CAR_Public/170328.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


             Tuesday, March 28, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 62



                            Headlines

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Hillman Appeals N.D. Ill. Ruling to 7th Cir.
ADVOCARE INT'L: Nutritional Supplements "Overpriced", Suit Says
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Wins Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in Mass.
AMERICAN HONDA: "Touche" Lawsuit Over Airbag Sent to S.D. Fla.
ANN TAYLOR: Judge Inclined to Okay Deal But Wants Minor Revisions

ANTERO RESOURCES: "Scott" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Damages
APPLE INC: "Davidson" Class Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Gavrielova" Suit in E.D. New York
ASCENA RETAIL: Approval of Justice Pricing Suit Deal Appealed
AUDIBLE INC: "McKee" Suit Alleges Bait & Switch Scheme

AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Continues to Face Class Suits over Fire
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Leon Orea" Suit Over Loan Modification
BANKERS LIFE: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Davis" Suit
BIOAMBER INC: May 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
BOKF NA: faces "Almeida" Suit in Northern District Oklahoma

BRAVO BRIO: Continues to Defend "Hussein" Class Suit in Missouri
BROOKLYN FARE: Faces "Andrews" Suit in E.D. New York
CALIFORNIA: Faces ACLU Suit over SoCal Immigrant Detentions
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Faces "Ehrnfeld" Consumer Suit in E.D.N.Y.
CHEVRON CORP: Judge Refuses to Certify Nigerians' Suit

CHINACACHE INT'L: Xu Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Shareholder Suit over Outbreak Tossed
CHURCH & DWIGHT: Supplement Contains Synthetic Folate, Suit Says
CINTAS CORP: Shareholder Suit Over G&K Acquisition Dismissed
COLLECTO INC: Attorneys Appeal Ruling in "Diaz" Suit to 9th Cir.

CREDIT ONE: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "A.D." Class Suit
CYNOSURE INC: Guido Files Suit Over Sale to Hologic
D & N HOLDINGS: Faces "Saraev" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
DARWIN SELECT: MHM Correctional Sues Over Breach of Contract
DAVITA INC: To Defend Against Peace Officers' Class Action

DJT MIAMI: "Cil" Class Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
DR PEPPER: Faces "Hashemi" Ginger Ale False Advertising Suit
ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeals Ruling in Lidoderm Antitrust MDL
EXPRESS MESSENGER: Former Sorter Files Suit for Wages Owed
FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in N.C.

FCA US: Faces Chatom Suit in Southern District of Alabama
FIRST MID-ILLINOIS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Raul" Suit
FLORIDA: Faces Class Suit over Ex-Felon Voting Rights
FORD MOTOR: F-Series Trucks Have Defective Locks, Kommer Claims
FORD MOTOR: "Costello" Suit Moved to N.J. Federal Court

FREEPORT-MCMORAN: To Defend Against "Duarte" Class Suit
FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Faces "Hakhanian" Wage-and-Hour Suit
GEICO GENERAL: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "McGraw" Suit
GENERAL CABLE: Securities Class Suit Now Closed
GERMANY: Faces  US$30-Bil. Lawsuit Over Namibian Genocide

GLOBAL EAGLE: "Pollack" Sues Over Share Price Drop
GNC HOLDINGS: Sold, Then Terminated, Discount Program, Suit Says
GNC HOLDINGS: Santich Sues Over Discontinued Discount Program
GOLDEN AGE HOME: "Thorpe" Seeks OT, Travel Time Compensation
GOOGLE INC: Judge Rejects Settlement in "Matera" Privacy Suit

GRACE 365: Faces "Ortiz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Sheriff Testified Against Bail System
HARVEST NATURAL: "Garfield" Stockholder Suit in Texas Dismissed
HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Review of Order in "Rutledge" Suit
HELIX ENERGY: "Izadjoo" Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend

HERTZ GLOBAL: Bids to Toss Amended Securities Suit Remain Pending
HERTZ GLOBAL: Ninth Cir. Refuses to Rehear Appeal in "Sobel" Suit
HESKA CORP: Continues to Defend "Fauley" Suit in N.D. Illinois
HONEYWELL INTL: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Judgment in "Kelly" Suit
IMAGE LINE: Faces "Peglau" Suit in Utah District Court

INNOVATIVE DINING: "Davis" Sues Over Request of Phone Number Info
J.C. PENNY: "Marcus" Securities Suit Wins Class Certification
J.R. SIMPLOT: "Contreras" Suit Moved to E.D. California
JP MORGAN: Faces "Newkirk" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of TCPA
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Reichenstein" Securities Lawsuit

KFORCE INC: Still Defends "Shepard v. BMO" Suit
LEN AND LEN: Former Employees Still Waiting for Final Paycheck
LEVEL 3: Settlement in Rights-Of-Way Litigation Pending
LG CHEM: Battery Price-Fixing Settlement Wins Initial Approval
LG ELECTRONICS: Phones Have "Bootloop Defect," Suit Claims

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Faces "Agel" Class Suit in E.D. Penn.
LIPOCINE INC: Awaits Filing of Amended Consolidated Complaint
LOCKWOOD ANDREWS: Asks Supreme Court to Review 6th Cir. Decision
LYFT INC: $27 Million Accord in "Cotter" Suit Has Final OK
MCCLATCHY CO: Won in Fresno Bee Carriers Suit; Dismissed in Other

MCDONALD'S CORP: Not Responsible for Franchisees' Employee Wages
MCDONALD'S CORP: Workers to Appeal Ruling before 9th Circuit
METALDYNE PERFORMANCE: Defends "Bushansky" Merger-Related Suit
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL: Faces "Moise" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
MICHIGAN, USA: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hill" Class Suit

MICROSOFT CORP: Top Court to Weigh Litigation Issue
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Haimoff" Suit in E.D. New York
MILWAUKEE: Inmate Shackled while Giving Birth, Class Suit Says
MINEBEA MITSUMI: McGuire Suit Alleges Small Bearing Price-fixing
MINOR LEAGUE: Baseball Players' Class Suit Reinstated

MOJAVE FOODS: Barragan Seeks OT & Minimum Wages Under Labor Code
MORAN POLLUTION: "Moser" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
MYLAN INC: UFCW Local 1500 Sues Over Albuterol Sulfate Prices
NATIVE COMMERCE: "Wheeler" Hits Unauthorized Credit Card Charges
NATUS MEDICAL: To Defend Against "Badger" Class Suit

NEWLINK GENETICS: Defends "Abramson" Securities Suit in New York
NORTHSTAR LOTTERY: "Atteberry" Alleges Withholding of Prizes
OAK BLUFF: Faces Homeowners' Class Suit in South Carolina
ORBITAL ATK: Still Faces "Knurr" Class Suit in E.D. Virginia
PHD FITNESS: Faces "Sandviks" Suit in South Carolina

QALIPU MI'KMAQ: Ex-Lawyer Pursues Suit Over Denial From Band
S.C. JOHNSON: Faces "Machlan" Suit in California Superior Court
SALSA CON FUEGO: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Order in "Sanchez" Suit
SAMSUNG: Can't Force Arbitration in Consumer Fraud Suit
SCHLUMBERGER TECH: "Sanchez" Lawsuit Alleges Misclassification

SELECT COMFORT: Appeal in "Spade" Class Suit Underway
SELECT COMFORT: Azimpour Agrees to Drop Class Suit
SELF EDGE: Faces "Andrews" Suit in E.D. New York
SERVICESOURCE INT'L: All Claims in "Weller" Suit Tossed
SERVICESOURCE INT'L: "Patton" Suit Remains Pending in Tennessee

SUN PACIFIC: Faces "Shaeffer" Suit Over "No Sugar Added" Labels
SUNGEVITY: Laid Off Employees' Paychecks Bounce Amid Bankruptcy
SUNRISE LAKES: "Rosales" Seeks Overtime Pay
SUPREME CHICKEN: "Ministro" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
SWN ENERGY: "Perry" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, Pa. Wage Act

TATA SONS: Minority Shareholder Protection As A Numbers Game
TILE SHOP: Rebischke Appeals D. Minn. Judgment to Eighth Circuit
TORONTO-DOMINION: "Tucci" Suit Alleges Securities Act Breach
TORONTO-DOMINION: Gainey McKenna & Egleston Files Class Action
TOWER RESEARCH: Choi Appeals S.D.N.Y. Decision to Second Circuit

TRANSENTERIX INC: Awaits Orders on Bids to Dismiss "Bankley" Suit
TRANSENTERIX INC: "Ravey" Stockholder Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
ULTRATECH INC: Vladmir Trust Sues Over Sale to Veeco
UNIVERSAL FIDELITY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lane" Suit Claims
UPREACH LLC: Faces "Gourley" Suit Alleging Labor Laws Violation

WALL STREET CONSTRUCTION: "Vazquez" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage, OT
WALTER INVESTMENT: May 15 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
WATTS WATER: Fairness Hearing Set for April 12
WELLS FARGO: "Barreras" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
WELLS FARGO: "Rhodes" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Washington

WEST J&R: "Gil" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
WEX INC: Expects Mediation in Suit Alleging TCPA Violations
WILLOWICK, OHIO: Judge Narrows Claims in Sewer System Suit
ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: Being Sold to Cheaply, "Kreindler" Suit Says



                            *********


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Hillman Appeals N.D. Ill. Ruling to 7th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Sidney Hillman Health Center of Rochester and Teamsters
Health Services and Insurance Plan Local 404 filed an appeal from
a court ruling relating to their lawsuit entitled Sidney Hillman
Health Center of Rochester, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories,
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-05865, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs/Funds are multi-employer benefit plans and health
services funds that provide health benefits, including
prescription drug coverage, to their members.  The Funds sought to
represent a nationwide class of such third-party purchasers or
third-party payors (TPPs) who from 1998 to 2012 reimbursed and
paid all or some of the purchase price for Depakote, a drug
developed and initially marketed by Abbott Laboratories and later
by AbbVie, Inc. (collectively, "Abbott"), for indications not
approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  The Funds
also sought to represent subclasses of TPPs in New York and
Massachusetts.  The Funds brought claims for violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),
conspiracy to violate RICO, violation of the New York deceptive
business practices act, and unjust enrichment under New York and
Massachusetts law.

The appellate case is captioned as Sidney Hillman Health Center of
Rochester, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, Incorporated, et al.,
Case No. 17-1483, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit.

According to the briefing schedule in the Appellate Case,
Appellant's brief is due on or before April 17, 2017, for Sidney
Hillman Health Center of Rochester and Teamsters Health Services
and Insurance Plan Local 404.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants SIDNEY HILLMAN HEALTH CENTER OF ROCHESTER
and TEAMSTERS HEALTH SERVICES AND INSURANCE PLAN LOCAL 404, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          30 N. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-0000
          E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com

Defendants-Appellees ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INCORPORATED, and
ABBVIE, INCORPORATED, are represented by:

          William F. Cavanaugh, Jr., Esq.
          PATTERSON, BELKNAP, WEBB & TYLER LLP
          1133 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036-0000
          Telephone: (212) 336-2000
          E-mail: wfcavanaugh@pbwt.com


ADVOCARE INT'L: Nutritional Supplements "Overpriced", Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee, writing for Courthouse News service reported that a
federal class action in Dallas, accuses multi-level marketing
giant AdvoCare of securities fraud and racketeering: running a
pyramid scheme that sells "overpriced" nutritional supplements
through plaintiff distributors.

Lead plaintiffs Lisa Ranieri and Megan Cornelius sued the Plano,
Texas-based company and six individual AdvoCare promoters on March
9.  They say AdvoCare's $719 million in annual revenue is
"primarily derived from bilking hundreds of thousands" of
participants knows as distributors, and that the defendants "have
formed a fraudulent, criminal enterprise" to defraud them.

"In a classic pyramid scheme, participants pay money into the
scheme for the right to receive compensation from the scheme
based, in large part, on bringing new participants into the
scheme," the 79-page complaint states. "Each participant's money
is used to pay others in the scheme, as well as the scheme
promoter. The more recruits a participant has under him, and the
closer to the top of the pyramid he is, the more money he might
make. . . . Because there is little to no money flowing into the
scheme from non-participants, and since payments are shared with
the promoter and disproportionately with the persons closer to the
top of the pyramid, the vast majority of participants are doomed
to lose most or all of their money."

They claim AdvoCare operates as a pyramid scheme "with a twist:"
it sells participants a product in addition to the right to share
in the money paid by other participants. Distributors are required
to buy start-up packages and pay annual dues to receive
compensation based on recruiting new distributors.

"Just like a classic pyramid scheme, the more recruits a
distributor brings into the AdvoCare program (and the more money
those recruits pay AdvoCare), the more money that distributor can
make," the complaint states. "Unlike participants in a classic
pyramid scheme, the AdvoCare distributors receive products --
nutritional supplements -- in return for the money they pay into
the scheme, which the distributors can theoretically consume or
sell. But that fact makes AdvoCare no less a pyramid scheme."

Ranieri says she has paid AdvoCare up to $25,000 in fees and
product purchases since 2007, while receiving only $5,000 in
payments. She says she was terminated for failure to pay annual
fees in January 2016.

Cornelius says she "lost thousands of dollars trying to be a
successful distributor" since February 2014 and that she was
terminated in August 2016.  They says distributors cannot sell
AdvoCare product for profit because competing products are
available cheaper online and at nutrition supplement stores.

"AdvoCare prohibits distributors from selling goods on e-commerce
platforms and in almost all brick-and-mortar businesses, so there
is no realistic way for distributors to sell the overprice
products," the complaint states. "Moreover, because the
distributors get stuck with AdvoCare products they cannot sell for
a profit, some distributors ignore AdvoCare's prohibition on e-
commerce sales and sell the products on the internet for the
wholesale price or less, further frustrating other distributors'
efforts at selling for a profit."

Advocare spokeswoman Lindsay Bomar denied that the company is a
pyramid scheme. She said AdvoCare offers to buy back at full price
products that a distributor is unable to sell.
"We vehemently dispute all of the claims," she told The Dallas
Morning News on March 10.

Bomar said distributors' compensation is based wholly on the
amount of products they sell, and that bringing in a new recruit
does not change a distributor's compensation.

The plaintiffs seek actual and punitive damages for racketeering,
securities fraud and unjust enrichment. They also seek a
declaration that the parties' arbitration provision is
unenforceable due to AdvoCare's power to unilaterally modify the
terms of the distributor contract.

They are represented by:

     REID COLLINS & TSAI LLP
     J. Benjamin King, Esq.
     1601 Elm St., Suite 4250
     Dallas, TX 75201
     Tel: 214-420-8900
     E-mail: bking@rctlegal.com

          - and -

     R. Adam Swick, Esq.
     1301 S. Capital of Texas Hwy.
     Bldg. C, Suite 300
     Austin, TX 78746
     Tel: 512-647-6100
     E-mail: aswick@rctlegal.com


AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Wins Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-K filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a court granted its
motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit filed in
Massachusetts.

The Company said: "In September 2015, a purported securities class
action lawsuit was filed against us, including our Chief Executive
Officer, our Chief Financial Officer, and members of our Board of
Directors, in the Business Litigation Section of the Suffolk
County Superior Court of Massachusetts. The complaint is brought
on behalf of an alleged class of those who purchased our common
stock pursuant or traceable to our initial public offering, and
purports to allege claims arising under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The complaint
generally alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by, among other things, making material
misstatements or omissions concerning the Phase 2b clinical study
of vadadustat. The complaint seeks, among other relief,
unspecified compensatory damages, rescission of certain stock
purchases, attorneys' fees, and costs."

"In October 2015, we removed the case to the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and the
plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to the Business
Litigation Section of the Suffolk County Superior Court of
Massachusetts. The plaintiff's motion to remand was granted in
April 2016. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the
Suffolk County Superior Court on August 15, 2016, and we served
our memorandum in support of our motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on October 14, 2016. The motion to dismiss hearing was
held on January 31, 2017."

"The Court granted our motion to dismiss and dismissed the case
with prejudice on February 21, 2017. The plaintiff has 30 days to
appeal the decision."

The Company believes such claims are without merit and it will
engage in a vigorous defense of such appeal, if it is ultimately
filed by the plaintiff.

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., is a biopharmaceutical company focused
on developing and delivering novel therapeutics for patients based
on hypoxia-inducible factor, or HIF, biology, and building our
pipeline while leveraging our development and commercial expertise
in renal disease.  HIF is the primary regulator of the production
of red blood cells, or RBCs, in the body, as well as other
important metabolic functions.  Pharmacologic modulation of the
HIF pathway may have broad therapeutic applications.


AMERICAN HONDA: "Touche" Lawsuit Over Airbag Sent to S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------- The
case captioned NOLA TOUCHE, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, vs. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.,
a California corporation; Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-20969
(originally Case No. 1:16-cv-339, N.D. Fla., November 8, 2017) has
been transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, according to a docket entry dated March 15,
2017.

The case was filed on behalf of Plaintiff and all persons
similarly situated who purchased or leased Class Vehicles equipped
with the recalled Takata airbag having defective inflators.

Plaintiff seeks redress individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated for injunctive relief/equitable relief
including but not limited to the alternative transportation at no
additional cost to Plaintiff and the Class pending the replacement
of Defective Airbags in Class Vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul S. Rothstein, Esq.
     626 NE 1st Street
     Gainesville, FL 32601
     Phone: (352) 376-7650
     Fax: (352) 374-7133
     E-mail: psr@rothsteinforjustice.com


ANN TAYLOR: Judge Inclined to Okay Deal But Wants Minor Revisions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reported that a California
judge on March 14, 2017, complimented clothier Ann Taylor's $3.5
million deal to end over 7,600 workers' claims of unpaid wages and
missed breaks, saying the settlement was an excellent result but
needed several procedural revisions before he would approve it.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge John Shepard Wiley told attorneys
for Ann Inc., AnnTaylor Retail Inc. and named plaintiff Steven
Linares that the deal proposed by the parties has "a number of
attractive features," especially the total amount secured for the
class.

"It is non-reversionary . . .  It's a real number that is not for
advertising purposes and later dwindles when the claims rate is
very low. In fact, there is no claims process here," he said.
"Plaintiffs' counsel has achieved something truly meaningful."

Judge Wiley noted that while the average payout for each class
member is $300, that is enough money that "everybody who receives
a check will cash it with a smile on their face."  He said that in
light of this, he would be inclined to approve the request by the
plaintiffs' lawyers from Capstone Law APC for one-third of the
settlement fund in attorneys fees, which comes to roughly $1.66
million.

The judge, however, said the plaintiff must still file an amended
complaint and told the parties they must renegotiate the deal to
remove a so-called Section 1542 waiver. This language requires
class members to waive all claims, "known or unknown," and Los
Angeles Superior Court judges as a rule will not allow them to be
applied to an entire class in a class action settlement, Judge
Wiley said.

Carrie A. Gonell of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, representing Ann
Taylor, told Judge Wiley that the parties had made sure to focus
their use of the Section 1542 language so that it would only apply
to "unknown claims" of the types covered by the deal, such as a
claim over missed meal break.

Judge Wiley was not convinced, however, saying such claims would
be covered by the express waiver of claims that the deal also
contains. The judge said he also wanted information about any
current or former Ann Taylor employees who have already released
or extinguished their claims and asked the parties to file
supplemental papers addressing his concerns before the preliminary
approval hearing resumes on April 25.

Linares filed suit against Ann Taylor in Los Angeles Superior
Court in December 2015, accusing the national women's clothing
retailer of a host of state labor law violations, including
shorting workers on overtime, not meeting minimum wage
requirements, not providing rest and meal breaks, and not paying
final wages in a timely fashion when firing an employee.

Linares, of Montebello, California, worked at an Ann Taylor
Factory Store in Los Angeles from October 2011 to October 2013,
one of roughly 80 Ann Taylor retail stores in the state, according
to the complaint.

Linares alleged that the company maintained a single, uniform
companywide policy for handling human resources matters and for
managing employees, making the suit especially ripe for class
action treatment.

                           *     *     *

Ascena Retail Group, Inc., said in a March 6, 2017, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended January 28, 2017, that on December 29, 2015,
plaintiff, Steven Linares, a former ANN sales associate, filed a
class action complaint on behalf of all sales leads, sales
associates and stock associates working in California from
December 29, 2011 through the present, in Los Angeles County
Superior Court. Plaintiff alleges on behalf of the class that ANN
did not properly provide overtime pay, minimum wage pay, meal and
rest breaks, and waiting time pay, among other claims under the
California Business and Professions Code and California Labor
Code.

At mediation, the parties agreed to settle all claims in the suit
for a total of $3.5 million to settle both the pending claims and
other wage-and-hour claims that could have been brought as part of
the lawsuit (including claims for penalties under the Private
Attorneys' General Act).

The Company believes that such amount reflects a liability that is
both probable and reasonably estimable, thus a reserve for
approximately $3.5 million was established in the first quarter of
Fiscal 2017. The parties executed a formal Joint Stipulation for
Class Action Settlement and Release, dated February 6, 2017. A
Preliminary Approval Hearing was scheduled for March 14, 2017.

The plaintiffs are represented by Raul Perez, Arnab Banerjee,
Brandon Brouillette and Ruhandy Glezakos of Capstone Law APC.

Ann Taylor is represented by Carrie A. Gonell and Bryan L. Jarrett
of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

The case is Steven Linares v. Ann Inc. et al., case number
BC605635, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles.

Ascena Retail Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a national
specialty retailer of apparel for women and tween girls.


ANTERO RESOURCES: "Scott" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Scott, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. Antero Resources Corp., Case No. 1:17-cv-00693, (D.
Colo., March 17, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, as
well as an additional amount as liquidated damages, costs and
reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Antero is an oil and natural gas exploration and production
company operating worldwide and throughout the United States,
including West Virginia where Scott worked exclusively for Antero
as a Drilling Consultant from approximately May 2013 until January
2015. Throughout his employment with Antero, he was paid a day-
rate with no overtime compensation and was classified as an
independent contractor. Scott worked well in excess of 40 hours
each week.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


APPLE INC: "Davidson" Class Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in San Jose,
Calif. on March 14, dismissed with leave to amend a class action
claiming defects in the iPhone 6's touchscreen, finding heightened
pleading requirements for fraud claims were not met and that
warranty claims indicate a design -- rather than workmanship --
defect.

The case is captioned, THOMAS DAVIDSON, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v.
APPLE, INC., Defendant. Case No.16-CV-04942-LHK (N.D. Cal. March
14, 2017).


ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Gavrielova" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS National
Services Inc. The case is captioned as Frida Gavrielova and Raul
Estevez, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers, the Plaintiffs, v. ARS National Services Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01534 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 19, 2017).

ARS is doing business in accounts receivable management industry.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are 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


ASCENA RETAIL: Approval of Justice Pricing Suit Deal Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2017, for the
quarter period ended January 28, 2017, that the approval of its
settlement in the Justice Pricing Litigation has been appealed to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The Company is a defendant in a number of class action lawsuits
that allege that Justice's promotional practices violated state
comparative pricing laws in connection with advertisements
promoting a 40% discount. The plaintiffs further allege false
advertising, violation of state consumer protection statutes,
breach of contract, breach of express warranty and unfair benefit
to Justice. The plaintiffs seek to stop Justice's allegedly
unlawful practice and obtain damages for Justice's customers in
the named states. They also seek interest and legal fees.

In July 2015, an agreement was reached with the plaintiffs in the
Rougvie case to settle the lawsuits on a class basis with all
Justice customers who made purchases between January 1, 2012 and
February 28, 2015 for approximately $51 million, including
payments to members of the class, payment of legal fees and
expenses of settlement administration. As a result, the Company
established a reserve for approximately $51 million during Fiscal
2015.

The proposed Settlement Agreement was filed with the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for
preliminary approval on September 24, 2015 and received
preliminary approval by the court on October 27, 2015. The Company
paid approximately $51 million representing the agreed settlement
amount into an escrow account on November 16, 2015. Formal notice
of settlement was sent to the class members on December 1, 2015.
The final approval hearing was held on May 20, 2016, and on July
29, 2016, the Court granted the parties' joint motion for final
approval of settlement and dismissed the case with prejudice. In
reaching this conclusion, the Court rejected virtually all of the
objections to the settlement that had been raised, but did reduce
the amount of attorneys' fees to be paid to plaintiffs' counsel,
which will not affect the total amount of the settlement. The
Court's decision has been appealed to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit. Once there is a final non-
appealable approval of the Settlement Agreement, it will resolve
all claims in all of the outstanding class actions on behalf of
customers who made purchases between January 1, 2012 and February
28, 2015.

Potential claims related to purchases made in 2010 and 2011 have
been raised and it is possible that individual class members who
excluded themselves from the settlement may seek to pursue their
own individual or class claims not subject to the broader
settlement. The Company believes it has strong defenses to any
such claims and is prepared to defend against them. The Company
believes that the liability associated with any such claims would
not be material. If the matters described herein do not occur and
the pricing lawsuits are not finally resolved, the ultimate
resolution of these matters may or may not result in an additional
material loss, which cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.

Ascena Retail Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a national
specialty retailer of apparel for women and tween girls.


AUDIBLE INC: "McKee" Suit Alleges Bait & Switch Scheme
------------------------------------------------------
Don Benedictis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
accusing Audible of bait-and-switch tactics and false advertising,
a federal class action claims in Los Angeles, the audiobook seller
and its parent company Amazon.com lure subscribers into buying
monthly "credits" they may never be able to exchange for e-books.

Former Audible subscriber Grant McKee says he trusted Audible's
promise that the audiobook credits he bought with his monthly fee
would never expire -- only to discover that unused credits expire
after six months and vanished instantly when he canceled his
membership.

He "believed defendants' representations that 'one credit equals
one audiobook,' that audiobook credits would 'never expire,' and
that a member can cancel any time with 'no strings attached,'"
McKee says in the March 10 lawsuit. "But defendants'
advertisements represent almost the exact opposite of how Audible
membership plans really work."

McKee says the Audible credits, for which members pay $14.95 per
month, are the legal equivalents of prepaid gift certificates or
gift cards. But because they expire after six months or when a
membership is canceled Audible is violating federal banking laws
that require gift certificates to be good for five years and a
California law that says certificates may never expire.

"Like defendants' other misrepresentations concealing key facts
about Audible's plans, Audible uses the label of 'credit' to
conceal what is otherwise an illegal gift card scheme," McKee says
in the 33-page complaint.

He also accuses Audible and Amazon of cheating customers in how
they charge their credit cards. If a member's credit card is
declined "for any reason," Audible charges the monthly fee to any
other credit card or payment method linked to the member's Amazon
account -- without the member's approval and even if that card
belongs to the member's spouse or business.

"According to Audible and Amazon (and possibly many other Amazon
subsidiaries and affiliates), any credit cards stored on an Amazon
account are fair game," the complaint states. "This results in a
modern form of conversion that is unlawful nationwide and that
affects unsuspecting consumers like plaintiff without notice."

Representatives of the two companies' public relations departments
did not reply to emails late on March 13.

McKee's attorney, Jamin Soderstrom of Irvine, estimated there
could be thousands of Audible subscribers in the proposed class.
"Audible keeps its subscriber base fairly confidential," he said.

Soderstrom declined to predict how much the class could claim in
damages. The complaint states it will meet the $5 million
threshold for a federal class action. "It's a very reasonable
estimate to say it exceeds $5 million and probably greatly
exceeds," Soderstrom said.

