is ongoing. It is not practicable to make a
reliable estimate of the possible financial effect of any claims
concerning the Americas Security Incident at this time.

The Group may be exposed to investigations regarding compliance
with applicable State and Federal data security standards,
although no claims have been received to date. In addition, the
Group is exposed to legal action from individuals and
organizations impacted by the security incidents. A class action
has been filed in the courts in relation to the Kimpton Security
Incident, although alleged damages have not been specified.

The Company says it is not practicable to make a reliable estimate
of the possible financial effect of any claims on the Group at
this time.

In respect of the $5m provided in the Financial Statements, it is
expected that a proportion will be recoverable under the Group's
insurance programs although this, together with any potential
recoveries in respect of the contingent liabilities, will be
subject to specific agreement with the relevant insurance
providers.


JELD-WEN INC: "Crane" Suit Moved to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jason Crane, an individual, on
behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Jeld-Wen, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Does
1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-02017-00004118-
CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-00455-L-WVG to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to Hon. Judge M. James Lorenz.

Jeld-Wen is an American corporation with over 100 divisions and
20,000 employees in the Americas, Europe, Asia and Australia. The
business manufactures building products, including windows,
interior and exterior doors, and related building products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander Isaac Dychter, Esq.
          DYCHTER LAW OFFICES, APC
          1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1835
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 487 0777
          Facsimile: (619) 330 1827
          E-mail: alex@dychterlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew E. Costello, Esq.
          Haynes and Boone
          600 Anton Blvd., Suite 700
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 202 3040
          Facsimile: (949) 202 3140
          E-mail: matthew.costello@haynesboone.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Plaintiff's Lawyer Disappointed Over Verdict
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that rebounding from a trio of courtroom defeats, Johnson &
Johnson scored a defense win on March 3 as a jury in Missouri
found its baby powder did not cause a Tennessee woman's ovarian
cancer.

The verdict, coming a month after trial began, is the first
defense win among talcum powder trials involving Johnson &
Johnson.  The company lost verdicts of $55 million, $70 million
and $72 million last year in Missouri.

"The jury's decision is consistent with the science, research,
clinical evidence and decades of studies by medical experts around
the world that continue to support the safety of cosmetic talc,"
said J&J spokeswoman Carol Goodrich.  New Jersey-based Johnson &
Johnson, previously represented by Shook Hardy & Bacon, also
brought in a new defense team led by Bart Williams and Manuel
Cachan of Proskauer Rose to handle the trial.

Lead plaintiffs attorney Ted Meadows, principal at Beasley, Allen,
Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles in Montgomery, Alabama, said he was
disappointed.  He noted that the case had been selected by the
defendants for trial.

"As always, we will learn from the experience of this trial, and
we are committed to carrying the fight forward with the legal
claims of thousands of innocent victims whose lives have been
shattered by ovarian cancer," he said.  "We look forward to the
upcoming trial in April, which has its own distinctive set of
claims and circumstances."

The jury also returned a defense verdict for Imerys Talc North
America.  Imerys spokeswoman Gwen Myers said in a statement:
"Imerys utilizes a rigorous set of proprietary safety procedures
in the production of talc, and we are confident that our talc is
safe.  This jury's finding validates that fact and reflects the
consensus of government agencies and professional scientific
organizations that talc is safe."

The trial involved Nora Daniels, 56, a resident of Columbia,
Tennessee, who alleges her use of Johnson & Johnson's baby powder
for 36 years caused her to be diagnosed with ovarian cancer in
2013.  Her cancer is now in remission following a hysterectomy and
five months of chemotherapy.

Johnson & Johnson joins a chorus of tort reformers nationwide that
have blamed Missouri's rules on expert testimony for a string of
losses last year in the 22nd Circuit Court in St. Louis, where
most of the 1,700 women with ovarian cancer have sued the
pharmaceutical firm.  Johnson & Johnson also tried to get the case
in the March 3 verdict removed to federal court just prior to
trial.


LARGAESPADA KITCHEN: "Chappa" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Paul Chappa, and others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Largaespada Kitchen Cabinet Corp., Edith Miranda and Andy W.
Largaespada, individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-60527,
(S.D. Fla., March 14, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs and such other and
further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a kitchen cabinet
installer, working an average of 48 hours a week on-the-clock and
an additional 6 off-the-clock hours a week, all without overtime
pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF EDDY O. MARBAN
      1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone (305) 448-9292
      Facsimile (305) 448-9477
      E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com


LG ELECTRONICS: "Chamberlain" Sues Over Defective Cellphones
------------------------------------------------------------
Meagan Chamberlain, Edward Pistorio, Laura Lane, and Rosalene
Mullins on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. and LG Electronics
Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-2046, (C.D.
Cal., March 14, 2017), seeks injunctive and equitable relief in
the form of repair of all affected LG Phones; replacement; actual
damages or restitution; statutory and/or civil penalties; pre-
judgment interest; reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and such
other or further relief for breach of implied and express
warranty, unjust enrichment and for violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, Unfair Competition Law of the California Business
and Professions Code, Washington Consumer Protection Act and the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Plaintiffs are consumers who purchased LG G4 and LG V10 cell
phones containing a defect that gives them a propensity to crash
and then reboot interminably, which renders the phones inoperable
and unfit for any use.

LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. is incorporated under Delaware law
while LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. is incorporated under
California law. Both maintain their principal place of business at
1000 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
      Jordan Elias, Esq.
      Simon S. Grille, Esq.
      GIRARD GIBBS LLP
      601 California Street, 14th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Tel: (415) 981-4800
      Email: dcg@girardgibbs.com
            je@girardgibbs.com
            sg@girardgibbs.com


LINEBARGER & GOGGAN: Sued in Cal. Over Debt Collection Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL CHAVEZ, an individual person, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LINEBARGER GOGGAN
BLAIR & SAMPSON, LLP, a foreign limited liability law partnership,
the Defendants, Case No. 30-2017-00907937-CU-MC-CXC (Cal. Super.
Ct., Mar. 10, 2017), seeks an award of up to $500,000 in statutory
damages plus statutory attorney fees and costs, all pursuant to
the relevant provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA).

On January 19, 2017, LLP sent Plaintiff a form of demand letter
(LLP Demand Letters) of a type which LLP regularly addresses to
consumers on behalf of many of LLP's clients. The LLP Demand
Letter identified LLP as consisting of "Attorneys at Law" who had
been "retained to resolve" a $103.20 debt allegedly owed by
Plaintiff to the Orange County Transportation Authority. It
demanded Plaintiff pay LLP that sum for the benefit of the Orange
County Transportation Authority. Having previously identified
itself as consisting of "Attorneys at Law," LLP also signed the
LLP Demand Letter as "Linebarger, Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP,"
thereby reinforcing the initial impression given by the LLP Demand
Letter's heading that the LLP Demand letter was one addressed to
Plaintiff by an attorney.

Linebarger & Goggan is one of the nation's biggest government debt
collectors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Michael Walsh, Esq.
WALSH & WALSH PC
420 Exchange No. 270
Irvine, CA 92602
Telephone: (714) 544 6609
E-mail: walshandwalsh@gmail.com

     - and -

Matthew Shier, Esq.
SHIERKATZ RLLP
930 Montgomery Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94133
Telephone: (415) 691 7027
E-mail: mshier@shierkatz.com

     - and -

William McGrane, Esq.
MCGRANE PC
Four Embarcadero Center, 14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415)292 4807
E-mail: william.mcgrane@mcgranepc.com


MANHATTAN BUSINESS: Sued in N.Y. Over Alleged Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matros Automated Electrical Construction Corp., on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. Manhattan Business
Interiors Inc. d/b/a MBI Group, Case No. 152142/2017 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., March 6, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for breach
of contract by failure to pay the sum of $60,543.00 for labor,
materials, equipment, work and services necessary for the
construction project known as NYU-Tisch Hall, 4th Floor, 44 West
4th Street, New York, New York.

Manhattan Business Interiors Inc. operates a construction company
located at 48 W 37th St #9, New York, NY 10018. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason L. Rothman, Esq.
      FORCHELLI, CURTO, DEEGAN, SCHWARTZ, MINEO & TERRANA, LLP
      333 Earle Ovington Boulevard, Suite 1010
      Uniondale, NY 11553
      Telephone: (516) 248-1700
      E-mail: jrothman@forchellilaw.com


MAUCAR USA: Faces "Torres" Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MAUCAR USA LLC. The
case is titled as MARIA TORRES, and other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, v. MAUCAR USA LLC, doing business as
ENJOY CAFE, a Florida Limited Liability Company; MAURO PEDUTTI,
individually; and DARIO PERETTI, individually, the Defendants,
Case No. 0:17-cv-60476-WPD (S.D. Fla., Mar. 6, 2017). The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge William P. Dimitrouleas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com


MAX MRI: Faces "Escarzaga" Suit over Rest & Meal Breaks
-------------------------------------------------------
JANETH ESCARZAGA, an individual, and YALISA NASARIO ESCARZAGA, an
individual, the Plaintiffs, v. MAX MRI IMAGING INC., a California
Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC651914 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 3, 2017), seeks to
recover damages, statutory penalties, attorney's fees, statutory
interest, and costs of suit under California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was not compensated for the hours spent traveling to
the different locations and she was only compensated once she
arrived to the facilities to begin work. Throughout her
employment, the Plaintiff did not have the opportunity to take
appropriate meal and rest breaks at appropriate times during her
shifts because Defendant MAX MRI was chronically understaffed and
she had to deal with a high volume of patients. The high volume of
patients mixed with patients running late or showing up late to
their appointments prevented P from taking meal or rest breaks
because she could not leave the front desk unattended, yet had to
constantly tend to Defendant MAX MRI's patients.

Max MRI was founded in 2003. The company's line of business
includes providing professional analytic or diagnostic services
for the medical profession.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          A. Jacob Nalbandyan, Esq.
          Ruben Limondzhyan, Esq.
          EMPLOYEES' LEGAL ADVOCATES, LLP
          811 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 232 4848
          Facsimile: (213) 232 4849
          E-mail: jnalbandyan@employeesla.com
                  rlimondzhyan@employeesla.com


MERRIMACK VALLEY: Sued in Mass. Over Medical Records Requests Fee
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Basher Aowda and all others similarly situated v. Merrimack Valley
Orthopaedic Associates, LLC, Case No. 17-0691 (Mass. Cmmw., March
6, 2017), arises out of the Defendant's unlawful practice of
charging an impermissible amount in connection with the
fulfillment of medical records requests.

Merrimack Valley Orthopaedic Associates, LLC is a medical services
provider that offers specialized services in orthopedic care. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John R. Yasi, Esq.
      Matthew T. LaMothe, Esq.
      FORREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOW, MCCULLOUGH, YASI & YASI, P.C.
      2 Salem Green, Suite 2
      Salem, MA 01970
      Telephone: (617) 231-782
      E-mail: jyasi@forrestlamothe.com


METRO HEALTH: "Carrafiello" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Janie Carrafiello, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Metro Health, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
6:17-cv-00465, (M.D. Fla., March 14, 2017), seeks to recover
overtime compensation, liquidated damages and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed as a medical assistant for Defendant, a
medical provider of geriatric medicine, a sub-specialty of
internal medicine, which focuses on the care and well-being of
elderly individuals and provides related medical care and
treatment. Their principal place of business is at 10025 E.
Colonial Drive, Orlando, Florida 32817. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 N. Orange Ave., 16th Floor
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Tel: (407) 420-1414
      Fax: (407) 245-3341
      Email: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MICHIGAN LOGISTICS: Faces "Gordon" Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Michigan Logistics,
Inc. The case is captioned as Ryan Gordon, on behalf of himself,
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Michigan
Logistics, Inc., Interamerican Motor Corporation, and California
Logistics, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. :17-cv-01802 (C.D. Cal.,
Mar. 6, 2017).

Interamerican Motor Corporation engages in the distribution of OE
quality imported replacement parts in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MILLWOOD INC: "Yu" Suit in Wis. Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Yu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Millwood, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-00324-NJ (E.D. Wis.,
March 6, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime
wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and other
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Millwood, Inc. manufactures and sells packaging and material
handling products such as pallets, crates, and stretch film. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
      Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
      Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
      222 East Erie Street, Suite 210
      P.O. Box 442
      Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
      Telephone: (414) 271-8650
      Facsimile: (4140 271-8442
      E-mails: ljohnson@hq-law.com
               smurshid@hq-law.com
               tmaynard@hq-law.com

MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Removal of Case to W.D. Mo.
---------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT HORTON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-
situated current citizens of Missouri, the Plaintiff, v.
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-
00174-JTM (W.D. Mo., Mar. 10, 2017), seeks removal of the action
from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

Plaintiff's petition alleges that the packaging of Toblerone
chocolate bars is deceptive because the packages have "extra space
in the gaps between the distinctive triangular prism shapes [of
the chocolate bar]. Based on those allegations, the petition
alleges claims for violation of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act, and unjust enrichment. The petition seeks
compensatory damages, disgorgement, restitution, rescission
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees on behalf of a putative
class consisting of all Missouri citizens who purchased Toblerone
chocolate bars since November 11, 2011.

