CAR_Public/170329.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R


            Wednesday, March 29, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 63



                            Headlines

1-800 CONTACTS: "Nance" Sues Over Deceptive Contact Lenses Prices
A. F. HAUSER: Court Denied Class Cert. Bid in LifeSpan Med Suit
ABM ONSITE: Faces "Miles" Suit in C.D. California
ACADEKIDS PRE-SCHOOL: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
AIR METHODS: "Stephen" Suit Moved from N.D. Ala. to Colorado

ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Certification of Catholic Inmates Class Sought
ALLIED INTERSTATE: "Schafer" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
AMAZON.COM LLC: "Morales" Suit Moved from N.D. Cal. to C.D. Cal.
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Class Certification Bid Tentatively Denied
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: "Sachetti" Sues Over Share Price Drop

ANNELLIE'S CAR: "Williams" Sues Over Unpaid OT, Missed Breaks
ANNEXMED BILLING: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
APPLE-METRO INC: Faces "Ghee" Suit in E.D. New York
ARBY'S RESTAURANT: "Weiss" Sues Over Credit Card Data Breach
ASHLEY FURNITURE: "Atchison" Suit Moved to C.D. California

BALTEC MARINE: "Grasso" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla. Federal Court
BARCO INC: "Perez" Seeks Overtime Pay, Rest Period Premium
BASF CATALYSTS: "Williams" Suit Moved from D.N.J. to N.D. Ohio
BEHRINGER HARVARD: Judge Won't Impose Injunction in "Wilner" Suit
BEST FOOD: "Zhou" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class

BIOAMBER INC: Faces "Chu" Suit Over Securities Act Violations
BREX INC: "Reed" Seeks Unpaid OT Wages for Off-the-Clock Work
CARRIBBEAN CRUISE: Class Settlement in "Aranda" Has Final OK
CEB INC: "Gordon" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Gartner
CHARLOTTE SCHOOL: "Krebs" Suit Seeks Certification of Class

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal from Approval of Class Settlement Junked
CITIGROUP INC: Oct. 18 Final Approval Hearing Set
CITIGROUP INC: Motion to Dismiss NYPL Class Suit Pending
CITIGROUP INC: Appeal in "Allen" Class Suit Remains Pending
CITIGROUP INC: Defending Against "Baker" Class Suit

CITIGROUP INC: April 13 Hearing on "Beland" Case Settlement
CITIGROUP INC: Court Dismissed in Part "Sullivan" Class Suit
CITIGROUP INC: Defending Against Frontpoint Asian Suit
CITIGROUP INC: Still Faces Suit Over SSA Bond Market
CLAYTON WILLIAMS: "Sobel" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal

CODE REBEL: Rosen, Pomerantz Named Co-Lead Counsel in "Springer"
COMENITY BANK: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Bid to Withdraw Class Certification Granted
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Class Certification Sought in "Gill" Suit
CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Blanga" Suit in E.D. New York

COLLEGIATE HOUSING: Faces "Dearman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Arcuri" Suit in E.D. New York
CURADEN AG: "Lyngaas" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
CVS HEALTH: "Boss" Sues Over Securities and Exchange Act Breach
CWC OF MIAMI: "Matos" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay

DJM ADVISORY: O.P. Schuman TCPA Suit Transferred to M.D. Fla.
DOORDASH INC: Faces "Angell" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
E. I. DU PONT: Amended Class Certification Motion Due April 30
EAGLEVILLE HOSPITAL: Court OKs Notice to Former Nurses
ELLIOT BAY: FDCPA Plaintiff Must Show Cause re Jurisdiction

EMERCHANTBROKER.COM: Faces "Morgan" Suit in W.D. Virginia
EVO PAYMENTS: New Beginnings Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia
EXEL INC: "Harris" Suit Seeks Class Certification
FCA US: Faces "Rothe" Suit in S.D. Georgia
FIRST PREMIER: Faces "Brandon" Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls

FLOWERS FOODS: Court Limits Distributor Opt-in Class
FORD MOTOR: 2016 Shelby GT350 Owners Sue Over Defects
FTD COMPANIES: "Winograd" Sues Over Share Price Drop
GEICO GENERAL: Loses Bid to Dismiss Chiropractor's Suit
GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Class Certification Bid Denied in "Waters" Suit

GLOBAL TEL: Loses Bid to Arbitrate Inmate-Phone Calling Suit
GOLDEN STATE PHONE: "Padron" Parties Drop Class Certification Bid
GREENSIDE CORP: Court Approves Former Workers' Class Settlement
HAYTI, MO: Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss "Hamilton" Suit
HUB GROUP: Awaits Court Decision in "Robles" Class Action

HUB GROUP: "Adame" Class Suit in California Underway
HUB GROUP: Motion to Dismiss "Lubinski" Suit Pending
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Currier" Securities Class Suit in NY
JOYCE STEEL: Crane Operators Class Certification Sough in "Keith"
JT GROUP: Spennetta Suit Seeks Certification Classes

KAYABA INDUSTRY: Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Suit Granted in Part
KEANE FRAC: "Meals" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
KITOV PHARMA: "Zulch" Sues Over Share Price Drop
KP RECOVERY: Faces "Lugo" Suit in New Jersey Federal Court
LAMI PRODUCTS: Vaughn Seeks Certification of Merchandisers Class

LEXINGTON LAW: "Rosales" Files Suit Over TCPA, FCRA Breach
LIBERTY LIFE: Class Settlement in "Bush" Has Final Approval
LIFECARE SOLUTIONS: "Navarro" Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
MAGNA CHEK: Class Certification Bid Denied in Intersol Suit
MAGNUM HUNTER: Sagacity Suit Moved to E.D. Okla. Federal Court

MCKINNON & HAMILTON: Court Granted Joint Class Certification Bid
MDL 1720: Citigroup Still Faces Interchange Fee Litigation
MDL 2262: LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Suit Underway
MDL 2673: Citigroup Still Faces Suit over Treasury Securities
MDL 2704: Citigroup Still Faces Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Suit

MTAG SERVICES: Connecticut Judge Narrows Claims in "Weldon" Suit
MEAD JOHNSON: "Steinberg" Sues Over Sale to Benckiser Group
MEMORIALCARE: Faces "Cortez" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
MERCHANTS & PROFESSIONAL: Faces "Pace" Suit in W.D. Wash.
METALDYNE PERFORMANCE: "Zimmer" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal

METROPOLITAN STEEL: "Kenvil" Seeks Trust Funds for Contract Job
MIDLAND CREDIT: "Reynolds" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla. Federal Court
MIDWEST MOVING: Hearing on Class Certification Continued to May 9
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Faces "Dellisola" Suit Over Alipay Merger
MORGAN GROUP: Faces "Bobiak" Suit Over FLSA Violation

MORGAN PROPERTIES: "Zehm" Suit Moved to N.J. Federal Court
MRS BPO: Faces "Estevez" Suit in Eastern District of New York
MY PILLOW INC: Stamm Sues Over Fraudulent Product Promo
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Battersby" Suit in E.D. New York
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Class Action Waiver Not Discharged in Ch. 7

NCB MANAGEMENT: Faces "Howard" Suit in Florida Middle District
NEAL TRUCKING: Settlement Bid in "Poisson" Taken Under Submission
NEVADA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Family's Suit vs. NDVS
NEW ORLEANS, LA: Bid to Certify Class Denied Without Prejudice
NEXT CLEANERS: Faces "Dey" Suit in Southern District of New York

NICOLET RESTAURANT: Meyers Appeals Ruling to Supreme Court
NIMBLE STORAGE: "Parshall" Sues Over Sale to Hewlett Packard
O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Certification of Two Classes Sought
OCWEN LOAN: Court Partially Grants Bid to Dismiss FCRA Suit
OLYMPUS INSURANCE: "Warren" Suit Moved M.D. Fla. Federal Court

OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Faces "Lobosco" Suit in E.D. New York
PENNSYLVANIA: "Murphy" Suit Filed Against Disciplinary Counsel
PENNYMAC CORP: "McPherson" Seeks Unpaid OT Pay, Missed Breaks
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Faces "Lewis" Suit in E.D. New York
RASH CURTIS: "Vidrio" Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Calls

REMINGTON ARMS: Court Granted Certification of Class & Subclasses
REXALL SUNDOWN: "Dube" Sues Over Gummie Products' False Ad
RUSHMORE LOAN: Hearing on Class Certification Bid Deferred
SANDOZ INC: Rochester Drug Sues Over Overpriced Amitryptyline
SANTA BARBARA, CA: Faces "Byrne" Suit in C.D. California

SANTA BARBARA, CA: Brislane Seeks to Certify Inmates Class
SENTRY CREDIT: Faces "Riccio" Suit in New Jersey
SEVERN MANAGEMENT: "Phillpotts" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premium
SIRIUS XM: Faces "Buchanan" Suit over TCPA Violations
SKF USA: Certification of Direct Purchaser Class Sought

SMX LLC: Former Delivery Driver's Suit Remanded to State Court
SPECTRUM SOFTWARE: Class Certification Sought in Spennetta Suit
SPORTS WAREHOUSE: "McDuffee" Suit Moved to S.D. California
STARBOARD GROUP: Faces "Bennett" Suit in S.D. Florida
STELLAR RECOVERY: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Sought

STUDEBT: "Roe" Disputes Vague Background Check
SUNTRUST BANKS: "Bickerstaff" Class Suit Remains Pending
SUNTRUST BANKS: Discovery Underway in Company Stock Class Action
SUNTRUST BANKS: Appeal in Mutual Funds Class Action Underway
SUNTRUST BANKS: Discovery Underway in "Brown et al" Suit

SUNTRUST BANKS: Parties in "Thurmond" Reached Settlement
SUNTRUST BANKS: Settlement in "Felix" Class Suit Approved
SWEET HOME: "Jackson" Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification
T.T.K.M. INC: "Dalbey" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
TELEMUNDO NETWORK: "Merchan" Sues For Overtime Pay, Retaliation

TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Faces "Cuevas" Suit Over Almondmilk Beverage
TOTAL HOMECARE: "Spurlock" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
TRANS UNION: Faces "Morris" Suit in S.D. California
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: "Vance" Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Joseph" Suit in E.D. New York

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Rojas" Seeks to Certify Uber Driver Class
UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Benchocron" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
UNITED PARCEL: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Anfeldt" Suit
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces "Bushell" Suit in S.D. New York
US AIRWAYS: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Angeles-Lastimosa Suit

VIKING CLIENT: Faces "Broderick" Suit in New Jersey
VISA INC: B&R Supermarket Seeks to Certify Merchants Class
VIZIO INC: Faces "Queenan" Suit in C.D. California
WALTER INVESTMENT: Faces "Bonomi" Securities Class Suit in Fla.
WELLS FARGO: Court Denied Class Certification in "Torres" Suit

WEN MEI: "Zhang" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
WESTBRIDGE FLORIDA: "Barzydlo" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA
WILLIAM LAROQUE: "Santos" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
WOODGRAIN MILLWORK: Faces "Cuik" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wage
YAHOO! INC: Faces "Talukder" Securities Class Action

ZIVIZI INC: Faces "MacMinn" Suit in Utah


                            *********


1-800 CONTACTS: "Nance" Sues Over Deceptive Contact Lenses Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Nance, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
4:17-cv-00178, (E.D. Ark., March 22, 2017), seeks to recover
damages, including treble damages, costs of suit, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and injunctive relief resulting from restraint of
trade in violation of the Sherman Act and the Arkansas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act.

Defendant 1-800 Contacts is a corporation organized under the laws
of Delaware, with a principal place of business at 66 East
Wadsworth Park Drive, Draper, Utah 84020. It sells contact lenses
and related products over the internet and by telephone throughout
the United States, including the State of Arkansas.

1-800 Contacts allegedly entered into bidding agreements with
search engine companies that did not display the prices, products
and services offered by its competitors in the market for online
sales of contact lenses, thus limiting price and competition. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
     Joseph Henry Bates, Esq.
     Justin Craig, Esq.
     CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
     519 West 7th Street
     Little Rock, AR 72201
     Telephone: (501) 312-8500
     Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
     Email: jcraig@cbplaw.com
            rpulliam@cbplaw.com
            hbates@cbplaw.com

            - and -

     Steven L. Bloch, Esq.
     BAILEY GLASSER LLP
     One Tower Bridge
     100 Front Street, Suite 1235
     West Conshohocken, PA 19428
     Phone: (610) 834-7506
     Facsimile: (610) 834-7509
     Email: sbloch@baileyglasser.com

            - and -

     James L. Kauffman, Esq.
     BAILEY GLASSER LLP
     1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
     Washington, DC 20007
     Phone: (202) 463-2101
     Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
     Email: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com


A. F. HAUSER: Court Denied Class Cert. Bid in LifeSpan Med Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Sheila M. Finnegan entered an order in the lawsuit styled
Lifespan Medical Associates, LLC, Plaintiff, v. A. F. Hauser,
Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07772 (N.D. Ill),
denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification without
prejudice.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 20, 2017,
No appearance on the motion is required. The motion acknowledges
that it is being filed at this time only to prevent the plaintiff
from being "picked off" by an attractive settlement offer. The
Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S.
Ct. 663 (2016), obviates the need for such prophylactic motions.
See also Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 786-87 (7th
Cir. 2015). The pending motion for class certification is
therefore dismissed without prejudice to its refiling when the
plaintiff is prepared to substantively brief the motion or in
accordance with a future scheduling order entered by the Court.

A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=j1eU7ti9


ABM ONSITE: Faces "Miles" Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ABM Onsite Services
- West, Inc. The case is captioned as Larry Miles, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ABM
ONSITE SERVICES - WEST, INC., CSS Building Services, Inc., a New
Jersey corporation, CSS Building Services-NASA Division LLC, a New
Jersey limited liability company, ABM Industries Incorporated, a
Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00451 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 14, 2017).

ABM offers reliable facility services and building maintenance
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ACADEKIDS PRE-SCHOOL: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Belkis Sanchez, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. Acadekids Pre-School and Learning Center Corp.,
Nellys Petrone Sanabria, Maidelis Pazo, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-21023, (S.D. Fla., March 20, 2017), seeks to recover monetary
damages, liquidated damages, interests and costs for overtime work
for which they are entitled to under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed as a teacher at Acadekids from about 2009
until February 28, 2017. Defendants failed to keep any time
records relating to Plaintiff's individual overtime hours, says
the complaint. Defendants also required Plaintiff to attend
mandatory staff training meetings and graduations after work hours
without overtime pay.

Belkis Sanchez is a pro se plaintiff.


AIR METHODS: "Stephen" Suit Moved from N.D. Ala. to Colorado
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jenny Lee Stephens, on Behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Air
Methods Corporation and Rocky Mountain, the Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-01659-JEO, was transferred from the Northern District of
Alabama (Southern), to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado (Denver). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:17-cv-00667-RBJ to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon.
Judge R. Brooke Jackson.

Air Methods Corporation is an American publicly owned helicopter
operator. The Domestic Air Medical Division provides emergency
medical services to 100,000 patients every year, and serves 48
states and Haiti.[BN]


ALLEN COUNTY, IN: Certification of Catholic Inmates Class Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MARCO GARCIA, JOSHUA MACKIN, and EUGENE
LALLOW, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. DAVID GLADIEUX, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-00109-RLM-SLC (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to certify a class of:

   "all individuals held at the Allen County Jail between March
   2015 and March 2017 practicing the Catholic faith who have
   been forbidden from engaging in Catholic communal worship
   and/or have been forbidden from keeping an article of Catholic
   religious devotion."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Kl5jNiIV

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David W. Frank, Esq.
          Christopher C. Myers, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES
          809 South Calhoun Street, Suite 400
          Fort Wayne, IN 46802-2307
          Telephone: (260) 424 0600
          Facsimile: (260) 424 0712
          E-mail: dfrank@myers-law.com


ALLIED INTERSTATE: "Schafer" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled LISA J. SCHAFER, individually and on behalf
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. ALLIED INTERSTATE
LLC, LVNV FUNDING LLC, and RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES L.P., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00233 (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to certify a class of:

   "all persons in Michigan who received a collection letter,
   that was sent during a time period from March 14, 2016, to
   March 14, 2017, where the debt sought to be collected was in
   default for more than six years".

The Plaintiff asks the Court for an expedited ruling tentatively
granting class certification in an effort to protect this matter
as continuing as a class action in light of the Sixth Circuit's
holding in Mey v. N. Am. Bancard, LLC, 655 F. App'x 332 (6th Cir.
2016) (unpublished), stating "if a lead plaintiff's claims are
moot, any corresponding class claims may not proceed unless a
motion for class certification was already pending (and perhaps
also fully briefed) at the time that the lead plaintiff's
individual claims became moot." Id. at 334 (emphasis added)
(citing Carroll v. United Compucred Collections, Inc., 399 F.3d
620, 625 (6th Cir. 2005); Brunet v. City of Columbus, 1 F.3d 390,
399-400 (6th Cir. 1993)).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=R0aOkTLE

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
          WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC
          350 S. Northwest HWY., Ste. 300
          Park Ridge, IL 60068
          Telephone: (847) 701 5290
          E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal

               - and -

          B. Thomas Golden, Esq.
          GOLDEN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          2186 West Main Street, P.O. Box 9
          Lowell, MI 49331
          Telephone: (616) 897 2900
          E-mail: btg@bthomasgolden.com


AMAZON.COM LLC: "Morales" Suit Moved from N.D. Cal. to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled CARLOS MORALES, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public,
the Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM LLC., a Delaware corporation;
PEACH, INC. DBA ACTION MESSENGER SERVICE, a California
corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-06462, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los
Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-
01981-ODW-JEM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon.
Judge Otis D. Wright, II.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have misclassified him and
similarly situtated individuals as independent contractors, failed
to provide them with meal periods, failed to provide them with
rest periods, failed to pay them for all hours worked, failed to
pay premium wages for unprovided meal and/or rest periods, failed
to pay overtime wages, failed to provide them with accurate
written wage statements, and failed to timely pay them all of
their final wages following separation of employment.

Amazon.com LLC was founded in 1994 and is based in Hebron,
Kentucky. Amazon.com LLC operates as a subsidiary of Amazon.com
Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Thomas Segal, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (31 0) 888 7771
          Facsimile: (31 0) 888 0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  thomas@setarehlaw.com


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Class Certification Bid Tentatively Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ARMANDO CALDERA, the Plaintiff, v.
AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTION AGENCY, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-
cv-00381-CBM-AJW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Consuelo B. Marshall
entered an order:

   1. tentatively denying Plaintiff's motion for class
       certification and taking the motion under submission;

   2. denying Plaintiff's application to seal and issuing written
      order; and

   3. directing Parties to meet and confer as to the pretrial
      conference and jury trial dates and file their stipulation
      as stated on the record.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kYRqzCt1

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C
          9171 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 400
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (424) 285 6006

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sean P. Flynn, Esq.
          Musick Peeler & Garrett LLP
          One Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 629 7600
          Facsimile: (213) 624 1376


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: "Sachetti" Sues Over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------
John Sachetti, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Amtrust Financial Services, Inc., Barry D.
Zyskind, and Ronald E. Pipoly, Jr., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
02001, (S.D.N.Y., March 20, 2017), seeks compensatory and punitive
damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs and
expenses in this litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees
and experts' fees and other costs and disbursements and such other
relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

AmTrust underwrites and provides property and casualty insurance
products, including workers' compensation, commercial automobile,
general liability and extended service and warranty coverage in
the United States and internationally.

On March 16, 2017, AmTrust disclosed that its board of directors
had determined that the Company's previously issued consolidated
financial statements for 2014 and 2015 should be restated and
should no longer be relied upon as well as its earnings and press
releases and similar communications, to the extent that they
relate to the periods covered by current financial statements
released February 27, 2017.

On this news, shares of Amtrust fell from $21.61, the closing
price on March 15, 2017, to close at $17.58 on March 16, 2017,
representing a 18.7% decline in the value of the Company's common
stock. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      James S. Notis, Esq.
      Meagan A. Farmer, Esq.
      GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
      126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 905-0509
      Fax: (212) 905-0508
      Email: jnotis@gardylaw.com
             mfarmer@gardylaw.com

             - and -

      Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
      Bradley J. Vettraino
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      155 Federal Street, Suite 400
      Boston, MA 02110
      Tel: (617) 398-5600
      Fax: (617) 507-6020
      Email: Jeff@blockesq.com
             Bradley@blockesq.com


ANNELLIE'S CAR: "Williams" Sues Over Unpaid OT, Missed Breaks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Williams, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff(s), v. Annellie's Car Wash LLC and Rene L. Moreno,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-60577, (S.D. Fla.,
March 21, 2017), seeks to recover from Defendants regular wages,
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable
attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant provides car wash services in Broward County where
Williams worked as a non-exempt tipped car wash employee,
approximately from March 01, 2015 to December 01, 2016. He always
worked more than 40 hours every week and denied any bona fide
lunch periods.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
      Miami, FL 33156
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


ANNEXMED BILLING: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned BLUE RIDGE PODIATRY ASSOCIATES, P.A., a
North Carolina corporation, individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v.
ANNEXMED BILLING SERVICES INC., a New York corporation, and JOHN
DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00078-MR-DLH (D.N.C.),
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying a class of:

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

   2. appointing Plaintiff as the class representative;

   3. appointing Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel.

The Plaintiff will file its memorandum after Rule 23 discovery has
been completed. The parties need to meet and confer and propose a
Rule 23 discovery schedule with this Court. Plaintiff respectfully
asks a status conference with the Court as soon as practicable.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4RiXNdcY

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chad McGowan, Esq.
          McGOWAN, HOOD & FELDER
          1539 Health Care Drive
          Rock Hill, SC 29732
          Telephone: (803) 327 7800
          Facsimile: (803) 324 1483

               - and -

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: 847 368 1500
          Facsimile: 847 368 1501


APPLE-METRO INC: Faces "Ghee" Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Apple-Metro, Inc.
The case is captioned as Kendall Ghee and Yang Shen, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Apple-Metro, Inc., a New York corporation; 42nd APPLE, LLC, doing
business as Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar, a New York
corporation; Broadway Apple, LLC, doing business as Applebee's
Neighborhood Grill & Bar, a New York corporation, Case No. 1:17-
cv-01554 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 20, 2017).

Apple-Metro Inc. is the New York Metropolitan Area franchisee for
Applebee's (TM) Neighborhood Grill and Bar.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


ARBY'S RESTAURANT: "Weiss" Sues Over Credit Card Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Weiss and Joseph Weiss, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Arby's Restaurant
Group (ARG), Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01035 (N.D. Ga.,
March 22, 2017) seeks appropriate monetary relief, including
actual damages; restitution and disgorgement; an injunction
against ARG requiring it to implement and maintain adequate
security measures; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses; and such other and
further relief resulting from negligence, breach of implied
contract, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act.

According to the complaint, ARG's restaurant system consists of
over 3,300 restaurants worldwide most of which accept credit or
debit cards. ARG collects customer data related to those cards
including the cardholder name, account number, expiration date,
card verification value and PIN data for debit cards. ARG stores
the Customer Data in its POS system and transmits this information
to a third party for completion of the payment.

Plaintiffs purchased food at an ARG corporate store located at
3206 Berlin Turnpike, Newington, CT 06111, with a joint Fidelity
Visa credit card which was swiped through an ARG point-of-sale
payment device.

The complaint says ARG failed to secure and safeguard its
customers' credit and debit card numbers and other payment card
data and other personally identifiable information when in October
2016, computer hackers, using malware, accessed the point-of-sale
systems at approximately 1,000 ARG corporate restaurant locations
to gain access to such data. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James M. Evangelista, Esq.
      David J. Worley, Esq.
      EVANGELISTA WORLEY, LLC
      8100A Roswell Road, Suite 100
      Atlanta, GA 30350
      Phone: (404) 205-8400
      Fax: (404)205-8395
      Email: jim@ewlawllc.com
             david@ewlawllc.com

             - and -

      Robert W. Killorin, Esq.
      Benton Woods Drive
      Atlanta, GA 30342
      Tel: (404) 847-0617
      Email: rwk@bellsouth.net

             - and -

      Stuart J. Guber, Esq.
      Timothy J. Peter, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600
      Jenkintown, PA 19046
      Phone: (215) 277-5770
      Fax: (215) 277-5771
      Email: sguber@faruqilaw.com
             tpeter@faruqilaw.com


ASHLEY FURNITURE: "Atchison" Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Alan Atchison, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the
general public, the Plaintiff, v. Ashley Furniture Industries,
Inc.; Does 1-100; and Ashley Distribution Services, Ltd., sued
herein erroneously as Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc., Case No.
CIV DS1702285, was removed from the San Bernardino Superior Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Eastern Division - Riverside). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 5:17-cv-00528-JGB-SP to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge Jesus G. Bernal.[BN]

Ashley Furniture is an American home furnishings manufacturer and
retailer, headquartered in Arcadia, Wisconsin. The company is
owned by father and son team Ron and Todd Wanek.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Thomas Mara, Esq.
          Jamie K Serb, Esq.
          William David Turley, Esq.
          TURLEY AND MARA LAW FRIM APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234 2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234 4048
          E-mail: dmara@turleylawfirm.com
                  jserb@turleylawfirm.com
                  bturley@turleylawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christina Cila, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          2049 Century Park East 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 553 0308
          Facsimile: (310) 553 5583
          E-mail: ccila@littler.com

               - and -

          John Kevin Lilly, Esq.
          James E Hart, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          2049 Century Park East 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 553 0308
          Facsimile: (310) 553 5583
          E-mail: klilly@littler.com
                  jhart@littler.com


BALTEC MARINE: "Grasso" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla. Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Luis Grasso, and other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Baltec Marine LLC, Case
No. 17-004063-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-21058-
KMM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Chief Judge K.
Michael Moore.

Baltec Marine is the industry's leading single-source contractor
for new building and refitting of cruise and commercial
accommodations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alberto Ilmari Manca, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          Two South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 577 7600
          Facsimile: (305) 373 4466
          E-mail: Albert.Manca@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          David E. Block, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          2 S Biscayne Boulevard
          Suite 3500 One Biscayne Tower
          Miami, FL 33131-1802
          Telephone: (305) 577 7600
          Facsimile: 373 4466
          E-mail: blockd@jacksonlewis.com


BARCO INC: "Perez" Seeks Overtime Pay, Rest Period Premium
----------------------------------------------------------
Ivan Perez, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
employees and the general public, Plaintiff, v. Barco, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00601, (E.D. Cal., March 21, 2017),
seeks damages and restitution, equal to unpaid overtime wages and
other due wages, unpaid meal and rest premiums, penalties owed,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs
of suit, including expert fees, and such other injunctive and
equitable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
California Wage and Hour Laws and the California Business and
Professions Code.

Defendant designs and develops networked visualization products
for the entertainment, enterprise and healthcare markets. It
offers products including displays, monitors, projectors, work
stations, video walls, 3D sound, image processing, and others.

Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a field service engineer.
[BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rebekah L. Bailey, Esq.
     NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
     4600 IDS Center
     80 South 8th St.
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Telephone: (612) 256-3200
     Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
     Email: bailey@nka.com

            - and -

     Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
     235 Montgomery Street, Suite 810
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Telephone: (415) 277-7235
     Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
     Email: dbrome@nka.com


BASF CATALYSTS: "Williams" Suit Moved from D.N.J. to N.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kimberlee Williams, individually,
as personal representative of the Estate of Charles L. Williams,
deceased on behalf of said estate and as representative of others
similarily situated; Nancy Pease, individually, as personal
representative of the Estate of Willilam Clark deceased on behalf
of said estate, and as representative of others similarily
situated; Marilyn L. Holley, as personal representative of the
estate of Kathryn Darnell, deceased on behalf of said estate, and
as representative of other similarly situated; Donna Ware,
individually, as personal representative of the Estate of Ralph
Ware, deceased on behalf of said estate, and as representative of
others similarly situated; and Donnette Wengerd, individually, as
personal representative of the Estate of Jennifer Graham, deceased
on behalf of said estate, and as representative of others
similarly situated; Rosanne Chernick, individually, as personal
representative of the Estate of Steven Chernick, deceased on
behalf of said estate, and as representative of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BASF Catalysts LLC; Cahill Gordon &
Reindel LLP; Cahill Gordon & Reindel; Thomas D. Halket; Arthur A.
Dornbusch, II; Glenn Hemstock; Howard G. Sloane also known as
Peter Sloane; Ira J. Dembrow; Scott A. Martin; John Doe Business
Entities; John Doe Lawyers 1-500; John Doe 1-500; and 3rd Pty
Defendant, Bevan & Associates LPA, Inc., Case No. 11cv1754, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern
District of Ohio (Cleveland). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:17-mc-00015-CAB to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to Hon. Judge Christopher A. Boyko.

BASF Catalysts develops and produces environmental and process
catalysts for customers worldwide. Its products include
adsorbents.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher M. Placitella, Esq.
          Michael Coren, Esq.
          COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH - RED BANK
          127 Maple Avenue
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (732) 747 9003
          Facsimile: (732) 747 9004
          E-mail: cplacitella@cprlaw.com
                  mcoren@cprlaw.com

               - and -

          David S. Blatt, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005

               - and -

          Jared Placitella, Esq.
          127 Maple Ave.
          Red Bank, NJ 07701

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Pollock
          Building 3
          997 Lennox Drive
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648

               - and -

          John K. Villa, Esq.
          Williams & Connolly
          725 Twelfth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434 5117

The Defendants are represented by:

          John R. Mitchell, Esq.
          THOMPSON HINE
          3900 Key Center
          127 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44114-1291
          Telephone: (216) 566 5847
          Facsimile: (216) 566 5800
          E-mail: john.mitchell@thompsonhine.com

               - and -

          Matthew D. Ridings, Esq.
          THOMPSON HINE - CLEVELAND
          3900 Key Tower
          127 Public Square
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 566 5500
          Facsimile: (216) 566 5800
          E-mail: matt.ridings@thompsonhine.com

               - and -

          Peter A. Farrell, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005

               - and -

          Craig Demareski, Esq.
          Marc D. Haefner, Esq.
          Robert E. Ryan, Esq.
          CONNELL FOLEY LLP
          85 Livingston Ave.
          Roseland, NJ 07068

               - and -

          Eric Tunis, Esq.
          GREENBAUM, ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS
          99 Wood Avenue South
          Iselin, NJ 08830
          Telephone: (732) 476 2676
          Facsimile: (732) 475 2677

               - and -

          John A. Boyle, Esq.
          Kevin Marino, Esq.
          MARINO TORTORELLA & BOYLE PC
          437 Southern Blvd.
          Chatham, NJ 07928

               - and -

          Brendan E. Little, Esq.
          LEVY KONIGSBERG LLP
          800 Third Ave.
          New York, NY 10022


BEHRINGER HARVARD: Judge Won't Impose Injunction in "Wilner" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge R. Brooke Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado denied plaintiff's motion for preliminary
injunction in the case styled JANE WILNER, TRUDO LETSCHERT, ROBERT
RUDNICK, and RUSSELL SCHMEISER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BEHRINGER HARVARD
CORDILLERA, LLC, BEHRINGER HARVARD HOLDINGS, LLC, ROBERT M.
BEHRINGER, and MICHAEL D. COHEN, Defendants. CSMN INVESTMENTS, LLC
and CCG MANAGEMENT, LLC, Intervenors, Civil Action No. 16-cv-
02999-RBJ (D. Colo.).