McKee signed up for a free Audible trial membership in June 2016,
which converted to a "Gold Monthly" membership after 30 days.
Under that plan, Audible charged McKee's credit card the $14.95
monthly fee, for which he received a credit each month to buy an
audiobook.

He decided to cancel his membership in December, when he had two
unredeemed credits. He intended to spend them once he decided upon
two books he wanted.

"But upon canceling his membership plan, he learned that --
contrary to Audible's and Amazon's representations -- the credits
he had purchased but not yet redeemed had automatically and
immediately expired and that, due to his cancellation, he had
forfeited the money he paid for the credits without receiving
audiobooks," his lawsuit says.

The complaint quotes Audible's advertising promises that
membership credits "do not expire as long as you have a membership
. . . and stored credits are 'rolled over' to your next billing
cycle, either monthly or yearly."

The promotional material says there are "no strings attached" if a
member wants to quit because "you can cancel at any time."

But in "inconspicuous fine print," Audible says the opposite,
according to McKee.

"Once you have reached the rollover limit for your membership
plan, your oldest credit(s) will expire in order for you to
receive new credits," the complaint states, quoting the fine
print. "If you accrue too many credits and do not use them, you
may lose some."

McKee calls the company's explanation -- that old credits must
expire to make room for new credits -- a "shell game."

"Defendants' 'use 'em or lose 'em' explanation is just a
convenient, deceptive euphemism" to avoid identifying the credits
as the prepaid gift certificates they really are, he says.

McKee also claims that canceling an Audible membership, rather
than having no strings attached, comes with "at least one major
string . . . a noose, really" because all unredeemed credits
automatically expire.

Soderstrom said he does not know of another lawsuit raising these
claims against Audible, but he noted that a federal class action
pending in Los Angeles accuses the SoulCycle indoor cycling gyms
of selling certificates for spin classes that expire quickly.

That August 2015 complaint claims the fitness chain sold $93
million in certificates in 2014 and earned $25 million from
certificates that expired without being used, according to news
accounts.

McKee seeks class certification, restitution, corrective
advertising, and compensatory and punitive damages for false
advertising, conversion, violations of federal and state gift
certificate laws, and violations of California consumer protection
laws.

Soderstrom said Audible is represented by attorneys with the
Silicon Valley-based law firm Fenwick & West.


AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Continues to Face Class Suits over Fire
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avalonbay Communities, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that a fifth class
action lawsuit has been filed against the Company related to a
fire at an apartment.

In January 2015, a fire occurred at the Company's Avalon at
Edgewater apartment community in Edgewater, NJ. The Company
believes that the fire was caused by sparks from a torch used
during repairs being performed by a Company employee who was not a
licensed plumber. The Company has since revised its maintenance
policies to require that non-flame tools be used for plumbing
repairs where possible or, where not possible inside the building
envelope, that a qualified third party vendor perform the work in
accordance with AvalonBay policies.

The Company has established protocols for processing claims from
third parties who suffered losses as a result of the fire, and
many third parties have contacted the Company's insurance carrier
and settled their claims. Through the date of this Form 10-K, of
the 229 occupied apartments destroyed in the fire, the residents
of approximately 97 units have settled claims with the Company's
insurer, and claims from an additional approximate 34 units are
being evaluated by the Company's insurer.

Three class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company on
behalf of occupants of the destroyed building and consolidated in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The Company has agreed with class counsel to the terms of a
proposed settlement which would provide a claims process (with
agreed upon protocols for instructing the adjuster as to how to
evaluate claims) and, if needed, an arbitration process to
determine damage amounts to be paid to individual claimants
covered by the class settlement.

On December 9, 2016, class counsel re-filed with the court a
motion for preliminary approval of this class settlement, and the
Company did not oppose such motion. The Company cannot predict
when or if the court will approve the settlement.

A fourth class action, being heard in the same federal court, was
filed against the Company on behalf of residents of the second
Edgewater building that suffered minimal damage.

Recently, a fifth class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company seeking to certify a class on behalf of both buildings and
other third parties. The Company removed this action to the same
federal court as the other four and is currently seeking to
consolidate it with the fourth class action lawsuit.

In addition to the class action lawsuits, 21 lawsuits representing
approximately 150 individual plaintiffs have been filed in the
Superior Court of New Jersey Bergen County - Law Division and 20
of these lawsuits are currently pending. Most of the state court
cases have been consolidated by the court and the Company expects
all of them to be consolidated shortly.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the
extent of damages claimed in all of the suits.

There are also five subrogation lawsuits that have been filed
against the Company by insurers of Edgewater residents who
obtained renters insurance; it is the Company's position that in
the majority of the applicable leases the residents waived
subrogation rights. One of these lawsuits has been dismissed on
that basis and the other four are currently pending in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The District
Court recently denied the Company's motion to dismiss which was
filed in one of these lawsuits and the Company is currently
seeking reconsideration of that decision as well as certification
to appeal.

Having settled many third party claims through the insurance
claims process, the Company currently believes that any potential
remaining liability to third parties (including any potential
liability to third parties determined in accordance with the class
settlement described above, if approved) will not be material to
the Company and will in any event be substantially covered by the
Company's insurance policies. However, the Company can give no
assurances in this regard and continues to evaluate this matter.

AvalonBay Communities, Inc. is a Maryland corporation that has
elected to be treated as a real estate investment trust ("REIT")
for federal income tax purposes.  AvalonBay develops, redevelops,
acquires, owns and operates multifamily communities primarily in
New England, the New York/New Jersey metro area, the Mid-Atlantic,
the Pacific Northwest, and Northern and Southern California.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Leon Orea" Suit Over Loan Modification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action in San Francisco accuses Bank of America of
having falsely and willfully reported to credit agencies that
people who apply for mortgage modifications are delinquent.

The case is captioned, LFREDO LEON OREA, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF
AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendant. Case 3:17-cv-01253-LB(N.D. Cal.
March 9, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

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


BANKERS LIFE: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Davis" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
John Davis, v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co, et al., Case No. #: 17-
1571 (9th Cir., Mar. 17, 2017), is an appeal filed before the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from a lower
court decision in a class action, Case No. 2-15-cv-03559
(D.N.J.).[BN]

Plaintiff - Appellant is represented by:

David M. Hoffman, Esq.
28 Countryside Drive
Baskin Ridge, NJ 07920
Telephone: (908) 608 0333

- and -

David L. Menzel, Esq.
KRAEMER BURNS MYTELKA LOVELL & KULKA
675 Morris Avenue, 3rd Floor
Springfield, NJ 07081
Telephone: (973) 912 8700

Defendant - Appellees are represented by:

Joseph L. Buckley, Esq.
Richard H. Epstein, Esq.
SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS
One Riverfront Plaza
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 643 7000

- and -

Adam J. Kaiser, Esq.
ALSTON & BIRD
90 Park Avenue, 15th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 210 9465


BIOAMBER INC: May 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces that
it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
BioAmber Inc. securities (BIOA): (1) pursuant and/or traceable to
BioAmber's secondary public offering on or about January 23, 2017
(the "Offering"); and/or (2) publicly traded on the open market
from January 23, 2017 through March 16, 2017, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for BioAmber
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the BioAmber class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1089.htmlor call Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) a large customer of BioAmber that was expected to
purchase USD2.8 million of succinic acid in Q4 2016 experienced a
technical problem in its manufacturing facility and postponed the
order to 2017; and (2) as a result, defendants' statements about
BioAmber's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times. On March 16, 2017, CEO Fabrice Orecchioni revealed
that BioAmber experienced a disruption from a large customer that
was expected to purchase USD2.8 million of succinic acid in Q4
2016 but postponed the order to 2017 due to a technical problem in
its manufacturing facility. On this news, shares of BioAmber fell
USD0.59 per share or over 18% to close at USD2.55 per share on
March 17, 2017, damaging investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May
17, 2017. If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1089.htmlor to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via email at -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or --
kchan@rosenlegal.com --


BOKF NA: faces "Almeida" Suit in Northern District Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against BOKF, NA d/b/a
Bank of Oklahoma.

The case is captioned Tony Almeida, Leslie Almeida, Cary Cuyler,
Susan Cuyler, Christian Larsen, Thomas Ribaudo, and Cori Ribaudo,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
BOKF, NA d/b/a Bank of Oklahoma, Case No. 4:17-cv-00126-JED-FHM
(N.D. Ok., March 13, 2017).

BOKF, NA operates a financial services holding company in the West
South Central States region of the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rabindranath Ramana, Esq.
      Randall K. Calvert, Esq.
      CALVERT LAW FIRM
      1041 NW Grand Blvd.
      Oklahoma CITY, OK 73118
      Telephone: (405) 848-5000
      Facsimile: (405) 607-3070
      E-mail: rramana@calvertlaw.com
              rcalvert@calvertlaw.com


BRAVO BRIO: Continues to Defend "Hussein" Class Suit in Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bravo Brio Restaurant Group, Inc., continues to defend itself
against a purported class action lawsuit filed by Mamdooh Hussein
in Missouri, according to the Company's March 6, 2017, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 25, 2016.

On May 14, 2016, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a
putative class and collective action lawsuit in the United States
District Court Western District of Missouri, Mamdooh Hussein v.
Bravo Brio Restaurant Group, Inc., alleging that the Company
required him and others to pool their tips with non-tip earning
employees and failed to properly pay him the minimum wage and
overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and Missouri state wage laws. The Plaintiffs are seeking
unspecified amounts of penalties and other monetary payments.

The Company says it intends to vigorously defend itself against
this action. Based upon the current status of this matter, the
Company has reserved $0.5 million related to the costs of
litigating and potential settlement of this lawsuit.

Bravo Brio Restaurant Group, Inc., is an owner and operator of two
distinct Italian restaurant brands, BRAVO! Cucina Italiana and
BRIO Tuscan Grille.


BROOKLYN FARE: Faces "Andrews" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brooklyn Fare
Kitchen Corp. The case is entitled as Victor Andrews, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Brooklyn Fare Kitchen Corp., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01507
(E.D.N.Y., Mar. 17, 2017).

Brooklyn Fare operates a restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CALIFORNIA: Faces ACLU Suit over SoCal Immigrant Detentions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
San Diego's chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed a
class action lawsuit in San Diego federal court claiming
immigrants being held in local detention centers for months on end
are denied their due process rights.

According to the ACLU, the long detentions result from delays in
initial immigration hearings.

The civil rights group also claims the Department of Homeland
Security violates the Fourth Amendment with its pattern and
practice of detaining people without seeking judicial review of
probable cause promptly after the arrest.

Bardis Vakili, senior staff attorney with the San Diego ACLU,
called the lengthy detentions "medieval polices."

"Physical liberty is a bedrock right protected by the
Constitution," he said in a statement. "It cannot be taken away
with no judicial oversight. This level of disregard for basic
constitutional safeguards is reminiscent of our government's
decision to open internment camps during World War II.  It's an
injustice that threatens to leave a similar scar on a new
generation of American families."

Three immigrants currently detained in the Southern District of
California are spearheading the case, which was filed ON March 9.
The class representatives include an 18-year-old high school
senior who is eligible for the Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals program; a mother of two U.S. citizens who has lived in
the U.S. for years; and a man who claims to be a U.S. citizen.

The detainees wear color-coded prison uniforms and are confined to
a "pod" or "unit" of 60 to 80 other people. They are allowed daily
limited "yard" time in a concrete patio enclosed by concrete walls
at least 20 feet high, according to the 26-page complaint.

Immigrants detained in the Southern District are held at two
detention centers operated by Immigrations and Custom Enforcement:
the Otay Detention Facility and the Imperial Regional Detention
Facility. On any given day, the two facilities confine about 1,500
immigrants, according to the ACLU.

The ACLU says DHS does not take into proper consideration the
immigration court's ability to commence and process cases
promptly. It takes no responsibility for presenting detainees to
the court in a timely manner or for the fact that cases involving
detained persons must proceed on an expedited docket.

The initial appearance is vital for detainees to get access to
information related to their cases, and it is the first time they
can request a bond hearing, which, if granted, must be scheduled
at the earliest possible date.

The first hearing also gives unrepresented detainees the
opportunity to add their names to a list that is handed out to pro
bono legal organizations.

In addition, ICE attorneys and immigration judges interact with
detainees for the first time at these initial appearances, which
can reveal if an immigrant has mental health issues that require
special accommodations.

Delaying a detained immigrant's initial court appearance brings
with it the "significant" risk of an erroneous detention, the ACLU
claims. Timely hearings would reduce this risk.

The ACLU seeks declaratory, injunctive and habeas corpus relief to
prevent immigration authorities from detaining people for an
"unreasonable period" while they await a court hearing.

DHS does not comment on pending litigation.


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Faces "Ehrnfeld" Consumer Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cavalry Portfolio
Services, LLC. The case is captioned as Pearl Ehrnfeld, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiff, v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-01498 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 17, 2017).

Cavalry Portfolio offers debt resolution services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CHEVRON CORP: Judge Refuses to Certify Nigerians' Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Jonney Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge in San Francisco, refused to certify a class of
Nigerians who demand $1.5 billion from Chevron for a 2012 gas rig
explosion.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston on March 13, had few kind words
for the remaining named plaintiff, or his witnesses, or his
attorneys.

The original lead plaintiff, Dr. Foster Ogola sued Chevron in
January 2014, claiming an estimated 65,000 residents of the Niger
Delta Region in Southern Nigeria suffered health problems and lost
income from fishing and farming due to contamination from the
blast.

The KS Endeavor, an offshore natural gas rig drilling 5 nautical
miles off the coast of Nigeria in North Apoi Field, exploded on
Jan. 16, 2012, causing a fire that burned for 46 days.

Ogala et al. said they were "directly affected by, interested in
and having claims arising out of the incident," and suffered
"losses to their livelihood, environmental damage, and health
problems as a result of the explosion and fire."

Ogala said KS Drilling was negligently operated by KS Endeavor
under the management of Chevron Nigeria Limited (CNL).

Chevron Corp., Chevron Investments and Chevron U.S.A. (CUSA) were
named as defendants, but not Chevron Nigeria Ltd., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Chevron Investments.

U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti dismissed the original complaint
in May 2014 for failure to state claims against the defendant
companies as alter egos of Chevron Nigeria Ltd.

In August that year, Conti slammed the Nigerians for copying their
amended $5 billion lawsuit "almost verbatim from the original
complaint."

That lawsuit survived, however, as Conti said in November 2014
that he was "ill-suited" to address specifics of the plaintiffs'
alleged injuries.

Ruling on a third amended complaint in July 2015, Conti found that
the plaintiffs were "not cooperating with their own counsel."

The now-retired Conti dismissed that suit with leave to amend, and
the plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint in September 2015.

Ogola and four others were terminated as named plaintiffs. Natto
Iyela Gbarabe, a fisherman from the Koluama community in the
Southern Ijaw Local Government area of Bayelsa State in the Niger
Delta, now serves as the sole named plaintiff.

The fourth amended complaint reduced the putative class from
15,000 to 12,600 people and eliminated three communities that were
covered by the previous lawsuits.

On March 13, Judge Illston denied Gbarabe's motions for class
certification and his request to substitute a fisheries expert,
and granted Chevron's motions to strike and exclude a
socioeconomic report and other testimony.

Illston wrote that Gbarabe "has failed to show through any
evidence that causation can be proven on a classwide basis, and
much of the evidence submitted has been shown to be unreliable."

Gbarabe repeatedly showed "disregard" for scheduling orders, the
60-page ruling states, and relied on an expert, nonparty Jasper
Abowei, who altered report data to support his conclusions,
Illston found.

"Among the myriad problems with Professor Abowei's report, there
is no scientific data or analysis supporting the report's
conclusions, and when asked at his deposition whether the rig
explosion caused pollution, Professor Abowei could only say 'maybe
it did, maybe it didn't,'" Illston wrote.

"The court is very troubled by the fact that Abowei apparently
altered data to fit his theory and that he copied data from
unrelated studies and passed that data off as relevant to the
issues in this case," Illston added.

As for class certification, Illston said, there "would undoubtedly
be significant difficulties in managing a class of thousands of
Nigerian residents."

Plaintiff's counsel repeatedly acknowledged that they had
difficulty obtaining verifiable information regarding the claims
of their so-called clients, Illston found.

Because Chevron lacks power to subpoena witnesses from Nigeria,
Illston added, only class member witnesses that Gbarabe "wants or
is able to proffer" would be available at trial.

Illston also pointedly questioned Gbarabe's counsel.

"In short, the entire manner in which plaintiff's counsel have
litigated this action leads the court to conclude that they should
not be appointed as class counsel," she wrote.

She set a case management conference for April 14.


CHINACACHE INT'L: Xu Appeals C.D. Calif. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Guangyi Xu filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Guangyi Xu v. ChinaCache Intl. Holdings Ltd., et
al., Case No. 2:15-cv-07952-CAS-RAO, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
seeks to pursue remedies against the Defendants for violations of
federal securities laws.

ChinaCache is purportedly the leading total solutions provider of
Internet content and application delivery services in the People's
Republic of China.

The appellate case is captioned as Guangyi Xu v. ChinaCache Intl.
Holdings Ltd., et al., Case No. 17-55295, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by April 5, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on July 5, 2017;

   -- Appellant Guangyi Xu's opening brief is due on August 14,
      2017;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees Jing An, ChinaCache
      International Holdings Ltd., Song Wang and Ken Vincent
      Qingshi Zhang is due on September 12, 2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant GUANGYI XU, Lead Plaintiff, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jacob Alexander Goldberg, Attorney
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 600-2817
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

          Laurence Mathew Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016-1101
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

Defendant-Appellee CHINACACHE INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD. is
represented by:

          Peter B. Morrison, Esq.
          Matthew Tako, Esq.
          Virginia F. Milstead, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 687-5304
          Facsimile: (213) 687-5600
          E-mail: peter.morrison@skadden.com
                  matthew.tako@skadden.com
                  virginia.milstead@skadden.com


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Shareholder Suit over Outbreak Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------
Nick Rummel, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
seeing no evidence that the burrito giant lied to shareholders, a
federal judge in Manhattan dismissed a class action over rampant
food poisoning that sent Chipotle stock to the toilet.

As summed up in a report last year by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 55 people in 11 states were sickened in
2015 by an outbreak of E. coli, salmonella and norovirus at
Chipotle.

Unhappy that the company's stock fell nearly 50 percent in the
outbreak's wake, shareholder Susan Ong argued in a federal class
action that poor quality-control programs were to blame, and the
company misled investors about the federal investigation.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Failla found on March 8, however,
that Ong offered no proof that Chipotle lied in its November 2015
statement on the outbreak.

"It is perhaps true that in electing to speak regarding the risks
posed by its food preparation methods, Chipotle put those risks at
issue and was required to ensure that its statements regarding
them were truthful and complete," Faila wrote. "But plaintiffs
have not indicated that Chipotle's statements were not."

In particular, the court found, there is no evidence that Chipotle
knew its transition in late 2014 to in-store produce production
would carry any heightened risk.

Indeed it was until July 2015 that Chipotle suffered it first
outbreak. "For at least seven months, therefore, this atransition
appeared not to heighten Chipotle's risk at all," the 47-page
opinion states.

Chipotle's outbreaks marked a significant black eye for the
Mexican-style chain, whose opening to more than double the price
of its initial public offering made it the darling of Wall Street
investors for a time.

Chipotle announced the first outbreak in August 2015 after 100
employees and customers in one of its California restaurants were
infected with the norovirus. The following month, health
inspectors in the state blamed the outbreak on dirty and
inoperative equipment.

Dozens of people fell ill in Minnesota from salmonella-tainted
tomatoes weeks later, and another 20 reported cases of E. coli
caused Chipotle to close all its restaurants in Portland, Ore.,
and Seattle in November 2015. Come December, norovirus linked to
Chipotle sickened 80 students at Boston College.

The company has since enhanced its food-safety programs,
partnering with two consulting firms to bolster food safety and
initiating end-of-shelf-life testing for ingredients to ensure
food quality.

The company announced a decline in sales about 30 percent during
the last quarter of 2015, and stock analysts say the company is
still performing far below peak levels, though the company
reported a bump in sales for the first time in five quarters last
month.

Faila's 47-page opinion called the Ong lawsuit "long on text" but
"short on adequately pleaded claims."

Though Chipotle painted an optimistic future for the company at
press conferences, Faila said legal safe harbors shield these
statements because they include cautionary language.

"The court likewise finds that the statements in this filing
regarding Chipotle's food-safety programs and protocols are
generalized statements that courts in this circuit have
consistently deemed inactionable puffery," Faila wrote.

Since its opening in 1993, Chipotle now has nearly 2,000
restaurants under its belt. Its slogan is "putting the food back
in fast food."


CHURCH & DWIGHT: Supplement Contains Synthetic Folate, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a class claims in Chicago a
federal lawsuit that Church & Dwight Co. labeled its Vitafusion
vitamin supplement as containing 400 mcg of folate per gummy, but
it actually contains 1232 mcg of synthetic folate, which is
potentially dangerous.

The case is captioned, DAVID CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHURCH & DWIGHT CO.,
INC., Defendant. Case: 1:17-cv-01948(N.D. Ill. March 13, 2017).

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

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

          - and -

     Daniel R. Johnson, Esq.
     Adam Waskowski, Esq.
     Seth Yohalem, Esq.
     WASKOWSKI JOHNSON YOHALEM LLP
     954 W. Washington Blvd., Suite 720
     Chicago, IL 60607
     Tel: (312) 278-3153
     E-mail: djohnson@wjylegal.com
             awaskowski@wjylegal.com
             syohalem@wjylegal.com


CINTAS CORP: Shareholder Suit Over G&K Acquisition Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation disclosed said in its Form 8-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2017, that a
shareholder litigation arising from its acquisition of G&K
Services, Inc., was dismissed.

On August 15, 2016, Cintas Corporation ("Cintas") entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") among
Cintas, G&K Services, Inc. ("G&K Services") and Bravo Merger Sub,
Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Cintas ("Merger Sub"), pursuant
to which, among other things and subject to the satisfaction or
waiver of specified conditions, Merger Sub will merge with and
into G&K Services (the "Acquisition"). As a result of the
Acquisition, Merger Sub will cease to exist, and G&K Services will
survive as a wholly owned subsidiary of Cintas.

On September 26, 2016, a putative shareholder class action
lawsuit, captioned Klein v. G&K Services, Incorporated, et al.,
Civil Action No. 16-cv-03198 (DWF) (KMM), was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota, against G&K
Services and the members of its Board of Directors. The complaint
asserted claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and alleged, among other things, that G&K
Services' proxy statement contained false and misleading
statements and/or omitted material information. The complaint
sought, among other things, injunctive relief preventing
consumption of the Merger, monetary damages and an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses.

On October 28, 2016, G&K Services filed a Form 8-K with the SEC
making supplemental disclosures to G&K Services' definitive proxy
statement filed with the SEC on September 29, 2016. On October 28,
2016, the parties filed a stipulation, and the court entered an
order, dismissing this action with prejudice as to the named
plaintiff and without prejudice as to all other putative class
members.


COLLECTO INC: Attorneys Appeal Ruling in "Diaz" Suit to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
David J. Kaminski, Charles Messer and Stephen Watkins filed an
appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit titled Walter
Diaz, et al. v. Collecto, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-04833-CRB, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

The Appellants are the attorneys of Defendant Collecto, Inc.  They
have previously filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit from a ruling
in the lawsuit.  That appellate case is captioned as Charles
Messer, et al. v. USDC-CASF, Case No. 16-72976.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court Case was brought against the Defendants for knowingly, and
willfully employing and causing to be employed certain recording
equipment in order to record telephone conversations with the
Plaintiff without the knowledge or consent of the Plaintiff, in
violation of California Penal Code, thereby invading the
Plaintiff's privacy.

Collecto, Inc. operates a debt collection services company in Los
Angeles California.

The appellate case is captioned as Walter Diaz, et al. v.
Collecto, Inc., Case No. 17-15402, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by April 5, 2017;

   -- Transcript is due on May 5, 2017;

   -- Opening brief of Appellants David J. Kaminski, Charles
      Messer and Stephen Watkins is due on June 14, 2017;

   -- Appellee Walter Diaz's answering brief is due on July 14,
      2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellee WALTER DIAZ, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

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

Appellants Charles Messer, David J. Kaminski and Stephen Watkins
represented themselves:

          Charles Messer, Esq.
          David J. Kaminski, Esq.
          Stephen Watkins, Esq.
          CARLSON & MESSER LLP
          5959 West Century Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 242-2200
          Facsimile: (310) 242-2222
          E-mail: messerc@cmtlaw.com
                  kaminskd@cmtlaw.com
                  watkinss@cmtlaw.com


CREDIT ONE: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "A.D." Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff A.D. filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the
lawsuit entitled A.D. v. Credit One Bank, NA, Case No. 1:14-cv-
10106, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.

The appellate case is captioned as A.D. v. Credit One Bank, NA,
Case No. 17-1486, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District
Judge Matthew F. Kennelly denied A.D.'s motion for class
certification, denied Credit One's motion to dismiss, and granted
Credit One's motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings.

Credit One is a national bank that provides banking services and
credit cards throughout the United States. Judith Serrano, the
plaintiff's mother, has been one of its customers since about
2003, when she opened a credit card account with Credit One and
began using the card for everyday purchases. A.D., Serrano's
daughter, is not an account holder and is not named on her
mother's account.

A.D. filed this suit against Credit One in December 2014 after
receiving "at least twelve calls at different times" from Credit
One to her cellular phone. She alleged that these calls were made
"using an automatic telephone dialing system," and that she never
gave consent to receive such calls.

According to the briefing schedule in the Appellate Case, the
Appellant's brief is due on or before April 17, 2017.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant A.D., a minor, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated, is represented by:

          Mark Ankcorn, Esq.
          ANKCORN LAW FIRM
          11622 El Camino Real
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (619) 870-0600
          E-mail: mark@ankcorn.com

Defendant-Appellee CREDIT ONE BANK, NA, is represented by:

          Charles R. Messer, Esq.
          CARLSON & MESSER LLP
          5959 W. Century Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 242-2200
          E-mail: messerc@cmtlaw.com


CYNOSURE INC: Guido Files Suit Over Sale to Hologic
---------------------------------------------------
The plaintiff in the case captioned Michael Guido, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cynosure,
Inc., Michael R. Davin, William O. Flannery, Brian M. Barefoot,
Ettore V. Biagioni, Marina Hatsopoulos and Thomas H. Robinson,
Defendants, Case 2017-0209 (Del. Ch., March 17, 2017) seeks to
enforce his right to inspection of books and records in order to
determine whether wrongdoing or mismanagement has taken place such
that it would be appropriate to file claims for breach of
fiduciary duty, and to investigate the independence and
disinterestedness of the Company's directors generally and with
respect to the Company's proposed acquisition by Hologic, Inc. and
Minuteman Merger Sub, Inc.