Mondelez is an American multinational confectionery, food, and
beverage company based in Illinois which employs about 107,000
people around the world.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

James D. Griffin, Esq.
Michele F. Sutton, Esq.
SCHARNHORST AST KENNARD GRIFFIN, PC.
1100 Walnut, Suite 1950
Kansas City, MO 64106
Telephone: (816) 268 9402
Facsimile: (816) 268 9409
E-mail: jgriffin@sakg.com
        msutton@sakg.com


MOTHER'S MARKET: "Gutierrez" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
SIXTO GUTIERREZ, as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MOTHER'S MARKET & KITCHEN,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, the
Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00428 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 10, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and penalties under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Unfair Competition Law (UCL),
and the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an hourly non-exempt
employee. The Plaintiff was, and is, a victim of Defendants'
policies and/or practices, lost money and/or property, and has
been deprived of the rights guaranteed to him by the FLSA, Labor
Code, the UCL, and Wage Order, which sets employment standards for
the mercantile industry.

Mother's Market owns and operates supermarkets. The Company offers
organic fruits and vegetables, vitamins, minerals, amino acids,
and herbs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Paul K. Haines, Esq.
Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
2274 East Maple Ave.
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (424) 292 2350
Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
        fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: May 5 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that after years of
flagging problems in a $75 million settlement with the National
Collegiate Athletic Association and finally elbowing his way into
the case, Mr. Edelson is leading a new crop of class actions on
behalf of former college athletes with concussion-related
injuries.

The lawsuits, nearly 50 all filed in the past year, target schools
including the University of Texas, Florida State University and
Stanford University and have brought out an array of Big Law
defenders.  In the backdrop is a beef over class action strategy
that has set two big personalities of the plaintiffs bar against
each other.

To bring his slew of cases, Mr. Edelson, the charismatic founder
of Chicago's Edelson PC, duked it out in court against
Steve Berman, co-founder of Seattle-based plaintiffs powerhouse
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.  Mr. Berman, a veteran, was the lead
plaintiffs attorney in the NCAA settlement and Mr. Edelson
represented an objector claiming the settlement didn't compensate
class members with injuries.

The rift between the attorneys comes down to a highly disputed
area in class action law: Can a class action successfully be
certified on behalf of injured individuals -- in this case,
athletes with medical problems tied to brain trauma.  The issue is
important because class actions often promise much bigger payouts
at less cost than do individual personal injury cases.

Most plaintiffs lawyers, including Mr. Berman, insist that
personal injury class actions are hard to get certified because
they often involve different facts about each class member's
medical condition and circumstances surrounding their injuries.
That doesn't mean they never are successful but it's a difficult
and risky strategy to pursue.

In addition to the legal theories, there's a heap of money at
stake, which may explain why Messrs. Edelson and Berman aren't
mincing words.

"Steve is from a different era," said Mr. Edelson, whose cases
have involved cutting-edge claims and targeted Silicon Valley's
tech firms.  "We understand that this is a controversial area of
law, but we think that we've got very good arguments, and we're
looking forward to bringing them."

Mr. Berman has accused Mr. Edelson in court filings of "looking
for a pulpit, and not a courtroom."  Mr. Berman, whose firm also
has brought other cases involving injuries in baseball, soccer and
water polo, has experience on his side.

"I just don't see it happening," he said.  "The trend has always
been in in the last 20 years against certifying personal injury
claims, and I don't see that changing."

'We'll See Who's Right'

Concussion litigation on behalf of professional football players
settled four years ago through an agreement now valued at $1
billion.

The plan included hefty payouts to a class of 20,000 former
players, with potential compensation in the millions for those
diagnosed with severe illnesses tied to head injuries and for the
survivors of players who died prematurely as a result of brain
trauma.

Mr. Edelson, intervening in the NCAA case, argued that in contrast
to the NFL plan, the settlement negotiated by Mr. Berman had left
billions of dollars off the table because it included no
compensation for injured players and it would require them to
waive their right to be part of a future class action.
Mr. Edelson wanted a carve-out that would leave a path for players
with head trauma to pursue their own class actions.

In January 2016, a federal judge in Chicago gave preliminary
approval to the NCAA settlement but left a narrow pathway for
class action injury suits, so long as they were brought on behalf
of players for injuries "resulting from their participation in a
single NCAA-sanctioned sport at a single-NCAA member school."

"Such a putative class would still face substantial barriers to
certification," U.S. District Judge John Lee of the Northern
District of Illinois wrote, "but the record before the court does
not permit an evaluation of its merits."

Mr. Edelson, working with Sol Weiss of Philadelphia's Anapol
Weiss, who was co-lead counsel in the NFL settlement, took the
judge's playbook and ran with it. Now both lawyers are heading up
48 class actions coordinated into a new docket before Lee.

The suits name 14 athletic conferences and 13 schools and
universities.  Most involve football players.  One recent suit,
filed in late 2016, targets the University of Texas on behalf of
all individuals who participated in the school's football program
between 1952 and 2010.  The widow of a former UT football player
who died at 54 from early onset Alzheimer's disease is a named
plaintiff.

The cases assert the NCAA and the school or conference were
negligent and breached their duties to class members to provide a
safe sports environment despite decades of studies linking
concussions to long-term brain injuries like dementia, Parkinson's
disease and chronic traumatic encephalopathy.

"The individual stories they tell is really heartbreaking," said
Mr. Edelson, who has filed most of the cases.  "People's lives
have been upended by the fact that they suffered concussions, were
forced to continue playing.  Their scholarships would be pulled if
they didn't play through the pain.  Now, many class members unable
to hold down jobs are suffering terrible effects from concussions
relating to problems focusing to constant pain to depression."

It's unclear how big the classes are in each case.  But the new
cases have expanded the legal defense team by naming individual
schools and athletic conferences.  The NCAA is represented by
Latham & Watkins, which handled the original settlement.  Jones
Day is lead defense counsel for the schools, while Mayer Brown has
been retained by the athletic conferences.

Mr. Berman doubts the new class actions will get any traction.  He
accused Edelson of pursuing a misguided legal strategy in hopes of
getting a repeat of the NFL settlement.

"I think that Jay Edelson thought that if there's a big [personal
injury] class brought, that the NCAA would pony up NFL-type
money," Mr. Berman said.

Mr. Edelson's response is unabashed: "That's right."

"We think there's a lot of value in these cases," he said.  "And
we'll see who's right."

Roadmap to $1 Billion?

Mr. Berman filed the first case against the NCAA in 2011.  He was
two years into discovery when both sides started to discuss a
settlement under which the NCAA agreed to provide medical
monitoring to an estimated 4.2 million class members who had
played all kinds of sports, not just those in football.  The
settlement also contained injunctive relief that changed the way
concussions were handled at NCAA schools.

Mr. Edelson intervened on behalf of Anthony Nichols, a former
San Diego State University football player.  Among other things,
Mr. Edelson claimed the "mess of a settlement" had abandoned any
avenue for class members to seek damages for personal injuries. He
pushed to eliminate a provision in the deal that forced class
members to waive their right to bring class actions over their
injuries.  And he twice sought a seat on the leadership team, and
was denied, but was appointed "lead objector."

In 2014, Judge Lee rejected approval of the NCAA deal, but for
different reasons.  Among other things, he questioned how lawyers
planned to notify every class member about the settlement and
raised concerns that those who played noncontact sports weren't
adequately represented in the settlement.  He asked for further
briefing on the personal injury class action dispute.

In their responses, both sides looked to the NFL settlement, which
included payouts to thousands of class members with personal
injuries.  Despite that case, Mr. Berman maintained that the NCAA
cases had different circumstances and, besides, the settlement
still allowed class members to bring individual injury suits.

"You can't look at what the NFL did and say, 'Aha! Here is a
roadmap to get $1 billion from the NCAA,'" Mr. Berman said.

Mr. Edelson said the NFL case is, at its core, the same and that
the NCAA, by insisting on the waiver, was trying to avoid paying
billions of dollars.

After the January 2016 order carved out a path for some personal
injury class actions, Mr.  Edelson assisted in negotiations to get
the waiver out of the settlement for good.  Lee preliminarily
approved the final settlement six months later.  A hearing on
final approval of the settlement is set for May 5.

Two months ago, Mr. Edelson, claiming his efforts added $50
million in value to the class, filed a motion for $6 million in
attorney fees. Berman and 11 other firms on the leadership team,
including co-lead counsel Joseph Siprut of Chicago's Siprut PC,
want $15 million.

The judge has asked for billing records, which could end up
sparking a new battle for fees.

Mr. Edelson said his focus is now on the new cases, and he
predicted that more cases would be filed. Lee has asked both sides
to come up with sample cases this month.

"We believe, and we'll see how the litigation goes over the next
five to 10 years, that through our litigation class members will
recover historic amounts of money," Mr.  Edelson said.  "We'll see
if we're right."


NATIONAL CONSUMER: Sued Over Credit Reporting Act Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
PIERS BLEWITT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL CONSUMER TELECOM
& UTILITIES EXCHANGE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-01275-
JSC (N.D. Cal., Mar. 10, 2017), seeks to recover statutory and
punitive damages as a result of Defendant's violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

NCTUE routinely violates the rights of consumers who notify it
that they dispute the accuracy of information in NCTUE's files.

The Defendant is a credit reporting agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Stephanie R. Tatar, Esq.
Tatar Law Firm, APC
3500 West Olive Ave., No. 300
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: (323) 744 1146
Facsimile: (888) 778 5695
E-mail: Stephanie@TheTatarLawFirm.Com

     - and -

James A. Francis, Esq.
John Soumilas, Esq.
FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
Land Title Building, 19th Floor
100 South Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19110
Telephone: (215) 735 8600
Facsimile: (215) 940 8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com

     - and -

Robert S. Sola, Esq.
ROBERT S. SOLA, P.C.
1500 SW First Avenue, Suite 800
Portland OR 97201
Telephone: (503) 295 6880
Facsimile: (503) 243 4546
E-mail: rssola@msn.com

     - and -

James M. Feagle, Esq.
SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
2374 Main Street, Suite B
Tucker, GA 30084
Telephone: (404) 373 1970
Facsimile: (404) 601 1855
E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com


NEXT LEVEL: Faces "Orozco" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Floriselda Orozco and Marfilia M. Orozco, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Next Level Home Cleaning Services, Inc.,
Next Level Nationwide Corporation, and Edgar Rodriguez, Case No.
604586/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 6, 2017), arises out of the
Defendants' practice of unlawfully compensating their employees at
an hourly rate lower than the minimum wage required by Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a house cleaning service company in Great
Neck Plaza, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Tompkins, Esq.
      Brett Cohen, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550


NISSAN NORTH: Faces Suit in Calif. for Invasion of Privacy
----------------------------------------------------------
Dave Vaccaro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nissan North America, Inc., and Does 1 through 100,
Case No. BC653385 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 6, 2017), is an action
for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Nissan
and its related entities, subsidiaries and agents in willfully
employing and causing to be employed certain recording equipment
in order to record the telephone conversations of the Plaintiff
without the knowledge or consent of the Plaintiff, thereby
invading his privacy.

Nissan North America, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures, and
markets Nissan and Infiniti vehicles in the United States, Canada,
and Mexico. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com

NOOR HOME: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Wells" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Wells, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Noor Home Health Care LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-00453
(N.D. Ohio, March 6, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay non-exempt home health aides, overtime compensation
at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay
for the hours they worked over 40 each workweek.

Noor Home Health Care LLC operates a home health care business
located at 2490 Lee Blvd #110, Cleveland Heights, OH 44118. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
      THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
      920 Rockefeller Building
      614 W. Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 696-5000
      Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
      E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
              chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
              lori@lazzarolawfirm.com


NOODLES & CO: Illinois Court Approves Settlement in FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Noodles & Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended January 3, 2017, that the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois has approved its settlement to
resolve a class action lawsuit brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Company said: "As we reported in our Quarterly Reports on Form
10-Q for the quarters ended March 29, 2016, June 28, 2016 and
September 27, 2016, Carrie Castillo, Anastassia Letourneau and
Jacquelyn Myhre, former employees of the Company, filed a
purported collective and class action lawsuit against us on March
10, 2016 alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Illinois and Minnesota wage laws (the "Labor Laws") in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
("Castillo Litigation"). The plaintiffs filed the case on their
behalf and on behalf of all assistant general managers employed by
us since January 5, 2013 whom we classified as exempt employees,
and they allege that we violated the Labor Laws by not paying
overtime compensation to our assistant general managers. The
plaintiffs were seeking, on behalf of themselves and members of
the putative class, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages and available penalties under applicable state laws, a
declaratory judgment, an injunction and attorneys' fees and
costs."