Plaintiffs are four of the homeowners at Cordillera, a resort
residential community in Eagle County Colorado, and are members of
the Cordillera Property Owners Association (CPOA). Plaintiffs
describe the Lodge as a central amenity to home ownership in
Cordillera. However, the Declaration of Protective Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions for Cordillera provides that no
persons, including members of the CPOA, have a right to use the
Lodge; that access to it may be restricted or terminated by its
owner; and, indeed, that the Lodge may be sold or closed.

In 2007 Behringer Harvard Cordillera, LLC (BHC) purchased the
Lodge for approximately $36.5 million but from the outset of BHC's
ownership, the Lodge was not profitable. In 2008, the Lodge had a
net operating loss of approximately $2.8 million on total income
of approximately $5.9 million. In 2009 BHC formulated a plan that
it hoped would turn things around. As a part of the plan BHC
proposed an amendment to the Planned Unit Development that
governed the uses permitted on the property on which the Lodge
sits or referred to as the Lodge Parcel as well as the uses
permitted on an adjacent parcel referred to as the Village Parcel.

Since it was considered to be a major change in the way the two
parcels could potentially be used, approval was required both from
the County and the CPOA. Those approvals were obtained, and the
new uses were authorized by what has been referred to as the
Eleventh Amendment to the Planned Unit Development. The effect of
the amendment was that authorized uses of the Lodge Parcel now
included, in addition to its historic use as a lodge and spa, some
33 other possible uses. One of the newly authorized uses was for
Medical Offices/Facilities, limited to clinic and outpatient
facilities for non-critical care, including, without limitation,
for outpatient plastic surgery and other cosmetic procedures. The
amendment would bring the two parcels together into one unit which
would then permit all the uses authorized for the Village Parcel
to apply equally to the Lodge Parcel and vice-versa.
But occupancy rates did not recover, and memberships in the Lodge
steadily declined, leading BHC to put the Lodge up for sale in
November 2013, were CCG Management, LLC and CSMN Investments, LLC
offered to buy the Lodge for $10 million. CCG plans to convert the
Lodge into a residential non-critical care clinic and
rehabilitation center for persons recovering from alcoholism,
eating disorders, drug addiction, and similar conditions.

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit on December 7, 2016 and asserted claims
sounding in fraud, promissory estoppel, and breach of an implied
covenant that the Lodge would remain as a lodge, accessible to
plaintiffs and other Cordillera property owners. On behalf of
themselves and a purported class, they seek judicial declarations
that there is an implied and enforceable restrictive covenant that
requires that the Lodge continue to exist as a Lodge, accessible
to plaintiffs and those similarly situated upon their compliance
with the terms and conditions for use set of the Lodge's owner,
that the Eleventh Amendment to the PUD is null and void to the
extent of the modifications that allowed the Lodge to be
eliminated and to be replaced by any of the 33 proposed new uses
for the Lodge Parcel and that any modification that would allow
the Lodge to be eliminated and replaced by any of the 33 other
uses must first be presented to and approved by the members of the
CPOA. Plaintiffs also seek corresponding injunctive relief and an
award of compensatory damages exceeding $100 million.

In her affidavit Ms. Ross, Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of an affiliated Behringer Harvard company,
states that she expects the Lodge to be completely or
substantially closed on February 28, 2017. Thereafter it will no
longer be open to the public or to Cordillera residents. During
the preliminary injunction hearing BHC indicated that the Lodge
would be closed on that date regardless of the outcome of the
hearing. Plaintiffs asserted that BHC would not reveal when the
contract would close other than to agree that it would not happen
before February 17, 2017, the day after the scheduled preliminary
injunction hearing. Fearing that they would be unable to prevent
the closure of the Lodge and its conversion into a treatment
facility if the purchase agreement closed, plaintiffs asked the
court to enjoin the closing pending a final determination on the
merits or at least for 60 days so that they could obtain discovery
and attempt to establish their entitlement to summary judgment.

Judge Jackson held that to succeed on a motion for a preliminary
injunction, the movant must demonstrate a substantial likelihood
of success on the merits of the case; irreparable injury to the
movant if the preliminary injunction is denied; the threatened
injury to the movant outweighs the injury to the other party under
the preliminary injunction; and the injunction is not adverse to
the public interest.

Judge Jackson did not find that plaintiffs have made a
sufficiently strong showing on the other three preliminary
injunction factors to sustain the likelihood of success element
even if the Tenth Circuit still recognized the more relaxed
showing. Court finds that plaintiffs did not show, much less make
a strong showing, that they would suffer irreparable harm if the
closing of the purchase contract were not enjoined.

A copy of Judge Jackson's findings and conclusions dated March 2,
2017, is available at https://goo.gl/zZmnfK from Leagle.com.

Jane Wilner, Plaintiffs, represented by Lauren Beck Kerwin --
lkerwin@potomaclaw.com -- at Potomac Law Group, PLLC; Mark Apelman
-- Terence P. Boyle -- at Boyle/Apelman, PC

Behringer Harvard Cordillera, LLC, Behringer Harvard Holdings,
LLC, Robert M. Behringer, and Michael D. Cohen, Defendants,
represented by Bobby Gene Pryor -- bpryor@pryorandbruce.com --
Dana Glenn Bruce -- dbruce@pryorandbruce.com -- at Pryor & Bruce;
Sarah J. Baker -- sbaker@sbakerpc.com -- at Sarah J. Baker, P.C.

CSMN Investments, LLC and CCG Management, LLC, Intervenor
Defendants, represented by Brian James Connolly --
bconnolly@ottenjohnson.com -- at Otten Johnson Robinson Neff &
Ragonetti, P.C.


BEST FOOD: "Zhou" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ZHOU MING ZHENG, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BEST FOOD IN TOWN I.
LLC d/b/a Best Food in Town; BEST FOOD IN TOWN JUN LLC d/b/a Best
Food in Town; JUOYING CHEN; LIN YAN ZHAO a/k/a Emily Zhao; JIAN
LIN CHEN; ZHI CHEN; ZHOU JIANG; and JUN CHEN, Case No. 1:16-cv-
03634-RBK-JS (D.N.J.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an
order:

   1. granting collective action status, under the Fair Labor
      Standards Act (FLSA);

   2. directing Defendants to produce a Microsoft Excel (.xls)
      data file containing contact information, including but not
      limited to last known mailing addresses, last known
      telephone numbers, last known email addresses, Social
      Security numbers, work locations, and dates of employment
      for all those individuals who have worked for the
      Defendants as a non-managerial employee between June 21,
      2013 and the date the Court decides this Motion;

   3. authorizing that notice of this matter be sent to members
      of the putative class;

   4. authorizing equitable tolling of the statute of limitation
      pending the expiration of the opt-in period; and

   5. directing the Defendants to post the approved Proposed
      Notice in conspicuous locations at the location where the
      Prospective Collective Action Members worked, or are now
      working.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=02bEgmX8

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Taubenfeld, Esq.
          FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP
          225 Broadway, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 571 0700

               - and -

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


BIOAMBER INC: Faces "Chu" Suit Over Securities Act Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Chu, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Bioamber Inc., Jean-Francois Huc, Fabrice
Orecchioni and Mario Saucier, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01531
(E.D. N.Y., March 18, 2017), seeks to recover compensatory damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Act of 1993 and under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The complaint says Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that a large customer of the
Company that was expected to purchase $2.8 million of succinic
acid in Q4 2016 experienced a technical problem in its
manufacturing facility and postponed the order to 2017 and as a
result, Defendants' statements about the Company's business,
operations and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant time.

Defendant BioAmber is an industrial biotechnology company, which
produces and sells bio-succinic acid to various chemical market
customers in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BREX INC: "Reed" Seeks Unpaid OT Wages for Off-the-Clock Work
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Reed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Brex, Inc., John Keeley and Kevin Floyd,
Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00292, (S.D. Ill., March 20, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid regular wages and overtime compensation
under the Fair Labor Standards and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Brex, Inc. operates a chain of CarX tire and automotive repair
shops in Illinois and Missouri. Reed was employed as a Technician
at Brex's CarX shop in Belleville, Illinois. Plaintiff worked
overtime without being paid required overtime premium wages and
was required to clock out prior to completing repair or
maintenance tasks. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark Potashnick, Esq.
     WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
     11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
     St. Louis, MO 63141
     Telephone: (314) 997-9150 ext. 2
     Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
     Email: markp@wp-attorneys.com

            - and -

     Jack R. Daugherty, Esq.
     112 Front Street
     Alton, IL 62002
     Telephone: (618) 462-9160
     Facsimile: (618) 462-9167
     Email: jack@jackdaughertylaw.com


CARRIBBEAN CRUISE: Class Settlement in "Aranda" Has Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Matthew R. Kennelly of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted
plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the proposed settlement,
in the case captioned GERARDO ARANDA, GRANT BIRCHMEIER, STEPHEN
PARKES, and REGINA STONE, on behalf of themselves and classes of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CARRIBBEAN CRUISE LINE,
INC., ECONOMIC STRATEGY GROUP, ECONOMIC STRATEGY GROUP, INC.,
ECONOMIC STRATEGY, LLC, THE BERKLEY GROUP, INC., and VACATION
OWNERSHIP MARKETING TOURS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 12 C 4069
(N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of themselves and similarly
situated individuals against Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. (CCL),
Vacation Ownership Marketing Tours, Inc. (VOMT), The Berkley
Group, Inc., and Economic Strategy Group and its affiliated
entities (ESG). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, by using
an autodialer and an artificial or prerecorded voice to call
plaintiffs' cellular and landline telephones.

Plaintiffs allege that ESG placed millions of calls to consumers
without their consent. The calls featured prerecorded messages
explaining to recipients that they would be eligible for a free
cruise if they participated in various short political surveys.
According to plaintiffs, ESG's true purpose in placing these calls
was to sell vacation products at the direction and on the behalf
of CCL, VOMT, and Berkley.

After roughly four years of contested litigation, the parties
reached agreement on a class-wide settlement of plaintiffs'
claims, and plaintiffs have moved for final approval of the
proposed settlement. Two purported class members have raised
objections to the terms of the agreement. Plaintiffs' counsel have
also petitioned for an award of attorney's fees. Defendants and
one of the class members have objected to the size of the
requested fee.

The agreement's definition of the settlement class is the same as
the definition of the class in the court's class certification
order. That order certified two classes one for individuals who
received cellular phone calls and one for those who received
landline calls and defined each class as those persons in the
United States who received the calls between August 2011 and
August 2012 and (a) whose telephone number appeared in defendants'
records or the records of third party telephone carriers or (b)
whose own records prove that they received the calls.

The agreement provides that defendants will establish a common
fund in an amount no lower than $56 million and no higher than $76
million, from which all class members will be paid. The total fund
amount will be equal to the sum of the award to class members,
settlement administration and notice expenses, any incentive award
to class representatives, and any attorney's fee award. Class
members may submit claim forms for approval by a settlement
administrator, who was selected by plaintiffs and approved by the
Court. Each class member who submits an approved claim will be
entitled to $500 per call received unless the total of such
payments, plus payment of administration expenses, incentive
awards to class representatives, and attorney's fees would exceed
the $76 million cap on the fund total. If the cap is met,
settlement class members with approved claims will be entitled to
a pro rata share of the fund based on the number of calls they
received.

Plaintiffs' counsel have requested a fee award of 33% of the fund
minus notice expenses, up to a maximum of $24.5 million, and
plaintiffs request incentive awards of $10,000 for each of the
four class representatives. No party or class member has objected
to the requested incentive award for the class representatives.
Under the agreement, all cash payments to settlement class members
are to be issued via checks that expire and become null and void
unless cashed within ninety days. After the first round of cash
payments and payment of administration expenses, attorney's fees,
and incentive awards, any uncashed checks or unclaimed funds will
be issued to settlement class members with approved claims on a
pro rata basis. The agreement provides that any uncashed checks
and unclaimed funds remaining after this second round of payments
will be distributed to a cy pres recipient selected by Judge
Andersen.

In addition to making payments into the settlement fund,
defendants have agreed to conduct annual internal audits of their
procedures to ensure that they do not make autodialed calls
without consumer consent in the future. In exchange for
defendants' agreement to make the required payments and conduct
internal audits of their procedures, plaintiffs have agreed that
settlement class members will be deemed to have released
defendants from all claims against them.

Judge Kennelly granted plaintiffs' motion for final approval of
the proposed settlement agreement.

A copy of Judge Kennelly's memorandum opinion and order dated
March 2, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/YqeHPt from
Leagle.com.

Grant Birchmeier and Stephen Parkes, Plaintiffs, represented by
Jonathan I. Loevy -- jon@loevy.com -- Scott R. Rauscher -- Arthur
R. Loevy -- arthur@loevy.com -- Michael I. Kanovitz --
mike@loevy.com -- at Loevy and Loevy; Alexander Glenn Tievsky --
atievsky@edelson.com -- at Edelson PC

Regina Stone and Gerardo Aranda Plaintiffs, represented by
Alexander Glenn Tievsky -- atievsky@edelson.com -- at Edelson PC;
Scott R. Rauscher -- at Loevy and Loevy

Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rebecca F.
Bratter -- rebecca.bratter@gmlaw.com -- Richard W. Epstein --
richard.epstein@gmlaw.com -- Jeffrey Backman --
jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com -- at Greenspoon Marder, P.A.; Timothy
A. Hudson -- thudson@tdrlawfirm.com -- at Tabet DiVito Rothstein

Berkley Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Vincent J. Connelly
-- vconnelly@mayerbrown.com -- at Mayer Brown LLP; Brian Patrick
O'Meara -- bomeara@fordellp.com -- Kevin Michael Forde --
kforde@fordellp.com -- Kevin R. Malloy -- kmalloy@fordellp.com --
at Forde Law Offices LLP; M. Peebles Harrison -- at Rose Harrison
& Gilreath, P.C.

Vacation Ownership Marketing Tours, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Jeffrey Backman -- jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com -- at Greenspoon
Marder, P.A.

T-Mobile US, Inc., Third Party Defendant, represented by Debra Rae
Bernard -- DBernard@perkinscoie.com -- at Perkins Coie LLP

Service List, represented by Brian Patrick O'Meara --
bomeara@fordellp.com -- at Forde Law Offices LLP; Rebecca F.
Bratter -- rebecca.bratter@gmlaw.com -- Richard W. Epstein --
richard.epstein@gmlaw.com -- Jeffrey Backman --
jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com -- at Greenspoon Marder, P.A.; Timothy
A. Hudson -- thudson@tdrlawfirm.com -- at Tabet DiVito Rothstein;
Brian J. Wanca -- BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- George Lang -- Ryan
M. Kelly -- RKelly@andersonwanca.com -- at Anderson & Wanca;
Christopher Lillard Dore -- cdore@edelson.com -- Eve-Lynn J. Rapp
-- erapp@edelson.com -- Jay Edelson -- jedelson@edelson.com --
Rafey S. Balabanian -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- at Edelson PC;
David Bradley Helms -- at Lewis Rice LLC; Emily Yandle Rottmann --
erottmann@mcguirewoods.com -- at McGuireWoods LLP; John S. Steward
-- at Steward Law Firm LLC; Max G. Margulis -- at Margulis Law
Group; Scott David Owens; Nathan D. Leming -- nleming@wvslaw.com -
- Steven P. Sanders, Sr. -- ssanders@wvslaw.com -- at WILLIAMS AND
VENKER


CEB INC: "Gordon" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Gartner
----------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL GORDON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CEB INC., THOMAS L. MONAHAN, III,
GREGOR S. BAILAR, STEPHEN M. CARTER, GORDON J. COBURN, KATHLEEN A.
CORBET, L. KEVIN COX, DANIEL O. LEEMON, STACEY S. RAUCH, and
JEFFREY R. TARR, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00290-TSE-TCB
(E.D. Va., Mar. 13, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants from holding
the shareholder vote on a Proposed Merger and taking any steps to
consummate the Proposed Merger or, in the event the Proposed
Merger is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the
Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act.

The case is a stockholder class action brought by Plaintiff on
behalf of holders of the common stock of CEB Inc. against CEB Inc.
and its board of directors for their violations of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection
with the proposed acquisition of CEB by Gartner, Inc. through a
merger. A shareholder meeting to vote on the Proposed Merger is
scheduled for April 4, 2017.

On January 5, 2017, the Board caused the Company to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's
shareholders stand to receive $54.00 in cash and 0.2284 shares of
Gartner stock for each share of CEB stock that they own.  If the
Proposed Merger is consummated, CEB stockholders will only control
approximately 8% of the combined company. On March 7, 2017, in
order to convince CEB shareholders to vote in favor of the
Proposed Merger, the Board authorized the filing of a materially
incomplete and misleading Definitive Proxy Statement (the Proxy
Statement) with the Securities and Exchange Commission. While
Defendants are touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to
the Company's shareholders in the Proxy Statement, they have
failed to disclose certain material information that is necessary
for shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed
Merger, thereby rendering certain statements in the Proxy
Statement incomplete and misleading.

CEB is a global best practice insights and technology company that
provides products and services to businesses worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
          The Empire State Building
          350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 971 1341
          Facsimile: (305) 205 8284
          E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com

               - and -

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Fl.
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983 9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983 9331
          E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
                  jwilson@faruqilaw.com

               -and -

          Scott A. Simmons, Esq.
          Christopher J. Habenicht, Esq.
          MEYERGOERGEN PC
          1802 Bayberry Court, Suite 200
          Richmond, VA 23226
          Telephone: (804) 288 3600
          Facsimile: (804) 565 1231
          E-mail: simmons@mg-law.com
                  habenicht@mg-law.com


CHARLOTTE SCHOOL: "Krebs" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned SPENCER KREBS, MORGAN SWITZER, DAVE
WYATT, KRYSTAL HORSLEY, JACENTA MARIE PRICE, and MARKISHA DOBSON,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. CHARLOTTE SCHOOL OF LAW, LLC, a North Carolina
company, INFILAW CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, STERLING
PARTNERS, an Illinois business entity, STERLING CAPITAL PARTNERS
IV, LLC, d/b/a STERLING PARTNERS, a Delaware Corporation, JAY
CONISON, Dean of CSL, CHIDI OGENE, President of CSL, DON LIVELY,
former President of CSL, and the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, a governmental agency, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
CV-01437-CCE-JEP (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to enter
an order certifying a class.

The Plaintiffs also move the Court to appoint Plaintiffs' counsel
as interim class-counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Z52V1pON

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas B. Abrams, Esq.
          Noah B. Abrams, Esq.
          ABRAMS & ABRAMS, P.A.
          1526 Glenwood Avenue
          Raleigh, NC 27608
          Telephone: (919) 755-9166
          E-mail: dabarms@abramslawfirm.com
                  nabrams@abramslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Timothy C. Bailey, Esq.
          D. Blake Carter, Jr., Esq.
          Taylor M. Norman, Esq.
          BAILEY, JAINS & CARTER, LC
          213 Hale Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345 0346
          E-mail: tbailey@bjc4u.com
                  jrcarter@bjc4u.com
                  TNorman@bjc4u.com


               - and -

          Anthony J. Maestro, Esq.
          405 Capitol Street, Suite P-1200
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 346 2889
          E-mail: amajestro@powellmajestro.com

Counsel for Defendants Charlotte School of Law, InfiLaw
Corporation, and Jay Conison:

          Johnny M. Loper, Esq.
          Rebecca C. Fleishman, Esq.
          WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE
          P.O. Box 831
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          E-mail: jloper@wcsr.com
                  rfleishman@wcsr.com

               - and -

          Debbie W. Harden, Esq.
          Sarah Motley Stone, Esq.
          WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE
          One Wells Fargo Center, Suite 3500
          301 South College Street
          Charlotte, NC 28202-6037
          E-mail: dharden@wcsr.com
                  sstone@wcsr.com

               - and -

          David Mills, Esq.
          Michael Hays, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          E-mail: dmills@cooley.com
                  mhays@cooley.com

Counsel for Defendants Sterling Partners and Sterling Capital
Partners IV, LLC:

          Adam K. Doerr, Esq.
          Robert E. Harrington, Esq.
          ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A.
          101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900
          Charlotte, NC 28246
          E-mail: rharrington@robinsonbradshaw.com
                  adoer@robinsonbradshaw.com


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeal from Approval of Class Settlement Junked
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Three, dismissed the appeals case captioned WENDY SEGOVIA et al.,
Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.,
Defendant and Respondent; ENRIQUE LOPEZ-CARRILLO, Objector and
Appellant, No. B266570 (Cal. Ct. App.).

Wendy Segovia was employed by Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., in
California in various non-exempt hourly positions, including team
member, kitchen manager, service manager and assistant general
manager, beginning in June 2010 until February 2012. Segovia
commenced an action in August 2012 and filed her fourth amended
complaint in October 2013. The parties engaged in extended
settlement negotiations, and in August 2014, two years into the
litigation, they executed a long-form stipulation and settlement
of class action claims.

On August 22, 2014, Segovia filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the Settlement, which the trial court granted on
December 29, 2014. On April 7, 2015, the claims administrator sent
the settlement notice by first class mail to the 38,344 class
members on the class list. According to Chipotle, 96 percent of
the class members received the notice.

Four class members, including Enrique Lopez-Carrillo, filed
objections to the proposed settlement, and 35 individuals elected
to opt out. Lopez-Carrillo contended that Segovia had not shown
the proposed settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate, that
the notice to class members did not comply with due process and
that Segovia did not meet her burden on class certification.
Lopez-Carrillo did not opt out of the settlement, nor did he seek
to intervene in the action.

The trial court conducted a final approval and fairness hearing
and on July 14, 2015, it entered an order overruling the
objections of Lopez-Carrillo and the three other objectors,
approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the
public interest, and directed entry of a final judgment.

Lopez-Carrillo filed a notice of appeal from the judgment
contending that the settlement's FLSA opt-in process does not
comport with state or federal law, that the trial court abused its
discretion in concluding the proposed settlement was fair,
reasonable and adequate and that the trial court erred in granting
certification of the settlement class.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal observing that Lopez-
Carrillo is a class member, but he did not intervene in the
action. As a consequence, Lopez-Carrillo lacks party status and is
without standing to appeal.

A copy of the opinion penned by Presiding Justice Lee Smalley
Edmon dated March 2, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/J3p6Ri
from Leagle.com.

Stuart B. Esner -- sesner@ecbappeal.com -- at Esner, Chang &
Boyer; John N. Quisenberry -- jquisenberry@quislaw.com -- at The
Quisenberry Law Firm; Andrew C. Quisenberry --
Andrew.Quisenberry@Coloradolaw.net -- at Bachus & Schanker, for
Objector and Appellant

Kenneth H. Yoon -- Stephanie E. Yasuda -- syasuda@yoonlaw.com --
at Law Offices of Kenneth H. Yoon; Peter M. Hart --
hartpeter@msn.com -- at Law Offices of Peter M. Hart, for
Plaintiffs and Respondents

Richard J. Simmons -- rsimmons@sheppardmullin.com -- Jason W.
Kearnaghan -- jkearnaghan@sheppardmullin.com -- Daniel J. McQueen
-- dmcqueen@sheppardmullin.com -- Robert Mussig --
rmussig@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton, for Defendant and Respondent

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Three panel consists of Presiding Justice Lee Smalley Edmon and
Justices Richard D. Aldrich and Luis A. Lavin.


CITIGROUP INC: Oct. 18 Final Approval Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------
Citigroup 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 final approval hearing
is scheduled for October 18, 2017, in the case, In Re Foreign
Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation.

Numerous foreign exchange dealers, including Citigroup and
Citibank, are named as defendants in putative class actions that
are proceeding on a consolidated basis in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York under the
caption IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. The plaintiffs allege that they suffered losses as a
result of the defendants' alleged manipulation of, and collusion
with respect to, the foreign exchange market. The plaintiffs
allege violations of the Commodity Exchange Act, the Sherman Act,
and/or the Clayton Act, and seek compensatory damages, treble
damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

On December 15, 2015, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving a proposed settlement between the Citi defendants and
classes of plaintiffs who traded foreign exchange instruments in
the spot market and on exchanges. The proposed settlement provides
for the Citi defendants to receive a release in exchange for a
payment of approximately $400 million.

On December 20, 2016, the court approved the notice of settlements
and preliminarily approved the plan of distribution. The final
approval hearing is scheduled for October 18, 2017.

Additional information concerning these actions is publicly
available in court filings under the consolidated lead docket
number: 13 Civ. 7789 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Motion to Dismiss NYPL Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc.'s motion to dismiss the the second amended
complaint in the case, NYPL v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., ET. AL,
remains pending, Citigroup 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 May 21, 2015, an action captioned NYPL v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.,
ET. AL was brought in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against Citigroup, as well as
numerous other foreign exchange dealers for possible consolidation
with IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION.

On January 22, 2016, plaintiffs in NYPL v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.,
ET AL. filed a second amended class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York naming
Citibank and Citicorp as defendants, in addition to Citigroup and
numerous other foreign exchange dealers. The plaintiffs seek to
represent a putative class of "consumers and businesses in the
United States who directly purchased supracompetitive foreign
currency exchange rates" from defendants for their end use, and
are seeking compensatory damages, treble damages and declaratory
and injunctive relief.

On September 2, 2016, Citigroup and Related Parties, along with
other defendant banks, moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint.

Additional information concerning this action is publicly
available in court filings under the docket numbers 15 Civ. 2290
(N.D. Cal.) (Chhabria, J.) and 15 Civ. 9300 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield,
J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Appeal in "Allen" Class Suit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
An appeal by the Plaintiffs in the "Allen" class action lawsuit
remains pending, Citigroup 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.

On June 3, 2015, an action captioned ALLEN v. BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION, ET AL. was brought in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Citigroup, as
well as numerous other foreign exchange dealers. The plaintiffs
seek to represent a putative class of participants, beneficiaries,
and named fiduciaries of qualified Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) plans for whom a defendant provided foreign
exchange transactional services or authorized or permitted foreign
exchange transactional services involving a plan's assets in
connection with its exercise of authority or control regarding an
ERISA plan. The plaintiffs allege violations of ERISA, and seek
compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement and declaratory
and injunctive relief.

On April 6, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a second amended class
action complaint against numerous foreign exchange dealers,
including Citigroup and Citibank. On April 15, 2016, the settling
defendants in IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST
LITIGATION moved to enjoin the ALLEN action pending final
settlement approval in IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES
ANTITRUST LITIGATION. On June 1, 2016, the court granted the
motion in part as to claims based on collusive conduct and
directed plaintiffs to file a separate pleading for claims based
exclusively on non-collusive conduct. The plaintiffs filed a third
amended complaint on July 15, 2016.

On September 20, 2016, the plaintiffs and settling defendants in
IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION filed
a joint stipulation dismissing plaintiffs' claims with prejudice.

On October 20, 2016, the ALLEN plaintiffs appealed the lower
court's dismissal of claims against settling defendants in IN RE
FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, after
having also appealed dismissal as to other defendants. The Second
Circuit has consolidated the two appeals.

Additional information concerning this action is publicly
available in court filings under the docket numbers 13 Civ. 7789
(S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.); 15 Civ. 4285 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield,
J.); 16-3327 (2d Cir.); and 16-3571 (2d Cir.).


CITIGROUP INC: Defending Against "Baker" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. is defending against the "Baker" class action
lawsuit, Citigroup 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 September 26, 2016, investors in exchange-traded funds (ETFs)
commenced a suit captioned BAKER ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION ET AL. in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Citigroup, Citibank,
Citicorp and CGMI, as well as various other banks. The complaint
asserts claims under the Sherman Act, New York state antitrust
law, and California state antitrust law and unfair competition
law, based on alleged foreign exchange market collusion affecting
ETF investments. The plaintiffs seek to certify nationwide,
California and New York classes, and request damages and
injunctive relief under the relevant statutes, including treble
damages.

Additional information concerning this action is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number 16 civ.7512
(S.D.N.Y) (Schofield, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: April 13 Hearing on "Beland" Case Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup 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 final approval hearing
is scheduled for April 13, 2017, on the settlement in the "Beland"
class action lawsuit.

In September 2015, putative class actions captioned BĂȘLAND v.
ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, ET AL. and STAINES v. ROYAL BANK OF CANADA,
ET AL. were filed in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice and the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, respectively, against Citigroup
and Related Parties, as well as numerous other foreign exchange
dealers. Plaintiffs allege that defendants conspired to fix the
prices and supply of currency purchased in the foreign exchange
market, and that this manipulation caused investors to pay
inflated rates for currency and/or to receive deflated rates for
currency. Plaintiffs assert claims under the Canadian Competition
Act and the Quebec Civil Code and/or for civil conspiracy, unjust
enrichment and waiver of tort. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and
punitive damages, or disgorgement, on behalf of putative classes
of all persons in Quebec or in Canada who entered into a foreign
exchange instrument or participated in a fund or investment
vehicle that entered into a foreign exchange instrument between
January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2013. Citigroup and Related
Parties have agreed to settle these actions for CAD 21 million.

On December 14, 2016, the court preliminarily approved the
settlement. A final approval hearing is scheduled for April 13,
2017.

Additional information concerning these actions is publicly
available in court filings under the docket numbers 200-06-000189-
152 (C.S.Q. Quebec) and CV-15-536174 (Ont. S.C.J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Court Dismissed in Part "Sullivan" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to
dismiss in the case, Sullivan v. Barclays, Citigroup 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.

On August 13, 2015, plaintiffs in the class action SULLIVAN v.
BARCLAYS PLC, ET AL. pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York filed a fourth amended
complaint naming Citigroup and Citibank as defendants. Plaintiffs
claim to have suffered losses as a result of purported EURIBOR
manipulation and assert claims under the Commodity Exchange Act,
the Sherman Act and the federal RICO law, and for unjust
enrichment. On February 21, 2017, the court granted in part and
denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss.

Additional information concerning this action is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number 13 Civ. 2811
(S.D.N.Y.) (Castel, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Defending Against Frontpoint Asian Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. is defending against the case, Frontpoint Asian
Event Driven Fund, Ltd. et al V. Citibank, N.A. Et al., 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 July 1, 2016, a putative class action captioned FRONTPOINT
ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, LTD. ET AL v. CITIBANK, N.A. ET AL. was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Citibank, Citigroup and various other
banks. Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act,
Clayton Act and RICO Act, as well as state law claims for alleged
manipulation of the Singapore Interbank Offered Rate and Singapore
Swap Offer Rate.

Additional information concerning this action is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number 16 Civ. 5263
(S.D.N.Y.) (Hellerstein, J.).


CITIGROUP INC: Still Faces Suit Over SSA Bond Market
----------------------------------------------------
Citigroup 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 Company continues to
defend against lawsuits related to the supranational, sub-
sovereign, and agency (SSA) bond market.

