CAR_Public/170327.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


              Monday, March 27, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 61



                            Headlines

ADELPHI RESTORATION: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Moses Says
ASSET RECOVERY: Woods Moves for Class Certification Under Damasco
AT&T SERVICES: Gorss Motels Files Suit Over "Unsolicited" Faxes
AT&T SERVICES: Certification of Class Sought in Gorss Motels Suit
CABO CANTINA: Faces "South" Suit Over Living Wages Surcharge

CALHOUN, GA: 11th Cir. Vacates Injunction Halting Jailing Practice
COIL CHEM: Cooper Moves to Certify Class of Field Operators
CREDIT COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Dekhkanov" Suit Says
CRESTWOOD OPERATIONS: Faces "Ramirez" Class Suit in California
CROWN BUILDING: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims

CVS PHARMACY: Judge Declines to Certify Class Action
CWI INC: Faces "Leclaire" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
DRUMMOND COMPANY: Faces "Jerue" Class Suit in M.D. Florida
EOS CCA: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lewis" Suit Claims
FORD AUSTRALIA: ACCC Preparing to Launch Class Action

FORSTER GARBUS: Sued Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
FOUR FREEDOMS: FDR Memorial not Wheelchair Friendly, Suit Says
G&G MECHANICAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Labor & Equipment Fee
GAME FISH: Judge Gives Victory to Private Land Owners
GIGPEAK INC: Trust Sues Over Misleading Solicitation Statement

IC SYSTEM: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action
J MART GROUP: Faces "De Jesus" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JANSSEN RESEARCH: Sued in Lo. Over Defective Xarelto(R) Design
JPMORGAN CHASE: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Savings Plan

KIRSCHENBAUM PHILLIPS: Illegally Collects Debt, Suit Claims
LAFAYETTE STREET: Faces "Herrera" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
LEVI GOLDSTEIN: Faces "Hobbs" Sued Over Alleged Shill Bidding
LINDSAY ENTERTAINMENT: Class of Dancers Certified in "Tassy" Suit
MACHINE ZONE: Panel Dismissed Potential Class Action

MEAGAN BRENNAN: Pending Class Suit Subsumes Individual Claim
MEDITERRANEAN KITCHENS: "Trujillo" Suit Invokes FLSA, Ill. Law
MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Severns Moves for Certification of Class
MONSANTO COMPANY: Martin's Bid to Certify Taken Under Submission
NANTHEALTH INC: Faces "Rienzo" Securities Suit Over IPO

NCC BUSINESS: Brace Moves for Class Certification Under Damasco
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Suit Over Train's Noise Pollution
ONSHORE TECHNOLOGY: "Coleman" Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
OPHTHOTECH CORP: "Wasson" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation
OVERLAND SOLUTIONS: Sui Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages

PPG INDUSTRIES: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Amos" Suit
PRIMEX CLINICAL: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces "Guerra" Suit Under FLSA, Ohio Law
PUBLIC HEALTH: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach
QUEBEC: 400 Student Protesters File $6-Mil. Class Action

RAMONA MUNICIPAL: Sewer Fees Suit Reaches Appeals Court
RITA'S WATER: Judge Denies Counsel's Request of USD1MM in Fees
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Hansen" Sues Over Washing Machines
SAN JOSE, CA: Wallace Moves to Certify Class of City Firefighters
SASCO HARDWARE: Faces "Moses" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

SHIVA ESTATE: Shuler Moves for Certification of Laborers Class
TOKYO ELECTRIC: Evacuees Disappointed with Awarded Compensation
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Kobleski Moves for Class Certification
UNITED STATES: Class Certification Sought in "Robles" Suit
UNITED STATES: Certification of Class Sought in "Witchard" Suit

UNITED STATES: Judge Dismisses Suit Challenging Child Welfare Act
VOLKSWAGEN: Judge Approves US$175 Million Counsel Fee
WELLS FARGO: Judge Refuses to Dismiss TCPA Violation Suit
WISCONSIN, USA: Court Certifies Class of Inmates in "Austin" Suit
WP& S CONTRACTORS: Tessie, et al. Allege Violation of FLSA

XPO LOGISTICS: Pregent's Bid to Certify Class Entered & Continued




                            *********


ADELPHI RESTORATION: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Moses Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Moses, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Adelphi Restoration Corp., Case No.
152224/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 8, 2017), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours in any given week.

Adelphi Restoration Corp. is a full service exterior restoration
firm specializing in masonry and roofing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
      LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq.
      Milana Dostanitch, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
              llusher@vandallp.com
              mdostanitch@vandallp.com


ASSET RECOVERY: Woods Moves for Class Certification Under Damasco
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leticia Woods moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit styled LETICIA WOODS, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ASSET RECOVERY
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-00354 (E.D. Wisc.), and further
asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification
and to grant her (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules
setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and
supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

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

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

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

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

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DrW7cFWE

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AT&T SERVICES: Gorss Motels Files Suit Over "Unsolicited" Faxes
---------------------------------------------------------------
GORSS MOTELS, INC., a Connecticut corporation, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. AT&T SERVICES, INC., AT&T INC., Delaware
corporations, AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES LLC, AT&T MOBILITY LLC,
Delaware limited liability companies, AT&T CORP., a New York
corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00403
(D. Conn., March 9, 2017), challenges Defendants' alleged practice
of sending unsolicited facsimiles in violation of the Junk Fax
Prevention Act.

AT&T Services, Inc. tests, commercializes, and markets Internet
services to residential and commercial customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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


AT&T SERVICES: Certification of Class Sought in Gorss Motels Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned GORSS MOTELS, INC., a
Connecticut corporation, individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly-situated persons v. AT&T SERVICES, INC., AT&T
INC., Delaware corporations, AT&T MOBILITY SERVICES LLC, AT&T
MOBILITY LLC, Delaware limited liability companies, AT&T CORP., a
New York corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 3:17-cv-00403-
JBA (D. Conn.), moves the Court for an order:

   A. granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
      pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
      Procedure, or alternatively,

   B. taking the Motion under submission and deferring further
      activity on it until after the discovery cutoff date to be
      set in the Court's upcoming Rule 23 scheduling order.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


CABO CANTINA: Faces "South" Suit Over Living Wages Surcharge
------------------------------------------------------------
Jay South, an individual, and on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Cabo Cantina, LLC, Cabo Cantina L.A., LLC,
HLWD IP Grill, LLC, SRMG, LLC (Sunset Restaurant Management
Group), and Does 1-50, Case No. BC652905 (Cal. Super. Ct., March
8, 2017), arises out of the Defendants' unlawful, deceptive, and
unlawful practice of charging patrons a 4.9% surcharge for living
wages without providing notice to the patron.

The Defendants own and operate Cabo Cantina restaurant located in
Marina Del Ray, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      JL Sean Slattery, Esq.
      SLATTERY, SOBEL & DECAMP, LLP
      12250 El Camino Real, Suite 120
      San Diego, CA 92130
      Telephone: (858) 793-6244
      Facsimile: (858) 793-6005
      E-mail: sslattery@ssdlawoffice.com


CALHOUN, GA: 11th Cir. Vacates Injunction Halting Jailing Practice
------------------------------------------------------------------
R. Robin McDonald at Daily Report wrote that a federal appellate
panel in Atlanta whose members had offered blistering verbal
critiques of lawyers defending the city of Calhoun's practice of
jailing people too poor to post misdemeanor bonds never-the-less
have handed the city an appellate win.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit has vacated a preliminary injunction handed down
last year by U.S. District Senior Judge Harold Murphy that had
held unconstitutional Calhoun's practice of jailing indigent
defendants accused of city ordinance violations and minor
misdemeanors solely because they did not have the money needed to
secure their release.

In a joint, unsigned opinion the panel -- Eleventh Circuit Judges
William Pryor and Adalberto Jordan and Bobby Baldock, a Tenth
Circuit senior judge -- chided Murphy for issuing a preliminary
injunction they determined was too weak in providing any specific
direction as to what the city needed to do to make its misdemeanor
bond practices constitutionally palatable.

"Requiring the city to 'comply with the Constitution' is the arch
typical and unenforceable 'obey the law' injunction," the opinion
stated. Murphy's injunction, the appellate panel determined, did
not include any "operative command capable of enforcement or
review" and offered "no guidance on the minimal standards required
by the Constitution."

Murphy issued the injunction in what has become a nationally-
watched case after attorneys with the Southern Center for Human
Rights in Atlanta sued the city of Calhoun on behalf of Maurice
Walker, the lead plaintiff in the class action complaint. Walker -
- disabled by a mental disorder and unable to work -- had been
arrested for public intoxication in 2015 and jailed because he
could not afford to pay a USD160 cash bond that would have secured
his release. He remained in jail for six days until Southern
Center attorneys stepped in and sued the city on his behalf.

Calhoun's bail bond schedule and its policy of detaining those who
couldn't pay up remained in place until nine days before Murphy
issued the injunction in February 2016. At that time, the city
modified its practice to require that arrestees who couldn't post
a cash bond must be released after 48 hours.

Calhoun's appeal of Murphy's ruling attracted the attention of the
U.S. Justice Department and the American Bar Association, both of
which filed friend-of-the-court briefs urging the Eleventh Circuit
to affirm Murphy's rulings. Countering those briefs were others
submitted by the Georgia Municipal Association and neighboring
Alabama League of Municipalities and four Alabama cities that
weighed in on behalf of Calhoun. So did the Georgia Sheriffs
Association, the American Bail Coalition and the Georgia
Association of Professional Bondsmen, which hired Washington
lawyer Paul Clement to file an amicus brief defending Calhoun's
bail policies.

Alec Karakatsanis -- alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org. -- , an
attorney with the Washington-based nonprofit Civil Rights Corps
who defended Murphy's injunction in oral arguments last month
before the federal appellate panel, said that, although Murphy's
preliminary injunction has been vacated, it has been remanded with
instructions that more detail is required. Karakatsanis -- who is
challenging local governments across the country that have
instituted similar bond policies that he said distinguishes and
penalizes people simply because they lack an ability to pay -- is
partnering with the Southern Center for Human Rights in the Walker
case.

"The whole purpose of bringing a case like this is to get a more
clear ruling on what the law is," he said.

Karakatsanis said that municipalities such as Calhoun are using
the misdemeanor cash bond system to generate revenues to support
city services. A preset bond schedule for misdemeanors often
matches the total of a fine and court fees and surcharges a
defendant would incur if he or she pleaded guilty or was
convicted, he said.