"In the third quarter of 2016, we and the plaintiffs in the
litigation agreed in principle to settle the litigation. To cover
the estimated costs of the settlement, including estimated
payments to any opt-in members and class attorneys, as well as
related settlement administration costs, we recorded a charge of
$3.0 million in 2016. The charge was recorded in general and
administrative expenses in our unaudited condensed consolidated
statements of operations and in accrued expenses and other current
liabilities in our unaudited condensed consolidated balance
sheets. The settlement has been approved by the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois."

Noodles & Company is a restaurant concept offering lunch and
dinner within the fast casual segment of the restaurant industry.
The Company opened its first location in Denver, Colorado, in
1995, offering noodle and pasta dishes, staples of many cuisines,
with the goal of delivering fresh ingredients and flavors from
around the world under one roof.  Today, the Company's globally
inspired menu includes a wide variety of high quality, cooked-to-
order dishes, including noodles and pasta, soups, salads and
appetizers, which are served on china by the Company's friendly
team members.


NOODLES & CO: "Selco" Data Security Class Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The purported class action lawsuit filed by Selco Community Credit
Union arising from a data security incident in 2016 remains
pending, Noodles & Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended January 3, 2017.

The Company said: "On June 28, 2016, we announced that a data
security incident compromised the security of the payment
information of some customers who used debit or credit cards at
certain Noodles & Company locations between January 31, 2016 and
June 2, 2016. In addition to claims by payment card companies with
respect to the data security incident, we are the defendant in a
purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado, Selco Community Credit Union vs.
Noodles & Company, alleging that we negligently failed to provide
adequate security to protect the payment card information of
customers of the plaintiffs and those of other similarly situated
credit unions, banks and other financial institutions alleged to
be part of the putative class, causing those institutions to
suffer financial losses (the "Selco Litigation")."

"The complaint in the Selco Litigation also claims we were
negligent per se based on alleged violations of Section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission Act, and it seeks monetary damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees."

"We intend to vigorously defend the Selco Litigation. We cannot
reasonably estimate the range of potential losses that will be
associated with the Selco Litigation because it is at an early
stage. We also cannot assure you that we will not become subject
to other inquiries or claims, such as claims brought by customers,
relating to the data security incident in the future."

"Although we maintain data security liability insurance, and
certain fees and costs associated with this data security incident
and the Selco Litigation to date have been paid or reimbursed by
our data security liability insurer, we currently believe that it
is possible that the ultimate amount paid by us, if we are
unsuccessful in defending this litigation, with respect to the
Selco Litigation will be in excess of the limits of our data
security liability insurance coverage applicable to claims of this
nature."

Noodles & Company is a restaurant concept offering lunch and
dinner within the fast casual segment of the restaurant industry.
The Company opened its first location in Denver, Colorado, in
1995, offering noodle and pasta dishes, staples of many cuisines,
with the goal of delivering fresh ingredients and flavors from
around the world under one roof.  Today, the Company's globally
inspired menu includes a wide variety of high quality, cooked-to-
order dishes, including noodles and pasta, soups, salads and
appetizers, which are served on china by the Company's friendly
team members.


NORTHERN OIL: Continues to Defend "Fries" Class Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Oil and Gas, Inc., continues to defend itself against a
securities class action lawsuit commenced by Jeffrey Fries in New
York, the Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

On August 18, 2016, plaintiff Jeffrey Fries, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the company, Michael Reger
(the Company's former chief executive officer), and Thomas Stoelk
(the Company's chief financial officer and interim chief executive
officer) as defendants.  The complaint purports to bring a federal
securities class action on behalf of a class of persons who
acquired the company's securities between March 1, 2013 and August
15, 2016, and seeks to recover damages caused by defendants'
alleged violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Northern Oil and Gas, Inc., is an independent energy company
engaged in the acquisition, exploration, development and
production of oil and natural gas properties, primarily in the
Bakken and Three Forks formations within the Williston Basin in
North Dakota and Montana.


OVASCIENCE INC: Parties in Massachusetts Class Suit in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the purported class action lawsuit pending in
Massachusetts are currently engaged in discovery, according to
OvaScience, Inc.'s March 2, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company said: "On October 9, 2015, a purported class action
lawsuit was filed in the Suffolk County Superior Court in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts against us, several of our officers
and directors and certain of the underwriters from our January
2015 follow-on public offering of our common stock. The plaintiffs
purport to represent those persons who purchased shares of our
common stock pursuant or traceable to our January 2015 follow-on
public offering. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that
the Company defendants made false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose material information in the Company's January
2015 Registration Statement and incorporated offering materials.
Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seek, among other relief,
unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, pre-and post-
judgment interest and fees, costs and disbursements."

"On December 7, 2015, the OvaScience defendants filed a notice of
removal with the Federal District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.  On December 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion to
remand the action to the Superior Court. Oral argument on the
motion to remand was held on February 19, 2016. On February 23,
2016, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand the
action to the Superior Court. On February 26, 2016, a second
putative class action suit was filed in the Suffolk County
Superior Court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts against the
Company, several of our officers and directors and certain of the
underwriters from the January 2015 follow-on public offering. The
complaint is substantially similar to the complaint filed in
October 2015."

"The two actions subsequently were consolidated and plaintiffs
filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint on June 17, 2016.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. Those motions
were denied by order dated December 22, 2016. The parties
currently are engaged in discovery."

"We believe that the complaint is without merit and intend to
defend against the litigation. There can be no assurance, however,
that we will be successful. A resolution of this lawsuit adverse
to the Company or the other defendants could have a material
effect on our consolidated financial position and results of
operations in the period in which the lawsuit is resolved. At
present, we are unable to estimate potential losses, if any,
related to the lawsuit."

OvaScience, Inc., is a global fertility company developing
proprietary potential treatments for female infertility based on
scientific discoveries about the existence of egg precursor, or
EggPC(SM), cells.


PATRIOT NATIONAL: "Gingello" Sues Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------
Anthony L. Gingello, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Patriot National, Inc., Steven
M. Mariano and Thomas C. Shields, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01866 (S.D. N.Y., March 14, 2017) seeks compensatory damages,
reasonable costs and expenses incurred, including counsel fees and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Securities
and Exchange Act.

Patriot National provides technology-enabled insurance and
employer solutions, principally offering front-end services, such
as brokerage, underwriting and policyholder services, and back-end
services, such as claims adjudication and administration.

On August 1, 2016, the Company issued a press release announcing
that a Special Committee of its Board of Directors had agreed to
consider an enhanced offer for a potential acquisition by Ebix,
Inc., a supplier of On-Demand software and E-commerce services to
the insurance, financial, e-governance and healthcare industries.

According to the complaint, Defendants failed to disclose that the
special committee did not independently asses the merits of the
Ebix transaction and did not explore strategic alternatives in
order to maximize shareholder value thus resulting in decline in
the market value of the Company's securities. Investors, including
the Plaintiff, lost substantially. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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


PHELAN HALLINAN: Appeal Filed in Pa. Sup. Ct. in "Johnson" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edella Johnson (A/K/A Edella Robinson A/K/A Edella Robinson
Johnson) , Eric Johnson,individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated former and current homeowners in Pennsylvania.
Appellants, the Plaintiffs, v. Phelan Hallinan & Schmieg, LLP, the
Defendants, Case No. 359-WDA-2017 (Pa. Sup. Ct., March 6, 2017),
is an appeal filed before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania from
a lower court decision in a class action, Case No. GD-12-005395
(Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, Feb 28, 2017).[BN]


RIO TINTO: Defends Class Suit in New York Over Simandou Payments
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rio Tinto plc is defending a purported class action lawsuit in New
York, according to the Company's March 2, 2017, Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2016.

On November 9, 2016, Rio Tinto announced that, following an
investigation led by external counsel, it had notified or was in
the course of notifying the relevant authorities in the United
States, United Kingdom and Australia of information concerning
contractual payments totaling US$10.5 million made to a consultant
who had provided advisory services on the Simandou project in
Guinea. Rio Tinto is cooperating fully with each of the relevant
authorities.

On December 12, 2016, a class action was also filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Rio Tinto plc and certain of its current and former
directors in connection with the Simandou payments.


ROMERO'S FOOD: "Navarro" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS NAVARRO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
the Plaintiff, v. ROMERO'S FOOD PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED; and DOES
1-100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No BC652842. (Cal. Super.
Ct., Mar. 3, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages for all hours
worked at minimum wage due to Defendants' policy, practice, and
procedure of "rounding down" or "shaving down" employees' daily
hours worked and deducting 15 minutes from employees' daily hours
worked in the event they clocked in late for their shift , under
the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff and similarly situated hourly non-exempt employees
worked more minutes per shift than Defendants Credited them with
having worked. Specifically, Defendants employed a policy,
practice, and/or procedure whereby they "rounded down" or "shaved
down" their employees' daily hours worked to the nearest quarter
of an hour. Plaintiff and others similarly situated were not paid
for this time. Defendants' policy, practice, and/or procedure
resulted in time during each workday which Plaintiff and similarly
situated employees were under control of Defendants but were not
compensated.

Romero's Food offers a complete line of fresh and flavorful
traditional Mexican style tortillas, wraps, chips, premium quality
and traditional bakery items.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Vincent C. Granberry, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432 0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432 0001


SAKS & COMPANY: Sued in N.Y. Over Unlawful Wage Deduction Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amra Divljanovic, Ramses Carranza, Mark Askew, Nora Lajqi, Rina
Toledano, Marvin K. Blakes, and Juanita V. Parks, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Saks & Company d/b/a
Saks Fifth Avenue, Case No. 152134/2017 (N.Y. Sup. March 6, 2017),
arises out of the Defendants' wage deduction policy of requiring
reduction of sales employees' accrued wages when customers
returned items without the receipt; when items were purchased in
one location and returned at another; when the identity of the
person who originally sold the item was unknown; and other such
unexplained returns.

Saks & Company d/b/a Saks Fifth Avenue operates a luxury
department store located at 611 5th Avenue, New York, NY 10022.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Avsharamov, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Telephone: (718) 263-9591


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Opposes Bid to Certify Class in "Deka" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that it filed an
opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion to certify proposed classes
in the Deka Lawsuit.

On August 26, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, captioned Steck v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings
Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-06942 (the Deka Lawsuit). On October 6,
2014, another purported securities class action lawsuit was filed
in the District Court of Dallas County, State of Texas, captioned
Kumar v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings, et al., No. DC-14-11783,
which was subsequently removed to the United States District
Court, Northern District of Texas, and re-captioned Kumar v.
Santander Consumer USA Holdings, et al., No. 3:14-CV-3746 (the
Kumar Lawsuit).

Both the Deka Lawsuit and the Kumar Lawsuit were brought against
the Company, certain of its current and former directors and
executive officers and certain institutions that served as
underwriters in the Company's IPO on behalf of a class consisting
of those who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities
between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014. In February 2015, the
Kumar Lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. In June
2015, the venue of the Deka Lawsuit was transferred to the United
States District Court, Northern District of Texas. In September
2015, the court granted a motion to appoint lead plaintiffs and
lead counsel, and the Deka Lawsuit is now captioned Deka
Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et
al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K.

The amended class action complaint in the Deka Lawsuit alleges
that our Registration Statement and Prospectus and certain
subsequent public disclosures contained misleading statements
concerning the Company's ability to pay dividends and the adequacy
of the Company's compliance systems and oversight. The amended
complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks
damages and other relief. On December 18, 2015, the Company and
the individual defendants moved to dismiss the amended class
action complaint, and on June 13, 2016, the motion to dismiss was
denied.

On December 2, 2016, the plaintiffs moved to certify the proposed
classes, and on February 17, 2017, the Company filed an opposition
to the plaintiffs' motion to certify the proposed classes.

Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation, is
the holding company for Santander Consumer USA Inc., an Illinois
corporation, and subsidiaries, a specialized consumer finance
company focused on vehicle finance and third-party servicing.  The
Company's primary business is the indirect origination and
securitization of retail installment contracts principally through
manufacturer-franchised dealers in connection with their sale of
new and used vehicles to retail consumers.