Since May 2016, a number of substantially similar putative class
action complaints have been filed against a number of financial
institutions and traders related to the supranational, sub-
sovereign, and agency (SSA) bond market. Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI
and CGML are named as defendants in three of the complaints. The
actions are based upon the defendants' roles as market makers and
traders of SSA bonds and assert claims of alleged collusion under
the antitrust laws and unjust enrichment and seek damages,
including treble damages where authorized by statute, and
disgorgement. These actions were filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  Beginning
in August 2016, the cases were consolidated in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Additional information relating to these actions is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number: 16-cv-03711
(S.D.N.Y.) (Ramos, J.).


CLAYTON WILLIAMS: "Sobel" Sues Over Onerous Merger Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
Alan Sobel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Clayton Williams Energy, Inc., Clayton W.
Williams, Jr., Mel G. Riggs, Davis L. Ford, Ph.D., P. Scott
Martin, Ronald D. Scott, Jordan R. Smith, And Nathan W. Walton,
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00312, (D. Del., March 21, 2017),
seeks to enjoin Defendants and all persons acting in concert with
them from proceeding with the shareholder vote on the acquisition
of Clayton by Noble Energy Inc. or consummating it unless and
until the Company discloses the material information omitted from
the merger statement; or rescinding, to the extent already
implemented.  The suit also seeks rescissory damages, costs of
this action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On January 16, 2017, Noble and Clayton jointly announced that
Noble will acquire all of the outstanding common stock of Clayton
for $2.7 billion in Noble stock and cash where the value of the
transaction based on Noble's closing stock price as of January 13,
2017, is approximately $139 per share, or $3.2 billion in the
aggregate, including the assumption of approximately $500 million
in net debt.

The said merger consideration allegedly fails to disclose material
financial projections for Clayton, including the financial
analyses performed by Goldman and Sachs as well as terms of
certain confidentiality agreements entered into during the sale
process.

Plaintiff is a shareholder of Clayton common stock.

Defendant is an independent oil and gas company engaged in the
exploration for and production of oil and natural gas primarily in
Texas and New Mexico. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
      James M. Wilson, Jr.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
      Email: jwilson@faruqilaw.com

             - and -

      James R. Banko, Esq.
      Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
      20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Tel: (302) 482-3182
      Email: jbanko@faruqilaw.com
             mvangorder@faruqilaw.com

             - and -

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


CODE REBEL: Rosen, Pomerantz Named Co-Lead Counsel in "Springer"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Alison J. Nathan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York granted plaintiffs' motion for appointment as
lead plaintiffs and as co-lead counsel in the case styled Robert
Springer, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Code Rebel Corporation, et al.,
Defendants, No. 16-cv-3492 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y.).

The court appoints plaintiffs William Tran and Adrian Ybarra as
lead plaintiffs, approves the Rosen Law Firm, P.A., and Pomerantz
LLP, as co-lead counsel for the purported class.

On May 10, 2016, plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendants
Code Rebel Corp., Arben Kane, and Reid Dabney, alleging securities
fraud under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15
U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78t(a).

On May 18, 2016, Code Rebel Corporation filed a voluntary petition
seeking bankruptcy protection under Chapter 7 of 11 U.S.C. Section
101, et seq, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware.

On June 20, 2016, the court ordered the parties to submit a joint
letter indicating whether the case should proceed against the
individual defendants, Kane and Dabney, or whether it should be
stayed in light of the bankruptcy proceedings. The parties
submitted the letter on June 29, 2016, taking divergent positions.
On July 8, 2016, the individual defendants' formally moved for a
stay and submitted a supplemental brief in support of their
motion.  On July 11, 2016, William Tran and Adrian Ybarra seek
appointment as lead plaintiffs, and to have their chosen counsel,
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., and Pomerantz, LLP, approved as co-lead
counsel for the purported class.

Judge Nathan declines to address the scope of the automatic stay
in the first instance, and, under its equitable powers,
temporarily stays the action for 60 days to permit the individual
defendants to seek their requested relief from the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

The court appoints plaintiffs William Tran and Adrian Ybarra as
lead plaintiffs, approves the Rosen Law Firm, P.A., and Pomerantz
LLP, as co-lead counsel for the purported class.

A copy of Judge Nathan's memorandum and order dated March 2, 2017,
is available at https://goo.gl/OwwBly from Leagle.com.

Lead Plaintiffs, represented by Phillip C. Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- at The Rosen Law Firm P.A.; Jeremy Alan
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Joseph Alexander Hood, II -
- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Justin Solomon Nematzadeh --
jnematzadeh@pomlaw.com -- at Pomerantz LLP

Robert Springer, individually, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip
C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- at The Rosen Law Firm P.A

George Torres, Movant, represented by Matthew Moylan Guiney --
guiney@whafh.com -- at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP

Afaq Shaik, Movant, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy --
lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP

Larry Strowbridge, Movant, represented by Adam M. Apton --
aapton@zlk.com -- at Levi & Korsinsky LLP

Arben Kryeziu, Defendant, represented by Justin Blake Singer --
justin@dfmklaw.com -- at Feuerstein Kulick LLP

Reid Dabney, Defendant, represented by Donald W. Hawthorne --
dhawthorne@axinn.com -- Felix John Gilman -- fgilman@axinn.com --
at Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider, LLP


COMENITY BANK: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lejune Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Comenity Bank, the Defendant, Case No.
1:17-cv-01970 (N.D. Ill., Mar. 13, 2017), seeks redress on a
classwide basis for business practices that violate the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA).

The Plaintiff is a natural person who resides in Cook County,
Illinois. Plaintiff is the regular and exclusive user of a
cellular telephone with service registered in her name.

On December 28, 2016, the Plaintiff began receiving telephone
calls from Defendant on her cellular telephone ending in 9717 via
an "automatic telephone dialing system" (ATDS), using "an
artificial or prerecorded voice". This ATDS has the capacity to
store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or
sequential number generator.

The Plaintiff received many calls since October 2016 or earlier
from Defendant regarding allegedly owed consumer debt obligations.
On December 28, 2016, Plaintiff was contacted by Defendant. During
this conversation, Plaintiff clearly and expressly told Defendant
to stop any calls to Plaintiff. Despite Plaintiff's revocation,
Defendant contacted Ms. Brown twice more on her cellular telephone
using an ATDS.

Comenity Bank is a national bank and issuer of consumer revolving
debt.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Ankcorn, Esq.
          ANKCORN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          1060 Woodcock Road, Suite 128
          Orlando, FL 32803
          Telephone: (321) 422 2333
          Facsimile: (619) 684 3541
          E-mail: mark@ankcornlaw.com


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Bid to Withdraw Class Certification Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Strauch, et. al, the Plaintiffs, v.
Computer Sciences Corp., the Defendant, Case No. 3:14-cv-00956-JBA
(D. Conn.), the Hon. Janet Bond Arterton entered an order granting
joint motion to withdraw Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification and Defendant's motion to seal without prejudice to
renew.

If the parties move to renew, oral argument will be held May 10,
2017, at 2:00 p.m., Courtroom Two.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=U8oYq451


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Class Certification Sought in "Gill" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Sue E. Gill, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Convergent
Outsourcing, Inc., a Washington corporation, and Midland Funding,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-01035-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff moves for
class certification, and requests that the Court allow her to
represent a class of:

   "all persons similarly situated in the State of Ohio from whom
   Defendants Convergent and Midland attempted to collect a
   delinquent, time-barred consumer debt, allegedly owed for a
   First Bank of Delaware credit card account, via the same form
   collection letter that Defendants sent to Plaintiff, from one
   year before the date of the Complaint to the present.

The case action seeks a finding that Defendant's form letter
violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts (FDCPA), and asks
that the Court award damages as authorized by section 692k(a)(2)
of the FDCPA.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HA063IpT

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Amy Wells, Esq.
          Keogh Law, Ltd.
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 726 1092
          Facsimile: (312) 726 1093
          E-mail: awells@KeoghLaw.com

               - and -

          Ronald L. Burdge, Esq.
          BURDGE LAW OFFICE, C.O., LPA
          8250 Washington Village Drive
          Dayton, OH 45458-1850
          Telephone: (937)432 9500
          Facsimile: (937)432 9503
          E-mail: ron@burdgelaw.com

               - and -

The Defendant is represented by:

          Charity A. Olson
          OLSON LAW GROUP
          Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104
          2723 S. State Street, Suite 150
          E-mail: colson@olsonlawpc.com

               - and -

          Theodore W. Seitz, Esq.
          DYKEMA GOSSETT, PLLC
          Capital View
          201 Townsend Street, Suite 900
          Lansing, MI 48933
          E-mail: tseitz@dykema.com

               - and -

          Amy Wells, Esq.
          KEOGH LAW, LTD.
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3390
          Chicago, IL 60603
          E-mail: awells@KeoghLaw.com

               - and -

          Ronald L. Burdge
          BURDGE LAW OFFICE, C.O., LPA
          8250 Washington Village Drive
          Dayton, OH 45458-1850
          E-mail: ron@burdgelaw.com


CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Blanga" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Credit
Services LLC. The case is captioned as Sophie Blanga, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Central Credit Services LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01459
(E.D.N.Y., Mar. 15, 2017).

Central Credit operates as an accounts receivable management
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COLLEGIATE HOUSING: Faces "Dearman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Dearman, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Collegiate Housing Services, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00057 (W.D. N.C., March 17, 2017),
seeks payment of overtime compensation for all hours worked over
40 each workweek.

Plaintiff Dearman was employed as an inspector by the Defendant.

Collegiate Housing Services, Inc. is a company that provides and
manages student housing at learning institutions throughout the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Philip J. Gibbons, Jr.
   Phil Gibbons Law, P.C.
   15720 Brixham Hill Ave, Ste 331
   Charlotte, NC 28277
   Tel: (704) 612-0038
   Email: phil@philgibbonslaw.com



CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Arcuri" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control, LLC.
The case is styled as Connie M. Arcuri, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Credit
Control, LLC, doing business as Credit Control & Collections, LLC,
and Portfolio Investment Exchange, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
2:17-cv-01453 (E.D.N.Y.).

Credit Control is a St. Louis credit collection service that
offers debt collections and accounts receivables management.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CURADEN AG: "Lyngaas" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled BRIAN LYNGAAS, D.D.S., individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. CURADEN AG, CURADEN USA INC, and JOHN DOES 1-12, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-10910-MAG-MKM (E.D. Mich.), the
Plaintiff moves the Court for entry of an order certifying a class
of:

   "each person in the United States sent one or more telephone
   facsimile messages about any "Curaprox" product, but not
   stating on its first page that the fax recipient may request
   that the sender not send any future fax and that the sender's
   failure to comply with such a request within 30 days would be
   unlawful".

The Plaintiff files this motion soon after the filing of its Class
Action Complaint to avoid an attempt by Defendant(s) to moot
Plaintiff's individual claims in this class action. Plaintiff is
filing a class certification motion now as a matter of efficiency,
to prevent Defendant from attempting to "pick off" the class
representative and moot this action, and causing briefing on that
issue. The US Supreme Court had previously ruled that an offer of
full individual relief to a representative plaintiff under a Rule
68 offer of judgment moots that Plaintiff's claim and renders the
case moot. Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523,
1529 (2013).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QGqUd9Ru

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Robert M. Hatch, Esq.
          Bock, Hatch, Lewis & Oppenheim, LLC
          134 N. La Salle Street, Suite 100
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658 5500

               - and -

          Richard Shenkan, Esq.
          Shenkan Injury Lawyers, LLC
          6550 Lakeshore St.
          West Bloomfield, MI 48323
          Telephone: (248) 562 1320
          E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com


CVS HEALTH: "Boss" Sues Over Securities and Exchange Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Boss, et al., Plaintiffs, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CVS Health Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-01823 (D. N.J., March 17, 2017) seeks compensatory
damages, reasonable costs and expenses incurred, including
attorneys' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities and Exchange Act.

The complaint says the Defendants' Insulin Pricing Scheme directly
and foreseeably causes consumers to overpay for these life-saving
medications. Thus, the action is brought to redress Plaintiffs'
injuries that flow from Defendants' Insulin Pricing-Scheme which
has driven up the cost of insulin to the substantial benefit of
manufacturers.

CVS Health Corporation is a Delaware corporation, with principal
place of business at One CVS Drive, Woonsocket, Rhode Island
02895. Defendant operated 9,674 retail locations in 49 states and
the District of Columbia, including in-store Target pharmacies.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael Critchley, Sr., Esq.
   Michael Critchley, Jr., Esq.
   Critchley, Kinum & Denoia, LLC
   75 Livingston Avenue
   Roseland, NJ 04068
   Tel: (973) 422-9200
   Fax: (973) 422-9700
   Email: mcritchley@critchleylaw.com
          mcjr@critchleylaw.com

        - and -

   Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
   Gretchen S. Obrist, Esq.
   Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
   1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
   Seattle, WA 98101
   Tel: (206) 623-1900
   Fax: (206) 623-3384
   Email: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
          gobrist@kellerrohrback.com


CWC OF MIAMI: "Matos" Labor Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Matos and all others similarly situated, v. C.W.C. of Miami
Inc. and Mario Ferrari Magalhaes, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-
21074, (S.D. Fla., March 22, 2017), requests double damages and
reasonable attorney's fees from Defendants, jointly and severally,
for all overtime wages still owing along with court costs,
interest and any other relief allowed by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

C.W.C. of Miami Inc. operates as Las Palmas Restaurant in Miami-
Dade County where Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an inventory
stocker and route deliveryman from December 16, 2015 to
February 26, 2017. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Tel: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865-7167
     Email: zabogado@aol.com


DJM ADVISORY: O.P. Schuman TCPA Suit Transferred to M.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned O.P. Schuman & Sons, Inc., Plaintiff, v. DJM
Advisory Group, LLC, Banner Life Insurance Company, William Penn
Life Insurance Company of New York and John Does 1-12, Defendants,
Case No. 2:16-cv-03563, (E.D. Pa., June 20, 2016), has been
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida on March 21, 2017, under Case No. 2:17-cv-00157.

Plaintiff seeks statutory damages, trebling of statutory damages,
injunctive relief, compensation, attorney's fees, and all other
relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Defendants sent advertisements by facsimile to Plaintiff. DJM is a
New York limited liability company with its principal place of
business in Mahopac, New York. Banner Life is an insurance company
incorporated in the state of Maryland, with its principal office
in Rockville, Maryland. William Penn Life Insurance Company of New
York is a wholly owned subsidiary of Banner Life with an office
located in Garden City, New York. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alan C. Milstein, Esq.
     SHERMAN, SILVERMAN, KOHL, ROSE AND PODOLSKI
     East Gate Center
     308 Harper Drive, Suite 200
     Moorestown, NJ 08057
     Telephone: 856-662-0700 Ext. 236

            - and -

     Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
     Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
     Jonathon Piper, Esq.
     BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
     134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone: (312) 658-5500
     Facsimile: (312) 658-5555

Defendant is represented by:

     Nicole L. Milone, Esq.
     John H. Gionis, Esq.
     Paul B. Sweeney, Esq.
     CERTILMAN, BALIN, ADLER & HYMAN, LLP
     9th Floor, 90 Merrick Ave.
     East Meadow, NY 11554-1597
     Tel: (516) 296-7000
     Fax: (516) 296-7111
     Email: nmilone@certilmanbalin.com
            psweeney@certilmanbalin.com
            jgionis@certilmanbalin.com

            - and -

     Kevin J. Kotch, Esq.
     THE KIM LAW FIRM LLC
     1500 Market Street
     Centre Square West, Suite W-3110
     Philadelphia, PA 19102
     Tel: (855) 996-6342
     Fax: (855) 235-5855


DOORDASH INC: Faces "Angell" Suit Alleging TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Angell, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated v. Doordash, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-
01478 (N.D. Cal., March 19, 2017), seeks injunction requiring
DoorDash to cease all of its unsolicited text message activities
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff and members of the Class were harmed by the acts of
Defendant in at least the following ways: Defendants, either
directly or through its agents, illegally contacted Plaintiff and
the Class members via their cellular telephone by using a
telephone facsimile machine, thereby causing Plaintiff and the
Class members to reduce cellular telephone time for which
Plaintiff and the Class members previously paid and invading the
privacy of said Plaintiff and the Class members.

Defendant, DoorDash, Inc. is a food delivery service that allows
customers to place food orders, through a mobile phone application
or through its website, from various restaurants in the "DoorDash
marketplace. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
   Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
   Kazerouni Law Group, APC
   245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
   Costa Mesa, CA 92626
   Tel: (800) 400-6808
   Fax: (800) 520-5523
   Email: ml@kazlg.com
          ak@kazlg.com

        - and -

   Eric W. Kem, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Eric W. Kem
   11755 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1250, #168
   Los Angeles, CA 90025
   Tel: (844) 536-3476
   Fax: (844) 536-3476
   Email: ekem@kemlawfirm.com

        - and -

   Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
   Hyde & Swigart
   2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
   San Diego, CA 92108
   Tel: (619) 233-7770
   Fax: (619) 297-1022
   Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


E. I. DU PONT: Amended Class Certification Motion Due April 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Marcia A. Crone entered an order in the lawsuit captioned
GENE CHANCE, the Plaintiff, v. E. I. DU PONT NEMOURS AND COMPANY,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00376-MAC (E.D. Tex.), granting
Plaintiff Gene Chance's unopposed motion for additional time to
file motion for certification and amended pleadings.

The Plaintiff shall file an amended motion for class certification
and any amended pleadings on or before April 30,
2017.

In light of Plaintiff's forthcoming amended motion for class
certification, an Opposed Motion to Certify Class, filed on
November 1, 2016, is denied without prejudice to reassertion on or
before the deadline.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jA552fUi


EAGLEVILLE HOSPITAL: Court OKs Notice to Former Nurses
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cynthia M. Rufe of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, granted plaintiffs' motion for order
authorizing notice to similarly situated persons pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Sec 216(b), in the case ADRIENNE GALT, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. EAGLEVILLE HOSPITAL, Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-6851 (E.D.
Pa.).

Plaintiffs Adrienne Galt and Nancy Murphy, former Registered
Nurses at Eagleville Hospital, and opt-in plaintiff Nina Johnson,
a former Nursing Assistant at Eagleville, brought a suit under the
Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs allege that Eagleville
violated the FLSA by requiring them to work during 30-minute
unpaid meal breaks and then automatically deducting that time from
their shift totals, depriving them of compensation, including
overtime pay. Employees were entitled to such meal breaks for each
shift of five hours or more under Eagleville's written policies.
However, plaintiffs allege that their supervisors often required
them to work through meal breaks, did not inform them that they
could request compensation for missed meal breaks, and implied
that employees would be punished if they sought pay for missed
meal breaks.

Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of a collective action
on behalf of all persons who have worked for Eagleville as a
Registered Nurse, Nursing Assistant, Licensed Practical Nurse, or
Mental Health Technician during any workweek in the past three
years and moved the court for an order authorizing notice to
similarly situated person pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

Defendant argues both that plaintiffs have failed to make a modest
factual showing that the proposed opt-in employees are similarly
situated and that plaintiffs' proposed class is overbroad.
Defendant also argues that even if plaintiffs' proposed class is
conditionally certified, it should be limited in scope and time.

Judge Rufe conditionally certified the case and held that
plaintiffs' declarations provide sufficient details that, if true,
would tend to show that other proposed collective members were
forced to work through meal breaks without compensation and thus
were similarly situated. Plaintiffs' claims are based upon a
common policy of deducting meal-break time that is reflected in
defendant's employee handbook, and are supported by specific
allegations regarding the directives of plaintiffs' supervisors,
who also supervised other employees.

Judge Rufe declines to limit the scope of the class at this stage,
as that issue is more appropriate for final certification and the
plaintiffs' motion is granted.

According to Judge Rufe, district courts have an obligation to
monitor notice to potential collective members to "ensure that it
is timely, accurate, and informative."  In this case, the
Plaintiffs' proposed notice must be updated to clarify the
starting date for the collective action period.  In addition,
because Defendant argued only that the notice was premature and
did not address whether it was fair and adequate, the parties will
be required to meet and confer regarding the form of notice before
Plaintiffs submit a revised form of notice to the Court.  The
Court will also require Defendant to produce information regarding
the identities of potential opt-in plaintiffs to facilitate the
distribution of notice, as Plaintiffs request.

A copy of Judge Rufe's memorandum opinion dated March 2, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/3aclvS from Leagle.com.

ADRIENNE GALT, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
     David J. Cohen, Esq.
     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
     205 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 2560
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: 312-233-1550
     Fax: 312-233-1560

EAGLEVILLE HOSPITAL, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER A.
TINARI -- ctinari@margolisedelstein.com -- BIANCA N. IOZZIA --
MICHAEL RONALD MILLER -- mmiller@margolisedelstein.com -- MORGAN
BROOKE RAZOR -- brazor@margolisedelstein.com -- at MARGOLIS
EDELSTEIN


ELLIOT BAY: FDCPA Plaintiff Must Show Cause re Jurisdiction
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seatle, orders plaintiff to show cause why
the court has subject matter jurisdiction in the case captioned
KELLY ERICKSON, Plaintiff, v. ELLIOT BAY ADJUSTMENT COMPANY INC.
and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendant, Case No. C16-0391JLR (WD Wash.).

Elliot Bay Adjustment Company, Inc. is a collection agency and
debt collector as defined by the Federal Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692a(6). In 2015, Elliot Bay
attempted to collect a debt from Kelly Erickson on behalf of
Family Health Care, one of Elliot Bay's clients. In this attempt
to collect the debt, Elliot Bay sent three letters to Ms. Elliot
on March 1, May 12, and September 10, 2015 respectively.

On September 3, 2015, and January 19, 2016, Elliot Bay reported
Ms. Erickson's debt to a credit bureau. Ms. Erickson alleges that
Elliot Bay did not notify the credit bureau that her debt was
disputed, as required under the FDCPA. On April 28, 2015, after
six weeks of failed attempts to recover payment, Elliot Bay filed
a collection lawsuit against Ms. Erickson in Snohomish County
District Court, but the collection lawsuit was eventually
dismissed after Elliot Bay made seven unsuccessful attempts to
serve Ms. Erickson.

On March 16, 2016, Ms. Erickson filed a putative class action
complaint alleging that Elliot Bay violated certain provisions of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section
1692, et seq., as well as the Washington Collection Agency Act
(WCAA), RCW Section 19.16 et seq., and the Washington Consumer
Protection Act, RCW Sec 19.86. Ms. Erickson asserts that the court
has federal question jurisdiction over the FDCPA claims and
pendent jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1367(a). Ms. Erickson filed a motion for class
certification.

Judge Robert observed that neither Ms. Erickson's complaint nor
her motion for class certification address standing. The court is
concerned that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over
the claims asserted in Ms. Erickson's motion for class
certification because Ms. Erickson's pleadings do not allege that
any concrete harm resulted from the various actions Elliot Bay
took in attempting to collect the debt. For each of her other
allegations, the court is concerned that Ms. Erickson has only
alleged bare statutory violations, without any allegations that
Elliot Bay caused her concrete harm or introduced a risk of harm.
The court is concerned that Ms. Erickson has failed to demonstrate
standing.

Judge Robart ordered Ms. Erickson to show cause why the court has
subject matter jurisdiction over the action. Ms. Erickson's
response may not exceed ten pages and is due no later than ten
days after the filing of the order. Although not required, Elliot
Bay may also submit a simultaneous brief on the topic of Ms.
Erickson's standing that does not exceed ten pages and is also due
ten days after the filing of the order.

A copy of Judge Robart's show cause order dated March 3, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/ue8GFh from Leagle.com.

Kelly Erickson, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan Matthew Pesicka --
Ryan@ConcordLawSeattle.com -- at CONCORD LAW, P.C.

Elliott Bay Adjustment Company, Inc, Defendant, represented by
Christopher H. Howard -- choward@schwabe.com -- Derrick Anthony De
Vera -- ddevera@schwabe.com -- at SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT


EMERCHANTBROKER.COM: Faces "Morgan" Suit in W.D. Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action complaint has been filed against
Emerchantbroker.com, LLC, entitled as Chris Morgan, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Emerchantbroker.com, LLC, and First American Merchant Services,
LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00023-NKM (W.D. Va., Mar.
20, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Norman K. Moon.

Emerchantbroker offers payment processing services. The company
provides merchant account, chargeback, check processing, and
business funding.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dale Wood Pittman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DALE W. PITTMAN
          112-A West Tabb Street
          Petersburg, VA 23803-3212
          Telephone: (804) 861 6000
          Facsimile: (804) 861 3386
          E-mail: dale@pittmanlawoffice.com


EVO PAYMENTS: New Beginnings Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled New Beginnings Healthcare for
Women, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Evo Payments International, LLC, and EVO
Merchant Services, LLC, Case No. 2017cv285034, was removed from
the Superior Court of Fulton County, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-00950-LMM to the proceeding. The
case is assigned to Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May.

EVO Payments provides electronic payments processing and acquiring
services for merchants and independent sales organizations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Adam Webb, Esq.
          Matthew C. Klase, Esq.
          WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
          1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (770) 444 0773
          E-mail: eadamwebb@hotmail.com
                  mattklase@bellsouth.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Allison Lynn Hill, Esq.
          David Lewis Balser, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Chally, Esq.
          Julia Constance Barrett, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP - ATL
          1180 Peachtree Street, NE
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
          Telephone: (404) 572 2440
          E-mail: ahill@kslaw.com
                  dbalser@kslaw.com
                  jchally@kslaw.com
                  jbarrett@kslaw.com


EXEL INC: "Harris" Suit Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KELVIN W. HARRIS, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EXEL, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:14-cv-01231-ALM-TPK (S.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class of:

   "all individuals about whom Exel, Inc. obtained a consumer
   report for employment purposes between August 14, 2012 through
   May 1, 2016."

Harris also asks that the Court enter an order deeming Harris an
adequate representative of the Class, and appointing Matthew A.
Dooley, Anthony R. Pecora, and Stephen M. Bosak of O'Toole,
McLaughlin, Dooley & Pecora Co., LPA as Class Counsel.

The Defendant routinely violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act's
stand-alone disclosure requirement by procuring background checks
on employees and job applicants without first providing a
disclosure properly informing that a "consumer report" would be
procured for employment purposes. Instead, Exel relied on multiple
documents within its application packet that were littered with
extraneous information unrelated to section 1681b(b)(2)(A)'s
stand-alone requirement. Harris seeks statutory and punitive
damages for each class member affected by Exel's unlawful
practice.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew A. Dooley, Esq.
          Anthony R. Pecora, Esq.
          Stephen M. Bosak Jr., Esq.
          O'TOOLE McLAUGHLIN DOOLEY & PECORA, CO. LPA
          5455 Detroit Road
          Sheffield Village, Ohio 44054
          Telephone: (440) 930 4001
          Facsimile: (440) 934 7208
          E-mail: mdooley@omdplaw.com
                  apecora@omdplaw.com
                  sbosak@omdplaw.com


FCA US: Faces "Rothe" Suit in S.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FCA US LLC. The case
is captioned as Kirt Rothe and Catherine Plaster, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; FIAT Chrysler
Automobiles N.V., a corporation organized under the laws of the
Netherlands; Robert Bosch GMBH corporation organized under the
laws of Germany; and Robert Bosch LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00032-LGW-RSB
(S.D. Ga., Mar. 20, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Chief
Judge Lisa G. Wood.

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 manufacture.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John D. Hafemann, Esq.
          MILITARY JUSTICE ATTORNEYS
          219 Scott Street, PMB 315
          Beaufort, SC 29902
          Telephone: (843) 441 3356
          Facsimile: (843) 645 6530
          E-mail: John@militaryjusticeattorneys.com


FIRST PREMIER: Faces "Brandon" Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Takia Brandon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. First Premier Bank, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00720 (D. Nev., Mar. 13, 2017), seeks damages,
injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of First Premier
Bank, in negligently and/or intentionally contacting Plaintiff on
Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), thus invading Plaintiff's privacy.

Sometime before March 2016, Plaintiff allegedly incurred certain
financial obligations to Defendant. In March 2016, Plaintiff told
Defendant to stop calling her cellphone. Accordingly, as of March
2016, any prior express consent to call Plaintiff on her cellphone
was revoked. From April 2016, without any prior express consent
from Plaintiff, Defendant initiated numerous telephone calls to
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number. Defendant called
Plaintiff's cellular telephone number using an artificial and pre-
recorded voice. Defendant made numerous calls to Plaintiff using
an artificial and prerecorded voice. Specifically, on numerous
occasions, Defendant called Plaintiff's cellular telephone, during
which an artificial or prerecorded voice would inform Plaintiff to
hold for a live person.

First Premier Bank, headquartered in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, is
the 10th largest issuer of MasterCard brand credit cards in the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David H. Krieger, Esq.
          HAINES & KRIEGER, LLC
          8985 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 350
          Henderson, NE 89123
          Telephone: (702) 880 5554
          Facsimile: (702) 385 5518
          E-mail: dkrieger@hainesandkrieger.com


FLOWERS FOODS: Court Limits Distributor Opt-in Class
----------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Carol B. Whitehurst entered an order in the lawsuit
styled Antoine Richard, Darrell Richard, Chris Meche, Derby
Douchet, Sr., Kevin Rabeaux and Mark Louviere, individually and on
behalf of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v.
FLOWERS FOODS, INC.; FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF LAFAYETTE, LLC;
FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF BATON ROUGE, LLC; FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY
OF NEW ORLEANS, LLC; and FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF TYLER, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 6:15-cv-02557-SMH-CBW (W.D La.), granting
Parties' stipulation regarding Plaintiff's amended motion as to
FBC of New Orleans.

Specifically, the Court ordered that the conditionally certified
opt-in class for FBC of New Orleans is limited to any distributor
working for any of the warehouses associated with FBC-New Orleans
in the State of Louisiana from October 17, 2013 to the present and
who has signed and mailed, faxed or emailed their consent form to
counsel to join this action within 45 days of the date the Notice
mailed.

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


FORD MOTOR: 2016 Shelby GT350 Owners Sue Over Defects
-----------------------------------------------------
George and Diana Tershakovec, Jacques Rimokh and Herbert Alley,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
21087, (S.D. Fla., March 22, 2017), seeks to temporarily and
permanently enjoin Ford Motor Company from continuing the sale and
or lease of the Shelby GT350; injunctive relief in the form of a
recall or free replacement program; injunctive relief in the form
of a buy back; costs; restitution; damages, including punitive
damages and disgorgement; pre- and post-judgment interest on any
amounts awarded; attorneys' fees and costs; and such other or
further relief as may be appropriate resulting from unjust
enrichment, breach of express and implied warranty, fraudulent
concealment and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Act.

The 2016 Shelby GT350 overheats due to its defective transmission
and rear differentials that manifest in the powertrain systems'
inability to withstand the demands of race track driving, says the
complaint. Plaintiffs purchased 2016 Shelby GT350 Mustangs
specifically for track racing use.