Karakatsanis labeled as "terrible public policy" the practice of
jailing people who pose no threat to the community in jail --
often for days -- solely because of their inability to buy their
freedom with a cash bond.

Sam Lucas -- slucas@brinson-askew.com --, an attorney with Brinson
Askew Berry in Rome who argued Calhoun's case before the appeals
panel, could not be reached for comment. Calhoun City Attorney
George Govignon also could not be reached.


COIL CHEM: Cooper Moves to Certify Class of Field Operators
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled ALAN COOPER, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. COIL CHEM, LLC, Case
No. 5:16-cv-00473-D (W.D. Oklahoma.), files with the Court his
motion for conditional class certification.

Coil Chem failed to pay its field operators overtime wages
required under federal law, Mr. Cooper alleges.  He contends that
Coil Chem maintained a uniform pay practice of paying its field
operators a salary and job bonus without any overtime
compensation, which practice flagrantly violates the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

In his Motion, Mr. Cooper seeks to allow his coworkers -- other
field operators, who performed similar job duties and received
similar pay -- to receive notice of the collective action so that
they can recover their valuable backwage claims.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=G8y2l9wO

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: mparmet@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND,BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
          1150 Bissonnet
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751-0025
          Telecopier: (713) 751-0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
                  adunlap@fibichlaw.com


CREDIT COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, "Dekhkanov" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Svetlana Rebeca Dekhkanov, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated consumers v. Credit Collection Services, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01365 (E.D.N.Y., March 10, 2017), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Credit Collection Services is a professional full service debt
recovery, law firm and investigations company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Igor B. Litvak, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF IGOR LITVAK
      1701 Avenue P
      Brooklyn, NY 11229
      Telephone: (646) 796-4905
      Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
      E-mail: igorblitvak@gmail.com

CRESTWOOD OPERATIONS: Faces "Ramirez" Class Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Crestwood
Operations LLC.

The case is captioned Carlos Ramirez, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated v.
Crestwood Operations LLC, Case No. BCV-17-100503 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
March 11, 2017).

Crestwood Operations LLC provides gathering, processing, storage,
and transportation services to customers in the crude oil, natural
gas liquids (NGL), and natural gas sectors of the energy industry
in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas Han, Esq.
      JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
      411 N Central Ave., Ste. 500
      Glendale, CA 91203-2095
      Telephone: (818) 230-7502
      Facsimile: (818) 230-7259
      E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com


CROWN BUILDING: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Campuzano, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Crown Building Maintenance Co., Able Services, and
Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. BC652932 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 8,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum and overtime wages in violation of the California Labor
Code.

The Defendants own and operate a professional janitorial,
engineering, and facility services company, providing said
services throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Hawkins, Esq.
      Gregory Mauro, Esq.
      JAMES HAWKINS APLC
      9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
      Irvine, CA 92618
      Telephone: (949) 387-7200
      Facsimile: (949) 387-6676
      E-mail: James@jameshawkinsaplc.com
              Greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com


CVS PHARMACY: Judge Declines to Certify Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Christine Blank at Modern Medicine reports that a U.S. District
Court judge has declined to certify 11 state classes in a class
action lawsuit alleging that the CVS Pharmacy chain overcharged
some customers for generic drugs.

However, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, with the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California said she may allow
the plaintiffs to amend their motion for certification, according
to a Courthouse News Service article.

The decision concerns a class action complaint filed against CVS
in August 2015, claiming the pharmacy chain charged insurance
companies and insured customers up to four times more for generic
prescriptions than they charged uninsured customers to fill the
same scripts.

Neither CVS nor the plaintiffs' attorney responded to requests
from Drug Topics for comment.

CVS charges its insured customers above its "usual and customary
price" for generic drugs than its cash-paying customers, according
to Christopher Corcoran, the lead plaintiff.  The problems stem
from CVS's Health Savings Pass (HSP), which includes long-term
maintenance medications often prescribed to elderly and disabled
patients, the complaint stated.

When CVS launched its HSP program in 2008, it charged USD9.99 for
a 90-day supply of a covered drug. "The plaintiffs say that the
cheaper drug prices available under the program were CVS's most
common prices, and that it should have used them to calculate its
customary price, but did not," Courthouse News said.

By submitting "false and inflated prices" to third-party payers,
"CVS knowingly and wrongfully overcharged plan participants co-pay
amounts that often exceeded the HSP drug prices available to the
general public for the same drugs," the complaint stated.

"The problem I see is that there are fiftyish in that group of
[claims administrators] and 1,200 contracts, all of which were
separately negotiated by sophisticated parties, and somehow you
have common evidence that suggests that there have been
affirmative representations?" Gonzalez Rogers said at the hearing.
"I don't see how you are going to get over this hurdle."
Affirmative representation is representation that asserts the
existence of facts on a given subject matter.

Even though CVS discontinued the HSP program in February, 2016, it
moved the program's members to new discount programs, and has
continued to exclude discounted prices from its customary price
calculations, the attorney for the class, Robert Gilmore, said at
the hearing.

"Is that part of the lawsuit? How can I enjoin conduct that is not
in front of me?" Gonzalez Rogers said, and tossed out the claim,
Courthouse News reported. She also refused to issue an injunction
against CVS. "There is no conduct to enjoin at this point."


CWI INC: Faces "Leclaire" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
LORI LECLAIRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. CWI, INC. d/b/a CAMPING WORLD, INC.
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01883 (N.D. Ill., March 9, 2017),
alleges that instead of paying Plaintiff overtime, Camping World
paid all of its parts coordinators a base salary and bonuses in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Camping World is a camping and outdoor lifestyle retail company
with significant operations throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
     FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
     1150 Bissonnet
     Houston, TX 77005
     Phone: 713-751-0025
     Fax: 713-751-0030
     E-mail: jbresler@fibichlaw.com
             mjosephson@fibichlaw.com

        - and -

     Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
     Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
     Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
     Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
     WERMAN SALAS P.C.
     77 W. Washington St., Ste. 1402
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 419-1008
     Fax: (312) 419-1025
     E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
              msalas@flsalaw.com
              sarendt@flsalaw.com
              zflowerree@flsalaw.com


DRUMMOND COMPANY: Faces "Jerue" Class Suit in M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Drummond
Company, Inc.

The case is captioned John J. Jerue, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Drummond Company, Inc., Case No.
8:17-cv-00587-EAK-AEP (M.D. Fla., March 10, 2017).

Drummond Company, Inc. is engaged in the mining and processing of
coal and coal products as well as oil and real estate. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. O'Toole
      LILLY, O'TOOLE & BROWN, LLP
      310 E Main St., PO Box 50
      Bartow, FL 33831
      Telephone: (863) 533-5525
      Facsimile: (863) 533-0505
      E-mail: notoole@loblawyers.com


EOS CCA: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lewis" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Jodiann Lewis, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. EOS CCA, Case No. 1:17-cv-01370 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 11, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Headquartered in Norwell, Massachusetts, EOS CCA, is a provider of
customer care and receivables management services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Igor B. Litvak, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF IGOR LITVAK
      1701 Avenue P
      Brooklyn, NY 11229
      Telephone: (646) 796-4905
      Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
      E-mail: igorblitvak@gmail.com


FORD AUSTRALIA: ACCC Preparing to Launch Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
John Rolfe at News Corp Australia Network reports the consumer
watchdog will launch Federal Court action over tens of thousands
of dodgy Fords in a major win for women told by the car giant that
the problem was their "driving style".

News Corp Australia can reveal the Australian Competition and
Consumer Commission is in the final stages of preparing to allege
the motoring giant misled owners over their legal rights. It
follows a year-long investigation into Ford's handling of a
transmission fault in as many as 70,000 cars sold since 2011.

The ACCC has been examining whether owners of models including
Focus and Fiesta were unlawfully denied refunds or replacements
and instead only offered repeated -- but often unsuccessful --
repairs or the option of paying thousands of dollars extra to get
a flaw-free car.

The commission has also been contacted by women whose complaints
to Ford dealers about defects were dismissed as being an issue was
their "driving style".

"I was told that many times," said Taylor Morgan, whose Focus
repeatedly lost power without warning in traffic. It would also
surge.

"It's appalling on so many levels," said owner Leanne Scudds. "The
ACCC should be taking Ford to court. The cars are hazardous and so
many people have been affected."

The ACCC is already at war with automakers and dealers. It has:

   * FORCED Jeep to reopen two years of customer complaints;

   * TAKEN VW and Audi to court over "defeat devices" used to game
emissions testing; and

   * PROBED the entire industry over concerns customers are
routinely denied their legal rights, known as consumer guarantees.

Ford is also facing a class action from frustrated owners. The
firm running the action said it had been in contact with the
consumer commission.

"And there are a number of our class members who have also made
complaints individually to the ACCC," said Bannister Law solicitor
Diane Chapman. "We would be very happy for the commission to file
a matter."

The lead applicant in the class action, Billie Capic, was told
several times there was nothing wrong with her Focus despite it
repeatedly losing power in traffic. In court documents she says
she was told shuddering, jerking and harsh gear changes were a
result of her "driving style", which the car's transmission had to
adjust to.

ACCC chairman Rod Sims said he would not comment and neither
confirmed nor denied it would be taking Ford to the Federal Court.

ACCC spokeswoman Elise Davidson said it was investigating "a
number" of carmakers' handling of consumer guarantee issues
"including in the context of particular faults identified in
certain models".

"The ACCC is currently prioritising two investigations with a view
to concluding them by midyear," Ms Davidson said.

Ford spokesman Martin Gunsberg said "Ford has no comment".


FORSTER GARBUS: Sued Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Morello, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Forster, Garbus & Garbus and John Does 1-25, Case No.
2:17-cv-01667-JLL-SCM (D.N.J., March 13, 2017), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Forster, Garbus & Garbus operates a law firm located at 7 Banta
Pl, Hackensack, NJ 07601.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
      375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
      Fairfield, NJ 07004
      Telephone: (973) 227-5900
      Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
      E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


FOUR FREEDOMS: FDR Memorial not Wheelchair Friendly, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Hayward at Palm Beach Post reports that a New York memorial
built to honor Franklin D. Roosevelt, America's first wheelchair-
bound president, has numerous features that make it difficult for
wheelchair users to enjoy, a class-action lawsuit says, according
to CNN.