SANTANDER CONSUMER: "Parmelee" Plaintiffs Amend Class Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the consolidated "Parmelee" class action lawsuit
filed an amended complaint alleging that Santander Consumer USA
Holdings Inc. made false or misleading statements, among other
allegations, according to the Company's March 2, 2017, Form 10-K/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On March 18, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of
Texas, captioned Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.
et al., No. 3:16-cv-783 (the Parmelee Lawsuit). On April 4, 2016,
another purported securities class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court, Northern District of Texas,
captioned Benson v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al.,
No. 3:16-cv-919 (the Benson Lawsuit). Both the Parmelee Lawsuit
and the Benson Lawsuit were filed against the Company and certain
of its current and former directors and executive officers on
behalf of a class consisting of all those who purchased or
otherwise acquired our securities between February 3, 2015 and
March 15, 2016. On May 25, 2016, the Benson Lawsuit was
consolidated into the Parmelee Lawsuit, with the consolidated case
captioned as Parmelee v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et
al., No. 3:16-cv-783. On December 20, 2016, the plaintiffs filed
an amended class action complaint.

The amended class action complaint in the Parmelee Lawsuit alleges
that the Company made false or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts, in prior Annual and
Quarterly Reports filed under the Exchange Act and certain other
public disclosures, in connection with, among other things, the
Company's change in its methodology for estimating its allowance
for credit losses and correction of such allowance for prior
periods in, among other public disclosures, the Company's Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
30, 2016, and the Company's amended filings for prior reporting
periods. The amended class action complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and seeks damages and other relief.

Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation, is
the holding company for Santander Consumer USA Inc., an Illinois
corporation, and subsidiaries, a specialized consumer finance
company focused on vehicle finance and third-party servicing.  The
Company's primary business is the indirect origination and
securitization of retail installment contracts principally through
manufacturer-franchised dealers in connection with their sale of
new and used vehicles to retail consumers.


SFS DEPOT: "Chang" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------
Qun Feng Chang, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SFS Depot Inc., Jing Mei
Design Group Inc., Long G. Lin, Long Quan Lin, "John" (First Name
Unknown) Lin Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01369 (E.D.N.Y., Mar.
10, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Defendants allegedly failed to pay the Collective Action
Members overtime wages for all hours worked 40 each workweek in
violation of the FLSA.

Defendants knew that the nonpayment of minimum wage, overtime pay,
spread of hours pay, unlawful deduction of wages, and failure to
provide the required wage notice at the time of hiring would
financially injure Plaintiff and similarly situated employees and
violate state and federal laws.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Jian Hang, Esq.
HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC.
136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
Flushing, NY 11354
Telephone: (718) 353 8588
E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


SIERRA ONCOLOGY: Defends Securities Class Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Oncology, Inc., is defending a purported securities class
action lawsuit in New York, according to the Company's March 2,
2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On November 9, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company and certain of its
executive officers. The lawsuit was brought by purported
stockholders of the Company seeking to represent a class
consisting of stockholders who purchased stock between July 15,
2015 and June 6, 2016. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks
unspecified damages and other relief.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to defend the lawsuit vigorously. It is possible that additional
similar lawsuits could be filed. Due to the early stage of the
litigation, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this
matter and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount
or range of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable
outcome.

Sierra Oncology, Inc. is a clinical stage drug development company
advancing targeted therapeutics for the treatment of patients with
cancer.


SIERRA ONCOLOGY: Defends Two Securities Class Suits in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Oncology, Inc., is defending two securities class action
lawsuits initiated in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Mateo, the Company said in its
Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 2, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On November 18, 2016, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of San Mateo against the Company, certain of its executive
officers and directors, and the underwriters for the Company's IPO
of its common stock. On February 9, 2017, a substantially
identical putative class action suit was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo
asserting the same claims on behalf of the same putative class.
The lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of the Company
seeking to represent a class consisting of stockholders who
purchased stock pursuant to and/or traceable to the Company's
Registration Statement on Form S-1. The lawsuits assert claims
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and seek unspecified damages and other relief.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to defend the lawsuits vigorously. It is possible that additional
similar lawsuits could be filed. Due to the early stage of the
litigation, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these
cases and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or
range of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable
outcome.

Sierra Oncology, Inc. is a clinical stage drug development company
advancing targeted therapeutics for the treatment of patients with
cancer.


STAAR SURGICAL: "Todd" Class Suit Remains Pending in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action lawsuit initiated by Edward Todd remains
pending in California, according to STAAR Surgical Company's March
2, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2016.

On July 8, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed by Edward Todd against STAAR and three officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California. The
plaintiff claims that STAAR made misleading statements to and
omitted material information from the Company's investors between
February 27, 2013 and June 30, 2014 about alleged regulatory
violations at STAAR's Monrovia manufacturing facility. On October
20, 2014, plaintiff amended its complaint, dismissed two Company
officers, added one other officer, reduced the alleged Class
Period to November 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014, and demanded
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees.

On January 5, 2017, the court granted plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification.

Although the ultimate outcome of this action cannot be determined
with certainty, the Company believes that the allegations in the
Complaint are without merit. The Company says it intends to
vigorously defend itself against this lawsuit. The Company has not
recorded any loss or accrual in the accompanying condensed
consolidated financial statements at December 30, 2016 and January
1, 2016 for this matter as the likelihood and amount of loss, if
any, has not been determined and is not currently estimable.

STAAR Surgical Company designs, develops, manufactures, and sells
implantable lenses for the eye and delivery systems used to
deliver the lenses into the eye.  The Company is a manufacturer of
lenses used worldwide in corrective or "refractive" surgery.


STATE STREET: Three Firms Admit to Overbilling in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that three
law firms -- Labaton Sucharow; Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein;
and Thornton Law Firm -- have admitted they double counted hours
in a securities class action suit against State Street Bank that
netted them $75 million, and have agreed to pay up to $2 million
to cover the cost of an investigation into whether they
overcharged for their work.

At a hearing in Boston federal court on March 7, U.S. District
Judge Mark Wolf reportedly appointed Gerald Rosen, a recently
retired federal judge, to conduct a probe of the plaintiffs firms'
fee request in connection with a $300 million settlement of
securities claims against State Street.

Judge Wolf's appointment of Mr. Rosen as special master was
reported earlier by the Boston Globe, which has published a series
of articles raising questions about political donations made by
lawyers at Thornton, as well as whether plaintiffs lawyers in the
State Street case inflated their billing rate estimates while
asking for legal fees.

The underlying litigation accused State Street, defended by Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, of overcharging pension fund clients
in connection with foreign currency trades.  The $300 million
settlement secured final approval in early November, with the
judge also signing off on $74.5 million in attorney fees and an
additional $1.26 million in expenses.

Lawrence Sucharow of Labaton confirmed on March 8 that his firm,
Lieff Cabraser and Thornton Law, have all agreed to provide up to
$2 million to cover Mr. Rosen's work on the investigation into the
firms' fee request.  Mr. Sucharow said in an email that the class
representative in the case made a statement in court on March 7
"strongly supporting the fee petition, and expressing his deep
appreciation for the work of class counsel."

"We look forward to working with the special master to resolve any
questions relating to the fees awarded for achieving a $300
million recovery for the class in this case," Mr. Sucharow said.
The special master appointment comes in light of a letter that
Labaton sent to Wolf in November, in which the firm acknowledged
"inadvertent errors" in declarations that the three firms had
submitted to report their billed hours on the case as part of the
fee request.

The mistakes related to "staff attorneys" who were paid on an
hourly basis and worked temporarily for the three firms, primarily
doing document review.  Labaton said that hours worked by 17 of
these staff attorneys were counted in both the Labaton and
Thornton reports accompanying the fee request, while hours worked
by six other staff attorneys were counted on both Thornton's and
Lieff Cabraser's reports.

The double counting led the firms to overstate the time worked by
more than 9,000 hours, which amounted to billing an additional
$4.1 million, according to Labaton's letter.  The firm maintained
that even with the mistakes, the plaintiffs' total fee of about
$75 million remained reasonable.

The judge, however, ordered more of an inquiry. Citing the Labaton
letter and a Boston Globe article published in December about the
firms' fee request, Mr. Wolf in February issued an order that said
he'd like to bring Mr. Rosen in as a special master to
investigate.

"The acknowledged double-counting of hours by staff attorneys and
the matters discussed in the article raise broader questions about
the accuracy and reliability of the representations plaintiffs'
counsel made in their calculation of the lodestar generally," Mr.
Wolf wrote in the Feb. 6 opinion.  "These questions -- which at
this time are only questions -- also now cause the court to be
concerned about whether the award of almost $75,000,000 in
attorneys' fees was reasonable."


STONERIDGE INC: Awaits Ruling on Verde's Bid for Reconsideration
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stoneridge, Inc., awaits ruling on Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration and objection relating to the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation for the denial of class certification,
the Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 2, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company has a legal proceeding, Verde v. Stoneridge, Inc. et
al., currently pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, Cause No. 6:14-cv-00225- KNM.  The
plaintiff filed this putative class action against the Company and
others on March 26, 2014.  Plaintiff alleges that the Company was
involved in the vertical chain of manufacture, distribution, and
sale of a control device ("CD") that was incorporated into a Dodge
Ram truck purchased by Plaintiff in 2006.  Plaintiff alleges that
the Company breached express warranties and indemnification
provisions by supplying a defective CD that was not capable of
performing its intended function.  The putative class consists of
all Texas residents who own manual transmission Chrysler vehicles
model years 1997-2007 equipped with the subject CD.  Plaintiff
seeks recovery of economic loss damages incurred by him and the
putative class members associated with inspecting and replacing
the allegedly defective CD, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff filed his motion for class certification seeking to
certify a class of Texas residents who own or lease certain
automobiles sold by Chrysler from 1997-2007.  Plaintiff alleges
this putative class would include approximately 120,000 people.
In the motion for class certification, the Plaintiff states that
damages are no more than $1 per person.

A hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification was held
on November 16, 2015. On April 8, 2016, the Magistrate Judge
granted the Company's motion for partial summary judgment
dismissing the Plaintiff's indemnification claim; that ruling was
later adopted by the United States District Court. On November 7,
2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation
Concerning Class certification, in which she recommended denying
Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Plaintiff filed an
objection to the Report and Recommendation and motion for
reconsideration concerning class certification. The Magistrate's
Report and Recommendation, and plaintiff's objection and motion
for reconsideration are currently before the court pending a
ruling from the District Judge.

The Company believes the likelihood of loss is not probable or
reasonably estimable, and therefore no liability has been recorded
for these claims at December 31, 2016.

Founded in 1965, Stoneridge, Inc., is a global designer and
manufacturer of highly engineered electrical and electronic
components, modules and systems for the automotive, commercial,
motorcycle, off-highway and agricultural vehicle markets.


STONERIDGE INC: Continues to Defend "Royal" Suit in Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------------
Stoneridge, Inc., continues to defend itself against a putative
class action lawsuit pending in Oklahoma, according to the
Company's March 2, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2016.

Royal v. Stoneridge, Inc. et al. is another legal proceeding
currently pending in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma, Cause No. 5:14-cv-01410-F.
Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against the Company,
Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc., and others on December 19, 2014.
Plaintiff alleges that the Company was involved in the vertical
chain of manufacture, distribution, and sale of a CD that was
incorporated into Dodge Ram trucks purchased by Plaintiff between
1999 and 2006.  Plaintiffs allege that the Company and Stoneridge
Control Devices, Inc. breached various express and implied
warranties, including the implied warranty of merchantability.
Plaintiffs also seek indemnity from the Company and Stoneridge
Control Devices, Inc.

The putative class consists of all owners of vehicles equipped
with the subject CD, which includes various Dodge Ram trucks and
other manual transmission vehicles manufactured from 1997-2007,
which Plaintiffs allege is more than one million vehicles.
Plaintiffs seeks recovery of economic loss damages associated with
inspecting and replacing the allegedly defective CD, diminished
value of the subject CDs and the trucks in which they were
installed, and attorneys' fees and costs.  The amount of
compensatory or other damages sought by Plaintiffs and the
putative class members is unknown. The Company is vigorously
defending itself against these allegations, and has and will
continue to challenge the claims as well as class action
certification.

The Company believes the likelihood of loss is not probable or
reasonably estimable, and therefore no liability has been recorded
for these claims at December 31, 2016.

Founded in 1965, Stoneridge, Inc., is a global designer and
manufacturer of highly engineered electrical and electronic
components, modules and systems for the automotive, commercial,
motorcycle, off-highway and agricultural vehicle markets.