Ford Motor Company manufactures, sells and leases cars, including
the Shelby GT350. It and/or its agents designed, manufactured, and
installed the allegedly defective powertrain systems in the
concerned vehicles.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stuart Z. Grossman, Esq.
      Rachel Furst, Esq.
      GROSSMAN ROTH YAFFA COHEN
      2525 Ponce de Leon, Suite 1150
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (888) 296-1681
      Facsimile: (305) 285-1668
      Email: szg@grossmanroth.com
             rwf@grossmanroth.com

             - and -

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      Catherine Y.N. Gannon, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
             catherineg@hbsslaw.com


FTD COMPANIES: "Winograd" Sues Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
Robert Winograd, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FTD Companies, Inc., Robert S.
Apatoff, Christopher W. Shean and Becky A. Sheehan, Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-02135, (N.D. Ill., March 20, 2017), seeks
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs, and such other and
further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

FTD is a floral and gifting company. The Company provides floral,
gift and related products and services to consumers, retail
florists, and other retail locations primarily in the U.S.,
Canada, the U.K., and the Republic of Ireland. In December 2014,
FTD announced the closing of its acquisition of Provide Commerce,
a floral and gifting business previously owned by Liberty
Interactive Corporation.

However, Defendants failed to disclose that FTD's financial
statements contained errors relating to the assessment of cross-
border indirect taxes, the company lacked effective internal
controls over financial reporting, and that FTD had overstated the
benefits of the Provide acquisition, says the complaint.

On this news, FTD's share price fell $5.54, or 23.69%, to close at
$17.85 on March 15, 2017. Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages as shareholders.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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

             - and -

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


GEICO GENERAL: Loses Bid to Dismiss Chiropractor's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Beth Bloom of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida denied defendant's motion to dismiss the case
captioned A&M GERBER CHIROPRACTIC LLC, a/a/o Conor Carruthers, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-62610-
BLOOM/Valle (S.D. Fla.).

A&M Gerber Chiropractic LLC is a medical treatment provider that
had treated an individual named Conor Carruthers, who is a
contracting party and/or named insured on an insurance policy
issued by Geico General Insurance Company. In exchange for
treatment, Carruthers assigned all benefits under the subject
policy to A&M Gerber.

According to A&M Gerber, GEICO pays policy claims pursuant to the
fee schedule permitted by Fla. Stat. Section 627.736(5)(a) and
GEICO's own endorsement. Under the endorsement, GEICO states that
a charge submitted by a provider, for an amount less than the
amount allowed above, shall be paid in the amount of the charge
submitted. Notwithstanding this endorsement, A&M Gerber alleges
that GEICO pays only 80% of the billed amount when the charge
submitted by the provider is less than the fee schedule amount.
A&M Gerber billed GEICO for services less than the amount payable
under the elected fee schedule, and pursuant to the policy and
endorsement, GEICO paid 80% of the charge submitted. Plaintiff
pleads that pursuant to its interpretation of the policy and
endorsement, GEICO paid an incorrect amount, a practice GEICO
allegedly employs on a wide-spread scale.

A&M Gerber filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida,
and has amended it, which GEICO removed to the present court. A&M
Gerber moved to remand proceedings back to state court on November
10, 2016, arguing that GEICO had failed to establish the amount in
controversy required under the Class Action Fairness Act, but was
denied by the court. GEICO filed a motion to dismiss arguing that
A&M Gerber fatally failed to allege compliance with the pre-suit
notice requirement at Fla. Stat. Section 627.736(10). Next, GEICO
claims that the amended complaint is in actuality a breach of
contract claim impermissibly brought under the guise of an action
for declaratory relief. GEICO also argues that A&M Gerber lacks
standing to bring its claim, and that the cause of action is
legally incorrect.

Judge Bloom denied defendant's motion to dismiss observing that
the fact that A&M Gerber could have simply brought an action for
breach of contract does not prevent it from also seeking a
declaratory judgment to establish coverage and the court finds
that A&M Gerber has standing to assert the action for declaratory
judgment.

A copy of Judge Bloom's order dated March 2, 2017, is available at
https://goo.gl/rcPIFx from Leagle.com.

A&M Gerber Chiropractic LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Edward
Herbert Zebersky -- ezebersky@zpllp.com -- Michael Trent Lewenz --
mlewenz@zpllp.com -- Todd S. Payne -- tpayne@zpllp.com -- at
Zebersky Payne, LLP; Mark S. Fistos -- mark@pathtojustice.com --
Steven R. Jaffe -- steve@pathtojustice.com -- at Farmer, Jaffe,
Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.

GEICO General Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Omar
Andres Giraldo -- omar.giraldo@csklegal.com -- Thomas Lee Hunker -
- thomas.hunker@csklegal.com -- Peter David Weinstein --
peter.weinstein@csklegal.com -- at Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.


GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Class Certification Bid Denied in "Waters" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JAMES M. WATERS, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
GLOBAL PAYMENTS, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 14-6134-
CV-SJ-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Beth Phillips entered an order
denying class certification of:

   "[a]ll persons on whose bank accounts Defendants drew a
   remotely created check on or after December 5, 2013 that was
   made payable to Global Payment Check Recovery Services".

The Court said, "Plaintiffs argue that their claims are typical of
the class because Defendants automatically issued remotely created
checks on Plaintiffs' and class members' accounts pursuant to
rules set forth in a computer program, without independently
confirming whether each remotely created check was authorized.
(Doc. 76, p. 38.) This fact is not related to Plaintiffs' legal
theories and thus does not demonstrate typicality. (See p. 8, note
14, supra.) Further, Plaintiffs never received notice and never
authorized the remotely created check issued on their account.
However, the putative class includes all customers on whose
accounts remotely created checks were issued-without regard for
what is permitted by state law, or whether a customer authorized
the remotely created check. Additionally, the class is not limited
to customers who wrote checks to the District. Other vendors may
have employed different methods of providing notice to, and
obtaining authorization from, customers. Finally, Plaintiffs'
method of issuing their original check (via online banking) may
raise different issues of notice and authorization than potential
class members who mailed physical checks or paid in person.
Therefore, the fact that Defendants' procedures for generating the
remotely created checks might be the same for all class members,
this does not make Plaintiffs' claims typical of all class
members. Plaintiffs' claims may be typical of all those who issued
checks through online banking to the District, but the class is
far broader. Thus, Plaintiffs' claims are not typical of the
class".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IYXnmJ5v


GLOBAL TEL: Loses Bid to Arbitrate Inmate-Phone Calling Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Timothy L. Brooks of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Arkansas, Fayetteville Division, denied defendant's
motion to compel arbitration in the case titled IN RE GLOBAL
TEL*LINK CORPORATION ICS LITIGATION, Case No. 5:14-CV-5275 (W.D.
Ark.).

Plaintiffs allege that Global Tel*Link Corporation (GTL) charged
them unjust and unreasonable rates for inmate phone-calling
services at various correctional facilities throughout the United
States, in violation of the Federal Communications Act and the
common law of unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, Rocky
Hobbs, a resident of Texas, paid unjust and unreasonable telephone
charges for interstate calls he received from Mason Hobbs during
his incarceration at Southwest Arkansas Community Correction
Center located in Texarkana, Arkansas, using telecommunication
services operated by GTL between March 2015 through July 2015.

GTL asks the court to compel Mr. Hobbs to arbitrate his claims
against GTL, pursuant to an arbitration agreement that GTL
contends was concluded between GTL and Mr. Hobbs. GTL contends
that Mr. Hobbs funded his prepaid account with GTL over the
telephone, and that every time he did so prior to March 30, 2015,
he heard the following automated message before funding his
account:

     "Please note that your account, and any transactions you
complete, with GTL, PCS, DSI-ITI, or VAC are governed by the terms
of use and the privacy statement posted at www.connectnetwork.com.
The terms of use and the privacy statement were most recently."

GTL further contends that from March 30, 2015 onward, Mr. Hobbs
heard the following automated message before funding his account:

     "Please note that your account, and any transactions you
complete with GTL or any of its affiliates, are governed by the
terms of use and the privacy statement posted at
www.connectnetwork.com. The terms of use and the privacy statement
were most recently revised on March 30, 2015."

Mr. Hobbs and the other plaintiffs oppose GTL's motion, and insist
that Mr. Hobbs never agreed to arbitrate his claims at all.

Judge Brooks finds that the automated messages did not provide a
person of ordinary intelligence reason to know that GTL would
infer from his conduct that he was assenting to the terms of use.
It would have been very easy for GTL simply to have told Mr. Hobbs
in the first place that it was proposing a bargain to which his
assent was requested. But instead, it decided merely to invite him
to visit a website where he might accidentally stumble across the
fact. GTL's motion fails to establish that Mr. Hobbs ever made
that discovery. There is no basis in the record for concluding
that Mr. Hobbs ever agreed to arbitrate his claims in the case.
GTL's motion to compel arbitration is denied.

A copy of Judge Brooks memorandum opinion and order dated March 2,
2017, is available at https://goo.gl/r9zk4B from Leagle.com.

Kaylan Stuart, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda Trask --
atrask@ktmc.com -- Donna Siegel Moffa -- dmoffa@ktmc.com -- Edward
W. Ciolko -- eciolko@ktmc.com -- James Maro -- jmaro@ktmc.com --
Monique Myatt Galloway -- mgalloway@ktmc.com -- Peter A. Muhic --
pmuhic@ktmc.com -- at Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP; Amy C.
Martin -- at Amy C. Martin, Attorney at Law; Andrew Raymond Lynch
-- andrew@atlnotguilty.com -- at Andrew R. Lynch P.C.; James
Radford -- james@decaturlegal.com -- at Radford Keebaugh; Lynn A.
Toops -- ltoops@cohenandmalad.com -- Richard E. Shevitz --
rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com -- Scott D. Gilchrist --
sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com -- Vess A. Miller --
vmiller@cohenandmalad.com -- at Cohen Malad LLP; Susan L. Burke --
at Law Offices of Susan L. Burke

Dustin Murilla, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda Trask --
atrask@ktmc.com -- James Maro -- jmaro@ktmc.com -- Peter A. Muhic
-- pmuhic@ktmc.com -- at Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP; Amy C.
Martin -- at Amy C. Martin, Attorney at Law; Daniel E. Gustafson -
- at Daniel E. Gustafson; Jeffrey B. Gittleman --
jgittleman@barrack.com -- at Barrack Rodos & Bacine; Susan L.
Burke -- at Law Offices of Susan L. Burke; Patrick Howard --
phoward@smbb.com -- Simon Bahne Paris -- sparis@smbb.com -- at
Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett Bendesky P.C.; Todd Seaver --
tseaver@bermandevalerio.com -- at Berman DeValerio

Walter Chruby, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda Trask --
atrask@ktmc.com -- James Maro -- jmaro@ktmc.com -- Peter A. Muhic
-- pmuhic@ktmc.com -- at Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP; Amy C.
Martin -- at Amy C. Martin, Attorney at Law; Susan L. Burke -- at
Law Offices of Susan L. Burke; Benjamin D. Brown --
bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -- Robert A. Braun --
rbraun@cohenmilstein.com -- at Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll PLLC;
Barbara A. Podell -- bpodell@bm.net -- Daniel Berger --
danberger@bm.net -- Peter R. Kahana -- pkahana@bm.net -- Yechiel
Michael Twersky -- mtwersky@bm.net -- at Berger Montague P.C.

Rocky Hobbs, Plaintiff, represented by Peter A. Muhic --
pmuhic@ktmc.com -- at Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP; Amy C.
Martin -- at Amy C. Martin, Attorney at Law

Global Tel*Link Corporation, Defendant, represented by Marshall S.
Ney -- mney@fridayfirm.com -- at Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP;
Robert J. Herrington -- herringtonr@gtlaw.com -- Michael R.
Sklaire -- sklairem@gtlaw.com -- at Greenberg Traurig LLP

Rocky Hobbs, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Peter A. Muhic -
- pmuhic@ktmc.com -- at Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP


GOLDEN STATE PHONE: "Padron" Parties Drop Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ISRAEL PADRON, as an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GOLDEN
STATE PHONE & WIRELESS, a California Corporation; and DOES 2
through 10, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-04076-BLF (N.D.
Cal.), the Parties ask the court to make adjustments to the
current scheduled proceedings:

   1. Continue the Case Management Conference, scheduled for
      March 20, 2017, to a date convenient to the Court; and

   2. Take off calendar, without prejudice, the plaintiff's
      pending Motion for Conditional Class Certification,
      currently scheduled for April 13, 2017.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=W96TFfL2

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hernaldo J. Baltodano, Esq.
          BALTODANO & BALTODANO LLP
          33 Marsh Street, Suite 110
          San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
          Telephone: (805) 322 3412
          Facsimile: (805) 322 3413
          E-mail: info@bbemploymentlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jonathan Fraser Light, Esq.
          Glenn J. Dickinson, Esq.
          LIGHTGABLER
          760 Paseo Camarillo, Suite 300
          Camarillo, CA 93010
          Telephone: (805) 248 7208
          Facsimile: (805) 248 7209
          E-mail: gdickinson@lightgablerlaw.com


GREENSIDE CORP: Court Approves Former Workers' Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the parties' joint
application to approve the parties' settlement in the case
captioned MARIO RAMIREZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GREENSIDE
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, No. 16 Civ. 726 (HBP) (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs are twelve individuals who were former employees by
Greenside Corporation. Plaintiffs alleged that they were not paid
for all the hours that they worked, were not paid premium pay for
overtime work, did not receive spread of hours pay, were subjected
to retaliation and did not receive the prevailing wage on public
projects. Plaintiffs assert their claims under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq. (FLSA), and various
provisions of the New York Labor Law including the Wage Theft
Prevention Act.

The parties dispute whether defendant Kel-Tech Construction Inc.
also employed plaintiffs. In addition to denying that plaintiffs
were employed by defendant Kel-Tech, defendants deny that
plaintiffs are owed any unpaid wages.

The parties reached a proposed settlement prior to the matter
being conditionally certified as a collective action or certified
as a class action. The parties filed a joint application to
approve the parties' settlement.

The parties have agreed to a total settlement of $200,000.00, to
be distributed among the plaintiffs on a pro rata basis. The
parties have also agreed that plaintiff's counsel will receive
one-third of the settlement proceeds as a fee. The amounts claimed
by each of the plaintiffs, the gross amount of the settlement fund
allocable to each plaintiff and the net amount that will be
received by each plaintiff after deduction of one-third for legal
fees and each plaintiff's allocable share of costs are as follows:

   Mario Ramirez    $97,899.75  $28,577.40  $19,013.50
   Amancio Soriano   89,979.40   26,265.42   17,475.26
   Danny Garrido     71,903.20   20,988.89   13,964.61
   Luis Xohua        87,599.20   25,570.62   17,012.99
   Miguel Jiminez   115,333.60   33,666.43   22,399.40
   Antonio Tellez    32,310.00    9,431.44    6,275.05
   Jose Hernandez    38,192.80   11,148.66    7,417.58
   Emilio Sarmiento  13,326.40    3,890.04    2,588.17
   Genaro Castillo   22,873.60    6,676.91    4,442.37
   Juan Vera         28,286.80    8,257.05    5,493.69
   Onelio Ramirez    34,136.80    9,964.69    6,629.84
   Agapito Sanchez   53,313.40   15,562.45   10,354.21
                    ----------   ---------   ---------
   TOTAL           $685,154.95 $200,000.00 $133,066.67

Plaintiffs are releasing only those claims that were brought or
could have been brought in the action and the confidentiality and
non-disparagement provisions have been deleted.

Magistrate Judge Pitman approved the parties' settlement,
concluding that although the settlement represents less than one-
third of plaintiffs' total claimed damages, the defendants'
documentary evidence is substantial and persuasive. Given the
evidence reviewed at the settlement conference, it is not
inconceivable that the trial of this matter could result in a
defendants' verdict. The action is dismissed with prejudice and
without costs.

A copy of Judge of Judge Pitman's opinion and order dated March 3,
2017, is available at https://goo.gl/zc4Nu7 from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Brett Mathew Schatz --
bschatz@bmsfirm.com -- at The Law Office of Brett M. Schatz

Defendants, represented by:

   Lisa Pashkoff, Esq.
   MASSOUD & PASHKOFF, LLP
   99 Park Ave # 3
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: 212-207-6771


HAYTI, MO: Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss "Hamilton" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronnie L. White of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted defendants'
motions to dismiss the case styled HENRY HAMILTON, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF
HAYTI, MISSOURI, et al., Defendants, No. 1:16CV54 RLW (ED Mo.).

Plaintiff Henry Hamilton filed a complaint against defendants Amy
Leeann Inman, Judge Calvin Ragland, Glenda Overbey, and City of
Hayti, alleging a violation of plaintiff's civil rights under 42
U.S.C. Section 1983 (count I) for conspiring to deprive plaintiff
of his rights under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff maintains that
defendants violated his right to be free from unreasonable
seizure, custodial arrest, and imprisonment for the alleged
ordinance violations; to be free from prosecution not based on
probable cause; to be released from imprisonment; to have his case
heard and adjudicated before being compelled to plead guilty or
prepay fines and court costs under the guise of a cash only bond;
and to promptly be brought before a judge for an initial
appearance and released at the time of arrest. In addition,
plaintiff alleges violations of the Missouri Constitution and
Missouri Statute (count II) for the reasons contained in count I
of the complaint. Finally, Plaintiff brings a claim of civil
conspiracy (count III) for acting jointly and agreeing to
prosecute plaintiff, have him illegally arrested and incarcerated,
deny bond by setting the amount unreasonably high, and refusing to
release him on his own recognizance. Plaintiff seeks to pursue his
case as a class action. He also seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief, as well as monetary damages in excess of $1,000,000.

Inman is the apartment manager of Cleveland Apartments, who
questioned Hamilton, accuses him of falsification when the latter
applied for public housing on July 28, 2011 and even filed a case
against Hamilton for peace disturbance and assault. Glenda Overbey
is the court administrator of the City of Hayti Municipal Court.
Judge Ragland is the one who provided Overbey with a signature
stamp that authorizes Overbey to set bonds and issue warrants
without being reviewed by him.

Defendant City of Hayti, Missouri filed a motion to dismiss counts
II & III, while defendants Ragland and Overbey filed motions to
dismiss all counts against them. Defendant Inman filed a motion to
dismiss count II of plaintiff's complaint. Defendants Hayti and
Ragland have also filed a motion to deny certification of class
action status to plaintiff and dismiss plaintiff's class claims.

Plaintiff filed a motion to deny defendant City of Hayti's motion
to dismiss as to counts II and III or, in the alternative, to stay
disposition.

Judge White granted defendant City of Hayti, Missouri's motion to
dismiss as to counts II and III. The motion to dismiss on behalf
of defendant Calvin Ragland is granted and counts I, II, and III
as to defendant Ragland are dismissed. The motion to dismiss on
behalf of defendant Glenda Overbey is dismissed. Defendant Amy
Leeann Inman's motion to dismiss Count II of plaintiff's complaint
is granted. The motion of defendants City of Hayti, Missouri, and
Calvin Ragland to deny certification of class action status to
plaintiff and dismiss plaintiff's class claims is denied without
prejudice. Plaintiff's motion to deny defendant City of Hayti's
motion to dismiss as to counts II and III or in the Alternative to
Stay Disposition is denied as moot.

A copy of Judge White's memorandum and order dated March 2, 2017,
is available at https://goo.gl/WnzxBT from Leagle.com.

Henry Hamilton, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Jim R. Bruce, II, Esq.
     JIM R. BRUCE, ATTORNEY AT LAW
     403 Saint Francis St
     Kennett, MO 63857
     Tel: 573-888-9696

Calvin Ragland, Glenda Overby, and City of Hayti Defendants,
represented by:

     A.M. Spradling, III, Esq.
     SPRADLING & SPRADLING
     1838 Broadway St.
     Cape Girardeau, MO 63702-1119
     Tel: 573-335-8296

Amy Leeann Inman, Defendant, represented by:

     John W. Grimm, Esq.
     John C. Steffens, Esq.
     LIMBAUGH FIRM
     407 N Kings Highway St #400
     Cape Girardeau, MO 63701
     Tel: 573-335-3316


HUB GROUP: Awaits Court Decision in "Robles" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Hub 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 parties are awaiting
a decision by the Court in the "Robles" class action.

The Company said, "On January 25, 2013, a complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
(Sacramento Division) by Salvador Robles against our subsidiary,
Comtrak Logistics, Inc., now known as Hub Group Trucking, Inc.
Mr. Robles drove a truck for Hub Group Trucking in California,
first as an independent contractor and then as an employee.  The
action was brought on behalf of a class comprised of present and
former California-based truck drivers for Hub Group Trucking who
were classified as independent contractors, from January 2009 to
August 2014.  The complaint alleges Hub Group Trucking has
misclassified such drivers as independent contractors and that
such drivers were employees.  The complaint asserts various
violations of the California Labor Code and claims that Hub Group
Trucking has engaged in unfair competition practices.  The
complaint seeks, among other things, declaratory and injunctive
relief, compensatory damages and attorney's fees."

In May 2013, the complaint was amended to add similar claims based
on Mr. Robles' status as an employed company driver.  These
additional claims are only on behalf of Mr. Robles and not a
putative class.

The Company believes that the California independent contractor
truck drivers were properly classified as independent contractors
at all times.  The Company said, "Nevertheless, because lawsuits
are expensive, time-consuming and could interrupt our business
operations, Hub Group Trucking decided to make settlement offers
to individual drivers with respect to the claims alleged in this
lawsuit, without admitting liability.  As of September 30, 2016,
93% of the California drivers have accepted the settlement offers.
In late 2014, Hub Group Trucking decided to convert its model from
independent contractors to employee drivers in California.  In
early 2016, Hub Group Trucking closed its operations in Southern
California."

"On April 3, 2015, the Robles case was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Western
Division) in Memphis.  In May 2015, the plaintiffs in the Robles
case filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") which names 334
current and former Hub Group Trucking drivers as "interested
putative class members."  In addition to reasserting their
existing claims, the SAC includes claims post-conversion, added
two new plaintiffs and seeks a judicial declaration that the
settlement agreements are unenforceable.

"In June 2015, Hub Group Trucking filed a motion to dismiss the
SAC and on July 19, 2016, Hub Group Trucking's motion to dismiss
was granted in part, and denied in part, by the District Court.
The motion to dismiss was granted for the claims of all purported
class members who have signed settlement agreements and on
plaintiffs' claims based on quantum merit and it was denied with
respect to federal preemption and choice of law.  On August 11,
2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion to clarify whether the Court's
dismissal of the claims of all purported class members who signed
settlement agreements was with or without prejudice and, if the
dismissal was with prejudice, Plaintiffs moved the Court to revise
and reconsider the order.  Plaintiffs' motion to clarify is fully
briefed and the parties are awaiting a decision by the Court."

Hub Group, Inc. is one of North America's asset-light freight
transportation management companies.


HUB GROUP: "Adame" Class Suit in California Underway
----------------------------------------------------
Hub Group, Inc. continues to defend the case, Adame, et al. v Hub
Group, Inc., et al., 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 August 5, 2015, the Plaintiffs' law firm in the Robles case
filed a lawsuit in state court in San Bernardino County,
California on behalf of 63 named Plaintiffs against Hub Group
Trucking and five Company employees.  The lawsuit alleges claims
similar to those being made in Robles and seeks monetary penalties
under the Private Attorneys General Act.  Of the 63 named
Plaintiffs, at least 58 of them previously accepted the settlement
offers referenced above.

On October 29, 2015, Defendants filed a notice of removal to
remove the case from state court in San Bernardino to federal
court in the Central District of California. On November 19, 2015,
Defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to federal court in
Memphis, Tennessee and also filed a motion to dismiss the case
pursuant to a clause in the independent contractor agreement
stating that Tennessee law applies.  Also on November 19, 2015,
Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case back to state court,
claiming that the federal court lacks jurisdiction over the case.
The court granted Plaintiffs' motion to remand to the state court
in San Bernardino County on April 7, 2016, mooting Defendants'
motions to transfer and dismiss.

On July 11, 2016, Defendants filed several motions in state court,
asking the court to dismiss and/or stay the Plaintiffs' suit for
various reasons.  On July 11, 2016, Defendants filed several
motions in state court, asking the court to dismiss and/or stay
the Plaintiffs' suit for various reasons.  During a hearing on
October 5, 2016, the judge issued an oral tentative ruling stating
that the choice of forum provision was unenforceable.  On
Defendants' motion to dismiss the individual defendants, the court
allowed for supplemental briefing for additional arguments
regarding individual liability under PAGA.  The court did not
reach a decision regarding the motion to stay pending the outcome
in Robles.  Plaintiffs filed their supplemental brief on November
9, 2016 to which Defendants responded on December 6, 2016.  The
court had scheduled a hearing for January 19, 2017, which was
continued until February 21, 2017.

Hub Group, Inc. is one of North America's asset-light freight
transportation management companies.


HUB GROUP: Motion to Dismiss "Lubinski" Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Hub 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 a motion to dismiss
remains pending in the "Lubinski" class action lawsuit.

On September 12, 2014, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) by
Christian Lubinski against Hub Group Trucking.  The action was
brought on behalf of a class comprised of present and former
owner-operators providing delivery services in Illinois for Hub
Group Trucking.  The complaint alleged Hub Group Trucking
misclassified such drivers as independent contractors and that
such drivers were employees.  The complaint also alleged that Hub
Group Trucking made illegal deductions from the drivers' pay and
failed to properly compensate the drivers for all hours worked,
reimburse business expenses, pay employment taxes, and provide
workers' compensation and other employment benefits.  The
complaint asserted various violations of the Illinois Wage Payment
and Collections Act and claimed that Hub Group Trucking was
unjustly enriched.  The complaint sought, among other things,
monetary damages for the relevant statutory period and attorneys'
fees.

On October 24, 2014, the Lubinski case was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Western
Division), in Memphis.  On September 22, 2015, the court granted
Hub Group Trucking's motion to dismiss Lubinski's Illinois law
claims with prejudice based on the contractual choice of law
provision, which provided that Tennessee law governed.  The court
denied as moot Hub Group Trucking's motion to dismiss based on
federal preemption.  On October 2, 2015, Lubinski appealed this
order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
in Cincinnati.

On December 17, 2015, Lubinski filed his brief in support of his
appeal of the motion to dismiss, asserting for the first time that
the federal court did not have jurisdiction over the case due to a
lack of diversity of citizenship.  Hub Group Trucking filed its
response brief on January 19, 2016, in part arguing that Lubinski
had himself alleged diversity of citizenship in his complaint.
Lubinski filed his reply brief on February 5, 2016.  On April 1,
2016, the Sixth Circuit remanded the case to the district court --
without ruling on the merits -- for the district court "to
consider the argument and admit the evidence necessary to
determine the question of federal subject-matter jurisdiction."

On July 11, 2016, with his federal district court case still
pending, Lubinski filed an additional putative class action
Complaint, with the same claims, in Illinois state court.  On the
same day, Hub Group Trucking filed a declaratory judgment
complaint in Tennessee state court, seeking a declaration that
Lubinski's claims must be heard in Tennessee (based on the
contractual choice-of-forum provision) and that the claims must be
dismissed because Tennessee law controls and Lubinski's claims are
preempted by federal law.  The parties agreed to stay all
proceedings in Illinois and Tennessee state court until the
federal court jurisdiction question is decided.

On October 26, 2016, Lubinski filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of federal subject-matter jurisdiction and a motion for leave to
file an amended complaint, attempting to "clarify" the putative
class definition and arguing that the Class Action Fairness Act's
exceptions to jurisdiction apply.  Hub Group Trucking filed its
response to the motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction on November 29, 2016, and Lubinski filed his reply on
December 13, 2016.  On January 3, 2017, the Court held a hearing
on Lubinski's motion to dismiss.  On January 9, 2017, the Court
ordered supplemental briefing on the citizenship of the putative
class as of the date the complaint was filed in September 2014.

Hub Group, Inc. is one of North America's asset-light freight
transportation management companies.


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Faces "Currier" Securities Class Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kayd Currier, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Santosh J.
Vetticaden and Darryl S. Baker, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01954
(S.D. N.Y., March 17, 2017), seeks compensatory damages pursuant
to Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, Defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Insys had overstated
its 2015 net revenue; (ii) Insys had misstated its sales
allowances for 2016; (iii) accordingly, the Company lacked
effective internal controls over financial reporting and (iv) as
result of the foregoing, Insys's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On March 15, 2017, post-market, Insys announced that it would
delay the release of its financial results for the quarter and
year ended December 31, 2016. Insys advised investors that the
Audit Committee of the Company's Board of Directors has been
conducting an independent review of the Company's processes
related to estimation of and increases to certain sales allowances
recorded during 2016 with a potential reduction of 2015 net
revenue and pre-tax income not expected to exceed $5 million, as
well as extended payment terms offered to certain customers during
the third quarter of 2016.

On this news, Insys's share price fell $0.49 or 4.64% to close at
$10.06 on March 16, 2017.

Insys is a commercial-stage specialty pharmaceutical company that
develops and commercializes supportive care products primarily
designed to assist patients with pain management attributable to
their disease, treatment, or therapy. The Company's principal
product and source of revenue is Subsys, sublingual fentanyl spray
designed to treat breakthrough cancer pain in opioidtolerant
patients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
   J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
   Hui M. Chang, Esq.
   Pomenrantz LLP
   600 third Avenue, 20th Floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 661-1100
   Fax: (212) 661-8665
   Email: jalierberman@pomlaw.com
          ahood@pomlaw.com
          hchang@pomlaw.om

        - 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
   Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

        - and -

   Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
   Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
   60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
   New York, NY 10165
   Tel: (212) 697-6484
   Fax: (212) 697-7296
   Email: peretz@bgandg.com


JOYCE STEEL: Crane Operators Class Certification Sough in "Keith"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled AARON KEITH; JOEL FARRELL; RYAN COULTER;
CHRIS GRIFFIN; SHALON BOWEN, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. JOYCE STEEL
ERECTION, LTD.; and JOE BOB JOYCE, the Defendants, Case No. 6:16-
cv-01302-RWS-JDL (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
certify a collective action on behalf of:

   "all individuals employed as crane operators or riggers by
   Joyce Steel Erection, Ltd. over the past three years and paid
   on an hourly basis".

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Josh Borsellino, Esq.
          BORSELLINO, P.C.
          1020 Macon St., Ste. 15
          Fort Worth, Texas 76102
          Telephone: (817) 908 9861
          Facsimile: (817) 394 2412
          E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com


JT GROUP: Spennetta Suit Seeks Certification Classes
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned SPENNETTA FAMILY CARE CHIROPRACTIC, S.C.,
on behalf of plaintiff and the class, the Plaintiff, v. JT GROUP,
INC., JAMES TURNER, and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-00228 (W.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order certifying classes:

For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act:

   "all persons with fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date four
   years prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C. par,1658),
   (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendants JT Group,
   Inc., or C.J. Turner Co., Inc., promoting their goods or
   services for sale (d) and which did not contain an opt out
   notice as described in 47 U.S.C. par. 227. By "compliant opt
   out notice" is meant one (i) on the first page of the fax (ii)
   that states that the recipient may make a request to the
   sender not to send any future unsolicited advertisements to a
   telephone facsimile machine (iii) that states that failure to
   comply, within the shortest reasonable time, as determined by
   the Federal Communications Commission, is unlawful; (iv) that
   provides instructions on how to submit an opt out request and
   (v) that includes a domestic contact telephone and facsimile
   machine number and a cost-free mechanism for the recipient to
   transmit such a request to the sender that permit a request to
   be made at any time on any day of the week"; and

For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of Wisc. Stats.
par.100.20, and Count III:

   "(a) all persons with Wisconsin fax numbers (b) who, on or
   after a date six years prior to the filing of this action, (c)
   were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendants JT Group, Inc.,
   or C.J. Turner Co., Inc., promoting their goods or services
   for sale (d) and which did not contain an opt out notice as
   described in 47 U.S.C. par. 227. By "compliant opt out notice"
   is meant one (i) on the first page of the fax (ii) that states
   that the recipient may make a request to the sender not to
   send any future unsolicited advertisements to a telephone
   facsimile machine (iii) that states that failure to comply,
   within the shortest reasonable time, as determined by the
   Federal Communications Commission, is unlawful; (iv) that
   provides instructions on how to submit an opt out request and
   (v) that includes a domestic contact telephone and facsimile
   machine number and a cost-free mechanism for the recipient to
   transmit such a request to the sender that permit a request to
   be made at any time on any day of the week".