The park's website says that it is wheelchair accessible and that
wheelchairs are available free of charge. But several advocacy
groups for the disabled have sued over issues such as areas
reached only by stairs or a "long, uneven path." The gift shop and
restrooms were also cited for not complying with Americans with
Disabilities Act rules.

"The Memorial was built very recently, decades after the ADA, and
New York State should know better," said Michelle Caiola,
litigation director at Disability Rights Advocates, in a prepared
statement.

The memorial opened in 2012. "Four Freedoms Park is - and always
has been - committed to accessibility for people with
disabilities," said Madeline Grimes of the Four Freedoms Park
Conservancy. "We take accessibility issues very seriously and
strive to meet the needs of all of our visitors."

The suit is asking that any parts of the memorial that limit
access be fixed.


G&G MECHANICAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Labor & Equipment Fee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Absolute Electrical Contracting of NY Inc., on behalf of itself
and others similarly situated v. G&G Mechanical Enterises, LLC,
Jennifer Guerrero, The City of New York and New York City
Department of Parks and Recreation, Case No. 651219/2017 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., March 8, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay a balance of $42,300.00 due and owing to the
Plaintiff for the labor, materials and equipment furnished by the
Plaintiff at the Pelham Project.

G&G Mechanical Enterises, LLC provides a wide range of HVAC
services for residential properties in New York.

The City of New York is a municipality duly organized and existing
under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York.

New York City Department of Parks and Recreation is a department
and agency of New York City. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raymond A. Castronovo, Esq.
      FORCHELLI, CURTO, DEEGAN SCHWARTZ, MINEO & TERRANA, LLP
      333 Earle Ovington Blvd., Suite 1010
      Uniondale, NY 11553
      Telephone: (516) 248-1700
      E-mail: rcastronovo@forchellilaw.com


GAME FISH: Judge Gives Victory to Private Land Owners
-----------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Ellis at The Argus Leader reports that the South Dakota
Supreme Court dealt a victory to private property owners in a
ruling that says a state agency doesn't have the legal authority
to allow people access to flooded waters or ice over private
property without legislative approval.

The decision represents a blow to South Dakota Game Fish & Parks,
which had argued that all water was accessible to the public if it
could be reached without trespassing on private land. It also
represents a defeat for hunters and anglers who argued that all
waters in the state should be accessible to the public.

The decision stems from a lawsuit brought by landowners in Day
County against the GF&P as well as a class action against people
accessing two sloughs. The two sloughs grew in the 1990s after
heavy rains and snows, and in 2001, the public began using them
for recreation, even though they were on private property.
"Members of the public would set up villages of ice shacks, drive
their vehicles on the ice, camp on the ice and, according to the
landowners, fire guns, blare music, operate loud machinery, get
drunk, litter, cookout, etc.," wrote Supreme Court Justice Lori
Wilbur in the court's opinion. "The Landowners claimed that, on
certain days in the spring and fall, over 200 boats would launch
into the waters. In the winter, over 70 ice shacks and vehicles
would be present."

The dispute has its roots in the late 1800s when South Dakota's
waters were first surveyed. The survey included lines around lakes
and other bodies of water greater than 40 acres that were
considered meandered bodies. Water bodies that didn't meet the
requirements were noted on the survey without lines around them,
classifying them as non-meandered.

By law, the state owned the land under meandered bodies but
private landowners owned title to land under non-meandered bodies,
the conclusion being that non-meandered bodies of water were
temporary and the land might be suitable for agriculture.
In 2004, the court ruled that all waters belonged to the public.
But even so, the ruling stipulated that it was up to the
Legislature to decide whether non-meandered bodies of water served
a beneficial use to the public.

In the latest ruling, the court noted that the Legislature had
considered the issue three times since the 2004 ruling but had not
voted to make non-meandered waters open to the public. The ruling
also forbids GF&P from facilitating access to the public on waters
and ice over private property.

"We're pleased that the South Dakota Supreme Court has reaffirmed
that only the Legislature can authorize hunting and fishing on
private flooded lands, and the Legislature has not done so," said
Ron Parsons, who with Jack Hieb represented the landowners. "This
is a victory for farmers and landowners, private property rights,
and our constitutional separation of powers."

A spokeswoman with GF&P did not return a message or email.
Agriculture groups including the South Dakota Cattlemen's
Association, the South Dakota Corn Growers Association and the
South Dakota Farm Bureau submitted a brief in support of the Day
County landowners. They argued GF&P was motivated to open
additional lands to hunting and fishing without seeking
legislative approval.

"A judicial or bureaucratic decision to open the flooded private
lands in northeastern South Dakota to public use would raise
serious taking questions because it would subject South Dakota
property owners to the risk of repeated and hard to police
trespass, nuisance-like conditions, loss of property value, and
loss of privacy," their brief argued.

On the other side, the South Dakota Wildlife Foundation said the
waters should be open to the public, arguing it would be "a great
wrong" if they weren't.

The case is THAD DUERRE; CLINT DUERRE; ROBERT DUERRE; and LARON
HERR, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. KELLY R. HEPLER, in his
official capacity as Secretary of the State of South Dakota Game,
Fish and Parks Department; SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF GAME, FISH
AND PARKS; STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA; and a class of individuals,
similarly situated, who have used or intend to use the bodies of
water described in this complaint without the permission of the
owners of the property which the waters lie, Defendants and
Appellants, No. 27885 (S.D.).

RONALD A. PARSONS, JR., SHANNON R. FALON of Johnson Janklow
Abdallah, Reiter & Parsons LLP, Sioux Falls, South Dakota. and
JACK HIEB, ZACHARY W. PETERSON of Richardson, Wyly, Wise Sauck &
Hieb, LLP, Aberdeen, South Dakota, Attorneys for plaintiffs and
appellees.

MARTY J. JACKLEY, Attorney General, ANN F. MINES BAILEY, Assistant
Attorney General, RICHARD J. NEILL, Special Assistant Attorney
General, Pierre, South Dakota, Attorneys for defendants and
appellants.


GIGPEAK INC: Trust Sues Over Misleading Solicitation Statement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Vladimir Gusinsky Rev. Trust, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Gigpeak, Inc., Avi Katz, Neil J.
Miotto, Kimberly D.C. Trapp, Joseph J. Lazzara, John J. Mikulsky,
Frank W. Schneider, Integrated Device Technology, Inc., and Glider
Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00241-UNA (D. Del., March 8,
2017), arises out of the alleged false and misleading solicitation
statement made by the Defendants regarding the proposed
acquisition of Gigpeak, Inc. by Integrated Device Technology, Inc.

Gigpeak, Inc. is an innovator of semiconductor ICs and software
solutions for highspeed connectivity and high-quality video
compression over the Network and the Cloud. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


IC SYSTEM: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lyndon Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. I.C. System, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01354 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 10, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

I.C. System, Inc. is a provider of accounts receivable management
services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph H. Mizrahi
      LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C.
      2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 339-0856
      Facsimile: (347) 244-7178
      E-mail jmizrahi@sassonlaw.com


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against INSYS Therapeutics, Inc. ("Insys" or the "Company")
(NYSE:INSY) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed
in United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
and docketed under 17-cv-01954, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Insys securities between February 23, 2016 and March 15, 2017 both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover
compensable damages caused by defendants' violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Insys securities during the
Class Period, you have until May 16, 2017 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

Insys, a specialty pharmaceutical company, develops and
commercializes supportive care products. The Company markets
Subsys, a sublingual fentanyl spray for breakthrough cancer pain
in opioid-tolerant cancer patients in the United States. Its lead
product candidate is Syndros, an orally administered liquid
formulation of dronabinol. The Company is also developing
Cannabidiol Oral Solution, a synthetic cannabidiol for childhood
catastrophic epilepsy syndromes; and other product candidates,
including other dronabinol line extensions and sublingual spray
product candidates.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Insys had overstated its 2015 net revenue; (ii) Insys
had misstated its sales allowances for 2016; (iii) accordingly,
the Company lacked effective internal controls over financial
reporting; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Insys's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On March 15, 2017, post-market, Insys announced that it would
delay the release of its financial results for the quarter and
year ended December 31, 2016. Insys advised investors that "[t]he
Audit Committee of the Company's Board of Directors has been
conducting an independent review of the Company's processes
related to estimation of, and increases to, certain sales
allowances recorded during 2016, with a potential reduction of
2015 net revenue and pre-tax income not expected to exceed USD5
million, as well as extended payment terms offered to certain
customers during the third quarter of 2016."

On this news, Insys's share price fell USD0.49, or 4.64%, to close
at USD10.06 on March 16, 2017.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com


J MART GROUP: Faces "De Jesus" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Encarnacion De Jesus, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. J Mart Group Inc. d/b/a J Mart, Qin Zhou
Chen, Zin Zhou Chen, and Lian Nu Shao, Case No. :17-cv-01368
(E.D.N.Y., March 10, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate an Asian grocery store located at
136-20 Roosevelt Ave, Flushing, NY 11354. [BN]

Oscar Encarnacion De Jesus is a pro se plaintiff.


JANSSEN RESEARCH: Sued in Lo. Over Defective Xarelto(R) Design
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tonya Wilson, individually and on behalf of the estate of Elvira
Wilson, Deceased v. Janssen Research & Development LLC f/k/a
Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development LLC;
Johnson and Johnson; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. f/k/a Janssen
Pharmaceutica Inc. f/k/a Ortho-Mcneil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals;
Janssen Ortho LLC; Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Bayer
Pharma AG, f/k/a Bayer Schering Pharma AG; Bayer Corporation;
Bayer Healthcare LLC; Bayer Healthcare AG; Bayer AG; and John Does
1-5, Case No. 2:17-cv-01955-EEF-MBN (E.D. La., March 8, 2017),
arises out of the injuries suffered by the class members as a
proximate result of the defective design, research, manufacturing,
testing, advertising, promotion, marketing, and distribution in
design or formulation of Xarelto(R).