SUNOPTA INC: "De Jesus" Class Suit Parties in Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a wage and hour class action lawsuit pending in
California are currently engaged in pre-class certification
discovery, according to SunOpta Inc.'s March 2, 2017, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In April 2013, a class-action complaint, in the case titled De
Jesus, et al. v. Frozsun, Inc. d/b/a Frozsun Foods, alleging
various wage and hour violations was filed against Sunrise
Growers, Inc. (then named Frozsun, Inc.) in California Superior
Court, Santa Barbara County seeking damages, equitable relief and
reasonable attorneys' fees. This case includes claims for failure
to pay all hours worked, failure to pay overtime wages, meal and
rest period violations, waiting-time penalties, improper wage
statements and unfair business practices. The putative class
includes approximately 8,500 to 9,000 non-exempt hourly employees
from Sunrise's production facilities in Santa Maria and Oxnard,
California. The parties are currently engaged in pre-class
certification discovery.

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

The Company says it is unable to estimate any potential
liabilities relating to this proceeding, and any such liabilities
could be material.

SunOpta Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Canada in
1973, is a leading global company operating businesses focused on
a healthy products portfolio that promotes sustainable well-being.
The Company is focused on sourcing non-genetically modified and
organic ingredients, and manufacturing healthy food and beverage
products.  The Company manufactures packaged products focused on
the high growth healthy beverages, healthy fruit and healthy
snacks categories for its retail, foodservice and branded food
customers.


TAMKO BUILDING: Sued in S.D. Fla. Over Defective Shingles
---------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN DYE and DOUGLAS BOHN on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. TAMKO BUILDING
PRODUCTS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00590-MSS-AEP
(M.D. Fla., Mar. 10, 2017), seeks damages and declaratory relief
in connection with defective shingles designed, manufactured,
marketed, advertised, and sold by Tamko in the State of Florida.
Contrary to Tamko's representations regarding the Shingles, the
Shingles were and are defective and problematic, at the time of
sale and thereafter. They blister and crack, leading to early
granule loss and increased moisture absorption, and they otherwise
do not perform as promised and/or reasonably expected, thereby
permitting and/or causing other property damage to other building
components and to property present inside. Nevertheless, Tamko has
sold and continues to sell the Shingles to the public and to make
false representations, despite their defects that have caused
consumers in Florida enormous property damage and substantial
removal and replacement costs. As a result of Tamko's defective
Shingles, Plaintiffs and the Class members have suffered and
continue to suffer extensive damages.

TAMKO manufactures and supplies building products for homeowners,
professionals, dealers, and contractors.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Panagiotis V. Albanis, Esq.
Frank M. Petosa, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
Complex Litigation 12800 University Drive, Suite 600
Fort Myers, FL 33907
Telephone: (239) 432 6605
Facsimile: (239) 433 6836
Email: palbanis@forthepeople.com
       fpetosa@forthepeople.com

     - and -

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

     - and -

Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600 5000
Facsimile: (919) 600 5035
E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
scott@wbmllp.com

     - and -

Christopher L. Coffin, Esq.
PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, L.L.P.
1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400
New Orleans, LA 70112
Telephone: (504) 355 0086
Facsimile: (504) 523 0699
E-mail: ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com

     - and -

Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592 1500
Facsimile: (218) 592 4663
E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com


TARGET CORPORATION: "Halley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Corbin Halley, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Target Corporation and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. BC653367 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 6, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and penalties under the
California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant to work as a Target
Protection Specialist.

Target Corporation is the second-largest discount store retailer
in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Larry W. Lee, Esq.
       DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
       515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
       Los Angeles, CA 90071
       Telephone: (213) 488-6555
       Facsimile: (213)488-6554

          - and -

       Edward W. Choi, Esq.
       LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES
       515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250
       Los Angeles, CA 90071
       Telephone: (213)381-1515
       Facsimile: (213) 465-4885

         - and -

      Thomas M. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LAW OFFICES, APLC
      3435 Wilshire Blvd Suite 2400
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 251-5533
      Facsimile: (213) 251-5534


THERMO FISHER: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven De La Cruz, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Thermo Fisher
Scientific, Inc. and Does l-l00, Case No. RG17851792 (Cal. Super.
Ct., March 6, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay non-exempt, hourly workers straight time and overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.

Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc. operates a biotechnology product
development company headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Turley, Esq.
      David Mara, Esq.
      Jill Vecchi, Esq.
      THE TURLEY & MARA LAW FIRM, APLC
      7428 Trade Street
      San Diego, CA 92121
      Telephone: (619) 234-2833
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
      E-mail: bturtley@turtleylawfirm.com


TRINIDAD DRILLING: Sisney Appeals W.D. Texas Ruling to 5th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Richard S. Sisney, Jr., Frank Fetters and Ryan Walker
filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled
Richard Sisney, Jr., et al. v. Trinidad Drilling, L.P., Case No.
5:15-CV-132, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Texas, San Antonio.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought against the Defendant for alleged failure to provide 60
days advance written notice in connection with recent Mass Layoffs
and Plant Closings at San Antonio, Texas, Woodward, Oklahoma and
Springtown, Texas single sites.

Trinidad Drilling, LP is a foreign limited partnership that
operates in the drilling and well servicing sectors of the oil and
gas industry.

The appellate case is captioned as Richard Sisney, Jr., et al. v.
Trinidad Drilling, L.P., Case No. 17-50174, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants RICHARD S. SISNEY, JR., FRANK FETTERS and
RYAN WALKER, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated, are represented by:

          Allen Ryan Vaught, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 521-3605
          E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com

Defendant-Appellee TRINIDAD DRILLING, L.P., is represented by:

          Matthew L. Hoeg, Esq.
          ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          600 Travis, Suite 4200
          Houston, TX 77002-0000
          Telephone: (713) 220-4024
          Facsimile: (713) 238-7328
          E-mail: matthewhoeg@andrewskurth.com


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Florida Lawyer Objects to Fraud Case Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that an objector
challenging the$25 million Trump University settlement is a
Florida lawyer who previously told her story in political ads
opposing Donald Trump.

Sherri Simpson, a personal bankruptcy lawyer in Fort Lauderdale,
filed an objection on March 6 claiming the settlement, reached
just after Trump was elected, doesn't allow an estimated 7,000
class members to opt out of the deal even though a 2015 class
notice said that it would.

"That's the language.  This isn't my interpretation, not my spin,
that's the language," said New York plaintiffs attorney
Gary Friedman, who represents Ms. Simpson.

Mr. Friedman is asking U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel in San
Diego to reject the settlement unless class members get a second
chance to opt out.

Most class action settlements allow individuals to opt out of the
deal just prior to final approval.  In the objection filing,
Friedman says that by not offering an opportunity to opt out, the
settlement violates his client's due process rights and the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Lead plaintiffs attorney Patrick Coughlin of Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd accused Simpson of being "politically motivated." Simpson,
who paid $19,000 for the "Gold Elite" course and another program
offered by Trump University, appeared in several political
advertisements against Trump's presidential campaign in 2016.

"It's certainly not in the interest of the case to delay
distributions of the class members," Mr. Coughlin said.

Mr. Friedman insisted his client is not a political person.  "She
was angry, had been screwed out of money she could ill afford to
lose, had been duped by this famous person who's prancing around,
and she wanted full vindication," he said.

Reached by email, Ms. Simpson said: "I have always said I was
telling my story about my experience with Donald Trump which was
not a positive one. I did so through the forums presented to me."

Trump's lead attorney, O'Melveny & Myers partner Daniel
Petrocelli, did not respond to an email seeking comment.

The lawyer championing Ms. Simpson's objection has a blotted past.
In 2015, a federal judge in Brooklyn rejected a proposed
settlement in an antitrust case against American Express Co. after
finding that Friedman, the plaintiffs attorney, had engaged in
"egregious" conduct by secretly communicating with a defense
attorney in a similar case and sharing documents that were under a
protective order. The judge removed Friedman from the case.

The communications were discovered as federal prosecutors in New
Jersey investigated the defense attorney, Keila Ravelo, formerly
with Willkie Farr & Gallagher, and her husband, for a theft scheme
that used fake invoices to solicit payments of $7.8 million from
Willkie, her former firm, Hunton & Williams, and her client,
MasterCard.  Ms. Ravelo, who was charged in 2014, is scheduled to
go to trial later this year.

Mr. Friedman has paired up with Andrew Celli and Ilann Maazel --
imaazel@ecbalaw.com -- of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady, a
civil rights shop in New York.  Mr. Celli was chief of the civil
rights bureau in the New York Attorney General's office from 1999
to 2003, and Maazel obtained dismissal of a $45 million lawsuit
brought by Trump in a Tel Aviv real estate dispute.

The team also includes Edward Zusman -- ezusman@mzclaw.com -- and
Kevin Eng -- keng@mzclaw.com -- partners at Markun Zusman Freniere
Compton, a San Francisco business litigation firm.

Mr. Friedman called the team "real trial lawyers" and "some of the
best out there."

The $25 million settlement resolved claims that Trump University
falsely promised that Trump himself had hand-picked the
instructors and that the program was an "accredited university."

Plaintiffs attorneys, including Coughlin's firm, have agreed to
waive legal fees as part of the settlement.  Final approval of the
settlement is set for March 30.


TORONTO-DOMINION BANK: Sued Over Exchange Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
ARMANDO DURIGON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. THE TORONTO-DOMINION BANK,
BHARAT MASRANI, COLLEEN JOHNSTON, and RIAZ AHMED, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-01665 (D.N.J., Mar. 12, 2017), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of
TD Bank from December 3, 2015 through March 9, 2017, both dates
inclusive.

Defendant TD Bank together with its subsidiaries, provides various
personal and commercial banking products and services in Canada,
the United States, and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
South Orange, NJ 07079
Telephone: (973) 313 1887
Facsimile: (973) 833 0399
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Argue Over New Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that the knives are
coming out again.  After facing a barrage of criticism last summer
from fellow plaintiffs lawyers over her $84 million settlement
with Uber Technologies Inc., Boston attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan
is now on the offensive, trying to thwart a separate deal the
company has struck to wipe out claims under California's so-called
"bounty hunter" law.

That $7.75 million settlement, reached between a pair of
plaintiffs lawyers in Los Angeles and Uber's attorneys at Littler
Mendelson and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, would put to rest claims
relating to driver misclassification under the Private Attorneys
General Act (PAGA) dating back to July 2013.  Los Angeles Superior
Court Judge Maren Nelson was slated to hear arguments on March 10
on the deal's fairness.

Ms. Liss-Riordan proposed settling PAGA claims for just $1 million
as part of the "global" deal she struck last summer -- since
rejected by U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern
District of California.  But she now argues that the deal pending
in Los Angeles is too small and a naked attempt at "forum-
shopping" by Uber.

The settlement, Ms. Liss-Riordan says, would give only $1 to each
qualifying California Uber driver and pour about $2.85 million
into state coffers, while delivering $3.15 million combined in
attorney fees, named plaintiff incentive payments, and
administrator fees.

She's not the only one to speak up; several other big-name
California plaintiff attorneys have called it "shameful and
embarrassing."

The fight has become remarkably personal, with Ms. Liss-Riordan in
court papers calling into question the qualifications and
experience of the plaintiffs lawyers who negotiated the deal,
Douglas Caiafa and Christopher Morosoff.

They have not been shy about firing back.  "Understandably,
Ms. Liss-Riordan is not pleased that Judge Chen rejected her
proposed settlement," they wrote in a Feb. 22 brief.  "Her
regrettable and selfish tactics, however, do not give her free
license to insert herself into these proceedings and fabricate
reasons why this settlement, which is far superior to the
settlement she advocated for relentlessly, should be disapproved."
'In the Shoes' of the State

California's PAGA law, enacted in 2003, allows residents to sue
companies over labor code violations that state enforcers choose
not to pursue.  Technically, the plaintiffs are suing as the
state, and so PAGA suits are distinct from class actions on behalf
of individual workers.  The civil penalties can rack up quickly
under the law; Uber concedes that under generous calculations, its
exposure could top $3 billion.

Messrs. Caiafa and Morosoff's suit was filed in August 2014, and
was the first PAGA case to be brought against Uber based on
allegations that Uber failed to properly classify drivers as
workers and had therefore violated at least a dozen provisions of
the labor code--including those relating to payment of the minimum
wage, overtime compensation, and meal breaks.

Ms. Liss-Riordan filed her California class action, known as
O'Connor, a whole year earlier in August 2013.  She did not
attempt to add PAGA claims until January 2015, after a critical
California Supreme Court ruling Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los
Angeles underscored its value in class action employment
litigation.  While her settlement with Uber would have roped in
PAGA claims as part of the release, she still does not have any
PAGA claims pending in the O'Connor litigation.