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

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

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
      Craig J. Springer, Esq.
      David M. Sborz, Esq.
      ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
      3801 Kennett Pike
      Building C, Suite 305
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Tel: (302) 504-4957

             - and -

      Randall J. Baron, Esq.
      David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 231-1058

            - and -

      Christopher H. Lyons, Esq.
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Tel: (615) 244-2203

            - and -

      W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER
      99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 802-1486


D & N HOLDINGS: Faces "Saraev" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALEKSEI YEVGENYEVICH SARAEV, and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff, vs. D & N HOLDINGS, INC. D/B/A THE CLOSET EDITION, and
DANIEL BADENHORST, individually, Defendants, Case No. 9:17-cv-
80340-DMM (S.D. Fla., March 15, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff
worked approximately 60 hours per week and was initially paid
$15/hr. for the first two weeks of employment with Defendants
before receiving a raise to $16/hr. for said work but was not paid
the time and one-half overtime rate for each hour worked in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a wooden closet manufacturing company.  Plaintiff was
employed by the Defendants as a furniture installer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
     2847 Hollywood Blvd.
     Hollywood, FL33020
     Phone: (305) 308 - 5619
     Email: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

        - and -

     Isaac Mamane, Esq.
     MAMANE LAW LLC
     10800 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 350 A
     North Miami, FL 33161
     Phone (305) 773 - 6661
     E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


DARWIN SELECT: MHM Correctional Sues Over Breach of Contract
------------------------------------------------------------
MHM Correctional Services, Inc., Centurion of Minnesota, LLC,
Centurion of Mississippi, LLC, and Massachusetts Partnership for
Correctional Healthcare, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. Darwin Select
Insurance Company n/k/a Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance
Company and Allied World Assurance Company, Defendants, Case No.
17-0825, (Mass. Cmmw., March 17, 2017), seeks declaratory relief
and damages arising out of Darwin and Allied World's breach of
their contractual obligations, under excess policies issued by
Defendants to MHM, loss and defense expenses, pre- and post-
judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs incurred in
connection with this suit.

MHM, MPCH, Centurion-Mississippi and Centurion-Minnesota provide
correctional healthcare services to various government entity
clients.

The Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) entered into a Mental
Health Services Agreement with MHM to provide mental health care
services to inmates. Centurion-Mississippi provides select
correctional services, including medical and mental health
services to the Mississippi Department of Corrections.

Plaintiffs have been sued directly, or are potentially liable
pursuant to indemnification agreements, in six separate class
action lawsuits alleging improper healthcare services or treatment
provided by Plaintiffs at various correctional facilities.

Defendants issued various Healthcare Organization Excess and
Umbrella Liability Insurance Policies to the Plaintiffs who are
insured by Darwin, which cover indemnification from any resulting
suits related to their services. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     George J. Puddister IV, Esq.
     Victor J. Koufman, Esq.
     KOUFMAN & FREDERICK, LLP
     145 Tremont Street, 4th Floor
     Boston, MA 02111
     Tel: (617) 423-2212
     Email: gp@kflitigators.com
            vk@kflitigators.com


DAVITA INC: To Defend Against Peace Officers' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
DaVita, Inc. intends to defend itself against the Peace Officers'
Annuity and Benefit of Georgia securities laws class action civil
suit, DaVita said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On February 1, 2017, the Peace Officers' Annuity and Benefit Fund
of Georgia filed a putative federal securities class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
against the Company and certain executives. The complaint covers
the time period of August 2015 to October 2016 and alleges,
generally, that the Company and its executives violated federal
securities laws concerning the Company's financial results and
revenue derived from patients who received charitable premium
assistance from an industry-funded non-profit organization. The
complaint further alleges that the process by which patients
obtained commercial insurance and received charitable premium
assistance was improper and "created a false impression of
DaVita's business and operational status and future growth
prospects." The Company disputes these allegations and intends to
defend this action accordingly.

The Company consists of two major divisions, DaVita Kidney Care
(Kidney Care) and DaVita Medical Group (DMG, formerly known as
HealthCare Partners or HCP).


DJT MIAMI: "Cil" Class Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Sebastian Cil, Carlos Martin
Gomez, Lis Ivana Giglio and other similarly situated individuals
v. DJT Miami Corp. d/b/a Chimychurry Grill and Jacqueline
Schvarzer, Case No. 17-002654-CA-01, was removed from the 11th
Judicial Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:17-cv-20936-JAL to the proceeding.

The case alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

DJT Miami Corp. owns and operates Chimychurry Grill restaurant in
Miami, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Court House Tower
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


DR PEPPER: Faces "Hashemi" Ginger Ale False Advertising Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Dr
Pepper Snapple Group's Canada Dry Ginger Ale "Made from Real
Ginger" does not contain a detectable amount of ginger, customers
claim in Los Angeles federal class action.

The case is captioned, ARASH HASHEMI, NATASHA SAFARADI, and
PATRICK GILBURT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DR PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, INC.,
and DR PEPPER/SEVEN UP, INC., Defendants. Case 2:17-cv-02042(C.D.
Cal. March 14, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

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


ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS: Appeals Ruling in Lidoderm Antitrust MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Teikoku Pharma USA, Teikoku
Seiyaku Co., Actavis, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc., and Actavis
PLC filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the
multidistrict litigation styled In re: Lidoderm Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 3:14-md-02521-WHO, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the actions
in the litigation share factual questions arising out of
allegations that the Defendants violated federal and state
antitrust laws by excluding generic competition for Endo's name
brand drug Lidoderm, a topical patch containing 5% lidocaine for
use in treating pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia.  The
Defendants' alleged anticompetitive conduct includes, inter alia,
engaging in sham patent infringement litigation and entering into
an anticompetitive reverse payment agreement in order to prevent
generic competitors to Lidoderm from entering the market.

The appellate case is captioned as United Food & Commercial
Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare
Fund, et al. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-
80035, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL
1776 & PARTICIPATING EMPLOYERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated; NECA-IBEW WELFARE
TRUST FUND; and CITY OF PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          David W. Mitchell, Esq.
          Brian Oliver O'Mara, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: DavidM@rgrdlaw.com
                  bomara@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Natalie F. Bennett, Esq.
          SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH, LLC
          35 E. State St.
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (610) 891-9880
          Facsimile: (610) 891-9883
          E-mail: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com

               - and -

          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          E-1250 First National Bank Bldg.
          332 Minnesota Street
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
          E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com

               - and -

          James R. Dugan, II, Esq.
          Douglas R. Plymale, Esq.
          THE DUGAN LAW FIRM
          365 Canal Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 648-0180
          Facsimile: (504) 648-0181
          E-mail: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com
                  dplymale@dugan-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
          Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403-3415
          Telephone: (612) 338-4605
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
          E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com
                  rsteiner@heinsmills.com

               - and -

          Lori A. Fanning, Esq.
          Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          115 S. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 332-3400
          Facsimile: (312) 676-2676
          E-mail: lfanning@millerlawllc.com
                  mmiller@millerlawllc.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq.
          Christina C. Sharp, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
                  smg@girardgibbs.com
                  chc@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Jacob Alexander Goldberg, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 600-2817
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

          Ralph Kalfayan, Esq.
          KRAUSE, KALFAYAN, BENINK & SLAVENS, LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite # 530
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 232-0331
          Facsimile: (619) 232-4019
          E-mail: rkalfayan@kkbs-law.com

               - and -

          Robert S. Kitchenoff, Esq.
          WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC
          100 South Broad Street, Suite 705
          Philadelphia, PA 19110-1061
          Telephone: (215) 545-7200
          Facsimile: (215) 545-6535
          E-mail: kitchenoff@wka-law.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
          1818 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
          E-mail: jkodroff@srkw-law.com

               - and -

          Joseph Carl Kohn, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          1 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
          E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          William H. London, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          2201 Waukegan Road
          Bannockburn, IL 60015
          Telephone: (224) 632-4500
          Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
          E-mail: wlondon@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Ryan McEwan, Esq.
          Andrew M. Purdy, Esq.
          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: rmcewan@saverilawfirm.com
                  apurdy@saverilawfirm.com
                  jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          J. Douglas Richards, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          88 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838-7797
          Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
          E-mail: drichards@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Peter Safirstein, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          28 W. 44th Street
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 564-1637
          Facsimile: (212) 564-1807
          E-mail: psafirstein@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Robert William Sink, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT W. SINK
          1417 Crosby Drive
          Fort Washington, PA 19034
          Telephone: (610) 566-0800
          Facsimile: (610) 566-4408
          E-mail: rsink@sinklawoffices.com

Plaintiff-Respondent PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL 178 HEALTH &
WELFARE TRUST FUND is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG, LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 432-1495
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com

Plaintiff-Respondent LOCAL 17 HOSPITALITY BENEFIT FUND is
represented by:

          Andrew M. Purdy, Esq.
          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Ryan McEwan, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: apurdy@saverilawfirm.com
                  jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  rmcewan@saverilawfirm.com

Plaintiff-Respondent STEVEN ROLLER is represented by:

          Andrew M. Purdy, Esq.
          Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
          Ryan McEwan, Esq.
          JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 500-6800
          Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
          E-mail: apurdy@saverilawfirm.com
                  jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
                  rmcewan@saverilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Christina C. Sharp, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: chc@girardgibbs.com

               - and -

          Ralph Kalfayan, Esq.
          KRAUSE, KALFAYAN, BENINK & SLAVENS, LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite # 530
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 232-0331
          Facsimile: (619) 232-4019
          E-mail: rkalfayan@kkbs-law.com

Plaintiff-Respondent FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, FORT LAUDERDALE
LODGE 31, INSURANCE TRUST FUND, is represented by:

          Christina C. Sharp, Esq.
          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: chc@girardgibbs.com
                  smg@girardgibbs.com
                  dcg@girardgibbs.com

Plaintiff-Respondent ROCHESTER DRUG CO-OPERATIVE, INC., On Behalf
of Itself and all Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Peter R. Kohn, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          101 Greenwood Avenue
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 277-5770
          Facsimile: (215) 277-5771
          E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Sarah Rebecca Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          David Francis Sorensen, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3053
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                  dsorensen@bm.net

               - and -

          Tom Sobol, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Telephone: (617) 482-3700
          Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
          E-mail: tom@hagens-berman.com

Plaintiff-Respondent DROGUERIA BETANCES, INC., On behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Joseph Opper, Esq.
          GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP
          Wall Street Plaza
          88 Pine Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 398-0055
          Facsimile: (212) 764-6620
          E-mail: jopper@garwingerstein.com

               - and -

          Peter R. Kohn, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          101 Greenwood Avenue
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 277-5770
          Facsimile: (215) 277-5771
          E-mail: pkohn@faruqilaw.com

               - and -

          Tom Sobol, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
          Cambridge, MA 02142
          Telephone: (617) 482-3700
          Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
          E-mail: tom@hagens-berman.com

Plaintiffs-Respondents ROOFERS LOCAL 96 HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND,
on their behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated;
GREATER METROPOLITAN HOTEL EMPLOYERS-EMPLOYEES HEALTH AND WELFARE
FUND; and MINNESOTA CEMENT MASONS HEALTH & WELFARE FUND are
represented by:

          David Woodward, Esq.
          Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
          Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
          HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
          310 Clifton Avenue
          Minneapolis, MN 55403
          Telephone: (612) 338-4605
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
          E-mail: dwoodward@heinsmills.com
                  vesades@heinsmills.com
                  rsteiner@heinsmills.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
          1818 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-0300
          Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
          E-mail: jkodroff@srkw-law.com

Plaintiffs-Respondents GREATER METROPOLITAN HOTEL EMPLOYERS-
EMPLOYEES HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS LOCAL
178 HEALTH & WELFARE TRUST FUND, LOCAL 17 HOSPITALITY BENEFIT FUND
and STEVEN ROLLER, PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 30 HEALTH &
WELFARE FUND, PHILADELPHIA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS HEALTH & WELFARE
FUND, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS LOCAL 22 HEALTH &
WELFARE FUND, TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 115 HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, and
IRENE KAMPANIS are represented by:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com

Plaintiff-Respondent PAINTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 30 HEALTH &
WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          115 S. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 332-3400
          Facsimile: (312) 676-2676
          E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com

Plaintiff-Respondent PHILADELPHIA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS HEALTH &
WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
          DONOVAN, SEARLES, LLC
          1845 Walnut Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 732-6067
          Facsimile: (215) 732-8060
          E-mail: mdonovan@donovanaxler.com

               - and -

          Jacob Alexander Goldberg, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 600-2817
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com

Plaintiff-Respondent TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 115 HEALTH & WELFARE
FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, is
represented by:

          Robert S. Kitchenoff, Esq.
          WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC
          100 South Broad Street, Suite 705
          Philadelphia, PA 19110-1061
          Telephone: (215) 545-7200
          Facsimile: (215) 545-6535
          E-mail: kitchenoff@wka-law.com

Plaintiff-Respondent IRENE KAMPANIS, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Robert William Sink, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT W. SINK
          1417 Crosby Drive
          Fort Washington, PA 19034
          Telephone: (610) 566-0800
          Facsimile: (610) 566-4408
          E-mail: rsink@sinklawoffices.com

               - and -

          Joseph Carl Kohn, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          1 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
          E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Christina C. Sharp, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: chc@girardgibbs.com

Defendant-Petitioner ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., is represented
by:

          Daniel B. Asimow, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
          Telephone: (415) 471-3100
          E-mail: daniel.asimow@aporter.com

               - and -

          Steven Reade, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          601 Massachusetts Ave, NW
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 942-5678
          E-mail: steven.reade@aporter.com

Defendants-Petitioners TEIKOKU PHARMA USA and TEIKOKU SEIYAKU CO.
are represented by:

          David S. Elkins, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
          620 Hansen Way
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1043
          Telephone: (650) 843-3378
          E-mail: david.elkins@squirepb.com

               - and -

          Joseph A. Meckes, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
          275 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 954-0200
          E-mail: joseph.meckes@squirepb.com

Defendants-Petitioners ACTAVIS, INC., WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.,
and ACTAVIS PLC are represented by:

          Karen Hoffman Lent, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP (NYC)
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 735-3000
          Facsimile: (917) 777-3276
          E-mail: karen.lent@skadden.com

               - and -

          Steven C. Sunshine, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          1440 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 371-7860
          E-mail: steve.sunshine@skadden.com


EXPRESS MESSENGER: Former Sorter Files Suit for Wages Owed
----------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres at Northern California Record reports a
former employee has filed a class-action lawsuit against Express
Messenger Systems Inc. d/b/a OnTrac, a delivery company, citing
alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Susana Acosta, who was employed as a sorter at the Delaware
company's Santa Ana facility, filed a complaint individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated on March 6 in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California against the
defendants alleging that they failed to provide employees their
proper wages, benefits and incentives.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that employees
have suffered lost earnings from defendants' wrongful practice of
denying them earned wages for all overtime hours worked and for
all hours worked "off-the-clock" and withholding reimbursements
for purchased items used for the performance of their duties. The
plaintiffs hold OnTrac responsible because it allegedly failed to
pay premium payments, overtime wages owed and minimum wages,
failed to provide uninterrupted first and second meal periods,
failed to permit mandatory rest periods and failed to provide
accurate itemized wage statements.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against
defendants, nominal, actual, and compensatory damages, economic
and/or special damages, liquidated damages, restitution,
penalties, attorneys' fees and costs of suit and further relief as
the court deems just. They are represented by James R. Hawkins --
James@jameshawkinsaplc.com -- and Christina M. Lucio --
Christina@jameshawkinsaplc.com --  of James Hawkins APLC in
Irvine.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 17-cv-00391


FAIRPOINT COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in N.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FairPoint Communications, Inc., is facing a merger-related
purported class action lawsuit in North Carolina, according to the
Company's March 6, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2016.

On December 3, 2016, FairPoint Communications entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger with Consolidated Communications
Holdings, Inc., and Falcon Merger Sub, Inc., a newly formed
Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Consolidated
("Merger Sub"), which provides for, among other things, a business
combination whereby Merger Sub will merge with and into FairPoint
Communications, with FairPoint Communications as the surviving
entity (the "Merger"). As a result of the Merger, the separate
corporate existence of Merger Sub will cease, and FairPoint
Communications will survive as a wholly owned subsidiary of
Consolidated. Consolidated is a leading business and broadband
communications provider throughout its 11-state service area.

On February 7, 2017, an alleged class action complaint was filed
by a purported stockholder of FairPoint Communications in the
United States District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina (Case No. 3:17-cv-51) against FairPoint Communications,
its directors, Consolidated and Merger Sub. Among other things,
the complaint alleges that the disclosures in the Form S-4
Registration Statement filed by Consolidated with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2017 in connection with the
Merger are materially incomplete and misleading in violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks
to enjoin the defendants from consummating the Merger on the
agreed-upon terms or alternatively, to rescind the Merger in the
event the defendants consummate the Merger, in addition to damages
and attorney fees and costs.

FairPoint Communications and the other defendants have not yet
filed an answer or other responsive pleading to the complaint.

FairPoint Communications, Inc., is a provider of advanced
communications services to business, wholesale and residential
customers within our service territories.  The Company offers its
customers a suite of advanced services including Ethernet, Session
Initiation Protocol Trunking, hosted Primary Branch Exchange,
managed services, data center colocation services, high capacity
data transport and other IP-based services over the Company's
fiber-based network, in addition to Internet access, high-speed
data and local and long distance voice services.


FCA US: Faces Chatom Suit in Southern District of Alabama
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA US, LLC. The
case is styled as Chatom Motor Company, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FCA US, LLC,
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., Robert Bosch, GMBH, and Robert
Bosch, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-00120-C (S.D. Ala., Mar. 17, 2017).
The case is assigned to Hon. Magistrate Judge William E. Cassady.

FCA US LLC, also known as Fiat Chrysler or simply Chrysler, is the
American subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., an Italian
controlled automobile manufacturer registered in the Netherlands
with headquarters in London, U.K., for tax purposes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

R. Edward Massey, Jr., Esq.
Kaitlyn Johnson, Esq.
Stacey Slaughter, Esq.
CLAY, MASSEY & ASSOC.
509 Church Street
Mobile, AL 36602
Telephone: (251) 433 1000
Facsimile: (251) 438 4079
E-mail: em@claymassey.com


FIRST MID-ILLINOIS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Raul" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc., awaits decision on its motion
to dismiss a class action lawsuit pending in Illinois, according
to the Company's March 6, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

The Company as successor to First Clover Leaf, certain former
executive officers of First Clover Leaf, and certain former
members of First Clover Leaf's board of directors, and the Company
are named as defendants in one purported class action lawsuit
brought by an alleged individual First Clover Leaf stockholder
challenging the merger of First Clover Leaf into the Company (the
"Lawsuit"). The Lawsuit is captioned Raul v. Highlander, et al.,
Case No. 16-L-703, and was filed on May 20, 2016, in the Circuit
Court of Madison County, Illinois, Third Judicial District. The
Lawsuit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual
officers and directors of First Clover Leaf relating to the
process leading to the merger of First Clover Leaf and the
Company. The Lawsuit alleges that the merger consideration was
inadequate and that the joint proxy statement/prospectus did not
contain sufficient disclosures and detail. The Lawsuit also
alleges that First Clover Leaf and the Company aided and abetted
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual
defendants. The relief sought includes class certification,
rescission of the merger and damages and costs, including
attorneys' fees.

The Company and the individual defendants believe that the factual
allegations in the Lawsuit are without merit and legally
unfounded. They have moved to dismiss the complaint and intend to
vigorously defend against these allegations.

First Mid-Illinois Bancshares, Inc., is a financial holding
company.  The Company is engaged in the business of banking
through its wholly owned subsidiaries, First Mid-Illinois Bank &
Trust, N.A., and First Clover Leaf Bank, N.A.  The Company
provides data processing services to affiliates through another
wholly owned subsidiary, Mid-Illinois Data Services, Inc.


FLORIDA: Faces Class Suit over Ex-Felon Voting Rights
-----------------------------------------------------
Aimee Sachs, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
class action filed in the federal court in Tallahassee, Fla.,
claims the process Florida requires ex-felons to follow to regain
their voting rights is arbitrary and violates the First and
Fourteenth Amendment.

In a complaint filed on March 13, the lead plaintiffs say Florida
is one of only four states that require ex-felons to petition for
the restoration of their voting rights.  To do so, they must go
before a clemency board, comprised of defendants Fla. Gov. Rick
Scott, state Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Florida's chief
financial officer and the commissioner of agriculture.

Board hearings take place only four times a year and hear an
average of 52 restoration cases per session.

When Scott took office in 2011, he imposed lengthy waiting periods
of five or seven years and "has also exercised his unbridled power
over clemency procedures to reduce the number of civil rights
restoration applications which are processed annually and reject
tremendous numbers of ex-felon applicants," the complaint says.

The lawsuit states that there are an estimated 1.68 million
disenfranchised ex-felons in Florida, and during Scott's six years
in office only 2,488 applications have been granted.

As of March 1, there were 10,513 restoration applications on the
backlog.

"For the few ex-felons who endure the extensive delays to secure a
hearing in front of the Board, what follows is a thoroughly
inconsistent and arbitrary process for granting or denying
applications for restoration of civil rights," the complaint says.

The board is not bound by rules and regulations, and Scott can use
his own discretion to decide the fate of applicants.

The lawsuit alleges Scott uses traffic violations and alcohol use
as reasons to deny the restoration of voting rights. It also
claims Scott makes decisions based on political leanings and that
"the Governor nevertheless frequently denies applicants by noting
simply and cryptically that 'more time needs to pass.'"

The Florida Supreme Court is considering a proposed constitutional
amendment for the 2018 ballot that would let voters decide if ex-
felons can forego the clemency process.

The class members are requesting that the court enjoin the
defendants from requiring the plaintiffs to petition for the
restoration of their voting rights and from denying their
applications.

They are represented by the Fair Elections Legal Network and Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll law firm.

Whitney Ray, a spokesperson for the attorney general's office said
"We are reviewing the complaint."


FORD MOTOR: F-Series Trucks Have Defective Locks, Kommer Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action in White Plains, N.Y. claims that doors to
Ford F-Series trucks won't lock when the temperature drops below
freezing.

The case is captioned, BRANDON KOMMER on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, against FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant. Case 7:17-cv-01724(S.D.N.Y. March 8, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Jeffrey I. Carton Esq.
     Robert J. Berg Esq.
     Myles K. Bartley Esq.
     DENLEA & CARTON LLP
     2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410
     White Plains, NY 10604
     Tel: (914) 331-0100
     E-mail: jcarton@denleacarton.com
             rberg@denleacarton.com
             mbartley@denleacarton.com


FORD MOTOR: "Costello" Suit Moved to N.J. Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled BRENNA COSTELLO, ON BEHALF OF
HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. FORD
MOTOR COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. L 596 17, was removed from
the Camden County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey (Camden). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-01816-RBK-JS to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to Hon. Judge Robert B. Kugler.

The Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automaker
headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit. It was
founded by Henry Ford and incorporated on June 16, 1903.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Richard Han Kim, Esq.
THE KIM LAW FIRM, LLC.
1500 Market Street
Centre Square West Tower, Suite W-3110
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (855) 996 6342
rkim@thekimlawfirmllc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

James Steven Dobis, Esq.
DOBIS RUSSELL & PETERSON
326 South Livingston Avenue
Livingston, NJ 07039
Telephone: (973) 740 2474
E-mail: jdobis@drp-law.com


FREEPORT-MCMORAN: To Defend Against "Duarte" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Freeport-McMoRan Inc. intends to defend itself against the class
action lawsuit by Juan Duarte, et al., FCX said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

From 1920 until 1986, United States Metal Refining Company (USMR),
an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Cyprus Amax Minerals
Company, owned and operated a copper smelter and refinery in the
Borough of Carteret, New Jersey. Since the early 1980s, the site
has been the subject of environmental investigation and
remediation, primarily under the supervision of the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection.

On January 30, 2017, a class action titled Juan Duarte, Betsy
Duarte and N.D., Infant, by Parents and Natural Guardians Juan
Duarte and Betsy Duarte, Leroy Nobles and Betty Nobles, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. United States
Metals Refining Company, Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. and
Amax Realty Development, Inc., Docket No. 734-17, was filed in the
Superior Court of New Jersey against USMR, FCX, and Amax Realty
Development, Inc. The suit alleges that USMR generated and
disposed of smelter waste at the site and allegedly released
contaminants onsite and offsite through discharges to surface
water and air emissions over a period of decades and seeks
unspecified damages for economic losses, including loss of
property value, medical monitoring, punitive damages and other
damages.

FCX intends to vigorously defend this matter.

FCX is an international mining company with headquarters in
Phoenix, Arizona.


FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Faces "Hakhanian" Wage-and-Hour Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
ARPINEH HAKHANIAN, an individual the Plaintiff, v. FRY'S
ELECTRONICS, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 through
20, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC654609 (Cal. Super.  Ct.,
Mar. 17, 2017), seeks damages, statutory penalties, attorney's
fees, statutory interest, and costs of suit to remedy Defendant's
violations of the Labor Code.

Plaintiff was employed as a salesperson from approximately June of
2010 until approximately June of 2016. Plaintiff was not paid
overtime rates for overtime worked. Thus, Plaintiff was not paid
his overtime rate for this time period for all overtime hours he
had worked. Throughout Plaintiffs entire term of employment with
the Defendant, Plaintiff and Class Members were never provided
with their statutorily authorized ten-minute rest period at the
appropriate times during their shifts and were never provided with
their statutorily authorized 30-minute meal periods at the
appropriate times during their shifts.

Fry's Electronics is an American big-box store and retailer of
software, consumer electronics, household appliances and computer
hardware. Fry's has in-store computer repair and custom computer
building services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

F. Michael Sabzevar, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF F. MICHAEL SABZEVAR
16633 Ventura Blvd., Suite 555
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 784 1688
Facsimile: (818) 784 3256

- and -

Jason D. Ahdoot, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JASON D. AHDOOT
16633 Ventura Blvd., Suite 555
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (310)359 8340
Facsimile: (310)359 0290


GEICO GENERAL: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "McGraw" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
GEICO General Insurance Company filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Yolanda McGraw v. GEICO General
Insurance Co., Case No. 3:16-cv-05876-BHS, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma.

The appellate case is captioned as Yolanda McGraw v. GEICO General
Insurance Co., Case No. 17-80036, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiff-Respondent YOLANDA MCGRAW, individually and as the
representative of all persons similarly situated, is represented
by:

          Stephen M. Hansen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M HANSEN, PS
          1703A Dock Street
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Telephone: (253) 302-5955
          E-mail: steve@stephenmhansenlaw.com

Defendant-Petitioner GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY is
represented by:

          Kimberly Anne Demarchi, Esq.
          Dan W. Goldfine, Esq.
          Joshua Grabel, Esq.
          LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
          201 E. Washington Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-2595
          Telephone: (602) 262-5728
          Facsimile: (602) 262-5747
          E-mail: kdemarchi@lrrc.com
                  dgoldfine@lrrc.com
                  jgrabel@lrrc.com

               - and -

          Stephanie L. Bloomfield, Esq.
          GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL LLP
          1201 Pacific Avenue
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Telephone: (253) 620-6500
          E-mail: sbloomfield@gth-law.com


GENERAL CABLE: Securities Class Suit Now Closed
-----------------------------------------------
A Securities class action lawsuit against General Cable
Corporation is now closed, the Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said, "Two civil complaints were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
October 21, 2013 and December 4, 2013 by named plaintiffs, on
behalf of purported classes of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired our publicly traded securities, against us, Gregory
Kenny, our former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Brian
Robinson, our former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer."

"On our motion, the complaints were transferred to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, the
actions were consolidated, and a consolidated complaint was filed
in that Court on May 20, 2014 by City of Livonia Employees
Retirement System, as lead plaintiff on behalf of a purported
class of all persons or entities who purchased our securities
between November 3, 2010 and October 14, 2013 (the "City of
Livonia Complaint").