The Plaintiff further asks the Court that it be appointed as class
representative and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC
be appointed counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uF84ED3s

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Heather Kolbus, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379


KAYABA INDUSTRY: Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Suit Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marianne O. Battani of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted in part
and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss the case
entitled, IN RE: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. In Re:
Shock Absorbers THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO Dealership Actions End-
Payor Actions, Master File No. 12-md-02311, No. 16-03302., 15-
03303

Defendants KYB Corporation, f/k/a/Kayaba Industry Co., Ltd. and
KYB Americas Corporation are manufacturers or sellers of shock
absorbers that are manufactured or sold in the United States.

Automobile Dealer Plaintiffs (ADP's) and End-Payor Plaintiffs
(EPP's), also referred as the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs or IPP
brought class actions against defendants under federal and state
law based on defendants' alleged conspiracy to rig bids, fix the
prices, and allocate the market and customers of shock absorbers
manufactured or sold in the United States.

On September 16, 2015, the Department of Justice announced that
defendant Kayaba Industry Co., Ltd. agreed to plead guilty to
criminal Information and to pay a $62 million fine for
participation in a combination and conspiracy to suppress and
eliminate competition in the automotive parts industry. It agreed
to fix the prices of shock absorbers sold in the United States and
elsewhere. According to IPPs, KYB Industries is the largest
manufacturer of Shock Absorbers. In their complaints, IPPs allege
that market conditions conducive to an antitrust conspiracy exist.
Specifically, the shock absorbers market has high barriers to
entry, which facilitate the formation and maintenance of a cartel.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the End-Payor Plaintiffs' and
Auto Dealer Plaintiffs' class action complaints. In their motion,
defendants challenge the sufficiency of the allegations of the
conspiracy pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). KYB defendants
argue that the facts, as alleged in the complaints, support
dismissal because they reveal that IPPs lack standing to bring the
claims and they do not meet the pleadings standards articulated in
Twombly.

Judge Battani denied defendants' request to dismiss the federal
claims and granted, without discussion the motion to limit damages
under the laws of Utah and New Hampshire based upon applicable
statutes of limitation. Judge Battani also dismisses ADP's and
EPP's South Carolina consumer protection class action and
dismisses, without discussion, EPP's unjust enrichment claim under
California law.

A copy of Judge Battani's opinion and order dated March 3, 2017,
is available at https://goo.gl/qM9LNO from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Alexander E. Blum -- Gerard V. Mantese
-- at Mantese Honigman, P.C.

Dealership Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander E. Blum
-- Gerard V. Mantese -- at Mantese Honigman, P.C.; Jonathan W.
Cuneo -- jonc@cuneolaw.com -- Victoria Romanenko --
vicky@cuneolaw.com -- Yifei Li -- evelyn@cuneolaw.com -- at Cuneo
Gilbert & Laduca, LLP

End-Payor Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Erin Lindsay
Calkins -- lcalkins@susmangodfrey.com -- Floyd G. Short --
fshort@susmangodfrey.com -- at Susman Godfrey L.L.P.

Defendants, represented by Howard B. Iwrey -- hiwrey@dykema.com --
at Dykema Gossett


KEANE FRAC: "Meals" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled CHRISTOPHER MEALS, On Behalf of Himself and
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. KEANE FRAC GP
LLC, KEANE FRAC, LP, and KEANE GROUP HOLDINGS, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01674-NBF (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. granting conditional class certification regarding
      Plaintiff's claims under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
      for the following class of employees:

      "all current and former Frac Supervisor Is and other like
      employees who work(ed) for Defendants in the last three
      years to the present;

   2. directing that Plaintiff act as FLSA class representatives
      on behalf of current and former Frac Supervisor Is, and
      that Rowdy Meeks Legal Group LLC act as FLSA class counsel;

   3. directing the Parties to meet and confer about the content,
      format, and manner of distribution of the Notice to the
      FLSA Class, submit to the Court within ten days from the
      Court's conditional certification order a joint proposed
      notice and plan to notify the FLSA Class, and toll the FLSA
      statute of limitation for future opt-ins until this Court
      subsequently enters an order which approves the notice and
      consent form; and

   4. granting such other relief the Court deems just and proper.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TpN9bBly

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
           ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
           8201 Mission Road, Suite 250
           Prairie Village, KS 66208
           Telephone: (913) 766 5585
           Facsimile: (816) 875 5069
           E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com
                   www.rmlegalgroup.com


KITOV PHARMA: "Zulch" Sues Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------
Christopher D. Zulch, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Kitov Pharmaceuticals Holdings,
Ltd., Isaac Israel, Simcha Rock, Joseph Gunnar & Co., LLC, and HG
Wainwright & Co., LLC, Defendants, Case No. 17CIV01173, (Cal.
Super., March 20, 2017), seeks compensatory damages including
interest thereon, counsel and expert fees, reasonable costs and
expenses incurred, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages,
and such equitable/injunctive or other relief under the Securities
Act of 1933.

Kitov Pharmaceuticals Ltd., operates as a clinical development
stage biopharmaceutical company developing combination drugs for
the simultaneous treatment of pain caused by osteoarthritis and
hypertension. Its lead drug candidate is KIT-302, a fixed dosage
combination product based on the generic drugs celecoxib and
amlodipine besylate, a drug designed to treat hypertension.

Defendants allegedly published misleading information concerning
Kitov's clinical trials for KIT-302. Moreover, Isaac Israel,
Kitov's CEO, had been detained and questioned by the Israel
Securities Authority on suspicion of publishing misleading
information in connection with a clinical trial of KIT-302.

On this news, shares of Kitov's shares fell $0.33 per share, or
11.46%, to close at $2.55 per share on February 6, 2017, and
shares of Kitov's warrants fell $0.10 per warrant, or 10%, to
close at $0.89 per warrant on February 6, 2017.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert C. Moest, Esq.
      THE BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C.
      2530 Wilshire Boulevard, Second Floor
      Santa Monica, CA 90403
      Telephone: (310) 915-6628
      Email: RMoest@aol.com

             - and -

      Timothy W. Brown, Esq.
      THE BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C.
      240 Townsend Square
      Oyster Bay, NY 11771
      Telephone: (516) 922-5427
      Email: tbrown@thebrownlawfirm.net


KP RECOVERY: Faces "Lugo" Suit in New Jersey Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against KP RECOVERY
SOLUTIONS LLC. The case is entitled as WENDY LUGO, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KP
RECOVERY SOLUTIONS LLC, KAREN POLLACK, and JOHN DOES 1-25, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01755-JLL-SCM (D.N.J., Mar. 15,
2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Jose L. Linares.

KP Recovery Solutions is a full-service medical collections agency
with expertise in self-pay collections, insurance appeals, and
legal services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glen H. Chulsky, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GLEN H. CHULSKY
          375 Passaic Avenue
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
           (973) 227-5900
          E-mail: g.chulsky@att.net

               - and -

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


LAMI PRODUCTS: Vaughn Seeks Certification of Merchandisers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled KATHLEEN VAUGHN, individually & on behalf
of all similarly situated, the Plaintiff(s), v. LAMI PRODUCTS,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-20326-JAL (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to issue an order:

   a. conditionally certifying a class of:

      "current and former Merchandisers who work(ed) for
      Defendant between January 2014 and the present: (1) who
      were paid pursuant to Defendant's Merchandiser Pay Policy;
      (2) who worked more than forty (40) hours per week without
      overtime pay; and (3) who did not opt-in to the Leake or
      Cikra case";

   b. directing Defendant to produce, in an electronic readable
      format, to the undersigned counsel within fourteen (14)
      days of the Order granting this Motion a list containing
      the full names, job titles, last known addresses, personal
      e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and
      dates of employment for all putative class members who
      worked as Merchandisers for Defendant between January 2014
      who did not opt-in to the Leake or Cikra case;

   c. prohibiting Defendant's contact with any individual
      disclosed as a putative class member for reasons related to
      this litigation until after such individual's Consent to
      Join has been filed;

   d. authorizing the undersigned counsel to send initial Notice
      and a Consent Form, to all individuals whose names appear
      on the list produced by the Defendant's counsel by first-
      class mail;

   e. directing Defendant to post at every location in which it
      employs Merchandisers a copy of the initial Notice and
      Consent Form;

   f. authorizing the undersigned counsel to send a follow-up
      notice, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B, to all
      individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the
      Defendant's counsel but who, by the 14th day prior to the
      close of the Court-approved notice period, have yet to opt
      in to the instant action;

   g. providing all individuals whose names appear on the list
      produced by Defendant's counsel a total of 60 days from the
      date the notices are initially mailed to file a Consent to
      Become Opt-In Plaintiff form; and

   h. such other and further relief as the Court deems just under
      the circumstances.

The case is a collective action to enforce the overtime provisions
of Section 7(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The
Plaintiff, Kathleen Vaughn, worked for Defendant as a Merchandiser
from January 2003 until June 2016. The Plaintiff worked for
Defendant in Florida, Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee, Pennsylvania
and Ohio. On January 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on
behalf of herself and all others similarly-situated alleging that
she and the other Merchandisers who worked for Defendant were
deprived of proper overtime wages by virtue of Defendant's
unlawful "Merchandiser Pay Policy." For the periods at issue in
this case, Defendant did not pay its Merchandisers for all hours
worked including but not limited to compensable travel time.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Christina J. Thomas, Esq.
Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
333 W. Vine St., Suite 1200
Lexington, KY 40507
Telephone: (859) 286 8369
E-mail: cthomas@forthepeople.com
        bmazaheri@forthepeople.com


LEXINGTON LAW: "Rosales" Files Suit Over TCPA, FCRA Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Rosales, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Lexington Law Firm, Defendant, Case No.
8:17-cv-00087 (D. Neb., March 20, 2017) seeks damages, injunctive
relief and declaratory relief for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Lexington Law is a law firm offering credit repair services to
consumers. To market its services, it sends consumers automated
text messages offering its services. Defendant also illegally
obtained Plaintiff's consumer credit report information, says the
complaint. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
      LEMBERG LAW, LLC
      43 Danbury Road
      Wilton, CT 06897
      Telephone: (203) 653-2250
      Facsimile: (203) 653-3424


LIBERTY LIFE: Class Settlement in "Bush" Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Oakland Division, granted
plaintiff's motion for final approval of settlement between
plaintiff and Liberty Life Assurance Company in the case captioned
JAMES L. BUSH, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF
BOSTON; HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA., Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-1507
YGR (EDL) (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff, on behalf of the proposed settlement class and the
settlement subclass, and defendant Liberty Life Assurance Company
of Boston entered into a class action settlement agreement dated
August 12, 2016 to settle all except those against defendant
Hyundai Motor America.

On February 28, 2017, the court held a final approval hearing to
determine whether to give final approval to the proposed
settlement and the court heard and considered all submissions in
connection with the proposed settlement and the files and records,
including plaintiff's unopposed motion for final approval of
settlement, class counsel's unopposed motion for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses.

Judge Rogers finds that the settlement resulted from arm's length
negotiations and the terms and provisions of the settlement
agreement have been entered into in good faith and the same is
fully approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate as to, and in the
best interests of, plaintiff and members of the settlement
classes, and in full compliance with all applicable requirements
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States
Constitution.

The Liberty Life Settlement Class consists of:

     "(a) Veterans who were honorably discharged from service in
the United States Armed Forces and who are participants in ERISA
governed employee welfare benefit plans that provide LTD benefits
insured by group LTD policies issued by Liberty Life; and (b) the
beneficiaries of such participants."

The Liberty Life settlement subclass that the court previously
certified for settlement purposes pursuant to the preliminary
approval order, is finally certified for settlement purposes  and
the Liberty Life settlement subclass consists of:

     "Members of the Settlement Class whose LTD benefits were
reduced or offset by the amount of VA benefits paid or payable to
that settlement subclass member from January 1, 2008 through the
settlement effective date."

The court confirms its prior appointment of R. Joseph Barton of
Block & Leviton LLP as lead class counsel and Michelle Roberts of
Roberts Bartolic LLP as liaison class counsel, and plaintiff James
L. Bush and absentee settlement class member Adam Ripka as the
class representatives. Class Counsel's motion for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses is granted, and the court awards
class counsel attorneys' fees and expenses of $425,000.00.

All claims alleged in the complaint and the amended complaint,
including all individual and class claims, against defendant
Liberty Life and the Releasees including the Liberty Life Released
Parties and the Released Plan Administrators, are dismissed with
prejudice by plaintiff and all other members of the settlement
classes, without fees or costs to plaintiff.

A copy of Judge Rogers's order dated March 1, 2017, is available
at https://goo.gl/me4N8l from Leagle.com.

James L. Bush, Plaintiff, represented by Michelle Roberts Bartolic
-- mbartolic@robertsbartolic.com -- at Roberts Bartolic LLP; R.
Joseph Barton -- joe@blockesq.com -- at Block & Leviton LLP;
Matthew Alexander Smith -- at Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC

Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston, Defendant, represented
by Robert James Guite -- rguite@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP


LIFECARE SOLUTIONS: "Navarro" Hits Illegal Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Navarro, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lifecare Solutions, Inc. and
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-02214, (C.D. Cal., March 21, 2017), seeks actual
damages, statutory damages for willful and negligent violations,
costs and reasonable attorney's fees, and such other and further
relief pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions.

Lifecare Solutions, Inc. is a medical supply company. Defendant
contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's home telephone number in an
attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's products.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAGNA CHEK: Class Certification Bid Denied in Intersol Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Charles R. Nogle entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned INTERSOL INDUSTRIES, INC., an Illinois corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. MAGNA CHEK, INC., a Michigan
corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
05789 (N.D. Ill.), denying Plaintiff's motion for class
certification with leave to refile motion for class certification
in the future time.

The Court said, "The Plaintiff's motion for class certification
was filed in conjunction with the original complaint; has never
been fully briefed; and predates Plaintiff's First Amended Class
Action Complaint, which makes no reference to Plaintiff's motion
for class certification, and it cannot meet requirement of Rule
23".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JM5sRExo


MAGNUM HUNTER: Sagacity Suit Moved to E.D. Okla. Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sagacity, Inc., on behalf of
itself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Magnum Hunter Production, Inc., and Prize Energy
Resources, LP, and Cimarex Energy Company of Colorado, the
Defendants, Case No. 17-CJ-18, was removed from the Marshall
County District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Oklahoma (Muskogee). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 6:17-cv-00101-KEW to the proceeding. The case is assigned
to Magistrate Judge Kimberly E. West.

Magnum Hunter is a production company which engages in the
exploration, exploitation and development, and operation of oil
and gas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
          REX A. SHARP, PA
          5301 W 75th St
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901 0505
          Facsimile: (913) 901 0419
          E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Bradley W. Welsh, Esq.
          GABLEGOTWALS - TULSA
          100 W Fifth St, Ste 1100
          Tulsa, OK 74103-4217
          Telephone: (918) 595 4800
          Facsimile: (918) 595 4990
          E-mail: bwelsh@gablelaw.com


MCKINNON & HAMILTON: Court Granted Joint Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled PATRICIA A. KLEIN, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. McKINNON &
HAMILTON, PLLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and CHARLES
W. McKINNON, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-14527-
RLR (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Robin L. Rosenberg entered an order:

   A. granting joint motion for class certification of:

      "(i) all persons with addresses in the State of Florida
      (ii) to whom initial communication letters were mailed,
      delivered or caused to be mailed or delivered by Defendants
      (iii) that contained the phrases "Please forward a check in
      the above amount payable to McKinnon & Hamilton, PLLC Trust
      Account for processing. If we do not receive your payment
      within thirty days from your receipt of this letter, a
      Claim of Lien will be recorded in order to secure unpaid
      assessments, as well as costs, interest and attorney's fees
      incurred in collecting the assessments." (iv) that were not
      returned undeliverable by the U.S. Post Office (v) in an
      attempt to collect a debt incurred for personal, family, or
      household purposes (vi) during the one year period prior to
      the filing of the original Complaint in this action through
      the date of certification;

   B. appointing Patricia A. Klein as Class Representative;

   C. appointing Leo W. Desmond, Esq. as Class counsel; and

   D. directing parties to submit a proposed class notice and
      notice plan within 60 days of the Order.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=muW0zqlm

On November 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed her Class Action
Complaint pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15
U.S.C. section 1692 et seq. (FDCPA), alleging that Defendant
mailed, delivered or caused to be mailed or delivered initial
communication letters which violated 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692g(a)
and 1692g(b). The Defendants filed their Answer on December 21,
2016. On February 18, 2017, the parties jointly requested that the
Court certify a class in the matter.


MDL 1720: Citigroup Still Faces Interchange Fee Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. continues to defend against the case, In Re Payment
Card Interchange Fee And Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation,
Citigroup 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.

Beginning in 2005, several putative class actions were filed
against Citigroup and Related Parties, together with Visa,
MasterCard and other banks and their affiliates, in various
federal district courts and consolidated with other related
individual cases in a multi-district litigation proceeding in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(Interchange MDL). This proceeding is captioned IN RE PAYMENT CARD
INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGATION.

The plaintiffs, merchants that accept Visa- and MasterCard-branded
payment cards as well as membership associations that claim to
represent certain groups of merchants, allege, among other things,
that defendants have engaged in conspiracies to set the price of
interchange and merchant discount fees on credit and debit card
transactions and to restrain trade through various Visa and
MasterCard rules governing merchant conduct, all in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act and certain California statutes.
Supplemental complaints also have been filed against defendants in
the putative class actions alleging that Visa's and MasterCard's
respective initial public offerings were anticompetitive and
violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and that MasterCard's
initial public offering constituted a fraudulent conveyance.

On January 14, 2014, the district court entered a final judgment
approving the terms of a class settlement providing for, among
other things, a total payment to the class of $6.05 billion; a
rebate to merchants participating in the damages class settlement
of 10 basis points on interchange collected for a period of eight
months by the Visa and MasterCard networks; and changes to certain
network rules. Various objectors appealed from the final class
settlement approval order to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.

On June 30, 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed the district
court's approval of the class settlement and remanded for further
proceedings. On November 23, 2016, counsel for the class
plaintiffs that entered the now-vacated settlement filed a
petition for certiorari review by the United States Supreme Court
relating to the Second Circuit's decision. Additional information
concerning these consolidated actions and the appeal is publicly
available in court filings under the docket numbers MDL 05-1720
(E.D.N.Y.) (Brodie, J.), 12-4671 (2d Cir.) and 16-710 (U.S.
Supreme Court).

In addition, following the district court's approval of the class
settlement, and during the pendency of appeals from that approval,
numerous merchants, including large national merchants, requested
exclusion from the portion of the now-vacated settlement involving
a settlement class certified with respect to damages claims for
past conduct, and some of those opting out filed complaints
against Visa, MasterCard, and in some instances one or more
issuing banks. One of these suits, 7-ELEVEN, INC., ET AL. v. VISA
INC., ET AL., brought on behalf of numerous individual merchants,
names Citigroup as a defendant.  Additional information concerning
these actions is publicly available in court filings under the
docket number MDL 05-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Brodie, J.).


MDL 2262: LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Suit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. still faces the case captioned, In Re Libor-Based
Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation (the LIBOR MDL),
Citigroup 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.

Citigroup and Citibank, along with other U.S. Dollar (USD) LIBOR
panel banks, are defendants in a multi-district litigation (MDL)
proceeding before the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York captioned IN RE LIBOR-BASED
FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (the LIBOR MDL).

Consolidated amended complaints were filed on behalf of two
separate putative classes of plaintiffs: (i) over-the-counter
(OTC) purchasers of derivative instruments tied to USD LIBOR; and
(ii) purchasers of exchange-traded derivative instruments tied to
USD LIBOR. Each of these putative classes alleges that the panel
bank defendants conspired to suppress USD LIBOR: (i) OTC
purchasers assert claims under the Sherman Act and for unjust
enrichment and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing; and (ii) purchasers of exchange-traded derivative
instruments assert claims under the Commodity Exchange Act and the
Sherman Act and for unjust enrichment. Several individual actions
also were consolidated into the LIBOR MDL. The plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages and restitution for losses caused by the
alleged violations, as well as treble damages under the Sherman
Act. The OTC purchasers and certain individual action plaintiffs
also seek injunctive relief.

Additional actions have been consolidated in the LIBOR MDL
proceeding, including (i) lawsuits filed by, or on behalf of
putative classes of, community and other banks, savings and loans
institutions, credit unions, municipalities and purchasers and
holders of LIBOR-linked financial products; and (ii) lawsuits
filed by putative classes of lenders and adjustable rate mortgage
borrowers. The plaintiffs allege that defendant panel banks
artificially suppressed USD LIBOR in violation of applicable law
and seek compensatory and other damages.

Additional information relating to these actions is publicly
available in court filings under the following docket numbers: 11
Civ. 2613; 11 Civ. 5450; 11 Civ. 4186; 12 Civ. 1205; 12 Civ. 5723;
12 Civ. 5822; 12 Civ. 6056;  12 Civ. 6693; 12 Civ. 7461; 13 Civ.
346; 13 Civ. 407; 13 Civ. 1016, 13 Civ. 1456, 13 Civ. 1700, 13
Civ. 2262, 13 Civ. 2297; 13 Civ. 4018; 13 Civ. 7720; 14 Civ. 146
(S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 12 Civ. 6294 (E.D.N.Y.) (Seybert, J.);
12 Civ. 6571 (N.D. Cal.) (Conti, J.); 12 Civ. 10903 (C.D. Cal.)
(Snyder, J.); 13 Civ. 48 (S.D. Cal.) (Sammartino, J.); 13 Civ. 62
(C.D. Cal.) (Phillips, J.); 13 Civ. 106 (N.D. Cal.) (Beller, J.);
13 Civ. 108 (N.D. Cal.) (Ryu, J.); 13 Civ. 109 (N.D. Cal.)
(Laporte, J.); 13 Civ. 122 (C.D. Cal.) (Bernal, J.); 13 Civ. 334,
13 Civ. 335 (S.D. Iowa) (Pratt, J.); 13 Civ. 342 (E.D. Va.)
(Brinkema, J.); 13 Civ. 1466 (S.D. Cal.) (Lorenz, J.); 13 Civ.
1476 (E.D. Cal.) (Mueller, J.); 13 Civ. 2149 (S.D. Tex.) (Hoyt,
J.); 13 Civ. 2244 (N.D. Cal.) (Hamilton, J.); 13 Civ. 2921 (N.D.
Cal.) (Chesney, J.); 13 Civ. 2979 (N.D. Cal.) (Tigar, J.); 13 Civ.
4352 (E.D. Pa.) (Restrepo, J.); 13 Civ. 5278 (N.D. Cal.) (Vadas,
J.); 15 Civ. 1334 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); and 15 Civ. 2973
(S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.).

On May 23, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of antitrust
claims in the action captioned IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL
INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION and remanded to the district
court the issue of antitrust standing -- specifically whether
plaintiffs are "efficient enforcers" of the antitrust laws. On
December 20, 2016 the district court resolved the issue of
antitrust standing, dismissing certain plaintiffs' actions on
efficient enforcer grounds, and limiting the classes of OTC and
exchange-traded derivative instruments purchasers. The district
court also dismissed antitrust claims against Citigroup and
Citibank brought by several individual plaintiffs outside of New
York on personal jurisdiction grounds.

Additional information concerning these actions is publicly
available in court filings under the docket numbers 11 MD 2262
(S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.); 16-545 (U.S.).


MDL 2673: Citigroup Still Faces Suit over Treasury Securities
-------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. continues to defend against the class action
lawsuit involving allegations that they colluded to manipulate
U.S. Treasury securities markets, Citigroup 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.

Beginning in July 2015, CGMI and numerous other U.S. Treasury
primary dealer banks, have been named as defendants in a number of
substantially similar putative class actions involving allegations
that they colluded to manipulate U.S. Treasury securities markets.
The actions are based upon the defendants' roles as registered
primary dealers of U.S. Treasury securities and assert claims of
alleged collusion under the antitrust laws and manipulation under
the Commodity Exchange Act and seek damages, including treble
damages where authorized by statute, and injunctive relief. These
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, the Northern District of Illinois,
the Southern District of Alabama and the District of the Virgin
Islands.  In December 2015, the cases were consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

Additional information relating to these actions is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number: 15-MD-2673
(S.D.N.Y.) (Gardephe, J.).


MDL 2704: Citigroup Still Faces Interest Rate Swap Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. continues to defend against the case, In Re
Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litigation, Citigroup 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.

Beginning in November 2015, numerous interest rate swap (IRS)
market participants, including Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI and CGML,
were named as defendants in a number of industry-wide putative
class actions. These actions have been consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York under
the caption IN RE INTEREST RATE SWAPS ANTITRUST LITIGATION.

Plaintiffs in these actions allege that defendants colluded to
prevent the development of exchange-like trading for IRS, thereby
causing the putative classes to suffer losses in connection with
their IRS transactions. Plaintiffs assert federal antitrust claims
and claims for unjust enrichment. Also consolidated under the same
caption are two individual actions filed by swap execution
facilities, asserting federal and state antitrust claims as well
as claims for unjust enrichment and tortious interference with
business relations. Plaintiffs in all of these actions seek treble
damages, fees, costs and injunctive relief.

Additional information concerning these actions is publicly
available in court filings under the docket number 16-MD-2704
(S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer, J.).


MTAG SERVICES: Connecticut Judge Narrows Claims in "Weldon" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Janet C. Hall of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions
to dismiss the case ROGER WELDON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MTAG SERVICES, LLC et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-783(JCH) (D. Conn.).

The City of Bridgeport imposed four municipal tax liens on Roger
Weldon's home after the latter did not pay his property taxes for
several years. The City assigned the liens to MTAG Caz Creek CT,
LLC, which immediately assigned the liens it received to MTAG
Services, LLC or MTAG as its custodian or directly to MTAG as
custodian for MTAG Caz Creek CT, LLC. MTAG Caz Creek CT, LLC
changed its name to Caz Creek CT, LLC.

In August 2015, MTAG, in its custodial capacity, assigned the four
liens to Cazenovia Creek Funding I, LLC. On October 19, 2015,
MTAG, as custodian for MTAG Caz Creek CT, LLC, filed a tax lien
foreclosure lawsuit against Weldon in state court to collect on
the liens, but the complaint did not indicate that the liens had
been assigned to Cazenovia. Rather, materials attached to the
filing expressly stated that plaintiff as named in the complaint
is the creditor to whom the debt is owed, and a notice of lis
pendens dated the same day as the state complaint indicated that
MTAG Services, LLC, as custodian for MTAG Caz Creek CT, LLC is now
the owner and holder of said liens. The state complaint demanded
foreclosure of the lien, attorney's fees, interest, and costs. Caz
Creek appears under its previous name, MTAG Caz Creek CT, LLC.

Weldon initially denied some of the allegations in the state
complaint, but later asked that Caz Creek and MTAG inform him of
the amount necessary to pay off the debts.  On December 31, 2015,
Weldon provided a certified check for $25,463.23, the amount that
MTAG and Caz Creek had demanded by email. MTAG and Caz Creek
withdrew the lawsuit the same day and later refunded $375, but the
remaining $25,088.23 Weldon paid included charges for $1,100.00 of
attorney's fees and $1,319.20 of costs.

On December 29, 2015, February 4, 2016, and March 23, 2016, Weldon
demanded that defendants discharge the tax liens on his home for
tax years 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, which were at that point
paid in full. Cazenovia filed a discharge of the 2011 and 2013 tax
liens on February 4, 2016. For the 2010 and 2012 liens, Cazenovia
filed a release dated June 16, 2016, which was notated as received
by the City of Bridgeport on July 13, 2016. Neither MTAG nor
Cazenovia are licensed Connecticut Consumer Collection Agencies.
Caz Creek is licensed as a consumer collection agency, as of
November 18, 2015, under its current name, Caz Creek CT, LLC.

Weldon claims defendants engaged in wide-ranging, unlawful conduct
related to their prosecution of municipal tax lien foreclosure
actions. In his first amended complaint, Weldon alleged conversion
(count I), violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act (count II), abuse of process (count III), violations of the
Connecticut Creditor Collection Practices Act (count IV),
violations of sections 12-195g, 42a-9-513, and 42a-9-625 of the
Connecticut General Statutes (count V), violations of section 49-8
of the Connecticut General Statutes (count VI), and unjust
enrichment(count VII).

Caz Creek and Cazenovia filed a motion to dismiss the claims
against them, under Rules 12(b)(1) & 12(b)(6)., as did MTAG.

Judge Hall granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions
to dismiss. Counts I, II A-D, and II H are dismissed on both
litigation privilege and Noerr-Pennington grounds, while counts II
E-F are dismissed on Noerr-Pennington grounds. Count II F, insofar
as it brings claims against Cazenovia, is dismissed for lack of
standing. Count II G is dismissed because defendants are not
consumer collection agencies, and count III is dismissed because
he failed to allege that defendants instituted the state
foreclosure suit for any collateral purpose. Counts IV A-C are
dismissed because the municipal tax liens at issue in the case do
not qualify as debts within the meaning of the CCPA, and count V,
similarly, is dismissed because section 12-195g of the Connecticut
General Statutes does not apply to municipal tax liens on real
property. Lastly, count VII is dismissed for failure to plausibly
state an unjust enrichment claim, where it is undisputed that
Weldon's liens were discharged in exchange for the payment he made
to defendants.

Defendants' motions to dismiss count VI on Article III standing
grounds are denied. Count VI is the only claim that survives.

A copy of Judge Hall's order dated February 28, 2017, is available
at https://goo.gl/4hfVpX from Leagle.com.

Roger Weldon, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel S. Blinn -- at
Consumer Law Group; Peter A. Holland -- at The Holland Law Firm,
P.C.; Joseph S. Tusa -- at Tusa P.C.