The thrust of Ms. Liss-Riordan's argument against the $7.75
million settlement is that Judge Chen, in rejecting her settlement
with Uber, indicated he believed that amount to be insufficient.
But that's somewhat a matter of interpretation -- which the two
Los Angeles attorneys eagerly point out.

Ms. Liss-Riordan proposed to release the PAGA claims for $1
million as part of her larger deal, despite saying that they could
be worth in excess of $1 billion.  She subsequently took the
unusual step of cutting her fee request from the settlement by $10
million.  Judge Chen still rejected the overall deal, and pointed
out that even if he added all of those additional funds to the
PAGA claims and brought their allocation to $11 million, "this
would only represent 1.1 percent of the potential verdict value."

"Moreover, this would effectively take away $10 million that could
otherwise have been distributed to the drivers, putting the burden
of supporting the public interest on the employee rather than the
employer," Judge Chen added.  But he didn't explicitly rule that
$11 million was too low.

Ms. Liss-Riordan isn't the only one calling foul.  Brian Kabateck
of Kabateck Brown Kellner, Mark Geragos of Geragos & Geragos, and
Christopher Hamner of the Hamner Law Offices have a separate
proposed class action pending against Uber with overlapping PAGA
claims.  While they were among the lawyers who attacked
Ms. Liss-Riordan for reaching what they said was a low-ball
settlement last year, they're all on the same side in this fight.

"The proposed PAGA settlement entered into between Uber and Price
is shameful and embarrassing," they wrote in an objection.  "When
a plaintiff brings a PAGA claim, they take on a special
responsibility to fellow employees who will be bound by any
resulting judgment. . . . Here, relying on the claim that it is
the 'largest known PAGA settlement,' the settling parties have
sold short not just the rights of California employees--but the
rights of the state of California."

Bad Blood

There's some history here. More than a few times since Liss-
Riordan started litigating against Uber and its ride-hailing rival
Lyft Inc., she has crossed paths with Messrs. Caiafa and Morosoff.
In one instance, after her California class action against Lyft
survived summary judgment motion in front of U.S. District Judge
Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of California, Liss-
Riordan sought to halt Caiafa and Morosoff's follow-on case in Los
Angeles Superior Court to avoid giving Lyft a second chance to
wipe out the suit.

Judge Chhabria declined to do so, but he was also vocal in his
skepticism of the two Los Angeles attorneys' strategy.  "If I were
the Superior Court judge I would probably stay the state court
litigation because this case is much farther along than the state
court case," he said, according to a transcript of a June 2015
hearing. "I think there are real concerns about whether the
plaintiff's lawyers in the state court case really have the
interests of the Lyft drivers at heart."

Ms. Liss-Riordan settled the Lyft case for $27 million --
including $1 million for PAGA claims -- although final approval is
still pending. (A separate hearing in that case was slated for
March 9 in San Francisco.) Messrs. Caiafa and Morosoff argued in
an objection last December that separate counsel should have been
appointed to litigate the PAGA claims in the Lyft case, contended
that Ms. Liss-Riordan undervalued them and "impermissibly used the
PAGA claim here as a bargaining chip to secure settlement of their
other wage-and-hour claims."

They similarly objected to Ms. Liss-Riordan's valuation of the
PAGA claim in the context of the Uber settlement in her O'Connor
case, before it was rejected by Judge Chen.

Settling the PAGA claims will diminish what leverage Ms. Liss-
Riordan has left after a critical appeals court ruling upholding
Uber's arbitration agreements with drivers.  Uber's attorneys know
that, and have been more than happy to throw her championing of
the now-rejected settlement back in her face.

"Counsel's prior words cannot be reconciled with her position now,
and can only be explained by her desire (one undoubtedly shared by
the copycat [objectors]) to use PAGA claims as a 'hammer' in their
own cases against Uber to drive up settlement value," the
company's lawyers wrote.

"There is no basis in the law or in fact, and it would be
inconsistent with the PAGA and the strong public policy in favor
of resolution of disputes, for this court to adopt the baseless
roadblocks commenters have attempted to throw in the way of this
settlement."


UNITED STATES: Appeal Filed in Suit Over Migrant Detention
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jane Doe # 1, Jane Doe # 2 and Norlan Flores filed an
appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Jane Doe, et
al. v. John Kelly, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00250-DCB, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona, Tucson.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs allege inadequate and inhumane conditions in the Border
Patrol's migrant detention facilities in southern Arizona.

In January 2016, U.S. District Court Judge David Bury approved the
class action status of the lawsuit.  The certification motion was
filed by several civil- and immigration-rights groups, including
the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, on behalf of two
unnamed women, who were detained and Norlan Flores, who has been
detained twice.

The appellate case is captioned as Jane Doe, et al. v. John Kelly,
et al., Case No. 17-15381, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants JANE DOE, # 1; JANE DOE, # 2; and NORLAN
FLORES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

          Elizabeth G. Balassone, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: ebalassone@mofo.com

               - and -

          James Cekola, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          12531 High Bluff Drive
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 314-7631
          E-mail: jcekola@mofo.com

               - and -

          Robert James Esposito, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7194
          Facsimile: (415) 276-7149
          E-mail: resposito@mofo.com

               - and -

          Melissa E. Crow, Esq.
          Mary A. Kenney, Esq.
          AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL
          1331 "G" Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 507-7512
          Facsimile: (202) 742-5619
          E-mail: mcrow@immcouncil.org
                  mkenney@immcouncil.org

               - and -

          Elisa Della-Piana, Esq.
          LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
          131 Steuart Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (510) 847-3001
          Facsimile: (415) 543-0296
          E-mail: edellapiana@lccr.com

               - and -

          Brenda Munoz Furnish, Esq.
          Daniel J. Pochoda, Esq.
          ACLU OF ARIZONA
          3707 N. 7th Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85014
          Telephone: (602) 773-6018
          Facsimile: (602) 650-1376
          E-mail: bmfurnish@acluaz.org
                  dpochoda@acluaz.org

               - and -

          Linton Joaquin, Esq.
          Nora A. Preciado, Esq.
          Karen Cassandra Tumlin, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
          3435 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 674-2909
          Facsimile: (213) 639-3911
          E-mail: joaquin@nilc.org
                  preciado@nilc.org
                  tumlin@nilc.org

Defendants-Appellees JOHN F. KELLY, Secretary, United States
Department of Homeland Security; KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, Acting
Commissioner, United States Customs and Border Protection; RONALD
VITIELLO, Chief, United States Border Patrol; JEFFREY SELF,
Commander, Arizona Joint Field Command; and PAUL BEESON, Chief
Patrol Agent - Tucson Sector, are represented by:

          Yamileth G. Davila, Esq.
          Sarah Fabian, Esq.
          Christina Parascandola, Esq.
          Sarah L. Vuong, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P.O. Box 878, Benjamin Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 305-0137
          Facsimile: (202) 514-8865
          E-mail: yamileth.g.davila@usdoj.gov
                  sarah.b.fabian@usdoj.gov
                  christina.parascandola@usdoj.gov
                  sarah.l.vuong@usdoj.gov


VINOS INC: Faces "Delgado" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Delgado, Joseph Rouhana, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Vinos, Inc. and Does 1-99, Inclusive, Case
No. BC652790 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 6, 2017), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay non-exempt and non-managerial
restaurant staff overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Vinos, Inc. operates a restaurant and nightclub in the City of
Covina. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan J. Romero, Esq.
      ROMERO LAW, APC
      80 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 880
      Pasadena, CA 91101-2672
      Telephone: (626) 396-9900
      Facsimile: (626) 270-4045
      E-mail: firm@romerolaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Judge Refuses to Release Jailed Executive
--------------------------------------------------------
Ed White, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a judge
on March 16 refused to set a bond and release a German Volkswagen
executive who was arrested in the company's U.S. emissions scandal
while on vacation in Florida.

Oliver Schmidt's attorneys said he was willing to risk $1.6
million in assets, with help from family and friends, to persuade
a judge that he would stay in the Detroit area and return for
subsequent court hearings.  But prosecutors successfully argued
that he has no ties to the U.S. and would be out of reach if he
flees to Germany, his home country and the headquarters of
Volkswagen.

"This is a very, very serious case," U.S. District Judge Sean Cox
said.

The decision means Mr. Schmidt will remain locked up while his
criminal case moves through court.  He's one of seven VW employees
charged in a scheme to cheat emissions standards on nearly 600,000
diesel vehicles in the U.S.  Five others also are German citizens,
but they might never appear in a U.S. court because Germany
doesn't extradite its citizens.

Mr. Schmidt has pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiracy and
fraud.  Until 2015, he was the manager of VW's environment and
engineering office in suburban Detroit.  He's accused of lying to
U.S. regulators by saying technical problems -- not cheating
software -- were to blame for the difference in diesel emissions
in road and lab tests.

Volkswagen pleaded guilty and has agreed to pay $4.3 billion in
criminal and civil penalties, on top of billions more to buy back
cars.  Judge Cox hasn't ruled yet on the proposed $2.8 billion
criminal fine.

Mr. Schmidt apparently didn't know he would be charged.  He was
arrested in Miami in early January before he could fly back to
Germany.

His lawyer, David DuMouchel, insisted to the judge that
Mr. Schmidt has no intention of fleeing the U.S. if granted bail.
He said Schmidt was willing to wear an electronic monitor and live
in suburban Detroit while helping lawyers translate documents and
prepare a defense.

"He wants to be here," Mr. DuMouchel said.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Accuses Plaintiffs Attorney of Double Billing
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The Recorder, reports that Volkswagen
AG is accusing a lead attorney in the diesel emissions litigation
of double-counting his billable hours, the latest pushback the
automaker has lodged over legal fees requested by plaintiffs
attorneys.

As part of its $14.7 billion settlement, Volkswagen agreed not to
contest $175 million in fees and expenses sought by lead
plaintiffs attorneys in resolving consumer claims over nearly
500,000 diesel vehicles.  Four months later, with its hands
seemingly tied in that prong of the case, Volkswagen is fighting
back against additional fee requests.

On March 9, Volkswagen alleged that Steve Berman, the lead
plaintiffs attorney in its separate $1.2 billion settlement with
franchise dealers, "double-counted" his billable work in a request
for $28.5 million in attorney fees.  Specifically, Volkswagen
claims Berman's firm, Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Mr. Shapiro,
wants credit for nearly $1.5 million in billable hours in the
dealer case when those same hours were already submitted as
justification for the $175 million request in the consumer case,
in which Hagens Berman is one of 22 firms on the plaintiffs'
steering committee.

In an email, Mr. Berman wrote that Volkswagen's complaint is based
on an "erroneous assumption" that the fee requests in both cases
are based on law firm billing records, rather than a percentage of
the settlement fund.

Volkswagen's "arguments about supposed 'double-counting' are
designed to play in the press and divert attention away from its
seven years of ongoing outrageous criminal behavior at the root of
this case," Berman wrote in a response filed on March 13.

Volkswagen has a history of contesting attorney fees, so it's no
surprise to see the German automaker scrutinizing time records.
The episode also highlights the tension that can erupt in class
actions as judges demand detailed time records in support of
attorney fee requests, even where awards are not directly tied to
hours worked.  The so-called lodestar, the amount of hours that
attorneys spent working on the case multiplied by their hourly
billing rates, is used as a benchmark to prevent excessive
attorney fee awards.

This month, three firms admitted that they had double-counted
hours in a $300 million securities class action settlement with
State Street Bank for which they were paid $75 million.  The three
firms, which include San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, have agreed to pay $2 million for a retired federal
judge to probe into their fee request. (Lieff Cabraser partner
Elizabeth Cabraser is lead counsel in the $14.7 billion Volkswagen
settlement.)

Volkswagen's underlying complaint goes well beyond Mr. Berman's
timekeeping.  The carmaker says it agreed to pay $175 million in
attorney fees on the belief that it was resolving all emissions
litigation over its 2.0-liter diesel vehicles.  In addition to
Berman's fee request, Volkswagen objected last month to fees
sought by more than 200 individual law firms that aren't on the
committee but are claiming attorney liens or other compensation
tied to the consumer settlement.

"Volkswagen's agreement not to oppose the PSC's request for $175
million in fees and expenses is to compensate PSC members for all
their work on the 2.0-liter litigation," wrote Volkswagen attorney
Robert Giuffra, a partner at New York's Sullivan & Cromwell.
"This was Volkswagen's understanding in not opposing the PSC's fee
request."

'HYBRID TIME'

In their original request for $28.5 million in fees, Mr. Berman
and another lead attorney in the dealership case, Richard Sox, a
partner at Bass Sox Mercer in Tallahassee, Florida, noted that
their request was substantially low given that the settlement of
more than $1 billion could have justified a fee of "several
hundred million dollars."