"The City of Livonia Complaint alleged claims under the antifraud
and controlling person liability provisions of the Exchange Act,
alleging generally, among other assertions, that we employed
inadequate internal financial reporting controls that resulted in,
among other things, improper revenue recognition, understated cost
of sales, overstated operating income, net income and earnings per
share, and the failure to detect inventory lost through theft;
that we issued materially false financial results that had to be
restated on two occasions; and that statements of Messrs. Kenny
and Robinson that they had tested and found effective our internal
controls over financial reporting and disclosure were false. The
City of Livonia Complaint alleged that as a result of the
foregoing, our stock price was artificially inflated and the
plaintiffs suffered damages in connection with their purchase of
our stock. The City of Livonia Complaint sought damages in an
unspecified amount; reasonable costs and expenses, including
counsel and experts fees; and such equitable injunctive or other
relief as the Court deems just and proper.

"On January 27, 2015, the Court dismissed the City of Livonia
Complaint, with prejudice, based on plaintiff's failure to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted. Plaintiff subsequently
appealed the lower Court's decisions to the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals, which affirmed the lower Court's decisions dismissing the
case. The period of time available to plaintiff to further appeal
the Sixth Circuit's decision has now expired, and the case is
closed."

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


GERMANY: Faces  US$30-Bil. Lawsuit Over Namibian Genocide
---------------------------------------------------------
Enca reports that Namibia is to launch a USD30 billion lawsuit
against Germany over genocide committed during colonial rule, when
tens of thousands of people were killed, according to documents
seen by AFP on March 17.

The Namibian government has previously avoided demanding financial
compensation, but it changed its stance as two indigenous groups
filed a class-action suit in New York against Germany.

Over 65,000 people are believed to have been killed when colonial
Germany massacred Namibian tribes such as the Herero and Nama
between 1904 and 1908.

Namibian Vice President Nickey Iyambo issued a statement on March
17 saying it had sent a report to Germany last year on the
genocide, an official apology and reparations.

'Incalculable damages'

"We trust the government of the federal republic of Germany is
giving serious attention to the position," Iyambo said, giving no
details on the level of reparations sought.

Namibia could approach the International Court of Justice in The
Hague to advance its case, the documents show.

While some German officials have acknowledged a genocide occurred,
the government has refused to pay reparations, saying aid worth
hundreds of millions of dollars over the last 25 years was "for
the benefit of all Namibians".

Germany seized the territory of modern-day Namibia in the late
19th century under Otto von Bismarck, as part of the so-called
Scramble for Africa by European colonisers.

It was called German South West Africa during Germany's 1884-1915
rule, and then passed under South Africa rule for 75 years,
finally gaining independence in 1990.

The separate US class-action suit was filed by the Herero and Nama
people in New York on March 16, seeking compensation for
"incalculable damages".

Sad history

They are also demanding to be included in negotiations between the
two countries.

Tensions boiled over in 1904 when the Herero rose up, followed by
the Nama, in an insurrection crushed by German imperial troops.
In the Battle of Waterberg in August 1904, around 80 000 Herero
fled including women and children.


German troops went after them across what is now known as the
Kalahari Desert. Only 15 000 Herero survived.
The Namibian government case alleges Germany was guilty of slave
labour, mass murder, sexual abuse, human trafficking and theft of
land.

The two governments have been in talks about a joint declaration
on the massacres for two years.

Iyambo said Namibia wanted an "amicable closure to this sad
history."


GLOBAL EAGLE: "Pollack" Sues Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------
Andrew Pollack, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Global Eagle Entertainment Inc., Dave
Davis, Tom Severson, and Michael Zemetra, Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-02139, (C.D. Cal., March 17, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's
fees and costs owed under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Global Eagle is a worldwide provider of inflight entertainment,
media content, technology, and connectivity solutions to the
airline industry.

On July 27, 2016, the Company announced that it had completed its
acquisition of Emerging Markets Communications. However Defendants
allegedly failed to disclose that the Company's progress towards
integration of Emerging Markets Communications into Global Eagle
was not progressing as favorably as Defendants lead investors to
believe, that Global Eagle was unable to timely and properly
account for the acquisition of Emerging Markets Communications and
lacked effective internal control over financial reporting.

On this news, shares of Global Eagle fell $1.74 per share, or
approximately 29% from its previous closing price, to close at
$4.48 per share on February 21, 2017. Plaintiff owns Global Eagle
shares. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam C. McCall, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (213) 985-7290
      Email: amccall@zlk.com


GNC HOLDINGS: Sold, Then Terminated, Discount Program, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action in San Diego, claims GNC Holdings' diet
supplement stores, sold "millions" of customers discount Gold
Cards for $15 a year, then terminated the program.

The case is captioned, MELISSA SANTICH and KEITH BLACKMER, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. GNC HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 17-_____
(S.D. Cal.).

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

     Chiharu G. Sekino, Esq.
     SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
     401 West A Street, Suite 2550
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: (619) 235-2416
     Fax: (866) 300-7367
     E-mail: csekino@sfmslaw.com


GNC HOLDINGS: Santich Sues Over Discontinued Discount Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Santich and Keith Blackmer, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GNC HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00540, (S.D. Cal., March 17, 2017),
seeks actual damages, statutory damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, and all other relief.

GNC is a specialty retailer of health and wellness products,
including vitamins, minerals, herbal supplement products, sports
nutrition products and diet products.

GNC offered the Gold Card membership for $15, entitling those who
availed a substantial discount on the purchase of in-store items.
However, in December 2016, GNC unilaterally discontinued the
Program, resulting in Plaintiffs and millions of other members of
the Class being unable to receive the benefits of the Program for
the full one-year period contemplated when they purchased their
Gold Cards. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chiharu G. Sekino, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      401 West A Street, Suite 2550
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Phone: (619) 235-2416
      Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
      Email: csekino@sfmslaw.com

             - and -

      James C. Shah, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      35 East State Street
      Media, PA 19063
      Telephone: (610) 891-9880
      Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
      Email: jshah@sfmslaw.com


GOLDEN AGE HOME: "Thorpe" Seeks OT, Travel Time Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
Modestine Smith Thorpe, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Golden Age Home Care, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01187, (E.D. Pa., March 17, 2017),
seeks compensatory damages, including all unpaid overtime wages,
statutory damages, liquidated damages, all interest, costs and
attorney's fees incurred, injunctive relief and such other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code.

Plaintiff is a home health aide, caring for the elderly and infirm
in a variety of capacities, including, among other things,
bathing, cooking for, feeding, dressing and providing
companionship. She regularly worked more than forty hours in a
week with no overtime and she regularly traveled between worksites
but was not paid for her travel time.

Golden Age Home Care, Inc. is a provider of integrated healthcare
services, offering home services to individuals with disabilities.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GOOGLE INC: Judge Rejects Settlement in "Matera" Privacy Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge in San Jose Calif. refused to sign off on a
settlement between a class of email users and Google, sending the
parties back to the drawing board to come up with a more detailed
disclosure of how Google intercepts and uses emails for targeted
advertising.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh issued the order on March 16, saying
the class did not demand enough concessions from the tech giant
its practice of scanning incoming and outgoing emails for
information that it uses for targeted advertising.

Specifically, Koh wanted to see disclosures hosted on a website or
somehow publicly disseminated that clearly spell out how Google
intercepts, scans and uses the information from non-Gmail users.

"The notice does not clearly disclose that Google intercepts,
scans, and analyzes the content of emails sent by non-Gmail users
to Gmail users for the purpose of creating user profiles of the
Gmail users to create targeted advertising for the Gmail user,"
Koh wrote in the six-page order. "It does not disclose that Google
will scan the email of non-Gmail users while the emails are in
transit for the 'dual purpose' of creating user profiles and
targeted advertising and for detecting spam and malware."

Koh made her displeasure over the settlement clear to both parties
during a hearing last week, with class attorney Michael Sobol
particularly singled out as the target of her discontent.

"It's very vague and at best it is unclear what you are doing,"
Koh told Sobol at a March 10 hearing.

At one point in the hearing, a clearly frustrated Koh asked Sobol
if he thought he was worth the $2.2 million in attorney's fees he
was requesting given that he did not conduct any depositions and
instead relied on discovery from previous cases.

In her ruling, Koh further expressed concern the settlement as
currently construed doesn't even bring Google into compliance with
the Wiretap Act or "that the technical changes that the settlement
provides brings Google into compliance with the Wiretap Act and
CIPA, as plaintiffs assert."

The dispute at the heart of the case involves Google's practice of
intercepting non-Gmail users' emails as they are being
transmitted. The company then scans the emails for keywords and
uses those to create a user profile, which allows them to engage
in targeted advertising for their clients.

The Wiretap Act and Children's Internet Protection Act forbid the
interception of emails, so plaintiffs have sued both Google and
Yahoo over violations of the provisions of those two acts. In
previous settlements, with Yahoo in particular, the remedy was for
the company to scan the emails once they were stored in users'
inboxes.

This means the companies don't technically intercept the message,
bringing them into compliance with telecommunications laws. Past
settlements have also mandated disclosures that clearly spell out
how email providers scan and use their email content, including
the high profile In Re Yahoo Mail Litigation.

Plaintiffs argued that the Google case before Koh now is similar
to Yahoo and their proposed settlement is roughly parallel. Koh
disagreed.

"The settlement in Yahoo included additional important disclosures
regarding scanning of incoming and outgoing emails and the sharing
of information with third parties," she wrote.

In contrast, the proposed settlement with Google fails to ensure
compliance with the law, earns no disclosures for consumers and
relies on old information in the form of discovery produced up to
six years ago, Koh said.

"Plaintiffs' use of discovery produced between three to six years
ago is particularly questionable in this case given that the
instant settlement requires Google to maintain the injunction's
technical changes for only three years because the architecture
and technical requirements for providing email services on a large
scale evolve and change dynamically," she wrote.

She added, "In sum, based on the parties' current filings, the
court cannot conclude that the settlement is 'fundamentally fair,
adequate and reasonable.'"

The case is captioned, DANIEL MATERA, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-04062-LHK (N.D. Cal.).


GRACE 365: Faces "Ortiz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Luis Ortiz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Grace 365 Group, LLC d/b/a Nick's Pizza Bar,
and Hanover Ventures, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-01848 (S.D.N.Y., March
13, 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 Nick's Pizza Bar located at 365 3rd
Ave, New York, NY 10016.

Jose Luis Ortiz is a pro se plaintiff.


HARRIS COUNTY, TX: Sheriff Testified Against Bail System
--------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the man in charge of Texas' busiest jail is a defendant in a
federal class action attacking his county's bail system, yet he
sided with the plaintiffs on March 8, testifying that most poor
misdemeanor arrestees should be released from jail on no-fee
bonds.

Just two months into his tenure, Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez
is standing at the crossroads of criminal justice reform and
business as usual in the state's most populous county with his
thumb out, eager to help implement changes he says are long
overdue.

Gonzalez took the stand on March 8, before U.S. District Judge Lee
Rosenthal, gold-lined shoulder patches framing his crisp black
service uniform, and maintained the unflappable demeanor that
Houston, Harris County's seat, came to expect during his three
terms on the City Council.

"I personally don't believe it's a rational system," Gonzalez told
plaintiffs' attorney Neal Manne about the county's bail system.
"When we look at equal protection, in my opinion it should be
equal protection for everyone, but statistically speaking it
doesn't bear that out. When I see that many of the people inside
the jail, on any given day an average of 9,000, are just poor and
can't bond out, and I look at racial disparities,
disproportionally communities of color, then that's very
concerning to me."

John O'Neill with Winston Strawn in Houston is part of a team
defending 15 of the county's 16 criminal court judges against the
class action, in which lead plaintiff Maranda ODonnell claims the
judges and five hearing officers that oversee probable cause
hearings unconstitutionally set bail for misdemeanor defendants
with no regard to their ability to pay.

O'Neill hugged a podium and leaned into a microphone on March 8,
questioning Gonzalez about the actual impact of misdemeanor
defendants on the jail that is often close to its state-mandated
inmate capacity.

"The jail has capacity for 10,000 prisoners and you run sometimes
at 9,700 prisoners. Is it fair to say that only about 380 to 500
of those are misdemeanor offenders?" O'Neill said.

"That sounds about right," Gonzalez said.

"Generally the misdemeanor pretrial defendants make up only 3 to 5
percent of the jail population, and a substantial number are in
progress, being processed and will be out within two days?"
O'Neill said.

"Yes."

Fifteen people died in the custody of the Harris County Sheriff's
Office in 2016, and critics say the crowded jail puts inmates in
danger. But O'Neill challenged that conventional wisdom.

"That is a terrible tragedy. But to be fair the death rate inside
the jail is actually less than the death rate of people outside
the jail," he said.

Judge Rosenthal stopped him: "Are you arguing it's safer in jail
because you can't afford to get out?"

O'Neill answered, "No I'm arguing that it's totally incorrect to
indicate the jail is an extremely unsafe place, that the death
rate itself shows that it's not true."

Gonzalez conceded to O'Neill that he believes the jail provides
adequate medical care to inmates, 30 percent of whom, he said,
have a medical or mental health issue.

But the sheriff said jail isn't an ideal place to get medical
treatment.

"It's adequate, yes, but never enough. One of my concerns when
somebody dies in our custody is could they have been better served
out in the community receiving ongoing treatment or around their
family?" he said.

Throughout the litigation, and before the lawsuit was filed in May
2016, Harris County officials have touted grant-funded reforms
they are developing that they claim will make the county the gold
standard nationally for a criminal justice system that prioritizes
inmates' humanity.

The most frequently cited reform is a new risk-assessment tool
that is set to launch July 1, that proponents say will rate
misdemeanor defendants on their risk of not showing up to
hearings, or otherwise violating bond, without pretrial services
staff having to interview them, and advise judges to quickly let
low-to-moderate risk defendants out of jail on personal
recognizance bonds, also called no-fee bonds.

The county asked Rosenthal to stay the lawsuit until after the
tool is implemented. She declined.

Harris County Criminal Court No. 16 Judge Darrell Jordan doesn't
buy the hype. After 10 years as a criminal defense attorney,
Jordan took office in January and testified that when he first put
on his robes he was shocked to learn how much autonomy judges
have.

Like Gonzalez, Jordan believes the bail system is unjust and
broken. And like the sheriff, he's a defendant in the class
action, but agrees with the plaintiffs. Due to their views, the
county has assigned both Gonzalez and Jordan their own county
attorneys, while retaining outside counsel for the other 15
criminal judges and five magistrate judges at substantial cost.

The county has spent more than $1.2 million on private attorneys
for the case.

Jordan prides himself on giving more no-fee bonds to poor
defendants than any of his colleagues. All the Harris County
criminal judges preside over misdemeanor courts.

Jordan, a 40-year-old African American who could pass for 30, wore
a dark blue suit and tie Wednesday, folding his 6-foot-3-inch
frame into the witness stand next to Rosenthal.  He said he
doesn't think the risk-assessment tool will lead to more judges
releasing defendants on no-fee bonds because the judges will still
have discretion whether to follow its recommendations.

Jordan said a preliminary injunction is needed because though
Harris County criminal judges changed their court rules in August
to favor no-fee bonds for 12 charges, including marijuana
possession and prostitution, judges are still setting money bonds
for people who are obviously poor and a low risk for skipping
bond.

"I believe it's necessary because in my short time once I
recognized that things were wrong then I changed immediately to
make sure I'm doing the things that are right. It's almost like
knowing your tub is leaking and saying, 'Let's wait six months,
we're going to have a new fix for it.' If you truly care you fix
it that day," he said.

Jordan showed how he gears his court towards getting people out of
jail. Jordan said a young man told him last week he works for his
dad and his dad could bail him out, but he didn't have the phone
number.

"I said, 'Well where does he work?' Because his dad owned the
company," Jordan testified. "We Googled it from the bench. I
called his dad and I said, 'I know this isn't a call you were
expecting, but your son is in jail and we're trying to determine
how much he can afford to pay to get out?'

"He had two cases, $4,000 bond on each. His dad said, 'Well I can
come up with $200.' I said, 'OK sir I'm going to lower your son's
bonds to $1,000 each.' He said, 'Alright I'll come down there and
get him out.' I hung up the phone and I told the defendant, 'See
you later.'"



Defendants in Harris County and throughout the nation must
typically pay bail bondsmen 10 percent of the set bail to bond
out.

Rosenthal, a stickler for hard figures, said she would like to see
the difference in the number of bond violations in Jordan's court
as compared to other courts that don't hand out no-fee bonds so
liberally.

She ordered the parties to get her reports on bond violations for
each of the county's 16 criminal courts.

"You're a lab experiment, congratulations," she told Jordan.

"Thank you," he said.

Jordan said during a break in the proceedings Wednesday he feels
like an outsider among his peers because, due to the litigation,
they've been told not to talk to each other, though they are
meeting Thursday morning to discuss the new risk-assessment tool.

"I have to go to a meeting with all the judges tomorrow and
they're going to be looking at me crazy, I don't care," he said.

The preliminary injunction hearing was scheduled to resume March
21 if needed.


HARVEST NATURAL: "Garfield" Stockholder Suit in Texas Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-K filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the stockholder
lawsuit initiated by Robert Garfield in Texas was dismissed
without prejudice.

On August 9, 2016, Robert Garfield, a stockholder of the Company,
filed a lawsuit in the 215th Civil District Court of Harris
County, Texas against the members of the Company's Board and CT
Energy (and the Company, as a nominal defendant).  The lawsuit
asserts several class action and derivative claims, including that
(i) the Board members breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders by negotiating and causing the execution of
the Share Purchase Agreement with CT Energy, (ii) CT Energy aided
and abetted the Board members in breaching their fiduciary duties
and (iii) the proxy statement relating to the transaction
contained inadequate disclosures about the proposed transaction.
Among other relief, the lawsuit requested that the court grant an
injunction to prevent the completion of the proposed transaction,
in addition to unspecified rescissory and compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees and other costs.  On September 14, 2016
plaintiff's motion for a temporary injunction was denied.

On November 15, 2016, this lawsuit was dismissed without
prejudice.

Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., is a petroleum exploration and
production company incorporated under Delaware law in 1988.  The
Company's historical focus has been on acquiring exploration,
development and producing properties in geological basins with
proven active hydrocarbon systems.  The Company holds exploration
acreage offshore of Gabon and operates from its Houston, Texas
headquarters.


HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Review of Order in "Rutledge" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Healthport Technologies, LLC, and Ciox Health filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Alice Rutledge,
et al. v. Healthport Technologies, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-
06920-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco.

The appellate case is captioned as Alice Rutledge, et al. v.
Healthport Technologies, LLC, et al., Case No. 17-80032, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Respondents ALICE RUTLEDGE and ABDUL FAHIM,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          Arby Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
          410 Arden Avenue
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265-1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
          E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com
                  arby@aiwazian.com

Defendants-Petitioners HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, and CIOX
HEALTH are represented by:

          Jeffrey W. Mayes, Esq.
          Shareef Farag, Esq.
          Margaret Rosenthal, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          11601 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
          Telephone: (310) 820-8800
          E-mail: sfarag@bakerlaw.com
                  mrosenthal@bakerlaw.com


HELIX ENERGY: "Izadjoo" Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
----------------------------------------------------------
Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that the
defendants' motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit by
stockholder Parviz Izadjoo has been granted with leave for
plaintiff to amend the complaint by no later than March 17, 2017.

The Company said, "On July 31, 2015, a purported stockholder,
Parviz Izadjoo, filed a class action lawsuit styled Parviz Izadjoo
v. Owen Kratz and Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. against the
Company and Mr. Kratz, our President and Chief Executive Officer,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of shares of
our common stock between October 21, 2014, and July 21, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit asserted violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5 as to both us and Mr.
Kratz, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Mr. Kratz,
based on alleged misrepresentations and omissions in SEC filings
and other public disclosures regarding projections for 2015 dry
docks of two of our vessels working in the Gulf of Mexico that
allegedly caused the price at which putative class members bought
stock during the proposed class period to be artificially
inflated."

"On January 28, 2016, the judge in the case approved a motion for
the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On March 14,
2016, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint,
adding Mr. Tripodo (our Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer) and Mr. Chamblee (our former Executive Vice
President and Chief Operating Officer) as individual defendants,
alleging the same types of claims made in the original complaint
(alleged violations during the Class Period of Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 with respect to all
defendants, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
individual defendants), but asserting that the alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in SEC filings and other public
disclosures are related to the condition of and repairs to certain
equipment aboard the Q4000 vessel.

"The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 28, 2016, and
on February 14, 2017, the defendants' motion to dismiss the
complaint was granted. The dismissal was without prejudice, with
leave for plaintiff to amend the complaint by no later than March
17, 2017."

Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. is an international offshore
energy services company that provides specialty services to the
offshore energy industry, with a focus on well intervention and
robotics operations.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Bids to Toss Amended Securities Suit Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants' motions to dismiss the lawsuit captioned In re
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation remain pending,
according to Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.'s March 6, 2017, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro
Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming
Old Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and
alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint
alleged that Old Hertz Holdings made material misrepresentations
and/or omissions of material fact in its public disclosures during
the period from February 25, 2013 through November 4, 2013, in
violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The complaint sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on
behalf of the purported class and an award of costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees.

In June 2014, Old Hertz Holdings responded to the amended
complaint by filing a motion to dismiss. After a hearing in
October 2014, the court granted Old Hertz Holdings' motion to
dismiss the complaint. The dismissal was without prejudice and
plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended complaint
within 30 days of the order. In November 2014, plaintiff filed a
second amended complaint which shortened the putative class period
such that it was not alleged to have commenced until May 18, 2013
and made allegations that were not substantively very different
than the allegations in the prior complaint.

In early 2015, this case was assigned to a new federal judge in
the District of New Jersey, and Old Hertz Holdings responded to
the second amended complaint by filing another motion to dismiss.
On July 22, 2015, the court granted Old Hertz Holdings' motion to
dismiss without prejudice and ordered that plaintiff could file a
third amended complaint on or before August 22, 2015. On August
21, 2015, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. The third
amended complaint included additional allegations, named
additional current and former officers as defendants and expanded
the putative class period such that it was alleged to span from
February 14, 2013 to July 16, 2015.

On November 4, 2015, Old Hertz Holdings filed its motion to
dismiss. Thereafter, a motion was made by plaintiff to add a new
plaintiff, because of challenges to the standing of the first
plaintiff. The court granted plaintiffs leave to file a fourth
amended complaint to add the new plaintiff, and the new complaint
was filed on March 1, 2016.

Old Hertz Holdings and the individual defendants moved to dismiss
the fourth amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice on
March 24, 2016, and plaintiff filed its opposition to same on May
6, 2016. On June 13, 2016, Old Hertz Holdings and the individual
defendants filed their reply briefs in support of their motions to
dismiss. The matter is now fully briefed.

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

New Hertz and Herc Holdings are each responsible for a portion of
the matter and Hertz Global will be responsible for managing the
settlement or other disposition of the matter. Hertz Global
believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses and it intends
to vigorously defend against the complaint, but litigation is
subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of this matter is
not predictable with assurance. It is possible that this matter
could be decided unfavorably to Hertz Global. The Company is
currently unable to estimate the range of these possible losses,
but they could be material to the Company's consolidated financial
condition, results of operations or cash flows in any particular
reporting period.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., was incorporated in Delaware in 2015
to serve as the top-level holding company for Rental Car
Intermediate Holdings, LLC which wholly owns The Hertz
Corporation, Hertz Global's primary operating company.  Hertz was
incorporated in Delaware in 1967 and is a successor to
corporations that have been engaged in the vehicle rental and
leasing business since 1918.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Ninth Cir. Refuses to Rehear Appeal in "Sobel" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected Janet
Sobel, et al.'s petition to rehear an appeal, Hertz Global
Holdings, Inc., said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

In October 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD. and Lydia Lee,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The
Hertz Corporation and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company ("Enterprise")
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
(Enterprise became a defendant in a separate action which they
have now settled.) The Sobel case is a consumer class action on
behalf of all persons who rented vehicles from Hertz at airports
in Nevada and were separately charged airport concession recovery
fees by Hertz as part of their rental charges during the class
period. In October 2014, the court entered final judgment against
the Company and directed Hertz to pay the class approximately $42
million in restitution and $11 million in prejudgment interest,
and to pay attorney's fees of $3 million with an additional $3
million to be paid to class counsel from the restitution fund.

In November 2014, Hertz timely filed an appeal of that final
judgment with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and
the plaintiffs cross appealed the court's judgment seeking to
challenge the lower court's ruling that Hertz did not deceive or
mislead the class members.

Following briefing and oral argument, on January 5, 2017, the
Ninth Circuit issued an opinion reversing the District Court's
holdings on liability and remedy and vacating the judgment. The
Ninth Circuit also rejected plaintiffs' cross-appeal, finding that
Hertz's actions were not deceptive or misleading.

On January 19, 2017, plaintiffs asked the entire Ninth Circuit,
sitting en banc, to rehear the appeal. That petition was rejected
on February 15, 2017. Plaintiffs have an opportunity to petition
the United States Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit's
decision in favor of the Company.

The Company continues to believe the outcome of this case will not
be material to its financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows.

Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., was incorporated in Delaware in 2015
to serve as the top-level holding company for Rental Car
Intermediate Holdings, LLC which wholly owns The Hertz
Corporation, Hertz Global's primary operating company.  Hertz was
incorporated in Delaware in 1967 and is a successor to
corporations that have been engaged in the vehicle rental and
leasing business since 1918.


HESKA CORP: Continues to Defend "Fauley" Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heska Corporation said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016, that it continues to defend itself
against the putative class action lawsuit initiated by Shaun
Fauley in Illinois.

The Company said: "On March 12, 2015, a complaint was filed
against us by Shaun Fauley in the United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois alleging our transmittal of
unauthorized faxes in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act
of 2005, as a class action seeking stated damages of the greater
of actual monetary loss or five hundred dollars per violation."

The Company says it intends to defend itself vigorously in this
matter.

Heska Corporation and its wholly-owned and majority-owned
subsidiaries sell advanced veterinary diagnostic and specialty
products.


HONEYWELL INTL: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Judgment in "Kelly" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Honeywell International Inc. filed an appeal from a
District Court judgment dated March 6, 2017, in the lawsuit
entitled Kelly v. Honeywell International Inc., Case No. 16-cv-
543, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
(New Haven).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
is brought on behalf of a class of retirees.

The appellate case is captioned as Kelly v. Honeywell
International Inc., Case No. 17-675, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees David Kelly, Richard Norko, Annette Dobbs and
Peter Dellolio, for themselves and others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Thomas W. Meiklejohn, Esq.
          LIVINGSTON, ADLER, PULDA, MEIKLEJOHN & KELLY, P.C.
          557 Prospect Avenue
          Hartford, CT 06105
          Telephone: 860-570 4628
          E-mail: twmeiklejohn@lapm.org

Defendant-Appellant Honeywell International Inc. is represented
by:

          Brian T. Ortelere, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-5150
          Facsimile: (215) 963-5001
          E-mail: brian.ortelere@morganlewis.com


IMAGE LINE: Faces "Peglau" Suit in Utah District Court
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Image Line. The case
is captioned as Max Peglau, Individually and On Behalf of Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Image Line, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00196-BCW (D. Utah, Mar. 17, 2017). The case is
assigned to Hon. Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells.