Xarelto(R) is a prescription medicine used to reduce the risk of
stroke and blood clots in people with atrial fibrillation, not
caused by a heart valve problem.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
      Timothy E. Jackson, Esq.
      WEXLER WALLACE LLP
      55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 346-2222
      Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
      E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
              tej@wexlerwallace.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Savings Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Stirsman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Investment
Management Inc., Board Of Directors Of Jpmorgan Chase & Company,
Board Of Directors Of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Linda B. Bammann,
James A. Bell, Frank J. Bisignano, Crandall C. Bowles, Stephen B.
Burke, James S. Crown, Jamie Dimon, Timothy P. Flynn, Laban P.
Jackson, Michael A. Neal, Lee R. Raymond, William C. Weldon,
Matthew E. Zames, Compensation & Management Development Committee
Of JPMorgan Chase & Company, JPMorgan Chase 401(K) Savings Plan
Selection Committee, John C. Donnelly, Marianne Lake, JPMorgan
Chase 401(K) Savings Plan Employee Plans Investment Committee,
JPMorgan Chase 401(K) Savings Plan Administrator, Bernadette J.
Branosky, Blackrock, Inc., and John Doe 1-100, Case No. 1:17-cv-
01707 (S.D.N.Y., March 8, 2017), is an action for damages as a
result of conflicted and imprudent and disloyal decisions by the
Defendants with respect to the selection and retention of
investment options in the  JPMorgan Chase 401(k) Savings Plan  and
the investment of the Plan's assets.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a national banking association that
has retail branches in 23 states and operates nationally.

J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. is a registered investment
adviser and one of the asset management subsidiaries of JPMorgan
Chase. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David S. Preminger, Esq.
      Tanya Korkhov, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1140 Avenue of The Americas, 9th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (646) 380-6690
      Facsimile: (646) 380-6692
      E-mail: dpreminger@kellerrohrback.com
              tkorkhov@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
      Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
      Erin M. Riley, Esq.
      Gretchen S. Obrist, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
              dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
              eriley@kellerrohrback.com
              gobrist@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      Khesraw Karmand, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK LAW OFFICES, LLP
      1129 State Street, Suite 8
      Santa Barbara, CA 93101
      Telephone: (805) 456-1496
      Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
      E-mail kkarmand@kellerrohrback.com


KIRSCHENBAUM PHILLIPS: Illegally Collects Debt, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Tyria Richardson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Kirschenbaum, Phillips & Levy, P.C., Case No. 1:17-cv-
01356 (E.D.N.Y., March 10, 2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Kirschenbaum, Phillips & Levy, P.C. operates a law firm located at
40 Daniel St #7, Farmingdale, NY 11735.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq.
      Alan J. Sasson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C.
      2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 339-0856
      Facsimile: (347) 244-7178
      E-mail: jmizrahi@sassonlaw.com
              alan@sassonlaw.com


LAFAYETTE STREET: Faces "Herrera" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
SAUL HERRERA and HUGO ORDONEZ, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LAFAYETTE STREET PARTNERS, LLC
d/b/a LAFAYETTE GRAND CAFê & BAKERY, LAFAYETTE STREET PARTNERS II,
LLC d/b/a LAFAYETTE GRAND CAFê & BAKERY, NOHO HOSPITALITY, LLC
d/b/a NOHO HOSPITALITY GROUP, ERIC MELO, GUSTAVO DIAZ, LUCIANO
DUCO, LUKE OSTROM, NICHOLAS LORENTZ, BRYAN NASWORTHY, and DOMINIC
"DOE" (LAST NAME UNKNOWN), Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01776
(S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2017), alleges that  Defendants have willfully
and intentionally committed widespread violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law, by engaging in a
pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including
Plaintiffs, compensation for minimum wages, overtime compensation
for all hours worked over 40 each workweek, spread of hours pay
for workdays lasting 10 hours or more, for failing to provide wage
notices as required by the NYLL, and for illegally and
fraudulently manipulating employee clock-in and clock-out times to
reduce the number of Plaintiffs' hours recorded in business
records.

Defendant LAFAYETTE STREET PARTNERS, LLC owns and operates
Lafayette Grand Cafe & Bakery, a restaurant.  The work performed
by Plaintiffs included handling food stats and washing dishes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jian Hang, Esq.
     HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
     Flushing, NY
     Jian Hang, Esq.
     136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Phone: 718.353.8588
     E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


LEVI GOLDSTEIN: Faces "Hobbs" Sued Over Alleged Shill Bidding
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harlan Hobbs, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Levi Goldstein, R.L. Spear Company, Inc., and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC652806 (Cal. Super. Ct., March
8, 2017), alleges that the Defendants are engaged in acts of fraud
and deception by engaging in "shill" bidding for in-house auctions
so as to induce good-faith consumers to bid and provide "hidden"
maximum bids that were then used to artificially increase bid
amounts and profits from goods listed for auction.

Levi Goldstein, R.L. Spear Company, Inc. operates a liquidation
firm located at 5776D #409 Lindero Canyon Rd., Westlake Village,
CA 91362.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq.
      Isam C. Khoury, Esq.
      J. Jason Hill, Esq.
      COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
      605 "C" Street, Suite 200
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 595-3001
      Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
      E-mail: tcohelan@ckslaw.com
              ikhourv@ckslaw.com
              ihill@ckslaw.com


LINDSAY ENTERTAINMENT: Class of Dancers Certified in "Tassy" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Thomas B. Russell entered a memorandum opinion and order
in the lawsuit captioned GLORIA TASSY, individually and on behalf
of all similarly situated v. LINDSAY ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES,
INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-00077-TBR (W.D. Ky.):

   -- granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion
      for an extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's
      motion for conditional certification and to file an answer
      to her complaint;

   -- deeming as timely filed the Defendant's response to Gloria
      Tassy's motion for conditional certification;

   -- directing the Defendant to file an answer to Gloria Tassy's
      complaint no more than 21 days from the entry of the order;

   -- granting in part and denying in part Gloria Tassy's Motion
      for Conditional Certification.  The proposed collective
      FLSA class is conditionally certified as:

      All current and former Entertainers/Exotic Dancers who
      worked for Lindsay Entertainment Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a
      The Godfather, from February 10, 2013 to the present who
      were classified as independent contractors, worked for tips
      only, and, as a result, were not paid the wage required by
      federal law;

   -- directing the Defendant to produce to counsel for Gloria
      Tassy a list containing the full names, job titles, last
      known addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and
      dates of employment for all putative class members;

   -- directing the parties to confer and file with the Court an
      agreed-upon notice and consent-to-join form consistent with
      this opinion;

   -- directing counsel for Gloria Tassy to send via first-class
      mail the agreed-upon notice and consent-to-join form to all
      persons whose names appear on the list produced by Lindsay;
      and

   -- ruling that all persons whose names appear on the list
      produced by Lindsay will be allowed 60 days from the date
      notice is sent to file consent-to-join forms with the Clerk
      of the Court.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ji6xsBo7


MACHINE ZONE: Panel Dismissed Potential Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Barbara Grzincic at Reuters reports that players who lost "virtual
gold" at the virtual casino in mobile gaming company Machine
Zone's popular Game of War app did not lose real money, a federal
appeals court held on March 17.

The unanimous three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a potential class action by
Maryland woman, Mia Mason against Palo Alto, California-based
Machine Zone, also known as MZ.

The appeals case is MIA MASON, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MACHINE ZONE,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Appellee, No. 15-2469 (4th
Cir.).


MEAGAN BRENNAN: Pending Class Suit Subsumes Individual Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review reports that employers facing multiple
litigations can take solace in the fact that, sometimes, too much
of a bad thing can be helpful.

In Ruiz v. Brennan, 16-11061, the Fifth Circuit held that a
pending administrative class action subsumed a plaintiff's
attempts to file an arguably duplicative individual claim in a
separate action.  As a result, the second litigation was dismissed
without prejudice.

Administrative Class Action

The United States Postal Service faced an administrative class
action in McConnell v. Potter, which asserted class-wide claims of
disability discrimination related to the National Reassessment
Program ("NRP"), a program designed to regulate procedures for
issuing workplace assignments to postal workers injured on the
job.  In McConnell, the EEOC certified an administrative class of
"all permanent rehabilitation employees and limited duty
employees . . . who have been subjected to the NRP from May 5, 2006
to the present."

Ruiz Litigation

While McConnell was pending, Plaintiff Ruiz (who has congenital
hearing impairment) filed an individual administrative complaint
with the EEOC claiming disability discrimination in connection
with the Postal Service's decision that it could not identify a
modified job she could perform due to a work-related disability
(carpal tunnel syndrome).

The Postal Service argued Ruiz's individual claim was subsumed in
the pending McConnell case.  The EEOC agreed.  Undeterred, Ruiz
filed a federal court complaint.  Ultimately, the district court
dismissed her claim, finding that she failed to exhaust her
administrative remedies because the EEOC never addressed the
merits of her claim, which was subsumed by McConnell.

Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal

On appeal, Ruiz argued that she filed two distinct disability
claims: (1) she was removed improperly from her modified duty
position; and (2) the modified duty position was retracted due to
the employer's failure to accommodate her congenital hearing
impairment (as opposed to her on-the-job carpal tunnel injury).

In affirming the district court's dismissal, the Fifth Circuit
reasoned Ruiz's individual claims were subsumed by McConnell
inasmuch as she only received the modified duty position as part
of the NRP due to her work-related injury, not because of her
congenital hearing disability.  Accordingly, she did not exhaust
her administrative remedies, which was grounds for dismissal.
Takeaway

Ruiz is an important reminder for employers to evaluate existing
class claims to determine if they provide a basis to seek
dismissal of subsequently filed, arguably related individual
claims.

Terry J. Johnson, for Defendant-Appellee.

Brian Walters Stoltz, for Defendant-Appellee.

Susan Lyons Kerr, for Plaintiff-Appellant.


MEDITERRANEAN KITCHENS: "Trujillo" Suit Invokes FLSA, Ill. Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fidel Trujillo, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff v. Mediterranean Kitchens, Inc. dba
Pita Inn and Falah Tabahi, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-01887 (N.D. Ill., March 9, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff
was not paid his earned overtime wages as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Instead,
Defendants paid Plaintiff and other employees straight-time wages
for all hours worked weekly.

Defendants operate a restaurant commonly known as "Pita Inn."
Plaintiff worked as a dishwasher and busboy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
     6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
     Chicago, IL 60646
     Phone: 312-878-1302
     E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Severns Moves for Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marie Severns moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit captioned MARIE SEVERNS, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MERCANTILE
ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-00348-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.),
and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant her (and the Defendant) relief from the
Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring
briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

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

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

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

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

Ms. Severns also asks the Court to appoint her as class
representative and to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as class
counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONSANTO COMPANY: Martin's Bid to Certify Taken Under Submission
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable John F. Walter has taken under submission the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification filed in the lawsuit
entitled Elisabeth Martin v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 5:16-cv-
02168-JFW-SP (C.D. Cal.).

Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
Local Rule 7-15, the Court finds that the matter is appropriate
for decision without oral argument, according to the Court's civil
minutes.  The hearing calendared for March 13, 2017, is vacated
and the matter is taken off calendar.

The matter will be deemed submitted on the vacated hearing date
and the clerk will notify the parties when the Court has reached a
decision.

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


NANTHEALTH INC: Faces "Rienzo" Securities Suit Over IPO
-------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL DI RIENZO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. NANTHEALTH, INC., PATRICK SOON-
SHIONG, and PAUL A. HOLT, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01912 (C.D.
Cal., March 9, 2017), alleges that Defendants, in violation of the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Act, issued false and misleading
Registration Statement and Prospectus, in connection with the
Company's initial public offering on or about June 2, 2016; and/or
(2) on the open market between June 2, 2016 and March 3, 2017.
Specifically, that: (i) Defendant Soon-Shiong funneled business to
NantHealth through his donation to the University of Utah,
pursuant to the contractual terms of which the university was
effectively required to spend $10 million on genetics analysis
performed by the Company; (ii) consequently, the number of test
orders that NantHealth reported to investors was artificially
inflated; (iii) the contracts governing Soon-Shiong's donation to
the university violated federal tax law; and (iv) as a result,
NantHealth's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

NantHealth, Inc. is a transformational healthcare cloud-based IT
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     468 North Camden Drive
     Beverly Hills, CA 90210
     Phone: (818) 532-6499
     E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

     Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 377-1181
     Fax: (312) 377-1184
     E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

        - and -

     Michael Goldberg, Esq.
     Brian Schall, Esq.
     Sherin Mahdavian, Esq.
     GOLDBERG LAW PC
     1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: 1-800-977-7401
     Fax: 1-800-536-0065
     E-mail: michael@goldberglawpc.com
             brian@goldberglawpc.com
             sherin@goldberglawpc.com


NCC BUSINESS: Brace Moves for Class Certification Under Damasco
---------------------------------------------------------------
Margret Brace moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit titled MARGRET BRACE, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. NCC BUSINESS
SERVICES, INC. d/b/a NCC BUSINESS SERVICES OF OHIO, INC., Case No.
2:17-cv-00345-PP (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court
both stay the motion for class certification and to grant her (and
the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic
briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to
be filed with the Motion.

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

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

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

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

Ms. Brace also asks the Court to appoint her as class
representative and to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jqGZ6DO7

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Suit Over Train's Noise Pollution
---------------------------------------------------------
Andy Ouriel at Sandusky Register reports that Bellevue-area
residents are employing a full steam ahead approach in their quest
to quiet noisy train cars.

The Murray & Murray law firm on March 16 filed a class-action
federal lawsuit against Norfolk Southern to address what lawyers
characterized as "one of the most macabre forms of environmental
contamination, in the form of noise pollution."

Pending legal action aims to hush the shrieks, screeches and
squeals loudly echoing -- all day, all night every day for almost
two years now -- from the railroad's Moorman Yard, just off Ohio 4
at the border of Erie and Huron counties.
Ear-piercing noises stem from mechanisms called a retarder, which
slows down freight cars just before they're sorted into trains.

The retarders represent one newer feature from a USD160 million
investment made by Norfolk Southern, which wrapped up in 2015.
Company executives effectively doubled the yard's capacity to meet
a rising demand for freight and rail transportation.
But they failed to invest and install any device to deafen
boisterous noises produced by the retarders.

The result?

Sound levels routinely exceed 100 decibels, equivalent to a jet
flying directly over someone's head.

"Residents are unable to hold conversations, open windows or hear
their televisions," the lawsuit stated. "This has resulted in a
nuisance, which has, in turn, decreased property values as well as
in stress, adverse health impacts and loss of the enjoyment of
life. None of this is necessary because Norfolk Southern has
available to it sound-dampening options at a fraction of the cost
of its investment."

The law firm filed its lawsuit on behalf of two residents: Norm
Jacobs and Michael Nottke.

"If my backyard was a workplace, I would be legally forced to wear
ear plugs," Jacobs told the Register in 2015. "There are times
when it's so loud inside, it's unbearable, and our doors and
windows are closed. The noise will wake you up and keep you up at
night."
All the residents want, according to lead attorney Dennis Murray
Jr., is some peace and quiet.

"The plaintiffs and I think all neighbors would like this new,
intense noise to stop," Murray said. "They were fine with the old
yard, but this noise that this new equipment makes is unbearable.
What they want is fair compensation for what has been taken from
them, namely the ability to live peacefully in their homes and for
the significantly diminished value of their property, as
determined by a jury."

Norfolk Southern company spokesman Dave Pidgeon didn't respond to
an email seeking a comment on the lawsuit. In previous Register
news coverage, he's avoided directly answering questions related
to this topic.

What is a retarder?

At the Norfolk Southern Moorman Yard in Bellevue, ear-piercing
noises stem from mechanisms called a retarder, which slows down
freight cars just before they're sorted into trains.

The retarders represents one newer feature from a USD160 million
investment made by Norfolk Southern, which wrapped up in 2015.
Company executives effectively doubled the yard's capacity to meet
a rising demand for freight and rail transportation.
A class-action federal lawsuit filed against Norfolk Southern
explains what the device is and does:

In 2015, at the culmination of Bellevue yard's expansion, Norfolk
Southern installed new retarders at the top of what is called a
hump.

A yard with a hump operates by pushing trains up and over a hump,
after which the individual cars are redirected to different tracks
to make up new trains. The cars are slowed on the back end of the
hump by a retarder, essentially a giant (braking) system.
The retarders installed in 2015 dramatically increased the amount
of noise emanating from the Bellevue yard.

When in operation, the retarders generate a very loud, unbearable
high-pitched squealing sound of metal (brake) shoes rubbing on the
steel wheels of the train cars. The noise, also generally
described as screeching, is generated every time a car passes
through a retarder, and the retarder activates. These events
happen hundreds and thousands of times a day, 24 hours a day,
nearly every day of the year.


ONSHORE TECHNOLOGY: "Coleman" Seeks to Recoup OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEWAYNE COLEMAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff(s), v. ONSHORE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00013-CEJ (E.D. Mo., March 9, 2017),
alleges that Plaintiff is entitled to, inter alia: (i) unpaid
overtime wages for hours worked above 40 hours in a work week as
required by law; and (ii) liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Defendant provides technology resources.  Plaintiff was a "Quality
Assurance Technician" and performed related activities for
Defendant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Phillip M. Murphy II, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF PHILLIP M. MURPHY II
     4717 Grand Avenue, Suite 250
     Kansas City, MO 64112
     Phone: (913) 661-2900
     Fax: (913) 312-5841
     E-mail: phillip@phillipmurphylaw.com

        - and -

     Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 4200
     Post Office Box 57007
     Atlanta, GA 30343-1007
     Phone: (404) 965-8811
     Fax: (404) 496-7405
     Email: CLeach@forthepeople.com


OPHTHOTECH CORP: "Wasson" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARK WASSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. OPHTHOTECH CORPORATION, DAVID
R. GUYER, MICHAEL G. ATIEH, GLENN P. SBLENDORIO, and SAMIR PATEL,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01758 (S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2017),
alleges that each of the Individual Defendants are liable as a
participant in a fraudulent scheme and course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of Ophthotech's
securities by disseminating materially false and misleading
statements and/or concealing material adverse facts. The alleged
scheme: (i) deceived the investing public regarding Ophthotech's
business, operations, management and the intrinsic value of its
securities and (ii) caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to
purchase Ophthotech securities at artificially inflated prices.

Ophthotech Corp. is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company
specializing in the development of novel therapeutics to treat
back of the eye diseases.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
     Sebastiano Tornatore, Esq.
     Meghan Daley, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     733 Summer Street, Suite 304
     Stamford, CT 06901
     Phone: (203) 992-4523
     Fax: (212) 363-7171


OVERLAND SOLUTIONS: Sui Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Fietscher, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Overland Solutions, Inc. ("OSI") and Does 1-
100, Case No. RG17852058 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 8, 2017), seeks
to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, penalties, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, and all other appropriate relief to
which OSI insurance inspectors are entitled pursuant to the
California Labor Code.

Overland Solutions, Inc. specializes in premium audit services,
inspection surveys, high value residential surveys and loss
control consulting solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael D. Palmer, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER, LLP
      1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (646) 402-5653
      Facsimile: (646) 402-5651
      E-mail: mpalmer@sanfordheisler.com

         - and -

      Felicia Medina, Esq.
      Xinying Valerian, Esq.
      SANFORD FIEISLER, LLP 111
      Sutter Street, Suite 975
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 795-2020
      Facsimile: (415) 795-2021
      E-mail: fmedina@sanfDrdheisler.com
              xvalerian@sanfordheisler.com


PPG INDUSTRIES: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Amos" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Michael H. Watson denied without prejudice the motions to
certify submitted in the lawsuit entitled Patricia L. Amos, et al.
v. PPG Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00070-MHW-TPK
(S.D. Ohio).

The deadline for filing motions for summary judgment is suspended
pending resolution of the Plaintiffs' motion to amend, according
to the order.  The Plaintiffs' motions to certify and the parties'
motions for summary judgment, if any, are due within 21 days after
resolution of the Plaintiffs' motion to amend.

The Plaintiffs have moved to certify a class and subclass of
Plaintiffs and have moved for leave "to file a Supplemental
Seventh Amended Complaint," which the Court receives as a motion
to amend.  In opposing the Plaintiffs' motion to amend, the
Defendants argue, inter alia, that they are uncertain whether to
address the Second Amended Complaint, which is the operative
complaint, or the proposed "Supplemental Seventh Amended
Complaint" when moving for summary judgment by the upcoming
dispositive motion deadline.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2ec035xR


PRIMEX CLINICAL: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tanya Flores and Nancy Ybarra, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Primex Clinical Laboratories Inc. and
Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. BC652911 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
March 8, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Primex Clinical Laboratories Inc. operates a medical laboratory
located at 16742 Stagg St Ste 120, Van Nuys, CA 91406.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
      Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
      HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
      2274 East Maple Avenue
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (424) 292-2350
      Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
      E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
              tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
              sblakely@haineslawgroup.com


PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Faces "Guerra" Suit Under FLSA, Ohio Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN GUERRA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00488 (N.D. Ohio, March 9, 2017),
alleges that Plaintiff frequently worked more than 40 hours in a
single workweek, entitling him to overtime compensation under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as the Ohio wage-and-hour
statute.