Then, on Feb. 23, in response to the judge's request, Mr. Berman
submitted a lodestar estimate of about $3.5 million, of which
nearly $1.5 million was "hybrid time" his firm spent on both the
consumer and dealer case.  Mr. Berman suggested that the "hybrid
time" be removed from the consumer case "to avoid even the
appearance of double-counting."  In a March 6 declaration,
Cabraser backed the change, insisting it would have no effect on
the $175 million fee request.

To Volkswagen's attorneys, that seems like gaming the system.
Volkswagen already has noted several times in recent court papers
it wasn't aware when it agreed to the $175 million request that
the steering committee's estimated lodestar was just $63.5
million.  Shifting the $1.5 million would not only reduce the
lodestar even more in the consumer case but would bolster Berman's
billable hours in the dealer case by about 40 percent.
"Volkswagen is unaware of any law that would allow counsel to call
work done for one case 'hybrid,' submit time for that work in a
fee application for that case, and then later, when convenient,
move that time to another fee application in a different case
brought on behalf of different clients,"
Mr. Giuffra wrote.

In a footnote, Volkswagen, whose official opposition to attorney
fees in the dealer case is due March 16, said it would be moving
to compel production of Mr. Berman's time records in both cases.

In his email, Mr. Berman said the lodestar amounts don't matter
since the fee requests in both cases are based on a percentage of
the total settlement funds.  The fee request in the dealer case
makes up 2 percent of a fund estimated to surpass $1.3 billion,
when including incentive payments, he noted.

Even if the dispute gets resolved, Volkswagen might have more fee
fights in the future.  The committee has yet to make a request for
fees in the $1.2 billion settlement over 75,000 3.0-liter diesel
vehicles, which was preliminarily approved last month.  In a
footnote to its objection over the individual firm fees,
Volkswagen noted that it retained its rights to seek audits of the
lodestar amounts in any request made in relation to the
3.0-liter settlement or to "object to the misallocation of any PSC
work in connection with 2.0-liter claims to the 3.0-liter lodestar
figure."


WENDY'S CO: Awaits Decision on Bid to Dismiss First Choice Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Wendy's Company awaits decision on its motion to dismiss the
amended complaint submitted in the consolidated class action
lawsuit filed by First Choice Federal Credit Union and others, the
Company said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 2, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
January 1, 2017.

The Company was named as a defendant in a civil complaint that was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania on April 25, 2016 by plaintiff First Choice Federal
Credit Union. The complaint asserts claims of common law
negligence, negligence per se due to the alleged violation of
section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and declaratory and
injunctive relief. All of these claims are based on the
allegations arising from the Company's alleged failure to
safeguard customer credit card information and the alleged failure
to provide notice that credit card information had been
compromised. The complaint sought certification of a putative
nationwide class of banks, credit unions, financial institutions
and other entities in the United States impacted by the alleged
failures. The plaintiff sought monetary damages, a declaratory
judgment, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and other costs.

The Company was named as a defendant in four other civil
complaints filed by financial institutions in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania based on the
allegations arising from the Company's alleged failure to
safeguard customer credit card information and the alleged failure
to provide notice that credit card information had been
compromised. These cases were consolidated into the First Choice
Federal Credit Union case.

An amended civil complaint was filed in the consolidated
proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania on July 22, 2016 naming the Company and two of its
subsidiaries as defendants. The amended complaint was brought by
22 financial institutions and five association plaintiffs
(representing members who are credit unions and other similar
financial institutions). The amended complaint asserts claims of
common law negligence, negligence per se due to the alleged
violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act,
violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and
declaratory and injunctive relief. The amended complaint also
seeks certification of a putative nationwide class of banks,
credit unions, financial institutions and other entities in the
United States impacted by the alleged failures. The plaintiffs
seek monetary damages, a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and other costs. The Company's motion to dismiss
the amended complaint is pending before the court.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to each of the
pending actions and intends to vigorously oppose the claims
asserted in each of the complaints.

The Wendy's Company is the parent company of its 100% owned
subsidiary holding company Wendy's Restaurants, LLC.  Wendy's
Restaurants is the parent company of Wendy's International, LLC,
formerly known as Wendy's International, Inc.  Wendy's
International, LLC is the indirect parent company of Quality Is
Our Recipe, LLC, which is the owner and franchisor of the
Wendy's(R) restaurant system in the United States.


WENDY'S CO: Awaits Order on Bid to Junk Torres' Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Wendy's Company awaits ruling on its motion to dismiss the
amended complaint filed by Jonathan Torres and others, according
to the Company's March 2, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
January 1, 2017.

The Company was named as a defendant in a civil complaint that was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida on February 8, 2016 by plaintiff Jonathan Torres. The
complaint asserted claims of breach of implied contract,
negligence and violations of the Florida Unfair and Deceptive
Trade Practices Act arising from the Company's alleged failure to
safeguard customer credit card information and the alleged failure
to provide notice that credit card information had been
compromised. The complaint sought certification of a putative
nationwide class of consumers impacted by the alleged failures.
The plaintiff sought monetary damages, injunctive and equitable
relief, attorneys' fees and other costs. The Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint was granted, without prejudice, on July 15,
2016.

An amended complaint was filed in the same court by plaintiff
Jonathan Torres and six additional named plaintiffs on July 29,
2016. The amended complaint names the Company's subsidiary,
Wendy's International, LLC ("Wendy's International"), as the
defendant and asserts claims of breach of implied contract,
negligence and violations of state consumer protection or
deceptive trade practices statutes in the states of Florida, New
York, New Jersey, Mississippi, Tennessee and Texas arising from
Wendy's International's alleged failure to safeguard customer
credit card information and the alleged failure to provide notice
that credit card information had been compromised. The amended
complaint also asserts violations of state data breach statutes in
Florida, New York, New Jersey, Tennessee and Texas based on
Wendy's International's alleged failure to timely and fully
disclose the alleged data breach. The amended complaint seeks
certification of a putative nationwide class of consumers impacted
by the alleged failures, or in the alternative, statewide classes
for Florida, New York, New Jersey, Mississippi, Tennessee and
Texas. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, injunctive and
equitable relief, attorneys' fees and other costs. The Company's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint is pending before the
court.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to each of the
pending actions and intends to vigorously oppose the claims
asserted in each of the complaints.

The Wendy's Company is the parent company of its 100% owned
subsidiary holding company Wendy's Restaurants, LLC.  Wendy's
Restaurants is the parent company of Wendy's International, LLC,
formerly known as Wendy's International, Inc.  Wendy's
International, LLC is the indirect parent company of Quality Is
Our Recipe, LLC, which is the owner and franchisor of the
Wendy's(R) restaurant system in the United States.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Sued over Self-Cleaning Feature in Ovens
--------------------------------------------------------
NANCY TURGEON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. WHIRLPOOL CORP., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-00473-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal., Mar. 3, 2017), seeks relief
for Defendant's violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act;
breach of express warranty; breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability; unjust enrichment; negligent misrepresentation;
fraudulent concealment; intentional misrepresentation; fraud;
violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA);
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL); and
violation of California's False Advertising Law (FAL).

According to the complaint, the Defendant advertises Whirlpool-
brand ovens as containing a High-Temperature Self-Cleaning Cycle -
- which is false and misleading.  According to Whirlpool's Use &
Care Guide, the "Self-Cleaning Cycle uses very high temperatures,
burning soil to a powdery ash." Indeed, because of the Ovens
feature this High-Temperature Self-Cleaning Cycle, Defendant
instructs owners of the Ovens not to use chemicals or cleansers to
clean them: "Do Not Use Oven Cleaners - No commercial oven cleaner
or oven liner protective coating of any kind should be used in or
around any part of the oven." However, the High-Temperature Self-
Cleaning Cycle does not function as advertised because use of the
feature impairs the functionality of the Ovens, up to and
including rending the Ovens inoperable (the "Self-Cleaning
Defect"). The Self-Cleaning Defect is a result of insufficient
heat resistance in the Ovens and their components. The defect is
caused by Defendant's failure to equip the Ovens with appropriate
heat-resistant insulation, properly functioning thermostats,
thermo-regulators, cooling fans, and/or adequate heat-resistant
internal components that can withstand the extreme heat produced
during the High-Temperature Self-Cleaning Cycle. As a result,
consumers are left with an Oven that cannot be cleaned without the
risk of rendering the Oven inoperable.

Whirlpool is an American multinational manufacturer and marketer
of home appliances, headquartered in Benton Charter Township,
Michigan, United States, near Benton Harbor, Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WILMINGTON TRUST: Sued in Del. Over Employee Stock Ownership Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LYLE J. GUIDRY, on behalf of the MRMC ESOP, and on behalf of a
class of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A., as successor to Wilmington Trust
Retirement and Institutional Services Company, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00250-UNA (D. Del., Mar. 10, 2017), seeks to recover
losses incurred by the Plan, and thus by each individual account
in the Plan held by him and similarly situated participants,
resulting from Wilmington Trust's engaging in, and causing the
Plan to engage in, prohibited transactions.

The action is brought under Sections 406, 409, and 502(a) of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended
(ERISA), for losses suffered by the Plan, and other relief, caused
by Wilmington Trust when it authorized the Plan to buy shares of
MRMC for more than fair market value.

The Plaintiff brought the suit against Wilmington Trust, N.A. as
successor to Wilmington Trust Retirement and Institutional
Services Company, the trustee for the MRMC Employee Stock
Ownership Plan (ESOP) (the Plan) when the Plan acquired shares of
Martin Resource Management Corporation (MRMC) in a two-stage
transaction in 2012 and 2013.

The Plan has been injured and its participants have been deprived
of hard-earned retirement benefits resulting from Wilmington
Trust's violations of ERISA's prohibited transaction rules.

Wilmington Trust offers personal and commercial banking
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

David A. Felice, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
Red Clay Center at Little Falls
2961 Centerville Road, Suite 302
Wilmington, DE 19808
Telephone: (302) 504 6333
Facsimile: (302) 504 6334
E-mail: dfelice@baileyglasser.com

     - and -

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


YAHOO INC: Two Russian Intelligence Agents Charged in Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Tucker, Michael Liedtke and Mae Anderson, writing for The
Associated Press, report that two Russian intelligence agents and
two hackers have been charged in a devastating breach at Yahoo
that affected at least a half billion user accounts, the Justice
Department said on Marchgin bringing the first case of its kind
against Russian government officials.

The hack targeted the email accounts of Russian and U.S.
officials, Russian journalists, and employees of financial
services and other businesses, officials said.

"We will not allow individuals, groups, nation states or a
combination of them to compromise the privacy of our citizens, the
economic interests of our companies, or the security of our
country," said Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary McCord.

One of the defendants, Karim Baratov, has been taken into custody
in Canada. Another, Alexey Belan, is on the list of the FBI's most
wanted cyber criminals and has been indicted multiple times in the
U.S.  It's not clear whether he or the other two defendants who
remain at large, Dmitry Dokuchaev and Igor Sushchin, will ever
step foot in an American courtroom since there's no extradition
treaty with Russia.  The indictment identifies Messrs. Dokuchaev
and Sushchin as officers of the Russian Federal Security Service,
or FSB.

But, Ms. McCord said, "I hope they will respect our criminal
justice system."

The charges arise from a compromise of Yahoo user accounts that
began at least as early as 2014.  Though the Justice Department
has previously charged Russian hackers with cybercrime -- as well
as hackers sponsored by the Chinese and Iranian governments --
this is the first criminal case to so directly implicate the
Russian government in cybercrime.

The announcement comes as federal authorities investigate Russian
interference through hacking in the 2016 presidential election.
One of the defendants, Mr. Belan, was among the Russians
sanctioned last year following those hacking efforts, though U.S.
officials said the investigations were separate,

Yahoo didn't disclose the 2014 breach until last September when it
began notifying at least 500 million users that their email
addresses, birth dates, answers to security questions and other
personal information may have been stolen.  Three months later,
Yahoo revealed it had uncovered a separate hack in 2013 affecting
about 1 billion accounts, including some that were also hit in
2014.

In a statement, Chris Madsen, Yahoo's assistant general counsel
and head of global security, thanked law enforcement agencies for
their work.

"We're committed to keeping our users and our platforms secure and
will continue to engage with law enforcement to combat
cybercrime," he said.

Rich Mogull, CEO of security firm Securosis, said the indictment
"shows the ties between the Russian security service and basically
the criminal underground," something that had been "discussed in
security circles for years."

Cyber criminals gave Russian officials access to specific accounts
they were targeting; and in return, Russian officials helped the
criminals to evade authorities and let them keep the type of
information that hackers that hack for money tend to exploit such
as email addresses and logins and credit card information.