Image Line is a Belgian software company best known for its
digital audio workstation program FL Studio and related audio
plugins such as Sytrus and Harmor Founded in 1994, in 2007 Image
Line introduced Deckadance, a virtual DJ console application.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

M. Paige Benjamin, Esq.
PAIGE BENJAMIN ATTORNEY AT LAW PC
470 N University Ave Ste. 100
Po Box 1464
Provo, UT 84603
Telephone: (801) 822 9210
E-mail: paigebenjamin@mac.com


INNOVATIVE DINING: "Davis" Sues Over Request of Phone Number Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID DAVIS, an individual, suing individually and on behalf of
the general public, Plaintiff, vs. INNOVATIVE DINING GROUP, LLC, a
California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 20,
Defendants, Case No. BC 654128 (Cal. Super., County of Los
Angeles, March 15, 2017), arises from IDG's alleged violation of
California Civil Code by and through its deliberate and uniform
practice of using a credit card form with a space specifically
designated for a cardholder's telephone number at its BOA
Steakhouse restaurants in California.

Dining Group, LLC operates a number of upscale, high-end
restaurants in California, including the BOA Steakhouse, Sushi
Roku, Roku, Katana, and Robata Bar.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven A. Blum, Esq.
     Jacqueline A. Axtell, Esq.
     BLUM | COLLINS, LLP
     707 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 4880
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Phone: (213) 572-0400
     Fax: (213) 572-0401


J.C. PENNY: "Marcus" Securities Suit Wins Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Kocian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in Tyler, Texas granted class certification in a
securities fraud lawsuit accusing J.C. Penney of boosting its
stock price through false and misleading statements.

U.S. District Judge Robert Schroeder III on March 8 rejected
Penney's objections to a magistrate judge's report recommending
class certification.  Lead plaintiff Alan B. Marcus sued J.C.
Penney, its CEO Myron Ullman III and CFO Kenneth Hannah in October
2013 in the Eastern District of Texas.

Representing a class who bought common stock between Aug. 20, 2013
and Sept. 26, 2013, Marcus claims the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements in news releases, conference calls
with analysts, and SEC filings.

"Specifically, throughout the class period, defendants violated
the federal securities laws by disseminating false and misleading
statements to the investing public in connection with the
company's finances, assuring investors that the company had
sufficient cash through year-end. As a result of defendants' false
statements, J.C. Penney's stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the class period, reaching a high of $14.47 per
share on September 9, 2013," the complaint states.

Among his claims were that Penney concealed that it lacked
liquidity to get through the year, and that it needed additional
investments to make it through the holiday season.

"However, after the above revelations seeped into the market, the
company's shares were hammered by massive sales, sending the stock
price down over 37 percent from its class period high," according
to the complaint.

Marcus claims that the "fraudulent scheme" not only caused him and
the class to buy J.C. Penney common stock at inflated prices, but
also allowed one of its largest shareholders, Pershing Square
Capital Management, to sell 39.07 million shares of its Penney
stock at inflated prices, for more than $504 million.

Marcus' original complaint cited an Aug. 20, 2013 news release in
which Penney said it expected to end the year with more than $1.5
billion in liquidity.

CEO Ullman reiterated that in a conference call, saying: "'We
obviously shared with [suppliers] the significant financial
support we arranged with Goldman Sachs, which we had put in place
in order to make sure that we had sufficient liquidity to
effectuate the turnaround,'" according to the complaint.

It continues: "'The financial actions we took in the quarter
enable us to stabilize the business financially and provide us
with the necessary resources to complete the turnaround. . . .
Significant progress has been made and we are confident we will
have inventory at appropriate levels throughout the store and
online well in advance of the holiday season.'"

In that same call, CFO Hannah said: "I think we are very
comfortable that the $1.5 billion liquidity is in line for year-
end," according to the complaint.

The news caused J.C. Penney stock to rise to its high of $14.47
for the class period on Sept. 9, 2013. However, Marcus adds, on
Sept. 25 that year a Goldman Sachs analyst reported that Penney
would need to take on additional debt to keep operating, and might
face liquidity problems due to a "combination of weak
fundamentals, inventory rebuilding, and an underperforming home
department."

Penney stock then dropped $1.78 per share to close at $10.12 on
Sept. 25, 2013.  The next day, Sept. 26, Penney announced a
secondary offering of 84 million shares of common stock, saying:
"The company intends to use the net proceeds from the offering for
general corporate purposes."

On Sept. 27, Penney company priced the new shares at $9.65, but
they sank to $9.05 that day.

Penney claimed that the Sept. 24 Goldman Sachs report and the
Sept. 26 stock offering announcement were not corrective
disclosures. It said the disclosures were not corrective because
the information had already been reported, and therefore were not
evidence of fraud.

Judge Schroeder disagreed. He found that Penney's objections
failed to rebut the findings that the presumption of reliance was
invoked for purchasers of its common stock.

"Here, defendants did not meet their burden to produce sufficient
evidence to show that the disclosures on September 24 and
September 26 did not affect the market price and cause J.C.
Penney's stock price to drop on September 25 and September 27,
respectively," Schroeder wrote.

He agreed with the magistrate judge's finding that Penney did not
establish that the opinions in the Goldman Sachs report had been
previously disclosed to the market.

"Defendants did not meet their burden to show that the causal link
between the disclosures and the stock price decrease on September
25 and 27 was severed," Schroeder said.

He certified the class of stockholders: "Plaintiffs demonstrated
that J.C. Penney Company, Inc. securities traded in an efficient
market during the class period, and are entitled to the
presumption of reliance set forth in Basic Inc. v. Levinson."

He appointed the National Shopmen Pension Fund as class
representative and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as lead counsel.

Penney did not reply to voicemail and email requests for comment.


J.R. SIMPLOT: "Contreras" Suit Moved to E.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Juan Contreras, individually and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. J.R. Simplot Company, an unknown
business entity, the Defendant, Case No. 34-02017-00205711, was
removed from the Sacramento Superior Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-00585-KJM-EFB to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. District Judge
Kimberly J. Mueller.

The J. R. Simplot Company was founded in 1929 by 20-year-old John
Richard Simplot near the small agricultural community of Declo in
south central Idaho.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
410 West Arden Ave., Suite 203
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 265 1020
Facsimile: (818) 265 1021
E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

Natalie R. Alameddine, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
695 Town Center Drive, Suite 1500
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (714) 800 7900
Facsimile: (714) 754 1298
E-mail: natalie.alameddine@ogletreedeakins.com


JP MORGAN: Faces "Newkirk" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of TCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Newkirk, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00630-RAL-AAS (M.D. Fla., March 16,
2017), alleges that Chase placed repeated calls to Plaintiff's
cellular telephone number using a prerecorded voice message and
automated telephone dialing system  in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA is a national bank.  Plaintiff has a
mortgage which is serviced by Chase.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William Peerce Howard, Esq.
     Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
     THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM
     210-A South MacDill Avenue
     Tampa, FL 33609
     Phone: 813 500 1500
     Fax: 813 435 2369
     E-mail: Billy@The ConsumerProtectionFirm.com
             Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com

        - and -

     Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
     KEOGH LAW, LTD.
     55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3390
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: 312 726 1092
     Fax: 312 726 1093
     E-mail: Keith@KeoghLaw.com


KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Reichenstein" Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
VICTOR REICHENSTEIN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. KANDI TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC.,
HU XIAOMING, WANG CHENG, and ZHU XIAOYING, Defendants, Case No.
1:17-cv-01930 (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2017), alleges that Defendants
violated the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act.

Kandi disclosed that on March 13, 2016, the Company's board of
directors, based on the recommendation of the Company's audit
committee, had determined that the Company's previously issued
financial statements for 2014, 2015, and the first three quarters
of 2016 should no longer be relied upon by investors and that the
accounting issues came to light, in part, through the preparation
of responses to comments from the staff of the SEC.  The Company
further disclosed that it would restate its previously issued
financial statements for 2014, 2015, and the first three quarters
of 2016 and is now "reassessing" its internal controls over
financial reporting and compliance.

KANDI TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC. manufactures small vehicles
including energy-saving mini cars, all-terrain vehicles, golf
carts, motor cycles, motor scooters and go-karts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James S. Notis, Esq.
     Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
     GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
     126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: 212-905-0509
     Fax: 212-905-0508
     E-mail: jnotis@gardylaw.com
             jsarnelli@gardylaw.com

        - and -

     Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
     Bradley J. Vettraino, Esq.
     155 Federal Street, Suite 400
     Boston, MA 0211 0
     Phone:(617) 398-5600
     Fax:(617) 507-6020
     Email: jeff@blockesq.com
            Bradley@blockesq.com


KFORCE INC: Still Defends "Shepard v. BMO" Suit
-----------------------------------------------
KForce, Inc., continues to defend against the case, Shepard v. BMO
Harris Bank N.A. et al., Case No.: 1:16-cv-08288 (N.D. Ill.),
KForce said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

On August 25, 2016, Kforce Flexible Solutions LLC (along with co-
defendant BMO Harris Bank) was served with a complaint brought in
the Northern District of Illinois, U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of Illinois.  The plaintiff purports to bring claims on
her own behalf and on behalf of putative class of telephone-
dedicated workers for alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois
Wage Payment and Collection Act based upon the defendants'
purported failure to pay her and other class members all earned
regular and overtime pay for all time worked. More specifically,
the plaintiff alleges that class employees were required to
perform unpaid work before and after the start and end times of
their shifts. She seeks unpaid back regular and overtime wages,
liquidated damages, statutory penalties, and attorney fees and
costs.

The Company said, "We are vigorously defending each of the
plaintiff's claims. At this stage in the litigation it is not
feasible to predict the outcome of this matter or reasonably
estimate a range of loss, should a loss occur, from this
proceeding; however, based on our current knowledge, we believe
that the final outcome of this matter is unlikely to have a
material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial
position, results of operations, or cash flows."

Kforce Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, "Kforce") provide
professional and technical specialty staffing services and
solutions to customers through the following segments: Technology
("Tech"), Finance and Accounting ("FA"), and Government Solutions
("GS"). Kforce provides flexible staffing services and solutions
on both a temporary ("Flex") and permanent ("Direct Hire") basis.
We operate through our corporate headquarters in Tampa, Florida
and 61 field offices located throughout the U.S., as well as an
office in Manila, Philippines. Kforce was incorporated in 1994 but
its predecessor companies, Romac & Associates, Inc. and Source
Services Corporation have been providing staffing services since
1962. Kforce completed its Initial Public Offering in August 1995.


LEN AND LEN: Former Employees Still Waiting for Final Paycheck
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Ewoldt at The Star Tribune reports that about 50 former
employees of Len Druskin stores say they haven't been paid for
work they did in the weeks before five locations suddenly closed.

The stores, operating under the names Len and Len Druskin, sold
higher-end women's and men's designer clothing. Len Druskin
started the business 40 years ago and it subsequently was taken
over by his son Michael.

Employees received a text message on Feb. 10 from Michael Druskin
saying they should not report to work due to a "company
restructuring" in progress. Locations in Southdale, Mall of
America, Rosedale, Ridgedale and City Center remained closed the
next day.

The City Center location then reopened days later under a new
name, Shop the Runway. It was filled with clothes and accessories
from the other mall locations, which were packed up at night by a
select number of employees.

Several former employees said they are owed about USD1,000 to
USD1,700 each.

Marcus Lemonis, entrepreneur and host of CNBC's reality show
called "The Partner," purchased the inventory and fixtures from
all the Twin Cities stores in exchange for a bank note.

He said that he is not responsible for the employees' back pay. "I
didn't buy his business," Lemonis said. "He [owner Michael
Druskin] made some bad business decisions. He stiffed a lot of
people."

The company had assets of less than USD300,000 and debt on the
bank note of USD870,000 plus about USD1.5 million owed to vendors
and another lender, Lemonis said.

Druskin responded to a handful of employees in February about pay,
but no one has been paid or heard from him in the past two weeks,
said Alyssa Kelly, 23, the former assistant manager at Len in
Rosedale. She has not received payment of about USD1,500 for hours
worked three weeks before the store closed.

"Michael has cut off all forms of communication and is claiming he
is not the responsible party to pay us," she said. "He also will
not give contact information to reach his lawyers."

In an e-mail to the Star Tribune, Druskin said, "We have no
comment."

There has been no bankruptcy filing as of March 17, according to
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Minneapolis, which also lists filings
in St. Paul, Fergus Falls and Duluth.

Employees who have contacted the Minnesota Department of Labor and
Industry for payment of back wages have not heard of any progress
on their claims.

Kelly said she filed the paperwork more than two weeks ago. Former
Len employee Ali Biwer of Shoreview contacted the agency twice but
was told it couldn't help her without Druskin's personal contact
information, which she did not know.

"They said I need a snail mail address for Michael to serve him,
but I don't have one since his stores are closed," she said.
James Honerman, spokesman at the labor agency, said an address is
typically required, but employees who may have been put off can
call back and ask to speak with a labor investigator or a
supervisor. In some cases of business closings, the state
facilitates a resolution to wage claims, he said.

"We can't talk specifically about what we're doing or where we're
at," Honerman said.

Ryan Joy Adams, the manager at Len in Rosedale, said she's out
about USD1,700. She contacted the labor agency shortly after the
store closed.

"I was told that the wages have to be paid within 24 hours after
we submit a formal claim, but that hasn't happened," she said.
"Some of us are talking about contacting an attorney and some
people are just talking about taking a loss," she said.

Rebekah Bailey -- bailey@nka.com --an employee rights lawyer at
Nichols Kaster in Minneapolis, said unpaid wages without a
bankruptcy is a unique situation. "Without taking class action or
going to small claims court, there isn't a lot they can do but sit
and wait after they file a claim. That's not good," she said.


LEVEL 3: Settlement in Rights-Of-Way Litigation Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Level 3 Communications, Inc. continues to pursue presentment of
the settlement in rights-of-way litigation in applicable
jurisdictions, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

The Company said "We are party to a number of purported class
action lawsuits involving our right to install fiber optic cable
network in railroad right-of-ways adjacent to plaintiffs' land. In
general, we obtained the rights to construct our networks from
railroads, utilities, and others, and have installed our networks
along the rights-of-way so granted. Plaintiffs in the purported
class actions assert that they are the owners of lands over which
the fiber optic cable networks pass, and that the railroads,
utilities and others who granted us the right to construct and
maintain our network did not have the legal authority to do so.
The complaints seek damages on theories of trespass, unjust
enrichment and slander of title and property, as well as punitive
damages. We have also received, and may in the future receive,
claims and demands related to rights-of-way issues similar to the
issues in these cases that may be based on similar or different
legal theories. We have defeated motions for class certification
in a number of these actions but expect that, absent settlement of
these actions, plaintiffs in the pending lawsuits will continue to
seek certification of statewide or multi-state classes. The only
lawsuit in which a class was certified against us, absent an
agreed upon settlement, occurred in Koyle, et al. v. Level 3
Communications, Inc., et al., a purported two state class action
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Idaho. The Koyle lawsuit has been dismissed pursuant to a
settlement reached in November 2010."

"We negotiated a series of class settlements affecting all persons
who own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of way in
which we have installed our fiber optic cable networks. The United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in
Kingsborough v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P. granted preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement; however, on September 10,
2009, the court denied a motion for final approval of the
settlement on the basis that the court lacked subject matter
jurisdiction and dismissed the case.

"In November 2010, we negotiated revised settlement terms for a
series of state class settlements affecting all persons who own or
owned land next to or near railroad rights of way in which we have
installed our fiber optic cable networks. We are currently
pursuing presentment of the settlement in applicable
jurisdictions. The settlements, affecting current and former
landowners, have received final federal court approval in all but
one of the applicable states and the parties are actively engaged
in, or have completed, the claims process for the vast majority of
the applicable states, including payment of claims. We continue to
seek approval in the remaining state.

"Management believes that we have substantial defenses to the
claims asserted in all of these actions and intends to defend them
vigorously if a satisfactory settlement is not ultimately approved
for all affected landowners."

Level 3 is an international facilities-based provider of a broad
range of integrated communications services.


LG CHEM: Battery Price-Fixing Settlement Wins Initial Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that following months of uncertainty, a federal judge in Oakland,
Calif. on March 20, granted preliminary approval of settlements by
LG Chem, Hitachi Maxell and NEC Corp., and granted final approval
of a settlement by Sony, in an antitrust class action accusing the
companies of inflating the prices of lithium ion batteries for
more than a decade.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers approved the
settlements in separate orders issued March 20, even though she
had expressed doubt about their viability for providing too little
information on which to base her decisions.

"Usually I would have all the numbers before I do a final
approval," she said at a March 1 hearing seeking preliminary
approval of the LG Chem, Hitachi Maxell and NEC settlements. "It's
a sticky problem and it's helpful to have more global information
to start thinking about it."

The indirect purchasers filed a consolidated complaint in the
multidistrict litigation in July 2013, accusing 27 defendants from
nine corporate families of rigging battery prices and restricting
output between 2000 and 2011.

LG Chem pleaded guilty to criminal price-fixing in October 2013
and agreed to pay $1.1 million in criminal fines.

Under the settlements, LG Chem will pay $39 million, Hitachi
Maxell $3.45 million and NEC $2.5 million to indirect purchasers
in the United States who bought laptops, camcorders or power tools
containing a cylindrical lithium ion battery or a replacement
battery made by the defendants between Jan. 1, 2000 and May 31,
2011.

Sony will pay $19.5 million to indirect purchasers in the United
States who during the same period bought a lithium ion battery or
a product containing a lithium ion battery made by Sony.

Together, the four settlements add up to a recovery of $64.45
million. A damages expert estimated that the class suffered $967
million in damages during the 11-year conspiracy.

At a hearing last November, Gonzalez Rogers said that there were
too many "moving pieces" to sign off on the Sony settlement,
though she had granted it preliminary approval in May 2016.

And in March, she said that she hadn't been given enough
information on how many claimants there would be or how much they
would receive in damages to approve the LG Chem, Hitachi Maxell
and NEC settlements.

However, both class counsel and counsel for the three latter
defendants urged her at the hearing to approve the settlements.
The defendants said that they wanted to settle as quickly as
possible to end the disruption that the lawsuits had caused.

On March 20, Gonzalez Rogers also approved the indirect
purchasers' proposal to have the claims period for all four
defendants occur simultaneously "to maximize the effectiveness of
the campaign and to promote efficiency in claims processing."

The claims period will run between April 11 and Sept. 30.

Gonzales Rogers denied without prejudice the indirect purchasers'
motion for reimbursement from Sony of roughly $3.7 million in
costs because they hadn't submitted any records to support their
request.

Panasonic, Samsung, Sanyo, Toshiba and NEC Tokin Corp. currently
make up the indirect purchaser plaintiffs.

The indirect purchasers are represented by Jeff Friedman of Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro in Berkeley and Steven Williams of Cotchett,
Pitre & McCarthy in Burlingame.

LG Chem is represented by Nathan Eimer of Eimer Stahl in Chicago;
Hitachi Maxell by Lindsey Robinson Vaala of Vinson and Elkins in
Washington; and NEC by Dana Lynn Cook-Milligan of Winston and
Strawn in San Francisco.

Sony is represented by John Dwyer of Cooley LLP in Palo Alto and
Beatriz Mejia, also of Cooley LLP, in San Francisco.

Counsel for the parties could not immediately be reached for
comment on March 20, morning.


LG ELECTRONICS: Phones Have "Bootloop Defect," Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News service, reported that a
federal class action in Los Angeles, claims LG Electronics' G4 and
V10 cellphones have a "bootloop defect" that make them crash and
reboot continuously, rendering them useless.

The case is captioned, MEAGAN CHAMBERLAIN, EDWARD PISTORIO, LAURA
LANE, and ROSALENE MULLINS on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC. and
LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC., Defendants. Case No. 2:17-
cv-2046(C.D. Cal. March 14, 2017).

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

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


LINCOLN NATIONAL: Faces "Agel" Class Suit in E.D. Penn.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Lincoln National
Corp.

The case is captioned Joel Stephen Agel, for himself and all
others similarly situated v. Lincoln National Corp. and
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company Collectively d/b/a Lincoln
Financial Group, Case No. 2:17-cv-01094-GJP (E.D. Penn., March 13,
2017).

The Defendants operate multiple insurance and retirement
businesses in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Cohen, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
      604 Spruce Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Telephone: (215) 873-4836
      E-mail dcohen@stephanzouras.com


LIPOCINE INC: Awaits Filing of Amended Consolidated Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lipocine Inc. awaits the filing of an amended consolidated
complaint in the securities litigation pending in Utah, according
to the Company's March 6, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

On July 1, 2016, the Company and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in a purported shareholder class action
lawsuit, David Lewis v. Lipocine Inc., et al., 3:16-cv-04009-BRM-
LHG, filed in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey. This initial action was followed by additional
lawsuits also filed in the District of New Jersey. The lawsuits
contain substantially identical allegations and allege that the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that the Company's filing of the NDA for LPCN 1021 to
the FDA contained deficiencies and as a result the defendants'
statements about the Company's business and operations were false
and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis in violation of
federal securities laws. The lawsuits seek certification as a
class action, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, and
unspecified equitable relief.

On December 2, 2016, the court granted plaintiff's motion to
consolidate the various lawsuits and appointed Pomerantz LLP as
lead counsel and Lipocine Investor Group as lead plaintiff. The
court also stated that all filings shall bear the caption In re
Lipocine Inc. Securities Litigation. On December 9, 2016,
defendants filed an unopposed motion to transfer the action to the
United States District Court for the District of Utah, which is
currently pending before the court. On December 20, 2016, the
court entered a briefing schedule providing that Plaintiff's
consolidated amended complaint is due 45 days after the Order to
Transfer is entered and setting a briefing schedule regarding
defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss.

The Company said: "We believe that the claims in the lawsuits are
without merit and will defend against them vigorously. We maintain
insurance for claims of this nature, which management believes is
adequate. Moreover, we believe, based on information currently
available, that the filing and ultimate outcome of the lawsuits
will not have a material impact on our financial position,
although we will have to pay the insurance retention amount in
connection with the lawsuit."

Lipocine Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company developing
innovative pharmaceutical products for use in men's and women's
health using its proprietary drug delivery technologies.
Lipocine's clinical development pipeline includes three
development programs LPCN 1021, LPCN 1111 and LPCN 1107. LPCN
1021, a novel oral prodrug of testosterone containing testosterone
undecanoate, is designed to help restore normal testosterone
levels in hypogonadal men.


LOCKWOOD ANDREWS: Asks Supreme Court to Review 6th Cir. Decision
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Sieniuc at Law360 reports that two engineering firms have
asked the Supreme Court to review a Sixth Circuit decision holding
that lawsuits brought against them by Flint, Michigan, residents
over the city's water contamination crisis could go ahead in state
court under the local controversy exception to the Class Action
Fairness Act, saying it loosens class action pleading standards in
direct conflict with six other circuit courts.

In a writ for certiorari filed to the high court this month,
Lockwood Andrews & Newnam Inc., a Texas-based corporation, and its
Michigan-based affiliate Lockwood Andrews & Newnam PC, argued the
Sixth Circuit's decision to remand the case under a CAFA local
exception without evidence of class members' citizenship is wrong
and, in relieving plaintiffs of the need to introduce evidence to
get that remand, "encourages the very sort of 'abuses in class
actions' that CAFA was designed to curtail."

"It has long been settled that residence and citizenship 'are
wholly different things within the meaning of the laws defining
and regulating the jurisdiction of the courts of the United
States,'" the petition said.

The Sixth Circuit panel's majority in November held that a
controversy that uniquely affects a particular place, like Flint,
belongs in state court, finding the residents' suit to have met
that standard in that it consists of a proposed class of which
two-thirds of the members are Michigan citizens, there's a
significant local defendant and the injuries are constrained by
the reach of Flint's water system.

But the corporations said such an interpretation of the exception
gives future plaintiffs in class actions incentive to file vague
complaints, "thereby making it harder for defendants to know whose
citizenship they need to disprove."

"What results is a game of legal whack-a-mole, with plaintiffs
shifting their class's purported scope each time defendants make
an adequate evidentiary showing," the corporations said. "But
plaintiffs would have every incentive to define their classes
clearly if they were required to make the initial evidentiary
showing, as they are in every other circuit."

The panel decision also represents a circuit split that conflicts
with six other courts of appeals that "have held that, to satisfy
the citizenship requirement of CAFA's local controversy exception,
there must be evidence of class members' citizenship, at least
where class membership is not limited by definition to state
citizens," the petition said.

"While all other circuits require evidence of class members'
intent to establish citizenship, the court below sought to craft a
rule that would permit remand while 'avoid[ing] the exceptional
difficulty of proving the citizenship of a class,'" the
corporations said.

The proposed class action -- one of the several seeking redress
for Flint residents who had to suffer from lead contamination
after the city switched its water source as a cost-saving measure
-- alleges LAN PC and LAN Inc. knew Flint's water treatment plant
needed upgrades for lead contamination treatment, yet failed to
ensure those were put in place. The case, if heard by the high
court, could have broader implications for class actions
generally.

The suit involves a sole claim of professional negligence against
those companies, as well as Nebraska-based Leo A. Daly Company,
the former two's corporate alter ego.

The residents allege LAN PC was responsible for quality control
and that the other defendants' engineering work in Flint was
conducted through that company, the panel said.

Those allegations are sufficient to establish that LAN PC's
alleged conduct constitutes a significant basis of the residents'
professional negligence claim, the panel said.

Justice Raymond Kethledge dissented in the November decision,
saying the plaintiffs hadn't shown any evidence that two-thirds of
the proposed class members both live in Michigan and intend to
stay there.

Justices Richard Griffin and Bernice B. Donald also sat on the
panel.

The Flint residents are represented by Mark L. McAlpine, Jayson E.
Blake -- mmcalpine@mcalpinepc.com -- and Adam T. Schnatz --
atschnatz@mcalpinepc.com --  of McAlpine PC.

Lockwood Andrews & Newnam Inc., Lockwood Andrews & Newnam PC and
Leo A. Daly Company are represented by Wayne B. Mason --
wayne.mason@dbr.com --Travis S. Gamble -- travis.gamble@dbr.com --
S. Vance Wittie -- vance.wittie@dbr.com -- and David C. Kent --
david.kent@dbr.com -- of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Ariel N.
Lavinbuk, D. Hunter Smith and Joshua S. Bolian --
jbolian@robbinsrussell.com -- of Robbins Russell Englert Orseck
Untereiner & Sauber LLP, and Robert G. Kamenec
rkanenec@plunkettcooney.com -- and Philip A. Erickson --
perickson@plunkettcooney.com -- of Plunkett Cooney PC.

The case is Jennifer Mason et al. v Lockwood Andrews and Newman et
al., Andrews & Newnam PC et al., case number 16-2313, in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.


LYFT INC: $27 Million Accord in "Cotter" Suit Has Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in San
Francisco, on March 16, gave final approval to a $27 million
settlement between ride-hail app Lyft and its drivers, who claimed
they were classified as independent contractors so Lyft could
skirt minimum wage laws.

The case is captioned, PATRICK COTTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
LYFT, INC., Defendant. Case No. 13-cv-04065-VC (N.D. Cal. March
16, 2017).