Defendant is an insurance company licensed to do business and
issue insurance policies in the State of Ohio.  Plaintiff, the
Potential Opt-Ins who may join this case, and the members of the
Ohio Class, are current or former hourly employees of Defendant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
     Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
     Michaela Calhoun, Esq.
     NILGES DRAHER LLC
     7266 Portage Street NW, Suite D
     Massillon, OH 44646
     Phone: 330-470-4429
     Fax: 330-754-1430
     E-mail: sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com
             hans@ohlaborlaw.com

        - and -

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


PUBLIC HEALTH: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Gil, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other
individuals similarly situated v. Public Health Trust of Miami-
Dade County, Florida d/b/a Jackson Health System d/b/a
www.jacksonhealth.org, Case No. 1:17-cv-20923-JAL (S.D. Fla.,
March 10, 2017), is brought against the Defendant for violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County, Florida operates Jackson
Memorial Hospital located at 615 Collins Ave, Miami Beach, FL
33139. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Richard Dinin
      SCOTT R. DININ, P.A.
      4200 NW 7th Avenue
      Miami, FL 33127
      Telephone: (786) 431-1333
      Facsimile: (786) 513-7700
      E-mail: srd@dininlaw.com


QUEBEC: 400 Student Protesters File $6-Mil. Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports five years after the Printemps Erable,
400 protesters have joined together again, this time seeking USD6
million from Quebec City in a class-action lawsuit.

All 400 were arrested during the 2012 demonstrations. On Dec. 15,
their application for collective action was authorized by a Quebec
Superior Court Judge.

Attorney Enrico Theberge of Dumas, GagnÇ, ThÇberge said the
arrests were arbitrary and the cases were handled with an
unreasonable amount of delay.

Theberge said all those involved in the case were given tickets
under section 500.1 of the Highway Safety Code but were never
given a chance to respond to the charges. While none were
convicted of any crimes, he added that they were also never given
a chance to defend themselves in court.

If successful, the lawsuit would see each participant receive
approximately USD15,000.


RAMONA MUNICIPAL: Sewer Fees Suit Reaches Appeals Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Karen Brainard at Sandie Union Tribute reports a class action
lawsuit against the Ramona Municipal Water District that was ruled
in the district's favor in November 2015 is making its way through
the appeals court.

The suit, filed in 2014 on behalf of commercial property owner
Eugene Plantier, claimed that RMWD's method of charging sewer fees
based on a parcel's assigned equivalent dwelling units (EDU) bears
no rational relationship to a parcel's actual wastewater use and
violates Proposition 218.

Also listed as plaintiffs and appellants are Premium Development
and Progressive Properties Incorporated. Both list Ramona
businessman Orrin Day as an agent.

The appeal was filed Jan. 27 in the 4th Appellate District Court,
and on March 1 an application was granted for the Howard Jarvis
Taxpayers Association to file a brief on behalf of the appellants.

On behalf of the water district a brief was filed March 1 by an
attorney representing California Association of Sanitation
Agencies, California State Association of Counties, and League of
California Cities.

The suit stems from April 2012 when the water district told
Plantier he would have to pay approximately USD33,000 to bring his
building at 109 10th St., which he leases to Marisco Mar De Cortez
restaurant, into compliance for sewer EDUs.

Judge Timothy Taylor ruled in the district's favor when deciding
whether the plaintiffs had exhausted their administrative remedies
before filing the suit and whether they had standing in court.
Attorneys representing the district said the plaintiffs did not
attend the Prop. 218 public hearings held each year for water and
wastewater rate increases before adoption of the fiscal year
budget.

An attorney for the plaintiffs said those public hearings were
about rate increases, not about the method of charging the fees --
the focus of the suit.


RITA'S WATER: Judge Denies Counsel's Request of USD1MM in Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio at The Legal Intelligencer reports the attorneys
handling the Rita's Water Ice class action over the company
sending unsolicited text messages asked for USD1 million in fees,
but a federal judge said that price is too steep.

On March 16, U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Savage of the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania granted class counsel's request for
USD40,000 in expenses and USD10,000 in incentive awards, but
denied their request for USD1 million in legal fees, instead
awarding them USD651,000. That reduced fee represents roughly 22
percent of the litigation's settlement fund.

According to Savage's opinion, more than 110,300 people are
eligible for a piece of the USD3 million settlement fund, and of
those noticed, roughly 25,500 filed valid claims.

"The amount each class-member claimant will receive is not
significant, but rather modest," Savage said, and because there
were more claimants than class counsel had anticipated, each would
get less than previously thought.

"Counsel claim that they extracted the largest settlement possible
for the class in light of Rita's ability to pay," Savage said,
"Yet, rather than adjust the attorney fees to increase the amount
available to the class, counsel propose a lesser recovery for the
class members."

Steven Woodrow of Woodrow & Peluso in Denver, who filed the motion
for attorney fees and billed the most hours in the class action
out of the eight attorneys representing the class members, did not
return a call seeking comment.

In an email March 17, a spokesman for Rita's said "Rita's Water
Ice Franchise Co. LLC and its counsel are pleased that the court
granted final approval of the settlement agreement and dismissed
the case. We otherwise do not have any additional comments on the
court's orders or analysis from yesterday. They speak for
themselves."

The class action was filed in 2015 by Sherry Brown and Ericka
Newby. The two claimed that Rita's sent them "Cool Alerts" text
messages announcing when certain water ice flavors and other
products were available at local stores.

They alleged that the lists were generated using a database of
telephone numbers that the owners did not provide to Rita's. They
also claimed that they kept receiving messages after texting
"STOP" in response to the texts' instructions to stop receiving
future notifications.

A settlement agreement was reached between the parties in March
2016 and was approved by the judge shortly thereafter. Brown and
Newby received USD5,000 each as class representatives.

The case is SHERRY BROWN and ERICKA NEWBY, on their own behalf and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RITA'S WATER ICE
FRANCHISE COMPANY LLC, Civil Action No. 15-3509 (E.D. Pa.).

SHERRY BROWN AND ERICKA NEWBY, Plaintiff, represented by BARRY L.
COHEN, ROYER COOPER COHEN BRAUNFELD LLC.

SHERRY BROWN AND ERICKA NEWBY, Plaintiff, represented by JODY B.
BURTON, LEMBERG LAW, LLC, STEPHEN F. TAYLOR, LEMBERG LAW LLC,
STEVEN L. WOODROW, WOODROW & PELUSO LLC & SERGEI LEMBERG, LEMBERG
LAW LLC.

RITA'S WATER ICE FRANCHISE COMPANY LLC, Defendant, represented by
JOHN M. DOROGHAZI, WIGGIN & DANA LLP, KIM E. RINEHART, WIGGIN &
DANA LLP, CONSTANTINE THOMAS FOURNARIS, WIGGIN AND DANA LLP &
RICHARD D. GALLUCCI, Jr., Wiggin and Dana LLP.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: "Hansen" Sues Over Washing Machines
--------------------------------------------------------
CATHLEEN HANSEN, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated Plaintiff, vs. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-352 (E.D. Wis.,
March 9, 2017), seeks relief in the form of: (1) an injunction
against Defendants from any further sales of recalled washing
machines (model number WA456DRHDWR/AA) and to take such other
remedial action as may otherwise be requested herein; and (2)
money damages to adequately and reasonably compensate owners of
the Recalled Washing Machines who have, through no fault of their
own, purchased defective and dangerous Samsung washing machines.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. supplies consumer electronics
and digital products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     William B. Federman, Esq.
     FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
     10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
     Oklahoma City, OK 73120
     Phone: (405) 235-1560
     Fax: (405) 239-2112
     E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com


SAN JOSE, CA: Wallace Moves to Certify Class of City Firefighters
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move the Court to conditionally certify the action
styled DARREN WALLACE, KEITH HART, MARK LEEDS and other employees
similarly situated v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, Case No. 5:16-cv-04914-HRL
(N.D. Cal.), as maintainable as a collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The class consists of:

     all firefighter employees of the City of San Jose (the City)
     who were engaged in fire protection and/or fire prevention
     for the City at any time from January 6, 2013 to the
     present, with the term "firefighter employees" referring to
     all members of the bargaining unit represented by
     International Association of Fire Fighters Local 230,
     including the following classifications: fire recruit, fire
     fighter, fire engineer, fire prevention inspector, arson
     investigator, fire captain and battalion chief.

The Court will commence a hearing on April 18, 2017, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Notice of Motion and Motion is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ml3mQTek

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher E. Platten, Esq.
          Carol L. Koenig, Esq.
          WYLIE, MCBRIDE, PLATTEN & RENNER
          2125 Canoas Garden Avenue, Suite 120
          San Jose, CA 95125
          Telephone: (408) 979-2920
          Facsimile: (408) 979-2934
          E-mail: cplatten@wmprlaw.com
                  ckoenig@wmprlaw.com


SASCO HARDWARE: Faces "Moses" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Moses, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. SASCO Hardware & Bldg. Supply, LLC and SASCO
Construction Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a SASCO Construction Services,
LLC, Case No. 152244/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 8, 2017), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours in any given week.

The Defendants own and operate a hardware store located at 424
Coney Island Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11218.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
      Jack L. Newhouse, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
              jnewhouse@vandallp.com

SHIVA ESTATE: Shuler Moves for Certification of Laborers Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled DELORES SHULER, on her own
behalf and others similarly situated v. SHIVA ESTATE, Inc. AJAY
GUPTA, M.D., individually, and NORAMA RESORTS LLC, as successor in
interest, Case No. 8:16-cv-02248-EAK-AEP (M.D. Fla.), asks the
Court to conditionally certify a class of:

     current and former hourly-paid, facilities maintenance
     laborers who work(ed) at Defendant's location Winter Haven,
     Florida between August, 2013 and the present; who worked
     hours for which they were not compensated the minimum wages
     required by law, in some cases working more than forty (40)
     hours per week, without lawful and proper and complete
     overtime compensation.