MTAG Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew Soukup --
asoukup@cov.com -- Christian J. Pistilli -- cpistilli@cov.com --
at Covington & Burling, LLP; Richard S. Order -- rorder@uks.com --
Adam B. Marks -- amarks@uks.com -- at Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, PC
CAZ Creek CT, LLC and Cazenovia Creek Funding I, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Alyx S. Pattison -- alyx.pattison@akerman.com --
Dara Chevlin Tarkowski -- dara.tarkowski@akerman.com -- Julian
Dayal -- julian.dayal@akerman.com -- at Akerman, LLP; Michael J.
Jones -- mjones@ibolaw.com -- Michael Andrew Zamat -- at Ivey,
Barnum & O'Mara LLC

Cazenovia Creek Funding I, LLC, Defendant, represented by Alyx S.
Pattison, Akerman, LLP, pro hac vice, Dara Chevlin Tarkowski,
Akerman, LLP, pro hac vice, Julian Dayal, Akerman, LLP, pro hac
vice, Michael J. Jones, Ivey, Barnum & O'Mara LLC, Jessica Marie
Signor, Ivey, Barnum & O'Mara LLC & Michael Andrew Zamat, Ivey,
Barnum & O'Mara LLC


MEAD JOHNSON: "Steinberg" Sues Over Sale to Benckiser Group
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chaile Steinberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mead Johnson Nutrition Company,
James M. Cornelius, Steven M. Altschuler, Howard B. Bernick,
Kimberly A. Casiano, Anna C. Catalano, Celeste A. Clark, Stephen
W. Golsby, Michael Grobstein, Kasper Jakobsen, Peter G. Ratcliffe,
Elliott Sigal, Robert S. Singer, Michael Sherman, Reckitt
Benckiser Group PLC and Marigold Merger Sub, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 1:17-cv-00304 (D. Del., March 21, 2017) seeks to
preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants and all persons
acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or
closing the acquisition of Mead Johnson Nutrition Company by
Reckitt Benckiser Group; rescinding it and setting it aside or
awarding rescissory damages; reasonable allowance for Plaintiff's
attorneys and expert fees and such other and further relief under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, Mead Johnson Nutrition Company will be
acquired by Reckitt Benckiser Group. Shareholders of Mead Johnson
will receive $90.00 in cash for each share of Mead Johnson common
stock they own. Defendants have allegedly locked up the merger and
have precluded other bidders from making successful competing
offers for the Company. Plaintiff claims that amount in
consideration is inadequate, considering that the intrinsic value
of the Company is materially in excess of the amount offered in
the merger, thus denying them their right to share proportionately
and equitably in the true value of the Company's valuable and
profitable business, and future growth in profits and earnings.
Plaintiff also alleges that the Company's officers and directors
stand to receive substantial benefits as a result of this merger.

Mead Johnson is a Delaware corporation and maintains its principal
executive office at 2701 Patriot Blvd., Glenview, Illinois 60026.
It manufactures, distributes, and sells infant formula, children's
nutrition, and other nutritional products, offering infant formula
products and children's nutrition products. The Company markets
its products to mothers, health care professionals, and retailers
in approximately 50 countries in Asia, North America, Latin
America and Europe.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MEMORIALCARE: Faces "Cortez" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
Hermalinda Cortez, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Memorialcare Health System, Long
Beach Memorial Medical Center, Long Beach Memorial Hospital,
Miller Children's Hospital Long Beach Auxiliary, Inc. d/b/a Miller
Children's & Women's Hospital Long Beach, Community Hospital Long
Beach, Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center, Saddleback Memorial
Medical Center, Memorialcare Medical Group and Greater Newport
Physicians Medical Group, Inc. and Does 1-100, inclusive,, Case
No. BC654858, (Cal. Super., March 21, 2017), seeks relief and
damages, equitable remedies, declaratory relief, disgorgement,
accounting, and restitution for Defendants' violations of
California's unfair competition laws and the California Business &
Professions Code.

Plaintiff is a Medi-Cal eligible beneficiary who received health
care services at one of Defendants' MemorialCare Facilities after
a bicycle accident. Despite presenting her eligibility in the form
of her State of California Benefits Identification Card, Defendant
asserted a hospital lien against any and all settlements,
judgments, and proceeds of any satisfaction of judgment of
Plaintiff and did not include any language limiting recovery to
the portion of such award specifically allocated for the
beneficiary's medical expenses.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
      Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
      Taylor L. Emerson, Esq.
      BRADLEY GROMBACHER, LLP
      2815 Townsgate Road, Suite 130
      Westlake Village, CA 91361
      Telephone: (805)212-5124
      Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
      E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
              ktrfombacher@bradlevarombacheT.com


MERCHANTS & PROFESSIONAL: Faces "Pace" Suit in W.D. Wash.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Merchants &
Professional Credit Bureau, Inc. The case is captioned as Michelle
Pace, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. MERCHANTS & PROFESSIONAL CREDIT BUREAU, INC.,
and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00411 (W.D.
Wash., Mar. 15, 2017).

Merchants and Professional is debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Matthew Pesicka, Esq.
          CONCORD LAW, P.C.
          Waterfront Park Building
          144 Railroad Avenue, Suite 236
          Edmonds, WA 98020
          Telephone: (206) 512 8029
          Facsimile: (206) 512 8914
          E-mail: Ryan@ConcordLawSeattle.com


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

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

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

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

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
      James M. Wilson, Jr.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      685 Third Ave., 26th Fl.
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com
      Email: jwilson@faruqilaw.com

             - and -

      Anthony L. DeLuca, Esq.
      ANTHONY L. DELUCA, PLC
      14950 East Jefferson Ave., Suite 170
      Grosse Pointe Park, MI 48230
      Tel: (313) 821-5905
      Fax: (313) 821-5906
      Email: Anthony@aldplc.com

             - and -

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


METROPOLITAN STEEL: "Kenvil" Seeks Trust Funds for Contract Job
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenvil United Corp., on behalf of itself and all similarly
situated Lien Law trust fund beneficiaries in connection with the
improvement of various land and premises, as described herein,
Plaintiff, v. David Michael Hartley, David Kent Hartley and David
M. Cool, Defendants, Case No. 651455/2017 (N.Y. Sup., March 20,
2017), seeks trust funds which have been received with respect to
construction work at Riverside Center Building 5 Project; all
additional amounts necessary to pay all respective claims of all
claimants and Kenvil; and reasonable and adequate attorneys' fees
and disbursements for violation of the New York State Lien Law.

Defendants are officers of Metropolitan Steel Industries Inc.
(MSI), who entered into a subcontract with Kenvil to install,
among other things, structural steel, metal deck and shear studs
in connection with the construction work at Riverside Center
Building 5, New York, New York. On August 3, 2016, MSI filed for
bankruptcy protection by filing a voluntary petition with the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

According to the complaint, MSI failed and refused to pay Kenvil
the outstanding amount due of no less than $607,334.25 despite
that it had received payments from the owner of the property.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis A. Modugno, Esq.
      Scott A. Levin, Esq.
      McELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER, LLP
      225 Liberty Street, 36th Floor
      New York, NY 10281
      Tel: (212) 483-9490


MIDLAND CREDIT: "Reynolds" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla. Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Justin Reynolds, and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management,
Inc., a Kansas corporation, the Defendant, Case No. CACE-17-
003547, was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft
Lauderdale). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:17-cv-
60576-WPD to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge
William P. Dimitrouleas.

Midland Credit helps consumers resolve past-due debt
obligations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher W. Legg, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER LEGG, P.A.
          3837 Hollywood Blvd., Ste. B
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 962 2333
          Facsimile: (954) 927 2451
          E-mail: chris@theconsumerlawyers.com

               - and -

          Matthew Ian Buchwald, Esq.
          PO Box 547266
          Surfside, FL 33154
          Telephone: (305) 788 2680
          E-mail: matt@theconsumerlawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Cory William Eichhorn, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
          701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 374 8500
          Facsimile: (305) 789 7799
          E-mail: cory.eichhorn@hklaw.com


MIDWEST MOVING: Hearing on Class Certification Continued to May 9
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jorge L. Alonso entered an order in the lawsuit entitled
Mackenzie Drake, the Plaintiff, v. Midwest Moving and Storage
Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05317 (N.D. Ill.),
granting Plaintiff's motion for certification of collective action
for disclosure of potential opt-in Plaintiffs' contact information
and approval of Plaintiff's notice.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on March 14, 2017,
status hearing will be held and continued to May 9, 2017 at 9:30
a.m. The Plaintiff shall submit a proposed class notice to Judge
Alonso's proposed order email address by March 28, 17.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vNgCn5a3


MONEYGRAM INT'L: Faces "Dellisola" Suit Over Alipay Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Dellisola, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Moneygram International, Inc., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00777-M (N.D. Tex., March 17,
2017), is brought on behalf of all holders of the common stock of
Moneygram, and seeks to enjoin the proposed transaction in which
Alipay will acquire each outstanding share of Moneygram common
stock through a flawed process and for an inadequate
consideration.

Ant Financial, owner of Chinese payment platform Alipay, has
agreed to buy MoneyGram, for $880 million.

According to the complaint, the merger consideration is
insufficient and undervalues the Company.  Indeed, analysts have
set higher price targets for the Company's common stock and the
Company's stock price closed at $13.00 as recently as January 4,
2017, meaning shareholders are being offered a measly 1.9% premium
for their shares. Furthermore, says the Plaintiff, the merger
consideration is the result of a flawed sales process.

Defendant MoneyGram is a Delaware corporation and maintains its
principal executive offices in Dallas, Texas. The Company provides
payments services to consumers and business through a network of
agents and its financial institution customers. The Company
enables consumers to make payments and to transfer money around
the world. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Balon B. Bradley, Esq.
   Law Offices of Balon B. Bradley
   5473 Blair Road, Suite 100
   Dallas, TX 75231
   Tel: (972) 991-1582

        - and -

   Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
   Monteverde & Associates PC
   The Empire State Building
   350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
   New York, NY 10118
   Tel: (212) 971-1341
   Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com

         - and -

   Daniel Kuznicki, Esq.
   Brower Piven, APC
   475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 501-9000
   Email: kuznicki@browerpiven.com


MORGAN GROUP: Faces "Bobiak" Suit Over FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Douglas L. Bobiak, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated v. The Morgan Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3:17-cv-00142 (W.D. N.C., March 17, 2017), seeks payment of unpaid
wages, overtime compensation, overtime bonus premium and statutory
penalties for Plaintiff and any similarly situated hourly
employees who worked for The Morgan Group, Inc.

The suit was filed over the Defendant's policy and pattern or
practice of time shaving from Plaintiff's total number of hours
worked. In other words, Defendant regularly paid Plaintiff for
less time than what was recorded on his time cards, including but
not limited to weeks during which he worked overtime, says the
complaint.

Plaintiff Bobiak was employed by Defendant as an hourly employee.

Defendant offers multifamily development, construction and
property management operating a multifamily housing in North
Carolina, California, Florida, Missouri and Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
   The Law Offices of Michelle Gessner, PLLC
   409 East Boulevard
   Charlotte, NC 28203
   Tel: (704) 234-7442
   Email: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com

        - and -

   Philip J. Gibbons, Jr.
   Phil Gibbons Law, P.C.
   15720 Brixham Hill Ave., Ste 280
   Charlotte, NC 28277
   Tel: (704) 612-0038
   Email: phil@philgibbonslaw.com


MORGAN PROPERTIES: "Zehm" Suit Moved to N.J. Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled AVA ZEHM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. MORGAN
PROPERTIES; MOORESTOWNE WOODS APARTMENT ASSOCIATES, LLC, doing
business as MOORSETOWNE WOODS APARTMENT ASSOCIATES, LP; and
NWP SERVICES CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. L 174 17, was
removed from the Burlington 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-01758-NLH-KMW to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Noel L.
Hillman.

Morgan Properties owns and manages 131 apartment communities with
over 30000 apartments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lewis G. Adler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LEWIS ADLER
          26 NEWTON AVENUE
          WOODBURY, NJ 08096
          Telephone: (856) 845 1968
          E-mail: lewisadler@verizon.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Rachel C. Heinrich, Esq.
          WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A.
          Two Penn Center, Suite 910
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 636 4494
          E-mail: rheinrich@wilentz.com


MRS BPO: Faces "Estevez" Suit in Eastern District of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO LLC. The
case is entitled as Raul Estevez and Alexander Nayberg, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
MRS BPO LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01594 (E.D.N.Y., Mar.
21, 2017).

MRS BPO is an industry leader in financial services, healthcare,
cable, utilities, and telecommunication debt recovery.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MY PILLOW INC: Stamm Sues Over Fraudulent Product Promo
-------------------------------------------------------
Philip Stamm, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. My Pillow, Inc. a Minnesota Corporation,
a/k/a My Pillow Direct LLC, Defendant, Case No. 651472/2017 (N.Y.
Sup., March 20, 2017) seeks damages, including statutory and
actual damages, expenses and costs of suit, pre-judgment interest,
post-judgment interest and reasonable attorney's fees as well as
restitution and all such other relief resulting from unjust
enrichment, fraud, deceit and violations of New York General
Business Laws.

Defendant My Pillow, Inc. advertised a Buy One Get One Free
promotion which it refused to honor but instead offered a discount
of a lesser amount on the purchase of the same pillows. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
      Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
      GAINEY, McKENNA, & EGLESTON
      440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 983-1300
      Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
      Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
             gegleston@gme-law.com


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Battersby" Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit,
Inc. The case is captioned as Richard A. Battersby, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Nationwide Credit, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01455
(E.D.N.Y., Mar. 15, 2017).

Nationwide Credit, a collection agency, provides customer
relationship and accounts receivable management services.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Class Action Waiver Not Discharged in Ch. 7
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Erik P. Kimball of the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach Division,
granted in part defendant's motion to compel arbitration in the
case titled VERHONDA K. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS,
LLC, Defendant, Adv. Proc. No. 16-01244-EPK (Bankr. S.D. Fla.),
relating to In re: VERHONDA K. WILLIAMS, Chapter 7, Debtor, Case
No. 15-22082-EPK (Bankr. S.D. Fla.).

On July 2, 2015, Verhonda K. Williams filed a voluntary petition
under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code.  Navient Solutions, LLC
f/k/a Navient Solutions, Inc., was listed in the petition as a
creditor holding an unsecured, nonpriority claim for student
loans. On October 14, 2015, the court entered its standard order
discharging the Williams of all obligations dischargeable under
section 727. On April 13, 2016, Williams filed her motion to
Reopen Chapter 7 Case to File Adversary Proceeding for the purpose
of filing an adversary complaint against NSI seeking a
determination that her scheduled student loan debt had been
discharged and that NSI had violated the discharge order by
attempting to collect it. On May 6, 2016, the court entered its
order granting motion to reopen Chapter 7 case to file an
adversary proceeding.

On June 1, 2016, Williams commenced the action and in her counts
I, II and III, Williams seek a determination that her scheduled
student loan debt is dischargeable, a declaration to the same
effect, and an order holding NSI in contempt for attempting to
collect the student loan debt along with an award of damages.
Williams asserts, purportedly on behalf of a putative statewide
class of similarly situated persons, that her bar study loans
serviced by NSI are not qualified education loans under section
523(a)(8) and, therefore, were discharged in her chapter 7
bankruptcy case. Williams next asserts that NSI violated the
discharge order pursuant to section 524(a)(2) by mailing monthly
statements to her and by making telephone calls to her in an
attempt to collect such loans.

Relying on the arbitration and class action waiver provisions
contained in the two promissory notes signed by Williams, NSI
filed a motion to compel arbitration.

Upon consideration of the motion to compel arbitration and
relevant law, Judge Kimball rules that the arbitration and class
action waiver provisions contained in the notes given by the
plaintiff in favor of NSI were not discharged in the plaintiff's
chapter 7 bankruptcy case. Even if the plaintiff's personal
obligations under the notes were discharged in her chapter 7
bankruptcy case, the arbitration and class action waiver
provisions are severable from those personal obligations and,
remain valid and enforceable. Judge Kimball also rules that no
inherent conflict exists between the enforcement of the
arbitration and class action waiver provisions and the purposes of
the Bankruptcy Code provisions relied upon in counts I, II and III
of plaintiff's second amended complaint. The court will enforce
the arbitration and class action waiver provisions and compel
arbitration of the claims presented in counts I, II and III of the
second amended complaint. Finally, in light of the court's order
granting in part defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay
proceedings, or, alternatively, to dismiss non-bankruptcy claims
and granting in part motion to compel arbitration of all claims
and dismiss or stay pending arbitration, which dismissed with
prejudice Counts IV, V and VI of the plaintiff's second amended
complaint, the motion to designate claims will be denied as moot.
The adversary proceeding will be dismissed and closed, and the
main chapter 7 case will be re-closed.

A copy of Judge Kimball's order dated March 3, 2017, is available
at https://goo.gl/qrsfTy from Leagle.com.

Verhonda K. Williams, Debtor, represented by Chad T. Van Horn


NCB MANAGEMENT: Faces "Howard" Suit in Florida Middle District
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NCB Management
Services, Inc. The case is titled as Debra Howard, on behalf of
herself and all similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v.
NCB Management Services, Inc., and P2 Verifications Services, LLC,
doing business as Global Verification Network as successor to
Redridge Verification Services, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-
cv-00303-BJD-JBT (M.D. Fla., Mar. 15, 2017). The case is assigned
to Hon. Judge Brian J. Davis.

NCB Management provides clients with a full-spectrum of accounts
receivable management.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300
          Tampa, FL 33602-3343
          Telephone: (813) 224 0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com


NEAL TRUCKING: Settlement Bid in "Poisson" Taken Under Submission
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Ronald Poisson, et al, the Plaintiffs, v.
Neal Trucking, Inc., et al, the Defendants, Case No. 5:13-cv-
02241-VAP-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Virginia A. Phillips entered
an order taking under submission Plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.

No appearance was made by defendant.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kUmXjOQ6

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Dion-Kindem, Esq.
          THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 883 4900
          Facsimile: (838) 883 4902
          E-mail: Peter@Dion-KindemLaw.com


NEVADA: Loses Bid to Dismiss Family's Suit vs. NDVS
---------------------------------------------------
Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada denied defendants' motions to compel
arbitration and dismiss the case Estate of Charles M. Demos, Sr.,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. State of Nevada, et al., Defendants, No.
2:16-cv-00324-JAD-CWH (D. Nev.).

Paul C. Demos sues individually and as the heir and special
administrator of the estate of his father Charles M. Demos, Sr.,
who died in April 2015 after contracting Legionnaires' Disease
while residing at the Nevada State Veteran's Home. Paul, along
with Charles Sr.'s other children, Andrew, Charles Jr., Denise,
and Mark Demos, bring this putative class action against the State
of Nevada on relation of the Nevada Department of Veterans
Services (NDVS), which operates the VA facility.

Judge Dorsey dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend
plaintiffs' state-law claims for negligent infliction of emotional
distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent
hiring, training, and supervision, breach of contract, to the
extent it was brought by plaintiffs as third-party beneficiaries,
and plaintiffs' sole federal-law Section 1983 claim as pleaded
against McBride only, leaving intact only plaintiffs' claims for
negligence, wrongful death, and breach of contract on behalf of
Charles Sr.'s estate.

Plaintiffs timely filed a second-amended complaint, dropping
McBride as a defendant and the Section 1983 claim against him, and
asserting eight state-law claims for relief, negligence, wrongful
death, elder abuse, negligent infliction of emotional distress,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring,
training, and supervision, breach of contract, and declaratory and
injunctive relief.

The NDVS moves to stay the case and compel arbitration or,
alternatively, to dismiss all claims under FRCP.

Judge Dorsey denied without prejudice defendants' motions and
remanded the case back to the Eight Judicial District Court.
Plaintiffs' amended complaint includes only state-law claims and
such claims raise novel and complex issues of state law, Judge
Dorsey decline to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over them.

A copy of Judge Dorsey's order dated February 28, 2017, is
available at https://goo.gl/WuidUX from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

   Martin A. Little, Esq.
   Taylor L. Waite, Esq.
   Michael R. Ernst, Esq.
   JOLLEY URGA WIRTH WOODBURY & STANDISH
   3800 Howard Hughes Pkwy
   Las Vegas, NV 89169
   Tel: 702-699-7500

State of Nevada, Defendant, represented by:

   D. Randall Gilmer, Esq.
   Steven Shevorski, Esq.
   Nevada Office of the Attorney General
   555 E Washington Ave # 3900
   Las Vegas, NV 89101
   Tel: 702-486-3420


NEW ORLEANS, LA: Bid to Certify Class Denied Without Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ALANA CAIN, ET AL., the Plaintiffs, v. CITY
OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL., the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-04479-
SSV-JCW (E.D. La.), the Hon. Sarah S. Vance entered an order:

   1. denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion to certify
      class, where motion may be reurged on the schedule to be
      imposed by the Court;

   2. directing parties to exchange proposed stipulated facts as
      to Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 on or before March 24, 2017, if
      the parties are unable to agree to stipulated facts, they
      shall promptly consult with Judge Wilkinson to resolve any
      disputes; and

   3. directing parties to file cross-motions for summary
      judgment on Counts 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 on or before May 23,
      2017, where these motions shall not exceed 50 pages, and
      Judicial Defendants and the Sheriff shall file a single,
      joint motion; responses to these motions shall be submitted
      on or before June 13, 2017; replies shall be submitted on
      or before June 27, 2017; responses shall not exceed 50
      pages, and replies shall not exceed 25 pages; all
      submissions by defendants shall be filed jointly; and the
      motions shall be deemed submitted on June 27, 2017.

The operative complaint in this case is the Second Amended Class
Action Complaint. The remaining claims and defendants are those
not excluded in the Court's order regarding plaintiffs' motion for
leave to amend. All discovery and motions practice, except as
outlined in this order, is stayed pending further order.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zdaSCh5f


NEXT CLEANERS: Faces "Dey" Suit in Southern District of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Next Cleaners, LLC.
The case is captioned as Zenith Dey and Libby Abesamis, on behalf
of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Kam Saifi; Next at 808
Columbus, Inc.; Next Cleaners, LLC; Next Cleaners NY1, LLC; George
Inakavadze; and Aleksey Berezov, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-
02049 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 21, 2017).

Next Cleaners provides dry cleaning and laundry services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


NICOLET RESTAURANT: Meyers Appeals Ruling to Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Meyers, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Petitioner v. Nicolet Restaurant of De Pere, LLC, Case
No. 16-1113 (U.S., Mar. 1, 2016), is a petition for a writ of
certiorari from a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit, Appellate Case No. 16-2075 (7th Cir., Dec. 13,
2016).[BN]

This Petition is the second of two that Meyers has filed with the
Supreme Court seeking a writ of certiorari on the question of
whether a plaintiff who receives an improperly truncated customer
receipt in violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act ("FACTA") has Article III standing to bring suit for statutory
damages.

In Meyers v. Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin, 836 F.3d 818
(7th Cir. 2016) ("Meyers I"), Meyers brought a claim for statutory
damages after he received three computer-generated customer
receipts which displayed more than the last five digits of his
credit card number, as well as the card's expiration date, from
retail establishments owned by the Oneida Tribe of Indians of
Wisconsin.

The underlying case ("Meyers II") similarly arises out of an
improperly truncated customer receipt.  On February 10, 2015,
Meyers received from Nicolet Restaurant of De Pere, LLC
("Nicolet") a computer-generated customer receipt which displayed
the last four digits of Meyers's credit card number in addition to
the card's expiration date.

On April 14, 2015, Meyers filed suit against Nicolet in the
district court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin for Nicolet's
failure to properly truncate Meyers's credit card information on
his customer receipt pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681c(g)(1).
Meyers brought his cause of action individually and on behalf of a
putative class of similarly situated individuals and entities.
Meyers did not allege any actual damages suffered as a result of
Nicolet's failure to truncate the receipt, but rather, Meyers
sought statutory damages for Nicolet's willful FACTA violation
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681n(a)(1)(A).  At the same time that
Meyers filed his complaint, Meyers also filed a motion for class
certification, in which he sought to certify the class of
customers to whom Nicolet gave the non-compliant receipts.

Nicolet did not file a motion to dismiss Meyers's complaint or
otherwise argue that Meyers lacked standing under Article III at
any time before the district court. Rather, on December 18, 2015,
Nicolet filed a memorandum in opposition to class certification,
arguing that individual issues so predominated the case, such that
the putative class failed to meet the commonality and typicality
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and the predominance and
superiority requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).

On April 1, 2016, the district court denied Meyers's motion for
class certification.  The district court held that the putative
class met the commonality and typicality requirements of Fed. R.
Cir. P. 23(a) but did not meet the predominance and superiority
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). App. 18-34.

The Seventh Circuit held that Meyers lacked standing under Article
III, vacated the judgment of the district court, and remanded the
case with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.  The
court found "that without a showing of injury apart from the
statutory violation, the failure to truncate a credit card's
expiration date is insufficient to confer Article III standing."

The Seventh Circuit expressly rejected the argument that Congress
created a substantive right in FACTA, the violation of which --
without more -- amounts to a concrete injury.  The court held that
"whether the right is characterized as 'substantive' or
'procedural,' its violation must be accompanied by an injury in
fact," and "[a] violation of a statute that causes no harm does
not trigger a federal case."

Additionally, the Seventh Circuit did not believe that Meyers's
improperly truncated receipt put him in any risk of harm, finding
it "hard to imagine how the expiration date's presence could have
increased the risk that [Meyers's] identity would be
compromised[]" because "Meyers discovered the violation
immediately[,]" and "nobody else every saw the non-compliant
receipt."  The court further suggested that FACTA's requirement to
truncate a credit or debit card's expiration date from a customer
receipt is actually ineffective at preventing identity theft,
citing to a Congressional finding that truncation of the card's
number alone "prevents a potential fraudster from perpetrating
identity theft or credit card fraud[]" without having to
additionally truncate the card's expiration date.  The Seventh
Circuit expressed its concern over what it considered an "abuse of
FACTA lawsuits," and believed that "Congress sought to limit FACTA
lawsuits to consumers 'suffering from any actual harm.'"

Petitioner is represented by:

          Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES PC
          77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440 0020


NIMBLE STORAGE: "Parshall" Sues Over Sale to Hewlett Packard
------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Parshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Nimble Storage, Inc., Suresh Vasudevan,
Varun Mehta, Frank Calderoni, James J. Goetz, William Jenkins Jr.,
Jerry M. Kennelly, William J. Schroeder, Bob Kelly, Hewlett
Packard Enterprise Company and Nebraska Merger Sub, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-01538 (N.D. Cal., March 22, 2017),
seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with
defendants from proceeding with, consummating or closing the
acquisition of Nimble Storage, Inc. by Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Company, and rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the
merger.  The suit also seeks rescissory damages, costs of suit,
including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and
experts' fees and such other and further relief under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Pursuant to the terms of the merger, shareholders of Nimble
Storage will receive $12.50 in cash for each share of common
stock. Defendants have allegedly locked up the deal and have
precluded other bidders from making successful competing offers
for the company as well as failed to disclose the company's
financial projection from its advisers for the shareholders to
make an educated vote on the merger.

Nimble Storage develops flash storage platforms that provides a
single consolidation architecture with common data services across
a portfolio of flash and adaptive flash arrays with integrated
support and service offerings, enabling IT organizations to
optimize performance, capacity and cost for all applications
running across the data center using a cloud-based management
software. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and -

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

            - and -

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


O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: Certification of Two Classes Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled REBECCA COURTRIGHT and RAPHAEL SAYE,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others, the Plaintiff, v.
O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE STORES, INC., CSK AUTO, INC., d/b/a O'REILLY
AUTO PARTS, and O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00134-DGK (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order certifying classes:

Disclosure Class:

   "all employees or prospective employees of Defendants who
   executed an employment application containing the Defendants'
   First Advantage FCRA disclosure form and with respect to whom
   Defendants procured or caused to be procured a consumer report
   in connection with their application for employment during the
   period March 4, 2012 through March 31, 2014"; and

Adverse Action Class:

   "all employees or prospective employees of Defendants with
   respect to whom Defendants procured or caused to be procured a
   consumer report in connection with their application for
   employment who were subjected to an adverse action during the
   period March 4, 2012 through the date of certification".

The Plaintiffs further move the Court to appoint Rebecca
Courtright, Raphael Saye and Juan Estrada as class representatives
and their counsel, Brown & Associates LLC, Glancy Prongay & Murray
LLP and Capstone Law APC as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9nuXjkUe

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jayson A. Watkins
          Charles Jason Brown
          BROWN & WATKINS LLC
          301 S. US 169 Hwy
          Gower, MO 64454
          Telephone: (816) 505 4529
          Facsimile: (816) 424 1337
          E-mail: brown@brownandwatkins.com
                  watkins@brownandwatkins.com

               - and -

          Mark S. Greenstone, Esq.
          Marc L. Godino, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: 310 201 9150
          Facsimile: 310 432 1495
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Raphael Saye, Esq.
          Jordan Lurie, Esq.
          Robert K. Friedl, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Ste. 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 556 4811
          Facsimile: (310) 943 0396


OCWEN LOAN: Court Partially Grants Bid to Dismiss FCRA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Miranda M. Du of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada granted in part defendant's motions to dismiss the case
titled IN RE OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC LITIGATION, Lead Case No.
3:16-cv-00200-MMD-WGC, Member Case No. 3:16-cv-00483-MMD-WGC, Case
No. 3:16-cv-00498-MMD-WGC., 3:16-cv-00603-MMD-WGC (D. Nev.)

Plaintiffs Christopher Marino, Dionne Horton, Henry L. Farrin, Jr.
Joshua E. Hardin and Kristen J. Hardin each brought a class action
lawsuit under the Fair Credit Reporting Act against Ocwen Loan
Servicing LLC based on almost identical factual allegations. Each
plaintiff discharged in bankruptcy a prior loan that had been
serviced by Ocwen, yet Ocwen continued, and possibly still
continues, to obtain plaintiffs' credit information from credit
reporting agencies without a legally permissible purpose and
without plaintiffs' authorization as required under the FCRA. All
plaintiffs allege that Ocwen obtained their credit reports under
false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, each
willful violations under the statute.

The court issued a minute order on February 10, 2017, requesting
supplemental briefing in light of a recently decided Ninth Circuit
opinion in Syed v. M-I, LLC, 846 F.3d 1024(9th Cir. 2017), that
addressed procedural standing and statutory damages under the
FCRA. In addition, the parties have filed several motions to
supplement.

Ocwen filed a motion to dismiss in each case and asserted that the
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because a legally
impermissible pull of an individual's credit report does not give
rise to a concrete injury or actual damages that would give rise
to Article III standing.

Judge Du ordered that defendant's motions to dismiss in Marino,
Farrin, and Hardin are denied. Defendant's motion to dismiss in
Horton is granted only with respect to the negligent noncompliance
claim. Horton may file an amended complaint within thirty days of
the order to cure the negligent noncompliance claim under Section
1681o to the extent Horton can allege a concrete injury and/or
actual damages sustained as a result of Ocwen's alleged negligent,
impermissible pull of his credit report. Regardless of amendment,
all other claims across all four cases will proceed. The three
additional motions to supplement are granted.

The court finds that plaintiffs have satisfied Article III's
standing requirements with respect to their claim for willful
noncompliance under the FCRA. The statute explicitly provides a
statutory damage amount to quantify a harm that is often
unquantifiable, the harm to consumer privacy and confidentiality
that results when a prior lender continues to access a consumer's
personal information without any genuine reason for doing so.
Plaintiffs in Horton have not demonstrated any actual damages to
meet the requirement of standing to assert a claim for negligent
noncompliance with the FCRA.