MCCLATCHY CO: Won in Fresno Bee Carriers Suit; Dismissed in Other
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The McClatchy Company was dismissed from one lawsuit and won a
favorable judgment from the other in the two lawsuits filed
carriers of The Fresno Bee, according to the Company's Form 10-K
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 25, 2016.

In December 2008, carriers of The Fresno Bee filed a class action
lawsuit against the Company and The Fresno Bee in the Superior
Court of the State of California in Fresno County captioned
Becerra v. The McClatchy Company ("Fresno case") alleging that the
carriers were misclassified as independent contractors and seeking
mileage reimbursement. In February 2009, a substantially similar
lawsuit, Sawin v. The McClatchy Company, involving similar
allegations was filed by carriers of The Sacramento Bee
("Sacramento case") in the Superior Court of the State of
California in Sacramento County. The class consists of roughly
5,000 carriers in the Sacramento case and 3,500 carriers in the
Fresno case. The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking unspecified
restitution for mileage reimbursement. With respect to the
Sacramento case, in September 2013, all wage and hour claims were
dismissed and the only remaining claim is an equitable claim for
mileage reimbursement under the California Civil Code.

In the Fresno case, in March 2014, all wage and hour claims were
dismissed and the only remaining claim is an equitable claim for
mileage reimbursement under the California Civil Code.

The court in the Sacramento case trifurcated the trial into three
separate phases: the first phase addressed independent contractor
status, the second phase will address liability, if any, and the
third phase will address restitution, if any. On September 22,
2014, the court in the Sacramento case issued a tentative decision
following the first phase, finding that the carriers that
contracted directly with The Sacramento Bee during the period from
February 2005 to July 2009 were misclassified as independent
contractors. The Company objected to the tentative decision but
the court ultimately adopted it as final. The court has not yet
established a date for the second and third phases of trial
concerning whether The Sacramento Bee is liable to the carriers in
the class for mileage reimbursement or owes any restitution.  In
June 2016, The McClatchy Company was dismissed from the lawsuit,
leaving The Sacramento Bee as the sole defendant.

The court in the Fresno case bifurcated the trial into two
separate phases: the first phase addressed independent contractor
status and liability for mileage reimbursement and the second
phase was designated to address restitution, if any. The first
phase of the Fresno case began in the fourth quarter of 2014 and
concluded in late March 2015. On April 14, 2016, the court in the
Fresno case issued a statement of final decision in favor of the
Company and The Fresno Bee. Accordingly, there will be no second
phase.

The McClatchy Company is a news and information publisher of well-
respected publications such as the Miami Herald, The Kansas City
Star, The Sacramento Bee, The Charlotte Observer, The (Raleigh)
News and Observer, and the (Fort Worth) Star-Telegram.
Incorporated in Delaware, the Company is headquartered in
Sacramento, California.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Not Responsible for Franchisees' Employee Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Sparks at Blue Maumau reports that a federal judge in
northern California issued its decision earlier this month stating
that franchisor McDonald's Corporation does not control the wages
paid to workers at restaurants owned by franchisees and is not
liable for violations of the state's labor laws. The judge granted
the franchisor's motion for summary judgment finding that the
workers did not support their argument that the labor code's
definition of an employer extends to companies that "ostensibly"
control wages through an agent.

Under Guadalupe Salazar, et al. v. McDonald's Corp., et al., U.S.
District Judge Richard Seeborg had granted McDonald's request to
deny class certification for the worker plaintiffs on January 5,
2017. He also granted its motion to strike plaintiffs'
representative claims under the California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). The workers who allege labor
violations were employed at restaurants owned by Bobby O. Haynes
and Carol R. Haynes Family Limited Partnership in Oakland,
California. The lawsuit, filed in 2014, originally represented
more than 1,200 current and former employees in the Oakland area.
In another case in the same district court, a different judge
granted McDonald's request for summary judgment on the company's
direct liability for specific labor law violations, but denied it
on the issue of "ostensible" agency. In Ochoa v. McDonald's Corp.,
filed in March 2014 and certified as a class in May 2015, the
parties agreed to settle the case. McDonald's agreed last November
to a $3.75 million settlement, $1.75 million in back pay and $2
million in legal fees. In that case, the franchisee, the Edward J.
Smith and Valerie S. Smith Family Limited Partnership, had agreed
to settle claims for $700,000.

At that time, attorney Barbara J. Chisholm --
bchisholm@altshulerberzon.com -- of Alshuler Berzon, representing
McDonald's, explained in a declaration to the court, "To the
knowledge of my co-counsel and me, this is the first ever
employment class action with McDonald's involving a certified
class of crew members working in franchise-operated stores."

McDonald's Corporation has been targeted for the past four years
by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), representing
thousands of low-wage workers under the "Fight for $15" movement.
The organization is pressing for $15 minimum wage and better
working conditions. Last October, 15 female workers filed
complaints against McDonald's and its franchisees with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission on sexual harassment claims. And
in a National Labor Relations Board case, union-backed "Fight for
$15" claims McDonald's is a joint employer of franchise workers
who allege they faced retaliation for joining nationwide strikes.
McDonald's Corporation firmly denies the accusations in those
cases.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Workers to Appeal Ruling before 9th Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
class of workers at eight McDonald's franchises will likely take
their employment claims before the Ninth Circuit, after a federal
judge in San Francisco sided with the fast food giant in a ruling
last March 10.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg granted McDonald's summary
judgment for a second time in his latest ruling, saying McDonald's
cannot be held liable for workplace violations because it doesn't
meet the definition of an employer under California's labor code.

Cashiers Guadalupe Salazar, Genoveva Lopez and Judith Zarate sued
McDonald's and franchise owner Bobby Haynes in March 2014,
claiming they were denied meal and rest breaks and that McDonald's
miscalculated their wages through a flawed payroll system.

The Haynes Partnership, which has owned eight franchises in
Oakland and San Leandro since 2010, settled with the workers in
2015.

Ruling on McDonald's motion for summary judgment back in August,
Seeborg observed that the Haynes Partnership controlled hiring,
firing, discipline, wage-setting and the employees' general
working conditions, and that McDonald's was not a joint employer
because it didn't make direct personnel decisions.

The workers then tried to proceed on an "ostensible agency" theory
where a franchisor can be believed by the employee to be acting on
behalf of the parent company.

But in January, Seeborg denied class certification, finding
insufficient evidence to show a common set of circumstances
classwide.

The Industrial Welfare Commission, which regulates wages, hours
and working conditions in California, defines an employer as one
who "'directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other
person, employs or exercises control over the wages, hours, or
working conditions of any person.'"

In his ruling granting the food corporation's motion, Seeborg
rejected the workers' argument that McDonald's could be liable
under ostensible agency because the commission's definition
includes the phrase "through an agent."

He wrote, "Read in context, however, that phrase is explicitly
limited. The wage order restricts the definition of an 'employer'
to one who, through an agent, 'employs or exercises control over'
the workplace environment. Because plaintiffs' interpretation
would render this added limitation meaningless, it must be
rejected."

In an interview, the workers' attorney Michael Rubin said that the
Ninth Circuit will either rule that McDonald's is a joint
employer, or send the case back for a jury to decide the issue.

"There were hundreds of pages of documentation submitted that show
McDonald's is able to not only control the terms and  conditions
of crew employment but how it is specifically responsible for
controlling portions of the timekeeping system that were directly
responsible for causing the violations," Rubin said.

"It really surprised us when Judge Seeborg concluded that
McDonald's was not a joint employer based on the facts, because
there's just so much evidence that it micromanages and tracks
every activity of every crew member and every franchise, and
dictates how the restaurants are operated, how many employees
there are, what they do, and how they get paid."

While terming the ostensible agency theory "a free bite at the
apple," Rubin said he always saw McDonald's as a joint employer.

"We always saw this as a joint-employer case and we're pleased
finally to be up in front of the appellate court," Rubin said.


METALDYNE PERFORMANCE: Defends "Bushansky" Merger-Related Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Metaldyne Performance Group Inc. is defending itself against a
merger-related class action lawsuit commenced by Stephen
Bushansky, according to the Company's March 6, 2017, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On November 3, 2016, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with American Axle &
Manufacturing Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("AAM") and
Alpha SPV I, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned
subsidiary of AAM ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Merger Sub
will be merged with and into the Company (the "AAM Merger") with
the Company surviving the AAM Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary
of AAM.

On February 16, 2017, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, captioned Stephen Bushansky v. Metaldyne Performance
Group Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-10508-MAG-DRG. The complaint
asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and
names the Company and the members of the Company's board of
directors as defendants.  The complaint alleges, among other
things, that the defendants issued materially incomplete and
misleading disclosures in the preliminary registration statement
on Form S-4 relating to the AAM Merger.  The complaint seeks,
among other things, injunctive relief and an award of attorneys'
fees.

The Company and the members of the Company's board of directors
believe that the claims asserted in this lawsuit are without
merit.

Metaldyne Performance Group Inc. is a Delaware corporation
incorporated in 2014 and was formed through the combination of
three metal-forming technology manufacturing companies, ASP HHI
Holdings, Inc., ASP MD Holdings, Inc., and ASP Grede Intermediate
Holdings LLC.  Each of the three operating groups was owned
primarily by certain private equity funds affiliated with American
Securities LLC.


MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL: Faces "Moise" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HANS MOISE, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff,
v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA,
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-20993-JAL (S.D. Fla., March 16, 2017),
alleges that while employed by the Board, Moise routinely worked
in excess of 40 hours per week without being compensated at a rate
of not less than one and one half times the regular rate at which
he was employed in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA is a
Florida municipality doing business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Hans Moise was employed as a supervisor of paid trainees at the
Greater Miami Service Corps.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MICHIGAN, USA: Sixth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Hill" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Henry Hill, Matthew Bentley, Kevin Boyd, Jean Cintron
Carlos, Giovanni Casper, Nicole Dupure, Bobby Hines, Keith Maxey,
Jennifer Pruitt, Bosie Smith, Dontez Tillman, Jemal Tipton and
Damion Lavoial Todd filed an appeal from a court ruling relating
to their lawsuit entitled Henry Hill, et al. v. Rick Snyder, et
al., Case No. 5:10-cv-14568, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor.

The appellate case is captioned as Henry Hill, et al. v. Rick
Snyder, et al., Case No. 17-1252, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Defendants
Rick Snyder, Heidi E. Washington, Michael Eagen and Bill Schuette
filed an appeal to the Sixth Circuit from a court ruling in the
lawsuit.  That appellate case is captioned as Henry Hill, et al.
v. Rick Snyder, et al., Case No. 16-2003.

Rick Snyder is the Governor of the state of Michigan.

The Plaintiffs' complaint, filed on November 17, 2010, sought
declaratory and injunctive relief to end the Defendants' alleged
violation of their Eighth Amendment rights to a meaningful and
realistic opportunity for release upon demonstration of their
maturity and rehabilitation.  The Plaintiffs, who were children
when they committed offenses for which they were convicted and
sentenced to life imprisonment, challenged the constitutionality,
as applied to all children, of Section 791.234(6) of the Michigan
Compiled Laws, the statute that deprives the Michigan Parole Board
of jurisdiction over individuals serving life sentences for first-
degree homicide offenses.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants HENRY HILL, JEMAL TIPTON, DAMION LAVOIAL
TODD, BOBBY HINES, KEVIN BOYD, BOSIE SMITH, JENNIFER PRUITT,
MATTHEW BENTLEY, KEITH MAXEY, GIOVANNI CASPER, JEAN CINTRON
CARLOS, NICOLE DUPURE and DONTEZ TILLMAN, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated, are represented by:

          Brandon J. Buskey, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          CRIMINAL LAW REFORM PROJECT
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 284-7364
          E-mail: bbuskey@aclu.org

               - and -

          Daniel S. Korobkin, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MICHIGAN
          2966 Woodward Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 578-6824
          E-mail: dkorobkin@aclumich.org

               - and -

          Deborah A. LaBelle, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DEBORAH A. LABELLE
          221 N. Main St., Suite 300
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 996-5620
          E-mail: deblabelle@aol.com

               - and -

          Ronald J. Reosti, Esq.
          REOSTI & SIRLIN, PC
          23880 Woodward Avenue, Suite 200
          Royal Oak, MI 48069-1133
          Telephone: (248) 691-4200
          E-mail: ron.reosti@gmail.com

Defendants-Appellees RICK SNYDER, in his Official Capacity as
Governor of the State of Michigan; HEIDI E. WASHINGTON, Director
of the Michigan Department of Corrections; MICHAEL EAGEN, Chair,
Michigan Parole Board; and BILL SCHUETTE, Attorney General, are
represented by:

          Margaret A. Nelson, Esq.
          ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          P.O. Box 30736
          Lansing, MI 48909
          Telephone: (517) 373-6434
          E-mail: nelsonma@michigan.gov

               - and -

          Bernard Eric Restuccia, Esq.
          ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          P.O. Box 30217
          Lansing, MI 48116
          Telephone: (517) 373-1124
          E-mail: restucciae@michigan.gov


MICROSOFT CORP: Top Court to Weigh Litigation Issue
---------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper at BNA reports that the U.S. Supreme Court is slated
to hear arguments March 21 in a case alleging Microsoft's Xbox 360
destroys video game discs. But don't expect to hear anything about
the video game console's alleged defect.

Instead, the top court will weigh an inside-baseball litigation
issue that is nonetheless important to all class actions: whether
plaintiffs can voluntarily dismiss their cases to get class status
denials automatically reviewed ( Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, U.S.,
No. 15-457, oral argument 3/21/17 ).

The class certification decision is critical to consumers' ability
to bring small-value claims. It allows plaintiffs to band
together--here, the owners of more than 25 million Xbox units
sold--to sue companies for wrongdoing when it wouldn't make
financial sense for them to sue individually.

The Xbox owners will argue that plaintiffs should be able to
dismiss their suit to get an appeal right away. Class
certification denial effectively ends small-value class actions
and the only other avenue open for such review--a discretionary
immediate appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f)--is
rarely granted.

The tactic worked for the gamers in this case. After the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected their Rule 23(f)
appeal, the plaintiffs dismissed their case, creating a final
judgment that they could immediately appeal.

The Ninth Circuit, one of only two federal appeals courts to allow
the practice, subsequently revived the Xbox owners' claims.
Microsoft Corp. asked the top court to weigh in. It argues that
only the Second and Ninth circuits allow this second shot at
immediate review--five other circuit courts have barred the
strategy.

The company calls the voluntary dismissal tactic a way to
"manufacture appellate jurisdiction."

If plaintiffs can guarantee immediate review every time they lose
a certification motion, it will add two years to every class
litigation, Microsoft said. The prospect of continuing with
expensive litigation will force companies to settle even flimsy
claims.

                          Question of Fairness

"Neither side should have an unfair advantage in litigating class
certification issues," Jeffrey Fisher -- jlfisher@staford.edu --a
Stanford, Calif.-based attorney who will argue for Microsoft, told
Bloomberg BNA.

"We look forward to explaining why plaintiffs who dismiss their
own claims should not be allowed to continue seeking class
certification so they can pursue the claims of others," Fisher
said in an email.

Microsoft argues that the voluntary dismissal tactic is only
available to plaintiffs, whereas defendants don't have a
guaranteed way to challenge class certification grants.
They can only seek a discretionary appeal under Rule 23(f), which
are granted less than a quarter of the time, according to a recent
study by David L. Balser, Jonathan R. Chally, and other attorneys
at King & Spalding in Atlanta.

But plaintiffs' counsel, Brendan S. Maher, Esq. --
Brendan.maher@strismaher.com -- said he wasn't moved by this
argument. "Defendants can often agree with plaintiffs that they
are going to settle the case conditionally and then take an appeal
to resolve class cert," he told Bloomberg BNA.

Maher, partner at Stris & Maher LLP in Dallas, also said it's more
efficient to have the class certification decided right away,
rather than after the named plaintiff goes through the long
process of having to litigate his individual claims to a final
judgment.

"Our rule is not going to lead to a flood of ridiculous cases," he
said. "It will just preserve a small number of meritorious cases
that otherwise would have been pushed out of the court system."
The parties have waited more than a year for oral argument. The
Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in January 2016.

Peter K. Stris -- peter.stris@strismaher.com -- of Stris & Maher
LLP in Los Angeles will argue for the Xbox owners.

Fisher will argue for Microsoft.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Haimoff" Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management Inc. The case is styled as Benjamin Haimoff and Venessa
Joseph, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01535 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 19, 2017).

Midland Credit, a licensed debt collector, assists customers in
resolving past-due financial obligations through various education
and payment.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


MILWAUKEE: Inmate Shackled while Giving Birth, Class Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Olesko, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action against Milwaukee County and its Sheriff
David Clarke Jr. claims he forced an inmate to remain shackled
while she delivered her baby, against the protests of her medical
team.

Melissa Hall was an inmate at the Milwaukee County Jail from
February to August 2013 and went into labor during that time. When
she was hospitalized, sheriff's officers refused requests from
medical providers to remove the shackles. She also had to wear leg
irons and a "belly-chain" if she wanted to use the restroom, Hall
says in her March 14 lawsuit.

Hall says she was injured when her medical team had trouble
administering an epidural around the shackles.

"The jail's blanket shackling policy, and its shackling of
plaintiff, are not rationally related to a legitimate, non-
punitive purpose," the complaint states. "Alternatively, it is
excessive in relation to any legitimate purpose it allegedly
serves. The policy includes no provisions for individualized
evaluations of each pregnant inmate."

Represented by the well-known Chicago civil rights firm of Loevy &
Loevy, Hall says the county's shackling policy is
unconstitutional, malicious and recklessly indifferent.

"(S)hackling women during labor can lead to: an inability for
medical staff to assess hemorrhaging, rapidly perform an emergency
Caesarean section, or move a woman to address an umbilical cord
wrapped around the baby's windpipe, as well as a variety of other
problems. Belly chains and leg irons can impact the mother's
balance and increase the risk of falls, thereby endangering the
life and health of the child."

Numerous medical organization have denounced the use of perinatal
restraints, including the American Correctional Association, the
American Bar Association, the American College of Midwives and the
World Health Organization. Federal prisons revised their
procedures for pregnant detainees in 2007 to prevent the use of
extreme restraints except for necessary security considerations.

Clarke's office did not return an email seeking comment.

Hall seeks class certification and damages. Her lead attorney is
Theresa Kleinhauer.

Sheriff Clarke is a regular guest on Fox News and spoke at the
2016 Republican Convention. He has carried on a long-running feud
with County Executive Chris Abele, at one time accusing him of
"penis envy."

A strong supporter of President Donald Trump, Clark traveled to
Moscow in 2015, his expenses covered by the Right to Bear Arms
Association, a Russian group allied with the National Rifle
Association.

Clarke has said that there are "maybe a million" ISIS supporters
in the United States, and that they should all be rounded up and
sent to the prisons at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

He often appears in public wearing a cowboy hat.

The case is captioned, MELISSA Hall, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF MILWAUKEE,
DAVID A. CLARKE, JR., in his Official capacity, Defendants, Case
No. 17-cv-00379 (E.D. Wisc., March 14, 2017).

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Arthur Loevy, Esq.
     Michael Kanovitz, Esq.
     Scott Rauscher, Esq.
     Theresa Kleinhaus, Esq.
     LOEVY & LOEVY
     311 N. Aberdeen St., Third Floor
     Chicago, IL 60607
     Tel: (312) 243-5900


MINEBEA MITSUMI: McGuire Suit Alleges Small Bearing Price-fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
McGuire Bearing Company, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Minebea Mitsumi Inc., NMB (USA),
INC. and NMB Technologies Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-
cv-10853, (E.D. Mich., March 17, 2017), seeks injunctive relief
and to recover damages, including treble damages, and costs of
suit and reasonable attorneys' fees, resulting from Defendants'
violations of the Sherman Act.

Defendants are manufacturers and suppliers of small-sized
bearings. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in a global
conspiracy that effectively operated to artificially inflate, fix,
raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of small bearings sold in the
United States. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     David H. Fink, Esq.
     Darryl Bressack, Esq.
     FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW
     38500 Woodward Avenue, Ste. 350
     Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
     Tel: (248) 971-2500
     Email: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com
            dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com

            - and -

     Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
     William E. Hoese, Esq.
     Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
     KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
     One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     Telephone: (215) 238-1700
     Email: jkohn@kohnswift.com
            whoese@kohnswift.com
            dabrahams@kohnswift.com

            - and -

     Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
     William H. London, Esq.
     Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
     FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
     2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
     Bannockburn, IL 60015
     Telephone: (224) 632-4500
     Email: skanner@fklmlaw.com
            wlondon@fklmlaw.com
            mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com

            - and -

     Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
     William G. Caldes, Esq.
     Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
     Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
     SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
     1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Telephone: (215) 496-0300
     Email: espector@srkw-law.com
            bcaldes@srkw-law.com
            jjagher@srkw-law.com
            jspector@srkw-law.com

            - and -

     Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
     Randall B. Weill, Esq.
     Michael S. Smith, Esq.
     PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
     One City Center, P.O. Box 9546
     Portland, ME 04112-9546
     Telephone: (207) 791-3000
     Email: ghansel@preti.com
            rweill@preti.com
            msmith@preti.com

            - and -

     M. John Dominguez, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
     2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
     Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
     Telephone: (561) 833-6575

            - and -

     Matthew W. Ruan, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
     88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
     New York, NY 10005
     Telephone: (212) 838-7797

            - and

     Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
     Thomas C. Bright, Esq.
     Pamela A. Markert
     CERA LLP
     595 Market Street, Suite 2300
     San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
     Telephone: (415) 777-2230


MINOR LEAGUE: Baseball Players' Class Suit Reinstated
-----------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in San Francisco, March 2, revived a class
action for Minor League baseball players who claim they were paid
less than minimum wage.

Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero partly granted a motion
for reconsideration of his July 2016 ruling, which decertified a
class of players suing 22 Major League teams.

Lead plaintiff Aaron Senne sued Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig
and 30 Major League clubs in February 2014. Senne, who played for
a Miami Marlins farm team in Jamestown, New York, said Minor
Leaguers earn a meager $3,000 to $7,500 per season and are not
paid overtime or compensated for off-season work, including spring
training.

Spero dismissed eight Major League clubs from the suit for lack of
jurisdiction. In July 2016, he granted a motion to decertify the
class, finding that variations in players' work activities made
class certification impractical.

But the discovery of new evidence coupled with a decision to drop
some claims for unpaid wages persuaded Spero to reconsider.

One factor that swayed the judge was the decision to abandon
claims for unpaid winter conditioning work. Pursuing those claims
as a class was problematic, Spero said, because in some cases the
work was performed in multiple states years ago, was undocumented,
and players were not likely to recall how much time they spent on
specific activities.

Turning to tasks that some Minor Leaguers were paid for while
others weren't, Spero found that payroll records would allow "any
variations in compensation to be analyzed without burdensome
individualized inquiries."

"This is especially true as to spring training, extended spring
training and instructional league claims because players generally
were not compensated for their participation in these activities
and the small fraction of players who did receive compensation for
these activities can be identified using payroll records
maintained by defendants," Spero wrote in his 69-page ruling.

Finding that the California Supreme Court established that the
state has a strong interest in applying wage and hour laws for
work performed in California by nonresidents, Spero certified a
class of all Minor Leaguers who played in a California league,
instructional league or extended spring training on or after Feb.
7, 2011.

However, Spero refused to certify proposed classes of Minor
Leaguers who played or trained in Arizona and Florida, finding the
plaintiffs failed to show Arizona and Florida had a strong
interest in applying their labor laws over the laws of other
states.

Spero also found a July 2016 survey of 720 players to estimate
hours worked during spring training more reliable than a
previously submitted study.

To eliminate self-interest bias in the newer survey, players were
not informed of the purpose of the study. The new survey included
more players who had not opted into the class, and it featured
questions intended to jog players' memory about spring training
activities.

Additionally, plaintiffs' expert Michael Dennis cross-checked
those estimated hours with team schedules, finding a higher
estimate of hours for spring training game days was likely because
schedules did not include time players spent changing into
uniforms or doing extra training work.

Spero rejected Major League Baseball's request to strike the
survey as evidence and exclude Dennis' expert testimony.

He granted a motion to intervene in the lawsuit filed by four
current Minor League baseball players, despite opposition by Major
League Baseball. Spero found that including the claims of current
Minor League players would serve the interest of judicial
efficiency.

He set a case management conference for May 12.

Class attorney Bruce Simon and Major League Baseball attorney
Elise Bloom did not return phone calls seeking comment on March 8
afternoon.

Simon is with Pearson Simon & Warshaw in San Francisco, Bloom with
Proskauer Rose in New York City.

A bill was introduced in the House of Representatives last year
stating that Minor League baseball players are not entitled to
minimum wage and overtime pay. The "Save America's Pastime Act"
died in committee.

Major League Baseball supported the legislation in a statement,
saying "being a Minor League Baseball player is not a career but a
short-term seasonal apprenticeship in which the player either
advances to the Major Leagues or pursues another career."


MOJAVE FOODS: Barragan Seeks OT & Minimum Wages Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA D. BARRAGAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MOJAVE FOODS CORPORATION; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. (S.D. Fla., Mar.
17, 2017), seeks to recover overtime and minimum wages, premium
wages for missed meal and rest periods, penalties, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the labor Code.

The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees have not been
paid, during the relevant liability periods, wages for all time
worked, including overtime wages, as a result of, including but
not limited to, improperly calculating overtime rate by not
including all forms of remuneration in determining rate of pay and
improperly rounding time worked by its employees.

Mojave Foods produces walnuts. The company offers shelled walnuts
under the brand name El Guapo.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Michael Nourmand, Esq.
THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
8822 West Olympic Boulevard
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 553 3600
Facsimile: (310) 553 3603

- and -

Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
BIBIYAN & BOKHOUR, P.C.
287 S. Robertson Blvd., Suite 303
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 438 5555
Facsimile: (310) 300 1705


MORAN POLLUTION: "Moser" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Terry Moser, individually and for others similarly situated, v.
Moran Pollution & Safety Corp. and Moran Shipping Agencies, Inc.,
Case No. 4:17-cv-00861, (S.D. Tex., March 17, 2017), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Moran Pollution & Safety Corp. manages Moran Shipping Agencies
where Moser worked as a "dockwalker," monitoring barges in port
operations in Texas. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Telecopier: (713) 877-8065
      Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


MYLAN INC: UFCW Local 1500 Sues Over Albuterol Sulfate Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------
UFCW LOCAL 1500 WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MYLAN, INC.; MYLAN
PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; and SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01134-CMR (E.D. Pa., March 15, 2017),
seeks claims under federal and state antitrust laws to recover
damages and obtain injunctive and equitable relief for the
substantial injuries Plaintiff and others similarly situated have
sustained against Defendants arising from their conspiracy to
raise the prices of and allocate markets and customers for generic
albuterol sulfate tablets, in the United States.

The Defendants are pharmaceutical companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
     Paul Costa, Esq.
     Adam J. Pessin, Esq.
     FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
     One South Broad Street, Suite 2300
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     Phone: 215-567 6565
     Fax: 215 568 5872
     E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
             pcosta@finekaplan.com
             apessin@finekaplan.com

        - and -

     Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
     Jay L. Himes, Esq.
     Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
     Domenico Minerva, Esq.
     Robin A. Van der Meulen, Esq.
     Matthew J. Perez, Esq.
     LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
     140 Broadway
     New York, NY 10005
     Phone: 212 907 0700
     Fax: 212 818 0477
     E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com
             jhimes@labaton.com
             kgarvey@labaton.com
             dminerva@labaton.com
             rvandermeulen@labaton.com
             mperez@labaton.com


NATIVE COMMERCE: "Wheeler" Hits Unauthorized Credit Card Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Wheeler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Native Commerce Studios, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00051, (W.D. Mich., March 17, 2017), seeks
actual, statutory, and punitive damages, injunctive relief,
reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys' fees, pre- and post-
judgment interest and further relief resulting from fraud by
omission, breach of contract and violation of the Michigan
Consumer Protection Act and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.