The collective action is brought to enforce the overtime and
minimum wage provisions of Section 7(a) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Ms. Shuler also asks the Court to direct the Defendants to produce
necessary information of putative class members and to authorize
her counsel to send notices.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. John Gadd, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF W. JOHN GADD, PA
          2727 Ulmerton Road, Suite 250
          Clearwater, FL 33762
          Telephone: (727) 524-6300
          E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com

               - and -

          Kyle J. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LAW, PLLC
          P.O. Box 4476
          Brandon, FL 33509-4476
          Telephone: (813) 343-2813
          E-mail: Kyle@KyleLeeLaw.com


TOKYO ELECTRIC: Evacuees Disappointed with Awarded Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mainchi reports that Fukushima Prefecture evacuees in a class
action suit over the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant disaster were
disappointed by the 38.55 million yen in total compensation
awarded on March 17 by the Maebashi District Court, as the amount
was just one-fortieth what they had been seeking.

"I was expecting to hear a ruling that would support us more," one
of the plaintiffs said after the verdict, which came 3-1/2 years
after they filed the suit and six years after the disaster's
onset.

"We have made the court recognize the responsibility of the
central government and plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Co.
(TEPCO). I am honestly happy about that," plaintiff Sugie Tanji,
60, said to a gathering following the ruling. However, she
continued, "The past six years was filled with many hardships. I
wonder if I can convince myself to accept the ruling..."
Tanji was a resident of Iwaki, Fukushima Prefecture. Her 63-year-
old husband Mikio ran a repair business, but orders plunged
following the No. 1 plant meltdowns. Four months later, the couple
voluntarily evacuated to Gunma Prefecture.

Although Tanji felt guilty for leaving fellow residents behind,
she took part in anti-nuclear power rallies and demonstrations in
Gunma Prefecture and joined the class action suit, believing that
there must never be another nuclear disaster.

Of the 137 plaintiffs from 45 households, representatives of
almost all the households appeared in court, testifying to the
agony of living as evacuees and expressing their anger toward
TEPCO and the central government. However, only a few of them have
made their names public out of concern for possible discrimination
against their children and negative effects on their jobs. Tanji
herself recalls being told, "You can get money if you go to court,
can't you?"

Under government guidelines, those who evacuated voluntarily are
entitled to only 80,000 yen in consolation money from TEPCO,
including living expenses. The plaintiffs thought the amount was
far too small considering the pain of losing their hometowns.
However, only 62 of the 137 plaintiffs were awarded compensation.
"I was expecting a warmer ruling," said a woman in her 50s who sat
in on the March 17 hearing clad in mourning attire. She was
working part-time for a company in Iwaki, but was fired after the
nuclear disaster impacted the firm's business performance.
This and radiation exposure fears prompted her and her husband to
evacuate to Gunma Prefecture two months later. Her husband,
however, developed a malignant brain tumor the following year,
after the couple settled into an apartment that the Gunma
Prefectural Government had rented for evacuees. Her husband died
in the fall of 2014 at age 52.

The woman says she still doesn't feel like she can start working
and subsists on her savings and survivor's pension. At the end of
March, the Fukushima Prefectural Government is set to terminate
its housing subsidies for voluntary evacuees. For her, the
compensation awarded by the Maebashi District Court was
"unimaginably low."

"I can't report the ruling to my husband," she said, wiping tears
from her eyes.


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Kobleski Moves for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Kobleski and Teresa Bushberger move the Court to certify
the classes described in the complaint of their lawsuit entitled
CHERYL KOBLESKI AND TERESA BUSHBERGER, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS, INC., Case
No. 2:17-cv-00353 (E.D. Wisc.), and further ask the Court both
stay the motion for class certification and to grant them (and the
Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing
schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed
with the Motion.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representative and to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8jiNUNAs

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


UNITED STATES: Class Certification Sought in "Robles" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled Rolando Robles v. United
States Attorney, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00296-VLB (D. Conn.),
moves the Court to grant class certification, to issue an order
defining the class and claims, and to name class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oyA6VlcP


UNITED STATES: Certification of Class Sought in "Witchard" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled JOSEPH WITCHARD v. JEFFREY
SEEGER, ET AL., Case No. 6:14-cv-02042-CEM-TBS (M.D. Fla.), moves
the Court for an order granting class certification pursuant to
Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Mr. Witchard said that since being confined in federal prison at
FCI Williamsburg, in Salters, South Carolina, he ran into another
one of Defendant Jeffrey Seeger's civil rights violation victims,
Markeyo A. Favors.  Mr. Witchard alleges that Mr. Seeger handed a
total of two bogus or fraudulent arrest warrants to Mr. Favors.

Mr. Witchard contends that there must be many more individual
blacks, minority and uneducated individuals that Jeffrey Seeger,
has unlawfully committed blatant unjust civil rights violations
against.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=18t4q2s1

The Plaintiff represents himself in the case.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ralph E. Hopkins, Esq.
          ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
          400 West Washington Street, Suite 300
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 648-7500
          Facsimile: (407) 648-7643


UNITED STATES: Judge Dismisses Suit Challenging Child Welfare Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Fischer at The Daily Courier reports a federal judge has
thrown out a bid to void federal laws that challengers claim are
racist because they place the desires and rights of Native
American tribes over the constitutionally protected best interests
of children.

In an extensive ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Neil Wake said
attorneys for the Goldwater Institute had not proven that any of
the children they were claiming to represent had been harmed
because of the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act.

And Wake said if there is a child who may be in danger that claim
can be handled by the state courts, which are handling that
adoption or foster care proceeding.

Attorney Timothy Sandefur called that "disturbing," saying it
amounts to saying he has to wait until children are actually
harmed.

"The whole point of federal civil rights law is that we can go to
a federal judge and get an injunction that prevents racist
discriminatory law from being applied to children," he said.

"We shouldn't have to suffer the imposition of racist laws,"
Sandefur continued. "We should be able to get a court to stop the
government from imposing the separate and unequal standard on
these children."

The federal law at issue was adopted in 1978 amid concerns that
state courts were severing parental rights and approving adoptions
of Native-American children who did not live on reservations. The
congressional record shows that Congress was concerned that these
children were being increasingly adopted by non-Indian families.

That law requires state courts when placing Indian children who do
not live on a reservation for adoption to give preference to a
member of the child's extended family. That is followed by
priority by other members of the child's tribe and, ultimately,
other Indian families.

There also are provisions that Sandefur say require active efforts
to reunite a Native American child with a family, something he
said "requires these children to be sent back to the parents that
have abused them."

According to the Goldwater Institute, all of that is racist
because it overrules state laws requiring courts to give prime
consideration to the "best interests of the child," regardless of
whether that means placement with a tribal member or someone else.

The lawsuit was filed in 2015 on behalf of two children with some
Native American blood who currently are placed with non-Indian
families where they have lived since they were infants.

It charges the Indian Child Welfare Act gives tribes pretty much
unfettered authority to decide placement of children with some
native blood, "even those who have never set foot on a
reservation."

The claim most immediately sought to protect these two children
from being taken from their current homes. Other children were
subsequently added to the claim.

But the lawsuit also asked Wake to certify the complaint as a
class action on behalf of every Native American child not living
on a reservation currently placed with a non-Indian family,
barring application of the Indian Child Welfare Act in any of
their cases. In Arizona alone, the lawsuit said there were more
than 1,300 Native American children in out-of-home care in 2014.

It wasn't just the federal government and tribes seeking to throw
out the case. Dawn Williams, an assistant state attorney general,
argued to Wake he should not disturb the law.

"The federal law was enacted to remediate generations of forced
assimilation," she wrote in her pleadings. Anyway, Williams
argued, the lawsuit cites only "nebulous speculative harm" to the
children at issue in this case.

It was that argument that forms much of the basis for Wake's
ruling.

He noted the complaint does not allege any facts showing that the
foster care placement of any child was delayed or that any of the
children were exposed to greater risk because of the provisions of
the federal law.

Wake said what the lawsuit seeks is a ruling on the law in advance
of any injury. And the judge said if there is a problem, there is
a legal remedy short of him voiding the federal law.

"Any true injury to any child or interested adult can be addressed
in the state court proceeding itself, based on actual facts before
the court, not on hypothetical concerns," Wake wrote. "They do not
have standing to have this court pre-adjudicate for state court
judges how to rule on facts that may ariise and that may be
governed by statutes or guidelines that this court may think
invalid."

Because Wake threw the case out on the grounds there was no basis
for a lawsuit, at least not yet, he never addressed the question
of whether the law amounts to illegal racism.

Attorneys for both the state and the Bureau of Indian Affairs
never disputed that the law provides disparate treatment in state
courts for children of Indian blood versus non-Indian children.
But they argued that the preference in placing a child with a
tribal family does not amount to illegal racial discrimination.

They said the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that classifications
based on tribal membership -- like those in this law -- "are
political, not racial classifications." And they said such
distinctions, particularly for sovereign entities like Native
American tribes, are permitted.

Sandefur disagreed, saying Wake needs to address the underlying
legal questions.

"This law does impose a regime of separate and unequal (treatment)
on these children," he said.

And he said the decision ignores what is happening.

"The children we represent as well as the class of children that
we sought to represent have suffered, are suffering, and are going
to continue to suffer injuries," Sandefur said.


VOLKSWAGEN: Judge Approves US$175 Million Counsel Fee
-----------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel at Reuters reports early March 17, U.S. District
Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco approved a request for
USD175 million in fees and costs for the plaintiffs lawyers who
led car owners' USD10 billion class action against Volkswagen in
the emissions cheating scandal. Judge Breyer was widely expected
to award that USD175 million to class counsel Elizabeth Cabraser
of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and other lawyers who worked
on behalf of the class. He has been consistently complimentary of
the "extraordinary results" they obtained. Moreover, the fee
request garnered only four objections, which Breyer brushed aside,
and was not opposed by Volkswagen.

But Judge Breyer's fee opinion also gives VW ammunition against a
fee request it does intend to oppose in the emissions cheating
litigation.

Volkswagen is not happy about a USD28 million fee request by
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, class counsel for VW franchise
dealers who reached a USD1.36 billion settlement with VW. As I
told you last week, Volkswagen accused Steve Berman of Hagens
Berman of inflating his firm's hourly billings in the dealer case
by double-counting time already included in the car owners' class
action.

Berman described the disputed USD1.5 million in billings as hybrid
time that benefited both car owners and dealers. After he realized
the time had, in fact, been included in plaintiffs' lawyers'
account of their hourly billings in the car owners' case, he and
car owners' class counsel Cabraser asked Judge Breyer to remove
USD1.5 million in Hagens Berman fees from the car owners' account
and include them instead in Hagens Berman's so-called lodestar in
the dealer class action. (Judges overseeing class actions, as
you're probably aware, often look at lodestar billings to confirm
the reasonableness of fee requests for a percentage of class
recovery.)