A copy of Judge Du's order dated March 3, 2017, is available at
https://goo.gl/hLcUxM from Leagle.com.

Christopher Marino, Plaintiff, represented by Scott Craig Borison
-- borison@legglaw.com -- at Legg Law Firm LLP; Christopher P.
Burke -- attycburke@charter.net -- at Christopher P. Burke, Esq.
and Associates

Pernell D Hobley, Deaonca S. Bouguere and Dionne Horton,
Plaintiff, represented by Mitchell D. Gliner -- at Law Office of
Mitchell D. Gliner; Nicholas L. Walton -- Sylvia A. Goldsmith --
at Goldsmith & Associates

Henry L. Farrin, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Peter Albert
Holland -- at The Holland Law Firm, P.C.; Roger B. Phillips -- at
Phillips Law Office, PLLC; Scott Craig Borison --
borison@legglaw.com -- at Legg Law Firm LLP; Christopher P. Burke
-- attycburke@charter.net -- at Christopher P. Burke, Esq. and
Associates

Joshua E. Hardin and Kristen J. Hardin, Plaintiffs, represented by
Emanwel Josef Turnbull -- Peter Albert Holland -- at The Holland
Law Firm, P.C.; Scott Craig Borison -- borison@legglaw.com -- at
Legg Law Firm LLP

Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, Defendant, represented by Harrison Scott
Kelly -- scott.kelly@troutmansanders.com -- John C. Lynch --
john.lynch@troutmansanders.com -- Michael Edward Lacy --
michael.lacy@troutmansanders.com -- Ethan Ostroff --
ethan.ostroff@troutmansanders.com -- at Troutman Sanders LLP; Gary
E. Schnitzer -- gschnitzer@kssattorneys.com --Jordan P. Schnitzer
-- jschnitzer@ksjattorneys.com -- at Kravitz, Schnitzer & Johnson,
Chtd.


OLYMPUS INSURANCE: "Warren" Suit Moved M.D. Fla. Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Joseph Warren, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Olympus Insurance Company, the Defendant, Case No.
CA17-0045, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Seventh
Judicial Circuit in and for St. Johns County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-00297-HLA-JBT
to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Senior Judge Henry
Lee Adams, Jr.

Olympus Insurance Company provides homeowners and rental property
insurance products in Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave Ste. 300
          Tampa, FL 33602-3343
          Telephone: (813) 224 0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          E-mail:bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Juan C. Lopez-Campillo, Esq.
          CRUSER & MITCHELL, LLP
          200 E Robinson St., Suite 1140
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 730 3535
          Facsimile: (407) 730 3540
          E-mail: jlopez@cmlawfirm.com


OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Faces "Lobosco" Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Optio Solutions LLC.
The case is captioned as Patricia A. Lobosco and Michelina
Hoffman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Optio Solutions LLC, doing business
as Qualia Collection Services, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-
01564 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 20, 2017).

Optio Solutions is a full service collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


PENNSYLVANIA: "Murphy" Suit Filed Against Disciplinary Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Office of
Disciplinary Counsel. The case is styled as ROBERT J. MURPHY,
ESQUIRE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL; PAUL
J. KILLIAN, CHIEF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
MICHAEL GOTTSCH IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA; JANES G. PENNY, BOARD CHAIR
IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY; and JULIA FRANKSTON-MORRIS ESQ., BOARD
SECRETARY, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01239-EGS (E.D. Pa.,
Mar. 20, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Edward G. Smith.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel protects the public and the
courts from unethical conduct by D.C.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


PENNYMAC CORP: "McPherson" Seeks Unpaid OT Pay, Missed Breaks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie McPherson, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated non-exempt former and current employees,
Plaintiffs, v. Pennymac Corporation, Pennymac Financial Service,
Inc., Pennymac Loan Services, Inc., National Mortgage Acceptance
Private Company, LLC, Corporation and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC654666, (Cal. Super., March 21, 2017),
seeks damages for unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated
damages, statutory penalties, damages for unpaid wages,
restitution of all unpaid wages and other monies owed, reasonable
attorney's fees, interest, punitive damages and such other relief
under the California Labor Code and the California Business and
Professions Code.

Pennymac is a national home loan lender and servicer. Pennymac
Financial Service, Inc. and Private national are engaged in the
service of home loan lending. Defendants jointly own, manages
and/or operate numerous Mortgage and Lending offices throughout
the United States, California and Southern California where
McPherson is a loan processor and home loan specialist at their
Los Angeles location.

Plaintiff claims to be denied 30-minute meal breaks and worked
off-the-clock. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Faces "Lewis" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Claims
Bureau Inc. The case is entitled as Jodiann Lewis, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. Professional Claims Bureau Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
cv-01427 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 14, 2017).

Professional Claims provides receivable collection and management
services. The Company offers insurance follow-up, credentialing,
and skip tracing services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RASH CURTIS: "Vidrio" Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Vidrio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Rash Curtis & Associates, and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-
at-00238, (E.D. Cal., March 20, 2017), seeks actual damages,
statutory damages for willful and negligent violations, costs and
reasonable attorney's fees, and such other and further relief
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Rash Curtis & Associates is a debt collection company trying to
collect a debt from Vidrio using an automatic telephone dialing
system without her expressed permission.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


REMINGTON ARMS: Court Granted Certification of Class & Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned IAN POLLARD, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. REMINGTON ARMS
COMPANY, LLC, et al. the Defendants, Case No. 4:13-CV-00086-ODS
(W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Ortrie D. Smith entered an order:

   1. granting parties' joint motion for final settlement
      approval;

   2. certifying case for settlement purposes, as a class action
      with the subclasses defined as:

      Settlement Class A:

      Class A(1) - Class Representatives Moodie and Waterman:

      "all current owners of Remington Model 700, Seven,
      Sportsman 78, and 673 firearms containing a Remington
      trigger mechanism that utilizes a trigger connector.
      Excluded from the class are: (a) persons who are neither
      citizens nor residents of the United States or its
      territories; (b) any Judge or Magistrate Judge presiding
      over the action and members of their families; (c)
      governmental purchasers; (d) Remington Arms Company, LLC,
      Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., E.I. du Pont Nemours and
       Company, and each of their subsidiaries and affiliates
      (the "Trigger Connector Class");

      Class A(2) - Class Representative Delperdang:

      "all current owners of Remington Model 710, 715, and 770,
      firearms containing a Remington trigger mechanism that
      utilizes a trigger connector. Excluded from the class are:
      (a) persons who are neither citizens nor residents of the
      United States or its territories; (b) any Judge or
      Magistrate Judge presiding over the action and members of
      their families; (c) governmental purchasers; (d) Remington
      Arms Company, LLC, Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., E.I. du
      Pont Nemours and Company, and each of their subsidiaries
      and affiliates (the "Trigger Connector Class");

      Class A(3) - Class Representatives Otis and Keesy:

      "all current owners of Remington Model 600, 660, and XP-100
      firearms containing a Remington trigger mechanism that
      utilizes a trigger connector. Excluded from the class are:
      (a) persons who are neither citizens nor residents of
      the United States or its territories; (b) any Judge or
      Magistrate Judge presiding over the action and members of
      their families; (c) governmental purchasers; (d) Remington
      Arms Company, LLC, Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., E.I. du
      Pont Nemours and Company, and each of their subsidiaries
      and affiliates (the "Trigger Connector Class");

      Class A(4) - Class Representative Barbre:

      "all current owners of Remington Model 721, 722, and 725
      firearms containing a Remington trigger mechanism that
      utilizes a trigger connector. Excluded from the class are:
      (a) persons who are neither citizens nor residents of the
      United States or its territories; (b) any Judge or
      Magistrate Judge presiding over the action and members of
      their families; (c) governmental purchasers; (d) Remington
      Arms Company, LLC, Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., E.I. du
      Pont Nemours and Company, and each of their subsidiaries
      and affiliates (the "Trigger Connector Class");

      Settlement Class B:

      Class B(1) - Class Representatives Brown, Winterburn,
      Hardaway, Pollard, Anderson, Corsi, and Massie:

      "all current owners of Remington Model 700 and Model Seven
      rifles containing an XMark Pro trigger mechanism
      manufactured from May 1, 2006, to April 9, 2014, who have
      not participated in the voluntary X-Mark Pro product
      recall. Excluded from the class are: (a) persons who are
      neither citizens nor residents of the United States or its
      territories; (b) any Judge or Magistrate Judge presiding
      over the action and members of their families; (c)
      governmental purchasers; (d) Remington Arms Company, LLC,
      Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., E.I. du Pont Nemours and
      Company, and each of their subsidiaries and affiliates (the
      "X-Mark Pro Class")"; and

      Class B(2) - Class Representatives Pollard, Anderson,
      Corsi, and Massie:

      "all current and former owners of Remington Model 700 and
      Model Seven rifles who replaced their rifle's original
      Walker trigger mechanism with an X-Mark Pro trigger
      mechanism manufactured from May 1, 2006, to April 9, 2014.
      Excluded from the class are: (a) persons who are neither
      citizens nor residents of the United States or its
      territories; (b) any Judge or Magistrate Judge presiding
      over the action and members of their families; (c)
      governmental purchasers; (d) Remington Arms Company, LLC,
      Sporting Goods Properties, Inc., E.I. du Pont Nemours and
      Company, and each of their subsidiaries and affiliates (the
      "X-Mark Pro Class");

   3. declaring settlement agreement is fair, reasonable and
      adequate;

   4. incorporating terms of the Fourth Amended Settlement
      Agreement as the Order of this Court;

   5. overruling all objections to the settlement;

   6. appointing Plaintiffs Moodie, Waterman, Delperdang, Otis,
      Keesy, Barbre, Brown, Winterburn, Hardaway, Pollard,
      Anderson, Corsi, and Massie as class representatives;

   7. appointing Richard Arsenault, Charles Schaffer, Eric
      Holland, and W. Mark Lanier as class counsel;

   8. excluding Vincent Agnelli Jr., Leon Baily, Mike Blair,
      Carol Bonham, Leonard Bonham, David Harris Jr., John
      Hoober, Ronson Ibarra, Brad Sisneros, Timothy Tomlinson,
      and David Wight from the settlement;

   9. appointing Angeion as the class action settlement
      administrator to perform the duties assigned to it in the
      settlement agreement;

  10. approving Plaintiffs' application for fees and expenses in
     the amount of $12.5 million;

  11. approving Plaintiffs' request for costs and expenses in
      the amount of $474,892.75 (that amount shall be subtracted
      from the $12.5 million awarded to class counsel);

  12. granting Plaintiffs' request for service awards to class
      representatives in the amount of $2,500 each; and

  13. directing Defendants to publish a copy of the Order on the
      Settlement Website.

Pursuant to the terms of the Fourth Amended Settlement Agreement,
the Court retains jurisdiction over the parties, including the
settlement classes, in matters relating to the administration,
consummation, validity, enforcement, and interpretation of the
settlement agreement. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement
agreement, the matter is dismissed with prejudice.

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


REXALL SUNDOWN: "Dube" Sues Over Gummie Products' False Ad
----------------------------------------------------------
Briana Dube, Plaintiff, individually on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01510 (E.D. N.Y., March 17, 2017), alleges that the
Defendant's "Sundown Natural Adult Gummies" Products are not in
fact "Natural", but rather contain synthetic ingredients.

Defendant manufactures, sells and distributes the Products using a
marketing and advertising campaign centered around claims that
appeal to health conscious consumers, i.e. that its Products are
"Natural". However, Defendant's advertising and marketing campaign
is false, deceptive and misleading because the Products contain
synthetic ingredients. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael R. Reese, Esq.
   George V. Granade, Esq.
   Reese LLP
   100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
   New York, NY 10025
   Tel: (212) 643-0500
   Fax: (212) 253-4272
   Email: mreese@reesellp.com
          ggranade@reesellp.com

        - and -

   Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
   Joseph Lipari, Esq.
   Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
   The Sultzer Law Group P.C.
   85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
   Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
   Tel: (845) 483-7100
   Fax: (888) 749-7747

        - and -

   Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
   Amy E. Boyle, Esq.
   Halunen Law
   1650 IDS Center
   80 South Eighth Street
   Minneapolis, MN 55402
   Tel: (612) 605-4098
   Fax: (612) 605-4099
   Email: wolchansky@halunenlaw.com
          boyle@halunenlaw.com


RUSHMORE LOAN: Hearing on Class Certification Bid Deferred
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Randolph Sellers, individually and on behalf
of a class of persons similarly situated and TABETHA SELLERS,
individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Rushmore Loan Management
Services, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-01106-TJC-PDB (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Timothy J. Corrigan entered an order deferring
ruling on Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Court wants to hear oral argument on Defendant Rushmore Loan
Management Services, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment and make a
determination before it considers Plaintiffs Randolph and Tabetha
Sellers' Motion for Class Certification. Therefore, Rushmore's
Motion for Summary Judgment is set for an in-person hearing on
March 30, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. before the undersigned in the United
States Courthouse, Courtroom 10D, 300 North Hogan Street,
Jacksonville, Florida.

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


SANDOZ INC: Rochester Drug Sues Over Overpriced Amitryptyline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rochester Drug Cooperative Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sandoz, Inc., Mylan,
Inc., Mylan Pharamaceuticals, Inc. and Par Pharmaceutical
Companies, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01300, (E.D. Pa.,
March 22, 2017), seeks to recover treble damages, costs of suit
and reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from overpricing of
amitryptyline hydrochloride tablets in violation of the Sherman
Act and Clayton Act.

Amitryptyline hydrochloride is an anti-depressant used in the
treatment of migraines and nerve pain. Plaintiff claims to have
purchased it at inflated prices.

Rochester Drug Cooperative Inc. is a stock corporation existing
under the Ney York Cooperative Corporations Law.

Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a New York corporation with its
principal place of business in Hawthorne, New York. It is an owned
subsidiary of Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.

Sandoz, Inc., is a Colorado corporation with its principal place
of business in Princeton, New Jersey. It deals in generic
pharmaceuticals and bio-similars.

Mylan Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place
of business at 1000 Mylan Blvd., Canonsburg, Pennsylvania 15317.
Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a West Virginia corporation with its
principal place of business at TSl Chestnut Ridge Road,
Morgantown, West Virginia 26505.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
      Erin C. Burns, Esq.
      NASTLAW LLC
      1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Tel: 215-923-9300
      Fax: 215-923-9302
      Email: dnast@nastlaw.com
             ebums@nastlaw.com

             - and -

      David F. Sorensen, Esq.
      Nick Urban, Esq.
      Zachary Kaplan, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793
      Tel: (215) 875-3000
      Email: dsorensen@bm.net
             nurban@bm.net
             zcaplan@bm.net

             - and -

      Peter Kohn, Esq.
      Joseph T. Lukens
      101 Greenwood Ave., Suite 600
      Jenkintown, PA 19046
      Tel: (215) 277-5770
      Fax: (215) 277-5771
      Email: pkohn@faruqilaw.com
             jlukens@faruqi.com


             - and -

      Barry S. Taus, Esq.
      Kevin Landau, Esq.
      Archana Tamoshunas, Esq.
      TAUS CEBULASH & LANDAU LLP
      80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
      New York, NY 10038
      Tel: (212) 931-0704
      Email: btaus@tcllaw.com
             kiandau@tcllaw.com
             atamoshunas@tcllaw.com


SANTA BARBARA, CA: Faces "Byrne" Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Santa Barbara
Hospitality Services, Inc. The case is styled as Lauren Byrne, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Santa Barbara Hospitality Services, Inc.; The
Spearmint Rhino Companies Worldwide, Inc.; Spearmint Rhino
Consulting Worldwide, Inc.; and Santa Barbara Hospitality
Services, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00527 (C.D. Cal.,
Mar. 21, 2017).

The Defendant is doing business in hospitality services industry.
[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SANTA BARBARA, CA: Brislane Seeks to Certify Inmates Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JONATHAN BRISLANE, etc., the Plaintiff, v.
BILL BROWN, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-06002-JFW-E
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff moves the court to certify a class of:

   "persons who, as inmates, were forced to sleep on the floors
   of the Santa Barbara County jails without bunks".

The Plaintiff is a member of the discrete class of persons whose
defining characteristic is that they were forced to reside and
sleep on the floors at the SBCJ jails by defendants between August
11, 2012 and the present. The class potentially contains over
1,000 members, and the class is so numerous so that joinder of all
members is impracticable, and also, because only defendants know
the names of all of the members of class, and defendants are the
only persons who have information sufficient to identify all the
members of class, it is impracticable to join all the members of
the class in this action.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marion R. Yagman, Esq.
          Joseph Reichmann, Esq.
          YAGMAN & REICHMANN
          475 Washington Boulevard
          Venice Beach, CA 90292-5287
          Telephone: (310) 452 3200
          E-mail: mrygmn@msn.com


SENTRY CREDIT: Faces "Riccio" Suit in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sentry Credit, Inc.
The case is entitled as MAUREEN RICCIO, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SENTRY CREDIT,
INC., and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 3:17-cv-01773-BRM-TJB (D.N.J.,
Mar. 15, 2017).

Sentry Credit is collection recovery specialists.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SEVERN MANAGEMENT: "Phillpotts" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premium
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Phillpotts, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated employees v. Severn Management Company and
Arthur W. Edwards, Jr., Defendants, Case 1:17-cv-00789 (D. Md.,
March 22, 2017) seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law
and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Defendant manages properties throughout Maryland, Delaware and
Virginia, ranging from typical apartment buildings to senior
living facilities. Severn hired Plaintiff to work as property
manager for their Fairspring Apartments, a retirement home.

The complaint asserts that Phillpotts has not received
compensation reflecting the prescribed overtime wage rate for
hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek, failing to
compensate her for these additional hours.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin L. Davis III, Esq.
      The Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl
      36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Phone: (410) 244-7005
      Fax: (410) 244-8454
      Email: bdavis@nicholllaw.com


SIRIUS XM: Faces "Buchanan" Suit over TCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
THOMAS BUCHANAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SIRIUS XM RADIO, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00728-D (N.D. Tex., Mar. 13, 2017), seeks to
recover damages and injunctive relief as a result of Defendant's
violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

The Plaintiff is one of the millions of consumers who have listed
telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call Registry.
Nonetheless, he has received numerous telemarketing sales calls on
his Residential Land Line made by, or on behalf of, Defendant.

Sirius is an American broadcasting company that provides three
satellite radio and online radio services operating in the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
          Deola T. Ali, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120
          Galleria Tower I
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 554 2377
          Facsimile: (888) 995 3335
          E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com
                  jarrett@hughesellzey.com
                  Deola@hughesellzey.com

               - and -

          Henry A. Turner, Esq.
          TURNER LAW OFFICES, LLC
          403 W. Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 207
          Decatur, GA 30030
          Telephone: (404) 378 6274
          E-mail: hturner@tloffices.com

               - and -

          Aaron Siri, Esq.
          Mason Barney, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          200 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, New York 10166
          Telephone: (212) 532 1091
          E-mail: aaron@sirillp.com

               - and -

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 West Washington, Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
          Telephone: (312) 419 1008

               - and -

          Mark A. Alexander, Esq.
          MARK A. ALEXANDER P.C.
          5080 Spectrum, Suite 850E
          Addison, TX 75001
          Telephone: (972) 364 9700
          Facsimile: (972) 239 2244
          E-mail: mark@markalexanderlaw.com


SKF USA: Certification of Direct Purchaser Class Sought
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit Re: Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
2:12-cv-00501-MOB-MKM (E.D. Mich.), the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of:

   "all individuals and entities that purchased Bearings in the
   United States from one or more of the Defendants, SKF USA
   Inc., or their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, or joint
   ventures, from and including April 1, 2004 through December
   31, 2015. Excluded from the class are Defendants, SKF USA
   Inc., and their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and joint
   ventures. Further, Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs request that
   Plaintiffs be certified as class representatives, and that
   Class Counsel be appointed pursuant to Rule 23(g). In support
   of this motion, Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs rely upon the
   accompanying brief, which is incorporated by reference".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rzNLX6Fb

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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
          E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
                  whoese@kohnswift.com
                  dabrahams@kohnswift.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
          E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com
                  bcaldes@srkw-law.com
                  jjagher@srkw-law.com

               - and -

          David H. Fink, Esq.
          Darryl Bressack, Esq.
          Nathan J. Fink, Esq.
          FINK & ASSOCIATES LAW
          38500 Woodward Ave, Suite 350
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 971 2500
          E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com
                  dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com
                  nfink@finkandassociateslaw.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
          E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
                  wlondon@fklmlaw.com
                  mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
          Randall B. Weill, Esq.
          Jonathan G. Mermin, Esq.
          Michael S. Smith, Esq.
          PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIEVAU & PACHIOS LLP
          One City Center, P.O. Box 9546
          Portland, ME 04112
          Telephone: (207) 791 3000
          E-mail: ghansel@preti.com
                  rweill@preti.com
                  jmermin@preti.com
                  msmithl@preti.com

               - and -

          M. John Dominguez, Esq.
          David A. Young, Esq.
          Matthew W. Ruan, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 204
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 515 1400
          E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com
                  dyoung@cohenmilstein.com
                  mruan@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
          Thomas B. Bright, Esq.
          Pamela A. Markert, Esq.
          CERA LLP
          595 Market Street, Suite 2300
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2835
          Telephone: (415) 777 2230
          E-mail: scera@cerallp.com
                  tbright@cerallp.com
                  pmarkert@cerallp.com


SMX LLC: Former Delivery Driver's Suit Remanded to State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Andre Birotte, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California granted plaintiff's motion to
remand the case ANGELA RWOMWIJHU, Plaintiff, v. SMX, LLC.,
AMAZON.COM, LLC., Defendants, Case No. CV 16-08105-AB (PJWx) (C.D.
Cal.) to the Los Angeles Superior Court.

Angela Rwomwijhu is a former delivery driver for defendants
Amazon.com and SMX, LLC.

Defendants state SMX is organized under the laws of and has its
principal place of business in Illinois, and that its only member
is TrueBlue Services, Inc., which both is incorporated in and has
its principal place of business in Washington. On the other hand,
Amazon and its members are all organized under the laws of
Delaware and have their principal places of business in
Washington.

On September 20, 2016, Rwomwijhu on behalf of herself and the
class, filed a class action complaint in Los Angeles Superior
Court, and alleged that defendants: (1) failed to pay minimum
wages for all hours worked in violation of Labor Code sections
1194 and 1197; (2) failed to provide overtime pay in violation of
Labor Code section 510; (3) failed to provide meal and rest
periods in violation of Labor Code sections 226.7 and 512; (4)
failed to reimburse plaintiff and putative class members for
necessary expenditures in violation of Labor Code section 2802;
(5) failed to provide accurate wage statements in violation of
Labor Code section 226; (6) failed to pay wages upon discharging
employees in violation of Labor Code sections 201-204; and (7)
violated California's Unfair Competition Law under Business and
Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. Plaintiff also seeks an
accounting.

Defendants filed a notice of removal asserting that the Central
District of California has jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act. Plaintiff filed a motion to remand.

Judge Birotte held that based on plaintiff's complaint and the
evidence provided by defendants, the court calculates an amount in
controversy of $437,450 for plaintiff's wage statement claims,
$1,065,250 in statutory penalties associated with those claims,
$1,149,978 for plaintiff's claims for late payment under Labor
Code section 203, $426,100 under Labor Code section 210, and
attorneys' fees in the amount of $769,694.50. Adding these numbers
together, the court calculates a total of $3,848,472.50 in
controversy. The amount is less than CAFA's $5,000,000 minimum and
the court does not have jurisdiction over plaintiff's claims.
Defendants have not established by a preponderance of the evidence
that the amount in controversy in the case exceeds $5,000,000.
Judge Birotte granted plaintiff's motion to remand and the case is
remanded to Los Angeles County Superior.

A copy of Judge Birotte's order dated March 3, 2017, is available
at https://goo.gl/uqo9Fd from Leagle.com.

Angela Rwomwijhu, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald A. Marron --
ron@consumersadvocates.com -- William Bradford Richards, Jr. --
bill@consumersadvocates.com -- Beatrice Skye Resendes -- at Law
Offices of Ronald A Marron APLC;

SMX, LLC, Defendant, represented by Amelia D. Winchester --
awinchester@ongaropc.com -- David R. Ongaro --
dongaro@ongaropc.com -- at Ongaro PC

Amazon.com, LLC, Defendant, represented by John S. Battenfeld --
john.battenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Christopher J. Banks --
christopher.banks@morganlewis.com -- Marina Cristine Gruber --
marina.gruber@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP


SPECTRUM SOFTWARE: Class Certification Sought in Spennetta Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned SPENNETTA FAMILY CARE CHIROPRACTIC, S.C.,
on behalf of plaintiff and the class defined below, the Plaintiff,
v. SPECTRUM SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS, INC., FRANK & ISRAEL, LTD., doing
business as FIRMS and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No.
3:17-cv-00190 (W.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
certify classes:

For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act:

   "(a) all persons with fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date
   four years prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C.
   section 1658), (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of
   defendants Spectrum Software Solutions, Inc., or FIRMS
   promoting their goods or services for sale (d) and which did
   not contain an opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C.
   section 227. An opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C.
   section 227 means: (i) on the first page of the fax (ii) that
   states that the recipient may make a request to the sender not
   to send any future unsolicited advertisements to a telephone
   facsimile machine (iii) that states that failure to comply,
   within the shortest reasonable time, as determined by the
   Federal Communications Commission, is unlawful; (iv) that
   provides instructions on how to submit an opt out request and
   (v) that includes a domestic contact telephone and facsimile
   machine number and a cost-free mechanism for the recipient to
   transmit such a request to the sender that permit a request to
   be made at any time on any day of the week; and

For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of Wisc. Stats.
Sec.100.20, and Count III, alleging conversion

   "(a) all persons with Wisconsin fax numbers (b) who, on or
   after a date six years prior to the filing of this action, (c)
   were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendants Spectrum
   Software Solutions, Inc., or FIRMS promoting their goods or
   services for sale (d) and which did not contain an opt out
   notice as described in 47 U.S.C. section 227. An opt out
   notice as described in 47 U.S.C. section 227 means: (i) on the
   first page of the fax (ii) that states that the recipient may
   make a request to the sender not to send any future
   unsolicited advertisements to a telephone facsimile machine
   (iii) that states that failure to comply, within the shortest
   reasonable time, as determined by the Federal
   Communications Commission, is unlawful; (iv) that provides
   instructions on how to submit an opt out request and (v) that
   includes a domestic contact telephone and facsimile machine
   number and a cost-free mechanism for the recipient to transmit
   such a request to the sender that permit a request to be made
   at any time on any day of the week;

The Plaintiff further asks the Court that it be appointed class
representative and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC
be appointed counsel for the class.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Heather Kolbus, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379


SPORTS WAREHOUSE: "McDuffee" Suit Moved to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Matt McDuffee, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sports
Warehouse, a California Corporation and Does 1 to 10, inclusive,
the Defendant, Case No. 37-02017-00001781-CU-BT-NC, was removed
from the Superior Court of California County of San Diego, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-00512-
JM-MDD to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge
Jeffrey T. Miller.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Orshansky, Esq.
          COUNSELONE, PC
          9301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 277 9945
          Facsimile: (424) 277 3727
          E-mail: anthony@counselonegroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Bradley Alan Chapin, Esq.
          RUTAN AND TUCKER LLP
          611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Newport Beach, CA 92626-1931
          Telephone: (714) 641 5100
          Facsimile: (714) 546 9035
          E-mail: bchapin@rutan.com


STARBOARD GROUP: Faces "Bennett" Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Starboard Group
Management Company Incorporated. The case is titled as Tashunbee
Bennett, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Starboard Group Management
Company Incorporated, a Florida corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. 0:17-cv-60566-CMA (S.D. Fla., Mar. 20, 2017). The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga.[BN]

Starboard operates Wendy's quick service restaurants in the
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Richmond, and Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert William Murphy, Esq.
          1212 SE 2nd Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 763 8660
          Facsimile: (954) 763 8607
          E-mail: rphyu@aol.com


STELLAR RECOVERY: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned KATHY OLESINSKI, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. STELLAR
RECOVERY, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00393-LA (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying
a class, appointing Plaintiff as its representative, and
appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel, and for such
other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

The Plaintiff further requests that the Court stay the class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of the motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tqdYlE4c

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STUDEBT: "Roe" Disputes Vague Background Check
----------------------------------------------
Jane Roe, individually and on behalf of the putative class,
Plaintiffs, v. Studebt; Beenverified, Inc. and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC654419, (Cal. Super., March 20,
2017), seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and
reasonable attorney's fees and such other and further relief under
California's Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act and the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant terminated Plaintiff citing
her criminal history as the reason for the termination. Defendant
StuDebt provided Plaintiff with a copy of her background check on
said date of her termination. Said background check has a number
of incomplete information about Plaintiff, lacking the date,
offense, and/or disposition such as an unidentified and undated
offense from an arrest log of San Bernardino Police Department,
unidentified and undated offense in Riverside County Criminal
Court, and an unidentified and outdated offense from Texas
Department of Corrections.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua E. Kim, Esq.
      A NEW WAY OF LIFE REENTRY PROJECT
      9512 S. Central Ave.
      Los Angeles, CA 90002
      Tel: (323) 563-3575
      Fax: (323) 563-3445
      Email: joshua@anewwayoflife.org

             - and -

      Devin H. Fok, Esq.
      DHF Law, P.C.
      234 E. Colorado Blvd., 8th Floor
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Tel: (310) 430-9933
      Fax: (818)484-2023
      Email: devin@devinfoklaw.com


SUNTRUST BANKS: "Bickerstaff" Class Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned, Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank, remains pending,
SunTrust Banks, 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.

This case was filed in the Fulton County State Court on July 12,
2010, and an amended complaint was filed on August 9, 2010.
Plaintiff asserts that all overdraft fees charged to his account
which related to debit card and ATM transactions are actually
interest charges and therefore subject to the usury laws of
Georgia. Plaintiff has brought claims for violations of civil and
criminal usury laws, conversion, and money had and received, and
purports to bring the action on behalf of all Georgia citizens who
incurred such overdraft fees within the four years before the
complaint was filed where the overdraft fee resulted in an
interest rate being charged in excess of the usury rate. The Bank
filed a motion to compel arbitration and on March 16, 2012, the
Court entered an order holding that the Bank's arbitration
provision is enforceable but that the named plaintiff in the case
had opted out of that provision pursuant to its terms. The Court
explicitly stated that it was not ruling at that time on the
question of whether the named plaintiff could have opted out for
the putative class members. The Bank filed an appeal of this
decision, but this appeal was dismissed based on a finding that
the appeal was prematurely granted.

On April 8, 2013, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification and that motion was denied on February 19, 2014.
Plaintiff appealed the denial of class certification and on
September 8, 2015, the Georgia Supreme Court agreed to hear the
appeal. On January 4, 2016, the Georgia Supreme Court heard oral
argument on the appeal. On July 8, 2016, the Georgia Supreme Court
reversed the Court of Appeals of Georgia and remanded the case for
further proceedings.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Discovery Underway in Company Stock Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, 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 discovery process has
begun in the Company Stock Class Action.