Native Commerce owns a network of websites and e-commerce stores,
each catering to a different niche market. Its websites span many
topics, including survival preparedness, gardening, craft making,
and fashion.

Wheeler visited Native Commerce's Survival Life
(www.survivallife.com) website and purchased a lighter.
Unknowingly, Defendant enrolled him into a reoccurring monthly
membership to one of its associations for $19.99 per month.
Defendant charged Wheeler's bank account in the amount of $19.99
every month for a year.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 N. LaSalle St., 13th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Tel: 312-589-6370
     Email: brichman@edelson.com


NATUS MEDICAL: To Defend Against "Badger" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Natus Medical Incorporated intends to defend against the "Badger"
class action lawsuit, the company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24,
2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On January 30, 2017, an alleged class action entitled Badger v.
Natus Medical Incorporated, et al., No. 3:17-cv-00458-JSW, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and two of the
Company's officers. The suit asserts claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for allegedly
misleading statements regarding the Company's business (including
a contract entered into by a subsidiary of the Company), guidance
and financial results. The suit is purportedly brought on behalf
of purchasers of the Company's common stock between October 16,
2015 and April 3, 2016, and seeks compensatory damages, fees and
costs.

"We believe the claims are without merit and intend to defend them
vigorously," the Company said.

Natus is a provider of newborn care and neurology healthcare
products and services used for the screening, diagnosis,
detection, treatment, monitoring and tracking of common medical
ailments in newborn care, hearing impairment, neurological
dysfunction, epilepsy, sleep disorders, neuromuscular diseases and
balance and mobility disorders.


NEWLINK GENETICS: Defends "Abramson" Securities Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
NewLink Genetics Corporation is defending itself and certain
officers in the lawsuit securities class action lawsuit initiated
by Trevor Abramson, according to the Company's March 6, 2017, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On or about May 12, 2016, Trevor Abramson filed a putative
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, or the Court, against
the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer Charles J.
Link, Jr., the Company's Chief Financial Officer John B. Henneman
III, and the Company's former Chief Financial Officer Gordon H.
Link, Jr., captioned Abramson v. NewLink Genetics Corp., et al.,
Case 1:16-cv-3545, or the Action.  Subsequently, the Court
appointed Michael and Kelly Nguyen as lead plaintiffs and approved
their selection of Kahn, Swick & Foti, LLC as lead counsel in the
Action.  On August 26, 2016, the Court issued an order providing
that (i) the lead plaintiffs shall file an amended complaint on or
before October 31, 2016, (ii) the defendants shall submit a letter
to the Court regarding a potential motion responsive to the
amended complaint on November 15, 2016, and (iii) the lead
plaintiffs shall submit a letter to the Court opposing the
defendants' letter on November 22, 2016.

On October 31, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint which asserts claims under the federal securities laws
against the Company, Charles J. Link, Jr., and the Company's Chief
Medical Officer and President Nicholas Vahanian, or collectively,
the Defendants (no claims are asserted in the amended complaint
against Messrs. Henneman or Gordon Link).  The amended complaint
alleges the Defendants made material false and/or misleading
statements that caused losses to the Company's investors. In
particular, the lead plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made
material misstatements or omissions related to the Phase II and
III trials and efficacy of the product candidate algenpantucel-L.
The lead plaintiffs do not quantify any alleged damages in the
amended complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs,
they seek to recover damages on behalf of themselves and other
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock
during the putative class period of September 17, 2013 through May
9, 2016, inclusive, at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly
suffered financial harm as a result.

On November 15, 2016, the Defendants filed a letter seeking a pre-
motion conference on their anticipated motion to dismiss.  In
response, on November 22, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed a letter
in support of proceeding directly to briefing on Defendants'
anticipated motion to dismiss.

The Company disputes the claims in the Action and intends to
defend against them vigorously.

NewLink Genetics Corporation is a clinical stage immuno-oncology
company focused on discovering and developing novel
immunotherapeutic products for the treatment of cancer with an
expertise in infectious diseases that drives specific
opportunities.  The Company's portfolio includes small-molecule
and biologic immuno-oncology product candidates intended to treat
a wide range of oncology indications.  In addition to its core
immuno-oncology programs, the Company is using its expertise in
infectious diseases to develop vaccines against Ebola in
collaboration with Merck, and the Zika virus.


NORTHSTAR LOTTERY: "Atteberry" Alleges Withholding of Prizes
------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS ATTEBERRY and TAMARA BURTON, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. NORTHSTAR LOTTERY
GROUP, LLC, Defendant, alleges that the Defendant ended lottery
games without the payout or award of a majority of the prizes
and/or grand prizes, as a result of which more than 40% of the
winnings designed, projected and advertised in the games were not
awarded.

NORTHSTAR LOTTERY GROUP, LLC is the manager of the Illinois
Lottery.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Larry D. Drury, Esq.
     LARRY D. DRURY, LTD.
     100 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2200
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: 312/346-7950
     Fax: 312/346-5777
     E-mail: ldd@larrydrury.com


OAK BLUFF: Faces Homeowners' Class Suit in South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oak Bluff Homeowners
Association Inc. The case is captioned as Indian Harbor Insurance
Company, the Plaintiff, v. Byron Kriewaldt, doing business as
Kriewaldt Roofing; Oak Bluff Homeowners Association Inc.; and John
F Kelly, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00732-DCN (D.S.C., Mar. 17, 2017).
The case is assigned to Hon. David C Norton.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Jennifer E Johnsen, Esq.
Nicholas Andrew Farr, Esq.
GALLIVAN WHITE AND BOYD
PO Box 10589
Greenville, SC 29603
Telephone: (864) 271 9580
Facsimile: (864) 271 7502
E-mail: jjohnsen@gwblawfirm.com
nfarr@gwblawfirm.com


ORBITAL ATK: Still Faces "Knurr" Class Suit in E.D. Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------
Orbital ATK, Inc. intends to defend itself against the Securities
Class Action by Steven Knurr, the Company said in its Form 10-K/A
(Amendment No. 1) Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 24, 2017, for the transition period from
April 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015.

The Company said, "On August 12, 2016, a putative class action
complaint, naming the Company, our Chief Executive Officer and our
Chief Financial Officer as defendants, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Steven
Knurr, et al. v. Orbital ATK, Inc., No. 16-cv-01031 (TSE-MSN)).
The class action complaint asserts claims on behalf of purchasers
of Orbital ATK securities for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, arising out of allegedly false and misleading
statements and the failure to disclose that: (i) the Company
lacked effective control over financial reporting; and (ii) as a
result, the Company failed to record an anticipated loss on its
long-term contract with the U.S. Army to manufacture and supply
small caliber ammunition at the U.S. Army's Lake City Army
Ammunition Plant. The complaint seeks a determination that this
matter is a proper class action and certifying the plaintiff as
the class representative, an award of damages, an award of
reasonable costs and expenses at trial, including counsel and
expert fees, and an award of such other relief as deemed
appropriate by the Court. The Company intends to defend this
action vigorously.


PHD FITNESS: Faces "Sandviks" Suit in South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PhD Fitness LLC. The
case is captioned as John Sandviks, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PhD Fitness LLC,
a California Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-00744-JMC (D.S.C., Mar. 17, 2017). The case is assigned to
Hon. J. Michelle Childs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Harper Todd Segui, Esq.
HARPER TODD SEGUI LAW OFFICE
180 Meeting Street, Suite 230
Charleston, SC 29401
Telephone: (843) 494 5576
E-mail: hsegui@seguilaw.com


QALIPU MI'KMAQ: Ex-Lawyer Pursues Suit Over Denial From Band
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Kean at The WQestern Star reports Former lawyer's suspension
won't keep him from pursuing Qalipu denial justice.

The former lawyer says his past won't stop him from pursing a
class-action lawsuit against the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band.

Douglas Doucette was suspended from his previous profession 15
years ago.

In an interview, Douglas Doucette referred to himself as a retired
lawyer.

He said he would be seeking to be accepted as the representative
plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit and would represent himself
in arguing the case. He added that anybody who has been denied
membership in the Qalipu band could become part of the legal
action.

That raised the ire of some people involved in the ongoing social
media discussions regarding the enrolment process, some of whom
brought up Doucette's history as a lawyer.

According to information published on the Law Society of Alberta
website, Doucette was issued three notices of suspension from
practicing law between October 2001 and February 2002.
In the latest of those notices, the society found Doucette to have
been in violation of 16 citations for conduct deserving of
sanction between 1997 and 2000 and he had his practice suspended
for two years.

The matters involved Doucette wrongfully converting trust funds by
inflating and falsifying his account for services, charging
excessively by insisting on performing work that could easily have
been done by the client and that the client was prepared to do.
Doucette was asked about his past history as a lawyer and if he
was concerned about it having a negative effect on anyone
considering being a part of the class-action lawsuit he intends to
file against the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Band, the Federation
of Newfoundland Indians and the federal government.

In an emailed reply, Doucette said was never disbarred from
practising and that his two-year suspension does not negate the
nearly 20 years of experience he still has as a lawyer.

He said those who support him are well aware of his background and
it will not cause him to deviate from helping those who have been
denied membership in the Qalipu band.

Doucette had previously said he will not be accepting any payment
for working on the class-action lawsuit.


S.C. JOHNSON: Faces "Machlan" Suit in California Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against S.C. JOHNSON & SON,
INC. The case is captioned as MACHLAN, DAVID AN INDIVIDUAL, ON
BEHALF OF HIMSELF, THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND THOSE SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the PLAINTIFF, v. S.C. JOHNSON & SON, INC., KAS DIRECT,
LLC D/B/A BABYGANICS, and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, the Defendants, Case
No. CGC 17 557613 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 17, 2017).

S. C. Johnson is an American multinational privately held
manufacturer of household cleaning supplies and other consumer
chemicals based in Racine, Wisconsin. It has operations in 72
countries.[BN]


SALSA CON FUEGO: Seeks 2nd Cir. Review of Order in "Sanchez" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Salsa Con Fuego Inc., SCF Cedar LLC and Salsa Con Fuego
Management LLC filed an appeal from a District Court order dated
February 24, 2017, in the lawsuit titled Sanchez v. Salsa Con
Fuego Inc., Case No. 16-cv-473, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs seek to recover alleged unpaid minimum wage and unpaid
overtime premiums owed to them pursuant to both the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law.

Salsa Con Fuego is a restaurant and lounge featuring Latino
traditional cuisine.

The appellate case is captioned as Sanchez v. Salsa Con Fuego
Inc., Case No. 17-647, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Caroline Sanchez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Lisa Pabon, Samantha Mori,
Kristina Evans, Angely Fernandez, Nelson Osorio of Pelton Graham
LLC, Joaquin Ramirez, Franklin Monegro, Joel Monegro, Pedro Mateo,
Natalie Cerda, Anderson Tavarez, Raihan Choudhury and Bernardo
Xelo are represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
          PELTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
          111 Broadway
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700
          E-mail: Pelton@PeltonGraham.com

Defendants-Appellants Salsa Con Fuego Inc., Salsa Con Fuego
Management LLC and SCF Cedar LLC are represented by:

          Kevin Sean O'Donoghue, Esq.
          HELBRAUN, LEVEY & O'DONOGHUE LLP
          110 William Street
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 219-1193
          E-mail: kevin@helbraunlevey.com


SAMSUNG: Can't Force Arbitration in Consumer Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Maria Fruci, Esq. -- Genova Burns LLC -- in an article for JD
Supra Business Advisor, wrote that the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals recently held that Samsung cannot force arbitration in a
consumer fraud class action about the battery life of its Galaxy
Gear S Smartwatch. (Case: Noble v. Samsung Electronics America,
Inc.)

Plaintiff had purchased a smartwatch but found, after trying three
of them, that the battery lasted for only a few hours, compared to
the advertised "24 to 48 hours with typical use." Finding that
others were in a similar position, Noble filed a class action
complaint in federal court in New Jersey. Samsung sought to compel
arbitration based on an arbitration clause in the company's 143
page "Health and Safety and Warranty Guide," included in the
Samsung Smartwatch box.

Affirming the district court's decision denying Samsung's motion
to compel arbitration, the Third Circuit found that Noble had no
actual or constructive notice of the arbitration provision because
it was not "reasonably conspicuous."  The "Guide" in which the
arbitration clause was included, "buried" the terms on page 97 of
the document.  Unlike previous cases involving "shrinkwrap" or
"clickwrap" agreements, Samsung's "Guide" did not clearly inform
customers that they are agreeing to certain terms upon purchase
and use of the product.

The Third Circuit's decision is a reminder to businesses to ensure
not only the visibility of their terms and conditions, but also an
indication that the terms are a contract to which a consumer is
binding himself.


SCHLUMBERGER TECH: "Sanchez" Lawsuit Alleges Misclassification
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAIME SANCHEZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. SCHLUMBERGER TECH. CORP., Case No. 2:17-cv-00102
(S.D. Tex., March 16, 2017), alleges that the Defendant improperly
classified Mr. Sanchez and those similarly situated as independent
contractors and paid them a daily rate with no overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

SCHLUMBERGER TECH. CORP. is a supplier of technology, integrated
project management and information solutions to customers working
in the oil and gas industry worldwide.  Mr. Sanchez worked for
Schlumberger as a cement field coordinator.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew S. Parme, Esq.
     Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Tel: (713) 877-8788
     Fax: (713) 877-8065
     E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
             mparmet@brucknerburch.com


SELECT COMFORT: Appeal in "Spade" Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
An appeal in the class action lawsuit by Plaintiffs David and
Katina Spade against Select Comfort Corporation remains pending,
the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiffs David and Katina Spade commenced a
purported class action lawsuit in New Jersey state court against
Select Comfort alleging that Select Comfort violated New Jersey
consumer statutes by failing to provide to purchasing consumers
certain disclosures required by the New Jersey Furniture
Regulations. It is undisputed that plaintiffs suffered no actual
damages or in any way relied upon or were impacted by the alleged
omissions. Nonetheless, on behalf of a purported class of New
Jersey purchasers of Select Comfort beds and bases, plaintiffs
seek to recover a $100 statutory fine for each alleged omission,
along with attorneys' fees and costs.

Select Comfort removed the case to the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, which subsequently granted
Select Comfort's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs appealed to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which has
certified two questions of law to the New Jersey Supreme Court
relating to whether plaintiffs who have suffered no actual injury
may bring claims. The New Jersey Supreme Court has not yet
indicated whether it will accept the certification.

"As the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey agreed, we believe that the case is without merit and the
order of dismissal should be affirmed," the Company said.

Select Comfort Corporation, based in Minneapolis, Minnesota,
offers consumers high-quality, individualized sleep solutions and
services, which include a complete line of Sleep Number beds,
bases and bedding accessories.


SELECT COMFORT: Azimpour Agrees to Drop Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Saeid Azimpour has agreed to dismiss his class action lawsuit
against Select Comfort Corporation, the Company said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On December 4, 2015, Saeid Azimpour, a consumer, filed a purported
class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Minnesota alleging
he was fraudulently induced to purchase a down alternative pillow
at a Sleep Number store based on signage that indicated that the
pillow was 50% off. Plaintiff alleged that the price he paid for
the pillow was not truly 50% off the price at which Sleep Number
previously sold the pillow. Plaintiff asserted 10 causes of action
including consumer fraud, unlawful trade practices, deceptive
trade practices under Minnesota law, violation of the Minnesota
false advertising law, unjust enrichment, violation of the
California unfair competition law, violation of the California
false advertising law and violation of the California remedies
act. Plaintiff sought to represent all individuals who "purchased
one or more items from the Company advertised or priced at a
discount from the original retail price at any time between
December 1, 2011 and present." Plaintiff sought injunctive relief,
damages, disgorgement and attorneys' fees.

On June 13, 2016, the Court dismissed the case without prejudice.
On August 25, 2016, plaintiff filed a new complaint asserting
claims and prayers for relief similar to those described. On
January 4, 2017, plaintiff agreed to dismissal of all claims
including dismissal with prejudice of the class claims asserted in
this case.

Select Comfort Corporation, based in Minneapolis, Minnesota,
offers consumers high-quality, individualized sleep solutions and
services, which include a complete line of Sleep Number beds,
bases and bedding accessories.


SELF EDGE: Faces "Andrews" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Self Edge New York,
LLC. The case is styled as Victor Andrews, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Self Edge New
York, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01508 (E.D.N.Y., Mar.
17, 2017).

Self Edge carries the world's finest denim and leather
accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SERVICESOURCE INT'L: All Claims in "Weller" Suit Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------
On July 8, 2015, a single plaintiff filed a putative securities
class action lawsuit, Weller v. ServiceSource International, Inc.
et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "Weller Lawsuit") against the Company and the
Company's former Chief Executive Officer.

All claims under the Weller Lawsuit have been dismissed with
prejudice, according to the Company's March 6, 2017, Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

ServiceSource International, Inc. is a global leader in
outsourced, performance-based customer success and revenue growth
solutions.


SERVICESOURCE INT'L: "Patton" Suit Remains Pending in Tennessee
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit commenced by Sarah Patton in Tennessee
remains pending, ServiceSource International, Inc., said in its
Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 6, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

On August 23, 2016, the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee granted conditional class
certification in a lawsuit originally filed on September 21, 2015
by three former senior sales representatives. The lawsuit, Sarah
Patton, et al v.  ServiceSource Delaware, Inc., asserts a claim
under the Fair Labor Standards Act alleging that certain sales
account representatives and senior sales representatives in the
Company's Nashville location were not paid for all hours worked
and were not properly paid for overtime hours worked.  The
complaint also asserts claims under Tennessee state law for breach
of contract and unjust enrichment, however, the plaintiffs have
not yet filed a motion to certify the state law breach of contract
and unjust enrichment claims as a class action.

The Company says it will continue to vigorously defend itself
against these claims.

ServiceSource International, Inc. is a global leader in
outsourced, performance-based customer success and revenue growth
solutions.


SUN PACIFIC: Faces "Shaeffer" Suit Over "No Sugar Added" Labels
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE SHAEFFER, individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. SUN PACIFIC, INC., a
California corporation; SUN PACIFIC FARMING COOPERATIVE, INC., a
California corporation; SUN PACIFIC MARKETING COOPERATIVE, INC., a
California corporation; and SUN PACIFIC SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION,
INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC 654 207 (Cal. Super., County of Los
Angeles), alleges that the "No Sugar Added" statements placed by
Defendants on the labels and outer packaging of its Cuties Juice
products fail to comply with the requirements of the Food and Drug
Administration.

Defendants' "No Sugar Added" claims on Cuties Juice are allegedly
in violation of FDA and state regulations because:

(a) The Cuties Juice does not resemble and substitute for a food
that normally contains added sugars; and

(b) The Cuties Juice label does not bear a statement that the
beverage is not "low-calorie" or "calorie reduced" in accordance
with the nutrient content labeling requirements; and

(c) The Cuties Juice label does not bear a statement directing
consumers' attention to the nutrition panel for further
information on sugar and calorie.

As a result, Defendants have violated California's Sherman Law and
consumer protection statutes, which wholly adopt the federal
requirements, says the complaint.

Sun Pacific Farming Cooperative, Inc. produces and supplies fruit.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUNGEVITY: Laid Off Employees' Paychecks Bounce Amid Bankruptcy
---------------------------------------------------------------
George Avalos at Mercury News reports that paychecks have bounced
for some of the 350 Sungevity workers who were abruptly laid off
ahead of the struggling solar company's recent bankruptcy filing,
increasing the pressure on employees who lost their jobs.

Sungevity said the checks bounced due to confusion by its bank,
and it is attempting to remedy the problems. The company didn't
identify the bank, and it didn't specify how many former
employees' paychecks bounced.

"Due to confusion by our bank, we learned that some checks issued
to former employees bounced, despite the fact that funds were
available in our account," Sungevity spokesman John Ordona said on
March 16. "We have looked into the matter, and we are rectifying
it."

A former employee of Sungevity who requested anonymity said he had
been told by the company that the bank issues were being remedied
and that the final paychecks would be transmitted through a direct
deposit as soon as March 17 night.

Oakland-based Sungevity laid off employees on March 9 in Oakland
and in Kansas City, Missouri, as well as remote workers. It then
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on March 13, estimating debts and
assets each in the USD100 million to USD500 million range,
according to court records. The company is attempting to
reorganize its finances and arrange its sale to a group of private
investors.

The solar energy firm's managers summoned a group of workers to
the company kitchen and told them they were being dismissed,
said a former Sungevity employee, who requested anonymity.
Employees received their paychecks at that point.

The disclosures come on the heels of a lawsuit, filed through the
bankruptcy court. Andrew Adelman filed the lawsuit on behalf of
himself and hundreds of other former Sungevity workers, seeking 60
days of pay. The lawsuit alleges that the solar installation and
software firm violated government rules that require 60 days'
advanced notice of a layoff under the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act.

The lawsuit gave a breakdown of 336 of the workers whom Sungevity
dismissed on March 9. That included 160 workers in Oakland, 57
employees in Kansas City and 119 remote employees who reported
either to Oakland or Kansas City, the documents showed.

Jack Raisner, Esq. -- jar@outtengolden.com -- an attorney with the
New York City office of law firm Outten & Golden, which is
representing Adelman and other former Sungevity employees in the
lawsuit, said he was aware of the paycheck problems.

"The checks bounced, or most of them did, but there is an effort
to make good on those checks that the company is undertaking,"
Raisner said.

The attorney said he hoped the bounced checks issue might be
resolved within a few days.

"We filed a claim seeking accrued vacation that was not paid, and
for 60 days of wages and benefits," Raisner said, referring to the
lawsuit. "Since they were let go on March 9, we want them to be
paid through May 9."

When another Bay Area company, Fremont-based solar module maker
Solyndra, closed its doors, filed for bankruptcy and laid off
1,100 workers in 2010, the former employees sued the company for
two months of wages, benefits and vacation pay. In 2012, Solyndra
settled that class-action lawsuit for USD3.5 million.

The lawsuit against Sungevity is seeking similar remedies for many
former employees.

"The two months of wages and benefits are not going to be paid
without a contest," Raisner said. "It might be more
straightforward for paychecks that bounce, but for WARN-notice
lawsuits, it's a different story."


SUNRISE LAKES: "Rosales" Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------
Anarda Rosales, Jorge Zepeda, and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff(s), v. Sunrise Lakes Phase III, Recreation
Association, Inc., Paul Gassen and Dorance Restrepo, Defendants,
Case No. 0:17-cv-60564 (S.D. Fla., March 19, 2017) seeks to
recover money damages for unpaid overtime, as well as an
additional amount as liquidated damages, costs and reasonable
attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sunrise is the recreation arm of the Sunrise Lakes Phase III
retirement community where Plaintiffs were employed as custodians.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq.
      SORONDO ROSENBERG LEGAL PA
      1825 Ponce de Leon Blvd. #329
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Tel: (786) 708-7550
      Email: rer@sorondorosenberg.com


SUPREME CHICKEN: "Ministro" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Honorio Ministro, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, Plaintiff, v. The Supreme Chicken of Union City,
Inc., The Supreme Chicken of New Jersey, Inc., The Supreme Chicken
of West New York Inc., The Supreme Chicken of Jersey City Inc.,
Eugenio Alvarez, Maria Alvarez and Galo Guerron, Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-01801 (D.N.J., March 17, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law
and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants operate four restaurants under the common trade name
"El Pollo Supremo." Ministro was employed by Defendants to work as
a griller at the El Pollo Supremo located at 3223 Bergenline
Avenue, Union City, NJ 07087.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clara Lam, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 661-0543
      Fax: (212) 465-1181


SWN ENERGY: "Perry" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, Pa. Wage Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
DERRECK PERRY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY CO. d/b/a SWN ENERGY CO., (S.D.
Tex., March 16, 2017), Case No. 17-cv-00848, alleges that
Defendant improperly classified Plaintiff and those similarly
situated workers as independent contractors and paid them a daily
rate with no overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

SWN ENERGY CO. is an energy services company providing personnel
to operators and other energy services companies throughout the
United States, including in Pennsylvania. Plaintiff worked for SWN
as a Drilling Consultant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew S. Parme, Esq.
     Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Tel: (713) 877-8788
     Fax: (713) 877-8065
     E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
             mparmet@brucknerburch.com


TATA SONS: Minority Shareholder Protection As A Numbers Game
------------------------------------------------------------
Umakanth Varottil at Bloomberg Quint Opinion reports that it is
not often that a mundane legal technicality tends to garner much
attention. But, such a nuance has presented itself as a
discernible roadblock in the high-profile legal action for
oppression and mismanagement brought by the minority shareholders
(the Mistry group) against the controlling shareholders (the Tata
group) in relation to Tata Sons Ltd.

Specifically, the Companies Act, 2013 (in Section 244) provides
that a suit for oppression and mismanagement is not maintainable
unless it is supported by shareholders holding at least 10 percent
of the "issued share capital of the company". This was fatal (at
least preliminarily) to the maintainability issue because while
the Mistry group held 18.37 percent of the equity shares in Tata
Sons, that represented only 2.1 percent of the total share capital
(including preference shares).

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) rejected the Mistry
group's pleas to indulge in a purposive interpretation of the law
so as to entertain the action. The NCLT was left with little room
to manoeuvre given the explicit mandate in the legislation.
To the Mistry group's relief though, Section 244 allows the NCLT
to waive the requirement that the action be supported by a minimum
number of shareholders. While the waiver plea is currently under
consideration before the tribunal, commentators have lamented on
the lack of clarity regarding the criteria to be applied by it for
waivers. No matter which way the waiver plea is decided, this
episode raises thorny issues that unnecessarily raise the bar for
minority shareholder remedies.

Inherent Problems With A Numerical Threshold

At the outset, the rationale for introducing filters for
shareholder actions is understandable. This is to prevent
frivolous lawsuits that may be brought by disgruntled
shareholders, with the fear that they may impinge upon the normal
operations of the company. But, the use of a numerical
shareholding threshold for the purpose is inherently questionable.
Matters are compounded with the determining factor being "issued
share capital".

Take the case of a shareholder holding 26 percent of the equity
shares of a company, which amounts to 9 percent of the total
issued share capital.

The incongruity of the situation is that while such a shareholder
can exercise powerful negative control rights (such as by
defeating shareholder resolutions that require a special majority
of 75 percent), the door is effectively shut when it seeks to
bring an oppression action to assuage any wrongs caused to it.
To think that holders of small parcels of shares are not entitled
to assert their rights if they suffer at the hands of the majority
is disingenuous. Minorities, especially in companies with a large
number of shareholders, may not have the ability or the incentive
to aggregate themselves to meet the required shareholding
threshold. This effectively eschews their protections in corporate
law.

Enfeeblement Of The Minority

On a more conceptual note, filters are usually applied when
shareholders bring an action on behalf of the company for wrongs
caused to the company, with the shareholder derivative action
being the paradigmatic situation. This is because those who assume
the responsibility of representing the company must do so in good
faith and for the benefit of the company as a whole rather than
one that is motivated by spite or a personal vendetta. Having
numerical thresholds in those circumstances would be eminently
sensible.