Volkswagen opposed the request and asked the judge to count Hagens
Berman's USD1.5 million in hybrid time in the car owners' case.
In Friday's fee decision, Judge Breyer sided with Volkswagen. He
noted the dispute over how to account for Hagens Berman's hybrid
time and VW's argument that "Hagens Berman should not be permitted
to shift its hybrid time in an effort to lower the resulting
lodestar multiplier in the franchise dealer fee application." The
judge said the proper accounting of those hours is, as VW
asserted, in the car owners' case. He instructed Cabraser to pay
Hagens Berman for that time out of the fee award in the car
owners' class action.

The judge's footnote leaves Hagens Berman with lodestar billings
of only USD2 million in the dealers' class action. Its request for
fees of USD28 million represents a multiplier of 14 times
billings. By contrast, lodestar billings in the car owners' class
action were about USD63.5 million, so the multiplier in that case
was 2.63.

The fracas over Hagens Berman's fees escalated this week. Hagens
Berman filed a response to VW's accusation of double-counting,
emphasizing that the firm has asked for fees of just 2.1 percent
of the cash available to dealers in their settlement with VW - a
drastically lower percentage than class counsel typically receive.
In a joint stipulation, the two sides said they'd subpoenaed one
another's billing records and time sheets and asked for an
extension on the briefing schedule on Hagens Berman's request.

The judge gave VW's lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell until March 20
to file their formal opposition to Hagens Berman's fees in the
dealer case. VW lawyer Robert Giuffra declined to provide a
statement on Judge Breyer's decision to count Hagens Berman's
hybrid time in the car owner case, but you can be sure the
automaker will jump all over Hagens Berman's mere USD2 million in
billings and outsized lodestar multiplier.
Steve Berman didn't respond to my email request for comment on
Judge Breyer's ruling on March 17. In previous filings he has said
the judge need not consider a lodestar cross check because Hagens
Berman has asked for such a small percentage of dealers' recovery.
The firm's brief responding to VW is due on March 23.


WELLS FARGO: Judge Refuses to Dismiss TCPA Violation Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk at Cook County Record reports a Chicago federal
judge has declined to let Wells Fargo off the hook of a junk fax
class action lawsuit against the bank and one of its member
services credit card processer, saying, even if Wells Fargo had no
knowledge of the credit payment company's decision to send a fax
bearing its name, the bank's name on the fax and business
connection to its partner means it could share liability for the
unauthorized fax.

On March 16, U.S. District Judge Thomas M. Durkin ruled in favor
of Chicago podiatrist Heather McCombs, refusing the request by
Wells Fargo and Cayan LLC, which does business as Capital
Bankcard, to dismiss the foot doctor's lawsuit, or at least reject
her attempt to certify the litigation as a class action.

"The Court fails to see the absurdity in the proposition that a
sponsoring bank may be 'on the hook' if a third-party ISO/MSP
solicits merchant business on its behalf and fails to follow the
law," Judge Durkin wrote.

The case centers on a fax McCombs claimed her office received "an
unsolicited, four-page fax" from Capital Bankcard in November
2015, advertising "merchant payment processing services" offered
by Capital Bankcard. The fax, which purportedly began with the
statement, "We called your office earlier regarding LOWERING your
merchant rate considerably . . .", identified Capital Bankcard as
"a Wells Fargo bank member."

The fax also included a draft merchant payment services contract,
which included a clause that read: "In exchange for Capital
Bankcard and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (the Guaranteed Parties)
acceptance of, as applicable, the Agreement, the undersigned
unconditionally and irrevocably guarantees the full payment and
performance of Client's obligations under the foregoing
agreements."

McCombs asserted in her complaint that she had never had a
relationship with Capital Bankcard at any point before receiving
the fax.

McCombs filed her class action complaint with attorney Curtis
Warner, of Park Ridge, on Dec. 2, 2015, asserting the fax violated
the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. She asked the court
to certify the case as a class action, and award actual and
statutory damages. Under the TCPA, defendants could be made to pay
USD500-USD1,500 per violation.

According to court documents, the defendants replied to the
lawsuit in December 2015 with a settlement offer, asking McCombs
to drop her lawsuit in exchange for USD7,500. In January 2016,
they followed that offer with a check for USD7,500.

Court documents indicate McCombs rejected the offer and voided the
check.

The defendants then asked the court to dismiss the case, alleging
the rejection of the settlement offer and voiding of the check had
mooted the case.  Wells Fargo further specifically asked that it
should be dismissed from the case, arguing it had never sent the
fax, nor did it authorize Capital BankCard to send the fax.

"If mere references to a sponsor bank on the merchant application
attached to a fax were sufficient to allege a TCPA claim against
the bank, that would mean that every time a third party faxed a
merchant application, the sponsoring bank would potentially be on
the hook for TCPA liability merely for being identified as the
processing bank associated with the underlying transaction," Wells
Fargo argued. "That would be absurd."

While McCombs' case was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided
the case of Spokeo v. Robins, in which the nation's high court
determined companies being sued for technical violations of laws,
like the TCPA, can seek to dismiss the action if they can
demonstrate the plaintiffs didn't suffer any "concrete" harm from
the technical violation of the law.

In the wake of that decision, Wells Fargo and Capital BankCard
also asked the court to dismiss the case on the grounds that
receiving a single fax didn't mean McCombs or any other potential
plaintiffs had suffered concrete injury.

Judge Durkin, however, rejected that argument, noting all federal
district courts in the U.S. Seventh Circuit, which includes the
states of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, had to this point found
the receipt of any junk fax amounted to concrete injury under the
TCPA, thwarting the impact of the Spokeo ruling.
The judge also said he did not believe the mere offer of
settlement should eliminate McCombs' ability to sue.

And the judge refused to let Wells Fargo leave the litigation,
saying the presence of Wells Fargo's name on the fax, and their
inclusion in the draft contract, meant they could be held liable
under the TCPA for faxes sent by a third party, as the plaintiffs
could reasonably argue the fax was sent on behalf of Wells Fargo.
"Wells Fargo's name does appear on the fax, the fax does advertise
services performed by Wells Fargo, and the fax contains a contract
for services to which Wells Fargo is a necessary party," the judge
wrote. "Moreover, the fax plainly indicates a contractual
relationship between Wells Fargo and Capital Bankcard pursuant to
which Capital Bankcard may solicit and service merchant business
processed by Wells Fargo as the sponsoring bank."

The decision did not address the actual certification of the
class. But the judge said McCombs would be allowed to move to move
forward with the request to certify a class of additional
plaintiffs who may have also received similar faxes Capital
Bankcard.

Capital Bankcard and Wells Fargo are defended by attorneys with
the Tannen Law Group P.C., of Chicago, and the firm of Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, of Washington, D.C.


WISCONSIN, USA: Court Certifies Class of Inmates in "Austin" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James D. Peterson grants the Plaintiff's motion for
certification of class filed in the lawsuit titled DAVID D. AUSTIN
II v. JUDY P. SMITH, EDWARD WALL, REXFORD SMITH, and JON LITSCHER,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00525-jdp (W.D. Wisc.).

In his opinion & order, Judge Peterson revised Mr. Austin's class
definition as:

     inmates currently housed at the Oshkosh Correctional
     Institution who were housed in R Unit between August 19,
     2009, and April 30, 2016, or who were housed in W Unit
     between August 19, 2009, and February 28, 2016.

Plaintiff David D. Austin II, a former prisoner at Oshkosh
Correctional Institution (OCI), filed this pro se action under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 against OCI prison officials.  He alleges that
the plexiglass sheets covering the windows of the cells in certain
blocks of OCI cause the cells to be extremely hot and potentially
unsafe.

Judy Smith is the warden of the OCI.  Edward Wall is the secretary
of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections.  Rexford Smith is the
R-Unit manager.

Mr. Austin has since been released from prison and obtained
counsel.  Through counsel, he renews his motion for class action
status, which the Court interprets as a motion to certify a
proposed class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

A copy of the Opinion & Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1VfgcHBj


WP& S CONTRACTORS: Tessie, et al. Allege Violation of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
LUBRAINE TESSIE, JEAN H. SAINT-AIME, ELIUS REMY, TOUSSAINT
CHARLEMOND, VILET MESADIEU, JUNIAS SAINT-FLEUR, and FRANCIS
NICOLAS, on their own behalf and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. WP& S CONTRACTORS, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, and WINSTON WHITE, individually, Defendants, Case No.
9:17-cv-80300-DMM (S.D. Fla., March 9, 2017), alleges that
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees were not paid
time and one-half of their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per work week during one or more work
weeks in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant, WP& S CONTRACTORS, LLC, is a construction business.
Plaintiffs performed non-exempt work as a laborer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Maguene D. Cadet, Esq.,
     LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, P.A.
     2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203
     Boynton Beach, FL 33426
     Phone: 561-853-2212
     Fax: 561-853-2213
     Email: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com


XPO LOGISTICS: Pregent's Bid to Certify Class Entered & Continued
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled ALEXIS PREGENT, JENNIFER
MASSAT, MEGAN KUCHENBECKER and JESSICA CLARK, Individually, and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. XPO LOGISTICS, INC., a
Foreign Corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-00993 (N.D. Ill.), ask the
Court to enter an order certifying a class consisting of:

     all individuals who were employed by the Defendant in the
     company's Illinois offices, as Customer Service Reps at any
     time during the relevant statute of limitations period who
     were not paid for all of the overtime hours they worked.

The action is brought for unpaid compensation, monetary damages,
declaratory and injunctive relief and other equitable and
ancillary relief under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Clerk of Court made a docket entry in the case relating to the
Motion.  The minute entry states that the Motion is entered and
continued.  Motion hearing set for March 15, 2017, was stricken.

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

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Bz7FVxOY

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Terrence Buehler, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF TERRENCE BUEHLER
          17W220 22nd St., Suite 410
          Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
          Telephone: (312) 372-2209
          E-mail: tbuehler@tbuehlerlaw.com

               - and -

          Peter S. Lubin, Esq.
          Vincent L. DiTommaso, Esq.
          DITOMMASO-LUBIN P.C.
          17W 220 22nd St., Suite 410
          Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
          Telephone: (630) 333-0000
          Facsimile: (630) 333-0333
          E-mail: psl@ditommasolaw.com
                  vdt@ditommasolaw.com



                         *********


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  * * *