Mr. Mogull said he was surprised the Department of Justice was
able to name specific individuals and issue the indictment.

"We've come to expect that you don't really figure out who
performs these attacks," he said.  The fact that the indictment
ties together the FSB and criminals is a new development, he said.
"It will be very interesting to see what comes up in court, and
how they tie those two together."


YAHOO INC: Names Arthur Chong as New GC Amid Data Breach Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Williams-Alvarez, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports
that less than two weeks after Yahoo Inc. general counsel
Ronald Bell resigned from his position, the tech giant announced
that Arthur Chong, former general counsel at Broadcom Corp., is
taking over as Yahoo's top lawyer, effective March 10.

In a March 13 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing,
Yahoo revealed that Chong, who also served as an outside legal
adviser to the Sunnyvale, California-based company from October
2016 to March 2017, has been named general counsel and secretary.
Yahoo, which did not immediately reply to request for comment on
Chong's appointment, announced March 1 that Mr. Bell had stepped
down.  His resignation came in the wake of an independent
investigation that found Yahoo's legal team failed to sufficiently
investigate a massive 2014 data breach at the company.

Mr. Chong will be paid $1 million annually, according to his offer
letter, and will work in the company's San Francisco office.
Following Verizon Communications Inc.'s acquisition of Yahoo's
operating business, Mr. Chong will continue as top lawyer for the
remaining part of the company, Altaba Inc.

For roughly five months, from Oct. 31, 2016, to March 9, 2017,
Chong provided outside legal counsel to Yahoo and was compensated
$100,000 per month, according to the March 13 SEC filing.  While
it's not disclosed whether Mr. Chong was involved in legal efforts
around the two massive data breaches that have occurred at Yahoo
in recent years, he began advising the company shortly after the
first breach was revealed, in September 2016, and would have still
been providing counsel when the second hack was announced in
December 2016.

Prior to working with Yahoo, Mr. Chong served as a special adviser
to Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton.  He was also executive
vice president, general counsel and secretary at Broadcom Corp.
for over seven years.  Before that, he held legal roles at
insurance company Safeco Insurance and health care company
McKesson Corp.

Yahoo has appointed a new chief compliance officer as well,
according to the company's SEC filing.  DeAnn Fairfield Work, who
has also served as an outside legal adviser to Yahoo, will not
join the company in this role until after the closing of the
transaction with Verizon.  Work previously held various legal
roles at Broadcom, including senior vice president, senior deputy
general counsel and chief compliance officer from December 2012 to
February 2016.


YAZAKI NORTH: "Sutka" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
TODD SUTKA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. YAZAKI NORTH AMERICA INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-10669-PDB-SDD (E.D. Mich., Mar. 3, 2017), seeks to
recover damages for the full amount of unpaid wages due under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Defendant is violating the FLSA and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act
(OPPA), by forcing Plaintiff Todd Sutka and similarly situated
workers to work a substantial amount of overtime without properly
and timely paying all compensation due, thus depriving them of
rightful compensation for their work that Yazaki is legally
obligated to pay.

Yazaki North is an automotive component maker and supplier doing
business throughout the country including Michigan and Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Philip J. Goodman, Esq.
          PHILIP J. GOODMAN, P.C.
          280 N. Old Woodward Ave., Suite 407
          Birmingham, MI 48009
          Telephone: (248) 647 9300
          E-mail: pjgoodman1@aol.com

               - and -

          Robert W. Cowan, Esq.
          BAILEY PEAVEY BAILEY COWAN
          HECKAMAN PLLC
          440 Louisiana St., Suite 2100
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 425 7100
          E-mail: rcowan@bpblaw.com


* Companies Await Supreme Court Ruling on Arbitration Agreements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
dozens of companies in retail, banking, health care and technology
await the U.S. Supreme Court's answer to whether workplace
arbitration agreements that ban class actions violate federal
labor law.

The National Labor Relations Board on March 14 distributed a list
of pending cases in courts across the country that were sued over
alleged labor violations rooted in arbitration agreements.  The
companies include household names such as AT&T Mobility Service,
Uber Technologies Inc., Kmart Corp., UnitedHealth Group Inc. and
Neiman Marcus. In all, the labor board identified some 75 disputes
whose outcomes rest on how the Supreme Court resolves the dispute.

The justices in January agreed to decide that question, brought by
the National Labor Relations Board and by two private parties. The
high court last month moved those cases to the fall docket, making
it more likely that a ninth justice will be on the bench. In
addition to the three cases granted review, four other petitions
are pending in the high court, according to the board. NLRB
general counsel Richard Griffin Jr. included the list in a memo he
sent to division heads, regional directors and officers in charge.

The issue pending at the Supreme Court is rooted in a 2012 board
ruling that said the homebuilder D.R. Horton's class action
waivers violated federal labor law. Agreements that require
employees to use arbitration for all work-related disputes
interfered with employees' right to engage in concerted activities
under the National Labor Relations Act, the board determined.  The
board said that when such an agreement violates the act, the
Federal Arbitration Act does not require its enforcement.

Multiple challenges followed, and a split among the federal
circuits drew the high court's attention.  Companies have
attracted major law firms to represent them, including Mayer
Brown; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius; Holland & Knight; and Squire
Patton Boggs.

The three high court cases granted review are: NLRB v. Murphy Oil
USA (from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit); Epic
Systems Corp. v. Lewis (Seventh Circuit), and Ernst & Young v.
Morris (Ninth Circuit).

At the March meeting of an American Bar Association committee of
the labor and employment law section, the board was asked how it
is handling new cases raising the class action issue while
awaiting the Supreme Court's decision.

In merit cases that allege the employer is maintaining an
agreement prohibited by the D.R. Horton line of cases, Griffin (at
left) said, regions are to propose that the parties enter informal
settlement agreements that are conditioned on the agency winning
in the Supreme Court.

For cases alleging the maintenance of an unlawful arbitration
agreement, as well as allegations unrelated to that issue, regions
will go forward on the unrelated allegations absent settlement.
The labor board said cases that involve opt-in/opt-out clauses
should be held in abeyance.

The National Labor Relations Act was enacted in 1935 to protect
the rights of employees and employers, to encourage collective
bargaining and to curtail certain harmful private sector labor and
management practices.  The act applies to most private-sector
employers, including manufacturers, retailers, private
universities and health care facilities. The act does not apply to
federal, state or local governments.

The NLRB, employers and employees in the three high court cases
had all urged the justices to decide the issue.  Major business
and employer organizations also filed amicus briefs urging review
and a decision finding class action waivers enforceable.

The board's petition in Murphy Oil was filed during the Obama
administration by Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler. Whether
the Trump administration will support the board's position is
unknown.  Opening briefs on the merits will be filed by April 28,
and response briefs by July 27.


* Litigation Funders Opt Not to Lobby Against Class Action Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
the House of Representatives on March 9 approved a bill that would
require class action attorneys to notify federal courts when a
third-party litigation funder is bankrolling their case.  If
enacted, it would be the first federal measure to directly
regulate the nascent litigation-funding industry in the United
States.

You might expect a lobbying blitz from an industry that twice
opposed court rules aimed at disclosures and has built something
of a presence in Washington.  In the past, major litigation
funders have turned to top-shelf lobbying firms including the
Podesta Group and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.

But amid the debate over the Fairness in Class Action Litigation
Act (H.R. 985) -- and the many other changes it would entail --
the litigation funding industry has been absent.

Emma Murphy, a spokeswoman for Burford Capital Management, the
largest U.S. litigation funder, said in an email prior to passage
of the bill that because class actions "are not a core part of our
business, we are not actively lobbying on that front, either
ourselves or through a retained lobbyist.

Bentham IMF's chief investment officer, Ralph Sutton, said in an
interview that the company is not worried about the disclosure
provision and has "not taken any action on it."  Bentham has
previously said that it does not directly fund class action
litigation in the United States because of a legal ethics rule.

A House Judiciary Committee aide also said the panel had "heard no
objections from the litigation funding industry on this bill."
Even the industry's opponents at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce say
they haven't observed funders pounding the pavement in Washington.

"I haven't seen anything publicly from them," said Matt Webb, a
senior vice president at the Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform,
which has championed the class action reform bill.

The fact that class actions don't make up a major part of the
major commercial funders' portfolios is an obvious reason why they
have declined to chime in.  But there are other explanations for
the industry keeping a low profile.

With mobilized opposition from trial lawyers, consumer protection
organizations and other groups, Mr. Webb suggested the litigation
funders might not see this as a battle they have to fight.  "In
some ways I think it's probably easier for funders to hide behind
the plaintiffs bar," he said.

Litigation funders also may not see the House bill as much of a
threat.  Even assuming it gains legs in the Senate, they might
even see the provision as bestowing a level of legal recognition
to the industry, said one industry observer.

But the hands-off approach also has risks.  By holding their fire
for a bigger legislative fight down the road, the big funders may
have missed an opportunity to kill the disclosure requirement and
given opponents a toehold to push for more aggressive regulation
in the future.

Footprints in the Capitol

First, it's important to know that the big funders aren't total
strangers to Washington.  The industry got caught flat-footed in
2015 when Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley and
John Cornyn, chairman of the Constitution subcommittee, demanded
information about the way their financing operations work.  After
that, at least two of the funders quickly made connections on K
Street.

According to public records, Gerchen Keller Capital -- which has
since been acquired by Burford -- hired the Podesta Group in the
fall of 2015.  It engaged Matthew Johnson, a former chief counsel
to Cornyn, and the relationship continued until just before
Gerchen Keller was bought out.  In total, the company spent
$160,000 on lobbying fees, public filings show. (Burford does not
appear to have hired lobbyists.)

Australia-headquartered Bentham, meanwhile, has been more active
on Capitol Hill. In 2016, it paid $345,000 in lobbying fees to two
firms -- the Ken Cunningham Group, led by the former chief of
staff and general counsel to Grassley, and Wilmer Hale.  Sutton
said the company's outlays have been directed toward general
"education" of lawmakers on litigation funding.

The lobbyist at Wilmer representing Bentham, Jonathan Yarowsky,
also counts among his clients the American Association for Justice
-- the plaintiffs bar group that has been the chief opponent of HR
985.  Mr. Yarowsky, a former special counsel to President Bill
Clinton, didn't respond to messages seeking comment.

Commercial litigation funders don't have an industry association
based in Washington (although they do in the U.K.).  But they
clearly have enough of an ear to the ground in Washington to know
there are doubts about HR 985's future.  Grassley's office has
been noncommittal about how he'll deal with the House bill; a
Senate Judiciary Committee aide would only say the panel has begun
"studying" the legislation.  Given the uncertainty, funders may
simply be keeping their powder dry for later.

Another possibility is that the industry -- despite its opposition
to mandatory disclosure requirements generally -- may actually see
light-touch legislation like this as a net positive, said Maya
Steinitz, a professor at the University of Iowa College of Law who
is a proponent of third-party funding but also advocates for
regulation of the industry.

"In a way you could say that it's a win for the chamber's
approach," Steinitz said, "but really I think it normalizes
litigation funding and it's actually implicit permission in
federal courts."

As Goes California  . . .

Funders say their primary reason for resisting disclosure is not
that they don't want the public to know they're involved in cases;
in fact they sometimes are open about being involved in big-ticket
cases outside the United States.  Instead, their position has
mainly to do with what happens after disclosure, and the
possibility of costly discovery battles over communications
between funders and lawyers.

Adam Levitt, a class action attorney with Grant & Eisenhofer in
Chicago who slammed the House bill as harming consumers, said
driving up litigation costs is consistent with the overarching
idea behind the legislation.  "The primary goal of HR 985 -- and
this is part of it -- is to make it as cost-ineffective as
possible for plaintiffs' counsel to litigate class action and mass
tort cases," Mr. Levitt said.

It was the fear of those costly extra layers of litigation that
led the funding industry to uniformly push back in 2014 against an
amendment to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure proposed by the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which would have required disclosure of
all third-party funding agreements at the outset of a case. The
Judicial Conference of the United States didn't take action on the
proposal.

But the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California
revived the idea last year, and the funders again forcefully
resisted. In the end, the Northern District adopted a narrower
disclosure rule applying only to class actions.  The House bill
would basically make that the rule across the country.

For now, commercial funders seem not to be worried the possibility
that this could represent the camel's nose under the tent, laying
the groundwork for a broader, catch-all disclosure rule. But that
is how the industry's opponents at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
view things.

"I think it's fair to say with any policy debate or policy battle,
it's a question of incrementalism," said Mr. Webb of the chamber's
Institute for Legal Reform.  "From our perspective, I think this
would be a sea change in the litigation funding regulatory space."



                            *********

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  * * *