But to install sieves for direct actions such as those for
oppression, which the shareholders bring in their own names and to
assert their own rights (rather than that of the company), not
only goes against the grain of corporate law, but it also ends up
enfeebling the minorities. It is rather paradoxical that in India,
personal actions such as for oppression remedies are forestalled
by numerical thresholds, while derivative actions on behalf of the
company can be brought by a single shareholder.
This oddity is perhaps attributable to the fact that oppression
remedies are governed by company law, whereas derivative actions
are representative suits brought under the code of civil
procedure.

History Of The Numerical Threshold

Comparatively speaking, corporate law in India is an outlier. None
of the leading common law jurisdictions impose any kind of
shareholding threshold for bringing an oppression action. To be
sure, history suggests that this was by design rather than by
accident. While introducing a numerical threshold, the Bhabha
Committee, whose recommendations shaped the previous Companies
Act, 1956, was conscious of its departure from then prevailing
English law that allowed for a shareholder holding a single share
to initiate an oppression action.

The tone of the recommendations somehow suggests that the
circumstances in India would point to a greater incidence of
shareholder litigation, which has not turned out to be the case at
all.

Proponents of the status quo would argue that the existence of a
waiver provision would cushion the impact of a rigorous threshold
requirement. That is only a partial answer due to the utter lack
of guidance on how the NCLT must exercise its discretion to grant
a waiver.

Fatal Loss In Translation

This discussion has an oblique, but severe, impact on another type
of novel shareholder remedy -- the class action (in Section 245 of
the Companies Act, 2013). When the concept of shareholder class
action was introduced in the Companies Bill, 2008, there was no
threshold requirement imposed for the maintainability of such
actions. Unsurprisingly, this provoked a concerted opposition from
industry citing "the risk of frivolous litigation and strike-
suits" and calling for safeguards to be put in place to prevent
misuse.

While a number of safeguards were discussed during the law-making
process, what resulted was an inelegant solution, which was to
impose for class actions the same numerical thresholds as
applicable for oppression and mismanagement suits. This was done
without having regard to the fundamental difference between the
various types of shareholder remedies.

More importantly, the maintainability issue for class actions
suffers from a fatal loss in translation -- the waiver provision
applicable to oppression actions was not incorporated in the
requirements in Section 245 for bringing class actions.
In other words, the NCLT does not have explicit power to waive the
threshold shareholding requirements for bringing class actions.
Even through shareholder associations or similar groups are
allowed to bring class actions, the tenor of the legal provision
suggests that they too must be supported by the requisite number
of shareholders. While class actions have been touted as a
shareholder-friendly measure that instills the necessary
incentives in management to act in their interests, it fails to
come to the rescue of those who need it most, the exposed
minority. Here, though, it is anybody's guess whether this
predicament was deliberate or an omission.

In all, the Tata-Mistry episode has triggered an intense debate on
minority protection. While the law seeks to obtain an appropriate
balance between minority protection and the avoidance of abusive
litigation, it is reasonable to argue that the use of numerical
shareholding thresholds is inappropriate, as the concerns of
minority shareholders vary and may be crucial irrespective of the
number of shares they hold.

Hence, there is a need to device other methods to weed out abusive
shareholder suits from genuine ones, and that too depending on the
type of shareholder action brought, for instance by providing
greater guidance to adjudicating bodies to determine on a case-by-
case basis. Courts and tribunals are bound by the legislative
mandate, and hence it might be that one needs to look to
Parliament for any reform on this count.


TILE SHOP: Rebischke Appeals D. Minn. Judgment to Eighth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff David Rebischke filed an appeal from a court order and
judgment dated January 25, 2017, in the lawsuit styled David
Rebischke v. The Tile Shop, Case No. 0-14-cv-624-SRN, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as David Rebischke v. The Tile
Shop, Case No. 17-1502, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Appendix is due on April 17, 2017;

   -- BRIEF OF APPELLANT David Rebischke is due on April 17,
      2017;

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

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

Plaintiff-Appellant David Rebischke, On Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
          LEE & BRAZIEL, LLP
          1801 N. Lamar St., Suite 325
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 749-1400
          Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
          E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com

               - and -

          Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
          Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 S. Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-0000
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
          E-mail: fisher@nka.com
                  lukas@nka.com

               - and -

          Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
          ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
          8201 Mission Road, Suite 250
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 766-5587
          Facsimile: (816) 875-5069
          E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com

Defendant-Appellee The Tile Shop, LLC, is represented by:

          Pamela Abbate-Dattilo, Esq.
          Timothy Billion, Esq.
          Joseph M. Sokolowski, Esq.
          Ashley R. Thronson, Esq.
          FREDRIKSON & BYRON P.A.
          200 S. Sixth Street, Suite 4000
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-1425
          Telephone: (612) 492-7000
          E-mail: pabbatedattilo@fredlaw.com
                  tbillion@fredlaw.com
                  jsokolowski@fredlaw.com
                  athronson@fredlaw.com


TORONTO-DOMINION: "Tucci" Suit Alleges Securities Act Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
JANET TUCCI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. THE TORONTO-DOMINION BANK, BHARAT B.
MASRANI, RIAZ E. AHMED, and COLLEEN M. JOHNSTON, Defendants, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01735 (D.N.J., March 15, 2017), alleges that
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies in violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's wealth asset
growth and increased fee-based revenue was spurred by a
performance management system that led to its employees breaking
the law at their customers' expense in order to meet sales
targets; (ii) the Company illicitly increased customers' lines of
credits and overdraft protection amounts without their knowledge;
(iii) the Company illicitly upgraded customers to higher-fee
accounts without permission; (iv) the Company lied to customers as
to the risk of the Company's products and services; and (iv) as a
result of the foregoing, TD Bank's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

The Toronto-Dominion Bank conducts a general banking business
through banking branches and offices located throughout Canada and
overseas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Jeremy A. Lieberman
     J. Alexander Hood II
     Hui M. Chang
     POMERANTZ LLP
     10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: (312) 377-1181
     Fax: (312) 377-1184
     Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
            ahood@pomlaw.com
            hchang@pomlaw.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

     BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
     Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 697-6484
     Fax: (212) 697-7296
     Email: peretz@bgandg.com


TORONTO-DOMINION: Gainey McKenna & Egleston Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Customers of Toronto-Dominion Bank may be interested to know that
a class action lawsuit has been filed against The Toronto-Dominion
Bank ('TD or the 'Company) (NYSE:TD) in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of a class
consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired TD
stock on the open market from December 3, 2015 and March 9, 2017,
inclusive (the 'Class Period), seeking to recover compensable
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) TD's wealth asset
growth and increased fee-based revenue was spurred by a
performance management system that led to its employees breaking
the law at their customers' expense in order to meet sales
targets; (ii) TD illicitly increased customers' lines of credits
and overdraft protection amounts without their knowledge; (iii) TD
illicitly upgraded customers to higher-fee accounts without
permission; (iv) TD lied to customers as to the risk of the
Company's products and services; and (iv) as a result of the
foregoing, TD's public statements were materially false and
misleaing at all relevant times.

On March 6, 2017, CBC News published a report based on interviews
with several TD employees, who spoke about the 'incredible
pressure to 'squeeze profits from customers by signing them up for
products and services they don't need.

On March 10, 2017, CBC News published a more detailed second
report, where it reported that hundreds of current and former
employees had responded to the first CBC report with additional
stories of pressure to upsell customers.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 11, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey
McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at [email
protected]/* */ or [email protected]/* */.


TOWER RESEARCH: Choi Appeals S.D.N.Y. Decision to Second Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Myun-Uk Choi, Jin-Ho Jung, Sung-Hun Jung, Kyung-Sub Lee
and Sung-Hee Lee filed an appeal from the District Court's opinion
dated February 10, 2017, and judgment dated February 13, 2017, in
the lawsuit styled Choi v. Tower Research Capital LLC, Case No.
14-cv-9912, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York (New York City).

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the
Plaintiffs are members of a putative class comprised of parties,
who transacted in certain futures contracts during 2012.  The
Plaintiffs allege that Tower Research and its CEO, Mark Gorton
used fictitious trades and other deceptive techniques to
manipulate the prices at which these futures contracts traded on
the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Globex platform.

The appellate case is captioned as Choi v. Tower Research Capital
LLC, Case No. 17-648, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Myun-Uk Choi, Jin-Ho Jung, Sung-Hun Jung,
Sung-Hee Lee, and Kyung-Sub Lee, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, are represented by:

          Michael Eisenkraft, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          88 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838-0177
          E-mail: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com

Defendants-Appellees Tower Research Capital LLC and Mark Gorton
are represented by:

          Robert Trenchard, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 351-3942
          E-mail: rtrenchard@gibsondunn.com


TRANSENTERIX INC: Awaits Orders on Bids to Dismiss "Bankley" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TransEnterix, Inc., awaits rulings on motions to dismiss the
amended complaint in the lawsuit filed by Ashok V. Bankley,
according to the Company's March 6, 2017, Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2016.

On June 2, 2016, a stockholder filed a putative class action
complaint, Ashok V. Bankley, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated vs. TransEnterix, Inc., Todd M. Pope and
Joseph P. Slattery , in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina (Case No. 5:16-cv-00313-D) (the
"Initial Complaint"), against the Company and two of its executive
officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock between February 10, 2016 and
May 10, 2016.  On August 4, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Initial Complaint for failure to state a claim under
the securities laws.   On August 30, 2016, the court appointed
Randall Clark, Samir Patel, the Underhill Cemetery Association,
and the North Underhill Cemetery Association as the lead
plaintiffs in the Initial Complaint, and also provided the
plaintiffs an opportunity to amend the Initial Complaint.

On September 26, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an Amended
Complaint.  Among other things, the Amended Complaint asserts
revised claims against the Company and Messrs. Pope and Slattery,
and adds claims against certain current and former members of the
Company's Board of Directors, and Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., the
sales agent under the 2016 Sales Agreement, under which the
Company offered and sold, through Cantor, shares of common stock
in its 2016 ATM Offering.   The Amended Complaint alleges that the
defendants made false and misleading public statements related to
the Company's SurgiBot System and its 510(k) application in
violation of certain federal securities laws.  The Amended
Complaint seeks class certification of a class consisting of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock between February 10, 2016 and May 10, 2016, class
certification of a subclass of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock in connection with the 2016
ATM Offering between February 9, 2016 and April 19, 2016,
unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

On November 8, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint, which the plaintiffs later opposed.  As of January 23,
2017, the motions to dismiss were fully briefed and deemed
submitted to the court for decision.

TransEnterix, Inc., is a medical device company that is pioneering
the use of robotics to improve minimally invasive surgery by
addressing the clinical challenges associated with current
laparoscopic and robotic options.  The Company is focused on the
commercialization and further development of its Senhance(TM)
Surgical Robotic System (formerly known as the ALF-X (R) Surgical
Robotic System) (the "Senhance System"), a multi-port robotic
system that brings the advantages of robotic surgery to patients
while enabling surgeons with innovative technology. The Company
also developed the SurgiBot(TM) System, a single-port, robotically
enhanced laparoscopic surgical platform.


TRANSENTERIX INC: "Ravey" Stockholder Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stockholder Thomas Ravey has voluntarily dismissed his putative
class action lawsuit filed in North Carolina, according to
TransEnterix, Inc.'s March 6, 2017, Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016.

On June 9, 2016, a different stockholder filed another putative
class action complaint, Thomas Ravey, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated vs. TransEnterix, Inc., Todd M.
Pope and Joseph P. Slattery, in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina (Case No. 1:16-cv-599)
(the "Ravey Action").  The Ravey Action asserted substantially
similar claims against the same defendants and sought
substantially similar relief as the Initial Complaint in the
putative class action filed by stockholder Ashok V. Bankley.

On August 4, 2016, the plaintiff in the Ravey Action voluntarily
dismissed the Ravey Action.

TransEnterix, Inc., is a medical device company that is pioneering
the use of robotics to improve minimally invasive surgery by
addressing the clinical challenges associated with current
laparoscopic and robotic options.  The Company is focused on the
commercialization and further development of its Senhance(TM)
Surgical Robotic System (formerly known as the ALF-X (R) Surgical
Robotic System) (the "Senhance System"), a multi-port robotic
system that brings the advantages of robotic surgery to patients
while enabling surgeons with innovative technology. The Company
also developed the SurgiBot(TM) System, a single-port, robotically
enhanced laparoscopic surgical platform.


ULTRATECH INC: Vladmir Trust Sues Over Sale to Veeco
----------------------------------------------------
The Vladimir Gusinsky Rev. Trust, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ultratech, Inc., Arthur
W. Zafiropoulo, Ronald Black, Michael Child, Paramesh Gopi,
Beatriz Infante, Dennis Raney, Henri Richard, Veeco Instruments
Inc. and Ulysses Acquisition Subsidiary Corp., Defendants, Case
No. 4:17-cv-01468, (N.D. Cal., March 17, 2017), seeks to
preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants from consummating
and/or closing the acquisition of Ultratech by Veeco Instruments
Inc.  The suit further seeks rescissory damages, reasonable
allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees, and such other and
further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On February 2, 2017, the Ultratech Board, Arthur W. Zafiropoulo,
Ronald Black, Michael Child, Paramesh Gopi, Beatriz Infante,
Dennis Raney and Henri Richard, caused Ultratech to enter into an
agreement where Ultratech will be acquired by Veeco Instruments
Inc. pursuant to which, stockholders of Ultratech will receive
$21.75 per share in cash and 0.2675 of a share of Parent common
stock for each Ultratech common share. But based on Veeco's
closing stock price on February 1, 2017, the merger consideration
is valued at approximately $28.64 per share. Plaintiff is, and has
been continuously throughout all times relevant hereto, the owner
of Ultratech common stock.

Ultratech is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive offices at 3050 Zanker Road, San Jose, California 95134.
It is into laser processing, advanced packaging, semiconductor and
nanotechnology industries.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and -

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

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


UNIVERSAL FIDELITY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lane" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lonnie Lane, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Universal Fidelity LP, Link Revenue Resources LLC, and
Jamie Jackson, Case No. :17-cv-00152-JLH (E.D. Ark., March 13,
2017), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

The Defendants are in the business of providing billing,
collection, and call center services for companies and federal,
state, and local governments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Victoria Leigh, Esq.
      LEIGH LAW PLLC
      Post Office Box 21514
      Little Rock, AK 72211
      Telephone: (501) 227-7627
      Facsimile: (501) 227-7628
      E-mail: vleigh7@gmail.com

UPREACH LLC: Faces "Gourley" Suit Alleging Labor Laws Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Latesha Brittmon (4809 Refugee Rd., Columbus, Ohio 43232)
Individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Upreach LLC (4488 Mobile Dr.
Columbus, Ohio 43220) -and- Melissa Gourley, individually (4488
Mobile Dr. Columbus, Ohio 43220) -and- Beth Hunter, individually
(4488 Mobile Dr. Columbus, Ohio 43220) Defendants, Case No. 2:17-
cv-00219-MHW-TPK (S.D. Ohio, March 15, 2017), alleges that
Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but was
not paid one and one-half her regular rate for all hours worked
over 40.  The case was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay
Act.

Upreach LLC is a home care staffing agency of direct care workers
for the developmentally disabled in need of assistance.  Plaintiff
worked as a Support Specialist providing companionship services,
domestic services, home care, and other in-home services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
     Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
     Jason C. Cox, Esq.
     BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
     250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Phone: (614) 221-4221
     Fax: (614) 744-2300
     Email: rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com
            bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
            jcox@barkanmeizlish.com

        - and -

     Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
     COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
     1457 S. High St.
     Columbus, OH 43207
     Phone: 614-949-1181
     Fax: 614-386-9964
     Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com


WALL STREET CONSTRUCTION: "Vazquez" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage, OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
APOLONIO FRAGOSO VAZQUEZ, JUAN TZUNOX TUM, ABELINO HERRERA
ANGELES, GREGORIO FRAGOSOVAZQUEZ, Individually and on BEHALF OF
ALL OTHER COLLECTIVE PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
RASHID ARYAN, ALI ARYAN, MOHAMMAD RASHID, WALL STREET CONSTRUCTION
LLC, ARYAN NYC CONSTRUCTION County of Queens
INC., and ABC CORP., formerly known as R&S GENERAL CONTRACTING,
INC., Jointly and Severally, the Defendant, Case No. 703610/2017
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., Mar. 17, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wage,
overtime premium, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Defendants allegedly
maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated employees to work in excess of 40 hours per
week without providing them with appropriate overtime
compensation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Sang L Sim, Esq.
PARK & SIM GLOBAL LAW GROUP, LLP
39-01 Main Street, Suite 608
Flushing, NY 11354
Telephone: (718) 445 1300


WALTER INVESTMENT: May 15 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed against Walter Investment
Management Corp. ("Walter" or the "Company") (NYSE: WAC) and
certain of its officers, and is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased Walter securities between
May 3, 2016 and March 13, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period). Investors are encouraged to learn more about this case by
visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/wac.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose that: (1) Walter had a material weakness in its
internal control over financial reporting; and (2) consequently,
defendants' statements about Walter's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On March 14, 2017, Walter revealed that it had received a subpoena
from HUD Inspector General for documents and information relating
to origination and underwriting of certain specified loans, that
the Justice Department's Civil Division is directing the
investigation, and there is a possibility of a demand or a claim
under the False Claims Act. Walter also unveiled a material
weakness for its Ditech unit, which it is correcting. Following
this news, Walter stock dropped USD1.05 per share or over 38% to
close at USD1.65 per share on March 14, 2017.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/wacor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. You have until May 15,
2017 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.


WATTS WATER: Fairness Hearing Set for April 12
----------------------------------------------
The settlements in the so-called connector class actions are
subject to final court approval after a fairness hearing set for
April 12, 2017, Watts Water Technologies, Inc. said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2017, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016.

In November and December 2014, Watts Water Technologies, Inc. and
Watts Regulator Co. were named as defendants in three separate
putative nationwide class action complaints (Meyers v. Watts Water
Technologies, Inc., United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio; Ponzo v. Watts Regulator Co., United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Sharp v. Watts
Regulator Co., United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts) seeking to recover damages and other relief based
on the alleged failure of water heater connectors.

On June 26, 2015, plaintiffs in the three actions filed a
consolidated amended complaint, under the case captioned Ponzo v.
Watts Regulator Co., in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (hereinafter "Ponzo"). Watts Water
Technologies was voluntarily dismissed from the Ponzo case. The
complaint seeks among other items, damages in an unspecified
amount, replacement costs, injunctive relief, declaratory relief,
and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 7, 2015, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which motion was
temporarily withdrawn pending final approval of the settlement.
After initial discovery was conducted the parties agreed to a
mediation of all claims, which resulted in a settlement.

In February 2015, Watts Regulator Co. was named as a defendant in
a putative nationwide class action complaint (Klug v. Watts Water
Technologies, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the
District of Nebraska) seeking to recover damages and other relief
based on the alleged failure of the Company's Floodsafe connectors
(hereinafter "Klug").

On June 26, 2015, the Company filed a partial motion to dismiss
the complaint.  In response, on July 17, 2015, plaintiff filed an
amended complaint which added additional named plaintiffs and
sought to correct deficiencies in the original complaint, Klug v.
Watts Regulator Co., United States District Court for the District
of Nebraska. The complaint seeks among other items, damages in an
unspecified amount, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 31, 2015, the Company filed a partial motion to dismiss
the complaint which was granted in part and denied in part on
December 29, 2015.  The Company answered the amended complaint on
February 2, 2016.  No formal discovery has yet been conducted.

The Company said, "We participated in mediation sessions of the
Ponzo and Klug cases in December 2015 and January 2016. On
February 16, 2016, we reached an agreement in principle to settle
all claims. The proposed total settlement amount is $14 million,
of which we expect to pay approximately $4.1 million after
insurance proceeds of up to $9.9 million. The parties executed
final written settlement agreements in April 2016. Motions for
preliminary approval of the settlements were submitted on May 4,
2016 before the District of Nebraska Federal Court. On December 7,
2016, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving the
settlements.  The settlements are subject to final court approval
after a fairness hearing set for April 12, 2017.  Accordingly,
there can be no assurance that the proposed settlements will be
approved in their current form. If the settlements are not
approved, the Company intends to continue to vigorously contest
the allegations in these cases."

Watts Regulator Co. was founded by Joseph E. Watts in 1874 in
Lawrence, Massachusetts. Watts Regulator Co. started as a small
machine shop supplying parts to the New England textile mills of
the 19th century and grew into a global manufacturer of products
and systems focused on the control, conservation and quality of
water and the comfort and safety of the people using it. Watts
Water Technologies, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware in 1985 and
became the parent company of Watts Regulator Co.


WELLS FARGO: "Barreras" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------
PATRICIA BARRERAS, an individual, JACQUELINE F. IBARRA, an
individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, a California
Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
BC654620 (Cal. Super. Ct., Mar. 17, 2017), seeks to recover all
wages, restitutionary disgorgement, and statutory penalties.

The case is a California state-wide class action for wage and
labor violations arising out of, among other things, Defendant's
failure to compensate its mortgage sales force in compliance with
California law. The Defendant pays Plaintiffs and class members
based on a sales commission, and fails to pay them for all time
worked, provide and/or or compensate them for meal and rest
breaks, and engages in other Labor Code violations.

Wells Fargo is an American international banking and financial
services holding company headquartered in San Francisco,
California, with "hubquarters" throughout the country.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Graham G. Lambert, Esq.
HAFFNER LAW PC
445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2325
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 514 5681
Facsimile: (213) 514 5682
E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com
gl@haffnerlawyers.com

- and -

Paul Stevens, Esq.
STEVENS, L.C.
700 S. Flower Street, Suite 660
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 270 1211
Facsimile: (213) 270 1223
E-mail: pstevens@stevenslc.com


WELLS FARGO: "Rhodes" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Washington
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Valerie Rhodes, a single woman,
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank,
National Association, Case No. 16-00002-00529-1, was removed from
the Stevens County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Washington (Spokane). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-00093-SMJ to the proceeding.

Wells Fargo Bank operates a banking and financial services holding
company headquartered in San Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clay M. Gatens, Esq.
      Sally F. White, Esq.
      JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD PS
      2600 Chester Kimm Road, PO Box 1688
      Wenatchee, WA 98801
      Telephone: (509) 662-3685
      Facsimile: (509) 662-2452
      E-mail: clayg@jdsalaw.com
              sallyw@jdsalaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      David Christopher Spellman, Esq.
      Rudy A. Englund, Esq.
      LANE POWELL PC
      1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200
      PO Box 91302
      Seattle, WA 98111
      Telephone: (206) 223-7000
      Facsimile: (206) 223-7107
      E-mail: spellmand@lanepowell.com
              englundr@lanepowell.com


WEST J&R: "Gil" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Luis Sarmiento Gil, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. West J&R Inc. and Geminiano Sanz,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01988, (S.D. N.Y., March 17, 2017),
seeks unpaid overtime wages, applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

West J&R Inc. operates Da Rosina Ristorante Italiano, an Italian
restaurant owned by Geminiano Sanz located at 342 West 46th Street
New York, New York 10036, where Sarmiento worked as a cook. He
regularly worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week
without appropriate overtime compensation for any of the hours
that he worked over 40 each week.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WEX INC: Expects Mediation in Suit Alleging TCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
WEX Inc. said in its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 6, 2017, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2016, that mediation is expected to occur relating to
the dispute in a lawsuit pending in Missouri.

On August 11, 2016, the Company was sued in the Circuit Court of
St. Charles County, Missouri, in a putative class action alleging
the Company improperly sent unauthorized facsimile advertisements
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.
Section 227 (the "TCPA"). The named plaintiff seeks to represent a
nationwide class of recipients of unauthorized facsimile
advertisements from the Company (collectively, the "Plaintiffs")
and requests statutory damages for each facsimile advertisement.
The Plaintiffs further allege that the opt-out notice of the faxes
did not meet the criteria set forth in the TCPA or its underlying
regulations. The Company removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on September
15, 2016. On October 14, 2016, the Company filed an answer denying
liability and stating the facsimile advertisement at issue was
sent by FleetOne, LLC, Company's wholly-owned subsidiary. A
mediation related to this dispute is also expected to occur.

The Company says that it is currently conducting an internal
review of this matter and intends to vigorously defend itself. The
current estimate of a reasonably possible loss contingency is not
material to the Company's consolidated financial position, results
of operations or cash flows.

WEX Inc. is a provider of corporate payment solutions.  Over the
past 30 years, WEX has expanded the scope of its business from a
fleet payment provider into a multi-channel provider of corporate
payment solutions.


WILLOWICK, OHIO: Judge Narrows Claims in Sewer System Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Read at The News-Herald reports a judge has agreed to
dismiss trespassing and nuisance claims in a lawsuit filed by
Willowick residents who claimed city officials failed to properly
maintain its sewer system.

However, the case remains pending since Lake County Common Pleas
Judge Vincent A. Culotta did not find the city is immune from a
third claim alleging negligent maintenance of the sewer system.

The judge's next step in the case is to determine whether it will
be certified as a class-action lawsuit.

The suit was filed following a July 20, 2013, rainstorm.

The original plaintiff, Micasa Court resident Dominic Trinetti,
filed a lawsuit in July 2013, on behalf of himself and others,
claiming about 200 Willowick homes flooded with sewage,
pollutants, water, feces, dirt, debris and noxious odors
repeatedly since June 2010.

That lawsuit was withdrawn, and then Ronald Drive resident
Kimberley Ragazzo filed her case on behalf of any Willowick
citizen who suffered damages from the 2013 rainstorm.

"Plaintiff maintains that the City has failed to address the
concerns voiced by the Service Director at council meetings as
well as the concerns of residents and has failed to take the
necessary steps to appropriately remedy the situation through
proper upkeep, maintenance, operation and repair of the sewer
system," Culotta wrote in his judgment entry. "Plaintiff alleges
that this failure amounts to negligence, an unconstitutional
taking, trespass and nuisance."

City officials argued the allegations do not tie the flooding to
any identifiable conduct by the city. They also claim Ragazzo
failed to relate the alleged problem with the sewers to her home
or even her block.

Willowick officials said the city can't be held liable because as
a political entity, the city is entitled to general immunity.

However, the judge said it is too soon in the proceedings to
decide the immunity issue.

"Ohio courts have long recognized that a city can be liable for
the negligent maintenance of its sewers," Culotta stated.

The trespass allegation dealt with intentional conduct.

Kimberley Ragazzo is seeking a jury trial, unspecified damages,
fees and expenses.


ZELTIQ AESTHETICS: Being Sold to Cheaply, "Kreindler" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
directors are selling Zeltiq Aesthetics, a medical tech company,
too cheaply through an unfair process to Allergan, for $56.50 a
share or $2.5 billion, shareholders say in San Francisco Federal
Court.

The case is captioned, MICHAEL KREINDLER, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. ZELTIQ AESTHETICS,
INC., MARK J. FOLEY, D. KEITH GROSSMAN, DAVID J. ENDICOTT, MARY M.
FISHER, KEVIN C. O'BOYLE, and ANDREW SCHIFF, Defendants. Case
3:17-cv-01353(N.D. Cal. March 13, 2017).

Attorneys for Individual and Representative Plaintiff:

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