Beginning in July 2008, the Company and certain officers,
directors, and employees of the Company were named in a class
action alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under
ERISA by offering the Company's common stock as an investment
option in the SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the "Plan"). The
plaintiffs sought to represent all current and former Plan
participants who held the Company stock in their Plan accounts
from May 15, 2007 to March 30, 2011 and seek to recover alleged
losses these participants supposedly incurred as a result of their
investment in Company stock.

This case was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida but was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division, (the "District Court") in November 2008. On October 26,
2009, an amended complaint was filed. On December 9, 2009,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On
October 25, 2010, the District Court granted in part and denied in
part defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

On April 14, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit ("the Circuit Court") granted defendants and plaintiffs
permission to pursue interlocutory review in separate appeals. The
Circuit Court subsequently stayed these appeals pending decision
of a separate appeal involving The Home Depot in which
substantially similar issues are presented. On May 8, 2012, the
Circuit Court decided that appeal in favor of The Home Depot. On
March 5, 2013, the Circuit Court issued an order remanding the
case to the District Court for further proceedings in light of its
decision in The Home Depot case.

On September 26, 2013, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs filed an appeal
of this decision in the Circuit Court. Subsequent to the filing of
this appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Fifth Third Bancorp v.
Dudenhoeffer, which held that employee stock ownership plan
fiduciaries receive no presumption of prudence with respect to
employer stock plans. The Circuit Court remanded the case back to
the District Court for further proceedings in light of
Dudenhoeffer. On June 18, 2015, the Court entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the Company's motion to
dismiss. The discovery process has begun.

On August 17, 2016, the District Court entered an order that among
other things granted certain of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. According to the Order, the class is defined as
"All persons, other than Defendants and members of their immediate
families, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan (the "Plan") at any time
between May 15, 2007 and March 30, 2011, inclusive (the "Class
Period") and whose accounts included investments in SunTrust
common stock ("SunTrust Stock") during that time period and who
sustained a loss to their account as a result of the investment in
SunTrust Stock."

On August 1, 2016, certain non-fiduciary defendants filed a motion
for summary judgment as it relates to them, which was granted by
the District Court on October 5, 2016.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Appeal in Mutual Funds Class Action Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, 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 consolidated appeal
in the Mutual Funds Class Actions remains pending.

On March 11, 2011, the Company and certain officers, directors,
and employees of the Company were named in a putative class action
alleging that they breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by
offering certain STI Classic Mutual Funds as investment options in
the Plan. The plaintiffs purport to represent all current and
former Plan participants who held the STI Classic Mutual Funds in
their Plan accounts from April 2002 through December 2010 and seek
to recover alleged losses these Plan participants supposedly
incurred as a result of their investment in the STI Classic Mutual
Funds. This action is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division (the "District
Court").

On June 6, 2011, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and, on
June 20, 2011, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On March 12, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied
in part the motion to dismiss. The Company filed a subsequent
motion to dismiss the remainder of the case on the ground that the
Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining
claims. On October 30, 2012, the Court dismissed all claims in
this action. Immediately thereafter, plaintiffs' counsel initiated
a substantially similar lawsuit against the Company naming two new
plaintiffs and also filed an appeal of the dismissal with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Company filed a
motion to dismiss in the new action and this motion was granted.
On February 26, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit upheld the District Court's dismissal.

On March 18, 2014, the plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for
reconsideration with the Eleventh Circuit. On August 26, 2014,
plaintiffs in the original action filed a Motion for Consolidation
of Appeals requesting that the Court consider this appeal jointly
with the appeal in the second action. This motion was granted on
October 9, 2014 and plaintiffs filed their consolidated appeal on
December 16, 2014.

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


SUNTRUST BANKS: Discovery Underway in "Brown et al" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, 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 discovery is ongoing in
the case, Brown, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al.

On June 27, 2014, the Company and certain current and former
officers, directors, and employees of the Company were named in
another putative class action alleging breach of fiduciary duties
associated with the inclusion of STI Classic Mutual Funds as
investment options in the Plan. This case, Brown, et al. v.
SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia.

On September 3, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia issued an order transferring the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

On November 12, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to stay
this case until the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Tibble
v. Edison International. On May 18, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court
decided Tibble and held that plan fiduciaries have a duty,
separate and apart from investment selection, to monitor and
remove imprudent investments.

After Tibble, the cases pending on appeal were remanded to the
District Court. On March 25, 2016, a consolidated amended
complaint was filed, consolidating all of these pending actions
into one case. The Company filed an answer to the consolidated
amended complaint on June 6, 2016 and discovery is ongoing.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Parties in "Thurmond" Reached Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, 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 parties in the case,
Thurmond, Christopher, et al. v. SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al.,
have reached an agreement in principle to resolve the matter.

STM and Twin Rivers Insurance Company ("Twin Rivers") have been
named as defendants in a putative class action alleging that the
companies entered into illegal "captive reinsurance" arrangements
with private mortgage insurers. More specifically, plaintiffs
allege that SunTrust's selection of private mortgage insurers who
agree to reinsure with Twin Rivers certain loans referred to them
by SunTrust results in illegal "kickbacks" in the form of the
insurance premiums paid to Twin Rivers. Plaintiffs contend that
this arrangement violates the Real Estate Settlement Procedures
Act ("RESPA") and results in unjust enrichment to the detriment of
borrowers. The matter was filed in February 2011 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This case
had been stayed by the Court pending the outcome of Edwards v.
First American Financial Corporation, a captive reinsurance case
that was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court at the time.
SunTrust filed a motion to dismiss the Thurmond case which was
granted in part and denied in part, allowing limited discovery
surrounding the argument that the statute of limitations for
certain claims should be equitably tolled. Thurmond had been
stayed a second time pending a ruling in a similar case currently
before the Third Circuit concerning the application of the statute
of limitations. While the stay was lifted, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to resolve the matter.


SUNTRUST BANKS: Settlement in "Felix" Class Suit Approved
---------------------------------------------------------
SunTrust Banks, 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 court has approved
the settlement in the case, Felix v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc.

This putative class action was filed against STM on April 4, 2016.
Plaintiff alleges that STM breaches its contract with borrowers
when it collects interest on FHA loans at repayment because STM
fails to use an approved FHA notice form. Plaintiff also alleges
that STM violates the Georgia usury statute by collecting such
interest. Plaintiff attempts to bring the breach of contract claim
on behalf of all borrowers and the usury claim on behalf of
Georgia borrowers. Plaintiff and STM reached a settlement of the
action with the class, and the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia granted preliminary approval of the
settlement on September 9, 2016. The settlement terms had an
insignificant impact on the Company's financial position. On
February 6, 2017, the court approved the settlement, which,
barring appeal, will be final in 30 days.


SWEET HOME: "Jackson" Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled NAKIA JACKSON, et. al, the Plaintiffs, v.
SWEET HOME HEALTHCARE LLC., et. al, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-
cv-02353-GEKP (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an
order:

   a. conditionally certifying the case as a collective action;

   b. providing for the mailing of the proposed notice and
      consent form to all potential plaintiffs, and Defendants'
       cost; and

   c. for such other relief as the Court deems equitable and
      just.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steve E. Angstreich, Esq.
          Carolyn C. Lindheim, Esq.
          Amy R. Brandt, Esq.
          WEIR & PARTNERS LLP
          1339 Chestnut Street, Suite 500
          Phladelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 665 8181
          Facsimile: (215) 665 8464
          E-mail: sangstreich@weirpartners.com
                  clindheim@weirpartners.com
                  abrandt@weirpartners.com


T.T.K.M. INC: "Dalbey" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
TAMARA DALBEY, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. T.T.K.M., INC., a Florida Corporation, d/b/a
ARBY'S, and THOMAS LUREAU, individually, the Defendants, Case No.
2:17-cv-14086-RLR (S.D. Fla., Mar. 13, 2017), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and the costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week in
one or more work weeks during her employment with Defendants
during the three year statute of limitations period between
approximately March 2014 and February 2017. However, Defendants
failed to pay time and one-half wages for all of the actual
overtime hours worked by Plaintiff and all other similarly
situated non-exempt employees for Defendants for all of their
actual overtime hours worked within the three year statute of
limitations period between March 2014 and the present.

The Defendant owned and operated one or more fast food
restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keith M. Stern, Esq.
          Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
          One Flagler
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 800
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 901 1379
          Facsimile: (561) 288 9031
          E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
                  hsolis@workingforyou.com


TELEMUNDO NETWORK: "Merchan" Sues For Overtime Pay, Retaliation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jairo Merchan, and other similarly-situated individuals, v.
Telemundo Network Group, LLC and Jonathan Moneyhun, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-10853, (S.D. Fla., March 20, 2017),
seeks to recover compensatory damages and an equal amount of
liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees, costs and expenses,
appropriate back pay and other benefits wrongly denied and other
affirmative relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Telemundo is a Spanish-language television network where Merchan
worked as a broadcasting equipment technician under Moneyhun,
manager of the Technical Operations Center of Telemundo. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Telephone: (305) 446-1500
     Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
     Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Faces "Cuevas" Suit Over Almondmilk Beverage
--------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA CUEVAS, individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. TOPCO
ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation,
Defendant, the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-00462 (C.D. Cal., Mar.
13, 2017), seeks monetary, compensatory, and punitive damages, in
addition to injunctive and equitable relief as a direct and
proximate result of Defendant's unfair methods of competition
and/or unfair and deceptive practices.

The Plaintiff brings this action for herself and on behalf of all
persons in the United States who, at any time since four years
prior to the filing of this complaint, purchased any Full Circle
"Almondmilk" beverage manufactured, marketed, distributed, and
sold by TopCo Associates, LLC. The case arises out of false,
misleading, and deceptive marketing practices of Defendant's Full
Circle "Almondmilk" products. The Defendant has deceptively
informed and led its customers to believe that they were
purchasing, for a premium price, a dairy milk alternative that is
nutritionally equivalent, and even superior, to dairy milk, as
defined by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration. However, the
Defendant's Almond Beverages significantly lack many of the
essential nutrients and vitamins provided in dairy milk, which
Defendant fails to disclose to and actively conceals from
consumers.

The Consumer demand for non-dairy milks (milk substitutes) has
exponentially increased over the past decade. In fact, almond-
based milk substitutes, including the Almond Beverages,
experienced a 40% increase in sales between 2013 and 2014 alone,
while dairy milk sales have steadily declined. By calling its
Almond Beverages "milk", a term historically used to define cow's
milk, Defendant has capitalized on reasonable consumers'
understanding of the well-known health benefits and essential
nutrients that dairy milk provides without actually providing
those health benefits and essential nutrients. For example,
Defendant's official website specifically touts its Almond
Beverages as containing equally high levels of calcium as dairy
milk. However, Defendant's Full Circle Original Unsweetened
"Almondmilk" contains approximately 67% less calcium than non-fat
dairy milk. Further, Full Circle Original Unsweetened "Almondmilk"
contains 90% less protein, 85% less potassium, and 57% less
magnesium than non-fat dairy milk.

Topco is the largest American retail food GPO and the third
largest private company in Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TOTAL HOMECARE: "Spurlock" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Shirley Spurlock, On behalf of himself and
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Total Homecare
Solutions, LLC, et al, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00168-TSB
(S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order
conditionally certifying the action as a collective action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and designating Plaintiff as
representative of the following collective:

   "all non-owner, non-employer home health care workers who
   worked for Defendants from January 1, 2015 to present, and who
   worked more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks".

The Plaintiff further moves the Court for an Order authorizing
Plaintiff to send notices of the lawsuit to putative Collective
members that will inform them of their rights and provide them
with an opportunity to join the action consistent with the
Proposed Notice of Collective.

The case is a wage and hour lawsuit brought on behalf of home
health care workers. The workers are seeking unpaid overtime wages
and related damages.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9HYPwOvT

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Kimble, Esq.
          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Eric Kmetz, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC
          3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650
          Cincinnati, OH 45209
          Telephone: (513) 651 3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665 0219
          E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com
                  ekmetz@msdlegal.com
                  akimble@msdlegal.com


TRANS UNION: Faces "Morris" Suit in S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trans Union. The
case is titled as Florence Morris, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Trans Union, LLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00511-BEN-AGS (S.D. Cal., Mar. 15,
2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Roger T. Benitez.

TransUnion is an American company that provides credit information
and information management services to approximately 45,000
businesses and approximately 500 million consumers worldwide in 33
countries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNIAN LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400 6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520 5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: "Vance" Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Vance, Jonathan Redding, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Transworld Systems Inc.,
Turnstile Capital Management, LLC, and U.S. BANK, N.A.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00225, (W.D. Tex., March 21, 2017),
seeks statutory damages, actual damages, including all amounts
paid on time-barred debts, attorney's fees, litigation expenses
and costs of suit and such other and further relief for violation
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

On January 10, 2017, Transworld sent Vance and Redding individual
letters seeking to collect alleged student loan debts. More than
four years had elapsed since plaintiffs had defaulted on the
loans, and plaintiffs had not made any payments on the loans in
the four years. The statute of limitations on a private student
loan debt in Texas is four years, thus their respective debts are
no longer judicially enforceable. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel J. Ciment, Esq.
      HESTON CIMENT, PLLC
      607 Park Grove Drive, Suite B
      Katy, TX 77450
      Telephone: (713) 270-4833
      Facsimile: (713) 583-9296
      Email: Daniel@HestonCiment.com

             - and -

      James O. Latturner, Esq.
      Francis R. Greene, Esq.
      Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
      EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER, & GOODWIN, LLC
      20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 739-4200
      Fax: (312) 419-0379
      Email: jlatturner@edcombs.com
             fgreene@edcombs.com
             dedelman@edcombs.com


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Joseph" Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems
Inc. The case is captioned as Venessa Joseph, on behalf of herself
and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v.
Transworld Systems Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01429
(E.D.N.Y., Mar. 14, 2017).

Transworld is a national debt collection company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Rojas" Seeks to Certify Uber Driver Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled SEBASTIAN A. ROJAS, and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
RASIER LLC, RASIER-CA, LLC, RASIER-PA, LLC, RASIER-DC, LLC,
RASIER-MT, LLC, AND HINTER-NM, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-23670-RNS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an
order certifying a class of:

   "every person who drove for Uber as UberX, Uber Black or Uber
   SUV drivers within the United States in the applicable
   statute(s) of limitations and through the entry of judgment in
   this case (the "Collective Action Period"), and meets all of
   the following requirements: (a) who signed up to drive
   directly with Uber Tech. or a Subsidiary under their
   individual name, and (b) are/were paid by Uber Tech. and/or a
   Subsidiary directly and in his/her individual name, and (c)
   timely opted out of the arbitration provision contained in
   his/her applicable services agreement with Uber Tech. and/or a
   Subsidiary".

The Plaintiff has sued Uber-Tech and the Subsidiaries under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), seeking inter alia, minimum wages
and overtime wages for all similarly situated Uber Drivers
nationwide.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ltBzt9Tt

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam M. Myron, Esq.
          Gerald F. Richman, Esq.
          RICHMAN GREER, P.A.
          One Clearlake Center, Suite 1504
          250 Australian Avenue South
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401
          Telephone: (561) 803 3500
          Facsimile: (561) 820 1608
          E-mail: grichman@richmangreer.com
                  amyron@richmangreer.com

               - and -

          Stephen J. Schultz, Esq.
          MERRILL, SCHULTZ AND BENNETT, LIMITED
          2240 Fifth Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 501 4540
          E-mail: schultz@sbemp.com

               - and -

          Thomas G. Schultz, Esq.
          LSRCF LAW, PLLC
          1111 Brickell Ave. No. 2200
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 760 8544
          E-mail: TSchultz@LSRCF.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Courtney B. Wilson, Esq.
          Jessica Travers, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Wells Fargo Center
          333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 400 7500
          Facsimile: (305) 603 2552
          E-mail: cwilson@littler.com
                  kljackson@littler.com
                  jtravers@littler.com


UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Benchocron" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Collection
Bureau. The case is captioned as Ari Benchocron and Raul Estevez,
on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers,
the Plaintiffs, v. United Collection Bureau, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:17-cv-01595 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 21, 2017).[BN]

United provides debt collection and accounts receivable management
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED PARCEL: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Anfeldt" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Judge Jorge L. Alonso of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted defendant's motion
to dismiss the case JAMIE ANFELDT, individually and on behalf of
all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE,
INC., Defendant. No. 15 C 10401 (N.D. Ill.).

Jamie Anfeldt began working in United Parcel Services, Inc., on
April 1, 2014. After becoming pregnant in August 2014, plaintiff's
doctor gave her a 25-pound to 30-pound lifting restriction. At the
time, UPS's policy was to approve light duty accommodations only
when restrictions were imposed as a result of on-the-job injuries,
for employees as a result of their ADA qualifying disabilities,
and for drivers who, for a variety of reasons, could not continue
to drive for UPS.

Anfeldt was terminated in September 2014 but was reinstated by UPS
on January 2015, when UPS amended its nationwide light-duty
policies to add a provision affording light duty to pregnant
workers. UPS has not provided plaintiff with back pay for the few
months she was out of work.

Anfeldt filed a one-count complaint alleging that UPS's pre-2015
policy had a disparate impact on employees with pregnancy-related
work restrictions. UPS filed a motion to dismiss, which the court
granted. Plaintiff was given leave to file an amended complaint.
In her amended complaint, Anfeldt alleges disparate impact and
disparate treatment because of pregnancy discrimination, and seeks
to proceed as a nationwide class action, in violation of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C Section
2000e et seq.

Judge Alonso granted defendant's motion to dismiss, reasoning that
plaintiff has not pleaded factual or statistical content to
support the allegation that she and other pregnant women were
denied light-duty accommodations at a statistically higher rate
than non-pregnant employees, her disparate impact claim fails.
Plaintiff has also alleged that it is conceivable that defendant
accommodated similarly-situated non-pregnant employees, but has
not sufficiently alleged that it actually did so.

Plaintiff is given a final opportunity to amend her complaint. The
status hearing set for March 8, 2017 is stricken and reset to
March 29, 2017 at 9:30 a.m.

A copy of Judge Alonso's memorandum opinion order dated March 3,
2017, is available at https://goo.gl/TEgidU from Leagle.com.

Jamie Anfeldt, Plaintiff, represented by:

   Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
   Alexis D. Martin, Esq.
   Lorraine Teraldico Peeters, Esq.
   Madeline K. Engel, Esq.
   CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
   224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 300
   Chicago, IL 60604
   Tel: 312-763-6880

United Parcel Service, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Allen
Klages -- john.klages@quarles.com -- Gary R. Clark --
gary.clark@quarles.com -- William A. Walden --
william.walden@quarles.com -- at Quarles & Brady LLP


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces "Bushell" Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unitedhealth Group
Inc. The case is captioned as Jamie Bushell, on her own behalf and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Unitedhealth Group Inc., Oxford Health Plans, Inc., Oxford Health
Insurance, Inc., and Oxford Health Plans (NY), Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02021 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 20, 2017).

UnitedHealth is an American managed health care company based in
Minnetonka, Minnesota. It is 6th in the United States on the
Fortune 500.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


US AIRWAYS: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in Angeles-Lastimosa Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH TIMBANG ANGELES and NOE LASTIMOSA, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff - Appellant, v.
US AIRWAYS, INC., the Defendant - Appellee, Case No. 17-15440 (9th
Cir, Mar. 14, 2016), is an appeal filed before the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from a lower court decision
in a fraud class action, Case No. 3:12-cv-05860-CRB (N.D. Cal.)

The Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 21, 2017. Transcript
is due on May 12, 2017.

Appellants Joseph Timbang Angeles and Noe Lastimosa's opening
brief is due June 21, 2017.

Appellee US Airways, Inc. answering brief is due on July 21, 2017.

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

Plaintiff - Appellants are represented by:

          Arlo Garcia Uriarte
          LIBERATION LAW GROUP
          2670 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94110
          Telephone: (415) 695 1000

Defendant - Appellee is represented by:

          Adam P. KohSweeney, Esq.
          Robert Alan Siegel, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 984 8700


VIKING CLIENT: Faces "Broderick" Suit in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Viking Client
Services, Inc. The case is entitled as MARGARET BRODERICK, On
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. VIKING CLIENT SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:17-cv-01827-JLL-SCM (D.N.J., Mar. 20, 2017). The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge Jose L. Linares.

Viking Collection is debt collection agency.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102b
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 507 6300
          E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com


VISA INC: B&R Supermarket Seeks to Certify Merchants Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned B & R SUPERMARKET, INC., d/b/a MILAM'S
MARKET, a Florida corporation, et al., Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. VISA, INC., a
Delaware corporation, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-
01150-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs seek to certify a Class of:

   "Merchants who have been unlawfully subjected to the so-called
   Liability Shift for the assessment of MasterCard, Visa,
   Discover and/or American Express payment card chargebacks,
   from October 2015 until the anticompetitive conduct ceases.

Additionally, Plaintiffs seek to certify three subclasses of
merchants from California, Florida and New York.

Each of these three subclasses brings claims under their
respective state's antitrust and consumer protection laws.

Defendants, to enrich themselves and their issuer partners,
conspired to implement and maintain an unprecedented change in the
way certain payment card chargebacks are handled, while
shifting billions of dollars in liability to U.S. merchants.
Through this conspiracy, Defendants saddled merchants with massive
costs the Networks and the Networks' issuer clients once bore.
Rather than using meaningful methods to encourage adoption of EMV
card technology in the United States, as they had in other
countries around the world -- by, for example, providing
interchange concessions or assisting merchants with acquiring
chip-enabled terminals -- the Networks conspired to impose and
maintain a common penalty.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nS3PHkuE

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
          David W. Mitchell, Esq.
          Alexandra S. Bernay, Esq.
          Carmen A. Medici, Esq.
          Angel P. Lau, Esq.
          Lonnie A. Browne, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-8498
          Telephone: (619) 231 1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231 7423
          E-mail: patc@rgrdlaw.com
                  davidm@rgrdlaw.com
                  xanb@rgrdlaw.com
                  cmedici@rgrdlaw.com
                  alau@rgrdlaw.com
                  lbrowne@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          John W. Devine, Esq.
          Lawrence D. Goodman, Esq.
          Robert J. Kuntz, Jr., Esq.
          DEVINE GOODMAN RASCO & WATTS-FITZGERALD, LLP
          2800 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 1400
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 374 8200
          Facsimile: (305) 374 8208
          E-mail: jdevine@devinegoodman.com
                  lgoodman@devinegoodman.com
                  rkuntz@devinegoodman.com


VIZIO INC: Faces "Queenan" Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vizio, Inc. The case
is captioned as Mark Queenan, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. VIZIO, Inc., Vizio
Holdings, Inc., and Vizio Inscape Technologies, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 8:17-mc-00010 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 15, 2017).

Vizio is an American privately held company that develops consumer
electronics. Headquartered in Irvine, California, United States,
the company was founded in October 2002 as V Inc.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


WALTER INVESTMENT: Faces "Bonomi" Securities Class Suit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emil Bonomi, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated v. Walter Investment Management Corporation,
George M. Awad, Denmar J. Dixon and Gary L. Tillett, Defendants,
Case No. 8:17-cv-00645-VMC-MAP (M.D. Fla., March 17, 2017), seeks
compensatory damages against the Defendants on behalf of a class
of all person other than the Defendants who purchased or otherwise
acquired Walter stock from February 29, 2016 and March 13, 2017,
both dates inclusive (the Class Period) for materially false and
misleading statements during the class period.

The Complaint say throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically,
Defendants made false and misleading statements and  failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company's Ditech subsidiary had a material
weakness in its internal control over operational processes; (ii)
accordingly, the Company lacked effective internal controls over
financial reporting; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing,
Walter's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

Defendant Walter is a diversified mortgage banking firm, which
focuses primarily on the servicing and origination of residential
loans in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
   Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP
   1625 North Commerce Parkway, Suite 320
   Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
   Tel: 954-515-0123
   Fax: 866-300-7367
   Email: igoldstein@sfmslaw.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

   Patrick V. Dahstrom, Esq.
   Pomerantz LLP
   10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
   Chicago, IL 60603
   Tel: 312-377-1181
   Fax: 312-377-1184
   Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

        - and -

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


WELLS FARGO: Court Denied Class Certification in "Torres" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Nicole Torres et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al., the Defendants, Case No. 5:15-cv-
02225-PSG-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez entered an
order denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Court said, "The fact that Defendant has a timekeeping system
where HMCs self-report that they "did not have the opportunity" to
take a compliant meal break does not in itself establish a
violation of Section 226.7. In Kimoto v. McDonald's Corps., this
Court recognized that "time records actually demonstrate the
individual nature of the inquiry," because the Court could not
infer from the reports of various employees that a company-wide
policy of not authorizing meal or rest periods existed nor could
the Court assume that the employees accurately recorded the timing
of their breaks. Kimoto, No. CV 06-3032-PSG-FMOX, 2008 WL 4690536,
at 6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2008); see also Gonzalez, 2012 WL
5473764, at 5 ("[F]rom the fact that OfficeMax upgraded its time
keeping system in August 2007 to 'provide[ ] for an automatic
payment of 1.0 regular hour of pay for meal periods that are
either missed, or taken after five hours of work in any shift,' it
does not necessarily follow that all prior missed punches are meal
period violations requiring appropriate compensation. Threshold
questions remain: Were meal periods actually missed, and, if so,
was OfficeMax responsible?"); Brown v. Fed. Express Corp., 249
F.R.D. 580, 587 (C.D. Cal. 2008) ("But even assuming that the
records are accurate, the resources that would be expended on
determining the reason for missed breaks would exceed those saved
by classwide determination of the number of breaks missed.").
Accordingly, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that her theory of
recovery involves predominantly common issues that can be
adjudicated on a classwide basis. Because the Court finds that
Plaintiff has not established Rule 23's commonality requirement or
that common questions predominate, the Court need not address the
Rule's remaining requirements".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aAbvK5f3


WEN MEI: "Zhang" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JIE ZHANG a/k/a Jimmy Zhang; RU HAO LIU
a/k/a Jason Liu; XIU QIN LIN; HSIA SHENG CHENG; and CHEIN WEN
HSIEH a/k/a Kevin Hsieh; on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. WEN MEI, INC. d/b/a Hunan
Dynasty; HUNAN DYNASTY AT LEVITTOWN, INC. d/b/a Hunan Dynasty;
FENNY JAPANESE AND CHINESE RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a Hunan Dynasty;
CHEN'S CHINESE RESTAURANT, INC. d/b/a Hunan Dynasty; XIANG RONG
CHEN a/k/a Kevin Chen; BAIFENG CHEN a/k/a Andy Chen; CAI FEN CHEN,
CINDY CHEN, and LUQI XIE, the Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-01647-
JS-SIL (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   1. certifying the action as a class action pursuant to Federal
      Rule of Civil Procedure 23;

   2. appointing Plaintiffs Chein Wen Hsieh a/k/a Kevin Hsieh, Ru
      Hao Liu a/k/a Jason Liu, and Xiu Qin Lin as class
      representatives;

   3. appointing Troy Law, PLLC as class counsel;

   4. permitting Plaintiffs to circulate a class action notice in
      Mandarin in the World Journal, a Mandarin-language
      newspaper in New York City for five (5) consecutive weeks;
      and

   5. granting such other relief as the Court deems just and
      proper.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mq37gc1U

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Troy, Esq.
          TROY LAW, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Telephone: (718) 762 1324
          Facsimile: (718) 762 1342


WESTBRIDGE FLORIDA: "Barzydlo" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM BARZYDLO, the Plaintiff, v. WESTBRIDGE FLORIDA PROPERTIES,
LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, the Defendants, Case No.
8:17-cv-00614-JSM-AAS (M.D. Fla., Mar. 13, 2017), seeks to recover
damages in the amount of unpaid overtime compensation owed,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

During the three-year period prior to filing this action, the
Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff overtime compensation for hours
worked over 40 in a workweek.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
          Jason M. Melton, Esq.
          WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
          One Progress Plaza
          200 Central Avenue, #400
          St. Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (727) 822 1111
          Facsimile: (727) 898 2001
          E-mail: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com
                  lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
                  shelley@theFLlawfirm.com
                  kmoran@theFLlawfirm.com


WILLIAM LAROQUE: "Santos" Labor Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Angel A. Santos, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. William Laroque Installers, Inc. and William
Laroque, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21034, (S.D.
Fla., March 20, 2017), seeks to recover, retaliatory damages,
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable
attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Laroque Installers sells and installs pallet racks, conveyor
systems and all kind of warehouse fixture and equipment.  It also
offers removal, storage and selling of used warehouse equipment.
Santos worked as a technician/installer from approximately January
1998, through September 23, 2016.

Plaintiff worked 10 hours daily or 50 hours weekly with 2.5 hours
of lunch break automatically deducted. In addition, Plaintiff
worked for many weeks in projects located out of State, rendering
68 and 70 hours weekly. All these were without overtime pay. [BN]

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
      Miami, FL 33156
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


WOODGRAIN MILLWORK: Faces "Cuik" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wage
---------------------------------------------------------------
George Cuik, Plaintiff, and all similarly situated v. Woodgrain
Millwork, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-21003-CMA (S.D. Fla.,
March 17, 2017), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant Woodgrain has employed and currently employs several
other similarly situated employees, like Plaintiff, who have not
been properly paid overtime for work performed in excess of 40
hours weekly, within three years from the filing of this
complaint.

Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt employee
within the meaning of the FLSA law and is entitled to overtime
wages pursuant to the FLSA and Florida common law.

Defendant Woodgrain manufactures moldings and turnings. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Monica Espino, Esq.
   Espino Law
   2250 SW 3rd Avenue, 4th Floor
   Miami, FL 33129
   Tel: (305) 704-3172
   Fax: (305) 722-7378
   Email: me@espino-law.com


YAHOO! INC: Faces "Talukder" Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Nafiz Talukder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Yahoo! Inc., Marissa A. Mayer and Kenneth
A. Goldman, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-01525 (N.D. Cal., March
21, 2017), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint says Defendants failed to disclose that their
information security protocols were inadequate and failed to
encrypt its users' personal information. A recent data breach
resulted in the theft of personal user data that would foreseeably
cause a significant drop in user engagement with Yahoo's websites
and services.

Yahoo, together with its subsidiaries, is a multinational
technology company that provides a variety of internet services,
including, inter alia, a web portal, search engine, Yahoo! Mail,
Yahoo! News, Yahoo! Finance, advertising and fantasy sports.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

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

              - and -

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

             - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile (212) 697-7296
      Email: peretz@bgandg.com


ZIVIZI INC: Faces "MacMinn" Suit in Utah
----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zivizi Inc. The case
is titled as Robert MacMinn, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Zivizi Inc., a Utah
corporation, and Steve Francisco, an individual, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00209-DBP (D. Utah, Mar. 21, 2017). The case is
assigned to Hon. Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kay Burningham, Esq.
          KAY BURNINGHAM ATTORNEY AT LAW
          299 S Main St Ste 1300
          Salt Lake City, UT 84111
          Telephone: (801) 415 9404
          E-mail: kay@kayburningham.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  * * *